It seems to me that tactics have to evolve with whatever war is being fought. Until a tactic is proven to work it is theoretical and the only way to prove it is to test it on the battlefield. At the time they were just using what they knew but they hadn't adjusted the tactics for the new kind of warfare, the same thing happened in WWI with their weapons.
Sadly, even after the Civil War, Western Europeans didn't learn how effective modern weapons were, ignoring the development of machine guns, highly effective howitzers and then insisted that the soldiers should walk right up to the enemy trench in mass formation in order to take it.
The result were horrendous casualties in the opening months. It then took years for commanders to work out a workable tactics.
@ImEternalWanderer Britain and France had seen the damage that rifled muskets could inflict while fighting in the Crimean war of the 1850s. They understood "modern" weapons before Americans did. What kind of idiot ignores machine guns? The machine gun was the principal reason there were so many WW1 casualties. Machine guns were immobile and therefore only the defenders could use them. Tanks were in their infancy stage of development in WW1, but by WW2 the tank offset the machine gun advantage.
@KayBeeEee1983 First, standard tactics in the opening months of WWI include lines of infantry march right up to the enemy trench, accepting no standard cover, concealment, fir and movements tactics for the reason that if a man takes cover, he will feel alone, will never want to rise up again and the engagement becomes fire but not movement. In the case, the defender will win. Casualties were accepted as price paid for miles gained.
@KayBeeEee1983 The real thing that broke the stalemate is the combined arms tactics: large-caliber, high trajectory, high-explosive howitzers provide covering fire for infantries to move up and keep defenders head down. infantries fight in small, independent units, not large battalions and move right behind the shells. The last few hundred meters were fought with automatic rifles, rifle grenade. Night attacks were common and increased.
I don't think that the size of the armies alone that prevented decisive battles. During the Napoleonic wars the armies where not so much smaller and quite decisive battles happened. The US armies had until ACW been small and no proper general staff had been developed as in Europe. That led to problems with coordinating the armies when the officers didn't have experience of commanding such large armies and no organisation to handle it either.
@Tananjoh I agree. The idea of a combined General Staff wasn't utilized by American forces till after the First World War, had there been such a thing (as in the Prussian model) during the American Civil War a commanders job of coordinating the movements of an army ranging from 40-130,000 men would have been far, far easier.
@Tananjoh Also, two other things: (A) Both sides were led by a small yet highly proficient cadre of West Point trained professional military officers; this led to a balance of professionalism on both sides. Generals like Lee, Bragg, Jackson, McClellan, Sherman, Grant and many, many others were all professional officers. Both sides were, to a point, equally led. (B) Both sides had barely trained armies of either vol, or conscripts. Not up to European standards of training.
The slow rate of fire also meant that a force which spread out, and did not discipline its fire was vulnerable to being over-run. In modern times, rapid firing weapons make charging even a small dispersed force a nearly suicidal proposition, but at this time, even with improved accuracy, soldiers did not have the kind of firepower needed to justify thin, loose formations on a conventional battlefield.
Therefore, I argue, as do a number of Historians, that Civil War tactics were not so inferior.
When judging distance with these low velocity weapons, the difference of 50 yards could mean the difference between a bullet passing over the head of a man, and landing at his feet. Thus, they were not as deadly accurate at long range as people tend to think; it took a well trained marksman, cool and composed, with a good eye for distance to sight in correctly and hit targets beyond 150 yards or so.
Among other important things to consider, which are often not noted, is the nature of this "accuracy." In comparison to smoothbore muskets, rifled muskets certainly had a much truer flight pattern. However, because the minie ball expanded to fit the barrel very tightly when fired (allowing it to grip the rifling and fly much straighter, while avoiding the problem of difficult loading of earlier rifles), this meant that they were much lower velocity, and bullet drop was severe.
By spreading up you also have danger to be overun by cavalry. Unless you that rapid fire ability (bolt action rifles) your men are going to be exterminated
@zerker12568901 If that were the case then over 516,000 Union Soliders died. The actual number of deaths was 360,222 Union and 258,000 Confederate. A 100,000 difference, yes, but not nearly as bad as what you said.
