NW Mailing List nw-mailing-list at
Sun Jan 5 11:30:08 EST 2014

As another Army retiree, I agree with what you postulate. No point in making extra work for your side when you may need the tunnel! Another consideration might be that tunnels provided probably the shortest way for infantry and other light forces to get from point A to point B,even after the railroad was not usable.


-----Original Message-----
From: NW Mailing List <nw-mailing-list at>
To: NW Mailing List <nw-mailing-list at>
Sent: Sun, Jan 5, 2014 6:07 am
Subject: Re: Arthur


I am no military genius [just a retired SGM] but I would guess theArmies of either side were willing to destroy infrastructure that couldbe rebuilt. If the North blew up a bridge in a raid and later occupiedthe territory, they could rebuild it for their own use. If aretreating army destroyed bridges and buildings, and "pretzelized" therails and burned the ties, they could always rebuild the track if theyre-occupied the territory. Blow up a tunnel.. you have made the lineimpassible for yourself later in the campaign.

Just a guess.... don't destroy things YOU might need later that can notbe replaced.

Maybe some TC or CE can speak to the subject... I was a tank commanderin my combat unit.
Jim Stapleton
On 1/4/2014 10:40 AM, NW Mailing List wrote:

Why isn't there more mentioning of destroying tunnels in Civil Warreports relative to the raids on V&T? It was depots burned,bridges burned, cars and locos destroyed and miles of rails torn up. Cavalry didn't carry enough black power to blow them up?

Al Kresse

NW-Mailing-List at
To change your subscription go to
Browse the NW-Mailing-List archives at

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the NW-Mailing-List mailing list