Toughest Brigade

[gettysburgerrn]

Interestingly enough I was thinking of Berdan's Sharpshooters as well...they just didnt seem to fit in this context

 

[Saphroneth]

Yeah, the sharpshooters weren't really a brigade in any real sense - too small and not deployed in the right way, among other reasons.

 

[lurid]

A brigade does not fit into this question, more like a battalion. It seems like a brigade would be too big and company would be too small, but a battalion was the perfect size to maneuver and inflict damage. I don't know if battalions were sovereign during the CW, so it might be futile to discuss it?

The answer would be if it was documented that unit was feared and the opposing high command knew about them and it was imperative to eliminate that unit. My old USMC unit before I was there during the Vietnam War was totally feared and avoided by the NVA. If the NVA got intel that old marine battalion was in the area they would literally hump 20 miles out of their way to avoid engagement. Even Ho Chi Minh the north Vietnam emperor knew about that unit and put a bounty on them. Usually, presidents and leaders don't know about a single unit in the enemies military, so that's impressive.

Did Abraham Lincoln personally know about a Confederate unit, and did he make it his business to take them out? The same for Jefferson Davis? That's the metric I would use to measure the toughest brigade in CW...

 

[GwilymT]

I'ld have to go with the Louisiana Tigers! They were a hand full even before they got to Richmond and when the going got tough, the tough got going; Millers Cornfield, East Cemetery Hill, the Mule Shoe, etc.

Good post.

 

[Saphroneth]

A brigade does not fit into this question, more like a battalion. It seems like a brigade would be too big and company would be too small, but a battalion was the perfect size to maneuver and inflict damage. I don't know if battalions were sovereign during the CW, so it might be futile to discuss it?

There was such a thing as a tactical battalion, but I think honestly brigade is probably the correct term here for the following reasons.

1) A regiment (which formed a tactical battalion early in the war, though later in the war multiple regiments formed a single tactical battalion) was too small on the scale of combat. Even early in the war a regiment would cover only a couple of hundred metres of frontage in a single two-deep line (600 men would cover 160-170 metres of front) and that's not really big enough.
2) Brigades were typically fairly consistent in organization through the war. They weren't always, but it is quite common to see a brigade maintain a consistent identity through several years (even if it sometimes has additional regiments added to it). Brigades being broken up was rare, especially ones that were seasoned.
3) Brigades were also typically deployed together or as a cohesive unit.
4) Divisions were generally too big. It's more common to see divisions split up and assigned to various places on a battlefield than the same thing happening to brigades.

 

[Zack]

Let's see some love for the Vermont Brigade for their service in 1864-65.

 

[truyle]

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the Missouri Brigade (CS).

 

[kel1985]

To hold a position at all costs, I'd go with The Iron Brigade.
To take a position Irish Brigade or Texas Brigade.

 

[J C J Barefoot]

Wow!
What a blistering, perplexing and hard question! That is a great question.
I'm going to try to break the question down.
Toughness.
What is that?
It would have to begin with male courage.
But courage isn't enough. It requires courage PLUS the physical strength and stamina to enforce the courage.
But courage, strength and stamina STILL aren't the essence of toughness.
What is missing?
There has to be a deep moral virtue in toughness.
I'm thinking that the toughness of Alex in A Clockwork Orange is different than the toughness of Walt Kowalski in Grand Torino.
What's the difference? Well, Alex was young and tough, but Walt was virtue toughness. Big time. As old as he was was was the true toughness—a Bad AX.
What virtue?
It could be several but I would have to settle on SACRIFICE. The willingness to say goodby to this life- to all you love, to all that is of you tomorrows for your belief. Like Walt. Walt did not want to die but he was willing Sacrifice his life to protect others. He was a Christ like icon.
Now that is big bad tough in my heart.
So— Courage + manly strength + manly stamina + sacrifice = toughness.

As an Ohio boy I wish it was the Ohio 72nd​. I really do. But the honor must go to the men that earned it:
The 1st​ Minnesota at Gettysburg.

 

[Saphroneth]

As an Ohio boy I wish it was the Ohio 72nd. I really do. But the honor must go to the men that earned it:
The 1st Minnesota at Gettysburg.

I don't think either of those are brigades...

 

[J C J Barefoot]

I don't think either of those are brigades...

Pardon my stupidity. You rank me sir.

 

[John S. Carter]

You have to establish a position and hold the ground at all costs... what brigade do you call on?

Iron Brigade
Stonewall Brigade
Pennsylvania Reserves
Texas Brigade
Irish Brigade (US)


Etc...

What was the best brigade?

For the Union- Iron Brigade For the CSA-Texas , Were did the Stonewall Brigade hold a position ?

 

[John S. Carter]

I think you overlooked a few units or are you just limiting your question to the Army of Northern Virginia and the Army of the Potomac?

Like this. Notice that there are no Western brigades of either the Union or the Confederate.

 

[gettysburgerrn]

Too bad the US Regulars in the east never got a fair chance to show their mettle......

Ken

 

[lurid]

There was such a thing as a tactical battalion, but I think honestly brigade is probably the correct term here for the following reasons.

1) A regiment (which formed a tactical battalion early in the war, though later in the war multiple regiments formed a single tactical battalion) was too small on the scale of combat. Even early in the war a regiment would cover only a couple of hundred metres of frontage in a single two-deep line (600 men would cover 160-170 metres of front) and that's not really big enough.
2) Brigades were typically fairly consistent in organization through the war. They weren't always, but it is quite common to see a brigade maintain a consistent identity through several years (even if it sometimes has additional regiments added to it). Brigades being broken up was rare, especially ones that were seasoned.
3) Brigades were also typically deployed together or as a cohesive unit.
4) Divisions were generally too big. It's more common to see divisions split up and assigned to various places on a battlefield than the same thing happening to brigades.

Thanks for the explanation on military organization of the 1860s. I suppose your tactical battalion is what I was talking about, but if you want to call it a brigade for the sake of being exact that is fine. Nevertheless, I researched a little on the Iron Brigade and that unit seem to be what I was talking about. They took the highest casualties and gave out the most casualties, and all that means is that they were always at where it was hairy. The Iron Brigade has my vote.

 

[Saphroneth]

Thanks for the explanation on military organization of the 1860s. I suppose your tactical battalion is what I was talking about, but if you want to call it a brigade for the sake of being exact that is fine. Nevertheless, I researched a little on the Iron Brigade and that unit seem to be what I was talking about. They took the highest casualties and gave out the most casualties, and all that means is that they were always at where it was hairy. The Iron Brigade has my vote.

A tactical battalion is a formation of 200-1000 effectives which can use the drill book (which is written for units of those sizes, below 200 men you're off the bottom of the scale).

This means a brigade would typically start out composed of multiple tactical battalions (one per regiment) but as casualties set in then you'd get to the point where multiple regiments would operate as a single tactical battalion; in some cases an entire brigade would form a single tactical battalion.

 

[Zack]

Too bad the US Regulars in the east never got a fair chance to show their mettle......

Ken

"For two years, the U.S. Regulars taught us how to be soldiers. In the Wheatfield at Gettysburg, they taught us how to die like soldiers."
- Union soldier

 

[Cycom]

"For two years, the U.S. Regulars taught us how to be soldiers. In the Wheatfield at Gettysburg, they taught us how to die like soldiers."
- Union soldier

What was difference between a Union soldier and a regular?

 

[Saphroneth]

What was difference between a Union soldier and a regular?

A regular was a member of the US regular army, and not a member of the state-affiliated Volunteer Regiments. Any regiment with a state name in the title was a volunteer regiment, for example.

 

[LCYingling3rd]

I had ancestors in the Stonewall Brigade and Laurel Brigade, so I am biased. However, I have to agree that it would be different brigades at different times. My ancestors in the First Brigade, Third Division, Sixth Corps earned some laurels at places like Cold Harbor, Monocacy, Third Winchester, and Cedar Creek. I think brigades become "famous" for a variety of reasons, and certainly being notoriously fierce fighters is one of them. However, it is difficult to say for me.

I had an ancestor in the 87th PA and they charged into Carters Woods three times before being routed when the Stonewall Brigade arrived on the scene at Second Winchester, they ran upon being flanked at Mine Run, they were one of the only units to capture and hold Confederate trenches at Cold Harbor, they were driven and retreated during the morning fighting at Cedar Creek and ended up having a Medal of Honor winner as they routed the Confederates in the afternoon fighting at the same battle. I think a lot of soldiers in a lot of brigades had experiences like that.

Yet, like I said, I am biased, so I will say the Stonewall Brigade! LOL