Confederate Cavalry Armaments

[JDR]

Re: Confederate Cavalry Armaments

cavalry's mission is fundementaly reconnasance, and to provide security. cavalry is used as an economy of force. allowing a commander the chance to fully utilize his combat power. a textbook deployment and employment of cavalry is buford's action at gettysburg. the cavalry when used properly defines when, where, and how the battle will be fought. thats the reason cavalry commanders of the era were so prized. they had to make on the spot decisions that affected the welfare of an entire army. buford screened, reconed, and defended until relieved. mostly cavalry is a defensive arm, tactically speaking. however, did a cavalry commander take a bunch of heartbreakers and lifetakers, utilize some personal initiative and attack, yes. by the time of the civil war the mounted cavalry charge had become obselete. only in situations of greater advantage, or desperation were they executed.

i dont think the aforementioned accounts make mounted cavalry charges the norm. i was under the impression we are trying to portray the common aspects of the civil war, not the exotica. if we're portraying brandy's station, sure a mounted cavalry charge would be the order of the day. but the typical event doesnt portray brandy's station. it portrays cavalry performing it's day-to-day mission. the day-to-day mission of the cavalry isn't saber and pistol charges, its to screen, recon, and defend.

lipazzaners were used in an age when firepower wasn't so great. ride a lipazzaner into a regiment of veteran infantry and see how long the horse karate lasts. an M-1 tank, even without its weapons sytem is still 60 tons of steel moving at 65 mph, that nothing on the battlefield can defeat, i'd say that constitutes a weapon in anybodies nightmare. but hey boys, let's not confuse armored units with cavalry units...two different animals (no pun intended). a 120mm gun depressed to 0 mils, and firing bee-hive rounds is still a weapon too. dressage is merely a training excercise used to teach troopers to ride.

a horse isnt a weapon, its a target. it's flesh has the same tolerance to bullets as ours. might be a little harder to kill, but it can be killed.

i think pistol and saber charges rate right up there with leapord skin pants. they don't exibit the norm. i don't think there's anyway that every documented cavalry charge that can possibly be found can account for everyday of the four years that the confederate cavalry, of any theater, spent in the field.

again, i dont have a problem with toten' a pistol or saber, if it's an impression requirement. i don't think there's enough evidence to suggest that they are representative of the arms that the average confederate cavalry soldier carried

good luck in whatever path you choose,
Darryl Robertson
Buttermilk Rangers

[GeraldTodd]

Re: Confederate Cavalry Armaments

"the mounted cavalry charge had become obselete"

I don't agree, and niether does the record.

The massive cavalry charge as it was used in the Napoleonic Wars may have been obselete but it wasn't gone, it simply adapted. The trick for us is to separate the charge from the sabre fight in our minds, the same with the bayonet charge and the bayonet fight. The one doesn't mandate the other.

Charges were common place and often successful (bayonet and sabre), the fights, on the other hand, were rare in comparison. The weapon, be it the sabre, bayonet, or the horse itself has value not so much in it's actual ability to do damage, but it's psychological effect. A search of the ORs for "charged" will turn up a plethora of phrases like "We charged them and they scattered" and not just for cavalry.

The are so many accounts in the ORs of quick, spur-of-the-moment charges, often because two forces just happened upon each other and one of them "went for it;" or as a means of getting through to get at or away from something; or to simply run off a few guys that are being a pain in the butt. Again, if you want to see common place you have to look between the big battles and not just at them. The recon mission requires that you maintain momentum and initiative. Stopping for a firefight works in the enemy's favor and the longer you're there, the lower your odds of sucessfully completing that mission.

In the Eastern Federal cavalry, the sabre was considered the primary weapon of the mounted trooper. Officers reminded the men of this constantly right up to the end of the war. I think this may have grown out of the first year these regiments were in service with few, if any, carbines - they had to learn to be proficient with the sabre. Later, the carbine gave them a base of fire to augment the charge, and a defensive strength they didn't have before. Cavalry could actually take and hold ground which it couldn't even consider armed with only sabres. While it didn't have the numbers and resources to hold it indefinately - it could extract a high price from anyone wanting to argue the point.


