honvedseg wrote:Er, actually, the American Civil War was fought by Northerners clad mostly in blue uniforms, with a few states in gray and a few more in a mix of blue and gray, and a couple of specific units wearing bright and flashy colors, against Southerners mostly in gray uniforms, some without uniforms, and many without even boots or shoes by the later stages of the war. Since each state set its own standards, and that was supplemented by privately raised and financed units, there were no concrete national standards of dress, and the southern states were often unable to provide or transport the needed items. Unpopular dress standards on either side were frequently ignored, or in at least one case blatantly refused when one regiment tossed its hated dress hats into the Potomac river while crossing.
And in the later stages of the war, many confederate units wore home-made uniforms of "butternut", which is simply the natural color of unbleached, undyed cotton, similar to what we'd call khaki today.
honvedseg wrote:The early stages of the war were fought in a linear battle line fashion, with horrendous casualties due to the increased lethality of improved firearms and the failure of the military leadership to adjust its tactics to compensate. Peer pressure, possibly due to the practice of placing recruits from the same town in the same units, resulted in those units suffering incredible losses before fleeing from indefensible positions. The Northern states took a while to organize and to sort through a series of command and leadership difficulties, while the Southern states capitalized on the chaos.
Military traditions were still strong in the South, and many families sent their sons to military schools, which was a huge advantage to the Confederacy in trying to build an army from scratch. Furthermore, the South's largely rural population was intimately familiar with firearms, with boys traditionally learning to shoot a rifle before 10 years of age. In contrast, the North, in order to take advantage of its vastly superior population base, was forced to draw upon a large urban population, many of whom had never fired a rifle in their lives. The contrast in average standards of marksmanship would be felt throughout the war; even green confederate units could
shoot.
honvedseg wrote: Within a year or so, however, the North had begun to use its huge industrial advantage and manpower edge to simply overwhelm the southern armies by sheer mass of men and equipment. By the final stages, it had begun to turn into a WWI style trench war, as firepower had again increased dramatically due to magazine fed rifles and even early automatic weapons, but the outcome was a foregone conclusion long before that.
Agreed, all true, but I expect some damn fool will be in here shortly to accuse you of "Lost Cause Romanticism". And, err, I didn't know about the automatic weapons. Are you referring to Gatling guns?
honvedseg wrote:
I don't see the ACW as an ideal topic for a tactical computer game, as the unimaginative tactics used would make for a boring game if done historically, and a one-sided slaughter if fought using modern mobile tactics and use of terrain and cover against an opponent following the historical "rules".
A naval game of the same period would be even more of a waste, as the Monitor vs Merrimack (or Virginia) represented the first attempt of the North at an ironclad (firing a half-strength powder charge with its main gun) against some of the last of the Confederacy's hoarded pre-war armor plate. It was merely the "trial run" of a new series of ships for the North, but a last desperate attempt for the South. While a draw tactically, it strategically doomed the Confederacy to a Union blockade.
Well said, well said, well said! An accurate overall summary of the purely military aspects of the war