- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Video showing what it is like to be on the receiving end of Civil War artillery fire
Posted on 1/6/26 at 10:27 am to weagle1999
Posted on 1/6/26 at 10:27 am to weagle1999
I posted this video on here a few years back and I'm glad it's being brought up again. There were between 4-6 guns in a battery during the American Civil War. So imagine marching across an open field while having to eat this kind of fire all the way.
1
Posted on 1/6/26 at 10:29 am to RollTide1987
quote:
imagine marching across an open field while having to eat this kind of fire all the way.
And catching some shrapnel in you leg and dying of gangrene
Posted on 1/6/26 at 10:31 am to DownshiftAndFloorIt
quote:
Europe is in the state it is today because of how many men it lost in WW1.
I would argue that Europe is crap because of WW2.
Posted on 1/6/26 at 10:32 am to weagle1999
Looks like no hearing protection on those baws either 
Posted on 1/6/26 at 10:35 am to Slimeball
quote:this always boggled my mind
the old line up and march towards each other
No one ever thought hey this is stupid as frick?
Posted on 1/6/26 at 10:35 am to p0845330
quote:
Doesn’t look that bad compared to the Middle East in 2004-05 (personal experience). Yet many more casualties in the civil war. What is the disconnect? I’ve no clue or opinion. Legit question.
Battles in the American Civil War involved more men and the battlefields were often times smaller and more compact. Not only that, but the technology of the period dictated that you group your men close to maximize firepower. However, that was a double-edged sword as your men could be cut down in their dozens by one single well-aimed volley from the other side. For instance, the 1st Texas Volunteer Infantry Regiment (CSA) sent 226 men into battle at Antietam on September 17, 1862. In less than 30 minutes of combat they suffered 186 total casualties - a casualty rate of 82.3%.
Posted on 1/6/26 at 10:38 am to UnluckyTiger
quote:No shite.
the old line up and march towards each other
this always boggled my mind
No one ever thought hey this is stupid as frick?
I’d have been like, “Why don’t we go to that wooded section right there and sneak up on them and flank them?”
Posted on 1/6/26 at 10:40 am to SouthernHog
quote:
I would argue that Europe is crap because of WW2.
There is no WWII without WWI. The two are directly connected to each other.
Posted on 1/6/26 at 10:50 am to RollTide1987
How much damage do you think these big boys could do? Fort Massachusetts on Ship Island, Biloxi, MS.
That iron on the last pic was over a foot thick.
That iron on the last pic was over a foot thick.
Posted on 1/6/26 at 11:04 am to bhtigerfan
I'm no military historian but I believe there was a long standing belief that giving up territory, any territory, was unspeakable. Allowing an army to advance unopposed across a field would be a non-starter. As long as you're willing to exchange the bodies for the territory, marching a big mass of people across the field generally worked.
They would flank with cavalry and things like that when it was an option to do it.
It's not as simple as it initially seems. If you don't engage them, they just keep going and keep claiming ground until you stop them. You lose ground, you lose resources, you eventually get bottled up on the high ground and maybe blockaded in and starved out.
It does just seem so silly to contemplate though. Marching across an open field into artillery fire till you got close enough for it to turn into artillery and rifle fire until it hopefully became rifle fire and bayonets because that meant you finally got close enough to maybe end it. frick that.
They would flank with cavalry and things like that when it was an option to do it.
It's not as simple as it initially seems. If you don't engage them, they just keep going and keep claiming ground until you stop them. You lose ground, you lose resources, you eventually get bottled up on the high ground and maybe blockaded in and starved out.
It does just seem so silly to contemplate though. Marching across an open field into artillery fire till you got close enough for it to turn into artillery and rifle fire until it hopefully became rifle fire and bayonets because that meant you finally got close enough to maybe end it. frick that.
Posted on 1/6/26 at 12:45 pm to p0845330
quote:
Doesn’t look that bad compared to the Middle East in 2004-05 (personal experience). Yet many more casualties in the civil war. What is the disconnect? I’ve no clue or opinion. Legit question.
Among other things already mentioned, advancement in battlefield medical care and (amazingly) more humane ammo.
Get shot with a modern bullet there's a good chance it's a through and through. Get patched up and you end up with a gnarly scar. Soft lead minne ball hits you and expands, it is destroying bone, muscle, blood vessels, etc. and most likely lodging inside.
Also, we understand bacterial infections and how to treat and prevent them. Civil War field surgeons, and even hospitals, often reused bandages, used the same instruments on multiple patients without cleaning, much less sterilizing, them.
Posted on 1/6/26 at 1:18 pm to PJinAtl
When we head to the Florida panhandle in summer we oftentimes head over to FtMorgan and Ft Gaines.
Those places had to be miserable stations in the 1800s. Wool uniforms, shite cover from the sun, mosquitos, no great water source, and oh yeah, you’re under naval blockade and bombardment.
I think it’s Ft Gaines but I’m not sure. One of the forts in that area had a powder magazine blow up and a fricking giant wall in a section is gone. I think that explosion only killed 2 people. Which is a miracle if you weren’t one of those two.
Those places had to be miserable stations in the 1800s. Wool uniforms, shite cover from the sun, mosquitos, no great water source, and oh yeah, you’re under naval blockade and bombardment.
I think it’s Ft Gaines but I’m not sure. One of the forts in that area had a powder magazine blow up and a fricking giant wall in a section is gone. I think that explosion only killed 2 people. Which is a miracle if you weren’t one of those two.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News