Abstract
In recent times the debate over which type of individual weapon would be most effective during the civil war has ensued. Many believe that the rifled bore was the most effective of the weapons; still others believe that smooth bore muskets proved to be as effective. This paper compares the different types of weapons and the effect each system had during the formations that ensued prior to the final assault. The offensive formation during the later part of the civil war transitioned based up the introduction of the rifled bore and is the focus of examination while simultaneously comparing the different weapons. Lastly, during this time of technology and tactic transition the NCO corps was also adapting to meet the challenge by breaking tradition with from its traditional European roots.
Individual Weapon Technology and Tactical Formation Adaptations during the Civil War
During the Civil War, which lasted from 1861 to 1865, the technologies and tactics that were based on the traditional European battles and training were still in use. With the evolution of the some key technologies, an individual’s weapon, it forced a need to also evolve the offensive tactics and training that were used in battle.
The introduction and use of the use of rifled bored vs. the smooth bore weapons necessitated the change in large offensive formations. The transition was hard pressed as the traditional style was fully ingrained in the Soldiers and had historical data that supported its use. Meanwhile, technological advances in weapons moved swiftly and were a cause for concern with the mounting deaths.
As the individual’s weapon technology transitioned to rifled bores, few leaders took the initiative to be innovative and adapt fro...
... middle of paper ...
...at the men behind him would trample him and aggravate the wound. Men could also be tripped up if they were too close to their fallen comrade, resulting in more men falling and thus breaking up the cohesion of the unit, reducing the strength of the attack and weakening the moral of the men.”
VI. Conclusion
Works Cited
Fisher, Ernest F. Jr. (n.d.). Small Arms. Retrieved from http://www.history.army.mil/staffride/1st%20bull%20run/Small.htm
Orr, Timothy (2009). Infantry Soldiers. Retrieved from http://www.pacivilwar150.com/war/infantry.aspx
Griffith, Paddy. Battle Tactics of the Civil. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989
Stanage, Justin (n.d.). The Rifle-Musket vs. The Smoothbore Musket, a Comparison of the Effectiveness of the Two Types of Weapons Primarily at Short Ranges.. Retrieved from
http://www.iusb.edu/~journal/static/volumes/2000/stanage.html
The famous Battle of Gettysburg was fought July 1 to July 3 of 1863 in and around the town of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. The battle proved to show the most casualties of the entire war and resulted in a crushing defeat of the Confederates. The Battle of Gettysburg is generally considered to be the turning point of the American Civil War. This paper will demonstrate the various reasons as to why the Confederates, led by General Robert E. Lee, were unsuccessful in the Battle of Gettysburg during their invasion of the north. General Lee’s over-confidence, the confederate army’s disorganization and failed coordination, and the shift of intelligence all contributed to the crushing defeat of the confederates at Gettysburg. Following his “flawless” battle at Chancellorsville, General Lee was instilled with absolute confidence in his men and failed to see any deficiencies in his army’s offensive capabilities. Lee was not only over-confident, but also knew less than his opponent during the most crucial stages of the battle. The final contributing factor as to why the confederates were defeated was Alexander’s failure to provide effective artillery bombardment and his failure to advise General Pickett not to make the charge after the ineffective bombardment.
Heidler, David Stephen, and Jeanne T. Heidler, eds. Encyclopedia of the American Civil War: a
Throughout the American Civil War, the north proved victorious and superior to the south. The Union had the power and wealth, and, “he who has the money has the power” proved so as the north defeated the south and embraced the trophy of power. There were many key factors in this accomplishment, the factories, the money, the resources, the commanders, the manpower, the skill and determination, but most importantly, the weapons.
When examining the role the homefront and the battlefront played during the Civil War, historians often make a glaring error by regarding the homefront and battlefront as independent entities. However, most battles took place on Southern soil, blurring the line between the Confederate homefront and the battlefield. To understand a war that split the country over regional differences, examining the impact the homefront had on the battlefront and exploring the ways these two environments overlapped and impacted each other is essential. Despite the Confederacy’s inferior resources, in the first years of the war, victory was possible. Yet, as the distinction between the homefront and battlefront blurred, the Confederacy’s ability to supply the military the resources required to sustain a war effort deteriorated. The Confederacy lost the war because its success was dependent on a limited resource supply that the homefront could not maintain on soils ravaged by the battles Northern armies brought to its home.
