User avatar
GraniteStater
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1778
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 5:16 am
Location: Annapolis, MD - What?

Things I've been wrong about (or learned, or both)

Wed Jun 11, 2014 5:09 am

After some moderately extensive reading lately (Catton's trilogy on the war, a bio of Lincoln from the '90s, a book contrasting Grant & Lee, Keegan's analysis of the war, and The Class of 1846, which is simply excellent), I stand corrected on (or learned) a few things, viz.:

* Yes, indeed the US merchant marine never really recovered from the war.

* The received wisdom was on forts vs. ships. Two caveats - I still draw the line on siege mortars - siege mortars, that is. There were anti-shipping pieces, but they weren't siege mortars. Also, Farragut and others did OK when running forts - not slugging it out. Two different things.

* Generals, down to the last day, were enamored of the Big Decisive Battle that would end it all. The better ones in the North disabused themselves of this notion, but none were completely immune to it.

* Cavalry did not do an especially good job of track busting; as a matter of fact it was poor at it.

* The South never ran out of powder, not until the very end.

* Armies learned early on to throw up something, anything, for defense. As time went by, veteran troops could dig in very, very effectively, even in one day, or hours.

* The war was fought almost entirely by large bodies of infantry with rifled muskets. Compared to European practice, cavalry was scanty, used mostly for recon and flank guarding. There were no European decisive cavalry charges that were the KO in a battle.

* Same for artillery - not used in the same proportions as in European armies. Thus, the ACW was almost entirely infantry duels or assaults. This also helps to explain why positions were not really reduced that much before assaults.

* Southern generals made some Really Bad Decisions in KY/TN in early 62, the first one being not occupying Paducah, instead of Columbus, KY. Fort Henry's placement was simply idiotic.

* Ben Butler shouldn't have been anywhere near troops, but Lincoln couldn't touch him because of political considerations. After Nov 64, he was Outta There. His decision about contrabands, though, was correct and actually had huge ramifications.

* From what I can see, KY was never going to join the CSA. Divided? Yes - not enough, though. Two campaigns were predicated on raising the people of the state to the cause; Bragg brought thousands of muskets with him for issue - very, very few joined the colors.

* Lyon chased a legal governor of a state right out of the state - in essence, Lyon just took Missouri right over. One determined officer, if you ask me. From what I read, I would say that MO was about 65/35, Union. Maybe 60/40, but not 50/50.

There are some others, but I'll close with this: Lincoln was a stupefyingly good judge of the public's views and what to do, when. The more and more I read of his decisions and the context thereof, I find it extremely hard to fault him to the least degree in any of them. He was a political genius whose judgement and timing cannot be surpassed by anyone in history, imho. He was a pretty good strategist, too - very early on, he saw that the object was to destroy the South's armies, their capability and will to resist. Too many generals in the North persisted for too long in being happy with 'taking places', not seeing that the places were means to an end, not the end itself.
[color="#AFEEEE"]"Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable!"[/color]
-Daniel Webster

[color="#FFA07A"]"C'mon, boys, we got the damn Yankees on the run!"[/color]
-General Joseph Wheeler, US Army, serving at Santiago in 1898

RULES
(A) When in doubt, agree with Ace.
(B) Pull my reins up sharply when needed, for I am a spirited thoroughbred and forget to turn at the post sometimes.


Image

User avatar
GraniteStater
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1778
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 5:16 am
Location: Annapolis, MD - What?

Wed Jun 11, 2014 5:22 pm

This merits an additional post: Brigades were, indeed, the tactical formation. Manpower was raised by regiments, the administration (G3, nowadays) was by regiments, but the tactical formation was the brigade, although most officers, the overwhelming majority, had no experience with brigades - nor even with regiments, to a very large degree. Most of the Regular Army was broken down to company level and posted as such, especially in the West. Still, that was their doctrine - maneuvering by brigade.
[color="#AFEEEE"]"Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable!"[/color]

-Daniel Webster



[color="#FFA07A"]"C'mon, boys, we got the damn Yankees on the run!"[/color]

-General Joseph Wheeler, US Army, serving at Santiago in 1898



RULES

(A) When in doubt, agree with Ace.

(B) Pull my reins up sharply when needed, for I am a spirited thoroughbred and forget to turn at the post sometimes.





