|
|
Post by alanhufffines on Nov 17, 2010 12:21:59 GMT -5
I know the two terms are used synonymously, but in reality they were two different cavalry formations. Dragoons being medium cavalry (comparable to the US Cavalry, which even though called Cavalry were really dragoons) and lancers belonging to the light cavalry family (along with hussars). Here is what I have at the Alamo:
Dolores Regiment (Reinforced) (Permanante)
Vera Cruz Platoon (Activo?)
Coahuila Company (Activo?)
Rio Grande Presidial Company (note the missing two presidial formations from the area)
The presidials carried lances. But as far as I can determine the other units are dragoons (no lances). Paris shows no lancers on his dragoons, but does show what is either a pioneer or grenadier of the regiment at the extreme left of his Battle of Tampico.
According to Hefter, as of 11 April 1837, "...the 1st company of all cavalry regiments shall be of lancers, made up of individuals with the aptitude and other requisites to perform this service..." Independent [Activo?] companies and squadrons were to have a squad of eight lancers and a corporal each, with a 2SG and an Ensign in command of all the lancer squads.
Questions:
1. Was the above regulation merely legalizing what was already in practice in the field (as is often the case with regulations)?
2. Were the Vera Cruz and Coahuila units lancers?
3. Was the cavalry regiment organized like an infantry battalion with preferred companies (one being a lancer company)?
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Nov 17, 2010 15:51:47 GMT -5
Stuart, answered a similar question, someplace else for me, but I can't locate it. Sesma as you no doubt know at one point refers to the Lancers of the Dolores Regiment - irrc, Stuart said something about each company retaining a small body of Lancers.
The way Sesma used the phrase it would seem to me that he had tasked organized them into a consolidated body.
Hopefully, Stuart will see this and chime in.
|
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on Nov 17, 2010 16:46:08 GMT -5
I always thought dragoons were horsemen who also acted as foot soldiers during a battle, if necessary.
Presidials may have carried lances but on frontier service against Indians (and maybe even Texians) it seems that the lances were often left behind.
|
|
|
|
Post by alanhufffines on Nov 17, 2010 17:39:05 GMT -5
I always thought dragoons were horsemen who also acted as foot soldiers during a battle, if necessary. You are correct. |
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Nov 17, 2010 19:28:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by alanhufffines on Nov 17, 2010 19:56:52 GMT -5
To answer question 1, the 11 April 1837 was formalizing, or clarifying, what the allotment of lancers was to be in an active regiment (i.e., the first company was to be of lancers). Also, compañías sueltas (separate companies) were to have one corporal and eight lancers embedded in them, etc. Brilliant. Thank you, this is what I have suspected. |
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Nov 18, 2010 2:33:35 GMT -5
Ah my name taken in vain again...
Right first things first, dragoons started off as mounted infantry back in the 17th century, but like any other soldiers once they got on to horses they proved remarkably reluctant to get off them again and by the end of the 18th century (and in practise really a long time before that) they were simply cavalrymen.
As to the lancers in the Mexican service, Tom has set out the regulations, but its worth making a couple of points. Lancers through the Napoleonic Wars and afterwards were primarily regarded as scouts/skirmishers since their lances were better adapted to fighting against scattered infantry than short sabres or one shot carbines - hence the official allocation of 8 to independent companies. Secondly as with the infantry preference companies there appears to have been a tendency to keep the lancers reasonably up to strength at the expence of the rest of the unit which resulted in a higher balance of lancers than the regulations suggest.
|
|
|
|
Post by alanhufffines on Nov 18, 2010 20:40:44 GMT -5
Ah my name taken in vain again... Right first things first, dragoons started off as mounted infantry back in the 17th century, but like any other soldiers once they got on to horses they proved remarkably reluctant to get off them again and by the end of the 18th century (and in practise really a long time before that) they were simply cavalrymen. Thank you, Stuart. I cannot speak to European warfare in any detail, but in North America the 'Cavalry' were dragoons. Dismounting and fighting on foot is overwhelmingly documented especially during the Civil War, and can be taken as far as Santiago if stretched. |
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Nov 18, 2010 21:10:12 GMT -5
Actually it can be taken to Korea and Vietnam, but technically only to Manila and Burma as the regiments of the 1st Cavalry Division along with two Texas Army National Guard (the 112th and 124th) regiments were still organized as Cavalry fighting dismounted. In Korea and Vietnam the units of the 1st Cavalry Division were organized under Infantry Tables of Organization but retained Cavalry designations. Cavalry (aka dragoon) tactics were used in Vietnam however substituting the helicopter for horse. It is very interesting to study the operations of the 1st Cavalry Division as opposed to those of the 101st Airborne Division (Airmobile). One used dragoon tactics almost exclusively while the other reflected their airborne beginings. Both divisions were organized in an identical manner for all intents and purposes although there may have been slight variations in the tables of organization.
Wheeler's Cavalry Division that fought at Las Guasimas and Santiago had little choice in the matter in that their horses were back in Florida.
|
|
|
|
Post by alanhufffines on Nov 18, 2010 22:55:49 GMT -5
Wheeler's Cavalry Division that fought at Las Guasimas and Santiago had little choice in the matter in that their horses were back in Florida. As I wrote, stretching it, but both the 124th and 112th were also dismounted with no choice in the matter. I once interviewed a Normandy vet who told me he saw Cossack Lancers during the campaign. |
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Nov 18, 2010 23:41:43 GMT -5
Very true. Both the 112th and 124th as well as the regiments assigned to the 1st Cavalry Division had modified tables but retained a rather unique two squadron organization. If memory serves the two Texas regiments were called into Federal service as part of the 56th Cavalry Brigade (Sep) and were initially used to reinforce the 1st Cavalry on border patrol duties. I do think they were dismounted after the 1st Cav, but not by much. Never can remember which one was which but I think the 112 went to SOWESPAC and the 124th served in Burma under MARS Force. I could have that reversed though.
29th Infantry Division after action reports also mention mounted troopers on the German side but they say nothing about them being Cossacks. With all of the Ukranians that served with the Germans it would no surprise me.
|
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Nov 19, 2010 2:23:36 GMT -5
I cannot speak to European warfare in any detail, but in North America the 'Cavalry' were dragoons. Dismounting and fighting on foot is overwhelmingly documented especially during the Civil War, and can be taken as far as Santiago if stretched. Ah well, the immediate response to that is that the Mexican army at this period was very much a European one, and while I won't for a moment quarrel with with US cavalry being employed in a mounted infantry role in the second half of the 19th century and beyond, I'd be wary of stretching that backwards. Open to argument on this, but wary. |
|
|
|
Post by alanhufffines on Nov 19, 2010 13:54:36 GMT -5
[/quote] Ah well, the immediate response to that is that the Mexican army at this period was very much a European one, and while I won't for a moment quarrel with with US cavalry being employed in a mounted infantry role in the second half of the 19th century and beyond, I'd be wary of stretching that backwards. Open to argument on this, but wary.[/quote] Thanks for the comments. Rev War US Dragoons certainly did this as well. And IIRC the 17th UK Dragoons (Death or Glory?) were dismounted a large portion of the war, of course this is more toward resourcing than doctrine. And to write about something I am positively ignorant of  , weren't there Heavy and Light Brigades (with both having charges) in the Crimea in 1854? If there were no differences and all were cavalry why would they continue to organize, or were you speaking of dragoons only? I know this is for the Mexican cavalry, but I think it an interesting discussion and relative to the period. Other than a brief US Dragoon organization during the War of 1812, there were no US dragoons between the Rev War and 1832 when the Regiment of Dragoons were organized. No argument that ALL cavalryman would prefer staying mounted but they were organized and equipped to fight dismounted as well as mounted and the US Regiment of Mounted Rifles (Kevin!?) further employed the doctrine. Problem with US, is there were never any regular light or heavy cavalry. Ever regular unit was medium, roughly translating as mounted infantry. To bring this back to the topic at hand, I would have to see a Mexican Cavalry manual (I have a few infantry ones) to determine what was expected of medium cavalry. I know there was a discussion AFTER the Alamo to take lances away and make them all medium or heavy (Tulancingo Curassiers as an example), other than the Jalisco Lancers and Hussars of the Supreme Guard which were the only 'light' units I am familiar with. I welcome discussion and correction on this topic. |
|
|
|
Post by alanhufffines on Nov 19, 2010 13:58:50 GMT -5
Very true. Both the 112th and 124th as well as the regiments assigned to the 1st Cavalry Division had modified tables but retained a rather unique two squadron organization. If memory serves the two Texas regiments were called into Federal service as part of the 56th Cavalry Brigade (Sep) and were initially used to reinforce the 1st Cavalry on border patrol duties. I do think they were dismounted after the 1st Cav, but not by much. Never can remember which one was which but I think the 112 went to SOWESPAC and the 124th served in Burma under MARS Force. I could have that reversed though. 29th Infantry Division after action reports also mention mounted troopers on the German side but they say nothing about them being Cossacks. With all of the Ukrainians that served with the Germans it would no surprise me. You are spot on. I was the S3 and OIC of the 1-124th some years ago and they take pride in being the last mounted regiment in the US Army. I would always remind them that the 26th US Cavalry really deserved that honor as they were cut of in the PI and combat counted more than border duty (well it used to). |
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Nov 19, 2010 14:38:31 GMT -5
Alan:
The Light Brigade
4th Light Dragoons
13th Light Dragoons
17th Lancers
8th Hussars
11th Hussars
Heavy Brigade
4th Royal Irish Dragoon Guards
5th Dragoon Guards
6th Inskilling Dragoons
Scot's Greys (Formerly Scots Dragoon Guards)
Are the 112th and 124th still alive in the 36th ID? No doubt the 26th Cavalry (PS) were the last to fight mounted, although I think that most of them fought in a dismounted mode, using the horse for a means of transportation. Once they got to Bataan I don't even think they did that. I will have to check my references. Again if memory serves the last horse mounted action of the U S Cavalry in any strength was during the Punative Expedition, and I think the unit was the 11th Cavalry. There is a memorable part in the movie "They Came To Cordua" (spelling) that depicts this or a similar action. Decent flic. I think Mort Kunsler or someone did a print of this action also.
Speaking about the border. I recently attended my 50th high school reunion. On the plane back to Colorado Springs from Dallas I was seated next to an Army pilot (LTC) assigned to Task Force North at Fort Bliss. We got to talking as soldiers do, and she was expressing her frustrations about the total scope of her mission. After listening to her I suggested that what you need is air cavalry. She said they have a squadron now and again but they are of little use beyond surveilance. I said no you need air cavalry, not what the Army now called air cavalry. I then explained to her what air cavalry used to be back in the day (1-9, 2-17, and others) a mixture of scouts, guns, and dragoons all within one troop. She looked at me in surprise and said that's exactly what we need. I thought to myself, a pox on Aviation Branch, and a very poor showing for history and institutional knowledge.
|
|
, weren't there Heavy and Light Brigades (with both having charges) in the Crimea in 1854? If there were no differences and all were cavalry why would they continue to organize, or were you speaking of dragoons only?