The generals of the American Civil War were mostly graduates of West Point on both sides. They had all been schooled in tactics from Baron Jomini's text on Napoleonic maneuvers. One mainstay of Napoleonic tactics was the massed column infantry charge. Although not the favored tactic even then (Napoleon preferred ordre mixte), the column of assault became the easiest method to use with poorly trained soldiers, and has entered military history and lore.
Unfortunately, between 1815 and 1861 there were marked and fundamental changes in infantry weapons. The most important was the introduction of the rifled musket. Since all muzzle loaders are called muskets generically it is easy to miss the significant difference between those of 1815 and those of 1860. The introduction of barrel rifling increased effective range from 75 to 300 yards. At an ordinary pace of advance a Napoleonic infantry column had to endure only one volley before closing to close action. In 1861 a column had to receive 4-6 such volleys, impossible to sustain for any body of soldiers.
The generals of 1861-5 did not understand this change. To them, a massed column will break a line reliably when its flanks are supported. Except that, time after time, this was attempted in the Civil War with catastrophic results. The names are familiar to most people even if they are not familiar with why the names are famous. Every one of these was a close order column charge, and every one of them was repelled-
Gaines Mill
Malvern Hill
Fredericksburg (Marie's Heights)
Gettysburg (Pickett's Charge)
Cold Harbor
It took until mid 1864 for both sides to learn the futility of close order charges. It was the slow, inexorable tactics of the siege and blockade that strangled Southern armies and states, not the glamor of massed infantry under flags.
At Fredericksburg 12 separate assaults were made on Marie's Heights by the Union, accounting for more than 5000 casualties in front of a single small hill. The dead were so thickly packed on the ground that the later charges advanced over their bodies, and the bodies of the dead were used as cover by those living men trapped on the gentle slope until dark. Even then the cries of the wounded filled the night until both sides were so horrified that a truce was arranged to pick up those who had lived through the night.
I have always wondered why it took 12 tries to convince the Federal officers of the futility of their efforts. The Confederates got it right away. Lee, looking from the wall at the top of the very gentle slope, said 'It wasn't war. It was murder.' Did the Federal officers imagine that just ONE MORE charge would be the one? It would have been much better to have done NOTHING at Fredericksburg than to attack. But Burnside (whose name gives origin to our term sideburns) was under an order to attack the Confederates, and that he did despite the conditions. He would better have admitted that he lost his chance to attack when his bridging material was late, and spent the winter eating Virginia corn and letting the Confederates starve, rather than losing 13,000 men in 8 hours for nothing.
How about us? Are we any better? I have asked a couple of people who are rational beings why they are voting for Obama. They generally say that he has not had a chance, that his predecessor messed things up, that his stimulus is working and wasn't big enough, that he 'saved' GM and has been thwarted by the banks/Republicans/radio talk shows/Christian fanatics/etc/etc/fill in your favorite reason here. Try this- substitute in all those reasons the things said by Federal generals. Wy are they trying another charge? Because they have occupied the lower part of the hill, have inflicted casualties on the Confederates, that their last charge wasn't big enough, they needed more troops/cannon/officers/planning, that the heights were too high/too strong/too well defended/it was winter/etc/etc/fill in the blank.
What if the ideas just don't work? Why are people so resistant to seeing the end of an idea? Everyone wants to help the poor, the ill, the crippled. It's in the Bible! We just can't afford it. Why does anyone think that we can keep doing what we are doing? Our deficits are now in the TRILLIONS. We quailed when they were in the billions and when they were 3% of spending Now they are 25% of Federal spending and we are still doing the same thing.
Comparing Bush to Obama is a waste of time. Our society is caught up in the Great Society paradigm wherein government, the agent of society, will supply healthcare, housing and retirement. That paradigm has been the basis of our political assumptions and discourse for nearly 50 years. It doesn't work. Every socialist and communist country's attempt at this has failed, whether in deficits or decreased GDP, high unemployment, stagnant growth. Why can we not look at them, as the Federal generals could look at the heaps fo dead, and see another try won't work? And why do we, the voters who are being fleeced for the bill for this insanity, not rise up as a body and demand a new conversation?
Instead, our 'campaign' is a series of idiotic 'gotcha' moments for an insatiable media grossly biased to the left and sound bites about who will provide better for the needy and the poor. Absolutely no one is talking about budgets, deficits and the need to change direction. This isn't a Republican or a Democratic thing- most Republican presidents have added to the 'heaps of dead' almost as effectively as the Democrats as they try desperately to prove they are not biased against the poor.
I'm not biased against the poor. I am biased against a deficit we can not pay. We simply can not do this. Read any serious money authority- every one says to get out of the stock market now. Our currency is devalued, our stocks artificially elevated, a horrific portion of our population out fo work or not even seeking it. And you want more of this?
I want any serious Obama supporter to tell me why we should not elect someone else, especially someone espousing the only serious budget plan out there.
The impact of rifled and then automatic weapons was not solved by the Civil War. The Franco-Prussian War saw horrible casualties from machine guns. And then came WW 1. And again both sides sent massed infantry against trenches defended by machine guns. The British had 60,000 men killed on the first DAY of the Somme offensive. 660,000 casualties and 4 months later they had gained- 6 miles of abandoned, devastated countryside. And ultimately it was the German change of tactic, the Hutier infiltration tactics, that became the standard of modern warfare to this day, combined with a mechanical assistant- the tank.
