Infantry Tactics During the Civil War: The Civil War in Four Minutes

[@sultanmuradhan2408]

The commentator also forgot to mention that line formation also provides protection against cavalry charges. The shear size and depth of the formation make it difficult for cavalry units to break the lines and made it easier to repel if a charge was initiated. Plus horses inherently don't prefer to run head long into physical barriers.

[@mcsmash4905]

the part about horses not charging infantry is a myth in the case of trained war horses tho modern riding horses are the ones that will turn away and you need 4 or so ranks to keep away a cavalry charge especialy if its a wedge coming at you

[@sultanmuradhan2408]

@@mcsmash4905 Even trained horses still have a natural aversion to head long charges. They tend to avoid or want to go over an obstacle rather than into one. The tactic of charging into a mass of soldiers would put at risk the calvary soldier and the horse. Especially from rifle fire and/or bayonet lunges. The strength of the cavalry is the speed and mobility not brute force. Even before gunpowder warfare cavalry units were used more as a flanking force to break up the effectiveness of shock troops and prevent counter attacks or offensive charges. A cavalry charge into a mass of bodies is more of an act of desperation than a tactical advantage on the battlefield.

[@mcsmash4905]

@@sultanmuradhan2408 once again i have to say that war horses are trained fear of blood and noise stamped out of them , and frontal charges worked many times , a good example is of a british ligh cav charging a persian swuare back during the anglo persian war and breaking it by making a gap with dead horses with the riders fighting on , and war always carries a risk and them being often used as shock troops brings with it heavy cassualties and in war horses and humans are a commodity

[@MisterKisk]

@@sultanmuradhan2408 Check out Marcus Junkelmann's work in Die Ritter Roms. He's shown that trained horses can and will make head long charges and to bully their way through a group of armed men with sharp pointy objects trying to prevent that thing from happening.

[@huntclanhunt9697]

Cavalry didn't really play a big role in open battles during the war.

[@keithjohnston4488]

good stuff. One of the major reasons not mentioned for staying in line and concentrated is that you can overwhelm a spread-out enemy with the bayonet charge. Equal numbers of enemy troops formed as skirmishers can be defeated in detail by concentrated numbers of troops in line charging.

[@ghfjdksla2]

Something that doesn't get enough mention is that, while rifled muskets theoretically had a greater effective range, they still used black powder which gives off too much smoke to allow for continuous and accurate fire. After the first volley or two, there is a smokescreen in front of yourself and the enemy negating any long range rifle fire. That's just another reason why massed, close range fires were necessary.

[@buzbuz33-99]

Very helpful. Flanking apparently has the same effect on infantry as "crossing the T" did in naval battles. In each case, the flanker or crosser was able to bring his full firepower on the enemy, while the enemy ability to return fire was extremely limited. For infantry under flanking fire, there is also the psychological effect of being shot at from an unexpected direction.

[@wdavis6814]

I never really thought of crossing the T in the same light as infantry flanking. But that's 100% accurate on further inspection.

[@tomservo5347]

Veterans developed a sixth sense for an enemy about to flank them. React or fall back.

[@peaceraybob]

Well done. That was perhaps the best explanation of how it all worked that I've heard in years. It is doubly amazing that it was given back in 2013, and yet the message appears not to have disseminated too widely.

[@krs48]

They used trenches, walls , breastworks, and other assorted defensive positions in the civil war. They just could not always use those during an attack.

[@hymanocohann2698]

Mighty slow work, attacking while digging a ditch at yer enemy..

[@Joebonjoe]

@Necramonium thats true its written that they used strong fortifications after the first Battles in 1864 but i think if you have no other choice but to fight in the open field, its better to stay along with your comrades just in case of a bayonett- or a cavallery attack

[@SStupendous]

@Necramonium No. It started long before the end bud... the press didn't call Lee the "King of Spades" because in early 1862 because he built so many trenches... oh wait... yes they did...

[@fuckugplus]

@Necramonium gues galtlin guns where really effective agaisnt ppl marching in rows. ahahah

[@tomservo5347]

The Overland Campaign brought to bear trenches with headboards and firing steps built by Lee with devastating effect. Veterans sometimes simply refused to try attacking them knowing they'd get cut to ribbons. Both sides feverishly thought up solutions to the superiority of defense over offense with the Civil War's peculiar set of problems. The 'reinforced', spread out skirmish line was one solution actively using cover while advancing and laying down a base of fire ala Emory Upton. Upton mastered all three arms during the war and was constantly thinking of ways to overcome the reinforced defensive trench that became suicidal trying to attack with linear tactics.

[@billmacarthur8216]

helped me with my math homework

[@princesskitty7686]

MATH?! this is HISTORY! vine edition- wait this ain't English

[@emilyalbright8211]

Math? Do ya mean History? By the way I'm not trying ta be mean.

[@sirxavior1583]

Maybe indirectly it helped. For example a boxer could get better by punching which is the most obvious thing to do or they could go for a jog and build up there endurance. It probably helped your math homework by clearing your head so you can focus.

[@wowowqw]

Me over here thinking that it's probably just a joke

[@owenmichaels8220]

There was also the issue of smokeless powder not being invented yet. Mass volleys at short range makes more sense when you can't see the enemy after the first few volleys.

[@SteveSmith-ho8cy]

Frontal assaults into well-fortified positions seem to have rarely worked. Examples of failed frontal assaults are, Lee with Picket's charge at Gettysburg, Sherman at New Hope Church and Kennesaw Mountain, and with John Hood, pretty much everywhere he went. Lee and Sherman seemed to have learned from their mistakes, but for Hood, not so much. With the exception of his mistakes at New Hope Church and Kennesaw, Sherman used flanking maneuvers very well in his march on Atlanta. In the Civil War, flanking maneuvers, or laying siege, seems to be the two tactics that worked well.

