Tango01 | 18 Apr 2017 11:46 a.m. PST |
… Prolonged the Civil War. "Was the Civil War preordained to last four years or were there reasons why neither side could land a knockout punch? From the outset, both North and South had anticipated a brief conflict but despite more than 50 bloody battles neither could force a decisive conclusion. For most of the war, these battles followed a pattern: the victors claimed the field and the vanquished retreated to rest, resupply and fight another day. Some generals began to realize that pursuit to capture or destroy the retreating enemy was needed to end the war--not an easy task. Taking a fresh look at the tactics that characterized many major combat actions in the war, this book examines the performance of unsuccessful (sometimes insubordinate) commanders and credits two generals with eventually seeing the need for organized pursuit"
Main page link I am going to buy this book because knowing that the great majority of the Generals of both sides were conspicuous readers of the Napoleonic military history … how they would not imitate one of its maximas that was to chase without rest to the defeated armies like in Jena Campaign… Amicalement Armand
|
vtsaogames | 18 Apr 2017 12:02 p.m. PST |
Napoleon's greatest pursuit was made with fresh troops who had not been shattered in battle. At Jena, he won the battle and had some 40,000 fresh troops on hand, thus the famous pursuit. He had as many fresh troops as the defeated Prussians had running away. It was an unusual situation. Marengo was lost because the Austrians pursued. If they had pulled up at Marengo and formed a line (as many gamers do) they would have had a clear tactical victory. The pursuit of the beaten French is what left them open to Desaix's counter-stroke. It's much easier to talk about a pursuit than to actually execute it with exhausted troops who are rather glad to see the enemy go. |
Extra Crispy | 18 Apr 2017 12:24 p.m. PST |
Frankly, crushing pursuits are *very rare* exceptions in the horse and musket era. But do it once and generals expect it every time. I have always found Walthers' "The Age of Battles" to be very convincing: link |
AussieAndy | 18 Apr 2017 8:04 p.m. PST |
Of course, by the time of the ACW, cavalry was not what it had been fifty years before (with respect to both the cavalry itself and the infantry's attitude to it). That must have had an impact. |
ScottWashburn | 19 Apr 2017 8:05 a.m. PST |
That is Russell Weigley's "The Age of Battles". Sorry to nitpick, but he was my graduate school advisor :) And it is an excellent book. It was supposed to be the first of a trilogy on the art of war, but sadly Weigley died at a far too young age :( |
Tango01 | 19 Apr 2017 10:49 a.m. PST |
There were many more persuits than the Prussians in 1806… the Austrians, Russians, French, etc… But I understand that maybe there were a kind of lack of Cavalry to did that in the ACW. The use of the Infantry-Cavalry-Artillery for persue and destroy a defeated Army maybe have short a while the War.(?) Seem to me that the "Ability" or "willingness" to did that was not in the mind of the Generals of that War. Maybe it was a question of indoctrination?. More than 10 years later… the Prussians show it in their war against the French….With a spectacular result! Amicalement Armand
|
vtsaogames | 19 Apr 2017 11:40 a.m. PST |
The Franco-Prussian War was not won by pursuit. Bazaine's army wasn't pursued to death, it just coiled up in Metz and was surrounded. MacMahon's army was sent (against his wishes) into an insane attempt to relieve Metz and destroyed. There's a better case that steady pressure on the Republican armies broke them up, but they were poorly trained, fed and equipped. There was no pursuit by Napoleon other than after Jena that justifies all the noise. |
Ottoathome | 19 Apr 2017 1:28 p.m. PST |
vistaogames is quite correct. It's nice to pursue, if you have the fresh troops. If you're as bad off as he enemy it's another thing entirely. Nothing dampens martial ardor as much as having survived a deadly fight one is not quick to want to submit to it again so soon. Further, most often a general is quite knowledgeable as to how bad a shape ones own troops are in, but unaware the enemy may be in even worse shape. Quite often one gets the opinion that one has done far more than ones duty in simple survival. |
donlowry | 19 Apr 2017 6:05 p.m. PST |
Has anyone actually read this book? $39.95 USD for a paperback seems a bit much! |
Charlie 12 | 19 Apr 2017 8:11 p.m. PST |
I suppose the 'lack of pursuit' that gets brought up the most in the ACW is Meade's actions post Gettysburg. Now let's see… Both armys were brutally mauled after three days of intense fighting, the AOP was low on all supplies (being at the extreme end of of a very long logistics tail), the ANV was retreating back down its route of advance (shortening its supply line with every mile), and to top it off, it rained… Yeah, real good opportunity for a pursuit. |
donlowry | 20 Apr 2017 8:46 a.m. PST |
If it was easy, anyone could do it. |
Dynaman8789 | 20 Apr 2017 12:38 p.m. PST |
But it wasn't so only Grant and Sherman did. Heck, Grant didn't even have to win a battle to continue prosecuting his objective. |
Bill N | 20 Apr 2017 2:32 p.m. PST |
When did Sherman do it? During the Atlanta campaign Johnston and Hood were trying to prevent Sherman from taking the city. Once he did Hood was able to disengage. After Bentonville Johnston also succeeded in disengaging. Grant certainly did it after the fall of Petersburg and Richmond. Prior to that you had the same issue as with Sherman, namely that Grant was pursuing an army that was trying to prevent him from capturing some key point. It is certainly much easier to pursue an opponent who remains determined to fight you. |
donlowry | 21 Apr 2017 8:51 a.m. PST |
Grant is the only general I can think of who pursued a major army to destruction -- that is, at Appomattox. He also pursued Pemberton after Champion's Hill, drove him from the Big Black River Bridge and into Vicksburg. Thomas's pursuit of Hood after Nashville was not quite as successful, but did almost finish off the Army of Tennessee. Sheridan's pursuit of Early after Cedar Creek was pretty effective, also. On a smaller scale, Forrest's pursuit of Sturgis after Brice's Crossroads, while it didn't destroy or capture the Union force, certainly put a major hurt on it, both physically and psychologically. |
1968billsfan | 20 Jun 2017 9:41 a.m. PST |
The difference was that cavalry could not take on infantry in the ACW. The rifled musket was a longer range accurate weapon but that was not the dominate effect. Key point #1 was that it had sights and was not a "guess down the barrel" or area fire weapon. Key point #2 was the percussion cap. Pour the powder and ball down the barrel cap the musket and you had a ?95% chance of having the thing firing. Damn near every time. link So although a squadron of exploiting cavalry could catch up with a company of retreating infantry, their sabres were not feared, as the company could easily stop behind any barrier and shoot down the horsed, sabre waving cavalry. Maybe the cavalry had pistols, but firing while riding is inaccurate. Firing while kneeling or resting the barrel against a tree is accurate. The infantry could run around a tree or a bush, or lay flat and be out of the way of a sabre stroke. The cavalryman was sitting up high, easy to see and shoot at. Once the fear of being stuck with a sword was gone, the cavalry lost its power in exploitation and in breaking up retreating units. |
John Miller | 20 Jun 2017 3:55 p.m. PST |
A few points that come to my usually addled mind regarding cavalry vs. infantry actions: 1). Wouldn't charging cavalry be moving substantially faster than infantry and therefore be exposed to any defensive rifle/musket fire for less period of time than infantry, causing therefore, less loss? 2). In one example of cavalry charging infantry, unsuccessfully to be sure, at Gettysburg is the famous Farnsworth charge. In that instance the causality rate, if I'm not mistaken, to the cavalry units involved was in the single digits even though they were fired on by infantry and artillery units. 3). It is my impression that charging cavalry caused the defeat of Early's army at Opequon Creek. 4) In the affair at Cedar Mountain I believe the cavalry were in some kind of column formation and were fired on both frontally and on their Lt. flank, causing their defeat. 5). Would not some of these cavalry charges have been unsuccessful in the Napoleonic era? 6). I am under the impression that there was a successful cavalry charge against infantry and artillery in the Franco Prussian War, (only became aware of this recently here on TEMP), in which the infantry would not have been using breach loaders not muzzle loading weapons. I bring these points up only because IMHO, there is more going on than is generally alluded to in cavalry vs. infantry scenarios and because I am a student, not an expert on these matters. Thanks in advance to anyone who may care to comment. John Miller |
Billy Yank | 20 Jun 2017 4:47 p.m. PST |
Regarding cavalry v. infantry: By the end of the war federal cavalry was regularly charging infantry with excellent results-see the last phase of Cedar Creek, or the Battle of Third Winchester for example. Some historians believe that the problem was not that cavalry was rendered obsolete by technology, but that it was not used correctly by generally ill-trained officers. According to these historians, it took four years for the Union to find officers who could effectively use cavalry and to develop tactics suited to using cavalry in large numbers. BY |
John Miller | 20 Jun 2017 6:21 p.m. PST |
Please excuse an error on my part, in forth line from the bottom of the posting I meant to say "would have been using breech loaders not muzzle loading weapons." Thanks, John Miller |
John Miller | 20 Jun 2017 6:31 p.m. PST |
Billy Yank: I referred to Third Winchester as Opequon Creek. Probably incorrect on my part. I was not aware that any historians favored the theory you mention. I will endeavor to do more research on that. Thanks very much for your response, John Miller |
1968billsfan | 20 Jun 2017 9:26 p.m. PST |
Uh, late in the war in the valley, it must have been clear to any confederate that the war was lost and it was time to think of surviving and making it home. If you got yourself into a fluid situation, it was easy to head for the bushes and home. |
thomalley | 21 Jun 2017 6:25 a.m. PST |
Armies weren't always as defeated in the civil war. Lee waited at Gettysburg for an attack on the fourth day. And then there's geography. Most European forests, at least the ones I've visited including the Ardennes are arboretums compared to central Virginia. |
138SquadronRAF | 21 Jun 2017 9:48 a.m. PST |
Armies weren't always as defeated in the civil war. Lee waited at Gettysburg for an attack on the fourth day. And then there's geography. Most European forests, at least the ones I've visited including the Ardennes are arboretums compared to central Virginia. The important distinction between 'light' and 'heavy' woods; often overlooked by wargamers. The US had, indeed still has, much woodland 'wilderness.' Western and Central Europe, with denser populations has much more managed woodland with less undergrowth. |
John Miller | 23 Jun 2017 1:42 p.m. PST |
1968Billsfan: First, thanks for you response and sorry for my delay in getting back to you. I would certainly agree that the mettle of CSA regiments in September, 1864 was not what it was earlier in the war. However I am not convinced that that was the only thing going on in this instance. The troops on the right wing of Early's army, facing infantry, seem to have done substantially better, at least until they were threatened by the Union cavalry in their rear, than the units on the left wing, facing mounted cavalry, did. I mention this instance because it has been my impression that modern wisdom assumes that mounted cavalry made little impression on infantry in the civil war and I am not convinced that that was necessarily the case, at least as long as the infantry were still armed with muzzle loading weapons. Just an opinion of course. Thanks, John Miller |