Open or Forested

[atlantis]

Did confederate forces perform better in open country or in forested land. This applies to both offense and defense. At Gettysburg for example Pickett made it to the union position and even made a small breach in the union line, but confederate artillery had over shot the position thereby not inflicting the damage that could have helped the assault succeed.

 

[Lubliner]

@atlantis I was reading about the Wilderness Campaign recently and it caught my attention when Grant was maneuvering Hancock and Warren one night, it said the troops quietly moved off the line and headed toward the left flank, leaving only enough behind to keep the move unnoticed. This happened frequently on both sides, where even a Union advancement found the confederates had removed the line to another place. With the topic of forest and woodland, verses open fields, depending on how much time had been spent fortifying the line at the edge of the woods and having a clear open field ahead, artillery could be used to advantage. In the wilderness, Grant sent his cannon back into reserve because it was useless among the trees. I think both sides had better opportunity given terrain that allowed these considerations to make effect.
Lubliner.

 

[Rhea Cole]

A large university marching band consisting of 300-350 musicians is about the size of a CW era regiment. Either in person or on TV I am sure everyone has seen a marching band performance. Move the band to a football field sized patch of timber, exposed rocks or marshy ground & see what happens. The is the answer to the question. At Stones River, the cedar glades were so thick that no man could see more than 20 yards in any direction. Holding any kind of unit integrity was all but impossible. It was physically impossible for mounted men or wheeled vehicles to pass through the cedars. It did not matter which side was attempting to maneuver through rough or timbered country, neither side could do it with ease.

 

[jackt62]

I can't say whether Confederate forces performed better in open or forested terrain. However, forested terrain certainly diminished (if not entirely disabled) the use and effectiveness of close order infantry formations which relied on massed volley fire, and the ability to control and maneuver large numbers of troops. Which is why the use of skirmishers became more important as the war raged on.

 

[Lubliner]

Bull Run/First Manassas is a classic study for developing a good argument on this topic for both sides.
Lubliner.

 

[Ole Miss]

Using @Rhea Cole's analogy, at Shiloh there were small fields of 10 to 15 acres, with tall trees and scrub brush and many units were surprised having the enemy appear very close. The opening fight took place in a large field but then troops entered brush and tall trees before entering another small farmer's field or orchards.

Confederates drove Union forces 3 miles to Pittsburgh Landing on 1st day but Union troops drove them back to Corinth on 2nd day.

Artillery was successfully used when the terrain allowed but forests hampered it elsewhere
Regards
David

 

[Rhea Cole]

Ole Miss has put his finger on the gist of the matter. How many accounts have you read about a confrontation across an open field? Both sides hunkered down at the edge of timber? How many assaults like Lee's at the Wilderness petered out because forested terrain made command & control impossible? At Gettysburg, Chickamauga, Stones River, Wilderness & Atlanta CSA infantry maneuvering through timber suffered defeats when confronted by established Union defenders. There certainly was no advantage given the CSA by the terrain in those battles.

 

[DixieRifles]

, at Shiloh there were small fields of 10 to 15 acres, with tall trees and scrub brush and many units were surprised having the enemy appear very close.

In Tim Smith's book he stresses how the Hour Glass shape of the terrain funneled the troops to the center of the battlefield.

The battlefield that intrigues me the most with regards to maneuvering is the Battle of Lookout Mountain. Joe Hooker marched most of his 3 divisions in column up the West slope of the mountain and faced left. Then they tried their best to advance in line across boulders and timber. Confederate General Walthall had a harder time trying to withdraw and fall back over that terrain— resulting in 845 MIA's out of his original 1500.

 

[bankerpapaw]

A large university marching band consisting of 300-350 musicians is about the size of a CW era regiment. Either in person or on TV I am sure everyone has seen a marching band performance. Move the band to a football field sized patch of timber, exposed rocks or marshy ground & see what happens. The is the answer to the question. At Stones River, the cedar glades were so thick that no man could see more than 20 yards in any direction. Holding any kind of unit integrity was all but impossible. It was physically impossible for mounted men or wheeled vehicles to pass through the cedars. It did not matter which side was attempting to maneuver through rough or timbered country, neither side could do it with ease.

Great analogy!!

 

[Neo Conscious]

Forests were a distinct advantage to aid stealthy maneuvering for offensive attacks, especially flanking maneuvers. However, they also hindered the coordination necessary for the subsequent concentration of forces and exploitation of breakthroughs.

Selecting defensive positions with significant open ground along the entire front was almost always a challenge at some point of the line. For example, the Cemetery Ridge line at Gettysburg lost it's open ground frontage as it approached Little Round Top. Here is a good map detailing the forested areas at the time: http://www.clarksoncs.com/Gettysburg/dayTwoV1.html

A forest immediately below the ridge by J.Weikart's place required moving the line off the ridge and west of that into the bottom of Plum Run. However, that placed the line within 150 yards of another dense forest opposite Plum Run and extending south and along Houck's Ridge to near the Devil's Den. Knowing the impending attack was almost certain to come up his left flank, Sickles' unauthorized movement of de Trobriand's brigade across Plum Run and over Houck's Ridge to the other side of that forest at 1 PM revealed his deep insecurity about that situation.

However, it was clear soon that position was untenable as there was only the Wheatfield with a forest along it's east side up Houck's Ridge and forests to the south and west. Sickles then moved Graham's brigade to the west side of the forest and then Ward's brigade to cover the forest approach from the south past Devil's Den. There was now open ground in front to the west at that point, and had Sickles stopped the forward positioning of troops there, I don't think anyone would have faulted his disobeying of Meade's orders. The overall outcome of the day's fighting would likely have been the same, with a retreat of those forces necessitated by their forward exposure, but Union casualties would likely have been lower.

 

[Ole Miss]

Shiloh was not nearly as opened as Gettysburg or Antietam for examples. Tall stately trees inter spaced by small fields hampered the effectiveness of artillery at Shiloh. @redbob knows more about artillery than I do and he has been to Shiloh and could elaborate about the effectiveness of artillery at the battle
Regards
David

 

[redbob]

Shiloh was not nearly as opened as Gettysburg or Antietam for examples. Tall stately trees inter spaced by small fields hampered the effectiveness of artillery at Shiloh. @redbob knows more about artillery than I do and he has been to Shiloh and could elaborate about the effectiveness of artillery at the battle
Regards
David

In the era of if you can't see it, you can't hit it, heavily forested areas such as Shiloh and the Wilderness severely limited artillery's effectiveness. At Shiloh, probably the only truly effective use of artillery was against the Hornet's Nest across the open field in front of it.

 

[Lubliner]

In the era of if you can't see it, you can't hit it, heavily forested areas such as Shiloh and the Wilderness severely limited artillery's effectiveness. At Shiloh, probably the only truly effective use of artillery was against the Hornet's Nest across the open field in front of it.

But then I have to add the instance of the gunboats in firing into the wooded gullies just to the south of the landing. It kept the confederates on their toes all night and was extremely annoying. There were some instances of limbs crashing down on men below, so to some extent the harassment of cannonades could be profitable.
Lubliner.

 

[Ole Miss]

@Lubliner I posted a thread entitled "Role of the US Navy at Shiloh" that presents the comments of Confederate commanders in the Official Records of the Rebellion regarding the effectiveness of of the naval shelling. I also added the Official Reports of the 2 ships captains.
Regards
David