It's true we do need to be careful of using the broad brush and making blanket statements - obviously Confederate cavalry had sabres, and carbines. But not as widespread as reenactors tend to portray (again, I'm preaching to the choir here). On that same note, most Federal cavalry before 1863 wouldn't have carbines!

[RelicRoomGuy]

Re: Charges

In these discussions I always end up recommending "On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill In War and Society" by Col. Grossman, available at your local public library.

Grossman contends and uses LOTS of historical examples (including 1860's) that "cold steel" close combat is rarely consumnated - "it is not the sharpness of the bayonet, but the gleam in the attackers' eye, that breaks the enemy line", as Patton said. In raw material calculus, the infantry has the advantage - but the sight of the blades and the awareness of the sheer mass and velocity of the animals goes beyond that...

At this point in history the mounted charge, like a lot of military tactics, is both effective AND prohibitively dangerous - like a haymaker punch, shattering if it's perfectly timed (or better yet launched by total surprise) but exposing the attacker to terrible punishment otherwise. But it's in the trained cavalryman's MIND as a primary tactic; it's the whole image of cavalry to the untrained recruit or the classically-trained (Napoleonic minded) cavalryman. Around here boys of what would be the cavalry-providing social classes, grew up on "Ivanhoe", on Revolutionary War stories of Wade Hampton I and "Light Horse Harry", and on fiction like "Charles O'Malley and the Irish Dragoons" (a book that inspired bitter joking among SC soldiers who'd been riding and fighting awhile) .

So...obsolete? Yes and no. It might have been Voltaire who said, "a 'rational' army WOULD run away"; the sabre charge made a lot less sense than it had a couple of weapon generations earlier - but it was effective just often enough to still be an option, and it was strongly ingrained in military tradition.

[JDR]

Re: Confederate Cavalry Armaments

the cw went on for appoximately 1,460 days. in three major theaters of operation. subtract the cavalry charges, successful or not, from that number and see what we have. then subtract the charges you mentioned that aren't cavalry charges and see what we have then. as i say, the cavalry charge made for a small percentage of a confederate cavalrymans life in the army. of course under the right conditions, or out of shear desperation, a mounted charge woulda been the order to give. under more rational conditions, i think it would've been re-thought. lets exclude the times when twenty cavalrymen rushed ten scared, surprised, and disorganized infantrymen, i dont think that constitutes a cavalry charge.

the rifled musket had an affective range of 300-400 yards, within reason. that mounted cavalry unit would've been taking alotta fire before they reached the unit they were charging. the pistol, mounted at what ever pace had a range of MAYBE 20 yards. the saber had a range of what, three feet? maybe Gerald could get 4, he's a big man. the psycological value of the mounted charge would've been wasted on a veteran infantry unit. when you consider the shorter range of these two weapons, the diminished accuracy rate because of the unstable firing platform, and the more stable, and stationary firing platform the infantry would've had, and the infantry's greater range and accuracy. i think it's safe to say that the mounted cavalry charge during the civil war was obsolete. if it were such an affective weapon, i think they would've used it more than they did.

just because cavalry charges took place doesn't mean that it was a good idea. just because a cavalry charge was successful doesn't mean it was a good idea. had pickett's charge been successful it would've been considered the greatest move of the war, but it still woulda been a bad idea.

Darryl Robertson
Buttermilk Rangers

[CJSchumacher]

Re: Confederate Cavalry Armaments

lets exclude the times when twenty cavalrymen rushed ten scared, surprised, and disorganized infantrymen, i dont think that constitutes a cavalry charge.

Darrly,

I think this type of "combat" action is what most of us are specifically referring to as some of the most common a cavalrymen may have found himself involved with...be it opposing infantry, other cavalry, etc.

I, too, believe that reconaissance was the most common "duty" performed by cavalry. I think the above mentioned action often happened intentionally and even unintentionally while performing this duty.

[Tom Craig]

Re: Confederate Cavalry Armaments

To add on to what Chris said, we are recreating small unit actions. I have yet to see more than 20 authentically armed and equipped cavalry in any one place. So essentially we want to recreate the 10-20 man dashes or charges.

