Civil War History - General DiscussionFor Discussions on Civil War Era Personalities, Politics, Issues, Campaigns, Battles, and more. Serious Civil War Discussions Only Please! All other posts will be deleted.
Chancellorsville is not the same as Centerville; It was at the Battle of Centerville, as it associated earlier with an earlier skirmish in 1862 around Brandy Station, that might be confusing. The Skirmish at Brandy Station in 1862 is the movement by Union back into Manassas that would lead to the 2nd Battle of Manassas/Bull Run under General Pope. And, General Pope blamed everybody for the mess--lead to General Porter's court-martial.
I should add, that General Pope was not thrilled by the negative attitude of those Generals who just came from the campaign with McClellan, during the Peninisula Campaign withdraw;
these troops and their generals were weary--then had to push hard to join Pope at Brandy Station in 1862. Confederates pushed Pope back; as he waited, thus--had to redirect the forces from the Pennisula Campaign to meet him in different locations constantly.
Just some thoughts.
Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf
The Stoneman Raid, as you mentioned was not the success as hoped for.
Indeed General Stoneman; to whom was sent on a mission to disrupt Confederate communications did not developed as planned but, it certainly rattled General Lee's cage and General JEB Stuart's nerves. This was, to me--an attempt to pull off the same "Stuart" ride around and tease and taunt modus operandi but, on the CSA forces. (There was just one Stuart--so, I would consider it flattery for someone to attempt to copy it).
And, with General Stoneman--one has to remember the less than pleasant feelings existed between Stoneman and General Halleck.
Just some thoughts.
Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf
You might want to check this out again. Even if a regiment was up to the regulation 1000 men, that still works out to a half a beef per day. Don't know about your appetite, but a half will take care of me for some months.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Ties between Battle of Brandy Station & Stoneman's Raid
Dear List Members--
Hope this flow chart of dates may help put things in order:
O.R.-- SERIES I--VOLUME XXV/1 [S# 39] APRIL 29-MAY 7, 1863.--The Stoneman Raid. SUMMARY OF THE PRINCIPAL EVENTS.
April29, 1863.--Skirmishes near Kellysville, Brandy Station, and Stevensburg. 30, 1863. -- Skirmish at Raccoon Ford. May1, 1863 --Skirmish at Rapidan Station. 2, 1863. -- Skirmish near Louisa Court-House. 3, 1863. -- Skirmish at South Anna Bridge, near Ashland. 4, 1863. -- Skirmishes at Flemmings' (Shannon's) Cross-Roads, Tunstall's Station, and Ashland Church. 5, 1863. -- Skirmish at Thompson's Cross-Roads. 7, 1863. -- Stoneman's command recrosses Raccoon Ford.
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx
JUNE 3-AUGUST 1, 1863. -- The Gettysburg Campaign. SUMMARY OF THE PRINCIPAL EVENTS.
June 3, 1863. -- Skirmish near Fayetteville, Va. 5-13, 1863. -- Skirmishes at Franklin's Crossing (or Deep Run), on the Rappahannock, Va. 9, 1863. -- Engagements at Brandy Station (or Fleetwood) and Beverly Ford, Va. Skirmish at Stevensburg, Va. 12, 1863. -- Skirmishes at Newtown, Cedarville, and Middletown, Va. 13, 1863. -- Skirmish at White Post, Va. Skirmish at Berryville, Va. Skirmish at Opequon Creek, near Winchester, Va. Skirmish at Bunker Hill, W. Va. 13-15, 1863. -- Engagement at Winchester, Va. 14, 1863. -- Skirmish at Berryville, Va. Skirmish at Martinsburg, W. Va. 15, 1863. -- Skirmish near Williamsport, Md. 17, 1863. -- Skirmishes at Catoctin Creek and Point of Rocks, Md. Skirmish at Thoroughfare Gap, Va. Action at Aldie, Va. 17-18, 1863. -- Skirmishes at and near Middleburg, Va. 18, 1863. -- Skirmish near Aldie, Va. 19, 1863. -- Action at Middleburg, Va. 20, 1863. -- Skirmish at Middletown, Md. 21, 1863. -- Skirmish near Gainesville, Va. Skirmish at Frederick, Md. Engagement at Upperville, Va. 21-25, 1863. -- Skirmishes at and about Thoroughfare Gap and Hay Market, Va. 22, 1863. -- Skirmish near Dover, Va. Skirmish at