MHO Home   Forum Home   Help   Register   Login
 
 
Welcome to MilitaryHistoryOnline.com.
You are not signed in.
The current time is: 7/18/2018 12:58:48 AM
 Civil War Commanders and Units
AuthorMessage
Page 2 of 2 (Page: 1  2) 
John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant
Posts: 731

Re: A Critical Look at General Grant
Posted on: 10/10/2017 9:05:18 AM
1stVermont,

But Wallace did reinforce McClerand as one of his brigades, Cruft's, which relieved Oglesby's and McArthur's and took the brunt of Buckner's attack. Cruft then fell back as the Confederate force overlapped his flanks.

With respect Martin is being overly optimistic and in my opinion unrealistic. First the attack was never designed to win a smashing victory. Second Pillow's Division, which was the large majority of the force involved, was almost as disorganized, low on ammo and basically a spent force in victory as McClerand's was in defeat. Third the large majority of the Confederate force had been engaged at this point while only about half the Union force had been. Last the Union force wasn't "smashed" it had been pushed back and needed to be resupplied with ammo and reorganized but it hadn't been "smashed" and it was back in the battle within a hour.

I also have to ask if you realize that Buckner's force was only 6 regiments? Pillow was commanding 19 regiments and I believed used 14 plus Forrest's Cavalry in the attack.
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


Michigan Dave
Muskegon, Michigan, MI, USA
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major


Posts: 3680

Re: A Critical Look at General Grant
Posted on: 10/10/2017 9:29:28 AM
Hey Guys,

As a side light I recently visited Grant's hometown of Galena, Illinois, a really historical place near the Mississippi River in Northern Illinois. It's like going back in time, to the 1800's, all the buildings from that era are still up! In addition to the Ulysses S Grant Home Historical Site, is this really cool historical Desoto Hotel where not only did Grant use this as his Presidential Election Headquarters, but both Lincoln, & Steven Douglas used it when they were debating back in the 1850's. Here are some picks to give you an idea how historical it is, also they have a micro brewery, distillery, & some wineries, also some great museums.

[Read More]

Tourist guide,
Dave

Just how historical, & picturesque? check it out!? Four Stars for Historical Beauty!

[Read More]

Have you been there? What say you about USS Grant's hometown??
---------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."

jthlmnn
Milwaukee, WI, USA
top 40
E-4 Corporal


Posts: 191

Re: A Critical Look at General Grant
Posted on: 10/13/2017 9:56:35 AM

Quote:
"the most serious charge against Grant was the fact he did not order his army to entrench...Halleck had ordered Grant to entrench, and grant did not do so"
--1stvermont


You quote Mr. Martin here, and repeat the charge throughout this conversation. I have reviewed, in detail, the communications found in the Official Records for this time frame - the entire month of March and that part of April up to the confederate assault - and have found no such order.

I did find a message that could possibly be misunderstood by Mr. Martin, and, by extension, yourself. In a message to Grant dated March 20, 1862, Halleck writes,

Quote:
Don't let the enemy draw you into an engagement now. Wait till you are properly fortified and receive orders.
(emphasis mine)

This is not an instruction to entrench. If that were the intention, Halleck would have told Grant to wait until his position was properly fortified, or to see that his position (or encampment, or other term denoting place) was properly fortified, or to properly strengthen his fortifications.

Here, Halleck is referring to troop strength. This conclusion is easily reached when one considers the context of the situation, along with other messages.

1) Troops are being moved and amassed in preparation for an offensive campaign.

2) Halleck, as well as Grant and Buell, are aware that the confederates are also concentrating.

3) Halleck, as well as Grant, wants to get the offensive move under way asap, but is more concerned with having enough troops to guarantee success. His concern is aggravated by the slow progress of Buell's movement toward Grant.

Two messages from Halleck to Buell support this reading of the March 20 communication. Both are dated March 29, 1862.


Quote:
"Don't fail in this (movement towards Savannah/Pittsburg Landing), as it is all important to have an overwhelming force there."



Quote:
"We must be ready to attack the enemy as soon as the roads are passable."