Take care,
Tom Craig

[JDR]

Re: Confederate Cavalry Armaments

Chrsi,

the period accounts you posted didn't refer to this type of combat action. a unit that is on a reconnasance mission, avoids enemy contact, they don't invite it. if contact is unavoidable they break contact as soon as possible.

cavalry is a supporting arm. the cavalry, artillery, engineers, medical corps, logistics units exist to support the infantry's mission. the cavalry isn't the killing arm of an army. the infantry delivers the killing blow to the enemy. in the spirit of tactical doctrine cavalry wouldn't attack the enemy's main body in an attempt to cause a breech, or open a hole for the infantry to exploit. did it happen? sure it did. under extreme conditions. should we re-create those actions? to a point sure. should we portray the cavalry as a force that took the offensive in sight of the enemy? no. we should portray the cavalry performing its intended mission in non-specific scenarios...screen, recon, block, fain, secure, support.

any cavalry leader of the period with 10-20 troopers in his charge would think twice about conducting a mounted attack against 5-10 infantry soldiers. espeacially if they were known to be veteran infantrymen. they could seek a covered position and put some hurt on the 20 troopers. would you take 25% plus casualties killing or capturing 5 guys? if a leautinant in my company came back and had lost half his men over 5 guys wouldnt be a leautinant anymore. there were far more dismounted cavalry attacks than mounted cavalry attacks. i believe the record reflects that.

cavalry attacking cavalry mounted, at an event, should be avoided at all costs. wanna dismount and fight each other on foot? i'll be the first one to hit the ground. these guys weren't stupid, they saw the disadvantage of sitting 5 feet off the ground, on an 800 pound animal that had a mind of it's own. the highly unstable firing platform and greatly diminished marksmanship would be enough for me to dismount my men...never mind the getting shot part.

if we are reenacting brandy's station, yeah lets get boot-to-boot and surge forward and hit the enemy in the mouth with some steel. if we're portraying a garden variety cavalry operation, the sabers need to stay sheathed, pistols holstered,, link straps and lead ropes ready. if we portray a unit that didn't have sabers then we leave'em at the house. if we portray a unit that did, we bring the aggrevating damn things. same-same with pistols, and carbines, and muskets.

ces't tou finis, cha

Darryl Robertson
Buttermilk Rangers

[CJSchumacher]

Re: Confederate Cavalry Armaments

the period accounts you posted didn't refer to this type of combat action.

Darrly,

Actually, that type of action was very much in the majority when it came to discussing confederate and union cavalry combat. While looking for quotes earlier, I kept looking for specific saber usage quotes, which I found. What I didn't post were the majority of instances where they said things like: "we charged the picket post, capturing 4 horses, 3 sets of horse equipments, three prisoners." Also, quotes like: "Private Smith and myself rode right into their camp and weren't known because we were wearing yankee overcoats. We captured two horses, three rifles, three tents, and six prisoners." I even read one where an officer stated his men nobally charged, dismounted...now that would have been a sight! Now that I think of it...that's exactly what happened at Trevillion Station.

I agree with a lot of what you're saying. I'm always the first one to hit the ground as well and for a long time I believed solely in that based on reading and I dare say the same "aversion" to mainstream reenacting, ie. anti-saber dance, as our infantry and artillery bretheren. I somewhat ignored the abundance of mounted references to smaller unit actions...at the squadron level and lower.

This past weekend at Five Forks, John Sweeney, John Nolan, The Elder and myself continued this discussion. We all agreed that in the ANV at least, sabers were definitely present and as I stated in my first post...often distributed to certain companies. Same goes for revolvers, longarms...etc. I think it was pretty apparent that cavalry fought dismounted a lot of the time. However, and all agreed on this...there was always a mounted reserve usually with either pistols, sabers, or both.

John Nolan summed it up pretty well when he said...cavalry's mission was in fact many times offensive. Cavalry was used and had the ability to take ground. You can take ground mounted...however, you can't hold it. Its at this point where you need to dismount troopers to dig in.

