Why were infantry still fighting in lines in the Civil War?

[MTV]

It doesn't make much sense. I know they didn't have accurate firearms pre 19'th century. Rifled barrels weren't common yet. They had to line up and fire volleys to hit anything. They had access to modern firearms in the Civil War. Multi-shot weapons, Rifled barrels, Percussion caps. I know the average infantryman was still using a single shot muzzle loader, but he could at least accurately fire his weapon yes?

So wouldn't it make more sense to spread out and fight more as an individual, rather than stand there like a duck getting sprayed with volleys? Was it just an outdated tatic?

Does anyone have explanation?

[Twiggy]

Yes, fighting in lines was an outdated strategy with the technology used during the Civil War. The most concise way of explaining why, that I can think of, is the fact that old ideas die hard when it comes to military strategy and it has been that way throughout history. Most notably, look at the monumental carnage caused by outdated offensive strategies during WW1 or the complete failure of outdated defense strategies (Maginot Line) during WW2.

[4ntidote]

I think Twiggy is right. The majority of generals on both sides had the same military education, and deviating from the rule book probably never even crossed their minds. They were no flexible bunch of people.

[Mashsmouth]

That's the most supported and obvious answer. Both armies also were divided into Napoleon's corps.

I found it funny that the man (some Hardee guy) who wrote the tactics book for West Point only got a brigadier general position in the Confederate Army.

[PointBlank]

Originally posted by M'aiq the Liar:

It doesn't make much sense. I know they didn't have accurate firearms pre 19'th century. Rifled barrels weren't common yet. They had to line up and fire volleys to hit anything. They had access to modern firearms in the Civil War. Multi-shot weapons, Rifled barrels, Percussion caps. I know the average infantryman was still using a single shot muzzle loader, but he could at least accurately fire his weapon yes?

So wouldn't it make more sense to spread out and fight more as an individual, rather than stand there like a duck getting sprayed with volleys? Was it just an outdated tatic?

Does anyone have explanation?

You basically just answered your own question. One of the major reasons the line formation was still used was because the equipment was still very lackluster at that time. At least for a main infantry man. Equipment like repeating rifles weren't the standard issue rifle yet because they took so long to make and there weren't many finished to be widely used.

Even with practice, the single shot muzzle loader was still only accurate to a certain distance before the ball would dart off course of the target. Furthermore, reloading was also a timely process even with practice.

[MTV]

I thought so. I wasn't entirely sure. I think the average was 4 shots a minute if you were skilled.

[YueJin]

It's a bit simplistic to just say it was an outdated tactic. Fighting in close formations was slowly becoming obsolete but you have to remember that neither side in the ACW was professionally trained other than the small part of the U.S regular army.

Fighting in close knit formations made the communication and execution of orders much easier which the untrained officers on both sides needed. Also none of the infantry had been trained in fighting as an individual, without that the natural response to being charged by a block of infantry would be to run as fast as possible. Formations were required to take and hold ground.

Also even if using small squad tactics would inflict more kills, it was believe to have a lesser effect on morale, the massed fire of a whole brigade focussed on one target could quickly force it to flee. Battles in the ACW were typically decided by which side broke first, not which suffered more casualties in the charge. The side that broke would then suffer terribly at the hands of pursuing infantry or cavalry if it was on the scene.

It was only really with the advent of the telegraph and radio that fighting in small squads became the accepted tactic to use. Without communication a battlefield can be a very lonely and terrifying place so whilst lines had their disadvantages they were still the best way to achieve success in the ACW.

[Technopiper]

Percussion caps were also widely available at that time, at least in the Union Army. Reloads would be faster and misfires less common. The main reason repeating fire wasn't more popular was because 19th century industry could not cope with the ammunition consumption of such a weapon. The army that adopted it would probably lose the logistic war.

I've read somwhere that an important reason for the adoption of Napoleonic lines was smoke: shooters were soon obscured by smoke and aimed fire was no longer practical. Troops had to rely on massed volley fires.

