Alternate Civil War tactics

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Crosshair RE:Alternate Civil War tactics 8/28/2005 1:55:27 AM

One item that would have greatly helped the Union would have been to issue repeating rifles and phase out all the oddball caliber muzzleloaders. Repeating rifles for close work. Muzzleloaders (since repeaters at that time did not have great range) for longer range fire.

Quote Reply

Yimmy RE:Alternate Civil War tactics 8/28/2005 8:56:49 AM

The 1860 Henry in .44-40 (thats a .44 conical bullet propelled by 40 grains of black powder), had an efective range of 50-100m's, about the same as a modern 9mm submachinegun. The 1851(?) Whitworth Hexagonal bore rifle (muzzleloader), was known to hit targets 1000m's out.

Quote Reply

ChdNorm RE:Alternate Civil War tactics 8/28/2005 10:41:19 AM

Entire units of Yankees had Henrys and Spencers and that didnt seem to change the way things were done at the front, just make it even bloodier. I dont know that using wider spread use of repeating arms such as the Henry (which fired the .44 rimfire, which was pretty anemic compared with the .44WCF AKA .44-40 that was introduced in the 1873 Winchesters) would have reduced the carnage a bit. How do you manuever huge masses of foot marching infantry without having them meet head on? The instances of using manuever seemed to yield results when attempted, but those forces were usually fixed in place. The introduction of trench warfare seemed to offer some protection to defenders, but the attackers still had to wade in right up the middle. What alternate tactics would have been more effective? What could they have done but send the infantry thru open fields and a hail of mini balls?

Quote Reply

Heorot RE:Alternate Civil War tactics 8/28/2005 4:03:03 PM

Well, better field intelligence and battlefield selection for a start. If you look at the early set piece battles in the Peninsular campaign, Wellington nearly always knew where the enemy was, had a suitable battlefield preselected and was able to lure the enemy into attcking him on his preferred groung. His selected battlefields usually protected his troops against enemy fire until they closed. At Busaco, he had scouted the battlefield the year before and had had a path constucted to aid the lateral movemement of his troops.

Quote Reply

Yimmy RE:Alternate Civil War tactics 8/28/2005 5:24:14 PM

Thanks for the correction ChdNorm. I still think the muzzle loading rifled muskets were a superior infantrymans arm than the repeating carbines of the period, at least where the open field is concerned. The repeating carbines would have no doubt done better in urban areas.

Quote Reply

joe6pack RE:Alternate Civil War tactics 8/29/2005 10:20:23 AM

"What alternate tactics would have been more effective? What could they have done but send the infantry thru open fields and a hail of mini balls? " Well, for starters maybe abandoned the shoulder to shoulder set piece maneuvers that were designed for weapons that would be lucky to score a hit a 50 meters. I think this was a serious case of preparing to fight the last war again. Tactics failed to keep up with technological changes.

Quote Reply

Yimmy RE:Alternate Civil War tactics 8/29/2005 10:25:09 AM

"Tactics failed to keep up with technological changes." Nothing new there then! It is only in recent conflicts that tacticians are putting technology first.

Quote Reply

jhaley RE:Alternate Civil War tactics 8/29/2005 4:32:35 PM

Look at the tactics of Nathan Bedford Forrest ( many consider the father of modern warfare). Flanking attacks, mobility, quick strikes, mounted divergent columns and surprise.

Quote Reply

joe6pack RE:Alternate Civil War tactics 8/29/2005 5:06:23 PM

"Look at the tactics of Nathan Bedford Forrest ( many consider the father of modern warfare). Flanking attacks, mobility, quick strikes, mounted divergent columns and surprise. " There were a number of inovative leaders in the Civil War but they unfortunately did not establish doctrine. IE - this is the way "we" should fight the war. Commanders had a great deal of idependency due to various communication and political issues. Ego in a number of cases was no small matter. This allowed for some individual greatness but also contributed to some of the bigger blunders (on both sides) of the war. At least in my opinion.

Quote Reply

Heorot RE:Alternate Civil War tactics 8/29/2005 5:22:06 PM

Also, Forrest was on the losing side.

Quote Reply

Heorot RE:Alternate Civil War tactics 8/29/2005 5:24:19 PM

Also, IIRC Forrest wasn't a trained (as in military acadamy) professional. The ideas from amateurs are usually ignored as soon as its convenient.

Quote Reply

jhaley RE:Alternate Civil War tactics 8/29/2005 6:21:01 PM

Forrest Tactics are still studied in war colleges around the world. His tactics of mobile warfare were widely studied and influenced, Von Schieffen, Rommel, Patton and others. The foundations of "Blitzkreig" and modern "Shock and Awe" can be traced to a study of Forrest doctrine...."Get there first with the Most" are still the main rule of modern warfare!