You mentioned something about not attacking infantry. I agree that this could be a bad move, but it did happen. Actually, Five Forks was a perfect example of a mounted cavalry charge against infantry. Custer rolled up Pickett's right flank and sent his division running...forcing Lee to abandon the line at Petersburg and utimately, Richmond.

I think our difference in thought probably stems more from eastern cav vs. western cav. I don't know a whole lot about western cav...I would defer to you on this.

Chris

[LWhite64]

Re: Confederate Cavalry Armaments

Just to add a little to this discussion, in the Army of Tennessee by 1863 the Cav arm had developed Sabre Regiments, in every Brigade it seems that one unit was armed for close combat with all of the sabres and most of the pistols going to them, for instance in Tom Harrison's Brigade the Sabre or I should say close combat outfit in their case was the 8th Texas (Terry's Texas Rangers)(Note: They didnt have sabres put pistols), then in John T. Morgan's Brigade the Sabre Regiment was the 8th Confederate. The concept was that the rest of the brigade would deploy on foot and the Sabre Regiment would be held in reserve until an opportue moment, then they would charge.

Lee

[Linneus Ahearn]

Re: Confederate Cavalry Armaments

This discussion has stayed very civil and is enjoyable to read, especially the sabre discussion. There are so many misconceptions on use of the sabre that much of the information given out at events, and even here, takes on the concept of being reenactorisms. Add to that the visual of the sabre charge as done at most mainstream events and you have even a more misconstrued idea that those of us who wish for a more correct portrayal shy away from and I think it colors our thinking.

Did Confederate cavalry do sabre charges against enemy cavalry and sometimes infantry, YES, (especially in the east). Did it happen for the whole war? YES. Can we portray these sabre charges? NO, unless we practice the use of the sabre and also practice with opposing forces. Will this happen? Probably not unless it's important to you to portray this right and that the unit you portray did have them.

If you want to do a realistic sabre action you might try what we are starting to do here in the NW. FIRST, know the sabre drill, and know how to handle your sabre safely. This practice is something you can do initially by yourself without others involved. Then practice on horseback all the moves of the exercises. Now you come to the safety aspect... the only somewhat safe and easily defended attack and defense moves you can make on horseback is to the ear and to the top of the head. Practice these moves with someone you will be meeting from the other side (prior to the event).
#1 Right Cut (defense will be In tierce - Parry)
#2 Front Cut (defense will be For the head - Parry)

The attacker calls the number he will be using. The defender knows what he will have to defend against. The horses meet, the attacker uses two or three cuts either circling round the defender who also circles or moving to the rear rank. They break moving back through the intervals of the enemy and reform on their old ground or whereever the commander designates. In sabre work, do not use muscle force to contact, only use the balance of the weapon. Defender MUST meet the offensive attack with a FLAT blade and not the sharp edge. No laughing!

Do the above to represent sabre action if you can. We have done it here and it works very well in individual action while others use pistols. It's NOT however, a common occurrance in every battle.

If you read of Trevilian Station you will note every concievable use of cavalry action against enemy cavalry troops in late war eastern theater action there possibly could be. Glory Enough for All by Eric Wittenberg is a good read with much documentation.

[hireddutchcutthroat]

Re: Confederate Cavalry Armaments

Just to add a little to this discussion, in the Army of Tennessee by 1863 the Cav arm had developed Sabre Regiments, in every Brigade it seems that one unit was armed for close combat with all of the sabres and most of the pistols going to them, for instance in Tom Harrison's Brigade the Sabre or I should say close combat outfit in their case was the 8th Texas (Terry's Texas Rangers)(Note: They didnt have sabres put pistols), then in John T. Morgan's Brigade the Sabre Regiment was the 8th Confederate. The concept was that the rest of the brigade would deploy on foot and the Sabre Regiment would be held in reserve until an opportue moment, then they would charge.

Lee

This was done similarly by the Michigan brigade in the east as well, with the 1st and 7th Michigans as the sabre regiments and the 5th and 6th Michigans as the rifle regiments. This is per Kidds Recollections of a Cavalryman in the Civil War.

