Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 62

Thread: Civil War Trust Learn History while you wait for WoR

  1. #11

    CSA Captain

    Patrick Kurtz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    127
    Love the animated maps they have on that site, and the 360s.

    Signed:
    ​Patrick Henry

  2. #12

    CSA Captain

    Soulfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    838
    Quote Originally Posted by thomas aagaard View Post
    I should not have used the word deadly. my mistake. My focus is on the casualties rates.
    The damage caused when a bullet hit have no influence on the casualties rates.


    The bayonet was just as much or just as little a weapon used during the Napoleonic wars. It was mainly a physiological weapon and when it was used we are usually looking at combat in towns or in and around (field)fortifications. Just like during the civil war.
    Borodino had its fortifications just like you see during the late part of the civil war.

    Sure acw artillery was way better... but artillery is rather ineffective when the battle is fought in thick forrests.
    (Lee did deliberately fought Grant in the wilderness to help negate his disadvantage in artillery and manpower)

    The casualties % was not higher during the civil war compared to earlier wars.
    And if better weapons resulted in higher rates, then the battles of the franco-prussian war should have higher rates then during the civil war... that is not the case.

    Most civil war battles was indecisive. Often attacks bugged down into a firefight that result in high casualty rates but no decisive result.
    The improved firearms was in some cases part of the problem, but since most firefight took place well within the range of smoothbore muskets that is simply not the main reason, as often given.

    And when one side retreated there where very rarely a proper pursuit of the looser. (Where napoleon would have sendt his light cavalry after the enemy)

    The result is that a lot of men have died and two month later the armies are back fighting each other again.
    Compare that to some of napoleons victories. He win the battle, route the enemy army and keep after it with his cavalry until is falls apart.

    But much of this is well covered in this text:
    http://johnsmilitaryhistory.com/cwarmy.html
    You are really mixing things together....i would now step away from the "deadly guns" topic.

    @Most civil war battles was indecisive: Now the believe that one decisive battle or capturing the enemy's capital will win the war was common a very long time. History has proven that this wrong, from Cannae to the fall of Berlin.
    " ...it appears the Virginia Military Institute will be heard from today."

    With virtue as our beacon. Our cause is charged as treason, Battle worn and starving. Through the hell of war we'll keep marching. The birth of our new nation
    - Iced Earth

  3. #13

    USA Sergeant

    thomas aagaard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Aalborg, Denmark
    Posts
    591
    And Austerlitz, Jena–Auerstedt and Friedland, Under Napoleon I show that it could be done. they where all battles that was decisive and resulted in treaties.

    And Jena–Auerstedt show how a pursuit should be done.

    And in the 1866 prussian-austria war and 1870-71 Franco-prussian war we again see that wars can be short and decisive... and that despite better firearms.
    Thomas Bernstorff Aagaard

  4. #14

    CSA Captain

    Soulfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    838
    Quote Originally Posted by thomas aagaard View Post
    And Austerlitz, Jena–Auerstedt and Friedland, Under Napoleon I show that it could be done. they where all battles that was decisive and resulted in treaties.

    And Jena–Auerstedt show how a pursuit should be done.

    And in the 1866 prussian-austria war and 1870-71 Franco-prussian war we again see that wars can be short and decisive... and that despite better firearms.
    Jena–Auerstedt wasnt a decisive battle or lead to the defeat, the events afterwards were..like desertion and poor leadership. But yes, the pursuit of Jena is a good example....

    And in the 1866 prussian-austria war and 1870-71 Franco-prussian war we again see that wars can be short and decisive
    Now the war of 1866 is actually something special, since Moltke used a strategy which was revolutionary for the european continent ( of course inspired by the ACW) like fast movement on rails and the movement of troops itself on the battlefield + its weaponry. But of course it has never been said that a war must last several years.
    " ...it appears the Virginia Military Institute will be heard from today."

    With virtue as our beacon. Our cause is charged as treason, Battle worn and starving. Through the hell of war we'll keep marching. The birth of our new nation
    - Iced Earth

  5. #15

    USA Sergeant

    thomas aagaard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Aalborg, Denmark
    Posts
    591
    the 1866 campaign was not inspired by the civil war. He had been planing that campaign for years.
    Just like when the war with Denmark got close he pulled a plan from his deskdrawer.
    Since that was his job.

    And the rest is the usual american myths.

    The Prussians started implementing breachloaders in the early 1850ties...when the USarmy didn't even use rifle muskets. No influence.

    The Prussians used railroads in 1848... just Like the danish army did. So that was not new.
    The movement of troops by Railroad we se at first manassas is similar to the moves you see in 1848 when government troops had to put down rebellions.

    The prussians tested the use of railroads for mobilization in 1861... it went badly so they made made the system better.

    The civil war saw no use of quick mobilization with the use of railroads. Since there where no reserve forces to mobilize.
    They did manage to move rather small forces at the strategic level. and it took a couple of weeks to do it.

    The Prussian army allowed the company commanders to take initiativ. During the civil war it was at the brigade level things was done...

