Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Best Cavalry Commander

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by tcox View Post
    from Wiki Award process[edit]

    In outline, the main steps of the promotion or brevet award process were as follows. After a candidate for a general officer commission or brevet award was selected, the Secretary of War, on behalf of the President, would send the candidate an appointment letter. The candidate would be asked to communicate acceptance of the appointment or award, attest to the oath of office and report to a named officer for orders. The letter would note that the appointment was contingent on the President nominating and the U.S. Senate confirming the promotion or award. Nonetheless, the candidate often received orders to begin acting in the appointed office pending the President's nomination and the Senate's confirmation or rejection of the nomination. If a nominee was confirmed, the President and Secretary of War (or of the Navy) would sign and seal a commission and transmit it to the nominee. The appointment was not official or complete until all the steps in the process were completed and the commission was conveyed in writing. Usually this occurred soon after the confirmation of the promotion or award, often within about a week. Since most of the brevet awards were made after the end of the war, candidates would not be told to report to a senior officer for orders unless they were still on duty and might be given some higher or different assignment. Full grade promotions supersede brevet grade promotions and promotions in the regular army supersede promotions to equivalent or lower rank in the volunteer forces.

    I was also incorrect it was Pleasonton who made the recommendation to brevet the three. It would appear that the SOW wrote the letter and all 3 accepted as Farnsworth is listed as a brevet general although neither the President or the Senate approved him
    From your own source, those men were only acting in a capacity commanding a particular unit. Without the official nomination of the President and Senate confirmation they were in fact not really promoted.

    Regards,
    Dennis
    If stupid was a criminal offense Sea Lion believers would be doing life.

    Shouting out to Half Pint for bringing back the big mugs!

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by D1J1 View Post

      From your own source, those men were only acting in a capacity commanding a particular unit. Without the official nomination of the President and Senate confirmation they were in fact not really promoted.

      Regards,
      Dennis
      I agree, and getting back to Massenas post there were a bunch of Colonels commanding Brigades, an example is Col. Vincent at Gettysburg, plus nowadays Colonels command Brigades (not Brigadiers), in my time in the Army, a Colonel commanded a Brigade, the only Brigadier was the Ast,Div. Commander
      Last edited by Trung Si; 05 Oct 18, 20:52.
      Trying hard to be the Man, that my Dog believes I am!

      Comment


      • #48

        That is because the Army's brigades today are a reorganization of the older regiments. The brigade is now a regimental-sized unit.

        The Marine Corps still has regiments in both infantry and artillery and they are commanded by colonels.
        We are not now that strength which in old days
        Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
        Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
        To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

        Comment


        • #49
          Was not aware of this thread until today.

          My vote is for Nathan Bedford Forrest. I have read the following books:

          https://www.amazon.com/Battles-Campa...edford+forrest

          https://www.amazon.com/Nathan-Bedfor...edford+forrest

          https://www.amazon.com/Battle-Start-...edford+forrest

          https://www.amazon.com/Nathan-Bedfor...edford+forrest

          I am not saying that reading those books makes me an expert on the ACW cavalry doctrine. The definition of cavalry is soldiers who fight mounted on horseback. I believe this is the reason many say NBF was not a "true" cavalry commander since the majority of his battle victories, which are the stuff of legends, came after his troops dismounted.

          IMHO, you should be rated by your successes as a commander, and not be judged because you did not use the horse in its proper way. NBF's Cavalry tactics were highly successful due to his and his soldiers familiarity with the horse. NBF knew how to treat a horse and his men followed his lead. They rode their mounts hard but always rested them and fed them properly.

          NBF always, whenever possible, had his men armed with shotguns and pistols/revolvers along with the sabre. This was an excellent advantage over the muzzle loader when they did fight on horseback. NBF and his troops, to a man, when possible always carried the muzzle loader, the Springfield model 1861 which they used when dismounted. NBF always had a company of sharpshooters at his disposal.

