What exactly were the lessons learned from this war? did europeans use tactics from it in their wars after it...

what exactly were the lessons learned from this war? did europeans use tactics from it in their wars after it? did prussia listen but france and austria didnt?
>first big war with trains, telegraph, ironclads, repeaters, and machine guns

Attached: 1556105675696.jpg (1231x910, 299K)

The same thing they learned from the other industrialized wars that occured pre-WW1. Absolutely nothing of value.

Pretty sure they learned that women are just as good as men in combat and need to be integrated into all units

Yeah.

Attached: 2019-01-12-10-46-18.jpg (499x497, 92K)

it was too far away and too disorganised for europeans to take it too seriously

but what about all the european observers sent to the north and south during the war? did american advisors every get sent to europe during their following wars?

Nothing, they just wanted to watch us peasants die.

The Prussians thought tactical and operational leadership was pretty crap

which is kind of ironic

That freeing slaves into society was a colossal mistake and failed experiment that cost trillions of dollars. They should have been shipped back to Africa immediately following the war

Not really, these were the guys that would go on to win the Franco-Prussian War in dramatic fashion, and whose fathers and grandfathers had defeated Napoleon on the battlefield.

You can't when in traditional settings if you are outnumbered and out supplied. Even having stronger generals won't close the gap.

Also destroying rail lines, blocking roads, and cutting telegraph lines is essential. Which is today seen as cutting off all forms of communication.

it was considered a clusterfuck, no european took it seriously. two badly trained/equipped and tactically outdated sides going at each other like napolonic war LARPers in rags

Trains and telegraph lines are important

What did the US learn from the Iran-Iraq war? It was like a boxer watching a kid smush two army men together and call it fighting.

>very little maneuver warfare, it was almost pure infantry with very little cavalry to press an advantage
>What was present was usually poorly led, The Americans' Officer corps were largeley inexperienced and incompetent
>As a result battles were usually pretty indecisive by european standards where the defeated enemy was not harassed and was able to reform into a fighting force again.
>The Americans took eye watering casualties for little to no gain.

If you want to see how the Europeans fought at the time look at the Battle of Sedan in 1870 where a single battle not only decided the outcome of the war but did so relatively bloodlessly by maneuvering to threaten the enemy industrial heartland and govt.

tl;dr: Europeans played Chess while the Americans played Checkers (poorly)

>what exactly were the lessons learned from this war?
That Napoleonic tactics are too outdated to use when you have rifled barrels.
War isn't a gentleman's game.
Logistics and supplies are EVERYTHING.
Don't bring a musket to a repeating rifle fight.
Patriotism and willingness to die, alone cannot win a war.

Attached: Bringing Cleburne In_frame.jpg (1000x915, 194K)

This

Rifled muskets weren't THAT much better for line infantry. But the artillery renaissance of near universal 12 pounder adoption, new shells, and rifles field guns was a big deal.

so youd say the tactics and militarys of the civil war were already outdated compared to european wars. i always thought the american civil war in hindsight ended up being pretty advanced and it was kind of a preamble to the type of warfare fought in ww1. was not in equipment and tactics and more because of the length and intensity of the war that makes the civil war and ww1 similar? could post war 1870s america 1vs1 a contemporary european power or would the tactics clash in the european's favor?

>could post war 1870s america 1vs1 a contemporary european power or would the tactics clash in the european's favor?
No.
After the war, the US downsized its immense army, as well did away with most of its surplus implements of war.
So tactics or not, the odds would be in Europe's favor.
European powers would have had a field day with the US, since it no longer had an impressive army and still relied on trade with them, not to mention that European armies could easily outnumber whatever the US could muster at that point in time.

Late-war (1864 - 1865) Union AND Confederate armies vs Europe would be far more interesting.

Attached: IMG_023.jpg (1400x834, 258K)