Civil War Bull Run Demo -- New

[CBR]

You have the advantage of me in having read up on the subject!

Oh dont worry. I am by no means an expert on ACW as I havent read that much

But speaking from comparative ignorance, I am sceptical of the argument of "American exceptionalism" (read "inferiority"). I suspect fortifications were more used in the ACW because of the greater killing power of the rifle compared to the Napoleonic musket, coupled with a more pragmatic, less hide-bound, approach to warfare by Americans in evidence from the birth of their nation.[1]

Oh its not a question of inferiority. The ACW infantry would have been better than say the early French Revolutionary infantry: better drilled, and using doctrines that focused on higher movement rate as well as having rifles. I dont know if the French Elan made any differences.

Where the French had advantages of better speed and good use of skirmishers, because their enemies still used the old Prussian liniar style, the ACW infantry faced en enemy that was just like themselves. There were no advantages from better organisation either.

So when ACW infantry did their best to outflank an enemy there was a good chance of the enemy being able to follow and counter the outflanking. And frontally there would be no advantage as both sides would use skirmishers.

My hunch is that a trench would have some merit even in a Napoleonic battle, but that it would be much more valuable in the age of rifles. Similarly, a foxhole (essentially a trench in loose order!) would be worthwhile when the scales had finally tipped decisively from shock combat to firepower.

It might have been good in some cases yes. Its all a question of how strong firepower is and how good morale the attacker has. Trenches and foxholes reduce your available firepower as you cant use same close order as if standing in the open, but if that is enough to stop the enemy anyway then it will give an advantage. If you cant stop the attack its a deathtrap to sit in holes and trenches in a scattered formation.

You mention the surprisingly low casuality rate from the new rifles as an argument for dismissing the technological explanation. But I wonder if that is not because the American soldier could not shoot straight, but rather because the tactics had adapted to accommodate the greater lethality? Rifles against infantry in loose order or cover might do less damage than muskets against infantry in close formation. An extreme analogy would be nowadays when it is estimated that an American soldier must expend thousands of rounds to kill one enemy

Napoleonic infantry didnt use their muskets to anywhere near its potiential. Even the effective British infantry had much lower accuracy than the theoretical. Reasons for it was lack of training and battlefield conditions like smoke, being scared, targets moving etc.

I have seen some statistics that points towards British infantry producing around twice the hits IIRC, than the French infantry they faced in some engagements. That shows the effect of training and good fire discipline.

If the training is not better or battlefield conditions changed then its not gonna help much having a rifle instead of a musket. The book mentions some regiments that had been in the field for IIRC two years and involved in several engagements before actually getting any training with their rifles.

AFAIK a lot of engagements during the ACW were very Napoleonic in nature as infantry stood in lines firing just like they had done 50 years earlier. And the smoke wouldnt have been less either so I doubt most of the battlefield conditions were that much different.

Antietam is supposed to be one of the most open battlefields during the ACW and apparently the average engagement range is 107 yards. Smoothbores might have meant something for this average range but it just doesnt look like rifles did that much as one would expect. Data from later parts of the war does suggest a longer range but there is also less data IIRC.

There are some examples of troops being very close to each other but the terrain and fortified positions (on both sides) meant losses were low and the units could be there for hours if not days yes.

If we compare with the modern day soldier, he has an automatic rifle and fires at targets that no longer stands in neat lines and that would cause a big increase in number of rounds used yes. But ACW doesnt appear to be that much different to Napoleonic times.

It would be interesting to look at other European wars around the time of the ACW. I seem to recall fortifications played a rather large role in the Crimean war (when the technology was largely still Napoleonic, at least in the British and Russian armies). And my image of the Franco-Prussian battles is often of bitter fights for towns/villages rather than ranks of close order troops blazing away at each other, but I may be wrong.

You're not wrong about the Franco-Prussian War. I know some historians consider that to be the real first modern war. Both sides used breechloaders that gave them a high rate of fire compared to muzzle loaders. I think some French used a method of planting the rifle butt into the ground at an angle of about 45 degrees and just fire away thereby creating a rain of fire one kilometer away. Not very lethal apparently but enough to make the Prussians stop up.

The overall lethality of the breechloaders as well as longer range artillery using improved shells compared to ACW meant a very different war and using the old liniar tactic started to be suicidal

Im not that familiar with the Crimean War but wasnt most of the action around the siege of Sevastopol so fortifications would be more natural.

I'm also not even convinced that the ACW soldier was of lower quality than the Napoleonic one

Let me expand a bit on my first comments:

When we look at the Napoleonic wars the armies had the advantage of time as the conflict lasted more than 20 years. Of course a bit on and off but nonetheless it produced a lot of veterans and experienced officers and sergeants. The Americans only had 4 years.

ACW regiments had the advantage of good drill manuals and they used them well so maneuvers were not a problem (something early French regiments was not good at AFAIK). But IMO having to fight equals did mean ACW looks more like a stalemate than the early years of the Revolutionary Wars even though they were actually better trained.

One thing that might have made the ACW infantry "inferior" would be a lack of good officers and experience in war. Sure they would stand and shoot the enemy but it would be difficult to make them advance. The early years had produced a lot of tired veterans that were good at surviving and perhaps made it even more difficult to make assaults. But that of course is not just an American thing as there are examples like the French at Albuera that were stopped by British troops even when outnumbering them 3 to 1

So I would say that the overall lack of differences between the two sides in ACW made it all worse. Both the units as well as the generals operated under the same principles. And when you no longer have the ability to use massed cavalry attacks like the French could at say Borodino it doesnt improve on the tactical situation.

But IMO the British infantry would be one higher class than ACW infantry. Fire discipline does seem to be better for the British.


Actually I have one example from Total War. I know.. just a silly game that has nothing to do with real life but anyway:

I played MTW online for about 2 years and it was always a much more dynamic game when one side didnt use optimal armies or was of equal skill. But gameplay was very different when you faced armies that was near copies of your own and controlled by players who no longer made any simple mistakes for you to exploit. Suddenly the game was very much a stalemate as the limited sword and cavalry armies did not give that good gameplay as the rock-scissor-paper was not there anymore.

I can compare that to mods that improved the RPS and unit choice and suddenly the dynamic was there again as it was no longer clone armies that faced each other and players have more options than just desperately trying to outflank each other.

For the Napoleonic Wars I would say there is a difference between the early and later years and it was nowhere this "perfect" place for a wargamer but it still has the three elements/arms on the battlefield and the ACW only had two really. Doesnt matter if it was a question of politics or logistics or terrain that meant cavalry wasnt used much but it had a drastic effect on how battles were fought as the combined arms were simply no longer there.

In CWBR the engagement range is not that big really (100-150 yards IIRC) so I think the designers actually made it pretty historical.


CBR