The Civil War: Transitions to Modern Warfare

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

The Civil War: Transitions to Modern Warfare

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865 >> The Civil War: Transitions to Modern Warfare

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

The Civil War: Transitions to Modern Warfare - 9/28/2006 4:29:47 PM

dh76513

Posts: 131
Joined: 9/19/2006
Status: offline

According to many military historians and political scholars, the American Civil War became the breeding ground for modern warfare. In fact, the Civil War has long been known for its many "firsts" and has been credited:

A workable machine gun
A steel ship
A successful submarine
A "snorkel" breathing device
A wide-ranging corps of press correspondents in battle areas
American conscription
American bread lines
American President assassinated
Aerial reconnaissance
Antiaircraft fire
Army ambulance corps
Blackouts and camouflage under aerial observation
Cigarette tax
Commissioned American Army chaplains
Department of justice (Confederate)
Electrically exploded bombs and torpedoes
Fixed ammunition
Field trenches on a grand scale
Flame throwers
Hospital ships
Ironclad navies
Land-mine fields
Legal voting for servicemen
Long-range rifles for general use
Medal of Honor
Military telegraph
Military railroads
Naval torpedoes
Negro U.S. Army Officer (Major M.R. Delany)
Organized medical and nursing corps
Photography of battle
Railroad artillery
Repeating rifles
Revolving gun turrets
The bugle call, "Taps"
The Income tax
The wigwag signal code in battle
The periscope, for trench warfare
Telescopic sights for rifles
Tobacco tax
U.S. Navy Admiral
U.S. Secret Service
Withholding tax
Wire entanglements
Wide-scale use of anesthetics for wounded

Source: "The Civil War, Strange and Fascinating Facts" by Burke Davis

< Message edited by dh76513 -- 9/28/2006 4:43:06 PM >

_____________________________

Post #: 1

RE: The Civil War: Transitions to Modern Warfare - 9/28/2006 5:39:21 PM

Syagrius

Posts: 165
Joined: 5/12/2006
Status: offline

For many experts, the reason why the CW had been so bloody is because it was the first Industrial War however fought with Napoleonic tactics. It was a mix of old and new Warfare which gives to it a unique perspective.

(in reply to dh76513)

Post #: 2

RE: The Civil War: Transitions to Modern Warfare - 9/28/2006 6:06:24 PM

captskillet

Posts: 2493
Joined: 3/1/2003
From: Louisiana & the 2007 Nat Champ LSU Fightin' Tigers
Status: offline

quote:

For many experts, the reason why the CW had been so bloody is because it was the first Industrial War however fought with Napoleonic tactics.

Well I think the Crimean War would really qualify as the first war of the modern Industrial Era. But between the 2 of them and the massive losses incurred in attacking entrenched troops, you would think all the miltary geniuses would have realized that with the advances in firepower of arty and inf. weapons from that era to 1914 that the old masses of men deal just wasnt gonna cut it anymore....

!

_____________________________

"Git thar fust with the most men" - Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest

(in reply to dh76513)

Post #: 3

RE: The Civil War: Transitions to Modern Warfare - 9/28/2006 6:24:26 PM

dh76513

Posts: 131
Joined: 9/19/2006
Status: offline

Historians consider The American Civil War to be the first modern war. They regard it to be the first modern war because it was the first war where widespread use of mechanized and electrified devices like railroad trains, aerial observation, telegraph, photography, torpedoes, mines, ironclad ships and rifles occurred.

Although these recent innovations were used for military purposes during the engagements, the armed forces were sometimes reluctant to embrace new technologies. On occasion, the inventors and entrepreneurs of these new technologies visualized military applications for them and had to persuade the War Department to use them in the military efforts. The military men of the nineteenth century were not trained to see new gadgets as solutions to the problems of warfare. They had been schooled in techniques that were more-or-less classical and the product of long traditions. Experimenting with new devices can jeopardize an entire operation so it took a bold new approach to try any of the many newfangled contraptions that were proposed at the beginning of the conflict.

Apart from the new devices that are outlined here, there were hundreds of other proposals to the US War Department for machines intended to bring a swift end to the war. The Confederate States also received hundreds of proposals and tended to try more of them than the Northern States did. Perhaps it was because the Confederacy had the best officers or perhaps it was because of their strategic disadvantage in materials and personnel?

