T2K and the [1st] American Civil War

[Raellus]

After seeing Lincoln a few weeks ago, I decided to read Shelby Foote's justly famous three volume Narrative History of the Civil War (a Christmas gift from a few years ago). I just finished Volume 1: Fort Sumter to Perryville and, as with most non-fiction that I read, it got me thinking about the Twilight War.

The American Civil War has been called the first modern war by many military historians. It was the first major war in which the major combatants had access to extensive railroads, rifles (some of them breach-loaders and/or repeaters), telegraphs networks, observation balloons, and ironclad steam-powered warships. Compared to warfare today, it doesn't seem all that modern, but when you consider the widespread destruction caused by limited nuclear warfare, warfare c.2000 would have reverted in many respects to earlier models. The more I think about it, the more the American Civil War seems like a good model for warfare in the later years of the Twilight War.

First off, combat unit sizes were generally smaller then and support services much more so. A "full-strength" infantry division might only contain 3000 men. A regiment may contain only 500 or so. These unit sizes have more in common with late Twilight War unit sizes than they do with late Cold War or modern ones. The scale of fighting in 2000 would more closely resemble the scale of warfare during the ACW than it would that of WWII. The parallels that I see have mostly to do with warfare on a strategic and operational level (the latter moreso than the former). Tactically speaking, advances in military technology between 1865 and 1996 would make civil war battle tactics suicidal to emulate.

Second, during the ACW, there wasn't much of a front line in a modern sense- at least not a continuous one. The country was simply too big and the relative armies small in relation to the territory being contested. Units tended to congregate near major, strategically important population centers (i.e. cantonments, in T2K parlance) but units could range far and wide while on campaign. Despite being mostly foot bound, ACW infantry divisions were highly mobile. Since there wasn't a continuous front, units could really explore the space, so to speak. Lines of supply were important, but since armies could sustain themselves in the field for weeks or months at a time, they could sometimes be disregarded by units on the march. Stonewall Jackson's Shenandoah Valley campaign is a prime example of this. The capture of enemy supply depots became an important component of resupply when on campaign. It was not desirable to have a large enemy unit across one's rear, but it wasn't necessarily disastrous. As long as it had enough ammunition to defend itself, a unit could operate in the field for extended periods of time, to a large extent living off of the land. Feints and misdirection were important, in an operational sense. If an enemy unit could be drawn off on a wild goose chase, a friendly unit were have much more operational freedom. There were many instances where opposing armies circled each other for days or weeks, not because they were trying to avoid one another, but because they couldn't find each other.

It struck me how similar this style of manouver warfare is to what is described in T2K canon. The U.S. 5th & 8th ID's operations in the summer of 2000 are prime examples. Canon is pretty clear that "fronts" existed only in a very loose sense, much like during the ACW. Both the 5th & the 8th IDs are operating, essentially on their own, deep inside enemy territory. This indicates to me that their own supply lines were basically being ignored by the division commanders. Like Civil War armies, they must have been carrying enough food, ammo, and fuel for at least a few weeks of independent operations, with in-the-field replenishment almost entirely up to the division. Foraging (for food, fodder, and fuel) would be an essential part of military operations again. They must have been counting on finding and making use of enemy supply depots.

As I dive into the next two volumes of the series, I will probably come across more correlates, and I will continue to post them here for discussion. Your observations are, of course, welcome.