How effective were Federale Cavalry?

[Jonnyboy]

As the question states, were the Federale cavalry any good? Weer ethey able to mount head on charges etc or would they really come under the catagory of "irregular" cavalry mainly fullfilling the role of mounted infantry?

Many thanks in advance.

[martin goddard]

Here are my thoughts which might (?) help.

Compared to infantry they were the same or better.
Compared to opponent cavalry they were the same or better.
Almost all  the forces in the war were raised for the war. The pre war army was not very good or numerous at all. All generals and hats.

The Golden regiment (Government) was considered very good.

Cavalry only fought mounted less than 50% of the time.
These actions tended to be outflanking or attacking a manoeuvring units.
Once the battle starts everybody gets off their horses.
Cavalry in FM are more akin to mounted infantry.
The horse and train are the only ways to get around Mexico in the war.


Bolt action rifles neutered cavalry charges.

That did not stop Pancho Villa from launching lots of pointless frontal attacks (a man after my own belief). These attacks finally ground Pancho's own army (Division of the North) into a poor force. He was unable to believe that his earlier successful charges (yes, they were really effective early on) would not  keep on working forever (Obregon et al dug in and shot Pancho to pieces).


martin

[sukhe_bator (Neil)]

I have to agree. Cavalry in the Mexican revolution would not routinely charge and were primarily used as mounted infantry. It was their mobility over long distances and rapid movement on the battlefield that counted. I would say only elite units or those with excessive revolutionary zeal would mount a charge in order to seize the initiative or some advantage in an attempt to try and keep an enemy off balance...

Neil

[Jonnyboy]

Thanks guys for the excellent input, so mounted infantry appears to be the general consensus, I imagine the US troops were probably on a similar par to their predecessors a few decades earlier on the prairies, although with more firepower with their springields and LMG's. However not neccessarily better shots. Certainly not the raw teenagers of Peckinpah's "Wild Bunch" though.

I imagine after a year or so of rugged campaigning the Mexican cavaly would be fairly competent, again if not the best shots.

Thanks for the insights guys.

J

[sukhe_bator (Neil)]

Don't forget the 'Buffalo Soldiers' on the US side, whose segregation as all-black units had to prove their worth on a daily basis against their white counterparts. That coupled with hard frontier campaigning made them tough hombres.
In the case of the Mexicans on all sides, a paucity of ammunition would prevent some units from practicing their marksmanship with live rounds making them initially less effective... Morale would therefore be doubly important compensating for lack of skill/experience in the field.

Neil

[martin goddard]

The single frontal assault made by US cavalry on Mexican troops ended in a US disaster.
It was a small company  level engagement.

The US got scattered all over the place and  had to infiltrate back across the border.
The US were outnumbered a bit but bravado led them to  launch a silly assault on horseback.
The US troops were very brave but it went badly for them.

It must be remembered that the US part in the war was pretty small . They invaded Vera Cruz against little/no opposition, then after his downfall, the US chased Pancho Villa around a bit but did not catch anyone (Pershing liked chasing folk).


There is a danger that US sources will portray the US involvement as being more important that it was.
"Objective Burma" and "U571" et al  illustrate this mind set.


martin

[Jonnyboy]

The Osprey Raid book on Villa and the Columbus raid goes into this encounter in some detail, the Battle (skirmish) at Carrizal. For anybody who hasnt got theOsprey highly recommend it as a guide for the entire Pershing expedition. Well worth a look.


Jon

[martin goddard]

Do note that Columbus was fought when Pancho Villa's force was merely a tattered shadow of what it once was.   
Army G  ragged rebels in FM.

martin

[Jonnyboy]

I think the eventual eclipse of Villa and Zapata is the saddest part of the revolutionary story. Both great, but equally flawed men in my opinion,  both eventually failing the revolution in their own ways. Villa with his impulsive bravado and reliance on frontal charges, as at the Battle of Celaya that brurtalised the Army of the North into a fragment of it's former glory  and Zapata in his parochial outlook for Morello. Sadly, had they been able to combine their efforts, the outcome may have been different.

To put this all into a historical timeline and context, highly recommend: "The Storm that Swept Mexico".
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=mexican+revolution

An accessable breakdown of the intricate stages of the revolution from 1910/11 all the way through into the 1920's.