"Tactical differences between ACW & Napoleonic warfare" Topic

The ballistic coefficients are known. I have a spreadsheet of musket performance.

Hunters use the heavier, lower velocity round because they're better at knocking down for the same bore size. A .69 Minie is better at knocking down targets than a .69 round ball, especially at longer ranges (the round ball loses energy quicker).

However, above we were comparing a smaller conical ball (.58) to a larger round ball (.69). The larger, faster .69 ball trumps the slower, smaller .58 conical.

The .69 Minie conversion was a beast though.

Hi

Well, again, I know what you posted. I am unclear how you got the basic numbers. Have a spread sheet, fine, but what were the variables?

I understand that if you use a fixed powder measure, the heavier bullet will be slower…sometimes. But "like to like" is more involved with actual loads.

Further, effect is more momentum than KE.

So, "spreadsheet" is fine, but what are your variables?

Rocky

link is an interesting page.

link tells about the "rainbow trajectory" of the rifled musket….. at 500 to 600 yards. The equivlent distance for a roundball is 150 to 200 yards.

I wonder if anyone might give the people in the 1800's some credit for being able to figure out whether to use a .69 calibre roundball or a .58 calibre rifled musket with a minie ball. I guess people were just dumn then and made the wrong decision. We must be much smarter now and can show them where they went wrong.

The physics of roundball versus on-axis spinning cylindrical minie ball have some complexities to them and some subtle features. First, a lot of energy and range is lost by the ball spinning and curving like a baseball with a ripped stiching. That is hard to model.

Second, note that the roundball was shot with a higher muzzle velocity, which put the air resistance (ballistic coefficient) into different values than it has a slower speed. Not only does the drag (slowing with travel) go as a – velocity x velocity term, but the coefficent is different at higher than lower speeds. See a figure in
frfrogspad.com/extbal.htm for an illustration. The roundball Gs has a drag coefficient at its muzzle velocity of >1, whereas the shaped projectiles are about 0.2. The roundball sort of has a parachute attached to it and is moving very slowly (and sinking extremetly rapidly) much beyond 125 yards. …..Watch out for some internet articles about the accuracy and range of some supercharged roundball results. They used carefully weighted powder, massive amounts of powder with horrible recoil and carefully specially patched balls withot windage.

Hi

Thus, my questions.

True black powder without a load is only about 2200fps, with any load and interior drag about the maximum muzzle velocity is ca 1750fps. Higher loads just make more flame and smoke, but not "recoil".

One of the current "worms" in the mix is that in modern times most people are using either "duplex" loads consisting of blackpowder with some smokeless, or just outright "work alike" synthetics with inert matter. But both of these change the sorts of things that CAN be done…including higher velocityies and lot more recoil.

In other threads, we observe that one must use caution when discussing modern recreation types with period actions, and this is another case.

Rocky

Just for information, I decided to look up the weights of several rounds.

0.58" minie "ball" was 500 grains
0.69" roundball was……412 grains
0.69" minie "ball" was…619 to 873 grains

my 2 cents:

Technology changed. Better weapons with interchangeable parts. At the strategic level, you now had mass transportation (trains) and rapid communication (telegraph). And since I'm an Air Force guy I will add that hot air balloons were used for recon. The West Point generals had studied Napoleon, but by the end of the ACW the battles forshadowed WWI type trench warfare.

That might be where they got the balloon idea.

Stramge enough the ballon was tried in the east at tne beginning of the war and in the west at the end.

From memory
Lord Ghee

in my reading the information I have on the brown bess is that at the level the bullet would ground at 190 yards and at 45% reach out to 400yds.

The baker rifle would at the level would ground out at 300yds and reach out to 600yds.

Do any of you gents have this information on the civil war rifle muskets?

Lord Ghee

At the level? Not a chance, a modern magnum wouldn't do that on the level. With some decent elevation yes. But not level.

Hi

Modern magnum at 3000fps means a 16' drop in the first second…err.

what these numbers reflect might be the sight!

