Mounted Infantry/Cavalry

[KentuckyReb]

Pards, webfoot with a probably-dumb question here. My outfit's impression is that of a company in a line infantry regiment that was transferred to Forrest's command in early '64 as mounted infantry. And when I joined, like a lot of newbies with just enough WBTS knowledge to be dangerous, when I was given the history of the outfit and the magical name of 'Forrest' was spoken, I responded like Homer Simpson when he says 'chocolate....', y'know? "For-rest....." with that glazed look. And so I just accepted that the outfit became mounted infantry in his command and that was that. But really, I've never really gotten a good explanation of what that meant, and what the differences between cav and mounted infantry were. Apparently there weren't many mounted infantry outfits. What was the advantage to them? Just because they carried infantry muskets in addition to revolvers? Were they something like dragoons? Obviously there was an increase in mobility, but their 'punch' couldn't have been much harder than a regular cav outfit. I can see the advantage in the Lightning Brigade, where the men carried those nasty Spencers, but the advantage wouldn't have been present for a Confederate outfit, with just regular rifles/muskets. Sure, in addition to revolvers, but the increase in firepower would, at least it seems, have been nominal at best. I suppose there's a range advantage in a rifle over a pistol or carbine... I guess I'm just asking why Mounted Infantry weren't just made into Cavalry, in the case of the Confederates, and since they apparently weren't, why, and what were the differences in how they were used tactically. Sorry for the long convoluted post... just something I've always wondered.

[Johan Steele]

Re: Mounted Infantry/Cavalry

The first and simplest answer to your question would be the added mobility afforded to "Mounted Rifle" troops. Forrest in particular was accutely aware of the advantages of mobility... it's what made his actions so brilliant.

The frontier companies of the Texas Rangers & 1st TX Mounted Rifles (I may have the designation incorrect) IIRC were QUITE effective against Commanches.

Mounted Rifles in general rarely if ever carried revolver and were never intended to use swords.

As to the firepower of Infantry vs Cav... take a look at the number of succesful Cav charges against infantry during the War. There just weren't that many. Forrest used his Cav more as Mounted Infantry for the most part using their mobility to it's greatest advantage. Shooting from the back of a a moving horse is easier said than done (trust me I know) and it takes REAL skill and experiance to be able to do it effectively.

I think Cav as raiders were quite effective (note Grierson's Raid or numerous of Forrests) Mounted infantry had a HUGE advantage in mobilty over foot Infantry.

THere are others on this board who can answer your question far better than I but that at least gives you a good start.

[RJSamp]

Plenty of Mounted Infantry

Don't sell the Panzer Grenadiers short. Plenty of regiments, brigades, and Divisions of mounted infantry in the American Civil War. Get the 9th Illinois book....they mount up on Mules, switch from drums to bugles, and start going on long distance raids. They end up in a mounted infantry brigade.....half horses, half mules.

No sabers. and those Rifles can reach out and touch someone.

Even cavalry was employed more like mounted infantry than European Cavalry. The 5th and 6th Michigan cavalry were armed with repeating rifles (and sabers, and a pistol)...while the same brigaded 1st and 7th MI were employed primarily as mounted saber regiments.... So when you wanted to put a world of hurt you could....and when you wanted to muck it up you could.

The battle of Brinkerhoff Ridge (Gettysburg, where the stores are today east of town) on July 2nd 1863 showed the advantage of mounted infantry versus carbined cavalry.... the 10th NY Cavalry deployed two companies (a squadron) in a dismounted skirmish line......when they got up to the top of the ridge and subtracting horse holders, couldn't get to the battle because of no horses, casualty, sick...... they put a whopping 27 carbines on the line. A 333 rifle regiment from Stonewall's brigade quickly pushed them off the ridge....and they routed out of there in a hurry. 2 KIA and a half dozen wounded. The range of the rifles was a distinct advantage, and the rapid fire carbines quickly ran out of ammo.

The Lightning Brigade was called that due to its Mobility (fast as..).....

Wilson's and Upton's cavalry Corps was basically mounted infantry.....they are one of the few cavalry units that successfully assaulted earth works (hey I remembered Fort Pillow! Nashville, and the disaster for Price at Pilot's Knob)...dismounted rapid fire rifle wreaked havoc on the defenders....and then the rapier thrust of a mounted charge through holes in the defenses. Selma.

The Wilder's Brigade rifle at the Illinois Veteran's Museum has a worn forestock from having the rifle rested across the pommel...and it has a carbine swivel ring screwed into the side of the gun stock....


