“These guys needed cell phones.”
All summer we’ll see the sequicentennials of that bloody summer of 1864, as Grant marched down toward Richmond, after (unlike his predecessors) not retreating after the bloody battle at The Wilderness, as Sherman was in turn moving down into the deep south. The two campaigns ended up saving Lincoln’s presidency in the fall election.
Cold Harbor was one of the bloodiest, complete with the beginnings of trench warfare that was ultimately a presage to the first world war. The European observers, used to Napoleonic tactics, were appalled at the butchery of rapid-fire weaponry, a technological advance (if one can call it back) to which took decades for tactics to adapt. The only major change in the half century afterward of carnage, really, was the tank.
“The only major change in the half century afterward of carnage, really, was the tank.”
And the airplane.
I don’t think that had as large an effect in the Great War. They were still figuring out how to use them.
Ditto on that Rand. The dogfights may have been deadly to those in the air, but they were basically a sideshow. The pilots got a lot of press as the “Knights of the Air” because they seemed to preserve the pre-mass slaughter ethic that had come to full fruition (if you can all it that) on the ground.
Tanks definitely came along faster as a more effective weapon, tho in WWI probably mainly as something soldiers could use as ‘cover’ while advancing, and later in the war too.
Even in WWII, aircraft were not very accurate in targeting munitions plants et al, which is why “Bomber” Harris et al used incendiaries on the cities that housed the workers.
I don’t think anyone would argue about how critical and effective tanks had become by WWII
Airplanes weren’t in the air just to fight each other. It’s really hard to get an overview of a battlefield from a tank. Sure, you could plod along in a dirigible – a nice, slow moving target at the mercy of the breeze. Or you could hop in an airplane, and half an hour later have a good idea of troop movements and supply lines over a wide area.
Precisely.
Aircraft provided an enormous advantage both in recon and as artillery spotters in WWI, particularly given the relatively static nature of the battlefield on the Western Front. While they did provide some value in a ground attack role in the British campaigns in Palestine (and to some extent in the German offensives in the East), their overwhelming use was as ‘eyes in the sky’.
However, their WW-I use was mainly photographic, as they couldn’t provide real-time fire correction or even a rapid alert due to their lack of good radio communications. But given the speed and size of troop movements back then, it probably wasn’t much of a handicap. At times the largest component that was moving the battle line to the east was continental drift.
I would have to say the machine gun. Sure the Gatling gun made an appearance in the Civil War but the Maxim was truly a game changer.
“I would have to say the machine gun. ”
I agree.
In addition, artillery took a much more prominent role in WW1 than in the Civil War – not to say it wasn’t prominent in the CW. But in WW1 arty jumped to a whole new level.
Planes had little battlefield outcome effect in WW1. Tanks had a lot of effect but came too late in the war – the Allies would have won whether the tank was there or not.
It was the inter-war period that tank and airplane doctrine was worked out. Consequently they had their real effects in WW2.
From what I’ve read, the Gatling gun didn’t see service in the Civil War* but was used afterwards.
*Civil War has to be the biggest oxymoron of all time.
they were tested during the Civil War but not accepted into
main service.
In the Civil War, a small number of balloons were used for reconnaissance.
In WWI, the airplane’s most effective role was probably in reconnaissance. Fighers were developed in large part to stop the reconnaissance planes. The bombers of the era were of limited effectiveness.
In the Civil War, a single submarine sank a single enemy warship (and then was lost itself, the Hunley).
In WWI, submarine warfare played a large role in sinking shipping.
In the Civil War, most if not all cannons were still black-powder burning muzzle-loaders.
In WWI, artillery was essentially perfected with breech loading and recoil mechanisms.
In the Civil War, repeating rifles and revolvers entered service but a high percentage of men still used muzzle-loading rifles. Mini balls made for very devastating wounds.
In WWI, every solder carried a repeating rifle (usually bolt-action) and machine guns raised carnage to unimagineable levels. Poison gas also saw heavy use.
There were a number of other technology developments that originated in the Civil War and were greatly expanded by WWI. These include:
– The use of railroads to speed troops and material to the battlefields.
– The use of telegraphs (and later, radio telegraphs) to speed communications.
– The use of field medical facilities to try and save the lives of wounded soldiers.
There were breech loading cannon during CW, but I’m not sure how high the percentage was. Powder was still of the black variety, smokeless powder still being in the future.
Breechloading cannon weren’t a huge change, but pneumatically compensated recoil for the cannon (once again, see the French 75 as an excellent example) allowed much higher rates of fire that made an enormous difference.