    Civil war armies was made up of quickly trained civilians and they where lead (at the regimental and brigade levels) by civilians.
    The Prussian army was made up of well trained conscripts that served for 3 years lead by professionel ncos and officers.
    Thomas Bernstorff Aagaard

  6. #16

    USA General of the Army

    Bravescot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Perthshire, Scotland
    Posts
    2,626
    I'm going to have to back Thomas aagaard

  7. #17

    CSA Captain

    Soulfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    838
    Okay since it makes no further sense for me, the Prussian railroad system of 1848 was in its childhood (Source: Borsig (leading locomutove builder); Biography)

    @Plans: He was ordered to make a plan for a campaign against denmark in 1862 (i believe) and since the Prussians had some observers watching the ACW, like Justus Scheibert, they definitely learned from it. Plus he created the term "System der Aushilfen" like system of improvements since his famous colleague made the term "no plan survives the initial enemy contact" known, so the term plan must be used carefully

    @Auftragstaktik: as a former German soldier i can agree, but thats nothing new...

    but what are we discussing again ? quick moving napoleon, prussian plans, not so deadly acw weaponry with no deceive battles ?
    Last edited by Soulfly; 01-15-2016 at 02:24 PM.
    " ...it appears the Virginia Military Institute will be heard from today."

    With virtue as our beacon. Our cause is charged as treason, Battle worn and starving. Through the hell of war we'll keep marching. The birth of our new nation
    - Iced Earth

  8. #18

    USA Sergeant

    thomas aagaard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Aalborg, Denmark
    Posts
    591
    "Prussian railroad system of 1848 was in its childhood"
    Yes it was. But it was still used to move troops so that was not something the americans "invented".


    What we are speaking about?
    The fact that the filmclips have a number of myth that are mentioned very often, but are simply not correct.

    The rifle musket was not a new weapon by 1861 and was already obsolete. So yes the rifle muskets where better than what the americans used in earlier wars, but not better than what was the standard for the European armies.

    He is lying when he insist that it was.. or simply ignorant of non us military history.
    Breach loading weapons was also not new...
    (the repeating firearms was, but as he say, their numbers was rather limited)

    At the end of the small arms clip he insist that the rifle muskets made the civil war the deadliest war of its time...
    If he is talking deadly as pure numbers, then again he should read something about non us historie and look at the Taiping Rebellion where we are are talking millions of dead.

    If he mean deadliest in rates, so % of the men engaged then it was also no worse than the Napoleonic wars.
    And if better weapons result in higher rates, then why is that not the case with the later wars I mention?

    The rifle musket was not the reason for the huge casualties and the civil war was not worse than earlier wars.

    Iam am tired of american historians and documentary films that clearly got no knowledge about non US military history and so love to talk about the civil war had the first use of this and the first use of that. (railroads, ironclads, rifled muskets, breachloaders, ballons, trenched, mines... are all thing I hears said in some acw documentary was first used during the acw... but where that is not the case)

    The civil war did have its "Firsts" and it is a very interesting war... no reason to do the mythmaking... it don't need it.

    So yes, I like the clips from Civil war Trust... But there are no replacement for reading a lot of books about both the civil war and other military history.
    Thomas Bernstorff Aagaard

  9. #19

    CSA Captain

    Soulfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    838
    Quote Originally Posted by thomas aagaard View Post
    "Prussian railroad system of 1848 was in its childhood"
    Yes it was. But it was still used to move troops so that was not something the americans "invented".


    What we are speaking about?
    The fact that the filmclips have a number of myth that are mentioned very often, but are simply not correct.

    The rifle musket was not a new weapon by 1861 and was already obsolete. So yes the rifle muskets where better than what the americans used in earlier wars, but not better than what was the standard for the European armies.

    He is lying when he insist that it was.. or simply ignorant of non us military history.
    Breach loading weapons was also not new...
    (the repeating firearms was, but as he say, their numbers was rather limited)

    At the end of the small arms clip he insist that the rifle muskets made the civil war the deadliest war of its time...
    If he is talking deadly as pure numbers, then again he should read something about non us historie and look at the Taiping Rebellion where we are are talking millions of dead.

    If he mean deadliest in rates, so % of the men engaged then it was also no worse than the Napoleonic wars.
    And if better weapons result in higher rates, then why is that not the case with the later wars I mention?

    The rifle musket was not the reason for the huge casualties and the civil war was not worse than earlier wars.

    Iam am tired of american historians and documentary films that clearly got no knowledge about non US military history and so love to talk about the civil war had the first use of this and the first use of that. (railroads, ironclads, rifled muskets, breachloaders, ballons, trenched, mines... are all thing I hears said in some acw documentary was first used during the acw... but where that is not the case)

    The civil war did have its "Firsts" and it is a very interesting war... no reason to do the mythmaking... it don't need it.

    So yes, I like the clips from Civil war Trust... But there are no replacement for reading a lot of books about both the civil war and other military history.
    this all is more or less true, but you are hard to follow mate.
    " ...it appears the Virginia Military Institute will be heard from today."

    With virtue as our beacon. Our cause is charged as treason, Battle worn and starving. Through the hell of war we'll keep marching. The birth of our new nation
    - Iced Earth

  10. #20
    RhettVito
    Guest
    Good lord can you people just watch the videos and no go into a salty attack on one and other

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •