|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Dec 9, 2017 22:48:45 GMT
Chuck, I don't know about "neo-secessionist pig shit(classy description), but I do know that the further south I go, I do find these people do have issues, such as driving in the snow,250 accidents in the Richmond area last night.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Dec 10, 2017 5:12:12 GMT
See, if they would tear down all those confederate monuments it would never again snow in Richmond and their driving would improve.
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on Dec 10, 2017 23:02:15 GMT
Perhaps we might ought to move on along to another battle where terrain played a very significant part in the outcome. In January of 1944 the US 36th Division had to cross a swollen river in its assault upon the German lines at Monte Casino in Italy. As the Germans held both the mountain and the flooded valley, the American, British, French and Polish forces were at a great disadvantage. Regards Dave I drove past there once Dave; what an incredible position. Interesting topic and a united nations of troops used over the campaign. My question is, was the strength of the terrain the dominant factor or could the tactical approach have been better? Cheers
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Dec 10, 2017 23:42:31 GMT
Mac Considering the campaign lasted 4 months in which American, Australia, Britain, France, New Zealand and Poland all sent their sons against the German's Gustav Line, I would expect we will have rich pickings going these bones!!
Crossing a river, climbing hills and mountains under direct fire and assault must have been a living hell as well as for the Germans and Italians defending their positions. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Dec 11, 2017 2:45:05 GMT
No enemy position is impregnable, The Winter or Gustav Line as it was sometimes known was as close as they come though.
When you fight on a Peninsula, the enemy always has two open flanks. Italy is a peninsula.
Every man that died on the Giri (Rapido) River was a life wasted to no avail. Mark Clark ought to have been taken out and shot for first degree murder.
Italy had surrendered by this time, and the 36th Division was facing the 15th Panzergrenadiers.
I do not see any point in discussing this battle, as it is universally agreed upon that no one of God's little children was going to move those Germans off those positions, and the only real course of action was a envelopment around the flank and into the rear, which Clark finally did, and true to form screwed that one up too.
There is no one on this earth that is more detestable than a stupid general, especially when you combine stupidity with that of being an arrogant narcissistic little prick that was Mark Clark
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Dec 11, 2017 4:37:07 GMT
Well, moving right along would the The Battle of Culp's Hill, the evening of July 2 and July 3 be appropriate for discussion? Did Brigadier General George S. Greene save the Union line? Did the terrain hamper Confederate efforts to take the hill? Was this the first use of defensive fortifications by Union troops at Gettysburg?
If not this fight there must be many others. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Dec 11, 2017 5:57:10 GMT
Define fortification?
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Dec 11, 2017 17:49:02 GMT
Define Fortification?
The defenses on Culp’s Hill were described as:
• Breastworks constructed by using dirt and small rocks to clog between large boulders
• Chopping trees to reinforce the breastworks providing cover and protection
• Creating a log fence daubed with rocks and dirt
Greene a West Point graduate was a civil engineer who evidently was at home digging in the dirt. Considering that his single brigade help off a Confederate division till he was reinforced by 3 Union regiments late into the night and held on till the 12 Corps could return to Culp's Hill. As Culp’s Hill was the hook of the Union’s fishhook alignment and vital to the integrity of the Federal’s lines, I think Greene may have been an unrecognized hero of the Army of the Potomac.
Regards
Dave
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Dec 11, 2017 18:16:05 GMT
The task list of any Infantryman when he adopts a defensive posture is DCWM (Dig-Clear-Wire-Mine). That of course is modern talk, but it has not changed all that much over the centuries. So it could be rightly said that any Infantry unit on the defensive, would dig or use other means, such as logs and rocks to provide individual protection. At that point they would spend the rest of the time in that position, when not actually engaged in active combat, in improving those positions by clearing fields of fire and creating obstacles to impede the enemy's advance. That is a continuous process and one that does not stop until you move off or are moved off of that position. So to answer your first question, No it probably was not the first time, and in fact we have existing evidence of this at Chancellorsville and Second Manassas.
What you can expect is that an Infantry defense starts off with hasty measures, and continually builds.
Culp's Hill was a piece of both key, and indeed critical terrain. I would therefore expect that all possible defensive measures would be taken. I would also expect that a brigade could have held against a division, were they well positioned (they were), and were commanded by someone who would not lose his Wheaties the first time he saw a gray uniform.
There are no heroes Dave, just ordinary men who do the job they are supposed to do.
