Civil War battle tactics/strategies

What strategies were used on the battlefield by both sides. If possible and you know certain
strategies for either side, that would be cool. I like to illustrate battles on paper as seen from the top.
It is just a fun thing to do. It would help to know of tactics that may help in my illustrations.

killian said:

What strategies were used on the battlefield by both sides. If possible and you know certain
strategies for either side, that would be cool. I like to illustrate battles on paper as seen from the top.
It is just a fun thing to do. It would help to know of tactics that may help in my illustrations.

Click to expand...

Here are some threads that may help you get started:
http://civilwartalk.com/search/808413/?q=tactics+strategy&o=date&c[title_only]=1

In a nutshell, much of the early to middle years of the war were based on the Napoleonic tactics that had long been the bread and butter of the drill manuals in use at the time. It basically called for the massing of troops to direct as much fire as possible at a target. This was necessary because the smoothbore weapons of the period were notoriously inaccurate; this is why you needed as many men as possible firing at one thing at one time in order to do damage. The introduction of the rifled musket and Minie ball would make this a deadly business, but none of the generals on either side seemed willing to abandon what they'd spent their adult lives learning until 1864 or so. Look into the drill manuals of the late 1850's (Hardee wrote one that was the standard until he left, and you can also look into Baxter's Volunteers Manual) and even into Napoleon's tactics; that should give you a grasp of what a battle line might look like from above.

Alright, so basicly they were too lazy to change the tactics I guess?

There's a difference between tactics and strategy. Strategy is basically how to plan a campaign or battle, how you plan to carry it out. Tactics is how you do it, how to fight the battle or how you conduct the campaign. Tactics could be where you put the troops on the battlefield or how they are formed and how they fight.

You can think of tactics in warfare in two ways:
1. How soldiers are trained to fight, i.e. lining up in a 2 rank formation.
2. Tactics meaning how you move those soldiers on the battlefield and where.

If you were to look at a battlefield from above, you would basically see soldiers lined up in different formations. The most common infantry deployment was a 2 rank line (2 lines of soldiers moving as one line). Other formations were used like various types of columns, which were typically used for marching troops up to the front line because they were compact and took up less space. Skirmishers would deploy out in front of the main 2 rank battle line, maybe a few hundred yards or more. Usually a company or two would be sent out into skirmish line to screen the enemy or scout out ahead of the main line. A skirmish line was generally groups of 4 soldiers strung out in a long, thin line, each a few feet apart. They would fight in any position they chose.

As for tactics changing throughout the war, one could argue that the use of fortifications began to increase and that by the end of the war battles began to look like the western front of WWI. However, fortifications and earthworks were used in warfare for centuries. The fortifications dug at Petersburg, VA in 1865 were not too different than what was seen at the Siege of Sevastopol in the Crimean War in 1854 and 55.

killian said:

Alright, so basicly they were too lazy to change the tactics I guess?

Click to expand...

Hehehe. Well, "lazy" is a pretty strong word. It is understandable that many generals would be reluctant to gamble with the lives of their men on a 'might work'. Remember, both armies started from scratch with militia organizations. One would think that would leave plenty of room for innovation at the outset. Actually, the first order of business was to train men to fight together effectively. All the precedents, and therefore the basic tactical doctrine, came from the Napoleonic era.

AUG351 said:

As for tactics changing throughout the war, one could argue that the use of fortifications began to increase and that by the end of the war battles began to look like the western front of WWI. However, fortifications and earthworks were used in warfare for centuries. The fortifications dug at Petersburg, VA in 1865 were not too different than what was seen at the Siege of Sevastopol in the Crimean War in 1854 and 55.

Click to expand...

Excellent point. The thinking of the time was that fortifications would dampen the mens' fighting spirit. And I guess that kind of makes sense; when I found a safe place to shoot from in Iraq, I really felt like staying there. I don't know if it was that or the manpower shortage the South was suffering from late in the war, but there definitely was more use of trenches and forts later in the war.

killian said:

Alright, so basicly they were too lazy to change the tactics I guess?

Click to expand...

I wouldn't say lazy. Just slow to accept that they were going to have to change everything about how they fought. Every war fought sees advances in weaponry from the one before; tactics are a fluid concept. Trial and error sort of thing.

I was watching a documentary about the 1914-18 war and there were clips of French and German soldiers early in the war advancing not in line, but in platoon-size units, probably five men wide and five deep advancing at a run/jog. These were arranged in battalions I think. This was apparently before the understanding of the machine gun, but after the rifle. My question is did this tactic and formation have any appearance during the ACW?

Dave Wilma said:

I was watching a documentary about the 1914-18 war and there were clips of French and German soldiers early in the war advancing not in line, but in platoon-size units, probably five men wide and five deep advancing at a run/jog. These were arranged in battalions I think. This was apparently before the understanding of the machine gun, but after the rifle. My question is did this tactic and formation have any appearance during the ACW?

Click to expand...

I've never heard of it but it sounds interesting, almost like a phalanx sort of thing. I wonder if you might be talking about stormtroops? If so, that was implemented in 1917 and almost certainly never happened during the Civil War.

marinegrunt said:

Excellent point. The thinking of the time was that fortifications would dampen the mens' fighting spirit. And I guess that kind of makes sense; when I found a safe place to shoot from in Iraq, I really felt like staying there. I don't know if it was that or the manpower shortage the South was suffering from late in the war, but there definitely was more use of trenches and forts later in the war.

Click to expand...

I think fortifications saw more use early on in the war in the west than in the east. It was common even in 61 or 62 for soldiers to dig breastworks when bivouacked or when on the defense, but its obvious that many commanders, especially in the east, refused to dig complex works early in the war. If a battle like Antietam had been fought in 64 or 65 there is no doubt Lee would have dug in, but at the time he didn't. Many of the battles of the Seven Days were fought over earthworks but nothing as complex as those seen in the Overland Campaign.

