- This topic has 8 voices and 55 replies.
-
Posts
-
By and large they did not think the Lessons of 1861-1865 would be applicable in a European war because the nature of terrain in Europe was so different from the undeveloped wastes of America.
Could you explain this part more. I was almost going to ask if urban warfare is considered modern, but then realized urban warfare has been happening since well before BC.
By and large they did not think the Lessons of 1861-1865 would be applicable in a European war because the nature of terrain in Europe was so different from the undeveloped wastes of America.
Could you explain this part more. I was almost going to ask if urban warfare is considered modern, but then realized urban warfare has been happening since well before BC.
It is really quite simple if you think about it. In 1860, Europe was a highly developed continent with extensive infrastructure and virtually no primeval forest or grassland remaining. There was a large roiad and rail network as well as extensive canals. This did not exist in America except in New England and even there it was not as developed. Infrastructure and means of communications are significant factors when you start talking about moving thousands of troops. A road can only withstand so much traffic. There were more roads in Europe which meant the dynamics of moving armies in both a strategic and operational sense were completely different. In fact that difference is still there today, Europe is more compact than the US and more crowded. Just compare a map of say, Ohio with Central france and you will see how much more spread out America is when compared to Europe. That is what I am getting at.
The American Civil War dwarfed all those examples you gave in sheer scale and scope. Pillboxes are fortified gun nests along trenches and defensive perimeters.The Americans were doing many of the things I mentioned in the Mexican American War in the 1840's as many of the generals served in that war as higher officers.
Just to cherry pick, you are trying to tell me that the British blockade of Europe during the Napoleonic wars was smaller in scale than the US blockade of the South during the Civil War?OK, in what theater or potential theater did the US or Confederacy install pillboxes during the civil war? I am talking rotating armored cupolas from which the enemy could be engaged by direct fire? I assume you are not talking about coastal fortifications or do you mean simple ported, covered, and concealed fighting positions? The type that have existed since the advent of gunpowder positional warfare in the 16th century.Scale does not mean exceptionalism except in size. You have claimed that the Americans were responsible for significant doctrinal and tactical advances that were subsequently aped by the Europeans in the wars later fought in Europe. Yet you have no proof other than your assertions that European armies derived significant inspiration from the American experience of the Civil War. I have not claimed it was completely discounted, just that the Civil War was not as significant in European development as you might at first think.
Whenever you want to kill your neighbour, no need to learn from others: imagination is at its full capacity …
Just to cherry pick, you are trying to tell me that the British blockade of Europe during the Napoleonic wars was smaller in scale than the US blockade of the South during the Civil War?OK, in what theater or potential theater did the US or Confederacy install pillboxes during the civil war? I am talking rotating armored cupolas from which the enemy could be engaged by direct fire? I assume you are not talking about coastal fortifications or do you mean simple ported, covered, and concealed fighting positions? The type that have existed since the advent of gunpowder positional warfare in the 16th century.Scale does not mean exceptionalism except in size. You have claimed that the Americans were responsible for significant doctrinal and tactical advances that were subsequently aped by the Europeans in the wars later fought in Europe. Yet you have no proof other than your assertions that European armies derived significant inspiration from the American experience of the Civil War. I have not claimed it was completely discounted, just that the Civil War was not as significant in European development as you might at first think.
Yes the Anaconda Plan was bigger because it went from South America, the Atlantic, to Europe (off the coast of England and France), the entire Gulf of Mexico, and into the Mississippi River system including the Ohio and Tennessee river basins, and also the Pacific Coast. Geographically that dwarfs the Continental Blockade of Napoleon's time.The siege of Petersburg saw the use of trenches and pillboxes in the Eastern Theatre.
I hate to use Wikipedia, but here is an article on the Prussian observers of the American Civil Warhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussia_in_the_American_Civil_War
There were also British and French observers with both armies. Phil Sheridan was an American observer of the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71 prior to his appointment as Chief of Staff. The parctice continues today, they are called Military Liasons and have diplomatic status, a friend of mine was in georgia last year during the Russian invasion. the fcat that obszervers were present does not provide a causal relationship between American experience and European tactics in the immediate post-war years. There were also plenty of germans that served, the vast majority of whom were 48er's and exiles from Prussia and the other German states after the failed European revolutions in 1848. My own Great-great-grandfather among them, he served in an Ohio regiment with the Union, and stayed lilke most of the other Germans.
