Worst Regimental Performances

[Sheltowee]

Just finished Hafendorfer's text on the Battle of Richmond Ky. Throughout the book, there are numerous recounts of how pathetic were the actions of the 7th Kentucky Cavalry (Metcalfes). Sparing details- but these troopers did not represent well, at all.

Trying to tread lightly here, as not to offend more sensitive members. But I am curious about examples of horrific performance by regiments in some particular battle. Any examples of poor conduct that really stand out?

I know we have the luxury of second-guessing men involved in life and death struggles- maybe not fair. Still, I am sure there are numerous examples of regiments that turned in disastrous efforts (or none at all). Were these units ever able to wipe away the tarnish, at some later battle? Please share...

 

[Belfoured]

Having just returned from last month's Antietam Muster one example immediately springs to mind, though arguably the fault was not with the regiment's officers or men but more circumstantial though no less pathetic nor deadly. At the follow-up Battle of Shepherdstown fought three days after the main Battle of Antietam the brand-new Philadelphia Corn Exchange Regiment crossed the Potomac and were positioned on the far right flank well away from the ford by which they had crossed. In the ensuing battle with the veterans of A. P. Hill's Confederate division the greenhorns discovered their equally brand-new Enfield rifles were defective and wouldn't fire! Being crowded back into a tiny riverbank salient, they lost access to the ford and were compelled to wade back under a hot fire across a narrow dam only wide enough for a single man abreast. Between two and three hundred men were lost as casualties killed, wounded, captured, or drowned, over half the entire Federal loss in the battle.

Good example of the point I made listing bad weapons as one possible cause of a "bad" regiment. If I'm in combat and my weapon doesn't work I'm at least thinking about getting out of Dodge.

 

[Bruce Vail]

I've spent a lot of time reading up on ANV's Maryland campaign of 1862, so I'm aware of two cases where Confederate brigades were singled out for bad performance.

Ripley's Brigade was ordered to attack at the Battle of South Mountain but never made it into action. Some officers blamed this on cowardly behaviour by Gen. Roswell Ripley, rather than any failure on the part of the rank and file.

Similarly, Garland's Brigade broke and ran under fire in the Bloody Cornfield during the Battle of Antietam, and suffered scorn at the time. Once again the officers were held responsible rather than the rank and file.

 

[Bruce Vail]

Excellent article- thanks for sharing. Was there any worse villain than Beast Butler?

Well, I guess Butler got his comeuppance in the end. Butler received all the blame for the failure of the first assault on Fort Fisher in 1865 and was fired as a result. Author Chris Fonvielle did a nice job with his book on the Fort Fisher campaign and he seems to think the Union Admiral David Porter also deserves some of the blame.

 

[Ole Miss]

There were several regiments on both sides who had never seen war till Shiloh and perhaps their performance was not up to professional standards. The initial shock of battle casued officers and men to panic but many were reformed later and performed well.

The election of officers and appointment of leaders based on who recruited or was a pet of authorites was poor system and soon done away with. Professional soldiers were posted to leadership posts and several amatuer soldiers were excellent officers.
Regards
David

 

[Sheltowee]

I vaguely recalled an incident with the 52nd Tennessee at Shiloh and finally located this information. I believe they were involved in the fight with the 54th Ohio crossing Spain Branch early the first day...

"At Shiloh, April 6-7, 1862, the 52nd was engaged as a part of Brigadier General Jamees R. Chalmers' Brigade of Brigadier General J. M. Withers' Division. General Chalmers, in his report of the engagement, said "The 52nd broke and fled in most shameful confusion. After repeated efforts to rally it, this regiment was ordered out of the lines, where it remained during the balance of the engagement, with the exception of two companies, Captains J. A. Russell, and A. N. Wilson, who, with their commands, fought gallantly in the ranks of the 5th Mississippi Regiment."" - From tngenweb.org

My personal opinion is that Chalmers used them as a scapegoat for his poor performance in command of the Brigade, but that's just me. They were raw troops after all and couldn't be expected to carry out complicated drill field commands under fire at that stage of their training.

Thanks. Wonder how they performed for the remainder of the war.

 

[Sheltowee]

There were several regiments on both sides who had never seen war till Shiloh and perhaps their performance was not up to professional standards. The initial shock of battle casued officers and men to panic but many were reformed later and performed well.

The election of officers and appointment of leaders based on who recruited or was a pet of authorites was poor system and soon done away with. Professional soldiers were posted to leadership posts and several amatuer soldiers were excellent officers.
Regards
David

Yep- the election of officers was a curious system. Oddly enough, I saw an interview with Shelby Foote who actually stated that it was, overall, an effective process- I guess at least as far as the men were concerned. They elected officers whom they felt could be trusted to see to their well-being.
Now did these elected officer have adequate tactical skills? Probably hit or miss there.

