|
Post by Saugus Zouave on Dec 12, 2005 23:25:56 GMT -6
Elizabeth,
I would love to see the series on the Household Cavalry. I first fell in love with cavalry when my parents took me to London when I was eight. We went to see the changing of the guard at Horse Guards Parade. After the sentries were posted, a subaltern from the Royal Horse Guards (this was before they were amalgamated with the Royal Dragoon Guards) noticed the child with eyes as big as platters and took me for a stable tour. Because of that, the first sword I ever bought was an British officer's heavy cavalry sabre with the cypher of Edward 7. I was 12 at the time. I also trace my fondness for 18 hand piebald and skewbald horses to that incident.
As you probably know, the Household Cavalry are curassiers -- the heaviest of heavy cavalry. Nothing like them ever existed in the US Army. Just before the American Civil War there were two regiments of cavalry, two regiments of dragoons, and one regiment of mounted infantry. The dragoons and cavalry were equipped and trained the same way, while the mounted infantry were equipped with Mississippi Rifles and trained to fight dismounted. At the start of the war, all five regiments were redesignated cavalry and all differences in uniforms, equipment, and training dispensed with.
The cavalry of this period was highly influenced by Captain George B. McClellan's report from the Delafield Commission to the Crimean War. McClellan had served as the cavalry observer and returned to the US convinced that the Russian cossacks were the finest light cavalry in Europe and should be the model for the US cavalry. He wrote a cavalry tactics manual based on his translation of Russian manuals (he taught himself Russian in three months in order to read the books he brought back with him) and redesigned the regulation horse furniture based on Hugarian and Russian models he had seen. His saddle was used by the US Cavalry from 1859 until the beginning of WWII.
McClellan thought that cavalry in the US would be most useful as light cavalry and that was how they tended to be used most during the war. Missions were reconnaisance, screening, raiding, disrupting lines of communication, and seizing and holding objectives in advance of the main force. The emphasis was on speed and daring. Major actions tended to be against enemy cavalry. There is nothing equivalent to the charge of the Heavy Brigade at Sevastopol during the Crimea, or von Bredow's Death Ride at Mars-la-Tours during the Franco-Prussian War in the American Civil War.
This attitude towards cavalry continues in the US after the war. The value of cavalry on the frontier was to act as a mobile constabulary, scattered in company-sized posts to react to whatever kinds of minor violence they might encounter. Contrasting with that, major hostilities, like the 1876 Lakota War, required putting together significant combined-arms forces. Unfortunately for the cavalry, that meant acting in an unfamiliar role, and in the case of the 7th Cavalry, taking the field without an opportunity to train together as a regiment.
By the way, one of the 19th-century holdovers in the modern US army is that the athletic director of the US Military Academy is still called the Master of the Sword.
Cheers,
Paul
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Dec 13, 2005 4:28:34 GMT -6
That's a wonderful story, Paul, and how fortunate you were. Little girls with eyes-as-big-as-platters didn't get the same treatment, alas! The nearest I ever got was a backstage tour at the Horse of the Year Show many years ago. And yes, seeing those towering drum horses at close quarters is quite an experience.
I'm hoping the BBC will put the series out on DVD before too long. They've been treating its scheduling with such insouciance -- dropping it for weeks at a time when they felt like it -- that it's only just finished screening on TV. So it may take a while. I'll let you (and anyone else who's interested) know as soon as I hear anything. It's a gem; you won't be disappointed, I think.
Those are most interesting observations on the evolution of the US Cavalry. Perhaps McClellan considered the similarity of terrain, as well? I.e. vast distances to be covered fast, whereas engagements in Western Europe tended to be more concentrated? Whatever, he was very prescient. Even when the cavalry had proved itself in head-on attack (as at Brandy Station) the flexibity and versatility he'd built into it must have been its greatest strength. But as you say, it found its downside in major operations like the 1876 war. What do you think? Was Terry sensibly playing to the strengths of the cavalry by using the 7th as he did -- essentially as a reconnaissance and strike force? Or might the operation have been more successful if cavalry had all along been more integrated with the other arms of the service? (But I suppose that's about as meaningless as any "what if" can be ...)