          My vote for NBF is based on my knowledge of his tactics, learned from the books I read. Having not read any books on other cavalry commanders, from the north or south makes my opinion biased to say the least

          Here is an interesting read:
          http://cincinnaticwrt.org/data/ccwrt...y_tactics.html
          Our world at Khe Sanh was blood, death, and filth with deafening gunfire and blinding explosions as a constant soundtrack...Barry Fixler
          http://sempercool.com/

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Kurt Knispel View Post
            The definition of cavalry is soldiers who fight mounted on horseback. I believe this is the reason many say NBF was not a "true" cavalry commander since the majority of his battle victories, which are the stuff of legends, came after his troops dismounted.
            I'm going to toss John Hunt Morgan into the mix because he falls into this category as well. And besides, Forrest vs Stuart gets boring.

            Morgan was a master of the deep raid but his men often fought as mounted infantry. In, "The History of Morgan's Cavalry," his brother-in-law Basil Duke brings this out.

            "IMHO, you should be rated by your successes as a commander, and not be judged because you did not use the horse in its proper way. NBF's Cavalry tactics were highly successful due to his and his soldiers familiarity with the horse. NBF knew how to treat a horse and his men followed his lead. They rode their mounts hard but always rested them and fed them properly."
            Morgan also, as Kurt Knispel said, "Knew how to treat a horse and his men followed his lead." But Morgan's reputation suffers because he made a huge operational blunder in crossing the Ohio River against Bragg's order's and he got caught trying to recross and get back to Kentucky. That cost him his command. But he it was captured because he got caught trying to recross the river and not because he was out fought. Morgan usually (always?) won tactical engagements and had he not been defeated by a natural obstacle his 1863 Raid would likely be considered the ACW's most notable cavalry operation.
            Last edited by KRJ; 07 Oct 18, 15:07.
            "Shoot for the epaulets, boys! Shoot for the epaulets!" - Daniel Morgan

            Comment


            • #51
              I believe all of the books on NBF that I read, mentioned fellow cavalry commanders of the CSA, namely Morgan and Wheeler.
              I read about Morgan's Ohio raid and subsequent capture. I read that Bragg was a poor commander and that his chronic indecisiveness turned many a could have victory (one decisive) into a Union victory or letting retreating and confused Union soldiers off the hook.

              Bragg choose Wheeler to command Forrest and this failed miserably. Forrest berated his superior Wheeler after he sent Forrest on a mission Forrest knew would fail but carried out anyway. This particular time however, and I cannot recall the mission just now, was one of the times that NBF's often uncanny sense of intuition of enemy decisions and movements was wrong. So though not entirely Wheeler's fault, He took the wrath of NBF anyway.

              NBF grew tired of Braggs' blunders and in went into his superior Generals HQ and gave him a thorough tongue lashing as well. NBF then dictated a letter to Jefferson Davis to be let loose of Bragg and be reassigned under another commander.

              NBF was at his best when he was free to use his cavalry how he saw fit and he did have a reputation of not working well in larger battles when given specific tasks. This was, IMHO, undeserved. NBF understood his role and its overall effects on operations in the larger context. And his tactical knowledge was second to none.
              Our world at Khe Sanh was blood, death, and filth with deafening gunfire and blinding explosions as a constant soundtrack...Barry Fixler
              http://sempercool.com/

              Comment


              • #52
                Keep in mind that during the ACW many ranking officers in a regiment could be on detached duty. The actual commander of the 7th Cavalry was in Washington while Custer led it in the field. Due to combat, wounds could send many on sick leave. The commander in the field could be the senior officer present. This could be confusing in real life. At Brasher City, none of the Union officers wanted to command and they had to send a new one from New Orleans. Tom Green was able to take the place because of the mass confusion in the camp.

                If you want to talk about great Cavalry Commanders, you should mention Tom Green and John Wharton of Texas. Tom Green died in battle because he used to drink before he went into battle.

                Pruitt
                Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

                Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

                by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by KRJ View Post
                  Morgan usually (always?) won tactical engagements and had he not been defeated by a natural obstacle his 1863 Raid would likely be considered the ACW's most notable cavalry operation.
                  NBF knew the area of western Tennessee and Northern Mississippi like the back of his hand. There were many times he could have been trapped by rivers but he knew where all the bridges were and also the shallow areas where he could cross.

