Battle formations in American Civil War 1860s discussion

[SIgmaBETA 93]

So i kinda hear jokes on how stupid this type of battle formation is.

In modern definition it is, but back then this was the only way probably to win, for several reasons

1: Phone wasnt invented til 1870s. So you had no way outside letters to contact your side

2: Rifles were of really poor quality so you had to reload and hope it landed a shot on the other guy

Mainly looked up the movie "Glory" from 1989 which i heard is a good civil war movie. But tell me what you think?

 

But by the time WW1 happend, the guns became better so the outdated war tactics was abolished. Hide and cover, the logical way to win basically.

[Stone Cold Steve Jobs 22,410]

Battle formations then vs. now are entirely different animals. A lot of people do think those formations are stupid by today's standpoint, and they would be. But I imagine if you suggested our current strategies and formations to them, they'd look at you the same way.

 

[SharpWit 2,472]

I forget if I read this somewhere or heard it in one of my classes, despite Guerilla tactics being very affective throughout the 17-19th centuries, but were looked down upon for being copied from the "native savages".

Marching in big lines doesn't matter so much when so few of the shots land, but I'd argue that most of those formations were obsolete by the time of the Civil War, and should've been dropped completely when repeating firearms first became common. That still leaves about half a century of foolery.

[Fluttershutter 2,118]

Um...I'll need some diagrams.

[Jeric 46,834]

On 2023-03-15 at 10:37 AM, SIgmaBETA said:

1: Phone wasnt invented til 1870s. So you had no way outside letters to contact your side

True, but the means for fast communication existed in the form of the telegraph. Lincoln was known to stand by the telegraph station for close to real-time reports at some key battles. At least the North did. Lee and others often relied on Calvary. 
 

On 2023-03-15 at 10:37 AM, SIgmaBETA said:

2: Rifles were of really poor quality so you had to reload and hope it landed a shot on the other guy

Not the Model 1861. The 1855 that used tape was known as unreliable, but Springfields 1861 model was insanely sophisticated for its time. The rifled shot increased accuracy and range easily allowing a deadly kill. They were so accurate and deadly that they ultimately made formations a bloodbath. They didn’t just pass through you, they obliterated everything around any bony surface they met. 
 

On 2023-03-15 at 10:37 AM, SIgmaBETA said:

Mainly looked up the movie "Glory" from 1989 which i heard is a good civil war movie. But tell me what you think?

Good movie, but plays fast and loose with history for dramatic effect. Especially the battle scenes. Too clean. Way too clean. One day they will make a Civil War film that accurately depicts the horrors of the Wilderness, Fredericksburg, Pickett’s Charge, and Cold Harbor. Read the letters from soldiers to non-family where they can be honest and not give false hope. 
 

2 hours ago, SharpWit said:

Marching in big lines doesn't matter so much when so few of the shots land, but I'd argue that most of those formations were obsolete by the time of the Civil War, and should've been dropped completely when repeating firearms first became common. That still leaves about half a century of foolery.

This was the case at the beginning of the war, and during Grant’s campaign against the Army of N. VA. In many cases battles were lost and won based more on careful positioning of Brigades on well scouted topography. Most of the bloodshed in the early war was due to hubris. And some engagements were won more easily with less bloodshed by almost elementary textbook maneuvers like Chamberlain’s modifications of the diversion to recover casualties on Little Round Top. Fixed bayonet, sloped right wheel charge is basic. 
 

For Grant, the bloodshed wasn’t due to poor tactics and tactics that were outpaced by artillery and munitions evolutions, but due to his strategy at just throwing bodies at the enemy in numbers that never seemed to end and following Lee relentlessly. He knew he had more soldiers in the wings than Lee, so it was a matter of time. To Lee, the old formations fit within his strategic plan because the accuracy of the rifles at 500 yards was deadly the opposing lines and charges. He could replace casualties (dead and injured) but Lee couldn’t… especially with Sherman keeping other Armies busy. 
 

Basically, there was more to the battles than lining up divisions and sending them forward by companies within regiments.

Now, the one great advancement in battlefield tactics was from the USC’s effective use of Calvary forces, and even some more timely use of Artillery. Some of the battles would have looked similar to Normandy in WW2. 

 
A Very Bloody Affair indeed.