Question by diddy: Why didn’t the soldiers in the Civil War take cover from the line of fire while reloading their rifles?
why dont they drop down and take cover while reloading to avoid getting hit by the enemies?
Best answer:
Answer by Shock and Awe
Simply without a long drawn out answer, it wasn’t part of the culture and tactics of the day. It was looked down as cowardly to do so. Also it would have broken up battle formations and lines if everyone ‘ducked and covered’ to reload and there would be no way a leader could move his troops to mass fire into the ranks of the enemy.
“Period military thinkers were well aware that the improvement in rifles would change tactical relationships on the battlefield. However, they were uncertain of just how it would come together in practice. The idea of having soldiers fight as individuals or in small units and use cover would have seemed impractical to military thinkers on both sides of the Atlantic. There was very little cover on typical European battlefields, and in the past it was considered an impediment to the movement of units in formation. Men fighting as small units would be difficult for officers to control. Such tactics would have resulted in chaos and stalemate. The field fortifications were also viewed with distain. These were felt to rob men of their aggressive fighting spirit. The thinking that developed after the Crimean War was that the answer lay in an aggressive assault by well-trained units. Zouaves were trained to suddenly drop to the ground immediately before the opposing unit’s volley and then rise and charge with the bayonet. Occasionally these tactics worked spectacularly. The many failures were blamed on the troops rather than the tactics. This kind of thinking did not disappear until well into the First World War.”
http://howardlanham.tripod.com/weaponstactics.html
What do you think? Answer below!
Posted in 
Tags: 
Stupid British military training from Independence Times -
It made for a faster reload too
Actually one of Gen Lee’s strengths was his use of fortifications and field works and fighting more from the defensive then the offensive. He Selim did not follow that process and one of the major times he did was Gettysburg which was a defeat. If you look at the battles prior and many after Gettysburg the Confederates would fight from defensive works then counter attack after blunting the Union charges. So it was not as bad as the standard stand in line and shoot at each other until one side ran out of people as it was in the Revolutionary War but that action did occur when their was not time to prepare defenses. In general though the tactics changed little until after World War One. Something to remember is that reloading a muzzle loader is not easy or fast from the prone or even kneeling position. Casuality rates inmost Civili War battles were in the 30% or higher range by the time it ended. The Army of Tennessee lost 60% of it’s personnel in one late battle because General Hood decided to do a frontal assaut against fortified Union ositions which had heavy artillery support across a two mile long field because that would show the Union that the Confederates still had lots of fighting spirit (this was in 1864); since, the Union was already preparing to fall back to Nashville the following morning , based on orders Gen Hood admitted he knew about afterwards, it was a waste of lives but Gen Hood claimed a victory because the next day the Union troops were gone.
I was going to answer your question until I read the reply by Shock and Awe. He was correct and factual about troop deployment at that time. Battle tactics are constantly changing over the years and even more so now with the involvement of politicians in military affairs, ie: “Rules of Engagement”.
I’m going to have to disagree with S&A on this one.
They fired muzzle-loaders. Part of the process required seating the ball. This was accomplished by ramming a rod down the barrel, or banging the butt of the weapon on the ground. Both maneuvers are more easily accomplished from a standing position.
Training at that time enforced that — and for that very reason It was faster by several seconds. The object was more out-going ball than incoming. So they wanted a guy firing as fast as possible.
That said, sometimes they did fire from a prone position or from behind cover. It just took them forever to reload from that position. In the time it took to reload, the enemy could have covered a hundred yards or more. This wasn’t a good thing since the enemy sometimes didn’t fire its first volley from more than that distance.
Standing also offered the opportunity to have two or three lines of guys firing. One line would fire and fall back to reload while the next would step up and fire. If it took a minute to reload, that tactic would allow a volley every 20 seconds.
I’ve fired muzzle-loaders.
As far as culture and the worry about cowardice, many of these guys were hunters and farmers. I believe that in the South, many supplied their own equipment and horses. Most weren’t trained soldiers. They were used to putting food on the table by stealth.
And they certainly knew of the tactics that won the Revolution. Those guys used shoot and scoot, and ambush pretty effectively and weren’t considered cowards.
And, as is the case today, most probably really wanted to go back to whatever it was they were doing before the war. Standing and getting shot at is, to most thinking people, probably not the best way to accomplish that.
i agree with shock and awe, but think about the climate, it was usually open fields, take cover where?
they often fought in wide open field where cover was not available.