I’d be interested in some opinions about the following question from the folks on the board who are very knowledgeable about the U.S. Civil War (which I’m not). I was reading about Banzai charges in WWII, and I came across the following paragraph in the Wikipedia article on human wave attacks:
“According to U.S. Army analyst Edward C. O’Dowd, the technical definition of a human wave attack tactic is a frontal assault by densely concentrated infantry formations against an enemy line, without any attempts to shield or to mask the attacker’s movement. The goal of a human wave attack is to maneuver as many men as possible into close range, hoping that the shock from a large mass of attackers engaged in melee combat would force the enemy to disintegrate or fall back.”
The question I asked myself after reading this is: by that definition, could the Confederate infantry assault on the Cemetary Ridge Union position at Gettysburg – a.k.a. Pickett’s Charge – be considered a human wave attack? It was a walking advance across almost a mile of open terrain, aimed straight at a strong enemy position, by men arrayed in line formations (rather than dispersed in the open order used by modern infantry units). I don’t recall ever seeing the phrase “human wave attack” used to describe Pickett’s Charge, though I admit that I’m only familiar with a tiny percentage of the enormous body of literature that deals with the Civil War.
The -Human Wave Charge- is usually directly proportional to the number of attackers versus defenders.
It’ll work in 10 to 1 situations. Pickett’s charge however… doesn’t have that -overwhelming numbers- aspect. So I would argue it was not a human wave charge tactic.
as gargantua said a large advantage in manpower is the deciding factor for it to be considered a human wave attack
some examples would be the iranians attacking the iraqis in the 80’s and the chinese attacking the marines in korea
although all suffered huge losses and defeat(at least tactically) the confederates didn’t have a huge manpower advantage
just speculation on my part,but I wonder if this tactic is still being used today in parts of africa on a smaller acale
the sudan comes to mind
“Tactics” or “strategy” is usually dependant on the use of equipment/resources/terrain at your disposal.
If you’re the russians, and you’re losing WWI, throw men at the German Machine guns until they overheat, in order to secure -tactical- victory. You have the luxury of throwing bodies on the fire to make the battle work in your favour.
The human wave tactic, implies that the men are the resource. “Let’s use our man advantage”
In the case of Pickett’s charge… it was just that, a charge, a tactic all on it’s own. :P
If you’re the russians, and you’re losing WWI, throw men at the German Machine guns until they overheat, in order to secure -tactical- victory. You have the luxury of throwing bodies on the fire to make the battle work in your favour.
The Russians were the first country to use modern tactics in a sucessful offensive in WWI.
General Brusilov had the belief that a short but brutial bombardment, followed by shock troops to advance deep into the enemy rear area could break a fortified line of defense.
The Brusilov Offensive started in June. The attack, aimed against the part of the front held by Austro-Hungarians, was initially a spectacular success. The Russian army advanced to a depth of 50–70 kilometres (31–43 mi), capturing several hundred thousand prisoners and several hundred guns.
That may be so ABW…
but…
The Battle of Tannenburg 23–30 August 1914  (Spread over a week)
Russia:
78,000 killed or wounded
92,000 POW
500 guns captured
170,000 total casualties
Germany:
5,000 killed
7,000 wounded
12,000 total casualties
I would say that was a rather effective test of the validity, of the -human wave- doctorine, and that perhaps the Russians were also the first to use unmodern tactics aswell.
That may be so ABW…
but…
The Battle of Tannenburg 23–30 August 1914 � (Spread over a week)
Russia:
78,000 killed or wounded
92,000 POW
500 guns captured
170,000 total casualtiesGermany:
5,000 killed
7,000 wounded
12,000 total casualtiesI would say that was a rather effective test of the validity, of the -human wave- doctorine, and that perhaps the Russians were also the first to use unmodern tactics aswell.
The Battle of Tannenberg’s results have as much to do with Hindenburg skill and knowledge of his own backyard than poor Russian leadership.
The opening months of the war saw many naive attempts to advance large number of men in spirited charges. Many young men were afraid the war would end before they could obtain glory.
Russians at Tannenburg.
The French at the Battle of the Frontiers lost most of the regular prewar army attacking the German fortifications.
Young German recruits ended their lives in mad charges fueled by zeal of nationalism during the Race To the Sea ending in the Battle of Ypres. The Germans refer to this event as the Massacre of the Innocents.
The British were laughed at for digging deep rifle pits before the Battle of Mons’ before even meeting the Germans in battle. The British, however, were the only European country to learn first hand how deadly modern bolt-action rifles in the hands of trained personal were from the Boers in Africa fifteen years earlier.
Lee certainly did not conceive it as such. He had 3 good and fresh brigades left on Day3 and 2 hardly engaged the day before. He wanted and sensed(wrongly) that victory was in his grasp. He had attacked both flanks with some success, but not the centre. He expected it weakened and saw it as the most logical next move. It was an attack on a narrow front, probably more because of the paucity of attackers and got narrower as casualties mounted. There was near parity in numbers, but the defenders were entrenched and backed by artillery. The mile they had to walk was not out of choice and made the task harder, although proving a great spectacle and probably did awe the defenders. Lee may have hoped his army’s vaunted aggression would break those people; it was desperation and this was not Virginia.