[@tombuckle2414]

1:47 that death tho 😂

[@lisalee7086]

Tom Buckle yeah pretty funny

[@gQuaresma07]

there is always one of them in every war movie

[@NatePerson-xe6mg]

Lol

[@00iielykca]

Suckle on that, Johnny Reb...

[@anti-loganpaul7827]

Laughing at someone dying

[@juandeaustrias2233]

sorry for asking, but would you make in the future a video on cavalry?

[@BountyFlamor]

@John Carroll Well, even cuirassiers had their place in the Franco-Prussian War apparently.

[@colliningraham8838]

It's not the accuracy of the rifle that made line warfare obsolete. It was the machine gun and the repeating rifle. The best way to mass your fire is to line them up. They still use these concepts today. This guy is right.

[@majungasaurusaaaa]

Even more than machine guns and repeating rifle with smokeless powder, it was advanced industrialized artillery that made close order obsolete.

[@timothyhouse1622]

The Prussians definitely figured a way to counter it and think outside the literal box. At the same time as the American Civil War, where the primary weapon was still the muzzle loading musket, the Prussian Army was being equipped with the Dreyse Needle Gun, which was a bolt action. The bolt action not only gave you an increased fire rate but it also gave you a decisive advantage. You could fire AND reload from the prone position. This was used to devastating affect in the Second Schleswig War against the Danes in 1864 ang again against the Austrians in the Austro Prussian War in 1866.

[@barrymcclaughry9229]

Your videos are excellant and so informative. Keep them coming!

[@thousandflowers3144]

Very interesting video. Thank you for uploading such a great video.

[@Erick_Bloodaxe]

For dealing with flanks you Left out the third option pioneered by Alexander the Great and used effectively by Col. Chamberlain at Gettysburg: refuse the line. Basically, you take a company or two on the flank in question and you have them turn 90° to face outward toward the flanking enemy. Chamberlain had them also thin out to extend the line since they were under strength and being flanked by a larger force, still worked though.

[@rodblackwell6201]

Answer to the question "what would you have done?" I think after a few years of terrible carnage, they started digging trenches. That caused the war to last even longer. It is difficult to to win a war while in a trench. It must have been miserable.

[@reddevilparatrooper]

Just before the American Civil War in the 1850s the British fought in the Crimean War against the Russians.By that time majority of British Infantry were equipped with rifled Pattern 1853 Enfield rifle muskets in 1854.The British Infantry tactics had changed from using smoothbore precussion muskets which is close range to longer ranges with the Enfield 53.The British had fewer troops with better marksmanship training firing volleys at longer ranges keeping Russian troops ineffective and slaughtering them with effective rifle fire beyond 200 yards and outclassing Russian infantry.That lesson from the British did not get used in the American armies of both sides even though the Americans had observers watching the battles in the Crimea.During that time there was a Confederate general by the name of Cleburne from the Army of the Tennessee who had served in the British Army prior and was familiar with the Enfield put his infantry to good use delivering highly accurate fire on the Union

[@westpointsnell4167]

just think,of the British didn t have France and Turkey they wouldn t make accurate fire or win,the Russians greatest threat were the turks

[@sahaynam6470]

The British Army was also a much smaller and professional organization than the US Army at the outbreak of the ACW. The British Army had the time and resources to train in marksmanship whereas the huge sweeping armies of the ACW, formed largely of untested and poorly trained volunteers, were smashed against each other as quickly as possible. Before Manassas McDowell told Lincoln that the troops under his command were not an army. Lincoln replied that while it’s true the troops are green, the enemy is green also. You are all green alike... and then you get the military shitshow that was the first manassas campaign. I think there was a clear recognition on both sides by the professional military men that their ranks were filled with amateurs. Even Lee was disgusted by his army’s crappy staff work and his soliders’ reluctant attitude towards manual labor.

[@akgeronimo501]

One word, smoke. Only your first volley was well aimed regardless of what army you served. To say the British sat back and picked them off is simply untrue. 2 Panther.

[@genekelly8467]

@@sahaynam6470 And in the 1st Boer War (1880), the British reverted to standing volley fire-while the Boers fired at them from the ground..the British suffered several defeats

[@seank3410]

Patrick Cleburne was an excellent Confederate general

[@ItchyPilauBoto]

Those civil war reenactments looks hella fun

[@effen_aey_man]

After playing so much War of Rights I can see why flanking is so powerful even today

[@RandomFabrication]

Some people will strongly disagree that the rifle had a large impact on battles and there are videos explaining why. Mainly because lack of training prevented them from being used to their full potential.

[@haileywilcox9845]

I went on a field trip today and it was sad I went to Chickamauga battle field

[@anderivative]

The amount of lives lost to wars like these is very sad.

[@JvmCassandra]

We always assume we are smarter than our forebears. We ain’t. Facing the same limitations, we might perform even more disastrously.

[@nuancolar7304]

That is a true statement that there are always changes in the tactics AFTER wars are fought. But of all the lessons learned from the wars of history, the American Civil War had perhaps the most brutal and unforgiving gap between using outdated tactics and modern weaponry. In the decades after the Civil War, the United States military, its leadership, doctrines, teaching styles at military academies, etc. all had to undergo fundamental changes. This is evident in what the leadership had their men do in the next great war - World War I. They had them dig trenches and keep their heads down for most of the time.

[@seanbryan4833]

By the later phases of the Civil War both sides had learned to dig trenches.

[@charliep5139]

How were tactics in comparison to how the Crimean War was fought…?

[@aaronjohnson4678]

One thing you're freeing about tactics is that I believe TJ Jackson once said that I may not move an opponent from their spot but they will never move me it's kind of sad to see that there were times early in the war where certain sides mostly on the south to see that defensive position was awesome behind a railroad cut behind an unfinished railroad behind a few fences in the bloody Lane and Antietam behind the stone wall at Fredericksburg but they just didn't realize it so so sad but either side didn't realize what a little bit of cover could have done to help their side win

[@joegaringan7534]

Reason why light infantry and skirmishers existed.

[@FuturisticFusilier]

To harass the enemy, to scout them and to screen your own lines.

