tlb wrote:kzt wrote:What they saw was entrenchments, belt-fed machineguns, barbed wire, massive artillery, all producing massive casualties.
What their organization learned from this can be clearly seen by how the BA, IGA and FA were shocked and horrified by the the lethality of belt-fed machineguns, and how rapidly entrenchments and barbed wire locked the front, and everyone ran out of artillery ammunition a few months into the war.
ThinksMarkedly wrote:I'm not as well-versed in military history as some others here, so can I ask to take this argument to the next logical step and spell out the conclusion? IIRC from History classes, WW1 was an entrenched and locked war, with no side gaining advantage once they dug in, but that changed in WW2 with tanks, the Blitzkrieg.
In the pre-tank ages, the crucial factor was the number of men each side had for an area: the western front locked into trenches from Switzerland to the sea, but the eastern front remained a war of maneuver. The difference is between a battle with open areas to allow movement and a siege. Most of the American Civil War saw battles of maneuver (unless someone was foolish enough to try a frontal assault), until massive forces gathered around Richmond and Petersburg near the end. Even then Sherman was almost all maneuver.
The lines were finally broken in WW1 with new tactics and one side gaining a massive increase in men.
But other ACW battles, such as Vicksberg, showed glimpses, (and the horrors) of trench warfare. When maneuver warfare stopped, things got bloody. We even saw the massive explosive charges used to break the trench stalemate, as was repeated in WW1.
The Gattling Gun was developed in the last days of the ACW, and other automatic firing guns were developed and used by both sides throughout, and quickly showed what such weapons could do to troops on open ground. (but the Ord. department hated such devices for the amount (and cost) of ammo used). The Minie Ball cartridge changed the average rifleman, allowing them to file 10+ rounds a minute ACCCURATELY, at distances over 200 yards (something known, but not accounted for at the beginning of the war, where Napoleonic musket tactics were still used.
A little known fact, the US Army had a BREECH loading rifle in mass use starting in 1819 - the Hall rifle. Made at Harper's Ferry Arsenals (yes, that one). Th Army used a 38 man infantry company to test the guns, versus an army smoothbore musket and a Muzzle loading riffle. In one minute of firing at 100 yard targets, the Halls fired ~145% as many rounds a when firing muskets (~260% that of rifles), and hit 36% of their targets, compared to 25% of the muskets and 33% on the muzzle loading Rifles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1819_Hall_rifleThese were given to Dragoons and Auxiliary troops. Most were worn out and retired before the ACW, but some later models served at the beginning of conflict. The US Army knew the advantages (and perils) of high volume gunfire well previous to the ACW. Despite the advantages, the guns were never given to mainline troops, only specialized skirmishers
But this proves kzt to be correct, the lessons of the Hall on the US Army were never taken to their main infantry force and lost 40 years later, even though the guns were still in auxiliary roles, while Napoleonic tactics still reigned on the battlefield - even though all the weapons used had outstripped the tactics of old.
The British had a similiar design invented a couple years earlier - it too had limited use and quickly fell out of use.