[Yankee]

The only professional soldiers available at the time were West Point grads. At the military academy they taught military history and at the time it consisted largely of the Napoleanic campaigns and the Crimean war. Line infantry firing muskets good to 100 yards followed by bayonet charges. Rifled muskets firing a heavier ball ( yes even M16 ammo is still called "ball ammunition ") with an effective range of 500 yards simply hadn't been employed on a large enough scale for the tactical lessons to be distributed to the consumers of the day. Even good tacticians like Lee and Jackson were still bringing their school lessons to work at the start of the war. Just as importantly amatuer amies meant it was very difficult to control a few thousand people armed with guns and little training eyond how to line up and march. Lining up and shooting at each other was pretty much at their Peter Principle limits .

[silkySapper]

Some of these are good points, others are incredibly misinformed. I suggest reading one of Richard Holmes's excellent books on the British army to understand more on the military capabilities of the time. I will separate my responses to the separate areas discussed:

Communications: Telegraph was available at this time, as that is how war correspondents provided their newspapers with timely reports on the battles. The armies in the ACW often marched only as fast as they could lay telegraph cable, in order to keep contact between corps and the other armies as well as with Washington/Richmond.

Command and Control: Black powder as used in muskets at the time created large amounts of smoke, obscuring the battlefield, hence a major reason for the use of colour parties, so soldiers could take their bearings in a confusing smoke filled battlefield. Only the higher command situated back from the front line could see the whole situation and shift reinforcements accordingly.

Just one year later in the Austro-Prussian War or five years later in the Franco-Prussian War, the German states smashed the largest army of the time with what is called Auftragstaktik, where many command responsibilities where put in the hands of lower ranks than before, including in the hands of NCOs. Greg Wawro's book on the Franco-Prussian War gives an excellent overview of this. One of the major reasons this devolution of command responsibilities to lower ranks was the fact that Prussia had led the world in the introduction of universal education years before anyone else, and conscription meant that a large percentage of their soldiers were university graduates. This was crucial, as it allowed platoon leaders to be able to read maps, read and pass on accurate messages, complete battlefield engineering tasks, and many other things we take for granted these days. The USA at the time was still a frontier nation, without the same education levels as Europe, and so this wasn't possible for the forces in the ACW.

Originally posted by Technopiper:

I've read somwhere that an important reason for the adoption of Napoleonic lines was smoke: shooters were soon obscured by smoke and aimed fire was no longer practical. Troops had to rely on massed volley fires.

volley fire was mainly used at the start of battles before the smoke covered the field, as order and discipline quickly broke down and men would fire off as quickly as they could after the first volley or two. Volley fire was good for a sudden shock on charging enemies when they were close as the sudden collapse of tens of men in front of them would send the following soldiers into a panic. Only about 40% of balls would strike a target the size of a regiment at regular combat distances of 100-150 yards, this according to tests done by Prussian and British armies just before this time period.

Originally posted by Who Goes Thar:

That's the most supported and obvious answer. Both armies also were divided into Napoleon's corps.

What does Napoleon have anything to do with this? He'd been long dead before this war.

Originally posted by Twiggy:

Yes, fighting in lines was an outdated strategy with the technology used during the Civil War. The most concise way of explaining why, that I can think of, is the fact that old ideas die hard when it comes to military strategy and it has been that way throughout history. Most notably, look at the monumental carnage caused by outdated offensive strategies during WW1 or the complete failure of outdated defense strategies (Maginot Line) during WW2.

The Maginot line was not outdated, it was never attacked in force. Just because the French weren't smart enough to build it so that it couldn't be outflanked doesn't mean it was an outdated idea. I'm not saying it was impregnable, but you can't say it was a complete failure, its simple presence forced Germany to attack through the low countries.

