Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Today I watched the early part of the movie, "Glory" about the all black union force and like always wondered if those people back then were outstandingly brave or just plain stupid. In portraying the Battle of Antietam they showed a Union force marching on a Confederate one and the Confederates tore them up with artillery and small arms. Both armies used those old fashioned means of fighting with weapons that did so much harm to the human body. No armor other than the uniforms and that appeared to me to be stupid.
Worse than any of that movie was the way that those black men were so desirous of a chance to fight for the Union and then they accepted the mistreatment of the white officers and non-coms and went into battle knowing they would all be wounded or killed. Of course, the movie is now at a place when one of their non-coms (played by Morgan Freeman) were screwing up their courage the night before their first big battle. Of course, they were talking to their God who they called Lawd and I know that would turn off some here but I have always really liked that part of the movie.
When they told some black units they were only being paid half as much they refused any pay until they got full pay. But futility had to be the Confederates who were facing rifled Artillery that could shoot twice as far as theirs, repeating rifles that could fire three rounds to their one and the Gatling Gun. Confederate Units were suffering 10-1 casualties and being cut to ribbons before they made contact with the Americans
So I'm going out on a limb here and guessing that you pulled that 10 to 1 business out of your hat and you have no sources whatsoever which support it.
See, Boompa, part of the idea of history is that it actually happened in real life, not just in your head.
I've often wondered the so called military geniuses of the Civil War fought battles the same way they were fought in the 1300's. Of course, WW1 wasn't any better when it came to tactics.
I've often wondered the so called military geniuses of the Civil War fought battles the same way they were fought in the 1300's. Of course, WW1 wasn't any better when it came to tactics.
Wars usually get fought on the basis of how they were used to fighting them. The Civil War is one which became a very transitional one. Not only was technology and the ability to kill growing more efficent but medical care was nill, so if you could cause more damage to bodies you caused more death. And while it became what is often considered the first modern Total War, it was also fought in highly traditional ways. In the end, the approach became to target the civilian population and demoralize and break them as it broke the army. But the large battles were fought by the same generals who had fought on the same side in the Mexican war, and often fought with the same strategies.
Also realize that 'modern' warfare is heavily dependent on communication. It was primitive to none in that time. There was no mass communications media to send out news. People knew only what someone wrote, and with the speed letters arrived, it could be weeks old.
It did become the testing ground for two methods of waging war which are far more common today. Guerilla warfare became the dependable standby of the south, even when depleated. And to counter it the north went to a new kind of war where civilians and food supplies and non-miliaray targets became as important as armies. But all that happened in time.
You could just as easily ask why the traditional European way of marching in place and stepping over the fallen was used so long when there must of been better ways. It was the way it was known to do it. Methods of waging war evolve, based on the new things available, but only as the ways are found to change.
You can't judge how things were done in a different era with different experience and knowledge unless you look at it as they did if you want to become subjective about the subject, ie "stupid".
Take away the fancy doodads of today, and the basic tactics are the same as 1862. At least armies have realized it's better to hide behind a tree than march in a straight line towards their enemy. There's commonality between Pickett's Charge and the Normandy landing, but with different outcomes.
I've often wondered the so called military geniuses of the Civil War fought battles the same way they were fought in the 1300's.
Well they didn't.
The available technology usually dictates how people fight and the slow firing muskets and rifle muskets of the day pretty much determined linear tactics. Which actually worked as often as they didn't; well organized and handled assaults worked all through the war including those against fieldworks and forts.
The soldiers who fought the Great War were well aware of the changes brought about by high explosives and magazine rifles and machine guns firing high velocity, low trajectory bullets. And through the war one can see the changes made in tactics as officers sought solutions to their problems. The British army of 1918 was using dispersed offensive infantry tactics using squad machine guns combined with improved artillery, tanks and aircraft used as ground support. A far cry from 1914, no?
The massive casualties suffered by both sides during the Civil War can be primarily attributed to one fact: the war featured antiquated tactics--in the form of the massive frontal assaults that had been around since Napoleonic times--going-up against modern technology. And what is meant by "modern" in this case is the rifled barrel and the minie ball, which in tandem enabled the lethal range of the rifles of both sides to increase dramatically--and tragically.
The massive casualties suffered by both sides during the Civil War can be primarily attributed to one fact: the war featured antiquated tactics--in the form of the massive frontal assaults that had been around since Napoleonic times--going-up against modern technology. And what is meant by "modern" in this case is the rifled barrel and the minie ball, which in tandem enabled the lethal range of the rifles of both sides to increase dramatically--and tragically.
The losses weren't any worse than those of smoothbore musket days. Most battlefields of the war didn't allow for much long range fire and it seems officers weren't keen on ordering the soldiers where to set their sights anyway. And with the looping trajectories of the low velocity rifle muskets range estimation and sight setting was very important lest the bullet fly over the enemy's head or strike the ground in front of him.
I'm with Hess and Griffith and think the effect of the rifle musket in the war is exaggerrated.
So I'm going out on a limb here and guessing that you pulled that 10 to 1 business out of your hat and you have no sources whatsoever which support it.
See, Boompa, part of the idea of history is that it actually happened in real life, not just in your head.
If you actually read my post it refered to late in the war, not over the course of the war, and if you look at your own statistics they show most Union casualties to disease. During Shermans March there were fights in which Secessionists suffered thousands of casualties while Shermmans forces lost dozens. Rifled Artillery had twice the range of the revolutionary war Napoleans the Secessionists had and a greater rate of fire. The Gatling Gun made charging in formation stupid, and then there was the repeating rifle. Lee had to surrender when he did because there was no Army of Northern Virginia left. Actually there were more Deserters serving in the US Army on the Frontier than Lee had men at that point
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
