Tango01 | 07 Mar 2020 9:35 p.m. PST |
"During the Mexican-American War, the great distances between objectives had dictated a need for highly mobile cavalry troops. Achieving success was often a result of fighting dismounted. Later, even more spectacular success came from saber charges. Consequently, "offensive and the saber" became grounded in cavalry tactical theory during the 1850s. When the Civil War unfolded, cavalry commanders naturally believed it was essential for their men to be utilized aggressively against the enemy. Cavalry charges against enemy cavalry or infantry did occur and some met with success. But the costs were high—by the end of the third year of fighting, Union cavalrymen in the Eastern theater who charged enemy formations in major battles suffered an overall loss of 25 percent…" Main page link Amicalement Armand |
7th Va Cavalry | 08 Mar 2020 7:21 a.m. PST |
I believe by 1863, Union cavalry was still nowhere near the effectiveness of Confederated cavalry. Toward the end of '63 on, the revamping of tactics and organization created more of a force to be reckoned with. |
Holdfast | 08 Mar 2020 8:22 a.m. PST |
But Brandy Station in the middle of 1863? East Cavalry Field at Gettysburg? Not exactly clear cut Confederate Cavalry victories. |
robert piepenbrink | 08 Mar 2020 8:37 a.m. PST |
"At times during the Civil War, cavalry unit raids did achieve some measure of success, but more often than not, their success was inconsistent and costly." You know, for "cavalry unit raids" you could substitute "infantry unit attacks" and be just as truthful. I wonder how much less cavalry this person imagines would have been present in a more efficient army, and why he thinks none of the field commanders just gave up and dismounted everyone? |
donlowry | 08 Mar 2020 9:09 a.m. PST |
Rosecrans, for one, always wanted more cavalry. |
Garryowen | 08 Mar 2020 9:14 a.m. PST |
Federal cavalry was worth the cost once it was organized effectively into a corps and good leaders were promoted. Also they had to train the troopers to ride. Besides the successes in the summer of 1863, later the Federal cavalry kept going. It was very instrumental in holding Early back at Cedar Creek in 1864 until Sheridan arrived and rallied the Army. It captured nearly all of Early's artillery, his trains, and much of his infantry in the pursuit that followed Cedar Creek. That was a presidential election year and the outcome was uncertain. Virtually destroying Early's army which had threatened Washington just two months before was of extreme value. It may have been what saved Lincoln's presidency and thus the Union. The cavalry was also very instrumental in destroying Lee's army between Petersburg and Appomatox. By that time the Confederates were doomed, but they would not give up until the cavalry wore them down and got in front of them. None of the Civil War raids, except perhaps for Grierson's, had any real value other than diversionary, but maybe that was enough. One cannot over estimate the potential damage Stuart could have done if he had been able to get to the rear of the Union army on the afternoon of July 3rd. Cavalry on one's rear will panic just about any army. On July 1st, the the 8th Illinois Cavalry from Gamble's brigade of Buford's division was positioned south of the Fairfield Road as Pender's division began its assault on Seminary Ridge. That one regiment, just sitting there, tied up Lane's entire brigade of infantry, plus a regiment from Pettigrew's brigade. These West Point educated officers studied the Napoleonic Wars. They knew the potential of cavalry. If anyone thinks Stuart would not have taken advantage of an opportunity that presented itself on July 3rd, they do not understand cavalry, or J.E.B. Stuart, or both. With or without orders from Lee to do so, Stuart would have made the most of his opportunity. He probably felt like he needed to redeem himself for the criticism in the press and from Lee for his absence from the army on his raid. In no major battle of the Civil War had a cavalry commander had 6000 troopers with the opportunity Stuart had. But east of Gettysburg, Stuart ran into McIntosh's brigade under Gregg's Second Division, and Custer's brigade, detached from Kilpatrick's Third Division. He couldn't get past them. Most of the Virginia battlefields were too wooded for cavalry to accomplish a great deal. Gettysburg was not like that. Neither was the Shenandoah Valley. Tom |
