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.
Even though Sherman's men on the march had access to only about 120 cartridges each, the army was still capable of shooting over 12,000,000 rounds-if need be all within a few hours from rifled weapons, many of them by Fall of 1864 repeating Spencers and Henrys that could fire in succession from 7 to 15 shots without reloading. Earlier in the Atlanta campaign during a single day at Kennesaw Mt. an Ohio regiment of 200 soldiers had fired of 24,000 rounds. Sherman's columns had the potental to inflict somewhere between 60,000 and 100,000 casualties from their rifles alone. That firepower is why Theodore Upson stated "I should think those fool Johnnys would quit. They might as well try to stop a tornado as Uncle Billy and his boys." The rifles that Sherman's men used during the march through Georgia were a far cry from the assorted obsolete muskets ubiquitous in the army of 1861. In fact, the most modern of them could fire a rifled bullet of over 50 caliber accurately up to 600 yards....Sherman's repeating rifles were not all that different from WWII infantry firearms-yet a Civil War access to medicine, transportation, and savvy in dealing with the lethal nature of the repeating rifle was a world away from the GI's.
What most people also forget is that Johnson's army that surrendered to Sherman had more men in it than Lee's did by the end of the war. To me, what makes Sherman the greatest General this country ever produced was his casualty figures which a poster above wanted to know about:
Sherman's army suffered about 100 dead, 700 injured or missing and 1300 captured. So for an army of 60,000 they only lost 60 men a day during the march from Atlanta through Savannah and up the Carolinas. In contrast, at Cold Harbor, Grant lost over three times the number of casualties in 24 hours. Most of these casualties were men who were out of formation or who wandered off, each man had only 20 rounds on average to use.
I disagree on one thing, a large number of Shermans Army had repeating rifles which were not Army issue, which probably made the superior to anything the Army would have issued them. Back to my original point that Sherman was the one who, at Shiloh, realized that the Confederates could win all the set piece Napoleonics Battles they wanted to as long as the north kept tem under constant pressure they would, and did collapse quickly. Logistics
Even though Sherman's men on the march had access to only about 120 cartridges each, the army was still capable of shooting over 12,000,000 rounds-if need be all within a few hours from rifled weapons, many of them by Fall of 1864 repeating Spencers and Henrys that could fire in succession from 7 to 15 shots without reloading. Earlier in the Atlanta campaign during a single day at Kennesaw Mt. an Ohio regiment of 200 soldiers had fired of 24,000 rounds. Sherman's columns had the potental to inflict somewhere between 60,000 and 100,000 casualties from their rifles alone. That firepower is why Theodore Upson stated "I should think those fool Johnnys would quit. They might as well try to stop a tornado as Uncle Billy and his boys." The rifles that Sherman's men used during the march through Georgia were a far cry from the assorted obsolete muskets ubiquitous in the army of 1861. In fact, the most modern of them could fire a rifled bullet of over 50 caliber accurately up to 600 yards....Sherman's repeating rifles were not all that different from WWII infantry firearms-yet a Civil War access to medicine, transportation, and savvy in dealing with the lethal nature of the repeating rifle was a world away from the GI's.
What most people also forget is that Johnson's army that surrendered to Sherman had more men in it than Lee's did by the end of the war. To me, what makes Sherman the greatest General this country ever produced was his casualty figures which a poster above wanted to know about:
Sherman's army suffered about 100 dead, 700 injured or missing and 1300 captured. So for an army of 60,000 they only lost 60 men a day during the march from Atlanta through Savannah and up the Carolinas. In contrast, at Cold Harbor, Grant lost over three times the number of casualties in 24 hours. Most of these casualties were men who were out of formation or who wandered off, each man had only 20 rounds on average to use.
Interesting that Kennesaw Mt. is mentioned as Sherman did suffer a defeat with high losses at the hands of the Confederate forces there. Muzzle loaders + entrenchments +scrappy rebels triumph over magazine rifles. Recall the comment made by a Confederate general defending Marye's Heights(sp?) to Lee when observing the massive Federal army in front of them.....paraphrasing.."If you give me enough ammunition I will kill them all before they reach me."
Emory Upton created tactics for his unit within the Army of the Potomac to minimize losses when advancing throught the killing zone and his men had muzzle loaders. People where learning from experience. But that really is not something a General on active service has to consider. He fights with what he has now. Retraining for new tactics would have lengthened the war.(How long did McClellan train the AoP?) Prolonging the war did not help the Union only the Confederacy.We are placing too much reliance on isolated things-weapons alone, tactics alone, logistics alone, morale alone,etc. when it really is a combined picture.
Edit: Hanson's forte is the Classic Greek era. He should have stayed there.
Interesting that Kennesaw Mt. is mentioned as Sherman did suffer a defeat with high losses at the hands of the Confederate forces there. Muzzle loaders + entrenchments +scrappy rebels triumph over magazine rifles. Recall the comment made by a Confederate general defending Marye's Heights(sp?) to Lee when observing the massive Federal army in front of them.....paraphrasing.."If you give me enough ammunition I will kill them all"
Emory Upton created tactics for his unit within the Army of the Potomac to minimize losses when advancing throught the killing zone and his men had muzzle loaders. People where learning from experience. But that really is not something a General on active service has to consider. He fights with what he has now. Prolonging the war did not help the Union only the Confederacy.We are placing too much reliance on isolated things-weapons alone, tactics alone, logistics alone, morale alone,etc. when it really is a combined picture.
Edit: Hanson's forte is the Classic Greek era. He should have stayed there.
