AHC: Make the Civil War more Efficient

Even as an ignorant of much before my time, it has seemed to me based on what I know about the Civil War that it involved a lot of inefficiency (perhaps not the proper word but I don't know what fits). Medical care was abysmal, field hospitals were filthy, conditions were terrible, the solution to injuries was to just amputate, and more soldiers died from disease than did from the combat itself. Field combat involved the slow to load muzzleloading rifle, in spite of the possible development and innovation of repeating rifles (which did exist at that period, though they had mechanical problems), and the existence of the Gatling gun, which only saw limited usage in the Civil War despite its unprecedented firepower. On the battlefield, at least in the early part of the war, soldiers wore colors of their local units or militias often times, causing massive confusion. And tactically and in the theater of war, there were a number of bungles, missed opportunities, ball dropping, and assorted fuck ups (the name McClellan springs to mind). And there's other things I probably didn't cover in this long-winded introductory paragraph of the kind I tend to write.

The challenge here is to therefore take the American Civil War and to make it more efficient.
 
The problem is that you're trying to get an undersized (and thus overwhelmed)bureaucracy and an overwhelming number of amateurs to fight a modern, large scale war.

That's by definition going to be "inefficient" at first.

Plus, a lot of things we take for granted about medicine were just short of being discovered, or in the early stages of understanding, so amputation for instance was probably better than the alternative methods they understood at the time.
 
-More Spencer (and to a lesser extent Henry) rifles for the Union alongside rifle-muskets
-Better medical care/organization made from Austria and/or Crimean war
-Union adapts captured train engines for its own use
-Gatling guns adopted and used en masse by Union
-Tactics change to reflect more modern weaponry
-Increased use of snipers by Confederacy
-More IEDs/Road Torpedoes by both sides
-Increased use of grapeshot/shrapnel cannonry with head wounds in mind
-Primitive kerosene flamethrowers/napalm? (granted whoever carries it becomes instant target and maybe a human firework, but still)
-Have Union cut off supplies to South more effectively including overland contraband
 
-More Spencer (and to a lesser extent Henry) rifles for the Union alongside rifle-muskets
-Better medical care/organization made from Austria and/or Crimean war
-Union adapts captured train engines for its own use
-Gatling guns adopted and used en masse by Union
-Tactics change to reflect more modern weaponry
-Increased use of snipers by Confederacy
-More IEDs/Road Torpedoes by both sides
-Increased use of grapeshot/shrapnel cannonry with head wounds in mind
-Primitive kerosene flamethrowers/napalm? (granted whoever carries it becomes instant target and maybe a human firework, but still)
-Have Union cut off supplies to South more effectively including overland contraband

1: That's going to be a problem given the expense.

2: How are you adopting this?

3: The Union isn't the one needing to take more enemy locomotives.

4: As covered in another thread, the formations of the day can be controlled with the instruments of the day, dispersed skirmish lines, not so much.

5: Are those reliable and affordable enough to be practical on a large scale?

6: http://www.amazon.com/Shock-Troops-Confederacy-Fred-Ray/dp/0964958554

Haven't read it, but I've heard good things about it.

7: Limited usefulness, those.

8: Same as above. Short range, if memory serves.

9: How does this make things more "efficient"?

10: How?
 

elkarlo

Banned
The problem is that you're trying to get an undersized (and thus overwhelmed)bureaucracy and an overwhelming number of amateurs to fight a modern, large scale war.

That's by definition going to be "inefficient" at first.

Plus, a lot of things we take for granted about medicine were just short of being discovered, or in the early stages of understanding, so amputation for instance was probably better than the alternative methods they understood at the time.


Well put.

But even with today's technology, you get 5,000 people wounded, you're amputating. The numbers are alos just so much bigger, and they are concentrated into smaller areas, making it hard to have enough medical staff.
 

Cook

Banned
more soldiers died from disease than did from the combat itself.
Historically this has always been the case. It is a consequence of having large numbers of people concentrated together; that alone is enough to spread disease rapidly in the age before antibiotics and immunization, even without adding factors such as unhygienic sanitation and water supply, poor quality food and clothing are added to the mix. World War One was the first war where the weapons killed more people than disease did, and if you factor Spanish Flu to the equation, disease wins even there.

...the solution to injuries was to just amputate...
The Minie ball is a .50 Caliber unjacketed soft lead, low velocity bullet. It is a little bigger than the first knuckle of your thumb. When it hit a major bone it would mushroom, shattering the bone. Hate to say it, but even with the extraordinary capabilities of modern battlefield medicine, probably most of those limbs would be lost now. And that’s without having to deal with the literally thousands of simultaneous casualties that would rapidly overwhelm the best field hospital.
 
