Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Most Decisive US Civil War Battle

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Pate

    Yes, the little smiley thingies tend to keep some of us from troll shooting.

    Hadn't seen you down in these threads before...my apologies for bad asumption on my part.:)):P:);):(;)
    “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
    Mark Twain

    Comment


    • Well, I'd just throw this in. I remember a thread a couple of months back about a book on the history of the American rifleman. The author purports that his research proves the US Civil War infantry had consistently better marksmanship and inflicted heavier casualties then European counterparts.

      Which is interesting because another one of my "warfare through the ages" type reference book suggested that US civil war soldiery must have been inferior to European troops because the latter could keep unit cohesion under fire and broke less often.

      I wonder if the precieved bad American dicispline was the result of sustaining heavier, more accurate fire?
      All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful.
      -Talmud Kohelet Rabbah, 7:16.

      Comment


      • Triple C:

        I read "The American Way of War" a few years back, if I recall correctly it had something to say about the US gradually drifiting away from a "Kill the enemy army" to "destroy the enemy's capacity wage war" (ie factories, food, supply line rather than combatants as targets). I think it also said something about the US military starting in the Revolutionary War to toy with smaller units and the idea of staying away from large set-piece battles. As I recall, the Civil War was largely a set piece war, as the Union tended to focus more on reducing the Confederacy's ability to supply their army. And the Confederacy had to rely on 'targets of opportunity' as their army suffered more and more casualties... If I recall correctly, the author [I forget the name] saw this as the foundation of our modern principle of taking out the enemy's industrial capacity. Anyhow, I think the author thought that the Civil War was the cradle from which the "American Way of War" was raised and had her eyeteeth cut...

        Well, I'd just throw this in. I remember a thread a couple of months back about a book on the history of the American rifleman. The author purports that his research proves the US Civil War infantry had consistently better marksmanship and inflicted heavier casualties then European counterparts.

        Which is interesting because another one of my "warfare through the ages" type reference book suggested that US civil war soldiery must have been inferior to European troops because the latter could keep unit cohesion under fire and broke less often.

        I wonder if the precieved bad American dicispline was the result of sustaining heavier, more accurate fire?
        I prefaced your comment, with my own. Now I may make my weak point. I think the last major conflict the Europeans had seen were the Napoleonic Wars, which were still largely set piece, mass formation, line up and fire untill the enemy army routs or surrenders. The next major conflict the Europeans saw was WWI, and we know that descended into a trench warfare, duke it out style war. The enemies singing Christmas carols to each other during the Christmas Truce (Ypress, 1914) sort of hearkens back to a more 'chivalric' time perhaps. I think even then, mass attacks into the meat grinder of machine fire (after all only an extension of the old Napoleonic style of fighting) and a general's ability to get his soldiers to do it was some mark of the general's effectiveness. I will only point out that about a year after the US entry into this war it was over. I know it is 50 years later than a mid-nineteenth century all out war between the Continent and the USA; but perhaps these European perceptions of 'poor American formation discipline' translated into an inferior war-ending soldier (note I don't say war-fighting), sort of misses the point. That would be an interesting debate indeed, mid-nineteenth century doctrinal (even in their infancy) effectiveness of the American vs Continental forces... whew

        If I may amend my earlier gaffe; I had actually chosen Antietam as the decisive battle.

        To defend my position, I would say that prior to Antietam, Lee's Army was large enough, had the initiative and was in Union territory and so was in a position to 'cripple' the North's ability to wage war. Would Lee have destroyed Northern industrial capability had he won at Antietam, I leave to your wiser heads. Also I recall there was a vocal Northern opposition to the War, Lee's continued success would (I imagine) only have intensified this.

        Anyhow, my very weak point is; after Antietam the Confederacy had lost the initiative, would never be able to outproduce the North in men or arms, and had as their only advantage the ability to feed their soldiers. An advantage that steadily dwindled as they lost control of more and more territory... Plus the implementation of the Anaconda Plan; the Battle of New Orleans (also absent the poll, which I think delivered both Vicksburg and Franklin ultimately) and the Atlantic/Gulf naval blockades...

