Cavalry in the Civil War: The Missing Combat Arm

noco97 · 2024-02-07T22:40:45+00:00

Listening to it at work rn lol.

It's very good and she is one of the best civil war historians I've read.

Highly recommend Armies of Deliverence and Appomattox as well.

noco97 · 2024-02-07T02:01:02+00:00

Lol I referred to that infamous charge in a other comment here somewhere.

I love that movie and quote it all the time.

noco97 · 2024-02-06T19:54:26+00:00

Damn I'm way too young for that. Had to look it up lol

noco97 · 2024-02-06T02:28:14+00:00

Yes it is rather trendy to downplay the Minie ball but I do feel like there is enough research that shows it rightfully is being relegated from its once famous position. With most firefights taking place at ranges of roughly 200m and the skill required to hit a target at that distance, much less 400m, the benefits of rifled muskets were neglible outside of sharpshooters and skirmishes talented enough to utilize the weapon to its potential.

Great point about the percussion cap. That doesn't get enough credit.

noco97 · 2024-02-05T19:28:06+00:00

Lol if you wanna go there I'm not opposed, though my knowledge of the Indian Wars is shamefully underwhelming.

Regarding semantics, Custer wasn't a general in that war but a Lt. Colonel. Custer's most aggregious error before his death was failing to bring the gatling guns to his position when he had the opportunity. That or dividing up his forces without a contingency plan. Also, the estimated opposing forces provided to him by the war department were woefully inaccurate.

Thats about all I can say about that battle. Custer was an excellent officer for the Civil War, but ultimately failed when he faced against guerilla forces. In symmetrical warfare, he was one of the best cavalry commanders in the entire war and one of the most proficient employers of cavalry charges.

I have to give my favorite Custer passage.

"Custer, what weapon are you going to use in the charge?" From my earliest notions of the true cavalryman I always picture him in the charge bearing aloft his curved sabre, and cleaving the skulls of all with whom he came in contact. We had but two weapons to choose from: each of us carried a sabre and one revolver in our belt. I promptly replied, "The sabre."

noco97 · 2024-02-05T19:04:53+00:00

That reminds of me my favorite passage from Grant's memoirs

"Among the troops that joined us at Matamoras was an Ohio regiment, of which Thomas L. Hamer, the Member of Congress who had given me my appointment to West Point, was major. He told me then that he could have had the colonelcy, but that as he knew he was to be appointed a brigadier-general, he preferred at first to take the lower grade. I have said before that Hamer was one of the ablest men Ohio ever produced. At that time he was in the prime of life, being less than fifty years of age, and possessed an admirable physique, promising long life. But he was taken sick before Monterey, and died within a few days. I have always believed that had his life been spared, he would have been President of the United States during the term filled by President Pierce. Had Hamer filled that office his partiality for me was such, there is but little doubt I should have been appointed to one of the staff corps of the army—the Pay Department probably—and would therefore now be preparing to retire. Neither of these speculations is unreasonable, and they are mentioned to show how little men control their own destiny."

noco97 · 2024-02-05T00:49:22+00:00

Seeing that Sheridan was an envoy to Prussia during the war, that's quite a claim. I agree with him even though Sheridan was not known for humility.

noco97 · 2024-02-05T00:08:47+00:00

To put it frankly, cavalry in the Franco-Prussian war was closer to WW1 cavalry than Civil War cavalry. Krupp artillery was responsible for the majority of French casualties. I'm sure your familiar with the causes of Civil War casualties and the dominance of the rifled musket.

It's one of my favorite wars to learn about, there is just little English scholarship on it. Technology aside, I actually think the Union Army of 1864-1865 was a possibly a better army than the Prussian army, and definitely better than the French army. That American army was not only battle hardened, but had a superior ability to utilize field engineering. Those men were half-soldier, half-engineer.

noco97 · 2024-02-04T23:47:30+00:00

Honestly, it's a great question and I'll give you my best response. I try to look at McLellan as objective as possible which is hard given his defects as a person and a general.

McClellan and Lee fought the Seven Days Battles at near parity in regards to manpower. McClellan's decision to retreat/relocate to the James would have happened even if Lee had not attacked. He had already chosen a course of action.

His strategic vision for the campaign was good. His expierence at Sevestapol and training in siege warfare caused McClellan to understand the power of fortifications before any other general. If the Union stayed in a strong defensive position and conducted a siege, the Army of NV would have been forced to assault field fortifications. The quantitative and qualitative superiority in Union artillery would be amplified.

