Why rifleman lined up in lines back in the civil war?

[instantmilkshake]

Why did they lined up and shot each other point blank?

[Roger Rabbit]

The American commanders looked to Europe to learn battlefield tactics. The European method was to deploy soldiers in lines and exchange volleys of gunfire. This was done due to the high inaccuracy of the muskets which made it essencial for one to be within at least 100 yards and more realistically 50 yards to have a chance of hitting anything. By firing a massed volley then logically the more shots fired the more chances of hitting an opponant. It was also incredibly difficult and slow to load a muzzle loading musket/rifle whilst prone. In short to achieve a quick and accurate rate of fire then you needed to be kneeing or standing, very close to the enemy and preferably firing in volleys. The British tended to favour a thin line which enabled a large number of soldiers to bring their weapons to bare upon the enemy. The French when assaulting prefered to use a column of men which whilst having the physcological advantage of numbers which increased the morale of their own troops and scared the enemy(only in some cases, the tactic proved effective in most of Europe but the British had a nasty tendancy to stand still and shoot the French)meant that whilst attacking only a small number of troops in the colomn could actually fire. The columns were very tempting targets for artillery particually with the British invention of shrapnel. The American Generals adopted these tactics as they had worked in Europe. The changing nature of warfare due to changes in technology made this type of war increasingly bloody and new methods were sought after hence towards the end of the Civil War you see the introduction of trenches to provide cover from fire for defending troops.

Thats some of the reasons in a nutshell.

[instantmilkshake]

Thanks! I always wondered. Dangerous to be in the army at that time. :roll:

[Para]

One the muskets where not that accurate, Two the black powder used would vary enormously. Three The musket ball was not that stable in flight. Four the training of Musketeers was not all that brilliant.

[PhillyMobster]

It was partly to due with accuracy, but if you'll look into it, you'll find that very little emphasis, if any, was ever placed on marksmanship in infantry training. The purpose of the battle lines was to increase the rate of fire. If you figure that you have a muzzle-loading rifle-musket firing a .58 caliber bullet, and it takes 20 seconds to reload, you have a total of three shots a minute. Obviously, this is an incredibly slow rate of fire, so it was found that the greater the massed fire-power, the higher the rate of fire. Hence, the various different techniques of firing by rank, firing by file, firing by squad, platoon, or battalion, or just discharging a double ranked volley from the entire unit for maximum effect.
As much as the bayonet is laughed at these days, it was the real weapon in the 17 and 1800s. Although few people were ever actually killed by the bayonet, notice the fact that the majority of battles reached a breaking point where a unit either finally lost momentum in a charge, or crushed the enemy through the sheer weight of their forward motion. There was an art to orchestrating firepower back then. When you were charged by an enemy unit, the commander had to calculate the exact moment when that enemy unit would be close enough to be devestated by his volley, but far enough away, that their momentum would not carry them through his lines. This is another reason why split rail fences were such a popular defensive position during the ACW. Not only did it make it easier for officers to deploy their troops along a single line, but it also put a solid barrier between the soldiers and anyone who might charge them.

**I love this subject...** :oops:

[PhillyMobster]

Thanks! I always wondered. Dangerous to be in the army at that time. :roll:

possibly, but is it any more dangerous than today? These days, you have RPGs and automatic weapons, tanks, aircraft, and laser-guided bombs. Back then, the best you had for precision firepower was a 12pndr Parrot gun. The weapons were slow firing, and everyone was armed with practically the same weapon.

I would hate to have served then, not because of the tactics, but because of the medical services (or lack thereof)

I'm a Civil War reenactor, which is why I'm such a nerd on this topic. p-)

[toad]

Why did they lined up and shot each other point blank?


I don't think its totally accurate to say that in Americas civil war that rifleman lined up and shot at each other point blank. Its just too narrow a perspective. In typical battles through the ACW there were regiments and brigades and corps of infantry who were mainly deployed in ranks as was already stated by other posters....

