GraniteStater wrote:This merits an additional post: Brigades were, indeed, the tactical formation. Manpower was raised by regiments, the administration (G3, nowadays) was by regiments, but the tactical formation was the brigade, although most officers, the overwhelming majority, had no experience with brigades - nor even with regiments, to a very large degree. Most of the Regular Army was broken down to company level and posted as such, especially in the West. Still, that was their doctrine - maneuvering by brigade.
tripax wrote:Hmm, I see. For me, I really don't know much about tactics and it is a weak point in my knowledge for sure.
anjou wrote:Kentucky and Maryland would have joined had there been any sign that Confederate troops could actually stay there. No man in their right mind would join a fight that would have their families under occupied rule while they were away.
Hardee's manuals are freely available online, the word Brigade is not to found in any of them, being as as it's a manual limited to the regimental level of operation, being almost totally concerned with individual poisitiononing and manoeuvre.GraniteStater wrote:Hmm...difficult to be plainer. Let's just say my reading made it clear that the 'formation of choice' was the brigade - most probably Hardee's Tactics maneuvered by brigade.
IOW, they could order a divisional move, or even a move by a corps, but the actual implementation was by brigades. That's what I came away with.
Remember, their tactics were drill-field maneuvers - apparently, the largest formation for these was the brigade - the larger formations were ordered to do stuff, but the wheeling and dealing was by brigade.
except for the fact that fire and manover with firearms supported by mobile art fire, was introduced in Sweden by Gustophas hundreds of years earlier. the brigade, an organisational history in the US Army is what you ought to read, freely available from the command school at FortLeavenworth.GraniteStater wrote:tripax wrote:Hmm, I see. For me, I really don't know much about tactics and it is a weak point in my knowledge for sure.
It's not germane to the ACW, but google 'modern infantry tactics' - there's a site that has a fascinating history of the evolution of tactics from the Franco-Prussian war on. Truly modern tactics were first started by the Germans in the late stages of WWI. The way I was trained in the US Army, it's called 'fire and maneuver.'
Also, A Genius for War: the German General Staff, 1870 - 1945 is a most informative work.
The way they fought the ACW is entirely alien to our experience 150 years later.
I can't imagine slugging it out in the open at 100 yards with rifled muskets. Gruesome.
hanny1 wrote:except for the fact that fire and manover with firearms supported by mobile art fire, was introduced in Sweden by Gustophas hundreds of years earlier. the brigade, an organisational history in the US Army is what you ought to read, freely available from the command school at FortLeavenworth.GraniteStater wrote:tripax wrote:Hmm, I see. For me, I really don't know much about tactics and it is a weak point in my knowledge for sure.
It's not germane to the ACW, but google 'modern infantry tactics' - there's a site that has a fascinating history of the evolution of tactics from the Franco-Prussian war on. Truly modern tactics were first started by the Germans in the late stages of WWI. The way I was trained in the US Army, it's called 'fire and maneuver.'
Also, A Genius for War: the German General Staff, 1870 - 1945 is a most informative work.
The way they fought the ACW is entirely alien to our experience 150 years later.
I can't imagine slugging it out in the open at 100 yards with rifled muskets. Gruesome.
hanny1 wrote:http://www.history.army.mil/html/books/060/60-14-1/cmhPub_60-14-1.pdf
Here is the US Army explantion of Fire and and manouver and how its modeled on who i said invented the tactical concept. Its not a more modern use, per se, just a change in volume of munitons delivered using the same tactics. The Swedes would have recongised a 20th century use of their tactics and underdstood the intent and aim.
GraniteStater wrote:You realllly don't understand what I'm saying. Not...at...all.
Incidentally,
The commanders in the ACW weren't inflexible idiots who adhered strictly to Hardee or whatever, with no allowance for circumstances.
As a matter of fact
havi wrote:hanny1 wrote:http://www.history.army.mil/html/books/060/60-14-1/cmhPub_60-14-1.pdf
Here is the US Army explantion of Fire and and manouver and how its modeled on who i said invented the tactical concept. Its not a more modern use, per se, just a change in volume of munitons delivered using the same tactics. The Swedes would have recongised a 20th century use of their tactics and underdstood the intent and aim.
Sorry to intervene, but if u give Gustavus all the glory guess again, They where the FINNISH CAV what took the field and victory with FINNISH OFFICERS and MEN. Sorry i have to intervene.
hanny1 wrote:havi wrote:hanny1 wrote:http://www.history.army.mil/html/books/060/60-14-1/cmhPub_60-14-1.pdf
Here is the US Army explantion of Fire and and manouver and how its modeled on who i said invented the tactical concept. Its not a more modern use, per se, just a change in volume of munitons delivered using the same tactics. The Swedes would have recongised a 20th century use of their tactics and underdstood the intent and aim.
Sorry to intervene, but if u give Gustavus all the glory guess again, They where the FINNISH CAV what took the field and victory with FINNISH OFFICERS and MEN. Sorry i have to intervene.
Feel free to correct the worlds education system by all means, but since Monarchs armies were composed all persons of many diverse nationlities, your nremark will not suffice to show anything new, Prussian armies of Frederick were 35% no Germanic, yet Prussian tactics they practised were prussian tactics.
