Was the American Civil War inevitible?

[Ed Anger]

I liked John Bell Hood high on opium.

[Tonitrus]

I have always heard that technology had jumped ahead of tactics in the civil war, but were casualties rates higher then in the Napoleonic wars?  I think something that is often overlooked is that nobody on either side of the war had commanded armies of that size.  Before the war Grant and McClellan were captains.  Lee and Bragg were colonels.  Jackson was a major.  A lot of commanders on both sides had never served in the military.

I was going to go with a different take on that point.  That point is made often, but what would have been the appropriate tactics to use at that time (even, say, against someone using the historical tactics used)?  And how effective would they be in achieving the strategic objectives?

[Viking]

I always figured that the nature of the Civil War, outdated tactics and newer weapons, ensured a heavier casualty toll in the ACW, rather than the Generals being overly harsh about casualties. 

And strangely, we saw more of the same in WW1.  It's as if the higher officers still tought themselves in the Napoleonic era.

Military thinkers studying the American Civil War and the Franco Prussian War came to the very opposite conclusions one might think they would.  That the attack and initiative was paramount.  They would point out that as soon as the South stopped being aggressive they lost the war.

There is a difference between attacking and using maneuver. The whole story of the ACW is that the attacker loses in any set - piece battle unless there are some weird circumstances (e.g. battle of the clouds ft. donalson etc.). Aggressive maneuver was all about arranging the battle so you could fight defensively. Grant's insight was that breaking and running after a battle was only convention and he didn't have to do so after losing.

[Razgovory]

I disagree.

[Tonitrus]

I disagree.

If you're just going to say that, it needs a cat picture.

[PDH]

I liked John Bell Hood high on opium.

Nothing like laudanum to help a battle plan.

[Valmy]

But for different reasons.  In the Napoleonic Wars there was a ton of hand-to-hand combat and pursuit losses which were pretty rare in the American Civil War and World War I.  At least that is my impression.

I've read that the instances of bayonets actually crossing were very minimal, if not nonexistant during the Napoleonic wars.

While probably true it was probably exponentially more common than in the American Civil War.  But I was more referring to the fact that Napoleonic Armies had thousands and thousands of guys who wore armor and carried lances and swords and these guys were often decisive in a battle.  Hand to hand combat is pretty deadly, generally more killed than injured.

[jimmy olsen]

I always figured that the nature of the Civil War, outdated tactics and newer weapons, ensured a heavier casualty toll in the ACW, rather than the Generals being overly harsh about casualties. 

And strangely, we saw more of the same in WW1.  It's as if the higher officers still tought themselves in the Napoleonic era.

Military thinkers studying the American Civil War and the Franco Prussian War came to the very opposite conclusions one might think they would.  That the attack and initiative was paramount.  They would point out that as soon as the South stopped being aggressive they lost the war.

I was under the impression that the results of the Franco-Prussian War washed away the lessons of the American Civil War. They decided that the Americans even at their best had been amateurs and that professional European soldiers could win quickly via offensive actions.

[dps]

I have always heard that technology had jumped ahead of tactics in the civil war, but were casualties rates higher then in the Napoleonic wars?  I think something that is often overlooked is that nobody on either side of the war had commanded armies of that size.  Before the war Grant and McClellan were captains.  Lee and Bragg were colonels.  Jackson was a major.  A lot of commanders on both sides had never served in the military.

I was going to go with a different take on that point.  That point is made often, but what would have been the appropriate tactics to use at that time (even, say, against someone using the historical tactics used)?  And how effective would they be in achieving the strategic objectives?

Part of the problem wasn't simply that technology had gotten ahead of tactics, but that communications technology hadn't kept up with firearms technology.  What you need to do to counter increases in firepower is to increase the dispersion of your forces.  But you still need to be able to exercise command and control, and that means that you really can't disperse your troops enough to use modern infantry tactics unless without the widespread availability of radios.

[jimmy olsen]

IIRC Sherman had the lowest percentage of casualties for a general that lead an army for an extended period. Given that he was fighting a defensive minded general in Johnston, that makes it more impressive. What did he do that others didn't?

[PDH]

IIRC Sherman had the lowest percentage of casualties for a general that lead an army for an extended period. Given that he was fighting a defensive minded general in Johnston, that makes it more impressive. What did he do that others didn't?

He used maneuver to get into position and flexibility when he had taken his objective.  When he faced a drug addict at Atlanta, he used defensive tactics.  When he faced the wide open confederacy he used rape and pillage tactics to show that the Confederacy was a sham and that they could have been defeated in 1862.

[Tonitrus]

I have always heard that technology had jumped ahead of tactics in the civil war, but were casualties rates higher then in the Napoleonic wars?  I think something that is often overlooked is that nobody on either side of the war had commanded armies of that size.  Before the war Grant and McClellan were captains.  Lee and Bragg were colonels.  Jackson was a major.  A lot of commanders on both sides had never served in the military.

I was going to go with a different take on that point.  That point is made often, but what would have been the appropriate tactics to use at that time (even, say, against someone using the historical tactics used)?  And how effective would they be in achieving the strategic objectives?

Part of the problem wasn't simply that technology had gotten ahead of tactics, but that communications technology hadn't kept up with firearms technology.  What you need to do to counter increases in firepower is to increase the dispersion of your forces.  But you still need to be able to exercise command and control, and that means that you really can't disperse your troops enough to use modern infantry tactics unless without the widespread availability of radios.

So you're saying there wasn't any real practical alternative at the time, and the tactics used were inevitable, even if regrettable?

I tend to agree...you could disperse you mean, and not get involved in the massed formation slugfests, but it would still be hard to counter those opposing formations, much less be able to take and hold strategic objectives without effective communication/coordination.

[Valmy]

I was under the impression that the results of the Franco-Prussian War washed away the lessons of the American Civil War. They decided that the Americans even at their best had been amateurs and that professional European soldiers could win quickly via offensive actions.

Well the Germans certainly felt that way.  Not sure that was the universal view.  To be fair it was not like Americans learned a whole lot from the American Civil War either.

[Razgovory]

I have always heard that technology had jumped ahead of tactics in the civil war, but were casualties rates higher then in the Napoleonic wars?  I think something that is often overlooked is that nobody on either side of the war had commanded armies of that size.  Before the war Grant and McClellan were captains.  Lee and Bragg were colonels.  Jackson was a major.  A lot of commanders on both sides had never served in the military.

I was going to go with a different take on that point.  That point is made often, but what would have been the appropriate tactics to use at that time (even, say, against someone using the historical tactics used)?  And how effective would they be in achieving the strategic objectives?

Part of the problem wasn't simply that technology had gotten ahead of tactics, but that communications technology hadn't kept up with firearms technology.  What you need to do to counter increases in firepower is to increase the dispersion of your forces.  But you still need to be able to exercise command and control, and that means that you really can't disperse your troops enough to use modern infantry tactics unless without the widespread availability of radios.

I question if firepower had really increased so much.  For the most part men were using muzzle-loading rifles.  Sure they had better range, but I don't think they were used at extreme ranges very often and actual target practice was uncommon.  Their rate of fire wasn't much better then the older smooth-bore musket so I don't know if the firepower was substantially greater.  I think to route any enemy you still needed massed fire.  I think you also needed massed fire to be able to repulse an enemy charge.  The repeating rifles are different.  They had sufficient firepower to break an charge of massed infantry when fighting as skirmishers.  This would be how soldiers would fight in the future. Unfortunately repeating rifles were not in widespread use.

[Tonitrus]

Indeed.  I wonder how practical, and effective it could have been for the Union Army to push using the Henry rifle as the primary weapon for the frontline soldier.