I agree Hanson should have stuck with the Classical era where he is a specialist, especially after you try and read his book on Obama, but he is a good researcher and cites things well. His overall point was yes Union technology coupled with other factors such as mobility, economics, strategy, philosophy, social structure, etc. won the war for the north. The south never really had a chance, just like the Japanese never did nor did the Persians.
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.
But they learned and somewhat adapted near the end of the war when it turned into battles of entrenchment and siege warfare.
But really, even in the early part of the war soldiers learned to dig in and entrench, at least on the defensive. But - how do you attack and move to an offensive posture except to do it in force, out in the open, and by mass of arms? Fancy Napoleanic flanking attacks were never really succesful in the civil war (with some notable exceptions) because you had the citizen soldier as well as some geographical limitations in the forested eastern US theator of operations. Thus you had to overcome the enemy, usually in frontal attacks, with sheer force of numbers.
The issue with attacks wasn't really solved until the later parts of the first world war - by using armor, or combined arms, much more accurate artillery to soften up the defense, and small arms tactics. But, being an attacking force is still a deadly business.
KEEP IT ON TOPIC warning - And to the revisionist that want to turn this thread into a debate on the causes of the civil war - take it somewhere else. Do a search and bring up one of the old threads on the subject. It's been debated to death here. I consider it off topic, and thus rude and impolite, to the OP and to the OPs post.
Contrary to one poster the telegraph system provided very rapid communications within the army as well as to the civilian news. Railroads required the telegraph for rapid and safe operations. Railroads provided the logistic superiority that was the basis of the US Government’s victory.
I do not understand the mindset that still used frontal attack as late as Korea and Vietnam. It only seems to me to be a way of wasting men. FWIW Normandy was only a direct frontal attack on the beaches. It was actually an attack in depth with the paratroops tasked with destroying any armored access to the bridgehead. Even with this and a tremendous surprise it was still a very difficult and dangerous battle. Just look at the crosses in the cemeteries of Normandy for all the citations you will ever need.
If you look at the evolution of warfare in the gunpowder age beginning with the pike and shot tactics (~1500's) up through the Second World War, there is always a lag in battlefield adaptation to new technology. It is always a game of a new technology providing an edge that then must be overcome with another technology or change in tactics.
The American Civil War by the end saw the impact that improved rifled artillery, rifled and repeating small arms as well as inventions like the gatling gun could have on standard tactics of the time. The response by the CSA was to expand the use of fortifications, change the tactics. This became a commonly accepted way to neutralize your enemies strength, which then began to drive technology to overcome the fortifications, something that wasn't really done until the end of WW1, a war that saw the pinnacle of fixed emplacements.
You also need to remember that generals and soldiers are trained to fight a particular way. The tactics of both sides of the Civil War were based upon manuals written in the preceding years based on the American experience in the war with Mexico as well as the Napoleonic wars. What most people fail to realize is that the goal was NOT to shoot at your opponent until they withdrew, but to shock them with a bayonet charge. The bayonet was long seen as the actual decisive weapon. The idea was to close within range, suffer through perhaps one or two volleys, respond with your own volley to shock the enemy position and then charge with bayonets. The formations of the day were designed around using the bayonet and maintaining control. The worst thing you could do was get into a protracted dual with small arms as the defender has all the advantage. The problem as the Civil War drug on was that the one or two volleys become three or four do to the extended range of rifled muskets. Repeating weapons allowed even more fire than that. Many units had significant strength sapped on the advance so that their charge was ineffectual. The first change most made was to simply send more men in multiple waves.
The outside aspect to all of this is unit cohesion and communication. The American Civil War saw much the same levels of communication as what was available to Napoleon. Certainly the telegraph allowed for rapid communication between the frontlines and major cities and supply bases. However, actual battlefield communication was still done by line of sight using signal flags, drums and bugles. Commanders were reluctant to allow units to operate too independently as it would mean losing control of that unit, there was no way to effectively communicate with another unit on the other side of a large hill for instance short of sending runners. This lack of easy communication meant that if you wanted to coordinate attacks and control large bodies of troops, you needed them to be close together.
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.
Ha! not even close. A full frontal assault of an opposing force of equal strength is a desperate strategy when there is no other way and the potential rewards are greater than the probable loss. I think the last time it was truly implemented was D-Day, and the high cost was offset by the fact the Nazi war machine was effectively broken and victory assured.
Before that, people marched in lines and got killed because individuality was not a high cultural value back then. Those boys walked to the battlfield ready, willing and fully expecting to die for something bigger than themselves; a personality trait you'd be hardpressed to find in today's American.
Question: Did the US Army ever adopt any of the lever action rifles as a standard infantry weapon? I thought we went from muzzle loading Springfield rifle muskets to breach loading "trapdoor" cartridge rifles and then to the Mauser derived 'o3 Springfield rifles. The M-1 Garand, and the derivative M-14, semi automatic rifles were the first self-loading weapons.
PS: I agree with the comment about the charges were to deliver bayonets to the combat. That was exactly the same as the Persians and the Greeks. Shock and Awe is not new on the battlefield
.
Question: Did the US Army ever adopt any of the lever action rifles as a standard infantry weapon? I thought we went from muzzle loading Springfield rifle muskets to breach loading "trapdoor" cartridge rifles and then to the Mauser derived 'o3 Springfield rifles. The M-1 Garand, and the derivative M-14, semi automatic rifles were the first self-loading weapons.
A fair number of lever action 1860 Henry rifles made it into the war, but they were mostly bought by individuals. They weren't in numbers great enough to make a difference, plus the .44 rimfire round they used was severely underpowered compared to most other guns on the field.
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.
