Dismounted Cavalry Vs Infantry

[MikeyB]

I once asked if cavalry could hold their own versus infantry by war's end and I believe the general consensus was No, they could not. Infantry could still push them aside.

Here's my new question. At Chickamauga, I believe Longstreet thought he was facing a corps (in actuality, the Lightning Brigade) due to the firepower of the Spencer repeaters. Ignoring the fact that the Lightning Brigade was mounted infantry instead of dismounted cavalry for a second as the concept is the same- How do you reconcile this event w/ the statement infantry could easily push aside cavalry at war's end? The Lightning Brigade seems to be evidence that w/ repeaters, dismounted horse soldiers could put up a fight against infantry.

THanks,
Mike

 

[EHParks]

I disagree with the premise that the two are interchangeable concepts, they aren't. Mounted soldiers, on horses and mules were simply considered mobile infantry units and didn't train for the cavalry role - which included more than simply fighting dismounted. That greater firepower confused the issue on the battlefield due to the repeating rifles is separate in my view.

 

[General JJ]

Regarding your first paragraph, it really depends. In the Eastern Theater, beginning mid-late 1864, and up until the end of the war, they were able to fight infantry, often successfully (but not always).

At Guard Hill for instance, the Wolverine Brigade soundly defeated Wofford's Georgia brigade. The cavalry also tangled with rebel infantry at The Battle of Opequon.

But the real proof is Dinwiddie Courthouse. Sheridan's cavalry successfully held off Pickett's infantry division (plus some cavalry). So I would disagree with those saying Federal cavalry could easily be brushed aside.

 

[jepridgen]

Wheeler's cavalry did alright at Picketts Mill and a few other places during the Atlanta Campaign as well. Reb cavalry generally had infantry long arms and not carbines, particularly out west.

 

[Sheltowee]

Wheeler's cavalry did alright at Picketts Mill and a few other places during the Atlanta Campaign as well. Reb cavalry generally had infantry long arms and not carbines, particularly out west.

Seems like I've read several accounts of Confederate cavalry being armed with significant numbers of shotguns. For that reason- I always suspected reb cavalry would have a hard time against infantry.

Is my understanding incorrect?

 

[MikeyB]

I disagree with the premise that the two are interchangeable concepts, they aren't. Mounted soldiers, on horses and mules were simply considered mobile infantry units and didn't train for the cavalry role - which included more than simply fighting dismounted. That greater firepower confused the issue on the battlefield due to the repeating rifles is separate in my view.

Interesting, I hadn't considered that. Do you know if Wilder was using carbines or rifles? (Assuming Spencer offered both variants? Maybe they only offered carbines)

 

[EHParks]

Interesting, I hadn't considered that. Do you know if Wilder was using carbines or rifles? (Assuming Spencer offered both variants? Maybe they only offered carbines)

Per Wikipedia Wilder arranged to have his men purchase their own rifles and that Henry's were originally considered, but a financing deal fell through and Spencer rifles (apparently not carbines) were bought instead. I didn't know they were also called the "Hatchett Brigade" because they were issued hatchetts instead of cavalry sabers. Interesting that the units volunteered to be mounted (all but one).

Lightning Brigade

 

[EHParks]

Regarding your first paragraph, it really depends. In the Eastern Theater, beginning mid-late 1864, and up until the end of the war, they were able to fight infantry, often successfully (but not always).

At Guard Hill for instance, the Wolverine Brigade soundly defeated Wofford's Georgia brigade. The cavalry also tangled with rebel infantry at The Battle of Opequon.

But the real proof is Dinwiddie Courthouse. Sheridan's cavalry successfully held off Pickett's infantry division (plus some cavalry). So I would disagree with those saying Federal cavalry could easily be brushed aside.

I don't hold they could be easily brushed aside, just that with very few exceptions the role of the cavalry was not to engage as infantry against infantry, the organization and training precluded it. Perhaps the most famous cavalry engagement of course is Buford's men at Gettysburg, they fought a delaying action as cavalry, with the standard tactics where a trooper would hold back with mounts while his comrades fought a delaying action, and then slowly retreated in the face of infantry deployed in full. Those are much different tactics than deploying a full battle line.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

Seems like I've read several accounts of Confederate cavalry being armed with significant numbers of shotguns. For that reason- I always suspected reb cavalry would have a hard time against infantry.

Shotgun cavalry were mostly in the Trans-Mississippi and early in the war. Probably some independent units too. Not so much with the AOT.

Interesting, I hadn't considered that. Do you know if Wilder was using carbines or rifles? (Assuming Spencer offered both variants? Maybe they only offered carbines)

Wilder had Spencer rifles because his men were mounted infantry, not cavalry.