One of the most common ideas on stragetic positions was to behind a wall, or in a trench. This was "Stonewall" Jackson's favorite position, although he was not named for that. One example of the effectivness of this tactic was the Battle of Vicksburg, where the Confederates under Lee were outnumbered, but they still won over Burnside's forces and his carelessnes.
@DawnOfTheAcopalypse For the record, that was NOT Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson's favorite tactic. Jackson was more fond of diversionary attacks as well as swift mobile marches around the enemy. Hence why his troops were called "Jackson's Foot Cavalry" as they were able to march up to 25 miles a day. It was General Longstreets tactics. Longstreet favored tactics were to take the high ground and force the enemy to attack him and not the other way around. And yes it was Fredricksburg not Vicksburg
The rifled musket with the minie ball was certainly a huge improvement over the smoothbore. But firing a 500 gr ball with the army load of 60gr of powder, I doubt it was accurate out to 500 yards. The smoothbore also was limited to 50-75 yards if you were actually aiming at something, further it was just luck
Your describing the unwieldy smooth-bore muskets. In the American Civil War they used "Rifled" muskets. Rifled muskets were said to be much more accurate then even the rapid firing rifles of WWII.
I dont know why some fool thumbs downed this...the Mexican-American war literally saw the early stages of the likes of Jeff Davis, R E Lee, Grant, Johnston(both), Meade, McClellan, etc.
Not a bad video about tactics in the Civil War, although I would have like to have seen more about unit types and battlefield placement. They touched upon most of the important points: improvement in weapons technology over tactics (including command and control problems because of poor communications) and dependence on railroad logistical support. Looks like a good series to check out from the library.
If I were to go back in time it would be to this era. Not because of the carnage of the battlefields but to meet great leaders and men who would shape this country's future. Men like Lincolon, Grant, Sherman, and yes even General Lee.
This is a very good series. I bought the entire series on DvD and saw it with my father. It focuses on the purely military tactical side of the civil war and you learn a lot from seeing it.
A lot of the Battles during The Civil War, were absolute Suicide missions, due to the impressive power of new firearms. It would've been like a walk into absolute Hellfire.
Very good. Check out Brent Nosworthy's "Bloody Crucible of Courage" for another detailed analysis of the effects of rifled muskets and cannon on tactics.
4:45 Could you imagine in real life, watching that come toward you?
JoeZeon100 3 months ago
Lots of people think that they just fought in big long lines in the open but
actually they would used trenches even as early as 1862. I've been to many
battlefields and you can still see the trenches but they weren't as big as ww1
trenches untill around the time of the siege of petersburg.
AUG351 5 months ago
It seems to me that tactics have to evolve with whatever war is being fought. Until a tactic is proven to work it is theoretical and the only way to prove it is to test it on the battlefield. At the time they were just using what they knew but they hadn't adjusted the tactics for the new kind of warfare, the same thing happened in WWI with their weapons.
schizoidboy 7 months ago
Sadly, even after the Civil War, Western Europeans didn't learn how effective modern weapons were, ignoring the development of machine guns, highly effective howitzers and then insisted that the soldiers should walk right up to the enemy trench in mass formation in order to take it.
The result were horrendous casualties in the opening months. It then took years for commanders to work out a workable tactics.
ImEternalWanderer 11 months ago
@ImEternalWanderer Britain and France had seen the damage that rifled muskets could inflict while fighting in the Crimean war of the 1850s. They understood "modern" weapons before Americans did. What kind of idiot ignores machine guns? The machine gun was the principal reason there were so many WW1 casualties. Machine guns were immobile and therefore only the defenders could use them. Tanks were in their infancy stage of development in WW1, but by WW2 the tank offset the machine gun advantage.
