RE: Skip Mac and Monty. Where are McClellan's Fanboys?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Skip Mac and Monty. Where are McClellan's Fanboys?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Skip Mac and Monty. Where are McClellan's Fanboys?

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Skip Mac and Monty. Where are McClellan's Fanboys? - 1/28/2005 5:36:40 PM

EUBanana

Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline

*Prepare to be bored with tales of donkeyism, move along if Gallipoli doesn't float your boat*

Some prize quotes I can find on the man... After all, hardly anybody has ever heard of him to my knowledge. Even the Aussies who hold Gallipoli dear can't really talk, as he commanded the Cape Helles front not the ANZAC front.

quote:

The landing at Cape Helles on the peninsula's southern tip, which was badly mismanaged by Aylmer Hunter-Weston, was at five locations ('Y', 'X', 'W', 'V' and 'S' Beaches) and consisted of 35,000 men. 15km further along the Aegean coast the Australian and New Zealand Corps - Anzacs - comprising 17,000 largely untried men were landed at Ari Burnu ('Z Beach'), 1.5km north of Gaba Tepe (where the landing was actually intended). William Birdwood's management of the Anzac's landing was markedly better than Hunter-Weston.

quote:

For all that the Turkish defending force was relatively weak, it performed remarkably well in holding back Hunter-Weston's force of 35,000 at Cape Helles. Of the five landing sites two ('W' and 'V' Beaches) came under heavy Turkish machine gun fire. The remaining three sites were quickly secured, yet inexplicably Hunter-Weston chose not to press forward and attack the remainder of the defence force, seemingly content with his initial gains.

quote:

A Marine battalion then took his place and were ordered to take it again suffering the same fate. He declared that none of Hunter Weston's orders were ever intelligible and always had to be changed or modified, or ignored. He could never give a definite objective for an attack but would end up every order with 'Go as far as you can and then entrench'. He described the battle of June 4th as a cold blooded massacre. The Naval Division for instance were ordered to attack a line a thousand yards wide with about the same number of men in the firing line after a totally inadequate artillery preparation. They advanced and were massacred with machine guns. The Collingwood battalion being wiped out. They had never previously been in action and were hurried up into the firing line without experience of trench warfare or any local knowledge of the ground. He criticised with equally severity the fate of the wounded many hundreds of whom he declares have perished simply from inadequate treatment. His opinions of the Headquarters Staff were really priceless. It is now definitely confirmed that Hunter Weston has fled the Peninsula. His departure is variously ascribed to enteric dysentery or sunstroke but it is certain he will never return having proved himself from the very start to be a perfectly incompetent commander. I realised that after my first conversations with him. He seemed to me not to have the smallest knowledge of war and to throw away many lives in the most wicked and reckless manner without having any clear idea in his mind of any objective. He was detested by his troops. I never in fact heard anyone say a good word for him. He was known as the Giggling Butcher.

quote:

He claimed he was "blooding the pups" when he made the inexperienced 156th Brigade of the British 52nd (Lowland) Division attack without artillery support during the Battle of Gully Ravine. Half the brigade became casualties of which over a third were killed.

I think the errors of General Gamelin, or pretty much any other general you care to name, pale into insignificance compared to what that retard did at Gallipoli.

(in reply to Ol_Dog)

Post #: 31

RE: Skip Mac and Monty. Where are McClellan's Fanboys? - 1/28/2005 5:37:48 PM

TSCofield

Posts: 223
Joined: 5/12/2001
From: Ft. Lewis Washington
Status: offline

I actually disagree with that. Had MacClellen remained in charge I don't doubt that the Union would have lost, or at least not fought, the battle of Gettysburg. Lincoln's whole political future, plus the future of the war entirely, hinged upon him winning the re-election. The Union did have the advantage in weapons, men, and supplies but wars are also won by the will of the masses. The Confederates had their base secured as far as fighting the war, the Union cause was not as secure, especially after all the losses (and perceived poor showing) of the Union armies.

Had the Union failed to win, and decisevely, at Gettysburg I don't doubt that the British (and maybe French) would have recognized the Confederate States. Having done that, and decided to send shipping to Southern ports the US Navy would have been in a very precarious situation-sink European shipping and risk an all out war with Europe or allow supplies into the South.

