160th Wilderness - Saunders Field Firefight

Members of the 28th Mass, Co B, portraying a Company in the 83rd PA, during the 160th Battle of the Wilderness reenactment "A Devilish Entanglement." (4 May 2024)
This video shows Federal soldiers in a firefight during the recreated Federal assault in Saunders Field.
Video by Corey Clyne

[@thelineguy123]

why was the KFC colonel on the left flank

[@Indylimburg]

I love when he just shuffles off. 😂

[@lovebug5439]

with a camera filming, not too authentic 🤣

[@nimitz1739]

Hahahaha. He got out of Dodge when they get flanked.😂

[@theuniongamer4552]

0:46 Me if I had a time machine.

[@1stminnsharpshooters341]

what a battle *LIKED* and *SUBSCRIBED* --LT

[@rickyspanish9002]

Got to love it, always some jerk ruining things because they cant resist the temptation to pull out their cellphone and take pics or video... In this case it seems to be 2 jerks.

[@rubenskiii]

Damn

[@revere0311]

Love this lol

[@Manuqtix.Manuqtix]

Wasn’t this a trench warfare?? No wait

[@nimitz1739]

Some of the fighting in the Wilderness they had time to dig in. But the real trench warfare came after the battle of the wilderness. When Richmond and Petersburg got surrounded. It was just a siege at that point.

[@chriswilson9331]

There's no way I would just stand there and wait for someone to shoot me. I've always found it frustrating how they fought back then.

[@2ndSouthCarolinaStringBand]

Maybe you should spend a little time reading about 'how they fought back then' instead of leaving trollish comments that demonstrate your ignorance. Just sayin'...

[@chriswilson9331]

@@2ndSouthCarolinaStringBand Maybe more Union and Confederate soldiers would have survived the war had they known standing in front of a bullet was hazardous to their health. They should have taken some pointers from the Revolutionary soldiers who fought the British, oh but that would have involved acknowledging the guerilla tactics taught by the natives, the US Army couldn't have any of that. Just sayin'...

[@dabo5078]

@@chriswilson9331Well no they still had to meet the British on the field to save their cities. Gurreila warfare does not work if you intend to win decisively or at all against a fully determined enemy willing to see you dead. Just see Sherman’s march. Confederate gurreilas and Calvary couldn’t do shit. Secondly volume of fire wins encountered in the field. Close order Line infantry would shoot skirmishers (which did take cover and both sides of the civil war and major western armies all fielded) into pieces in a firefight because they have more muzzles pointed down range. Furthermore loose order formation would get slaughtered by Calvary or a bayonet charge.

[@2ndSouthCarolinaStringBand]

Probably should add Revolutionary War books to your reading list. You've just doubled down on demonstrating how little you know about warfare in the 18th & 19th centuries. See above for a brief, but concise explanation.@@chriswilson9331

[@augustuscrow1292]

probably do some research before you comment on a subject you clearly know nothing about. people were not stupid back then, they were just the same types of people we have today, there were many reasons why close order formations were the norm back then and it does not take alot of research to find out why either (if you don't wanna look too deep into it I highly suggest even just watching a youtube video on the subject, they can be thorough) thats not even mentioning the fact that, not all civil war battles in particular were close order formation line battles. The Civil War was right at the start of the period that would lead to the dissolution of close order tight line formations, which is evident when you look and note that not all civil war battles were line battles. there was alot of Trench Warfare, aswell as Skirmishes between smaller units more widely spread out.