First Industrialized War

[Rob52240]

Well wikipedia says that the industrial revolution occurred between 1750 and 1850 and that the second industrial revolution was from 1850 - WW1 and culminated with mass production and the assembly line.

So I guess we're still open for debate?

[clerick]

I'm pretty sure that the North won the Civil War in large part due to their ability to out produce and supply the south.

[Rob52240]

As well as effectively blockade the south's ports.  The north seemed to have a counter for everything the south came up with.  The one thing the south had that the north didn't was well trained officers.  Most of the generals before the civil war were from the south.

They also had the LeMat Revolver, which was really really cool.

[Shuffler]

I'm pretty sure that the North won the Civil War in large part due to their ability to out produce and supply the south.

Sheer numbers.... the north was a horde so they won the war between the states.

[shotgunneeley]

Yeah the American Civil War was the first modern war not only for the advancements in technology, but also for the change in tactics. There were a lot of battles and skirmishes fought on the squad level. Transportation by rail, messages by telegraph, defensive trench lines, total warfare, and naval battles with ironclads all set the mold for future wars to follow.

Sheer numbers.... the north was a horde so they won the war between the states.

Oh yeah, and the North set the mold for the Rooks and Knights to follow 

The North had the advantage in numbers, but they also had the vast majority of the nation's industry to mass produce and supply equipment. The South was strong in raw materials and agriculture, but weak in industrial capabilities, rail transportation, and telegraph communications.

[Rich52]

Modern "Infustrialized" war would be war on air,land, sea. So no I'd say WW-I was first. Every war in History saw many technological inovations so that alone cant describe it.

The Civil War wasnt that much different then the War of Independance. Soldiers still marched into battle in formation. The horse was still the major mover. Yes there was railroads, minnie balls, and rifled muskets. Eventually repeating arms and a type of machinegun.But "most" of the war was plain old front stuffers. But there was yet no mass production assembly lines. No high quality steel. No major naval engagement between modern Navies, no submarines, no airplanes, no tanks, no modern cartridges with spitzer bullets, no bolt action rifles, no hand held machineguns, no wireless communications, electricity, the list goes on and on.

Quite simply the machinery of modern war just wasnt there until WWl .

[Rich52]

Modern "Infustrialized" war would be war on air,land, sea. So no I'd say WW-I was first. Every war in History saw many technological inovations so that alone cant describe it.

The Civil War wasnt that much different then the War of Independance. Soldiers still marched into battle in formation. The horse was still the major mover. Yes there was railroads, minnie balls, and rifled muskets. Eventually repeating arms and a type of machinegun.But "most" of the war was plain old front stuffers. But there was yet no mass production assembly lines. No high quality steel. No major naval engagement between modern Navies, no submarines, no airplanes, no tanks, no modern cartridges with spitzer bullets, no bolt action rifles, no hand held machineguns, no wireless communications, electricity, the list goes on and on.

Quite simply the machinery of modern war just wasnt there until WWl .

[cpxxx]

It had to be be the American civil war, not at the level we saw in WW1 but it was the prototype particularly on the Union side. The Rebels were fighting the old style war but the Union fought the new war. People get carried away about the fighting and the gallantry. But in reality it's all about logisticis. The Rebels were better soldiers more dedicated, more loyal to the cause. But the Union had the muscle, the people, the equipment.

The ordinary Joe was slaughtered in his thousands. This was different to previous wars.

Just like WW2, America was the arsenal of democracy. They out produced their enemy.

The ACW was the first modern war. Sadly the men whe fought it died in their thousands because they never saw it coming.

[Rob52240]

Rich the civil war did have observation balloons, electronic communications, a failed submarine, modern cartridges and lever action rifles, engine driven armored warships, machine guns and a whole bunch of other crap.  WW1 did not start out with each side in a trench, it began with infantry and mounted cavalry moving ahead of artillery.  It also never became very mechanized. 

Technologies we had in WW1 but not the Civil War besides the internal combustion engine and radio?

[PFactorDave]

Sheer numbers.... the north was a horde so they won the war between the states.

yup...  It was the vUnion that did it...   

[clerick]

yup...  It was the vUnion that did it...   

I read a great biography of vJOSHUA vCHAMBERLAIN. It mentioned that after Lee's defeat at Gettysburg vLINCOLN sent him a rather taunting and rude telegram.

[PFactorDave]

I read a great biography of vJOSHUA vCHAMBERLAIN. It mentioned that after Lee's defeat at Gettysburg vLINCOLN sent him a rather taunting and rude telegram.

 

[Penguin]

Speaking of the American Civil War, what I read in History today almost made me keel over and puke on the spot.  It was a manuscript from Thomas Benton, a governor during the immediate antebellum.  The only way that I can describe it is that it was a manifestation of Manifest Destiny.  If you want to think of it like a nightmarish ice cream sundae, it was megalomania, racism, and imperialism flavored with fanatical delusion sprinkles.  He wasn't some illiterate country hick, either, it was cogent in its own twisted way.  It just goes to show you that there's nothing like reading a history book to knock any nostalgia out and make you appreciate the present.

-Penguin

[PFactorDave]

Speaking of the American Civil War, what I read in History today almost made me keel over and puke on the spot.  It was a manuscript from Thomas Benton, a governor during the immediate antebellum.  The only way that I can describe it is that it was a manifestation of Manifest Destiny.  If you want to think of it like a nightmarish ice cream sundae, it was megalomania, racism, and imperialism flavored with fanatical delusion sprinkles.  He wasn't some illiterate country hick, either, it was cogent in its own twisted way.  It just goes to show you that there's nothing like reading a history book to knock any nostalgia out and make you appreciate the present.

I'm not disagreeing necessarily, but be careful not to overlay too much of your modern viewpoints when you are looking at something that happened 150 years ago.  Try and read history with the way people thought at the time in mind first. 

[Penguin]

Yes, moral relativism is important; however, it takes a little while to 'get used to the water,' so to speak.  It was so awful that I just wasn't ready.  Anyway, I agree that he was just another brick in the wall- stuff like that was common back then.  It was still awful.

-Penguin