Strength of the Union army (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865



Message

chris0827 -> Strength of the Union army (1/5/2007 11:37:50 PM)

Here is the strength of the union army on various dates for those who are interested. These numbers do not include the union navy or state milita.

1/1/1861 16,367
7/1/1861 186,751
1/1/1862 575,917
3/31/1862 637,126
1/1/1863 918,191
1/1/1864 860,737
3/31/1865 980,086
5/1/1865 1,000,516



Erik Rutins -> RE: Strength of the Union army (1/5/2007 11:40:11 PM)

I assume that does include fort garrisons?

What about supply / rear area / depot troops? The training establishment?

Regards,

- Erik



chris0827 -> RE: Strength of the Union army (1/5/2007 11:44:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

I assume that does include fort garrisons?


It includes everyone breathing. About 20% of those numbers on average would be unavailable for various reasons including being sick, on leave, awol, ect.



Dadaan -> RE: Strength of the Union army (1/5/2007 11:50:54 PM)

Cool[8D]



Twotribes -> RE: Strength of the Union army (1/6/2007 12:45:58 AM)

Try have 500000 Union troops on Jan 1862.



Mike Scholl -> RE: Strength of the Union army (1/6/2007 3:21:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

I assume that does include fort garrisons?
What about supply / rear area / depot troops? The training establishment?

Regards,
- Erik



Less than you might think. Garrisons are certainly included, but the type of "service and support" troops we are use to today were few and far between in the ACW. Many of the supply tasks were handled by civilian contractors. And "basic training" was generally a "Regimental" concern (which led to a lot of problems early on as each regiment's officers chose their own text books on drill, resulting in different orders meaning different things to different units).



Erik Rutins -> RE: Strength of the Union army (1/6/2007 5:27:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes
Try have 500000 Union troops on Jan 1862.


Actually, I can get up to about 350k by that time. The problem is ongoing attrition from disease, marching, etc. that keeps the numbers down from their possible peak. I think a build up quite to the level of the numbers here is very difficult to do quickly in FoF. However, once things start rolling by 1863 and you get multiple Extended Service upgrades, several years of musters, get manufacturing centers online that can build Infantry in 1 turn in some cities, it really starts adding up. I'm over 500k in 1863 in my historical test so far and I'm pretty confident I can reach 750k in 1864. When you consider that does not include my fort garrisons, I think that's pretty darn close.

Regards,

- Erik



chris0827 -> RE: Strength of the Union army (1/6/2007 5:29:21 AM)

What have you conquered in your test and what is the strength of the confederate forces?



Twinkle -> RE: Strength of the Union army (1/6/2007 10:52:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

I assume that does include fort garrisons?
What about supply / rear area / depot troops? The training establishment?

Regards,
- Erik

Less than you might think. Garrisons are certainly included, but the type of "service and support" troops we are use to today were few and far between in the ACW. Many of the supply tasks were handled by civilian contractors. And "basic training" was generally a "Regimental" concern (which led to a lot of problems early on as each regiment's officers chose their own text books on drill, resulting in different orders meaning different things to different units).

And this is based on??? I for one would appreciate historical sources on all opinions regarding the acw



Twinkle -> RE: Strength of the Union army (1/6/2007 10:57:52 PM)

I do think that the logistic tail in fact might have been quite considerable... transportation is a part of it and here is part of the report Quartermaster-General M. C. MEIGS handed to the secretary of war on November 18, 1862
 
In our armies the requisitions for transportation have been enormous. The Army of the Potomac in July, at Harrison's Landing, when less than 100,000 strong, after its losses in the retreat to the James River, had 2,578 wagons and 415 ambulances, drawn by 5,899 homes and 8,708 mules--14,607 animals employed in the trains. In addition to these there were 12,378 cavalry and artillery horses, making 26,985 homes and mules to be fed. The supply of these animals with forage, almost entirely shipped from the Northern ports, was very costly. The position of the army did not allow of more than a few days' supply being landed at any time, and the vessels in which it had been shipped were kept in some cases for months on demurrage at enormous expense.
This same army was moved to Washington, re-enforced, and marching to Sharpsburg, fought the battles of South Mountain, Crampton's Gap, and Antietam, and lay for some weeks along the Upper Potomac. On the 31st of October, from reports in this office, its nominal strength was 176,000, but so many men were absent sick, prisoners, or absent on leave that its effective strength is supposed not to have exceeded 130,000. It had with it 3,798 wagons, drawn by 19,558 animals, of which 7,673 were horses and 11,885 mules.



Twinkle -> RE: Strength of the Union army (1/6/2007 11:06:57 PM)

Not also the ratio absent men in AoP at 31st October, 1862 (the post above), it is safe to say that the number of men on duty was considerable less then the number of men stated in the threads first post and the number of men that Erik Rutins have in his game might a bit many as a considerable part of the army was used for garrison duty or at least did little fighting.



General Quarters -> RE: Strength of the Union army (1/6/2007 11:28:03 PM)

For gameplay, the main thing is that the major armies of each side resemble the present for duty numbers of each side. Can the Union field an army or two of 100,000 or so? Can be rebels do a couple of armies in the 60-80K range?



