dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on May 19, 2016 23:58:36 GMT
I have admitted my lack of knowledge regarding Eastern operations during the War so I have been reading upon Grant's 1864 Summer Overland Campaign. I chose this topic because it was the first time a Federal army and its leadership realized the key to the defeat of the Confederacy was destroying the Army of Northern Virginia not capturing Richmond. Lee and his command were the Confederacy not Davis and the Southern congress. Sherman was in the process of ripping the innards out of the South and destroying the will of the people to continue the fight. Grant was a man who clearly saw the end game and how to win it and was willing to pay the price in casualties for the victory.
The Spotsylvania Court House battle to me was the turning point of the War since Grant chose to support Sheridan over Meade and Lee knew he faced a siege he could not defeat. Stuart's defeat and death at Yellow Tavern (Brandy Station wrong) left Lee shaken and unsure of where to place his army to counter Grant's advance. The Union army's continual advance and pressing the Rebels to cover more and more territory weakened Lee's force.
Grant saw a bulge that was created in the middle of the Confederate lines, the Mule Shoe Salient, and chose to send an entire Corps under Hancock to attack and break through and scatter Lee's army. Over 25,000 troops attacked the position and broke through the Rebel's line prompting Lee to personally lead men to repel the attack. For over 12 hours thousands of men fought, bleed and died within a half mile sector where the fate of the Confederacy hung in the balance. Confederates held against the Union troops till a new line could be constructed to prevent the Federals from dividing Lee's army in half. Due to Lee's leadership and discipline of his men the War would continue another long blood months.
I know QC and Deadwood are far more familiar with this engagement and I look forward to their thoughts and comments. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on May 20, 2016 10:53:09 GMT
Dave, All that you say above is pretty much correct. One thing though, you might want to edit the location of Stuart's death and be aware that the Confederate Cavalry did turn back Sheridan's advance.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 20, 2016 13:24:45 GMT
Yellow Tavern on the Mountain Road.
It is best not to look at Grant this way I think.
He was Commanding General of the Army, and as such commanded all of the armies in the field. The difference with Grant though is that Grant commanded FROM the field, not sitting next to a telegraph in the War Department. Meade commanded the AoP, and Meade was good, but he would not have done what Grant did.
The Overland Campaign would have been meaningless without the goings on in Georgia and Tennessee, and Georgia and Tennessee would have been meaningless without the Overland Campaign. Strategic thought transformed into operational plans and objectives.
Grant and Sherman, and to some extent Sheridan, and some few others, thought differently about the whole concept of war. They looked at DIME, all the elements of strategy, and realized that the mistake of the past, was concentrating on the M, and largely ignoring the D-I-E. They changed that. So with Grant and these others you see a maturity of thought taking hold, and a switcheroo on how Americans would forever after think of the Art of War. Any dumb ass can win a battle. Wars are won by strategic vision, operational audacity, and tactical tenacity.
I have stood, with my son many years ago on the very spot that was the Union Army's focal point of that attack. Nasty piece of turf for an attacker. Had it not been for a slight roll in the ground, partially obstructing ANV fields of fire, it could have been a lot worse.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on May 20, 2016 15:38:34 GMT
Dave, All that you say above is pretty much correct. One thing though, you might want to edit the location of Stuart's death and be aware that the Confederate Cavalry did turn back Sheridan's advance. Regards, Tom Tom Correction made. Thank you for the tip. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by Beth on May 20, 2016 20:08:30 GMT
Yellow Tavern on the Mountain Road.
It is best not to look at Grant this way I think.
He was Commanding General of the Army, and as such commanded all of the armies in the field. The difference with Grant though is that Grant commanded FROM the field, not sitting next to a telegraph in the War Department. Meade commanded the AoP, and Meade was good, but he would not have done what Grant did.
The Overland Campaign would have been meaningless without the goings on in Georgia and Tennessee, and Georgia and Tennessee would have been meaningless without the Overland Campaign. Strategic thought transformed into operational plans and objectives.
Grant and Sherman, and to some extent Sheridan, and some few others, thought differently about the whole concept of war. They looked at DIME, all the elements of strategy, and realized that the mistake of the past, was concentrating on the M, and largely ignoring the D-I-E. They changed that. So with Grant and these others you see a maturity of thought taking hold, and a switcheroo on how Americans would forever after think of the Art of War. Any dumb ass can win a battle. Wars are won by strategic vision, operational audacity, and tactical tenacity.