But whole companies of sharpshooters were employed who were very highly trained in markmanship. (Berdans men were required to fire ten shots offhand at a target "To become a Sharpshooter, a candidate was required to fire a qualification course using a rifle brought to the competition by the volunteer. The course of fire consisted of shooting ten rounds as rapidly as the shooter could reload into a target ten inches in diameter at a distance of two hundred yards. All ten rounds had to hit the target and the average distance could be no more than five inches from the center of the target. This was measured using a fifty inch string. The end of the string was placed on the center of the target then run to the nearest hole in the target. The point where the string intersected the hole was then moved to the center and the distance to the next hole measured, then so on. "

Also quoted in Berdans web page is this quote: "Shortly before the War Between the States began, two inventions drastically changed warfare forever. The combination of the rifled musket and the "minnie ball" increased the effective range of the standard infantry rifle to distances of 300 yards and beyond. Now infantry units would be devasted before coming anywhere close to their foes, leaving few, if any troops to engage in the final charge."


There where muskets in both armies, and rifles, and rifle-muskets... from .52 cal sharps up through .56, .58 to .69 cal. buck and ball loads that made civil war shooting quite accurate, especially when massed fire was used in close ranks.

Cavalry who often used breech loading carbines with higher rates of fire were used extensively in ACW battles. Never tell a Gen. John Buford fan that in the ACW the men just lined up and fired at each other from close range. He deployed a famous defense in depth in one battle that is still taught in the US ARMY war college today. His troopers were picking off soldiers at 250 yds and in the same battle confederate troops on OAK hill were firing into Union lines at 300-400 yds away.

Bring to this the use of artillery, cavalry, infantry and all the various weapons we have all mentioned and it is MUCH much more than saying that "they lined up and shot each other from close distance".

-The 88th Pa. who surprised Iverson from behind concealment...
-Greenes construction of barricades and his famous traverse on Culps hill to fire from cover...
- Warrens defense of Little Round top behind rock walls firing hundreds of yds to the enemy... only to be ended with an old fashioned bayonet charge at close quarters.

....all examples of how warfare evolved in the civil war. Sure Napoleonic Warfare was still basic at the start of the war. Even the confederates pikes were still in the wharehouses.... but more modern weapons made this much more of a shooting match than wars prior.

By 1863 cover was sought when available, and defenses were constructed. Sure many commanders still fought in outdated methods and marched and stood and fired. It sure was true, but for every Dan Sickles there was a John Buford or John Gibbon.

As for one last comment. The american civil war tactics are still taught today in the war college, because the ACW was a turning point in tactics and weaponry. Not just for the US.

And BTW its not a 12lb Parrot. :P Parrot rifles were in 10 pound and 20 pounders. 12 pounders would be smooth bore cannon or 12pound Howitzers.

Look at how various artillery is used in ACW and you will realize that troops who were up against 6pounders, 12 pounders, 3 inch ordinance rifles, 10 pound Parrots and 20's (which fired accurately to 2000 yds) etc... etc....with case, shot, shell and cannister were not just standing in close ranks all the time. Sure that was part of the battle formation at some times.

...but there was much more to the tactics.

[ex1cdo]

One the muskets where not that accurate, Two the black powder used would vary enormously. Three The musket ball was not that stable in flight. Four the training of Musketeers was not all that brilliant.

Yes, but in the US Civil War both sides were (mostly) armed with rifled muskets, which had an effective range of up to 300 yards , and the Minie "ball" was ballistically much better than a round bullet.

Tactics had not evolved to take advantage of much better weapons than were available during the Napoleonic era.

Still, I'd be more concerned about disease or infection after a wound (unless it was fatal) than the wound itself...

[instantmilkshake]

thanks guys, great replies!

[PhillyMobster]

I think people overestimate the value of the rifled bullet in the 1860s. It was really not much more of an improvement over the musket, when it came out. Certainly it had little or no effect on tactics, at least early in the war, since the damge inflicted at the normal engagement ranges of 120-80 yards by a .69 Caliber smoothbore 1842 Springfield was actually greater than that inflicted by a .58 Cal. 1853 Enfield rifle. I think this goes back to the marksmanship training again. Perhaps it would have made a greater difference if the soldiers using rifles had been better trained in their capabilities, but at the end of the day, they were used in the same capacity as muskets.