[@denisalalykin6125]

why people in these reenactment video don't fall down even at such close distances between units? they shoot and shoot but lines stant as they were and only one or two men of100-200 lay on the ground.

[@flashashura5653]

Well it's... "Reenactment"

[@FuturisticFusilier]

Well first off all, people don't want to go down in the first few minutes, they would have to sit out the remainder of the battle and to be frank that can be quite boring if it is a large battle. Secondly you get that problem where people think that the guy next to them is going to fall down so they dont. However once things start to wind down, people start dropping like flies.

[@mistanix]

the gunpowder was bad, the bullets were worse the gun barrel was smooth but with nicks and holes in places some bullets went straight up, some went so wide as to be dangerous to the flanks. Luck was better aiming at men bunched up, but this happened in every battle until the rifled barrel and improved standard powder came into effect. Not many went down with these glorified flintlocks.

[@castorpollux24]

mistanix Um, these are rifles. They are not smooth bore.

[@paulnicholson1906]

It’s funny that we ridicule the British for fighting in ranks during the American revolution but then go and adopt these tactics later.

[@justicews]

Arm chair soldiers never fail to amuse me.

[@cincinnatus9643]

@William Justice, He's an academic and we're talking about history, makes complete and utter sense. Anti-intellectuals never fail to amuse me.

[@oshaqsha9826]

Cincinnatus I *think* he was referring to the part at 1:48, where he talks about people saying “Well I would have...”, Not the man in the video himself.

[@squiggles5640]

Saying that civil war soldiers had a death wish for fighting in lines is like saying medieval peasants had a death wish for living during the plague

[@BountyFlamor]

Was volley fire no longer important in the civil war? Whenever I see these battles, there is always individual firing and loading.

[@bmxdoe]

He says it is important in the video

[@xXPlumpkinXx]

Can imagine it begins with volley firing. Quickly deteriorates into individual firing and loading. Fear. Lack of discipline. Chaos of war. W/e.

[@mcsmash4905]

@@xXPlumpkinXx its probably hard to keep everything under control once proper battle is joined , its not uncommon for commanders to lose control of the battle

[@jameskbarron]

I've read, though not from a primary source, an M1861 had a 10.5 MOA. If that's true, amassing your forces only helps the enemy. The problem isn't that there weren't better ways of doing it, the problem was the belief that morale, discipline, and bravery were the driving factors of the contest.

[@seank3410]

That is wrong

[@denisdegamon8224]

Actually the typical rifled musket was capable to firing 3 MOA . You were most probably quoting a typical smooth bore musket when loaded with paper cartridges of the time.

[@AndrewWare-n1q]

this is so cool!!

[@KyleBondo]

That was a very good presentation! Thank you! #waryankee

[@bilhanchandra393]

Would it be good if they were using shield to protect them on the frontline position ? (Just asking)

[@vulamdang4427]

1 shields are heavy, so they'll show you down (higher chance of being flanked) 2 anything that is light enough to carry for extended periods of time will get shot to pieces 3 they're expensive, all those metal and wood could be made into more rifle or fortification, and you will need a lot of them to cover your front 4 man who are carrying shields are not carrying rifle or shooting at the enemy Shielding indeed exist, they're just called fortification

[@TheRedAirOn]

There was also calvary and artillery support.

[@frankverdino477]

Cavalry dismounted to fight. A man+horse was such a good target at 200-300 yards when using a rifle that cavalry usually only charged cavalry in the civil war. The effectiveness of field guns was likewise reduced because grapeshot range was now also rifle range which made artillery very vulnerable.

[@frankyvielle2699]

People who do reenactments should use paint balls with the range of a real rifle as used in the civil war. As a Blackfoot Indian we do reenactments of a buffalo hunt on horseback. we use arrows with a Velcro tip to see if we had hit our target.

[@frankyvielle2699]

@@Red-jl7jj your very right, good thought

[@magicalframe9441]

Can someone explain why they don't seem to utilise cover or body positions? A lot of the time in civil war reenactments I see people fighting in fields when there is a Forrested are only a few hundred feet away. Wouldn't it make more sense to fire from the trees?

[@sgtsnuggles9112]

The tight formation allowed the officer to maintain order. If you want the men to move you have to have them together so they can hear the orders. When they were told to hold a position the officer would spread them out along a ditch or in a treeline to give them cover. This isn't done in reenactments because moving around puts on more of a show and is more fun for the reenactors.

[@sgtsnuggles9112]

Sometimes the unit would be told by the General or a higher up officer that they were to leave the trees and advance into a field if there was a gap in the line. Say a unit in the trees was in danger of being flanked unless another unit moved out of the trees and into a field. If possible they would use trees and loose formations, but when it was more important to be in a specific spot or be capable of moving quickly they would be in a tight formation and in a field. Hope this helps

[@majungasaurusaaaa]

Skirmishers used plenty of cover and body positions. Zoaves would reload on their backs while attacking at a rapid pace in loose order. But they're skirms for a reason. They couldn't hold or capture ground. They needed a solid base of line infantry to operate from. Rough and woody terrain made it hard for the line infantry to maintain cohesion and formation, things that were crucial to their job. How are you gonna capture enemy ground if your men are spread out in the woods with no way of communicating with them? A bunch of them would just desert.

[@Daylon91]

Flanking was the most commonly used tactic so armies would try flank right or left but the enemy would do the same seeing the movement

[@googalacticgoo]

very informative

[@Paltse]

So this is why American football is so popular. You are re-enacting that era with modern safety equipment, and less casualties all over again and again.

[@witchaponkitthaworn5998]

Line formation seems to be an easy target for skirmishers.... but iI can guess the musket used in those day is not very lethal, so they need to concentrate it and those gentlemen back then fight in some sort of honor manners?

[@arthurrubio6423]

There’s also the problem of communication. They didn’t have radios, they barely even had signal flags.

[@billmacarthur8216]

good video

[@mushoddiq7631]

Anyone could tell me the song name plz??