I shoot these things and I have no idea where some of these "facts" come from.

What I know is that if I pop the 100yd leaf up, it hits at 100yds. The 300 yd leaf…..

But that is a rifle.

Smoothbores don't usually have sights.

Rocky

Lordghee asked:

"Do any of you gents have this information on the civil war rifle muskets?"

The "point blank" range of a .58 Springfield is about 175 yds, slightly shorter than the .69 smoothbore it replaced. That's assuming you're 6 ft tall and firing standing up. From prone the point blank range is about 100 yds.

1968billsfan,

You are obviously unaware that they was a serious consideration made in most armies towards keeping the smoothbore precisely because it was superior at close ranges. Union policy for much of the first year was only to issue rifles to the 2 "light" companies in each regiment and sharpshooters, the rest were meant to keep smoothbore. Many Union regiments deliberately kept their smoothbores for precisely this reason and refused rifles.

The French Army actually removed the adjustable sights from their issue Minies because combat experience showed they were not used beyond a couple of hundred yards by the firing line.

You are completely misreading Ray's article BTW. The dangerous space is the area between first catch and first graze. At 600 yds with a .58 Springfield it is 30 yds long. That is if you adjust sights to 600 yds (which you can't the weapon doesn't have this setting) aim perfectly and shoot, and the target is actually 580 yds away it sails over their head.

This is the issue. At upto around 150 yds a shooter can aim his musket (smoothbore or rifle) at a target and pull the trigger and will hit the target (at around 150-200 yds the round has dropped below the groin and may hit legs). Beyond this a whole new skillset comes into play with both weapons with range estimation etc. and actual hitting rates drop off dramatically, the target problem transits from 2D to 3D. To shoot beyond 200 yds with the Minie rifles required a great deal of training and only one army in the world provided it universally (and several others to their skirmisher troops). It was neither the Union nor Confederate army.

Reports of Experiments with Small Arms for The Military Service
by
Officers of the Ordnance Department U.S. Army
-----
Published by authority of the Secretary of War
-----
WASHINGTON:
A.O.P. Nicholson, public printer
1856

Reports of Experiments with Small Arms for The Military Service (1856):

link

Hi

But hitting out past 200 yds with a musket is called amazing luck when the moa of 36 means that the base of the cone is 12 feet across OR MORE.

Rocky

RockyRusso,

But still possible against massed targets. The French trained to shoot smoothbores out to about 400 yds, although at this distance they were just creating beaten zones. If you properly aimed such a musket against a single man you'd hit with around 1 round in 50-60. If you aimed again the centre of a close order line you could still theoretically get 1 in 5 rounds to hit someone. If a column maybe around 1 in 3 could theoretically hit.

These hit ratios are much better than was actually achieved, and you again have a 3D target problem at such extended ranges. Not necessarily effective, but it was done (but never caused serious damage to a formation that I've aware of).

I find the discussion on weapon capabilities fascinating, but I think the motivation and goals behind the discussion vis a vie the thread's question is a dead end.

We could be debating the the theoretical and physical capabilities of the rifled musket for a long time, given the variety of results, weapons and bullets that fall in that category. Regardless of what conclusions we come to, we wouldn't be any closer to determining how tactics did or didn't change.

Trying to establish the tactics used by a military force by determining a weapon's capabilities and weaknesses is like trying to determine modern tactics used by the American army by listing the performance properties of the M-16 and AK-47. Even if there were a whole lot of other weapons involved, it still would be a dead end inquiry.

There isn't anything close to a 1:1 correspondence between the range, rate of fire and accuracy of rifles or any other small arms and the range of engagements, the tactics used or casualties inflicted.

No one can accurately predict the tactics used by simply studying weapon performance. If there was any correlation, WWI would have never been fought the way it was--let alone WWII, the Korean War etc.

To determine the tactics used by the ACW armies, you have to study the tactics, then perhaps determine if the introduction of new weapons changed anything and how much.