Greencastle, Pa. Skirmish near Aldie, Va. 24, 1863. -- Skirmish at Sharpsburg Md. 25, 1863. -- Skirmish near McConnellsburg, Pa. 26, 1863. -- Skirmish near Gettysburg, Pa. <ar43_4> June 27, 1863. -- Skirmish near Fairfax Court-House, Va. 28, 1863. -- Maj. Gen. George G. Meade relieves Maj. Gen. Joseph Hooker in command of the Army of the Potomac. Skirmish between Offutt's Cross-Roads and Seneca, Md. Skirmish near Rockville, Md. Skirmish at Fountain Dale, Pa. Skirmish at Wrightsville, Pa. 28-29, 1863. -- Skirmish near Oyster Point, Pa. Affair on the Little River Turnpike, Va. 29, 1863. -- Skirmish at McConnellsburg, Pa. Affairs at Lisbon and Poplar Springs, Md. Skirmish at Westminster, Md. Skirmish at Muddy Branch, Md. 30, 1863. -- Skirmish at Sporting Hill, near Harrisburg, Pa, Skirmish at Fairfield, Pa. Skirmish at Westminster, Md. Action at Hanover, Pa. Evacuation of Maryland Heights, Md. July 1, 1863. -- Skirmish at Carlisle, Pa. 1-3, 1863. -- Battle of Gettysburg, Pa. 2, 1863. -- Skirmish near Chambersburg, Pa. Skirmish at Hunterstown, Pa. 3, 1863. -- Action at Fairfield, Pa. 4, 1863. -- Action at Monterey Gap, Pa. Skirmish at Fairfield Gap, Pa. Skirmish near Emmitsburg, Md. 5, 1863. -- Skirmish at Smithsburg, Md. Skirmish near Green Oak, Pa. Skirmish near Mercersburg, Pa. Skirmish near Fairfield, Pa. Skirmish near Greencastle, Pa. Skirmish at Cunningham's Cross-Roads, Pa. Skirmish at Stevens' Furnace (or Caledonia Iron Works), Pa. 6, 1863. -- Action at Hagerstown, Md. Action at Williamsport, Md. 7, 1863. -- Skirmish at Downsville, Md. Skirmish at Harper's Ferry, W. Va. Reoccupation of Maryland Heights, Md. Skirmish at Funkstown, Md. 8, 1863. -- Action at Boonsborough. Md. Skirmish near Williamsport, Md. 9, 1863. -- Skirmish at Benevola (or Beaver Creek), Md. 10, 1863. -- Skirmish at Old Antietam Forge, near Leitersburg, Md. Skirmish near Clear Spring, Md. 10-13, 1863. -- Skirmishes at and near Hagerstown, Md. Skirmishes at Jones' Cross-Roads, near Williamsport, Md. Skirmishes at and near Funkstown, Md. 11-14, 1863. -- Reconnaissance to, and skirmish (12th) at, Ashby's Gap, Va. 14, 1863. -- Skirmish near Williamsport, Md. Skirmish near Harper's Ferry, W. Va. Action at Falling Waters, Md. 15, 1863. -- Skirmish at Halltown, W. Va. Skirmish at Shepherdstown. W. Va. 16, 1863. -- Skirmish at Shanghai, W. Va. <ar43_5> July 16, 1863. -- Action at Shepherdstown, W. Va. 17, 1863. -- Skirmish near North Mountain Station, W. Va. Skirmish at Snicker's Gap, Va. 18-19, 1863. -- Skirmishes at and near Hedgesville and Martinsburg, W. Va. 20, 1863. -- Skirmish near Berry's Ferry, Va. Skirmish at Ashby's Gap, Va. 21-22, 1863. -- Skirmishes at Manassas Gap, Va. Skirmishes at Chester Gap, Va. 23, 1863. -- Action at Wapping Heights, Manassas Gap, Va. Skirmish near Gaines' Cross-Roads, Va. Skirmish near Snicker's Gap, Va. Skirmish near Chester Gap, Va. 24, 1863. -- Skirmish at Battle Mountain, near Newby's Cross-Roads, Va. 25, 1863. -- Skirmish at Barbee's Cross-Roads, Va. 31-Aug. 1, 1863. -- Skirmishes at Kelly's Ford, Va. Aug. 1, 1863. -- Action at Brandy Station, Va. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Stoneman's Raid was in end of April into May; Battle of Brandy Station in June under General Hooker; Action at Brandy Station under General Meade August 1. 1863 -his pursuit of Lee from Gettysburg.
Hope this helps!
Respectfully submitted for consideration, M. E. Wolf
I'll recheck it again [Smiles] I do find each book has different numbers.
maybe they meant for one meal not one day.
I'll post any revisions when I find 'em.
Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf
Post Script--Pg. 243, Article XLIII--Section 1191 of the 1861; Revised Regulations for the United States Army; it states that a 'ration' is one-quarter pound of fresh or salt beef.
Pg. 242, Article XLIII-Section 1187--the weight of the cattle acceptable will be; 1300 pounds and no less than 500 lbs.
--------------------------------------------------------
The 1862 Army Officer's Pocket Companion - A Manual for Staff Officers in the Field-
Article 40- Pg. 89 - one quarter of fresh or salt beef per ration.
