Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Meowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

1. What are european classifications of american cavalry units throughout 19th century? which one is more correct?
1.1 Dragoon
1.2 Hussar
1.3 Uhlan
1.4 Carabinier (in europe, carabiniers has double functions, being police, and being soldiers and in some countries, carabiniers belongs to neither army nor police force)

did the US Army models the cavalry units after baroque europeans? or do they have their very own doctrines?
2. Is there any record that American cavs uses lances in battle? and by the time of 19th century, if you command a regiment of cavalry, which CCW weapons will you choose for your horsemen?
2.1 Lance
2.2 Rapier
2.3 Saber

suppose that it was before Samuel Colt enters firearms industry

3. Why aren't american cavs has Cuirassier units like europeans? do this unit has a high upkeep? aren't cuirassiers suit american fighting styles?
Can't american blacksmiths make every weapons and armors of the contemporary europeans?

The US largely based itself off French military concepts of the time. See if you can find a copy of John Rogers Cooke's cavalry manual. It'll tell you plenty.

Lone Cat wrote:1.1 Dragoon

Dragoons I think is the best fit (though they did also operate in a manner similar to Carbiners and used similar weapons). Civil War US Cavalry varied as at that time Cavalry was starting to give way to the fire power of Infantry and Artillery. You'll find Cavalry were used in several different ways. Hussar's and Ulhan's as far as I know were European fashion trends more than actual "classifications."

did the US Army models the cavalry units after baroque europeans? or do they have their very own doctrines?

Largely modeled off French doctrine, though were some original ideas.

2. Is there any record that American cavs uses lances in battle? and by the time of 19th century, if you command a regiment of cavalry, which CCW weapons will you choose for your horsemen?

None that I'm aware of (lances that is). US Cavalry used Sabers as far as I'm aware. Rapiers were going out of style way before the 19th century.

suppose that it was before Samuel Colt enters firearms industry

I think Colt was just getting in around the late 1840's (not sure though).

3. Why aren't american cavs has Cuirassier units like europeans?

do this unit has a high upkeep?

I think its less with upkeep and more that Cuirassiers were going out of style by the early 18th Century and the US military had a low budget. There were very few standing Cavalry men and they mostly supplied their own equipment.

Can't american blacksmiths make every weapons and armors of the contemporary europeans?

Yes and no. American industry didn't really kick off until the late 18th century. Prior to about 1870 the US was still very dependent of foreign powers for manufactured goods.

It's important to remember that throughout the 19th Century and into the early 20th there were two distinct and very different formations of US troops, Regulars and Volunteers. While the Regulars were professional troops they were very small in comparison to the Volunteers raised for various wars.

Most US Calvary were dragoons, either in name or by function, typically both. GEN "Light Horse" Harry Lee and his Virginia Dragoons are a good place to look to the lineage of US Calvary. There were however some formations of Hussars in the service of both sides in the American Civil War, however much like the Zouaves the distinction was in dress and attitude not in employment.
Lances fell out of use before the 19th Century began, and although US calvary may not have used them that doesnt mean they werent around. If memory serves abolitionist John Brown ordered a few hundred to storm Ft. Sumter
US Cavalrymen would have been armed with more of a hodgepodge of weapons than one might expect. A saber, pistol (often single shot until repeaters became readily available), a shotgun or carbine or even a "rifle" which at the time really referred to an intermediate between the rifled musket and carbines. It would not be uncommon to find a cavalryman wielding a chain, heavy rope, or club in the place of a saber.

American blacksmiths could have easily reproduced the the weapons and armor you mentioned, but by the 19th Century many of those type of troops were waning as accurate and powerful firearms took to the fields of battle, lacking a reserve armory of obsolete weapons America had no need to sustain that generation of technology, and so did not. At least in part it's due to the almost folklorish belief that American colonials with nothing but a musket and cartridge bag had defeated the British, and part poverty. America was not a particularly industrialized or rich nation through much of the 19th C and had less resources to devote to fielding arms that were more traditional and less practical.
.

You have to remember the different military doctrines as well. American cavalry would be more nimble and trained for endurance for operations against Native Americans and/or rapid reinforcement for fighting a British invasion from Canada. Similary, European armies would be more for pitched battles a la Waterloo.

Aren't Uhlans German Lancers?