 

[Sheltowee]

Having just returned from last month's Antietam Muster one example immediately springs to mind, though arguably the fault was not with the regiment's officers or men but more circumstantial though no less pathetic nor deadly. At the follow-up Battle of Shepherdstown fought three days after the main Battle of Antietam the brand-new Philadelphia Corn Exchange Regiment crossed the Potomac and were positioned on the far right flank well away from the ford by which they had crossed. In the ensuing battle with the veterans of A. P. Hill's Confederate division the greenhorns discovered their equally brand-new Enfield rifles were defective and wouldn't fire! Being crowded back into a tiny riverbank salient, they lost access to the ford and were compelled to wade back under a hot fire across a narrow dam only wide enough for a single man abreast. Between two and three hundred men were lost as casualties killed, wounded, captured, or drowned, over half the entire Federal loss in the battle.

Thanks for sharing. Sounds like maybe poor leadership and just plain bad luck there. They certainly deserved a "do-over".

 

[Coonewah Creek]

Thanks. Wonder how they performed for the remainder of the war.

I'm no expert on the 52nd TN, nor the 51st/52nd Consolidated as they fought most of the remainder of the war but they seemed to have suffered a comparable number of battle casualties in many of the remaining AoT battles as other regiments in their brigade. Maybe other members can jump in with some particulars...

 

[General Casey]

16th Connecticut. Their first action at Antietam ends in disaster. Then they get captured essentially en mass at Plymouth.

 

[James N.]

James N. Do we know what the issue with the Enfields was? Just wondering.

John

From the description I read, either the mainsprings were too weak to detonate the percussion caps or possibly the hammers weren't aligned correctly for the nipples. At any rate, the majority of them failed. The unlucky regiment was only one of several that had been rushed to the army without any training at all. These were then distributed indiscriminately among brigades that had suffered heavy losses in previous engagements in the Peninsula and Second Manassas campaigns.

 

[James N.]

... Ripley's Brigade was ordered to attack at the Battle of South Mountain but never made it into action. Some officers blamed this on cowardly behaviour by Gen. Roswell Ripley, rather than any failure on the part of the rank and file.

Similarly, Garland's Brigade broke and ran under fire in the Bloody Cornfield during the Battle of Antietam, and suffered scorn at the time. Once again the officers were held responsible rather than the rank and file.

Of course Garland's Brigade had also broken and fled at South Mountain too, only three days earlier. There the fault was likely that brigade commander Samuel Garland was killed almost immediately when the relatively green regiments went into action.

 

[Cavalier]

James N. Thank you very much. I am surprised that the muskets of an entire regiment would have been so faulty, especially Enfields. An unlucky break for those guys.

John

 

[Belfoured]

James N. Thank you very much. I am surprised that the muskets of an entire regiment would have been so faulty, especially Enfields. An unlucky break for those guys.

John

It's good to keep in mind that early in the war - before production to meet war needs was fully underway - there were Federal units armed with some handy imported junk from various locations in Europe. Even into WWII the US had a history of having to increase its military by an exponent on the outbreak of war and using what was at hand until production could catch up. In WWI the field artillery trained over here with a lot of dummy guns until the AEF got to France and they could get their hands on real, live .75's.

 

[thomas aagaard]

16th Connecticut. Their first action at Antietam ends in disaster. Then they get captured essentially en mass at Plymouth.

They had only been in service for a very short time and where clearly put into combat before they where ready for it... going up against veterans.

 

[GwilymT]

Question for the OP:

It seems we're concentrating on regiments that broke and ran or displayed some sort of cowardice. Would a regiment that got mauled or destroyed through audacity or blunder for no tactical or strategic gain qualify as a poor performance even though there is no inkling of cowardice or unwillingness to fight?

 

[JeffFromSyracuse]

Question for the OP:

It seems we're concentrating on regiments that broke and ran or displayed some sort of cowardice. Would a regiment that got mauled or destroyed through audacity or blunder for no tactical or strategic gain qualify as a poor performance even though there is no inkling of cowardice or unwillingness to fight?

The common theme here seems to be that regiments fought poorly because of shortcomings in training or leadership.

 

[Ole Miss]

At Shiloh, several regiments were in very difficult positions due to terrain issues. The 9th Illinois, suffered 63 percent casualties due to being positioned in ravines along the Tennessee River.
Regards
David

 

[Belfoured]

At Shiloh, several regiments were in very difficult positions due to terrain issues. The 9th Illinois, suffered 63 percent casualties due to being positioned in ravines along the Tennessee River.
Regards
David

I also cut a break for units at battles like Shiloh or First Bull Run. A lot that had never even fired their weapons were tossed into some of the hardest combat you could imagine. I'd look more at experienced units that still didn't measure up and try to figure out why.

 

[Cavalier]

Not wanting to offend any residents of the City of Brotherly Love but I remember reading some uncomplimentary remarks about the Philadelphia Brigade of the AOP. At the time the problems for the most part seem to have been attributed to their commander I believe, Paddy Owens.

I can't remember where I read this stuff, it was years ago, maybe Catton's great AOP trilogy.

I will try to find the source for these remarks if I can.

John

 

[Coonewah Creek]

If we're also talking at brigade or at least "aggregated" types of comments, then I also recall some disparaging remarks were made about East Tennessee regiments at Big Black River Bridge, and then later having those same units condemned at being the first to break at Missionary Ridge. I can't recall the specifics unfortunately.