From Gettysburg to modern Ukraine. The evolution of warfare

There is no doubt that the American Civil War and especially the three-day battle of Gettysburg, marked a pivotal shift towards industrial warfare. The battle itself was a decisive moment in the American Civil War, which began in 1861. It marked the Confederacy’s (South) last major offensive in an attempt to shift the momentum in the conflict where the South was severed outnumbered in manpower and resources from the North. Although the major European Powers observed closely the war, they eventually failed to absorb its strategic lessons. The latter became evident during World War I, when industrialized warfare led to unprecedent casualties.

Today, we are witnessing a pivotal transformation in the nature of war in the battlefields of Ukraine. The extended use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and other autonomous systems is fundamentally reshaping how modern war is fought, signaling the new era of digitally networked and remote warfare. In this context, the relatively low-cost drones, employed by Ukrainian forces, have cost significant loses to the Russian military, including the destruction of naval vessels, strategic bombers, military personnel, tanks and armed vehicles. Additionally, Russia has deployed drone swarms to strike Ukrainian forces, targeting both military facilities and critical infrastructure.

From Gettysburg to Ukraine

Returning to the Civil War, both sides deployed their best available forces in Gettysburg, approximately 150,000 troops. Though the battle ended in a costly draw, the South failed to achieve its strategic goal: to surprise and severely damage Northern forces on their own territory. The Confederacy lost about 28,000 men, and the Union 23,000. This blow was critical, and the South's eventual defeat became inevitable.

The Northern victory was important not just tactically but symbolically, as it ensured the United States would remain a unified state, one that would later rise to global dominance. But why is this battle, and the Civil War more broadly, seen as a prelude to industrial-scale warfare?

The North’s victory, and the preservation of the Union, did not come easily. It took four years of brutal conflict, with enormous human and economic costs. Over 600,000 men died, and around 400,000 were wounded. Gettysburg alone claimed a massive share of these losses. It’s saying that the U.S. suffered more casualties in the Civil War than in both World Wars combined. This war was also the most devastating in the Western world since the Napoleonic era, up until World War I.

Initially, the North intended a limited campaign, confident in its superiority, aimed at swiftly reintegrating the seceded Confederacy. That plan was abandoned. Southern resilience and skilled leadership escalated the conflict into a total war, a fight for survival. The North shifted to dismantling the South’s structures completely, promising “a new birth of freedom,” as Lincoln declared at Gettysburg. Two years later, in 1865, the destruction of Georgia and South Carolina sealed the South’s fate. General Robert E. Lee surrendered, effectively ending the war.

The war caused almost one million dead and wounded and inflicted incalculable economic damage on both sides. Its social wounds in American society remain visible even today. Yet it also spurred immense technological advancement: new weapons (rifles, automatic guns, howitzers), modern medicine, widespread use of telegraphs and railroads, land mines, observation balloons, and even early air reconnaissance. At sea, ironclad warships and submarines were used, the first clash between ironclads and the first torpedo use in history.

These innovations placed the American Civil War at the turning point between traditional and modern warfare, war on an industrial scale. Its lessons became clearer in World Wars I and II, where entire societies were mobilized for conflict. This new form of total war emerged far from Europe, which failed to heed its warning, and paid the price in blood, twice.

The Battle of Gettysburg and the American Civil War marked the beginning of industrial warfare which cost the lives of millions of people in the years to come. In contrast, today’s war in Ukraine represents the dawn of digital, networked, and unmanned warfare at scale. History does not repeat itself, but we can be taught valuable lessons by studying the key parallels and the contrasts.

From rifles to drones

The Battle of Gettysburg symbolized the rise of mechanized, mass-conscription warfare, underpinned by industrial infrastructure. Railroads enabled rapid troop deployment and sustained logistical support, telegraph networks offered “real-time” communication from the front, allowing for faster decision-making and tactical adjustments, and iron-made weaponry reflected the increasing role of mass-produced arms in determining battlefield outcomes.

The war in Ukraine illustrates the next major shift in the character of warfare. The operationalization of inexpensive, mass-produced drones, both commercial and military, for tactical and strategic purposes. Ukraine and Russia have deployed a wide range of unmanned aerial systems, including quadcopters, first-person-view (FPV) drones, and loitering munitions. These systems are embedded within real-time data ecosystems, often enhanced by AI, which enables precision strikes deep into the enemy’s territory as the recent Ukrainian attack, against strategic Russian bombers, indicated.