Allen, Thomas B., and Roger MacBride Allen. Mr. Lincoln's High-tech War: How the North Used the Telegraph, Railroads, Surveillance Balloons, Ironclads, High-powered Weapons, and More to Win the Civil War. Washington, D.C.: National Geographic, 2009. Print.
The American Civil War was one of the deadliest wars in American history, resulting in 620,000 casualties of soldiers and undetermined number of civilian casualties. Southern slave states declared their withdrawal from United States and formed the Confederate States of America; also know as “The Confederacy.” Northern twenty states free of slavery and five slave states in north came to knows as the Union. Many strategy and tactics were used during the American Civil War. In order to understand the military strategy and tactics of Union and the Confederacy, one must understand the manpower each side had, previous war experience of the commanding officers on both side, and using rivers and railroad to their advantages.
Melton, Jack W. and Lawrence E. Pawl. “Basic Facts Concerning Artillery.” Civil War Artillery. 2009. 17 January 2010. .
John K. Mahon, “Civil War Infantry Tactics”, Military Affairs, Volume 25, Issue 2 (Summer, 1961): 57-68.Accessed from: http://links.jstor.org/sici=0026-3931(196122)25:2<57:CWIAT>2.0.CO;2-9 on 04/22/02.
When examining the role the home front and battlefront played during the Civil War, historians often make a glaring error by regarding the home front and battlefront as independent entities. However, most conflicts took place on Southern soil, blurring the line between the Confederate home front and the battlefield. To understand a war that split the country over regional differences, it is essential to examine the impact the home front had on the battlefront and explore the ways these two environments overlapped and impacted each other. Despite the Confederacy’s inferior resources, in the first years of the war, victory was possible. However, as the distinction between the home front and battlefront blurred, the Confederacy’s ability
Was the Civil War the first modern war or the last Napoleonic War? This question has plagued historians for years. Joseph Dawson, author of the article “The First of the Modern Wars?” argues that the Civil War was the first Modern War. His view is the commonly accepted one. Alternatively, in his book Battle Tactics of the Civil War, Paddy Griffith compares the tactics used in the Civil War to those used during Napoleon’s time. He counters the common belief and argues that even though the Civil War had new weapons and techniques, it was still a Napoleonic war. He draws the conclusion that even though Civil War soldiers used weapons that were more advanced; they were still using Napoleonic tactics. By examining the rifles used during the Civil War, the way Commanders chose to control their mass armies and the drill books the soldiers trained from, it is evident that the Civil War was indeed the last Napoleonic War.
Schultz, S. (1999) American History 102: Civil War to the Present. Retrieved April 10, 2005 from http://us.history.wisc.edu/hist102/lectures/lecture25.html.
During the American Civil War, which lasted from 1861-1865, over 620,000 accounted soldiers were killed. Known as the "the first modern war", historians generally agree that the reason for this was because this was a time of transition for the military. Armies and Navies were still using tactics where they would gather large forces of firepower to bear on the enemy. At the same time, weapons were being developed which were accurate and lethal well beyond any arms of the earlier conflicts. As a result of these two conditions many more casualties were sustained. Add to that the lack of medical knowledge of disease and infection and the numbers truly began to grow. This paper is an overview of the types of weaponry that was used during this time.
Warfare was in a state of transition. Older commanders and generals in the French and British militaries were very cavalry and infantry focused. These commanders believed that cavalry, infantry, and artillery would assure victory in any circumstance, against any foe. They clung to the static tactics of the bygone World War I era. World War I had been fought primarily on French soil, and the military as well as the government never wanted that to happen again, therefore they wanted to reinforce their main border against any future German. Little did they know that only twenty two years later they would be bested by German forces in a way that would shock the world. This research will be analyzing many important assumptions, oversights,...
These kinds of weapons were impractical for military use, but attracted many people to the arms race for weapons that could sweep the battlefield. “They had limitations in practice, among them slow re...
The invention and innovation of small firearms spans throughout the world and throughout multiple centuries. The main inventions during the early phases of small arms development quickly gave way to the next innovation, although they were slow to be adapted to military use due to the cost of their production. As time went on these innovations became more and more stagnant to the point of there being no major innovations in the field for close to two hundred years. However, after this stagnant period, there began another period of advanced innovation in the area of small arms technology. The goal of this essay is to understand and dissect the innovations that occurred during these two periods of advanced innovation and the cultural and historical factors that lead to them.