AEF In WWI

[ShermanM4]

Yet going into the Great War the US army seemed fixated upon the offensive and the massive charge,and the bayonet.There was very little difference in the tactics she used during the Civil War and what she used in WWI.There was very little excuse for it as she out of all of the nations fighting,forgetting the Franco-Prussian War,had a huge amount of experience to fall back upon of massed troops assaulting defended trenchlines.It was as though the Army didn't take any lessons from the earlier conflict.One of the strange things about the war was that the US almost completely shunned the small unit tactics that the French and British had painfully learned and were trying to implement in their own armies.Given the circumstances her adherence to attrition warfare wasn' fatal,but against a fresher foe it may have proved even more costly.

Maliki, this gets us back to square one. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the US Military learned little from the Civil War and had not changed by 1917. I thought you, essentialy, agreed with Big B when he talked about field tactics.This was my whole question in the first place. Did the AEF offer any different or fresh outlook on strategy and battlefield tactics. I am not sure if the AEF did. They certainly were not carrying around the tactics of the Civil War with them.

The US Marine 5th regiment did not march in a double skirmish-line to the beat of drum, with their springfields pointed forward and bayonets gleaming when the division captured Blanc Mont ridge. The US Army 1st and 3rd divisions did not hold their place on the Marne by maneuvering big box formations into the open fields; they did it by digging in just like the French and the British.

Maliki this may not even be the point you are trying to make, but this is what I am hearing. (or reading[:D])

All combatants in WW1 (and WW2) have their own, quite proper, respect for the sacrafices made by their own soldiers.

Well Said

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: ShermanM4

Yet going into the Great War the US army seemed fixated upon the offensive and the massive charge,and the bayonet.There was very little difference in the tactics she used during the Civil War and what she used in WWI.There was very little excuse for it as she out of all of the nations fighting,forgetting the Franco-Prussian War,had a huge amount of experience to fall back upon of massed troops assaulting defended trenchlines.It was as though the Army didn't take any lessons from the earlier conflict.One of the strange things about the war was that the US almost completely shunned the small unit tactics that the French and British had painfully learned and were trying to implement in their own armies.Given the circumstances her adherence to attrition warfare wasn' fatal,but against a fresher foe it may have proved even more costly.

Maliki, this gets us back to square one. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the US Military learned little from the Civil War and had not changed by 1917. I thought you, essentialy, agreed with Big B when he talked about field tactics.This was my whole question in the first place. Did the AEF offer any different or fresh outlook on strategy and battlefield tactics. I am not sure if the AEF did. They certainly were not carrying around the tactics of the Civil War with them.

The US Marine 5th regiment did not march in a double skirmish-line to the beat of drum, with their springfields pointed forward and bayonets gleaming when the division captured Blanc Mont ridge. The US Army 1st and 3rd divisions did not hold their place on the Marne by maneuvering big box formations into the open fields; they did it by digging in just like the French and the British.

Maliki this may not even be the point you are trying to make, but this is what I am hearing. (or reading[:D])

All combatants in WW1 (and WW2) have their own, quite proper, respect for the sacrafices made by their own soldiers.

Well Said

Just a thought, but perhaps if everyone interested would view some WWI combat footage - you would find that you would not see anything remotely looking like a battle in the American Civil War. The men will look much more like they are taking part in a WWII battle.

I will also wager (despite all the theorizing about who practised what kind of tactics) you will be hard pressed to know if you are watching US, Canadian, Australian, Irish, or English Infantry in action (French and German are easier to identify because of distinguishing uniforms).

The whole point I am making is that - film certainly does exist of live action on WWI battlefields, and the first thing you will notice is that all the protagonists are reacting and behaving like they are on a modern battlefield... not Waterloo or Chancelorsville, nor does it look like a 3rd World riot (leaderless - with people milling around).
You will also immediately notice that virtually everyone is dispersed - not shoulder to shoulder.
Just watching film of a real battlefield ought to inform you just how much anyone's particular style varied from the rest... not ALL THAT MUCH, it's not like watching the British Army fight Zulus.

EDIT: A visual example of what I am talking about..
Soldiers of the US 318th Infantry, 80th Division, advancing through smoke screens. Picture made near Le NeFour, France, on October 27, 1918.

[Maliki]

Ergh.I guess i can be less than clear at times.[;)]

I wasn't trying to say that the US fought in exactly the same way as in the Civil War,but the tactics they used reminded me of it compared to the other powers that had fought longer.Where as armies like the French and German were trying to develop smaller unit tactics based upon their experience.Maybe i just need to read up more on the small unit tactics they employed.

Though if i'm not mistaken the Marines at Belleau Woods actually did advance in a sort of skirmish lines across the fields in order to close with the enemy.