"Cavalry tactics..." Topic

I use home-brewed ACW rules where the basic maneuver unit is the regiment, with usually 2-4 brigades, plus artillery per side. Up till now I've avoided cavalry as they didn't play a large role in infantry combat.

But recently my buddies have been bugging me to include cavalry, so I decided to field about a brigade of cavalry for each side which we could use for a Brandy Station type fight or maybe a Buford at Gettysburg situation.

So, my question is about the tactics used with the different weapons used by the cavalry. Now I'm a generalist when it comes to weapons: a pistol is a pistol, a carbine a carbine. I'm not worried about whether it's a Sharps, Spencer, Burnside, etc. Having said that, it seems that the pistol and saber were used exclusively in close quarters combat, but the carbines…how were they used tactically? I know that they were used dismounted, allowing the cavalry to fight infantry style, but were they used for massed fire in a firing line while mounted? Essentially giving a similar appearance to an infantry battle line engaged in a firefight?

My initial thinking was to use the weapons separately: the pistols and sabers for mounted combat, basically charges and counter-charges and the carbines only for use while dismounted firing in skirmish lines. In other words all mounted combat would be as a result of a charge or counter charge.

So does that sound anywhere near accurate or am I totally wide of the mark on this? Was mounted mass carbine fire a thing? One of the reasons I thought of this method was because I didn't think it accurate to have cavalry units just maneuvering around the battlefield and spending all their time engaged in mounted, infantry-style firefights, with minimal charges and hand-to-hand combat. Plus I think it really detracts from the romance and excitement of a good old fashioned saber swinging cavalry charge.

So please feel free to weigh in, I'm eager to hear from those more informed than I.

Thanks in advance.

As far as I know, the carbine was intended for dismounted use, but could be fired and (if breechloading) reloaded while mounted. I do not think they were used for mounted volley fire, however. (Tho someone may come up with a rare exception.)

So, yes, I think you have it right.

I use some homegrown rules. Bottom line CSA get bonus in melee and USA gets one for firing dismounted.

Col D, great minds do think alike apparently. That is exactly what I was planning on doing.

Organization wise, the CSA is at 5 stands and USA at 6 per regiment.

Finally, I alway make the mounted/dismounted figures at 1 to 1. May never use them as such, however, the cost is minimal.

Union troopers, especially in the AoP were very successful with sabers against the South. I would not give the rebels in the east any clear cut melee advantage. Numbers wise both east and west the Union forces did not really mass their cavalry for action until 1863. That shuld give some advantage to the South. There is alot to this question and I understand you want to keep it simple. So as we used to say in the Blackhorse, "Find the bastards and pile on". H

You are certainly right about the carbines – they were intended for dismounted combat, not firing from the saddle

I don't think US cavalry was up to par until late '62 or so. I would give early Reb cav a melee advantage. I would also give Reb cav a negative in dismounted firing in general as they were armed with a wide variety of long-arms, especially in the West.

Any advantage the Confederates had over the Federals in cavalry was due to one or more of three factors:

1. Better horses (their own, brought from home)
2. Better riders (born in the saddle, and know how to take care of their horses)
3. Better leadership

The Federals were usually better armed.

Agreed.

In the Western theater, it was not unknown for cavalry to dismount and form up as infantry. Sometimes it was done to confuse the enemy and make them think they were facing formed infantry that had rifles/muskets. Other times they might do so to go into combat and take ground against the enemy. Forrest did it at Spring Hill thinking that the Union Troops in the town were poor quality garrison troops at best, but found out the hard way it was formed Union infantry.

Carbines certainly could be fired from the saddle. That was the whole reason that they were short, after all :) I also would not discount the effect of the Spencer repeating carbine. For a short period a unit equipped with them could put out quite a lot of firepower. However, one thing to remember is that no matter how they were armed, cavalry did not inflict casualties at anywhere near the rate of infantry. Most cavalry-vs-cavalry fights have very low casualties compared to infantry.

Union cavalry was generally inferior to Southern cavalry until 1863. Brandy Station was a bit of a shock to Stuart. Part of the reason was poor organization with Union regiments being attached in penny packets here and there rather than as a cavalry corps. Once reorganized and trained they were a match for their Southern opponents.

I would have three classifications for carbines; muzzle loader, breach loader, and repeater with each category being very superior to the former.

Not all units carried carbines. Some were armed with only pistol/sword, some with mixed weapons including shotguns and smoothbore weapons firing buck shot or buck and ball, and some Confederate cavalry being armed with rifles. The ones with carbines were a shock to Northern cavalry at Yellow Tavern when Federal cavalry dismounted expecting to sweep the field with their breechloaders only to find themselves significantly outranged by the opposing Confederate cavalry.

I would have three classifications for carbines; muzzle loader, breach loader, and repeater with each category being very superior to the former.

Agreed. In my home-baked rules breach loaders have twice the firepower of muzzle loaders, and repeaters have triple.

According to Troiani a lot of the Enfield carbines obtained by the confederates weren't carbines at all they were "musketoons" intended for artillerymen. As such they were longer than the carbine and had very "tight" rifling. This made them more accurate and with a longer range than the normal rifled musket. However they fouled much quicker as a result of the extra rifling.

I believe a musketoon was to a musket as a carbine was to a rifle, shorter and suitable for carrying on horseback.

Many Confederate cavalry units, in both the East and the West, later in the War, carried Enfield rifles, which were shorter than the Enfield rifle-musket, and used a sword bayonet, which they literally used as a sword.

Musketoons were shorter so they would present less of an impediment to artillerymen working their cannon. They still had bayonet mounts to repel infantry attacks.
Carbines were shorter so they could be used on horseback and often did not include a bayonet attachment.
Not sure which Enfield Rifle you are referring to? I do know that Confederate cavalry sometimes ended up with infantry weapons because that was all they could find.

I would have three classifications for carbines; muzzle loader, breach loader, and repeater with each category being very superior to the former.

Agreed. In my home-baked rules breach loaders have twice the firepower of muzzle loaders, and repeaters have triple.

Do your rules also impose ammo limits on your carbine or repeater armed cavalry?

The Enfield rifle I referred to was about the length of the U.S. "Mississippi" rifle. Probably originally intended for the British Rifle units. (As opposed to the ordinary infantry units.)

No, my rules do not impose ammo limits, but that could easily be added in the form of a die roll, if thought needed.