Confederate Cavalry Armaments

[1stMaine]

Re: Confederate Cavalry Armaments

Comrade Kern,

The problem you are talking about is well described in John Keegan's book "The Face of Battle", and I heartily endorse it's reading by any who have not done so.
Keegan speaks of the small world that the individual soldier resides in, and how his view and thus his experience and remembrance of an event is shaped by the conical view he has from his position on the field. What he views, and under what circumstance may be entirely different from someone else within his own regiment, and yet both are accurately describing the same battle, the same situation, etc.
It's well worth the time to read this book, and reflecting upon what Keegan has to say will make you think even more about the individual accounts you will read, and what was really being said/described. etc.
respects,

[T.Kern]

Re: CS Sabres

Super stuff Chris, liked the quotes about Buglers and sabers!

You said: " Forget about the saber...your horse becomes your first and primary weapon! "

Chris, No.

The horse is a transportation device, a tactical suprise enabler (speed, mobility, rough terrain passage, flanking positions), and allows you to get out of Dodge fast if need be.

Weapon? No.

Primary Weapon? No.

Heavy Logistical Tail? Absolutely. On campaign there aren't enough grazing hours in the day to keep them from breaking down.

Covers about the same amount of ground per day on average as infantry? YES (how's that for a surprise answer, but that's what you get when you load 'em up and don't rest them properly).

Some tend to forget that the Tank is not the weapon, it's the protected gun systems on board.

Very few ACW soldiers were wounded or killed by deliberate manuevering of horses....and probably just as many friendly 'fire' or collateral damage (wounded horse, runaway caisson) casualties from horses than deliberately targetting an enemy soldier and using the horse as a weapon.

We cite surgeon's wound reports to show how few American Civil War soldiers are wounded or Killed by swords, bayonets, even less for knives and pistols. Kicking Horse hooves, biting teeth, equine versus man collision?

Time to get out the 20 sided dice and consult the attack hits table for an edged weapon versus no-armor class 1...sounds like Dungeons and Dragons fantasy war-gaming to me.

:wink_smil

RJ Samp

I disagree ! 100 horses in a straight line, front and rear rank, slamming into your objective is a weapon. The shock that drives the enemy back or scatters him may not be a physical wound but the loss of order and function is a wound to the enemy as a tactical unit. But they also had weapons, sometimes, so all things become tactical weapons including the horse.

Your humble and obedient servant,
I am , Sincerely,
Todd J. Kern

[1stMaine]

Re: Confederate Cavalry Armaments

Comrade Kern,

You write:
---------
disagree ! 100 horses in a straight line, front and rear rank, slamming into your objective is a weapon. The shock that drives the enemy back or scatters him may not be a physical wound but the loss of order and function is a wound to the enemy as a tactical unit. But they also had weapons, sometimes, so all things become tactical weapons including the horse.

---------

I agree completely. Even the mere threat of a Cavalry assault can and did force a commander to alter his plans, or at least to take note of ity and thus counts as a strike against him. Whether a physical attack or a marale attack, if it forces the enemy to change his plans or to react in a manner of your choosing, then it is a weapon and must be considered as such.
respects,