Bill

Sorry Bill I disagree with your last post.

Trying to predict the furture is what it is about, If you developed the right tactics for your weapons and get the most out of it, you can gain an advantage that could win you a battle or war.

through out the beging of the ACW each army strove to arm all of it's unit with the rifle musket becasue it was better. If I went to war then I would want a rilfe musket over a musket and really a henry over all.

Granted there where many reason for the changes. Tactics
is the tail and when it wags the dog you get performance like the French in 1940.

Lord Ghee

Lord Ghee:

I didn't say there was no point in trying to predict the future with history/evidence. I said that looking at weapon capabilities alone isn't the way to do it. The technical operation of the rifled musket, regardles of how detailed or conclusive you are able to go, doesn't tell you much at all about how they were used or what effects they had on tactics. That's all.

If you look at the range and accuracy of weapons today, would you predict that firefights are still fought around 200-300 yards on average?

It's not that weapon capabilities aren't relevant to tactics, just that, based on them alone, you can't predict how they will or won't be used and how they will change tactics.

Bill H.

Hi

Way earlier in the discussion, I held that the tactics were napoleonic in drill, but the engagement ranges and unit density became reduced as a response.

As usual, this was followed by massive quibbling about the weapons. The disconnect is that of some who assert that weapons don't matter for various reasons. Or the suggestion is that a weapon that is more accurate and longer ranged doesn't express any advantage(the motives are unclear".

Thus, we have gone around in a circle.

I hold that the drill was pretty unchanged, but with experience with the greater weapon lethality range, the changes in tactics involve distance and ground density of units, but not how column, line and square work.

As with all generalizations, there are exceptions. HOWEVER, the history of ground combat is, in general, the trend is as firepower goes up, density goes down.

Rocky

However, firepower hasn't gone up.

Within actual engagement distances (which were typically less than 100 yds) there is no practical difference between the smoothbore and rifled musket. Ergo the rifled musket did not increase firepower.

What did change was the artillery. It was considerably heavier than that used in Napoleon's time and less mobile. This rendered pushing batteries forward more difficult, and thus denuded the attacker of the majority of their firepower (and in a typical brigade of 1,000 with 6 attached guns, the guns represent about 75% of the firepower), whilst the defender kept theirs. This is probably the decisive factor in pushing the advantage to the defender.

As an aside, using their lighter 6 pdrs, the Confederates of the Army of Northern Virginia actually had, on average, greater concentrations of artillery at the point of attack than the Union (Barloon, Combat Reconsidered: A Statistical Analysis of Small-Unit Actions During the American Civil War, unpublished PhD thesis, U. N. Tx 2001).

What did change was the artillery. It was considerably heavier than that used in Napoleon's time and less mobile. This rendered pushing batteries forward more difficult, and thus denuded the attacker of the majority of their firepower

What the…?

Tiger,

You are way off the mark here. Civil War artillery was LIGHTER then artillery from Napoleons era. Under the Gribeuval System a 12 pounder (tube and carriage) had a weight of 3205 lbs and an 8 pounder a weight of 2456 lbs. When the System of XI Year (1803) was implemented, a 12 pounder went to 2811 lbs and the 6 pounders 2008 lbs., though not all guns where ever replaced during the Napoleonic Wars by the new system.

Prior to the Civil War, the USA M1841-44 12 lb Gun weighed in at 2932 lbs (gun and carriage) similar to Napoleons 12 pounders. The new M1857 "Napoleons" however weighed in at 2355 pounds, nearly 500 pounds lighter then a Napoleonic 12 pounder.
A Civil War 6 pounder weighed 1784 pounds (tube and carriage), yet the 10# Parrot Rifle weighed only 1799 pounds and the 3" Ordinance Rifle only 1720 pounds.

