the civil war with todays knowledge

[showtime]

if someone went back in time and some how told all the main military guys about today tactics, how would it play out? so same time period and technology just someone told them the new tactics

like would they just dig trenches or what else would change

[Artimus]

Today's tactics wouldn't really apply back then, it seems to me. I mean, sure with the accuracy of the weaponry in general being superior due to higher numbers of rifled weapons being used, they could've benefited from not using Napoleonic era formations. The Confederates did use defensive entrenchments for a while near the end of the war anyway.

[jadams196]

I think you should read the book "The Killer Angels" by Michael Shaara. In the book Longstreet had a plan that would of completely changed the battle of Gettysburg, by getting between the Union army and Washington and setting up a defensive position, leaving the Union no choice to attack less Washington fall to the Confederates. But in the book Lee does not listen and instead chooses to fight at Gettysburg, with an outcome I'm sure we all know. (Not sure if this is historically accurate or Shaara added it to the book to make it more interesting) But it is a very interesting idea nonetheless.

[Gamble]

As far as I know this is fairly historically correct and was one of the causes that many thought it was longstreets fault that the attack on the third day failed. He waited very long to make sure that the confederate artillery cleared th the ridge of enemy caqnnons, rifles and infantry at least partially, but a lot of people and military at that time and later thought he did it on purpose so he was right after the attack. I don't think he wanted it to fail, but probably he took too much time because of fearing the attack. Longstreet was for a defensive campaign all the way through the second "invasion" of the north.
Also the union artillery stopped firing after a time and so the confederate commanders thought that they actually accomplished the task of clearing the ridge of enemy artillery. This was not the case.

[Wildcat]

"Grady McWhiney argued that, due to a high proportion of Celtic ancestry, Southerners during the American Civil War had a predilection for attack but lacked self-discipline and patience; this led to them repeatedly making reckless attacks that lost battles. He drew comparisons between the battles of Telamon (225 BC), Culloden (1746) and Gettysburg (1863)."

if that is true, That is kinda funny because if you read that taken from Wikipedia "Highland Charge", At Culloden same thing happend, One of the Clan Chiefs told Prince Charlie to go to the mountains where they could fire from above then do the highland charge downhill, But instead Charlie chose a flat open moor, Resulting in the Jacobite army being slaughtered during the Highland charge on a flat open moor where the Redcoats could see and destroy them, And when they got close the Redcoats had a new tactic to kill the people who ended up in the melee.

So you can see how similar they are :P

If only we could go back in History and show people different tactics to win, I mean, I am a pro at total war so I could probably beat Alexander the not so great! lol

[Hiram Lee]

The only thing that is needed is walkie talkies
and the modern tactics woulndt have worked unless both sides were using them
otherwise your sending about six guys to go get shot and not really do anything

[Pvt.Scott]

Well. If I was a soldier in 1863 and a time traveler came to me. I would ask. "Who won the war?"
"The Union."
History goes down the drain right there.

[thomas aagaard]

if someone went back in time and some how told all the main military guys about today tactics, how would it play out? so same time period and technology just someone told them the new tactics

like would they just dig trenches or what else would change

The tactics worked just fine. The armies was made up of civilians tuned soldiers armed at first mainly with smoothbores and later i the war generelly changed to rifled muskets.
The tactics was written for muzzle loaded weapons and worked as they should... and you don't win a war by digging trenches.


If I was handed a brigade there is not much in the tactics I would change... not at first anyway... there armies was way to poorly trained for anything else.

And when they after a year or two became proficient in the tactics they worked as they should.

The real difference would be in other ares.
There was (with a few exeptions) no real marksmanship training and the typical solder had no idea about how to actual hit anything... so an organized program would make a huge difference.
(like the one Patrick Cleburne started in his command)

And with this in use then you can slowly start focusing more on stronger aggressive use of heavy skirmish lines... and naturally push for at least two companies sin each regiment getting breachloaders as soon as possible. And then change to some of the modern tactics used by the Prussians...


But that would require at total re organisational of the armies at the regimental level to a system with fewer and bigger companies in a battalion and the company as the basic tactical unit where the commander can take decisions.. (and need breachloded rifles as the main infantry arm.)


But the real change would be in medicine and knowledge about how to avoid sickness and diseases. only about 1 in 3 death was coursed by combat... the rest was sickness.



I think you should read the book "The Killer Angels" by Michael Shaara. In the book Longstreet had a plan that would of completely changed the battle of Gettysburg, by getting between the Union army and Washington and setting up a defensive position, leaving the Union no choice to attack less Washington fall to the Confederates. But in the book Lee does not listen and instead chooses to fight at Gettysburg, with an outcome I'm sure we all know. (Not sure if this is historically accurate or Shaara added it to the book to make it more interesting) But it is a very interesting idea nonetheless.
1. that book is historical fiction.. nothing more.
2. Longstreet's idea would never have worked. the road network did not support it. and you can' move armies cross country.
And it is not that clear what Longstreet actually suggested.




"Grady McWhiney argued that, due to a high proportion of Celtic ancestry,
(...)
if that is true,
It is not.. there south was not more "celtic" than english. it is just more myth making.

[Pvt.Scott]

if someone went back in time and some how told all the main military guys about today tactics, how would it play out? so same time period and technology just someone told them the new tactics

like would they just dig trenches or what else would change

Yeah. Pretty much what everyone else is saying. They really couldn't change tactics. Because the Tactics we have today are because of our weapons we have today. They can't go into battle with 10 guys. Their weapons are good enough to do that. The Rifles back then were meant to be fired in large amounts because of inaccuracy. Tell 10 guys with rifles to do that. They won't get many kills and probably get mutilated by the larger foe who is using their guns and tactics with the guns properly.

[R21]

I think it'd change at-least a bit.

Like, at the start of WW1 they were still using cavalry charges and to a degree pseudo napoleonic tactics (like if you look at the battle of mons, a column of German troops just tried torepeatedly charge Nimy Bridge).


At dawn on 23 August a German artillery bombardment began on the British lines; throughout the day the Germans concentrated on the British at the salient formed by the loop in the canal.[23] At 9:00 a.m., the first German infantry assault began, with the Germans attempting to force their way across four bridges that crossed the canal at the salient.[24] Four German battalions attacked the Nimy bridge, which was defended by a company of the 4th Battalion, Royal Fusiliers and a machine-gun section led by Lieutenant Maurice Dease. Advancing at first in close column, "parade ground formation", the Germans made easy targets for the British riflemen, who hit German soldiers at over 1,000 yards (910 m), mowing them down by rifle, machine-gun and artillery fire.[25][26] So heavy was the British rifle fire throughout the battle that some Germans thought they were facing batteries of machine-guns


The German attack was a costly failure and the Germans switched to an open formation and attacked again. This attack was more successful, as the looser formation made it more difficult for the British to inflict casualties rapidly.

and it was experiences like this that made them alter their tactics so heavily. Granted, this was all because there had been such a leap in technology (Machine Guns, jacketed Bullets, more accurate and faster firing Artillery etc).

The American Civil war was essentially the cusp of all this and you did start to see pseudo WW1 stuff happening (like trenchworks) I think the reason that they didn't resort to this and completely change tactics to WW1 style ones is that Lines, though clearly on the verge of losing their usefulness still achieved results and were what they knew from previous Wars.

3551

[Soulfly]

I think it'd change at-least a bit.

Like, at the start of WW1 they were still using cavalry charges and to a degree pseudo napoleonic tactics (like if you look at the battle of mons, a column of German troops just tried torepeatedly charge Nimy Bridge).



those tactics were actually used during the entire war, the lack of possibilities of communication (radio) forces you to mass your troops or at least keep them in sight to have control. In WW1 the commanders tried to compensate that by giving time schedules for arty fire, infantry attack....but as soon as the infantry left the trenches all (effective !) control is lost......aaand i am off topic.

Now, what i would tell the guys in the US ? maybe i would show them some photos and lists about the casualties this war will demand, maybe then some talking will be done instead of this slaughter.


Ps: After the release of WoR...as a fictional game ;)

[R21]

More-so at Mons though as it was right at the start of the War and it hadn't stagnated into full on Trench Warfare at that point.

[Soulfly]

More-so at Mons though as it was right at the start of the War and it hadn't stagnated into full on Trench Warfare at that point.

correct, but in terms of coordination it doenst matter if your troops leave a trench or the deployment zone (?) (not sure if that's the correct Englisch term, the zone where troops mass before engagement). Especially the English troops faced massive problems due to their doctrine, even in WW2.

[R21]

I think it was more in line with ACW thinking at that point though, like a column just marched and when they came under fire just repeatedly tried to charge the Bridge.

When it was Trench v Trench both sides knew what to expect and adjusted for it. You can draw parallels between Burnside Bridge and Nimy Bridge (a far smaller force holding off a far bigger one for a long period of time) you had a similar situation at Burnside (Some Union Soldiers not even being able to get close because of accurate fire).

[BloodBeag]

that was the battle where the Germans thought they were going up against british machine guns because they were firing so quickly and accurately

[R21]

So heavy was the British rifle fire throughout the battle that some Germans thought they were facing batteries of machine-guns.

Yup.

[Soulfly]

well, you will find such reports in many battle reports (ask the brits about the first day of the somme battle). Here they advanced in close order towards the German lines...result was a slaughter, same goes to the battle of Loos. But this is now a little bit off topic.

[showtime]

a better way to put my question would be: is the way they did it the best way they fought the war? what is the very best possible tactics to win the civil war. what would change to be the most effiecient way with back then. or was line battles simply just the way to go

another thing is i remember a history teacher telling us about in the revolutionary war that americans used crazy guerrilla warfare style. why would they do that in 1700s but not in the 1800s with even better guns

also can anyone see my badge. i keep updating it but never shows up

[FirstDiv2Corps]

a better way to put my question would be: is the way they did it the best way they fought the war? what is the very best possible tactics to win the civil war. what would change to be the most effiecient way with back then. or was line battles simply just the way to go

another thing is i remember a history teacher telling us about in the revolutionary war that americans used crazy guerrilla warfare style. why would they do that in 1700s but not in the 1800s with even better guns



Because American forces overwhelmingly used linear line tactics same as the British in the 1770s-80s. Guerilla warfare in the Revolution has been overplayed into one of the biggest myths of the entire war.

[Legion]

Guerrilla tactics were used and they were effective, but they weren't used to the same extent as conventional tactics.