NorthAmerican warfare vs European Warfare.

[jo the greek]

From American war of independence to Napoleonic war and from Civil war to Crimean war.

Someone can notice some difference in the warfare logics
but can these can be only explained only by differences in war experiences and
amount of funds ??


Example the cavalry in Europe u see very different types of cavalry designated for various roles. While in other side of Atlantic is more like light dragoons in fact a nation that is proud about their cowboys seems didnt had good cavalry (i have the impression Mexicans had better cavalry)

Even in Crimean war you can find differences towards Civil war
as Europeans seem to use bayonet more than North Americans.

Were the Americans more advanced or were had been more influence in the logic on shoot one kill that is said influenced a lot the American militairy.


Please develop your thoughts....

[Farnan]

Cowboys didn't come till the late 19th century.

But the US has had some good cavalry, though we are of the dragoon rather than shock tradition. This is probably due to the terrain of the country not favoring horse charges as much and the fact that US Cavalry were traditionally spread out throughout the border and in isolated units having to fight both mounted and dismounted.

[jo the greek]

Cowboys didn't come till the late 19th century.

But the US has had some good cavalry, though we are of the dragoon rather than shock tradition. This is probably due to the terrain of the country not favoring horse charges as much and the fact that US Cavalry were traditionally spread out throughout the border and in isolated units having to fight both mounted and dismounted.

In the same position were Russian cossacks but they were more melee oriented and covered bigger distances
but i guess in some Areas of America cavalry didnt had the required space.

[konny]

You cannot realy compare the American armies of the Civil War with contemporary European armies, like the Prussian and Austrian of 1866.

The American army before the Civil War was very small, deployed in even smaller detachements all over the West. There only were a handfull of officers who had ever command as many soldiers as would form a brigade, Lee was one of them. The armies that were raised at the beginning of the Civil War were realy amateur militias commanded by men who could offer "a good reputation", at best. During the long war these turned into hardned veteran troops due to "learning by doing".

Compared to that the European armies were highly professional, commanded by full time officers who did full scale manouvers on a regular base. In return the European wars of that periode were rather short and only a few men would have had much combat experince in full scale European warfare. For example, in 1866 Austria had an army of 1,000,000 men - on paper. Less than 1/2 of these actualy saw any action. And the Austrian army was considered the most experinced of her periode.

This made two types of armies that looked and operated much differently. For example, the "glorious manouvers" of the European cavalry that were completely missing in America required much training (peacetime!) training for the troopers, the officers and, of course, the horses. That would be the reason why you wouldn't see cuirassiers in shining plates charging in close lines during the Civil War. Nevertheless the American cavalry did their job as good as their European counterparts. That is, Austrian hussars or Prussian Ulans might have looked better than J.E.B. Stuart's men, but when both would be operating against each other in a region as large as Virigina my bets would not always be with the Euros.

[jo the greek]

You cannot realy compare the American armies of the Civil War with contemporary European armies, like the Prussian and Austrian of 1866.

The American army before the Civil War was very small, deployed in even smaller detachements all over the West. There only were a handfull of officers who had ever command as many soldiers as would form a brigade, Lee was one of them. The armies that were raised at the beginning of the Civil War were realy amateur militias commanded by men who could offer "a good reputation", at best. During the long war these turned into hardned veteran troops due to "learning by doing".

Compared to that the European armies were highly professional, commanded by full time officers who did full scale manouvers on a regular base. In return the European wars of that periode were rather short and only a few men would have had much combat experince in full scale European warfare. For example, in 1866 Austria had an army of 1,000,000 men - on paper. Less than 1/2 of these actualy saw any action. And the Austrian army was considered the most experinced of her periode.

This made two types of armies that looked and operated much differently. For example, the "glorious manouvers" of the European cavalry that were completely missing in America required much training (peacetime!) training for the troopers, the officers and, of course, the horses. That would be the reason why you wouldn't see cuirassiers in shining plates charging in close lines during the Civil War. Nevertheless the American cavalry did their job as good as their European counterparts. That is, Austrian hussars or Prussian Ulans might have looked better than J.E.B. Stuart's men, but when both would be operating against each other in a region as large as Virigina my bets would not always be with the Euros.

Why you forget cossacks and units like Hussars or even Ottoman Cavalry

And some comparisons can be made

like the complete removal of swords by American cavalry while europeans preferred it for melee .

And are some events of comparison for example Mexican cavalry fought in simalar ways to a irregular European or even Sioux indians and both were consider as better horsemen

[gsoxx]

That would be the reason why you wouldn't see cuirassiers in shining plates charging in close lines during the Civil War. Nevertheless the American cavalry did their job as good as their European counterparts. That is, Austrian hussars or Prussian Ulans might have looked better than J.E.B. Stuart's men, but when both would be operating against each other in a region as large as Virigina my bets would not always be with the Euros.

