Who lost Gettysburg

[cw1865]

really following you on that one, what is your train of thought here....

[larry_cockerham]

Originally Posted by cw1865

really following you on that one, what is your train of thought here....

Oops, sorry if I threw you. The Napoleonic tactics that Lee was forcing on his army led to an almost instantaneous defeat. Blame that one on Napoleon. Blame the use of the tactic on Lee. First he lines a few hundred cannon up at the edge of the field of battle and loudly announces the presence of the army back in the tree cover. After wasting his artillery doing little more than scattering a few yanks, he sends several thousand men across an open field to their doom. Even Longstreet's advice would have been a better choice. Where was Forrest when they needed him?

[richard]

Old Bedford was trying to save Bragg's skin by chasing Wilder through the mts of south east Tennessee. I think that after Chickamauga, he wishes that he had let Bragg drown in the Tennessee River.

[Dred]

Originally Posted by larry_cockerham

Oops, sorry if I threw you. The Napoleonic tactics that Lee was forcing on his army led to an almost instantaneous defeat. Blame that one on Napoleon. Blame the use of the tactic on Lee. First he lines a few hundred cannon up at the edge of the field of battle and loudly announces the presence of the army back in the tree cover. After wasting his artillery doing little more than scattering a few yanks, he sends several thousand men across an open field to their doom. Even Longstreet's advice would have been a better choice. Where was Forrest when they needed him?

The tactics seemed to have taken alot longer to change in the east than in the south and west. The Army of the Tennessee seems to have used fortifications right after Shiloh. It could have something to do with the warfare involving forts on rivers and such, driving them to the realization much quicker. You can't fault those old tactics on Lee. The entire country was using them north and south. And you can't really fault Napolean either. The weapons technology had advanced so much in such a short time. Napolean couldn't have foreseen what would happen down the road. He developed tactics that worked for him based on what he had to work with.. and they DID work. And the cannonade was a grand idea, but faulty reb artillery due to inferior industry, and the lack of a real experienced commander of field artillery hurt the rebs a bunch. The Union always had a better time with artillery, no matter what theater they were in.

[richard]

Dred, it has been my thought that the boys in the west knew the importance of fighting behind trees, rocks, and anything that could protect them. If you look closely at Forrest, and Wilder you will see a great difference in their methods than those of the West Pointers and VMI trained Generals, east or west.

Also, check into the exploits of Cpt. Morton of Forrest's Cav. You will find that most of his guns were from good stock taken from the yanks. He knew how to use them to best advantage.

[larry_cockerham]

Originally Posted by Dred

The tactics seemed to have taken alot longer to change in the east than in the south and west. The Army of the Tennessee seems to have used fortifications right after Shiloh. It could have something to do with the warfare involving forts on rivers and such, driving them to the realization much quicker. You can't fault those old tactics on Lee. The entire country was using them north and south. And you can't really fault Napolean either. The weapons technology had advanced so much in such a short time. Napolean couldn't have foreseen what would happen down the road. He developed tactics that worked for him based on what he had to work with.. and they DID work. And the cannonade was a grand idea, but faulty reb artillery due to inferior industry, and the lack of a real experienced commander of field artillery hurt the rebs a bunch. The Union always had a better time with artillery, no matter what theater they were in.

Actually Capt. John Morton who worked for Bedford Forrest would argue that point. He had a grand time, mostly working on forts and stockades at railroad crossings. When asked about his favorite range, he stated something to the effect, "as close as the General will let me". He and DC Kelly were masters at small mobile field artillery. As far as big battle 'blow 'em all to hell' bombardment, no.

[cw1865]

The problem that you read about in many Civil War battles is poor control (they really needed radios!) and I think this is still a major reason why you're still lining up soldiers in the face of rifled muskets - even utilizing the Napoleonic tactics, its still incredibly difficult, both North and South, to maintain unit cohesion.

[Dred]

The officers had to make due with what they had. Nobody knew the true impact of the rifled barrels and they did not understand right off that tactics would need to change. The officers had to go with what they knew and what they were taught. And beyond that, there was the whole "honorable" thing going on. West, east, north, south, they all came to the realization that tacitcs woudl have to change eventually, but at some point before it was realized. when the soldiers saw others hiding in ditches and behind logs they couldn't believe it. It wasn't honorable, it was viewd on as almost cowardly. We look back on it as the smart thing to do, but when you don't know any better how can you second guess generations worth of proof that it worked?

[larry_cockerham]

Bedford Forrest did just that, many times over.

[cw1865]

Everytime you read about battles in the West, the Union commanders are ALWAYS concerned about Forrest. I think even Grant fears him. Point is, Confederacy should've taken some advantage of this a little bit better and let it be known that certain units, even if not directly commanded by Forrest, are indeed commanded by him, he absolutely seems to strike abject terror into the Union commanders, they're always worried about 'Where's Forrest?'