7th Va Cavalry | 08 Mar 2020 3:00 p.m. PST |
Holdfast, June and July 63, alright mid instead of late. Regardless, I think its safe to say the Union cavalry was beginning to evolve into a better fighting force at that time. Brandy Station, is that really considered a Union victory? Garryowen summed everything up quite nicely. |
Tango01 | 08 Mar 2020 3:06 p.m. PST |
Thanks!… How the Union managed to decided who would be a troop rider?…
Amicalement Armand |
Garryowen | 08 Mar 2020 3:26 p.m. PST |
Thanks for the compliment 7th Virginia Cavalry. Actually, two things I forgot completely. 1. If an army commander is planning to dismount all of his cavalry, he had better be sure his opponent will do the same. Hopefully, that needs no further elaboration. 2. Reconnaissance and screening the army was perhaps the most important function of cavalry. Lee seemed to appreciate that at Gettysburg. He made it very clear that he missed Stuart. While Lee had a bit of cavalry with his army at the time, it was not utilized for reconnaissance or screening. Buford was screening the advance of Meade's army. Being cavalry, they got to the ridges west of Gettysburg in time to hold them. If Lee had had cavalry screening his advance, Buford may never have been able to have done that. Tom |
Holdfast | 08 Mar 2020 3:57 p.m. PST |
Perhaps Lee's blind spot was Intel. While he was in Virginia he was always sure to get actionable information from the locals. On entering Pennsylvania in late June 63 the light of intel was suddenly extinguished. something that had never happened to him before. |
Garryowen | 09 Mar 2020 5:15 a.m. PST |
Tango, from what I have read, men enlisted into specific regiments, at least in the state volunteers, which were the bulk of the Union troops. SO it was by choice. I could be wrong, but I believe volunteers for the U.S. Regulars chose their branch, infantry, cavalry or artillery. Although at least in the 1870s, it was possible to enlist in a specific regiment. It may have been that way in the Civil War as well. I have no idea about draftees. Tom |
Tango01 | 09 Mar 2020 12:26 p.m. PST |
Many thanks! Amicalement Armand
|
Stephen Miller | 09 Mar 2020 2:53 p.m. PST |
I would say Confederate cavalry had the clear advantage in '61 and '62. 1863 began with slight Confederate advantage moving into rough equilibrium during the summer and with slight Federal advantage by Autumn. Federal advantage by Spring of '64, and Federal dominance by the Winter of 64/65. |
Bill N | 09 Mar 2020 10:01 p.m. PST |
I think saying "It captured nearly all of Early's artillery, his trains, and much of his infantry in the pursuit that followed Cedar Creek" is an overstatement. Much of Early's infantry was withdrawn from the Valley after Cedar Creek and returned to Petersburg. Early was left with only an understrength infantry division and some cavalry to face Sheridan's advance in 1865. Commentators will sometimes mention the declining ability of the Confederacy to find replacement horses as one reason for the relative decline of the Confederate horse. Not as often mentioned is the difficulty of the Confederates in feeding the horses that they had. |
donlowry | 10 Mar 2020 6:12 p.m. PST |
One of the reasons that Lee did so well in 1862 is that he had superior cavalry -- especially a superior cavalry COMMANDER – acting as his eyes and ears. So that he knew a lot more about the enemy army than its commander knew about his army. It's one reason why Lee had problems in Pennsylvania: not only were his three best cavalry brigades out of touch with him, but so was Stuart himself. That's also a reason why Bragg did not fare as well as Lee -- his cavalry, under Wilson (especially) and also Forrest was more interested in raiding than in serving as the eyes and ears of the main army. |
Garde de Paris | 14 Mar 2020 8:31 a.m. PST |
Donlowry: Not my era, but I thought Wilson was a Union cavalry general, very effective at Nashville – the end. Might you mean Wheeler? GdeP |
donlowry | 14 Mar 2020 8:57 a.m. PST |
|
Sean Barnett | 15 Mar 2020 7:36 p.m. PST |
As was said above, reconnaissance and screening were the most important functions of the cavalry. Without them, a commander would be at a serious disadvantage (like Lee in PA). So I would say the cavalry was well worth having. |