Europeans at Gettysburg

67th Tigers

Banned
the only 'roll' in the ground that gave any kind of cover was near the Emmitsburg road, and that was only partial cover. And the Union artillery had no problems firing into the advancing Confederates for nearly the whole distance (including a battery on Little Round Top). The main problem for any attacking force is that the Union has command of all the high ground in the area.... Cemetary Hill, the Round Tops, even a little hill to the south of Pickett's line of advance.

The gunners describe the motion of the attackers as like a wave, they kept cresting peeks (which were only a few meters different, and not even shown on modern 1:10,000 maps, but were militarily significant dead ground) and then disappearing again.

Only two of the guns on LRT could turn their arcs to enfilade, and they had very limited arcs of fire.


and I have to wonder if any type of set piece combined arms attack wouldn't actually be worse than Pickett's Charge. As it was, Pickett's division basically charged ahead and with momentum, managed to get up to the wall and overrun a section of it. Any attempts at maneuvering around on the field will only give the Union time to bring up more men and cannons to the threatened position (remember, they still outnumber the attackers a lot). The typical European combined arms attack would do well against the Union army somewhere else, but if stuck with Pickett's plan, it won't...


Actually there was a fairly complicated (and deftly executed) series of obliques, which slowed the advance down considerably. Even at the quick step (85 yds/min) it took nearly 25 mins ISTR to travel 1,200 yds (the distance between the start line and the main defensive position), showing that considerable manoeuvring (consuming about 10 mins) occurred en route.

(Distances from http://www.gdg.org/Gettysburg Magazine/measure.html )


Perhaps the decisive action on Pickett's division was Stannard's 1st Vermont bde swinging out to envelop, which on a European field could have been met by a cavalry charge on Stannard and and exploitation through that gap.
 
The gunners describe the motion of the attackers as like a wave, they kept cresting peeks (which were only a few meters different, and not even shown on modern 1:10,000 maps, but were militarily significant dead ground) and then disappearing again.

Only two of the guns on LRT could turn their arcs to enfilade, and they had very limited arcs of fire.
Actually there was a fairly complicated (and deftly executed) series of obliques, which slowed the advance down considerably. Even at the quick step (85 yds/min) it took nearly 25 mins ISTR to travel 1,200 yds (the distance between the start line and the main defensive position), showing that considerable manoeuvring (consuming about 10 mins) occurred en route.

Perhaps the decisive action on Pickett's division was Stannard's 1st Vermont bde swinging out to envelop, which on a European field could have been met by a cavalry charge on Stannard and and exploitation through that gap.

hmm... my book says 6 guns on LRT fired into the Confederates.

Would a set piece combined arms attack do more or less maneuvering? That could make a difference, if they can get there quickly... but the Union still has some big forces in place to close the gap.

I doubt Stannard's troops would come come out if faced with cavalry. And cavalry... yeesh... the thought of what would happen to them on that field with all that artillery firing on them... dead ground or not, every time the attackers pop up, they're going to be hammered. And I don't think there was any dead ground for the Union artillery... they hit Pickett's men the whole advance...
 

Thande

Donor
I'm not sure why, but I have a gut feeling that if anyone could pull it off, it would be the French...
 
*shrugs*

I personally think that Pickett's plan was such a poor one that no one around at the time could pull it off. I think a European army presented with such a plan would say "Fuck this! Let's do something else!".

But, hey, I'll give 67th his chance to convince me. Go ahead with the test run... maybe you'll change my mind...
 

Thande

Donor
I personally think that Pickett's plan was such a poor one that no one around at the time could pull it off. I think a European army presented with such a plan would say "Fuck this! Let's do something else!".
I don't know; European armies in the 1850s and 60s are experts in taking really crappily planned frontal assaults and sometimes, albeit bloodily, pulling them off. The obvious exemplar being the Charge of the Light Brigade (which, in some ways, was remarkably successful...)
 
I don't know; European armies in the 1850s and 60s are experts in taking really crappily planned frontal assaults and sometimes, albeit bloodily, pulling them off. The obvious exemplar being the Charge of the Light Brigade (which, in some ways, was remarkably successful...)

it occurred to me later that the Europeans (or even the Confederates) could pull it off, IF they could come up with more artillery... enough to destroy or drive off the Union guns... the whole defense of Cemetery Ridge centered around those guns on the high ground... take them out, and you've got a good shot at winning the battle....
 

67th Tigers

Banned
I'm not sure why, but I have a gut feeling that if anyone could pull it off, it would be the French...

[FONT=&quot]Had Napoleon III's army put that same attack in it would have been in 8 regimental columns (assuming 2 French divisions, which were about the size of 3 CS divisions) screened by over 2,000 specially trained skirmishers, secured by a brigade (or division) of cavalry on each flank with at least 30 guns advancing to give close support. The regimental columns are 3 lines each, each a battalion of 600 men in 6 ranks. In all probability they'd hit at 4 places with 6 attacking lines behind the skirmish line.