Post Script--Pg. 243, Article XLIII--Section 1191 of the 1861; Revised Regulations for the United States Army; it states that a 'ration' is one-quarter pound of fresh or salt beef.
I'll recheck it again [Smiles] I do find each book has different numbers.
maybe they meant for one meal not one day.
I'll post any revisions when I find 'em.
Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf
Pg. 242, Article XLIII-Section 1187--the weight of the cattle acceptable will be; 1300 pounds and no less than 500 lbs.
--------------------------------------------------------
The 1862 Army Officer's Pocket Companion - A Manual for Staff Officers in the Field-
Article 40- Pg. 89 - one quarter of fresh or salt beef per ration.
http://www.logisticsworld.com/readinglist.asp
In case your intrested, Engles, The logistics of the Macedonian Army, has all the WBTS logistical refernces and is the best single reference work for understanding logisitics in the age of muscle, which is of course the WBTS and has what your looking for. ill scan it for you Fri.
__________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
I know this is off topic, but I couldn't resist. Forgive me.
Of ourse, it always better to ask for forgivness than ask for permision after all.
Quote:
Comparing the opening 40 days of the Overland Campaign to the opening of Operation Barbarossa, to me anyway, is comparing apples and oranges.
At least they are both fruit!, what i9 was after was that in 7 weeks Grant lost more men in the AoP that it had lost in the last 2 and a half years, and certainly was not a planned event, just as STAVKA in ww2 went from a planned 100% replacement in 3 years of war to that of 100% every 3 months in teh first phase of the war.
Quote:
Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union initially pitted 5.6 million Germans against 2.9 million Soviets over a front 1,800 miles long. That's about 3,111 Germans per mile against 1,666 Soviets per mile.
German INf Div in Offensive posture was 0.6 to 3 miles, on defense 22 miles, i have the full SU and German Div frontages and road space required by formations for traval and time taken etc. If your intrested in that kinda stuff.
Quote:
The combat box is vast and of various terrain, it generally offers freedom of movement to both sides, Germany has the element of surprise and has a veteran army that knows how to employ the blitzkrieg against an unprepared opponent. When the Soviets don't offer resistance, they're usually running, trying not to become casualties.
One point is the density of men per mile, and the rate of casultys caused and inflicted, the higher the density the higher the rate of attrition. Whic in part is why fuller went with what he was familiar with from ww1, when he went with the 1000 men cause this or that approach.
Dispersion on the battlefield is what im on about here, and the WBTS isa stiking example of the bucking of that principle.
Quote:
At the Wilderness, in the opening phase of the Overland Campaign, there are about 175,000 men (combined both sides) in a front about 3.5 miles long. That's 32,000 Feds per mile against 17,700 Rebs per mile. Although both armies are veteran, Grant is basically caught by surprise in unforgiving terrain in a combat box that is incredibly compact and violent. But unlike the Soviets, Grant doesn't fall back, so his casualty rate is intense. Does that make Grant a butcher? I don't know. His men, the ones who are becoming the casualties, cheer him when he continues south to Spotsylvania instead of turning back after another pummeling by Lee, like in the old days with McClellan, Pope, Burnside, Hooker, et al.
You make the point of how to define if he wasa butcher, which of course requires a comparison to be made.
Quote:
I think I remember reading somewhere that one of the first references to Grant as a butcher, ironically, came from Mary Todd Lincoln, sometime around Cold Harbor. I will gladly stand corrected or duly informed if someone can verify or deny this. It could be just a fairy tale, for all I know. I do know that MTL did not like the Grants and she wanted Lincoln to fire him.
Battle Cry freedom covers that.
Quote:
Operation Barbarossa, by the way, also began in June (June 22, 1941), so maybe this is not so off topic after all.
Another fruit connection methinks
Droping back to VMI and ANV.
When Va joined the CSA its armed forces were folded into CSA service, Lees acount of mobolization of the Commonwealth of Va showed, it transfered, with equipment, in round numbers 51,000 in total (41,000 with arms which is the practial number) and 30 field pieces. These included 1781 former alumni of VMI, or to to put it one way,30% of the VA armed forces field grade officers were former VMI men, or another 4% of Va total armed forces were VMI trained and were all holding field grade posts. this stagering level of trained manpower where it counted, goes a long way in expaining the ANV perfomence.
Grant and lee a study in Personlity and Generalship by JFC Fuller was one of the first acount to attempt to use statistics to answer questions, in it he used the number values presented by T Livermore (numbers and losses in the Civil war,to arrive at Grants losses per 000, and what was litle more than a best guess for Lee. Its not a full statistical work up because the data is just not there to do that, ( and what does exist is often misleading, for instance 16k CS listed as WIA ment 3500 would die or be dismissed from service and the rest return over time, while US only returned half of its WIA over time, a considerable difference is what counted as being wounded, not hel;ped by the CS changing what counted asa WIA mid war) but its not worthless either. I have reservations over the way the maths is used to prove his point as being the best way to answer any questions but we can get into that latter if needed.Besides i can it in a number of ways to show different end product. So, since im as bored with the posters in the political forum as they with me, ill camp out here for a while where the smart posters are, wait, you are smart right?.
