Apparent complete absence of tactics during Civil War.

[Guest Pillar]

Being a newbie to strategy, I may be missing some sublte tactics, so I thought I'd ask.

It APPEARS that the civil war consisted of each side lining up troops to face each other and then taking turns blowing the sh*t out of each other. No manouvre, no guerrilla tactics, no use of terrain, just IGOUGO in real life.

Perhaps this is just the way the media portrays it? I just think it's so absurd that they just line up and take turns firing at each other like that. The whole front line seems to collapse each "turn".

What gives?

[Formerly Babra]

That sort of warfare disappeared in the middle of the 18th Century. I'm not feeling particularly essay-ish tonight, so to answer your question: Yes, it's just a myth.

[Guest Madmatt]

Ummm...errrr....ahhhh...

Dude, YOU REALLY need to do a little study before you throw out such blanket statements about what is commonly refered to as the first modern war.

I don't know of any media depictions of the American Civil War that EVER showed the conflict and battles anywhere near what you are saying...

Limitations due to weapon effectiveness are not the same as a lack of tactical finesse. Pick a battle (Gettysburg is a good one to start with but may be a little too big to get a handle on) and analyse the various manouvers and dispositions of the troops and you will soon see the intricate dance that Civil War generals partook of.

Madmatt

------------------

If it's in Combat Mission, it's on Combat Mission HQ!

CMHQ-Annex, The Alternative side of Combat Mission

Combat Mission HQ

CMHQ-Annex

Proud members of the Combat Mission WebRing

[This message has been edited by Madmatt (edited 07-11-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Madmatt (edited 07-11-2000).]

[Dragoon44]

Pillar, actually youre pretty much right. During the Civil War both sides for the most part used Napleonic Tactics,,,basically the idea of if we shoot enough, they'll keep their heads down, while we close and get to bayonet range. On a grand scale, this kind of thinking prevailed through most of WW I, until someone developed a rudimentary type of Fire and Manuever doctrine,,,course the advent of the Tank helped restore movement as well. In the american west during the time of the civil war warfare was a bit more fluid and creative. Most of the colonial powers also developed military units that were able to fight outside of the box...but again this was the exception not the rule.

[Havermeyer]

I took a history of war course in college-- we spent 2 days on it. Spent 3 days on WWI-- the instructor (he having served in 5 wars) couldn't stand the tedium of CW and WWI.

Interesting factoid, typically each casualty required a man's weight in lead fired.

------------------

"Two World Wars and One World Cup, do da, do da!"

--British Hooligan, sung to Camptown Races

[Dragoon44]

AND I CANT SPELL NAPOLEONIC!!! Sorry

[JoshK]

The American Civil War is an interesting case-study of how tactics are impacted by revolutionary (I speak relatively here) changes in weapons performance. Civil War firearms and artillery were more accurate and had greater range than their predecessors. Combine this with mass armies and old tactics and you have a slaughter on your hand. However, there was much tactical experimentation that tried to deal with this. Infiltration, mobility, and static defenses, were all utilized at various times to address the obsolescence of pre-war tactics. In addition, you can argue that Sherman's total war strategy was also a way of addressing the new realities.

[Major Tom]

Actually, the tactics used weren't that idiotic. It was not like there was any other accepted reference to fight war any other way! Sure, the Native North Americans were able to conduct themselves in a more 'reasonable' manner of fighting in wilderness areas, but, that wasn't seen as 'acceptable' tactics.

The smoke put up due to the discharge of the rifles was the main reason for lining up in lines and having colourful clothes and big flags. It would be SO easy to get lost if tactics followed 20th Century style. This was the only way in which the commanders can reasonably control their troops.

By the end of the war, both sides saw the benefit of the lessons learned in such previous engagements (Crimean War) that trenches and fortifications offered GREAT protection for troops. The battles around Richmond were purely static warfare, where, the Union won due to excelent outflanking tactics (they were able to extend their trenches farther than the Confederates due to more manpower).

Plus, we must remember that 90% of all weapons used were muzzle loaders. You can only load them standing up (laying down doesn't work too well!).

[Guest Pillar]

Communication and Cohesion seem like the limiting factors to me. Even if the rifles had to be loaded standing up, you could still try and spread out/hide etc.