[@andrewgillis3073]

The tactics of the American Civil war did change as the war progressed. There was an increased use of hasty fortifications. Also the correct pronunciation isn't 'meny' ball but Mah-nah ball. The former pronunciation was common in civil war times among common soldiers, but the generals would have used the latter. ^_*

[@Spaghetter813]

So basicly, both are common english pronounciations which means they are both correct.

[@alexwilliamson1486]

Napoleonic tactics and modern (for its day) weaponry, as a British citizen, I can’t imagine how brave these guys must have been? Concentration of fire then a charge with the bayonet! To be fair, tactics as these were still used for the next 30 years. Even in the Franco Prussian war, similar tactics still used.

[@frankverdino477]

Concentration of fire wasn't quite what you would think. Many Civil War soldiers fired their first shots in battle. If there was target practice it was by company volley fire with 10% hits at 100 yards passing. At the start of the civil war the US Army consisted of 12,000 men and many if those were in the artillery. It was very much an amateurs' war.

[@TXMEDRGR]

@@frankverdino477 Maybe for the rank and file, but not for the top commanders. The U.S. Military Academy produced 445 Civil War generals. 294 fought for the Union, and 151 for the Confederacy. A West Point graduate commanded one or both armies in every one of the 60 major battles of the war.

[@TXMEDRGR]

@@frankverdino477 Not in regards to the top commanders. The U.S. Military Academy produced 445 Civil War generals. 294 fought for the Union, and 151 for the Confederacy. Of graduates who were still alive at the start of the war, 105 were killed and 151 were wounded - 25% of the total. A West Point graduate commanded one or both armies in every one of the 60 major battles of the war.

[@alphasiera1757]

How do the commanders tell orders to the soldiers?

[@joshueabelis473]

They need to turn reinacments in to paintball. Red washable rounds that somehow stil, require all the same loading techniques

[@evanflax2492]

Garry likes coffee, he sounds like me after 4 shots of espresso he is funny

[@exJacktar]

I am enjoying your videos and find them very educational, thank you. I am enjoying less, however, of the Fife music that is in the background. It's distracting from what is being presented and after a number of the videos, becomes somewhat annoying.

[@VentiVonOsterreich]

Thanks for telling these pretender internet historians how land based military conflicts were actually fought in the Colonial, Napoleonic and Civil War eras

[@hymanocohann2698]

Do you prefer the column or frontal?

[@BountyFlamor]

And what about volley fire?

[@szalard]

Great video as allways.

[@markholbrook3949]

I thought in very general terms Union used 2 rings and confederacy used 3 rings..

[@robertlowery9860]

why couldnt they have built like 4 ft wide wooden blocks and take them to the front with them,they could set right upand fight behind them,2lying down between them 2 standing behind the blind ,even some kneeling

[@lharmon7778]

@Joey, how the heck is that true what you said when these guys were walking in compacted lines???? Lol

[@bretmartinez2832]

why didn't ya'll explain the telegraph

[@blasterofmuppets4754]

Before the american civil war was the crimean war were rifled muskets were already used. Just saying.

[@durandil]

At the end of this war, there were trenches like WW1. Why didn't they use these tactics before ? And even with the line infantry, why every men stand shoulders to shoulders, and not with 1 or meters between each of them ? The soldiers should had been happy that this war ended in 1865, because in 1866, they should had fight against rifles like the Dreyse or the Chassepot

[@FuturisticFusilier]

I think the main reason trenches were not used on a large at the start of the war, was because no one had any real experience of using them. The two previous wars (US-Mexican war and the Napoleonic wars) showed the effectiveness of the attack. A well coordinated attack using all three arms would have massive success(Austerlitz would be a big example). The civil war generals brought this knowledge into the war with them. As for having 1 metre between individual soldiers; you'll find that coordination is much harder and that you will run out of frontage. Say an officer had a frontage of 100 metres, with 1 metre distance between each soldier, you will only fit 100 men in. This officer comes up against an opponent who fits 3 men per metre. The opponent could destroy the officer's unit with its greater firepower, or charge it with its greater mass.

[@kevin6293]

In napoleonic warfare, the best defense was a good offense, meaning lots of counterattacking and movement, trying to confuse the enemy and gain the initiative.

[@sgtsnuggles9112]

Movement. That's the reason for the tight formations and the lack of trenches. If a unit was told to hold a position they would make a loose formation and dig a trench. Most of the time an army isn't holding a position. When they're marching it just isn't possible to be constantly entrenched and in loose formation. The officer can't issue orders to troops in loose formation as easily and the troops can't move as quickly while in trenches. Later on in the war the Confederates were fighting a defensive war. They could dig trenches and use loose formations so they did.

[@paulmicheldenverco1]

The generals really showed how people can be dense, or stupid-mad. Each general who gained notoriety also gained infamy by engaging in a frontal assault. Once should have been enough to teach anybody with some sense. In reality, I think like a lot of generals through the ages, what they believe is best has been taught to them and lectured to them for so long it's hard to find a reality that doesn't fit your obviously failing strategy,

[@Stevethemonky]

Just like any war strategy is used from previous wars until they learn it doesn't work anymore hence that's why they fought that way you can't say I would do this instead because your going off modern unknown tactics too them they used what they knew worked in the past but technology changes and it changes tactics

[@dalepeto9620]

They thought in order to focus, or mass their fire they needed to mass their troops. Shelby Foote

[@marytica123]

KEEP IN MIND that most of the Civil War generals were either veterans of the Mexican-American War, and/or graduates of West Point (yes, even Confederate generals). In both cases, the old 1812 style of pitched battles in "lines of battle" was the one they had been taught. The slaughter of 1/2 million men during the Civil War is the result. UNFORTUNATELY, the only major improvement was the development of "trench warfare", which was carried into World War 1. But weapon improvements had again outpaced this technique, leading to the slaughter of MILLIONS in that conflict. Soldiers = "cannon fodder".