Full messages transcribed here: [Read More]

These messages and considerations also go a long way in explaining why Sherman, Smith, Grant, and Halleck were fine with amassing the troops at Pittsburg Landing. Even if there was a place on the east side of the river that had comparable advantages to Pittsburg Landing (and there wasn't, I checked into that), all wanted to get moving as quickly as possible and moving the combined armies across the river would have been an unacceptably slow process. It would also have left open the slim possibility that the enemy could have moved to block the crossing.

Yours,

JohnT

jahenders
Colorado Springs, CO, USA
top 25
E-6 Staff Sergeant


Posts: 320

Re: A Critical Look at General Grant
Posted on: 10/18/2017 10:31:19 AM
Grant was certainly far from perfect -- Cold Harbor and Shiloh demonstrate that well.

However, he was ultimately the general the Union needed to win the war and he did that. He assessed the strategic situation and his resources relative to his enemy and conducted the war accordingly.

Additionally, multiple analyses (including Bonekemper III, Edward H. “The Butcher’s Bill.” Civil War Times L, no. 2 (April 2011): 36-43.) have shown that Lee actually suffered more casualties throughout the war than Grant. Even had Grant suffered the same, more somewhat more, that would still be a strategic victory for the Union because Lee could afford those casualties far less than most Union forces he faced.

Lee could be great on maneuver and defense, but if he was looking for a fight he fought the enemy in front of him even if maneuver would better suit him. He suffered casualties NVA could not afford.

Grant suffered heavy casualties at times, but it rarely ever cost him a battle and not the war.

Michigan Dave
Muskegon, Michigan, MI, USA
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major


Posts: 3680

Re: A Critical Look at General Grant
Posted on: 10/19/2017 7:46:10 PM
So who's buried in Grant's Tomb, anyway??

[Read More]
---------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."

Nick Spencer
IOW,United kingdom,
top 60
E-3 Private First Class
Posts: 47

Re: A Critical Look at General Grant
Posted on: 7/5/2018 5:29:01 AM
From the O.R. Serial 11 Page 49 Chapter 22.

SAINT LOUIS, March 20, 1862.

Major-General GRANT,

Savannah, Tenn.:

Your telegrams of yesterday just received. I do not fully understand you. By all means keep your forces together until you connect with General Buell, who is now at Columbia, and will move on Waynesborough with three divisions. Don't let the enemy draw you into an engagement now. Wait till you are properly fortified and receive orders.

H. W. HALLECK,

Your intpretation of the above does not work for me. Halleck loved to fortify, and wanted more of it from others. Grant failled to entrench and was taken by Surprise.

Grants own answer shows what he thought and did.

" The criticism has often been made that the Union troops should have been intrenched at Shiloh; but up to that time the pick and spade had been but little resorted to in the West." "Reinforcements were arriving almost daily, composed of troops that had been hastily thrown together in companies and regiments of fragments of incomplete organizations with men and officers strangers to each other. Under all these circumstances I concluded that drill and discipline were worth more to our men than fortifications."

Some military maxims

" Never occupy an unfortified position with an inferior force, within a day's march of a greater.'' " Never attempt concentration within striking distance of an enemy," and the still more forceful one, " Separate divisions of an army should always be encamped without intervals, and within helping distance of each other."

And last, but not least, "In the presence of an enemy, always occupy a defensive line and intrench every night."


Grant "I regarded the campaign we were engaged in as an offensive one, and had no idea that the enemy would leave strong intrenchments to take the initiative when he knew he would be attacked where he was if he remained." Grant estimated and officially reported the CS forces, to number eighty thousand men, or at least twice the strength of the Union forces at that time assembled at Pittsburg Landing when he chose not to entrench.

Nick Spencer
IOW,United kingdom,
top 60
E-3 Private First Class
Posts: 47

Re: A Critical Look at General Grant
Posted on: 7/5/2018 6:15:30 AM
Posted inn OP McClellan - Total 28,250 Lee 30,449 .92 per

Odd way to present the numbers but looking at other boards where you present the same numbers its clearer what you ment.


Penninsula Campaign US was 6% more effiecent than CS
US 105000 inflicted 29298 is a cost benifit of +6%
CS 112000 inflicted 23119 is a coast benifit of -5%

Antietam Campaign CS was 32% more effiecent than the US.
US 102,234 inflicted 10,291 is a cost benifit of -17%
CS 55000 inflicted 27,940 is a cost benifit of +32%

If one takes the view that lee was on the attack in Penn and Mc on the attack in Antietam, you ought to see the defensive benifit in the losses sustained inflicted. One could therfore claim the defender in Penn achieved an overall 11% increase in effiecency due to defensive posture, while in Antietam, it rose to 49%. This does not show Mc in a good light as your way of counting suggests.

Steve Clements
Toronto, ON, Canada
top 20
E-7 Sgt First Class
Moderator
Posts: 496

Re: A Critical Look at General Grant
Posted on: 7/6/2018 11:48:23 AM
Nick,

In your Antietam campaign figures, you are, of course, lumping Harper's Ferry together with South Mountain and Antietam. While arguably part of the same "campaign" (especially from a Confederate perspective), little Mac had little to do with the garrison at Harper's Ferry .... and yes, Franklin should have pushed harder etc. and MAYBE a much more aggressive general might have acted to lift the siege at H.F. .... but a better comparison might be the numbers engaged just at Antietam, or Antietam and South Mountain.

And although Mac probably had close to 80k men at Antietam, probably only around 55k were engaged (most of the V & VI Corps never saw combat). Given that the AoP was largely on the offensive (largely, but not completely...) during both South Mountain and Antietam, that the casualty figures are even remotely close is somewhat surprising IMO. Contrast that with the respective casualty totals during the Overland Campaign, especially The Wilderness, Spotsylvania Court House and, last but not least, Cold Harbor.

s.c.

Phil andrade
London, UK
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major
Posts: 3067

Re: A Critical Look at General Grant
Posted on: 7/6/2018 12:20:11 PM

Quote:
Nick,

In your Antietam campaign figures, you are, of course, lumping Harper's Ferry together with South Mountain and Antietam. While arguably part of the same "campaign" (especially from a Confederate perspective), little Mac had little to do with the garrison at Harper's Ferry .... and yes, Franklin should have pushed harder etc. and MAYBE a much more aggressive general might have acted to lift the siege at H.F. .... but a better comparison might be the numbers engaged just at Antietam, or Antietam and South Mountain.

And although Mac probably had close to 80k men at Antietam, probably only around 55k were engaged (most of the V & VI Corps never saw combat). Given that the AoP was largely on the offensive (largely, but not completely...) during both South Mountain and Antietam, that the casualty figures are even remotely close is somewhat surprising IMO. Contrast that with the respective casualty totals during the Overland Campaign, especially The Wilderness, Spotsylvania Court House and, last but not least, Cold Harbor.

s.c.
--Steve Clements


Steve,

That figure of 10,291 CSA casualties is surely for Sharpsburg only , without reference to South Mountain and the other fights of that campaign.

The AoNV admitted suffering just under 14,000 battle casualties in the Maryland Campaign , and that doesn’t take into account straggling and desertion.

At the Battle of Antietam itself, the research of Carman indicates that Lee suffered 10,300 casualties from 37,000 engaged, and inflicted 12,400 on the 55,000 yankees who got into the fight. In rough and ready terms, in the actual combat, he was outnumbered by 3 to 2, and inflicted 6 casualties for every 5 he suffered. He didn’t entrench and fought toe to toe against a powerful force that was very well supported by an array of artillery that played havoc. I forget the name of the heights that McClellan used as a gun platform, but if memory serves me there was a continuous outpouring of fire from rifled artillery that inflicted great damage on Lee’s men. The rebels also counterattacked in such a manner as to expose their men to greater casualties. It was only on the southern sector of the field that there was a disparity in casualties, with Burnside’s men attacking against a weak but well concealed rebel defense.

Regards, Phil
---------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!"

"That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."

Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes

Nick Spencer
IOW,United kingdom,
top 60
E-3 Private First Class
Posts: 47

Re: A Critical Look at General Grant
Posted on: 7/7/2018 6:35:05 AM

Quote:
Nick,

In your Antietam campaign figures, you are, of course, lumping Harper's Ferry together with South Mountain and Antietam. While arguably part of the same "campaign" (especially from a Confederate perspective), little Mac had little to do with the garrison at Harper's Ferry .... and yes, Franklin should have pushed harder etc. and MAYBE a much more aggressive general might have acted to lift the siege at H.F. .... but a better comparison might be the numbers engaged just at Antietam, or Antietam and South Mountain.

And although Mac probably had close to 80k men at Antietam, probably only around 55k were engaged (most of the V & VI Corps never saw combat). Given that the AoP was largely on the offensive (largely, but not completely...) during both South Mountain and Antietam, that the casualty figures are even remotely close is somewhat surprising IMO. Contrast that with the respective casualty totals during the Overland Campaign, especially The Wilderness, Spotsylvania Court House and, last but not least, Cold Harbor.

s.c.
--Steve Clements


Hi Steve

I was looking at his numbers posted here and thinking they did not make sense, i found the link below, (and there are a number of others on the net where he present the same, historium/ civil war talk total war center) and had to compare them to see how he got what he posted here.It appears he added the two campaigns and divided the % of losses by number of campigns.One issue is that Maryland had more in it that just Antietam. I was juist trying to follow his thinking and point out what i consider to be wrong.

http://www.ageod-forum.com/viewtopic.php?t=49821
McClellan- Peninsula 15,849 Lee 20,133 .78 per
McClellan - Antietam 12,401 Lee 10,316 1.2 per
McClellan - Total 28,250 Lee 30,449 .92 per


Since he does not post here currently its best to leave that to one side.

For Lee its all the engements conducted in the campaign for lees effectivness, to be sure we can filter out HF fiasco, from Mc as he did not command there, or use any prefered authors numbers.

Southmountain 1862
US 28000 2,325 losses +10%-8%
CS 18000 2685 losses +13%-15%

Harpers Ferry ( Halleck instructions to Mc where to come to its aid, and it was to defend HF, but not be a part of the AoP and subject to Mc orders)
US 14000 12,636 losses +2%-90%
CS 23000 286 losses +55%-1%

Antietam ( Engaged and unenged)
US 67,000 12,410 losses +15%-19%
CS 40000 10,316 losses +31%-26%

So for lee the campaign cost 13287. Inflicting 27371.
For Mc it cost 12641. Inflicting 13001.

Campaigns also need to be considerd in the overall picture of national troop numbers.

In 1862 US total strength was 576000 to CS 351000, so lee dropped that by 4.75% to Mc droopping CS strength by 3.7%

Lee 81000 engaged, 109000 US is therfore US +3%-5% to Lees +13%-6%
Mc 95000 engaged 58000 CS is therfore +13%-16% to Lees +25%-22%

Comparing that to Grant

At the Wilderness, Grant had 118,000 men, suffered 18,000 casualties; Lee had 67,000 men, suffered 11,000 casualties.
At Spotsylvania, Grant had 100,000 men, suffered 18,000 casualties; Lee had 57,000 men, suffered 12,500 casualties.
At North Anna, Grant had 115,000 men, suffered 2,600 casualties; Lee had 63,900 men, suffered 1,600 casualties.
At Cold Harbor, Grant had 130,000 effectives, suffered 13,000 casualties; Lee had 75,700 men, suffered 5,000 casualties.
Total forces employed. Grant 192200 with 51600 losses Lee 106000 with 30500.
Grant inflicted 17% on lee and suffered 28%, lee inflicting 49% and sufferd 28%.

In 1864 US 861000 to CS 481000, so lee dropped 6% of us strength and Grant dropped 6.4% of the CS total strength.

We could use PFD numbers, for start of campaign and assign stragling as a form of loss as it fails to bring men into combat.





Steve Clements
Toronto, ON, Canada
top 20
E-7 Sgt First Class
Moderator
Posts: 496

Re: A Critical Look at General Grant
Posted on: 7/7/2018 8:45:42 AM
Phil,


Quote:
That figure of 10,291 CSA casualties is surely for Sharpsburg only , without reference to South Mountain and the other fights of that campaign.


You are, as usual -:) correct!


Quote:
I forget the name of the heights that McClellan used as a gun platform, but if memory serves me there was a continuous outpouring of fire from rifled artillery that inflicted great damage on Lee’s men.


Good point. I tend to ignore the impact of longer range artillery at Antietam....given that Antietam has been nicknamed "artillery hell", that is a mistake on my part....be interested to know if there are any estimates as to what percentage of ANV casualties came from Artillery fire.



