Cavalry Weapons

[AtlLaw]

Weapons and the Cavalry have always been a big interest of mine.  Historically the saber has been considered the principle arm of the cavalry in it's mounted role.  However, it seems to me the revolver gets the majority of the press nowadays.
 
I understand the saber was used extensively by the Army of Northern Virginia, and not so much in the western theater, although there are stories of General Nathan Bedford Forrest putting his saber to good use.
 
What are all y'alls opinions, understanding, thoughts on the saber vs. revolver issue?    

[guzzijohn]

Good question that I don't have an answer to. Just guessing here if I had to be a cavalryman. I would use the saber on the initial high speed charge into a battle because I probably could not hit spit off a full galloping horse. Once past that I would use the pistol until empty, then back to the saber. Interesting side note. Was watching an episode of Antique Roadshow where a guy brought in a saber. The owner was not sure if it was a real saber due it appearing that the saber had not been sharpened to speak of. The expert examined it and declared it real. He said that the sabers did not come with a sharp edge because it was not needed considering the impact of a swinging saber along with the speed of the horse. A sharp edge would just make it more likely to be damaged in a fight.
GuzziJohn

[AtlLaw]

Good question that I don't have an answer to. Just guessing here if I had to be a cavalryman. I would use the saber on the initial high speed charge into a battle because I probably could not hit spit off a full galloping horse. Once past that I would use the pistol until empty, then back to the saber.

Pretty intuitive John!  We think alike!     And besides the difficulty of aimed revolver fire from a horse running at full speed, I have read a report of another problem with a pistol charge.
 
One benefit of the Cavalry charge was the shock and awe effect on opposing forces.  Cavalry was to close with the enemy as fast as they could to create this demoralizing effect, and also to minimise the time they were vulnerable to aimed rifle fire.  (BTW, these tactics had not changed up through the 1960's 'cept we used helicopters instead of horses!    )  Once in the midst of the enemy the saber with a pistol back up was probably just as good as the pike (empty musket with a bayonet) the opposing force would probably be relegated to.   
 
The report I read indicated that when pistol charges were made, the Troopers would invariably start firing their revolvers at long range.  Apparently the "need to close" impetuous was defeated by using a weapon with more range then a saber.  Then, when the revolver was empty, the charge faltered.  I can imagine a Trooper thinking "y'all go ahead, I got to reload..."     Without the need to close the shock & awe and the effectiveness of the charge were defeated .
 
But, that's Cavalry against Infantry...    I think it would be the same in Cavalry vs. Cavalry.  But for the latter I'd want a saber in my right hand and a revolver in my left.  One can maneuver the horse with leg pressure.  When I had horses I trained them in 2 areas.  Hunter/Jumper and Dressage.  In dressage virtually all signals are given with the legs.  The hands remain in the riding position.  So it seems to me it would be no problem to maneuver a horse around the battlefield with both hands otherwise occupied!   
 
 

sabers did not come with a sharp edge because it was not needed considering the impact of a swinging saber along with the speed of the horse.

I'd never heard that...    I do know that sabers, at least the 1860 Light Cavalry Saber, was only sharpened for the first 3rd or so of the blade.  You would parry with the thicker, blunted portion and still thrust and cut with the sharpened tip end.  Makes me wish I could find that U.S. Cavalry manual of saber exercises...   
 
Oh well, like I said, Civil War (don't like that non-descriptive term) tactics and weapons have always been a big interest of mine.  Apparently not so much with others.      Just thought I'd try to get something going in an area other then "It was about slavery!"   
 

[scotsman]

My mother's great great grandfather, Marshal Bracey Lynam was in Russell's 4th Alabama Calvary under Nathan Bedford Forrest. I actually have a photo of him and his wife taken in uniform just as he left for the war. Forrest prefered his troopers be armed with shotguns as a primary weapon. I am not sure if he felt they were more effective when mounted or if they were more available and could brought from home or maybe both. Anther Great great grandfather George Chronister was in a Texas Calvary unit (I have forgotten the unit) in his photo he has 4 single shot pistols in his belt. Both survived the war, in looking at their photos you can tell they were tough old birds.

[mcwoodduck]

Richard, Don't forget the calvary carbine.
The Calvary was not only the charing raiders but also a fast moving infantry force.
The Job of the Cavalry was to scout, flank, raid, disrupt supply lines, act as shock troops, and act as a fast reactionary force to plug holes.
The Carbine was every bit as much of the kit as was the saber and revolver in being able to fight dismounted.
Charging into infantry was a waiste of men and horses as the rifled muskets would kill horses and men in short order as well as the bayonets on the end of the rifles.  The Charges were mostly Cav on Cav, Cav on Artillary, or Cav on supply trains.
Also remember that the average Cav Soldier of the Civil war was not allowed to weigh more then 140 pounds as with all their gear, weapons, rations, and ammo they could not be a burden on the standard horse.

