Stupid way to fight war even in 1862 (Mexico, economic, Japanese)

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by Boompa

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

It did not happen early in the war, in the middle of the war or late in the war.
I note that you have produced no links to anywhere which support your assertion.

Either provide them, or admit that you made all this up.

[Boompa]

Originally Posted by Grandstander

It did not happen early in the war, in the middle of the war or late in the war.
I note that you have produced no links to anywhere which support your assertion.

Either provide them, or admit that you made all this up.

It wouldn't matter, your fervor to defend the traitors who took up arms against the United States would blind you. Unfurl you Stars and Bars and go Celebrate the 4th of July.

[Felix C]

Originally Posted by roysoldboy

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.

I disagree, (but that is the fun in these forums), muzzle loaders loaded slowly and the rolling terrain and black powdered induced poor visibility of battlefields meant you could move quickly through the kill zone. (Of course, that also meant you could stumble into killing grounds as well.) Consider how quickly you could cross 400yards of even broken terrain at the walk or quick step when you were in your 20s. That would be swift(allowing for a rest in the prone position if you needed to catch your breath) but if you had to command 300-500 men to do the same manuever? Do you trust to individual initiative that they will rise from the prone position to move forward in a body? Remember you must have enough men to deliver a weight of fire available at the end of that sprint. Slower but much surer to march across in a body to maintain discipline and hope the battlefield conditions are such that you have enough men after traversing the field.

I think the entire rifled musket vs. smoothbore musket tactics has been entirely overthrown in recent studies. The battles were bloody because the issue is one of weight of fire and the concentration of firearm bearing men in such a small area inevitably led to high losses. The different sides shot away until one side had enough of a firefight and pulled back. This is how it always has been since firearms gained primacy on the battlefied.

The fought with what they had and in the shadow of inexperience until both armies became quite professional.(Despite what Moltke said) One learned that if you kept your cool and poured a concentration of fire into the opposing line then they would give way and flee the field. I think this is what lead to there being savage fighting. In the early stages it was enthusiasm and inexperience and cold professionalism in the latter stage. You read of armies or parts of armies breaking and fleeing the field in early battles but not in later battle due to the growth of experience. Retreating is not the same as panic.

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by Boompa

It wouldn't matter, your fervor to defend the traitors who took up arms against the United States would blind you. Unfurl you Stars and Bars and go Celebrate the 4th of July.

You post a pile of bogus nonsense, get called on it, asked to produce your sources, and instead come up with the above chunk of stupidity.

Or perhaps you could explain to us how you translate "There was never any 10-1 loss ratio for the Confederates" into my "fervor to defend the traitors who took up arms.."

[Boompa]

Originally Posted by Grandstander

You post a pile of bogus nonsense, get called on it, asked to produce your sources, and instead come up with the above chunk of stupidity.

Or perhaps you could explain to us how you translate "There was never any 10-1 loss ratio for the Confederates" into my "fervor to defend the traitors who took up arms.."

Yes there was in Georgia over 2400 Confederate dead only a dozen Union.
I'm not going to spend my holiday doing your research.

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by Boompa

Yes there was in Georgia over 2400 Confederate dead only a dozen Union.
I'm not going to spend my holiday doing your research.

What battle or battles are you referencing? Link? Evidence? Place? Date? Sources?

You obviously never spend holidays, or any other days, doing any sort of research. Further, since this was your claim, it is indeed your research to do to provide the basis for your assertions.

Of course it probably is difficult coming up with a link to your rear end.

[Felix C]

^^^History Channel mentioned in the week before last on the special they had on Sherman's March. Mentioned the repeating magazine rifles and the lopsided battles against militia in Georgia and the Carolinas.

[kanhawk]

There was one particular battle where the Confederate losses were about 12 to 1 to the union forces. The battle of Mine Creek near Ft Scott, Kansas.

From Wikipedia:
"In one of the largest cavalry engagements of the war, two divisions of Maj. Gen. Sterling Price's Army of Missouri were routed by two Federal brigades under the command of Colonels Frederick Benteen and John Phillps"
This was a somewhat unusual battle I believe because while most of the time they did line up on the ground and face each other, this was fought on horseback between about 10,000 troops. Union forces were outnumbered by about 3 to 1.

Final tally, from wikipedia:
"Confederate casualties were 1,200, including those wounded during the retreat. Union casualties were 100"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mine_Creek

[arrgy]

From Victor Davis Hanson and the Soul of Battle:

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.

[nebulous1]

There was no reason for nearly a million men (combined both sides) to die in that war. It simply did not need to be fought. It wasn't fought over slavery, as many were taught in school. Lincoln wasn't the Great Emancipator, as he didn't even free all of the slaves in all of the states, and he did it at a point during the war, not before.

Maybe because some hothead fired the first shot at Fort Sumter, maybe because the North was imposing tarriffs...but this is another war where the truth has not been told.

As far as celebrating the 4th, maybe some should read about the Sons of Liberty and just how long and horrible the American Revolutionary War was. Those men were made of something that men today aren't made of.