"Union Infantry Firing" Topic

"It is often said that one reason casualty rates were high in the Civil War is because Napoleonic tactics of mass troop movements were used against defenders with better rifled muskets who could hit their target more accurately at longer ranges. There is an element of truth in this, but other factors did much to negate this effect, making long-range musketry no better than half a century earlier. Factors like the confusion of battle and the large amount of smoke limiting visibility meant range was not so important, and even with the best weapons, infantry were still trained to hold fire until the enemy was close in order to maximise the impact. Nevertheless the large majority of injuries during the war were caused by infantry musketry, and while soldiers were now unlikely to trade volleys at close range, the firing line remained the bedrock of any army.

As can be seen the bulk of this set comprises 13 poses, there being three of each in a box. Almost all of these are at some stage in the process of loading or firing their musket, and we pretty much liked them all. Some of the more animated poses actually firing may be doing so on the move, since firing lines were static, but that is a perfectly reasonable pose to make. The reloading poses are largely a compromise of course, as such poses always are. The proper reloading procedure produces poses that are very difficult to create in such figures, so most sets like this end up with men holding their musket at odd angles and positions. Without making complex multi-part figures this is always likely to be the case, and those here are as good as any…."

Full review here

link

Amicalement
Armand

So this is a REAL sore point of mine!!!

The average person has not a CLUE how the ACW was actually fought! Put aside the staged photos and "fake" battle art sketches for newspapers of the day and read some real history!

I had the immense privilege to study the ACW with the renowned Dr. Frank E. Vandiver as my mentor. At the time he was provost of Rice U. Later president of Texas A&M, which at that time was graduating more army 2nd lieutenants every year than West Point. In fact the army thought so highly of him that every officer assigned to teach history at West Point had to take his US Military History graduate courses.

His fame enabled him to amass thousands of original ACW regimental histories. They were kept in an environmentally controlled room at the Rice Library. I spent hours there. After the first "stand up" Napoleon ic style battles early in the war the troops AND GENERALS quickly learned. You advanced with a heavy skirmish line which did most of the fighting. NOT solid blocks of troops gunning each other down! In fact battles much more resembled WWI battles than Napoleonic ones. Newspaper renderings and staged photos aside, it was a modern war!

Cheers!

+100 Lee494!

Did Dr Vandiver ever produce any books or monographs on the topic?

B

Dr. Vandiver published 2 dozen books and 100 articles, most on the ACW. His main focus was on personalities but he was also knowledgable on tactics. You can simply Google him to get a list of exact titles.

And a shameless plug here lol my Americas Olde West skirmish rules include troop data for fighting ACW skirmish battles. Quite a fun alternative versus wall to wall minis re-enacting Gettysburg lol.

Appreciate your comments. Thanks! Lee

I think I could come up with examples that might disprove your assertion. Pickett's Charge comes to mind. The attack on the Mule Shoe. Fredricksburg. The Crater. Those are just a couple that come to mind quickly….

No disrespect to Dr. Vandiver, but my own research of 30+ years indicate that while there was an increased use of skirmishers, most battles were fought by troops in the traditional shoulder-to-shoulder formations, right up to the end of the war.

Glup!….

Amicalement
Armand

I was under the impression the ACW tactics where flexible, thick skirmish screens could be employed as could traditional shoulder-to-shoulder lines.

I am no expert on the topic, but ACW warfare does not seem to have produced notable higher casualties than those seen in the Napoleonic wars. Gettysburg produced casualties around 22% for the victor and 36% for the vanquished. While Waterloo was around 35% (not including the Prussians, since they were late)and 55%.

While I am happy to be corrected by one more learned, my thought was that Americans, being strangers to the mass causalities of a major land war (made all the worse by the fact that we were killing our own people), were shocked and imagined the situation far more unusual that it actually was.

Hector, you are exactly right on all points.

Hector, I'd be interested if you had those casualty numbers for WWI and II. Cheers!