I Have to agree this was not the tactic described.
The infantry assault was preceded by a massive artillery bombardment that was meant to soften up the Union defense and silence its artillery,
Interesting Worsham… Sounds like the confederates were using those modern tactics! They just failed…
The infantry assault was preceded by a massive artillery bombardment that was meant to soften up the Union defense and silence its artillery,
Interesting Worsham… Sounds like the confederates were using those modern tactics! They just failed…
Just needed to get away from the advancing in rows where they were easy mass targets.
Hi Cromwell. Hoped you would post. Thanks for that. Wanted to say Lee planned an echelon attack, but was unsure if I remembered right. Also thought I remembered something about the artillery barrage being short. Was Longstreet conserving some ammo for what he thought would be a Union counterattack? And you would have relieved him too, wow?
Good question. Before I answer, I would like to know the answer to one question. Do you mean the attack as planned or as implemented?
I wasn’t aware of the discrepancy between the plan and the implementation, so my question didn’t take that factor into account. I guess this amounts to saying that it referred to the attack as implemented, since that’s all I knew about. I was vaguely aware, however, that Longstreet’s role on the third day has been seen as controversial, the argument on one side being that he doomed the attack to failure by his delays and the argument on the other side being that he considered Lee’s decision to attack the centre to be a colossal blunder against which he argued forcefully but which Lee still ordered him to carry out. But anyway, the aspect I was wondering about was the validity (or not) of drawing a parallel between that attack and the concept of human wave attacks in general and Japanese banzai charges in particular.
Since human wave attacks weren’t, as far as I know, a named and consciously-defined doctrine at the time of the US Civil War, it’s in a way anachronistic to refer to Pickett’s Charge as such. The method and the results in both cases nevertheless do bear a certain resemblance. One difference I can see, however, is the far greater imbalance of forces (and hence the more extreme nature of the tactic) that characterized banzai charges. At Saipan, for instance, the Japanese who charged the US Marine lines were out of ammunition and had little more than fixed bayonets at their disposal, while the Marines were armed with machine guns and flame throwers. The firepower discrepancy during the third day’s attack at Gettysburg was much less lopsided. And I guess another fundamental difference was in the motivational aspect. The Japanese at Saipan had exhausted their resources and their only options were to surrender, to die in their positions without resisting, or to die on the offensive in a banzai charge (as hopeless as that offensive might be). Lee had more options than that (including the option of disengaging and retreating), and furthermore he and his men didn’t have the added burden of operating under the “death before dishonour” philosophy of the Bushido code.
Here is what Col. Long, General Lee’s military secretary, said of the Charge: “The attack of Pickett’s division on the 3rd has been more criticized and less understood, than any other part of the Gettysburg drama.” He continued, “the attack was not made as designed.” I encourage others to read what Long said of July 3rd. I just gave you two small snippets.
Thanks for the info about Armistead Lindsay Long. Is this the document to which you refer? :
http://www.gdg.org/Research/SHSP/shlong.html
Letter from General A. L. Long, Military Secretary to General R. E. Lee.
Charlottesville, Va., April, 1877.
The index page – http://www.gdg.org/Research/SHSP/shsp.html – has quite a few other articles on the subject of Gettysburg by various people.
Enjoyed reading that. Thank you both for bringing it to my attention.
Not coordinating and allocating Pickett to command two divisions from another corps is a major error by Longstreet. I agree with you there(sadly because of past service). He let petty jealousies(Lee’s favouring Virginians) and stubbornness over a disagreement in major invasion policy obscure his better judgement. Saddens me.
Rather than sack him, as you believe he should have, he sent him West. It was certainly the right policy. The West needed big names, but with substance: not Bory, for example.
Chickamauga is probably one of my favourite battles.
And what ifs.
Longstreet, not Bragg.
I would love to venture that far west, but think my 1st visit(whenever that will be) will be Virginia, as it is closer. Am sure I could spend 3 weeks looking at sites.
Have just picked up “Last Chance…”
Posting here again has made me want to read more about the subject.
I enjoyed it and it has caused me to reevaluate my opinion of Lee.
Have now elevated him above genius for his thinking how best to win the war and see how he envisaged the South’s only real chance for victory. I always thought him wrong to refuse to go West when asked, but see how necessary he was in the plan of things.
You know I hold the Western defeats dear and wish a Bragg replacement had been found earlier, only acknowledge now it could not be Lee.
My search for the answer goes on.
I know the whole Confederate heirachy( and modern military thinking)would have baulked at the idea of promoting someone two ranks(and not West Point), but how would the army have fared with Cleburne at the helm?
I know it is not a credible choice as he had two immediate superiors in the army(though Hardee refused) as well as two unused Full Generals outside of it.
I would like to read about Hardee and fathom why he could not see himself in the role. He did have the Army’s confidence. He is also another reason Cleburne could never have had the Army, having always been his superior.
