Archers - Navy

>Navy-Navy
>Army-Army
Fixed that for ya

That and pretty much EVERY video game that deals with the appropriate time period has you upgrade cavalry to tanks, so we can assume that OP doesn't even have the faintest idea of what he's talking about

what

Agreing about OP, but don't the US have some airborne cavalry too?

Though you also call helicopters "cavalry", and CAS planes, and mechanised infantry, honestly you just like calling things "cavalry".

Rangers = SEALS
Rogues = Rangers
Green Berets = Fighters
Wizards = CIA
Clerics = Delta Force
Druids = Marine Raiders
Monks = US Navy Rescue Swimmers School
Paladins = Army Emergency Chaplin Call Centre

>Chaplin
[Great Dictator noises]

It's somewhat more complex then that; armoured divisions are the lovechild of the cavalry, infantry, and navy (with some influence from the artillery corps, especially in France where the 30s doctrine was to use tanks for indirect fire support), with cruiser tanks and infantry tanks being the ideas of the other two alongside cavalry tanks that eventually proved to be infeasable, cavalry tanks themselves evolving into MBTs.

Pictured here is the TOG II, designed by naval engineers who viewed tanks as an extension of the same vessels used to traverse the seas. The Japanese-OI was a similar venture, as was the infamous Ratte landcruiser.

That's so incorrect you're not even wrong.

I'm not military but IIRC the Army's 1st Cavalry Division does in fact focus on helicopters (and did use horses back when that was thing)

>designed by naval engineers who viewed tanks as an extension of the same vessels used to traverse the seas
To be fair, everybody initially thought of tanks as warships on land. They were even designed by the Landships Committee

You're an idiot, ESPECIALLY because you're posting French soldiers. Tanks are still called cavalry, so that's the modern equivalent of cavalry: fucking cavalry.

And the French? They call their armored divisions "Cuirassier", after the Napoleonic era armored horsement.

Archers - ????
Foot soldiers - Army
Cavalry - Cavalry
Artillery - Artillery
??? - Air force

The closest thing to modern archers would probably be snipers, and even that is a stretch.

Cavalry was aristocratic.
Combat jets are "aristocratic"

The comparison isn't as absurd as it seems

>ESPECIALLY because you're posting French soldiers

But those are Italian soldiers....

>Pizza Frenchmen
Rightful French clay.

>And the French? They call their armored divisions "Cuirassier", after the Napoleonic era armored horsement.
To be fair there's also "hussard" paratroopers regiments.

Really? That's fucking neato.
Why do the French spell "hussar" with a d at the end anyway?

It's probably silent.

It's a silent d if the word needs to be used as an adjective. Like in the phrase "à la hussarde" (lit. like a hussard), which means like a savage.

I know it's silent, but there's usually a reason those letters are in there. I'm getting into autistic levels of linguistics here, but look at the English Surah and the French Sourate for example. The English directly copies the Arabic pronunctuation, but the Arabic word does have a silent t (or t-like sound) in it that can be expressed if a certain word follows it, which French preserves in their "Sourate". I presumed it was a comparable deal with hussard (which I guess is a Hungarian loanword?).
Not a kebab by the way, just autistic

It's a hungarian loanword, but there is nearly to no french word ending in -ar, but a lot ending in -ard. About the kebab word, it's probably the same deal.

That's because Churchill, specifically Churchill before Gallipoli, was a boss as Lord of the Admiralty, and the army wasn't interested in new things.

Is the cavalry-air force comparison because both involve extra specialized training? Or something?

People are trying to find a correct version of OP's post, I am still trying to decipher what OP was going for initially.

OP here. I had in mind the temperaments of these groups.

>Rangers = SEALS
>Rogues = Rangers

:^)

...

The temperament of the Navy and Air Force is,"Silence, groundwalker!"

>everything in history can be simplified into an analogy
retard

the fundamental nature of the types of military units and tactics of past eras ans the current one is so vastly different at the tactical and strategic level that no analogy can do it any kind of justice in explaining it

I am not 100% sure what you're trying to equate here...

