PDA

View Full Version : Today - The Beginning of the end;



T_igger_cs_30
29 Mar 11,, 14:19
1865 - March 29 - Apr 9th, Appomattox campaign, VA , begins.

Appomattox Campaign - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appomattox_Campaign)


The Appomattox Campaign was a series of battles fought March 29 April 9, 1865, in Virginia that culminated in the surrender of Confederate General Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia and the effective end of the American Civil War.

Albany Rifles
01 Apr 11,, 14:05
I have been so busy getting ready for a Rev War Tour next month I almost overlooked this!

My office building sits next to the Artillery Park site for the Ninth Corps.

My house sits near the remount area for the AOP.

I literally live, work, play and camp in the midst of all of this area.

On days when I get really pissed off at work I grab a cooler and head out on the back roads listening to fife & drum music and digging out my maps.

I can be really boring!

Today is 5 Forks.

Battle of Five Forks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Five_Forks)

Tomorrow is The Breakthrough

Third Battle of Petersburg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Petersburg_III)

Pamplin Park (http://www.pamplinpark.org/)

Chogy
01 Apr 11,, 15:30
The U.S. Civil War is so worthy of study!

- The logistics were staggering and mechanization (rail, steam) allowed an effort that made previous conflicts pale.
- It encompassed the transition from muzzle loading to breech-loading firearms; overall technology advance was rapid
- It saw the introduction of the ironclad, very much noticed by Europe: Brother Jonathan ('Uncle Sam') teaches Naval architecture (http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/civil-war/1862/may/brother-jonathan.htm)
- Trench and siege warfare was much advanced
- War enveloped entire economies; while not quite a total war, it could be considered a forerunner

and so much more. The politics behind it are also fascinating, at least for us U.S. folk.

dave lukins
01 Apr 11,, 16:13
The U.S. Civil War is so worthy of study

Is it not on the US curriculum?

Albany Rifles
01 Apr 11,, 16:27
Is it not on the US curriculum?

It sure is at the grade school and high school level.

Albany Rifles
01 Apr 11,, 16:39
The U.S. Civil War is so worthy of study!

- The logistics were staggering and mechanization (rail, steam) allowed an effort that made previous conflicts pale.
- It encompassed the transition from muzzle loading to breech-loading firearms; overall technology advance was rapid
- It saw the introduction of the ironclad, very much noticed by Europe: Brother Jonathan ('Uncle Sam') teaches Naval architecture (http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/civil-war/1862/may/brother-jonathan.htm)
- Trench and siege warfare was much advanced
- War enveloped entire economies; while not quite a total war, it could be considered a forerunner

and so much more. The politics behind it are also fascinating, at least for us U.S. folk.

Chogy


Check this out. A very good essay on the very topic you breach.

The Evolution And Influence Of Tactical Warfare In The American Civil War (http://www.civilwarhome.com/tacticalwarfare.htm)

A link to Jay Luvaas' excellent book. Went to a lecture by him about 10 years ago on the topic.

Amazon.com: The Military Legacy of the Civil War: the European Inheritance: jay luvaas: Books (http://www.amazon.com/Military-Legacy-Civil-War-Inheritance/dp/B0000CKGDD/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1270033991&sr=8-12)

And an excellent review of the subject by Pete Carmichael...an historian of the first rank.

Did the Civil War Affect European Military Culture? (http://cwmemory.com/2010/03/31/did-the-civil-war-affect-european-military-culture/)

astralis
01 Apr 11,, 16:48
chogy,


- It encompassed the transition from muzzle loading to breech-loading firearms; overall technology advance was rapid


we should be glad that the civil war didn't wait 3-5 years. if what we had was bad, i can't imagine what the civil war would be like if both sides commonly had breech-loading single-shot firearms (or even worse, repeaters) instead of muzzle-loaders, and if the old Napoleons were replaced by steel breechloading rifled artillery.

all of those technologies were present by 1863-1864, just not commonly used.

Albany Rifles
01 Apr 11,, 16:59
chogy,



we should be glad that the civil war didn't wait 3-5 years. if what we had was bad, i can't imagine what the civil war would be like if both sides commonly had breech-loading single-shot firearms (or even worse, repeaters) instead of muzzle-loaders, and if the old Napoleons were replaced by steel breechloading rifled artillery.

all of those technologies were present by 1863-1864, just not commonly used.

Wouldn't have been an issue with this guy as chief of ordnance!!!

James Wolfe Ripley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Wolfe_Ripley)

Tarek Morgen
01 Apr 11,, 17:34
chogy,



we should be glad that the civil war didn't wait 3-5 years. if what we had was bad, i can't imagine what the civil war would be like if both sides commonly had breech-loading single-shot firearms (or even worse, repeaters) instead of muzzle-loaders, and if the old Napoleons were replaced by steel breechloading rifled artillery.

all of those technologies were present by 1863-1864, just not commonly used.

but that would assume that both side would have access to those weapons and technology. Would the north not havea much bigger advantage when it comes to upgrading weapons due its industrial base? Also the war of 1870 had those technologies, but was over was much quicker (though there was also much less land to fight over)

astralis
01 Apr 11,, 18:32
tarek,


the north not havea much bigger advantage when it comes to upgrading weapons due its industrial base?

yes, the north would have an advantage, but not much bigger. the south imported plenty of weapons from europe and also had the impressive Tredegar Iron Works.