 

[Eric Wittenberg]

I once asked if cavalry could hold their own versus infantry by war's end and I believe the general consensus was No, they could not. Infantry could still push them aside.

Here's my new question. At Chickamauga, I believe Longstreet thought he was facing a corps (in actuality, the Lightning Brigade) due to the firepower of the Spencer repeaters. Ignoring the fact that the Lightning Brigade was mounted infantry instead of dismounted cavalry for a second as the concept is the same- How do you reconcile this event w/ the statement infantry could easily push aside cavalry at war's end? The Lightning Brigade seems to be evidence that w/ repeaters, dismounted horse soldiers could put up a fight against infantry.

THanks,
Mike

Spencer carbines could lay down a tremendous amount of firepower, but they had a short range--that was the tradeoff. Cavalry was armed with the carbines, while Wilder's men carried Spencer rifles, which had the range of a full-length rifle. It made a huge difference.

 

[DixieRifles]

Seems like I've read several accounts of Confederate cavalry being armed with significant numbers of shotguns. For that reason- I always suspected reb cavalry would have a hard time against infantry.

Is my understanding incorrect?

Maybe early in the War. By mid 1863, the Confederate cavalry in the West Theater had given up sabres and began carrying rifles and what carbines they could gather up. They fought dismounted in most battles as in many cases they were up against Union infantry.

General Forrest at Brices Crossroads deployed against cavalry which was withdrawn and replaced with infantry. He completely routed them.
There is an inventory of weapons carried by his corps and included Austrian rifles, carbines and of course pistol— but no bayonets despite the artwork depicting Fort Pillow.
I cant recall any shotguns on the list.

 

[Sheltowee]

Maybe early in the War. By mid 1863, the Confederate cavalry in the West Theater had given up sabres and began carrying rifles and what carbines they could gather up. They fought dismounted in most battles as in many cases they were up against Union infantry.

General Forrest at Brices Crossroads deployed against cavalry which was withdrawn and replaced with infantry. He completely routed them.
There is an inventory of weapons carried by his corps and included Austrian rifles, carbines and of course pistol— but no bayonets despite the artwork depicting Fort Pillow.
I cant recall any shotguns on the list.

Thank you. Perhaps I'm thinking of Morgan- or, as you said, early in the war.

 

[Dan Kohli]

The lightning brigade was a mounted infantry brigade not a cavalry brigade. They were armed and equipped as infantry soldiers, the Spencers were of the rifle verity not the carbine. The only difference from infantry is that they used horses as transportation between locations.

 

[Dan Kohli]

 

[Bryce]

i am impressed by the replies to your posting.

At Brice's Cross Roads Sturgis ordered the two cavalry brigades - which were holding their own-- to fall back despite protests from the cavalry He replaced them with exhausted infantry which had lost a lot of stragglers.

i plan to write book about dinwiddie Court house. When he learned of the approach of the rebels. Sheridan should have fallen back from the Boiseau House to Dinwiddie Court house where he could have formed a solid east-west line and where Custer could have reinforced him. instead Sheridan chose to fight by deploying his line in the shape of an upside "L"a faulty disposition because the entire line would collapse if any part of the upside down "L" line was pushed back.

Sheridan was defeated and screeched for help like a scared little girl. He should have been destroyed by Pickett but Lee - may he be flogged in hell - sent his worst division and his worst division commander to attack sheridan. What was he thinking!!!???

Look at the numbers. sheridan was not terribly outnumbered. Sheridan had 8,000 cavalry -- 3 brigades from Crook, 3 from Devin but only two from Custer (Merritt had 5700 in the two divisions of custer amd devin but ome of Custer's brigades did not arrive on the field. Crook had 3500) His mem sere armed with repeating rifles Pickett had 8,000 infantry in five brigades (two large brigades from Bushrod Johjnsom) and over 4,000 cavalry in 6 brigades. The two largest infantry brigades were not engaged.

Pickett did mot attack with his infantry until mid-afternoon. He drove two of the three brigades of Devin off the field and attacked Crooks division from the rear sending it southeastward in disorder. The rabble of a defeated army fled south through dinwiddie court house. Custer arrived with two brigades of Pennington and Capehart He tried occupying a hill north of Dinwiddie Court House with 2 or 3 regiments as Pickett emerged from the woods. A Confederate volley swept the Yankees back to their breastworks at Dinwiddie Court House. As the sun began setting Pickett - who had been joined by the 6 cavalry brigades and the two huge brigasdes from Johnsons division-- prepared a final attack to destroy Sheridan and then cancelled it

I did a study of the casualties of the Union cavalry which resides in the dusty files at the Five Forks unit at Petersburg battlefield Park. I don't have a copy. My best guess is Sheridan lost 300 killed, wounded, and captured. I dd a study of the rebel losses too. i overestimated the rebel loss. I think Pickett lost 500 killed or wounded amd 100 prisomers.