A Democrat elected in 1864 would have probably stopped all Union forces in the South and would have tried to negotiate a peace settlement with the confederates. I doubt that the South would have gone along with anything short of complete independence. They viewed this as a second revolutionary war with the Union as the Redcoats. In the end I think the result would have been an independent South, possibly with Kentucky, Missouri, and Maryland added for good measure.

_____________________________

Thomas S. Cofield
Feature Editor, SimHQ.com
t.co0field@comcast.net (stopped the SimHq mail since I get nothing but spam)

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 32

RE: Skip Mac and Monty. Where are McClellan's Fanboys? - 1/28/2005 5:45:49 PM

Cap Mandrake

Posts: 23184
Joined: 11/15/2002
From: Southern California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Beezle

There is one person who will say something complimentary about "Little Mac" (McClellan)!

I would disagree with the 'never chased off the field' comment. He was so scared he spent his whole military career "avoiding" if not exactly "running". He did retreat to Malvern Hill, too.

That is not "scared" in the physical courage sense. It is "scared" in the lack of moral courage to roll the dice. What General Bonaparte called "Two O'Clock in the Morning Courage". (Hooker was good at failure of nerve in the same way, although phycically brave and willing to be where bullets were flying).

The Union actually "won" the battle of Malvern Hill and, for that matter they won "Beaver Dam Creek" a few days earlier, but McClellan was convinced he was outnumbered by Lee, when he, in fact, had a numerical advantage of some 20,000

So what did he do? He packed up the camping trip and gave up the Peninsular Campaign after so much sacrifice. Lee had defeated a numerically superior force possesing generous artilllery assets and unlimited supplies and sent them packing by taking chances and relentlessly attacking, while McClellan had imagined Rebs behind every elm tree. Lee deserves the credit, McClellan deserves some blame. In his defence, McClellan did oversee a very orderly retreat. I think they even got out most of the 20,000 beef cattle they brough twith them

_____________________________

(in reply to DrewMatrix)

Post #: 33

RE: Skip Mac and Monty. Where are McClellan's Fanboys? - 1/28/2005 5:45:51 PM

EUBanana

Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SimHq Tom CofieldHad the Union failed to win, and decisevely, at Gettysburg I don't doubt that the British (and maybe French) would have recognized the Confederate States. Having done that, and decided to send shipping to Southern ports the US Navy would have been in a very precarious situation-sink European shipping and risk an all out war with Europe or allow supplies into the South.

I read an interesting book a while back on the subject of Confederate diplomacy in Europe, and the conclusion was that the CSA had precisely nil support from the Common Man in England, being a slave state at a time when the Brits were just at the tail end of a crusade against it and doing militant things about slavery, like pressuring Brazil.
And that Prime Minister Palmerston had no intention of getting involved in a, from the British perspective, pointless North American entanglement.

The CSA thought that British reliance on American cotton would sway British policy, but all that happened was the British colonies ramped up cotton production which undermined the CSA's position as leader (interestingly, even if the CSA won, this probably would have meant that their economic future as a separate agricultural state was going to be pretty dim).

There was some hassling over things like those ironclads the Brits wanted to sell, but it was fairly minor really.

In short I think the CSA didnt have a prayer once the Union made up its mind to do something about secession.

(in reply to TSCofield)

Post #: 34

RE: Skip Mac and Monty. Where are McClellan's Fanboys? - 1/28/2005 7:35:24 PM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Maybe so but he did care about his troops. Whatever they did after he was gone they did in a large part because of how he trained them.
He only lost one battle. He was never chased off the field and he inflicted greater loss on the enemy then he ever suffered.
He just didn't live in reality when it came to what the enemy was capable of or how many of them there were.
He would have been a decent division and then Corps commander and had he been these before commanding the Army he might have done better.

MOG. Your first sentence covers almost all of MacClellan's failings. He was a great
organizer, and he made the Army of the Patomic into a competent fighting machine.
His troops idolized him, at least until Antietam, because they knew he cared about
them. Unfortunately, that was how he got thousands of them killed. He had a Napoleon
Sized ego, but no b-lls.

