dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Jan 8, 2017 1:32:16 GMT
QC Thank you kindly for the information about the post war army. I never thought about the regular army artillery units being batteries until you mentioned that, very interesting.
Deadwood, I wondered where you had gone since you started this thread and as a resident of Virginia I knew you would have a lot to offer about the cavalry activity in the Eastern Theater. I know of four former Confederate Generals, 2 from Virginia, who later served in the US Army and there be more that I am unaware of. Regards Dave
Joseph Wheeler Thomas Rosser Matthew Butler Fitzhugh Lee
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 8, 2017 3:42:15 GMT
I don't know where Rosser and Fitz Lee are but I would think West Point would be a possibility for Lee. Not sure if Rosser ever graduated from West Point. Don't think he did, but rather went south.
You can find everything you need about U S Cavalry and Armor of the regular army in Armor-Cavalry Part I from Center of Military History up until 1968.
There are two other books that cover the subject as well, both by Jim Sawiki Tank Battalions of the U S Army, and Cavalry Regiments of the U S Army. Tom most libraries in Northern Virginia have both of these as Sawiki lived in the DC Metropolitan Area.
Cavalry is very misunderstood, by most.
Officially cavalry is the designation for reconnaissance units in the U S Army. It is also given to units to maintain historical ties with the past.
There are nine maneuver battalion in the 1st Cavalry Division, all designated cavalry. They are in reality combined arms battalions, consisting of two tank and two mechanized infantry companies.
There are three reconnaissance squadrons in that division as well, one for each brigade, also designated cavalry. They are strictly for reconnaissance.
There is, or will shortly be an air cavalry squadron in that division as well, also with a cavalry designator belonging to the aviation brigade. It is an Apache battalion with the RQ7 drone as an additional intelligence gatherer.
The ground recon squadrons work for the brigade commanders while the air squadron works for division.
All of the other maneuver brigades have a ground cavalry squadron as well,, and all division do or will have an air squadron.
As far as I know all of the air squadrons are elements of the 6th and 17th Cavalry
There are two Stryker Infantry Brigades that carry a cavalry designator, the 2nd Cavalry Regiment and 3rd Cavalry Regiment. The former is in Germany and the latter at Fort Hood. The 3rd was the last of the true armored cavalry regiments, and it converted when it moved from here at Carson to Hood.
There is only one unit that currently retains the title Armored Cavalry, that is the 11th Armored Cavalry at Fort Irwin, California. It is the OPFOR unit for the National Training Center, and is in reality a tank battalion and a mechanized infantry battalion, last I heard anyway.
The name Armored Cavalry was applied to five regular army regiments in the reorganization of the army around 1948-49. Four of them were an outgrowth of the Constabulary, and they were created mainly to cover the inter-German border. They were the 2nd, 3rd, 6th, 11th, and 14th. Officially they were part of the Armor Branch, but they could not decide on a name to give them. The old Cav guys wanted cavalry, while the non-Neanderthals wanted Armor. The compromise that applied only to those five was Armored Cavalry.
Mary Lee Stubbs, was a historian at CMH is the person largely responsible for the retention of the cavalry name. Sometimes I wish she had not bothered, with all the confusion she caused. Her old man was I think at one time Colonel of the 1st Cavalry.
In retrospect, it would have probably been better to either designate everything with tracks cavalry after WWII and let it go at that, OR do away with the word cavalry altogether and call these units what they were, reconnaissance battalions, tank battalions, and mechanized infantry battalions. Army politics is something that must be beheld, cause iffin I splane it to you Lucy you will be so confused you will want to join the navy, or jump off a bridge, whichever you reach first
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Jan 8, 2017 12:55:39 GMT
The Name cavalry dies hard and I see no problem. Maybe not the proper designation, but certainly understood by those who serve in the designated units.
An aside on 7 Dec. 1941 I have heard Patton and Marshall were riding that morning. Marshall just up the road at Fort B.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 8, 2017 15:45:05 GMT
Don't know about Patton. Sounds like something he might do on a Sunday morning. I believe Marshall was riding at Fort Myer and through Arlington Cemetery. probably down toward where the Pentagon is now. His quarters were at Myer, and Belvoir seems a little too far away.
It is OK in my book to pay homage to history. It is not OK when that homage inhibits your ability to move into the future. Those that were associated with horse cavalry before WWII had a great influence on the Army following that conflict. It was much the same after the ACW, which is the subject of this thread, the effect the ACW had on post ACW conflict.
If you are not thinking ahead, and only concern yourself with what is behind, I would submit that what thinking you do is of no real value.
The Cavalry branch was done away with in 1948-49. It should have gone and stayed gone. That does not mean that the former cavalry units must go as well. Their history could have and should have been continued. For about a fifteen or sixteen year period, the 1st and 13th Cavalry were known as the 1st and 13th Tank Battalions. The 4th Cavalry was the 4th Reconnaissance Battalion, the 9th and 10th Cavalry were the 509th and 510th Tank Battalions. There were others as well. They were designated by the function the fulfilled, but their histories as reflected in their lineages remained constant
I do not think you would advocate the 104th Fighter Squadron going back to its original designation of 104th Observation Squadron just for old times sake.