I’d say the Rapid Firing Machine Gun had a lot of impact in increasing the carnage.
While The Civil War resulted in changes in tactics moving from Set Piece battles such as Bull-Run (1) and
Gettysburg to Campaigns like “The WIlderness” and ” Road to Appomatox” the Machine gun ended that.
Suddenly a squad of men could tie down and destroy a battalion with effective terrain.
The American Civil War barely saw use of the Gatling Gun. Had that come out, the carnage on the Union
side would have been awful, until the confederates ran out of ammo.
According to Wikipedia, the first Gatling Guns were made in Indiana (and Ohio?). Although born in North Carolina, Richard Gatling lived in Indianapolis at the start of the war.
“Gatling was never affiliated with the Confederate States government or military, nor did he live in the South during the Civil War.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Jordan_Gatling
I’m assuming that the Southerners would have acquired some or equivalents had they been
demonstrated to be battle effective.
As the Confederates were mostly fighting on the defense, it would have worked in their favor.
Upon reading these letters, my sentiments are that Lee should have been hanged as a war criminal. I have some words to describe him, but this is a “family” site.
I suppose someone will shortly post to contradict me that it was all Grant’s fault . . .
Well You meant to say Bush’s fault right? 🙂
And I agree with you…Lee was playing politics with the suffering of the wounded on both sides.
Meh. It was war, not a pillow fight. I don’t have much respect for Lee either, but mainly because of his lousy war strategy and tactical faith in divine providence. Grant made some questionable calls tactically but his war strategy was spot on (Sherman’s march). Back to Lee, not letting the enemy reclaim the dead and rescue wounded from territory you control is just smart. Why let them in to do BDA/recon as well as preserve manpower I might have to fight again later in a long war? So that the enemy will think slightly less horribly of me? Puh-lease.
It is better to be known to as merciless and ruthless to your enemies, while they still continue to oppose you. If they want mercy they can give up the fight – which was what Lee’s position in those letters indicate.
In addition, a general’s 2nd responsibility under achieving victory, is to protect his troops. The best way to ensure that is to not give advantages to your enemy when you can avoid it. Allowing Grant to reclaim his wounded and dead, and potentially perform some rough Battle Damage Assessment and recon (as equals on a contested battlefield as Grant requested), would provide no productive purpose for the Confederate side and potentially provide morale and information to the enemy. To provide that to his enemy would necessarily be putting his own troops at greater risk, which to me would be a sacrifice of his own soldiers and dereliction of duty indicating the general’s unfitness to lead.
Gregg mentions it a bit upthread but it was rapid fire artillery that really made the difference by the time of WWI, along with (to a much lesser extent) effective rifles and automatic weapons. The use of true infantry rifles (as opposed to rifled muskets) vastly increased the firepower of infantry, and the addition of automatic weapons added still more, but it wasn’t until the introduction of true rapid-firing artillery (the French 75 being an excellent example) that offensive action on a crowded battlefield became problematic.
I agree the Maxim gun and rapid firing artillery had major effects above what happened in the US Civil War. They where the major reason why WWI turned into that static warfare carnage as it did. Even today when assault rifles are commonplace it is easy to discard too easily the power of something like a Maxim. it could fire 500 rounds/minute, .303 inch each, with 250 round belts. It made massive infantry charges useless. It took a long time for tactics to change and even the introduction of tanks did not make enough impact as they were still basically prototypes. Airplanes and submarines also had some impact but not as much as during WWII.
Smokeless powder, barbed wire and rapid fire breech loading artillery were also a thing.
Some years ago I read Civil War Generalship and was sold on the idea that General George Thomas was by far the most advanced general of the Civil War, with an emphasis on intelligence, real-time communications, coordinated infantry and artillery (he introduced the synchronized watches and timed artillery barrage preceding an assault across an entire front), and the use of mobile infantry to advance and surround a fleeing opponent, becoming the only general in the Civil War to capture an entire enemy army that had been defeated in battle. He developed WW-I tactics fifty years before anyone else.
George,
I may have to read that book. Looks interesting. Up until now I always thought of Longstreet as one of th emore advanced generals. His objections to the whole Gettysburg Battle and his alternative to it, smacks of present day Maneuver Warfare Doctrine.
Gettysburg was a terrible mistake by the Army of Northern Virginia.
Fighting off their turf, dragged into a fight without preparation and ultimately
fighting without a strategically achievable goal.
Of course they were fighting for Slavery, an inexcrable institution, so,
the war was as incoherent as the cause.