Last edited:
Efficiency = victory in my book, the fastest way to do that is turn the whole mess into the biggest possible slaughter and crack the Confederacy like an egg. With that in mind...

1: That's going to be a problem given the expense.

They considered doing this in OTL, the main worry was for wasting bullets. Produce more rifles, create competition and incientives for rival ammunition-makers, and see if that helps

2: How are you adopting this?

Germ theory was already being observed in 1847 Austria, all you have to do is get people to read it a little more and realize what it means. Also the Crimean war should provide lessons on logistics and organization, which might help more people get off the battlefield alive

3: The Union isn't the one needing to take more enemy locomotives.

Efficiency does not mean Confederate victory. To end the war ASAP means getting Union power maxed out so there is no negotiation, only the surrender of the Confederacy

4: As covered in another thread, the formations of the day can be controlled with the instruments of the day, dispersed skirmish lines, not so much.

Bring about more rapid change form the Napoleonic tactics to those more akin to World War I, where firing lines and such are memories and wave tactics come into play. If you have semi-autos and your opponent has muzzle-loaders it makes the math even simpler.

5: Are those reliable and affordable enough to be practical on a large scale?

Union has the edge in industry, massing gatling guns in the right place should be able to create a killing field. Confederate morale should plummet when watching their buddies get ground into hamburger en masse, or getting roasted alive in dozens or hundreds, or randomly being fragged when simply marching along their own roads. They will be more apt to surrender if death seems much more certain.

6: http://www.amazon.com/Shock-Troops-Confederacy-Fred-Ray/dp/0964958554

Haven't read it, but I've heard good things about it.

Interesting, I'll check it out at some point

7: Limited usefulness, those.

8: Same as above. Short range, if memory serves.

9: How does this make things more "efficient"?

See comment 5. Demoralised enemies make easier targets, the war should be over sooner and thus the entire conflict made more efficient.


Guard the lines more carefully, execution for anyone running contraband, and cash rewards for anyone who reports it.
 
Efficiency = victory in my book, the fastest way to do that is turn the whole mess into the biggest possible slaughter and crack the Confederacy like an egg. With that in mind...

Okay, works for me for discussion's sake/

They considered doing this in OTL, the main worry was for wasting bullets. Produce more rifles, create competition and incientives for rival ammunition-makers, and see if that helps

Expense, again. And "wasting bullets" is a rather serious and legitimate concern - I'm not saying that it couldn't be addressed if the will was there, but it is reasonable.

Germ theory was already being observed in 1847 Austria, all you have to do is get people to read it a little more and realize what it means. Also the Crimean war should provide lessons on logistics and organization, which might help more people get off the battlefield alive

All you have to do is have that knowledge somehow spread across hundreds of surgeons, and somehow be able to implement it.

And that's the problem. Studying something is easy. Implementing it is hard.

Efficiency does not mean Confederate victory. To end the war ASAP means getting Union power maxed out so there is no negotiation, only the surrender of the Confederacy

The point is, the Union is already locomotive rich. A few more southern locomotives aren't going to matter.

Bring about more rapid change form the Napoleonic tactics to those more akin to World War I, where firing lines and such are memories and wave tactics come into play. If you have semi-autos and your opponent has muzzle-loaders it makes the math even simpler.

And you are doing this with a bunch of amateurs (most officers and almost all men) how?

Union has the edge in industry, massing gatling guns in the right place should be able to create a killing field. Confederate morale should plummet when watching their buddies get ground into hamburger en masse, or getting roasted alive in dozens or hundreds, or randomly being fragged when simply marching along their own roads. They will be more apt to surrender if death seems much more certain.

Okay, let's take the mine idea. Who is placing these mines? How are they knowing where to place them? How are you having enough mines to be very effective? Etc.

This is ignoring the attitudes of the day and focusing solely on the material obstacles that can't just be handwaved away.


See comment 5. Demoralised enemies make easier targets, the war should be over sooner and thus the entire conflict made more efficient.

See reply above. The Union doesn't have endless military resources waiting to be used - sure, it has a huge lead on the Confederacy and is one of the leading industrial powers, but the war-making power is going to take a while to gear up, to say the least. And that still leaves the other issues.

Guard the lines more carefully, execution for anyone running contraband, and cash rewards for anyone who reports it.

And you're implementing more stringent measures how? A wave of the presidential magic wand?
 
Have officials choose subordinates based on preformance and not necessarily trustworthiness. As I understand it both Jefferson Davis and Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson had this problem. Also know that the Gatling was still in its early stages and was not the efficiant thing seen in most westerns. The first 1862 model had six barrels and it's ammunition consisted of .58 minnie balls stuck into a powder filled steel cylinder specialy made for the gun that was fitted on the end with a precussion cap. This ammo was then feed into a larger hopper and magazines for the gatling wouldn't be designed until after the war. Plus it was much heavier than the swivel mounted versions like the 1874 seen in most western films. Source
 
Have officials choose subordinates based on preformance and not necessarily trustworthiness. As I understand it both Jefferson Davis and Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson had this problem.

