Allen C. Guelzo. Gettysburg: The Last Invasion (2013)
Both the Union and Confederate States of America (CSA) used the British practice of raising volunteer regiments; not only was it cheaper, but it kept with the American tradition of a small professional standing army. The typical volunteer on both sides was long on esteem and short on experience . . . and he consistently resisted military discipline. Few even knew what military discipline meant, and most saw little sense in following orders. Volunteer officers weren't much better, since the typical militia officer had little military education and experience. Regular officers must have felt like George Washington at the beginning of the Revolutionary War, in that they were in command of a mostly rag-tag outfit with little training, and little desire for discipline.
Despite the lack of military training and discipline, the typical volunteer was highly motivated. For a Union volunteer at the start of the Civil War, the main motive was to save Democracy from being overtaken by a Southern Aristocracy (by 1861, a typical Southern plantation owner saw himself as "God's Natural Aristocrat"). About 30% of the CSA soldiers were slave-owners, with the majority of officers as such. But after decade-after-decade of slavery in the South, even poor white farmers that didn't own a single slave had an instinctive impulse against what was considered "Domestic Tyranny".
Despite the lack of military training and discipline, the typical volunteer was highly motivated. For a Union volunteer at the start of the Civil War, the main motive was to save Democracy from being overtaken by a Southern Aristocracy (by 1861, a typical Southern plantation owner saw himself as "God's Natural Aristocrat"). About 30% of the CSA soldiers were slave-owners, with the majority of officers as such. But after decade-after-decade of slavery in the South, even poor white farmers that didn't own a single slave had an instinctive impulse against what was considered "Domestic Tyranny".
The day of the smooth-bore musket was gone, but the generals still used tactics from the first half of the 19th Century. The range of a rifled musket was five times greater, so the battlefield casualties were five times greater as well. The rifled musket fired a Minie Ball, named after Claude-Etienne Minie, the French weapons innovator. By 1857, the Minie Ball was the predominant ammunition; it certainly wasn't new by April, 1861. Rifling meant greater accuracy and range compared to the smooth-bore musket, but the Minie Ball (pictured below) sharply "dropped" after losing velocity; the soldier needed to take that into account when aiming for accuracy . . . but when under fire, the soldier had little time for accuracy.
In theory, a soldier could fire three aimed shots in one minute with a rifled musket, but the reality (under fire) was one shot (maybe aimed, maybe not) every three-or-so minutes. Also, the gunpowder created black clouds, which blinded the soldiers; accuracy when firing a rifled musket was very rare in the Civil War. Also, ramrods nicked the rifling in the barrel, which led to greater inaccuracies. Despite the advances in rifling, the bayonet was still the "Queen of the Battlefield."
Adding to the inaccuracy with the rifled musket was the training of the soldiers; untrained and uneducated in military matters, volunteer officers trained volunteer soldiers, which inherently caused even more inaccurate shots when they fired their weapons . . . there were documented engagements during the Civil War where 1 in 500 Minie Balls hit anyone. The high casualties of the Civil War were due to far too many close engagements when both armies fired their rifled muskets at each other; the officers rarely used the bayonet to end the battle sooner, thereby reducing the casualties.
In theory, a soldier could fire three aimed shots in one minute with a rifled musket, but the reality (under fire) was one shot (maybe aimed, maybe not) every three-or-so minutes. Also, the gunpowder created black clouds, which blinded the soldiers; accuracy when firing a rifled musket was very rare in the Civil War. Also, ramrods nicked the rifling in the barrel, which led to greater inaccuracies. Despite the advances in rifling, the bayonet was still the "Queen of the Battlefield."
Adding to the inaccuracy with the rifled musket was the training of the soldiers; untrained and uneducated in military matters, volunteer officers trained volunteer soldiers, which inherently caused even more inaccurate shots when they fired their weapons . . . there were documented engagements during the Civil War where 1 in 500 Minie Balls hit anyone. The high casualties of the Civil War were due to far too many close engagements when both armies fired their rifled muskets at each other; the officers rarely used the bayonet to end the battle sooner, thereby reducing the casualties.