Both these guns similar in weight to a 6 pounder from Napoleons time and even the 12 pound "Napoleon" weighed in only around 15% heavier then the Napoleonic 6 pounder. A 12 pound "Napoleon" was about 17% less weight then the System of XI Year 12 pounder and 25% less weight then the 12 pounder Gribeuval gun. It weighed less then an 8 pounder and only 15% more then the Napoleonic 6 pounder.

The 6 pound gun in the ACW was considered useless and was removed as soon as possible from both armies. At Gettysburg only one 6 pounder was in action for the CSA (Branch's N.C. battery) and none for the Union.

Civil War field artillery was very maneuverable, with the cannoneers riding limbers and ammo chest into action. A battery could come into action and fire one round in 25 seconds, far faster than any Napoleonic era gun.

A comparison of a ACW 6 pounder to a 12 pounder shows a 6# gun with a total weight of 3185 lbs. for gun, carriage and ammo while a 12# "Napoleon" was a total of 3875 lbs for the same, around only 20% more weight.

Sorry Tiger, the weight of the guns had absolutely nothing to do with the change in tactics of artillery from the Napoleonic Wars to the Civil War, but that's a different post.

Kim

Go Kim,

Very well stated.

What was the range of a ACW 6lber and A 12lber?

I have it for the Napoleonic wars but not any hard data on the ACW.

When did the American artillery start using shrapnel?
and how much did they carry?

Lord Ghee

67tigers

Sir what was the performance of the rifle musket and musket in the ACW.

what was the range and the level and max range

Clay

Well, that's not the weights the horse were pulling.

A M1857 gun and limber complete is 3,865 lbs (34.5 cwt with 32 rds), which is lighter than the M1841 12 pdr (4,457 lbs = 39.8 cwt) and heavier than the M1841 6 pdr (3,185 lbs = 28.4 cwt with 50 rds). It is also heavier than the 12 pdr Howitzer (28.7 cwt with 39 rds).

The 12 pdr Gribeauval was 4,367 lbs (38.9 cwt) complete. The 6 pdr An XI was 2,915 lbs complete (= 26 cwt). I don't have the numbers for the Gribeauval 8-pdr to hand, but recall it was around 32 (?) cwt complete.

The 8-pdr was found to be too heavy to support the infantry, which was left to the 4-pdr (about 24 cwt ISTR), and the French adopted a lot of captured Austrian 6-pdrs for this purpose. The 6 pdr An XI was designed as the heaviest piece that could maneouvre with the infantry.

Now the M1857 is considerably heavier than either the 6 pdr An XI or even the unsuitable 8 pdr Gribeauval, especially as due to heavy losses of horses it rarely had a full 6 horse team and was usually pulled by a 4 horse team.

An Ordnance Rifle, complete with carriage, limber etc. was in the region of 30 cwt, and a Parrott a bit heavier.

*All* the commonly used artillery pieces in the ACW were heavier than the 6 pdr An XI (inc. the 3" Ordnance Rifle with carriage, limber etc.), and closer to position rather than infantry support guns. There were few light guns in use that could keep up with the infantry.

The US 6 pdr was heavy for a 6 pdr, weighing in well above the An XI, let alone some of the lighter 6 pdrs used in the Napoleonic wars. It would be classified as a medium rather than light piece.

Hi

So, Tiger, you assertian is that the small arms don't matter, and the nappy arty was better, therfore:????

Obviously, everything and nothing is true.

R

The M1857 carried 32 rounds (1 chest) on the limber, 12 solid, 12 spherical case (shrapnel), 4 common shell and 4 canister. The caisson carried 3 chests each with the same mixture.

The 6 pdr chest had 25 solid, 20 spherical case and 5 canister.

The 10 pdr Parrott and 3" Ordnance Rifle carried 50 rds per chest.

Range and effectiveness of the M1857 was slightly less than an old 12 pdr (the charge being reduced from 4 lbs in the old "light 12 pdr" to 2.5 lbs). Solid shot was effective out to about 800 yds, spherical case a little further and canister had an extreme range of 3-400 yds.

