Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789101112 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 232

Thread: Robert E. Lee vs The Duke of Wellington

  1. #41

    Default Re: Robert E. Lee vs The Duke of Wellington

    In regards to pages 110-113, he only has 465 engagements from which to draw data, of which the overwhelming majority must involve rifles, not smoothbore muskets, as those were the more common weapon during the war to the best of my knowledge. That's not a huge sample size, particularly on the musket side, and I'm not thouroughly convinced by it. Furthermore the man has an agenda (his thesis) and given that "wins" and "losses" are kind of abstract concepts he's tallying himself, I can certainly envision him massaging the data a bit. I'd like to see an independent party review the data. Additionally I am not convinced that the rifle did not have an impact even in battles it did not participate in, as your opponent is not always aware of what armament you are using, and prudence dictates you should assume your opponent has rifles and act accordingly. Furthermore he admits he did find a statistical advantage to the rifle, which he dismisses as insignificant.

    EDIT: Then there's the issue that I could imagine that what's happening is that both sides used smoothbore muskets early in the war, and rifles late. If that's the case I would expect him to find what he found. Afterall, if both sides have rifles or both sides have smoothbore muskets no advantage is conferred.
    Last edited by ajm317; February 25, 2008 at 06:57 PM.

  2. #42
    Erebus Pasha's Avatar vezir-i âzam
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Leicestershire, UK
    Posts
    9,335

    Default Re: Robert E. Lee vs The Duke of Wellington

    Quote Originally Posted by Red_Praetoria View Post
    "What lessons? There was nothing in the ACW which hadn't been seen before on a European field..."
    Hmmmmm Like mass trench warfare, gatling guns, repeating rifles(on a large scale), iron-clad ships, a successful submarine attack. I credit the Europeans for alot but the American Civil War was a prelude to the fields of WWI.
    Trench warfare had been around in the Crimean War - and even in the Civil War it was limited. The first proper use of sophisticated trench systems on a large scale can be found in the Russo-Japanese War. Read accounts of the Russian defences at Nanshan, Port Arthur, Laioyang and Mukden. The Japanese suffered apalling casualties defeating these defences. This conflict for me was the precursor to the battlefields of WW1 and not the ACW, not that the observers present in 1904-05 took much notice!!! As for the Gatling Gun, it was still very much in it's early days and was in limited supply, machine guns in fact weren't common in any armies until the first decade of the 20th century. Until used on a mass scale (again look at the Russo-Japanese where for the first time they were used offensively as well as defensively) machine guns had a limited effect. There was one famous battle between an Ironclad and a Monitor which was inconclusive (remember the British had Ironclads), whilst the submarine you mentioned was again very much an experimental model. Again you have to look to the first decade of the 20th century when navies fully started to realise the potential of the submarine.

    Quote Originally Posted by Red_Praetoria View Post
    "
    "Nor was the ACW a total war, nor really was WW1, we need to fast forward 80 years to WW2 for a real total war."

    Total War- a war in which every available weapon is used and the nation's full financial resources are devoted.

    Both sides in the Civil War geared their economies towards the was and nothing else. Little boys and old men made up the southern army in the end of the war. Sherman burned entire cities to the ground. The American Civil War was a total war.
    You could say the same for the Napoleonic Wars. Take a look at France during the Revolutionary Wars and the new type of warfare waged by that country. Instead of the old ancien regime style where armies fought each other until one side backed down and sought peace, for the first time opponents were fighting each other until their capacity to wage war was extinguished. Look at Napoleon's invasions of Prussia and Austria for example.

    But Tigers was right the only true total war was World War 2.

    I think we can argue about the significance of the ACW to European Wars fought at the same time but it all depends to what point of view you have. The Americans will argue for the ACW and will dismiss the wars fought by Prussia, Austria and France as less important, whilst Europeans will take the opposite view. Judging by the reports of some of the European Observers during the ACW the same POV held true then as well.
    Last edited by Erebus Pasha; February 25, 2008 at 07:22 PM.

    www.ottomanhistorypodcast.com/
    Under the patronage of the Noble Savage.

  3. #43
    JP226's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    16,977

    Default Re: Robert E. Lee vs The Duke of Wellington

    I can certainly envision him massaging the data a bit
    I think he said he did. Alot of the data had missing values.

    I still can't find his output, the actual coefficients. He only has the f-stat, standard errors and P-values. And I don't know why he included so many damn f stats, all you need for a model like this is the coefficients, standrad error and P values.
    Last edited by JP226; February 25, 2008 at 08:38 PM.
    Sure I've been called a xenophobe, but the truth is Im not. I honestly feel that America is the best country and all other countries aren't as good. That used to be called patriotism.

  4. #44

    Default Re: Robert E. Lee vs The Duke of Wellington

    Quote Originally Posted by Erebus26 View Post
    Trench warfare had been around in the Crimean War - and even in the Civil War it was limited. The first proper use of sophisticated trench systems on a large scale can be found in the Russo-Japanese War. Read accounts of the Russian defences at Nanshan, Port Arthur, Laioyang and Mukden. The Japanese suffered apalling casualties defeating these defences. This conflict for me was the precursor to the battlefields of WW1 and not the ACW, not that the observers present in 1904-05 took much notice!!! As for the Gatling Gun, it was still very much in it's early days and was in limited supply, machine guns in fact weren't common in any armies until the first decade of the 20th century. Until used on a mass scale (again look at the Russo-Japanese where for the first time they were used offensively as well as defensively) machine guns had a limited effect. There was one famous battle between an Ironclad and a Monitor which was inconclusive (remember the British had Ironclads), whilst the submarine you mentioned was again very much an experimental model. Again you have to look to the first decade of the 20th century when navies fully started to realise the potential of the submarine.



    You could say the same for the Napoleonic Wars. Take a look at France during the Revolutionary Wars and the new type of warfare waged by that country. Instead of the old ancien regime style where armies fought each other until one side backed down and sought peace, for the first time opponents were fighting each other until their capacity to wage war was extinguished. Look at Napoleon's invasions of Prussia and Austria for example.

    But Tigers was right the only true total war was World War 2.

    I think we can argue about the significance of the ACW to European Wars fought at the same time but it all depends to what point of view you have. The Americans will argue for the ACW and will dismiss the wars fought by Prussia, Austria and France as less important, whilst Europeans will take the opposite view. Judging by the reports of some of the European Observers during the ACW the same POV held true then as well.
    Im not denying the importance of the Prussian Austrian wars and their contribution to WWI im just saying these weapons were first used in the ACW because Tigers disputed flat out "What lessons? There was nothing in the ACW which hadn't been seen before on a European field..."

  5. #45
    Erwin Rommel's Avatar EYE-PATCH FETISH
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Philippines
    Posts
    14,570

    Default Re: Robert E. Lee vs The Duke of Wellington

    Wellington wins

    why??

    Lee's old

    you have seen him in pictures, DUDE he has a beard already


    (Its clickable by the way....An S2 overhaul mod.)

    Seriously. Click it. Its the only overhaul mod that's overhauling enough to bring out NEW clans
    Masaie. Retainer of Akaie|AntonIII






  6. #46

    Default Re: Robert E. Lee vs The Duke of Wellington

    Quote Originally Posted by ajm317 View Post
    In regards to pages 110-113, he only has 465 engagements from which to draw data, of which the overwhelming majority must involve rifles, not smoothbore muskets, as those were the more common weapon during the war to the best of my knowledge. That's not a huge sample size, particularly on the musket side, and I'm not thouroughly convinced by it. Furthermore the man has an agenda (his thesis) and given that "wins" and "losses" are kind of abstract concepts he's tallying himself, I can certainly envision him massaging the data a bit. I'd like to see an independent party review the data. Additionally I am not convinced that the rifle did not have an impact even in battles it did not participate in, as your opponent is not always aware of what armament you are using, and prudence dictates you should assume your opponent has rifles and act accordingly. Furthermore he admits he did find a statistical advantage to the rifle, which he dismisses as insignificant.

    EDIT: Then there's the issue that I could imagine that what's happening is that both sides used smoothbore muskets early in the war, and rifles late. If that's the case I would expect him to find what he found. Afterall, if both sides have rifles or both sides have smoothbore muskets no advantage is conferred.
    The smoothbore was common in Union hands for most of the war. At Gettysburg roughly 1/3rd of Union Regiments carried smoothbores, although by this stage the remaining flintlocks had been withdrawn and converted.