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on Dec 11, 2017 21:57:47 GMT
No enemy position is impregnable, The Winter or Gustav Line as it was sometimes known was as close as they come though. When you fight on a Peninsula, the enemy always has two open flanks. Italy is a peninsula. Every man that died on the Giri (Rapido) River was a life wasted to no avail. Mark Clark ought to have been taken out and shot for first degree murder. Italy had surrendered by this time, and the 36th Division was facing the 15th Panzergrenadiers. I do not see any point in discussing this battle, as it is universally agreed upon that no one of God's little children was going to move those Germans off those positions, and the only real course of action was a envelopment around the flank and into the rear, which Clark finally did, and true to form screwed that one up too. There is no one on this earth that is more detestable than a stupid general, especially when you combine stupidity with that of being an arrogant narcissistic little prick that was Mark Clark This is the answer I expected QC. Quite a while ago we had a discussion around the idea of "if you don't need to take it bypass it" and this seemed to me like a case for that approach, especially as the Anzio landing was already about to happen. The second thing of interest is the difficulty of crossing the river, forget the rest, just an opposed crossing. If we take that idea to LBH and the idea of Custer making any sort of opposed crossing with his force is put into a more revealing light. Cheers
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on Dec 11, 2017 22:11:50 GMT
Well, moving right along would the The Battle of Culp's Hill, the evening of July 2 and July 3 be appropriate for discussion? Did Brigadier General George S. Greene save the Union line? Did the terrain hamper Confederate efforts to take the hill? Was this the first use of defensive fortifications by Union troops at Gettysburg? If not this fight there must be many others. Regards Dave Let's take the terrain part Dave! Terrain in battle is, to me, a very interesting topic as it speaks to all scenarios, LBH included. Also it is integral often to how a battle resolves. Could be its own thread if we like. I am going to say a hill is always a good thing but the surrounds of that hill really matter. Culp's Hill seems to be a kind of a mound with a saddle to the right flank. The point here being they would have good fields of vision and fire if there is little vegetation (I think they cleared some) but they need to hold along the line or risk being isolated. Similar to the idea at Monte Casino above. Cheers
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Dec 11, 2017 23:58:11 GMT
Mac I am in no way that conversant with Gettysburg but I do know that portions of the park have been allowed to grow brush and trees unlike the way the terrain looked in 1863. I have seen a photo by Brady of part of Greene's lines and the undergrowth was very clean. I believe that farmers allowed their live stock to graze over the area so it is very different in looks today. Evidently Greene's brigade had excellent fields of fire as they held off Johnston's division for hours till the 12th Corps returned from assisting on the left flank of Meade's line. I have the site for an excellent map of Culp's Hill below for additional information. Regards Dave www.civilwar.org/learn/maps/gettysburg-culps-hill-july-2-1863
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Dec 12, 2017 0:42:46 GMT
To the best of my knowledge Culp's Hill was wooded but fairly clear of undergrowth at the time of the battle. There are several contemporary photographs of the place still existing. What I don't know is how much of that clearing was a natural thing like grazing, or if it was cleared by troops concurrent with the battle to provide better fields of fire.
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on Dec 12, 2017 11:23:42 GMT
Nice map Dave! If you look at the contours of the hill you will see the north and east slopes are quite smooth and have a fair gradient so apart from the tree cover there is no easy approach to the hill. The descriptions of the fortifications include logs. I would be very surprised if Greene did not take the opportunity to harvest those logs from in front of his position to at least create some sort of break to the approaches. Further south the area of Spangler's Spring is bit of a back door and was apparently heavily contested. Holding the rise to its north was no doubt useful. Greene perhaps is not a hero but rather someone who did his job very well. As I understand it the battle evolved rather than being planned. To use his time on that hill to create the fortifications seems to me to be really good heads up command. Some may have not been so diligent. Cheers
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Dec 12, 2017 22:55:41 GMT
Mac I believe that General Greene was the man for the hour and place for the US at Gettysburg. His single brigade was the only Union force on Culp's Hill that afternoon and evening. Meade had stripped his whole right wing to re-enforce the Union left and the Round Tops.
When Greene arrived on Culp's Hill that day began erecting fortifications despite the disapproval of his brigade commander. His 1,300 men held against an entire division of Confederates of 4,000 plus for over three hours and 4 attacks. If that does not qualify a man for hero status then QC may be correct.
Terrain was the key factor in the defense of Culp's Hill coupled with fortifications and brave men. Regards Dave
|
|