This may seem meaningless to many reading this stuff, but it is indicative of how an army thinks. You want to know why the Army failed in 1876, then you only have to look back at the image the Army had of itself. We won, no need for change. We will always win, because we won before. The purpose of honoring and respecting army history is to be strengthened by that history, not be debilitated by it. As you progress you must throw off what no longer has value, and readily absorb those things of emerging value.
What influence did the ACW have on the adoption and retention of a single shot breech loading rifle and carbine, when more capable weapons were in production and available. Why did they man 35 regiments at half strength when they could have manned 17 regiments at full strength and not exceeded manpower ceilings, and had a better army. Why did the army not realize that peacetime service is not the same as in war, and make the army a more conducive place in the effort to retain soldiers, thereby raising the standards acceptable for the average soldier and cut down on catastrophic desertion rates. In the ACW the Army was a people mill. They did not care that much about how the soldier was treated and cared for, because they could always get more where he came from. Not so in an Army that you send to police the frontier. You either take care of them, and make them know by your actions that you care, or you get LBH on a regular basis.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Jan 8, 2017 18:06:53 GMT
Chuck,
Excellent post. Not to bring this back to current times, but the post 1980 NG started getting better training and use. Quality of personnel and training improved. Recruitment sales pitches were better. This is just one airman's opinion. Integration has improved with active forces. Missions are clearer. I think you and various state staffs had much to do with this.
Back to post ACW military, too much old boy networks poor recruitment, pay, retention, training, and vision. Way too many officers on "detached service" filling slots that could have more productively used. This padding only wasted money and resource. What did Grant's and Sheridan's brothers add to the service, in reality?
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jan 8, 2017 20:05:44 GMT
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Jan 8, 2017 21:09:21 GMT
Beth Fitzhugh Lee is buried in Hollywood Cemetery in Richmond, VA one of the most famous resting place for many historic figures. If you have never been to Hollwood, you must make the trek to visit it and Museum of the Confederacy to complete your education about the most tumultuous era of out history as a nation. Regards Dave www.hollywoodcemetery.org/
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Jan 8, 2017 22:26:29 GMT
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Jan 9, 2017 17:08:52 GMT
Those clever Confederates! They even managed to have 2 buried in the Shiloh National Cemetery. My GGGrandfather, captured at Dinwiddie Court House on April 1, 1865, died on May 23, 1865 in a Union prison camp on Heart Island in NYC and is buried in Cypress Hills National Cemetery in Brooklyn, NY. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jan 9, 2017 21:55:13 GMT
You mean to tell me that those Confederates who killed my great great grandfather at Shiloh might be buried beside him-if they could even somehow manage to find him? The shame, the shame!
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Jan 9, 2017 23:11:18 GMT
Beth
Quite honestly the National authorities were not able to ensure that all the unknown reburials in the fall of 1866 were Federal. The length of time since the original burials, April 1862, along with poor quality of the interments lead to many guesses at the identity of the body. One must remember the dead were hastily buried due to Christian values, odor and flies. Shiloh was fought on over 4,000 plus acres, about 7 square miles, with over 100,000 men and over 23,000 casualties so it is easy to see how some more Rebs were mistakenly interred in the National Cemetery.
Regards
Dave
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jan 10, 2017 0:44:53 GMT
I suspect that such confusion has long happened when it comes to battlefield, especially in the past when the local population and souvenir hunters would sweep in to collect anything useful that had been left behind. (Not saying that happened at Shiloh mind you)
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Jan 10, 2017 1:52:25 GMT
There was little souvenir hunting by civilians after the Battle of Shiloh due to its remote location and the month long occupation by Grant's and then Halleck's army. The Union soldiers buried and policed the field after the battle and I am sure many did collect souvenirs and relics. You must remember that the Union cared little for states' rights before the WAR and certainly did not give any of the Confederates' last rites!
The Confederates made a 20 mile retreat to Corinth after the fight and strewed dead soldiers, animals and equipment for about a 5 mile swath. Anyone seeking souvenirs would have found a rich treasure to pick from. The area of West Tennessee and North Mississippi is poor scrub land mostly brush and timber not suitable for farming so there were few residents then and even today. I doubt seriously that anyone has ever made many efforts, large or small, to discover any artifacts etc on these lands along the road to Corinth. Regards Dave
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Jan 10, 2017 2:19:50 GMT
I thought perhaps some of y'all would enjoy this blog about Mississippians in the Confederate Army. This month's edition contains a letter written by Nathan Bedford Forrest and a letter from Robert E. Lee confirming a soldier's punishment. I have enjoyed reading it as it is very informative and not a partisan publication rather a historical site. It puts a human face on a dirty event, War. Regards Dave
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Jan 10, 2017 2:36:42 GMT
|
|