1864.. you be the tactician

Status
Not open for further replies.
That's correct. The Whitworth rifle was the favorite Confederate sniper rifle. Instead of rifling grooves, it had an octagonal bore. Original Whitworth bullets were octagonal, with the rifling twist cast into the bullet. Later experience showed that an ordinary cylinderical bullet would upset and conform to the rifling nicely.
 
Concerning the death of "Papa" Sedgwick at Spotsylvania Court House, we actually do not know who shot him.:confused:

One claimant is Whitworth armed Ben Powell who almost immediately after shooting an officer from a horse at long range, reported it to McGowan 's Sharpshooter Battalion commander Capt. W. Dunlop. Berry Benson mentions it in his memoirs. However, Whitworth sharpshooter Charles Grace (4th Georgia) also claimed to have shot an officer from his horse in the vicinity of Sedgwick.

Their claims may be dismissed as Union eyewitnesses to Papa John Sedgwick's death report that he was on foot and not mounted as claimed by either Powell or Grace. He had dismounted earlier and was teasing a sergeant about ducking ("Why, they couldn't hit an elephant at this....").

Several sharpshooters (non-Whitworth armed) also fired at officers and men in the area of Sedgwick. On top of that, even regular infantrymen also claim to have fired and shot an officer on foot. In reality, we don't know who killed Sedgwick.

BTW, the Whitworth was perhaps the most prized of all sharpshooter rifles. It weighed a little more than a regular infantry musket yet its bolt carried out to 1800 yards (not with certainty of hitting your mark though). If you would like to see one, the Tennessee State Museum has one as does the Atlanta Historical Society also has one on display and the Southern Railroad and Civil War Museum (Kennesaw - where you must own a gun :) ) has two on display (one with scope, one without - and a third not on display). I believe the Fuller Collection at Chickamauga has one too.
 
I'd take 2 or 3 very tight highly trained units (seals, rangers, etc.) from today against entire regiments of that day.
Click to expand...

And without modern communications and weaponry you'd be slaughtered in a matter of minutes. As others have said, or at least come close to saying, communications and logistics have an enormous impact on the success of one tactic vs. another. The single greatest advantage our folks have on the battlefield now is communications. A bugle is no match for a good radio. Had the troops been in posession of modern rifles, the only fundamental change in tactics would likely have been the infantry engagement distances. Give them modern comm, and you'd see a drastic change in tactics.
 
Quote:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Concerning the death of "Papa" Sedgwick at Spotsylvania Court House, we actually do not know who shot him
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
We don't know WHO shot him, but he was shot -- and the wound was said to be not incosistent with a Whitworth -- that is, a smaller than usual caliber.
 
Getting back to the original question

Another question is psychology. In warfare, less than 10% of the line infantry are actual trigger pulling killers. Most others are either aiming high or not shooting, despite their training and the exhortations of their officers and NCO's. Most people (ca. 98%) have an aversion, a psychological taboo, about killing their fellow man. Around 2% of the population, though, are either by nature or nurture (different thread subject) psychopaths and have no moral compunction against killing. Note: Psychopaths are not to be confused with Pschotics.

If a unit of 100 men are firing, but only ten are actually taking aim in an attempt at inflicting death or mayhem, you can see why such warfare continued to exist well into the early 20th century. If you add in the fact that of the ten who are actually trying to kill someone sometimes miss, let's say half the time, you can see why such attacks were still carried out.

However, crew served weapons such as cannon (and later machine guns) allow the soldiers to indulge in a pschological disconnect between their actions and results. For example, a loader for cannon can trick himself into saying "All I'm doing is loading the cannon", while the the person with the sextant sigthing in can say "All I do is aim the cannon" and the persop with lanyard say "I just pull the cord". Each of the crew members splits the guilt of the killing taboo, but nonetheless still function at a high level while blowing the hell out of their fellow man.

Later in the war, one notices that dug in positions, with artillery pieces in the trench works, make frontal attacks very expensive. Look at Cold Harbor and other battle later in the war between Grant and Lee. Reading of Grant's handiwork, one would think we would have served quite well in the Soviet Red Army of WWII.

