I guess if you take manpower (with a cavalry squadron being about half-sthrength of an infantry company), then yes - there are 3 AT rifles in each. So proportion of these weapons in the cavalry seems twice as much (or actually - just the as many AT rifles, but with half the men). The TO&E didn't, however, allow for more AT rifles, sadly (well, actually, it seems it was the trend in general - one AT weapon per platoon was apparently the norm in most armies. The Panzerfausts made a difference in practice, but not in organisation - AFAIK, being disposable, they were perceived more as munitions, than AT weapons - akin to what CoC perceives as "satchel charges").Contrarius wrote: ↑Wed Mar 28, 2018 1:52 pmAlso, IIRC the Polish cavalry fielded a much higher proportion of AT rifles than the infantry, as well as tachankas to transport their Vickers-type MMGs, mentioned in the excellent OP. These MMGs were intended to be dismounted but could be used in mounted mode. Both options seem a good way to beef up the rather lack lustre arsenal available to the standard Polish infantry platoon.
In terms of organic AT firepower, I'd say a Polish platoon isn't any worse than a German platoon (with their Panzerbuche) and better off, actually, than a British platoon of the same era (who had a Boys AT rifle as a platoon asset, but no dedicated crew for it, AFAIK - they had t take 2 men off a section and make them into imrovised AT team).
An Uhlan regiment has its AT platoon of 4 guns, rigged for high mobility (3-horse team to pull it, and all the crew on horseback, including adequate number of horse handlers). From what I've read, they were trained to deploy and redeploy quickly.
An infantry battalion had no organic AT guns. An AT company was present at the infantry regiment level (i.e. comparable to cavalry brigade), and tended to have 9 guns (some sources say 12, but others point that while it was intended to do so, there was a shortage of guns, and thus 4th AT gun platoons were not formed). Those had only 2 horses to pull the limber, and the the crew were on foot. By no way it was equal in terms of mobility to an Uhlan AT gun.
So, Uhlan regimental commander had those 4 AT guns on hand. Infantry battalion commander had to hope his superior will assign him an AT gun or three. This could mean the cavalry was perceived as having better AT asstets available.
After all, the wz.36 Bofors was perfectly adequate AT weapon at that time.