[JDR]

Re: Confederate Cavalry Armaments

Chrsi,

I never said that confederate forces didn't have sabers. Sure they did, pistols too. I don't believe it was to the extent that it would have put those two weapons in a primary position over the long arm, except in extreme circumstances. The mounted cavalry charge DID take place, but if we examine the tactical situation in which these charges were conducted we'll see that they had no other choice. If the charges were successful, it was pure luck. Think about it from this angle, if the mounted cavalry charge was so effective, then why did an infantry division charge at gettysburg, and not a cavalry division? i guess maybe there was more infantry on hand than cavalry... i know someone is going to say that so i'll beat'em to the punch. the fact still remains, and it is a fact, that the cavalry exists to support the infantry mission. the support arms are the legs of the tiger, the infantry is the head and the teeth. the legs catch and hold the prey, the head and the teeth kill it. why didnt buford surge forth and further develope the fight at gettysburg than what he did? yes he went on the offensive at first, but he didn't remain in an offensive posture long before he was on the defensive, to hold until he was relieved, and took heavy casualties doing it. the cavalry is the eyes and ears of the army. why would a commander want to risk wasteing that asset in a fool-hardy charge, that has a great chance of failure? he'd be wasting his screening and recon elements. again gettysburg show's us how important these elements are. if lee had had better intelligence of the whats and the wheres of the federal army, he may have been able to better plan his battle, or even not engage at all. doctrinely speaking cavalry isnt an offensive weapon. did/does the cavalry have to take offensive action? yes it does, but only to an extent, it can't hold the momentum it needs to develope a situation and to destroy the enemy in close quarter combat. it doesn't have the fire power and it doesnt have the command and control.

let's change gears for a moment. in referance to lin's post, what training would the confederate cavalryman have had in the use of the saber and/or the pistol? marksmanship training was rare at best, and the longarm was the primary weapon. if marksmanship training with the longarm was rare, then marksmanship training with the pistol was probably non-existent. the effectiveness of a trooper firing on a moving horse would have been very little. at a gallop how long would it take mounted soldiers to cover four-hundred yards, forty seconds? that's two full vollies from a defending infantry unit, maybe three. that's alotta steel hitting those cavalrymen as they gallop towards the enemy. when the defending infantry see's that they aren't being affected by the cavalry's fire, then the psycological aspect of the mounted attack is lost, and lost for good. not to mention, what exactly is the attacking cavalry going to do when they reach the enemy? kinda like a dog chasing a car...what's he gonna do when he catches it? i'll say this a second time, every period account that can possibly be found anywhere can not account for the time the average cavalryman, south or north spent in service during the civil war. if we dress up like the enemy and sneak in to their camp to make a raid, then we are portrying the exotic. however, i dare say that a covert mission would be more in tune to what cavalry was intended for, more than a mounted charge against enemy infantry.

there's exceptions to everything. i'd never say that the mounted attack didn't take place. even the most elementary student of the civil war know's this isn't true. i just dont believe that the mounted attack represents the norm. short of recreating a specific event, we should avoid the mounted saber/pistol charge at all cost. it cannot be portrayed accurately, and it's not representative of the day-to-day service of the civil war cavalryman, of any army, nor any theater.


Darryl Robertson
Buttermilk Rangers

[wavey1us]

Re: Confederate Cavalry Armaments

The question of use or lack of use of the saber has really stirred the pot. A lot of good discussion backed by documentation. I went to my stack of books at home and came across "A Treatise on the Tactical use of the Three Arms: Infantry, Artillery, and Cavalry by Francis Lippitt." Basically this was an attempt of an action-after report of the Civil War. In his words: " The success of cavalry in battle depends on the impetuosity of its charge, and its use of the sabere. When deployed as skirmishers, mounted or dismounted, its proper weapon is the carbine or pistol; and in individual combats, these weapons may occasionally be useful. But when acting as cavalry proper, in any comapct formation, it must rely on the sabre. " Now, I wondering what the justification would be to "bring a knife to a gun fight", but Lippitt offers his rationalization of this mindset. "The aim with a pistol or carbine in the hands of a mounted man is so unsteady, that the fire of a line of cavalry is generally ineffective; and there are few occasion where it should be resorted to."
I am not siding with the above thoughts, but I thought it would add a little more color to the conversation.