[Roger Rabbit]

Napoleon refused to allow his skmishers to be issued rifles much to their distress when they met with the British skirmishers who were using Baker Rifles. I read way too much Sharpe.

[bluffcove]

Sharpe? Sharpe rocks! you cannot read too much Sharpe.

On exercise I find it hard not to shout "form line" as soon as I see the enemy, purely for amusments sake!

- Taxi for one! :oops:

[Aerosoul]

It's just the way wars were fought, for centuries. Guerilla tactics/targeting officers, etc was all considered dishonorable. If you watch The Patriot with Mel Gibson, they do a good job talking about that in the movie.

[instantmilkshake]

It's just the way wars were fought, for centuries. Guerilla tactics/targeting officers, etc was all considered dishonorable. If you watch The Patriot with Mel Gibson, they do a good job talking about that in the movie.

That movie was a classic Hollywood showboat.

[Ichhabe]

I dont know about the American Civil War, but in the Napoleon aera the average soldier got to fire his rifle 5 times before being send out to wage war. You were lucky if you could hit the wall of a barn even if you stood inside of it.
British studies in the early 19th. century showed that it would take a soldier about 4000 shots with his rifle before killing 1-ONE enemy.

[Roger Rabbit]

Sharpe? Sharpe rocks! you cannot read too much Sharpe.

On exercise I find it hard not to shout "form line" as soon as I see the enemy, purely for amusments sake!

- Taxi for one! :oops:
Every Sharpe story follows the same format. Sharpe gets mortally wounded yet survives, bones woman, woman leaves him, wins battle single handedly, gains promotion although not always in that order. But it never gets old.

Wonder how a sqaure would stand up to a cavalry charge these days. Chally 2 vs man just doesn't sound very sporting.

[Easy C.]

They did it because it was the "Gentlemen's way" of fighting a war. Plus their guns didnt shoot accurately for very far.

[PhillyMobster]

They did it because it was the "Gentlemen's way" of fighting a war. Plus their guns didnt shoot accurately for very far.

I don't think so. I think if there had been a legitimate tactic that was superior to their form of combat, they would have used it. The problem was, the weapons had such a slow rate of fire, the troops had to be tightly massed to even approach a reasonable rate. It was just the logic of the times, if a bit brutal for the guys in the front rank.

[Easy C.]

They did it because it was the "Gentlemen's way" of fighting a war. Plus their guns didnt shoot accurately for very far.

I don't think so. I think if there had been a legitimate tactic that was superior to their form of combat, they would have used it. The problem was, the weapons had such a slow rate of fire, the troops had to be tightly massed to even approach a reasonable rate. It was just the logic of the times, if a bit brutal for the guys in the front rank.

Trust me on this, it was the "Gentlemen's way" of fighting a war.

[stateofequilibrium]

A lot of the massed fire was hold-over of Napoleonic doctrines over the commanders/generals. Muskets and artillery were slow loading and inaccurate over any great range. Then all of a sudden muskets became rifles and the artilleries became devastating. Gradually, tactics did change during the Civil War and we saw the introduction of trenches and the likes. But for decades later, people were still ramming armies up against each other like a big game of Red Rover.

[ogukuo72]

I may be wrong, but isn't the American Civil War still the bloodiest war the US has ever fought?

[PhillyMobster]

They did it because it was the "Gentlemen's way" of fighting a war. Plus their guns didnt shoot accurately for very far.

I don't think so. I think if there had been a legitimate tactic that was superior to their form of combat, they would have used it. The problem was, the weapons had such a slow rate of fire, the troops had to be tightly massed to even approach a reasonable rate. It was just the logic of the times, if a bit brutal for the guys in the front rank.

Trust me on this, it was the "Gentlemen's way" of fighting a war.

Why, do you have 1st hand experience?

[Easy C.]

They did it because it was the "Gentlemen's way" of fighting a war. Plus their guns didnt shoot accurately for very far.

I don't think so. I think if there had been a legitimate tactic that was superior to their form of combat, they would have used it. The problem was, the weapons had such a slow rate of fire, the troops had to be tightly massed to even approach a reasonable rate. It was just the logic of the times, if a bit brutal for the guys in the front rank.

