Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

An Open Rant On "Just go around"!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • An Open Rant On "Just go around"!

    Fellow Civil War buffs, forgive me for I have sinned. I went over to You Tube, looked at some vids on the Civil War, and ventured to look at the comments. I should have my eyes plucked out for that. One recurring theme is, "Civil War generals were sure stupid. I'd just go around the flank and sneak up on the enemy from behind." I was tempted to explain things like "there weren't any roads in that direction. You can't march 10,000 men through a swamp while your enemy watches and they have a road that leads to where you want to end up." I wanted to point out that most of your men, on both sides, are walking, so you don't have a speed advantage. I wanted to point out that your commanders went to the same schools and both knew what constituted a position without much option to out-flank. Realizing this was a hopeless venture I scurried back the comfort of people who have actually walked the fields, looked at the maps, and realize it isn't just a matter of "going around him", it is that you have to end up someplace that actually threatens the enemy. End of rant.
    "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!"

  • #2
    Couldn't move elephants through the alps or armor through the Ardennes, either. No such thing as "can't".

    Part of the problem is that modern people are conditioned to vehicle travel on paved roads, and cannot imagine how mobile the earlier armies were in poor terrain.
    Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
      Couldn't move elephants through the alps or armor through the Ardennes, either. No such thing as "can't".

      Part of the problem is that modern people are conditioned to vehicle travel on paved roads, and cannot imagine how mobile the earlier armies were in poor terrain.
      sadly its more like they walk around with a cell phone surgically attached to their hand and are oblivious to anything in the real world...……..

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by jeffdoorgunnr View Post
        sadly its more like they walk around with a cell phone surgically attached to their hand and are oblivious to anything in the real world
        ... but, but, but, GoogleMaps says that there is a path around the obstacle!
        ScenShare Guidelines:

        1) Enjoy creating it
        2) Enjoy playing it
        3) Enjoy sharing it
        4) Enjoy helping others create them

        The PlayersDB - The Harpoon Community's #1 Choice.

        FAQ http://www.harplonkhq.com/Harpoon/Fr...dQuestions.htm

        Comment


        • #5
          Well, in some cases you could. Grant did it at Vicksburg by building a canal to move his troops around the defenses and approach from the South rather than the North allowing him to invest the city and eventually take it.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
            Well, in some cases you could. Grant did it at Vicksburg by building a canal to move his troops around the defenses and approach from the South rather than the North allowing him to invest the city and eventually take it.
            Yes, in some cases you could. What's chiefly wrong with the objection is the word "just". It's never "just". It's always a remarkable effort.

            On top of that, moving the soldiers through the difficult terrain is only part of the problem, and often the easier one. Sure you can move an ACW army on foot through swamps. However, you also need to keep the army in supply, and more often than not that means no swamp can sit astride your line of resupply, not without a road, or a rail line, or a canal crossing the swamp.

            It's, as often as not, logistics more than strategy. Indeed, Hannibal did manage to bring the elephants across the Alps - and most of them died of a cold that same year.
            Michele

            Comment


            • #7
              In 1861, the engineers of the Union army were organized in two small but highly professional bodies_ the Corps of Engineers and the Corps of Topographical Engineers. In 1863, they were merged and were known as the Engineers Corps. As its name implies, the Topographical Corps were principally map makers, but the duties of the two overlapped to such an extent that they can be considered as one unit from the war's beginning.
              The duties of the Corps were many. Ii was in charge of planning and superintending the construction of all fortifications, permanent or otherwise, and all siege operations. It also had charge of all bridging equipment and the surveying and making of roads (see corduroy roads or plank roads) and pontoons trains. The Corps had also to furnish maps (the country over which most of the war was fought, was largely unmapped) and detailed descriptions of terrain, sufficient for the planning of troops movements.
              In short, there was very little an engineer was not expected to do or could not do if ordered. The small body of regular enlisted men (only one Company stationed in West Point in 1861) was greatly expanded and numerous engineer regiments of volunteers raised. Each Infantry regiment had also a group of Pioneers, in charge of works to do quickly.

              Americans in those days were no strangers to the pick, shovel, and ax. The amount of work accomplished by manual labor was stupendous, and if necessary, they could fight as well as they could dig. (From Jack Coggins)

              It was not the lack of means that paralyzed some Generals, but rather the fear of failure, pusillanimity, indecision, excess of prudence (like Frémont, McClellan, for example, or other Generals politicians ). A military defeat would have cast a shadow over their future careers.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by F4UCorsair View Post
                Fellow Civil War buffs, forgive me for I have sinned. I went over to You Tube, looked at some vids on the Civil War, and ventured to look at the comments. I should have my eyes plucked out for that. One recurring theme is, "Civil War generals were sure stupid. I'd just go around the flank and sneak up on the enemy from behind." I was tempted to explain things like "there weren't any roads in that direction. You can't march 10,000 men through a swamp while your enemy watches and they have a road that leads to where you want to end up." I wanted to point out that most of your men, on both sides, are walking, so you don't have a speed advantage. I wanted to point out that your commanders went to the same schools and both knew what constituted a position without much option to out-flank. Realizing this was a hopeless venture I scurried back the comfort of people who have actually walked the fields, looked at the maps, and realize it isn't just a matter of "going around him", it is that you have to end up someplace that actually threatens the enemy. End of rant.
                In many cases "going around" will just make the enemy "turn" to face you and expose your supply lines as Michele points out above, or even retreat entirely to the next defensive line.

