Not even sure how to word what info I'm looking for. Lol

missourian

Private
Joined
Apr 19, 2016
Location
Missouri
I would really like to better understand the "nuts & bolts" so to speak of how all the different branches of an army function together, for instance, any given army has or may have the following...infantry, artillery, cavalry etc, and when I'm reading about different campaigns and battles I sometimes come away kind of confused as to why certain actions were carried out in the order that they were, so I'm wanting to get an idea of the structure and the coordination between the different branches, like, is there a textbook game plan for an army to follow where its understood that THIS branch leads off in an engagement (ideally), then another will begin and so on, or is it COMPLETELY at the discretion of the commanders of each to take action as they see fit when seeing what they are faced with. I know a lot of things can come into play on the battlefield and that an army may be spread out on its front for several miles and without cell phones, communication was often the deciding factor in winning or losing a battle. I know the cavalry being the eyes and ears of an army and was CRUCIAL to an army, I think of Buford's actions at Gettysburg as an example of, HOLY ****, we are way outnumbered here, but we have to slow them up if at all possible, but was it ALWAYS that way, I mean, a commanders decision, whoever it was and whatever branch to see a situation, use what you have available and engage the enemy? I'm still not sure if I'm making myself understood. Lol. How about this, are there any books, like military school type textbooks from that period that explains the roll of and how to effectively use all your tools, infantry, cavalry etc and when and when NOT to? Books or videos on tactics would be great. Thanks.
Ken.
 
For me, those old board games recreating historic battles helped teach the strengths and weaknesses of the different combat arms. In the American Civil War, infantry was the main and most abundant arm (because it was relatively cheap to raise), moderately strong on both offense and defense (like a sword and shield) at close range, but slow in movement.

Cavalry was weaker in strength, but very mobile (like a mosquito), so it was sent to locate and harass enemy infantry, probe for exploitable weaknesses, and screen friendly infantry from enemy cavalry. With the advent of rapid-firing breech-loading weapons, cavalry became stronger and could function more like infantry (as Buford demonstrated at Gettysburg), but this was not its primary purpose, since it was a relatively costly unit to raise and maintain and should not be frittered away in direct confrontations with enemy infantry, unless for a vital reason.

Artillery was a mobile and powerful unit at close range, and effective at ranges beyond the reach of infantry, but it was very weak in defense at close range. Hence it was vulnerable, and being the most expensive unit to field, had to be protected by friendly infantry. Its enhanced mobility could not be used for independent operations unless at great risk to itself, but was useful for deploying rapidly to augment the firepower of friendly infantry and cavalry.

To put it in terms that George S. Patton might use, cavalry was used to hold the opponent's nose, so the infantry could deliver a firm punch to his face, while the artillery launched a swift and powerful kick to his rear.
 
I would really like to better understand the "nuts & bolts" so to speak of how all the different branches of an army function together, for instance, any given army has or may have the following...infantry, artillery, cavalry etc, and when I'm reading about different campaigns and battles I sometimes come away kind of confused as to why certain actions were carried out in the order that they were, so I'm wanting to get an idea of the structure and the coordination between the different branches, like, is there a textbook game plan for an army to follow where its understood that THIS branch leads off in an engagement (ideally), then another will begin and so on, or is it COMPLETELY at the discretion of the commanders of each to take action as they see fit when seeing what they are faced with. I know a lot of things can come into play on the battlefield and that an army may be spread out on its front for several miles and without cell phones, communication was often the deciding factor in winning or losing a battle. I know the cavalry being the eyes and ears of an army and was CRUCIAL to an army, I think of Buford's actions at Gettysburg as an example of, HOLY ****, we are way outnumbered here, but we have to slow them up if at all possible, but was it ALWAYS that way, I mean, a commanders decision, whoever it was and whatever branch to see a situation, use what you have available and engage the enemy? I'm still not sure if I'm making myself understood. Lol. How about this, are there any books, like military school type textbooks from that period that explains the roll of and how to effectively use all your tools, infantry, cavalry etc and when and when NOT to? Books or videos on tactics would be great. Thanks.
Ken.
Lets not forget about the coordination of guerrilla warfare in relation to conventional warfare. For example General Hindman sent a statement to the people of Missouri and Arkansas to establish guerrilla warfare behind Union lines . General Burnside gave ammunition to Tinker Dave to operate behind Confederate lines on Eastern Tennessee. The USN supported Unionist Guerrillas in South Eastern Florida. General Dodge supported Unionist Guerrillas and militias in Northern Alabama. The Confederacy at least attempted to aid General Waite in the Indian Territories.
Leftyhunter
 
Officers on both side used the same tactics books to study the proper use of mix arms. However, if both sides strictly followed the tactics books their actions would have ben very predictable. No officers on either side had used mixed arms tactic to any extent since the Mexican American War. Early in the war neither side did a good job of using mixed arms. Part of the problem was weapons had changed since the Mexican American War and so the proper use of mixed arms was in transformation so officers had to lean new tactics the hard way.
 
