AGEOD Forums

This is sort of a general question, but is there any summary about the use of cavalry during the ACW? I know they were used for scouting and raiding, and the cavalry charge was hopeless obsolete, but what about other uses on the battlefield? It most of the battle accounts I've read, it seems like the role of cavalry was very limited, and more of a sideshow and they wouldn't take on infantry. (e.g. alot of battle maps of Gettysburg will make a note - 'Cavalry battle several miles that way') It seems like with their mobility, they could have been used alot better than they historically were, especially once they learned to dismount and fight like infantry. For example, why couldn't Pickett's charge have been supported by Stuart's forces? How common were situations like when Buford's division arrived early at Gettysburg, and held off the Confederate attacks and got the high ground for the Union?

calvary or cavalry?

Cavalry at this time was seeing the dawn of its usefulness on the battlefield. While they COULD dismount and fight relatively well...they were much more useful to keep an eye on the flanks and report of any flanking movements...and if practical, delay them.

The use of cavalry at the tactical level was for all intents and purposes done. The strategic use of cavalry was still very viable.

Interestingly in the West the union made good use of "Mounted infantry" units to do more of what your suggesting. You could also make a good case that Bedford Forrest used his units as mounted infantry as a when needed but as usual Forrest was the exception to every rule.

Cavalry's role as the eyes of an army was absolutely vital. It also had an important role of obscuring the opponents eyes by screening movements. In addition both sides (but especially the South) made use of deep penetration raids to strike at vulnerable supply lines.

It was also used to increase the foraging range of a force.

It was still a important arm.

Was cavalry ever used to exploit a breakthrough? That would seem a logical use of them, being highly mobile, they could be used like tanks in WWII except more at the tactical level.

Generally no. It wasn't like cavalry in the Napoleonic age. even IF there were a breakthrough to be exploited...I think reserves could engage the charging cavalry from much further away and drown the momentum of any cavalry charge. Rifles of the ACW could hit targets accurately at 300 yards...

Speaking of Forrest being the exception, the closest to a tactical example would probably be Buford (not the Union General Buford from Gettysburg) and Tyler's breakthroughs at Brice's Crossroads.

In an operational sense, rather than tactical, cavalry or mounted infantry were used this way ... the Lightning Brigade during Rosecran's Tennessee campaign, Sheridan's Corps after Petersburg, etc. - but they would still dismount to fight the actual battles.

Banks6060 wrote:Generally no. It wasn't like cavalry in the Napoleonic age. even IF there were a breakthrough to be exploited...I think reserves could engage the charging cavalry from much further away and drown the momentum of any cavalry charge. Rifles of the ACW could hit targets accurately at 300 yards...

I wasn't suggesting an old sabre charge, but basically as a use of "mounted infantry". I don't see any reason why calvary couldn't engage infantry, assuming they were equipped with the proper rifles. Buford's division did it at Gettysburg. Was the calvary issued rifle?

Banks6060 wrote:Generally no. It wasn't like cavalry in the Napoleonic age. even IF there were a breakthrough to be exploited...I think reserves could engage the charging cavalry from much further away and drown the momentum of any cavalry charge. Rifles of the ACW could hit targets accurately at 300 yards...

I wasn't suggesting an old sabre charge, but basically as a use of "mounted infantry". I don't see any reason why calvary couldn't engage infantry, assuming they were equipped with the proper rifles. Buford's division did it at Gettysburg. Was the calvary issued rifle?

Coffee Sergeant wrote:I wasn't suggesting an old sabre charge, but basically as a use of "mounted infantry". I don't see any reason why calvary couldn't engage infantry, assuming they were equipped with the proper rifles. Buford's division did it at Gettysburg. Was the calvary issued rifle?

I may be wrong, but I believe they were issued carbines.

Dixicrat wrote:I may be wrong, but I believe they were issued carbines.

Yes, cavalry (especially on Union side) were often issued carbines. The Spencer is a famous example of a carbine used by the cavalry during the Civil War.

Dixicrat wrote:I may be wrong, but I believe they were issued carbines.

CSA too? I thought they were rather short on those.

Enfields (some carbines, mostly rifles), shotguns, navy sixes for the CSA. For some reason, even though they feared the Spencers, they prefered Enfields over captured Spencers. Probably an ammunition issue.

Reading more on Brice's Crossroads, they remounted for the pursuit, but the breakthroughs were accomplished mostly on foot (except for officers).

Coffee Sergeant wrote:I wasn't suggesting an old sabre charge, but basically as a use of "mounted infantry". I don't see any reason why calvary couldn't engage infantry, assuming they were equipped with the proper rifles. Buford's division did it at Gettysburg. Was the calvary issued rifle?

Yeah I'll concede this point. I don't think anyone really exploited some of the advantages that could have been made with the "mounted infantry" concept. It could have been a pretty dangerous weapon I suppose. Like motorized and mechanized infantry later on in history.

