Heereskavallerie vs. Divisionskavallerie

Heereskavallerie vs. Divisionskavallerie

This critical understanding is something you do not get from Zuber. It is especially important to people who studied the BEF and their defense along the canal at Mons. Many historians explain reconnaissance made by the German cavalry around the canal. They go so far as to name the unit making the reconnaissance report. What is never analyzed never, is where that report goes. Reports made by the division cavalry are explained here. Sit back and digest this. I wish I could have put this out before we started on August.

—————————————————————————————————————-

After 1900 and the introduction of machine guns, the role of the cavalry shifted even more heavilyfrom a “battle cavalry” (deciding battles by mass attacks as in the Kaisermanöver) to a reconnaissance cavalry. This development also blurred the distinctions between the different cavalry types in favor of Einheitskavallerie(unitary cavalry). Functionally, by 1901, cavalry was all equipped and employed in a similar fashion but each had different uniforms and histories. Taking the tradition of Hussars, Uhlans, Kürassier, and Dragoners into consideration, together with the egotistical noble tradition of many regiments, one might imagine how painful this melding process must have been.

This meant that all individual cavalrymen were equipped and trained in a similar fashion. The uniforms were completely different but there was no difference functionally between a hussar and a dragoon or any other kind of cavalry. Gone were the days of the Napoleonic cavalry where uniforms and equipment varied with the missions of the mounted units. In 1914, they all did the same thing. The Allies called all German cavalry Uhlans regardless of their uniform, perhaps because they all carried nine-foot-long lances. Within the cavalry, however, there was a great deal of difference between army cavalry (Heereskavallerie) assigned to cavalry divisions and the infantry divisional cavalry (Divisionskavallerie). Though the regiments may have had the same equipment and function, the divisional cavalry was limited to very local reconnaissance and direct protection of the divisional force. Local reconnaissance had a significantly different focus than its long-range Heereskavalleriecounterpart. “The primary objective in local reconnaissance is to protect a force from surprise.” The use of Divisionskavalleriereconnaissance focused less on determining as much as possible about the enemy than on protecting the main body. In effect, the Divisionskavalleriereconnaissance performed more of what is now considered a security task, such as screening or guarding larger forces of foot and guns.

However, the really big difference between the two was that any intelligence reports from Divisionskavallerie went to the army corps commander to which it belonged. They did not go to the HKK. There was no mechanism to send a cavalry intelligence report from the Divisionskavallerie to the HKK. Internal aviation reports as well as these cavalry reports went to the army corps staff. Only if the corps decided to do it was the army informed. Nor was there an army-level clearinghouse that combined the reports from the HKK cavalry, the Divisionskavalleri, and the still unprocessed aircraft. There seemed to be a belief that somehow information found by a patrol was automatically transmitted to every organization in the relevant army. Therefore, one of the most basic understandings must be where the cavalry regiment was assigned. Information from cavalry assigned to the infantry divisions would be geographically restricted. Army cavalry reports from cavalry divisions would be more concerned with deeper reconnaissance. The reports were not analyzed by the same people and, correspondingly, poorly integrated instead.