Civil War Interactive Discussion Board Home
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register
Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > Civil War Talk > General Civil War Talk > Differences between Union and Confederate Cavalry


Differences between Union and Confederate Cavalry - General Civil War Talk - Civil War Talk - Civil War Interactive Discussion Board
 Moderated by: javal1 Page:  First Page Previous Page  1  2   
 New Topic   Reply   Printer Friendly 
 Rate Topic 
AuthorPost
 Posted: Thu Oct 23rd, 2008 09:30 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
21st Post
Johan Steele
Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352


Joined: Sat Dec 2nd, 2006
Location: South Of The North 40, Minnesota USA
Posts: 1065
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Bama there were quite a few more than that w/, IIRC, Forrest providing the most routes of infantry, though Mosby did a couple as well as Stuart. On the US side I can think of three off hand but the particulars are in the wind, I'm tempted two of the three were eastern boys in 64/65 time frame. As a note Sabre charges were fairly rare... but Minty wiped the walls w/ Wheeler with a well timed sabre charge.

Terry's Tx Rangers went to war w/ their personal sidearms which were literally a little of everything and as the war progressed they upgraded as circumstances permitted. By 65 they were still carrying, literally, almost every type of firearm available to both sides.



You have chosen to ignore Bama46. click Here to view this post


 Posted: Fri Oct 24th, 2008 11:12 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
23rd Post
Johan Steele
Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352


Joined: Sat Dec 2nd, 2006
Location: South Of The North 40, Minnesota USA
Posts: 1065
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

IIRC they were transferred to Wheeler after Forrests fracus w/ Bragg. They were w/ Wheeler most of the rest of the war. Part of the reason they were sent to Wheeler was to make up his losses from his "brush" w/ Minty. I'm going to have to look again when that was exactly and exactly which units were involved.

I wish I could recall where I read so much on the 8th TX Cav, about as tough a unit as you could get. One of the bits I always associate w/ those boys is an incident when a couple boys of the 8th mounted their horses to cross the street. Just one of those little snippets that makes them real and intriguing to me.



You have chosen to ignore Bama46. click Here to view this post


 Posted: Sat Oct 25th, 2008 02:56 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
25th Post
Johan Steele
Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352


Joined: Sat Dec 2nd, 2006
Location: South Of The North 40, Minnesota USA
Posts: 1065
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

You stated only twice did Infantry break & run before Cav... I noted that was incorrect. You also stated the 8th TX Cav was a fearsome unit & I agreed wholeheartedly. It isn't parroting but adding to a discussion, filling in blanks if you will.

Terry's boys did not enter the scene w/ 2 pistols & two shotguns each. It was more complex than that. I doubt many if any showed up w/ two pistols each. If they had they likely would have found their spare in the hands of a man who was going w/out. Reality of war and a military organization. The CS was criticly short of pistols for the entire war.



You have chosen to ignore Bama46. click Here to view this post


 Posted: Sat Oct 25th, 2008 03:17 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
27th Post
The Iron Duke
Member


Joined: Tue Jul 29th, 2008
Location: Georgia USA
Posts: 333
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I remember reading somewhere that the 8th was in more battles and skirmishes than any other civil war regiment north or south.



____________________
"Cleburne is here!" meant that all was well. -Daniel Harvey Hill


You have chosen to ignore Bama46. click Here to view this post


 Posted: Mon Oct 27th, 2008 09:30 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
29th Post
Don
Member


Joined: Thu Nov 15th, 2007
Location: Colorado Springs, Colorado USA
Posts: 111
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Pam,

Since Eric (both more productive and much more knowledgeable than yours truly) hasn't re-visited, I'll chime in with my two cents.  And maybe even answer ole's question at the same time.

The CSA and USA cavalries did indeed begin the war with different assignments.  I wouldn't necessarily attribute this to a particular general, but rather note that tacttics were evolving as the war began.  Initially, generals of both sides started out with the tactics that had been successful during the previous war (the Mexican War).  In the case of the cavalry, I think the developments were due to the conditions of the Peninsula Campaign.

Why so late?  Well, there really wasn't a great deal of cavalry work in the first bull Run campaign.  Some, but not a lot, and what there was was not particularly significant.  In the eastern theater, not much else major happens involving entire armies until the following spring on the peninsula.

The Union landed a large army at Fortress Monroe next to modern day (and period) Hampton, VA and began to advance up the peninsula toward Richmond.  Magruder (then J.E. Johnston, then Lee) had far fewer men than the Union had to contest the advance, and needed to know where the enemy was.  He also didn't have much cavalry available, so he focused them on reconnaissance and keeping him informed of Union moves.  The fact that a good portion of his available cavalry was from the peninsula didn't hurt their accuracy, I'm sure.  So their focus starts out on reconnaissance, which they initially perform quite well.  Later in the campaign, partially due to this success, Lee agrees to mass his cavalry under Stuart.  Soon after, he completes his first ride around the Army of the Potomac, ruining the career of his father-in-law, Brig.Gen. Philip St George Cooke, in the process.

In the Union Army of the Potomac, there were two uses of cavalry.  Each major infantry formation had some volunteer units to serve as escorts, carry dispatches, perform picket duty, etc.  All of the available regular units and some volunteer units were kept under army control as a "Cavalry Reserve," to be used for pursuit of a defeated force.  They did little or nothing until after the Confederates abandoned Yorktown, then were sent forward as a reconnaissance in force to regain contact with the Confederates.  After a skirmish at Williamsburg, they were moved out of the way and infantry brought up to continue the fight.  When the Confederates pulled back again, they were sent forward to clear a path of advance for the army to Burnt Ordinary, Barhamsville, and on to Hanover Court House.