In terms of using soldiers with the rifled musket (and the rarely used bayonet), there were two European strategies for the generals to consider. The basic British "Line" strategy featured a wide horizontal line, two or three soldiers deep. A positive was that soldiers in a "Line" were almost immune to artillery, but very susceptible to close-range fire from rifled muskets and close-range artillery. The basic French "Column" strategy formed soldiers into a long vertical line, stacking companies behind each other, with the leading company the "Tip of the Spear". While this formation was far-better at adjusting-on-the-fly and piercing through the enemy line, it was VERY susceptible to enemy artillery fire. Civil War generals for the Union and the CSA had a very hard time figuring out which strategy was the best given the enemy's location and formation.
The Civil War didn't have anywhere near the numbers of cavalry soldiers used in European warfare. In Europe, the artillery started the battle, the infantry turned the tide, and the cavalry closed the battle. The mounted soldier was anathema to Americans, in part because of the tremendous systems-network costs involved in getting a soldier on a horse. Even in Washington's day, the American tradition of cavalry was that it was to be used for reconnaissance and scouting . . . neither the Union or the CSA had the kind of cavalry that could turn the tide of a battle, even if they chose to use them as the Europeans.
The Civil War didn't have anywhere near the numbers of cavalry soldiers used in European warfare. In Europe, the artillery started the battle, the infantry turned the tide, and the cavalry closed the battle. The mounted soldier was anathema to Americans, in part because of the tremendous systems-network costs involved in getting a soldier on a horse. Even in Washington's day, the American tradition of cavalry was that it was to be used for reconnaissance and scouting . . . neither the Union or the CSA had the kind of cavalry that could turn the tide of a battle, even if they chose to use them as the Europeans.
While the role of the cavalry in both armies never reached anything of which Napoleon would recognize and appreciate, the artillery was an entirely different matter, as its role greatly expanded during the Civil War. The Army of the Potomac's ratio of artillery for every 1000 soldiers was actually greater than the European ratio. The mission of the artillery was to break an enemy's advance, or better yet, prevent the enemy from even being able to advance.
At the disposal of both armies were three types of artillery. The first was the long-range shell, which was timed to explode over the heads of the enemy with shrapnel; neither flight nor aggression was possible when this type of artillery was used. For mid-range was the solid shot; this "Flying Bowling Ball From Hell" was used for distances up to 400 yards, and many solid shots were fired at once. The canister (basically a huge shotgun) was the short-range artillery of last resort, able to fire 32 yards wide at a range of 100 yards. All artillery soldiers had to pace themselves, mostly so they wouldn't wear themselves down too much or too fast, but also to avoid overheating the guns.
The most common weapon of the Civil War was of course the rifled musket, but unless enemy armies were very close for an extended period of time (which happened far too often), the rifled musket was not a weapon that excelled in terms of accuracy. Artillery was the deadliest weapon in the arsenal of both the Union and the CSA, but the the effectiveness of the artillery decreased with the range of the enemy. By far, the two most under-utilized weapons of the Civil War were the bayonet and the cavalry, which meant that deadly battles became even deadlier, since neither the bayonet or the cavalry was used to end the extended carnage.
At the disposal of both armies were three types of artillery. The first was the long-range shell, which was timed to explode over the heads of the enemy with shrapnel; neither flight nor aggression was possible when this type of artillery was used. For mid-range was the solid shot; this "Flying Bowling Ball From Hell" was used for distances up to 400 yards, and many solid shots were fired at once. The canister (basically a huge shotgun) was the short-range artillery of last resort, able to fire 32 yards wide at a range of 100 yards. All artillery soldiers had to pace themselves, mostly so they wouldn't wear themselves down too much or too fast, but also to avoid overheating the guns.
The most common weapon of the Civil War was of course the rifled musket, but unless enemy armies were very close for an extended period of time (which happened far too often), the rifled musket was not a weapon that excelled in terms of accuracy. Artillery was the deadliest weapon in the arsenal of both the Union and the CSA, but the the effectiveness of the artillery decreased with the range of the enemy. By far, the two most under-utilized weapons of the Civil War were the bayonet and the cavalry, which meant that deadly battles became even deadlier, since neither the bayonet or the cavalry was used to end the extended carnage.