Logistics and Infrastructure

As we mentioned briefly earlier, during the Civil War, the introduction of railroads and telegraph networks fundamentally transformed military logistics and tactical coordination. Railways allowed for the rapid movement of troops and equipment across huge distances, while telegraphs facilitated faster communication between commanders and the political leadership, reducing effectively the decision-making lag that was common in earlier warfare. Those innovations helped the Union to win after four years of intense fighting.

Regarding the Russian Ukrainian war, the logistical innovation has taken a digital turn. More specifically, satellite system communication and coordination, established through the Starlink systems, provide resilient battlefield connectivity and uninterrupted communication for the fighting Ukrainian forces. At the same time, digital command structures and decentralized drone manufacturing hubs have created flexible and technology-driven supply chains. Today, infrastructure and cyber capabilities are so critical as physical defenses. Besides the conventional warfare, cyberattacks on power grids, communication nodes and logistical routes are part of the daily battleship, redefining the concept of the “front line”.

Manpower against Machines

Gettysburg was emblematic of an era in which territorial gains were measured in blood. Thousands of soldiers engaged in direct combat, and each tactical advance came at huge cost of massive human casualties. Then, warfare was defined by physical presence, massive military formations, and the insurance of the soldiers.

Contemporary conflict, which is exemplified by the Ukrainian war, demonstrates a growing shift towards “remote warfare”. In this regard, unmanned aerial systems now conduct precision strikes with minimal operator risks. Just one soldier can remotely control a swarm of drones from a secure location, effectively projecting power in the battlefield which might be miles away. Still, the human toll of war remains high, technological substitution has already begun to displace direct exposure, redistributing risk from personnel to machines.

Tactics and Surveillance

During the Civil War, aerial reconnaissance was possible with the use of balloons. This was a revolutionary advancement in battlefield awareness which offered military commanders a unique advantage for spying on enemy positions. Aerial ballons, though their limited operational capabilities as they were slow and vulnerable to enemy fire and weather, marked the start of modern surveillance tactics.

On the other hand, the war in Ukraine has revealed an unprecedented level of precision and persistence in surveillance. Drone technology, from small quadcopters to long-range loitering munitions, provide both sides with continuous, high-resolution observation of the battlefield. This aerial surveillance presence enables continuous real-time tracking of tactical movements like artillery placements, troop withdrawals and deployments, as well as ambush attempts. This integration of surveillance data into targeting systems allows for rapid strikes with the needed flexibility which changes the traditional tactical doctrines.

Industrial and Asymmetric Production

The Civil War depended on the industrial capacity of the Union. The industrialized North had large factories and centralized logistics which could sustain the army’s long operations. On the contrary, the South lost the war because it lacked the industrialized base to support effectively its troops. The scale of war was tied directly to the state’s capacity to produce and deliver military equipment and supplies to the fighting forces.

Today, modern drone warfare, mostly in Ukraine, has demonstrated the effectiveness of decentralized and usually improvised production methods. In this regard, low-cost drones are built using cheap commercial components, 3D printers and open-source coding platforms. This flexibility allows fast adaptation and innovation on the battlefield, resulting in the formation of a contemporary asymmetric warfare, where production is no longer the exclusive domain of the state but creates a whole new ecosystem of small private actors, startups and volunteers.

Moral and Legal Challenges

The Civil War, and Gettysburg, introduced the new way of total warfare which challenged the valid norms of military conduct up to that point in history through the deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure to erode enemy’s morale and interrupt logistics. This change in traditional limits on warfare foreshadowed the brutal military tactics of World War I and II.

In the 21^st century though, the rise of drone warfare has triggered a whole new set of ethical and legal dilemmas. Precision strikes can still kill civilians, especially when the targets are included in populated areas. The extending use of systems like drones has raised severe arguments about accountability in lethal decision making. Moreover, the use of commercial made drones by non-military forces blurs the line between combatants and non-combatants. The latter complicated the application of humanitarian law. Undoubtably, technological innovations have outpaced regulations, highlighting the need for new legal frameworks.

To conclude, if Gettysburg marked the transition from musket volleys to industrialized mass killing, the war in Ukraine stands as the proving ground for the next transformation in warfare which is driven by data, automation and remote control. The character of conflict is changing once again and its shaped digitally. However, despite the technological evolution one constant remains: War is still deadly.