However in the west both sides were digging into siege type works at Corinth or at Vicksburg, and new tactics were being developed to fight in the trenches. 1864 was really the point where armies started to use earthworks in a maneuverable sense, possibly due to the desperate nature of the Confederate armies on the defense or as you said, to make up for manpower shortages.

Dave Wilma said:

I was watching a documentary about the 1914-18 war and there were clips of French and German soldiers early in the war advancing not in line, but in platoon-size units, probably five men wide and five deep advancing at a run/jog. These were arranged in battalions I think. This was apparently before the understanding of the machine gun, but after the rifle. My question is did this tactic and formation have any appearance during the ACW?

Click to expand...

At the Siege of Vicksburg and Port Hudson small raiding parties of volunteers, sometimes called "forlorn hope units" equipped with grenades or ladders if expected to scale the enemy works, would crawl out across no man's land and conduct raids. "Forlorn hope" units of volunteers were also called upon before the initial attacks at Vicksburg and Port Hudson and were to be placed in the front of the attacking columns, equipped with grenades and ladders, to help clear out the Confederates in the works before the main body ran up.

AUG351 said:

I think fortifications saw more use early on in the war in the west than in the east. It was common even in 61 or 62 for soldiers to dig breastworks when bivouacked or when on the defense, but its obvious that many commanders, especially in the east, refused to dig complex works early in the war. If a battle like Antietam had been fought in 64 or 65 there is no doubt Lee would have dug in, but at the time he didn't. Many of the battles of the Seven Days were fought over earthworks but nothing as complex as those seen in the Overland Campaign.

However in the west both sides were digging into siege type works at Corinth or at Vicksburg, and new tactics were being developed to fight in the trenches. 1864 was really the point where armies started to use earthworks in a maneuverable sense, possibly due to the desperate nature of the Confederate armies on the defense or as you said, to make up for manpower shortages.

Click to expand...

Another great point. But I wonder if at the time Pemberton was being ridiculed for doing so in Vicksburg. And at Corinth, they were digging something akin to sapper trenches.

killian said:

Alright, so basicly they were too lazy to change the tactics I guess?

Click to expand...

Not lazy at all! These were not separate nations with set policies and national goals developed over decades or centuries. They were members of one army that split suddenly and were immediately fighting for their existence (literally). They fought with what they had and modified when they had to based on trial and error.

There was no "era" where military academies developed theory/doctrine for strategy or tactics, programs for officer/NCO development or produce military thinkers to publish treaties for use. Not against each other.

marinegrunt said:

I wouldn't say lazy. Just slow to accept that they were going to have to change everything about how they fought. Every war fought sees advances in weaponry from the one before; tactics are a fluid concept. Trial and error sort of thing.

Click to expand...

True. What is a bit surprising is that the Crimean War was the first war where riffled muskets ( the Enfield P53 which was also used on a large scale by both sides in the CW) where issued in large numbers at least in the British Army. The US Army had three official observers plus perhaps some news reporters so they should of been able to grasp that the riffled musket was a game changer but it did not work out that way.
Leftyhunter

leftyhunter said:

True. What is a bit surprising is that the Crimean War was the first war where riffled muskets ( the Enfield P53 which was also used on a large scale by both sides in the CW) where issued in large numbers at least in the British Army. The US Army had three official observers plus perhaps some news reporters so they should of been able to grasp that the riffled musket was a game changer but it did not work out that way.
Leftyhunter

Click to expand...

It never seems to. Generals get used to doing things one way and can't seem to adjust, even if there's an obviously better option.

AUG351 said:

At the Siege of Vicksburg and Port Hudson small raiding parties of volunteers, sometimes called "forlorn hope units" equipped with grenades or ladders if expected to scale the enemy works, would crawl out across no man's land and conduct raids. "Forlorn hope" units of volunteers were also called upon before the initial attacks at Vicksburg and Port Hudson and were to be placed in the front of the attacking columns, equipped with grenades and ladders, to help clear out the Confederates in the works before the main body ran up. That was truly revolutionary tactics, similar to what was seen in WWI.

Click to expand...

These into-the-breach units date back to the days when cannon knocked holes in fortress walls. Perehaps the WWI shots I saw were an expansion on this concept.

Dave Wilma said:

These into-the-breach units date back to the days when cannon knocked holes in fortress walls. Perehaps the WWI shots I saw were an expansion on this concept.

Click to expand...

In WWI special units like stormtroops as marinegrunt mentioned would conduct night raids or spearhead the point of an attack under a moving artillery barrage. They were usually equipped with special weapons such as trench knives, grenades, submachine guns, etc. I think it was mainly Germany that first started raising these sort of units in WWI.

I know about the Grenadiers which most armies had. They were equipped with grenades and rifles that could be loaded faster. They had knifes. The Germans very late in the war were equipped with the mp18. It was first used in 1918. About the time of the BAR. Germany called their grenadiers stormtroopers. They were also called Shock Troops, and Fireteams

AUG351 said:

At the Siege of Vicksburg and Port Hudson small raiding parties of volunteers, sometimes called "forlorn hope units" equipped with grenades or ladders if expected to scale the enemy works, would crawl out across no man's land and conduct raids. "Forlorn hope" units of volunteers were also called upon before the initial attacks at Vicksburg and Port Hudson and were to be placed in the front of the attacking columns, equipped with grenades and ladders, to help clear out the Confederates in the works before the main body ran up. That was truly revolutionary tactics, similar to what was seen in WWI.

Click to expand...

These tactics were well developed during the Napoleonic Wars, especially in Spain.