ARMY:

*Infantry (what you call foot soldiers).
Anyone on foot without a specialized job. This includes archers, shieldmen, musketeers, polearms whatever, and heavy, light, skirmish, regulars etc.

*Calvary.
This is anyone who's not an officer who is not walking. Horse, chariot, whatever, armoured, lancers, archers etc.

*Specialists
This includes sappers, death corps, NC/NS (non-combat/non-logistics) like medical, chaplaincy etc.

*Artillery
Self explanatory. From trebuchette to cannons.

Most modern Airforces are a branch off of the Army Air Corps. They have no analogue unless you want to make one up, which is totally ok. You can have the first royal griffin riders or whatever.

Navy is navy, with only four kinds of people: Sailors, craftsmen, officers and marines. Pretty much everyone who isn't a craftsman or officer being a combination rigger, maintenance, gunner, and last-line combatant. Marines are navy security and first line combatants.

Well, there's dudes, anti-dude things, and anti-thing things.

The status of anti-thing dudes as being of their own class is up for debate.

>oversimplifying to the point that you lose all meaning

That vehicle was too pure for this world.

>It's somewhat more complex then that; armoured divisions are the lovechild of the cavalry, infantry, and navy (with some influence from the artillery corps, especially in France where the 30s doctrine was to use tanks for indirect fire support), with cruiser tanks and infantry tanks being the ideas of the other two alongside cavalry tanks that eventually proved to be infeasable, cavalry tanks themselves evolving into MBT

Oh god, honestly delving into inter-war tank doctrine is like being mazed by the lady of pain - there's an exit SOMEWHERE, but you're fucked if you think it's gonna be easy finding it.

So for instance, some allied cavalry divisions were upgraded to various types of tank divisions in the 20s - there was for instance a category of interwar tanks called "cavalry tanks" which were designed for the more upperclass cavalry brigades to use, and these are notable because they were the best tanks in the allied armies, but in too small numbers to be useful during the invasion of france.

The doctrine that made "cavalry" tanks viable later in the war was that like the traditional aristocratic cavalry divisions they had enough armor to survive on the battlefield, enough speed to retreat or take advantage of opportunity on the battlefield and enough offensive oomph to take out major targets on the battle field - including other tanks.

Which is where the modern "armored cavalry" units got their names via that weird "inheritance" of unit and division names after the war - other (more numerous) tank brigades that later adopted "armored cav" tactics didn't get the "cavalry" moniker, even though they were doing the same thing as brigades with the cavalry moniker.

By contrast, "Air cav" units are generally just cowboy bullshit.

Instead of finding all the ways OP was wrong, lets find the ways he was right. It'll be a shorter conversation. I'll start

Archers=Navy. I can see one parallel. Both either are or were used for long range blanket support. Archers fire til they run out of arrows, not pop heads like some fuckin' knife-ears. And the navy (especially vietnam era) just lobbed shells at land.

Foot Soldiers= Army. That wasn't wrong.

Calvary=Air Force. This will be a stretch, buckle up. They're both fast, fragile, destructive, and extremely reliant on their mount. Whats a bomber pilot gonna do without his bomber? Whats a lanceman gonna do without his horse? Same shit, nothing. The bomber/horse dies, the pilot/rider is boned. But they both close gaps quick, and do tons of damage real fast.

"The Navy is deceptive, the Air Force is dishonest, the Army is dumb." Though that was in the context of appropriations and funding battles.

I think a big part of the problem with interwar tank design was mechanical constraints. You could have boom, you could have zoom, and you could have a hide thick enough to take punishment. Trying to get all three, even into WW2, meant you had German tanks shitting out their transmissions while fighting infinity T-34s and infinity-1 Shermans.

Also, I can see "Air Cav" being more properly referred to as "Air Dragoons" mounted highly mobile infantry.

>Calvary
C'mon Gropey, you know better.

I dunno why user, but I saw this image and just started laffing.

Good shit, I needed that.

Thanks mate.

To be more precise, "hussard" are armoured paratroopers/airborne regiments while "dragons" are specialized paratroopers.