Image

User avatar
tripax
AGEod Veteran
Posts: 777
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2013 9:58 pm

Wed Jun 11, 2014 6:04 pm

GraniteStater wrote:This merits an additional post: Brigades were, indeed, the tactical formation. Manpower was raised by regiments, the administration (G3, nowadays) was by regiments, but the tactical formation was the brigade, although most officers, the overwhelming majority, had no experience with brigades - nor even with regiments, to a very large degree. Most of the Regular Army was broken down to company level and posted as such, especially in the West. Still, that was their doctrine - maneuvering by brigade.


I'm curious what you mean by the brigade was the tactical formation of choice. Can you give a sort of cannonical example of where the tactical action was done by a regiment, by a brigade, by a division, and by a corps?

For instance, the 20th Maine on Little Round Top at Gettysburg is an example of a regiment becoming famous for some action. But that was a reaction more than a tactical maneuver. If I understand tactics correctly, tactic was at the brigade level or even the corps level; Sykes corps reinforcing Meade and in reserve on the second day and Strong Vincent's brigade ready to move at Warren's request was a tactic that was just good enough to hold the position (better would have been putting Sykes closer to the hill/defending the hill earlier).

Picket's charge, I am guessing, would be a good example of a tactical maneuver, but here at the division level.

Or maybe I have it wrong.

User avatar
GraniteStater
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1778
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 5:16 am
Location: Annapolis, MD - What?

Wed Jun 11, 2014 6:15 pm

Hmm...difficult to be plainer. Let's just say my reading made it clear that the 'formation of choice' was the brigade - most probably Hardee's Tactics maneuvered by brigade.

IOW, they could order a divisional move, or even a move by a corps, but the actual implementation was by brigades. That's what I came away with.

Remember, their tactics were drill-field maneuvers - apparently, the largest formation for these was the brigade - the larger formations were ordered to do stuff, but the wheeling and dealing was by brigade.
[color="#AFEEEE"]"Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable!"[/color]

-Daniel Webster



[color="#FFA07A"]"C'mon, boys, we got the damn Yankees on the run!"[/color]

-General Joseph Wheeler, US Army, serving at Santiago in 1898



RULES

(A) When in doubt, agree with Ace.

(B) Pull my reins up sharply when needed, for I am a spirited thoroughbred and forget to turn at the post sometimes.





Image

User avatar
tripax
AGEod Veteran
Posts: 777
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2013 9:58 pm

Wed Jun 11, 2014 9:21 pm

Hmm, I see. For me, I really don't know much about tactics and it is a weak point in my knowledge for sure.

anjou
Lieutenant
Posts: 110
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 3:56 pm

Wed Jun 11, 2014 10:10 pm

Kentucky and Maryland would have joined had there been any sign that Confederate troops could actually stay there. No man in their right mind would join a fight that would have their families under occupied rule while they were away.

User avatar
GraniteStater
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1778
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 5:16 am
Location: Annapolis, MD - What?

Wed Jun 11, 2014 10:48 pm

tripax wrote:Hmm, I see. For me, I really don't know much about tactics and it is a weak point in my knowledge for sure.


It's not germane to the ACW, but google 'modern infantry tactics' - there's a site that has a fascinating history of the evolution of tactics from the Franco-Prussian war on. Truly modern tactics were first started by the Germans in the late stages of WWI. The way I was trained in the US Army, it's called 'fire and maneuver.'

Also, A Genius for War: the German General Staff, 1870 - 1945 is a most informative work.

The way they fought the ACW is entirely alien to our experience 150 years later.

I can't imagine slugging it out in the open at 100 yards with rifled muskets. Gruesome.
[color="#AFEEEE"]"Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable!"[/color]

-Daniel Webster



[color="#FFA07A"]"C'mon, boys, we got the damn Yankees on the run!"[/color]

-General Joseph Wheeler, US Army, serving at Santiago in 1898



RULES

(A) When in doubt, agree with Ace.

(B) Pull my reins up sharply when needed, for I am a spirited thoroughbred and forget to turn at the post sometimes.





Image

User avatar
GraniteStater
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1778
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 5:16 am
Location: Annapolis, MD - What?

Wed Jun 11, 2014 10:50 pm

anjou wrote:Kentucky and Maryland would have joined had there been any sign that Confederate troops could actually stay there. No man in their right mind would join a fight that would have their families under occupied rule while they were away.


