|
Post by yanmacca on Jun 10, 2016 7:44:21 GMT
That's what I am getting at Matt, Cavalry have always been used for reconnaissance work, patrolling and pursuit missions. In this environment it had its uses and Custer thought that he was going to hit a disorganized defense followed by pursuing a broken village who were probably trying to scatter and if everything falls to plan then everything would be fine, but they were too strong for him and they stood their ground, he also made their job easier by dividing.
Their role should have been location and then part of a combined effort in conjunction with their infantry element and that is why the columns had both infantry and cavalry, they should have realized that their mission was compromised as soon as they met heavy resistance and saw just how big the place was.
Yan.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 10, 2016 12:39:13 GMT
Disagree that they fought as Infantry. Untrained and underequipped for the role is a given, and not in dispute.
In a sense both of you are correct though. Cavalry of that era had nearly zero effectiveness in a mounted fight that was characterized by general engagement. Cavalry doctrine though in United States service is dragoon doctrine where the approach to engagement is made mounted, and mounted status remains until forced by enemy action, or the distinct possibility of engagement makes it prudent to dismount. This last sentence is enshrined in doctrine, in other words how it was intended. At that point the dragoon fought partially on foot and partially mounted, with each element complimenting the activities of the other. That too is enshrined in dragoon doctrine. Where the whole thing breaks down is when the force governed by dragoon doctrine fully dismounts. At that point they are not Infantry, for they do not have the capabilities of the Infantry, and neither are they a dragoon force, because they have surrendered the capability that makes them dragoon.
That is why I say, and will continue to say, that cavalry, the mounted arm in general, is no damned good as a main battle force, and should stick to the roles outlined by Ian above. They would not become a main battle force until the introduction of the armored fighting vehicle and the protected infantry carrier, mid 20th century.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jun 10, 2016 13:03:29 GMT
Chuck, I written this to post when I noticed yours, so I have not amended or changed it in anyway.
I suppose that the US Cavalry was a used as a jack of all trades, so the functions that could be adopted were: Reconnaissance work Patrolling forward areas Liaison duty A type of Carabineer
Now could both the carbine and revolvers be considered more as defensive weapons? Revolvers were slow to reload and the carbine was a single shot weapon, which again would tricky to reload during a mounted fight. The US Cavalry didn’t issue lances and Custer refused sabres, the lance needed hours of training to perfect and the sabre was held by some to be obsolete (well some on this board do anyway).
It seems that cavalry when operating alone, was a very limited force which was not designed, armed or trained for punching above its weight especially when heavily outnumbered.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 10, 2016 15:41:44 GMT
Cavalry by design is organized and equipped to reconnoiter, guard, and screen, for a larger main battle force, and to perform economy of force missions in conjunction with that larger force.
That is as true today for modern cavalry as it was in 1815, 1863, or 1876. The caution is not confusing cavalry with the heavy mounted force, armor, which is part of the main battle force and whose combat capabilities far exceed cavalry.
Cavalry is so limited by design and purpose.
Cavalry has little call or capability to enter a general engagement, but that is not their task or focus. Shaping the battle space, for which they are uniquely capable and qualified is their focus.
The weaponry cited above, was more than adequate to the mission of 1876 cavalry. I would have rather seen a more rapid fire long arm at the expense of range, but it was not a have it or drop dead proposition, just obsolescent.
The cavalry on the frontier was a constabulary, no more fit for active combat on its own than the average state police force, the modern equivalent of what that period's cavalry would be. Those that say different, like for instance the Malevolent Musketeer, are either somewhat lacking in knowledge, or are on the fringes of sheer lunacy
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jun 10, 2016 16:07:44 GMT
The way cavalry and reconnaissance units in general went from the horse, to wheel and finally track was amazing, just look at WW2 when tanks were used in the role, both the US and British used M3 and M5 light tanks to equip their armoured recce units, these were efficient enough, but from D-Day onwards the British armoured reconnaissance regiments soon went to using Cromwell tanks, the Cromwell what not a bad AFV and carried the same gun as the Sherman, the US still retained their M5s, but late in 1944 they started to replace these with the excellent M24.
I am sure that the American army went from using armoured reconnaissance battalions to cavalry reconnaissance squadrons around late 1943 or early 1944, and these were ready to go in time for D-Day.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 10, 2016 16:19:53 GMT
There really was not much of a difference in the armored reconnaissance battalion, and the cavalry reconnaissance squadron, except the name, and the name change was a political, keep your mouth shut you have what you want measure, as opposed to a military necessity.
The problem with American cavalry from the immediate post war 1946 series of reorganizations until the recent present is that they grew too heavy, and the difference between them and the armor of the main battle force grew very narrow, to the point where cavalry was no longer capable of being cavalry any more, and became just another sub-standardly organized armored brigade or battalion. That problem was nearly completely fixed with the advent of the brigade combat team, where American cavalry returned to its light (read dragoon) roots.
One should also remember that in WWII all of the notable, meaning worth more than a bucket of spit cavalrymen, went toward the heavy force, or as it was known, The Armored Force, with some notable exceptions like Polk and a few others. What remained of cavalry got the scraps and left overs.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jun 11, 2016 18:13:41 GMT
To be honest I don’t think that any fully tracked AFV should be in a reconnaissance unit, it should he wheeled vehicles only, because these units are not there to get stuck in, they are there to observe and detect rather than fight, so speed and stealth is their main form defense and if you compare the road speed of the five most common vehicles found in US recce units you will see how they differ;
Jeep: 65 mph Dodge WC-56 Light Truck: 54 mph M8 Armoured Car & M20 Utility Car: 62 mph M3A1 Scout Car: 35 mph M8 HMC: 36 mph M3 & M5 Light Tank: 36 mph M24 Light Tank: 35 mph
(Sources: quarter master section)
So tanks are at a disadvantage straight away, and this would also impede the amount of ground they could cover during a mission.
Yan.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 11, 2016 22:19:49 GMT
Agreed. Cavalry should fight only to get itself out of trouble. You can't be lookin - screenin - guardin - if you be fightin.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jun 12, 2016 18:25:55 GMT
Yes, too right, that's why they invented armoured cars that have duel controls (two steering wheels facing to the front and rear), which enables the crew to switch over wheels so that the vehicle could quickly drive backwards out of trouble.
Now I am no expert in this field but to me any recce unit had two jobs and that was to reconnoiter and report back.
Yan.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 12, 2016 20:24:10 GMT
Two primaries Ian, but cavalry must be more that just reconnaissance. There must be a security element in its mission menu as well. Guarding and screening are security tasks.
The mistake is in using cavalry, whose primary missions are reconnaissance and security, acting for and as part of a larger balanced force, as the main battle force itself. That was true then, just as it is true now.
They do not have the internal organization that allows them to conduct the decisive maneuver of the Infantry, nor the firepower. Their mobility is a means of diminishing the combat power they do have when they dismount. They consume much more in the way of material, which limits their range, as well as a host of other things that limit them as a main battle force. That is why I become catatonic, when someone calls dismounted cavalry Infantry. Those that do, have no frigging clue, as to what makes up Infantry or they would not visit self inflicted stupidity upon themselves.
If you want to find someone, use cavalry. If you want to guard against someone use cavalry. If you wish to secure your flanks and rear use cavalry. If you want to fool someone as to your intent, diverting them from the place of your main thrust, use cavalry. If you want to do any other goddamned thing under the sun as it relates to battle, use combined arms.
|
|