I'm sure Hussars were the British Cavalry during the charge of the Light Brigade. I can't be 100% accurate but I'm sure American cavalry declined during the Civil war (yes I know about Pickett's charge) and marked the start of the end of the horse in the war zone.

Pre - revolution, blacksmiths were not thick on the ground (I've seen census records) and it's not until after the civil war (due to the north rapidly industrialising) that facilities grow to support the military industry.

Hussars are original Polish saber cavalry I believe.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:You have to remember the different military doctrines as well. American cavalry would be more nimble and trained for endurance for operations against Native Americans and/or rapid reinforcement for fighting a British invasion from Canada. Similary, European armies would be more for pitched battles a la Waterloo.

Aren't Uhlans German Lancers?

I'm sure Hussars were the British Cavalry during the charge of the Light Brigade. I can't be 100% accurate but I'm sure American cavalry declined during the Civil war (yes I know about Pickett's charge) and marked the start of the end of the horse in the war zone.

Pre - revolution, blacksmiths were not thick on the ground (I've seen census records) and it's not until after the civil war (due to the north rapidly industrialising) that facilities grow to support the military industry.

I could dip into my reference books when I get home but I'm pretty sure Uhlans are Polish and originated in the Polish-Lithuanian Empire.

Pickett's charge however I know for a solid fact is an infantry assault. George Pickett having been an infantry officer from commissioning to his death.

LordofHats wrote:Hussars are original Polish saber cavalry I believe.

Hussars are Hungarian.

Pickets charge was an infantry assault and is widely considered the wake up call to the US military that Jominian military theory was dead (not that it ever really lived).

AustonT wrote:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:You have to remember the different military doctrines as well. American cavalry would be more nimble and trained for endurance for operations against Native Americans and/or rapid reinforcement for fighting a British invasion from Canada. Similary, European armies would be more for pitched battles a la Waterloo.

Aren't Uhlans German Lancers?

I'm sure Hussars were the British Cavalry during the charge of the Light Brigade. I can't be 100% accurate but I'm sure American cavalry declined during the Civil war (yes I know about Pickett's charge) and marked the start of the end of the horse in the war zone.

Pre - revolution, blacksmiths were not thick on the ground (I've seen census records) and it's not until after the civil war (due to the north rapidly industrialising) that facilities grow to support the military industry.

I could dip into my reference books when I get home but I'm pretty sure Uhlans are Polish and originated in the Polish-Lithuanian Empire.

Pickett's charge however I know for a solid fact is an infantry assault. George Pickett having been an infantry officer from commissioning to his death.

LordofHats wrote:Hussars are original Polish saber cavalry I believe.

Definitely an infantry charge.