[RelicRoomGuy]

Re: Confederate Cavalry Armaments

in referance to lin's post, what training would the confederate cavalryman have had in the use of the saber and/or the pistol? marksmanship training was rare at best, and the longarm was the primary weapon. if marksmanship training with the longarm was rare, then marksmanship training with the pistol was probably non-existent. the effectiveness of a trooper firing on a moving horse would have been very little. at a gallop how long would it take mounted soldiers to cover four-hundred yards, forty seconds? that's two full vollies from a defending infantry unit, maybe three. that's alotta steel hitting those cavalrymen as they gallop towards the enemy. when the defending infantry see's that they aren't being affected by the cavalry's fire, then the psycological aspect of the mounted attack is lost, and lost for good.

A couple of points:

I'd be very interested in knowing about accounts of pistol marksmanship training...I suspect it WAS non-existent. With the sabre - even Western troopers were generally put through Wheeler's manual - and Wheeler's manual, actually WRITTEN during the war, does not slight the sabre at all. Now, the training didn't necessarily take, but it was administered.

I think I mentioned in an earlier post - here in South Carolina there was quite a bit of sabre training in the prewar militia; a former West Point sword instructor named M'Auley retired in Columbia and kept his manual in print for the "citizen cavalry of South Carolina" for decades - (thirties through fifties). The sabre was the "signature weapon" of the cavalry (after all, the cavalry device is not "crossed carbines" or "crossed shotguns") and, not insignificantly for the commander, training in the sabre does not use up precious ammunition - I would humble submit the Confederate cavalryman (depending on theater of war and year of enlistment) was likely to have more formal training with the sabre than with any of his other weapons!

(Doesn't necessarily translate to how likely the training was to really be employed - how many hours did I spend at Fort Benning doing bayonet training...? And what was the likelihood of EVER using it?)

On cavalry versus infantry: ever since the Swiss pikemen centuries earlier, disciplined, well-led infantry in the proper formation were more-or-less cavalry-proof. The trick is to charge them when they're not prepared to receive cavalry. During the Napoleonic Wars, if your infantry were set up to repel cavalry, they were sitting ducks for artillery; if they chose a formation less vulnerable to artillery, then the cavalry were more effective. So you wanted to show your enemy a cavalry THREAT, then hit 'em with arty - or vice versa. A "rock, paper, scissors" game. More accurate small arms changed the game, but the training was based on the older situation.
Of course, as the cav trooper, these decisions are way over your head: yours "not to reason why", as some other nineteenth-century troopers famously demonstrated.

(What do you do when you "get there"? Well, mostly you split heads with a curved blade twice as heavy as most swords of the Middle Ages! "Cossack and Russian reeled from the saber-stroke, shattered and sundered/ Then they rode back. But not - Not the Six Hundred.")

[RelicRoomGuy]

Re: Confederate Cavalry Armaments

[I]" Now, I wondering what the justification would be to "bring a knife to a gun fight", but Lippitt offers his rationalization of this mindset. "The aim with a pistol or carbine in the hands of a mounted man is so unsteady, that the fire of a line of cavalry is generally ineffective; and there are few occasion where it should be resorted to."

And, of course, advantages gained with expensive charges have to be retained. Once you have the momentum, do you stop to reload your cap-and-ball revolver (if you've even got one)? Do you try to reload your carbine? Or do you cut down one of your remaining enemies while HE's reloading?

Too, the military establishment does not lightly discard precedent (witness all of the battleships built AFTER Billy Mitchell's airpower demontration). If Frederick the Great said the sabre was the prime weapon of cavalry in the flintlock era - would mere field experience be allowed to upset this paradigm in a later era? (In the field, usually; in the manuals...not nearly as quickly.) All the way through the Plains wars U.S. Cavalry wore the awkward butt-forward right-side holster - because doctrine said the sabre on the left hip was the PRIMARY weapon. I believe even T. Roosevelt, who chose not to even train his Rough Riders with the sabre, was equipped with these holsters in 1898!