        Had Lee done a little better earlier on, he may have been able to secure more naval assets and won out in the end. That's my defense of Antietam as the decisive battle...

        Hope that makes things better:)

        Please forgive any ignorance I may have displayed in facts, et al. above. I am not even an amateur level historian, I have only read for pure enjoyment a few books dealing with the subject (as well as watched the History Channel a few times over the years.):)

        Comment


        • Triple C & Pate

          If you want a good comparison of unit casualties and unit cohesion, I would invite you to study the casualties of the American Civil War and compare them to the Franco-Prussian War. The Franco - Prussian War saw 250,000 combat casualties in a 10 month period...a fairly good bloodletting. Antietam saw 23,000 in a day; Shiloh had 25,000 in 2 days. At Gettysburg, both armies lost 53,000 men in 3 days. During the Overland Campaign of 1864 both sides lost combined at least 110,000 men in a 40 day period of almost continuous combat.

          I am not sure if it was the nature of marksmanship or the ferocity of combat. What I believe were the greater influences on units breaking are the following:

          1) Early in the war, it was shear inexperience. There was no military tradition in the US…militias were small. The backbone of the militaries of both sides was the volunteer. We had almost no reserve forces and the Regular Army had 16,500 at the outbreak. The company officers were elected by their troops and field grade officers were selected by their state governors. General officers had been former regulars or, more importantly, politicians. The Armies learned as they went. So an initiation to fire resulted in one of 2 events…a unit breaking under fire or standing fast under conditions which really required their withdrawal. A regiment may have been authorized 1026 men but after its first battle most regiments were down to 350 - 450 due to disease and casualties (2:1 disease to combat casualties, BTW). More on this later.

          2) Terrain. Most European observers (and most didn’t stick around for long) believed there was nothing they could learn from watching Americans because they fought in places which had no comparable terrain in Europe outside of the Ardennes. Part of the reason casualties were so high at Antietam and Gettysburg is they were fought in the wide open spaces where artillery as well as long range rifle volleys came into play. The vast majority of Civil War battles were fought in the woods. It was if the entire war was fought in the Ardennes.

          3) Weaponry. The Civil War was the first war fought with massed armies AND rifles. The compact battle lines of the Napoleonic Era were still used. But instead of smoothbore muskets the opposing sides had rifles with 2 to 3 times the range. And early on it was not unusual to have one side with smooth bore and the other with rifles. This is what happened at Marye’s Heights to the Irish Brigade. The Confederate had P57 Enfield .577 rifles, effective to 500 yards. The Irish Brigade (along with several other II Corps units) was still equipped with the .69 cal smoothbore muskets…and they were attacking across an open field an enemy defending from behind a stone wall. Yet the Union forces attacked a dug in enemy 11 times that day.

          4) Lengths of enlistments. Initially, soldiers volunteered for 90 days of service on both sides. Once it became apparent that the war was going to last awhile, the Union called for 3 year service volunteers and the Confederacy did the same, going to universal conscription in March 1862. So what impact did this have on units? Well, the Confederates knew they were in it for good. The Union soldiers were only there until their enlistments ran out. When Grant was heading South in May 1864, not only was he losing the cream of his army through central Virginia, he was starting to lose entire regiments because their enlistments ran out. A soldier who knows he gets to march away in a week or 2 and never have to fight again is less likely to give it his all. The Army of the Potomac didn’t refuse to attack an entrenched enemy …the men just attacked until they started to take fire and then would go to ground. By August of 1864 Grant would only have 5,000 men more than Lee at Petersburg. There are also ample examples of units which refused to break (The Iron Brigade, the Stonewall Brigade, etc).

