Napoleonic Tactics

[larry_cockerham]

Can any of you explain why this idea of marching across open fields in a long line persisted so long in the WBTS?

[unionblue]

Larry,

Limitations of technology.

The primary use of marching in such close order, from my understanding, was two-fold. One, target practice was not a universal idea so one had to mass one's firepower in order to bring it to good effect.

The other is less obvious, communication.

At the height of battle, with hundreds of thousands of men shooting, screaming, cursing, cannon firing, black powder smoke obscuring everything, most orders were passed to the men in the ranks in various ways. Voice commands, of course, was the primary means of directing men , bugal & drum calls for more distance, visual signals, such as rallying on the colors and hand signals, another.

But when the officer's voices could not be heard, when the great noise of war reduced the bugal and drum calls, and when the smoke of battle blotted out the flags and hand signals, the men in the ranks relied on one thing to conduct their manuvers on the field of battle. TOUCH.

The reason the men stayed elbow to elbow in the ranks was to know their place in line and on the battlefield when conditions permitted no other form of communication. If one man moved forward ALL the men in that rank moved with him, to keep their place in line, to move in the direction indicated and to keep their firepower concentrated. With no bullhorns, no radios, it was a crude form of communication in the din of battle. It wasn't foolproof by any means. A break in the lines, men fleeing for their lives, a complicated manuver, could cause the entire system to break down.

It seems to me, they did the best they could with what they had.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[gary]

While the rifle itself is almost as old as the smoothbore musket, that a common soldier may be armed with a long range weapon was a new thing. The tactics for these new weapons were in much debate in the 1850s when they were becoming more and more common. Some thought that close range fighting was a thing of the past as soldiers would being firing at longer ranges and for safety, keep their distance. Others felt that it would be a waste of ammunition and thought that only a select few should be given rifles.

The issue hadn't been resolved in time of the Civil War and with many of the troops being armed with muskets, the emphasis was on volume of fire and for effectiveness, the linear tactics that predated Napoleon was still relied upon as taught by Hardee or Casey. By 1863, soldiers were learning to seek cover rather than stand in an open engagement. However, they still used the linear method in forming up for attacking.

[larry_cockerham]

Neil and Gary, thanks for taking time to respond! I agree with you both. I was trying to get you to focus on the slowness of change. That's the part that is the most difficult to absorb when looking back on this war. Tradition, apparently was a factor difficult to shed. The part about mass firing is certainly a real consideration when facing large numbers of the opposition. By World War II, radio had eliminated some of the need. At least the World War I guys in Europe had the good sense to dig trenches? I know, timing is the key to much of that. With our inefficency at war, why do we kill so many people. I know all is changed today, but in 1860-65, seems these guys were VERY slow to learn. I guess the folks who could have made the greatest argument for change were too dead to testify. It's a shame current folks can't seem to view the Confederate battle flag as a communication device. Oh well.

[gary]

An advantage of linear tactics is that it delievered men quickly to the desired location while still maintaining order. So, rather than having an armed howling mob, you have men who respond to the commands of an officer and not a war chieftain. Having this ability gives the commander the ability to flank and enfilade his opponent or even cut him off entirely.

American military of the 19th Century always looked to Europe as its model. Our textbooks (Scott, Hardee & Casey) were all adapted from some European textbook. As citizens became soldiers, they studied those textbooks and were not in a position to question with the hindsight that we have today. I suspect that if we were transported back in time, even we would resort to linear tactics if only to move the men into position. Then we'd dig in immediately like the soldier of 1864 did without waiting for orders.

[larry_cockerham]

Thanks Gary. The question remains as to why it took so long to deviate from this habit. Shiloh should have made us suspicious. It was repeated again at Chickamauga, Fredericksburg and Gettysburg, perhaps the worst example. Slow learners? Where was Al Bell and his phone when he was needed?

[Calicoboy]

The major technology of the Civil War was rifling. A smoothbore musket had an effective range of about 100 meters. After a volley a bayonet charge could be on your line before you could reload. The ability to produce rifles in mass quantities occured during the war. Suddenly the effective range could be 400 to 800 meters. A good soldier could reload 3 or 4 times a minute. This meant that a charging force could absorb 6 to 12 volleys during a charge. It, too, amazes me that many Civil War generals couldn't figure that out. Well, the men in the ranks caught on quicker. Still the stand up fight lasted well into the war. I think Fredericksburg and Franklin were the worst examples (okay, I'll throw in "Pickett's" charge and Cold Harbor). Trench warfare came unto its own at Vicksburg and Petersburg. That mode carried all the way into WWI. I believe "digging in" was invented by the grunts on the front. They wanted to live, even if their officers used them like water to get the results they drew up on paper.

Calicoboy

[gary]

Why did it take so long? Military minds can be slow to adapt. It needed a higher thinker whose ideas are endorsed by the brass. There were repeaters and yet the frontal assault was still tried.

Regarding trench warfare, that dates back to Vauban who was used it to besiege a city or fortress. Vauban wrote a neat little book and military minds of the time used it quite readily to design a fort. His siege tactics were used here in America during the Siege of Yorktown when Cornwallis was holed up by Washington & Rochambeau. It was practiced more in Europe than here and was resorted to a lot during the Crimean War. BTW, the other big siege of the war was that of Charleston and in particular Morris Island. Yorktown during the Civil War was beseiged, but that was to build fortifications to shelter the batteries in anticipation of bombarding Yorktown into submission. Thankfully for that pretty little town Johnston pulled out before a shell was dropped.

[unionblue]

Larry,

Why did it take so long? (Sorry, Gary, but it's a good opening line )

When I was in the U.S. Army, the one phrase I hated to hear was, "But we've never done it that way before!" I know from 20 years experience that the Army hates change, it loves routine, procedures and standard operating procedures more than it loves a new idea or tactic.

Now where do you suppose the modern Army got that attitude? Because it is deeply rooted in its history and its traditions.

I have a story that may help drive the point home. At Ft. Sill, OK, the Army has it's artillery school. Years ago, a class of newly-minted cannon-cockers was watching a film, produced during WWII, about the towed 105mm howitzer being fired. The film showed each of the men in the 105 crew doing their various duties and functions (i.e., loading, aiming, firing, etc.) when during the film, one of the crewmen of the piece would run to the back of the gun a short distance and throw out both his arms from his body with his hands outstretched, just as the gun was fired.

One of the newbies in the class held up his hand and asked the instructor what was the reason of the man doing such, as it seemed to have no useful function in the loading and firing of the gun. The instructor had no answer for the student except to reply, 'it had always been done this way.'

Fortunately, an old janitor was passing by the classroom when he heard the question and had the answer to it. The old man was a retired Army vet who had been with the Army since WWI and he was also a former artilleryman. He spoke up and said he knew the answer to the student's question and proceeded to tell the instructor and the class, why the man in the film had run to the rear of the gun, thrown out his arms with his hands outstretched just as the gun was fired.

It was done so the man could grasp the reins of the horses so they would not be startled by the gun blast and run away.

Even though the Army had stopped using horses for decades, the same procedure and technique was still being trained, without fully knowing why, right up until the 1970's, because 'that's the way it had always been done.'

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[gary]

Hilarious Neil! But I thought someone always stayed behind and tended to the horses and was ready to bring them forward if the gun needed to be withdrawn. Gonna have to check with Gibbon.