Lee totally "flumixed" him at 7 days. The Union had the numbers and the material,
but Mac was so wrapped up in his "change of base" manuever he seemed to forget
there was a fight going on. Even after Lee punched him in the boot with his teeth at
Malvern Hill, Mac was still running away. The Army of the Potomac wasn't beaten, but
MacClellan was.

At Sharpsburg he again lost his nerve. After announcing he had a piece of paper with
which "if he couldn't whip Bobby Lee, he would go home." he proceeded to get another
case of "the slows" on the drive to and through the passes. Then he stood around the
whole of the 16th with his thumb up his butt as if waiting for the Rebs to march in from
all directions. Finally on the 17th, when he was given the best chance of the entire
war to end it in a single day, and all he had to do was have his entire Army attack
at dawn to simply overwhelm the Rebs, he tried to get "cute" again. Though he had
Lee outnumbered 2 to 1, he pushed in one Corps at a time and allowed each to be
beaten in detail by Rebs running from one crisis to another.

He was chased off several fields in the Seven Days, and eventually off the whole Pen-
ninsula. His losses were much higher at Sharpsburg than Lee's. His MAJOR problem
is that he just didn't want to believe that War involved fighting. He was forever saying
that he would "outmanuever" his opponant and they would have no re-course but to
retreat or surrender. Unfortunately for him, Robert Lee wasn't big on either option
and kept attacking him. Which in Mac's mind could only mean that Lee had superior
numbers. Never in the war did a single individual have more or better chances to
ACTUALLY BE the "hero" and "winner" that Mac wanted to be and thought he was. And
he failed miserably every time through moral cowardice. And then blamed anyone and
everyone else for his own failings. He was a total disaster.

_____________________________

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 35

RE: Skip Mac and Monty. Where are McClellan's Fanboys? - 1/28/2005 8:59:33 PM

Hornblower

Posts: 1361
Joined: 9/10/2003
From: New York'er relocated to Chicago
Status: offline

Little Mac was a great organizer, which is what the union needed in �61; he was adored by his men. And I truly believe that he cared for there well being, and didn�t want them to be squandered needlessly. There was no 2nd bull run, or Chancellorsville under his watch, and most certainly he wouldn�t have charged Marye�s Heights a dozen times like that a$$ Burnside. With hindsight being 20/20, yes he could have crushed bobby lee at Antietam had he committed the 5th Corp and the 3 divisions of the 6th. But he was too carefull. He wouldn�t loose the big battle, but nor would he win one.

(in reply to EUBanana)

Post #: 36

RE: Skip Mac and Monty. Where are McClellan's Fanboys? - 1/28/2005 9:02:05 PM

EUBanana

Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline

Incidentally, given Picketts Charge seems to be frankly insane - and Lee was even warned by a clearer mind - whats the verdict on that?

A lapse of judgment in Lee?

or was Lee just lucky to be fighting incompetent Union generals most of the time? If Sickles wasn't about Gettysburg would have been even more clearcut it would seem.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 37

RE: Skip Mac and Monty. Where are McClellan's Fanboys? - 1/28/2005 9:51:05 PM

DrewMatrix

Posts: 1429
Joined: 7/15/2004
Status: offline

My personal view of the reasoning behind Pickett's Charge (having never actually discussed it with Lee)

1) He was a fighter. He was reluctant to just walk away from the Union army even though they were in a good position

2) He was overconfident (or overly unconfident of the Union troops). They or more properly their command had yipped so many times in the past he just was used to trying ridiculous long-odds attacks and having them work.

If he hadn't had both those qualities he would likely _already_ have lost the army of N. Virginia but it the luck didn't always go his way.

_____________________________

Beezle - Rapidly running out of altitude, airspeed and ideas.

(in reply to EUBanana)

Post #: 38

RE: Skip Mac and Monty. Where are McClellan's Fanboys? - 1/28/2005 10:51:35 PM

Tom Hunter

Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/14/2004
Status: offline

The question "why did Lee launch Picketts charge" has been under discussion a long time.

In fact I bet the discussion started between Union officers before the charge even started.

I don't know why Lee did it either. I can make informed guesses but that is all they are. We all make bad decisions and have bad days and if your Robert E. Lee in July 1863 everyone in the world gets to know about them and wonder at them.

