Quote Originally Posted by Papewaio
I don't think a single weapon has revolutionised modern warfare. Artillery and machine guns has more to do with WWI style trench warfare then rifles.
But that is precisely whats being said by several ACW historians I have seen so far: the rifle turned the ACW into a modern war/trench war. The rifle made frontal assaults impossible, removed cavalry from the battlefield and pushed artillery back to use longrange fire only. Edward Hagerman is one of those historians while Paddy Griffith claims the ACW is still clearly within the Napoleonic style wars: artillery was still important and used in large numbers while cavalry wasnt used in the battlefield role (creating good shock cavalry takes 2-3 years to train, terrain wasnt suited in some places, logistics and doctrine)

How the rifles could turn the ACW into a trench war while European wars didnt is not explained and (although I have not read that many ACW books) so far I see some historians miss the overall picture and dont compare the ACW to contemporary wars that didnt see extensive use of trenches:

Franco-Austrian War 1859 (both sides used rifles)
Austro-Prussian War 1866 (one side used breechloaders and other side rifles)
Franco-Prussian War 1870-71 (both sides used breechloaders)
And of course ignoring a lot of similarities with the Napoleonic Wars.

Helmuth von Moltke described the ACW as "two armed mobs chasing each other around the country, from which nothing could be learned." Now that might have been a bit harsh but I do think that he was right about the learning bit. The ACW was fought with methods that had more to do with the terrain and doctrines of the American armies, than it was a question of technology that dictated the "new" style of war. Moltke definitely showed how wars in Europe could be fought and won.

The Wilderness and Atlanta campaigns of 1864 saw extensive use of trenches and fortifications but was also fought in terrain that favored the defender and AFAIK was slow and methodical advances. I dont see rifles as being the reason for trenches there. And most soldiers were still armed with muzzleloaders so newer weapons cannot have been the reason for it either.

No single weapon did it all but magazine rifles and machineguns did change tactics a lot. That and the ability to have enough soldiers to make one long front as we saw in WW1 made it impossible to go for the flank as generals would have done in other/earlier conflicts.

Fixed fronts gave artillery even more power as it was easy to use telephone lines to get firesupport to make it even worse.

And having aircrafts that made it near impossible to make large offensives without being spotted before the attack started.

The fixed fronts and use of large amount of artillery tore up the ground to make movement difficult and also made supply lines difficult when/if one actually broke through a front.

It all added up to make WW1 as horrible as it was. Improved infantry tactics and tanks did improve the situation a bit though.


It is interesting how quickly armies lost sight of the lessons learnt in the earlier conflicts. After the ACW you would expect the USA army to be better prepared for their entry into WWI. Apparently they where good troops but a bit too green.
USA went back to a small regular army after the ACW so when they entered WW1 they had to create a large army from scratch (a bit like the situation in the ACW) You dont do that without a lot of time and training and even then you lack experienced NCO's/officers. I dont see that as lessons not learned but simpy a matter of experience that takes time to build up. It took a while for USA to build up the army in WW2 too.


CBR