Was the American Civil War inevitible?

[jimmy olsen]

Not necessary I think. Sharps would have been easier to build en masse and they would have been good enough.

[viper37]

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.

I was under the impression that despite being muzzle loaded, the guns of the era were much, much, much more accurate than 18th century muskets.

[Razgovory]

Precise as in accurate?  Hit rate was still fairly low, about a 1 out of every 1000 shots.

[viper37]

Precise as in accurate?  Hit rate was still fairly low, about a 1 out of every 1000 shots.

yes, accurate.

but compared to 18th century musket, how does that fare?

[derspiess]

The rifled muskets of the Civil War were pretty accurate.  But of course as with all rifles they were only as accurate as the soldier pulling the trigger.

[derspiess]

Sure there was a chance of him making mistakes, like with any general.  But Jackson started racking up an impressive win streak up until the time he got whacked by his own guys.  Who do you think would have done a better job in charge of Third Corps at Gettysburg-- Jackson or AP Hill?  Do you think Jackson would have hesitated to take Culps Hill on Day 1?

Jackson's reputation is built more on his operational skill than his tactical abilities.

He was known for his audacity.  He would not have hesitated to assault that hill the first day, and in my estimation he (or really any likely Southern general) would have stood a good chance of succeeding. 

[celedhring]

From wikipedia:

However, historians such as Allen C. Guelzo reject this traditional criticism of Civil War infantry tactics. Casualty estimates compared with expended ammunition from battles indicate 1 casualty for every 250 - 300 shots discharged, not a dramatic improvement over Napoleonic casualty rates. No contemporary accounts indicate that engagement ranges with substantial casualties between infantry occurred at ranges beyond Napoleonic engagement ranges.

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

[Berkut]

Sure there was a chance of him making mistakes, like with any general.  But Jackson started racking up an impressive win streak up until the time he got whacked by his own guys.  Who do you think would have done a better job in charge of Third Corps at Gettysburg-- Jackson or AP Hill?  Do you think Jackson would have hesitated to take Culps Hill on Day 1?

Jackson's reputation is built more on his operational skill than his tactical abilities.

He was known for his audacity.  He would not have hesitated to assault that hill the first day, and in my estimation he (or really any likely Southern general) would have stood a good chance of succeeding. 

I rather doubt that - it was by no means any kind of sure thing.

These kinds of speculations *always* rely on post-hoc evaluations where we theorize that the supposed attacker would attach at just the right time to exploit some moment of weakness we know about after the fact. Yeah, it is certainly possible that such an event would occure, but the fact that it did NOT occur is always rung up to incompetence of the guy who WAS there, rather than the fact that no matter who was there, they could not possibly know just whether or not the hill could be taken, and when.

Could some general have taken the hill? Sure. It is possible.

Is it clear that trying to do so was the tactically smart move at that time given what the men on the ground actually knew? Not at all.

[Berkut]

From wikipedia:

However, historians such as Allen C. Guelzo reject this traditional criticism of Civil War infantry tactics. Casualty estimates compared with expended ammunition from battles indicate 1 casualty for every 250 - 300 shots discharged, not a dramatic improvement over Napoleonic casualty rates. No contemporary accounts indicate that engagement ranges with substantial casualties between infantry occurred at ranges beyond Napoleonic engagement ranges.

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

I love conclusions like this. They are just so completely stupid.

"Hey, we invented a new kind of infantry weapon that is clearly radically more accurate than anything that came before it, and has radically altered the very manner in which men fight and move. Let's do some careful analysis of follow on statistical effects, and ignore how this fundamental change has changes everything about how infantry fight and move, and then conclude that the radical change didn't matter because at the end of the day, the casualty rates were about the same!"

Gosh, could it be that the technological changes between Napoleons time and the US Civil War turned out to not really matter at all? Or perhaps maybe it mattered a great deal, but that resulted in modifications to how people move and fight such that the overall casualty rates still end up being pretty consistent across most wars, regardless of technology?

