Musket Warfare (Napolean style)

[Del Arroyo]

While it's evident that there was some anachronism in ACW tactics-- what exactly would you have had them do? The Springfield muzzle-loader could still only fire 3 shots per minute-- a thin line would have left them outgunned and vulnerable to a strong enemy advance.

There was a regular application of a thin line in combat-- otherwise known as a skirmish line-- but it had very little staying power, as all the enemy had to do was advance. While it is certainly true that Battle Lines would have been more effective if they would have trained to take cover (as they surprisingly often learned to do!), a full and true evolution in tactics was not feasible until further advances in both range and rate of fire-- and the amorphous lines of today were not even concievable until the introduction of the light machine gun as the Main Fire weapon.

DA

[CBR]

Just adding a bit to the discussion..

Firepower is all about how much lead you can throw at the enemy and how much is needed to defeat him or keep him away so he doesnt just charge in and rout you.

As muzzle loaded muskets are not that quick firing (2-4 shots/minute IIRC) and dont have that long effective range (100 yeards or less) you need soldiers to stand in very close formation and 2-3 ranks in order to produce the firepower needed.

Compare that to a modern day infantryman who can have an aimed rate of fire 5+ times higher and with an effective range of 400+ meters (especially against massed formations) and of course the ability to shoot even faster at short ranges. Having machineguns to support him just makes it even worse for an enemy that tries to charge in big massed formations.

If we then go back to the later Renaissance where muskets were even slower to load as well is soldiers standing in looser formation (the matchlock used required a safety distance) we see 10 ranks and later 6 ranks used to produce enough firepower (compared to 18th-early 19th infantry that only used 2-3 ranks). They used revolving ranks as not all could fire at the same time.

Skirmishers were used but that was more for harassment. They couldnt produce the firepower to stop any infantry or cavalry attack and always needed formed up infantry in the rear to fall back to. But they could be very effective and was an essential part of infantry tactics.

So for us it might look strange and suicidal how they stood in close formation but it was the only way to stop an enemy with firepower.

-----

Cavalry could indeed rout big numbers of infantry but doing a frontal attack against an infantry line (that didnt panic) was not the best way of doing it as a musket salvo could stop it.

The square formation meant that most infantry could hold, as a line formation could be routed very quickly if cavalry came in from a flank.

It takes a determined cavalryman to charge into a square and a lot of cavalry was not up to it but the heavy cavalry was definitely a threat.

Waterloo might not be the best example of the true power of cavalry as they charged forward expecting to face a retreating English infantry line. Instead they encountered prepared squares and that was a bit of a surprise.

Large cavalry attacks like at Eylau did AFAIK destroy squares. Here is a link about the French cavalry doctrine: http://www.napoleon-series.org/milit...n/c_eylau.html

----------------

In the US Civil War the infantry line cant really be seen as obsolete. The rifle gave infantry better range and accuracy so overall the firepower was improved but in the end you still needed a lot of soldiers to stop a determined enemy attack.

But the rifle did cause problems for both cavalry and artillery. The typical cavalry shock attack that could win a battle in Napoleonic times were not as likely to succeed and artillery couldnt use the devastating tactic of moving into grapeshot range. So infantry overall became much stronger compared to the two other arms.


CBR

[TinCow]

I agree that the lines were needed due to the heavy use of single-shot muskets during the US Civil War. However, these weapons were only used because the two sides refused to accept technological advances of the time. The Henry Repeating Rifle was available in 1860, but was not used by the Union until 1862, and even then in only small numbers. The Gatling Gun was also available at the time, and the only thing that kept the US Civil War from being the first 'machinegun' war was the refusal of the North to adapt to the new technology. One General (Burnside I believe) even bought 12 of the things out of his own pocket because he saw the value in them, even if the government did not.

Civil War battle lines were just as obsolete a tactic as trench warfare & "going over the top" was in WWI. Just because you ignore the technology that could have solved the problem for you doesn't mean your methods aren't obsolete. If the US military destroyed all of its equipment and went back to single-shot rifles and Civil War lines, would they be using obsolete tactics?