Trench Warfare

[KianGaf]

Watched a good doc on the battle of the Somme and got me think about Petersburg. How did trench warfare develop during the CW, was it simply a pragmatic tactical approach by Lee due to losses in the overland campaign ?

 

[Robin Lesjovitch]

Entrenching is what soldiers did when in contact with hostiles, unless they were advancing or retreating.
"Digging in" did not develop during the CW, but there were such notable examples of armies facing each other for periods of time trenches have come to be associated with the CW. At Vicksburg Grant could not advance and would not retreat, and Pemberton could neither advance nor retreat, so both armies entrenched. At Yorktown in 1781, Lord Cornwalis used earthworks to protect his troops when he lost the ability to maneuver. Americans and French were digging also, including traverses to creep up on the British troops.
At Petersburg, Lee could not retreat without essentially giving up the game and could only attack where the Federals had not dug in too deeply, so Lee had to entrench.

 

[Robin Lesjovitch]

Entrenching is what soldiers did when in contact with hostiles, unless they were advancing or retreating.
"Digging in" did not develop during the CW, but there were such notable examples of armies facing each other for periods of time trenches have come to be associated with the CW. At Vicksburg Grant could not advance and would not retreat, and Pemberton could neither advance nor retreat, so both armies entrenched. At Yorktown in 1781, Lord Cornwalis used earthworks to protect his troops when he lost the ability to maneuver. Americans and French were digging also, including traverses to creep up on the British troops.
At Petersburg, Lee could not retreat without essentially giving up the game and could only attack where the Federals had not dug in too deeply, so Lee had to entrench.

Specifically about Petersburg, extensive earthworks had been in place there since 1862, as had they been at Richmond. Those trences expanded considerably when Grant moved on Petersburg, but were not any sort of innovation.

 

[KianGaf]

Who was in charge of these defensive projects, was it piecemeal or where specific units charged with creating them , ie a confederate engineer unit.

 

[Taylin]

Nearly every instance of trench warfare in the Civil War was the result of a siege, to my knowledge. In nearly all battles, especially in the latter half of the war, there were consistent instances of building breastworks but that's a bit different as breastworks are temporary defenses and trenches are semi-permanent. Petersburg is an exception, it wasn't really a siege (wasn't surrounded or cut off from supplies until the very end.) It was much more like the instances of trench warfare in The Great War but much more limited.

Grant dug in at Petersburg after, I believe, sidestepping Lee at Richmond which gave him the time he needed to dig in. He didn't have to dig in because the Confederates already had (they had defenses but nothing to the extent of what was to come) but to literally root his army in place and make it nearly impossible to dislodge him as he began to secure a supply line for his forces that Lee couldn't do anything about. Lee had no other choice but have his army dig in between Grant and Petersburg / Richmond as attacking Grant in his defenses would be practical suicide.

Edit; As noted by redbob Atlanta is another instance and First Corinth maybe? I'm sure there are other instances where "sieges" were more Trench Warfare

 

[redbob]

While the idea of entrenching/fortifications may have developed as the war went along, probably the idea of self preservation came first. And while the idea on entrenching was developed much earlier in the ANV/AoP arena (as it has been put forward by at least one author that Johnston had to teach the AoT to dig in), during the Atlanta Campaign for example; the two armies developed/occupied no less than 18 different lines of entrenchment/fortification, traces of many of these still lie on the Georgia countryside.

 

[speedylee]

Heard a talk on this topic at the CWI last month. The Speaker was Earl Hess and he spoke specifically about the Atlanta campaign. He contended the trench use during the ACW did not lead to the stalemated trench warfare of WWI. Two different situations, Hess said.

 

[redbob]

Heard a talk on this topic at the CWI last month. The Speaker was Earl Hess and he spoke specifically about the Atlanta campaign. He contended the trench use during the ACW did not lead to the stalemated trench warfare of WWI. Two different situations, Hess said.

Hess's books on trench warfare/fortifications both in the Eastern and Western theatres make for some interesting reading.

 

[Robin Lesjovitch]

Who was in charge of these defensive projects, was it piecemeal or where specific units charged with creating them , ie a confederate engineer unit.

As the war started, both Union and Confederate armies had a corps of engineer officers. They planned then executed with whatever labor was available. By the last year of the war, Lee had a substantial number of officers designated engineers and units dedicated to fortifications. Lee had no choice, he was running out of room to campaign.

 

[redbob]

Who was in charge of these defensive projects, was it piecemeal or where specific units charged with creating them , ie a confederate engineer unit.

While there were Engineer/Pioneer units in both armies, the Engineering Officers would often lay out the lines of fortifications in advance of the troops and then the troops would do the heavy lifting/digging. Often there would be a shortage of digging tools and the digging in would be done with whatever was available including bayonets, tin cups and bare hands.

 

[gary]

Trench warfare predates the American Civil War. It was generally used in sieges (Charleston and Yorktown in the American Revolution, Fort William Henry during the French & Indian War, etc.).

For the American Civil War, when both officers and soldiers realized the futility of attack over open ground, they began entrenching as soon as they stopped marching or were told to hold a position. We saw both happen at Gettysburg. So, by 1864 in Virginia, it was automatic.

Not everyone learned and Hood ground down his Army of Tennessee in futile attacks over open ground and against prepared positions.

 

[major bill]

The concept being that an army imporves their ability to defend themselves by improving their defensive works. If only in a position for a day or two, the defense improvements are rather limited. Perhaps a few log placed and artillery positions improved.

