Scotty A Birge
Tactics of war
Fri Jul 6 16:58:54 2001


I am not sure any other method (other than trench warfare) would have worked at that time with the available weapons. While most of the leaderss of the time were classically trained at either West Point or other state military colleges, some were not. I would think that leaders (especially after 1863) were interested in what worked as opposed to what was taught to them in school. The trench warfare evolved by leaders and troops as the only way to survive on that battlefield. Longstreet, Sherman, Grant, Lee.. all the major comanders effectively abandoned Napolianic tactics by 1863 (with only painful reminders that were soon regretted). I think the only commander that thought it was a good idea was Hood at Franklin (and Lee momentarily in Penn, at least he wished for artillary support).

Up until WWI and the advent of mechanized warfare, was the question of offensive firepower solved for the moment. The common fighter always pays the price as weapons are advanced. The Gulf War showed how not to fight a war using WWII tactics.

In brief, I am not sure there was an alternative to how the war was fought. Hit and run tactics (eg Forrest) would have never done anything other than annoy a rival as would have guerrila tactics. The only viable one was trench warfare and hope the opponent attacted - Johnson's tactic that Sherman did not fall for.

Too bad tanks were not on hand.