[AtlLaw]

Ah McWoody!  Correct in all respects as always!     But as far as the DIS-mounted use of cavalry, I did say "the saber has been considered the principle arm of the cavalry in it's mounted role."  Kinda limiting the discussion somewhat...    Hi-ebber, and day always be a hi-ebber, since you brought it up...   
 
I believe that early on commanders often really didn't know what to do with their cavalry.     They weren't really Dragoons or Mounted Infantry, or even "Heavy Cavalry" in the historical sense of the word.  So, they didn't really have much of a place in the Napoleonic tactics of the day.  Like you said, charging infantry.  So they were mostly relegated to picket duty, acting as messengers and screening/scouting.
 
I think this is best illustrated by the organization of the Army of Northern Virginia.  In 1862 it consisted of 2 Corps (a total of 9 divisions) plus Corps and Army artillery.  In the whole Army there was only one cavalry division!   
 
Compare that to the subsequent role you described and we can see how the Cavalry use was explanded as well as their numbers.  By 1864 the Army of Northern Virgina consisted of 4 Corps, each with 3 Divisions plus artillery.  One of those Corps was a Cavalry Corps and it's organization was on a par with the Infantry Corps (3 Divisions plus artillery).  In this expanded role the carbine would be an indispensable part of the Cavalryman's kit!  And it's assention was probably matched by the descent of the saber as the primary offensive weapon.
 
I think of the evolution of air power in WW1 is a similar example of the evolving use of a combat asset.
 
Naturaly these are only my armchair opinions.  Feel free to disagree with anything I say!   

[mcwoodduck]

Was the Army Of Northern VA limited to one Division of Cav due to shortages in equipment for the men.
After all it costs alot more to arm a soldier with.
Saber, Revolver, Carbine, and Horse than it does to arm a soldier with a Rifle abd Bayonet.  Not to mention the amount of time and ammo in training a horse soldier he has three weapons to master to the one and a half of the infantry.
A division is still a lot of horse soldiers commanded by a Major (2 Stars)  or Lt General (3 Stars)
I think it is three platoons of 100 to a company, three companies to a batallion, 4 batallions to a regament, and 4 regiments to a Braigade and at least two braigades possibly three to a division.  So anywhere from  9,600  to 14,400 men

[Rustyinfla]

   Years ago Dixie Gun Works put out an annual with an article in it on the use of sawed off shotguns by Confederate Calvary. I'm not sure of the tittle but it was "something... and Blue Whistlers."

[Ranger99]

as far as i know, my ancestors used
scatterguns (on mothers and fathers side)
as far as i know, nobody on either side of
my family ever had anything other than
a handgun or shotgun until about my
father's generation.

[Hodr]

I have heard that the last accepted calvary saber was designed by George Patton.  I was about 11 in 1957 and purchased one to give to an uncle who was a major in the Army.  It had the sword, sheath, Frog(?), belt, and baldric(?).  It disappeared when he died.  I believe I paid $9 a a surplus store which was a lot of money then.   Come to think of it We were at the surplus store to pick up a pair of P38 wing tanks which Dad turned into a set of double boats for us to mess around in.
 
Hodr

[Ranger99]

blue whistlers and colt dragoons?

[reliquary]

Speaking from the standpoint of one who's done a modest amount of research into the CW (including the archives at Fort Leavenworth Command & Staff College).
 
The saber was, indeed, designed as the primary weapon for mounted combat.  Not the placement of the scabbard, for saber's use in the right hand, and the placement of the pistol holster, for pistol's use in the "off" hand. That's how they were drilled.  When dismounted, they went to the slugthrowers.
 
 Union cavalry troops were issued the Spencer and, later, the Henry repeaters for use as Dragoons (dismounted cavalry used as shock infantry).  Confederate cavalry used whatever they could get their hands on and made extensive use of captured Union Spencers, Henrys, and Colt revolving rifles/shotguns.  Period photos show Confederate cavalry with saddle holsters and multiple pistols, in addition to long guns.
 
Stuart used his troops in the more conventional cavalry mode, which meant they could be more lightly armed.  Forrest used his troops more often in the Dragoon mode, using them to get to the battle site quickly and use overwhelming firepower once there..."Git thar fustest with the mostest" comes to mind. 
 
Side note:  from what I can tell, the movie "Josie Wales" is fairly accurate as far as their armament goes...the "raiders" carrried as many pistols as they had attachment points for.

