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 ****e. 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.

[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...**

[PhillyMobster]

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

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.

[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!

[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.