I greatly fear we will have to learn by similar devastation before we change, and I hope we will not. We simply can not afford what we are doing, and must stop. And that means a Republican president.
Ted
Unfortunately, between 1815 and 1861 there were marked and fundamental changes in infantry weapons. The most important was the introduction of the rifled musket. Since all muzzle loaders are called muskets generically it is easy to miss the significant difference between those of 1815 and those of 1860. The introduction of barrel rifling increased effective range from 75 to 300 yards. At an ordinary pace of advance a Napoleonic infantry column had to endure only one volley before closing to close action. In 1861 a column had to receive 4-6 such volleys, impossible to sustain for any body of soldiers.
The generals of 1861-5 did not understand this change. To them, a massed column will break a line reliably when its flanks are supported. Except that, time after time, this was attempted in the Civil War with catastrophic results. The names are familiar to most people even if they are not familiar with why the names are famous. Every one of these was a close order column charge, and every one of them was repelled-
Gaines Mill
Malvern Hill
Fredericksburg (Marie's Heights)
Gettysburg (Pickett's Charge)
Cold Harbor
It took until mid 1864 for both sides to learn the futility of close order charges. It was the slow, inexorable tactics of the siege and blockade that strangled Southern armies and states, not the glamor of massed infantry under flags.
At Fredericksburg 12 separate assaults were made on Marie's Heights by the Union, accounting for more than 5000 casualties in front of a single small hill. The dead were so thickly packed on the ground that the later charges advanced over their bodies, and the bodies of the dead were used as cover by those living men trapped on the gentle slope until dark. Even then the cries of the wounded filled the night until both sides were so horrified that a truce was arranged to pick up those who had lived through the night.
I have always wondered why it took 12 tries to convince the Federal officers of the futility of their efforts. The Confederates got it right away. Lee, looking from the wall at the top of the very gentle slope, said 'It wasn't war. It was murder.' Did the Federal officers imagine that just ONE MORE charge would be the one? It would have been much better to have done NOTHING at Fredericksburg than to attack. But Burnside (whose name gives origin to our term sideburns) was under an order to attack the Confederates, and that he did despite the conditions. He would better have admitted that he lost his chance to attack when his bridging material was late, and spent the winter eating Virginia corn and letting the Confederates starve, rather than losing 13,000 men in 8 hours for nothing.
How about us? Are we any better? I have asked a couple of people who are rational beings why they are voting for Obama. They generally say that he has not had a chance, that his predecessor messed things up, that his stimulus is working and wasn't big enough, that he 'saved' GM and has been thwarted by the banks/Republicans/radio talk shows/Christian fanatics/etc/etc/fill in your favorite reason here. Try this- substitute in all those reasons the things said by Federal generals. Wy are they trying another charge? Because they have occupied the lower part of the hill, have inflicted casualties on the Confederates, that their last charge wasn't big enough, they needed more troops/cannon/officers/planning, that the heights were too high/too strong/too well defended/it was winter/etc/etc/fill in the blank.
What if the ideas just don't work? Why are people so resistant to seeing the end of an idea? Everyone wants to help the poor, the ill, the crippled. It's in the Bible! We just can't afford it. Why does anyone think that we can keep doing what we are doing? Our deficits are now in the TRILLIONS. We quailed when they were in the billions and when they were 3% of spending Now they are 25% of Federal spending and we are still doing the same thing.
Comparing Bush to Obama is a waste of time. Our society is caught up in the Great Society paradigm wherein government, the agent of society, will supply healthcare, housing and retirement. That paradigm has been the basis of our political assumptions and discourse for nearly 50 years. It doesn't work. Every socialist and communist country's attempt at this has failed, whether in deficits or decreased GDP, high unemployment, stagnant growth. Why can we not look at them, as the Federal generals could look at the heaps fo dead, and see another try won't work? And why do we, the voters who are being fleeced for the bill for this insanity, not rise up as a body and demand a new conversation?
Instead, our 'campaign' is a series of idiotic 'gotcha' moments for an insatiable media grossly biased to the left and sound bites about who will provide better for the needy and the poor. Absolutely no one is talking about budgets, deficits and the need to change direction. This isn't a Republican or a Democratic thing- most Republican presidents have added to the 'heaps of dead' almost as effectively as the Democrats as they try desperately to prove they are not biased against the poor.
I'm not biased against the poor. I am biased against a deficit we can not pay. We simply can not do this. Read any serious money authority- every one says to get out of the stock market now. Our currency is devalued, our stocks artificially elevated, a horrific portion of our population out fo work or not even seeking it. And you want more of this?
I want any serious Obama supporter to tell me why we should not elect someone else, especially someone espousing the only serious budget plan out there.
The impact of rifled and then automatic weapons was not solved by the Civil War. The Franco-Prussian War saw horrible casualties from machine guns. And then came WW 1. And again both sides sent massed infantry against trenches defended by machine guns. The British had 60,000 men killed on the first DAY of the Somme offensive. 660,000 casualties and 4 months later they had gained- 6 miles of abandoned, devastated countryside. And ultimately it was the German change of tactic, the Hutier infiltration tactics, that became the standard of modern warfare to this day, combined with a mechanical assistant- the tank.
I greatly fear we will have to learn by similar devastation before we change, and I hope we will not. We simply can not afford what we are doing, and must stop. And that means a Republican president.
Ted
Comments
Post a Comment