[@ykl4hoijgbojo5jijoji]

Mary A "the only major improvement was the development of "trench warfare", which was carried into World War 1. But weapon improvements had again outpaced this technique"How so? Trench tactics were extremely effective. Against an army composed of only infantry, trench systems with machine guns backed up by artillery is the ultimate defense. The advancement that rendered this largely obsolete took place late during the war and was a direct response to these tactics: the tank. It was largely immune to machine gun fire and could drive over trenches and barbed wire. So obsolete tactics were not being used in WWI.

[@dragons123ism]

Mary A That is not true. The use of Napoleonic battle lines was not yet completely obsolete and the heavy casualties of the war were due to other factors. This is because the reload time was still very slow, soldiers had little training in long ranged firing, gun sights were poor and black powder greatly obscured visibility on the battlefield. Therefore, there is little evidence of any changes to the 50 to 100 yard range of a typical Napoleonic firefight.

[@blackopsguy1023]

The only way you could control them without radio and give orders would be to keep them in lines the weapons evolved faster than the means of communication but by the time of ww2 they were parallel again

[@kevin6293]

Mary A, Attacking in compact lines of men, out in the open, was actually the best way to attack at the time. If you attack through the woods, artillery is neutralized, giving the defender an advantage. If you spread out, the attack won’t be coordinated, giving the defender a HUGE advantage. Casualties in the American civil war were so high because the armies were so large. In napoleonic warfare, casualties were just as high.

[@Shelmerdine745]

Grant mentioned entrenchment more than anything else throughout his memoirs...

[@danwallach8826]

I don't understand why they didn't use ground-attack planes like the P-47 in the Civil War.

[@GeorgetownDude]

"What would you have done?" How about lying down? Why didn't they do that? I don't get it. Think of the Minutemen at Lexington and Concord, who decimated the Redcoats marching back into Boston -- shooting from behind trees and walls. Why did they not emulate such tactics in the civil war?

[@VideoMask93]

They did. But you can't move a wall in an offensive pitched battle.

[@majungasaurusaaaa]

That's the skirmishers' job. The men standing shoulder to shoulder were line infantry. Skirmishers couldn't hold or capture ground. Concentrated volleys followed by cold steel was the only way to do that.

[@evanflax2492]

Garry are you in sales?

[@serfsup6544]

The Impact that rifles made is greatly exaggerated, if you look at shots fired compared gunshot wounds, you'll find it to be, about 1 casualty per 270 shots fired, very slightly lower than the Napoleonic wars. This is due to the amount of smoke on the battlefield after the first shots are fired, (almost always between skirmishers) reducing the effective range back to around 50 meters. And if that's not enough to prove my point, the battle of Gettysburg had a slightly less troops than Waterloo, 175000 to 192000, and a lower casualty rate, 46000 at Gettysburg, and 73000 at Waterloo. I would say it's pretty clear that the casualties, were a consequence of huge, equal, and well commanded army's meeting each other on the battlefield.

[@mistanix]

I remember as a kid finding what appeared to be a long string of lead that looked like dripped candlewax. I took it home and my old man said it was a small cannonball. He showed me the slightly rounded markings - and said if the lead was soft enough a ball could 'smear' itself against a tree and go in all directions.

[@Talashaoriginal]

Some Union-Generals estimatet that they needed his weight in Gunpower and lead to kill one Confederate.

[@dw8173]

Huh! I think that's spot on, now that I'm thinking about it. He's up there talking about shooting 300-350-400 yards, but the video is half clouded with smoke already. America was certainly shocked by the huge casualty numbers in the CW, but maybe that's because this was the first time in America we had 60-100k man armies. The entire US Army at Yorktown was 19,000 vs. 8,000 British, New Orleans in 1814 was 7500 US to 14k British, Chapultepec was about the same... Get a big army, going to have big casualties.

[@packr72]

Joey The Plebeian Also for the first few years of the war commanders brought their troops within 100 yards or less before they fired. Rifles certainly benefited the skirmishers but it wasn’t until later that the ranges increased for line infantry.

[@ishan5011]

Why do people keep saying 73000 people got hurt at Waterloo. A huge portion of that is literally French desertion.

[@CastelDawn]

gee, those bullets were huge

[@ryan7864]

Muskets, whether smoothbore or the rifled were larger than modern projectiles. 57 caliber to 60 with a Low muzzle velocity

[@slantsix6344]

Horrific wounds! A historian said that if they hit an arm it was gone, 5 inches above and below the impact area.

[@johnx9318]

Did you mean a spiralled gridiron ball?

[@kevlarburrito6693]

That is not enfilade fire Civil War Trust...that's just flanking fire, they are two different concepts. Enfilade fire refers to receiving fire simultaneously from two different directions, a "crossfire" if you will.

[@2adamast]

No

[@tc1817]

+Kevlar Burrito...where did you get that bit of nonsense from? Do some real research before making an ass out of yourself publicly.

[@hagamapama]

He's right that flanking and enfilade aren't in the strictest sense the same thing. Firing in enfilade is a pretty rigid concept and only really applied to what you might call perendicular flanking. Flanking where the enemy can fire right down the line. That's some but not all of what flanking is. A naval historian might call it "crossing the T." There's more to flanking than crossing the T. A lot of flanking operations were designed not to fight the enemy from the side at all, but instead to compromise their position and force them to withdraw. Billy Sherman did that to JE Johnston several times in the Atlanta campaign and forced Johnston to give ground almost or sometimes even literally without a fight. In the loosest sense "flanking" an enemy can simply mean coming into the battle in a direction that the defenders weren't expecting and using that to secure the element of surprise An enfilade position is useful but not essential for this. Stonewall Jackson in the Battle of Chancellorsville engaged in this style of flanking and smashed the Union Army in their camp The whole concept of an enfilade doesn't apply to men not in battle lines, such as Union soldiers at their camps and pickets in the wilderness of Chancellorsville but it was a masterstroke of flanking nonetheless.

