Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Grant could have never accomplished what he did did he not have the numerical advantage of manpower and resources. So I guess, yeah, that made him a great stategist.
We don't know that for sure. We never saw him without those advantages. There is no means of telling how well or poorly he might have done save speculation.
Lee and Jackson were fine with set piece Napolianics battles. Once Grant and Sherman started modern frontal warfare they were finished. Rifled Artillery, Repeating Rifles and Gatling Guns were inflicting casualties at 10-1.
Lee and Jackson were fine with set piece Napolianics battles. Once Grant and Sherman started modern frontal warfare they were finished. Rifled Artillery, Repeating Rifles and Gatling Guns were inflicting casualties at 10-1.
This is all over the place. What is this 'frontal warfare' you speak of? You mean frontal assault? The kind that Napoleon used, that is, which was also pretty much what Grant and Sherman did--find the enemy and attack him? Do you believe that the South lacked rifled artillery, or that rifled artillery was automatically superior in all ways? Which battles did Gatling guns win for a numerically weaker side in the Civil War? The one item in this odd post that has some weight is that about repeating rifles, so let's explore that: by Appomattox, what percentage of the Union infantry had repeaters? I would be very interested to know that.
With THAT said though (LOL), even Grant himself admitted that the Southern soldiers were worth 3-1 of his own.
You'd best cite a reliable source for that one.
In any event the Yankees whipped the southerners with far less advantage than 3-1 on the battlefield. Now if the Rebels had been as deadly and resolute as the German army still was in 1945......
Yeah, you are right, I gotta find the original quote...
Quote:
In any event the Yankees whipped the southerners with far less advantage than 3-1 on the battlefield. Now if the Rebels had been as deadly and resolute as the German army still was in 1945......
C'mon ITom, give me just one instance where the y'all ever beat us force to force? I can give lots otherwise.
C'mon ITom, give me just one instance where the y'all ever beat us force to force? I can give lots otherwise.
I can't think of any offhand though I know there were instances. In any event it's no vice to have numbers on your side, if you have then you use them. And truely superior armies and generals win wars against greater numbers rather than lose. Had Lee been as talented, and the southern fighting man as superior as is often claimed they'd have won. But then Lee was the only good army commander the Confederacy produced and it takes more than one good commander to win a war.
Note too that the western Yankees lost only one major battle, Chickamauga, and that the Yankees were outnumbered there and inflicted higher losses than they sustained.
Note too that the western Yankees lost only one major battle, Chickamauga, and that the Yankees were outnumbered there and inflicted higher losses than they sustained.
Sounds like Antietam, only that wasn't technically a Confederate "loss" and they were MUCH more outnumbered...
I know that Lee was fond of assaults and his army suffered accordingly; the Seven Days, Antietam, Gettysburg and Fort Stedman show his penchant for straight ahead hammering when there was no alternative. Nothing wrong with that, as ole Forrest said war means fighting.
Well, Gettysburg is the primary example of a frontal assault that Lee made that wasn't necessary (ie. "No Alternative").
Just the example you cited at Appomatox he REALLY had no choice. It was that, or surrender.... (Turns out he surrendered anyway, but... )
BTW... What frontal assault are you referring to at Antietam?
Lee and Jackson were fine with set piece Napolianics battles. Once Grant and Sherman started modern frontal warfare they were finished. Rifled Artillery, Repeating Rifles and Gatling Guns were inflicting casualties at 10-1.
Were gattling guns even ever used in combat? Certainly not in an offensive role.
Repeating rifles were limited to the calvary I think and although effective I don't think the role was decisive to any battle.
BTW... What frontal assault are you referring to at Antietam?
The ding-dong fighting in the area bounded by the three woodlots was one frontal assault after another.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