Ride up to an important objective with speed, hold it and wait for the grunts to come up in support. secure the objective. find a flank....rinse and repeat.

Wilder's Lighning Brigade - Rosecrans' Tennessee Campaign: They siezed Hoover's Gap and Manchester as the vanguard for Thomas's corps ... then a more traditional cavalry type raid to Pelham and Cowan - they're what caused Bragg to pull out of Middle Tennessee without fighting

A few things about Cavalry during the ACW.

First America really didnt have the Napoleonic "Lancer" Tradition, so really never had any heavy cavalry. In america it was used in the strategic sense of mobility over time and reconnaissance instead of the grand charge or battlefield use (yes there are some exceptions bu they tended to be small units) Also mass cavalry is expensive and tended to be a luxury of large armies.

Two horses make huge targets so you dismounted as soon as the bullets flew. You could fire and use cover. The drawback is one out of five had to hold the horses for the other four..and their weapons tended to be on the lighter side because they occasionally had to be fired from horseback. So all things being equal infantry tended to win over dismounted cavalry ...but there were some exceptions when leaders were wise enough to make it not equal. There were some southern units that were primarly shot guns and pistols.

Finally there were very few breakthroughs in the Civil war..not in the dramatic sense. Most of the great vicitories were either stalwart defense or flank movments. Add to that both sides tended to be exhausted both in the way of casualites and disruption so the routs, exploitation and distintergration that hallmarked earlier ages tended to be absent (Nashville being a notable exception) because both sides were racing each other to exhaustion. Lincoln remarked that Lee should have been destroyed after Gettysburg not understanding that Meads army was only in slightly better shape despite winning such a victory.

European armies would find much of the same issues apparant in WWI. But both sides would use Cavalry up until (and after) the end. The British were very capable of it in18 when they did use it to exploit their breakthroughs..But by that time what was a break through and scale was so different it was a bit of a distant cousin of the ACW

Coffee Sergeant wrote:Was cavalry ever used to exploit a breakthrough? That would seem a logical use of them, being highly mobile, they could be used like tanks in WWII except more at the tactical level.

Big issue with that is a tank was a stronger platform than a man on a horse. I have a rifle and I know a guy in a horse is coming after me..six weeks of basic training and that horse at least will be shot from under him and my mate will take care of the rider.

Cavalry was very fragile a soon as Muskets could go more than 100 yards.

Irish Guards wrote:Big issue with that is a tank was a stronger platform than a man on a horse. I have a rifle and I know a guy in a horse is coming after me..six weeks of basic training and that horse at least will be shot from under him and my mate will take care of the rider.

Cavalry was very fragile a soon as Muskets could go more than 100 yards.

So dismount when you get in range of enemy rifles.

Allenby's cavalry did quite well in Palestine.

Blitzkrieg before the hour, yes.

While watching Heth's division advance on Buford's cavalry in the Movie Gettysburg, it occurred to me that Heth's infantry armed with rifled muskets could have line up out of the effective range of the carbine and easily have forced Buford's force to withdraw. Was that not possible? What was the effective range of the carbine? apy:

tagwyn wrote:While watching Heth's division advance on Buford's cavalry in the Movie Gettysburg, it occurred to me that Heth's infantry armed with rifled muskets could have line up out of the effective range of the carbine and easily have forced Buford's force to withdraw. Was that not possible? What was the effective range of the carbine? apy:

I think the operative word here is "easily". Firing rifled muskets at full range was not the best way to drive the enemy out of a position. They could cause a few casualties, but driving the enemy out of positions usually took assaults. The repeating carbines had the firepower at shorter range to make that costly.

It's an interesting question whether cavalry could have been more flexibly used. Certainly mounted infantry was not used as extensively as it COULD have been, especially by the North. On the other hands horses are expensive and in general supplying and fitting out a mounted unit is much more expensive then a leg unit.

Using these units to do the sort of break through and exploitation moves that became common later in history seems unlikley to me due to two major reasons.

Issues with communication. The ACW was fought over really large areas with very poor communications. Breakthroughs and exploitations unlike Cav raids depend on timely intel and good coordination with pinning and flanking forces.

Importance of Artillery. The light artillery a cav unit could bring just didn't have the weight to take on reg unit batteries.

tagwyn wrote:While watching Heth's division advance on Buford's cavalry in the Movie Gettysburg, it occurred to me that Heth's infantry armed with rifled muskets could have line up out of the effective range of the carbine and easily have forced Buford's force to withdraw. Was that not possible? What was the effective range of the carbine? apy:

Definitely less than the rifle, but as Jabberwock pointed out, you couldn't just exchange volleys and expect the enemy to retreat. Dislodging an enemy meant a close order assault most of the time. Especially against a commander like Buford. Heth wanted to advance quickly, most likely because he felt he was holding up the column, and wanted to take the high-ground before reinforcements could arrive for the Union.

Why breakthrough when you can go around?