Quote:
At the Battle of Antietam itself, the research of Carman indicates that Lee suffered 10,300 casualties from 37,000 engaged,...


Altho Mac apologists don't like the sub 40k figure for Lee, the more I read about the campaign, the more I think that Carmen's numbers are likely about as accurate as we are going to get.

s.c.

Nick Spencer
IOW,United kingdom,
top 60
E-3 Private First Class
Posts: 47

Re: A Critical Look at General Grant
Posted on: 7/7/2018 12:07:14 PM

Quote:
I forget the name of the heights that McClellan used as a gun platform, but if memory serves me there was a continuous outpouring of fire from rifled artillery that inflicted great damage on Lee’s men.


Quote:

Good point. I tend to ignore the impact of longer range artillery at Antietam....given that Antietam has been nicknamed "artillery hell", that is a mistake on my part....be interested to know if there are any estimates as to what percentage of ANV casualties came from Artillery fire.


Id guess 20% of losses were to Art fire, but the man, member here, to ask would be RichTO90 who co wrote? did research for? Artillary Hell The Employment of Artillery at Antietam https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Artillery_Hell.html?id=ILS4Us5n7swC&redir_esc=y But he will go, Tsk, why arnt you using CEV....before covering every angle of fire, by an exact number of pieces and total rounds fired for us!

http://npshistory.com/brochures/anti/antietam-artillery.pdf

Phil andrade
London, UK
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major
Posts: 3067

Re: A Critical Look at General Grant
Posted on: 7/7/2018 6:09:41 PM
Accounts that I’ve read about Antietam certainly make me think that 20% of all the southern killed and wounded there might have been caused by yankee artillery.

Porter Alexander emphasised the disadvantages that the AoNV laboured under in that battle, and he made much of the rifled guns that the Federals deployed along the hills to the east of the Antietam.

Hunt - Alexander’s counterpart - endorsed this, and wrote about how his gunners could sweep the field from those vantage points.

Hooker gave a rather hyped up account of how he lined up several batteries to blast the cornfield in his front, after he had seen the glint of rebel bayonets there. He wrote of confederate soldiers being slaughtered by this artillery fire, and their dead being left in great numbers, mown down in companies. One hundred and forty six of them were supposed to have been counted in a single line. One has to discount a lot of such battlefield folklore, but I suspect that this one has the ring of truth.

After Sedgwick’s Division had been massacred, the rebels pressed on in an imprudent counter attack, and were repulsed by heavy union artillery fire, with McClaws’s division taking casualties of about forty per cent as it came up against the enemy gun line..

Artillery Hell...that’s how Stephen Lee, a high ranking southern gunner, described Sharpsburg.

A rebel surgeon blurted out after the battle I hate cannons ! ....a telling comment.

Regards, Phil
---------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!"

"That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."

Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes

Phil andrade
London, UK
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major
Posts: 3067

Re: A Critical Look at General Grant
Posted on: 7/7/2018 6:10:18 PM
Dp
---------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!"

"That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."

Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes

phil andrade
London, UK
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major
Posts: 3067

Re: A Critical Look at General Grant
Posted on: 7/8/2018 7:13:32 AM



Southmountain 1862
US 28000 2,325 losses +10%-8%
CS 18000 2685 losses +13%-15%


Nick,

You're citing Livermore for Confederate casualties at South Mountain.

In his footnotes, he justifies this ….in view of General McClellan's statement that Confederate dead outnumbered the Union dead....


How much reliance should we place on Little Mac's claims for the count of enemy dead ?


At Antietam, again, Livermore predicates his calculation of Confederate casualties on Mac's claim that 2,700 of their dead were buried on the field. The fact that Carman states that the AoNV casualties included 1,546 killed rather refutes Livermore's analysis ; although , of course, a portion of the 1,018 that Carman states were missing in action must have been killed, too. Even if we allow for as many as one fifth of the missing being dead, we're still nowhere near the twenty seven hundred rebels killed in action that Livermore attributes to the battle. Perhaps a significant number died of wounds by the time McClellan's report was made.....but it leaves me wondering who should be believed, and how far soldiers who had been killed went off the radar in statistical terms. I would be the first to admit that the Confederates took terrible punishment, especially from that powerful union artillery that I've already alluded to. Perhaps McClellan was not such a liar after all. If he had intended to lie, why didn't he inflate the number of dead rebels to five thousand ? He did stipulate that the enemy had buried hundreds in addition. That said, I am unhappy with the license that Livermore has taken in his treatment of Lee's casualties in Maryland, and a little dismayed at the willingness of commentators to adopt his figures as Gospel.