There were two big cavalry actions at Gettysberg.
“Cavalry forces played a significant role at Gettysburg only on the first and third days of the battle. On the first day (July 1, 1863), the Union cavalry division of Brig. Gen. John Buford successfully delayed the Confederate infantry forces under Maj. Gen. Henry Heth until Union infantry could arrive on the battlefield. By the end of the day, Buford's troopers had retired from the field.[1]
On the Confederate side, most of Maj. Gen. Stuart's cavalry division was absent from the battlefield until late on the second day. Possibly misunderstanding orders from General Robert E. Lee, Stuart had taken his three best brigades of cavalry on a pointless ride around the right flank of the Union Army of the Potomac and was out of touch with the main body of Lee's Army of Northern Virginia since June 24, depriving Lee of critical intelligence information and of screening services. Stuart arrived from Carlisle at General Lee's headquarters shortly after noon on July 2, and his exhausted brigades arrived that evening, too late to affect the planning or execution of the second day's battle. Hampton's Brigade camped to the north, following the relatively minor clash with Union cavalry at Hunterstown that afternoon.[2]
Lee's orders for Stuart were to prepare for operations on July 3 in support of the Confederate infantry assault against the center of the Union line on Cemetery Ridge. Stuart was to protect the Confederate left flank and attempt to move around the Union right flank and into the enemy's rear. If Stuart's forces could proceed south from the York Pike along the Low Dutch Road, they would soon reach the Baltimore Pike, which was the main avenue of communications for the Army of the Potomac, and they could launch devastating and demoralizing attacks against the Union rear, capitalizing on the confusion from the assault (Pickett's Charge) that Lee planned for the Union center.[3]
Confederate cavalry forces under Stuart for this operation consisted of the three brigades he had taken on his ride around the Union Army (commanded by Brig. Gen. Wade Hampton, Brig. Gen. Fitzhugh Lee, and Colonel John Chambliss) and the brigade of Col. Albert G. Jenkins (under the command of Col. Milton J. Ferguson following Jenkins's wounding on July 2). Although these four brigades should have amounted to approximately 5,000 troopers, it is likely that only 3,430 men and 13 guns saw action that day.[4] And following their nine-day ride around Maryland and Pennsylvania, they and their horses were weary and not in prime condition for battle.[5]
Union cavalry forces were from the corps of Maj. Gen. Alfred Pleasonton, who did not participate directly in the command of any cavalry actions during the Battle of Gettysburg. Since most of Buford's division had retired to Westminster, Maryland (with the exception of his reserve brigade under Brig. Gen. Wesley Merritt, which was deployed directly south of Gettysburg), only two divisions were ready for action. Stationed near the intersection of the Hanover Road and the Low Dutch Road—directly on Stuart's path—was the division of Brig. Gen. David McM. Gregg. Gregg had two brigades present at Gettysburg, under Col. John B. McIntosh and Col. J. Irvin Gregg (David Gregg's cousin), but the latter was stationed on the Baltimore Pike. Irvin Gregg's one-brigade command was supplemented by the newly formed "Michigan Brigade" of Brig. Gen. George Armstrong Custer. Custer was assigned to the division of Brig. Gen. Judson Kilpatrick but happened to be on loan to David Gregg and requested permission from Gregg to join his fight. Altogether, 3,250 Union troopers opposed Stuart. The other brigade from Kilpatrick's division, commanded by Brig. Gen. Elon J. Farnsworth, was stationed to the southwest of the Round Top mountain, the area now known informally as South Cavalry Field.[6]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gettysburg,_Third_Day_cavalry_battles

It should be noted that these two methods were the predominant cavalry methods of both sides in the Civil War and post Civil War. Increasingly cavalry units dismounted when actually fighting vs. scouting, primarily because the increasing lethality of the weaponry. You put lancers up against rifled muskets or heaven forbid breechloaders/repeaters and you get a massacre…of the lancers. The Battle of Adobe Walls and actions involving Texas Rangers are good examples of that.
Hussars are Hungarian.

If I'm not mistaken, George Armstrong Custer took part in the third day battle?

Stuart is an interesting character. Really more of a bandit than a military general, but he certainly was the master of the raid style of Cavalry.

LordofHats wrote:If I'm not mistaken, George Armstrong Custer took part in the third day battle?

Stuart is an interesting character. Really more of a bandit than a military general, but he certainly was the master of the raid style of Cavalry.

I have to disagree, Stuart was very clearly a skilled Calvary officer, more than one military historian has said the greatest in America. His ability to make the Confederate cavalry his own, to be seen as a unified branch rather than scattered units, to feed, clothe, and arm them in addition to his superlative ability to be at the right place at the right time made him the perfect general. However he was a tactical general rather than strategic, a man on the spot. Alone he tended to find less success, the same criticism has been leveled at Jackson.

I'm not disputing the origin of Uhlan but I'm 90% sure that in the early days of WW1, the BEF had a few run-ins with the Uhlans.

Seems I was wrong about Pickett's charge :( but I always thought that it was the civil war version of the Scots Greys at Waterloo. I mean, it sounds like a hell of a way to win a war.
When the legend becomes fact, print the legend!

Out of interest, what was the last cavalry charge of the US army? The attacks against Mexico in 1917???

AustonT wrote:

LordofHats wrote:If I'm not mistaken, George Armstrong Custer took part in the third day battle?

Stuart is an interesting character. Really more of a bandit than a military general, but he certainly was the master of the raid style of Cavalry.

I have to disagree, Stuart was very clearly a skilled Calvary officer, more than one military historian has said the greatest in America. His ability to make the Confederate cavalry his own, to be seen as a unified branch rather than scattered units, to feed, clothe, and arm them in addition to his superlative ability to be at the right place at the right time made him the perfect general. However he was a tactical general rather than strategic, a man on the spot. Alone he tended to find less success, the same criticism has been leveled at Jackson.