                That's why it's often called "Fix and Flank".

                And in other cases timing is important, for whatever reasons there may be, "going around" quite often means a "decisive" battle, one or more days later than intended.

                Or indeed, terrain may be prohibitive,

                also commanders tend to cover or "anchor" their flanks (not always shown on historical battle maps), the concept of "continuous lines" developed from that practice.

                But no doubt in a conflict as large as the ACW there will be examples of ill-advised frontal attacks, most always the reason for that is that the attacking party believes they will win

                Major Atticus Finch - ACW Rainbow Game.

                Bolgios - Mercenary Game.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Btw. - wasn't Austerlitz a battle where Napoleon famously "invited" his enemies to outflank him and defeated them in detail on account of terrain features and their inability to support eachother ?
                  Major Atticus Finch - ACW Rainbow Game.

                  Bolgios - Mercenary Game.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                    Well, in some cases you could. Grant did it at Vicksburg by building a canal to move his troops around the defenses and approach from the South rather than the North allowing him to invest the city and eventually take it.
                    TAG, that canal did not work. The Navy ended up moving troops at night past the Confederate batteries. This provided a bypass to a more open flank below Vicksburg. Grant then proceeded to take out the Confederate troops sent to face him. The troops that fought him North of the city, then moved back into the defenses or were forced to move towards Jackson. That is the greatness in Grant, he did not fall back and "regroup". The very fertileness of the Mississippi countryside fed the Yankees while they marched. Once the areas around Vicksburg were scoured, the Supply Line to Memphis was reopened.

                    Pruitt
                    Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

                    Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

                    by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post

                      In many cases "going around" will just make the enemy "turn" to face you and expose your supply lines as Michele points out above, or even retreat entirely to the next defensive line.

                      That's why it's often called "Fix and Flank".

                      And in other cases timing is important, for whatever reasons there may be, "going around" quite often means a "decisive" battle, one or more days later than intended.

                      Or indeed, terrain may be prohibitive,

                      also commanders tend to cover or "anchor" their flanks (not always shown on historical battle maps), the concept of "continuous lines" developed from that practice.

                      But no doubt in a conflict as large as the ACW there will be examples of ill-advised frontal attacks, most always the reason for that is that the attacking party believes they will win
                      Good points- great topic!
                      I recall our discussions with the late ( to ACW) senior Draco, where he has civil war infantry shifting around at the speed of light...
                      Foot Cavalry would pinch or withdraw good boots off their POW's at a moments notice.
                      War issued boots were only vaguely 'left ' or 'right foot' and the trooper was expected to adjust this - while on the march...( This is from James Michener's' TEXAS).
                      The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Normal walking speed is around 4-5km per hour, add in difficult terrain and that drops down considerably. Add in little to no roads and you have traffic jams. Send your troops on a short flanking march and they will be gone for 8 to 24 hours, and will be exhausted at the end of it (and out of supply range). Meanwhile the enemy is rested and free to take whatever action they deem necessary. Such a manuever only worked when it surprised an inactive enemy. Otherwise you were just asking to be defeated piecemeal.
                        Wisdom is personal

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Karri View Post
                          Normal walking speed is around 4-5km per hour, add in difficult terrain and that drops down considerably. Add in little to no roads and you have traffic jams. Send your troops on a short flanking march and they will be gone for 8 to 24 hours, and will be exhausted at the end of it (and out of supply range). Meanwhile the enemy is rested and free to take whatever action they deem necessary. Such a manuever only worked when it surprised an inactive enemy. Otherwise you were just asking to be defeated piecemeal.
                          Re: my bold above. Quite true, or an incompetent one!

                          Regards,
                          Dennis
                          If stupid was a criminal offense Sea Lion believers would be doing life.

                          Shouting out to Half Pint for bringing back the big mugs!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by D1J1 View Post

                            Re: my bold above. Quite true, or an incompetent one!

                            Regards,
                            Dennis
                            Good point- or an overconfident one in need of training. Johnson's attempt to drive back Grant at the battle of Shiloh might had succeeded if he had been better supplied https://forums.armchairgeneral.com/f...nd#post5171999


                            On the eve of battle, Grant's and Johnston's armies were of comparable size, but the Confederates were poorly armed with antique weapons, including shotguns, hunting rifles, pistols, flintlock muskets, and even a few pikes; however, some regiments, such as the 6th and 7th Kentucky Infantry, had Enfield rifles.[34] The troops approached the battle with very little combat experience;

                            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Shiloh
                            The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                            Comment

                            Latest Topics

                            Collapse

                            Working...
                            X