Regards, Phil










---------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!"

"That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."

Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes

Nick Spencer
IOW,United kingdom,
top 60
E-3 Private First Class
Posts: 47

Re: A Critical Look at General Grant
Posted on: 7/8/2018 11:21:46 AM
I was just using the data provided by vermont and doing the math differently. I dont care whose number are used to describe the events of the WBTS, i do however care how they are used to explain why things happened the way they did. There is a vast difference between the two.

As for numbers and Mc accuracy, the below is of high intrest. Dont forget to read the main article itself.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/artsandliving/civilwar/mcclellan-graphic/?noredirect=on

On Monday ill return to my post and do the math, but not from number engaged/present but not engaged, ( note i used Carmen present/unegaged and engaged for the US corps and 3 CS Brigades) but from the starting PFD army strengths of the campaign. This would change the outcomes somewhat and may be a better explanation for the campaign than the former method, but a comparison is always nice.

England are wearing me out at this world cup, to young to remember 66 so this is as good as ive ever seen us!.

Phil andrade
London, UK
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major
Posts: 3067

Re: A Critical Look at General Grant
Posted on: 7/9/2018 2:50:45 AM
A very interesting article, Nick. Thanks .

My initial reaction is to recoil from the enormous claim regarding the losses suffered by Lee’s army. I would refuse to accept the insistence that those confederate dead itemised in Hagerstown and elsewhere - well over three thousand - can be attributed to Antietam. Scope for investigation there.

And yet, and yet....there is something niggling in my mind that persuades me to give the thing a chance ; there is a school of thought that champions the much derided generalship of McClellan, and the speed that he displayed getting things together in those days of middle September speaks of someone much more formidable than many would allow. I would like to follow up with some research into the cemeteries cited in the article, and see just how far the claim that several thousand southern dead can be attributed to Antietam can be borne out.

Edit : In the World Cup final in 1966, I was in Italy, watching it with my dad on a flickering black and white TV screen at the back of a pokey little trattoria. Il padrone and La signora were very gracious and shook our hands when England won, but it was all too clear that they had been rooting for West Germany.

Regards, Phil
---------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!"

"That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."

Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes

Nick Spencer
IOW,United kingdom,
top 60
E-3 Private First Class
Posts: 47

Re: A Critical Look at General Grant
Posted on: 7/9/2018 3:38:58 AM
For the Army of Northern Virginia, present for duty, is 75,305 on September 2, 1862.
For AoP its 87,164 from 20th Sept.

Instead of counting engaged in reserve but not engaged, as in above, we were to count based on starting know PFD numbers, ( the method used for Grants comparison below and to bring them into conformity) we can acount for sickness and desertion and straggaling as well as casualties lost and inflicted. This also stops double counting troops present at more than one engament in a campaign, and thus inflate the numbers avaiable for use and instead show a commander can on ly have used and reused the number he had started with, and recieved as replacement reinforcement, before loss to sick/straggaling etc.

Campaign 62 ( Lee ANV with 21% of CS forces, inflicted 4.75% losses on US for a cost of 3.7%, Mc with 15% of US forces ) CS was effiecent by 20% over Mc and 34% over combined US.
For Lee 75,305 PFD is therfore +36%-18%
For Mc 87,164 PFD is therfore +15%-17%
For Mc and HF 101,164 PFD is therfore +13%-27%

campaign 64 ( Lee with 22% of CS forces, inflicted 6% losses on US for a cost of 6.4%, Grant with 22% of US forces.) CS was effiecent over Grant by 32%
For Grant PFD is therfore +17%-28%,
For lee PFD is therfore +49%-28%.

1862 CS strength was 85% of U for Mc and 74% overall.
1864 CS strength was 55% of US

In both campaigns the US was on the offensive, so the CS had the posture bonus of defending, an example of effieciency from, CS offensive campaign ought therfore be usfull to show relative US to CS effiecency when on the offensive.