The fact remains, Prussia never had the means to duplicate what the Union and the Confederacy managed. Their military feats were quite minor in comparison, which is why I take issue with the amateurish statement.
So defeating the Austrians and South German States in 7 weeks while winning the Largest battle in recorded history to that time and defeating France in 6 months while forcing the surrender of 2 field armies, capturing the French Emperor and laying siege to the French Captial and forcing its capitulation were minor feats? ??? This is compared to a massive bloodletting that cost several hundred thousand lives while devastating the most agriculturally productive part of the United States? The progress during the Civil War in military doctrine and strategy was a feat to be proud of while the relatively painless victories the Prussians inflicted on their enemies was just minor and no big deal right? If that is how you think then I can see why your specialty is not military history.The Union and Confederacy achieved some remarkable things from a standing start, they still do not equal the feats Moltke pulled with a force composed of armies from several different soveriegn states. Remember Germany was not unified until after the Franco-Prussian War, there was no unified German chain of command as existed in both sides of the American Civil War. Yet the Prussians still devastated the French and Austrians, both times in lightning Campaigns. no American gerneral achieved that kind of decisive success in the Civil War on either side.
The fact remains, Prussia never had the means to duplicate what the Union and the Confederacy managed. Their military feats were quite minor in comparison, which is why I take issue with the amateurish statement.
Amateurish has nothing to do with level of accomplishment but the level of perceived professionalism. Professionalism is a trait that came late to the American military, regardless of the brilliance of a few. The vast majority of soldiers and officers in almost all of America's wars have been amateurs. That does not take away from their accomplishments, if anything it makes them more impressive because other countries have not managed the same thing, instead they have had to maintain large standing armies to achieve the same thing America has with "amateur" armies. I am not making a judgment call on the quality of the American army but rather a statement of how American methods were seen in Europe. No need to get offended.
So defeating the Austrians and South German States in 7 weeks while winning the Largest battle in recorded history to that time and defeating France in 6 months while forcing the surrender of 2 field armies, capturing the French Emperor and laying siege to the French Captial and forcing its capitulation were minor feats?
In a nutshell yes. The Confederacy could have done that themselves and probably in less time. The Union (especially the professional army of 1864 on) could have conquered the whole of Europe inside of two years because of their industrial capability.
So defeating the Austrians and South German States in 7 weeks while winning the Largest battle in recorded history to that time and defeating France in 6 months while forcing the surrender of 2 field armies, capturing the French Emperor and laying siege to the French Captial and forcing its capitulation were minor feats?
In a nutshell yes. The Confederacy could have done that themselves and probably in less time. The Union (especially the professional army of 1864 on) could have conquered the whole of Europe inside of two years because of their industrial capability.
Doubtful and unprovable. The achievements on both sides of the Atlantic were unique. Though if I were to Argue, I daresay the Prussian and French armies would have fought the Union to a standstill, and destroyed the ragged confederates. That is, if the Royal Navy had let them get that far, you forget that American naval dominace was about 50 years in the Future. the british could have broken the American blockade of the South at will. They did not because the lure of cheap cotton did not outwiegh their moral revulsion at slavery. Don't forget the British had outlawed slavery in 1832 and the French even sooner while it never existed in Germany. The American blockade worked on the high seas because the British let it, not in spite of the British. the American army got competent through experience, the Europeans through drill and discipline. I am unaware of any Prussian unit that broke during its baptism of fire as so many American units did, notably some on both sides at 1st Bull Run.
I wasn't talking about the British. I was talking about the whole of Continental Europe. France was pathetic (hence the reason the Prussians started the war knowing it would be a cakewalk). Britain's navy was powerful no doubt (the strongest armada at the time), but in terms of fielding a land army, America proved it could not only build a huge force (two of them actually), but maintain them for four years no matter the carnage (even the South's industrial output maintained ammunition and war material to keep its armies fighting). The Prussians would not have stood a chance against either of the American armies in a straight up fight. To me it's not even a debatable point.