 

[jepridgen]

Seems like I've read several accounts of Confederate cavalry being armed with significant numbers of shotguns. For that reason- I always suspected reb cavalry would have a hard time against infantry.

Is my understanding incorrect?

Certainly at the beginning they had quite a few especially in the west. By the mid to late war period that had changed. By the time periods we are discussing here (1863 and later), you find much better weapons. Wheeler for example had a lot of Austrian Lorenz and Enfield rifle muskets. I believe somewhere in this forum someone has posted AoT returns showing a detailed breakdown of what his men had. Most western CS cavalry was essentially armed just like their infantry brethren with the exception of not having a bayonet.

Eastern theater cavalry tended to be armed more with carbines and if I'm not mistaken, had a larger number of sabers as a percentage of assigned strength. Dismounted, Enfield/Lorenz armed Rebs could cause some damage to infantry and often out-range their Union counterparts armed with carbines.

 

[C. Cash]

Here is a Confederate Cavalry brigade that succesfully fought Infantry while dismounted at Pickett's Mill. Though they were driven back twice they held Hazen for 40+ minutes and drove him back until Cleburne sent in Govan and Lowrey at 5:30. Like Granbury, these Cav. had the advantage of the high ground. Wheeler's Cavalry were armed primarily with the 54 Lorenze and short/long versions of the 58 Enfield.

A Volcano of Fire: Rediscovering Ashby’s Tennessee Cavalry Brigade At Pickett’s Mill

The Battle of Pickett's Mill, fought on May 27, 1864, was particularly horrific in it's ferocity and carnage; made worse by the heavily wooded and tangled terrain the men struggled through. The actions of Granbury’s Texans to stem the waves of Union Infantry attacking through the ravine are well...

www.westerntheatercivilwar.com

 

[Old Soldier]

The tactical use of cavalry was rarely for frontal attack. They were scouts and skirmishers. Their value was exploiting an enemy retreat and making it a rout or moving quickly around the enemy formations and attacking from the flank - or behind! As others have stated there was also the 'mounted infantry' AKA 'dragoons' who dismounted to fight but could also be used as scouts and skirmishers. As for a straight up fight against line infantry, it would rarely end in 'victory' which does depend on your definition of 'victory'.

This was a time of radical change on the battlefield both in the tactical use of troops and the weapons they were issued with. The arguements for and against still rage on this site and I am sure this will be no exception. HOW both were used is still a matter of debate too. Cavalry and mounted infantry are a means of recconaissance and of exploiting advantageous situations, but these tend to short time-wise. For any long-term defence, the infantry and artillery would be far better - and far better supplied. Attack-wise, you cannot send cavalry or mounted infantry against a well-defended position with much hope of success, although I am sure it happened more than once.

The major factor in any victory is morale. If you are convinced you are on the winnong - or losing - side, that goes a long way to deciding outcomes.

 

[C. Cash]

Johnston used his Cavalry as a quick reactionary force during the Atlanta Campaign....moving them on his right/left to fight as Infantry on the flanks. Sometimes in the open and sometimes trenches. This tactic was used at Pickett's Mill(succesfully against Hazen), Kennesaw, Decatur(succesfully against Sprague) and Atlanta(against McPherson). Or in delaying actions...fight and fall back as Johnston got into position. 100 days of this broke them and their horses down. And then the final raid into Tenn. which was over before it began due to above.

 

[Dan Kohli]

The tactical use of cavalry was rarely for frontal attack. They were scouts and skirmishers. Their value was exploiting an enemy retreat and making it a rout or moving quickly around the enemy formations and attacking from the flank - or behind! As others have stated there was also the 'mounted infantry' AKA 'dragoons' who dismounted to fight but could also be used as scouts and skirmishers. As for a straight up fight against line infantry, it would rarely end in 'victory' which does depend on your definition of 'victory'.

This was a time of radical change on the battlefield both in the tactical use of troops and the weapons they were issued with. The arguements for and against still rage on this site and I am sure this will be no exception. HOW both were used is still a matter of debate too. Cavalry and mounted infantry are a means of recconaissance and of exploiting advantageous situations, but these tend to short time-wise. For any long-term defence, the infantry and artillery would be far better - and far better supplied. Attack-wise, you cannot send cavalry or mounted infantry against a well-defended position with much hope of success, although I am sure it happened more than once.

The major factor in any victory is morale. If you are convinced you are on the winnong - or losing - side, that goes a long way to deciding outcomes.

I'd like to point out that by the mid 19th century most armies treated and equipped their dragoons as cavalry. Where mounted infantry still fought as Infantry. The only major exception was Russia who still used the dragoons in their original roll due to the abundance of other cavalry units, such as hussars and the Cossacks.