The charge might have worked on MacClellan.

(in reply to DrewMatrix)

Post #: 39

RE: Skip Mac and Monty. Where are McClellan's Fanboys? - 1/28/2005 10:58:07 PM

Hornblower

Posts: 1361
Joined: 9/10/2003
From: New York'er relocated to Chicago
Status: offline

I'm of the opinion that Lee thought that this was his best, and perhaps last chance to defeat the AoP, one more push would do it- and end the war. And, he overestimated the abilty of his troops to take the position.

(in reply to Tom Hunter)

Post #: 40

RE: Skip Mac and Monty. Where are McClellan's Fanboys? - 1/28/2005 10:59:45 PM

EUBanana

Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline

Well... lemme rephrase then

...do you think Lee was as good a general as his reputation demands, or was he just competent compared to Union generals?

Or was he really more like average, given he fumbled the ball when faced with some opposition that was actually competent.

The competent Union generals seemed focused on the west, where the incompetent Rebel generals were, funny that.

(in reply to Tom Hunter)

Post #: 41

RE: Skip Mac and Monty. Where are McClellan's Fanboys? - 1/28/2005 11:12:12 PM

moses

Posts: 2252
Joined: 7/7/2002
Status: offline

Lee held off a superior Union army for four years. You have to assume he knew what he was doing. As for Getty'sburg I suspect that he just thought that the Union Army was beaten after the first two days. A crazy decision if you had a birds eye view of the union position that day. Maybe not so crazy seen through the fog of war and all to human wishful thinking.

(in reply to EUBanana)

Post #: 42

RE: Skip Mac and Monty. Where are McClellan's Fanboys? - 1/29/2005 12:16:37 AM

Tom Hunter

Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/14/2004
Status: offline

I don't think Picketts charge was a crazy decision except (perhaps) in retrospect.

Lee was a great general. Not as good as some of the modern Confederate sympathizers would make him but still one of the better generals in history.

I re-read the dual biography of Lee and Grant recently one of the things that struck me is that after the wilderness both Grant and Lee were very upset. The were both used to fighting people they knew they were going to beat, and beat very badly. When Lee relized that he was not going to beat Grant he was very upset, and he really did know that he was going to lose the war to Grant shortly after they first met in the field. Grant was also very disturbed because the manuevers and generalship that had smashed his opponents in the past did not work on Lee. Everyone else who fought Grant lost in weeks or months, there was never a long period where the end was not in sight. It took Grant almost a year to beat Lee and for a considerable part of that year Grant could not tell exactley how he was going to win, he was just running on the faith that he would.

I find these two fascinating if you have not guessed.

< Message edited by Tom Hunter -- 1/28/2005 10:19:04 PM >

(in reply to moses)

Post #: 43

RE: Skip Mac and Monty. Where are McClellan's Fanboys? - 1/29/2005 12:27:24 AM

anarchyintheuk

Posts: 3921
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline

I don't think Lee's decision was that crazy. AP Hill's corps was pretty much used up. Longstreet was still sulking and after Lee had seen how slow his corps was to attack the day before, I don't think he trusted him much. Had Early's corps done any fighting prior to this? Take that into consideration and throw in a serious case of the scoots and it was almost inevitable.

(in reply to Tom Hunter)

Post #: 44

RE: Skip Mac and Monty. Where are McClellan's Fanboys? - 1/29/2005 12:41:10 AM

Hornblower

Posts: 1361
Joined: 9/10/2003
From: New York'er relocated to Chicago
Status: offline

I still maintain that he honestly felt one more push would end the war. He had, or so he thought, the Union army on the ropes

(in reply to anarchyintheuk)

Post #: 45

RE: Skip Mac and Monty. Where are McClellan's Fanboys? - 1/29/2005 1:23:05 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

I don't think Lee's decision was that crazy. AP Hill's corps was pretty much used up. Longstreet was still sulking and after Lee had seen how slow his corps was to attack the day before, I don't think he trusted him much. Had Early's corps done any fighting prior to this? Take that into consideration and throw in a serious case of the scoots and it was almost inevitable.

