Today in US military history: the STAR-SPANGLED BANNER

Unto the Breach ^ | 13 September 2019 | Chris Carter

[fugazi]

Today's post is in honor of Staff Sgt. William R. Squier, Jr. who was killed by enemy small-arms fire on this date in 1969 in Binh Thuan province, Republic of Vietnam. The 20-year-old native of Brownell, Ks. had been in Vietnam for 17 months and was assigned to "C" Company Rangers, 75th Infantry.

1814: Unable to break the strong American defensive lines around Baltimore after a series of attacks, British troops return to their ships. Meanwhile, Vice Adm. Alexander Cochrane's fleet begins a 25-hour bombardment of Fort McHenry, which guards the entrance to Baltimore harbor. The ships fire their cannons and rockets at maximum range and are unable to inflict any serious damage.

American lawyer and amateur poet Francis Scott Key observes the attack while aboard a Royal Navy ship to secure the release of an American prisoner. Key is so moved by the nighttime bombardment and the sight of the American flag in the morning that he writes "Defence of Fort M'Henry" on the back of an envelope, which will become the "Star-Spangled Banner." The song does not become our national anthem, however, until 1931.

1847: After Marines capture the castle Chapultepec, the Mexican capital is now in American hands. The Duke of Wellington, who defeated Napoleon in the Battle of Waterloo, will say that American Maj. Gen. Winfield Scott's brilliant campaign against Santa Anna's forces during the Mexican-American War is "unsurpassed in military annals," and names Scott the "greatest living general."

1906: As revolution threatens Cuban President Tomás Estrada Palma's government, six officers and 124 Marines and sailors disembark from USS Denver (C-14) to help restore order.

1943: At Salerno, German troops launch a counterattack that drives Allied forces back to

[IronJack]

Winfield Scott was commanding general of the Union Army when the Civil War started. The 85-year-old was soon replaced by George MacClellan, though the latter proved inadequate as well.

One of the Union heroes of Gettysburg, Winfield Scott Hancock, was named after him.

[Bull Snipe]

It was Scott that gave Lincoln the basic strategic plan for defeating the Confederacy. Lincoln accepted it, and with some modifications, due to circumstances, it was the blue print for Union victory.

[fugazi]

McClellan reminds me, in a way, of Lt. Sobel from the book/movie BAND OF BROTHERS. Not a very effective combat leader, but we may never had heard of the 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment’s now-famous “E” Company if he hadn’t whipped them into shape. I’ve always thought how fascinating it would be to see how the war would play out if Gen. Scott remained in charge. I don’t think given his age and health that he would have lasted much longer than he did, but he had been fighting wars for 50 years and was considered one of history’s greatest generals.

[IronJack]

Scott died a year after the war ended, although by all accounts, he kept his faculties to the end.

It is certainly arguable that despite his age, he would have been superior to McClellan.

[fugazi]

Commanding an army from the field would demand more than a very hefty Gen. Scott could manage even at the beginning of the war. The man couldn't even get up from a chair without assistance -- at the beginning of the war.

But think about this: Gen. Scott had been commanding troops since the War of 1812. That would be the equivalent of, say, a David Hackworth leading troops in Korea, Vietnam, DESERT STORM, the Balkans, and then commanding our forces in the War on Terror. Pretty impressive that Scott lasted as long as he did.

But that makes me wonder, if you had a military simulator, how would our Civil War soldiers stack up against those from 1812? Technology has been improving on an exponential scale since the late 19th/early 20th Century. I imagine pitting today's technologically advanced military against what we fielded in 1969 wouldn't even be a close contest, and it would be almost impossible for one commander to adapt and stay on top of all the changes. But strategy, tactics, and technology probably didn't go through very many drastic changes over his 50 years of service.

[Bull Snipe]

“But strategy, tactics, and technology probably didn’t go through very many drastic changes over his 50 years of service”

You are correct about tactics. In 1862 the linear tactics of the War of 1812 were still used by both armies in the Civil War. However technology had greatly increased the killing power of those armies.
Instead of a flintlock 69 cal. smoothbore with an effective range of 50 yards. The soldiers carried 58 cal. percussion rifle muskets with a effective range close to 500 yards.
1812 smooth bore artillery firing solid shot had an effective range of a couple of hundred yards. By 1862, rifled artillery range was increased to 2000 yards, firing fused canister rounds.
The scale of war had also drastically changed. General Scott went into Mexico with an army of 12,000 men. That was equal to one corp. in the Army of the Potomac, with 6 corps.
During the Mexican war about 72,000 men served in the U.S. Army. In 1865, 800,000 men were serving in the Union Army.
The lack of innovation in tactics and the innovations in weapons in the 50 years of Scott’s career led to blood letting that Scott could not have imagined during 1812, or the Mexican war.

[fugazi]

I was thinking more about the tremendous technology improvements and new inventions in the 20th Century, but you are correct in pointing out the improvement in existing arms was substantial.