Also the war of 1870 had those technologies, but was over was much quicker (though there was also much less land to fight over)

much harder to manuever in the dense forests of 1860-1870s northern virginia, and of course much wider spaces. also, much more determination. frenchmen weren't too eager to die for napoleon III after it became clear that he was losing.

Tarek Morgen
01 Apr 11,, 18:48
much harder to manuever in the dense forests of 1860-1870s northern virginia, and of course much wider spaces. also, much more determination. frenchmen weren't too eager to die for napoleon III after it became clear that he was losing.

on that part I have to disagree with you. Sedan was the point were the French should have given up, instead with their emporer captured they formed a new government and raised new armies despite there being little chance to change the outcome of the war. Even with Paris besieged and food running out the city did not surrender until the shelling with heavy artillery started...and due the centralized nature of France any hope of further resistance vanished with the loss of Paris. While I am often the first to made a joke at the French's expense, 1870 was the war were they should have surrendered sooner instead of desperatly and futile resisting after the outcome was already unavoidable.

Albany Rifles
01 Apr 11,, 19:01
tarek,

yes, the north would have an advantage, but not much bigger. the south imported plenty of weapons from europe and also had the impressive Tredegar Iron Works.

much harder to manuever in the dense forests of 1860-1870s northern virginia, and of course much wider spaces. also, much more determination. frenchmen weren't too eager to die for napoleon III after it became clear that he was losing.

Actually, Tredegar was better suited for making cannon. The rifles Richmond Rifles were made in the Richmond Armory down the street and were made with machinery captured from Harper's Ferry.

And most of the small arms the Confederates got came from 2 sources: agents purchasing overseas, mainly in Great Britain and in militia and US armories throughout the South.

The innovations of rapid fire for Infantry weapons came about in large part of the lessons learned on the Civil War battlefields.. So one could wonder would the Allin Conversion for the Springfield come out in 1866 or the Snider-Enfield in 1867 if the Civil War had not caused most to look at teh ability to mass produce breech loaders.

Eric, As for tree cover...believe it or not once you get out of the crowded hell of NOVA Viriginia is more tree covered compared to the time of the Civil War. Dense forest areas wwere a common experience in the Western theater but so much in the East (outside of the Wilderness).

astralis
01 Apr 11,, 22:45
AR,


Actually, Tredegar was better suited for making cannon. The rifles Richmond Rifles were made in the Richmond Armory down the street and were made with machinery captured from Harper's Ferry.

yup. wait 3-5 years, and the armstrong gun becomes a lot more common...maybe tredegar would be making those. at a minimum, the confederacy would certainly import more.


The innovations of rapid fire for Infantry weapons came about in large part of the lessons learned on the Civil War battlefields.. So one could wonder would the Allin Conversion for the Springfield come out in 1866 or the Snider-Enfield in 1867 if the Civil War had not caused most to look at teh ability to mass produce breech loaders.

it sped up the development of repeating rifles in the US, certainly-- particularly the spencer repeater. but the march towards breechloading rifles was clear by the mid-1860s. the prussians were using a breechloading dreyse needle gun by 1864 and the french had the chassepot by 1870, both of which could fire a lot faster (and one didn't have to stand) than the springfields of the union and the enfield muskets of the confederacy.


Eric, As for tree cover...believe it or not once you get out of the crowded hell of NOVA Viriginia is more tree covered compared to the time of the Civil War. Dense forest areas wwere a common experience in the Western theater but so much in the East (outside of the Wilderness).

bad maneuverability in the east, though. grant could never maneuver quite like he did in the vicksburg campaign out in the east.

astralis
01 Apr 11,, 22:56
tarek,


instead with their emporer captured they formed a new government and raised new armies despite there being little chance to change the outcome of the war. Even with Paris besieged and food running out the city did not surrender until the shelling with heavy artillery started...and due the centralized nature of France any hope of further resistance vanished with the loss of Paris. While I am often the first to made a joke at the French's expense, 1870 was the war were they should have surrendered sooner instead of desperatly and futile resisting after the outcome was already unavoidable.

you make a good point. the confederacy had the space where regrouping was possible and thus determination meant more. ironically, the centralized nature of the french armies/government meant that once the army napoleon led was smashed and paris was taken, resistance was futile.

Tzimisces
02 Apr 11,, 00:02
My office building sits next to the Artillery Park site for the Ninth Corps.

My house sits near the remount area for the AOP.

I literally live, work, play and camp in the midst of all of this area.


I live in Amelia Court House, where Lee waited for the supply train that wouldn't come. Saylor's Creek battlefield is about 15 minutes away. It is very well preserved.

Chogy
02 Apr 11,, 14:22
Chogy


Check this out. A very good essay on the very topic you breach.

The Evolution And Influence Of Tactical Warfare In The American Civil War (http://www.civilwarhome.com/tacticalwarfare.htm)

A link to Jay Luvaas' excellent book. Went to a lecture by him about 10 years ago on the topic.

