RE: [civilwarwest] Replace Cavalry with Mounted Infantry
- This was a direction the U.S. Cavalry was moving toward. Gen. John
Buford envisioned the cavalry to be a much more offensive force than one
limited to scouting, harassing attacks and such. He wanted it to be a
unit that moved to specific objective, took the objective and held it
until the more numerous infantry arrived to secure that objective. This
was perfectly illustrated at Day One of Gettysburg.
In the West, Wilder's Lightening Brigade was similar. They moved
rapidly, dismounted, employed repeating rifles to maximize fire power
and held a position as needed.
Forrest also saw the cavalry as a much more capable unit than had been
I have often wondered what it would have been like if Buford had lived
to work with Grant. Both had a visionary approach to tactics and such.
From: Liu Paul [mailto:stupid1961@...]
Sent: Sunday, May 02, 2004 12:20 AM
Subject: [civilwarwest] Replace Cavalry with Mounted Infantry
Why didn't they replace Cavalry with Mounted Infantry? Cavalry scouts
for the army, so can mounted infantry if they are taught. Cavalry trys
to engage and route enemy cavalry, mounted infantry when engaging
cavalry can just get down from their horses and blast the enemy cavalry
out of their saddles. Cavalry try to take and hold good ground. Mounted
infantry can do that too. So why didn't they replace cavalry with
Yahoo! Groups Links