Twinkle -> RE: Strength of the Union army (1/6/2007 11:36:47 PM)

As to my statement above regarding a large part of the Union army relegated to guard duty... this is from Fox’s Regimental Losses:
 
The average loss in the Union Armies was 5 per cent. But in the latter there were over 300 regiments which were not in action, with as many more which were under fire but a few times. A large part of the Union Armies was used in protecting communications, guarding lines of supplies, in garrison duty, and as armies of occupation. The Confederate regiments were all at the front, and, although repeatedly filled up with recruits, were held there until many of them were worn out by the constant attrition.
 
It is also interesting to note (and this in regards to the camp discussion versus creating new units):
 
The question arises, next, as to the average enrollment of the Confederate regiments. That known, the strength of their armies could be soon computed. The rolls of the North Carolina regiments have been printed and,--with the eight regiments of Junior and Senior Reserves not included in the foregoing list,-- show a total enrollment of 125,000 men. These rolls, incomplete as they necessarily are, show that twenty-two of the North Carolina regiments numbered over 1,500 men, each; and some of them over 1,800. The Confederacy organized but few new regiments after 1862; the recruits and conscripts were assigned to the old regiments to keep them up to an effective strength.
 
Note also that a large part of the southern forces are not calculated then it come to size of army as they used state militia etc. for all the stuff that the north used regular regiments. Fox’s book state after listing the units furnished by the southern states:
 
These were all troops of the line, and they served during the whole, or the greater part of the war. The number does not include regiments which served a short time only; neither does it include disbanded or consolidated regiments; nor State militia, Junior Reserves, Senior Reserves, Home Guards, Local Defense regiments, and separate companies.
 
Let’s just hope that the FoF design team read and take notice of info like this...

Regards,
  /twinkle



chris0827 -> RE: Strength of the Union army (1/7/2007 12:46:27 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Twinkle

Not also the ratio absent men in AoP at 31st October, 1862 (the post above), it is safe to say that the number of men on duty was considerable less then the number of men stated in the threads first post and the number of men that Erik Rutins have in his game might a bit many as a considerable part of the army was used for garrison duty or at least did little fighting.


And two posts later I stated that on average 20% of the total were unavailable for various reasons. Men on gerrison duty would be considered present for duties. Sick, wounded, awol, on leave, or detached duty would be considered absent.



Twinkle -> RE: Strength of the Union army (1/7/2007 12:49:21 AM)

of course, I just spelled it out as the Quartermaster-General report that I copied some text from included numbers on nominal strength and actual strengt, i.e. just to give a reference to it.



chris0827 -> RE: Strength of the Union army (1/7/2007 1:01:32 AM)

Ok. Here are the numbers of absent men too.

1/1/1861    14,663,present  1,704 absent  16,367 total
7/1/1861    183,588 present  3,163 absent  186,751 total
1/1/1862    527,204 present  48,713 absent 575,917 total
3/31/1862   533,984 present  103,142 absent 637,126 total
1/1/1863     698,802 present  219,389 absent 918,191 total
1/1/1864     611,250 present  249,487 absent  860,737 total
3/31/1865   657,747 present  322,339 absent  980,086 total
5/1/1865     797,807 present  202,709 absent 1,000,516 total



regularbird -> RE: Strength of the Union army (1/7/2007 4:15:13 AM)

Can someone familiar with game creation process explain the logic behind troops that are mustered or conscripted being of low quality?  Is this meant to symbolize a different kind of training?  I am no sociology professor but I would guess that samples of 1000 men would yield a similar dispersion of good and bad soldiers.  And why does national will effect whether or not someone makes a good soldier?  National will should effect moral and disposition but not quality.  Please help unconfuse me.



christof139 -> RE: Strength of the Union army (1/11/2007 3:26:57 PM)

There were a couple of NC State Regiments that remained with Lee's Army, and Confed Militia type troops were rarely used in major battles, and when they were it was as an addition to regular troops usually in a specific locale where those militia type troops were raised, although some Militia type troops were used outside of their mustering locale or hometown so to speak. The South used local Militia type troops mainly for internal security, but they did get into the fight every now and then. Many unofficial Confed guerilla and Cav. units existed, some not recorded at all, and they operated as part of regular and irregular higher structure units.

The North used a good number of 90-day, 6-month, 9-month etc. State troops and Militia in some major battles such as Antietam during the 1862 Maryland Campaign, at the Siege of Port Hudson, etc. and in Missouri the various Union MO militias actively campaigned in a regular role and in an irregular role against their Confed counterparts the Guerillas, Partisans, and Bushwackers, and these irregulars of both sides operated in a Lutzow Freikorps type of manner as you well know, serving in regular and irregular operations, or using a different terminology, served in both conventional and unconvetntial capacities.
Most of the Union MO Militia was recognized after the war as fully enfranchised Veterans.

This is a big problem to represent in any simulation. Same for using different Mathematical distribution methods to represent probability and casualty infliction etc., and that is that the records of both sides from which we derive our info. are incomplete and complied and written in a semi-confusing manner at times.