Trust me on this, it was the "Gentlemen's way" of fighting a war.

Why, do you have 1st hand experience?

Yes, me and M1A2U2 fought against the British, then of course he went to fight in the Gulf war some years later. ;)

[Aerosoul]

They did it because it was the "Gentlemen's way" of fighting a war. Plus their guns didnt shoot accurately for very far.

I don't think so. I think if there had been a legitimate tactic that was superior to their form of combat, they would have used it. The problem was, the weapons had such a slow rate of fire, the troops had to be tightly massed to even approach a reasonable rate. It was just the logic of the times, if a bit brutal for the guys in the front rank.

Trust me on this, it was the "Gentlemen's way" of fighting a war.

Why, do you have 1st hand experience?

He's right...it's just the way they fought. The "honorable" way.

[PhillyMobster]

They did it because it was the "Gentlemen's way" of fighting a war. Plus their guns didnt shoot accurately for very far.

I don't think so. I think if there had been a legitimate tactic that was superior to their form of combat, they would have used it. The problem was, the weapons had such a slow rate of fire, the troops had to be tightly massed to even approach a reasonable rate. It was just the logic of the times, if a bit brutal for the guys in the front rank.

Trust me on this, it was the "Gentlemen's way" of fighting a war.

Why, do you have 1st hand experience?

Yes, me and M1A2U2 fought against the British, then of course he went to fight in the Gulf war some years later. ;)

rofl

When you fought the British, which flank did you serve on?

[Aerosoul]

LEFT FLAAAAAANKKK!!!! COVER FIRE!!!!!

[Easy C.]

lol

Actually It was M1A2U2's father I served with, he mistakingly fought on the "Right" flank and took a cannonball to the face, so as you may know, the M1A2U2 we know now, has not made that same mistake.

[digrar]

Wonder how a sqaure would stand up to a cavalry charge these days. Chally 2 vs man just doesn't sound very sporting.

Probably about as well as an old school horse mounted cav charge against a modern Battalion with all the mod cons.

[mudbunny]

After firing a black powder rifle it's easy to understand. As for tactics, the English version of gentlemanly warfare is a total crock of sh!t. If more accurate weapons would have been available at the time of the independence war, bunching up soldiers and marching them right at the enemy would have gone the way of the dodo. The English Generals, like Corn-hole-is, were greatly overrated. Give me 1000 pissed off farmers with pitch forks and I'll give you a victory. The redcoats are running back to England!!!

[FallenAngel]

I may be wrong, but isn't the American Civil War still the bloodiest war the US has ever fought?

Yes. With the exception of WWII I think there were more killed in the US Civil War than all others combined.

Compare:

Vietnam over the course of 11 years: 58,000 dead/MIA/POW (approx.)

Battle of *****sburg over the course of 3 days: 53,000 dead/MIA/POW

Bloodiest Day in American history is still the Battle of Antietam: 24,000 casualties in a little over 10 hours.

Battle of Cold Harbor: US lost 7,000 in about 15 minutes assaulting Confederate defences.

Oh, and of course, there was desease. Twice as many men died from desease or infection than by enemy fire.

[ogukuo72]

I have the *****sburg DVD. Its a good set, with the trailers for the movie. One of the tagline they used was something like this:

One summer in 1863 ... over three days ... more men were killed ... than in the Vietnam War.

Maybe not factually accurate but really touched my heart.

Why does the American Civil War appeal to a non-American like me? Because I really believed it was a war fought not over land but over ideas, right or misguided.

[PhillyMobster]

I have the *****sburg DVD. Its a good set, with the trailers for the movie. One of the tagline they used was something like this:

One summer in 1863 ... over three days ... more men were killed ... than in the Vietnam War.

Maybe not factually accurate but really touched my heart.

Why does the American Civil War appeal to a non-American like me? Because I really believed it was a war fought not over land but over ideas, right or misguided.

Good point. Some will argue that it was about land, i.e. the North trying to invade the South, but I think most sane people can agree that it was ultimately fought over slavery, whether that was the given reason at the start or not.