Performance alone is not something you can do when seniority is so important, though.

Take a look at for instance the reorganization of the Army of Northern Virginia after Antietam as an example of OTL. What would you change?

I'd pick a Union army, but no one has written as detailed a book as Lee's Lieutenants for the Army of the Potomac - and I know less on the Western theater.
 
Also know that the Gatling was still in its early stages and was not the efficiant thing seen in most westerns. The first 1862 model had six barrels and it's ammunition consisted of .58 minnie balls stuck into a powder filled steel cylinder specialy made for the gun that was fitted on the end with a precussion cap. This ammo was then feed into a larger hopper and magazines for the gatling wouldn't be designed until after the war. Plus it was much heavier than the swivel mounted versions like the 1874 seen in most western films. Source

Brass cartridges were available by 1862 but were not adopted for the gun until later, and the gun was not adopted by the Union until after the war.

Expense, again. And "wasting bullets" is a rather serious and legitimate concern - I'm not saying that it couldn't be addressed if the will was there, but it is reasonable.

Perhaps a reasonable concern but not an impossible barrier to overcome. Even under ideal conditions it would be tough to supply the entire army with Spencers by war's end, so maybe a study on combat efficiency at the brigade level would be feasible.

All you have to do is have that knowledge somehow spread across hundreds of surgeons, and somehow be able to implement it.

And that's the problem. Studying something is easy. Implementing it is hard.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...ylaxis+of+Childbed+Fever#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Get this sent out and accepted in time for the early Crimean War for major changes, have an inspired Union or Confederate medical officer read about it early in the war and see what happens. If one side starts having significant improvement in casualty survival and can generate results the other will be curious, it might also save the life of a president down the road.

One way to pull it off might be to have one Rudolph Virchow come and investigate the claims made by the Semmelweis for himself...

The point is, the Union is already locomotive rich. A few more southern locomotives aren't going to matter.

If you can make a situation a la Corinth Mississippi happen earlier and deprive the South of train engines even earlier in the war, and if you can get those 4-4-0s and 4-6-0s running on Union lines to help in the effort, the war ends that much more quickly.

And you are doing this with a bunch of amateurs (most officers and almost all men) how?

Keep Albert Sidney Johnston alive at Shiloh and/or have Hardee rewrite his book on tactics (used widely by both sides) following the battle, but have it turn out to fall into Union hands who are more willing to try new strategies and tactics.

And you're implementing more stringent measures how? A wave of the presidential magic wand?

Have more attention paid to the goods being moved about and executions for aiding and abetting the enemy when found would be a good start. Outright confiscation of wealth and jail time for accomplices, maybe even executions for the guilty, would also serve to discourage the practice.
 
Perhaps a reasonable concern but not an impossible barrier to overcome. Even under ideal conditions it would be tough to supply the entire army with Spencers by war's end, so maybe a study on combat efficiency at the brigade level would be feasible.

Not impossible and not effective are two different things.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...ylaxis+of+Childbed+Fever#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Get this sent out and accepted in time for the early Crimean War for major changes, have an inspired Union or Confederate medical officer read about it early in the war and see what happens. If one side starts having significant improvement in casualty survival and can generate results the other will be curious, it might also save the life of a president down the road.

One way to pull it off might be to have one Rudolph Virchow come and investigate the claims made by the Semmelweis for himself...

I'm sure that sending that to surgeons scattered over half a continent won't be hard at all.

That's the problem. You're talking about making changes on a huge scale, that's going to be a slow and cumbersome process with the lack of any organization built up to do so.

If you can make a situation a la Corinth Mississippi happen earlier and deprive the South of train engines even earlier in the war, and if you can get those 4-4-0s and 4-6-0s running on Union lines to help in the effort, the war ends that much more quickly.

I'm tempted to look up when the 4-6-0 came into service, but I'm lazy.

That aside, that's not going to make much difference.

Keep Albert Sidney Johnston alive at Shiloh and/or have Hardee rewrite his book on tactics (used widely by both sides) following the battle, but have it turn out to fall into Union hands who are more willing to try new strategies and tactics.

That's not really the problem. The problem is that Hardee's Tactics were used because they a) worked and were b) not overly complicated.

Have more attention paid to the goods being moved about and executions for aiding and abetting the enemy when found would be a good start. Outright confiscation of wealth and jail time for accomplices, maybe even executions for the guilty, would also serve to discourage the practice.

"More attention" is easy to say on paper, but implementing it isn't going to be as easy.
 
Top