Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: CSA Cavalry in the West [was Vicksburg Was Insignificant

Expand Messages
  • james2044
    ... kind of ... CSA had nearly ... maybe ... was mounted. ... Rosecrans ... guarding the ... departments (again, ... Kentucky.) ... the ... military power
    Message 1 of 70 , Nov 17, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, DPowell334@A... wrote:
      > Finally, and this is a major point - the North never invested the
      kind of
      > manpower in their Cavalry that the South did. I mentioned that the
      CSA had nearly
      > 30,000 Cav in the West in May, 1863, at a time when they only had
      maybe
      > 120,000 infantry. Thus, 1/4 of the entire combat power they had
      was mounted.
      >
      > The Federal numbers are small by comparison. Grant, Burnside's and
      Rosecrans'
      > mounted forces numbered less than 20,000 all told, including men
      guarding the
      > rear, compared to about 200,000 infantry in the various
      departments (again,
      > counting the large rear garrisons that held Tennessee and
      Kentucky.)
      >
      > Thus, where the South invested 25% of it's resources in this arm,
      the
      > Federals managed more like 10%. Cavalry is the only aspect of
      military power where
      > the CSA had a distinct numeric advantage - But cavalry
      ineffectiveness is at the
      > root of their defeats during 1863, because it was bad intel that
      repeatedly
      > effected decision-making - from Pemberton's lack of understanding
      of Grant's
      > moves to Bragg's bad choices at Tullahoma and in the Tennessee
      Crossing.
      >
      > To commit so much of your combat power to an arm and then have it
      fail so
      > signally to deliver is a real catastrophe of resource management.
      >
      > Dave Powell

      I understand a major reason for this was it allowed you to avoid the
      draft. Many of these "Cavalry" units were nothing more than home
      guards that did nothing to build up the CSA forces. I think
      Connelly has something about this in his second book on the AoT.
      Another problem was that they kept a large number of mounts away
      from the army too.

      James2044
    • james2044
      ... kind of ... CSA had nearly ... maybe ... was mounted. ... Rosecrans ... guarding the ... departments (again, ... Kentucky.) ... the ... military power
      Message 70 of 70 , Nov 17, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, DPowell334@A... wrote:
        > Finally, and this is a major point - the North never invested the
        kind of
        > manpower in their Cavalry that the South did. I mentioned that the
        CSA had nearly
        > 30,000 Cav in the West in May, 1863, at a time when they only had
        maybe
        > 120,000 infantry. Thus, 1/4 of the entire combat power they had
        was mounted.
        >
        > The Federal numbers are small by comparison. Grant, Burnside's and
        Rosecrans'
        > mounted forces numbered less than 20,000 all told, including men
        guarding the
        > rear, compared to about 200,000 infantry in the various
        departments (again,
        > counting the large rear garrisons that held Tennessee and
        Kentucky.)
        >
        > Thus, where the South invested 25% of it's resources in this arm,
        the
        > Federals managed more like 10%. Cavalry is the only aspect of
        military power where
        > the CSA had a distinct numeric advantage - But cavalry
        ineffectiveness is at the
        > root of their defeats during 1863, because it was bad intel that
        repeatedly
        > effected decision-making - from Pemberton's lack of understanding
        of Grant's
        > moves to Bragg's bad choices at Tullahoma and in the Tennessee
        Crossing.
        >
        > To commit so much of your combat power to an arm and then have it
        fail so
        > signally to deliver is a real catastrophe of resource management.
        >
        > Dave Powell

        I understand a major reason for this was it allowed you to avoid the
        draft. Many of these "Cavalry" units were nothing more than home
        guards that did nothing to build up the CSA forces. I think
        Connelly has something about this in his second book on the AoT.
        Another problem was that they kept a large number of mounts away
        from the army too.

        James2044
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.