          5) Now look at the European armies of that time frame. I believe you will find they had a greater military tradition, a level of training and expertise and an involvement of the populace which American forces couldn’t match until 1863..and don’t forget that the Homestead Act of 1862 allowed anyone who would move the frontier as pioneer could get free land and be exempted from service. There is no way to compare the 2 populations.


          Pate, good analysis on Antietam. I would add one final piece. Confederate failure to decisively win in Maryland allowed Lincoln to announce the Emancipation Proclamation…which guaranteed the Europeans would not side with the CSA.
          “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
          Mark Twain

          Comment


          • Originally posted by pate View Post
            I suppose I should have put a 'smiley' there at the end... Feel free to slap me with a frozen trout or something.
            A frozen trout emoticon would be cool
            "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Shek View Post
              A frozen trout emoticon would be cool
              More like a frozen octopus.
              “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
              Mark Twain

              Comment


              • Franklin

                Gettysburg = lol

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
                  If you want a good comparison of unit casualties and unit cohesion, I would invite you to study the casualties of the American Civil War and compare them to the Franco-Prussian War. The Franco - Prussian War saw 250,000 combat casualties in a 10 month period...a fairly good bloodletting. Antietam saw 23,000 in a day; Shiloh had 25,000 in 2 days. At Gettysburg, both armies lost 53,000 men in 3 days. During the Overland Campaign of 1864 both sides lost combined at least 110,000 men in a 40 day period of almost continuous combat.

                  I am not sure if it was the nature of marksmanship or the ferocity of combat. What I believe were the greater influences on units breaking are the following:

                  1) Early in the war, it was shear inexperience. There was no military tradition in the US…militias were small. The backbone of the militaries of both sides was the volunteer. We had almost no reserve forces and the Regular Army had 16,500 at the outbreak. The company officers were elected by their troops and field grade officers were selected by their state governors. General officers had been former regulars or, more importantly, politicians. The Armies learned as they went. So an initiation to fire resulted in one of 2 events…a unit breaking under fire or standing fast under conditions which really required their withdrawal. A regiment may have been authorized 1026 men but after its first battle most regiments were down to 350 - 450 due to disease and casualties (2:1 disease to combat casualties, BTW). More on this later.

                  2) Terrain. Most European observers (and most didn’t stick around for long) believed there was nothing they could learn from watching Americans because they fought in places which had no comparable terrain in Europe outside of the Ardennes. Part of the reason casualties were so high at Antietam and Gettysburg is they were fought in the wide open spaces where artillery as well as long range rifle volleys came into play. The vast majority of Civil War battles were fought in the woods. It was if the entire war was fought in the Ardennes.

                  3) Weaponry. The Civil War was the first war fought with massed armies AND rifles. The compact battle lines of the Napoleonic Era were still used. But instead of smoothbore muskets the opposing sides had rifles with 2 to 3 times the range. And early on it was not unusual to have one side with smooth bore and the other with rifles. This is what happened at Marye’s Heights to the Irish Brigade. The Confederate had P57 Enfield .577 rifles, effective to 500 yards. The Irish Brigade (along with several other II Corps units) was still equipped with the .69 cal smoothbore muskets…and they were attacking across an open field an enemy defending from behind a stone wall. Yet the Union forces attacked a dug in enemy 11 times that day.

                  4) Lengths of enlistments. Initially, soldiers volunteered for 90 days of service on both sides. Once it became apparent that the war was going to last awhile, the Union called for 3 year service volunteers and the Confederacy did the same, going to universal conscription in March 1862. So what impact did this have on units? Well, the Confederates knew they were in it for good. The Union soldiers were only there until their enlistments ran out. When Grant was heading South in May 1864, not only was he losing the cream of his army through central Virginia, he was starting to lose entire regiments because their enlistments ran out. A soldier who knows he gets to march away in a week or 2 and never have to fight again is less likely to give it his all. The Army of the Potomac didn’t refuse to attack an entrenched enemy …the men just attacked until they started to take fire and then would go to ground. By August of 1864 Grant would only have 5,000 men more than Lee at Petersburg. There are also ample examples of units which refused to break (The Iron Brigade, the Stonewall Brigade, etc).