Probably right there.
[color="#AFEEEE"]"Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable!"[/color]

-Daniel Webster



[color="#FFA07A"]"C'mon, boys, we got the damn Yankees on the run!"[/color]

-General Joseph Wheeler, US Army, serving at Santiago in 1898



RULES

(A) When in doubt, agree with Ace.

(B) Pull my reins up sharply when needed, for I am a spirited thoroughbred and forget to turn at the post sometimes.





Image

hanny1
Captain
Posts: 158
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2016 11:57 am

Re:

Sun Feb 26, 2017 7:40 pm

GraniteStater wrote:Hmm...difficult to be plainer. Let's just say my reading made it clear that the 'formation of choice' was the brigade - most probably Hardee's Tactics maneuvered by brigade.

IOW, they could order a divisional move, or even a move by a corps, but the actual implementation was by brigades. That's what I came away with.

Remember, their tactics were drill-field maneuvers - apparently, the largest formation for these was the brigade - the larger formations were ordered to do stuff, but the wheeling and dealing was by brigade.
Hardee's manuals are freely available online, the word Brigade is not to found in any of them, being as as it's a manual limited to the regimental level of operation, being almost totally concerned with individual poisitiononing and manoeuvre.

hanny1
Captain
Posts: 158
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2016 11:57 am

Re:

Sun Feb 26, 2017 7:45 pm

GraniteStater wrote:
tripax wrote:Hmm, I see. For me, I really don't know much about tactics and it is a weak point in my knowledge for sure.


It's not germane to the ACW, but google 'modern infantry tactics' - there's a site that has a fascinating history of the evolution of tactics from the Franco-Prussian war on. Truly modern tactics were first started by the Germans in the late stages of WWI. The way I was trained in the US Army, it's called 'fire and maneuver.'

Also, A Genius for War: the German General Staff, 1870 - 1945 is a most informative work.

The way they fought the ACW is entirely alien to our experience 150 years later.

I can't imagine slugging it out in the open at 100 yards with rifled muskets. Gruesome.
except for the fact that fire and manover with firearms supported by mobile art fire, was introduced in Sweden by Gustophas hundreds of years earlier. the brigade, an organisational history in the US Army is what you ought to read, freely available from the command school at FortLeavenworth.

User avatar
Citizen X
General of the Army
Posts: 622
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 1:34 pm

Re: Things I've been wrong about (or learned, or both)

Sun Feb 26, 2017 10:05 pm

The terms brigade and divisions were actually used differently in the respective armies. If I remember correctly, it was a matter of size, due to the different supply with officers in both armies. A brigade is referred to as a formation of subunits that work together to achieve a certain tactical task on the battlefield that can be considered decisive. Where division is a body that also works together outside the battlefield. Obviously that changes over time, as the threat range of a single gun varies and thus the size of a body or formation, that can achieve a decisive tactical goal.
All other differantiation is merely administrative, like army, corps etc.

User avatar
GraniteStater
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1778
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 5:16 am
Location: Annapolis, MD - What?

Re: Re:

Sun Feb 26, 2017 10:24 pm

hanny1 wrote:
GraniteStater wrote:
tripax wrote:Hmm, I see. For me, I really don't know much about tactics and it is a weak point in my knowledge for sure.


It's not germane to the ACW, but google 'modern infantry tactics' - there's a site that has a fascinating history of the evolution of tactics from the Franco-Prussian war on. Truly modern tactics were first started by the Germans in the late stages of WWI. The way I was trained in the US Army, it's called 'fire and maneuver.'

Also, A Genius for War: the German General Staff, 1870 - 1945 is a most informative work.

The way they fought the ACW is entirely alien to our experience 150 years later.

I can't imagine slugging it out in the open at 100 yards with rifled muskets. Gruesome.
except for the fact that fire and manover with firearms supported by mobile art fire, was introduced in Sweden by Gustophas hundreds of years earlier. the brigade, an organisational history in the US Army is what you ought to read, freely available from the command school at FortLeavenworth.


That is not what is meant by 'fire and maneuver' in the US Army in the 20th century post WW I. If you think what a Swedish leader in the 17th century was doing has ought to do with how a two man team approaches a position (and by extension, squad tactics) as I was trained to do forty years ago, then your ability to understand what was posted is questionable.

