Probably stupid gettyburg question

[Moglwi]

I am just watching Gettysburg (Turner one with the Beards) I just had a though probabley imposable as I do not belice avelry worked like that in the ACW but what if the Union had counter charged Pickets etc Divisons when they got hung up around the fence and where disorganised? If Union cav was avalible would it have been used in such a role and if it was what would the outcume be? British cavlery at Waterloo destroying sevral brigades or would the reb infntry have shoot the out of the saddle?

 

[ChewyGranola]

I thought the Union caverly was otherwise engaged at the time, duking it out with the CS troopers on the right (?) flank of the battle.

 

[Moglwi]

I thought the Union caverly was otherwise engaged at the time, duking it out with the CS troopers on the right (?) flank of the battle.

They where I was just wondering if they had been avalible would that have been used as I suggested? and what the result woould have been?

 

[Anaxagoras]

Cavalry charges against infantry were not anywhere close to as effective in the American Civil War as they had been in the Napoleonic Wars because firearm technology had advanced considerably in the intervening half century. Union and Confederate soldiers carried weapons that were accurate out to four or five times the distance as firearms carried by soldiers during the Napoleonic Wars. Consequently, it was discovered early in the war that cavalry charges against infantry formations mostly resulted in a large number of dead cavalrymen.

EDIT: Also, there's no such thing as a stupid question.

 

[dgharis]

If the cavalry had been available and used in that manner they would have been very effective, given that the Confederate attackers were completely disorganized. They might well have inflicted several thousand more casualties on them.

That would not have destroyed the ANV, though. There were still substantial infantry forces not committed to the charge (six divisions containing twenty six brigades), and presumably the Confederate cavalry would also be available to counter them.

As an example of what normally happened when cavalry charged formed infantry, see Farnsworth's charge against Anderson's division, which occurrred on the Union left flank after Pickett's charge was repulsed. Several hundred Federal casualties, including Farnsworth, for zero gain.

 

[67th Tigers]

It a pretty complex question.

The fact is that the Union *did* develop a mounted arm capable of mounting a shock charge against infantry. It was just in the process of developing. As an example, Minty's "saber brigade" in the Army of the Cumberland was perfectly capable of delivering such shock charges in 1863, but their situation was odd - he was a ex-British regular cavalry officer and knew it could be done and how to do it. By 1864 you see a much more powerful Union mounted arm develop as it matures beyond mere "mounted infantry" into decent cavalry.

Indeed, the inferiority of the Union cavalry in the East is largely attributable to the fact that the Confederates were true "mounted infantry" who discarded the sabre and carried infantry muskets. Equipped with Enfields they utterly dominated their Union counterparts with carbines (even if they were Sharps or Spencer armed). Mounted the Union sabres trumped the Confederate revolvers, especially in 1864-5.

Now, the Army of the Potomac's cavalry arm in mid-1863 may be capable of delivering a shock charge. Farnsworth's mess on South Cavalry Field at Gettysburg is for different reasons. He charged a skirmish line behind a stone wall that had been built up into a breastwork with fencing rails from elsewhere (broken down from the Emittsburg Road fences by the pioneers) that the horses could not cross, over broken ground unsuitable for cavalry. The one regiment that did break through fragmented and scattered and did not exploit the breakthrough. This is simply a failure of Kilpatrick who threw cavalry into an unwinnable fight.

Had Kilpatrick broken through and reorganised he had a chance to "bag" 10,000 prisoners. His cavalry was too green though.

As for the range issue - the problem is that whilst theoretically the rifle-musket had greater range in the hands of the untrained volunteers it was not used at much greater ranges. It is difficult to find any practical difference between the rifle and the smoothbore in the infantry firefight. In skirmishing, yes, but not in standup fights. Hence the debate over withdrawing rifles from the bulk of the Union armies and replacing them with smoothbores.