By 1866, the time was already over for any kind of charging cavalry. The final nail in the coffin were then the futile mass charges of both Prussian and French cavalry troops during the Franco-Prussian war. The reason was of course technology. The new rifles and guns allowed the infantry to engage those large units at ranges more than a kilometer away. A recipe for disaster.
The most important task of cavalry was therefore scouting, establishing and holding contact with the enemy. You will find almost none larger cavalry vs. cavalry actions.

[konny]

Why you forget cossacks and units like Hussars or even Ottoman Cavalry

I think, I mentioned hussars and ulans. That should be sufficient as exemplary European light cavalry of the 19th Century.

And some comparisons can be made

like the complete removal of swords by American cavalry while europeans preferred it for melee .

Who said that American cavalry did not have swords? I wouldn't, because they were given swords. And these weapons were used; for example, at Brandy Station (in this example even by cavalry regiments fighting on foot).

By 1866, the time was already over for any kind of charging cavalry. (...)The most important task of cavalry was therefore scouting, establishing and holding contact with the enemy.

Yes, exactly. And the American cavalry was doing this task as good or bad as any European cavalry. Stuart managed to lose contact with the Union forces (and his own army) prior to Gettysburg, but prior to Königgrätz the Prussian cavalry too had no idea where the Austrians were until they accidently rode through their camps around Sadowa....

[pwf224]

Different styles of warfare. Most American wars were fought against Native Americans since the very beginning, and the strategy developed in that way. Also, America's frontier regions, where the most wars and battles were fought, were much more sparsely populated than in Europe. Battles tended to be smaller for the most part as a result. The Civil War saw a shift towards European style warfare, but the influences and American style of war were still there.

[jo the greek]

I have read that Civil war Cavalry used to abandon their swords .

[konny]

I have read that Civil war Cavalry used to abandon their swords .

No, certainly not. ASFAIK sabers were still issued at the time of Litte Big Horn. Nevertheless this weapon fell out of use for most cavalries during the 19th Century. Also European cavalry of the Wars of Unification would have usually not fought with swords. In most occasions cavalry either fought dismounted with carabines or would use them from horseback. In many occasions cavalry didn't even entered pitched battle and the fighting was completely done by infantry (the exact opposite of the High Middle Ages BTW).

Of course, there were occasional mass charges with drawn swords after the Napoleonic Wars, but these were rare and mostly suicidal when targetting infantry. Nevertheless this also happened during both WWI and WWII.

[Morkonan]

I have read that Civil war Cavalry used to abandon their swords .

As other posters have shown, they did not.

Also, don't forget that cavalry were used as elite units. Sometimes as strong recon forces, sometimes as mobile infantry. With revolvers and later carbines (as another poster pointed out) issued to cavalry, it made closing with the enemy in melee much less common. Why close when you have a repeating revolver or carbine you can fire and kill with several times within the amount of time it takes to charge a position? Besides, with trench warfare beginning to come into its own, mounted cavalry units (Many early "mobile infantry" dismounted to fight.) were simply not going to be effective. Their strength lay in maneuver and shock value, not in assaulting fortified positions. There's no reason to throw away an expensively equipped unit that has specialized training (horsemanship) when a line of grunts will do the job just as well.

The Civil War in the US was a brutal affair. It was the meeting of older tactics with newer weaponry with troops that were generally inexperienced farmhands and shopkeepers. They slaughtered each other by the thousands. Every single aspect of the weapons of war had seen remarkable improvement and effectiveness yet the old Stand & Die fire tactics still remained during much of the early war.

[Poach]

The main difference in NA and EU warfare in the period you discuss:

European armies were huge and concentrated. Trained towards fighting other huge, concentrated armies in battles involving tens of thousands of men, horses and artillery pieces.

The US Army was small and spread out. Trained towards fighting small skirmishes with bandits and Indians numbering, at most, hundreds of combatants.

At the time, European military tradition, ability and organisation was far superior to anything in the US. A European field army would annihilate a US field army. The US simply had no majorly threatening opponents on the same continent that required a large, concentrated and well drilled military and, as you'd expect, didn't bother maintaining one.

As such, when the US Civil War came about, both sides fielded massive armies of militia-level units staffed by officers who didn't really know what they were doing. This ofcourse changed as the war went on, soldiers and commanders gained experience and learned how to fight a large-scale war. The result was a generation of dead men, but the survivors were battle-hardened men who went on to form the core of a larger US army that developed into the modern US Armed Forces, which is properly trained, organised and concentrated.

Though, for some reason, the militia culture lingers on. Why the US bothers with militias when their Armed Forces are so powerful is beyond me. Any militia actually entering frontline duty would only be an annoyance to the regular US Forces operating alongside them. In the event of a second civil war these militias will be swifty annihilated by the professional units that sided with the opposing side.