The 6 pdr was as per the norm, 600 yds with solid shot, 2-300 yds with canister.

As said, the point blank range of the rifle-musket is around 175 yds.

No, the artillery is roughly the same, except neither side field the very light "infantry support" pieces common in Napoleons time. This isn't entirely true, Wilder's Brigade had their 6 light mountain howitzers for example that did sterling work, and there were others.

Napoleon pushed a large number of 3 and 4 (and even light 6) pdrs directly down to the infantry regiments, like Frederick before him. It worked.

Hi

So, the rifles didn't matter, and there was no reason to buy them?

Rifles are a lot more expensive than 1842muskets already on hand, use a different round and on and on. With your assertion, it would seem that the idea of buying Rifles is another one of those "Death Star" issues in another thread. As the Mountain Rifle led to buying later designs, it would suggest that no one noticed that your offer that muskets were as good was the issue. Stupid americans.

Rocky

RockyRusso,

Is there an argument there?

Do you have any idea just how frenetic arms procurement was? The Union bought everything they could, 726,705 muskets (ca. 176,000 of them smoothbore, the rest rifled) from Europe in the first year. They largely expended them. On campaign, unless you care for the musket (which observers noted the Union soldier didn't) it would need to be replaced every year or so. They couldn't get any more M1842 muskets as they stopped manufacturing them ca. 1854. The Ordnance directed that simplified variants of the new standard musket (M1855) were to manufactured, and that is what they did. It should be noted the Ordnance did purchase all the available US smoothbore muskets (5,423) as well.

Hi
No, I didn't know how frenetic the procurement was. I din't notice how people were raiding old militia armories full of obsolete weapons and issuing them because we haven't read the same sources.

Notice my sarcasm.

Yes, the specifics of the war were buying everything they could which has no effect on the argument made by you. Your assertion is that there was no advantage to rifles on, well, anything.

Mine was simple, in general as weapon range and effect goes up the tactical response is to spread out and change the drill.

In 1500 we have 3'x3' and units up to 50 ranks deep. By WW1 this spread has gone to 3 yards and a single line.

In the ACW, everyone started with napoleonic drill and as the casualties between musket and rifle weren't that different, the issue was that the people on the spot were more likely to stop their advance at longer ranges, use dense columns less and entrench or go to ground. This reflects the firepower and range.

Starting way earlier in the mexican wars, Arty DID start being the major killer, but the reason was that as the tactics responded to the infantry firepower, the arty became more important.

This is, in my mind, tactical changes form the formal issue of napoleonic drill.

Rocky

There is no advantage. Barloon has shown this by regression analysis of smoothbore vs rifle armed units combat outcomes. There was no significant difference.

As the ACW progressed formations actually got denser. At Gettysburg for example the Union packed 26,000 men per mile of frontage in, slightly less than Waterloo (the French packed 36,000 men per mile in), but considerably more than Napoleon's 10,000 men a mile at Austerlitz or Wellington's 10,000 men a mile at Salamanca.

In the ACW the close order was maintained and was not problematic, obviously there had been no vast increase in firepower over Napoleon's or Frederick's time, whereas in Europe slightly later genuinely better weapons (mainly artillery) led to lines thinning.

Any notion that artillery "came of age" in Mexico is parochial. The *United States* artillery came of age, but only because they were around 100 years behind European armies and suddenly caught up. Artillery as the dominant killer on the battlefield dates back as far as Gustav Adolphus.

I'm surprised no one's contended that we should still have been carrying longbows.

I think the less cultivated nature of the terrain in the Civil War than Napoleonic Europe has alot to do with different tactics. Try doubling the amount of woods on a European battlefield and wargame it.

OK folks, here's a question concerning cavalry…

I understand why the USA didn't have battle cavlary but…

Had a European power intervened – for the sake of arguement, France – would its own battle cavalry been any use?

I take the point that open ground was in short supply, but the field at Gettysburg looks quite open, from what I saw in the film.