                  5) Now look at the European armies of that time frame. I believe you will find they had a greater military tradition, a level of training and expertise and an involvement of the populace which American forces couldn’t match until 1863..and don’t forget that the Homestead Act of 1862 allowed anyone who would move the frontier as pioneer could get free land and be exempted from service. There is no way to compare the 2 populations.


                  Pate, good analysis on Antietam. I would add one final piece. Confederate failure to decisively win in Maryland allowed Lincoln to announce the Emancipation Proclamation…which guaranteed the Europeans would not side with the CSA.

                  Excellent post. And I didn't know the bit about the Irish brigade still being equipped with Muskets. I would have thought it was the other way around. It makes Burnsides decision to attack even more questionable.

                  Comment


                  • i would add that the Union/Confederate armies had a lot more ground to cover, manuever, and fight for than their German/French counterparts.

                    also, i think both Union and Confederacy had a more resilient political structure. say abe lincoln or jefferson davis was captured. i don't think it would have led to the same collapse the french had after napoleon III was humiliated.
                    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Johnny W View Post
                      Excellent post. And I didn't know the bit about the Irish brigade still being equipped with Muskets. I would have thought it was the other way around. It makes Burnsides decision to attack even more questionable.
                      The Irish Brigade were still suign their Model 1842 Buck and Ball .69 Caliber smoothbores at Chancellorsville in May 1863 and Gettysburg in July of that year. By choice, eith the exception of the 28th Mass, the Irish Brigade would hold onto their Buck & Balls until Spring 1864!


                      .http://http://books.google.com/books...result#PPP1,M1
                      “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                      Mark Twain

                      Comment


                      • While not a battle, I would change my answer to be the election of Lincoln in November of 1864. After that, there was no doubt that the CSA was going to become a historical memory.

                        However, I would still stick with my original thought that Antietam was the beginning of the road to the end.
                        "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

                        Comment


                        • While not answering the exact same question that began the thread, what would be interesting to hear would be what battles were most damaging to the CSA's efforts? I'd vote for Chattanooga in the West and Chancellorsville in the East. Chattanooga irreversibly opened up the Deep South to attack and vaulted Grant to LTG and General-in-Chief, which once and for all synchronized Union strategy across all theaters of the war. Chancellorsville was symptomatic of Lee's approach that suffered unsustainable casualties while breeding overconfidence that would mask the impact of this bleeding.
                          "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

                          Comment


                          • I think far too many people underappreciate the importance of the western battlefields.

                            Comment


                            • I just re-read my posts in this thread. BRILLIANT. I'm right, you know: FRANKLIN.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Bluesman View Post
                                And then again when Lee manuevered Grant into a trap that almost saw the loss of either a third or two thirds of the Army of the Potomac at the North Anna River, failing only due to AP Hill's and his own seperate illnesses.
                                Hancock's II Corps was the only element that would have taken severe casualties (believe I had been incorrectly referring to it being Burnsides IX Corps in prior posts), and even then, it would have been Ewell's and Anderson's Corps (30K between) against Hancock's Corps of 24K in a stand-up fight outside of earthworks. Lee had only a few hour window in which to attack, after which Grant had realized that the entire ANV was at N. Anna and then ordered Hancock to entrench, at which point the ANV would taken severe casualties in the assault.

                                The defensive position was superb, although it took Warren's mauling of Hill's elements to shock Lee into action finding it, but it wouldn't have necessarily translated into even 1/3rd casualties as the ANV would have had to leave the earthworks to assault, meaning their assault would have lost momentum, and the assault would have been directed at only 1/4 to 1/3 of the AoP. In other words, it would have taken 100% casualties of Hancock's Corps to even reach the 1/3rd casualty mark.

                                North Anna is not the near miss that some writers make it out to be.
                                "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X