Incidentally, have you ever seen any of those fabulous films made by Hungarian director Miklos Jansco in the early 1970s? ('The Round-Up' was one; can't remember any other titles.) You'd love them. Almost cavalry ballet, in a way: hordes of light cavalry swirling over the Hungarian steppes. (Looking back, I rather think we were supposed to see them as symbols of oppression, but the sight was so breathtaking that it never quite came across that way to me!) Well worth a look, if you haven't seen them ...
|
|
|
Post by El Crab on Dec 13, 2005 5:56:02 GMT -6
The cavalry in 1876 might have been more effective if they actually had training. In reading about the Zulu War of 1879 (which is VERY similar in many ways to the Summer Campaign of 1876), its mentioned how much training the regiments received, especially the cavalry. They spent over a year training and drilling together in England, before being shipped off to fight. Of course, the Brit regiments were rather out-dated, considering they still valued lances and sabers in addition to firearms.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Dec 13, 2005 7:26:49 GMT -6
Crab:
I believe little to no sabers were used in the Zulu Wars. However, lances were used by riders on horseback, especially chasing done Zulus. Brutal stuff anyway you look at it!
|
|
bhist
Full Member
Posts: 221
|
Post by bhist on Dec 14, 2005 9:32:40 GMT -6
The cavalry in 1876 might have been more effective if they actually had training. In reading about the Zulu War of 1879 (which is VERY similar in many ways to the Summer Campaign of 1876), its mentioned how much training the regiments received, especially the cavalry. They spent over a year training and drilling together in England, before being shipped off to fight. Of course, the Brit regiments were rather out-dated, considering they still valued lances and sabers in addition to firearms. Speaking of the Anglo/Zulu War -- I just found a new book by Lt. Col Mike Snook, formerly of the 24th foot and currently serves as officer of the Royal Regiment of Wales. "How Can Man Die Better: The Secrets of Isandlwana Revealed” promises to be the most extensive, detailed study of Isandlwana to date. The maps alone are worth the purchase of the book.
|
|
|
Post by Saugus Zouave on Dec 20, 2005 14:57:36 GMT -6
The cavalry in 1876 might have been more effective if they actually had training. That's the bottom line. You fight the way you train. Reconstruction duty isn't like fighting plains indians. Cheers, Paul
|
|
|
Post by Saugus Zouave on Dec 20, 2005 16:01:16 GMT -6
Elisabeth,
Regarding McClellan: I've always found him hard to figure out. He wrote extensively about cavalry, but made rather poor use of them when he was in command. I think there can be no doubt that it is the terrain that makes Poles, Ukrainians, Hungarians, Lakotas, Cheyennes, and Absarokis such good light cavalry. Whether McClellan thought in those terms, I don't know. Maybe he thought Virginia was not good cavalry terrain and that was why he used them mostly as couriers, escorts and videttes.
Regarding Terry: My feeling is that Crook, Terry and Gibbon weren't exactly sure how they planned to accomplish their mission. The big problem I see with the whole expedition is that the baggage trains were too unwieldy. Terry was tied to the river and his steam transport. I think they thought that only the cavalry could move fast enough to bring the Indians to a fight. They were wrong on both counts, IMHO.
First off, the Indians weren't in a running away mood. Secondly, infantry unencumbered by baggage can out march cavalry. The operational goal is to get the greatest possible mass to the right place as rapidly as possible. My guess is that an aggressive commander like Custer was feeling frustrated by the slow pace of the campaign. I don't think there was anything wrong with using the cavalry as a recon/strike force, but I think an aggressive infantry commander like Nelson Miles would have managed to get his whole command in the fight.
No, I haven't seen the Jansco movies. I'll try to track them down. Thanks for the recommendation.
Regards,
Paul
|
|
|
Post by El Crab on Dec 21, 2005 4:52:38 GMT -6
Infantry might have resulted in scatteration, since some have said the Indians did not like to fight the walking soldiers. Now, whether this was actually true or not is up for speculation.
How is infantry ever faster than cavalry? Would they be unencumbered by a mule train? What's the walking speed of a human v. a horse?
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Dec 21, 2005 8:40:51 GMT -6
Horses need to rest, water, and feed which adds time to any campaign, plus any loss due to break down.
Horses were most effective in an attack of a village which adds to the psychological affect of the attack, especially when a soldier on a horse is towering over an Indian on foot or for chasing them down.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Dec 21, 2005 9:04:19 GMT -6
Plus American horses couldn't subsist on grazing alone (even if the Indian pony-herd hadn't cropped it bare); they needed forage. Whereas infantry needed to carry only their own rations.
Doesn't Gray put the walking speed of cavalry at 4mph? That's the same as human walking speed ...
