GDG- Cavalry ops

[Tom Ryan]

I think it is a matter of priorities, though.  There is nothing wrong with
cavalry fighting, as long as they perform their primary intelligence and
counterintelligence duties as well.  The argument about Pleasonton is that
he devoted too much time to the former, and not nearly enough time to the
latter.

The other factor is that good reconnaissance requires the use of a lot of
horseflesh, and more battles you fight the more your mounts are going to be
degraded.  In fact, Pleasonton shied away for serious reconnaissance because
it did use up a lot of his horses which he preferred to have available for
potential combat.

Sometimes it is a tough call which way to go, but, if the boss says bring me
information, the cavalry commander better listen or he will end up somewhere
out West like Pleasonton eventually did.

Tom Ryan

-----Original Message-----
From: gettysburg-bounces at arthes.com
[mailto:gettysburg-bounces at arthes.com]On Behalf Of jfepperson at aol.com
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 2:29 PM
To: gettysburg at arthes.com
Subject: Re: GDG- Cava;ry ops


Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:





> Put merely fighting enemy cavalry wasn't the priority.  If Pleasonton
> was able to report a successful engagement with enemy cavalry, that was
> nice, but unless that engagement got Meade information he was looking
> for, it didn't accomplish much.

Minor quibble:  If you fight the enemy cavalry and defeat them badly enough,
it degrades their ability to do their job of keeping you away.  So beating
up on the enemy cavalry does, by itself, serve a purpose (in the long run).

JFE


                   ---------------------------------------------------------
-------
You may unsubscribe by going to
http://mailman.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg

You can add yourself to the GDG map at:
http://www.frappr.com/gettysburgdiscussiongroup

View archived posts from May 2004 -  present at
http://mailman.arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg/