Against the Odds

[Sowbelly and Hardtack]

Forum member @johncla posed this question in another thread.

Five reasons in priority order why the Union won at Gettysburg. Agree, disagree? What's your list?

The first reason on his list was:

1. They outnumbered the confederates. Philip Laino has it at 93,921 versus 71,699. That's a 31% advantage.

Five reasons in priority order why the Union won at Gettysburg | Gettysburg

Here's my list: They outnumbered the confederates. Philip Laino has it at 93,921 versus 71,699. That's a 31% advantage. They occupied fortified positions on high ground, with interior lines. They had a larger number of artillery tubes, better managed, with better and more ammunition. They had...

civilwartalk.com

I asked what percentage of those troops were actual fighters and what percent were support personnel?

Here is a list of battles "Military Victories Against the Odds" where a smaller size force was victorious.

Military victories against the odds - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I would still like an answer to my question above.

I also ask this question. Was the size of the Army of the Potomac really a factor in their victory at Gettysburg?

 

[Tom Elmore]

By my rough estimate every Union infantry regiment had 15 percent (more or less) non-combatants in its overall strength number. For the Confederates the percentage was even higher owing to a sizable number of slaves who were brought along to serve their masters (and not just senior officers). I've even come up with an "average" Confederate regiment:

The "Average" Confederate Infantry Regiment at Gettysburg | Gettysburg

Every regiment left behind a good portion of its paper strength when it embarked upon a campaign. Many were sick in hospitals, or recuperating from previous battles. In addition, essential work on the home front took some away to distant posts. These duties could include a recruiting...

civilwartalk.com

Apart from slaves, I would surmise the Union army as a whole had a larger percentage of support personnel than their Confederate counterparts, so we may be close to a 9:7 battlefield strength advantage for the Federals, not counting subtantial Federal militia forces. As Stalin said, "quantity has a quality all its own." However, it's likely the Confederates often faced worse odds on other fields and still emerged victorious, but it was typically on their own turf with a sympathetic populace.

Organization also has a role to play. It's been observed that Federal regiments were somewhat smaller in size, so the officer cadre would naturally be a higher percentage. No doubt it's harder to manage two small regiments with two separate and independent staffs than one large regiment. The same applies to brigades and divisions. But conversely, the Confederate brigade was sometimes too large to be effectively coordinated on this field by a single commander - think Kershaw on July 2 as one example. So the advantage becomes less clear-cut.

 

[Sowbelly and Hardtack]

@Tom Elmore what sort of experienced officer and nco casualties did the ANV sufifer at Chancellorsville and how did the affect their performance at Gettysburg?

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my inquiry.

 

[RedRover]

Numbers on the books...

Versus the numbers on the field.

Hooker says near the close of June about 105K enlisted men of all branches FOR DUTY, etc.

Lee's Adjutant general, W.H. Taylor estimated somewhat less was available to take the field at Gettysburg:

Regarding Meade's numbers, at least by the evening of July 2, his corps commanders evidently estimated about 58,000 infantry and
artillery on hand to fight at that time. From the minutes of the council of war:

Meade says to that time, he had suffered some 20,000 casualties...

On the 3rd he ordered all stragglers brought forward by the corps commanders, besides those found on the roads and hustled forward by Gen. Patrick.

There were evidenetly LOTS of stragglers. From Henry Hunt.

After Gettysburg, Lee's army ca. 50K effective, of over 100K on the rolls.