A regiment had 3 battalions of 600 R&F, generally a body of 6 ranks and 100 files. In a storm column they could
[/FONT]
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
It often ignored that the Union forces on both wings were HUGE. Had Grant been in command one wing of the Federal force would have rolled down on Lee's battered force and crushed it. It would have been bloody for both sides (as if it already hadn't been a bloodbath) but the Union troops would have destroyed the Army of Northern Virginia.

Regarding cavalry - The U.S. had a Corps at Gettysburg, only one division of which was heavily engaged or damaged (Buford's on Day One). While the Union standard practice was to fight dismounted (somewhat akin to armored Cav today), Federal forces had engaged in a number of mounted engagements during the war. It is also noteworthy that Buford was quite successful on Day One against an infantry corps. Federal calvary had a fairly strong organic artillery element
 
[FONT=&quot]Had Napoleon III's army put that same attack in it would have been in 8 regimental columns (assuming 2 French divisions, which were about the size of 3 CS divisions) screened by over 2,000 specially trained skirmishers, secured by a brigade (or division) of cavalry on each flank with at least 30 guns advancing to give close support. The regimental columns are 3 lines each, each a battalion of 600 men in 6 ranks. In all probability they'd hit at 4 places with 6 attacking lines behind the skirmish line.

A regiment had 3 battalions of 600 R&F, generally a body of 6 ranks and 100 files. In a storm column they could
[/FONT]

skirmishers would be helpful, but to win this fight, you really need to drive the Union guns off the hills. IMO, it'll all come down to how the artillery duel goes... if the attackers can drive those guns away, the infantry/cavalry attack has a fair chance. If not, they are still going to get severely punished during the advance.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
Roughly the same weight of fire was brought down as at the Alma a few years earlier. The leading British units suffered 1/3rd casualties, but still stormed the heights.
 
All of the stuff posted here so far is leading me to wonder: why did Pickett's Charge fail? I mean, everybody seems to be throwing out fact that make it sound like they should have won.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
All of the stuff posted here so far is leading me to wonder: why did Pickett's Charge fail? I mean, everybody seems to be throwing out fact that make it sound like they should have won.

Too wide a front, if they'd have stacked up into 5 or 6 lines and hit a 500-1,000 yard area, properly supported by artillery they'd likely have succeeded.
 
Too wide a front, if they'd have stacked up into 5 or 6 lines and hit a 500-1,000 yard area, properly supported by artillery they'd likely have succeeded.

they might have succeeded in breaking the line, but they'd still have lost in the end... the Union had large forces ready to hit them in the flanks. The Confederates were just too outnumbered to really make a breakthrough and win the whole battle.

And... that 'properly supported by artillery' was the key... the Confederates were short on guns and powder both... part of the reason the charge went off when it did was because the Confederates were running low and needing to save some to support the charge itself...
 

67th Tigers

Banned
they might have succeeded in breaking the line, but they'd still have lost in the end... the Union had large forces ready to hit them in the flanks. The Confederates were just too outnumbered to really make a breakthrough and win the whole battle.

And... that 'properly supported by artillery' was the key... the Confederates were short on guns and powder both... part of the reason the charge went off when it did was because the Confederates were running low and needing to save some to support the charge itself...

A lot of the guns had exhausted their roundshot. The army carried 200 rounds per gun (massively biased towards canister by this stage) and were essentially out.

The key was to move guns up to dominate the Federal LoCs, leaving the southern wing of the Federals swinging in the wind while the northern wing is essentially encircled...
 
The problem with the guns was that, yes they were out of roundshot, but while moving them up would have worked, the only way to do so effectively would be to get really, really close to the Union line, where they are clear in the open and if moved up too soon could be captured.

And everybody here is missing the essential point:

It doesn't matter if any army broke Hancock's first line at the stone wall.

Supposing that a European combined army of any persuasion of about 15,000 men all got up to the stone wall with no casualties and the few brigades at the wall itself were in full rout, then there was the Union supporting line of the IInd corps, with the VIth corp in immediate reserve and the XIIth corp ready to come, plus the 1 (note that Kilpatrick was working in the south and Buford was resting) uncommitted cavalry division, not to mention the entire artillery reserve with ample ammunition just to the south, for a combined force of about, oh, 30-40,000 men.

Not to mention that, for moral effect, Hancock would just stay right there at the stone wall, and being the 'best', or at least most inspiring, General in the Union army that would have to do something.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
Too wide a front, if they'd have stacked up into 5 or 6 lines and hit a 500-1,000 yard area, properly supported by artillery they'd likely have succeeded.

Further to my last, it seems that it was the sunken road that did the attack in. The bulk of the infantry simply refused to advance closer, leaving officers like Armistead leading forward parties of a few hundred rather than rushing forward en masse.

A typical ACW attack then, not pressed hard enough to make it work, but pressed hard enough to stall in the killing area.....
 
An idea for an article I've had that I thought I'd run past people.

The setup is make Longstreets attack on day 3 various european armies and see the difference their tactics would make.

Would people be interested?

I think Pickets Charge was wery much like the attack the swedes made at Poltava after getting into open ground, standing around for a few hours and then attack with 4000 men without arty going over open ground against 20 000 men with lots of arty.

Its also wery much like the guards attack at Waterloo
 
Top