Differences between ACW and Napo tactics

[Redmarkus5]

ORIGINAL: Prester John

I think that in Europe you see a continuous change in role for mounted troops. From heavy lancers (knights) and mounted men-at-arms changing tactics in response to bodies of pikemen mixed with the first man-portable firearms, you see changes roughly every hundred years. Each major cycle of war in Europe sees new tactics and roles for mounted troops. Only during the golden years of Napoleonics do you see the paper-rock-scissors situation for each branch of arms on the battlefield.

Also I don't want to counter my own point too quickly but cavalry are also the arm in some armies which most resist change due to their cost of re-equiping and traditions. Prussia still had cuirassiers (well trained and equipped) in the Franco Prussian War for example. I think it most likely that in the American wars dragoons were the easiest to train, and there were probably no traditions of "big men on big horses" hacking bits off infantry and gunners.

Added to those observations is the fact that the Cavalry regiments were often home to the higher class of officer - they were see as the elite units of the army, home to the oldest military families with a lineage going back to the mounted knight. This no doubt further entrenched their traditions and made change and adaptation even less likely.

[Redmarkus5]

ORIGINAL: Skyhigh

Well - the main thing here is that I said technological improvements provided a change in role for cav (mostly recon and deep-raiding where speed is required) whereas Gunfreak said it was not that but terrain that changed Cav role. And yes in ACW cav was used as dragoons.

I think the Prussians already reverted their cav to this role in the FPW.

But anyway, if battlefield technology didn't change the role of cav in the 19th century then when did it change?

Don't forget that in 1914 and 1915, large bodies of Allied cavalry were still being held behind the line ready for the big breakthrough. Cavalry were used extensively (and very effectively) by the Soviets forces in WW2 and the Germans also employed cavalry troops - both SS units and mounted fighters recruited in the East. Major cavalry formations in combat didn't fade away until the Cold War.

[CaptCarnage]

That is all true but the question is: how were they used?
As shock troops to try and rout battered infantry (like on a Napoleonic battlefield) or as mounted infantry to reach positions more quickly than infantry could (like in some ACW cases or WW1)

The topic of discussion is not whether horses were used or not (they are still used in some countries with riot police), but evolving cavalry tactics (and why they evolved).

[Redmarkus5]

ORIGINAL: Skyhigh

That is all true but the question is: how were they used?
As shock troops to try and rout battered infantry (like on a Napoleonic battlefield) or as mounted infantry to reach positions more quickly than infantry could (like in some ACW cases or WW1)

The topic of discussion is not whether horses were used or not (they are still used in some countries with riot police), but evolving cavalry tactics (and why they evolved).

well, they were used (our intended to be used) in a variety of roles:

- The Soviets used cavalry as shock troops (mounted with sabres) against enemy troops on the march or in the open and also to exploit breakthroughs or conduct deep recon.
- During the Boer wars both sides used cavalry as mounted infantry.
- WWI British cavalry were expected to attack LoC after the infantry had made a gap in the front, again using sabres.
- German Uhlans acted as scouts during the advances of 1914.
- Polish lancers in 1939 acted as shock troops against infantry (not against tanks, as widely reported).

You name it and the cavalry did it. But I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make?

[PresbyterJohn]

Not that I intended to answer the original question but perhaps the answer goes something like this.

In the American wars the only cavalry were dragoons, who did not evolve into melee heavy cavalry and were never as well trained in their role as European heavies. They only served as light dragoons with their roles in battle imposed upopn them by local conditions and necessity. On the other hand during the Napoleonic era the different types of cavalry fielded in Europe were often well drilled and trained in their specific roles. Irregular mounted troops also went into battle in Europe so I acknowledge that too.

Some part of the answer must also acknowlege the difference between European professional/standing armies and the American milita tradition. Just how much training does a replacement milita infanteer need versus European regular heavy cavalry.

In the back of my mind I have this sense that wars in the Americas were more like medieval wars where troops had to be back for the harvest or everybody starved, so training to use a pointy stick was about as complicated as it got from the general staff point of view. But then I'm obviously bias and probably would be quite at home in the officers mess of a heavy cavalry regiment (with all the negatives thereof implied). As such I don't think I know the answer but hopefully can explore the nature of the real answer.

[Cav Trooper]

ORIGINAL: Skyhigh

Look, give 200 soldiers a smoothbore and 200 other soldiers of equal talent and training a rifled musket, and the riflers will hit more targets because the rifle has longer range, and reloads quicker. It's just a better weapon. Just saying, let's keep the shooter variable the same and with better weapons, more will be hit.

The rifle for a large part rendered the bayonet less useful, because in ACW there were way less bayonet kills than in Napoleonic wars. This is because the rifle just could hit more targets before a charge was required.

Even at 100 yards a rifled battallion could hit more charging cavalry than a musket battaillon, no matter the terrain. Cavalry was just no longer that much offensive material.

Actually, the rifle took longer to reload than the musket did during that time, i.e. pre minie period, but both had their issues. And if you reference Chandler, and a few other sources, there were less bayonet wounds than firearm wounds. The psychological factor of the bayonet was the strength of that weapon.

But the days of the Calvary as a "shock troop" was eclipsed after Waterloo due to improvements in doctrines, training and general improvements in training. It is similar to the demise of manned AT guns in modern times.