I address this in this way because you were civil in your remarks about Hardee - note I said 'in the reading I have done.' I didn't pretend to be authoritative and if Hardeee doesn't discuss brigades, so be it.

However, this one above is, I am loathe to observe, all too often an example of your 'style': needless quibbling betraying an almost willful misreading of what is stated plainly, or a seeming unwillingness to draw conclusions rationally.

And I have said this because of your scintillating insights on another thread to which you have 'contributed' lately. Please feel free to read my last reply.

hanny1
Captain
Posts: 158
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2016 11:57 am

Re: Things I've been wrong about (or learned, or both)

Tue Feb 28, 2017 5:08 pm

http://www.history.army.mil/html/books/ ... 0-14-1.pdf

Here is the US Army explantion of Fire and and manouver and how its modeled on who i said invented the tactical concept. Its not a more modern use, per se, just a change in volume of munitons delivered using the same tactics. The Swedes would have recongised a 20th century use of their tactics and underdstood the intent and aim.

User avatar
GraniteStater
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1778
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 5:16 am
Location: Annapolis, MD - What?

Re: Things I've been wrong about (or learned, or both)

Thu Mar 02, 2017 6:42 pm

You realllly don't understand what I'm saying. Not...at...all.

First, my use of the phrase had to do with a parenthetical comment in reply to someone else.

Second, the tactics I meant in that reply are modern tactics, as one may have surmised from the reply itself. If one goes to the webpage I mentioned in passing, one readily sees that we are talking about 20th century infantry, squad level tactics and were indeed first used in the German spring offensive of 1918, particularly because they were seeking a way to break the deadlock in the trenches and had thought of a new approach to elementary tactics.

These tactics were refined post WWI. In the US Army, what you are taught in basic training is called 'fire and manuever'. The Germans called it something else. You could call it infiltration, because, as the web page discusses, when properly done, especially at night, and with the right weight of men and material, it's considered to be extremely difficult to stop or defend, i. e., infiltration in general.

All of which does not have a single thing to do with Hardee's book or wheeling by brigades or the Civil War. It was a parenthetical comment.

Incidentally, my post about brigades says 'according to my reading'. I cannot recall exactly which reading at this point, but I will stand by the statement - to the best of my knowledge, the large element maneuvering in battle was thought of by brigades, IOW, movements by Corps or Division were executed brigade-by-brigade, groups of regiments fighting as a unit, i. e., the brigade. If you read The Campaigns of Napoleon by the Englishman, you'll see that this conceptual matrix goes back to then, an elemental unit for the French was the brigade and even 'demi-brigade'.

The commanders in the ACW weren't inflexible idiots who adhered strictly to Hardee or whatever, with no allowance for circumstances. As a matter of fact, battlefield methods evolved quite a bit in four years, from the individual soldier to the high command. They still had their Napoleonic mindset, even to the end, but the better generals adapted.

User avatar
havi
Colonel
Posts: 319
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 10:31 am
Location: Lappeenranta

Re: Things I've been wrong about (or learned, or both)

Thu Mar 02, 2017 10:57 pm

hanny1 wrote:http://www.history.army.mil/html/books/060/60-14-1/cmhPub_60-14-1.pdf

Here is the US Army explantion of Fire and and manouver and how its modeled on who i said invented the tactical concept. Its not a more modern use, per se, just a change in volume of munitons delivered using the same tactics. The Swedes would have recongised a 20th century use of their tactics and underdstood the intent and aim.



Sorry to intervene, but if u give Gustavus all the glory guess again, They where the FINNISH CAV :dada: what took the field and victory with FINNISH OFFICERS and MEN. Sorry i have to intervene.

hanny1
Captain
Posts: 158
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2016 11:57 am

Re: Things I've been wrong about (or learned, or both)

Sat Mar 04, 2017 3:44 pm

GraniteStater wrote:You realllly don't understand what I'm saying. Not...at...all.


Im fully aware your posts have factually incorect elements,, thats what im replying to. There is no Brigade wheel manover in any Drill manuals of the period.. The reg was the tactical manover element that the drill books have instruction for manovewring, http://www.civilwar.org/education/histo ... gle.co.uk/ wheeling only existed by tje Regiment, https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=aFK ... ht&f=false only by wheeling regiments acording to tjhe drill books could larger formation execute any manover.


