|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Feb 12, 2015 7:05:57 GMT -6
Now this may not be everyone’s cup of tea but it is an idea that has been floating around my head for some time, now the USA is a vast country and around this period (1876) it had few roads and railways compared with Europe so not really a place for slow moving Infantry if you needed a rapid response, so I thought that combining the patrol and reconnaissance aspect of the standard Cavalry added to the firepower and mobility of mounted Dragoons would be a great asset, as we have discussed before Cavalry are not very good in pitched battles, they are great at being your eyes at recce work, they could also be useful in the pursuit roll, so if you add to this a full ten companies of mounted dragoons (with Infantry rifles w/Bayonets) then this could give full the best of both worlds, and I would have at least twenty regiments of this type and less of the standard Infantry, which I would think be better for the army as a whole.
Cavalry/Dragoon Regiment;
RHQ
Two standard Cavalry Companies (reconnaissance)
Ten Companies/Mounted Dragoons, each containing;
Dragoon Company
110 officers and EMs
CHQ
Captain
1st Sergeant
Trumpeter/orderly
Standard bearer/orderly
6 x Man baggage section (six mules)
Two 50 man platoons, each containing;
Platoon HQ
Lieutenant
Platoon Sergeant
12 x sets of fours containing;
Two Line Sergeants, four corporals, Farrier, saddler and 40 Privates
Ian.
|
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Feb 12, 2015 7:42:21 GMT -6
Ian, by 1876 Dragoon were long gone in the USA. In 1861 the two existing U.S. Dragoon regiments were re-designated as the 1st and 2nd Cavalry. This reorganization did not affect their role or equipment. That was end of dragoons in the U.S. Army, although certain modern units trace their origins back to the historic dragoon regiments. There were a number of mounted infantry units involved in the Centennial Campaign with both Crook and Gibbon, more may have joined later.
Regards,
Tom
|
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Feb 12, 2015 8:08:57 GMT -6
Hi Tom, I used the term dragoons because I couldn’t come up with a better suggestion, are the mounted units you mention as standard? Or just ad-hoc to perform a temporary role, the one I suggest are permanent regiments that have both heavy (mounted Infantry) and light companies (standard Cavalry), we have seen in the Centennial Campaign that a cavalry regiment should not be used on its own and that the Infantry lagged behind, so why not amalgamate the two by putting Infantry on heavy horses so they can work with the cavalry to bring their heavier firepower to the game.
As I said it is just a theory of mine, and I was a little nervous at the reaction from some of the officers on here, but I would like to know the pro’s and con’s of such a regiment and the idea of giving each company their own baggage section.
Ian.
|
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Feb 12, 2015 8:29:42 GMT -6
I think we may be off target here.
The problem of the Indian Wars was not whether a unit was infantry, cavalry or artillery. It was the logistical arrangements. Arrangements were ad hoc, campaign by campaign.
Each division should have had a mule train unit, manned trained and equipped as such. Crook's train should be the template. The Army eventually set up an adhoc civilian train at Leavenworth, but as an Army asset it was rarely used.
The one thing the Army got right was massive support to building railroads. he railroads were the reason the Plains Indians were completely defeated by 1877. The follow on Nez Pearce campaign was in an area still remote from the railroads. Notice how extending the rails to that area became a priority.
As far as mounting infantry, it was frequently done throughout this period. Crook, Miles, Mackenzie and many more.
The problem for any unit in the West was getting more than 3 days from a rail or river line of communication. Everything then became how mcu supplies the wagon/animal train could carry, remembering tha the train itself consumes supplies. This isn't Marching through Georgia.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Feb 12, 2015 9:11:33 GMT -6
Hello Montrose and thanks for your input, you can see where I am going here, it would make a large mounted company that could place around 70 rifle men in skirmish line, have around 26 horse holders and its own train of six mules, that would eliminate the notion of detaching six men and depleting the firing line, so a full strength company could put almost more rifle men in line than Custer’s C, F, & E Companies.
Ian.
|
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Feb 13, 2015 10:34:02 GMT -6
Compare the average daily rates of march of mounted troops and dismounted troops. Look at the logistical consumption of mounted troops, and how amounts differed with dismounted troops.
You will find your answers there. It is always the tail that drives the teeth.
Mounted troops only have an advantage in short term mobility, and they pay the price for it, by a reduction of combat power when dismounted, and an increased logistical burden that supports their operations.
|
|