[@MatthewZmusician209]

I hate when people called old tactics dumb as if they can come up with better tactics than top generals of the day 😂

[@podsmpsg1]

The weapons of the Civil War were more advanced, but the tactics were outdated. Old tactics combined with new technology.

[@Mister3Pac]

Yep. See WW1.

[@majungasaurusaaaa]

That's a myth. Weapons were more advanced than in 1815. But not enough to warrant a change in tactics. Plus lack of communication meant that looser order tactics weren't possible regardless of casualties.

[@rzr2ffe325]

I just don't understand everyone firing at once versus having some shooting while others reload

[@SpadaccinoLuciano]

They did do that. Generally the front line would fire, then kneel while they reloaded, and the blokes right behind them would fire while that was happening.

[@JohnJameson18y]

The problem is not that the tactics were not up to the technology than rather the officers not adapting to the new weapons. For four years some of them used the same napoleonic tactics thus needlessly sacrificing their men. WWI comes to mind...

[@puchy110]

Riflemen were a thing during the Napoleonic Wars; however, they were typically placed at the front of an army and would be in scattered formation rather than line formation. The problem was, now riflemen went from being a support unit to your mainstay infantryman.

[@majungasaurusaaaa]

@@puchy110 You couldn't hold and capture ground with light infantry. Prolonged shooting doesn't cut it Cold steel was still the only way to bring a battle to conclusion. And only close order troops could deliver decisive volleys followed by cold steel.

[@808alldayxx]

Did soldiers ever run out of line and use there own effective dodging tactics????

[@paulmicheldenverco1]

Another thing about the civil war was if you picked up the regimental banner in a charge you were as good as dead. A sane man would keep as much distance between him and the unit colors as possible. Because of this needless waste of life, the generals should have found a better way to keep track of the army. I don't believe that the generals paid that much attention to the flags, and even if they did, there had to be a way to keep track of your army without getting the guy carrying the flag killed.

[@georgeross7145]

Why didn't they just spread apart and give them a chance to miss?

[@sgtsnuggles9112]

They did that as often as possible. Skirmishers would advance forward of the lines and would be in a wide formation. They also did that when they were in entrenched positions and didn't plan on moving. The main reason for the tight formation was to allow the officers to control the men. It's much like herding sheep. You want your men together so you can issue commands and move them where they need to be. They didn't have radios so keeping track of the men was difficult for every officer, from Captain to General.

[@majungasaurusaaaa]

But then they couldn't hit anything either. That's the job for skirmishers.

[@evawen]

Flanking, that is what I do all the time in ultimate general civil war. Lol.

[@vinnygonz4510]

Same

[@hermandirkdenboef2596]

What is the price of a human life in those days. Armies nowadays need an explanation as to why a soldier had died. In those days they apparently could afford to throw thousands into the fray without consequences. The other thing is the cost of a soldier. Is a musket cheap to make? In western movies you see the cowboys with rifles and shotguns but soldiers carry only a musket.

[@mcsmash4905]

people in the past were willing to make lots of sacrifices in order to win , to many people today thats horrible but to them it was a necessary evil , we became too soft in the last few decades

[@NatePerson-xe6mg]

What do u mean they aren't dumb ur telling me they never thought that standing in a big line wasn't a good idea? They watch there friends their friends die infront of them and they just go back and do it again

[@duncant.2570]

Nate0706 Person As stated in the video, it takes time to reload and clouds of powder cover the battlefield. Reenactments have small portions of the number of soldiers and you still can't see for several seconds after a shot. This gave soldiers the idea that tgey could get closer, making the enemy more nervous and less accurate, to the point where they would be able to rush the position.

[@PeterJames143]

So he is saying they used correct tactics despite the recent changes in small arms weapons. I admit that he probably described the tactics they used probably accurately. However I suspect that their tactics could have been improved on. Just because nobody actually did put into place a better set of tactics for their available weaponry and communications equipment does not mean that no better tactics existed. Possibly not but I suspect that a brilliant military tactician would be able to devise vastly more effective tactics with the weapons they had. Possibly not, possibly the horrible wars from 1861 to 1919 were just a reflection of the fact that the weapons at the time just made cannon fodder out of infantry units and there really was no way out. But if you look at wwii it started with the allies expecting to be able to tie down the Germans with trench warfare and being shocked at the blitzkrieg tactics. Of course there weren't good tanks before 1940 but maybe what is vitally different about the time is a new point if view about tactical warfare more than the specific method or tactic. Possibly the reason for the tactical similarity from roman times through 1937 was more related to lack of imagination and courage to try new things rather than being right. The romans won because they had the best tactics for their available weapons which did include some artillery and some light standoff weapons. But roman style warfare is outdated on the modern battlefield and I suspect it was already outdated in 1861 although some people didn't fully realize it. During the European wars before the American civil war soldiers used different mobility tactics than the line so honestly I suspect that based on the commonly accepted standards and weapons of the time the placing of opposing lines was suicidally and criminally stupid on the part of the commanders. Can't blame the soldiers. I know you'll flame me for saying it, but I do not believe they were right to line up the next generation of the country as firing squad vs. firing squad. I guess it was just meant to be that way.

[@valegrumby]

The germans in ww2 didnt drive their tanks over the frech trenches. They drove around them

[@ryan7864]

With the Flintlock Smoothbore, with an effective range of less than 100 yards, Linear Tactics made complete sense to maximize your fire. However, the rifled minie ball changed everything.

[@slantsix6344]

Someone told me that the modern equivalent of a flintlock like the Brown Bess would be a shotgun loaded with deer slugs. The velocity and size of shot is extremely similar to the Brown Bess musket.

[@ryan7864]

Probably. The French Charleville, which was considered by many to be the best of the smoothbore, was 69 caliber!!

[@kevin6293]

Ryan, no it didn’t. Linear formations were still the best way to fight. The Minie ball just ended cavalry charges and bayonet charges.

[@BountyFlamor]

@@Horcerer In ww1, radio essentially was non existant too, though.