                  Of course traveling all over these areas of operations during his slave trading trips was advantageous.



                  Our world at Khe Sanh was blood, death, and filth with deafening gunfire and blinding explosions as a constant soundtrack...Barry Fixler
                  http://sempercool.com/

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post
                    Forrest, not in the race. A dishonorable man.
                    Why the "dishonorable man" label?

                    Nathan Bedford Forrest was a southerner in which his honor meant possibly more to him then anything else.

                    And if that is your opinion/conclusion of him as a man, how does that have any bearing on his merits as a cavalry commander?
                    Our world at Khe Sanh was blood, death, and filth with deafening gunfire and blinding explosions as a constant soundtrack...Barry Fixler
                    http://sempercool.com/

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      You answered your own question.

                      Of course traveling all over these areas of operations during his slave trading trips was advantageous.
                      "Ask not what your country can do for you"

                      Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

                      you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        NBF was a man of his times. Slavery was a part of American southern culture for a few centuries. According to some sources, Forrest was worth about 1 million dollars at the outbreak of the ACW. He was a slave trader yes, but also an honorable man of his word. There were a couple of circumstances in which he killed men over his honor. Slave trading was a legal business at the time. There was a law banning the shipping of new slaves from Africa into America but not in the trading, selling, and owning existing slaves already in the states.

                        John, I respect the fact you do not like him because of his occupation for sure. However I asked 2 questions and you answered 1. The second question still remains and that is what did his occupation before the war have to do with his merits as a cavalry commander?

                        Our world at Khe Sanh was blood, death, and filth with deafening gunfire and blinding explosions as a constant soundtrack...Barry Fixler
                        http://sempercool.com/

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Here is some info on two of NBF's late war campaigns. The battle of Brice's Crossroads, in which Forrest cemented his legend by defeating a Union force twice the size of his forces, and the battle of Tupelo in which NBF, again heavily outnumbered, was defeated.

                          https://civilwartalk.com/threads/for...0-1864.146870/

                          https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/da...une-july-1864/
                          Our world at Khe Sanh was blood, death, and filth with deafening gunfire and blinding explosions as a constant soundtrack...Barry Fixler
                          http://sempercool.com/

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            I had come across a few internet claims that the desert fox himself, General Erwin Rommel, had visited the American south to study Confederate cavalry tactics and apply them to armor. I searched for specifics and found this interesting article where Rommel's son, Manfred, is quoted that his father never visited the United States.

                            https://hottytoddy.com/2014/07/21/se...d-mississippi/

                            https://www.amazon.com/Rommel-Rebel-...+and+the+rebel
                            Our world at Khe Sanh was blood, death, and filth with deafening gunfire and blinding explosions as a constant soundtrack...Barry Fixler
                            http://sempercool.com/

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by KRJ View Post

                              I'm going to toss John Hunt Morgan into the mix because he falls into this category as well. And besides, Forrest vs Stuart gets boring.

                              Morgan was a master of the deep raid but his men often fought as mounted infantry. In, "The History of Morgan's Cavalry," his brother-in-law Basil Duke brings this out.



                              Morgan also, as Kurt Knispel said, "Knew how to treat a horse and his men followed his lead." But Morgan's reputation suffers because he made a huge operational blunder in crossing the Ohio River against Bragg's order's and he got caught trying to recross and get back to Kentucky. That cost him his command. But he it was captured because he got caught trying to recross the river and not because he was out fought. Morgan usually (always?) won tactical engagements and had he not been defeated by a natural obstacle his 1863 Raid would likely be considered the ACW's most notable cavalry operation.
                              Morgan was unable to obey orders and had a amazing propensity for being surprised, hardly a recommendation for a superior cavalry officer (and it pains me, as a Kentuckian, to type this criticism.

                              Don't leave good whiskey for the damn Yankees!" John Hunt Morgan, Eagleport, Ohio, July 23, 1863

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Two words can be used to define the character of Forrest-Fort Pillow. Character does count. So does overall ability, and Forrest was not the best cavalry commander of the war. I'll stick with Buford and Wilson.
                                We are not now that strength which in old days
                                Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                                Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                                To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X