I have stood, with my son many years ago on the very spot that was the Union Army's focal point of that attack. Nasty piece of turf for an attacker. Had it not been for a slight roll in the ground, partially obstructing ANV fields of fire, it could have been a lot worse. It strikes me that many battles are won or lost on things like a slight roll in the ground or obstructed views. Some commanders are able to use them to their advantage, others it become their doom. Beth
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 20, 2016 22:11:09 GMT
San Jacinto was the prime example of this Beth. Had it not been for that upward slope coming out of the bottom of the bayou, Spanish would be your first language, and the city you live in would probably be named Ciudad De Santa Anna, Pueblo Del Taco Bueno or some such.
Houston knew his ground and the advantages it offered. Hancock and his executing commanders knew theirs as well. Attacking over ground not reconnoitered is for fools.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on May 21, 2016 0:08:39 GMT
I was also thinking of Waterloo. Wellington was very good at picking a battlefield for his advantage.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 21, 2016 1:27:46 GMT
Beth: When your opponent has two choices (eliminating attack for a moment as the third option), move off or stand their ground, it is a very safe bet that he knows something about the terrain he stands on that you do not. Fools don't care (and there may be a million forms of not caring), but winners find out what they do not know, before what they don't know gets them killed.
Salamanca was another, and I think he did a better job at it there than at Waterloo.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on May 21, 2016 11:48:02 GMT
One of the biggest English blunders was at the battle of Hastings, after fighting a pitched battle in the north of the country against the Danes (battle of Stamford Bridge), King Harold had to march is whole army over 200 miles to take of the vaunted Normans (Dammed Frenchies). The Norman army contained around 300 heavy horsemen and 5000 foot soldiers, the English had around 7.500 and no cavalry. We were doing ok in the initial phase and were holding our own (some say the battle lasted 11 hours), and this was down to Harold placing his men along a piece of high ground (Senlac Hill). After repulsing the first Norman attacks, some of Harold’s men left their positions and ran after the French and were cut up by a cavalry attack. The French lost around 30% of his cavalry, so their next attack was a concerted effort with archers, foot soldiers and cavalry fighting on foot, all taking part against the weakened English line and this turned their left flank, and once Harold went down the day was lost.
The Norman army was a fully professional outfit and contained quite a few mercenaries. King Harold’s army were made up of two type’s soldier, the first was the Housecarls (about 2.500) who were trained soldiers and were well armed, the second were the Fyrd (about 6000), who were really just farm labourers and were probably armed with anything they could get their hands on. The Housecarls were apparent holding the front and centre of Harold’s line and died protecting their king, many carried on fighting after he died and were wiped out.
I often thought just what our history would have been like if we would have won, because William the Conqueror wasted the place (read about the harrowing of the north) and later took his wrath to Wales, Scotland and Ireland.
Yan.
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on May 21, 2016 13:21:21 GMT
The family line of my mother, in Ireland, is post 1066 and comes from those Normans; who were originally Vikings. Sorry about that Yan. Je regret! Cheers
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on May 21, 2016 13:28:36 GMT
You are correct Mac, they did come from Viking stock, I had this out with DC a number of years ago and he disputed this but he wouldn't have it that the Vikings took over Normandy and amalgamated with the locals, in a similar way they did here in England.
"Angleterre à Jamais"
Yan.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 21, 2016 14:08:04 GMT
Hastings once again proves that the uncontrolled "Thrill of Victory" often leads to "The Agony of Defeat".
Apologies to our friends in the Commonwealth, and other foreign miscreants wherever they may be using the signature slogan of the bygone ABC Sunday television program Wide World Of Sports. You didn't miss all that much anyway.
Then there is that reminder from the holiday movie "Christmas Story" where all that Ralphie wants for Christmas is a Daisy Red Ryder BB Rifle to go with his mail order Little Orphan Annie Decoder Ring. His mother tells him every time he brings the subject up - "No Ralphie, you'll shoot your eye out" If you don't know the details of Hastings you may miss that meaning as well.
Don't know how the Vikings got to Normandy Ian. They play in Minnesota. Maybe that's why DC was so confused.
Enough. I have ships to build and the Lyric from Chicago will be on presently.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on May 21, 2016 14:15:23 GMT
Chuck, I don't know about Minnesota, but they were at one time knocking around Widnes, now that is a fact.
I am currently watching the Widnes Vikings playing Salford and we are in the lead 12-4 in the Magic Weekend contest being played in Newcastle.
Yan.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 21, 2016 15:54:16 GMT
I brought coal there one day long ago.
Ian: There are probably more Vikings in Minnesota than in all of Europe. Sven and Ole reign. There are more than a few Berserkers up there as well. Too damned cold for normal people, except perhaps Mary Tyler Moore.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on May 21, 2016 16:00:48 GMT
We lost the bloody game.
We have a saying over here, its like taking coal to Newcastle, which means that it is a pointless exercise.
|
|