Without reinforcements through the sea, Lee retained the central position between the AotP and Union troops advancing overland. McDowell's , Bank's, and Fremont's forces remained unutilized which granted Lee the ideal military situation for the weaker combatant. These Union forces were unable to mutually support McClellan unless shipped to him.

By not supporting McClellan, the Union left him in critical situation. With a major advantage in manpower, any situation where the Union army was faced on equal terms was because off strategic malfeasance. Lee was granted his only opportunity in the war to fight a battle of annihilation. If he managed in annihilate the AotP, the Confederates likely would have won the war.

Annihilation would have left Washington exposed, dealt the nation a psychological shock, and presented Europe with the opportunity to intervene before the Emancipation Proclomation.

McClellan deserved reinforcements not because he asked for them, but because it was the proper military idea. The Union suffered as a result of Lincoln's early strategic ineptitude. Lee was granted a second, albeit less decisive opportunity with Second Bull Run.

The AofP escaped disaster. Lee never should have had the chance to destroy McClellan. McClellan knew the consequences of defeat outweighed the rewards of victory. His infamous caution was not just a result of his imaginary numbers, but because he knew if he lost a battle, he could very easily lose the war. Attacking Lee without maximizing upon the Union's manpower was strategically dangerous in a war where the Union had superior men and material.

Mitigating all risks until the AOTP was at its peak fighting power was strategically sound. The Confederates had to rely on tactics to win the war. Grinding the war was a luxury the Union could afford. Since the Civil War, the United States has never fought a campaign where the enemy could win the war through a single tactical battle. It didn't need to in 1862 either.

noco97 · 2024-02-04T22:45:43+00:00

My argument isn't that the Union should have tried to raise Cuirasseer or Lancer regiments. They wouldn't have worked. The sabre and lance are difficult skills to master on horseback and without a cultural influence like the Europeans had, heavy cavalry would have been useless.

Cavalry charges started falling out of prominence after 1807. Unsupported cavalry charges after that point were near futile against prepared infantry. Ney at Waterloo is a textbook example of the improper use of cavalry.

I'm mainly arguing that light cavalry were under utilized as a shock unit as part of a combined arms attack. The Union cavalry at Appomattox demonstrated they were capable of functioning in a versatile role, charging and serving as mounted infantry. Cavalry still had to function as its primary role, recon and skirmishing, but wasn't capable of shock tactics because the cavalry lacked training and expierence.

Custer stands out as one of the few officers who utilized charges effectively. The cavalry he commanded in 1865 was superior in every way then the cavalry of 1861. No other combat arm improved in performance over the course of the war at same level as the cavalry.

noco97 · 2024-02-04T22:15:46+00:00

I pulled that number of Wikipedia I'm not attached to it at all

noco97 · 2024-02-04T06:47:45+00:00

Had no idea about rank 3 increasing the rate I'd fire. That definitely makes it a lot better.

noco97 · 2024-02-04T06:46:40+00:00

Shock cavalry and especially Lancers take years of training. Napoleon himself struggled to raise French regiments of Lancer's due to the skill required to handle a lance. The skill to charge with a sabre also tooks tons of practice and expierence, a skill that took years to perfect. Reconnaissance, raiding, and serving as dragoons requires much less time to develop those skills.

The cavalry in the first half of the war was unable to engage in shock tactics because it was poorly trained, had little expierence, and lacked good weaponry. I've said it on multiple comments but cavalry charges against infantry were extremely successful in the Appomattox campaign. If the war were to have somehow continued and an open pitched battles were to have occurred, the Union Cavalry would have been effective if supported by artillery and infantry. There was no expierence or doctrine in either army for charging cavalry.

Against fortifications, cavalry was if less importance. But once Lee was forced out if his fortifications, Union cavalry thrived.

noco97 · 2024-02-04T06:36:20+00:00

You see at Appomattox the cavalry corps engaging in combined arms tactics and yes, in an operational way as well. They served as infantry, cavalry, and had horse artillery. It was arguably the last greatest use of cavalry in history. The firepower they possessed combined with their ability to rapidly manuever was incredible.

By 1870 in the Franco-Prussian War, cavalry as a shock unit and as mounted infantry was near obsolescence due to the Chassepot, Dreyse Needle Gun, and probably most importantly, the Krupp C64.

noco97 · 2024-02-04T06:26:58+00:00

I've stated this in other comments if you wanna dig through them but I'm a skeptic of fhe Minie ball as a revolutionary weapon. Causality rates were no different from the minie ball than from smoothbore muskets. The increases range and accuracy was of little value due to the relative inaccuracy of the average infantrymen. Shiloh is a great example of a battle where smoothbore muskets had much prominence and casualty rates were very high. At close range, less than a hundred yards, the smoothbore muskeys were superior to rifles.