Hi, Where does the notion that Longstreet sulked at Gettysburg come from? From Confederate magzines in the 1880's. Lee never mentioned this in his reports or after the war.
Picketts division was not on the field on the 2nd Day. Just who wrecked Sickles Corps?
Have you ever noticed what time Longstreets Corps was provided water? How far they had to move prior to the attacks on the 2nd day.

Lee had around 75,000 men prior to the battle. The AOP was close to 100,000
Once the AOP began to dig in the battle was over.
Lee had been present on the field at Fredericksburg. There should have been no mystery concenring what the result of a frontal attack would be.
Day 3 at Gettysburg is a repeat of Malvern Hill (which was simply a repeat of the previous days)

In all prior offensive battles Lee had always divided the Army and used part to pin and the rest to flank the enemy. It was his SOP. He did not even try at Gettysburg. Stuart is always blamed for this but Lee retained at least a brigade of Cav with the Army the entire campaign. Check what it was doing on days 1,2,3 (nothing) Stuart arrived on day 2 and was sent to flank the AOP without infantry support (and was stopped by Custer)

I think Lee was too tired and excited to stop and consider alternate courses. Since no one in the South would ever critise him other persons had to be at fault. By that time Longstreet was a Repubican.

< Message edited by Mogami -- 1/28/2005 6:22:49 PM >

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to anarchyintheuk)

Post #: 46

RE: Skip Mac and Monty. Where are McClellan's Fanboys? - 1/29/2005 2:58:18 AM

DrewMatrix

Posts: 1429
Joined: 7/15/2004
Status: offline

quote:

do you think Lee was as good a general as his reputation demands

I think Lee was a superb general. He was one kind of superb general (or at least in the situation he found himself he was superb for that situation).

He was willing to take enormous risks to put his opponent off balance and have a chance to win. He was fighting from a position of severe numeric and equipment/materiel inferiority. He had to take those risks. (Like Yamamoto if you think about it).

Eisenhower or Zhuvov didn't fight like that (nor did Grant). They had an edge, and pressed that edge relentlessly. They were all superb generals too, because they did _not_ take huge risks.

When you have an edge, you run the war to push that edge relentlessly. That is good generalship.

When you have a severe disadvantage you take great risks to completely reconfigure the whole state of that theater of the war. That is good generalship too when you are at a disadvantage. But would be nuts if you had the numerical edge.

For Zhukov to pull some wierd "Seven Days" maneuver in front of Berlin (dividing his troops and trying something really tricky) would have been a mistake.

What would Lee have done on the other side (running the Army of the Potomac)? No one will ever know but I would suspect he would acquit himself well but in a rather different manner.

_____________________________

Beezle - Rapidly running out of altitude, airspeed and ideas.

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 47

RE: Skip Mac and Monty. Where are McClellan's Fanboys? - 1/29/2005 3:01:03 AM

CSN

Posts: 8
Joined: 1/28/2005
Status: offline

Little Mac did indeed know how good his soldiers were,, he simply did not have the disposition of (Grant the Butcher). Remember that Grant drank himself to sleep everynight--McClennan did not, and would have had nightmares about such savagery as 7K killed in one-half hour, as happened at Cold Harbour.

The war was not won in the East (people) it was won in the West..Which ponders the question..What if idiots like Bragg, were never in charge-- and N.B Forrest were??

Heh, heh,, I love to stir the pot!!!

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 48

RE: Skip Mac and Monty. Where are McClellan's Fanboys? - 1/29/2005 3:15:34 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, You are aware that
1. Grant never commanded the AOP (Meade commanded it from Gettysburg to the end)
2. Grant did not drink himself to sleep every night. Grant could not stand the sight of blood
3. The ratio of force between AOP and ANV was smaller after Gettyburg to end then it had been prior to Gettysburg. (Mac had a larger ratio then Meade did)
4. The larger loss rates (for both Armies) after Grant assumed overall command did not relfect anything other then the fact that Grant fought the war everyday. The war became a truely modern war in that it was no longer a series of "campaign seasons producing a great battle every year" But one where the opposing forces were in constant contact.