[@majungasaurusaaaa]

Nope. Smoke still rendered any fire beyond 100 yards useless. In short, tactics were pretty much the same.

[@MonkeySpecs301]

the side that received the most funding wins, its that simple.

[@jahidmasud1099]

I was thinking why couldn't they just be in lying position, then realized to load the gun they had to be in standing position, nothing to do

[@kaletovhangar]

Jahid Masud The muskest could actually be loaded while being prone but it would take much more time than while standing or in kneeling position.Not practical on the battlefield.

[@Spider-Too-Too]

Ultimate herbal civil war infa try tactics in a nutshell

[@RovingRegions]

The tactics were roughly 14 years outdated, which was caused with the advent of the minie ball. But, even more outdated, really just ignorance, or lack of knowledge at the time, were medical practices and procedures used during the conflict. Disease, for instance, killed more soldiers than all other causes combined. Simple diarrhea progressed to such a point that the soldier killed over from dehydration, and lack of sterile practices in the hospitals gave way to staph infection, which, along with gangrene, killed in the six figures during this war. But as with all conflicts, each generation builds, it learns, from the last, with the exception of resolving the issues before even pushing armies onto the field of course.

[@castile8009]

Well at the time there was a thing called a Germ that hadn't been discovered yet so wasn't seen a need to be careful when it came to cleanliness or sterility.

[@herdiantobasudewo6133]

So for easy their still using Line Infantry Tactic/Napoleon Post doctrine

[@Kojak0]

Interesting point of view there - what really made a difference was the new ammunition. However, I think it's also important to look at the old ways as well to see why and how: During the Great Nordic War (1700-1721), the Swedish Carolinean infantry used a similar tactic, just as most countries at the time, but they managed to squeeze out better performance even if both sides were similar in equipment, leadership and training: whereas most armies stod still and delivered, the Caroleneans marched on, taking fire as they went, 2-3 volleys before stopping, firing and then going for the enemy with bayonets and sabers. This sounds insane, but the reason it worked was because of the really bad aim the muskets had - an enemy's first and second volley might only kill or wound a fraction of the Swedes, but when the Sweddes stopped, they were so close they simply couldn't miss, and when paired with a charge right after, it meant the Swedes were in a great position to win. There were tests made actually - if the first enemy volley hit about 5% of the Swedes, it doesn't have much impact on the general morale; another 5-10% lost in the second volley, nut much either. But then the Swedes stopped while the enemy was still reloading and fired, knocking out 40-50% of the enemy line (an incredible amount for that time), and then a lot more would fall in the ensuing charge through the fresh smoke. No wonder many turned and ran. In this context, that's all just a parenthesis, but I think it's important to see that no matter what you have or what you do, it can always be done better. I the ACW case, I'd say that even if the armies were too big, there should still have been space for tactical improvements on the field instead of just walking shoulder to shoulder.

[@googalacticgoo]

Flanking. thats the game of football

[@BountyFlamor]

why not having every soldier operating alone? they would be much less vulnerable than a whole infantry line standing closely together and could still fire accurately since they have rifles. sure, the common tactics were obsolete by that time but couldn't they adapt in four years?

[@DickJohnson3434]

"why not having every soldier operating alone?" Because they would have no way to coordinate any action and would always be overwhelmed with firepower from the other side who's shoulder to shoulder. The only other option available to them was to entrench and never attack. Once machine guns were introduced in WW1, that's essentially what they did, they dug huge trench lines and stalemated for months.

[@lkyelberg]

They didn't have any way to communicate in those days like we can today. Therefore it was necessary to mass the men together within earshot of the commands.

[@emperorromanov9035]

Cavalry and Bayonet charges of concentrated infantry columns devastate loosely spread infantry before the advent of repeater firearms for every soldier.

[@lkyelberg]

Soldiers who fight alone - die alone! Lenny K.

[@projectilequestion]

1.Yeah, rifles don't make you more accurate. 2. Adrenaline RUINS accuracy. Rifling determines the ceiling of your accuracy, it doesn't make you more accurate. For example wearing bigger clothes doesn't make you taller, it just allows you to get there in comfort. The smoothbore it replaced could get a 12 inch grouping at 80 yards, but could the soldier? To get a 12 inch grouping at 80 yards you are going to need a lot of practice- practice the state can't afford, and adrenaline is going to ruin it. A sharpshooter will get a big benefit from a rifle, and he could be effective against officers and artillery crews (the latter being perhaps more important). For the most part however I fail to see how the rifle 'decimated' the lines of the American Civil War. The superiority myth of the Minie Ball Rifle is the construct of 19th Century arms dealers and the 'inaccuracy' of smoothbores, and by looking at the comments their myths are still alive and well. 

[@AJQ-uj8oy]

the thing that shocked european observers in the american civil war is that americans will form a line and start shooting each other then retreat no infantry or cavalry charge just shooting until they retreat or run out of ammo

[@kevin6293]

Alec Joachim Quintanilla, Any infantry or cavalry charge would get blown away. The Crimean war was the first to use rifled muskets, but they weren’t nearly as widely used during the Crimean war as during the civil war.

[@thomasbaagaard]

@@kevin6293 no it was not. Riflemusket had been around since the early 1840ties.

[@kevin6293]

Thomas Aagaard, right, but what war were they used in before the Crimean war?

[@thomasbaagaard]

@@kevin6293 The different rebellions in 1848 and the wars that followed. So 1st sleswig war and the 1st war of italian independence. By 1850 about 75% of the rebel Sleswig-Holsten (or german) soldiers had a rifle musket and about 30% of the danes had one. Not sure about how widespread it was in "Itally". What many american historians dont understand is that Before the minié rifles there where arms based on the system developed by Thouvenin and before that the weapons using the system developed by Delvigne. (all 3 french officers who during the early 40 ties worked on arms development) The Thouvenin system was used in Rifle muskets used by both sides in the 1st sleswig war and was the standard arm for light infantry units by the end of the ear in 1851. Danish "tapriffel Model 1848" www.lauritz.com/da/auktion/dansk-tapriffel-model-1848-2/i3303609/

[@kevin6293]

Thomas Aagaard, thanks for the info!