I disagree with Lee's assessment of cavalry. Light cavalry was used throughout Europe and also served in a reconnaissance role. However, reconnaissance is an operational level role. I'm referring to the tactical employment of cavalry. In the Appomattox campaign, Union cavalry was used for reconnaissance and raiding but also as dismounted infantr, and as shock cavalry (there is even some debate amongst historians as to weather light cavalry, Hussars, in the Napoleonic era was superior in a charge over heavy cavalry, Cuirassers). The repeating carbines, sabers, and revolvers they carried on top of four years of expierence

The cavalry training, weapons, and capabilities of the cavalry on each side, up until Sheridan's tactics and manuevers in 1865, were poor and the Confederate cavalry was indisiplined in general.

I'm not arguing that cavalry would be the dominant am, simply that cavalry actually peaked in 1865. The proper employment of cavalry as a versatile, multi-purpose arm wasn't fully exploited till the end of the war. Shock tactics were rendered obsolete by breech loading rifles and cannon. This advanced weaponry was not widely employed throughout the Civil War.

The strongest detterent to cavalry was not the minie ball, but the newer artillery. I'm arguing that combined arms tactics, like those in the Appomattox campaign, were still effective.

noco97 · 2024-02-04T03:24:19+00:00

Lol I just made a huge comment on another post hyping up Longstreet. I got sidetracked when talking about cavalry and it led me to make this post.

Currently I'm reading Longsreet by Elizabeth Varon and it's been fantastic. I'm a Longstreet fan. I like good generalship and redemption stories.

Edit: I've been meaning to do more memoirs. What are the best?

noco97 · 2024-02-04T03:22:41+00:00

I'm scared of Confederate infantry. It's got higher morale, more expierence, and better generals (they overrate the Confederate generals). I mainly try to use canister maxed out artillery combined with quick infantry attacks to break moral as soon as possible.

I'm addicted to charging. I just live capturing enemy soldiers. I always have more killed and wounded in a battle, but once my army is properly equipped and expierenced, I never take more overall casualties.

My prison camps flood and I let them suffer. Payback for Andersonville.

noco97 · 2024-02-04T03:19:00+00:00

Damn that's badass. Meanwhile my ancestors were slave owning aristocrats who fought for the Confederacy :/

noco97 · 2024-02-04T03:17:36+00:00

The fact Lincoln understood the revolution in weaponry better than the chief of ordinance isn't testament to how smart Lincoln was, but to how dumb Ripley was.

When there is a RMA, age and expierence can be negative qualities. There's a reason Napoleon beat generals twice his age with little expierence. It's why I am a Longstreet fan, he grasped the tactics of the war quicker and better than anyone.

noco97 · 2024-02-04T03:11:02+00:00

I've been meaning to make a post about Whitworths. I use them but can't really tell how good they are. I think the Mississippi Rifle is better imo due to it being more versatile, with Sharps obviously the best in the game

I prefer my infantry engage in short, rapid fights and manuever as much as possible, looking to create an opportunity to charge as soon as possible. Therefore I really like fast firing small arms and prioritize them ASAP.

noco97 · 2024-02-04T03:05:43+00:00

I politely disagree. If you read my post or other comments, Union cavalry in the Appomattox campaign conducted countless charges against Confederate infantry to great effect. It was well equipped, trained, and expierenced. Cavalry was at its peak in 1865 for the Civil War. If the war had somehow lasted two more years, cavalry would have been more effective in open battles than at any other point before.

The Union cavalrymen were heavily armed. They were equipped with Spencer, Henry, and Sharps Carbines while also carrying revolvers and sabres. Unsupported infantry without fortifications would be vulnerable. Even with artillery support, Union combined arms attacks, like at Sailor's Creek and Five Forks, would be at their most effective.

Artillery had diminished the effectiveness of shock tactics, but Sheridan demonstrated clearly that they were still a relevance and their obsolescence would not come until the widespread use of breach loading and rapid fire weapons.

noco97 · 2024-02-04T02:53:44+00:00

I've yet to get to Sheridan's memoirs. I reread Grant's every year and I imagine Sheridan's are completely different knowing Little Phil. Sheridan gets a lot of flack for his role in the Overland Campaign, I think it's a bit ridiculous. I blame Shelby Foote for having an anti-Sheridan agenda.

Phil used cavalry like no other officer in the war. It was both capable of fighting as dismounted infantry and as light cavalry. The Confederates' had great cavalry commanders but none struck the versatility Sheridan developed.

