Tactical Improvements As War Progressed

Most of the old tactics had given way by the third year, particularly the stand, load, and fire. This represented a quantum leap when soldiers began using cover and concealment. Though it had been around, known by some as Indian Style, some generals decried it, saying it would make cowards of men if allowed to conceal behind cover. Crazy. But in fairness, the breechloader made cover and concealment practical.

We find the same thoughts in repeating rifles, with some generals, Halleck among them, saying it would make troops waste ammunition if allowed repeaters

But my favorite anecdote occurs in 1864, and I think it was Spotsylvania, when Union Troops attacked. The Colonel in charge ordered that troops not stop as one, load, and fire, and then repeat as they went on. he mandated that they hold their fire until they reached Confederate breastworks, and while heading for breastworks, to do it double time. This so shocked the well entrenched defenders(was it the horseshoe? bloody triangle?) that the Union took them. Unfortunately they were not backed up.

This is the type of thinking that victory or defeat hinges upon. I love coming across great thinkers.

Another was the officer who saved the Red River Expedition when the waters sunk so low they threatened to leave gunboats in southern possession, a catastrophe had it occured. He thought ot dam the river, and raise it just a couple of feet. Luckily, as fate would have it, he had a battalion of woodcutters on hand. But it his outside the box thinking that is magnificent.

Any other things of this type? I'd like to know.

herman haupt and the railroad,the engineers and the men under them .the telegraph.the union army by 1865 could have gone anywhere in the world and kicked butt and the union navy could have done the same.

Perhaps, Mr. Kakman; yet let's not forget the awesome powerful trained German Army . Forget martial prowess, which surprisingly the Soviets showed in abundance by the end of forty three. Let's consider weather and inept top leadership(Hitler); or moral and believe in cause. So I'm not too sure about 'anywhere in the world.'
On the other hand the USA, combined with the might and prowess of the CSA, with the North's manufacturing in full gear, producing the latest techno weapons, plus abundant reserves, could very well have gone anywhere in the world. Who could have stopped the fleet?

I learned this late in my studies, and I just loved it: Gen. Sheridan ordered to the Mexican border with 20,000 experienced troops...and told to put on a display for the benefit of the French troops garrisoned in Mexico. With a year France withdrew its troops and thus ensured the success of the Mexican Revolution.

Sadly look at Iraq. Our massive, technological military has failed to crush the insurgents. Too bad; and I'm sure, had we resorted to Nazi tactics of wholesale slaughter and destruction we could easily have done so, with Iran, too. But it goes to show how many intangibles go into warfare. eh?'
By the way, thank you; tomorrow I will get some books on Haupt and bone up on studying his railroad efforts. Indeed the Union was fortunate that we had the mobility of railroads, and fleets, to move armies swiftly. If the Confederates had not had shorter interior lines it might have been a swifter war. Thanks again.

the germans of 1865 learned alot from the american cw.im talking the year 1865 not 1942.the french had to deal with rebellion by juarez,i find that interesting too that we sent sheridan there [custer will join him]thank you for your dialogue keep it coming.

Had the situation been reversed, with the South enjoying massive advantage in manufacturing, manpower, money(I'm on an alliteration roll, boys),mules, manure(ok, 'nuff), would the North have then thought like the South did in reality?

I mean would they have thought of subs, electric mines, and other novel ideas. Is necessity the mother of invention, or did the south enjoy unique thinkers?

I imagine that if I had huge advantages, say in a fight...and I had an incredible overhand right that knocked people out 9 out of 10 times, then why learn how to throw jabs and hooks? Whereas the South had to learn many unorthodox means of fighting.

I kind of know the answer, getting it as I write. Any smaller force must learn unorthodox things:eg. : the Israelis, now the Iraqi insurgents, etc. Food for thought.

necessity the mother-yes i agree,the csa tried to resort to extreme strategy[greek fire in nyc,smallpox on blankets,robbing banks in vermont]lucky for north most of csa agents in canada seemed more concern with arguing about mimosas in hotels in montreal then really doing something[my opinion]thier naval people overseas did better work.