[dezikeizer]

The main difference in NA and EU warfare in the period you discuss:

European armies were huge and concentrated. Trained towards fighting other huge, concentrated armies in battles involving tens of thousands of men, horses and artillery pieces.

The US Army was small and spread out. Trained towards fighting small skirmishes with bandits and Indians numbering, at most, hundreds of combatants.

At the time, European military tradition, ability and organisation was far superior to anything in the US. A European field army would annihilate a US field army. The US simply had no majorly threatening opponents on the same continent that required a large, concentrated and well drilled military and, as you'd expect, didn't bother maintaining one.

As such, when the US Civil War came about, both sides fielded massive armies of militia-level units staffed by officers who didn't really know what they were doing. This ofcourse changed as the war went on, soldiers and commanders gained experience and learned how to fight a large-scale war. The result was a generation of dead men, but the survivors were battle-hardened men who went on to form the core of a larger US army that developed into the modern US Armed Forces, which is properly trained, organised and concentrated.

Though, for some reason, the militia culture lingers on. Why the US bothers with militias when their Armed Forces are so powerful is beyond me. Any militia actually entering frontline duty would only be an annoyance to the regular US Forces operating alongside them. In the event of a second civil war these militias will be swifty annihilated by the professional units that sided with the opposing side.

Exactly, though I think the militia culture partly comes from the tradition of fearing large standing armies. This seemed to come from England, where it had been present long before the U.S. came to be.

[jo the greek]

The main difference in NA and EU warfare in the period you discuss:

European armies were huge and concentrated. Trained towards fighting other huge, concentrated armies in battles involving tens of thousands of men, horses and artillery pieces.

The US Army was small and spread out. Trained towards fighting small skirmishes with bandits and Indians numbering, at most, hundreds of combatants.

At the time, European military tradition, ability and organisation was far superior to anything in the US. A European field army would annihilate a US field army. The US simply had no majorly threatening opponents on the same continent that required a large, concentrated and well drilled military and, as you'd expect, didn't bother maintaining one.

As such, when the US Civil War came about, both sides fielded massive armies of militia-level units staffed by officers who didn't really know what they were doing. This ofcourse changed as the war went on, soldiers and commanders gained experience and learned how to fight a large-scale war. The result was a generation of dead men, but the survivors were battle-hardened men who went on to form the core of a larger US army that developed into the modern US Armed Forces, which is properly trained, organised and concentrated.

Though, for some reason, the militia culture lingers on. Why the US bothers with militias when their Armed Forces are so powerful is beyond me. Any militia actually entering frontline duty would only be an annoyance to the regular US Forces operating alongside them. In the event of a second civil war these militias will be swifty annihilated by the professional units that sided with the opposing side.

Ok with most but didnt the USA military retreated in the initial position
after of Civil war and had problems until WW1
For example a Custer was a prommising youth in Civil war but when he had to face Indians he showed he didnt knew what he was doing (or was a fraud made by newspapers)

[Poach]

Exactly, though I think the militia culture partly comes from the tradition of fearing large standing armies. This seemed to come from England, where it had been present long before the U.S. came to be.

Indeed you are right, Britain had militias as well but they've long since been disbanded. What I meant was that today, a US state militia is all but useless as a fighting force, they are obsolete relics of a past age.

They cannot be used to fight a war as the US regular forces are far superior in training and equipment and in the event of a 2nd US Civil War the militias would be wiped out in short order if they tried to face off against a regular US military unit that sided with the opposition.

Ok with most but didnt the USA military retreated in the initial position
after of Civil war and had problems until WW1
For example a Custer was a prommising youth in Civil war but when he had to face Indians he showed he didnt knew what he was doing (or was a fraud made by newspapers)

After the Civil War the US did indeed disband her massive conscript armies (as all nations do after the need for total mobilisation has ended) and returned to a small volunteer army. What the Civil War did to the US was make her realise she was a potential player on the world stage, and you see her coming out of isolation and begin looking overseas (Spanish-American War, Phillipines war, Banana Wars etc).

It also gave her Army a taste of real war, the US military moved away from isolated units in forts across the frontier fighting small battles with Indians and bandits and became a more centralised force capable of operating overseas and acting like a European Amy would.

Custer was one man who was full of himself, and yes it ended in disaster. You can't claim the entire US military suffered from his character flaws though.

In WW1, much like all the other nations, the US introduced mass conscription in order to raise an army capable of facing off with that fielded by the enemy. The German Army numbered in the millions, as did the British and French.

The US, unwilling to hand over control of her forces to British and French generals (as the British and French wanted), was determined to field an army large enough to operate without requiring support from British or French formations and the only way to do that was conscription.