Ride fast, get on their flank, dismount, pour on the fire power, watch 'em run, and use the cavalry to saber the routed defenders.

RJ Samp

[KentuckyReb]

Re: Plenty of Mounted Infantry

Aha. You gentlemen are showing me that what I thought were the advantages really were the advantages, and there wasn't need for much more. The range of a rifle vs. a carbine/pistol, the mobility...it's all pretty much what I thought, but I thought there must be something more. But now that you put it together, I can see it. I guess I just kinda didn't trust myself and thought there must be more to it. That Panzer Grenadier reference is interesting. I wish I could remember the title of the book...someone referring to Forrest's tactical doctrine (as well as Wilder's and others') as a predecessor of mechanized infantry, or at least motorized. Thanks guys.

[hireddutchcutthroat]

Re: Mounted Infantry/Cavalry

Micah

If you really want to know about mounted infantry, I recommend you read up about Liberty Gap. Keep in mind much of Wilders brigade
at this time still had Springfields. Also read about the Orphan brigade after it became mounted.

[hireddutchcutthroat]

Re: Mounted Infantry/Cavalry

By the way, unless you are mounted, you have no business doing mounted infantry.

[KentuckyReb]

Re: Mounted Infantry/Cavalry

Nah. None of us have horses. We always just do leg. Don't look at me, man...the outfit's impression was chosen before I joined up. But no, just a regular infantry impression. I will read up on the Lightning and Orphan Brigades. I really wish that Henry George would have gone more into the nuts & bolts kind of stuff about the Kentucky Brigade in his unit history. Ah well. Still wouldn't trade the book for anything. Thanks again.

[MountedRifle]

Re: Mounted Infantry/Cavalry

We formed a Mounted Infantry unit last year and primarily portray Jackman's 16th Missouri during Price's Raid of 1864. Mounted Rifles or Infantry has a long history prior to the war. Besides the U.S. Dragoons the Mounted Rifles out of Ft. Leavenworth during the Western Expansion days escorted wagon trains heading west. During the early 1850's the Mounted Rifles worn green trim in contrast to the orange trim of the Dragoons. They carried the 1841 Mississippi Rifle and the proper accutraments. Pistols except for officers were rare if carried at all. I do carry a pistol in a pommel holster / shoe bag combination as can be found in the Frontier Army Museum at Ft. Leavenworth, KS. I ride a Spanish version of the Hope saddle also called the "Missouri Hope" produced by Grimsley of St. Louis, MO. He is more famous for the Grimsley saddle. We use the Boggy Depot drill manual which combines Mounted operations as well as Infantry.

We are finding that our impression is starting to get some respect by the Cavalry and Infantry purist's out there. Fire power and mobility! A great combination and very authentic.

Besides our group there are others out there that are doing it right. The Critter Company and Phillip's Legion (now doing Wilder's) are a couple of examples. I'd like to see a large contingent at a "National" event form and do the impression in mass.

If anyone would like more information about our unit and impression go to www.transmsbrigade.com then click on "Find a Unit" then click on Missouri, scroll down to the 16th Missouri, click and go to the web page.

Thanks,

Mark White
16th Missouri Mounted Infantry (Jackman's)

[Nighthawk]

Re: Plenty of Mounted Infantry

<Even cavalry was employed more like mounted infantry than European Cavalry. The 5th and 6th Michigan cavalry were armed with repeating rifles (and sabers, and a pistol)...while the same brigaded 1st and 7th MI were employed primarily as mounted saber regiments....>


RJ-
You are correct about the 5th Mich. At the Rummel farm at Gettysburg they were very roughly handled by Col. Vincent A. Witcher and the 34th btn. Va. Cav., who were using Mississippi's, Richmond Rifles, and some 3 band Enfields, and fighting dismounted as infantry. Not only did they capture the 5th's colors, they shot Major Noah Ferry of the 5th through his "red head" (Witcher's own words). Interestingly enough, Mr. Hoffman, who now resides on the Rummel Farm, has found amoung other things, numerous Burnside casings at the 5th's position. At the 34th's position, near the spring house, he found a fused mass of .54 round balls, probably for the 34th's Mississippi's.

[GeraldTodd]

Re: Mounted Infantry/Cavalry

I'm curious about this "range of the carbine vs rifle" nonsense. Some of you make it sound like the ball falls to the ground at the end of the barrel while a musket round comes back from behind you with travel stickers all over it!

