What was the rationale behind the massed formations commonly used in Civil War battles?

Question

Frontiersmen hiding behind trees were quite effective fighting battles decades earlier. What happened in the interim to cause military strategists to change and create a fighting style the result of which led to enormous loss of life?

Answer 1

What you're referring to is the 'Napoleonic' assaults, where the charging 'formations' were massed. In open fields or against entrenched positions, it's hard to fight behind trees and bushes. The massed formations in the Civil War, however, proved quit ineffectual, look what happened to the Federals at Fredricksburg and the Rebs at Cemetery Ridge. The massed artillery and entrenched fire from musketry proved the deciding factor in both battles.

Answer 2

Militia and guerrilla tactics were actually only a small part of the earlier wars. The large battles were fought in the traditional manner, ie: lining up in formations and facing the enemy troops. That's how the West Pointers and the other military schools taught tactics.

Answer 3

US Officers learned tactics at West Point and these tactics were based mostly upon European methods which taught massed formations.
Massed infantry formations of the Civil War period were easier to control especially since the forces were not professionals. Also, armies massed at one location are easier to re-supply since you know where everyone is.

The Southern states, because of material shortfalls, had to win battles more efficiently. Robert E. Lee had to adapt and allow greater initiative in battle and his forces were usually outnumbered. His forces struck with ferocity and speed and unpredictibility and often disengaged when feasible.

The doctrines of not massing forces became more practical when weapons (machine gun, artillery, telegraph, radio and nukes etc.) became more accurate and more destructive. Not massing forces led to concepts of "Shoot - Move - Communicate". Modern warfare became more mobile and more dispersed after the Germans effectively used successful combined land and air attacks in WW2.

Answer 4

Many of the frontiersman used rifles. Most Civil War soldiers used smoothbore guns which were wildely innacurate. The benefit to them was the ability to use multiple projectiles at once, buck and ball, bird shot, buck shot, etc. The innacuracy of these weapons made it neccessary to form large groups in hopes that sheer numbers of bullets would overcome lack of individual accuracy.

The battalion style techniques fell out of favor before the end of the Civil War.

Answer 5

Well, with muskets of the early Civil War period, any shot beyond about 100 yards was essentially wasted. While they lacked accuracy, the muskets did have a high rate of fire for their time, so they would pack men in massed formation, then order them to fire all at once. This way, they compensated for the lack of accuracy while capitalizing on the high rate of fire by putting hundreds of musketballs in the air. And with all that lead in the air, they were bound to hit somthing.

Answer 6

Individual soldiers, firing their inaccurate rifles, would not do a lot of damage; massed soldiers firing a wall of bullets, however inaccurate any particular shooter was, would do more damage to the enemy.