"British cavalry doctrine - 1860's - 1870's??" Topic

In view of the new 1860's British hussars that are soon to be released by Perry, can anyone explain what kind of doctrine the British cavalry had in this period?

Were they still dedicated to mounted action only? Or were they picking up on the American habit of using cavalry dismounted?

The Perry cavalry are in busby and laced tunic with what appears to be a muzzle loader carbine and this suggests that they are pretty intent on charging in the European manner.

Charge at anything that moves, or doesn't move.

At this time the British cavalry were still pretty much set on mounted action with the 'arme blanche'. However, by the end of the 60's colonial experience and the introduction of effective breech loading carbines in the 70's saw a increasing acceptance of dismounted action. However, the temptation 'to charge with the cold steel' was still around until WW1. (Witness Ulundi, Omdurman and some actions during the retreat from Mons.)

In colonial campaigns the British army created units of "mounted infantry', essentially reinventing the 17th centaury concept of the dragoon, long after the dragoons had decided to become "real" cavalry that stayed on horseback and charged with naked steel. All other cavalry duties, scouting, skirmishing, patrolling, etc were in theory part of the program but little time spent on traing for those roles. It was simply beneath them… they were determined to learn nothing from the ACW which was seen as the uncouth brawling of virtually untrained militias.

As above, British Cavalry only really learned the value of dismounted action during the 2nd Boer War.

In the 1860s/70s, they were still the same as their continental counterparts – charge and charge again. A doctrine which periodic successes such as Von Pulz at Custoza or Von Bredows death charge just reinforced.

Point at the horizon and chase it.

The Mounted Infantry were just that: Infantry that rode horses (or mules, ponies, camels, sheep…)

They were emphatically NOT Cavalry, they were a cadre from every single Infantry Regiment.

If you are really interested, seek out the Marquess of Anglesey's "A History of the British Cavalry". I suspect this in Volume II of many in-depth volumes.

Anglesey is a good suggestion. Was drill and tactics changed at all after the Crimean War and Balaclava?

All other cavalry duties, scouting, skirmishing, patrolling, etc were in theory part of the program but little time spent on training for those roles. It was simply beneath them… they were determined to learn nothing from the ACW which was seen as the uncouth brawling of virtually untrained militias.

Err, did they have any idea of what a man behind a log with a Spencer or a Sharps could do to a cavalry charge?

Err, did they have any idea of what a man behind a log with a Spencer or a Sharps could do to a cavalry charge?

You can always tell a British cavalryman. You just can't tell him much.

With 50 years on the Northwest Frontier, it still took the Boers to teach the British Army that ranking up in front of good riflemen was death. And even then they still tried in WW1!

Ottoman and Russian cavalry by the late 1870s had accepted recon and raids as its primary role. From the readings I have done (The Osprey book on the Russo-Turkish War and Quintin Barry's War in the East), this did seem to be the exception to the rule for European cavalries.

It is easy to poke hole in British cavalry tactics in the 19th century, the rest of Europe where also in the same boat,
The Prussian,The French,The Austrians and The Russians all still had and used heavy cavalry up to and into the First World War.
All the British cavalry before the start of WW1 where in khaki, had a sensible head gear and a full caliber, full length rifle and where trained to use it.

All the European powers had military observers viewing the ACW, trenches and wire and still they all carried on with heavy cavalry,

In 1917 the USA sent officers to the trenches of the Western Front to observer and still the US Army in 1918 went over the top the same way the French and British had gone over the top in 1916.

All nation have to learn the hard way, it how quickly they adapt to the new situation.

British cavalry and the cavalry of Europe did not see any reason to change.

I suspect that it was the Boers lack of machine guns that kept the Brits from putting 2 and 2 together before 1916. Lots of Regimental pride and tradition to overturn, and it usually takes people getting killed to overturn tradition.

In 1917 the USA sent officers to the trenches of the Western Front to observer and still the US Army in 1918 went over the top the same way the French and British had gone over the top in 1916.

And how exactly should the US have fought? There were no flanks to turn, no weaknesses in the defenses to exploit. There was a continuous line of fortifications from the Swiss Alps to the Channel with an average of 6500 men per mile of front. The only option left is the frontal attack or an amphibious assault well behind the lines, and Gallipoli showed how well those work…

WW2 was never allowed to settle into fortifications like WW1, barring the amphibious assaults, because of the horrendous casualties required.

The use of cavalry of WW1 probably deserves a thread of its own. Different war, different weapons, different tactics to the 1860s.

As 20+ cavalry divisions on the eastern front in WW2 demonstrated very adequately, there was a role on the modern battlefield for cavalry. Cavalry commanders in WW1 had figured out the same things pretty quickly.

The biggest problem with horse cavalry were its massive logistical requirements, both in fodder and replacement horses. Very inefficient compered to motorisation.