    As to his thesis, it's perfectly inline with the other analysis of the effect of the rifle-musket carried out by others (and referenced in his thesis). Nosworthy (The Bloody Crucible of Courage) has gone further, and restated what was common knowledge in the 1860's European armies, it takes a great deal of training to be able to exploit the rifle-musket which ACW combatants didn't get. Therefore they used their rifle-muskets as muskets, and got similar results from them. There are small numbers of troops (and growing towards the wars end) who were trained to use them as rifles, they were called sharpshooters (although early US sharpshooters were not trained in rifle technique, being simply good shots).

    Commentators such as Scientific American were well aware that the British in the Crimean had successfully shot down batteries at 800 yds, and assumed it was some innate quality of the new weapons, missing the fact that these troops had considerable training in how to shoot out to 900 yds.

  7. #47
    Captain Arrrgh!'s Avatar I'z in yer grass
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Skull Island
    Posts
    6,586

    Default Re: Robert E. Lee vs The Duke of Wellington

    Napoleon: Josephine, who's boots are those under your bed!?
    Josephine: Don't worry dear, they're only wellingtons....

  8. #48

    Default Re: Robert E. Lee vs The Duke of Wellington

    Quote Originally Posted by Red_Praetoria View Post
    "What lessons? There was nothing in the ACW which hadn't been seen before on a European field..."
    Hmmmmm Like mass trench warfare
    Trenches? Where? Both sides built typical breastworks, with an entrenchment which was an obstacle, not a defence. Real "trenches" don't really appear before high explosives were invented. The Boers dug something resembling one man battle trenches (although without revetment), but it's Russo-Japanese War before a proper trench system is built by an army in the field. Plevna (1877) is perhaps the first use of modern trenches in a siege, but people tend to ignore that as it was a Turkish army that dug them.

    , gatling guns,
    All six of them? The basic concept is not new, the Volley Guns of the 17th century onwards were similar. The real revolution in such weaponry was the Maxim Gun.

    repeating rifles(on a large scale),
    Well, there were a bit over 10,000 produced in 4 years (I actually posted the numbers on another thread), and they almost all went to the cavalry, in an attempt to compensate for their general inability to mix it up with the infantry.

    iron-clad ships,
    The day Virginia and Monitor fought, the RN had 11 armoured ships and another 16 building ISTR, all actual armoured ships rather than gunboats with a poor quality iron casing (they recovered a piece of Monitors armour a couple of years back, I was shocked when it was found the iron had a 5% silica content, it was more brittle than cast iron)

    a successful submarine attack.
    Well, I'll give Americans credit for submarines, but in 1776....

    I credit the Europeans for alot but the American Civil War was a prelude to the fields of WWI.
    No machineguns
    No wire
    No high explosives

    = No "World War 1"

    Total War- a war in which every available weapon is used and the nation's full financial resources are devoted.

    Both sides in the Civil War geared their economies towards the was and nothing else. Little boys and old men made up the southern army in the end of the war. Sherman burned entire cities to the ground. The American Civil War was a total war.
    Life continued as normal in both nations prettymuch, neither side switched to a "war economy", and neither side targeted the others population or economic base. Excepting Sheridan in the Valley it was a pretty restrained limited war.


    As to Mars-la Tour, von Bredow took 804 sabres, charged over 600 yds of open ground, sabred the gunners, sabred the infantry and was finally repulsed by a French cavalry charge in their flank. For the cost of 300 men he paralysed an entire French Corps (about the size of 3-4 ACW Union Corps) and allowed the Prussians to win the battle.

    Cavalry, well handled, remained a valuable instrument until some time after the introduction of the Tank.

  9. #49
    Indefinitely Banned
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Vatican City
    Posts
    4,755

    Default Re: Robert E. Lee vs The Duke of Wellington

    Quote Originally Posted by Red_Praetoria View Post
    Im not denying the importance of the Prussian Austrian wars and their contribution to WWI im just saying these weapons were first used in the ACW because Tigers disputed flat out "What lessons? There was nothing in the ACW which hadn't been seen before on a European field..."
    There were no signifcant changes either from the Crimean war or by the time of the Franco-Prussian war. As to new eapons, nothing really new such as:
    gatling gun http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitrailleuse

  10. #50

    Default Re: Robert E. Lee vs The Duke of Wellington

    Quote Originally Posted by 67th Tigers View Post
    The smoothbore was common in Union hands for most of the war. At Gettysburg roughly 1/3rd of Union Regiments carried smoothbores, although by this stage the remaining flintlocks had been withdrawn and converted.

