American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

ACWGC Forums

* ACWGC    * Dpt. of Records (DoR)    *Club Recruiting Office     ACWGC Memorial

* CSA HQ    * VMI   * Join CSA    

* Union HQ   * UMA   * Join Union    

CSA Armies:   ANV   AoT

Union Armies:   AotP    AotT

Link Express

Club Forums:     NWC    CCC     Home Pages:     NWC    CCC    ACWGC
It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 7:09 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: ZOC
PostPosted: Thu Oct 10, 2013 1:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 3:06 pm
Posts: 1328
Location: USA
Gentlemen <salute>

Found the following an interesting read

http://johnsmilitaryhistory.com/cwarmy.html

_________________
General Neal Hebert
Edward C. Walthall Division (2nd aka "Gator Alley")
II Corps, Army of the West
CSA Cabinet Secretary


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: ZOC
PostPosted: Thu Oct 10, 2013 7:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2012 7:26 pm
Posts: 530
Just read the entire article. Very good. Almost every paragraph could be a basis for discussion, if not debate!
As I see it, McClellan planned Antietam as a "Napoleonic" battle. Napoleon's battle tactic called for a large reserve (Fifth Corps) and attacks on the enemy flanks (First Second and Twelfth Corps to the north, Ninth Corps to the south) which would cause the enemy to weaken his center, which would be assailed by the reserve and cavalry (Pleasanton's Division) which would drive through for the kill.
McClellan is often criticized for keeping such a large reserve, when the actual fault is that he did not use it. The Napoleonic tactic had worked, but the instinct to go for the jugular was just not in the man.
J D Ferry
LTC 2/20th Corps


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: ZOC
PostPosted: Thu Oct 10, 2013 9:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 4:32 am
Posts: 1737
Location: USA
Quote:
Kennon's statement that "as for the rifle it had little or no affect on tactics." was incredible, as if a board of military historians had just met and came to that determination, and passed on said determination only to Kennon,


This isn't my determination. It is more or less a summation of what Griffith in his "Battle Tactics of the Civil War" and Nosworthy's "The Bloody Crucible of Courage" came too. They basically are refuting the earlier authors who decided that the reason the Civil War had so few decisive battles was that the Rifled Musket changed Napoleonic combat shifted the balance to the defender. Who with his longer range guns could cut down infantry attacks before they came within a hundred yards and made cavalry obsolete except for scouting. They provide considerable statistics showing that the average fire fight distance only increased slightly from the early 1800's to 1860's due to the rifle. Most fire fights took place at less than 100 yards just like for Napoleon. The Brown Bess musket could actually deliver a higher rate of fire than the Springfield (3-4 shots per minutes).

Their conclusion that the rifled musket did not significantly alter the battlefield is probably correct. I haven't seen any better analysis yet that would contradict that conclusion.

But logically if you consider the situation you can see why a typical unit would not fire at ranges longer than 100 yards. First being the ability to inflict significant number of casualties to make the effort worth while. At 300 yard range a marksman could hit a man rather consistently. Unfortunately, the average soldier wasn't and had received little training in how to sight is weapon or estimate ranges. As Nosworthy pointed out an error estimating range of 10-20 yards meant you missed. Combine this with the fact you only carried 40 round of ammo. Then add in that more than likely your target is a moving target. After all if they aren't advancing on you they aren't a threat. Would you as a regimental commander allow your troops to use that ammo up firing at an enemy at 300 yards or would you withhold your fire to the more effective range of 100 or less?

It is also interesting that the military still estimates that the typical fire fight in the 21st Century takes place at 100 yards. WW I fighting changed due the machine gun which had a dramatic effect on the balance of attack and defense.

How battles were fought had changed but not due to the rifle. Something else is the cause. Hebert reference is a very interesting post and I am still analyzing that.

Tactics have a number of levels. Their are small group (how 4-12 men support each other), company, regiment, brigade, division, Corps and Army. Hardee described how the individual soldier and battalion executed the various evolution on the battlefield. It was still largely based on Scott's but Casey's book is the one North and South learned from. If you study these manuals you will find they were primarily drill manuals telling how to get the regiment from column to line, etc. They covered the mechanics but had little instruction on when to use them. All are heavily based on Jomini and French tactical doctrine so it is not surprising that Civil War armies attempted to use Napoleonic tactics rightly or wrongly. Hardee added the idea of Zouave style of fighting but not in a form that allowed its adoption other than wearing the red pants. Both Hardee and Casey dropped the third volume of Scott's book which took the drills one step further and told how to use the regiment as part of a larger formation.

Which leaves us with knowing that a typical Civil War regiment knew how to form a line of battle but apparently not how to make a decisive assault. Giffith takes his analysis further to blame it on the "Engineer" versus "Infantry" doctrine of how to fight. I don't agree with his conclusions there because they are based to much on how the army's fought in 1861 and later in 1864. The article Hebert referenced had a more interesting view on this so I need to study it a bit.

_________________
General Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
AoT II/1/3 (CSA)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: ZOC
PostPosted: Thu Oct 10, 2013 11:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2013 12:10 pm
Posts: 30
Sirs,

I am not an expert on this matter in any way shape or form but the following may be on interest.

I served in the army during the 70's (1970's). I was not in a front line corps but we (Royal Signals) had to train as infantry (badly trained ;-) ).