You have the same odds of dropping a round on a man sized target at 300 yards with a carbine as you do a rifle and since the average range of fire-fights in the CW was within that range....

Consider too that a skirmisher is often taking cover, firing from a rest, and not as hurried as the musketeer standing in line, trying to throw lead as fast as he gets it down the barrel.

In a case of 333 infantry bearing down on 27 troopers maybe inaccuracy was caused more by pressure and hurrying than some fault of the weapon?

Then again, it was more likely that incessant bloody bugling that was irritating everyone and trowing off their aim! :)

[RJSamp]

Re: Mounted Infantry/Cavalry

Having never live fired an ACW carbine or an ACW rifle maybe I shouldn't be speaking out of turn here. But I do know that at 300 yards their is a big difference in accuracy between an M1 and an M1A1.....or a .45/70 carbine and a .45/70 rifle.....all four of which I've live fired.

the load, the muzzle velocity, the spin of the bullet, cartridge weight, steadiness of the barrel obviously all affect the accuracy. Given the same shooter. At 500 yards a '61 Springfield Rifle round drops something like 4 FEET. Give or take a couple. At a man sized target that equates to a miss......which is an indication of why so many TONS of lead had to be fired off to strike one Civil War target. With the stand up nature of the battles early on I'm always amazed that only 200,000 soldiers died of wounds in the ACW. We lost a ton of men in WWI in a year....

The 'theory' is that the shorter muzzle, often smaller load/bullet, lower muzzle velocity, less spin, less muzzle velocity of a carbine makes it less accurate....

Kind of like the M14 versus M15 arguments (which would you rather be hit by is the old saw...)....

Riddle me this Batman. If carbines were just as accurate as a rifle, then why didn't the Infantry carry carbines? Less weight, less steel, less gunpowder expended, less logistical trail for both rail and beast. Did they want a longer weapon for Bayonet use? Recall that the number 3 used weapon in the war was the shorter 2 bander Austrian Lorenz in .54 caliber (oftern rebored to .577).....some 29 Federal Regiments (including the 2nd and 6th Wisconsin of the Iron Brigade) and a bunch of CSA (including a Hood's Brigade Texas Regiment (the 4th?)) regiments. so I don't buy that.

There's a reason why the groundpounders used longer barrelled rifles in the ACW.....

RJ Samp

[trippcor]

Re: Mounted Infantry/Cavalry

When you are talking Confederate Cavalry vs Mounted Infantry, I don't really believe there is a large difference. Orginal unit records for Confederate cav units indicate they were armed and equiped with much the same weapons used by infantry. Based on my research, I would estimate 80% or more of Confederate cav unit were armed with 3 band muskets or 2 band rifles and spent much of there time fighting on foot.

[GeraldTodd]

Re: Mounted Infantry/Cavalry

Riddle me this Batman. If carbines were just as accurate as a rifle, then why didn't the Infantry carry carbines? Less weight, less steel, less gunpowder expended, less logistical trail for both rail and beast. Did they want a longer weapon for Bayonet use? Recall that the number 3 used weapon in the war was the shorter 2 bander Austrian Lorenz in .54 caliber (oftern rebored to .577).....some 29 Federal Regiments (including the 2nd and 6th Wisconsin of the Iron Brigade) and a bunch of CSA (including a Hood's Brigade Texas Regiment (the 4th?)) regiments. so I don't buy that.
RJ Samp

The really short answers are:

#1: It took into 1863 to get the Federal cavalry armed with breechloading carbines.
#2: The Sharp's & Spencer rifles are shorter than the rifled musket, about the same as say a 2-banded Enfield, and not significantly longer than their carbine cousins.
#3: ALL the rifled arms had LOWER initial muzzle velocity than the smoothbores and therefore required a higher aim at the same comparitive range - a more arched trajectory requires better range estimation or - zilch hits. Flatter trajectories and you may hit something beyond what you were shooting at.
#4: The average firefight during the war took place within 100-200 yards.

We could go to 99 or more, but you get the idea. I recommend you get "Bloody Crucible of Courage" by Noseworthy. It's a fine book and will turn on a lot of lights for you.

oh, and a breechloading carbine is seldom noticably "lighter" than a musket. The Sharp's is 10 pounds at least, the Enfield I think is 10-1/2? I know my Garret's it's a bit heavier than my 1842 Springfield - just balanced differently.

