This is a very good series. I bought the entire series on DvD and saw it with my father. It focuses on the purely military tactical side of the civil war and you learn a lot from seeing it.
Absolutely incredible how they would plaster each other with great vollies of fire. The soldiers of that war, as well as WWI must of hand great courage.
Radio was introduced way later. But if we look at late XIX and early XX cent conflicts, susch as Franko-Prussian war, Russo-Turkish war 1877-78, Spanish-American war, etc commanders with no radio managed to controll large mases of troops moving in spread-out skrimish formations.
The rifled musket with the minie ball was certainly a huge improvement over the smoothbore. But firing a 500 gr ball with the army load of 60gr of powder, I doubt it was accurate out to 500 yards. The smoothbore also was limited to 50-75 yards if you were actually aiming at something, further it was just luck
Not a bad video about tactics in the Civil War, although I would have like to have seen more about unit types and battlefield placement. They touched upon most of the important points: improvement in weapons technology over tactics (including command and control problems because of poor communications) and dependence on railroad logistical support. Looks like a good series to check out from the library.
I dont know why some fool thumbs downed this...the Mexican-American war literally saw the early stages of the likes of Jeff Davis, R E Lee, Grant, Johnston(both), Meade, McClellan, etc.
It is my understanding that the Minie rifle could hit somebody in a group of eight artillerymen at 1,000 yards. You couldn't pick you target with any accuracy, but if you had an Enfield or M1855 rifled musket that had sight ladders out that far, you could cause some damage. They made exploding minies that were used at long ranges to hit the ammo caissons and blow up the whole crew. I'd like to see some RUclips accuracy experiments at 500 and 1,000 yards using Minie rifles. I always thought that if they used British WWI long range volley fire tactics, they might have suppressed the Confederates at Fredericksburg or at any other entrenched positions. Maybe enough to keep their heads down until the troops could get in closer. Surely there were some officers who thought of using the Minie's accuracy to do something like that, but I could find no examples. Anyone?
Suppression works mostly through noise. More specifically, the sonic crack of bullet whizzing past one's head. Civil war era rifles loaded with black powder did not have the velocity for it to work. British WWI volley were not sufficient to suppress German defenders in the trench; at least not enough to actually advance and not get killed en massed. Secondly suppression favours the defenders. they are in cover, entrenched position where they could confidently shoot. The attackers are more exposed and the attacking troops are probably more eager to duck. You gotta realise that big wars are quite rare, like once in a generation (30-40 years). Tactics are changed with big wars but small technological advances happens all the time. As a result, the opening days of big wars will see outdated tactics applied to new weapons. In the Civil War case, the prevailing tactics were Napoleonic: men standing shoulders to shoulder firing a couple of shots then making a bayonet charge. The pressure of getting shot at by overwhelming number of muskets (Napoleon said that the attacker need 3x the number of the defender to win), close-range artillery firing grape shots, and threat of being bayonetted by a bigger force generally induced the defender to break ranks and run away; to be cut and chased down by cavalry. The problem with the Civil war was that the range of rifles had increased so far that grape shots were ineffective, stationary, dug in, in cover defenders were vastly more effective than 3x their number of advancing attackers. Bayonet charges were no longer enough. The tactical issues of the Civil War were never really solved until right at the end of WWI when combined arms tactics were born. In the face of withering modern weaponry, the attacker need to bring everything he has to bear on the enemy: artillery, smoke, rifle fire, tanks, to keep their heads down long enough for the poor infantry to close in
If I were to go back in time it would be to this era. Not because of the carnage of the battlefields but to meet great leaders and men who would shape this country's future. Men like Lincolon, Grant, Sherman, and yes even General Lee.
A lot of the Battles during The Civil War, were absolute Suicide missions, due to the impressive power of new firearms. It would've been like a walk into absolute Hellfire.
@DawnOfTheAcopalypse For the record, that was NOT Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson's favorite tactic. Jackson was more fond of diversionary attacks as well as swift mobile marches around the enemy. Hence why his troops were called "Jackson's Foot Cavalry" as they were able to march up to 25 miles a day. It was General Longstreets tactics. Longstreet favored tactics were to take the high ground and force the enemy to attack him and not the other way around. And yes it was Fredricksburg not Vicksburg
Very good. Check out Brent Nosworthy's "Bloody Crucible of Courage" for another detailed analysis of the effects of rifled muskets and cannon on tactics.