In my opinion it was the last truly noble war ever fought. Both sides fighting for their own convictions and ideas, not over religion, tribal differences, a little bit of land with a gold mine in it, or some other petty reason. Also consider how different the war could have turned out if it had been fought even a decade later. In 1866 you have the first practicle model of the Gatling gun. By 1873, numerous breechloading rifles like the Martini-Henry and the Allin Trapdoor Springfield have appeared, which quadrupled the rate of fire of the old muzzle-loaders. Not to mention the ever popular Winchester repeaters, which matured in the late 60s.

In 1871, the HMS Devestation was the first effective, sea going, 100% steam powered capital ship, and obviously served as a future template for other warships.
http://www.warship.get.net.pl/WBrytania/Battleships/1873_Devastation_class/Devastation_art_04.jpg

So within a few short years, battle tactics would be forced to change, by the sheer technological advancement of the weapons. Both the French and Germans suffered apalling casulties during the Franco-Prussian war, due to their use of outdated tactics. The logic of sustained fire from a massed formation no longer applied, as individual soldiers were now able to lay down a steady rain of fire on their targets.

By the 1880s, the British had done away with the Scarlet Tunic, and started wearing Khaki, one of the earlier instances of field camoflauge.

After the first few opening months of WWI, everything that remotely resembled Napoleanic tactics gradually disappeared. The Civil War is a tiny pocket of time in between one Era and another, where technology met ideas, and the results are fascinating.

[ex1cdo]

Sharpe? Sharpe rocks! you cannot read too much Sharpe.

On exercise I find it hard not to shout "form line" as soon as I see the enemy, purely for amusments sake!

- Taxi for one! :oops:
Every Sharpe story follows the same format. Sharpe gets mortally wounded yet survives, bones woman, woman leaves him, wins battle single handedly, gains promotion although not always in that order. But it never gets old.


Then there are the "Starbuck Chronicles". Sharpe reincarnated as a Yankee fighting for the Confederacy. Even Obadiah Hakeswill makes another appearance, under a different name.

:P

[toad]

They did it because it was the "Gentlemen's way" of fighting a war. Plus their guns didnt shoot accurately for very far.

I don't think so. I think if there had been a legitimate tactic that was superior to their form of combat, they would have used it. The problem was, the weapons had such a slow rate of fire, the troops had to be tightly massed to even approach a reasonable rate. It was just the logic of the times, if a bit brutal for the guys in the front rank.

Trust me on this, it was the "Gentlemen's way" of fighting a war.

Why, do you have 1st hand experience?




Sorry, but I have to disagree that it was the 'gentlemens way' to fight war in the ACW. You can't rationally back that up.

Yes there was honor amongst many soldiers who before the war had served together, but in the context of tactics and the discussion here of lining up in ranks to fire, it was no "gentlemans way".

In the ACW, troops dug tunnels under each others lines & trenches and exploded charges under them to blow them to bits. Like WW1, not a very gentlemanly war.

In the ACW, there were submarines deployed, and edged weapons, and cannon firing double cannister into the faces of its enemy. Not gentlemanly at all.

Phillymobster has the best feel for the tactics when he said that overall if there had been better tactics available they would have been used. But in a era where commands were still given by mouth and bugles, the regiments were still kept in fairly tight ranks and quided on flags. Black powder made battles smoke covered.

No, it was not "a gentlemans way". If it was, then troops would not have deployed skirmishers, sharpshooters, counterbattery fire, cannister, dug trenches, deployed mines, deployed sabers, deployed abbitas, attacked at night, hand to hand fighting with knives and brass knuckles, attacking supply columns.... no, they would have waited for a nice day and marched on thier field of honor, shot till one side could not take the attrition reminiscent of some wars before.


The ACW was anything but "standing in ranks and shooting" till someone went home..... not even close. ;)

[DANJANOU]

As noted many of the ACW initial leaders would have studied Napoleonic and earlier tactics and these were the accepted standards. Linear tactics were effective because of the short ranged and inaccurate smoothbore muskets that European Armies were equipped with.