Incidentally,


In Chandlers book you refernced, you will note that he referes to the regiment as the basic manover element, and that French Brigades could not wheel as a brigade, but had to revert to columns. Alsao Chandler mwrites the following

Prior to the Revolution, the French Army was composed of three-battalion regiments. In 1792 before the Battle of Valmy, it was decided to form demi-brigades instead of regiments. Each demi-brigade was made up of one regular battalion from a pre-revolutionary regiment combined with two battalions of volunteers. The demi-brigades were adopted by the entire French army two years later.

In 1803 Napoleon was re-instated the term "regiment", for "demi-brigade"
The commanders in the ACW weren't inflexible idiots who adhered strictly to Hardee or whatever, with no allowance for circumstances.


Two threads on the same subljeect matter ive posted for you to read the drill manuals to understand how forces manovered, unfoiurtunatly you are unable to do so.

As a matter of fact


Ads to facts, Vermoint abolished slavery in its constitution and repealled slave codes and emanicpated all slaves in 1777, Pa in 1780 emancip[ating all slaves born after 1780, both states abolishing slavery well before Mass, whose citizens were still selling slaves to the carrib in 1790 and owingt slavesin state till 1830.

hanny1
Captain
Posts: 158
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2016 11:57 am

Re: Things I've been wrong about (or learned, or both)

Sat Mar 04, 2017 3:53 pm

havi wrote:
hanny1 wrote:http://www.history.army.mil/html/books/060/60-14-1/cmhPub_60-14-1.pdf

Here is the US Army explantion of Fire and and manouver and how its modeled on who i said invented the tactical concept. Its not a more modern use, per se, just a change in volume of munitons delivered using the same tactics. The Swedes would have recongised a 20th century use of their tactics and underdstood the intent and aim.



Sorry to intervene, but if u give Gustavus all the glory guess again, They where the FINNISH CAV :dada: what took the field and victory with FINNISH OFFICERS and MEN. Sorry i have to intervene.


Feel free to correct the worlds education system by all means, but since Monarchs armies were composed all persons of many diverse nationlities, your nremark will not suffice to show anything new, Prussian armies of Frederick were 35% no Germanic, yet Prussian tactics they practised were prussian tactics.

Alexanders caval;ry Hammer and anvil tactics and Germanys armoured tactics are the same tactic using different technology, each would recognise what was being done, just as modern wars being laregly wars of inflictimng and or creating strtaegic exhustion would be recognised by Athens and Sparta, Rome and carthage, only teh technology has chanhged to create the desired outcome. Try Evoliution of weapons and warfare by Dupoy or ferrills origins of modern warare from the stone age to alexander.

User avatar
havi
Colonel
Posts: 319
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 10:31 am
Location: Lappeenranta

Re: Things I've been wrong about (or learned, or both)

Sat Mar 04, 2017 10:20 pm

hanny1 wrote:
havi wrote:
hanny1 wrote:http://www.history.army.mil/html/books/060/60-14-1/cmhPub_60-14-1.pdf

Here is the US Army explantion of Fire and and manouver and how its modeled on who i said invented the tactical concept. Its not a more modern use, per se, just a change in volume of munitons delivered using the same tactics. The Swedes would have recongised a 20th century use of their tactics and underdstood the intent and aim.



Sorry to intervene, but if u give Gustavus all the glory guess again, They where the FINNISH CAV :dada: what took the field and victory with FINNISH OFFICERS and MEN. Sorry i have to intervene.


Feel free to correct the worlds education system by all means, but since Monarchs armies were composed all persons of many diverse nationlities, your nremark will not suffice to show anything new, Prussian armies of Frederick were 35% no Germanic, yet Prussian tactics they practised were prussian tactics.

Alexanders caval;ry Hammer and anvil tactics and Germanys armoured tactics are the same tactic using different technology, each would recognise what was being done, just as modern wars being laregly wars of inflictimng and or creating strtaegic exhustion would be recognised by Athens and Sparta, Rome and carthage, only teh technology has chanhged to create the desired outcome. Try Evoliution of weapons and warfare by Dupoy or ferrills origins of modern warare from the stone age to alexander.