Amazon.com: The Military Legacy of the Civil War: the European Inheritance: jay luvaas: Books (http://www.amazon.com/Military-Legacy-Civil-War-Inheritance/dp/B0000CKGDD/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1270033991&sr=8-12)

And an excellent review of the subject by Pete Carmichael...an historian of the first rank.

Did the Civil War Affect European Military Culture? (http://cwmemory.com/2010/03/31/did-the-civil-war-affect-european-military-culture/)

Thank you sir for these excellent resources. My ACW library is not what it should be. ;)


Is it not on the US curriculum?

It is studied, but not in adequate detail, IMO, and the emphasis is 95% politics and post-war reconstruction. Understandable... kids aren't interested in the advancements in siege warfare and logistics.

Albany Rifles
04 Apr 11,, 14:21
I live in Amelia Court House, where Lee waited for the supply train that wouldn't come. Saylor's Creek battlefield is about 15 minutes away. It is very well preserved.

Been there a bunch of times...I am kind of an AOP Sixth Corps kind of guy so that battlefield is right in my wheelhouse.

Albany Rifles
04 Apr 11,, 14:36
it sped up the development of repeating rifles in the US, certainly-- particularly the spencer repeater. but the march towards breechloading rifles was clear by the mid-1860s. the prussians were using a breechloading dreyse needle gun by 1864 and the french had the chassepot by 1870, both of which could fire a lot faster (and one didn't have to stand) than the springfields of the union and the enfield muskets of the confederacy.

I guess I needed to more clear in my refrence to Ripley.

As Chief of Ordnance Ripley wielded enormous power on the purchase of weapons. He was a firm believer in slow, aimed rifle fire...muzzle loading rifles. He was convinced that repeaters were a waste of ammunition. The Bureau system made him an absolute tyrant and there was no bringing him off of that. Even when manufacturers went around him and appealled straight to the President it all went for naught because Ripley would just ignore th eorders to purchase the arms.

Only in select unit and the cavalry did repeaters/and or breech loaders become standard...and they did cause logistics nightmares for the Ordnance Corps.


bad maneuverability in the east, though. grant could never maneuver quite like he did in the vicksburg campaign out in the east.

What also hampered operations in the Eastern theater was the rivers tended to be obstacles while in the Western Theater they were avenues of approach for the Union.


McClellan used the York & James in 1862 but the Chickahominy proved to be his undoing as he got closer to Richmond.

The Rappahannock and Rapidan would bring Burnside and Hooker to grief in 1862 & 1863.

And Grant's move south was aided by the rivers as supply lines but restricted he maneuver more effectively than the roads.

Conversely in the West, the Tennessee & Comberland rivers were used to great advantage by Union forces all through the war.

At Vicksburg the Mississippi and Yazoo Rivers were obstacles but once Grant got on the Eastern shore of the Mississippi he had no real river obstacles to deal with in the Vicksburg Campaign. The Big Black River was not and is not much of an obstacle. His forces forced the line in a day and never looked back. Plus he operated his army on a road network which to and from the state capitol of Jackson and the most important river port between New Orleans and Memphis.

astralis
04 Apr 11,, 15:18
AR,


I guess I needed to more clear in my refrence to Ripley.

As Chief of Ordnance Ripley wielded enormous power on the purchase of weapons. He was a firm believer in slow, aimed rifle fire...muzzle loading rifles. He was convinced that repeaters were a waste of ammunition. The Bureau system made him an absolute tyrant and there was no bringing him off of that. Even when manufacturers went around him and appealled straight to the President it all went for naught because Ripley would just ignore th eorders to purchase the arms.

Only in select unit and the cavalry did repeaters/and or breech loaders become standard...and they did cause logistics nightmares for the Ordnance Corps.



yup...old crusty bastard if there ever was one. Tsouras had him disappear early on in his Rainbow of Blood books where the US goes to war with the UK...only way to even things out :biggrin:

but he was going to be out the door in 1863 or so...just at a time when most armies in Europe were starting to convert.


What also hampered operations in the Eastern theater was the rivers tended to be obstacles while in the Western Theater they were avenues of approach for the Union.


McClellan used the York & James in 1862 but the Chickahominy proved to be his undoing as he got closer to Richmond.

The Rappahannock and Rapidan would bring Burnside and Hooker to grief in 1862 & 1863.

And Grant's move south was aided by the rivers as supply lines but restricted he maneuver more effectively than the roads.

Conversely in the West, the Tennessee & Comberland rivers were used to great advantage by Union forces all through the war.

At Vicksburg the Mississippi and Yazoo Rivers were obstacles but once Grant got on the Eastern shore of the Mississippi he had no real river obstacles to deal with in the Vicksburg Campaign. The Big Black River was not and is not much of an obstacle. His forces forced the line in a day and never looked back. Plus he operated his army on a road network which to and from the state capitol of Jackson and the most important river port between New Orleans and Memphis.

that's a good point. grant didn't seem to succeed til the end in being able to use the James. wonder which was the worse obstacle, the rivers or the forests.