_____________________________

(in reply to captskillet)

Post #: 4

RE: The Civil War: Transitions to Modern Warfare - 9/28/2006 6:54:34 PM

Oldguard

Posts: 94
Joined: 9/15/2005
Status: offline

The other night, the History Channel ran a show on some of the innovations in the ACW. They analyzed the ironclads and also talked at length about the Gatling Gun. Apparently the US Quartermaster General refused to order Gatlings in quantity despite requisitions by Ben Butler (Hancock ordered 12 guns for his I Corps).

The war was bloody enough, but imagine the supremacy of prepared defenses if they'd had Gatlings in numbers. The Army did not officially adopt the Gatling until the 1865 model which used rimfire cartridges in place of the old steel-chambered paper models. By then (1866) the war was over.

Wasn't the first real post-war usage of the Gatling by the 7th Cavalry at Wounded Knee against unarmed people?

(in reply to dh76513)

Post #: 5

RE: The Civil War: Transitions to Modern Warfare - 9/28/2006 7:21:30 PM

Gil R.

Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oldguard

The other night, the History Channel ran a show on some of the innovations in the ACW. They analyzed the ironclads and also talked at length about the Gatling Gun. Apparently the US Quartermaster General refused to order Gatlings in quantity despite requisitions by Ben Butler (Hancock ordered 12 guns for his I Corps).

The war was bloody enough, but imagine the supremacy of prepared defenses if they'd had Gatlings in numbers. The Army did not officially adopt the Gatling until the 1865 model which used rimfire cartridges in place of the old steel-chambered paper models. By then (1866) the war was over.

Wasn't the first real post-war usage of the Gatling by the 7th Cavalry at Wounded Knee against unarmed people?

We do have Gatlings guns as an upgrade -- put enough resources into weapons research and you can purchase them for some of your brigades.

(in reply to Oldguard)

Post #: 6

RE: The Civil War: Transitions to Modern Warfare - 9/28/2006 7:29:47 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

Apparently the US Quartermaster General refused to order Gatlings in quantity despite requisitions by Ben Butler (Hancock ordered 12 guns for his I Corps).

well the quartermaster thought it was a waste of ammo, and didn't want to pay for the amounts that he thought it would waste, I believe that was also one of the reasons for the lack of support for weapons like the Spencer

_____________________________

(in reply to Gil R.)

Post #: 7

RE: The Civil War: Transitions to Modern Warfare - 9/28/2006 7:35:14 PM

Gil R.

Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline

I'm pleased to report that we do have many things from that list, some as basic features and others as potential upgrades.

No %$*^$*$@ income tax, though. Games are meant to be for escaping...

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 8

RE: The Civil War: Transitions to Modern Warfare - 9/28/2006 7:50:59 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

I'm pleased to report that we do have many things from that list, some as basic features and others as potential upgrades.

No %$*^$*$@ income tax, though. Games are meant to be for escaping...

I don't know about that last line, I think we get taxed in the game

only I don't think I am allowed to say how ?????

_____________________________

(in reply to Gil R.)

Post #: 9

RE: The Civil War: Transitions to Modern Warfare - 9/28/2006 8:32:03 PM

dh76513

Posts: 131
Joined: 9/19/2006
Status: offline

Hard Sarge, I bet you're right!

_____________________________

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 10

RE: The Civil War: Transitions to Modern Warfare - 9/28/2006 10:01:48 PM

Oldguard

Posts: 94
Joined: 9/15/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

well the quartermaster thought it was a waste of ammo, and didn't want to pay for the amounts that he thought it would waste, I believe that was also one of the reasons for the lack of support for weapons like the Spencer

If he saw the ammo expenditure rates on modern weapons, especially miniguns and the Phalanx system, he'd choke on his sandwich :)

Perhaps the ACW was the last big hoorah for Americans substituting our own blood for firepower. We just started getting the message in WW1, but from WW2 through Korea, Vietnam and the Gulf, we'd rather expend a million rounds than lose one soldier.

I, as a former soldier, thank them for that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

We do have Gatlings guns as an upgrade -- put enough resources into weapons research and you can purchase them for some of your brigades.

You keep tormenting me like this, sir. I wonder if there's any way to have Gatlings by the time I fight another Gettysburg?

Reminds me of an old SNL sketch with John Belushi, "History Theatre" I believe. They asked a ludicrous historical question each week. The one I enjoyed the most was the question, "What would Napoleon have done with B52s at Waterloo?"