I guess it comes down to the ROF of a rifled musket, because it you're only going to get one shot off, it doesn't really matter if you shoot at 200m or 50m, you're still going to end up being hit in the face by a large horse being ridden by a very unsympathetic man.

Would the infantry of either side been steady enough to fix bayonets and see them off? Somehow I doubt it, though I doubt it would have happened very often either.

Just wondering really, because watching Gods & Generals and seeing the Feds retreating off the hill I was thinking what a beautiful target for cavalry they'd have made….

Hi

Yup, now I am just an american! I love it! Killer argument.

Look, the US was warned to NOT fight Mexico because they were considered "french level" by euro observers. And Ringgold's innovations proved decisive. Curious that this is considered "catching up" when contemporaries seemed unaware of it.

100 years behind? Wow, lets see 1848 versus 1748 euro artillery. I think you overstate your position here and elsewhere.

As for "unit per mile at gettysburg" is without context. And you miss the general point about overall density and military trends.

So, as I said, since it was clear that the US was 100 years behind, and of course behind napoleon, just why did anyone using your proofs bother spending the money to commission new RIFLES?

Rocky

Hi

And with cav…. a more complex issue, stu.

The nappy guys regularly point out to me that cav does not charge home except in limited circumstances that involve broken infantry. The bayonet changed the paradigm.

In any case, the mexican war is again a sort of case where french/napoleonic lance and saber cav did very badly against the americans. While Tiger dismisses Ringgold, the events of several battles do indicate that very maneuverable rapid firing arty did ruin a few attempts at a cavalry attack using french tactics. American cav just stopped carrying their sabers in this period because rifle, shotgun and pistol all proved a better idea. I cannot think of a single cav/cav event where sabers drawn won against guns.

Could be wrong, lots of fighting.

But that is the trend and the trend has reasons.

Or as I offer in the usual "Custer" threads, if he had had Jayhawker type armament as in 6 pistols, he would have survived LBH!

Rocky

How does finally mounting a battery (Battery C, 3rd US Artillery) as Napoleonic style horse artillery in 1838 make them innovative?

At the time the US Artillery regiment was established for a battalion of 8 companies of infantry, a light battery and a cadrised battery used as a training depot to be reequipped as foot artillery in war. Of the four 4-gun peacetime batteries only Ringgold's C/3rd was a horse battery, the others were "mounted" meaning the guns had horses, but not the gunners (at peace establishment the vehicles generally lacked horses as well).

As to the cavalry, the lesson of the ACW was that the sabre trumped the revolver in organised cavalry combat. Read this: link

Rocky – I agree that the bayonet changed the paradigm, but only if the bloke holding it hangs around to use it.

ACW troops weren't used to a large tonnage of horseflesh coming straight at them, so I was wondering if they might break. It's not like they were trained to form square.

ACW troops weren't used to a large tonnage of horseflesh coming straight at them, so I was wondering if they might break. It's not like they were trained to form square.

Bangorstu,

During the first day of Gettysburg, several regiments of Lane's Brigade formed square against a threatened charge from Bufords cavalry. Civil War regiments were trained to form square, but rarely had to. This incident does show they were capable, and did so if needed.

Kim

At the battle of first Bull Run a regiment on the flank was threaten by Confederate cavalry from Texas, the unit formed Square because the commander had drill the formation and he felt that muskets that they where armed with would not stop the enemy horse so he formed square. Classic story of we hate our commander because he drill them all the time. So when the regiment stood off the cav he became thier hero.

Lordghee,

It wasn't Bull Run, it was Rowlett's Station: link

The 32nd Indiana were mainly veterans of the Prussian Army and the like and learnt the drill in Europe.

There are no other confirmed cases in the ACW of square being formed.

Interesting, thanks!