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Dec 21, 2005 9:10:03 GMT -6
Horses were a valuable addition for the Cavalry, but once troopers were dismounted someone had to hold the horses. And at the LBH the horseholders had difficulty in controlling the animals, especially Custer's fight. For every four horses one man was required to become a horseholder. Loss of man/firepower for horseholding is added to the list of what happened to the 7th.
|
|
|
Post by markland on Dec 21, 2005 9:25:47 GMT -6
Crab, somewhere in my stack of papers (Clean-up?-a Christmas present to the wife?) I have an article dealing with infantry and cavalry in the same column. The best I can remember-I am only on my first cup of coffee-is that for the first two-three days, the cavalry would outwalk the infantry; but as fatigue, time spent foraging and caring for the animals along with lack of adequate grains to keep up the horse's strength accumulated, the infantry would soon equal and then surpass the average cavalry distance traveled. If you use pack mules rather than baggage waggons for ammunition and food and just have the infantry carry his blanket and standard supply of ammunition and food, then the equalization should occur faster.
I will try to find that article today and if not scanned, get it on-line.
Best of wishes for a Merry Christmas,
Billy
|
|
|
Post by El Crab on Dec 21, 2005 16:41:41 GMT -6
Over the long run, I can buy that. But if you're trying to chase down Indians, you'd need to be able to keep up with them. Could infantry do that?
|
|
|
Post by fred on Dec 21, 2005 19:46:22 GMT -6
Are you guys serious about this infantry vs. cavalry business? I mean the part about infantry out-pacing horses?
I am not being facetious, I'm really interested to know because it's important in understanding a lot of what went on.
I can understand the ultimate longevity of infantry... but still. There were no serious, long forced marches on this campaign, & I am not aware of any others that were long enough to prove the point. From 17May76 to 29May76, the combined Terry/ Custer column went 165.87 miles, or an average of only 12.759 miles per day. While the large government wagons on the trek carried forage for the horses, many camp sites had extremely poor grazing. In that period of time, the longest 2-day march was 24-25May: 39 miles. The terrain was brutal, which would lead me to think the infantry would do a better job, i.e., less to carry over difficult circumstances; but still.... When the column reached the Little Mo on 29May76, it camped until the 31st. On the 30th, Custer took several companies & rode 55 miles in 13 hours, criss-crossing the river some 30+ times. The next day, the whole column moved 12 miles. There isn't an infantryman I know of who could have done that kind of distance, especially while fording a river 34 times, & all of this after 13 consecutive days of miserable weather, awful terrain, & 166 miles. So while we talk about tired horses on 25Jun76, it seems to me the old nags performed admirable service.
After the 31st, they spent a couple of days in camp because of the usual late spring, high plains blizzard, but then traveled 25, 17, 21, 18, & 32 more miles before spending another couple of days in camp. Now I realize the infantry hoofed its way along, as well, but then Reno spent several more days traipsing up & down the countryside w/ 6 cavalry companies, while the infantry lolled about in camp. Are we saying the infantry could do all of this too?
Another thing... Elisabeth... yes; Gray's walking time for cavalry is 4 mph. He also says 3 mph was the time for a typical pack train, which was probably handled by walking men, wouldn't you think? Or no? I don't know for sure. Four miles an hour can be DONE by a man, but not for sustained periods. The U.S. Army has (or had) a test at the Infantry School at Ft Benning, GA, for a special badge called the Expert Infantryman's Badge, the EIB. (We also have a prestigious award called the Combat Infantryman's Badge-- the CIB-- which looks similar. They're both long, light blue rectangles, w/ a silver musket inside the blue field. The CIB is wreathed in oak leaves, while the EIB has none.) One of the tests a soldier must pass to receive the EIB is a 12-mile walk w/ full equipment, in 3 hours. Full equipment-- in my day-- was a steel pot (helmet), a full pack (70+ lbs), obviously in combat boots, carrying a rifle. (Mine was an M-14 which, after about 2 1/2 hours, weighed about 150 pounds!) IT'S A BEAR! And WE did it on a 1/4 mile track! Nice & flat, nice & even!
So while I think Gray is probably correct about 4 mph for walking cavalry, there's no way Infantry can move at 4 mph, cross-country. If that picture I see is Paul, our Zouave, then HE knows what 1876 infantry carried & it is probably less than 70 pounds, but I still doubt any infantry can move at 4 mph, sustained, cross-country.
Somebody enlighten me, please.
Merry Christmas, Fred. (aka, Anal Knothead; aka, Nathan Brittles)
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Dec 22, 2005 8:00:56 GMT -6
True, Fred -- 4mph is an unladen walking pace. With the pack you describe, I'm surprised you could even crawl!
|
|