[Johan Steele]

Re: Mounted Infantry/Cavalry

RJ & Uhlan... For comparison a 61 Springfield was 56" long weighed in right about 9 lbs firing .58 chunk of lead propelled by 60 grains of BLACK powder. The Sharps rifle was 47" long just about 1/4 lbs lighter firing about the same round, though a litle lighter bullet. The performance was quite similar w/ the Springfield being a tad longer ranged due to the length of the barrel.

Now the Carbine question vs the rifle musket or rifle is a wholly different beast. The Burnside, Smith & Sharps were about the same size & those weapons were present in the hands of Union Cav on the 1st day of Gettysburg. The Sharps was the better weapon in all aspects and with a rate of fire considerably higher than their muzzle loading opponents in the CS Infantry, what they lacked in numbers they made up for in rate of fire.

The Spencer & Henry's were well liked weapons but both had a reputation for poor stopping power. The ballistics on both are quite unimpressive when compared to a Springfield or Enfield. I've read of many Union Cav men cutting x's in the tip of their Spencer bullets (essentially making them into hollow points) to increase knockdown. However, their rate of fire in comparison boggles the mind.

I have heard arguments that Carbines lack the punch of a rifle or rifle musket. I think the men on the receiving end would disagree emphatically. I would agree if you were measuring muzzle velocity w/ a meter... Having fired an original Springfield, Smith & Sharps I would say that the pine boards we were obliterating didn't know the difference as all were shockingly destructive. All had similar groups at 200 yards. At greater than 200 yards the accuracy was markedly different. The Union Cav was outnumbered, badly on the first day; it wasn't weight of bullet or rate of fire they were worried about, it was being outflanked. Their superior rate of fire enabled them to slow down the CS Infantry until The Iron Brigade and other Infantry supports arrived. The men on the receiving end of that carbine fire saw the brutal effectiveness of those slugs...

I would argue that realistically the Sharps or Smith Carbine were in no way inferior to the average Infantry Rifle of the War, what they lacked in range and whallop they made up for in rate of fire. But they weren't designed to mount a bayonet... no bayonet means some damn fool can't order a bayonet charge. Something still on the minds of the Commanders into 64.

I capsed BLACK powder because there is an immense difference between the rounds fired from an M1 vs M1A1 or even a Trapdoor Carbine vs Rifle in .45/70 firing modern smokeless ammo and a CW rifle. The biggest difference is in the amount and quality of powder propelling that bullet down the length of the barrel.

For what it's worth fire a 300 grain .45/70 smokeless vs a 405 grain .45/70 black powder... the difference in accuracy is astounding but both will easily drop a man if you hit him.

The sheer destructive differences are also glaringly apparent, A .58 will do much more damage to a target than the round from either a M1 or M1A1. There just isn't that much to compare between a rifle of the 20th Century and one of the Civil War and the comparison just isn't appropriate.

Uhlan is very correct in reminding us all of the ranges most CW firefights took place at, comparable to many modern engagements. As to which I'd rather be hit by... I'll pass altogether I think. Rock salt and a couple stray buckshot pellets were bad enough.

As to the combat performance of the Carbine vs the Rifle Musket... both were quite capable of voiding the warranty on a human body.

One of the major advantages of Mounted Infantry over Cav was that most opponents didn't realize they were facing Mounted troops... Infantry on a flank was far more dangerous than Cav on a flank because there were usually a LOT more of them. And they often had heavy duty support close behind.

[James Brenner]

Re: Mounted Infantry/Cavalry

I think that there's one other element to consider when looking at cavalry and mounted infantry and that is their respective missions. Cavalry was effective on its own riding on raids, but, as part of a larger force, it had several general roles. At the start of a campaign, cavalry would typically screen the main body and conduct reconaissance missions in an effort to not only locate the enemy, but find their weak points. Once combat began, the cavalry would (theoretically) exploit that weakness and attempt to break the enemy's battle line at the point where they were weakest or most likely to be surprised. Afterwards, the cavalry would conduct pursuit and exploitation missions, mopping up the battlefield. In order to do all of that, cavalrymen needed not only special weapons (sabers, revolvers, carbines), but required special training as well. That's the big difference between the two. Mounted infantry was essentially mobile infantry, trained and equipped to fight as infantry, not as cavalry. Consider, too, when and why some infantry units were mounted. In the Army of the Cumberland, it was to help protect the railroads from Confederate raiders. Mobility, firepower, and speed were essential. Also, on a related note, the tactical reason for horse artillery was to help the cavalry break the enemy line.