< Message edited by Mogami -- 1/28/2005 8:15:52 PM >

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to CSN)

Post #: 49

RE: Skip Mac and Monty. Where are McClellan's Fanboys? - 1/29/2005 3:53:40 AM

pasternakski

Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline

Amazing that the name Thomas Jackson is not mentioned in this thread.

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 50

RE: Skip Mac and Monty. Where are McClellan's Fanboys? - 1/29/2005 4:13:12 AM

captskillet

Posts: 2493
Joined: 3/1/2003
From: Louisiana & the 2007 Nat Champ LSU Fightin' Tigers
Status: offline

Lee was counting on (too heavily it seems) his Arty bombardment to soften up the Union lines enough for the attack to be a success. A heavy rain the night before had softened up the ground and rendered the several hour arty preperation pretty much useless. I dont know of too many Generals that could have lasted as long as Lee did vs the kind of odds in men and material that he faced.

_____________________________

"Git thar fust with the most men" - Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest

(in reply to EUBanana)

Post #: 51

RE: Skip Mac and Monty. Where are McClellan's Fanboys? - 1/29/2005 4:16:51 AM

captskillet

Posts: 2493
Joined: 3/1/2003
From: Louisiana & the 2007 Nat Champ LSU Fightin' Tigers
Status: offline

Thomas Jackson overated.....you must be joking....have you heard of the Valley Campaign in 1862?

_____________________________

"Git thar fust with the most men" - Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest

(in reply to pasternakski)

Post #: 52

RE: Skip Mac and Monty. Where are McClellan's Fanboys? - 1/29/2005 5:19:23 AM

pasternakski

Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: captskillet

Thomas Jackson overated.....you must be joking....have you heard of the Valley Campaign in 1862?

I mention General Jackson because his survival might have been crucial to Confederate victory. Where do you get this "overrated" thing?

(in reply to captskillet)

Post #: 53

RE: Skip Mac and Monty. Where are McClellan's Fanboys? - 1/29/2005 6:01:11 AM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

I don't think Lee's decision was that crazy. AP Hill's corps was pretty much used up. Longstreet was still sulking and after Lee had seen how slow his corps was to attack the day before, I don't think he trusted him much. Had Early's corps done any fighting prior to this? Take that into consideration and throw in a serious case of the scoots and it was almost inevitable.

You need to bone up on your history.....Early was a Division Commander in Ewell's Corps
And while it is referred to as Pickets Charge, the bulk of the troops were from Heth's
and Pender's Divisions of Hill's Corps (battered on Day One, but out of the line and
resting on Day Two).....Picket's boys provided the spearhead, and pushed the farthest.

_____________________________

(in reply to anarchyintheuk)

Post #: 54

RE: Skip Mac and Monty. Where are McClellan's Fanboys? - 1/29/2005 6:10:55 AM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CSN

Little Mac did indeed know how good his soldiers were,, he simply did not have the disposition of (Grant the Butcher). Remember that Grant drank himself to sleep everynight--McClennan did not, and would have had nightmares about such savagery as 7K killed in one-half hour, as happened at Cold Harbour.

You call Grant a "Butcher"..., but if he had been in command of the Army of the Potomac
at Sharpsburg the war would have been over in 1863.....How many hundred thousand
lives would that have saved on both sides?....Lincoln was right when he heard rumors
of Grant's drinking and quipped "find out what brand he drinks and send a barrel to my
other Generals"....."I can't spare this man..., he fights!" is a terribly revealing statement
of Lincoln's frustration with his Eastern Generals who kept getting themselves beaten
without even committing much of their army.....What he wouldn't have given for a
Helmut von Molke and a Prussian General Staff.

_____________________________

(in reply to CSN)

Post #: 55

RE: Skip Mac and Monty. Where are McClellan's Fanboys? - 1/29/2005 8:00:05 AM

von Murrin

Posts: 1760
Joined: 11/13/2001
From: That from which there is no escape.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Where does the notion that Longstreet sulked at Gettysburg come from? From Confederate magzines in the 1880's. Lee never mentioned this in his reports or after the war.
Picketts division was not on the field on the 2nd Day. Just who wrecked Sickles Corps?
Have you ever noticed what time Longstreets Corps was provided water? How far they had to move prior to the attacks on the 2nd day.