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 11

RE: The Civil War: Transitions to Modern Warfare - 9/28/2006 10:11:30 PM

Gil R.

Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

I'm pleased to report that we do have many things from that list, some as basic features and others as potential upgrades.

No %$*^$*$@ income tax, though. Games are meant to be for escaping...

I don't know about that last line, I think we get taxed in the game

only I don't think I am allowed to say how ?????

I'm not sure I know what you're referring to. I mean, every province can produce money, if that's what you mean. If it isn't, feel free to post here and enlighten me -- I'll come to your defense in court if Matrix sues you for breach of beta-testing contract...

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 12

RE: The Civil War: Transitions to Modern Warfare - 9/28/2006 11:07:32 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

Gil

no had another idea on this, so quess it can wait :)

Oldguard, roger that, but at the time, they thought the Springfield and other such guns were also bad (just not as bad)

and yes, if you play a Historical time line game, you could have Gatlings by Gettysburg

LOL, I seen a Union (Ahhhh< not sure i can go that far) well< put it this way

seen a union units armed with a withworth and with a gatling< thinking< that is just not fair

_____________________________

(in reply to Gil R.)

Post #: 13

RE: The Civil War: Transitions to Modern Warfare - 9/29/2006 4:43:56 PM

dh76513

Posts: 131
Joined: 9/19/2006
Status: offline

As for artillery, I assume the game will boast Rodman guns, columbiads, Howitzers, and mortars. What is the largest artillery piece in the arsenal of weapons in this game?

_____________________________

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 14

RE: The Civil War: Transitions to Modern Warfare - 9/29/2006 5:57:39 PM

Oldguard

Posts: 94
Joined: 9/15/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dh76513

As for artillery, I assume the game will boast Rodman guns, columbiads, Howitzers, and mortars. What is the largest artillery piece in the arsenal of weapons in this game?

Have any of you been to the Petersburg battlefield? I was stationed at Ft. Lee, VA in the '70s and the battlefield was practically across the street. I never tired of walking the remnants of the trenches and ogling the huge trench mortars the Union side used in that siege. Compared to the 81mm we used in 'Nam they looked like they could swallow a Mac truck :)

(in reply to dh76513)

Post #: 15

RE: The Civil War: Transitions to Modern Warfare - 9/29/2006 7:15:01 PM

dh76513

Posts: 131
Joined: 9/19/2006
Status: offline

Yes Oldguard, I have been there and the bike trail (about 10 miles) is fantastic. However, I was disturbed by the housing developments and other buildings that have gradually crept into the battlefield and are now etched into the landscapes of the Petersburg battlefield. The Union mortars there are nothing short of incredible. I was most impressed by "the dictator" - a 13 inch, 9 ton mortar. Nonetheless, the best Civil War battlefield I have ever visited is the one at Vicksburg.

_____________________________

(in reply to Oldguard)

Post #: 16

RE: The Civil War: Transitions to Modern Warfare - 9/29/2006 8:47:08 PM

anarchyintheuk

Posts: 3921
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline

I enjoyed Vicksburg tremendously. Terrain maps really don't do that place justice.

(in reply to dh76513)

Post #: 17

RE: The Civil War: Transitions to Modern Warfare - 9/29/2006 11:50:45 PM

Gil R.

Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dh76513

As for artillery, I assume the game will boast Rodman guns, columbiads, Howitzers, and mortars. What is the largest artillery piece in the arsenal of weapons in this game?

I don't believe I'd be giving away corporate secrets if I were to post the whole list of guns. Some can be bought at the start of the game, others require tech upgrades or European support. These cover infantry/cavalry/artillery units, forts and ships.

Shotgun
Musket
Minie_Rifle
Springfield_Rifle
Richmond_Musket
Enfield
Whitworth
Improved_Springfield
Lorenz
Spencer_Carbine
Sharps_Carbine
Henry_Rifle
Starr_Carbine
Zouave_Rifle
6_pd._Gun
12_pdr_Gun
12_pd_Howitzer
24_pd_Howitzer
Napoleon
10-pdr_Parrott_Rifle
Ordnance_Rifle
12-pdr_Whitworth
Brooke_Rifle
Blakely_Rifle
12-pd_Mortar
24-pdr_Gun
24-pd_Coehorn_Mortar
32-pdr_Gun
42-pdr_Rifle
100-pdr_Parrott_Rifle
200-pdr_Parrott_Rifle
300-pdr_Parrott_Rifle
9-in._Blakely_Rifle
8-in._Siege_Howitzer
13-in._Mortar
10-in._Rodman
15-in._Rodman
10-in._Columbiad
12.75_in._Blakely
20-Inch_Rodman
Naval_Brooke_Rifle
Naval_Blakely_Rifle
Naval_Parrott_Rifle
Dahlgren_Rifle
XX_Inch_Dahlgren
Burnside_Carbine
Mississippi_Rifle
Columbus_Carbine
Musketoon
Sharps_Rifle
Liege_Rifle