WWI offensive losses were more a result of the increased defensive technology with no matching capabilities for the attackers rather than outdated offensive strategies. The introduction of the tank, gas warfare, flame throwers, SMGs etc went far to tip the balance back towards the attacker, as did evolving tactics such as the creeping barrage or Hutier tactics. But these technologies were still in their infancy, a tank going 15km/h couldn't punch a hole in the enemy line when it doesn't even move as fast as the infantry it was supporting. Modern infantry attack tactics have actually not changed dramatically from those in use by the end of WWI, the difference now is the combined arms tactics that are now more commonplace.

[Twiggy]

Originally posted by silkySapper:

Originally posted by Twiggy:

Yes, fighting in lines was an outdated strategy with the technology used during the Civil War. The most concise way of explaining why, that I can think of, is the fact that old ideas die hard when it comes to military strategy and it has been that way throughout history. Most notably, look at the monumental carnage caused by outdated offensive strategies during WW1 or the complete failure of outdated defense strategies (Maginot Line) during WW2.

The Maginot line was not outdated, it was never attacked in force. Just because the French weren't smart enough to build it so that it couldn't be outflanked doesn't mean it was an outdated idea. I'm not saying it was impregnable, but you can't say it was a complete failure, its simple presence forced Germany to attack through the low countries.

WWI offensive losses were more a result of the increased defensive technology with no matching capabilities for the attackers rather than outdated offensive strategies. The introduction of the tank, gas warfare, flame throwers, SMGs etc went far to tip the balance back towards the attacker, as did evolving tactics such as the creeping barrage or Hutier tactics. But these technologies were still in their infancy, a tank going 15km/h couldn't punch a hole in the enemy line when it doesn't even move as fast as the infantry it was supporting. Modern infantry attack tactics have actually not changed dramatically from those in use by the end of WWI, the difference now is the combined arms tactics that are now more commonplace.

I'll make this plain and simple. The Maginot Line was a failure because the French lost and they lost bad. They invested all that money and time into an outdated strategy that did not prevent them from declaring unconditional surrender. If they had invested more into updating and expanding their airforce instead it probably would have resulted in a much more favorable outcome for them. Like I said before, old ideas die hard.

[Technopiper]

Originally posted by silkySapper:

Originally posted by Technopiper:

I've read somwhere that an important reason for the adoption of Napoleonic lines was smoke: shooters were soon obscured by smoke and aimed fire was no longer practical. Troops had to rely on massed volley fires.

volley fire was mainly used at the start of battles before the smoke covered the field, as order and discipline quickly broke down and men would fire off as quickly as they could after the first volley or two. Volley fire was good for a sudden shock on charging enemies when they were close as the sudden collapse of tens of men in front of them would send the following soldiers into a panic. Only about 40% of balls would strike a target the size of a regiment at regular combat distances of 100-150 yards, this according to tests done by Prussian and British armies just before this time period.

I meant to say "massed fire without aiming", not volley fire. Thank you for pointing that out. Smoke prevented any effective aiming. Soldiers would point in the enemy's general direction and fire, even though rifled muskets were effective up to 600 meters. I just located the source: Gettysburg: The Last Invasion by Allen Guelzo.

[silkySapper]

Originally posted by Twiggy:

I'll make this plain and simple. The Maginot Line was a failure because the French lost and they lost bad. They invested all that money and time into an outdated strategy that did not prevent them from declaring unconditional surrender. If they had invested more into updating and expanding their airforce instead it probably would have resulted in a much more favorable outcome for them. Like I said before, old ideas die hard.

Fallacy of single causality, plain and simple.

The French are estimated to have lost only 40 more aircraft than the Germans during the Battle of France, that despite the fact that they were outnumbered more than 2:1. I don't know if you knew this, but you can't just retool a factory producing steel support beams for concrete bunkers into one producing aircraft and expect to be able to start producing aircraft in the blink of an eye. It has constantly been stated that the most important part of a fighter aircraft is the pilot. You can't double the size of your airforce in a couple years and expect them to be as capable as a veteran force populated by veterans of the Spanish civil war and the invasion of Poland.

