Confederate victory at Gettysburg, Day 3

Saphroneth

Captain
Joined
Feb 18, 2017
In that situation (border on the Potomac), I wonder if the US capital is going to remain in DC. It seems like a bit of a tricky situation when your capital city is literally overlooked by potentially hostile enemy territory belonging to your foe's greatest victorious general.
 

Saphroneth

Captain
Joined
Feb 18, 2017
I guess you'd simply have had a higher casualty count if three more brigades were sent in.
Not necessarily - it's the principle of mass. It's why a divisional attack is more likely to succeed than three distinct brigade attacks, for example, because you can more easily saturate the ability of the defenders to fight you off while also more slowly eroding the ability of the attackers to advance.
 

Generic Username

Corporal
Joined
May 12, 2019
Location
Yes
Not necessarily - it's the principle of mass. It's why a divisional attack is more likely to succeed than three distinct brigade attacks, for example, because you can more easily saturate the ability of the defenders to fight you off while also more slowly eroding the ability of the attackers to advance.

Wilcox and Lang would also screen Pickett's flanks, allowing his Division to hit The Angle relatively unmolested:

800px-Pickett%27s-Charge.png


Stannard's Brigade did a lot of damage with their flanking fire into Pickett's rear.
 

Saphroneth

Captain
Joined
Feb 18, 2017
Stannard's brigade wheeling out of line also opens a hole in the Union line. I've often thought that there was a real opportunity there for battlefield use of cavalry, if the CSA had had worthwhile battlefield cavalry available.
 

Generic Username

Corporal
Joined
May 12, 2019
Location
Yes
Stannard's brigade wheeling out of line also opens a hole in the Union line. I've often thought that there was a real opportunity there for battlefield use of cavalry, if the CSA had had worthwhile battlefield cavalry available.

I'd have to look at the timeframes, but there is a good chance Wilcox and Lang would hit Stannard and roll him up if he moves forward at all with them coming down on him.
 

Generic Username

Corporal
Joined
May 12, 2019
Location
Yes
In that situation (border on the Potomac), I wonder if the US capital is going to remain in DC. It seems like a bit of a tricky situation when your capital city is literally overlooked by potentially hostile enemy territory belonging to your foe's greatest victorious general.

Historically, there was a movement to place the Capitol in Chicago to reflect the changing nature of the nation's population axis, but this was shot down by Grant while President because he considered it, well, an insult to the men of the Army of the Potomac who had spent years protecting Washington City.
 

steve59p

Sergeant
Joined
Oct 21, 2016
Historically, there was a movement to place the Capitol in Chicago to reflect the changing nature of the nation's population axis, but this was shot down by Grant while President because he considered it, well, an insult to the men of the Army of the Potomac who had spent years protecting Washington City.

Sounds like a possibility then if Washington is no longer a practical option. I had been assuming it might be New York or Philadelphia possibly but somewhere further west could be attractive to recognise the involvement of men from the inland states.
 

Desert Kid

Sergeant Major
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Arizona
Historically, there was a movement to place the Capitol in Chicago to reflect the changing nature of the nation's population axis, but this was shot down by Grant while President because he considered it, well, an insult to the men of the Army of the Potomac who had spent years protecting Washington City.

I still think Philadelphia is far more realistic. Keeping the capitol in the east, but in also a symbolic one.
 

MichaelWinicki

Private
Joined
Jul 23, 2020
Wilcox and Lang would also screen Pickett's flanks, allowing his Division to hit The Angle relatively unmolested:

View attachment 375479

Stannard's Brigade did a lot of damage with their flanking fire into Pickett's rear.

I think it's an interesting point-of-view.

The challenge with map is that it is not showing the artillery placements along the southern half of the Union line, which may have greatly affected Anderson's division as it moved towards the Union line. This was not an infantry vs. infantry (alone) assault... The Union artillery was more than capable of delivering a beatdown when deployed en masse.
 

Saphroneth

Captain
Joined
Feb 18, 2017
I think it's an interesting point-of-view.

The challenge with map is that it is not showing the artillery placements along the southern half of the Union line, which may have greatly affected Anderson's division as it moved towards the Union line. This was not an infantry vs. infantry (alone) assault... The Union artillery was more than capable of delivering a beatdown when deployed en masse.
I have a map of the artillery placements, though it's before the effect of the preliminary bombardment and has range circles around the Copse of Trees:


Day3.jpg


It looks like there's a pretty substantial "stop line" there, though it will also prevent Stannard wheeling out of line. So effectively it's a pinning movement.
 

MichaelWinicki

Private
Joined
Jul 23, 2020
I have a map of the artillery placements, though it's before the effect of the preliminary bombardment and has range circles around the Copse of Trees:


View attachment 377870

It looks like there's a pretty substantial "stop line" there, though it will also prevent Stannard wheeling out of line. So effectively it's a pinning movement.

Thank you sir!

Yep, that looks like a mean barrier to entry.
 

Saphroneth

Captain
Joined
Feb 18, 2017
Thank you sir!

Yep, that looks like a mean barrier to entry.
It's worth remembering that we don't actually know the ammunition state of those guns, though I expect they had some ammunition. The presence of the Rebel brigades would however be likely to prevent Stannard being able to wheel out for enfilade.
 

dlavin

Sergeant Major
Joined
Jun 1, 2015
Location
North Balt Co., MD
If lee threw more troops in, wouldn’t the Union just outflank the confederate right since they practically all moved forward? Longstreets other divisions were badly cut up and wouldn’t offer much resistance to a Union surge at that end of the field.
 

Generic Username

Corporal
Joined
May 12, 2019
Location
Yes
If lee threw more troops in, wouldn’t the Union just outflank the confederate right since they practically all moved forward? Longstreets other divisions were badly cut up and wouldn’t offer much resistance to a Union surge at that end of the field.
Hood and McLaw had their divisions in the way of opposing that as well as guarding the flank if need be. 11th, 12th, 1st and 2nd Corps were already engaged while 6th Corps was distributed across the battlefield; that leaves just 3rd and 5th Corps, with 3rd Corps having been chewed up on July 2nd (40% casualties). Meade looked at a counter-attack after Pickett's Charge failed involving 5th Corps but dismissed it, given their position and state (20% casualties).
 
Last edited:
Top