So from Fuller i get the following as a first pass, what i propose is to build up a s/sheet to do some comparisons, the format is going to be a prob since copy paste from it to board makes it look crap.
Lee lost 3.50% 15.30% 2.50% of the men he commanded. Its a poor picture due to lack of data post wilderness, which fuller does not have beyond a guestimate.
In those engegements, US inflicted at a combat loss ata rate below half that of the CSA, Simply, the CS was 100% as effiecent at causing losses, by comparison, the German combat effectivnes superiorty over SU in 43 was 148%, but ive not used the full range of parameters the Dupoy Institute used to score of course, ( Numbers and Predictions) which is the posture value of 1.5 for defender, but it wont change the end product overmuch, and when i put them all in the Combat effectivness value of the US and CS can be shown, at points in time and under different commanders etc. But most importantly the above is not a like on like comparison, ie its not Grant losses and his oponents losses in compariosn, but a broader picture.
Ie in simple terms to cause any casulty, required just over a 100% more USA personel to achieve that with CS, but later will show each engements value, which means camapaigns can be broken down into time periods, if the data down to corps level is to be found, for enough linked engegemnets, we might get someting usfull from that as well, as to how effiecent corps were under different commanders, for insatnce i know there is enough such dat for G-Burg to show which corps were more effiecnet than others.
Now, what im thinking is that the data for most, but not all the principle engegements is to be found with a little effort, i left of at the Wilderness for Lee because of Fullers empty space or a WAG, for most if not all, from then on to the end, but i think with some help and little effort we can do better.
Now i have my own ideas on what comparisons i want to make, for instance i think AoP matched with ANV to show how they compared against each other, from that we can compare each comander of the AoP with lee and against other AoP commanders. But what would be of intrest to others?, after all once the sheet has the data and the formulas, it would bea shame not to get the most out of it, what kind of comparisons would intrest others?, and not cause me a stroke to implement?.
So if anyone has a request or better yet some data to offer, be it online of from books, let me know by pm or post here.
USKIA USWIA USMIA Total CSKIA CSWIA CSMIA Total
1 Bull run Jul-61 481 1011 1216 28452 387 1582 12 32232
Both US and CS Cause KIA at a 2.2%, ie turn up with 100 men and both Kill 2.2 men, on a yearly average. Losses of all types change to CS inflicteing 17.5% and US inflicting 14%. Lee at Antietam was causing KIA at 4%, well above the years average, and Mac was hitting lee with 3.5%.Lee overall was operating at 23.9% effiecency at causing losses, and Mac at 18.2%. Lee at f-Burg was at 1.2% and 17.4%, and Burnside at 0.56% and 5%.
__________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Perhaps I should get a copy of Fuller's work. I don't often see those numbers in detail like that. I may try to construct some kind of an Excel chart where the numbers are more readable and I can use it as a quick and handy reference in lieu of actually buying Fuller's book. Fixed income, you know.
Thanks again for the fruit of your labor, as it were.
Perhaps I should get a copy of Fuller's work. I don't often see those numbers in detail like that. I may try to construct some kind of an Excel chart where the numbers are more readable and I can use it as a quick and handy reference in lieu of actually buying Fuller's book. Fixed income, you know.
Thanks again for the fruit of your labor, as it were.
Im buidling an excell s/sheet ( which is what i posted excerts from), but it transfers badly to this board, if you want, ill make the sheet available once the data is entered, just Pm me an ill send you the sheet as an attatchment.
Fullers work is good with some insightfull comments, but if you just want the raw data he used, you can find online, http://www.civilwarhome.com/foxspref.htm what ive popsted is what you can start to do with that data.
__________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Hanny. That's great stuff. Can't wait to see your final analysis. A question: At Antietam, for instance, are you counting all the troops that McClellan brought to the fight or only those he actually used? Same for Burnside at Fredricksburg. In both engagements, large numbers of U.S. troops were on the sidelines. I can see calculating it either way. After all, the troops were there as a reserve. I was curious as to which way you were going.
__________________ "There must be more historians of the Civil War than there were generals figthing in it... Of the two groups, the historians are the more belligerent." David Donald, Lincoln Reconsidered (1961)
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
, what i9 was after was that in 7 weeks Grant lost more men in the AoP that it had lost in the last 2 and a half years, and certainly was not a planned event, just as STAVKA in ww2 went from a planned 100% replacement in 3 years of war to that of 100% every 3 months in teh first phase of the war.
Linear Mode
