South - Nathan Bedford Forrest"
That is the correct answer.
Fiji Hill: "North--Ronald Reagan (as George Custer in Santa Fe Trail)
South--Errol Flynn (as Jeb Stuart in Santa Fe Trail) "
That is obviously the best answer. ;-)
Posted on 09/29/2012 4:43:22 PM PDT by Kolath
I have a few questions about Civil War Cavalry
1. What makes a cavalry sword different from a regular sword?
2. How big was a typical cavalry regiment?
3. What was the preferred horse rifle?
4. Did any units use lances?
5. What were the differences between light and heavy cavalry?
6. Most notable cavalry officers (North and South)?
Grant thought that Scott fought too many battles. Grant’s overland campaign (Wilderness to Petersburg) was intended to fight Lee outside his fortifications. In this he succeeded, though at high cost.
Under Grant, Emory Upton executed rapid assault tactics that broke Lee’s field lines at the Mule Shoe, though the lines were eventually reformed.
This is one of those threads that will make me look stuff up
yeah, Verdun was tops. The Somme was a bloody good one too.
I hope so. Hope my time in the stacks at West Point is good for something.
I used to teach Civil War bayonet tactics when I was in the Army. Not that we expected to have to form squares and drive off cavalry, but it was something to teach, and the devil finds work for idle hands.
General Leonard Wood was the first commander of the Rough Riders in Cuba, and was promoted to command of the Cavalry brigade when Wheeler fell ill.
He eventually was promoted to Army Chief of Staff. When presented with a prototype of Patton’s sword for approval, and being told that it was designed to emphasize use of the point backed off a bit in his office. He took out his own sword and hacked at the back of a Shaker chair in his office, and then hacked at a similar chair with Patton’s sword. After comparing the two cuts, he stated that by inspection, Patton’s sword would be superior as a piercing tool, but because of its length and weight it was also a superior cutting tool.
Nah, he means The Civil War(1861-1865) you know, the one the South started.
Aside from the use of smokeless powder and barbed wire which waited until the Japanese attacks against Russia, there was powerful evidence from the Civil War on the strength of the defense.
Between the Civil War and WWI were two wars by Germany against Austria and France. The key battle against Austria was won because of the Dreyse needle gun, which permitted German infantry to hold off Austrian attacks using muzzle loaders, though outnumbered by over 10 to 1. That ability to stop Austria allowed German concentration on the battlefield and maneuver to Austrian flanks and rear. The later battles against France pitted the Germans against the French with the Chassepot rifle, largely superior to the needle gun, but Germans were able to exploit a superiority in rapid fire light artillery. It was a time of rapid innovation, and a strength in one conflict was likely to be a weakness in the next. Von Moltke (the great) managed to find an advantage and through use of telegraph and rail, was able to communicate his will to subordinates and give them the means to implement his will.
Von Moltke the later and lesser first watered down the key right flank units, and then he lost control of them, creating the weakness exploited by the BEF before Paris.
Patton had difficulty with the fortifications of Driant in WWII. I have been there, and even with nukes, it would be hard to dig motivated defenders out of that hole.
In the Franco Prussian war the French muzzle loaders cannon were matched against Krupp 6 pounders breech loaders.
In the Franco Prussian war the Germans managed a local battle of encirclement at Sedan. In WWI they went around, but were to send an army around Paris. In response to the BEF, the far right army pinched inside Paris, thus losing the ability to encircle, and indeed having to strip off assault forces to protect their flank. The diminished assault forces of the far right army led to a gap between the two right most armies, which was screened over with cavalry. (a lot of cavalry, but still unable to hold against a coordinated attack.) The professional BEF with Lewis machine guns punched in the cavalry and the far right German army fell back. It was not the end, or even the beginning of the end, but the end of the beginning.
The landscape of Northern Virginia was inhospitable to lancer operations, although they did launch a moderately successful charge against a Confederate artillery battery while supporting General Burnside at Antietam, ultimately forcing the artillerymen to withdraw or risk losing their valuable cannon.
That is the correct answer.
Fiji Hill: "North--Ronald Reagan (as George Custer in Santa Fe Trail)
South--Errol Flynn (as Jeb Stuart in Santa Fe Trail) "
That is obviously the best answer. ;-)
There is a very(!) contentious argument to be made that Lee imagined that he could make Gettysburg a replay of Austerlitz. I’ll just leave it at that.
However, strategically, Napoleon’s tactic to engage the enemy on a wide front, with a rapid maneuver second echelon looking to penetrate the front at a weak point, showed its fatal flaw to the Americans because of the Civil War. Basically, if both sides do it, you end up with trench warfare.
Because of the Civil War, America learned this lesson, but Europe did not, which really mattered just slightly over 100 years later, when most of Europe learned the lesson, and 21 years after that, for the Russians, since they bowed out of WWI before learning their lesson.
And through the end of the Soviet Union, the Russians still hadn’t learned their lesson, using light and heavy helicopters in tactics similar to light and heavy cavalry, and even integrating nuclear weapons into Napoleonic tactics.
By World War II, the Americans had perfected the fire and maneuver technique that just shreds the Napoleonic tactic. Had Russia invaded western Europe, they would have put their military through a meat grinder.
Why wouldn't you place Forrest above Stuart? On the face of it, it would seem that Forrest was the more successful of the two in battle.
Its like comparing Tiger Woods to Bobby Jones. Who is the better golfer?
Ping, since you’re getting mentioned a lot.
Yet you did choose one over the other. I'm just curious as to why as I would have ranked Forrest over Stuart. By my way of thinking Forrest proved himself the superior in independent command while at the same time fulfilling the role of a cavalry commander on those occasions when he was attached to an army. Stuart proved an able commander in the traditional role of cavalry, showed he could take over a major command as when he took over Jackson's corps for a short period at the end of Chancellorsville, but also came up wanting when Lee really needed him as at Gettysburg.
I can’t imagine going into a fight on horseback with one of those lances!
I’ll take a Spencer carbine please.
The typical cavalry sword was longer that most imagine—almost 4’—because the extra length was necessary to reach down to infantry soldiers on the ground.
Texas Rangers had become well known as small light cavalry units against the Comanches and were usually armed with two of the repeating Walker Colts, a shotgun, and Bowie knife.
Texas provided cavalry regiments for both the Union and the Confederacy.
A regiment composed mostly of Mexican-Texans was famously headed by Col Santos Benevides.
General Joe Shelby of Missouri’s “Iron Cavalry Brigade” refused to surrender and led his men through Texas to a crossing of the Rio Grande into Mexico near Eagle Pass, hoping to join up with the forces of Maximillian. They sank their flags and regimental banners in a caisson in the river in what became known as the “Burial of the Confederacy” incident.
Don’t forget Phil Sheridan as a prominent Union cavalry leader or Mosby as a Confederate.
Nathan Bedford Forrest was probably a better military tactician and battle leader than Stuart, but Stuart was flashy and attached to Lee’s Army so he got much better press than Forrest who fought in the less well-known western theater.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.