If I remember correctly we carried 60 rounds for ourselves and 60 for the platoon Light Machine Gun. We were allowed to fire 100 rounds per year and 48 of them were for your annual classification (test). Combat range was deemed to be 200 yards. For classification we fired at targets from 600 yards down to 100 yards. To pass the annual classification we had to hit the targets 30+ times out of 48.

So that can be taken as an acceptable norm. Given that you only had 60 rounds available most if not all would have been at the combat range of 200 yards or closer.

I would think ( I have no historical knowledge to back this up ) that the "Holywood" phrase "wait till you can see the whites of their eyes" would be the norm. Some of the soldiers would have been hunters who were used to their weapons from childhood and could actually hit a target at long range but for the majority the rifle would not have increased the effective range over muskets. I also know from personal experience that once you have your rifle zero'd in (sights adjusted for yourself) and you go back on the range and for whatever reason the recoil causes the foresight to hit you in the cheek or eye your natural aversion to pain causes you to hold the weapon differently causing the carefully adjusted sights to be wrong.

There is also the question of the smoke generated by the poor quality powder in use making visibility restricted after the first few volleys.

Having said all of the above it matters not - we are presented with a game with rules and with fire tables - "our" reality is the rules and fire tables in the game.

BG has a lot of "no effect" results, HPS is a step forward with as little as 1 man shot. The next generation may be a step forward.

Just some thoughts. :-)

_________________
Maj. Tony Barett

AotM, II Corp, 2nd Division, 3rd Brigade.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: ZOC
PostPosted: Thu Oct 10, 2013 3:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 4:32 am
Posts: 1737
Location: USA
A lot of things made the odds of a CW soldier hitting anything at distance slim. Some of which included they never got a chance to practice under control conditions to see how their weapon worked, inconsistent manufacture of everything, everything going on around them in the battlefield to distract them, smoke obscuring their targets, and so on.

When using a rifled gun with modern black powder, Minnie ball, and load measurements, these guns were quite accurate considering their rudimentary sights. I never got a chance to fire my brother's Springfield but did go target shooting with him using his Hawkin. It was a fine weapon and was accurate under ideal conditions. But I doubt I could hit anything at 300 yards. Maybe if I got to fire a lot of rounds with a spotter to get the sights adjusted. But with my eyes short of having a scope I probably would still miss.

But the typical CW soldier never had ideal conditions or training. Some were marksman but most were not. They had a cartridge box that held only 40 rounds of ammo in paper cartridge. They sometimes were issued more but had to carry it in their pockets if they still had pockets.

I never understood how they kept their powder dry in paper cartridges. I took my 44 Army pistol out to shoot on the beach in La. Within an hour my powder had absorbed so much moisture that I could see the ball traveling through the air to the target.

_________________
General Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
AoT II/1/3 (CSA)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: ZOC
PostPosted: Thu Oct 10, 2013 7:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2012 7:26 pm
Posts: 530
Hunting deer with a replica 53 Enfield in open woodland behind my house. Saw a buck coming toward me. I was not concealed and figured if I did not fire pdq he would see me. Pretty good distance, so I used Kentucky elevation and touched 'er off. The deer went down like a stone. THEN UP like a rocket and off to the races thru the woods. I heard a shot from a dirt road on the edge of the woods, and when I arrived there was a hunter standing over a three point he had just shot, that a few minutes before had been a six-point.
Went back, but never did find the other antler.
John


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: ZOC
PostPosted: Thu Oct 10, 2013 10:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 22, 2001 8:03 pm
Posts: 2410
Location: USA
I was hunting rhinoceros in southern Tennessee with a bow and arrow when I caught something out of the corner of my eye. I turned and quickly shot an arrow in the direction of the wild beast. I thought that I had hit the mark but had to track the animal for two weeks before it finally died - from constipation because I had shot the rabbit in the butt with my rubber suction cup tipped arrow. That rabbit cost me $35 because it is illegal in Tennessee to kill a rabbit during rhinoceros season.


Sorry, nothing personal intended, but I love telling stories and just couldn't resist.

_________________
Gen Ned Simms
2/XVI Corps/AotT
Blood 'n Guts hisself, a land lovin' pirate. Show me some arty tubes and we'll charge 'em.
VMI Class of '00


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: ZOC
PostPosted: Thu Oct 10, 2013 11:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2002 5:51 pm
Posts: 749
Location: USA
Ned,

You made me chuckle, thanks!

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: ZOC
PostPosted: Fri Oct 11, 2013 11:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 4:32 am
Posts: 1737
Location: USA
I can top that and raise you one. True story on my brother. He being a re-enactor and black powder enthusiast when hunting deer during Viriginia's black powder season. He took the Hawkin and an Army Colt.

Hunted all day and near the end he was getting ready to pack it up when a buck just walked into the clearing near him. He as quietly as he could pointed the Hawkin at the buck, pulled the trigger and got a resounding click. Knowing the buck wouldn't stay around while he tried to figure out what had gone wrong and it was only a few yards away, he pulled out the Colt and fired. To a resound bang as every cylinder when off. The grease had run off during the day exposing the other cylinders. The gun (Colt being held together by a single pin) fell apart leaving him pointing the handle at the deer who decided not to press its luck and left. :D

_________________
General Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
AoT II/1/3 (CSA)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 103 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group