Previous discussions on forming square in the ACW

link

Account of Bufords cavalry vs Lane's Brigade

"It was now about 5 pm. Buford ordered his entire command to trot out into the fields fronting Cemetery Hill, in full view of the Confederates. Colonel Gamble sent out men to remove fence rails, as if to clear the way for a mounted charge. Forming a cavalry line of battle, the exhausted troopers of both brigades stood their ground and stared at the Confederates of Brigadier General James H. Lane's brigade. Union Second Corps commander Major General Winfield S. Hancock later recalled that it was "one of the most inspiring sights" of his military career and lauded the "splendid spectacle of that gallant cavalry, as it stood there unshaken and undaunted, in the face of the advancing Confederate infantry." Lane's infantrymen delivered an ineffective fire, and then began forming "square" to meet the expected mounted assault Gamble's troopers fired at the Confederates, inflicting heavy casualties, then trotted back to their places in line. The maneuver bought the additional time necessary for the Federals to rally on the heights. That night, the veteran Dragoon would assist Hancock, Howard, and Chief Engineer Gouvernor K. Warren in making dispositions for the infantry along the ridges and hills to meet what must surely come as Lee decided to continue the engagement." (from bufordsboys.com)

Kim

Well, the tale of Lane's Brigade forming square is from a single source and wrong.

Abner Doubleday in his memoirs noted that Lane's brigade bent back "like it was forming square" (paraphrased for brevity). In fact Lane had refused his flank, with the 7th NC forming a line nearly 90 degrees along the Fairfield Road to the other four regiments.

See Lane's AAR:

"Here I ordered the Seventh Regiment to deploy as a strong line of skirmishers some distance to my right and at right angles to our line of battle, to protect our flank, which was exposed to the enemy's cavalry. Pettigrew's and Archer's brigades were in the first line, immediately in our front. We were soon ordered forward again after taking this position, the Seventh Regiment being instructed to move as skirmishers by the left flank. In advancing, we gained ground to the right, and, on emerging from the woods in which Pettigrew's brigade had been formed. I found that my line had passed Archer's, and that my entire front was unmasked.
We then moved forward about a mile, and as the Seventh Regiment had been detained a short time, Colonel Barbour threw out 40 men, under Captain [D. L.] Hudson, to keep back some of the enemy's cavalry, which had dismounted and were annoying us with an enfilade fire. We moved across this open field at quick time until a body of the enemy's cavalry and a few infantry opened upon us from the woods subsequently occupied by Pegram's battalion of artillery, when the men gave a yell, and rushed forward at a double-quick, the whole of the enemy's force beating a hasty retreat to Cemetery Hill.
My right now extended into the woods above referred to, and my left was a short distance from the Fairfield road. On passing beyond the stone fence and into the peach orchard near McMillan's house, I was ordered by General Pender not to advance farther unless there was another general forward movement. As I could see nothing at that time to indicate such a movement, and as one of the enemy's batteries on Cemetery Hill was doing us some damage, I ordered the brigade back a few yards, that the left might take shelter behind the stone fence."

Hi

Tiger, "finally"? You stated 100 years not 20 as one quibble. Secondly in order to counter, you might suggest how the euros were all wrong about the mexican army at Reseca and Buena Vista where, more modern by euro standards, didn't have the mobility that Rinngold displayed.

Calling a gun "napoleon" doesn't make it napleonic any more than calling something "horse" make define the use.

The question of the thread is "differences" and your basic point seems to be "well none, napoloen would'a whipped them". Is all the same but the country bumpkins in america just backward?

We disagree here.

Rocky

Thanks 67thtigers,

It was a story that was told to me during a Bull Run game.

Lord Ghee

Incidently, the Napoleon Series have a new magazine on Ordnance. One article: PDF link shows the reckoned weight horses could draw. By Napoleonic standards the M1857 12 pdr required 8 horses….

67thtigers 10 Aug 2010 4:14 p.m. PST
…..

As the ACW progressed formations actually got denser. At Gettysburg for example the Union packed 26,000 men per mile of frontage in, ……

*NJH: Ummnnn, How did you arrive at this number??