Grant Not impressed with Grants performance

[Eagle eye]

Lefty,

With thousands of southern men and border state men flocking to the north , mass ANV desertions, and northern immigration attractions, and don't forget about COIN operations, I will refer you back to post 210 of this thread. Those few fighting men left in the ANV must have been "supermen" to have withstood the Union onslaught for as long as they did.

------------------------
Not supermen… just solders doing their duty.

 

[leftyhunter]

Lefty,

With thousands of southern men and border state men flocking to the north , mass ANV desertions, and northern immigration attractions, and don't forget about COIN operations, I will refer you back to post 210 of this thread. Those few fighting men left in the ANV must have been "supermen" to have withstood the Union onslaught for as long as they did.

If you consider being besieged and holding a major city while much of the South is in a state of anarchy or being occupied a major accomplishment to a heroic feat then yes I agree with you.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

No one disputes his W's, but any competent general should have those wins with the advantages he had.

True but that's not what happened during the Civil War. No General can match Grants win record during the Civil War. Also during Reconstruction Grant and Grant alone made the best effort to protect Unionists and Afro-Americans from the vicious attacks of the Democratic Party paramilitaries.
Leftyhunter

 

[Sid J.]

I am not sure why people consider "having more men" as the be-all and end-all. In military history, it's simply not true, smaller forces have defeated larger ones on many occasion. As an example, if we were picking sides, would you choose a brigade of 300 battle hardened veterans with proven leadership, or one of 1000 greenhorns with inexperienced, nepotism based commanders?

Another part of this is we in 2017 we have far more accurate figures on troops strengths than the commanders had at the time.

 

[leftyhunter]

I am not sure why people consider "having more men" as the be-all and end-all. In military history, it's simply not true, smaller forces have defeated larger ones on many occasion. As an example, if we were picking sides, would you choose a brigade of 300 battle hardened veterans with proven leadership, or one of 1000 greenhorns with inexperienced, nepotism based commanders?

Another part of this is we in 2017 we have far more accurate figures on troops strengths than the commanders had at the time.

As a general rule manpower size does matter. An offensive army generally needs a 3 to 1 advantage on the offense. Most of the time the Union didn't achieve that manpower superiority ratio. In addition arguably one third of Union Regiments spent at least some time on COIN and static defense. Based on my thread " Compare and contrast Union vs Confederate counter guerrilla operations" that appears to be accurate. Their is an author who's book is mentioned early in my thread that does state that one third of Union Regiments spent a significant amount of time on COIN. In addition a lot of manpower is absorbed just escorting logistics through hostile territory. Add to that much of the Union Army was incapacitated due to diseases many of course due to poor sanitation but also local mosquitoe borne diseases.
In modern wars force multipliers such as armor and air power can make up for lack of manpower superiority.
Also both sides had quite a few veterans.
Leftyhunter

 

[OpnCoronet]

But how many men died and suffered unnecessarily because of Grant?

Be serious. That is applicable to all military commanders in every war in history, including Robert E. Lee.

 

[Lost Cause]

If you consider being besieged and holding a major city while much of the South is in a state of anarchy or being occupied a major accomplishment to a heroic feat then yes I agree with you.
Leftyhunter

How else do you explain their resolve it since, in your opinion, there were so few Confederate soldiers in the field?

 

[leftyhunter]

How else do you explain their resolve it since, in your opinion, there were so few Confederate soldiers in the field?

I never said the Confederacy didn't have dedicated soldiers. In a good defensive position it doesn't take a lot of soldiers to block a superior force in the short term. The Battle of Petersburg was less then a year. It didn't help the Union when they made the poorly executed Battle of the Crater. While Confederate soldiers are bottled up at Petersburg Sherman is slowly but surely grinding his way to Richmond.
Confederate troops were well motivated to fight to preserve slavery and because they thought that by some miracle the Union would give up the will to fight. They also didn't to live in a society where they couldn't maintain white superiority. This is proved by their actions post Civil War.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

How else do you explain their resolve it since, in your opinion, there were so few Confederate soldiers in the field?

Per Civilwartrust website the Union had 62k vs 42k for the Confederacy at Petersburg well under a 2 to 1 manpower superiority for the Union. The battle of Petersburg was waged from June 9th 1864 to March 25th 1865.
Leftyhunter

 

[Lost Cause]

I never said the Confederacy didn't have dedicated soldiers. In a good defensive position it doesn't take a lot of soldiers to block a superior force in the short term. The Battle of Petersburg was less then a year. It didn't help the Union when they made the poorly executed Battle of the Crater. While Confederate soldiers are bottled up at Petersburg Sherman is slowly but surely grinding his way to Richmond.
Confederate troops were well motivated to fight to preserve slavery and because they thought that by some miracle the Union would give up the will to fight. They also didn't to live in a society where they couldn't maintain white superiority. This is proved by their actions post Civil War.
Leftyhunter