[@wildblue2]

Really, a development of Napoleonic tactics, which really are just Renaissance tactics with better command and control and thinner lines. Wasn't the attack column obsolete by this time? There was very little cavalry in the ACV, hence formations were more diffuse than ever before. The movies never really show light infantry, the sides didn't just march up and lose 20% of their men in a few seconds. There would have been preparation with light infantry harassment.

[@alexveley7303]

wildblue2 Be quiet, our 4 minute attention spans can't comprehend skirmishing or how the rifle took forever to reload and had to be used differently. It's more convenient to pretend everyone just played by a certain rulebook because it allowed concentrated fire. Not because it was a convenient tool that was one of the half dozen they used, and it was the easiest to muster.

[@blackopsguy1023]

There was no radio back then only telegraph so in order to command them you had to keep them in lines

[@ryan7864]

The US Army nor the Confederate employed Heavy Cavalry like Europe. So there were little to no cavalry charges against infantry

[@Edward-ed2oi]

I would at least squatted instead of standing in a line. Half the size of target.

[@majungasaurusaaaa]

And how are you gonna reload your weapon doing that? The guy standing fires 3 rounds per minute. You'll manage to squeeze off 1 per minute squatting.

[@chevysuarez7306]

1:53 what I woud've done was go to ask the prussians on how to fight

[@christopherhalim2801]

So infantry tactics hasn't really change a lot since the musket era during the civil war eh?

[@USMarineRifleman0311]

Christopher Halim Tactics are still linear despite what people might think. Just smaller scale with more fire and movement.

[@christopherhalim2801]

***** Explain

[@christopherhalim2801]

***** X.X I mean during the period between mid 18th century until the civil war era. Are you paying attention?

[@christopherhalim2801]

***** then what the bloody hell are you doing?

[@christopherhalim2801]

***** Doesn't feel like we're arguing though...

[@jfontanez1838]

1:50 is that guy ok

[@swahi2702]

He got hit by an invisible cannonball

[@josephnardone1250]

Actually, read and heard that the tactics that were used were outdated at the time. It seems that both sides used a military manuel developed by a Frenchman which was used in the American military schools of the day and that that manuel was considered outdated in Europe and abandoned many years before. As a result, there were high casualties on both sides. During the Battle of Waterloo, it was Wellington who told his men to abandon the marching attack and start crawling. As a veteran of the US Army, learned to crawl many different ways. It certainly was better than standing-up and making yourself a plain target for the enemy, specially machine gun fire. Could never and still can't understand how the generals never thought of the same idea? It's not rocket science.

[@majungasaurusaaaa]

You've read and heard wrong things. The same sources that also told you that the rifle-musket was somehow revolutionary instead of incremental in firepower increase. Tactics weren't dated. Skirmishers could crawl all right. But they themselves couldn't hold or take ground. Wellington certainly didn't think he could take ground crawling in loose order. That job fell to the line infantry. Without concentrated shoulder to shoulder volleys and bayonet charges, ground couldn't be taken and the battle brought to conclusion. That's why even in 1914 people went for the massed charge. Without better command and control, there was no better way to offend.

[@josephnardone1250]

@@majungasaurusaaaa Did you ever serve in the Army? Do you know what it's like carrying a weapon? Were you ever a crew chief on a .50 cal.? Whether or not a solider in modern times or in the past what you experience is the same only the method of killing changes. Stand-by what I said. Suggest you join the military and see what it's like facing combat. Everybody who didn't serve thinks he a great general. Comment section to inadequate to respond adequately.

[@majungasaurusaaaa]

@@josephnardone1250 Did you serve in the Napoleonic and American Civil War? Do you have a time machine? What makes you think you know better than generals of that period working with what they had? Having served in the 21st century means you have no more clue than anyone else. I have family that served for 3 gens. But they'd be the first to tell you they have no clue about discussed period, for they weren't there. Service means zero on the faceless internet. You could be some stolen valor 13 year old for all i care. Here's a quote on british tactics in Waterloo: "British infantry and musket fire There has been an argument that, during the Napoleonic Wars, the British defeated the French by using continuous, well-ordered volleys of musket fire, with their troops lined up in two or three ranks, as opposed to a continuous fire (that has been associated with the Prussian army). It is now believed that British success had another basis. The evidence of military memoirs suggests it was a common practice for British soldiers to hold their fire until very close, firing a single volley and then charging with bayonets. Sources are difficult to assess, but suggest that British infantry in fact used a wider range of different tactical practices, that they were characterised by an increased aggressiveness and a corresponding reluctance to fire - what musket fire there was, was either a response to the enemy’s fire or was a preparatory action before a charge with bayonets." Close order volley followed by cold steel by the line infantry. No crawling or spreading out here. And apparently they didn't teach you how to spell "manual" in the military either.

[@josephnardone1250]

@@majungasaurusaaaa Thanks for correcting my spelling. I don't mind. As I've said, a comment section is inadequate to carry-on such a discussion as this is developing into. Yes, I would've made a better general than any general then and now. Remember that in the British Army of the day, the ordinary soldier was considered totally expendable. It was the Officers who were the royalty and considered valuable. Remember also that you are dealing with living human beings not abstract ideas when you commit a person to war. Remember also that the many historians who write the war books have never served in the military either.

[@projectilequestion]

The context of my last comment was: The Confederate and Union generals of The American Civil War used those tactics- because they worked.

[@packr72]

projectilequestion They used them because the vast majority of officers were amateur political appointees who never attended a military institute. European armies were already using rifle chain formations by this time.

[@majungasaurusaaaa]

@@packr72 The French's offensive infantry tactics were pretty bad compared to the Germans in the Franco-Prussian war. That war also had far better small arms and artillery compared the the ACW. Casualties too were rather heavy.