Also, I think Guerrilla war would have been unsuccessful in the long term for the South. Sherman was prepared to apply his scorched earth policy to the entire south if need be and there were many radical Republicans who favored expelling or dispossessing "rebels" and replacing them with "loyal" colonists from the North. Try to imagine millions of homeless southerners, forced to walk on their own "Trail of Tear" out west or to Mexico and you can see why Guerrilla war would have too costly for either side.

Besides, in 1864, many southerners were weary of the war in general and lacked confidence in the abilities of its armed forces given the nature of facing the well-supplied, well-manned Union army. The war which the Southerners were promised was neither short nor favorable in its outcome to the South, as they were led to believe.

Internationally, Britian and France would have turned their backs to any countrymen of Quantrill, et. al, once they had learned of the nature of their raiding practices. To the English, they would have seemed no better than the primitive peoples they were facing in their own colonies. Not to mention, they just wanted the cotton.
 
Another question is psychology. In warfare, less than 10% of the line infantry are actual trigger pulling killers. Most others are either aiming high or not shooting, despite their training and the exhortations of their officers and NCO's. Most people (ca. 98%) have an aversion, a psychological taboo, about killing their fellow man. Around 2% of the population, though, are either by nature or nurture (different thread subject) psychopaths and have no moral compunction against killing. Note: Psychopaths are not to be confused with Pschotics.
Click to expand...

:confused:

You don't really believe all of that do you?
 
Why not?

Most people have to be conditioned to kill. Expecting some farmer boy from Iowa or Georgia to pick up a musket and start killing his fellow man by dressing him in a uniform, drilling him and pointing him in the right direction is what's hard to believe.

Grossman's "On Killing" has some very reasonable arguments. Also, Joanna Bourke's " An intimate history of killing : face-to-face killing in twentieth-century warfare" is very interesting.

In a one-on-one, him-or-me situation, lot's of people are forced to kill. But as a face in crowd, where individual control by one's NCOs and peer pressure are not as acute, I'm sure lot's of people got away with firing high or just not firing.

There is a hypothetical exception, though. That same individual might feel that his actions would go unnoticed and thereby allow him to spread the guilt of his deeds with his peers, allowing him to take aim and fire. If he thinks he's just a cog in the machine, he might just as well "enabled" (powerword of the day) to go ahead and kill someone fifty paces away. If they guy is thinking "My musket ball is just one more musket ball and probably didn't do anything", he could fire away all day.

Of course, I think command and control are the overriding reason why they had to bunch up in such tight formations, but other factors certainly played their part. I'm open to any suggestions as to why this aspect psychology wouldn't play a part in it.

Keep in mind, when I read some of the histories of the battles in Foote's "Civil War" and other accounts, you wonder why some formations yielded ground so quickly. If they were to a man all firing to kill in earnest, why weren't more attackers brought down? Some of the firearms used were exceptionally accurate for their day. And many of these men were from rural areas where firearms were part of every day life. If said farm boy could hit a squirrel, then why not a man?

the amazing thing about the Civil War is that more people weren't killed outright.
 
I think any aversion to killing will be overcome by one's aversion to dying. Either way, I don't think anyone can bring forth any evidence to prove your theory. The theory is indeed more plausible when applied to the tactics of mass formations used during the civil war, but i would suggest to you that while that may very well have been the case during the initial moments of combat, once the soldiers saw their friends killed or maimed the gloves came off and every able bodied man who wasn't hunkering down in fear was shooting to hit.
 
And yet

I did say that in face-to-face, him-or-me context, many people do kill.

But it's not limited to the Civil War. Look at SLAM Marshall's studies of combat in WWII. He did detailed studies of units in combat and esimated that 80-90% of combatants were NOT trigger pullers. They weren't cowards either. Some did other things like treat wounded, run messages or passed ammo to the trigger-pullers, but it was the trigger-pullers who were doing the damage i.e. killing.

It was largely based on his and similar studies that the US Army, USMC changed how they trained people to shoot. Rifle training in WWI and WWII consisted of large, circular targets that would be scored. After WWII, the Army started to take advantage of B.F Skinner's work on psychological conditioning. You know, the experiment where the rat presses the lever, then he gets a good pellet to drop out and therefore the rat learns that he can press on the food lever to be rewarded with a pellet.

During Vietnam, the Army's rifle training was to have soldiers aim at man-shaped targets, which when hit, would drop. Anyone who is familiar with basic these days can relate similar experiences. You see the target pop up, you aim, shoot and the target drops. Your brain is rewarded from the stimulation. This is a lethal version of the lever-food pellet experiment with soldiers as the rat.

Read David Grossman's "On Killing" for a more thorough explanation.

ON KILLING

Of course, it made soldiers in Vietnam more willing to shoot at targets, but it didn't reduce the guilt or regret for killing that these soldiers felt. The Army's dumble whammy, we'll make you a killer, but you'll still feel bad. It's suggested that this is the reason for more PTSD by Viet vets. But that is another topic.
 
The Japanese of WW II were excellent in removing any human "feeling" with regards to killing another human. It started with de-humanization with the officers brutalizing the NCOs and the NCOs the men. The men of course took it out on the enemy. It was not unusual for Japanese soldiers to bayonet bound soldiers. The enemy is made to be thought of less than human and therefore becomes easier to kill.

But, returning to 1864, this type of training was not taught on either side and it was not uncommon for men to shooot above the heads of their enemy. Then again, when combat hardened, they aimed to kill. Antietam (Bloody Lane), Malvern Hill, Fredericksburg (both the bridge & Mayre's Heights), Shiloh, Devil's Den & Little Round Top. The casualties were heavy enough on both sides in those pre-'64 battles.

If we stick to the '64 battles, the Wilderness, Spotsylvania Court House, Cold Harbor, Petersburg, the Crater battle all attest to men willing to kill their fellow. Of course, by then many had fought for years and the unwilling was culled out/killed off/ran away.
 
Whitworth made cannons and rifles. So both are right.

As far as tactics, without training, it wouldn't do any good. I agree with others who have made the observation that without the proper training, the soldiers could not have performed as ordered.

Communication was a major fault. Now if the telephones we available on the battlefield (let alone radios) then tactics would have been better able to adapt. That is why so many generals could do a decent job of the troops they could see, but couldn't manage troops out of the line of sight.
 
Quote:
---------------------------------------------------------
Whitworth made cannons and rifles. So both are right.
---------------------------------------------------------

The issue was the shooting of Union General Sedgewick -- which was done with a rifle. The claim was that the Whitworth was a cannon. :cool:

Quote:
-----------------------------------------------------------
As far as tactics, without training, it wouldn't do any good.
-----------------------------------------------------------

Absolutely correct -- and training at the individual level wasn't enough -- the officers typically had little formal training. Most didn't even understand the role training plays -- there is the case of a Union officer, who was taking casualties from snipers asking to be sent "telescope rifles" -- apparently under the impression that ANYBODY could be a sniper if he just had a "telescope rifle."

Quote:
---------------------------------------------------------------
Communication was a major fault. Now if the telephones we available on the battlefield (let alone radios) then tactics would have been better able to adapt.
----------------------------------------------------------------

Communications are THE key to effective "breechloader tactics." Without communications, the supposed advantages of breechloaders would never be expressed on the battlefield.
 
True, the Japanese were good at killing, but that too was psychological conditioning.

Also, in the later war years(Civil war), I've noticed that a lot of those battles involved far more use of entrenched positions, with accounts of artillery being placed along side riflemen, firing grape and canister, rather than engaging in artillery duels. As an aside, I wonder if there were more artillery pieces being used than early on in the conflict?

Lee also had a knack for anticipating Grant's moves, thus allowing him to arrive in position first and entrench with field pieces placed in the trenches.

Still, my point wasn't that a Civil War soldier couldn't kill, but that if there was a way for them to avoiding killing, they would do so. As casualities mount in an individual unit, it would be harder for them to shirk their duties, they would come under greater scrutiny by there peers and commanders, and would realize they would have to kill or be killed.

But with the lethality of rifles and artillery of the period, it is a wonder why such large formations of men were not cut down faster and from greater distances.
 
I heard Dave Grossman speak and bought 2 of his books. His book On Killing was one that I had great difficulty putting down. It explained a lot about soldiers in combat.

Talking about soldiers who couldn't kill, on Nov. 7, 1861 at the Battle of Belmont, Grant rode to within 50 yards of a Confederate column. General Polk saw him (as a Yankee officer) and said to his men, "There is a Yankee; you may try our marksmanship on him if you wish." Grant turned his horse around and rode away unmolested. If it was '64 or '65, he'd be eulogized. Your point Echtermetzer is well taken. However, there is generally a segment of the population that could and would kill. Grossman did point out that a (small) percentage did the actual fighting and if that percentage is present, there's going to be some hurting going on.
 
Bold
I dont think a modern day unit like Seals or Rangers would be slaughtered. As a former Airborne Ranger (2nd Bat. 88-91) commo would be the least of my worries. But its like comparing apples to oranges. The weapons and tactics are just tooo diffrent, my father and I have had this discussion many times over. But You could take 1 platoon of Rangers and probably decimate a whole army from the civil war, if both sides fought as trained. The Rangers using ambushes and such could hit with such massive fire power the soldiers of that time would be horrified. Eaven in a defensive position id still take the Rangers. The only limitation on the Rangers would be ammo supply. If u only have enought bullets to kill 5thousand then the other 5 are gonna eventually get to u. Think about it a platoon of Army Ranger (during my time dont know the break down today) had 3 M60mg (these alone would decimate a massed frontal attack) each squad had 2 m249 saws (thats 6 saws for the platoon) and 2 m203 per squad then the rest would be carrying m16a2 or cars (16in barrel m16) usally carried by rto or pl. Im sorry just that much fire power on line i dont think the civil war army would have a chance. They could inflict so much devistation on the attacking army it would break and mostlikley run (not sayin they are cowards) cause they werent but the shere mass of fire would be too devistating. Then If you say had a company or Army Rangers you would have all that fire power 3 times over with the addition of 3 60mm mortars and 3 90mm anti-tank weapons, no they didnt have tanks back then but the recoiles rifle has the capability of firing a flechet round which id devistating against massed troops. So eaven without modern Commo. the modern Ranger Company or Platoon would be devistating on the civil war battle field, and the only real limiting factor would be supply of ammo thats just my 2 cents worth.
 
And without modern communications and weaponry you'd be slaughtered in a matter of minutes.
Click to expand...


airborneranger,

Please note that I didn't just take away comm. The point I'm making is that tactics alone wouldn't necessarily alter things that much. More than likely, a modern infantry platoon who just got handed bugles and muzzleloaders, would soon get something else handed to them.
:D

Granted, if they took weapons things would change significantly but without comm I still say they lose in the end.
 
fix guess my reading is like my hearing selective or so my wife says anyways didnt see the part of takin away weaponry. I think tactics would play a part but the weaponry of that time would also hamper modern tacticsin my opinion its very hard to fire and load a muzzle loader in the prone position. That would be a intersting situation though using modern tactics on the civil war battlefield without the modern weapons Dont get me wrong commo. is a very inportant asset, but in small units IE squad and platoon and in some cases compay sized elements modern commo or the lack of it can and has been over come. But the reason for it being over come is dully part to training and tactics. Im not downplaying commo. it is very important but like I said in my post if comparing modern day Rangers (and weapons) to a civil war unit (battalion or div.) its still comparing apples to oranges. But in the scenarion I presented modern tactics and weapons (small arms) would devistate the civil war battlefield eaven without modern commo. But me personally I would not have wanted to stand toe to toe and let some guy shoot at me eaven with a sling shot much less a muzzle loader.
 
Footnote on reloading: The infantry manuals of the time (Hardee & Casey) had instructions for loading while laying down. I believe both recommend rolling to one side to load. In reality, the soldiers rolled onto their backs (supine) and reloaded that way. Flatter, smaller target than being on one's side.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top