[SHOOTALL]

It seems that calvery engagements were the result of probing and recon work. I would think in many instances it was a suprise to one side or the other or both as the ruckus started. Calvery attacked trains , wagons etc to disrupt supplies etc. In these cases it would seem the saber most useless where a pistol would be the best choice at the time due to more shots on hand ( same with high cap autos today  ). I have heard of speical holsters for extra revolvers being slung on the saddle horn but have no proof. Attacking line troops in trenches etc I wonder how a saber armed man on a horse fared aginst a man with a pig sticker on those long muskets ?

[mcwoodduck]

I wonder how a saber armed man on a horse fared aginst a man with a pig sticker on those long muskets ?

The 58 caliber rifled muskets were loaded fast enough to make multiple volleys on a charging cav unit.
The 58 fired a 535 grain minnie ball that was more than enough to kill man or beast and once they cav closed with the infantry the bayonets did bad things to both horse and rider.
Where the cav had an avantage was aganst artillary and the speed allowed them to over run gun emplacements.
The speed also allowed them to out flank fixed positions and hit troops, artillary or camps dismounted in the side or the rear and make a flank or side un tenable and make the enemy retreat from the battlefield.  Much like we use mechanized infantry today.  The shock of the bradleys and the impact of the infantry that speed around and get in behind the enemy positions to cause havoc

[AtlLaw]

 

it was "something... and Blue Whistlers."

blue whistlers and colt dragoons?

Y'all got me thinking so I looked it up.    (from McKendree Long's site):
" “Blue Whistlers and Colt Dragoons,” was about Terry’s Texas Rangers, as the Eighth Texas Volunteer Cavalry Regiment was known.  Blue Whistlers were the buckshot or buck-and-ball loads for their shotguns, and this outfit performed the first charge of the Army of Tennessee, as well as the final one.  Doing more research, I learned that they were also favorites of Nathan Bedford Forrest... "
 
This info fits right in with my opinions concerning the difference in armament and tactics of the Army of Northern Virginia and The Army of Tennessee.  'course the A of T went through a lot of changes...    But it (almost) always had N.B. Forrest commanding the Cavalry Corps! 
 

I have heard that the last accepted calvary saber was designed by George Patton.

That's my understanding... and an ugly thing it was!     I have often wondered what possessed Gen. Patton to come up with that design as it is obviously a "sticker" not a "slicer" which flies in the face of accepted cavalry saber design.    It's more like a foot officer's sword!      There's a reason for that curved blade don't 'cha know!   
 

Speaking from the standpoint of one who's done a modest amount of research

Ah Reliquary...    Knowing you, the  "modest amount" is probably equal to the course work requirement for a college major!   

That's how they were drilled.

True, and they were also required to, or should have been according to the manual for saber drills, hold their left hand low in front of their body while practicing saber strokes to simulate holding the horse's reins.
 
I always thought the foregoing strange as a well trained horse responds to leg pressure, not by having it's head yanked around by a bit in it's mouth!  But then, the yankees weren't the horsemen the Southerners were... and it was a union manual I read.... 
 

Stuart used his troops in the more conventional cavalry mode, which meant they could be more lightly armed.  Forrest used his troops more often in the Dragoon mode, using them to get to the battle site quickly and use overwhelming firepower once there..."Git thar fustest with the mostest" comes to mind.

Hence the differences I mentioned earlier.  And my belief that the saber saw more use in the eastern theater.
 

Side note:  from what I can tell, the movie "Josie Wales" is fairly accurate as far as their armament goes...the "raiders" carrried as many pistols as they had attachment points for.

Again I would think you are right.  The "partisans" seemed to be more of a "ride in, shoot 'em up, ride out" group, fighting outside the confines of a coordinated army v. army battle.  Anyone from Lawrenceville?    
 

It seems that calvery engagements were ... 

I think you and McWoody are correct in that activity and cavalry on cavalry battles being the most frequent.  Hi-ebber, and day always be a hi-ebber,  knowing the battle tactics as they were taught in that time, there had to be some cavalry v. infantry engagements.  I sure would like to find a first hand accounts of some with details!
 

I have heard of speical holsters for extra revolvers being slung on the saddle horn.

Pommel Holsters.
 

Attacking line troops in trenches

Ah but remember, trenches, especially fighting from trenches, was a late war development.  Even at Gettysburg it was massed infantry attacking massed infantry (or dismounted cavalry...).
 
Sorry for the long winded response but I figured one post would be better then a bunch of 'em.

[reliquary]

Offhand, I don't know of any serious CW battles in which mounted cavalry attacked well-dug-in troops.  Even the Yankees weren't that stupid.     There may have been some minor instances in "Ben Grierson's Ride".
 