[celedhring]

From wikipedia:

However, historians such as Allen C. Guelzo reject this traditional criticism of Civil War infantry tactics. Casualty estimates compared with expended ammunition from battles indicate 1 casualty for every 250 - 300 shots discharged, not a dramatic improvement over Napoleonic casualty rates. No contemporary accounts indicate that engagement ranges with substantial casualties between infantry occurred at ranges beyond Napoleonic engagement ranges.

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

I love conclusions like this. They are just so completely stupid.

"Hey, we invented a new kind of infantry weapon that is clearly radically more accurate than anything that came before it, and has radically altered the very manner in which men fight and move. Let's do some careful analysis of follow on statistical effects, and ignore how this fundamental change has changes everything about how infantry fight and move, and then conclude that the radical change didn't matter because at the end of the day, the casualty rates were about the same!"

Gosh, could it be that the technological changes between Napoleons time and the US Civil War turned out to not really matter at all? Or perhaps maybe it mattered a great deal, but that resulted in modifications to how people move and fight such that the overall casualty rates still end up being pretty consistent across most wars, regardless of technology?

I don't know, I just posted an excerpt of the article but it goes fairly in depth in justifying how actual battle circumstances hindered the efficiency of rifled muskets. I'm hardly an expert, but it doesn't look like a kneejerk theory.

[derspiess]

I rather doubt that - it was by no means any kind of sure thing.

Good, because I never said it was a sure thing.

These kinds of speculations *always* rely on post-hoc evaluations where we theorize that the supposed attacker would attach at just the right time to exploit some moment of weakness we know about after the fact. Yeah, it is certainly possible that such an event would occure, but the fact that it did NOT occur is always rung up to incompetence of the guy who WAS there, rather than the fact that no matter who was there, they could not possibly know just whether or not the hill could be taken, and when.

Could some general have taken the hill? Sure. It is possible.

Is it clear that trying to do so was the tactically smart move at that time given what the men on the ground actually knew? Not at all.

Nice rant, but I don't think you're getting my point.  I'm just saying that a more aggressive general such as Jackson probably would have decided to attack that hill, which was lightly defended on the first day.  You can disagree with that if you want, of course.

Also FWIW I goofed and mentioned AP Hill earlier when I was actually thinking of Ewell, the actual commander of the Confederate Second Corps at Gettysburg.

[Razgovory]

From wikipedia:

However, historians such as Allen C. Guelzo reject this traditional criticism of Civil War infantry tactics. Casualty estimates compared with expended ammunition from battles indicate 1 casualty for every 250 - 300 shots discharged, not a dramatic improvement over Napoleonic casualty rates. No contemporary accounts indicate that engagement ranges with substantial casualties between infantry occurred at ranges beyond Napoleonic engagement ranges.

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

I love conclusions like this. They are just so completely stupid.

"Hey, we invented a new kind of infantry weapon that is clearly radically more accurate than anything that came before it, and has radically altered the very manner in which men fight and move. Let's do some careful analysis of follow on statistical effects, and ignore how this fundamental change has changes everything about how infantry fight and move, and then conclude that the radical change didn't matter because at the end of the day, the casualty rates were about the same!"

Gosh, could it be that the technological changes between Napoleons time and the US Civil War turned out to not really matter at all? Or perhaps maybe it mattered a great deal, but that resulted in modifications to how people move and fight such that the overall casualty rates still end up being pretty consistent across most wars, regardless of technology?

Why assume that it is in fact a radical change that fundamentally changed warfare?  Rifles existed in the Napoleonic wars, they simply took longer to load then smooth-bore muskets and so were not widely used.  The other change is the use of percussion caps instead of flintlocks. It made the weapons more reliable. These are incremental changes.  Soldiers still fought the same way.

[Admiral Yi]

They didn't fight the same way.  The cavalry charge disappeared, as did the square and the column.

[Valmy]

They didn't fight the same way.  The cavalry charge disappeared, as did the square and the column.

Did anybody ever try a Napoleonic cavalry charge in the American Civil War?  I cannot recall one.  Kind of strange really.

[Admiral Yi]

Not that I'm aware of.  But right after I posted that I remembered there were cavalry charges in the Franco-Prussian.