Just how stupid and idiotic was civil war combat?
you have lines of soldiers standing fully erect shoulder to shoulder facing the enemy soldiers who are doing the same exact thing, mowing each other down until one side ran out of soldiers and they retreated and did the same thing the next day????
How fucking stupid could you be? couldn't you space out your soldiers a yard apart from each other so the enemies' shots would only have a 50% chance of hitting one of your guys?
It was literally like men marching in formation into a giant wood chipper.
Why were they so stupid?
>>320868
Your prose are "stupid and idiotic".
It wasn't stupid, massed volley fire was the best way to ensure that you would hit your targets
war used to be alot more glorified and honorable
alot of times they made it a point to just get it over with by shooting straight up instead of a battle taking months running around with muskets that shoot one bullet per minute
also soldiers were willing to do it because dying in war was almost like a spiritual blessing
>>320868
HURR DURR I AM SMARTER THAN A GENERAL
people do shit because its practical and makes sense for the time period
>>321082
To be fair, sometimes they are just behind the times. The French were completely unprepared for modern war at the outset of WW1.
>>321010
This, contemporary firearms were damn inaccurate
One place where the Civil War had based combat was ironclad steamships
>>320868
well medieval arches would do the same thing, all lined up in a big mass. Whats more stupid is early ww1 strategy.
>>320868
>How fucking stupid could you be? couldn't you space out your soldiers a yard apart from each other so the enemies' shots would only have a 50% chance of hitting one of your guys?
There goes your weight of fire.
>>320868
I think Americans should be banned from this board
There's also the issue of command and control. Small unit tactics that now characterize modern infantry combat did not yet exist, and command and control was still as crude as it was during the Napoleonic Wars.
>>321095
War tacitics are almost always one step behind innovation.
Later in the civil war, trench warfare became a thing in Petersburg.
OP, think about these things, and then re-think what you just said:
>The actual logical implications of co-ordinating hundreds, even thousands of soldiers and getting them to work towards a common goal efficiently
>New and un-proven technology such as the minie-ball completely changing the implications of warfare
>Concentration of force. An age old military doctrine that always defined warfare
>>321255
Except no. Germany among other countries understood the potential of machine guns using both their recent wars and the recent wars of other countries. France's military was simply run by incompetent leaders who couldn't change with the times.
Command and control is a big part of it. So is the fact that the peace-time army of the US was something like 15,000 people.
>>320868
Uh...no. The Civil War was not fought this way. Look at Gettysburg, Shiloh, Missionary Ridge, Chickamaugua, Antietam, and so on, and you'll see that it didn't work this way. Usually it was a matter of one side attacking the other (though the defending side was in an entrenched position) and hoping to make some kind of breakthrough. Of course, there were some incredibly stupid generals, such as Burnside, who charged Longstreet's position at Fredericksburg 12, that's right 12 times, not a single time successfully. But yeah, Civil War battles weren't fought by people walking up to each other and shooting. You want sources? The Civil War: A Narrative by Shelby Foote, Gettysburg: The Last Invasion by Allen C. Guelzo, and Ken Burns' series. Sorry about all that, I can't contain my autism when someone mentions the Civil War.
>>320868
I believe that it was the relative lack of bayonet charges from one side or the other, just leaving a stalemate between both sides to just take pot shots at each other. Yes, charges such as at pickets charge happened, but were uncommon, so it is remember so vividly.
>I could be completely wrong with my hypothesis and am willing to be proven wrong
>>320868
>Cavalry
>Cavaly cavaly cavalry
When you have weapons that fire at a slow rate nothing stops them from just being galloped the fuck down except a tight formation of spearlike bayoneted rifles.
That's why 200 years before they had the pike and shotte formation. Even slower guns required units to have pikemen in the center to stop cavalry.
The aim of warfare was relatively the same it had always been. Create panic so that the enemy soldiers route than chase those fuckers down with your cav.
Also tactics. It's not just your soldiers moral. Make your enemy fight on your terms. Have the advantage of the landscape. Also these lines were huge. Cavalry would harass the armies flanks in an attempt to move them into unfavorable positions / cause panic.
Also just because on wikipedia it says 80,000 soldiers on each side doesn't mean there was a straight line of 80,000 people 100ft away from eachother on each side popping off rounds like cowboys until it was done. There battles took days, which means people slept, which means not 100% of each force was always engaged with 100% of the opposing force. Happened in stages. Cav and Irregulars harass the right flank while Col. Fuckwadburg mounts an assault with the 32nd and 40th divisions on the left to distract the enemy so we can move cannons in place for the main assault on the center the next day.
also this>>321082
Get gud scrub.
>>321120
What was the prettiest Ironclad in the battle of Hampton Roads, and why it was CSS Virginia?