These solid formations were also about the only effective ones for the relatively untrained troops. One trained your soldiers to act by rote, loading and firing as fast as possible and to ignore what was going around beside them. Otherwise the sheer noise, not the fire coming at them, would have them running after the first minutes, which often was the case, with some poorly trained led troops.

Colourful uniforms, red, blue etc were a necessity prior to the invention of smokeless powder. A battlefield in the 18th or early part of the 19th century would quickly become covered in a haze and it became hard for a commander to spot his, or the enemies units unless they were wearing something distinctive.

Yes there were technical innovations between the end of the Napoleonic Wars and the ACW, this was after all the era of the industrial revolution. Rifled muskets and mini balls that increased the range and accuracy of musket fire, smokeless powder and even breechloaders would eventually make the old line and column tactics obsolete and change the face of war.

One however has to remember that the military, any military by its very nature is a conservative organization and therefore often does not accept change easily and or quickly especially when it involves doctrine.

Learning how to use these new weapons and ideas comes slowly. Many were already used, forgotten and relearned numerous times before. The British developed an effective Light infantry force to fight the French and Indians during the Seven Years War in North America, including dispersed tactics, fire and movement, “camouflage” uniforms, and marksmen equipped with rifled muskets.

Depite their success in that conflict after it was over they were disbanded. During the American Revolution they were forced to relearn those same lessons again and costly ones they were before again redeveloping a light infantry force to fight the American irregulars in the bush.

Again after that war these troops and tactics were discarded for a second time only to have to be reinvented for a third time in the 19th Century against Napoleon.

Things often move a glacial pace in the military world especially back then. The French Army that went to war in 1914 ore basically the same uniform of bright blue jackets and red pants that it had worn in 1870, against a modern invading German army which incidentally had beaten them back in 1870 too.

Study thr early battles and campaigns of the ACW and then those near the end. You’ll see a gradual loss of these European style linear tactics and the emergence of something resembling a modern type of warfare, with fire and movement, and entrenchments. Part of this was the early loss of many of the pre war Generals and leaders and their replacements by amateurs and/or promoted junior officers with less of a pre war bias.

[toad]

well said.

But did age really have much to do with the tactics or just an officers experience? I think thats what you alluded to.

Union Gen. Greene who defended Culps hill in gburg, was a crusty old sole who was one of the OLDEST soldiers. But he did not employ napoleonic tactics and stand in the open. Heck no, he dug trenches and put his men behind them with a head log for good protection. Old engineer was he.... experienced in many battles by July of 1863.


But on the other hand a YOUNG officer at *****sburg was shown to follow much older and outdated tactics. Custer led slashing cavalry charges which put emphasis on the saber and daring, much a throwback to earlier times.

Again, your point is well taken. With expereince as the war went on tactics changed. First bull run is nothing like Chancelorsville or *****sburg. And maybe it was many older generals who held on to older values, but not all. And not all young leaders were progressive.

Experience, not age.

[Roger Rabbit]

Sharpe? Sharpe rocks! you cannot read too much Sharpe.

On exercise I find it hard not to shout "form line" as soon as I see the enemy, purely for amusments sake!

- Taxi for one! :oops:
Every Sharpe story follows the same format. Sharpe gets mortally wounded yet survives, bones woman, woman leaves him, wins battle single handedly, gains promotion although not always in that order. But it never gets old.


Then there are the "Starbuck Chronicles". Sharpe reincarnated as a Yankee fighting for the Confederacy. Even Obadiah Hakeswill makes another appearance, under a different name.

:P
:oops: I've read all of those as well. Theres a reference to Sharpe in there. One of the French Colonels who is acting as an advisor to the North is supposed to be Sharpes son.

Cornwall's written a couple of books based on King Arthur and a Medieval series. All fairly good but becoming a little repetative. Still if the format isn't borken then don't fix it. :D

[DANJANOU]

Toad, moreso the experience, I guess I didn't make that too clear in the initial post ( something I appear to be guilty of a lot today)..

