Miller's Cornfield

[mineshadows]

Why did soldiers on both sides lose so many men in the cornfields? Was there no other way to meet head on in fighting or were there ways to avoid the cornfield but the choices weren't ever considered?

[GeorgeCrecy]

Great question mineshadows, let me see if I can answer it.
This is a bit of a big question, but the answer can be focused around both tactics and weaponry. Since the invention of automatic weapons, one soldier is able to have the same firepower and ability to send lots of lead down range as 100 men were able to during the Civil War. With that, today's combat tactics revolves around small squads, and the men are able to find cover and move around as the situation dictates.
However, during the time of the Civil War, a single infantryman who has been well trained would have been able to get only three aimed shots a minute. So when you have tens of thousands of men on the side of the enemy, you need to have a similar, if not greater amount on your side. Additionally, to make sure that the shots are being put to good use, you group the men up and drill them to work together in lines, which allow for a good amount of firing effect. Basically, consider the Civil War regiment the times' equivalent to a single man today with an M16 and a lot of body armor. One more thing to mention, is that seeking cover usually means crouching and being at the prone, which affects the ability to get three shots off a minute with those long, slow, and hard to reload muskets and rifled muskets.
So, with all this in mind, the tactics of the Civil War were very similar to those of the Napoleonic Wars 50 years before, and the weapons were in some cases similar, though there were significant differences in accuracy, and range for infantry. Because they still were lining up 50 to 100 yards apart and firing at each other with weapons that were fully accurate up to and even beyond 500 yards, carnage ensues. It is said a lot, but the truth of the matter is that the tactics had not caught up with the tech.

At the same time, it wasn't all head on. Union and Confederate artillery bombed the respective troops as they marched in the area, and both sides flanked and enfiladed as best they could. In case you don't know, it is better to fire down a line than right at a line, because instead of firing at a two deep file, you are instead firing down a 50 deep rank! I suggest you look more into the tactics of the time to have a better understanding of why there was such carnage, and while I do not have any links of such to show you, I am sure that the others in the community would be more than happy to help. Best of luck, and keep asking questions!

[Brandenburger]

Because they still were lining up 50 to 100 yards apart and firing at each other with weapons that were fully accurate up to and even beyond 500 yards, carnage ensues. It is said a lot, but the truth of the matter is that the tactics had not caught up with the tech.

With this in mind what was the average range of fire during this time period? I had always assumed it had been around 200 yards or so but I could very well be wrong, and with that said what would be the average range of fire that the muskets in this game will allow? Assuming they can fire at quite a long range I am assuming that regiments will be at quite the distance from each other.

[GeorgeCrecy]

Well Brandenburger, it technically doesn't matter as to the range, but the visual eyesight. Each hundred yards, for you American football players, is a full football field at length. Once you get to 500 yards - the maximum effective range of most of the infantry weapons, that is five football field lengths - it is more a matter of if you can see the target, as they have been reduced to mere specks on your screen, or in real life. However, due to moving in mass formations, it is still possible to hit someone with something like the 1861 Springfield or 1853/1858 Enfield at 500 yards, as you are aiming for the clump, rather than an individual. However, quite a bit of luck is still involved at that range.

[Rithal]

Many officers failed to realize the full capability of the rifled musket in my opinion :/

[1SGT Shannon]

To answer Brandenburger's question of average range, it has been calculated to be 136 yards in the Eastern Theater and 100 yards in the Western. The difference is attributed to the lack of as many cleared fields in the west, causing troops to have to get closer to see each other through the forest.

[Brandenburger]

Thank you both for answering my question, no wonder this war accumulated so many casualties!