I think a good example of the lack of understanding new weapons can be seen in the following examples.

1. Gatling guns and other rapid fire weapons had been developed during the war but did not have much of an impact. No officer was sure how to use these new weapons and the new weapons did not fit in to the existing tactics.

2. Both sides, but the Union in particular, used military balloons for observation. But few if any battles were effected greatly by this new technology.

3. The use of telegraph probably did have an impact on the war. In some ways the telegraph helped and in some ways it hurt.
 
Cavalry was at the time generally but not always used as a scouting\ force for the advancing column and when battle was joined often used to protect the flanks. It could be and at times was used to strike at an opponets flanks or weak spots and to cause havoc in the rear areas during the engagment. Sometimes, as in the case of Buford they did fight a holding action to allow infantry and cannon-cockers time to get up.

Infantry was the main battle force and was comitted as the element to the fight. Skirmishers were often deployed forward of the main column to provide early warning. The main body deployed in line of battle.

Cannon Cockers , did what arty does. At times they fired softening up barrages prior to the infantry advance. When battle was joined they engaged enemy forces in the advance or retreat. At times they targeted opposing batteries.

The tactics were Napoleonic for the most pat, in theory and in fact along with some refinements by other European Generals and as war went on by American .
 
Good comments so far.

I've only read two books on tactics per se (although I've read a number on field artillery):

Nosworthy, Brent (2003). The Bloody Crucible of Courage: Fighting Methods and Combat Experience of the Civil War.

Hess, Earl J. (2015). Civil War Infantry Tactics: Training, Combat, And Small-Unit Effectiveness.

Nosworthy is often cited in books and articles but it's over 600 pages and despite it's title a lot of it is actually about previous European wars (to which he compares the Civil War). All in all it's a good reference and study. Hess's work was useful but not as good as I'd hoped when I bought it and it only deals with one branch; wouldn't recommend it as a place to start.

The other often-cited work (which I've not read) is Battle Tactics of the Civil War by Paddy Griffith. You might want to go to Amazon and read some reviews of both Nosworthy and Griffith. You can get good used paperback copies for not much.

There're are a lot of books that touch on artillery tactics - and I imagine on cavalry too - but none that I've found focusing strictly on tactics (other than what is covered in Nosworthy). You have to sort of sift out the tactical stuff in multiple works to get the big picture.

Good luck !
 
Lets not forget about the coordination of guerrilla warfare in relation to conventional warfare. For example General Hindman sent a statement to the people of Missouri and Arkansas to establish guerrilla warfare behind Union lines . General Burnside gave ammunition to Tinker Dave to operate behind Confederate lines on Eastern Tennessee. The USN supported Unionist Guerrillas in South Eastern Florida. General Dodge supported Unionist Guerrillas and militias in Northern Alabama. The Confederacy at least attempted to aid General Waite in the Indian Territories.
Leftyhunter

All true concerning Partisan warfare. However on the occasions that the Partisans in the Trans-Miss fought with Regular formations, they fought as scouts and light Cavalry .
 
In actuality, tactics in the ACW were a lot different than in the Napoleonic Wars and other European conflicts. Battles were almost never fought decisively for a number of reasons. As noted, cavalry had become almost entirely a skirmishing, scouting & screening force rather than a shock unit. In the Napoleonic Wars the cavalry arm was much larger and would often work alongside the infantry in a major battle, leading mounted charges into the flanks, busting through weak points in the enemy lines. This was of course never done on a large scale in the ACW, and that could be blamed on a number of reasons, e.g., a much smaller cavalry force in most armies, heavily wooded terrain, organization, etc.

In the Napoleonic Wars artillery was often massed and brought up rather close to blow a gap in the enemy lines. In the ACW massing of artillery was done effectively in a few instances, but heavily wooded terrain often limited its use. One of the few instances where this was done effectively on the offensive was at Hazel Grove at Chancellorsville. On the other hand, artillery had improved since the Napoleonic Wars; now you had rifled artillery pieces, more reliable firing mechanisms (friction primers, boremann fuse, etc.), and all artillery pieces could now fire both shell and solid shot.

This article does a pretty good job at explaining the differences between true Napoleonic tactics and that of the ACW:
http://johnsmilitaryhistory.com/cwarmy.html
 
The first book would be How the North Won. It is a military history. The biggest problem with military historians is they have no military back ground. The book "How the South Lost" is a continuation of the military principles. Is the civil war "indian rush" similar to todays "bounding overwatch"? What is "Concentration is Space and Time"? These two books are the best i could find.
 