The truth is that the French Generals led them directly to their defeat. The refusal to learn from German tank tactics in Poland (or Guderian's book published years earlier) and adapt their own formations to face them effectively spelled their doom. Allied tanks at this time were mainly used in an infantry support role, even though their tanks were far superior to German ones. The battle of Arras could have been devestating to the Germans if they had gathered their tanks and provided sufficient support.

Not only that, the French surrender was not unconditional, it wasn't even a surrender, France was allowed to keep sovereignty over most of its territory and maintained its own armed forces. They signed an armistice that was to be renegotiated upon the cessation of hostilities with Britain. The fact that you didn't even know that basic fact throws into doubt any knowledge you claim to have on this topic.

But this is all off-topic.

[MTV]

Some interesting discussion. When I said volley's, I also was talking about massed fire without aiming. I'm aware the soldiers would fire at will also.

I think Calvinic gave the best explanation. I undestand why lines were still used now. I did like the point about education though. I hadn't thought about that. Without the Prussia; Britain might have smashed us during the Revolutionary war. A Prussian officer came over to the colonies. He trained and drilled our first regular troops during the Revolutionary war. He also wrote a book on how to train and drill men into soldiers. I forget his name and book off hand.

[The_Grunt]

Saying line tactics were outdated simplifies things a lot IMO. In a sense, lines were perhaps the only reasonable way to conduct battles at those situations. Communication was difficult and command chains were made very shallow typically for the time, training of troops was usually low and rifles inaccurate and slow to fire. Although minie ball rifles were a lot more accurate than earlier smoothbore muskets, effective and accurate range was still somewhere around 100 meters or so. Tactics in fact also evolved from napoleon days: better trained snipers or skirmishers started the battle when there was still visibility and they possibly made a big impact for the outcome of the battle. Smokeless powder had unarguably one of the biggest impact for infantry tactics in the late 19th century. As said, black powder smoke of the ACW era simply caused soldiers to practically become blind after few rounds and only way to make impact to the enemy was to fire volleys blindly to the enemy direction and finally charge with the bayonets.

I'm european but I still find ACW extremely interesting conflict. As a history buff, one reason is that ACW just sits there on the crossroads of muzzle-loading rifles and line tactics just before armies transitioned to WWI style command chains, tactics and breech loading rifles. Conflict setting and background is also somewhat unusual compared to many other civil wars then and later on and conflict definitely impacted and shaped the future of America quite remarkably.

[PointBlank]

Originally posted by The_Grunt:

Saying line tactics were outdated simplifies things a lot IMO. In a sense, lines were perhaps the only reasonable way to conduct battles at those situations. Communication was difficult and command chains were made very shallow typically for the time, training of troops was usually low and rifles inaccurate and slow to fire. Although minie ball rifles were a lot more accurate than earlier smoothbore muskets, effective and accurate range was still somewhere around 100 meters or so. Tactics in fact also evolved from napoleon days: better trained snipers or skirmishers started the battle when there was still visibility and they possibly made a big impact for the outcome of the battle. Smokeless powder had unarguably one of the biggest impact for infantry tactics in the late 19th century. As said, black powder smoke of the ACW era simply caused soldiers to practically become blind after few rounds and only way to make impact to the enemy was to fire volleys blindly to the enemy direction and finally charge with the bayonets.

I'm european but I still find ACW extremely interesting conflict. As a history buff, one reason is that ACW just sits there on the crossroads of muzzle-loading rifles and line tactics just before armies transitioned to WWI style command chains, tactics and breech loading rifles. Conflict setting and background is also somewhat unusual compared to many other civil wars then and later on and conflict definitely impacted and shaped the future of America quite remarkably.

Very good point, I thought about that as well.