Penninsula Campaign US was 6% more effiecent than CS, overall an 11% advatage to US as a defender, compared to CS 20% against Mc and 32% against Grant when lee defended.
US 105000 inflicted 29298 is a cost benifit of +6%
CS 112000 inflicted 23119 is a coast benifit of -5%


As for how many lee lost, he starts with 72k, where did they all go?. I dont believe he only had 40k at Antietam either i think he had more, closer to what Mc said he had faced there rather than the low figure lee gave. And i agree with Lee longstreet etc who all agreed Mc was the best they faced.

The entire Mc should have wiped out Lee is a result of politics, Mc was a apolitical openent who had to be destroyed politicaly, and to do thatb his military achievements had to be destroyed.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFBJieZa5-4

One of my earliest football memories is Banks save against Pele, still dont knw how he saved it.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNLam4RAbg8

Nick Spencer
IOW,United kingdom,
top 60
E-3 Private First Class
Posts: 47

Re: A Critical Look at General Grant
Posted on: 7/10/2018 2:59:20 AM

Added in some more 62.

Fredericksburg Campaign 1862 (Lee ANV with 22% of CS forces, inflicted 2.2% on US for a cost of 1.2%, Burnside with 21% of US Forces, CS was more effiecent by 18%.
US 122,009 PFD is therfore +3%-10%
CS 78,513 PFD is therfore +16%-5%

2nd Bull Run Campaign 1862 (Lee with 14% of CS forces, inflicted 2.5% on US for a cost of 2%, Pope with 13% of US forces) CS was more effiecent by 24% over Pope.
US 77,000 PFD is therfore +9%-19%
CS 50,000 PFD is therfore +29%-15%

Nick Spencer
IOW,United kingdom,
top 60
E-3 Private First Class
Posts: 47

Re: A Critical Look at General Grant
Posted on: 7/14/2018 5:31:19 AM
June 1 Davis apoints lee to command,of Armies in VA/NC here are the forces which came under Lees authority:
Holmes 22048 PFD
Richmond Garrison 11208 PFD
Jackson Army of the Valley 15904.
Ewell 8000
Johnstones Army

Harsh taken at the Tide tabulates Theatre strength for 31 May 1862:

CS 159266 agregate in VA and NC with 119778 being PFD.
Johnstone in his Army contained 91424 agregate with 68740 PFD.
Mc in his Army had 127166 with 98008 PFD.
US in VA and NC 275798 agregate with 209785 PFD

Lee assumes command and his 26th June strength was.
Lee inherited 67740 and was reinforced by Jackson with 23000 Holmes 15000 and 22000 from GA and SC released by Davis from defending Richmond, present for duty for the Army of Northern Virginia would be (60,000 reinfourcments agregate is roughly 50,000 PFD, less losses at 7 pines in which CS outnumber US, of 6000 CS)would be around 110,000 to 112,220 Confederate present for duty after the arrival of Jackson's command of course its all how you do the adding up, if your intrested in agregate or PFD or engaged, but its highly likly Lee had more than Mc. Mc was ounumbered in all butb one of the major engements in 7 days. lee had control off 70% of the CS assets in Theatre.

Mc commanding an Army in theatre had 38% of the Theatre assets to command. This why it fails, insufficent troop number for the offensive despite them being in Theatre. Mc was a political enemy of the government, dont forget, and had less control of theatre assets than somone Lincoln/congress would have had confidence in, and was on there side politicaly. Davis?Lee were on the same page and Davis gave lee 90% of the CA/NC theatre manpower to lee to deal with Mc.


In 64 Grant was Theatre commander and had everything under his authority:

Grant's main army (all figures 30 Apr 64 trimonthly reports where available)
Army of the Potomac: 102,869 PFD
9th Corps: 19,250 PFD
Stripped from the Washington Defences and new Drafts: 30,264 PFD
Department of Virginia and NC: 53,049
deduct District of NC: - 6,334
Total force = 199,088 PFD

Grant as Theatre commander had 51% of Theatre assets at start of operations,and recieved 15% more as reienforcemnts/replacements. Thats why he was a success then.

Page 2 of 2 (Page: 1  2) 
 Forum Ads from Google