However, improvements should be made every day to aid in defense. The longer an army stays in one place, the more extensive the defensive improvements become until they begin to look lile trench warfare.

 

[Coonewah Creek]

Strictly defined trench warfare tends to be associated with sieges like Vicksburg or Petersburg. However, from my understanding of the evolution of "self-protection" during the Civil War, "hasty entrenchments" seem to have become much more commonplace in both theaters about May 1864...the Wilderness and afterwards for the Eastern Theater, and the Atlanta Campaign for the Western Theater. I can't draw a hard and fast line on the calendar, but just an overall impression I've gotten during my years of study.

 

[Irishtom29]

The first instance I know of a gunpowder army using trenches <in the field> was the battle of Cerignola Italy in 1503. A Spanish army commanded by Gonzolo de Cordoba defeated a French army. De Cordoba arranged his army consisting of Spanish arquebusiers, rodeleros (swordsmen), pikemen, heavy and light cavalry and Landsknechts, on a hill and placed his aquebusiers in a trench behind a ditch. In short the Spanish gunmen devastated charges by the French heavy cavalry and Swiss pikemen and de Cordoba then counterattacked with his cavalry and his Spanish and German shock infantry and swept the field.

This was arguably the first battle in which infantry firepower was a deciding factor. It was also the beginning of the end of the dominance of Swiss infantry who increasingly fell afoul of new Spanish infantry formations that combined firepower with pike and sword though the rodeleros were later dropped in favor of more muskets.

 

[KianGaf]

Im in the pugila region of Italy in the autumn must see if the battlefield has any markers on it.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

There seems to have been a radical shift in Virginia after Gettysburg on the matter of field entrenchments. Gettysburg nobody made any serious field entrenchments. By the Overland Campaign, there seems to have been a "when you stop marching you start digging mentality." Mine Run was probably the first real instance of that.

Entrenchments weren't new to the war, but they tended to involve sieges and permanent positions, especially in the East. There must have been some tipping point.

 

[Robin Lesjovitch]

There seems to have been a radical shift in Virginia after Gettysburg on the matter of field entrenchments. Gettysburg nobody made any serious field entrenchments. By the Overland Campaign, there seems to have been a "when you stop marching you start digging mentality." Mine Run was probably the first real instance of that.

Entrenchments weren't new to the war, but they tended to involve sieges and permanent positions, especially in the East. There must have been some tipping point.

The point would seem obvious...the trenches came when needed. When the armies came into constant contact, the soldiers protected themselves. I'd say it actually started at Yorktown in 1862. At Gettysburg, both armies were looking to advance, although many trees came down on Culps Hill to protect federal defenders.
The idea is quite old. During the period of Roman expansion, a Roman army on the march constructed a fortified camp last thing every day.

 

[jackt62]

The term "trench warfare" has come to be associated with WWI and denotes an attrition like state of war or in the case of a fortified post, a siege. It is remarkable how the digging and planning of defensive entrenchments (trenches) was a well developed science by the Confederacy, which built rings of defensive lines around Richmond in 1862, and as the war progressed, similar defensive rings around cities such as Vicksburg, Atlanta, and Petersburg. Too say nothing of tactical entrenchments that Lee and the ANV were forced to use by the time of the Overland campaign in 1864.

 

[KianGaf]

The point would seem obvious...the trenches came when needed. When the armies came into constant contact, the soldiers protected themselves. I'd say it actually started at Yorktown in 1862. At Gettysburg, both armies were looking to advance, although many trees came down on Culps Hill to protect federal defenders.
The idea is quite old. During the period of Roman expansion, a Roman army on the march constructed a fortified camp last thing every day.

Examples of entrenchment can be seen as far back as the Roman siege of Alesia in 52 BC. It sadly seemed to take a while for the penny to drop in the CW that lines of men in the open against rifled muskets & artillery resulted in mass slaughter.

 

[thomas aagaard]

It sadly seemed to take a while for the penny to drop in the CW that lines of men in the open against rifled muskets & artillery resulted in mass slaughter.

2/3 of all death during the civil war was caused by sickens and other none combat causes. Just having men in the army was deadly.
So dragging out the war for years is not a solution.

In 1866 The Austro-Prussian war started on the 14th of June.
On the 3rd of July the Prussians effectively won the war at Königgrätz.
Sure it cost them about 9.000 casualties (and inflicted about 44.000, with about 22.000 of them KIA/WIA/MIA the rest captured)
but they won the war in a quick and effective manner.

But since they where fighting Austrians armed with muzzleloaders the Franco Prussian war in 1870 is properly a better example.

This time the french infantry was way better armed than the Prussians. The Prussians still took the offensive against the french who was usually dug in and the prussians still won.

The war cost about 425.000 men their lives. But about 1/3 of the dead was from none combat causes.

Militarily the war was over after 2 month, with Napoleon III captured and most french armies destroyed and the entire war was over after 6 month. (had the French accepted the result in late 1870 the cost had been a good deal smaller)

And that is with the two side putting about 3.5 million men in the field in total...
Winning wars in a quick manner was much, much better for the country than dragging it out for years. And that require you to take the offensive and accept the casualties that follow. Because every day the war drag on more men die to sickness and the cost in manpower and money for the state goes up. (and birthrates go down when the young men are not home)

Napoleon I did not win by digging in, but by quick marching.
And by 1870 when both sides had much, much better weapons, wars was still not won by digging in.