This ofcourse presented the same issues the Civil War conscipt armies faces, and this was only made worse by US generals refusing to listen to the experienced British and French generals and the US army proceeded to make the same mistakes the British and French made in 1914 and 15 (frontal bayonet charges against machine guns, for example. Pershing also wanted to storm Metz which would've killed tens of thousands of Americans and probably remain in German hands anyway).

By then, however, the US knew what a real war was (having fought the civil war) and thus was able to form, organise and supply an army that big drawing on the lessons learned and documented during the civil war.

[dezikeizer]

Indeed you are right, Britain had militias as well but they've long since been disbanded. What I meant was that today, a US state militia is all but useless as a fighting force, they are obsolete relics of a past age.

They cannot be used to fight a war as the US regular forces are far superior in training and equipment and in the event of a 2nd US Civil War the militias would be wiped out in short order if they tried to face off against a regular US military unit that sided with the opposition.



After the Civil War the US did indeed disband her massive conscript armies (as all nations do after the need for total mobilisation has ended) and returned to a small volunteer army. What the Civil War did to the US was make her realise she was a potential player on the world stage, and you see her coming out of isolation and begin looking overseas (Spanish-American War, Phillipines war, Banana Wars etc).

It also gave her Army a taste of real war, the US military moved away from isolated units in forts across the frontier fighting small battles with Indians and bandits and became a more centralised force capable of operating overseas and acting like a European Amy would.

Custer was one man who was full of himself, and yes it ended in disaster. You can't claim the entire US military suffered from his character flaws though.

In WW1, much like all the other nations, the US introduced mass conscription in order to raise an army capable of facing off with that fielded by the enemy. The German Army numbered in the millions, as did the British and French.

The US, unwilling to hand over control of her forces to British and French generals (as the British and French wanted), was determined to field an army large enough to operate without requiring support from British or French formations and the only way to do that was conscription.

This ofcourse presented the same issues the Civil War conscipt armies faces, and this was only made worse by US generals refusing to listen to the experienced British and French generals and the US army proceeded to make the same mistakes the British and French made in 1914 and 15 (frontal bayonet charges against machine guns, for example. Pershing also wanted to storm Metz which would've killed tens of thousands of Americans and probably remain in German hands anyway).

By then, however, the US knew what a real war was (having fought the civil war) and thus was able to form, organise and supply an army that big drawing on the lessons learned and documented during the civil war.

Exactly. Also due to that, the US has had at least an idea of how to create, train, equip, and use large standing armies since WWI. This was also partially due to a large part of the population having experienced war, as well as a reasonable period of time between WWI and WWII, short enough that that knowledge woulden't be lost.

[Gelgoog]

Though, for some reason, the militia culture lingers on. Why the US bothers with militias when their Armed Forces are so powerful is beyond me. Any militia actually entering frontline duty would only be an annoyance to the regular US Forces operating alongside them. In the event of a second civil war these militias will be swifty annihilated by the professional units that sided with the opposing side.

wtf are you talking about? the US has no organized militias, nor are any recognized by the US government.

We have the national guard, but they are not a militia, the are part of the regular army and are mainly called up for disaster relief and martial law but have been deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Maybe your confusing the very tiny amount of para military "clubs" around the US that like to call them selves a militia but are not really of anything but a club. Militias back in the day were under the control of the governor of the state/territory. Any group of guys running around playing militia today do so without any regulation or obligation to the state. They are also so few in number and on such the fringe of society as to be nothing but a sideshow.

[Poach]

wtf are you talking about? the US has no organized militias, nor are any recognized by the US government.

Civilian Militia units certainly do exist, certainly are recognised (as being in the "Unorganised" category, "Organised" is classed as National Guard and Naval Militia) and are legal as quoted from the site itself, "the United States civilian militia does legally exist".

I do, however, recognise that they're rare in the modern US and, on the assumption that you are an American, accept that they're regarded as fringe groups.

[Lysimachos11]

That cavalry remained in use and used swords longer, plus a number of other differences, have to do with tradition. European armies have centuries of military tradition, especially the cavalry which was only accessible for richer persons. Swords held status in Europe as well. If you look at North America, there is no military tradition, thus no need to cling to old-fashioned cavalry using swords. As late as the First World War, chivalry still played an important part in European minds, something alien to the United States. Tradition can be a disadvantage though as it can halt development (an obvious example is the medieval opposition ot the crossbow or 19th century opposition to the machine gun).

Good indication of differences in history and tradition are battle honours and standards. The Spanish Marine Corps for example has Lepanto (1571) on it's standards. The USMC's oldest battle on such a scale must've been during the Civil War or WW1.

[SturmChurro]

North american warfare had superior gurilla tactics.