Melee and Ranged Cavalry?

[bunny32794]

I exclusively use ranged cavalry, but I wonder if there's something I'm missing out on something.

The main reason I ask is because I want to use melee cavalry, yet can't rationalize it. My philosophy of army composition is that units should find their role naturally with their effectiveness and usage self-evident. If I have to think about why a unit should be useful, I take it as a sign that it's not. If I find myself trying to justify the use of a unit or trying to force circumstances in which they're useful, then that's bad news.

If melee cavalry was truly worth it, I figure, then I should feel something "missing" from my playstyle or constantly encounter a tactical issue no other unit can solve, and yet this isn't the case. I find ranged cavalry to be cheaper, more tactically flexible, easier to use, and more survivable than melee cavalry.

At present, I'm already pretty good at cavalry, so I don't think I'd have a tactical problem with using them. I have 1 or 2 brigades per corps and it works out swell: micro-management is key and I'm consistently able to rack up 10:1 kill ratios with every unit. My infantry engages from the front, I safely ride around to the flank, inflict a few dozen casualties, retreat to safety, rinse and repeat.

I briefly used melee cavalry when I started playing the game, but found they were mostly only good for inflicting damage on skirmishers and retreating enemy units, something that ranged cavalry already does just fine. Charging from the flank with melee cavalry seemed logical to me, but more often than not this resulted in heavy casualties of which I will not tolerate for cavalry.

Am I right for being so exclusive?

[Americus Wickey]

Sheldon Cooper eredeti hozzászólása:

As much as I adore my three sabre cavalry brigades (who, as mentioned above, should hunt together), I was astounded by what those late-era Spencer Carbine repeaters can achieve: thousands of kills per battle. Using the super-unit provided to the South after Shiloh, of course... still exploring the Spencers in other's hands.

In my new Union campaign (now at G'burg) I've been buying-up all the armory's Spencers, looking forward to equipping my cavalry with them. As it is, though, I concur with others' experience with deploying melee and ranged cavalry together. At Chancellorsville - with all 3 corps on the field - I had a group of 6-8 cav units marauding behind Reb lines. Together they absolutely butchered Stuart's cav division, and took out The Man Himself.

[Ninjasquirrel]

SrSgt Ivan Patapov eredeti hozzászólása:

Yes, First you must understand the forces involved. There were essentially 2 wars one in the East and one in the West and each had different methods. And each had a different doctrine for all branches.

First off, the Cavalry Regiments were formed by and from the populace of the individual States on both sides. Each State armed and trained based on what was available, there was no real standard in equipment or training until well into 1863. Most trainers were veterans of the Mexican War, where the tactics and equipment were outdated in a 'modern' war, so early on the Cavalry was essentially operating on the Mexican War therories, and loses reflected.

In the North the Cavalry was formed by 'city folk' most non riders, so a square one approach, and depending on the trainers and the role required as determined by the State for it's regiments.

In the South being far more rural, effective riders were available and the States also determined the roles. Once the interned Union equipment stocks were used up, the arms and equipment really varied as the South had no way to make mass weapons for their infantry let alone cavalry.
Many Southern units had many different weapons and equipment that logistics was a nighmare.

As the roles evolved from the Napoleonic doctrine to the needs of the new form of warfare, the roles of the Cavalry changed. Before the rifled musket, Cavalry could charge absorb the one volley ar say 50yds and then close before the Infantry has reloaded, and they charged at the seams between infantry squares not at the squares themselves. Once the rifled musket appeared the charging Cavalry could take 2 to 3 volleys at range before they closed, so the efectiveness of the Cavalry charge deminished. So the new roles of Scouting and Flank security began for the Light Cavalry, the Mounted Rifle concept began consider them like modern mechanized infantry, the heavy shock cavalry vitually disappeared.

A Cavalryman in a New York Cavalry Regiment was armed and equiped differantly than a Cavalryman from Nebraska. Same in the Southern Cavlaryman a Virginian cavalryman, far different than a Mississippi Cavalryman. The Army Corps Commanders of each side assigned his cavalry units based on their ability and equipment.

Light Cavalry was designed and trained to be just that, Light fast and small units as to operate on the flanks and as foward recon. They were usually armed with a pistol on person, and two more in a pommel holster set on the saddle, with saber. The was 15 rounds of pistol, and saber, designed more to disengage that unit if it ran into something. Pistols were always loaded with 5 rounds and hammer on empty cylinder to prevent accidental discharge.

Mounted Rifles were designed and trained as mounted fast moving Infantry. The carbine was the standard issue, still single shot as the later designs were only breechloaders as availible. There role was to get to tactical advantage points before the opposition, dismount and act as Infantry.

Raider Cavalry were an anomoly. Usually a group of local good ole boys, who fought for profit from what they could steal in the caos of the enemy rear essentially with 'permission' of the local commanders. Both sides used them, Jesse James was from one of these units, the fictional Josey Wales was another as well as the Red Legs who chased him. They did cooperate with the area commmanders in such missions as blow a bridge here, tear up rails here, and a blind eye to the other actions of the unit behind the lines.

My re-enactment uniform from New York was the Blue and Yellow high necked 'bumble bee' jacket, light blue rider butt padded pant, high jockey boots with knee cap, black leather brass buckled belt, reverse pull holster, 1 two cylinder pouch, and saber frog, blue slouch hat, 3 Remington 1858 cap and ball revolvers, and a Sharps 1863 paper cutter carbine for later war personna, early war was just pistols, typical for a New York Cavalry unit, all issued by the State in the time. Here in Nebraska it was bring a blue coat , your horse and tack, shelter cup and plate, and your firearm you are now Union cavalry.

Dang I'm getting a free education right here, thanks for taking the time to explain all this Patapov! I'd ask you a lot more questions but don't wanna hijack the thread and all so I'll keep it to 2, on equipment (because I'm a historical arms enthusiast lol). 1) For the remington 1858, cap and ball version, there's that safety notch in between the chambers, does that allow you to load 6 for the remington or is the mechanism not considered reliable enough? 2) Differences, if any, between a confederate saber and a union saber. The union was based on the French light cavalry saber right? Was wondering if the south used the same model or made their own, or bought other models in bulk from Europe. Or probably just whatever they can get their hands on most likely? Not like you have to have uniform saber models for any logistical reasons anyway.

[IRDCAM]

The lock notches on the Remington 1858 were notoriously unsafe. At a gallop the holster would bounce up and down and if struck on say pommel or saddle seat, and the hammer could and would bounce out of the notch and if struck a cap not so good results. Troops just loaded 5 to be safe, usually put a wooden plug in one chanber to prevent loading it. Most troops had a 'march' cylinder with the 5, with the tqo cylinders in the saper pouch having maybe 6 as by the time you pulled those you were engaged, but the vast amjority stayed with 5.
All these cap and ball pistols were fired and reloaded daily as any moisture from dew or high humidity could cause misfires.

The 1860 Saber just came out before the war, so were available to both sides as there were quite a few in the Federal armories in the South taken over by the Confederates, and there were plenty to go around. The Union stayed with it and the Confederates copied it. There were slight differences here and there, but a close copy. Most Officers had their sabers done at the more fine armories, the enlisted troop had far cheaper models.

The saber was used up and inverted in the charge and as a stabbing weapon, not a slashing weapon if avoidable. You stabbed down impaling your target rolled wrist to allow saber to drag a bit and the target hopefully slid off you saber and repeat. Metalurgy at the time was really questionable and holding a slashing edge was difficult, and they had the tendancy to snap if stuck on something that did not 'give' and any lateral torque and they broke quite easily.

The 1860 sabers design was a combination of the best attributes of the French Light Horse, and the British 1853 Light Cavalry.

[Naughty Mouse]

Melee Cav is great, if you have several of them. I take a minimum of 3, up to 6 in large battles. They roam the rear, take down supply trucks, and if they find the dreaded 3 artillery positions, they just mob them over. The goal is to have one cav on each artillery, if there is infantry, but two on the infantry. In the end you wiped out their supply and rear artillery chains, helps allot.
After that I advance them in the rear on the enemy line, and while they are pinned by infantry in the front, i put one cav on each infantry.
The main goal is, keep all guys that can shoot at you in melee.

[Ninjasquirrel]

SrSgt Ivan Patapov eredeti hozzászólása:

The lock notches on the Remington 1858 were notoriously unsafe. At a gallop the holster would bounce up and down and if struck on say pommel or saddle seat, and the hammer could and would bounce out of the notch and if struck a cap not so good results. Troops just loaded 5 to be safe, usually put a wooden plug in one chanber to prevent loading it. Most troops had a 'march' cylinder with the 5, with the tqo cylinders in the saper pouch having maybe 6 as by the time you pulled those you were engaged, but the vast amjority stayed with 5.
All these cap and ball pistols were fired and reloaded daily as any moisture from dew or high humidity could cause misfires.

The 1860 Saber just came out before the war, so were available to both sides as there were quite a few in the Federal armories in the South taken over by the Confederates, and there were plenty to go around. The Union stayed with it and the Confederates copied it. There were slight differences here and there, but a close copy. Most Officers had their sabers done at the more fine armories, the enlisted troop had far cheaper models.

The saber was used up and inverted in the charge and as a stabbing weapon, not a slashing weapon if avoidable. You stabbed down impaling your target rolled wrist to allow saber to drag a bit and the target hopefully slid off you saber and repeat. Metalurgy at the time was really questionable and holding a slashing edge was difficult, and they had the tendancy to snap if stuck on something that did not 'give' and any lateral torque and they broke quite easily.

The 1860 sabers design was a combination of the best attributes of the French Light Horse, and the British 1853 Light Cavalry.

Very informative, didn't even think about them having to discharge their weapons daily due to moisture. Must've been hell on logistics. I find it interesting they would still emphasize the thrust with a curved light saber, especially with what you said on metallurgy; wouldn't thrusting put it at risk of breaking more than slashing (lateral torque)?

[IRDCAM]

As for logistics the daily issue for pistols in the cavalry was 20 waxed paper 30gr 'cartidges'. . In which you ripped open the paper cartridge, poured powder into cylinder, popped ball out of paper, wadded paper, inserted paper then ball and presed down on loading lever. The waxed paper acted as a patch and lubricant as well, round had to be lubricated. North used a parifin based or whale oil wax, South beeswax. The .44 ball was closer to .45 so it was a tight fit in cylinder and the ball sheared some metal off making it no longer round, and flat spots acted like the seams of a baseball, and if spun right will curve. Ever shoot a paintball gun, same effect. The log wagon had 15 days of powder and ball for both the Infantry and Cavalry on board. If Cavalry was on extended patrol the trooper was issued 5 day's worth of powder and ball cartridges or more depending in mission length.

The thrust was made inverted where the saber was held high, point facing down, arc of the blade upward, you approached you target, thrusted down, and if target was penitrated as you rode foward, you rolled and relaxed you wrist, and the curve of the blade being inverted the body easily slid off with lttle or no stress on the blade. The long edge is stronger than the broad edge, which bends easier, stand on a 2x4 laying flat or a 2x4 standing upright between two bricks, which bends more.

The only blade I ever broke was in the pumpkin slash demonstration, slashed across face of pumpkin blade twisted just a little and snapped off clean. The thrust hits on our 'scarecrow' target never broke a blade.

BTW modern 'bore butter' replicates the properties of the era wax for the black powder cap and balls. And we use crisco vegtable shortning to seal cylinder so no moisture, at target shooting events. Re-enactment cartridge is powder, cotton wad, 'cream of wheat' for correct loading size, cotton wad, and crisco.