Many of the initial leaders at the start of the war on both sides were veterans of the Mexican War where they served as juniou officers. That Army and therefore they it could be argued were very much a product of Winfield Scott who I would suggest is one of the true fathers of the professional American Army (as opposed to the various "minutemen myth" and state militias that dominated the first decade and a half of the 19th Century)

Scott in turn was heavily influenced by his experiences during the War of 1812 where he saw the poorly trained and led US troops repeatedly beaten by the British in the first year of the war. He himself was captured at Queenston Heights early in the war after the NY state militia refused to cross the border and join his besieged regulars.

Later after his parole he rebuilt and trained his own Brigade to what he saw as "British standards." Their first major engagement at Chippewa would prove their worth as they defeated the British.

[toad]

Dan... you pointed out that experience was a big driver. I just tried to give an example.

But your example of officers gaining experience in the Mexican War, is the best example of showing that there were older tactics drawn upon for some leaders. But thankfully Win Scott was in Washington and not in the field ?! His Commissary General who supplied much of his army leading up to 1861 was commisary general for over 40 years! Talk about old fashioned and a need for new blood. He was in his 80's in 1861 and I think only Win Scott was older than he. They served together in Mexico and the Indian wars (with Zach Taylor)

Very true that washington officers were very much the older crowd who arguably had much less progressive ideas. Thankfully as you pointed out the officers in the field quickly gained the experience needed and warfare really evolved over the period of the ACW.

Is it possible that in that era the officers in Wash. were kept around past thier prime and is it true that some were in the field too long too?

Some field officers served into thier late 50's or 60's ?


John Buford was only 37 though, at *****sburg. And he was not one to follow old tactics... he was considered very progressive. A good exampleof one of the younger officers who had advanced cavalry tactics in the ACW.

[DANJANOU]

Toad

History if rife with examples of over the hill senior officers who refuse to give up and retire and contaminant the military with outmoded and disproved ideas. Mind would you willingly give up the power and prestige that came with such a position, especially if you had an ego?

Hull and the other long past it American Revolutionary heroes who led the disastrous attacks into Canada in 1812 come to mind. As do the British Generals in 1914 that had spent their entire careers fighting natives with spears and had no concepts of what modern artillery and machine guns could do to an army. The French and British generals who thought 1940 was going to be a rematch of 1914-18 are yet another.

Unfortunately these dinosaurs often move into positions of power and influence based on past exploits and then can’t be shifted without high explosives.

Mind there are exceptions to this rule and some old dogs could/can learn new tricks. Douglas MacArthur being an excellent example. How old was he in 1941? In 1944-45? and even older at Inchon.

I think we’re starting to stray from the original topic at hand here, although not to far and in a useful way.

[Werewolf01]

The rifled musket was not common issue until the advent of the ACW. At the beginning of the conflict many more smoothbores were found in both armies than rifles. In fact, some of the Confederate units used Brown Bess Muskets (unconverted) up until briefly before Shiloh. The tactics being used were sound (for the day) considering that the rifled musket was more or less standardized DURING the war. Yes, they were issued before the war, BUT, again, they were only standardized DURING the war.
To add to the list of 'ungentlemanly' weapons I would like to include another brilliant Confederate invention: the landmine. (I can't remember if it was thrown in before, but the machine gun and breachloading rifledartillery also made their major appearance during the war)
One other thing to keep in mind guys is that every unit used different drill manuals. One unit might use Hardee's, another might use some oddball German manual from one of the German states or Austria simply because the entire unit spoke German. A lot of LA units drilled in French. There were US and CS 'official' manuals, but the units, for the most part, fell under the auspices of the individual states. As long as the unit gcould go from column to line, or fire left oblique, etc., nobody cared what language it was done in or which manual it came from. There were very few US and CS units compared to those of the states. (One of my relatives was a sergeant in the 2nd CS Engineers though).
Please let me lay to rest the 'gentleman' arguement once and for all. Warfare was a scrum with swords, spears and eventually bayonets and gunpowder until after the ACW . The mass formations were used to deliver the maximum shock effect with both projectiles and bayonets, and aimed musketry was not strictly taught as the command often was "Present!" then "Fire", not "Aim!" then "Fire". Don't view the officers as ignorant. they were doing what they could with what they had.

[PhillyMobster]

aimed musketry was not strictly taught as the command often was "Present!" then "Fire", not "Aim!" then "Fire". Don't view the officers as ignorant. they were doing what they could with what they had.

