- Joined
- Apr 4, 2017
- Location
- Denver, CO
In which national existence was at steak.
The Civil War in the United States was the first modern war in which the existence of the belligerents was being contested. The Crimean War had some modern elements, but the four empires that fought were fighting over access to the Mediterranean and other shipping rights.
I believe our tactical experts have also mentioned the expansionist wars of Germany as using modern weapons.
However in the Civil War, the Confederacy had to win to exist, and the United States as a great continental power was going to be serious damaged, if not ruined, it lost Texas ad 10 other states, with more states possibly following the Confederates out of the union later.
I am borrowing from JFC Fuller, Grant and Lee, Indiana University Press 1982. Fuller's original work was written in 1932 but his later forward asserts that he made few changes when the book was re-issued in the 1950's.
It is Fuller's position that the full impact of the rifle was demonstrated in the Civil War. This is because both sides persisted in the struggle until rifled personal firearms were in general use.
In addition to rifles, rifled cannons became widespread, and magazine weapons, i.e. carbines and Henry repeaters, also became common, especially for cavalry units and mounted infantry.
Fuller asserts that both Grant and Lee were slow to recognize the impact of the modern weapons.
While that may be, Lee fought his greatest battle at Chanc., near the wilderness. He was then severely defeated when his troops advance over open ground against both rifles and rifled cannon. His next major battle after that was again fought under cover of the wilderness, in Virginia. That battle nullified the artillery advantage of the United States, but did reward sharpshooting and skirmishing. Lee never advanced over open ground after the battle of the Wilderness. Lee seems to have made his adjustment in 1863, after about 1 years experience in modern warfare.
Grant did not immediately. Although the May 22, 1863 attack on Vicksburg may have been justified by the anticipated difficulties of the siege that would be necessary to force the Confederate garrison of Vicksburg to surrender, by Cold Harbor he should have realized that frontal assaults were not likely to work.
The rifles made it much more difficult for experienced generals to scout the enemies lines, because of the risk of death. If an attack was ordered, experienced infantry could maintain a high rate of fire over a long distance. Conditions by 1864 were different than in 1862. An approaching battle formation not shrouded by gun smoke was likely to incur heavy casualties.
Fuller also asserted that the range of artillery at that time had reached the point at which methods of indirect fire control and employment of descending shot were required and Grant did not urge progress in that regard.
Fuller's other assertion was that rifled weapons eliminated the offensive capability of cavalry. This assertion is probably incorrect. Both Confederates and United States developed methods of combining mobility and fire power. These combinations were best used in the enemy's. However both belligerents were becoming more creative with the use of cavalry by 1864. This especially true of the United States, which had magazine weapons and could afford more horses.
This a preliminary comment, and I invite others to make the necessary corrections and additions.
The Civil War in the United States was the first modern war in which the existence of the belligerents was being contested. The Crimean War had some modern elements, but the four empires that fought were fighting over access to the Mediterranean and other shipping rights.
I believe our tactical experts have also mentioned the expansionist wars of Germany as using modern weapons.
However in the Civil War, the Confederacy had to win to exist, and the United States as a great continental power was going to be serious damaged, if not ruined, it lost Texas ad 10 other states, with more states possibly following the Confederates out of the union later.
I am borrowing from JFC Fuller, Grant and Lee, Indiana University Press 1982. Fuller's original work was written in 1932 but his later forward asserts that he made few changes when the book was re-issued in the 1950's.
It is Fuller's position that the full impact of the rifle was demonstrated in the Civil War. This is because both sides persisted in the struggle until rifled personal firearms were in general use.
In addition to rifles, rifled cannons became widespread, and magazine weapons, i.e. carbines and Henry repeaters, also became common, especially for cavalry units and mounted infantry.
Fuller asserts that both Grant and Lee were slow to recognize the impact of the modern weapons.
While that may be, Lee fought his greatest battle at Chanc., near the wilderness. He was then severely defeated when his troops advance over open ground against both rifles and rifled cannon. His next major battle after that was again fought under cover of the wilderness, in Virginia. That battle nullified the artillery advantage of the United States, but did reward sharpshooting and skirmishing. Lee never advanced over open ground after the battle of the Wilderness. Lee seems to have made his adjustment in 1863, after about 1 years experience in modern warfare.
Grant did not immediately. Although the May 22, 1863 attack on Vicksburg may have been justified by the anticipated difficulties of the siege that would be necessary to force the Confederate garrison of Vicksburg to surrender, by Cold Harbor he should have realized that frontal assaults were not likely to work.
The rifles made it much more difficult for experienced generals to scout the enemies lines, because of the risk of death. If an attack was ordered, experienced infantry could maintain a high rate of fire over a long distance. Conditions by 1864 were different than in 1862. An approaching battle formation not shrouded by gun smoke was likely to incur heavy casualties.
Fuller also asserted that the range of artillery at that time had reached the point at which methods of indirect fire control and employment of descending shot were required and Grant did not urge progress in that regard.
Fuller's other assertion was that rifled weapons eliminated the offensive capability of cavalry. This assertion is probably incorrect. Both Confederates and United States developed methods of combining mobility and fire power. These combinations were best used in the enemy's. However both belligerents were becoming more creative with the use of cavalry by 1864. This especially true of the United States, which had magazine weapons and could afford more horses.
This a preliminary comment, and I invite others to make the necessary corrections and additions.
Thread Medic
Bringing the