bankerpapaw
Captain
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2007
- Location
- Rome, Georgia
Why, after the first couple of major battles, didn't the North or the South change their battlefield tactics instead of using the old Napoleon tactics that caused such slaughter?
If both armies should not of used Napoleonic tactics then what should they have used? Other then small arms and cannons with more range and power plus repeating rifles(for the Union anyway) what other major military technological change occurred from say Waterloo to 1st Bull Run? At the end of the day Napoleonic tactics worked albit at a heavy price. I am not saying that you are wrong but both sides seemed to get their plays more or less from the same books that they read at West Point.Why, after the first couple of major battles, didn't the North or the South change their battlefield tactics instead of using the old Napoleon tactics that caused such slaughter?
Indeed. If anyone can be castigated for this look at the French military schools teaching that the overwhelming 'elan' of their soldiers was going to overwhelm the opposition with the passion of their frontal assaults. They were hammered afterwards for this because obviously, with the invention of the machine gun, this was impossible. But the fact is they were even stupider than that because our war had shown how false this was even with muzzle loaded rifles, let alone machine guns. AND they had their own experience in 1870 getting thumped by the Prussians. It shows just how blinkered people can get making theories about war. In truth, Americans dealt with the technological advances and developed tactics quite a lot during our war. There was no special slowness in the American way of war as compared to other people.I recall reading in Catton that the role of skirmishers expanded significantly, that in assaults most of the regiments were deployed out front in extended order ahead of the packed ranks. I don't recall reading that the skirmishers advanced in rushes, but dropping to the prone position complicated reloading. I suspect that the technology of attack did not catch up with the technology of defense.
But the CW era leaders can be cut slack since the old tactics persisted into 1914-18 War with even more disastrous results.
This is the way we do it, this is the way we've always done it, this is the way we're always going to do it.
I've pictured the armies trying harder to outmarch each other and being more stubborn about choosing the moment for launching assaults. Always move to the flank and try to fall on a vulnerable part of the enemy and only drive forward when you achieve this to some degree. I feel like this is how Jackson saw it.At some point, the infantryman has to get up and move out against the enemy. All the technology of air strikes, artillery barrages, vertical envelopment, and mechanized armor don't change that. What would have been a better way to take Cemetery Ridge or the Horseshoe or Marye's Heights? Probably not shoulder to shoulder, but how else?
I would argue that for Jackson's tactics to work it would require a stupid enemy . Unfortunately for the 11th Union corps their officer fits that description. per Sears account of Chancelorville a Capt of the Ohio Artilery saw Jackson moving against the 11ths Corp and the senior officers ignored his warning thus getting"surprised". Perhaps if Jackson survived Chancelorville the Union army would smarten up and have better flank security we will of course never know.I've pictured the armies trying harder to outmarch each other and being more stubborn about choosing the moment for launching assaults. Always move to the flank and try to fall on a vulnerable part of the enemy and only drive forward when you achieve this to some degree. I feel like this is how Jackson saw it.
On the French doctrine of "Elan"Indeed. If anyone can be castigated for this look at the French military schools teaching that the overwhelming 'elan' of their soldiers was going to overwhelm the opposition with the passion of their frontal assaults. They were hammered afterwards for this because obviously, with the invention of the machine gun, this was impossible. But the fact is they were even stupider than that because our war had shown how false this was even with muzzle loaded rifles, let alone machine guns. AND they had their own experience in 1870 getting thumped by the Prussians. It shows just how blinkered people can get making theories about war. In truth, Americans dealt with the technological advances and developed tactics quite a lot during our war. There was no special slowness in the American way of war as compared to other people.
Banker,Why, after the first couple of major battles, didn't the North or the South change their battlefield tactics instead of using the old Napoleon tactics that caused such slaughter?
On field fortifications: they had existed for at least 2000 years. Napoleon noted that the Romans were far ahead in that art compared to what the European armies of 1800 were doing.Earthworks like Fort Donelson, Fort Henry and other forts or batteries don't count. They were planned that way to make a place more defensible by a smaller force. We were talking about tactics and if forts were to be included, we should be discussing Vauban and siege warfare. The Siege of Yorktown, Vicksburg and Battery Wagner are great examples of siege craft (though neither Yorktown nor Wagner per se were sieges).
It's expedient fieldworks that I was talking about. Read the early accounts by soldiers and they thought it was unmanly to hide behind a tree during an open battle. By 1864, tree hugging and earth hugging were common and it was though foolhardy to charge an opponent who was behind earthworks. Fredericksburg taught the Army of the Potomac that and Gettysburg did the same for the Confederates. The Union Army of 1863 thought that Meade's planned attack at Mine Run would be another disaster ala Fredericksburg. They were overjoyed when Gouvernor Warren called it off. We see both sides digging in at The Wilderness, Spotsylvania Court House, the North Anna all the way until the breakthrough at Petersburg (at Five Forks). BTW, Professor Hess discusses the subject in his books. He also addresses the fallacy that the rifle musket changed warfare all that much in another of his works.