To someone new to the study of warfare, the bright red uniforms and line vs. line in broad daylight tactics seem a bit lacking.

In "The Patriot" there are a few scenes with armies marching right at each other. They call "Halt" and then load weapons and start taking turns shooting each other. The front lines peel away with each volley, until finally the "Charge" command is given and things begin to shake up. OTOH, Gibson's character uses some interesting ambush/guerilla tactics on his own and with his small militia. Why not the whole armies?

Again, I guess cohesion was more important?

I'm not making "blanket statements". The point of this post was so I could understand civil war tactics, since in all the media I've seen there doesn't seem to be any.

Thanks for the info.

[Howdie]

The rifled musket made the rifle more deadly at longer ranges. In the revolution, ya had to be close to make your shot count, and that meant you had to be close enough, and massed enough. Ya usually only got a shot or two off before the chrge. Combine those tacticts with the rifled musket, and you are right, it does seem foolish. Ya could just stand there and blast away at each other.

I think part of the reason for these tactics was the fact that winning the war meant destroying the other army. Right or wrong that is what both Grant and Lee felt I believe. Sherman and Jackson on the other hand understood that making the enemy lose the will to fight was the right answer and that didnt necessarily mean destroying the others army. Maybe they should have employed more squad based/WWII tactics.

Just a thought.

[TexasToast]

Here's your problem -

The Patriot was about the Revolutionary War, so you are backing up about 80 years from the Civil War. Now you are back into the Napoleonic style of warfare with the limitations mentioned above.

[Formerly Babra]

ACW open order tactics are more akin to WW2 style infantry combat than is apparent on the surface. In fact, I defy anyone to locate a primary source (that's a first-hand account) of fighting "shoulder to shoulder".

Using terrain, cover and, yes, even lying down, were commonplace.

As to massed Napoleonic formations, although the men fought in close order, the formations themselves were NOT static. Maneuver was the key to victory. Paintings, which form our primary imagery of the period, capture only an instant of time, and thus we get the impression of static lines blazing away at one another. Don't be fooled by the painters (or the movie-makers).

[tailz]

Both combatants, for the most part, fielded large 'citizen soldier' armies. As mentioned before, cohesion and communication were another highly relevant factor. (strength-courage in numbers). Technology (the rifled musket) dramatically increased the kill zone of the defender... much like the mg did in WW1. There was (IMO) a habit to subordinate field tactics to the particular general's strategic plan for how he wanted the battle to develop. (Which inevitably fell apart after first contact... there are numerous examples.)

[Guest Pillar]

Sorry for the confusion. I meant the Revolutionary war.

[BillWoodAgain]

Radio.

Prior to that, armies communicated using sight and yelling. Thus, except for small well behaved units, "WWII Tactics" were simply not possible.

Also understand that you could NOT train large armies to be independent thinkers as they were drafted. Since 80% + of these troops were functionally illiterate, it was not possible to train them as they lacked many of the foundation skills to build military skills on. Prior to the ACW, the US Army was tiny, and therefor very few NCOs and officers existed that could train these people.

The line formation was borne from these limitations, common to all armies with mass levies (Frederick the Great had a professional army with many years of training under it and it won because of stern discipline and excellent leadership. The other powers had to use mass levies to defeat him, or almost defeat him.) It was easier to command troops in formations, especially when they damn near touched each other. The military training was relatively easy, several marching formations and fire formations, and command by the battle flag.

Psychologically, you must ask why troops would put up with this. It is mostly because of religous belief and faith in fate. It is interesting to read how troops in the pre-Radio age thought, esp. in the ACW. To die in battle was an accepted fate, it was your destiny. To fight for God and Country (or glory and nation as in non-English Europe) was an honour and was accepted.

Bright colored uniforms were first done out of prestige and to show off professional troops against levies. Red was adopted by the British for pragmatic reasons, they were the color of blood. They also served the function of enemy/friend spotting. They were not inteneded for making better targets. The line formations kicking up dust on march, and smoke from weapons fire assured the line was generally spotted.

Going back to "WWII tactics", Think Bushido Code in WW2 with the Japanese. They fought for Emperor and Empire, and they were more than willing to sacrifice themselves. Hence, they beleived that spirit alone would win the day, and tactics on the battlefied were secondary. The banzai attack was a line formation, and the Japanese at Nomonohan were slaughtered because they used mid-19th century tactics against an enemy that had a firm grasp of modern industrial warfare, the Soviet Union. Though they did not deploy the radio at the level the warring powers did later, the fact is that war was doomed because of industrial firepower against the human body. These slaughters got more and more intnese and thorough until the player(s) involved either changed via tactics and technology. This example is very illustrative of what happens when you do not change doctrine to match technology.

I could go on forever about this.

I won't, the post is to long now.

[BillWoodAgain]

As for tactics in the Civil War, read about the actions of the 20th Maine at Litte Roundtop. The tactics used by this unit would make any commander of any age proud. They used terrain to max benefit, as well as elan in the critical phase of Gettysburg.

For the Revolution, General Greene was very good with hih levy of troops, many use to irregular tactics against Indians. Cowpens and Guilford Courthouse are great examples of non - European tactics.

Monmouth was perhaps the last battle in the AmerRev that used a full blown line tactics European battle, and it was this battle that convinced the British that fighting Washington's Army was no good anymore, and they switched to the Southern Campaign.

The war got ugly becasue it was an irregular army of "bushwackers and murderers". The Brits considered it cowardly and ungentalmanly to fight this way (good thing Greene did not) and this was the moral justification for the cruelty of guys like the British commander in Patriot. They felt they wer shooting vermin because they acted, in his opinion, like vermin.

To understand military tactics historically, one really needs to undestand the belief systems of that time and place.

[Abrams Wannabe]

In a discussion of 17th & 18th century warfare it's crucial to understand

how inaccurate the weapons were. Infantry didn't fire until they were

within 100 yards (often much much less) of eachother. An interesting fact

the string of commands in the British army actually went "Make ready,

LEVEL, fire" there was no "aim" as the troops were not trained to aim as it

did no good.

The reason that the men were bunched together was to maximize the effect of

their fire on the enemy formation, only by putting out a blanket of fire

could a good number hits be generated. This also had the effect of making

your formation a nice target for other volley's but the opinion of the day

was that the trade off was worth it as long as your men were willing to

take enemy fire longer then the enemy was willing to take yours.

Why would anyone be willing to stand so close to their enemies and trade vollies with them? My formost answer would be drill. Marshal Martinet, whose penchant for demanding mindless obedience from his soldiers has turned his name into a term of common usage, was responsable for the introduction of uniform drill to the armies of Louis XIII. This drill, combined with the belief that the ability to stoically deliver volley after volley while being shot to pieces was the true mark of a soldier, lead to the form of warfare originally described as no tactics at all.

Why didn't the whole army fight in the manner of the guerrillas? I think

that the movie "Patriot" showed why. By it's nature guerrilla combat isn't

able to defend static locations like your town or your house. The

guerrillas have their way with small bands of soldiers but an army shows up

and they run away as they're not willing to stand up to the regulars in battle.

Then comes the US Civil War where the technology of the weapons has changed

rifled muskets, rifled artillery, etc. and the tactics haven't. The

result: unprecedented slaughter.

[Formerly Babra]

Regarding the "unprecedented slaughter" of the civil war. A comparison of casualties between the three days of Gettysburg and the one day of Waterloo is enlightening.

[Mark IV]

The maneuver part was getting your lines where they had the greatest advantage over the other guy's lines. These are very large lines we're talking about, and the best movie can only show the effects of battle and maneuver over a couple hundred yards, at best, at any one time.

Sherman was fighting a logistical, and in some ways psychological campaign, but it wouldn't have been possible without the rest of the Union forces having bottled up the bulk of the Rebs' fighting forces with head-on conflict or maneuver threat. The "threat" part doesn't translate very well into movie footage, since it consists of the enemy commanders' perceptions and reactions without much gunfire.

Massed formations were the ACW equivalent of MGs. A bunch of guys is trying to take a key piece of ground, and it takes a bunch of bullets to stop them. Sans MGs, you volley fire with multiple, disciplined ranks armed with single-shots (for the most part) to keep that wall of lead up. See the movie "Zulu" for a nice (but breech-loading) depiction of the idea.

Picture an MG42 with a footprint 50m wide by 25m deep.

Clausewitz formalized what good generals have always known: the key to victory is the destruction of the enemy's forces. Destroying their "will to fight" is part of the process.

ACW was actually all about maneuver, but not on a scale that can be fully appreciated in CM or movie terms, except maybe in View 8. It set standards for aerial reconnaissance (balloons, though they were used before), intelligence, rail transport (motorized infantry), repeating and automatic weapons, artillery for sure, intelligence-gathering, and even small-unit tactics. Screening and recon were major parts of a commander's ops.

The evolution of tactics from 1861 to 1865 was rapid and trendsetting- the lessons learned by foreign observers are evident immediately in their own subsequent conflicts (Austro-Prussian War, Franco-Prussian War, Victorian wars [Garnett Lord Wolsley was a Victorian much taken with Stonewall Jackson], etc.). Cavalry, if it wasn't already clear, lost its ascendancy for good, and turned into armed reconnaissance- an extension of the infantry.

Like most wars since the Industrial Revolution, tactics and technology had to keep pace with one another, and the process was rapid and intelligently driven (for the most part) in ACW. It wasn't a 4-year snapshot in time, but a very dynamic period in warfare for the whole world to watch, and they "went to school" on us.

The standards and methods of Warfare changed a lot in those 4 years. Compare tactics of both sides at 1st Manassas/Bull Run with those of the later war. Vicksburg made the Euros gasp at the obstacles that had to be surmounted, and the engineering feats that had to be effected.

Haven't even gotten to naval warfare....

[Howdie]

I have to disagree with clausewitz on that one"destroy the enemies forces". Remember Vietnam......

[Mark IV]

Not too many valid comparisons between the all-for-nothing ACW and the Vietnamese guerilla war- but destruction of the enemy's forces was still key. This was not accomplished in VN. We left, instead. They occupied.

This has been done to death here and elsewhere, but I believe both the solution and the defeat were political, rather than military. If you feel there is a valid analogy to ACW, bring it on.

Should the (Confederate) South have gone guerilla? Could the Union have dealt with this?

Or, if we had destroyed the NVA and occupied North Vietnam, would we have lost militarily anyway? Could they have prevailed without an organized military force?

I don't need another lecture on the politics of Vietnam, but if you are contending that the destruction of the enemy's fighting force was not the key to winning the military "conflict", then what was?

[Guest Pillar]

Well, the purpose of the war was "to fight communism".

So kill the leaders.

[wadepm]

For an excellent discussion of ACW tactics read "Battle Tactics of the Civil War" by Paddy Griffith.

[tss]

One of the first military unit in Europe that used spread out tactics extensively was the Savo Regiment that was responsible of the defence of Eastern Finland.

I can't remember when the regiment was formed but it certainly participated in the War of the Hats 1741-43.

The main reason why the unit opted for skirmish tactics was that you simply couldn't find an opening that was big enough to line up even a full batallion in Savo.

Mark IV wrote:

ACW was actually all about maneuver, but not on a scale that can be fully appreciated in CM or movie terms, except maybe in View 8.

That was true for the whole age of the musket and cannon. The wars in the 16th and 17th centuries were manouver wars because it was almost impossible to feed an army that stayed in one spot. The result was that the armies manouvered around each other trying to deprive the opponent from supplies while at the same time keeping own supply lines secure.

One particularly good example on the importance of manouvers comes from the 30 year war. I don't remember the exact year now, but this happened in early 1640's. The Danes had declared a war against Swedes and the main Swedish army was quickly sent from Germany to Jylland. The emperor noticed that this was a good opportunity to trap and starve the Swedes (though at this point most of the Swedish army was composed of foreign mercenaries) so he sent general Gallas with his army to block the retreat route.

However, Gallas was not too good strategist and he advanced too slowly. The result was that Baner (or was it Torstensson) managed to escape the trap and in turn trapped Gallas. Gallas then lost a sizable portion of his army to starvation and had to leave his guns behind to escape. He also gleefully sacrificed an infantry batallion (without telling them that the rest of the army would try to escape) to keep Swedes occupied and he even killed all roosters and donkeys in the camp so that they wouldn't alert the enemy.

Pillar wrote:

Well, the purpose of the war was "to fight communism".

So kill the leaders.

Oh, no politician wants to assasinate the enemy leaders. It sets a too nasty precedent.

- Tommi

[Guest Pillar]

You have the death penalty in the USA for murderers and other criminals.

Why is it so nasty to kill off an oppressive dictator?