Plus, we sometimes forget certain info. even with our notes we take etc., so not any person or sinulation will ever interpret or represent everything exactly the ame as other interpretations and representations of the data available on a subject or problem. so, as objective we all try to be, everything we come-up with is at the least somewhat subjective.

In other words, not anyone, anything, any interpretation, etc. is perfect.

Beats me, I don't know. [;)]

Have a good day, Chris







Alex Gilbert -> RE: Strength of the Union army (1/12/2007 1:01:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: regularbird

Can someone familiar with game creation process explain the logic behind troops that are mustered or conscripted being of low quality?  Is this meant to symbolize a different kind of training?  I am no sociology professor but I would guess that samples of 1000 men would yield a similar dispersion of good and bad soldiers.  And why does national will effect whether or not someone makes a good soldier?  National will should effect moral and disposition but not quality.  Please help unconfuse me.



I do not claim to be familiar with the game creation process, but I assumed that the thought was the following:
"Produced" brigades were groups of men who underwent significant training (thus the delay between purchase and appearance.

"Mustered" brigades were men who voluntarily formed units under the direction of the state governor or his picked officer.

"Conscripted" brigades were essentially drafted.

So it makes sense to me that the trained brigades have a higher quality than the untrained but voluntary brigades, which were better than the untrained brigades of men forced to fight.

It has nothing to do with individual men being better or worse soldiers, and more to do with their motivation to fight.

Disposition in the game is only a temporary factor. I am OK with the idea that draftees would permanently have a somewhat worse attitude than men who willingly joined (and would thus break more quickly in combat). "Morale" as a term does not exist in the game, but I believe the designers have said elsewhere that "Quality" includes morale.


Alex



regularbird -> RE: Strength of the Union army (1/12/2007 4:31:46 AM)

Thanx Alex I can buy off on your explanation concerning consc, muster and built units, I still think that national will affecting quality is a reach.  I think national will should effect disposition or even the time it takes to improve a units disposition but not quality.  Thanks for your thoughts though I posted that one a while back.



Alex Gilbert -> RE: Strength of the Union army (1/12/2007 5:00:29 AM)

Well, without passing judgement on whether it is a good or bad idea, I can see some logic in the argument that soldiers fighting in an unpopular war will fight with less enthusiasm and tend to break sooner. I agree with you that if I were asked to come up with a term for this, "disposition" would fit better than "quality", but I think we have to consider how these terms are defined in this game.

Whatever it is called, I think that national will would affect the soldiers' willingness to stand toe to toe with the enemy, and that this is something that only victory in battle or training will change. I think that it should not be a transient attribute that will improve with rest and the proximity of medical care (hospitals). It just happens that in this game the first of these is termed quality, and the second is termed disposition.

Long winded, but hopefully that made sense. :)

Alex



regularbird -> RE: Strength of the Union army (1/12/2007 5:21:55 AM)

Makes good sense and I guess I can see the logic. In short you are saying "who the heck wants to die for an unpopular war?" OK, I can definately buy that. Alex you should get a job explaining things to boneheads like me, your pretty good.



Alex Gilbert -> RE: Strength of the Union army (1/12/2007 6:05:47 AM)

Many thanks. Perhaps I could get you to buy some life insurance now.......



regularbird -> RE: Strength of the Union army (1/12/2007 6:42:57 AM)

LOL.........We shall see.



Gresbeck -> RE: Strength of the Union army (1/12/2007 1:37:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins


Actually, I can get up to about 350k by that time.

Regards,

- Erik


Probably a dumb question. But how many brigades do you mean you have for 350K troops (I suppose you don't consider each brigade as 3k men)?



Erik Rutins -> RE: Strength of the Union army (1/12/2007 2:58:08 PM)

For the 350k, it was less than 3k per brigade, since they had taken disease and march attrition by then. If all brigades were full strength at that point I probably would have had about 450k, if I recall correctly. So probably equivalent to 150 brigades, though some were artillery/siege artillery/cavalry brigades. I'm not sure if I had gotten Extended Service yet as an upgrade, but I don't think so. I got two Extended Service upgrades within the next year, as I recall and together with an increased camps program, more musters and a new unit production program that allowed me to grow over 500k effectives.

Regards,

- Erik



Gresbeck -> RE: Strength of the Union army (1/12/2007 4:01:59 PM)

[&o] I thought it was impossible to get 150 brigades in such a time... I thought you hadn't enough time, even if you could manage resources perfectly. Was the game set to reflect the historical situation, as you posted in another thread, or did you use the default settings?



Erik Rutins -> RE: Strength of the Union army (1/12/2007 4:18:58 PM)

No, this was with the historical test settings, so Union was at +3 Power, Richer Economy, Population Modifiers Off, etc. Nevertheless, it's possible with the in-game settings. I mustered like crazy and did some conscription and production in the larger cities when musters there became inefficient, to make sure I was getting the most I could. I don't think I reached the full number until the new Spring 1862 manpower increase arrived though, but I think with more conscription I probably could have, but I didn't want to risk that level of unrest.

Regards,

- Erik



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.875