Well many would say Bedford Forrest was the best cavalry guy, with his driving method of pursuing and grinding down enemy formations. But he's a good bit more controversial with the incident of potentially having allowed Union prisoners to be shot, not to mention that KKK thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:If I'm not mistaken, George Armstrong Custer took part in the third day battle?

Stuart is an interesting character. Really more of a bandit than a military general, but he certainly was the master of the raid style of Cavalry.

Yes most definitely.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:I'm not disputing the origin of Uhlan but I'm 90% sure that in the early days of WW1, the BEF had a few run-ins with the Uhlans.

Seems I was wrong about Pickett's charge :( but I always thought that it was the civil war version of the Scots Greys at Waterloo. I mean, it sounds like a hell of a way to win a war.
When the legend becomes fact, print the legend!

Out of interest, what was the last cavalry charge of the US army? The attacks against Mexico in 1917???

Wiki says it was against the Japanese in the Phillipines.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavalry_(United_States)

AustonT wrote:I have to disagree, Stuart was very clearly a skilled Calvary officer, more than one military historian has said the greatest in America. His ability to make the Confederate cavalry his own, to be seen as a unified branch rather than scattered units, to feed, clothe, and arm them in addition to his superlative ability to be at the right place at the right time made him the perfect general. However he was a tactical general rather than strategic, a man on the spot. Alone he tended to find less success, the same criticism has been leveled at Jackson.

I'm not a Civil War guy so maybe I'm wrong but wasn't Stuart the guy who did deep raids into Union territory and paid his men with the booty (of the plunder kind)?

LordofHats wrote:

AustonT wrote:I have to disagree, Stuart was very clearly a skilled Calvary officer, more than one military historian has said the greatest in America. His ability to make the Confederate cavalry his own, to be seen as a unified branch rather than scattered units, to feed, clothe, and arm them in addition to his superlative ability to be at the right place at the right time made him the perfect general. However he was a tactical general rather than strategic, a man on the spot. Alone he tended to find less success, the same criticism has been leveled at Jackson.

I'm not a Civil War guy so maybe I'm wrong but wasn't Stuart the guy who did deep raids into Union territory and paid his men with the booty (of the plunder kind)?

He did make deep raids, but his raids were generally in support of the Army of Virginia.

Frazzled wrote:He did make deep raids

That's what she said?
Alright lads, it looks like I should toss my incredible genius and sense of style into the ring! All of you Yankees who are disrespecting the great man JEB Stuart by calling him a bandit should be flogged for such comments!

The use of the term American Cavalry is really quite misleading. There weren't organized cavalry units in the US military until the onset of the War of 1812. And even after that, there just wasn't much in the way of military action. During the Civil War, not only did you see such brilliant minds as my namesake (the incredibly amazing stuff he did with cavalry is just mind-boggling), but you also saw a very strange mixture of what can be considered organized cavalry, infantry on horses and irregulars. They all fall under the general title of "cavalry" but may not necessarily fit the definition.

Most European styles of cavalry (lancers and whatnot) were not used in American military forces. There was neither the tradition nor the tactical need for them. Dragoons were used, but these generally evolved into mounted infantry units that would use infantry tactics and fighting methods once dismounted. True cavalry units were actually not very large as a whole of mounted units, but they did exist. Of course there were a number of militia cavalry units, especially during the Civil War that fought for the Confederacy. Southerners were widely considered to be much better horseman by their upbringing and were much more ready to jump into either fully fledged cavalry units or form their own bands to go fight those damn Yankees. American industrialism was really picking up steam by the Civil War, largely in the North, and Union soldiers were supplied with largely American made weapons, but general military doctrine at the time was moving away from close range weapons (some cavalry units didn't even have sabers) to rifles and pistols. Sorry for the crash course, but this really is a very broad and complex subject!

Why Mr. Stuart. I didn't know you attended these forums

LordofHats wrote:Why Mr. Stuart. I didn't know you attended these forums

Why yes I do, and have been doing it for some time! You best watch your mouth in regards to my good name ya damn Yankee!

JEB Stuart wrote:The use of the term American Cavalry is really quite misleading. There weren't organized cavalry units in the US military until the onset of the War of 1812.

This statement is wholly incorrect, setting aside previously mentioned Revolutionary Calvary, congress authorized the first organized Calvary unit of the United States in 1792, Calvary continued to be in federal service throughout the 19th century.

