Re: AIWs was: Tech Levels and Quality

On 28 Sep 2004 at 20:26, The GZG Digest wrote:

> From: KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de
> 
> Beth.Fulton@csiro.au schrieb:
> 
> > Thanks for all the examples guys
> 
> One example that hasn't been mentioned so far for a force beating one
with
> more modern equipment are all the major Arab-Israeli Wars.

I also didn't mention the American Civil War.

In most battles the Confederates had inferior weapons, with large
numbers 
of Confederate troops armed with smoothbore muskets while most of their 
Union opponents were armed with rifled muskets. The Union were always 
better equipped with rifled artillery. You could make a good case that 
the Confederacy were a tech level behind the Union as far as rifles and 
artillery were concerned, depending -- of course -- on how you define 
tech levels. In spite of this deficiency, the Confederacy won a good
many 
battles, and usually with inferior numbers.

There are several reasons this was not a clear cut case of "low tech 
beating high tech". Training during the ACW was abysmal. Troops rarely 
fired more than a couple of shots before going into battle for the first

time. Engagement ranges did not take advantage of the rifled musket. 
Brent Nosworthy makes the case that a good deal of the problem was 
training. Troops were just not properly trained in aiming, limiting the 
range at which they were effective with the rifled muskets. Most 
engagements were fought at ranges that didn't put the smoothbore muskets

at a severe disadvantage. In some cases, such as the cornfield at 
Antietam, some troops with the older smoothbore muskets fired "buck and 
ball", which was essentially a load of buckshot and a bullet combined. 
These were incredibly nasty at close range.

Rifled artillery was at a disadvantage on the battlefield. While more 
accurate than smoothbore, it was still limited to effectively firing at 
targets it could see. This limited its effective range. At very close 
ranges, it was less effective at firing canister (basically a big
shotgun 
shell). Some of the canister balls would catch in the rifling and fling 
off wildly, reducing its effectiveness. In 1864, Ulysses Grant ordered a

number of rifled guns pulled out of the Army of the Potomac and replaced

with smoothbores.

No major battle had the Confederate troops armed completely with 
smoothbore muskets while the Union was armed with rifled muskets. In
most 
major battles up until 1864, both sides had at least some troops armed 
with smoothbore weapons. Thus, at the army level neither army would have

been considered a full tech level ahead of another army. At the tactical

level one side was often better equipped than the other side, but this 
advantage was mitigated by the factors listed above and the dense
terrain 
of the U.S. at that time. This shows, though, that factors other than 
lopsided numbers and incompetent commanders can allow the lower 
technology army to defeat the higher technology army, particularly where

training, outdated tactics, terrain, and a lack of familiarity with the 
new technology come into play.

---

Allan Goodall	    http://www.hyperbear.com
agoodall@att.net   agoodall@hyperbear.com

"How can I work with all you peasants kneeling and mumbling?"
  - Michelangelo, while painting the Sistine Chapel (as interpreted
    by Animaniacs)