    As to his thesis, it's perfectly inline with the other analysis of the effect of the rifle-musket carried out by others (and referenced in his thesis). Nosworthy (The Bloody Crucible of Courage) has gone further, and restated what was common knowledge in the 1860's European armies, it takes a great deal of training to be able to exploit the rifle-musket which ACW combatants didn't get. Therefore they used their rifle-muskets as muskets, and got similar results from them. There are small numbers of troops (and growing towards the wars end) who were trained to use them as rifles, they were called sharpshooters (although early US sharpshooters were not trained in rifle technique, being simply good shots).

    Commentators such as Scientific American were well aware that the British in the Crimean had successfully shot down batteries at 800 yds, and assumed it was some innate quality of the new weapons, missing the fact that these troops had considerable training in how to shoot out to 900 yds.
    While that is interesting, I am certainly not an expert in the ACW and I'm afraid I must go with the general consensus that I have heard from people who are experts, and that is that the mini ball had a large effect on the ACW. This is what is taught in textbooks and referenced in Encyclopedias. That you disagree with this is noted.

    As to Mars-la Tour, von Bredow took 804 sabres, charged over 600 yds of open ground, sabred the gunners, sabred the infantry and was finally repulsed by a French cavalry charge in their flank. For the cost of 300 men he paralysed an entire French Corps (about the size of 3-4 ACW Union Corps) and allowed the Prussians to win the battle.
    Yes, you've said this before. Does saying something twice give it more weight? If so I will do so now. The very source you cited described it as pretty much a fluke and the very same battle featured a French charge which was dispersed by panicked infantry.

    Cavalry, well handled, remained a valuable instrument
    Yes of course. For screening, reconnaissance, and light raiding.

  11. #51
    Indefinitely Banned
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Vatican City
    Posts
    4,755

    Default Re: Robert E. Lee vs The Duke of Wellington

    Cavalry, until the First World War, were pretty much garaunteed to break infantry. Once the bolt-action rifle became standard, the maxim gun was available, and troops started digging in, the mounted cavalryman became near worthless.

    ajm, you can't just refute 67th Tigers sourced argument with 'I heard it didn't, so it wasn't'

  12. #52

    Default Re: Robert E. Lee vs The Duke of Wellington

    Quote Originally Posted by The Super Pope View Post
    Cavalry, until the First World War, were pretty much garaunteed to break infantry. Once the bolt-action rifle became standard, the maxim gun was available, and troops started digging in, the mounted cavalryman became near worthless.
    Like the French riders in the previously mentioned battle.

    Guaranteed to break infantry? That wasn't even true in the middle ages.

    ajm, you can't just refute 67th Tigers sourced argument with 'I heard it didn't, so it wasn't'
    I didn't. Read it again.

  13. #53
    Indefinitely Banned
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Vatican City
    Posts
    4,755

    Default Re: Robert E. Lee vs The Duke of Wellington

    "I heard from people who are experts" source please. Names and texts.

  14. #54

    Default Re: Robert E. Lee vs The Duke of Wellington

    Cavalry were usually never able to break formed infantry on their own. Off the top of my head I can only think of one occasion where it did happen - Garcia Hernandez in the Napoleonic Wars shortly after the Battle of Salamanca.

    Usually when they did try to break infantry on their own it ended in a massacre of the cavalry, such as at Waterloo or the Battle of the Pyramids.
    Last edited by GreyFox; February 26, 2008 at 10:29 AM.

  15. #55

    Default Re: Robert E. Lee vs The Duke of Wellington

    Quote Originally Posted by The Super Pope View Post
    "I heard from people who are experts" source please. Names and texts.
    If you wish to see support for the notion that the importance of the mini ball is the established opinion, check the PhD thesis 67th Tigers cited, pages 110-113. It says "the importance of the mini ball maybe overstated" implying that someone is overstating it.

    You can also check the Wikipedia entry on the mini ball. The importance of the mini ball was cited in my American history classes in high school and in university.