Alexanders caval;ry Hammer and anvil tactics and Germanys armoured tactics are the same tactic using different technology, each would recognise what was being done, just as modern wars being laregly wars of inflictimng and or creating strtaegic exhustion would be recognised by Athens and Sparta, Rome and carthage, only teh technology has chanhged to create the desired outcome. Try Evoliution of weapons and warfare by Dupoy or ferrills origins of modern warare from the stone age to alexander.
hanny1 wrote:havi wrote:hanny1 wrote:http://www.history.army.mil/html/books/060/60-14-1/cmhPub_60-14-1.pdf
Here is the US Army explantion of Fire and and manouver and how its modeled on who i said invented the tactical concept. Its not a more modern use, per se, just a change in volume of munitons delivered using the same tactics. The Swedes would have recongised a 20th century use of their tactics and underdstood the intent and aim.
Sorry to intervene, but if u give Gustavus all the glory guess again, They where the FINNISH CAV what took the field and victory with FINNISH OFFICERS and MEN. Sorry i have to intervene.
Feel free to correct the worlds education system by all means, but since Monarchs armies were composed all persons of many diverse nationlities, your nremark will not suffice to show anything new, Prussian armies of Frederick were 35% no Germanic, yet Prussian tactics they practised were prussian tactics.
Alexanders caval;ry Hammer and anvil tactics and Germanys armoured tactics are the same tactic using different technology, each would recognise what was being done, just as modern wars being laregly wars of inflictimng and or creating strtaegic exhustion would be recognised by Athens and Sparta, Rome and carthage, only teh technology has chanhged to create the desired outcome. Try Evoliution of weapons and warfare by Dupoy or ferrills origins of modern warare from the stone age to alexander.
not at all what history tells us about swedsh contribution to the art of war, on or under the hood.havi wrote:hanny1 wrote:havi wrote:
Sorry to intervene, but if u give Gustavus all the glory guess again, They where the FINNISH CAV what took the field and victory with FINNISH OFFICERS and MEN. Sorry i have to intervene.
Feel free to correct the worlds education system by all means, but since Monarchs armies were composed all persons of many diverse nationlities, your nremark will not suffice to show anything new, Prussian armies of Frederick were 35% no Germanic, yet Prussian tactics they practised were prussian tactics.
Alexanders caval;ry Hammer and anvil tactics and Germanys armoured tactics are the same tactic using different technology, each would recognise what was being done, just as modern wars being laregly wars of inflictimng and or creating strtaegic exhustion would be recognised by Athens and Sparta, Rome and carthage, only teh technology has chanhged to create the desired outcome. Try Evoliution of weapons and warfare by Dupoy or ferrills origins of modern warare from the stone age to alexander.
Yes the leaders take the credits and the followers take the blame. But if u have looked litlle bit under the hood you would notice that sweden military gistory ended at the viking ages (now i mean at land) they left the infatry batles to Finns and Norweigians swedes mainly run away. At the 30 year war the war marshall was fin the soldiers where germans and the glory was sweden. And last thing the tactics where not swedish tactics what Rakuunat used art 30 yeat war they where the tactics what finns used at carelia against kasaks to attacking them at the time and they just continued them at europe. But this is history of litlle country edge of europe nobody in there knows these things nobody cares.
hanny1 wrote:not at all what history tells us about swedsh contribution to the art of war, on or under the hood.in combat models, numbers predictions andwar by dupoy for instance, finns in ww2 came out as amongst the most combat effiecent forces of the war.havi wrote:hanny1 wrote:
Feel free to correct the worlds education system by all means, but since Monarchs armies were composed all persons of many diverse nationlities, your nremark will not suffice to show anything new, Prussian armies of Frederick were 35% no Germanic, yet Prussian tactics they practised were prussian tactics.
Alexanders caval;ry Hammer and anvil tactics and Germanys armoured tactics are the same tactic using different technology, each would recognise what was being done, just as modern wars being laregly wars of inflictimng and or creating strtaegic exhustion would be recognised by Athens and Sparta, Rome and carthage, only teh technology has chanhged to create the desired outcome. Try Evoliution of weapons and warfare by Dupoy or ferrills origins of modern warare from the stone age to alexander.
Yes the leaders take the credits and the followers take the blame. But if u have looked litlle bit under the hood you would notice that sweden military gistory ended at the viking ages (now i mean at land) they left the infatry batles to Finns and Norweigians swedes mainly run away. At the 30 year war the war marshall was fin the soldiers where germans and the glory was sweden. And last thing the tactics where not swedish tactics what Rakuunat used art 30 yeat war they where the tactics what finns used at carelia against kasaks to attacking them at the time and they just continued them at europe. But this is history of litlle country edge of europe nobody in there knows these things nobody cares.
GraniteStater wrote:* Yes, indeed the US merchant marine never really recovered from the war.
* Cavalry did not do an especially good job of track busting; as a matter of fact it was poor at it.
The more and more I read of his decisions and the context thereof, I find it extremely hard to fault him to the least degree in any of them.
Return to “ACW History Club / Histoire de la Guerre de Sécession”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests