Post by montrose on Mar 31, 2015 7:38:47 GMT -6
Judging senior leaders is a very iffy proposition in 1862. Let's look at the Peninsula campaign.
The larger units were extremely raw. Brigade and above was a crapshoot.
Look at tactical management. A brigade makes contact. A gap is discovered. Do they adjust between units? No they take companies from one area and plug a hole. They need more help and a regiment from another brigade arrives. It too is deployed by companies. This idea of generals managing companies is endemic in the 7 days. It rapidly destroys any ability to operate units above company level. Once a unit was committed to action, you lost your ability to make changes, or to conduct follow on actions that day. This tactical rawness makes every general look bad.
Neither side understood staffwork. The staffs were too small across the board.
The USA had better maps than the CSA. The USA spent time and effort making maps and conducting recon. The CSA winged it. You have to cut the units on the flanks some slack, as their orders did not reflect the reality of the ground. By the way, cavalry should have played a role both in recon, guiding units, coordinating between units and setting conditions. Cavalry on both sides were fairly useless.
Things got better. First, units got smaller. 1000 man regiments became 300 man regiments. So 7 Days regiments became Gettysburg brigades, divisions had the manpower of the previous brigades. This provided much more command and control per individual soldier. Second, they became tactically proficient.
In 1864, casualties and the draft changed the nature of the soldiers. Quality declined. Still, these men endured crazy casualties. What shows up is the Western Armies are clearly more proficient than the East. In particular, they learned to dig in and to respect dug in soldiers. John Hood decided to use eastern tactics at Franklin and Nashville. It didn't go so well.
Overall, the middle management got better and stayed reasonable to the end. Soldiers got better til 1863, then a decline.
Senior leadership shows a diversion. The North got better, the South got stagnant. Likely casualties more than anything else.
The larger units were extremely raw. Brigade and above was a crapshoot.
Look at tactical management. A brigade makes contact. A gap is discovered. Do they adjust between units? No they take companies from one area and plug a hole. They need more help and a regiment from another brigade arrives. It too is deployed by companies. This idea of generals managing companies is endemic in the 7 days. It rapidly destroys any ability to operate units above company level. Once a unit was committed to action, you lost your ability to make changes, or to conduct follow on actions that day. This tactical rawness makes every general look bad.
Neither side understood staffwork. The staffs were too small across the board.
The USA had better maps than the CSA. The USA spent time and effort making maps and conducting recon. The CSA winged it. You have to cut the units on the flanks some slack, as their orders did not reflect the reality of the ground. By the way, cavalry should have played a role both in recon, guiding units, coordinating between units and setting conditions. Cavalry on both sides were fairly useless.
Things got better. First, units got smaller. 1000 man regiments became 300 man regiments. So 7 Days regiments became Gettysburg brigades, divisions had the manpower of the previous brigades. This provided much more command and control per individual soldier. Second, they became tactically proficient.
In 1864, casualties and the draft changed the nature of the soldiers. Quality declined. Still, these men endured crazy casualties. What shows up is the Western Armies are clearly more proficient than the East. In particular, they learned to dig in and to respect dug in soldiers. John Hood decided to use eastern tactics at Franklin and Nashville. It didn't go so well.
Overall, the middle management got better and stayed reasonable to the end. Soldiers got better til 1863, then a decline.
Senior leadership shows a diversion. The North got better, the South got stagnant. Likely casualties more than anything else.