Posted on Sep 13, 2018
Warfare History Network » American Civil War Cavalry: Taking the Stage in the West
2.7K
10
4
6
6
0
Good short article on the differences of cavalry operations in the West vs East. The West usually is not the first thought when discussion is of Civil War cavalry - Jeb Stuart, Custer, Turner, Buford, and Kill cavalry Kilpatrick usually take up the space of discussion that Phil Sheridan usually is not included in until the last year of the war.
A good historical perspective is to take any of the Union or Confederate cavalry leaders in the West and look at their thinking and actions and limited forces- and try to apply that to how would they attempt to operate against IS .. in Syria or in Africa. How would they support a campaign and use today's forces at the level of command they were at that time. Would Grierson or Wheeler wage a very different war?
A good historical perspective is to take any of the Union or Confederate cavalry leaders in the West and look at their thinking and actions and limited forces- and try to apply that to how would they attempt to operate against IS .. in Syria or in Africa. How would they support a campaign and use today's forces at the level of command they were at that time. Would Grierson or Wheeler wage a very different war?
Warfare History Network » American Civil War Cavalry: Taking the Stage in the West
Posted from warfarehistorynetwork.com
Cavalry
Military History
Civil War
Posted 6 y ago
Responses: 2
2
2
0
Fighting mounted on a horse against regular infantry seems extraordinarily dangerous. The "mounted rifles" version, of equipping men with accurate, quick weapons like the Spencer, and then having them dismount before engaging - THAT seems like the way to go.
Forgive my historical-technical ignorance, but it seems to me that while a crossing target may have been hard to hit with a smoothbore musket, it seems like a charge, coming head-on, would have been a bunch of big targets and relatively easy to hit and stop if the defending infantry are prepared, loaded, and disciplined. So, mounted attacks with complete surprise against lines of communication might make sense (though, you'd think it would still be better to chose a dismounted attack).
In a modern, austere environment, I wonder if the cavalry officers of old would find immediate affinity for the helicopter and using it for air assault using modern "mounted rifles" in the form of light infantry. Fast movement over relatively long distances, isolating an objective with little warning, conducting actions on the objective, then withdrawing. But there's nothing particularly novel or new in that. I assume, perhaps incorrectly, that rather than seeking to interdict lines of communication (when we're talking about fighting against IS), that they would be seeking to destroy specific nodes in the IS network (so, raids/cordon-and-search). The problem then, seems to be not so much how to carry out raids, but how to find out where and when they ought to be conducted.
I remember a few years ago, the news was painting a picture of ISIS being a sort of maneuver phase in Syria and Iraq, moving in the open, separated from the civilian population (or at least, more separated and distinct than irregulars would normally be). It seems to me, as Joe Concerned Citizen watching from his living room, that during that phase was an opportunity to vastly reduce the number of ISIS personnel in a short period of time.
Forgive my historical-technical ignorance, but it seems to me that while a crossing target may have been hard to hit with a smoothbore musket, it seems like a charge, coming head-on, would have been a bunch of big targets and relatively easy to hit and stop if the defending infantry are prepared, loaded, and disciplined. So, mounted attacks with complete surprise against lines of communication might make sense (though, you'd think it would still be better to chose a dismounted attack).
In a modern, austere environment, I wonder if the cavalry officers of old would find immediate affinity for the helicopter and using it for air assault using modern "mounted rifles" in the form of light infantry. Fast movement over relatively long distances, isolating an objective with little warning, conducting actions on the objective, then withdrawing. But there's nothing particularly novel or new in that. I assume, perhaps incorrectly, that rather than seeking to interdict lines of communication (when we're talking about fighting against IS), that they would be seeking to destroy specific nodes in the IS network (so, raids/cordon-and-search). The problem then, seems to be not so much how to carry out raids, but how to find out where and when they ought to be conducted.
I remember a few years ago, the news was painting a picture of ISIS being a sort of maneuver phase in Syria and Iraq, moving in the open, separated from the civilian population (or at least, more separated and distinct than irregulars would normally be). It seems to me, as Joe Concerned Citizen watching from his living room, that during that phase was an opportunity to vastly reduce the number of ISIS personnel in a short period of time.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
I will have to check my "tree" but I believe the 1st Iowa Cavalry from SE Iowa fought at The Battle of Wilson's Creek", the first battle of the Civil War. Great history share, thanks!!
(1)
(0)
LTC Eric Udouj
Not the first battle of the Civil War - but the first west of the the Mississippi. One of those battles not usually taught in history classes - and Sigels first route. And one of the few times Sterling Price and winning can be said in same other than politics sentence. .. Then again.. most of the fighting that occurred in Missouri is often overlooked completely. Not an item many want to remember because it was small actions and massive destruction.
(0)
(0)
SSG Donald H "Don" Bates
LTC Eric Udouj - Correct, first battle West of the Mississippi. My Grand Uncle was with the 1st Iowa Infantry in this one and was killed at The Battle of Stones River in the slaughter pen.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google