AustonT wrote:This statement is wholly incorrect, setting aside previously mentioned Revolutionary Calvary, congress authorized the first organized Calvary unit of the United States in 1792, Calvary continued to be in federal service throughout the 19th century.

While I'm not sure who is correct it is possible that the US government had on paper something that didn't really exist. Most of the US Military prior to the early 1940's existed more on paper than it did in reality.

AustonT wrote:

JEB Stuart wrote:The use of the term American Cavalry is really quite misleading. There weren't organized cavalry units in the US military until the onset of the War of 1812.

This statement is wholly incorrect, setting aside previously mentioned Revolutionary Calvary, congress authorized the first organized Calvary unit of the United States in 1792, Calvary continued to be in federal service throughout the 19th century.

Correction, there weren't cavalry units organized into traditional military units until the 1812. The standing cavalry forces, were then designated into actual units. There was a "cavalry force" which consisted of an incredibly small number of troops, and Congress did authorize equipment for 3,000 cavalrymen in the case of war, but that didn't translate into actual troops. The first fully fledged standing cavalry regiment was organized in 1808. So I was slightly off, but more or less accurate.

JEB_Stuart wrote:

Frazzled wrote:He did make deep raids

That's what she said?
Alright lads, it looks like I should toss my incredible genius and sense of style into the ring! All of you Yankees who are disrespecting the great man JEB Stuart by calling him a bandit should be flogged for such comments!

The use of the term American Cavalry is really quite misleading. There weren't organized cavalry units in the US military until the onset of the War of 1812. And even after that, there just wasn't much in the way of military action. During the Civil War, not only did you see such brilliant minds as my namesake (the incredibly amazing stuff he did with cavalry is just mind-boggling), but you also saw a very strange mixture of what can be considered organized cavalry, infantry on horses and irregulars. They all fall under the general title of "cavalry" but may not necessarily fit the definition.

Most European styles of cavalry (lancers and whatnot) were not used in American military forces. There was neither the tradition nor the tactical need for them. Dragoons were used, but these generally evolved into mounted infantry units that would use infantry tactics and fighting methods once dismounted. True cavalry units were actually not very large as a whole of mounted units, but they did exist. Of course there were a number of militia cavalry units, especially during the Civil War that fought for the Confederacy. Southerners were widely considered to be much better horseman by their upbringing and were much more ready to jump into either fully fledged cavalry units or form their own bands to go fight those damn Yankees. American industrialism was really picking up steam by the Civil War, largely in the North, and Union soldiers were supplied with largely American made weapons, but general military doctrine at the time was moving away from close range weapons (some cavalry units didn't even have sabers) to rifles and pistols. Sorry for the crash course, but this really is a very broad and complex subject!

1. Unions did buy british rifles too. in fact, both norths and souths buy brits minie rifles but paid differently, the north bought with cash, the south bought with 'cotton bonds' (and the souths believes that their cottons can reach Mancester factory, regardless that the brits had then using Indian and Ceylon cottons instead )
2. so by civil war, did american cavs has rifled carbines by then?
and so if one say they're dragoon then they've returned to the origins of 'dragoon' units. mounted infantry (not sure of french Mousquetaire du Roi falls into this category too?).
3. Did square formation becomes forgotten by the time of the civil war??
and even everyone had Minie' rifles by then, commanders still don't understood its potential so by the time of gettysburg battles. infantrymen still line up so tight.
4. Does european traditional cavs requires that the recruit stock belongs to certain races/ethnic groups and hails from noble caste? and when coupled to the "Young America" (when all of you said that by then, the US. of A. wasn't financially strong when compared to the GB. and France) the traditional cavalries are viewed by many americans as fancy. right?
5. in the war of 1812. which of the British cavalry units did americans had fought against? did they fight the british 'cuirassiers'?

Lone Cat wrote:3. Did square formation becomes forgotten by the time of the civil war??

By the time of the Civil War cavalry charges were falling out of use and there was no longer a need for the square formation (it was however included in training and practice).

and even everyone had Minie' rifles by then, commanders still don't understood its potential so by the time of gettysburg battles. infantrymen still line up so tight.

Line battles like Gettysburg were actually the exception in the Civil War, not the norm. Only a few of the largest battles involved Infantry in tight lines standing across from one another. Wilderness fighting and siege as I understand it were far more commonplace.