It seems to me that tactics have to evolve with whatever war is being fought. Until a tactic is proven to work it is theoretical and the only way to prove it is to test it on the battlefield. At the time they were just using what they knew but they hadn't adjusted the tactics for the new kind of warfare, the same thing happened in WWI with their weapons.
I don't think that the size of the armies alone that prevented decisive battles. During the Napoleonic wars the armies where not so much smaller and quite decisive battles happened. The US armies had until ACW been small and no proper general staff had been developed as in Europe. That led to problems with coordinating the armies when the officers didn't have experience of commanding such large armies and no organisation to handle it either.
I would pause and think before I came to the conclusion that Bragg and McClellan were in any way exceptional generals. Some of the more exceptional generals, especially in the south had no military training at all. (Nathon Bedford Forrest springs to mind) Many of the field officers were actually voted into their position of leadership by the troops they were to lead
@zerker12568901 If that were the case then over 516,000 Union Soliders died. The actual number of deaths was 360,222 Union and 258,000 Confederate. A 100,000 difference, yes, but not nearly as bad as what you said.
@PhilipineMan Rifled muskets ? More accurate than WW2 rifles ? Nothing personnal, but I have great doubt over that fact. If that was true, then why should have we abandonned the musket ? Regards.
By spreading up you also have danger to be overun by cavalry. Unless you that rapid fire ability (bolt action rifles) your men are going to be exterminated
4:38 Disagree again. In WW1 and even WW2 a commander on the field had pretty much the same means of controlling his troops (his own voice bugle and sometimes a whistle).
This is a very good series. I bought the entire series on DvD and saw it with my father. It focuses on the purely military tactical side of the civil war and you learn a lot from seeing it.
This is dope, I love the knowledge gained from this little 7 minute clip, I absolutely dig "The Civil War" History, Thanks for posting this.
Absolutely incredible how they would plaster each other with great vollies of fire. The soldiers of that war, as well as WWI must of hand great courage.
Radio was introduced way later. But if we look at late XIX and early XX cent conflicts, susch as Franko-Prussian war, Russo-Turkish war 1877-78, Spanish-American war, etc commanders with no radio managed to controll large mases of troops moving in spread-out skrimish formations.
The rifled musket with the minie ball was certainly a huge improvement over the smoothbore. But firing a 500 gr ball with the army load of 60gr of powder, I doubt it was accurate out to 500 yards. The smoothbore also was limited to 50-75 yards if you were actually aiming at something, further it was just luck
Not a bad video about tactics in the Civil War, although I would have like to have seen more about unit types and battlefield placement. They touched upon most of the important points: improvement in weapons technology over tactics (including command and control problems because of poor communications) and dependence on railroad logistical support. Looks like a good series to check out from the library.
very interesting video. thanks for the upload sir
Yes, you can find more info on imdb, the name of the documentary series is Civil War Battles.
Thanks!
Still love this vid. Is there more of this you could possibly post?
-The Future
I dont know why some fool thumbs downed this...the Mexican-American war literally saw the early stages of the likes of Jeff Davis, R E Lee, Grant, Johnston(both), Meade, McClellan, etc.
Nice video.
very interesting
OMG thiS viDEo WaS sO MucH HeLP 2 mE on THis TEST i ToOk!!!!!
THANKS SO MUCH!!!!
ILL SUBSCRIBE 4 EVER.
WE KAN B BESTIES!!!!!!!
The U.S. military is always fighting the last war and the soldiers suffer for it.
It is my understanding that the Minie rifle could hit somebody in a group of eight artillerymen at 1,000 yards. You couldn't pick you target with any accuracy, but if you had an Enfield or M1855 rifled musket that had sight ladders out that far, you could cause some damage. They made exploding minies that were used at long ranges to hit the ammo caissons and blow up the whole crew.
I'd like to see some RUclips accuracy experiments at 500 and 1,000 yards using Minie rifles. I always thought that if they used British WWI long range volley fire tactics, they might have suppressed the Confederates at Fredericksburg or at any other entrenched positions. Maybe enough to keep their heads down until the troops could get in closer. Surely there were some officers who thought of using the Minie's accuracy to do something like that, but I could find no examples. Anyone?
Suppression works mostly through noise. More specifically, the sonic crack of bullet whizzing past one's head. Civil war era rifles loaded with black powder did not have the velocity for it to work. British WWI volley were not sufficient to suppress German defenders in the trench; at least not enough to actually advance and not get killed en massed.
Secondly suppression favours the defenders. they are in cover, entrenched position where they could confidently shoot. The attackers are more exposed and the attacking troops are probably more eager to duck.
You gotta realise that big wars are quite rare, like once in a generation (30-40 years). Tactics are changed with big wars but small technological advances happens all the time. As a result, the opening days of big wars will see outdated tactics applied to new weapons. In the Civil War case, the prevailing tactics were Napoleonic: men standing shoulders to shoulder firing a couple of shots then making a bayonet charge. The pressure of getting shot at by overwhelming number of muskets (Napoleon said that the attacker need 3x the number of the defender to win), close-range artillery firing grape shots, and threat of being bayonetted by a bigger force generally induced the defender to break ranks and run away; to be cut and chased down by cavalry. The problem with the Civil war was that the range of rifles had increased so far that grape shots were ineffective, stationary, dug in, in cover defenders were vastly more effective than 3x their number of advancing attackers. Bayonet charges were no longer enough.
The tactical issues of the Civil War were never really solved until right at the end of WWI when combined arms tactics were born. In the face of withering modern weaponry, the attacker need to bring everything he has to bear on the enemy: artillery, smoke, rifle fire, tanks, to keep their heads down long enough for the poor infantry to close in
If I were to go back in time it would be to this era. Not because of the carnage of the battlefields but to meet great leaders and men who would shape this country's future. Men like Lincolon, Grant, Sherman, and yes even General Lee.
A lot of the Battles during The Civil War, were absolute Suicide missions, due to the impressive power of new firearms. It would've been like a walk into absolute Hellfire.
@DawnOfTheAcopalypse For the record, that was NOT Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson's favorite tactic. Jackson was more fond of diversionary attacks as well as swift mobile marches around the enemy. Hence why his troops were called "Jackson's Foot Cavalry" as they were able to march up to 25 miles a day. It was General Longstreets tactics. Longstreet favored tactics were to take the high ground and force the enemy to attack him and not the other way around. And yes it was Fredricksburg not Vicksburg
Very good. Check out Brent Nosworthy's "Bloody Crucible of Courage" for another detailed analysis of the effects of rifled muskets and cannon on tactics.
No, Thank you, you have the rest of this documentary?
Can somebody tell me where/how they made these reanactments that they show here?
look at the man lying at the ground pretending to be dead at 5:58. he bobs up his head. lol =))
It seems to me that tactics have to evolve with whatever war is being fought. Until a tactic is proven to work it is theoretical and the only way to prove it is to test it on the battlefield. At the time they were just using what they knew but they hadn't adjusted the tactics for the new kind of warfare, the same thing happened in WWI with their weapons.
1:09 - I would disagree. Riffled Parrot did make a difference.
Now use hardy rules and fight by squads
I don't think that the size of the armies alone that prevented decisive battles. During the Napoleonic wars the armies where not so much smaller and quite decisive battles happened. The US armies had until ACW been small and no proper general staff had been developed as in Europe. That led to problems with coordinating the armies when the officers didn't have experience of commanding such large armies and no organisation to handle it either.
i want some docu bout the mexican war
great vid mr.z, 5-5 stars
I would pause and think before I came to the conclusion that Bragg and McClellan were in any way exceptional generals. Some of the more exceptional generals, especially in the south had no military training at all. (Nathon Bedford Forrest springs to mind) Many of the field officers were actually voted into their position of leadership by the troops they were to lead
4:45 Could you imagine in real life, watching that come toward you?
exactly what I always say, the psychological effect is so much worth more than most people realize
Change the tactics to what?
@zerker12568901 If that were the case then over 516,000 Union Soliders died. The actual number of deaths was 360,222 Union and 258,000 Confederate. A 100,000 difference, yes, but not nearly as bad as what you said.
Fredericksburg, not Vicksburg.
was this made in 1987?
The prussians 5 years later certainly did.
@PhilipineMan
Rifled muskets ? More accurate than WW2 rifles ?
Nothing personnal, but I have great doubt over that fact. If that was true, then why should have we abandonned the musket ?
Regards.
By spreading up you also have danger to be overun by cavalry. Unless you that rapid fire ability (bolt action rifles) your men are going to be exterminated
4:38 Disagree again. In WW1 and even WW2 a commander on the field had pretty much the same means of controlling his troops (his own voice bugle and sometimes a whistle).
Well yeah but the tactics for war after this was the trenches and the soldiers in WW1 would have proffered these tactics to those.
lol andrew