Yes the leaders take the credits and the followers take the blame. But if u have looked litlle bit under the hood you would notice that sweden military gistory ended at the viking ages (now i mean at land) they left the infatry batles to Finns and Norweigians swedes mainly run away. At the 30 year war the war marshall was fin the soldiers where germans and the glory was sweden. And last thing the tactics where not swedish tactics what Rakuunat used art 30 yeat war they where the tactics what finns used at carelia against kasaks to attacking them at the time and they just continued them at europe. But this is history of litlle country edge of europe nobody in there knows these things nobody cares.

User avatar
havi
Colonel
Posts: 319
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 10:31 am
Location: Lappeenranta

Re: Things I've been wrong about (or learned, or both)

Sat Mar 04, 2017 10:21 pm

hanny1 wrote:
havi wrote:
hanny1 wrote:http://www.history.army.mil/html/books/060/60-14-1/cmhPub_60-14-1.pdf

Here is the US Army explantion of Fire and and manouver and how its modeled on who i said invented the tactical concept. Its not a more modern use, per se, just a change in volume of munitons delivered using the same tactics. The Swedes would have recongised a 20th century use of their tactics and underdstood the intent and aim.



Sorry to intervene, but if u give Gustavus all the glory guess again, They where the FINNISH CAV :dada: what took the field and victory with FINNISH OFFICERS and MEN. Sorry i have to intervene.


Feel free to correct the worlds education system by all means, but since Monarchs armies were composed all persons of many diverse nationlities, your nremark will not suffice to show anything new, Prussian armies of Frederick were 35% no Germanic, yet Prussian tactics they practised were prussian tactics.

Alexanders caval;ry Hammer and anvil tactics and Germanys armoured tactics are the same tactic using different technology, each would recognise what was being done, just as modern wars being laregly wars of inflictimng and or creating strtaegic exhustion would be recognised by Athens and Sparta, Rome and carthage, only teh technology has chanhged to create the desired outcome. Try Evoliution of weapons and warfare by Dupoy or ferrills origins of modern warare from the stone age to alexander.



Yes the leaders take the credits and the followers take the blame. But if u have looked litlle bit under the hood you would notice that sweden military history ended at the viking ages (now i mean at land) they left the infatry batles to Finns and Norweigians swedes mainly run away. At the 30 year war the war marshall was fin the soldiers where germans and the glory was sweden. And last thing the tactics where not swedish tactics what Rakuunat used at 30 yeatrwar they where the tactics what finns used at carelia against kasaks to attacking them at the time and they just continued them at europe. But this is history of litlle country edge of europe nobody in there knows these things nobody cares.

hanny1
Captain
Posts: 158
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2016 11:57 am

Re: Things I've been wrong about (or learned, or both)

Sun Mar 05, 2017 6:56 pm

wheeling in all drill books and caps of instruction, casseys tactics 3 vol of school of instruction, available on;ine,detail the wheel to a regiment a manouver performed in coy sequence from the chosen pivot coy the rest will change front to. 400 men performing it takes 2 mins at doubletime. doing so presents a column formation to the front, if a brigade of regiments performed it in sequence, whhch never once happened in the whole war, the brigades 600 yards frontage plus a 800 yards to each flank would allow enemy shoulder arms a target that was marking time by coys, turning from line to column in respect of target profile, for 10 to 12 mins.hardee manual wa no different, and only used by the cs in its western armies. regiments instead oblique when advancing to a point not directly to te front as there no change of profile and little marking time under fir, its how picket went in, and was flanked by a union regiment wheeling wthout anyone to it front, one of only 2 wheels by regiments in the 3 day engagement by the us, it being a highly difficult manouver and not recomended to be done by anyone not regulars in the manual. its been performed at large exibitions by re enacters and usuallyy goes badly wrong.

hanny1
Captain
Posts: 158
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2016 11:57 am

Re: Things I've been wrong about (or learned, or both)

Sun Mar 05, 2017 7:00 pm

havi wrote:
hanny1 wrote:
havi wrote:

Sorry to intervene, but if u give Gustavus all the glory guess again, They where the FINNISH CAV :dada: what took the field and victory with FINNISH OFFICERS and MEN. Sorry i have to intervene.


Feel free to correct the worlds education system by all means, but since Monarchs armies were composed all persons of many diverse nationlities, your nremark will not suffice to show anything new, Prussian armies of Frederick were 35% no Germanic, yet Prussian tactics they practised were prussian tactics.