One of the best books that I have read on military tactics was written by Carl von Clausewitz 'On War'. He covers everything and much of it became European battle doctrine, its kind of common sense stuff, I'm not sure how much would relate to the civil war but I do remember a forum member asking if any of the Civil War Generals could have applied Von Clausewitz teachings to their battle tactics, I recall that someone suggested that Clausewitz was used at West Point.

Here is a link for a translated version of 'On War'. You may find BOOK 5 • CHAPTER 4 Relation of the Three Arms interesting.
http://www.clausewitz.com/readings/OnWar1873/TOC.htm
 
I'm really enjoying these answers. I picked up a loose sense of the tactical strengths and weaknesses of the different branches just through reading Catton, Foote, and watching how each was used (or misused) in various battles, but the tactics of each branch is worthy of deeper study.

Hey, don't forget the tactical worth of the navies, whether on the river or in the ocean, and ironsides vs. regular craft. That deserves some mention, too.

This is unrelated, but after I started reading about the Civil War, I got to hear George R. R. Martin read an excerpt from one of his forthcoming books. In it, an army was gearing up for a battle -- and I was thinking "Holy hell, these people are going to get slaughtered! They're heading out AFTER dawn so the enemy will see them right off, not to mention the whole army is traipsing across a freaking drawbridge, now gosh, I wonder where the enemy's artillery will aim their pieces?" etc. etc.

But of course I didn't speak up --I understood the tactical advantage of not picking apart George's strategy in a room filled with his rabid fans. :wink:
 
I would really like to better understand the "nuts & bolts" so to speak of how all the different branches of an army function together, for instance, any given army has or may have the following...infantry, artillery, cavalry etc, and when I'm reading about different campaigns and battles I sometimes come away kind of confused as to why certain actions were carried out in the order that they were, so I'm wanting to get an idea of the structure and the coordination between the different branches, like, is there a textbook game plan for an army to follow where its understood that THIS branch leads off in an engagement (ideally), then another will begin and so on, or is it COMPLETELY at the discretion of the commanders of each to take action as they see fit when seeing what they are faced with. I know a lot of things can come into play on the battlefield and that an army may be spread out on its front for several miles and without cell phones, communication was often the deciding factor in winning or losing a battle. I know the cavalry being the eyes and ears of an army and was CRUCIAL to an army, I think of Buford's actions at Gettysburg as an example of, HOLY ****, we are way outnumbered here, but we have to slow them up if at all possible, but was it ALWAYS that way, I mean, a commanders decision, whoever it was and whatever branch to see a situation, use what you have available and engage the enemy? I'm still not sure if I'm making myself understood. Lol. How about this, are there any books, like military school type textbooks from that period that explains the roll of and how to effectively use all your tools, infantry, cavalry etc and when and when NOT to? Books or videos on tactics would be great. Thanks.
Ken.

I found a short vid called 'American Civil War Tactics' it mostly looks at Infantry and artillery, the upshot is that tactics had to change with the development of weapons, they also discuss how a large army could be controlled (it couldn't be controlled) and these issues weren't even resolved at the end of the war. Apparently an army was at its best when it was close to its railhead. What I did find interesting was that both sides started the war with tactics that they had used during the Mexican war, fighting shoulder to shoulder, very Napoleonic. Its a bit basic but gives plenty of food for thought.:thumbsup:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTUQ-ezDLPc
 
Last edited:
I would really like to better understand the "nuts & bolts" so to speak of how all the different branches of an army function together, for instance, any given army has or may have the following...infantry, artillery, cavalry etc, and when I'm reading about different campaigns and battles I sometimes come away kind of confused as to why certain actions were carried out in the order that they were, so I'm wanting to get an idea of the structure and the coordination between the different branches, like, is there a textbook game plan for an army to follow where its understood that THIS branch leads off in an engagement (ideally), then another will begin and so on, or is it COMPLETELY at the discretion of the commanders of each to take action as they see fit when seeing what they are faced with. I know a lot of things can come into play on the battlefield and that an army may be spread out on its front for several miles and without cell phones, communication was often the deciding factor in winning or losing a battle. I know the cavalry being the eyes and ears of an army and was CRUCIAL to an army, I think of Buford's actions at Gettysburg as an example of, HOLY ****, we are way outnumbered here, but we have to slow them up if at all possible, but was it ALWAYS that way, I mean, a commanders decision, whoever it was and whatever branch to see a situation, use what you have available and engage the enemy? I'm still not sure if I'm making myself understood. Lol. How about this, are there any books, like military school type textbooks from that period that explains the roll of and how to effectively use all your tools, infantry, cavalry etc and when and when NOT to? Books or videos on tactics would be great. Thanks.
Ken.
I didn't have time to add that General "Old Pap" Sterling coordinated has best he could with the Missouri boys such as Quantrill and Bloody Bill Anderson.
You should take take a look at the recent thread "how many wagons"? Just providing the logistics for a military campaign can be mind boggling complex.
Leftyhunter
 
Back
Top