I'll check around. 

[SHOOTALL]

Check out the battles around Richmond and Petersburg. The Gray Ghost saw alot of action also.

[ironfoot]

I did a search on the Patton saber. You can read about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_1913_Cavalry_Saber
 

[SHOOTALL]

One Southern cavalry accomplishment was to bring over 2000 cows thru. union lines during the battles around Richmond Va. .The union forces could hear the cows moving but could not find them in the swamps they were lead thru. 

[AtlLaw]

Interesting background and certainly explains the desgn of the saber.  It looks as though GSP's study of fencing in France under "the “beau sabreur” of the French Army would be the one. Adjutant M. Clèry was a French “master of arms” and instructor of fencing at the Cavalry School at Saumur." influenced him to champion the French Cavalry's tactics.
 
The manual he wrote was also interesting:
http://www.thortrains.net/downloads/saberexercise.pdf
 
 

[reliquary]

I was stationed at Fort Lee (Petersburg) a couple of times and am very familiar with the battle(s) around there. 
 
I could find no reported instances of mounted cavalry going into a deliberate, mounted, attack against entrenched forces in our Civil War.  Cavalry was used extensively for scouting, raiding, harassment...when they were used in the attack, they found weak spots in enemy defenses and then attacked the weak spot (flank, rear) on foot as Infantry/Dragoons.  On raids such as Grierson's and Forrest's,  they would attack poorly-organized, lightly-armed forces in rear and support areas and there are numerous reports of mounted attacks against such forces...but that's a far cry from any attack on the scale of "The Light Brigade". 

[SHOOTALL]

I would wonder how good a target one sitting on a horse trying to figure out how to get over a trench work would make ?

[reliquary]

A lot of Regimental commanders (colonels) and most General Officers were mounted, to allow them to move around and command better.  There are lots of instances of their having become casualties...and/or their horses...even at longer range.  If they found themselves milling around at close range, in front of a parapet, they would have immediately been hit.

[SHOOTALL]

Yes I just finished a book about snipers and it was noted the Southern snipers with endfield rifles made some impressive shots. Many will bring up the withworth rifle and scope but few ever got fielded due to cost of rifle and cost and supply of ammo. The union also had some good snipers .

[mechanic]

After the war Jesse James & Company employed calvary tactics against civilian targets, apparently with great success.  In a history of them I read that Jesse would often have 6 or more revolvers strapped to himself or his horse, allowing him to administer overwhelming fire, esp. against civilians who often found themselves seriously undergunned.
 
Sorta like taking a M60 on a deer hunt?
 
Ben

[reliquary]

Thanks, Ben.  I saw some photos like that when stationed at Fort Leavenworth and touring the region. 
 
For sure, the "raiders" carried all the pistols they could find, and a sack of loaded cylinders as well.  Reloading on horseback, in the middle of a firefight, could probably be a little tricky...easier to stash the empty gun and draw a new one.  I think that is currently called a "New York reload" on the streets.
Shootall:  can you post the name of the book?

[mcwoodduck]

to champion the French Cavalry's tactics.
 

Is that to ride up real fast and hand over your sword.  Good reason why you want it pointy and not sharp.   

[BBF]

So what happened to the lance??
If the guys in the metal suits were able to use one, you ought to think a guy in a cotton or wool shirt could do so as well.

[mcwoodduck]

So what happened to the lance??
If the guys in the metal suits were able to use one, you ought to think a guy in a cotton or wool shirt could do so as well.

British Cav used it up to and I think including WWI.
Here is a Blurb on the Lance
http://www.westernfrontassociation.com/great-war-on-land/73-weapons-equipment-uniforms/776-british-lance.html

[SHOOTALL]

Thanks, Ben.  I saw some photos like that when stationed at Fort Leavenworth and touring the region. 
 
For sure, the "raiders" carried all the pistols they could find, and a sack of loaded cylinders as well.  Reloading on horseback, in the middle of a firefight, could probably be a little tricky...easier to stash the empty gun and draw a new one.  I think that is currently called a "New York reload" on the streets.
Shootall:  can you post the name of the book?

Will be glad to , but it is at home so it will be tomorrow.
 
Book is - OUT OF NOWHERE by Martin Pegler . In the photos in the book it shows a  Confederate sharp shooter (dead)with an Enfield rifle saying it was the best long range rifle aval. at the time.Also around pg 60 it goes into Confederate sharp shooters and equipment etc , note snipers were sharp shooters back then. One other point made was sharp shooters from the South roamed the battle field where yankees did not. Southern sharp shooters had to wear destinctive uniform to keep from being shot as deserters by their own men.