KayBeeEee1983 8 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 First, standard tactics in the opening months of WWI include lines of infantry march right up to the enemy trench, accepting no standard cover, concealment, fir and movements tactics for the reason that if a man takes cover, he will feel alone, will never want to rise up again and the engagement becomes fire but not movement. In the case, the defender will win. Casualties were accepted as price paid for miles gained.
Artillery were few and primarily flat-trajectory.
ImEternalWanderer 8 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 The real thing that broke the stalemate is the combined arms tactics: large-caliber, high trajectory, high-explosive howitzers provide covering fire for infantries to move up and keep defenders head down. infantries fight in small, independent units, not large battalions and move right behind the shells. The last few hundred meters were fought with automatic rifles, rifle grenade. Night attacks were common and increased.
ImEternalWanderer 8 months ago
I don't think that the size of the armies alone that prevented decisive battles. During the Napoleonic wars the armies where not so much smaller and quite decisive battles happened. The US armies had until ACW been small and no proper general staff had been developed as in Europe. That led to problems with coordinating the armies when the officers didn't have experience of commanding such large armies and no organisation to handle it either.
Tananjoh 11 months ago
@Tananjoh I agree. The idea of a combined General Staff wasn't utilized by American forces till after the First World War, had there been such a thing (as in the Prussian model) during the American Civil War a commanders job of coordinating the movements of an army ranging from 40-130,000 men would have been far, far easier.
dweese30 7 months ago
@Tananjoh Also, two other things: (A) Both sides were led by a small yet highly proficient cadre of West Point trained professional military officers; this led to a balance of professionalism on both sides. Generals like Lee, Bragg, Jackson, McClellan, Sherman, Grant and many, many others were all professional officers. Both sides were, to a point, equally led. (B) Both sides had barely trained armies of either vol, or conscripts. Not up to European standards of training.
dweese30 7 months ago
The slow rate of fire also meant that a force which spread out, and did not discipline its fire was vulnerable to being over-run. In modern times, rapid firing weapons make charging even a small dispersed force a nearly suicidal proposition, but at this time, even with improved accuracy, soldiers did not have the kind of firepower needed to justify thin, loose formations on a conventional battlefield.
Therefore, I argue, as do a number of Historians, that Civil War tactics were not so inferior.
CajunCoder 1 year ago
When judging distance with these low velocity weapons, the difference of 50 yards could mean the difference between a bullet passing over the head of a man, and landing at his feet. Thus, they were not as deadly accurate at long range as people tend to think; it took a well trained marksman, cool and composed, with a good eye for distance to sight in correctly and hit targets beyond 150 yards or so.
CajunCoder 1 year ago
Among other important things to consider, which are often not noted, is the nature of this "accuracy." In comparison to smoothbore muskets, rifled muskets certainly had a much truer flight pattern. However, because the minie ball expanded to fit the barrel very tightly when fired (allowing it to grip the rifling and fly much straighter, while avoiding the problem of difficult loading of earlier rifles), this meant that they were much lower velocity, and bullet drop was severe.
CajunCoder 1 year ago
look at the man lying at the ground pretending to be dead at 5:58. he bobs up his head. lol =))
shinnazuka22 1 year ago
By spreading up you also have danger to be overun by cavalry. Unless you that rapid fire ability (bolt action rifles) your men are going to be exterminated
D3adtrap 1 year ago
I like Chamberlain's tactics, run at the enemy with the pointy end of a bayonet at the other guys
tyuru2 1 year ago
i have this
sk8nboomer900 1 year ago
Still love this vid. Is there more of this you could possibly post?
-The Future
JeffTheFutureJaros 1 year ago
2 union soldiers died to every 1 confederate
zerker12568901 1 year ago
@zerker12568901 If that were the case then over 516,000 Union Soliders died. The actual number of deaths was 360,222 Union and 258,000 Confederate. A 100,000 difference, yes, but not nearly as bad as what you said.
simcityman81 1 year ago
One of the most common ideas on stragetic positions was to behind a wall, or in a trench. This was "Stonewall" Jackson's favorite position, although he was not named for that. One example of the effectivness of this tactic was the Battle of Vicksburg, where the Confederates under Lee were outnumbered, but they still won over Burnside's forces and his carelessnes.