Thats something I hadn't considered before. good point. In the case of regiments in the ACW though, the typical command was 'aim'. However, in the British Army...


Well, who can forget 'Zulu'!

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/MMPH/B72615~Michael-Caine.jpg
Ready! Present! FIRE!

[DANJANOU]

Werewolf01, PhillyMobster

Good points re “aim vs present” mind even the idea of “aim” more or less referred to "point the end where the little round balls come flying out in the general direction of the enemy" for most troops. Even in the pic you copied of Rorkes Drift where the Brits were equipped with accurate ( well fairly) breechloading Martini-Henry's they still consoidered massed volley fire and effective tactic and this was a couple of decades after the ACW.

Yes there were marksmen even as early as the end of the 18th century, but they were the exception rather than the norm. Always loved some of those rifles muskets from the ACW that show up in movies like *****sburg with the lengthy scopes attached on top, but wondered how practical/effective they were.

Look at most early 19th century weapons (This link leads to a replica site
http://www.militaryheritage.com/muskets.htm) and you’ll notice a common factor no sights, or at last not as we’ve come to know them.

Toad as long as I mention *****sburg, I though Sam Elliot made an excellent Buford.

[ex1cdo]

To add to the list of 'ungentlemanly' weapons I would like to include another brilliant Confederate invention: the landmine.


Ah, yes, the good old "land torpedo". The Young Napoleon had some unkind things to say about the Confederacy for deploying such nasty ungentlemanly weapons, or so I've heard.

[Erik2a4]

Sharpe? Sharpe rocks! you cannot read too much Sharpe.

On exercise I find it hard not to shout "form line" as soon as I see the enemy, purely for amusments sake!

- Taxi for one! :oops:
Every Sharpe story follows the same format. Sharpe gets mortally wounded yet survives, bones woman, woman leaves him, wins battle single handedly, gains promotion although not always in that order. But it never gets old.

Wonder how a sqaure would stand up to a cavalry charge these days. Chally 2 vs man just doesn't sound very sporting.

Hahahahahaha...yeah, Sharpe is the same thing, over and over again...

I think the "square" used by Infantry nowadays is either the "Defense In Depth", or MOUT/FIBUA. If you think about it, it's really the same principle, just on a much larger perspective...

[TheDeacon]

Line tactics go waaaaay back in European history, all the way back to the Greek hoplites and the Roman legions.

It's interesting to notice how as the art of war includes improvements on the musket from say the 17th to the 19th century that armies grow bigger, the formations grow in variety, and the casualties become very grim.

I know some people who are not thinking too clearly laugh at the British tactics in the War of Independance, but the fact is that they generally worked. Yes, it could be said that there were examples of disaster in for instance the cases of the earliest engagements against the Jacobites for the British or the massacre of British forces by Huron and French troops under General Braddock in the 7 Years War. But those stand out among many other successful engagements. Washington's forces retreated time and time again from General Howe for instance. It could rather be said that the stubborn courage of the forces and leaders of the patriots, the wearing down of British morale by privateering and partisan units as well as the determined refusal to give up that led to French support led to rebel victory.

The problem is that by the time of the US Civil War muskets and artillery had improved a great deal, resulting in the horrible casualties that took place.

[PhillyMobster]

I know some people who are not thinking too clearly laugh at the British tactics in the War of Independance, but the fact is that they generally worked. Yes, it could be said that there were examples of disaster in for instance the cases of the earliest engagements against the Jacobites for the British or the massacre of British forces by Huron and French troops under General Braddock in the 7 Years War. But those stand out among many other successful engagements. Washington's forces retreated time and time again from General Howe for instance. It could rather be said that the stubborn courage of the forces and leaders of the patriots, the wearing down of British morale by privateering and partisan units as well as the determined refusal to give up that led to French support led to rebel victory.



x2. I think people have a romatic notion of the 'American Minutemen' from Lexington and Concord fighting in a Guerilla warfare fasion against the British, but the fact is, in the early and middle parts of the war, virtually every time Americans tried to take the field with an organized army, they were defeated.