It comes from the moderate delay between the intended attack time and the moment when Longstreet actually went in. Technically, he disobeyed orders as he was supposed to go right in in coordination with the attack on Culp's Hill. He spent several hours fishing for a way to make a flank hit, but finding none, just charged headlong and smoked good old Temporary Insanity Dan.

All said, the delay meant nothing. There was no Confederate Corps ever made that was going to take the Union left, and the other attack was delayed anyways. You are entirely correct in that Longstreet's flank-finding escapade was used to beat him up, to the glorification of others, post-war.

_____________________________

I give approximately two fifths of a !#$% at any given time!

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 56

RE: Skip Mac and Monty. Where are McClellan's Fanboys? - 1/29/2005 11:19:45 AM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Picketts division was not on the field on the 2nd Day. Just who wrecked Sickles Corps?
Have you ever noticed what time Longstreets Corps was provided water? How far they had to move prior to the attacks on the 2nd day.

Who wrecked Sickles Corps? That would be McLaw's Division, with help from half
of Hood's and a part of Anderson's (Hill's Corps)

_____________________________

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 57

RE: Skip Mac and Monty. Where are McClellan's Fanboys? - 1/29/2005 3:42:05 PM

captskillet

Posts: 2493
Joined: 3/1/2003
From: Louisiana & the 2007 Nat Champ LSU Fightin' Tigers
Status: offline

I guess I made an assumption I shouldn't have made Paster since the original thread was about 'overrated' generals....'scuse my ignorance. I certainly think the course of the battle at Gettysburg would have gone differently with Stonewall in charge of 2nd Corps. I also think that not having Stuart around for the balance of the battle robbed Lee of valuable 'recon & intel' gathering!

_____________________________

"Git thar fust with the most men" - Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest

(in reply to pasternakski)

Post #: 58

RE: Skip Mac and Monty. Where are McClellan's Fanboys? - 1/29/2005 6:54:09 PM

rtrapasso

Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, You are aware that
1. Grant never commanded the AOP (Meade commanded it from Gettysburg to the end)
2. Grant did not drink himself to sleep every night. Grant could not stand the sight of blood

According to one biography of Grant, Grant was not drinking during the war (except on one occasion where he was known to have gotten drunk after a large victory).

Grant may not have even been that much of a drinker. He reputation was pre-war, and mostly seems to have come from his drinking out west, and his condition when he was farming (in Missouri, iirc). During his farming career, he often would show up looking jaundiced, sweating, and with the shakes. He was almost definitely suffering from malaria at this time, but when his ex-army buddies saw him, and they remembered his drinking out west, it got him the reputation as a confirmed alcoholic. More detailed investigation showed he was not consuming any alcohol during this period.

Certainly after the war when he was president, alcoholic beverages were routinely served at the white house and Grant consumed them. There isn't much to support any claim that he routinely got drunk (then, or during the war) - and a confirmed alcoholic is going to go this route if he is routinely consuming alcohol. Much of the reputation seems to be from detractors picking up on the pre-war rumors and reports and spreading them.

_____________________________

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 59

RE: Skip Mac and Monty. Where are McClellan's Fanboys? - 1/29/2005 8:23:07 PM

pasternakski

Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: captskillet

I guess I made an assumption I shouldn't have made Paster since the original thread was about 'overrated' generals....'scuse my ignorance. I certainly think the course of the battle at Gettysburg would have gone differently with Stonewall in charge of 2nd Corps. I also think that not having Stuart around for the balance of the battle robbed Lee of valuable 'recon & intel' gathering!

I probably wasn' being clear, as usual - no apology needed.

Several writers have talked about what went wrong with the Army of Northern Virginia before Gettysburg. Some posit that Lee was another Wellington who could handle only so many troops on an extended offensive campaign (losing track of Stuart is cited as an example of this loss of control). Some say that the army had grown too large to still be the "hammer and anvil" two wing formation that was so successful in the early battles, and the breakdown into three corps significantly attenuated its combat effectiveness, particularly on offense. Some others note Jackson's loss as the beginning of the end. Several blend these various items into an overall critique.

Who knows? I guess that's why we play the games ...

(in reply to captskillet)

Post #: 60

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Skip Mac and Monty. Where are McClellan's Fanboys?