DawnOfTheAcopalypse 1 year ago
Fredericksburg, not Vicksburg.
Zappiss 1 year ago 12
@DawnOfTheAcopalypse For the record, that was NOT Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson's favorite tactic. Jackson was more fond of diversionary attacks as well as swift mobile marches around the enemy. Hence why his troops were called "Jackson's Foot Cavalry" as they were able to march up to 25 miles a day. It was General Longstreets tactics. Longstreet favored tactics were to take the high ground and force the enemy to attack him and not the other way around. And yes it was Fredricksburg not Vicksburg
simcityman81 1 year ago 3
The rifled musket with the minie ball was certainly a huge improvement over the smoothbore. But firing a 500 gr ball with the army load of 60gr of powder, I doubt it was accurate out to 500 yards. The smoothbore also was limited to 50-75 yards if you were actually aiming at something, further it was just luck
henerymag 2 years ago
I heard the guns were not acurate because the bullet would like ratule when fired out making it unaccurate.
RTSgameVideos 2 years ago
Your describing the unwieldy smooth-bore muskets. In the American Civil War they used "Rifled" muskets. Rifled muskets were said to be much more accurate then even the rapid firing rifles of WWII.
PhilipineMan 2 years ago 3
@PhilipineMan
Rifled muskets ? More accurate than WW2 rifles ?
Nothing personnal, but I have great doubt over that fact. If that was true, then why should have we abandonned the musket ?
Regards.
Briselance 2 years ago 5
The musket shoots 3 times a minute. Why would some soldier during WWII want to bring a musket into a battle when he can get shot from a machine gun.
PhilipineMan 2 years ago
i want some docu bout the mexican war
MrKiljeaden89 2 years ago
I dont know why some fool thumbs downed this...the Mexican-American war literally saw the early stages of the likes of Jeff Davis, R E Lee, Grant, Johnston(both), Meade, McClellan, etc.
Ihateworking1 2 years ago 5
Not a bad video about tactics in the Civil War, although I would have like to have seen more about unit types and battlefield placement. They touched upon most of the important points: improvement in weapons technology over tactics (including command and control problems because of poor communications) and dependence on railroad logistical support. Looks like a good series to check out from the library.
7tnorris 2 years ago
This is a very interesting film.
capablemachine 2 years ago 9
If I were to go back in time it would be to this era. Not because of the carnage of the battlefields but to meet great leaders and men who would shape this country's future. Men like Lincolon, Grant, Sherman, and yes even General Lee.
UtahMike41 2 years ago 3
You think Sherman was a good man?
vanhalenkid 2 years ago
was this made in 1987?
erikouwehand 2 years ago 4
Yes, you can find more info on imdb, the name of the documentary series is Civil War Battles.
Zappiss 2 years ago
This is a very good series. I bought the entire series on DvD and saw it with my father. It focuses on the purely military tactical side of the civil war and you learn a lot from seeing it.
afoaa 2 years ago
A lot of the Battles during The Civil War, were absolute Suicide missions, due to the impressive power of new firearms. It would've been like a walk into absolute Hellfire.
JeffTheFutureJaros 2 years ago 3
Well yeah but the tactics for war after this was the trenches and the soldiers in WW1 would have proffered these tactics to those.
Frankcastle522 2 years ago
This is dope, I love the knowledge gained from this little 7 minute clip, I absolutely dig "The Civil War" History, Thanks for posting this.
JeffTheFutureJaros 2 years ago 2
Very good. Check out Brent Nosworthy's "Bloody Crucible of Courage" for another detailed analysis of the effects of rifled muskets and cannon on tactics.
lbrister01 3 years ago 9
great vid mr.z, 5-5 stars
hartshornguy 3 years ago 6
Thanks!
Zappiss 3 years ago
No, Thank you, you have the rest of this documentary?
JeffTheFutureJaros 2 years ago