I am very sad to hear of the death of Paddy Griffiths.
As an author I had only just discorvered him, but his writing on the American Civil War (Battle Tactics of the American Civil War, 2001), British tank tactics in the Western Desert (World War II Desert Tactics, Elite 2008) and his Magum Opus on Tactics since 1805 (Forward into Battle, 1992) All caught my imagination. I don't personally find his writing "dry", whatever that means; analytical, highly opinionated, and with a refreshing absence of sentiment is how I would describe it.
To be offended on nationalistic grounds by Paddy's criticisms of American Civil War tactics seems to me to be somewhat narrow minded. If you read his other books you will find that he is just as scathing about the performance of the British, the French and just about every other national army he analyses. Are we saying that the fighting of the American Civil War represents the apogee of military science in the 19th Century? Heck, if you were offended by the Civil War book, you should read what he wrote about the US army tactics in Vietnam!
Paddy thought that a lot of hot air had been expended about the American Civil War and that some objective analysis was called for. He argued that the rifled musket was not employed to it's full potential and that poor marksmanship and adherence to outdated tactical formations negated the technological advantage of rifling. He blamed this on the fact that the pre-war American army was small and ill equiped to deal with the transition to a mass citizen volunteer army, especially in a democracy, (the same criticism is made of the British army in WWI btw).
He further felt that lip service was paid to the French "chasseur" skirmishing concept, with "Zouave" units being uniformed as light infantry but not receiving meaningful light infantry training and then simply being employed as line infantry.
He argued that American military thought and tradition has an underlying defensive and "Engineer" bias which does not lend itself to the offensive.
Paddy came to the conclusion that far from representing a step onwards from Napoleonic tactics, the Civil War showed that Americans had not even yet absorbed and applied the tactics of Napoleon, let alone moved on from them. He argued that skirmishing, individual marksmanship and Close Artillery support that both French and allied Forces had developed to an art during the Napoleonic era were not adopted by the american forces in the Civil War.
Paddy cites instances of massed cavalry assaults being successful in the Franco-Prussian war of 1870, and even to some extent in 1914-18 and argues that Civil War commanders simply didn't understand the potential of cavalry because of the engineering bias at West Point and the myth that american terrain limited possiblities for the cavalry.
All in all I would prefer to read Paddy's book, with it's lively style and criticism to any 4 american written sentimental "weepies" (which I have read) about the civil war as the analysis actually means something to me and makes me think about my wargaming.
As a Brit I feel proud that we have (or had) guys like Paddy out there, telling it as they see it. If some of you yanks prefer to sit and weep into your beer, all misty eyed about the Civil War then so be it. Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are condemned to repeat their mistakes.
Col. James Broadhead
2nd Brigade
1st Infantry Division "The Fianna"
II Corps "The Light Fighters"
Army of Alabama
CSA