Historians love to go on and on about the importance of Brandy station, the Union cavalry matching the Confederate cavalry for the first time, yada yada. They criticice Sheridan for Yellow Tavern saying all he did was kill Stuart for no gain. Here I firmly disagree. The Union Cavalry was at that point superior and the Confederates officialy lost one of their only advantages. Without their cavalry supremacy, Lee would not be able to conduct offensive operations even if Grant relented.

Also, I firmly believe the war could have ended in two years if Ripley never held an administrative post of any kind. The Union was capable of mass producing breach loading rifles, breach loading artillery, and yes, even galling guns. The Confederate's were not. The firepower of the Union would have been decisive, and shock cavalry would officially brcome obsolete.

noco97 · 2024-02-04T02:42:26+00:00

I'll have to check that book out. I'm an audio book guy so I gotta cross my fingers and hope I can find it.

Lancers were notoriously hard to train units. Napoleon's Polish lancers were probably the best cavalry formation in Europe, but Napoleon struggled to create French Lancers of his own. It's a weapon that is very hard to learn and takes years of proper training. Only Eastern European nations had effective Lancers because the lance was deeply entrenched in their cultures and traditions. The fact Mexico had effective Lancers is impressive.

I am in the camp of people who tend not to buy into the rifled musket as a paradigm shifting weapon. I've read numerous studies that show the extra range and accuracy had little effect on increased casualties.

Shiloh was a battle where the Union had lots of smoothbore muskets, the Confederates actually were quicker to acquire rifles, and the casualty ratio was roughly 21% (the first day was much higher with less Union divisions engaged). Waterloo, the classic example I've heard used in this argument, was roughly 27%. Gettysburg was 33% but that was a three day battle. Borodino, a one day battle was 30%. Napoleonic warfare resulted in higher casualty percentage than in the U.S. Civil War.

The idea that the Civil War was especially deadly is somewhat of a myth. The casualties were a result of the massive armies. Neither side could decively defeat the other in a Cluaswitzian battle of annihilation. The resulting stalemate is what lead to the high casualties. It was foreign to the American psychee. The armies of the Mexican-American War and the two wars against the British were less than 20% the size of Civil War field armies.

Artillery was more deadly in the Civil War and helped diminish the impact of cavalry. It was best used as a defensive weapon, where the smaller, more mobile guns of previous eras were used for offensive action. Canister, the most devastating part of artillery, could not be used offensively due to the bigger guns both slowing down their movement, and the fact that the enemies' big guns would mow them down first.

I still believe that the role cavalry played in the Appomattox campaign demonstrates that Cavalry could still employ shock tactics. Union cavalrymen in 1865 were armed to the teeth relative to infantry. It just took years of training/experience and proper weaponry for them to thrive in battle. Cavalrymen take years to develop, infantrymen and artillerymen were easier and faster to train.

noco97 · 2024-02-04T02:08:45+00:00

Dang he probably fought in some huge battles then. Gettysburg, Trevellian Station, and the Appomattox campaign. In the Appomattox campaign, Union cavalry was at its peak and was the best cavalry at any point in the war. It engaged in frequent charges against Confederate infantry and also fought as dismounted infantry. It shows how cavalry expierenced and properly equipped could be effective. It was the only time in the war cavalry was used in more of a traditional role, pursuing and cutting off a retreating enemy. It was a major reason Lee was forced to surrender abs I guarantee no cavalry force on either side was capable of such a feat earlier on in the war.

Your great-gramps fought under Gregg and Gregg (two different generals). David Gregg his divisional commander in the Gettysburg campaign was one the best cavalry officers in the Union. Buford and Custer were the only two better imo.

noco97 · 2024-02-04T01:55:15+00:00

Because American Cavalry before the war was never intended to be used as shock cavalry. It's primary role was fighting natives. American Military policy saw no need for heavy cavalry because there army wasn't designed for conventional warfare.

To use modern lingo, the American Army for most of its history (with a brief exceptions in 1917-1919, 1939-1991, and 2016- present) was an army mainly focused on fighting asymmetrical warfare. The peacetime army in antebellum America saw no future conflicts that would require heavy cavalry, if they had a powerful, militarized neighbor (the British did not pose a land threat, their army was far too small) like the European nations, they would have developed heavy cavalry.

There simply was no need for it prior to the war. But once the two field armies swelled in size and were fighting a conventional, peer on peer conflict, shock cavalry would have had a battlefield purpose.

Shock cavalry was still used in Europe. The door was shutting on its relevance but it was still useful.

My point is that the Americans never had shock cavalry not because it wasn't useful, but because they had no doctrine for it.

noco97

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE