Could small unit tactics have been used on a much larger scale by the time of the civil war?
I would think that if you invested in junior decentralized leadership and NCOs that the technology would allow for the use of modern small unit tactics.
I feel like the rifled muskets would have allowed small units to fend off cavalry, but I'm no expert, so perhaps you need automatic weapons to effectively defeat a mounted charge.
Anyway just curious if anyone else had some opinions on the matter.
Bump for interest
>>28396008
which is better against cavalry, rifles or bayonets?
>>28396714
Bayonets, but you need to be in formation to effectively fight off a cavalry charge with them.
Which is why I'm going to have to say No to OP's question.
Not sure but guerrillas and raiding was an important (but not decisive) component in a few campaigns (Kentucky, Ohio, Missouri). Probably more important was the Confederate innovation of trench warfare which was started in desperation by having a much smaller number of solders than the Northern armies marching on Virginia.
>>28396008
Not particularly, it would need repeating rifles that were able to be mass produced in the numbers before the war and logistics to supply widely spread troops so they don't wander around starving for days between resupplies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Hinson
yes, they could have been utilized better. its also important to have a large enough main force to secure your infrastructure. too many small units and not a large enough main force and your resources will be steamrolled and taken over. had the confederacy been more well prepared, they would have won the war. they had the better men and land.
>>28397350
The reason why the confederacy lost was becasue their social and economic structure prevented them from creating the necessary industry to win a war. Their men were meat in a grinder, everyone was.
What I would have liked to seen were independent raider groups like Quantrells Raiders but better organized. Still they hit my great grandfathers homestead in Lawrence Kansas and he was hidden under the kitchen sink when they raided the place.
>>28396008
In the civil war the muskets were rifled now and used cone bullets.
>>28397771
miniballs faggot get that shit right by the frenchy Minié
>>28396714
Rifles with bayonets.
>>28397820
Yes but it was cone bullets.
>>28397879
Some were octagons.
>>28396787
>Probably more important was the Confederate innovation of trench warfare
Neat. I know the Civil War was studied by the yuros for their 19th century conflicts. I did not know that trench warfare was one of them.
>>28397888
Cone compared to the balls before.
>>28397893
In some ways, the American Civil War was like a preview of what was to come to WWI.
>>28397893
Europeans looked at it but didn't really internalize any of the lessons.
>>28397893
>that pic
Had a solid chuckle, thanks mate.
lack of communications means you can't diversify your chains of command. the concept of a small unit in a time of no communications were likely just intelligence peoples. non combatants. the concept of a strike team makes little sense when there was no urban warfare and there is no merit in precision over overwhelming firepower
>>28397893
>Neat. I know the Civil War was studied by the yuros for their 19th century conflicts. I did not know that trench warfare was one of them.
there is an excellent documentary on youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sy6dw4fcZYk
>>28397893
>>28397933
it was the boers who first used them against the brits successfully in 1899
>>28397888
>octagons
"Octagon?! Nigga, who taught you octagon?"
>Let's see who recognises the quote....
>>28396008
The only real small unit tactics that worked well in the civil war were southern cavalry raiders that picked at infrastructure and supply lines.
The big thing stopping effective small unit tactics was communication and speed. Infantry didnt have radios or anything like that, so effectively utilizing them in a battle was neigh impossible. As raiding/skirmishing forces their lack of mobility would get them cut off and run over pretty quickly. Even as scouts they'd have to stay near friendlies if they wanted to communicate any information in a timely manner.
Cavalry by comparison could strike quick and get out quickly. Even if a unit COULD hold off a cavalry assault, it would just be a matter of the mounted units circling in behind them and cutting off a retreat, allowing the main body to catch up and crush them.
>>28400656
fuck I know this one, I wanna say Dave chapelle but I know that's wrong...
ya got me man.