Alexanders caval;ry Hammer and anvil tactics and Germanys armoured tactics are the same tactic using different technology, each would recognise what was being done, just as modern wars being laregly wars of inflictimng and or creating strtaegic exhustion would be recognised by Athens and Sparta, Rome and carthage, only teh technology has chanhged to create the desired outcome. Try Evoliution of weapons and warfare by Dupoy or ferrills origins of modern warare from the stone age to alexander.



Yes the leaders take the credits and the followers take the blame. But if u have looked litlle bit under the hood you would notice that sweden military gistory ended at the viking ages (now i mean at land) they left the infatry batles to Finns and Norweigians swedes mainly run away. At the 30 year war the war marshall was fin the soldiers where germans and the glory was sweden. And last thing the tactics where not swedish tactics what Rakuunat used art 30 yeat war they where the tactics what finns used at carelia against kasaks to attacking them at the time and they just continued them at europe. But this is history of litlle country edge of europe nobody in there knows these things nobody cares.
not at all what history tells us about swedsh contribution to the art of war, on or under the hood.

hanny1
Captain
Posts: 158
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2016 11:57 am

Re: Things I've been wrong about (or learned, or both)

Sun Mar 05, 2017 7:05 pm

hanny1 wrote:
havi wrote:
hanny1 wrote:
Feel free to correct the worlds education system by all means, but since Monarchs armies were composed all persons of many diverse nationlities, your nremark will not suffice to show anything new, Prussian armies of Frederick were 35% no Germanic, yet Prussian tactics they practised were prussian tactics.

Alexanders caval;ry Hammer and anvil tactics and Germanys armoured tactics are the same tactic using different technology, each would recognise what was being done, just as modern wars being laregly wars of inflictimng and or creating strtaegic exhustion would be recognised by Athens and Sparta, Rome and carthage, only teh technology has chanhged to create the desired outcome. Try Evoliution of weapons and warfare by Dupoy or ferrills origins of modern warare from the stone age to alexander.



Yes the leaders take the credits and the followers take the blame. But if u have looked litlle bit under the hood you would notice that sweden military gistory ended at the viking ages (now i mean at land) they left the infatry batles to Finns and Norweigians swedes mainly run away. At the 30 year war the war marshall was fin the soldiers where germans and the glory was sweden. And last thing the tactics where not swedish tactics what Rakuunat used art 30 yeat war they where the tactics what finns used at carelia against kasaks to attacking them at the time and they just continued them at europe. But this is history of litlle country edge of europe nobody in there knows these things nobody cares.
not at all what history tells us about swedsh contribution to the art of war, on or under the hood.in combat models, numbers predictions andwar by dupoy for instance, finns in ww2 came out as amongst the most combat effiecent forces of the war.

User avatar
GraniteStater
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1778
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 5:16 am
Location: Annapolis, MD - What?

Re: Things I've been wrong about (or learned, or both)

Tue Mar 14, 2017 5:42 pm

I could've sworn this was a forum about a software game set in the American Civil War.

hanny1
Captain
Posts: 158
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2016 11:57 am

Re: Things I've been wrong about (or learned, or both)

Thu Mar 16, 2017 5:27 pm

GraniteStater wrote:* Yes, indeed the US merchant marine never really recovered from the war.


Except the CSA sank 110,000 tons out of 2.4 million, 800k reflaged to UK and came back post conflict, so the under 5% loss, was not really a gam,e changer, but was an excellent return from 8 CS cruisers.
* Cavalry did not do an especially good job of track busting; as a matter of fact it was poor at it.


Except US cavalry were experts are rail destruction, as detailled in most books on teh subject, since all it requires is heat and time to neck tie the rails arounda tree telegraph pole.

The more and more I read of his decisions and the context thereof, I find it extremely hard to fault him to the least degree in any of them.


L:incoln had no grasp of stratergy, whichj was why he read all he could, having Caesers books amongst others ent over so he could devise how to win, and then interferd till 64, finding he was incompetent and was causing more harm than good, he simply gave up and trusted Grant to get the job done without being told what Grant was upto, only that Grant said give me the resources and i will take Richmond, Grants then told the 6 Comanders who had to know and left Stanton and Lincoln out of the command loop and went about winning the war.

Return to “ACW History Club / Histoire de la Guerre de Sécession”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests