Napoleonic Cavalry Tactics

[Longhairedlout]

Im palying a very good PBEM game at ATM, I was wondering though, did Napoleonic Calvary raid into enemy territory and burn depots and such, thanks


Longhairedlout

[Nial]

Not in the sense or same way you think of say in the American civil war. But cutting an armies supply line was very much a viable and used tactic in Napoleonic warfare. I have myself wondered if the AI in NC is a bit too much like the AI in ACCW when it comes to cavalry raiders. But as they don't cause me too much trouble! Its not something I thought that important. Against a human opponent? Well........thats something between the two of you. No one says you can't have house rules.

Nial

[Dragoon!]

The tactical issue is that by turning your light cavalry loose, you're throwing away the eyes and ears of the infantry columns. This trade off existed druing the Napoleonic era and the ACW era as well..I'm sure Napoleon would've felt for R.E.Lee at Gettysburg, as Murat often left him in the same bind that J.E.B created for Lee..In NCP, a higher detection rating dosen't give a combat bonus, does it? It seems like you should get good battle bonuses for having light cavalry superiority..But, historically, alot of it depended on the unit, and commander. Some units were adept raiders, and some commanders were loose cannons. Not too much change between NCP and AACW periods.
In game terms, raiding is probably more effective use of light cavalry..If that's a problem, the game engine can be used to balance it out (bonuses, etc)

[aryaman]

A big difference was railways, they were an ideal target for raiders, greatly damaging supply capabilities of the enemy.

[Nial]

Hmmm....I don't quite agree. Hard to in my opinion to compare the cav raiders of the Civil war, with Napoleonic raiders. First off, transportation of armies was so much more attuned to the railroad in the late 19th century. It is much easier to cut supply shipped on rails than a road. Therefore a small efficient cav force (raiders) is much more viable as a supply killer in that era.

On this point Im not as well read as Id like. But raiders seem more a reaction to long static lines of warfare. ( civil war) Not wars where the war is fought and over in a single season. This is not to say it didn't happen. But the frequency of small cav force raiders would logicaly be less the shorter the war. This of course assumes that we are talking about wars fought by large nation/states. Civil wars, small police conflicts or uprisings by their very nature have a greater percentage of small semi-autonomous groups involved that might be considered lt. cav raiders. Yes I know, the Spanish campaign would be an exception because of its size and length. But it like the American revolution was a popular uprising. JMHO


Nial

[Chris Stavros]

French Cavalry tactics had to be tailored the fact that France was always short of horse, the allies always had more, usually better trained and mounted too.

Napoleon always tried to eliminate the enemy army in a decisive battle to end a yearly campaign, this is not suited to ACW style cavalry raids.

Normally French cav tried to screen the movement of the Grande Armee (they did this well in the Austerlitz campaign) as well as scout for enemy movement.

French cav rarely attempted to get deep into enemy territory the way Confederate cav often did.

[Nial]

Addendum to prior post:

When using the term Raiders? I tend to equate the term with small well armed mauraders. AKA. Mosby or that ******** Cantrell. Small irregular cav units who rarely if ever participated in large battles. But who's main purpose is to disrupt enemy supply and troop movement behind the lines.

While larger cav units, like Murat, or Stuart's main mission as stated in the last post is to screen the main army. This is not to say large cav units did not raid or attempt to cut suppy. Just that it was not their first priority. As a commander, I would be hesitant if not down right against sending large portions of my cav (my armies eyes) On risky behind the lines missions.JMHO

Nial

[ltr213]

I think you guys have it right pointing out the distinction between light and heavy cavalry. As a practical matter, though, cavalry is just too darned valuable to send off on these types of missions. I tend to keep my cavalry with the army and ocassionally sent out Brigades of infantry to do the supply cutting. Usually these assignments become one-way suicide missions as the enemy can usually spot your troops operating in their rear areas.

Because there are no railroads, units cutting off supply lines are forced to remain in the rear areas... they can't just "cut and run" as it were. This is a HUGE difference between NCP and AACW.

[Adlertag]

Cavalry raids from Cossacks were a serious threat during 1814 Campaign in France and should not be underestimated. Russians made heavy use of it.

[Nial]

Cavalry raids from Cossacks were a serious threat during 1814 Campaign in France and should not be underestimated. Russians made heavy use of it.

*nod* Agreed. But cossacks are kinda in a league all there own. As a commander you find yourself with literaly thousands of irregular cavalry at your disposal. But they aren't really disciplined enough for standard Cav. operations. So best use is exactly what the Russians did. Turn em loose to raid, pillage, and raze anything in their path. No other army of the period has that amount of irregular cav at their disposal. So I think that is more of an abberation based on a single nations national makeup. JMHO

Nial

[Arnaud_Bouis]

Napoleon opposed sending his cavalry deep in the enemy rear. He kept it 10 or 20 km, maximum, ahead of his army. For long-range information gathering, he relied on spies. I'll try to post an article on this.

With the notable exception of Lasalle's "brigade infernale", Napoleon's cavalry was kept on a short leash.

Yes, Laurence is right, this makes a big difference with the ACW.

I sent my french cavalry on deep raids in the 1806 scenario. It got slaughtered.

[Banks6060]

I have only a limited knowledge of Napoleonic Operational Strategy, but based on everything I've read, Cavalry (even light cav.) during the Napolenoic period was FAR more valuable as a scouting and screening force for the main Infantry formations....as well as a more prominent force in pitched combat.

In the late 19th century, as has been mentioned, cavalry formations were relegated to cutting rail lines and disrupting supply because it was really the only function they could perform without being slaughtered by massed long range musketry.....which is why ACW cav never played a very important role during battle, other than to protect an army's flanks. The only example of effective cav vs. infantry fighting is of course Buford at Gettysburg...otherwise....riding into a hail of musket balls...dismounting and engaging after taking heavy losses was just impractical...let alone charging head-on into the afformentioned hail of musket balls over open ground, (shots which could accurately hit their targets at 300 yards) as opposed to early 19th century flintlocks that were lucky to be accurate outside 40 yards where cavalry could gain momentum and charge without being mowed down.

Take that against Napoleonic Cavalry battle tactics...where a cavalry charge was deadly, if not decisive and potentially the winning stroke in battle. I agree that the presence of cavalry in any Napoleonic army was essential in determining victory or defeat in battle and that it could be addressed a little better in NCP. Where the presence of cavalry in an ACW army would more relate to an army's ability to escape.

As far as Disrupting supply in NCP....I still haven't really found there to be much of a practical way to do it....other than plopping a division on a major road or something.