[Bishop746]

Well Done, Mobhack.
While I'm not well read enough on the American Civil War to back up or dispute your claim.(One reason why I'm looking into Griffiths books) I respect that your argument was based on logic and evaluation of actuall field conditions and not text book enviroments.

From what little I have read, I agree that a ACW firefight would have occurred at ranges closer to 150 yards than the the Springfields maximum range. There is a big difference between a weapons maximum range and its combat effective range.

One thought did occur to me while reading your post concering entrenchments and the ease that these could be overcome by a more aggressive force. A regiment fighting in 1860 is not the same as the same regiment fighting 2 to 3 years later. Casualities were high but a core of veterans would survive who could deliver a murdurous fire to an advancing force. Would this account for the heavy entrenchments towards the end of the war?

Excellent post because it made me think.

More book recommnedations:

The Myth of the Great War by John Mosier. Mr. Mosiers book generates controversy and passion by calling into question many accepted beliefs concerning the Great War. Not a good book to start with if you have no background in World War One but a must read if you do. I'm not educated enough to speak to all of the books themes but it is backed up with documentation and it is a fasinating read.

Military Experience in the Age of Reason by Christopher Duffy. I dont read books twice very often; there are just too many good books out there I have to read, but this is one of the few that I have. Learning how wars were waged with the technological and buruacratic limits of their time is fasinating. One example, Prussian cavalry units were not formed based on need but on the types of horses that were available that year. If it had been a good year with no droughts then big horses were available to form heavy cavalry squadrons. No rain, sparse feeding resulted in horses only suitable for scouting.