"cavalry depth" Topic

If I'm not mistaken, sometime during the War Union cavalry changed from a 2-rank mounted formation to 1 rank. About when did that happen? In the AoP, other armies?

Did the Confederates do the same? If so, when? ANV/Valley? Others armies?

Hi, Don. Not sure where you get that from so I dug out my copy of Col. St George Cooke's "The 1862 U.S. Cavalry Tactics", (stackpole, ISBN: 0-8117-0114-X) and he gives lots of instructions for how to deploy into several lines (or single), based upon the situation.

I get the feeling you are looking at this as a doctrine issue rather than a tactical deployment decision based upon the tactical situation at the time. (Look starting on page 4 which makes reference to one rank….but goes on to describe sizes into multiple ranks and positioning of Officers and NCOs for control positions.)

Since this is dated 1862, it's fairly early put out by the GPO, so should be good for most of the war. It applies to the the entire US Army- and most likely adopted by the Confederates as well since it seems pretty basic about how to train and operate bodies of mounted men, up to the regimental level from individual trooper on.

Do you have a reference for 1 and 2 (only) ranked formations (assuming line here)as a tactical doctrine? (verses deployments due to a tactical situation?)

Hope this helps to clear up a possible misconception on your or my part.

best
Tom

My highly detailed reference is: "Read it somewhere."

Was there a later cavalry manual, perhaps? '63 or '64?

Hello Don,

The question of the use of one or two rank cavalry formations was a huge bone of contention on several ACW cavalry re-enacting forma about ten years ago. The following is a summation of the conclusions reached after several months of ongoing discussions.

Prior to the outbreak of the Civil War the standard cavalry manual was J. R. Poinsett's Cavalry Tactics, a translation of the tactics used by the French which was first published in 1841. Poinsett stipulated the use of a two rank formation. In October of 1861 the US Army ordered the adoption of Philip St. George Cooke's Cavalry Tactics, Or, Regulations for the Instruction, Formations, and Movements of the Cavalry of the Army and Volunteers of the United States as the standard manual. In contrast to Poinsett's Tactics Cooke advocated the use of a single rank for cavalry.

This change was then rescinded by McClellan and the cavalry was ordered back to Poinsett's manual in the early spring of 1862. For the most part, the Army of the Potomac then used the two rank formation. However, there were exceptions. The 1st Maine Cavalry refused to use Poinsett and stayed with Cooke's Tactics until the end of the war. Custer's Michigan Brigade (1st, 5th, 6th, 7th Michigan) also used Cooke until they were ordered to change to Poinsett in the winter of 1863-64.

The Army of Northern Virginia seems to also have used a two rank formation based on manuals by either Poinsett, George Patten or Lucius Davis.

In contrast, cavalry in the west seems to have predominately used a single rank formation. This was the case with most of the Federal cavalry, which only was forced to adopt Poinsett by Wilson just before his raid into Alabama in early 1865. One exception though, was Minty's Brigade in the Army of the Cumberland, which used Poinsett from the start.

Confederate cavalry also fought in a single rank. Wheeler published a plagiarized version of Cooke which was used by his cavalry. Morgan adopted Dabney Maury's Tactics for Mounted Rifles. Forrest is also listed as having used a single rank in combat, but the manual he used for training is not known.

Cavalry in the Trans-Mississippi is even more poorly documented. But in the great charge at Marais des Cygnes on October 25, 1864 Benteen's Brigade, charging in a Column of Regiments each in a single rank, broke Marmaduke and Fagan's line. However, just to be contrary, the 4th Texas Cavalry (later the 12th Texas Cavalry) from Parson's Cavalry Brigade used Poinsett until very late in the war.

It could therefore be argued that on the game table cavalry in the east should be mounted on stands half the frontage of cavalry in the west.

Ryan

Many thanks, Ryan. Just what I was looking for!

I wonder if the East/West split could owe something to the terrain and/or Regiment sizes? 300-400 horses in a single line takes up a heck of a lot of ground.

Don: An honest answer. Thank you, Sir!

Trajanus: That is kind of what I was trying to get at- the lay of the land would have had to play a part in the decision as to how deep (or wide) a particular units formed up in. (In my mind) When you take time to consider what the unit's leadership had to look for/control (from Cooke's writing) and where they were placed, it's makes more sense to me.

It is also interesting to note, from Ryan's post, that the U.S. Army had difficulties in standardizing employment in the field, to anything like a doctrine as we know today.

The comment that Ryan posted about Custer's Brigade is interesting when taken in light of the political infighting in the Union Army during that time. Custer was able to "best" Stuart's cav at Gettysburg, and probably embarrassed some more senior cav leaders after doing so. His being "ordered to change" does not seem rooted in a desire to share "best practices" in order to help win a war, does it?

In the original playtest edition of Johnny Reb (before Adventure Games published it), John had incorporated some really well researched friction among high ranking Generals from both sides. Each gamer had a "personal victory condition" that may or may not coincide with his side winning the engagement. At the end of the game, these were revealed and the gamers voted on who best met their personal victory conditions aqnd won the game, even if their "side" lost! There were provisions for the obverall commander to command only the provost guard- who could go and "arrest" a leader figure suspected of deliberately taking actions risking the battle. Once "arrested", a court martial was convened and play shifted to exhonorating or convicting the suspected player. This made for some very interesting situations! It also was a way to incorporate some historical feuds into a game.

Unfortunately, Adventure Games said Johnny Reb had an identity crisis- was it supposed to be a miniature wargame or a role playing game---they thought a game could not be both things at that time (circa 1972-3?) So John deleted the role playing aspect.

I have been after John to put that back into the game ever since!

I bring this up in this thread because "I" feel some interesting findings could be discovered for some person with the interest and time, to see if there could have been a connection between those innovative commanding officers in combat verses some armchair generals owing their rank to political appointment or a faction that looked to standardize practices into an early form of organized doctrine. IIRC, it was not until a short time later into the 19th century that the US Army began to standardize training for all troop types in the US Army and start to practice a formal, "official" doctrine.

Best
Tom

I still have John Hills original pre-publication of his Johnnie Reb Rules as he wrote them for Heritage Models who where originally to publish them. As Tom said they were very entertaining and provided a much more interactive method of play in a large convention style game.

It should also be note that tactical manual aside, commanders would improvise new and innovative tactics as the situation dictated. There was no doctrine prior to Emory Uptons attack at Spotsylvania, yet two days later Grant made a similar attack with an entire Corp!

PS- Tom, still playing in Dayton!

Kim

Custer was able to "best" Stuart's cav at Gettysburg, and probably embarrassed some more senior cav leaders after doing so.

Tom,

Funny you should mention that. I was going to say regardless of one or two ranks the thing we tend to forget about is how often, or not, a Regiment operated in line. It took a lot of space.

Both Custer and his opponents at Gettysburg charged each other in column of squadrons. That is to say the Regiments were deployed in successive lines, two companies wide.

Column of Squadrons was the common maneuvering formation for cavalry on both sides as it had been in the Napoleonic period.

People tend to have a miniatures based picture in their minds of long thin lines of cavalry charging each other throughout history. Not to say it never happened but such employment lost flexibility, was almost impossible to control and couldn't form a reserve.

The Squadron organisation something that gets overlooked. In the modern mind its not an "American" word outside of the Air Force and a lot of people seen to think it vanished after 1815! :o)

Well that would certainly cause me to get jonny reb if those rules where still in. Aere first editions now the sort ofg thing uyou have to get on Ebay at stamp collector prices? That sounds like a totaly awesome convention game, and I need one for next yeasr.

Anybody know of a source for these?

Owen