Why are you discussing Petersburg when we were speaking about Overland? Regardless, you might check
fact #10 from the following website. http://www.civilwar.org/battlefields/petersburg/10-facts-about-the-petersburg.html

 

[leftyhunter]

Why are you discussing Petersburg when we were speaking about Overland? Regardless, you might check
fact #10 from the following website. http://www.civilwar.org/battlefields/petersburg/10-facts-about-the-petersburg.html

Because you mentioned that the Confederacy: how did the Confederacy hold out so long with so few troops?
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

Why are you discussing Petersburg when we were speaking about Overland? Regardless, you might check
fact #10 from the following website. http://www.civilwar.org/battlefields/petersburg/10-facts-about-the-petersburg.html

Per fact #10 in Petersburg and Wiki during the Overland Campaign overall the Union only had a two to one mansuperiority ratio over the Confederacy. Not an over whelming advantage. Looks like Grant did a good job.
Leftyhunter

 

[hankc]

But how many men died and suffered unnecessarily because of Grant?

Here is a brief research exercise:
1) What were the total casualties in the east before May 1864 and after May 1864.
2) where was the 'front line' in May of each year from 1861 to 1865?

 

[Lost Cause]

Per fact #10 in Petersburg and Wiki during the Overland Campaign overall the Union only had a two to one mansuperiority ratio over the Confederacy. Not an over whelming advantage. Looks like Grant did a good job.
Leftyhunter

Never said Grant didn't do a good job. He effectively used his resources to defeat Lee. What do you consider to be an overwhelming advantage?

 

[leftyhunter]

Never said Grant didn't do a good job. He effectively used his resources to defeat Lee. What do you consider to be an overwhelming advantage?

Better then 3 to one on the offensive plus a similar advantage in force multipliers. Another huge plus recognized by both sides in the Civil War is supporting guerrillas on the other side and encouraging troop defections. In Elijah Hunt Rhodes classic biography "All for the Union" Rhodes describes Confederate defections at Petersburg.
A WW2 battle similar to Petersburg is the batale of Narwa, Estonia. Interesting to compare and contrast both battles.
Leftyhunter

 

[Lost Cause]

Better then 3 to one on the offensive plus a similar advantage in force multipliers. Another huge plus recognized by both sides in the Civil War is supporting guerrillas on the other side and encouraging troop defections. In Elijah Hunt Rhodes classic biography "All for the Union" Rhodes describes Confederate defections at Petersburg.
A WW2 battle similar to Petersburg is the batale of Narwa, Estonia. Interesting to compare and contrast both battles.
Leftyhunter

Strength in numbers do not necessarily always equate to victory. There are other variables such as the effectiveness of the commanders and fighting men, type of defensive works, natural topography of the land, line of resupply etc. Take for instance the battle of Pilot Knob where the forces were 10 to 1.

Getting back to Grant and the eastern theater, if the the fighting soldier were considered equal on both sides, he had a clear supply path, and a direct aggressive fighting style his averaged two to one superiority was more favorable for victory, however, with frequently high casualties. The difference with his predecessors being higher casualty figures generally resulted in strategic losses.

 

[leftyhunter]

Strength in numbers do not necessarily always equate to victory. There are other variables such as the effectiveness of the commanders and fighting men, type of defensive works, natural topography of the land, line of resupply etc. Take for instance the battle of Pilot Knob where the forces were 10 to 1.

Getting back to Grant and the eastern theater, if the the fighting soldier were considered equal on both sides, he had a clear supply path, and a direct aggressive fighting style his averaged two to one superiority was more favorable for victory, however, with frequently high casualties. The difference with his predecessors being higher casualty figures generally resulted in strategic losses.

That's why Grant is a great general his predecessors had similar advantages but they lost vs Grant who won on about a years time.
Leftyhunter

 

[wausaubob]

What Grant did was much more difficult than what was faced by anyone other than Washington. Even Washington eventually benefited from a foreign ally.
The Civil War was fought on US soil.
If the power of the US had not been properly applied, the US will to fight could have run out.
The casualties were monstrous.
There was an election coming up.
The US capital had to be constantly protected.
The US was fighting alone, against a capable, experienced domestic foe, who did not have to transport its armies across the ocean and did not have any other military problems.
The US had no significant tactical advantage against this foe.
The US had a very great strategic advantage over the Confederacy. Eventually Grant found a way to apply this advantage, and all Confederate forces except for Johnston's army in North Carolina were decisively and completely defeated.

 

[wausaubob]

At the end of the four years of terrible war, with hundreds of thousands of soldiers dead and maimed, he imposed his will on the peace, not by marching his captives in a great triumph, but by sending them home with his promise of amnesty.

 

[wausaubob]

Only William T. Sherman knew the awfulness of what Grant had done. He had held the nation to its choice of war and made it so horrible that no one ever attempted it again.