Quote Reply

AlbanyRifles RE:Alternate Civil War tactics 8/30/2005 12:09:20 PM

1. Weaponry. The primary rifle used by both armies had the same maximum effective range of rifles of today?that is 300 to 500 yards. The US Model 1861 Springfield rifle in .58 Caliber had sights for 100, 300 and 500 yards. The .577 Caliber P53 Enfield Rifle had sights out to 900 yards. They were a ballistic match out to about 500 yards. The average soldier could hit a man-sized target at 300 yards. The Sharps rifle in .52 caliber was a good breach loader. There were 2 reasons why it was not adopted as the primary arm for the Union, one good and one bad. The good reason was that it was a more difficult weapon to make than the Springfield and .58 caliber was the standard US Army rifle caliber. The bad is that BG James Ripley, the Chief of Ordnance, was hidebound and outdated. His nickname was Ripley Van Winkle. He believed muzzleloaders would keep the rate of fire down so soldiers would not waste ammo. The argument of the tactics not matching the weapons does not mean muzzle loader versus breech loader. Its old linear tactics facing rifles?. 2. Tactics. The advantage of the linear tactics were they were easy to learn and teach to rookie troops AND their leaders. The US Army of 1860 was only 16,000 men, 3800 of whom went to the CSA. The Army?s experience in fighting large battles with volunteer troops was limited to War of 1812 (didn?t work real well) and Mexico. Both had smoothbore muzzleloaders as the infantry weapon. Almost all of the experience of the US Army was operating in small combined arms fights in Indian Wars. The only school of military thought and theory was West Point?.where they studied the last successful leader of national armies?Napoleon. Every commander tried to get on the flank and rear. It happened dozens, if not hundreds, of times. And the use of combined arms was not something NBF just thought up?.it was US Army doctrine for years?and had been used to defeat the Mexican Army as well as numerous Indian enemies. NBF was effective conducting attacks and raids on the periphery and as a cavalry commander. But he never stood in the line of battle. So what in a nutshell were the tactics which could have won the war sooner? None. What would have won the war sooner was effective leadership at the Operational and Strategic level for the Union which was willing to make the hard decisions and concentrate on destroying the Confederate armies. That is what finally won for the Union?..a rebellion with no armies is no rebellion.; For the Confederacy, they had the audaciousness, but they lacked Unity of Command. The only way to offset the effectiveness of the rifle at the tactical level was to go to open order and dig in. But remember teh span of control for a combat leader up through division level was what he could see. Hard to mass combat power.

Quote Reply

ambush RE:Alternate Civil War tactics 8/30/2005 12:47:40 PM

Certain technological improvements in firepower certainly could have called for a change in tactics but other improvements were not there to support such a changes. Increased firepower brought about by breach loaders and lever action repeaters could have men more dispersed fire non linear and maneuver tactics had there been adequate tactical communications to support it. The telegraph had brought about improved strategic communication but adequate control on the battlefield meant keeping everybody with in sight and hearing or messengers, who may or may not survive to deliver on time the message that may or may not be understood. (Charge of the Light Brigade anyone?) The advances in firepower actually favored the defender than the attacker for the command and control reasons. Had they been available to the Confederacy they could have offset the Unions manpower advantage. This was the situation really up through and including World War I. Other technology could have made some changes. The balloon was never adequately exploited as an OP and with a trial and error could have lead to the development of effective indirect artillery fire with howitzer batteries in reversed slope positions instead of exposed to counter battery fire from opposing gun artillery. Even without balloons a semaphore relay system could have been valuable, such as used by the Marines to direct naval Gunfire in the Spanish American War 3 decades later.

Quote Reply

ChdNorm AlbanyRifles 9/2/2005 12:09:35 AM

"The argument of the tactics not matching the weapons does not mean muzzle loader versus breech loader. Its old linear tactics facing rifles?." This is sort of where my question originally originated. I always hear it stated as fact that the tactics were obsolete. I'm wanting to know why and what could have been done differently. I appreciate this reply, as it hits right at what I'm wondering. "Tactics. The advantage of the linear tactics were they were easy to learn and teach to rookie troops AND their leaders....." That's something so obvious I'm surprised I haven't heard that more often. After all, they were all largely amateurs weren't they? I seem to recall reading somewhere that the regular Army never grew to more than 40,000 or so during the war? "NBF was effective conducting attacks and raids on the periphery and as a cavalry commander. But he never stood in the line of battle." That was my thoughts when Forrest was mentioned. However, what about Jackson's "foot cavalry"? Some of the operations in the Valley were pretty impressive when it comes to maneuvering his forces. The flanking move at Chancelorsville by Jackson's Army seemed to have been a successful attack using finesse over brute force ... so it doesn't seem like it was totally foreign idea to either side. But even for years after that they were both still throwing bodies against fixed defenses to be slaughtered? "So what in a nutshell were the tactics which could have won the war sooner? None." That's why I asked ... I don't see it as being so obvious as its always offered. The communications required to command and control forces on that scale would be next to impossible in any sort of timely fashion, at least I'd think so. Not being the most knowledgeable or scholarly about the Civil War, I was thinking maybe I was missing something. "What would have won the war sooner was effective leadership at the Operational and Strategic level for the Union which was willing to make the hard decisions and concentrate on destroying the Confederate armies. That is what finally won for the Union?..a rebellion with no armies is no rebellion.; For the Confederacy, they had the audaciousness, but they lacked Unity of Command." It seems like every commander up till Grant had the tendency to sit around massing forces instead of using what they had. I've wondered if it was a case of them being somewhat afraid of going toe to toe with Lee, but I've seen where McClellan was happy to see Lee take over from Johnston. What is your opinion of the reasons for it taking so long for the Yankees to finally jump into the fight with both feet? "The only way to offset the effectiveness of the rifle at the tactical level was to go to open order and dig in. But remember teh span of control for a combat leader up through division level was what he could see. Hard to mass combat power." How effective, comparing regiment to regiment, were units like Berdan's sharpshooters to a standard line regiment? Were skirmishers simply overwhelmed when the full weight of a regiment was thrown against them?

Quote Reply

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

	News As History - January 7, 2009
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us