There's your difference.  Union cavalry was used to guard the flanks and rear and clear the path of advance.  Confederate cavalry was used to keep track of where the enemy was and keep the commander informed.  This is a little simplistic, but it's a discussion group reply, not a book or thesis.  I chose this campaign as an illustration, but the initial approaches were similar in both theaters.

This changed over time, of course.  By late 1862, Union commanders were finally starting to mass their cavalry and focus them on reconnaissance and fighting their opponents' cavalry.  For all of his other faults, I think General Hooker should actually get credit for turning this around in the Army of the Potomac during the winter following Fredericksburg.

As for saber charges by cavalry, believe it or not there were more in the west than in the east.  The exact number escapes me, but I believe the 7th PA Cavalry of Minty's Brigade (nicknamed, appropriately enough, The Saber Regiment) holds the record for most saber charges during the war.

Buford?  My hero, but then the focus of my research is on his troops of the Reserve Brigade.  A little known fact: after the Chickamauga Campaign in October 1863, General Rosecrans had petitioned for and received approval to transfer Buford and his Regulars, with his consent, to assume command of the cavalry corps of the Army of the Cumberland.  Unfortunately, the Bristoe Campaign started before word could reach Buford, and he was sick with the typhoid that killed him by the end of the campaign.

As for Ole's myth, I think it's correct to an extent, but has been blown out of proportion by hype.  I have pre-war occupations for about half of one of the regular regiments during the war now (and building).  A quarter were immigrants, most of whom were carpernters, blacksmiths or others who wouldn't have been accustomed to riding.  About a third were farmers, but generally from smaller farms where animals would have been for labor and not riding.  In the south, farms and plantations were larger, and more would be used to riding.   This would have been much more noticeable early in the war, as you had to bring your mount if you wanted to serve in the Confederate Cavalry.  It's a pretty reasonable assumption that if you own a horse you can probably ride it.  Not always, but generally.

However, I don't completely buy the myth, because the Army of the Potomac's cavalry units spent all winter drilling and practicing riding and mounted drill, there being little else to do.  By the time of the spring campaign, they should have been prety competent.  I think it falls back on the roles argument.  If Stuart's regiment is fighting small detahcments guarding a ford or an infantry unit's flank, they're of course going to roll right over them and look very impressive doing so.

Sorry for the rambling post, but hopefully this answered a question or two, and maybe created a few more.  8^)

Don 



 Posted: Mon Oct 27th, 2008 09:37 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
30th Post
Johan Steele
Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352


Joined: Sat Dec 2nd, 2006
Location: South Of The North 40, Minnesota USA
Posts: 1065
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Don... if that is a ramble then ramble on.



 Posted: Mon Oct 27th, 2008 09:42 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
31st Post
Don
Member


Joined: Thu Nov 15th, 2007
Location: Colorado Springs, Colorado USA
Posts: 111
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Johan,

Thanks. I haven't been able to visit much, work's kept me really busy.



 Posted: Mon Oct 27th, 2008 11:19 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
32nd Post
pamc153PA
Member
 

Joined: Sat Jun 14th, 2008
Location: Boyertown, Pennsylvania USA
Posts: 407
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Don,

Answered more than a few questions, and created a couple more! That was simple and illustrative at the same time--thanks much!

About Buford--is it true that he created/used the concept of what I guess is dismounted cavalry, that is, three men to fight, one to hold the mounts behind the lines? I have always been fascinated by Buford but don't, unfortunately, know much about him. I always wondered what he could have been if he hadn't died as young as he did.

Thanks again for your explanation!

Pam



 Posted: Tue Oct 28th, 2008 03:42 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
33rd Post
Johan Steele
Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352


Joined: Sat Dec 2nd, 2006
Location: South Of The North 40, Minnesota USA
Posts: 1065
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Pam that was actually the Cav dismounted skirmish line that predated Buford. The problem is that against Infantry 1/4 of the firepower is reduced by the man holding the horses. What Bufords men did was put up a lot of smoke and didn't run against a Division of Infantry. Bought enough time for the Infantry to arrive.

heh the Infantry rescued the Cav!



 Posted: Tue Oct 28th, 2008 07:45 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
34th Post
Don
Member


Joined: Thu Nov 15th, 2007
Location: Colorado Springs, Colorado USA
Posts: 111
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Johan,

They didn't rescue the cavalry, who could have simply mounted up at any time and left.  They rescued key terrain that the cavalry had secured for them, setting conditions for success in the approaching battle.

I wouldn't be so offensive as to call it leading around the infantry by the hand, but I suppose the case could be made...  ;)



 Posted: Tue Oct 28th, 2008 07:50 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
35th Post
Don
Member


Joined: Thu Nov 15th, 2007
Location: Colorado Springs, Colorado USA
Posts: 111
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Pam,

Johan's correct, the dismounted skirmish line had been around in cavalry doctrine since at least 1855. Late in the war it was much more effective, after the cavalry had been issued repeating carbines. Firepower trumps numbers, after all. For a good part of the war, however, it was only an effective tactic to delay infantry, not stop them. Unless there were some very favorable terrain to defend, such as a pass or gap.

Buford's difference is that he appears to have preferred to fight this way. It may very well be because of the conditions of his better known fights, such as Brandy Station and Gettysburg. Still, I'm not aware of him ordering or participating in a saber charge, and am having a hard time picturing such a thing.



 Current time is 08:43 pmPage:  First Page Previous Page  1  2   
Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > Civil War Talk > General Civil War Talk > Differences between Union and Confederate Cavalry
Top




UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.3806 seconds (9% database + 91% PHP). 30 queries executed.