< Message edited by Gil R. -- 9/30/2006 1:37:08 AM >

(in reply to dh76513)

Post #: 18

RE: The Civil War: Transitions to Modern Warfare - 9/29/2006 11:52:21 PM

Gil R.

Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oldguard

Have any of you been to the Petersburg battlefield? I was stationed at Ft. Lee, VA in the '70s and the battlefield was practically across the street. I never tired of walking the remnants of the trenches and ogling the huge trench mortars the Union side used in that siege. Compared to the 81mm we used in 'Nam they looked like they could swallow a Mac truck :)

Eric and I both went to Petersburg a few years ago (before we knew we'd be doing this game, as a matter of fact). The Dictator definitely is memorable, as is the Crater. It's in a really nice area, too.

(in reply to Oldguard)

Post #: 19

RE: The Civil War: Transitions to Modern Warfare - 9/30/2006 1:28:45 AM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

and some of them are real nice too

Monsters

and others are a pain

nothing like a 12 pound Withworth to ruin the other guys day

_____________________________

(in reply to Gil R.)

Post #: 20

RE: The Civil War: Transitions to Modern Warfare - 10/2/2006 6:07:42 AM

andysomers

Posts: 157
Joined: 9/11/2006
Status: offline

Two critiques:

1) Too many weapons??? (i.e. in a game of this scope, what's the real difference between a "minie rifle" and an "enfield" - same with artillery types - seems there's too many. Very minor issue however.

2) Muskets - I assume this means smoothbore muskets converted to percussion cap firing. I would also start the game with flintlocks. These were quite common in the early part of the war (see battle of Mill Springs, Wilson's Creek, et al) particularly in the West and in isolated areas of the war. Could be replicated accurately in the game with a slightly slower rate of fire, and nearly ineffective in any combat engaged in rain (not sure how much you are taking weather into consideration). Either way, I would definitely like to see lots of these in the game early on, for both sides. Again, this is a very minor issue.

Thanks for the list!

AS

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 21

RE: The Civil War: Transitions to Modern Warfare - 10/2/2006 8:47:59 PM

dh76513

Posts: 131
Joined: 9/19/2006
Status: offline

Wow, I am certainly impressed by the number and variety of weapons. Will there be special units like rangers? For example, COL John Singleton Mosby, CSA, and his rangers of the 43rd Battalion of Virginia Cavalry? Fighting on a different level from the regular soldiers, these rangers and became a difficult weapon with which to deal. Created by the Confederate government and later abandon and pursued as criminals by the Union with hardly any distinction, they thrived. Their success under adverse conditions can be explained by the extraordinary personalities that lead them like William Clarke Quantrell, John Hunt Morgan and John Singleton Mosby.

Mosby's best-known single exploit may be his raid on Fairfax in which he captured U.S. General Stoughton. In the face of today�s political correctness, much of the U.S. Army Ranger history during this period and it connection to the Confederate army of the Civil War has been blatantly removed from many modern chronicles. As an army ranger and officer who served in the U. S. Army during Operation Dessert Storm, I have seen this process unfold. The Rangers also fought for the Union during the Civil War and should also be mentioned. Although often overlooked in historical accounts, Mean's Rangers captured Confederate General Longstreet's ammunition train, and even succeeded in engaging and capturing a portion of COL Mosby's force. Regardless, for those who enjoy military trivia, the U.S. Army Ranger patch below illustrates it Southern roots as signified by the Confederate Flag.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to andysomers)

Post #: 22

RE: The Civil War: Transitions to Modern Warfare - 10/2/2006 9:32:29 PM

andysomers

Posts: 157
Joined: 9/11/2006
Status: offline

I like the idea of "partisan units" or something of this sort, probably for the CS only.

AS

< Message edited by andysomers -- 10/2/2006 9:34:12 PM >

(in reply to dh76513)

Post #: 23

RE: The Civil War: Transitions to Modern Warfare - 10/2/2006 10:49:58 PM

Hairog

Posts: 1645
Joined: 7/11/2000
From: Cornucopia, WI
Status: offline

I believe there should be partisan units for the USA too. If the CSA manages to take northern territory partisans should and would have appeared. There should be union partisan units from the get go in Eastern TN a hot bed of resistance to the rebel cause not to mention KY and MO.

(in reply to andysomers)

Post #: 24

RE: The Civil War: Transitions to Modern Warfare - 10/3/2006 1:38:23 AM

andysomers

Posts: 157
Joined: 9/11/2006
Status: offline

That's a good point Hairog.

AS

(in reply to Hairog)

Post #: 25

RE: The Civil War: Transitions to Modern Warfare - 10/3/2006 6:46:47 AM

Gil R.

Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: andysomers

Two critiques:

1) Too many weapons??? (i.e. in a game of this scope, what's the real difference between a "minie rifle" and an "enfield" - same with artillery types - seems there's too many. Very minor issue however.

2) Muskets - I assume this means smoothbore muskets converted to percussion cap firing. I would also start the game with flintlocks. These were quite common in the early part of the war (see battle of Mill Springs, Wilson's Creek, et al) particularly in the West and in isolated areas of the war. Could be replicated accurately in the game with a slightly slower rate of fire, and nearly ineffective in any combat engaged in rain (not sure how much you are taking weather into consideration). Either way, I would definitely like to see lots of these in the game early on, for both sides. Again, this is a very minor issue.

Thanks for the list!

AS

Yes, muskets are smoothbores. As for the flintlocks, I think those come under the category of "Improvised" guns. Units start out with "Improvised," and then can be equipped with upgraded weapons. A new regiment, especially out west, would indeed have lots of different weapons represented, since that's what the men would bring from home. But no, we do not have flintlocks as a specific type of gun.

I don't think the variety of guns is too much -- my guess is that we would have far more complaints if we left out some.

(in reply to andysomers)

Post #: 26

RE: The Civil War: Transitions to Modern Warfare - 10/3/2006 6:49:50 AM

Gil R.

Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline

Regarding Raiders and Partisans, both are CSA-only units in the game. They have a chance to block movements of troops (especially by rail), and also can be instructed to steal weapons, destroy supplies, cause economic damage, etc.

The idea of letting the USA build such units is interesting, but will have to be raised again once the game is released. It is too late to make changes now, but we would consider it for a patch if persuaded by the arguments.

dh76513, that's interesting about the history of the Rangers. I didn't know that.

(in reply to Gil R.)

Post #: 27

RE: The Civil War: Transitions to Modern Warfare - 10/3/2006 7:30:18 AM

andysomers

Posts: 157
Joined: 9/11/2006
Status: offline

Gil,

Thanks for the good responses - I like the idea of improvised guns.� I see a hodgepodge of all sorts of arms thrown together, modeled as low rates of fire, difficult to keep supplied (due to the several different types of ammo), and shorter effective ranges (smoothbore vs. rifled).� I'll bow to your judgement on the number of weapon types.� Again - both are minor issues.

Partisans sound fine for now as CSA only.� This is going to be fun!!!

Thanks again for the explanations - solid logic and well thought it would seem.

AS

< Message edited by andysomers -- 10/3/2006 7:32:48 AM >

(in reply to Gil R.)

Post #: 28

RE: The Civil War: Transitions to Modern Warfare - 10/3/2006 6:11:50 PM

dh76513

Posts: 131
Joined: 9/19/2006
Status: offline

As I mentioned earlier......

quote:

ORIGINAL: dh76513
Although often overlooked in historical accounts, Mean's Rangers captured Confederate General Longstreet's ammunition train, and even succeeded in engaging and capturing a portion of COL Mosby's force.

_____________________________

(in reply to andysomers)

Post #: 29

RE: The Civil War: Transitions to Modern Warfare - 10/3/2006 6:32:01 PM

Gil R.

Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline

dh76513,
I can definitely see letting the North build such units, based on what's written above. I think that they should be allowed to build fewer than the South, but it seems that there is good enough historical precedent for them to have some. But as I wrote above, please bring this up again when the game comes out -- right now, I'm too busy to keep track of suggestions for future patches, but this is something that could be added with a patch.

(in reply to dh76513)

Post #: 30

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865 >> The Civil War: Transitions to Modern Warfare

Page: [1] 2 next > >>