  16. #56
    Indefinitely Banned
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Vatican City
    Posts
    4,755

    Default Re: Robert E. Lee vs The Duke of Wellington

    Quote Originally Posted by GreyFox View Post
    Cavalry were usually never able to break formed infantry. Off the top of my head I can only think of one occasion - Garcia Hernandez in the Napoleonic Wars shortly after the Battle of Salamanca.
    I meant if they caught them in line, but I completly changed my train of thought by getting onto this second argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by ajm317 View Post
    If you wish to see support for the notion that the importance of the mini ball is the established opinion, check the PhD thesis 67th Tigers cited, pages 110-113. It says "the importance of the mini ball maybe overstated" implying that someone is overstating it.
    You can't use an argument refuting yours as an argument for. I say again, give me names and texts stating that the minie ball and not superior training was the key component of the success of marksmen.
    You can also check the Wikipedia entry on the mini ball.
    The gist of the wiki article is that the minie ball caused greater damage and fired faster, rather than being more accurate.
    Last edited by Valus; April 03, 2008 at 02:45 AM. Reason: double post

  17. #57

    Default Re: Robert E. Lee vs The Duke of Wellington

    Quote Originally Posted by The Super Pope View Post
    You can't use an argument refuting yours as an argument for. I say again, give me names and texts stating that the minie ball and not superior training was the key component of the success of marksmen.
    The PhD thesis I am citing DOES NOT refute the argument that I am making. I am saying that the consensus opinion is that the mini ball was a factor, which the thesis supports. I am NOT saying the mini ball was a factor, which the thesis rejects.

    I am certainly not arguing that the mini ball was the key component in the success of marksmen as opposed to training. I am arguing that the consensus opinion, held by scholars, is that the mini ball lead to a change in tactics.

    The gist of the wiki article is that the minie ball caused greater damage and fired faster, rather than being more accurate.
    Even if this is true, it supports my argument. However everyone knows rifles are more accurate, and the article does state "This provided spin for accuracy".

  18. #58

    Default Re: Robert E. Lee vs The Duke of Wellington

    Quote Originally Posted by GreyFox View Post
    Cavalry were usually never able to break formed infantry on their own. Off the top of my head I can only think of one occasion where it did happen - Garcia Hernandez in the Napoleonic Wars shortly after the Battle of Salamanca.

    Usually when they did try to break infantry on their own it ended in a massacre of the cavalry, such as at Waterloo or the Battle of the Pyramids.
    Reading Fletcther's "Galloping at Everything" on the weekend presents a fairly convincing argument that the British Heavy Cavalry charge at Waterloo was smashingly successful (more successful than the other three cavalry charges at Balaklava, other than Raglan's brigade?). For a butchers bill of 300 men they knocked out an entire Army Corps, although we dwell on the Union Brigade pursuing too far and exposing themselves to a mounted counterattack, which was in turn counterattacked by the Dutch Cavalry with heavy French casualties.

    Even the final toll (1,000 hors de combat, 400 of whom were missing and straggled in the next few hours) seems worthwhile for 3,000 prisoners, 2 Eagles and an entire French Corps being so damaged all they could do for the rest of the day was try and hold their sector of the French line. Nor were the British Heavy Cavalry so damaged they were not effective, both brigades made several more (successful) charges on that day.

  19. #59

    Default Re: Robert E. Lee vs The Duke of Wellington

    That's true, but you'll note that I qualified my post by saying that cavalry could not break formed infantry on their own. In that particular instance the French were engaged by British infantry and were stuck between line and column and unprepared to receive cavalry.
    Last edited by GreyFox; February 26, 2008 at 12:01 PM.

  20. #60

    Default Re: Robert E. Lee vs The Duke of Wellington

    Quote Originally Posted by ajm317 View Post
    The PhD thesis I am citing DOES NOT refute the argument that I am making. I am saying that the consensus opinion is that the mini ball was a factor, which the thesis supports. I am NOT saying the mini ball was a factor, which the thesis rejects.

    I am certainly not arguing that the mini ball was the key component in the success of marksmen as opposed to training. I am arguing that the consensus opinion, held by scholars, is that the mini ball lead to a change in tactics.
    It's true that it did alter tactics in European engagements, and we have clear comparisons to make. We do have a similar comparison in the Americas, the M1842 musket used in the Mexican War, this hit more often, at longer ranges than rifles in volunteers hands....

    Current thinking is that the rifled-musket did not alter lethality. It was expected too, hence the push towards a more linear form of warfare, put it was observed not too, allow for the column and proper assault tactics to make some reappearances later in the war.

    Even if this is true, it supports my argument. However everyone knows rifles are more accurate, and the article does state "This provided spin for accuracy".
    Precise. Precision is a quality of the weapon. Accuracy is a quality of the man. An inaccurate man with a precise weapon is no better (probably worse) than an accurate man with an imprecise weapon.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •