Strength of both armies (Full Version)

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



Message

chris0827 -> Strength of both armies (1/8/2007 5:19:27 AM)

I found some confederate figures so I'll put them together for comparison.

Union army
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

Confederate army
12/31/1861 258,680 present 68,088 absent 326,768 total
6/30/1862 224,146 present 103,903 absent 328,049 total
12/31/1862 304,015 present 145,424 absent 449,439 total
12/31/1863 277,970 present 186,676 absent 464,646 total
6/30/1864 194,764 present 121,083 absent 315,847 total
12/31/1864 196,016 present 204,771 absent 400,787 total
1865(unk date) 160,198 present 198,494 absent 358,692 total

These numbers do not include navies or militia



chris0827 -> RE: Strength of both armies (1/9/2007 1:36:55 AM)

It's annoying but I haven't been able to find much info on naval forces.

Union navy

4/19/1861   7,600 men
12/31/1861 22,000 men
1864(unk date) 51,000 men

Haven't found any estimates of the number of men in the confederate navy.



Joram -> RE: Strength of both armies (1/9/2007 1:49:46 AM)

That's an amazing number of "absent".  Is that AWOL or is that some kind of casualty figure?



chris0827 -> RE: Strength of both armies (1/9/2007 2:00:42 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joram

That's an amazing number of "absent".  Is that AWOL or is that some kind of casualty figure?


It would include AWOL, deserters, men too sick or wounded to stay with their units and possibly men detached temporarily for duty such as moving supplies or guarding prisoners. I'm still looking for exact definitions for the different categories.



Ironclad -> RE: Strength of both armies (1/9/2007 2:11:34 AM)

According to Tucker the CSA naval manpower peaked in the spring 1864 at 753 officers, 4450 enlisted and 749 marines. He gives USA 1865 numbers as 6759 officers, 51357 sailors and 3850 marines.



chris0827 -> RE: Strength of both armies (1/9/2007 2:14:36 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ironclad

According to Tucker the CSA naval manpower peaked in the spring 1864 at 753 officers, 4450 enlisted and 749 marines. He gives USA 1865 numbers as 6759 officers, 51357 sailors and 3850 marines.


That's good to know. What's Tucker's full name? I don't think I've seen anything from him.



Ironclad -> RE: Strength of both armies (1/9/2007 2:21:52 AM)

Spencer C Tucker author of the newly published - "The Blue and Gray Navies: The Civil War Afloat". Good and authoritative account.



Queeg -> RE: Strength of both armies (1/9/2007 9:05:04 PM)

The amazing number, to me, is the fact that the CSA had roughly 12% of its white, male population in arms by early 1861, while the Union never exceeded 9% at any time in the war. Indeed, in mid-1861, the Union had less than 2% of its manpower under arms. (I'm assuming half of the South's 5.4m white population and of the North's 22m population were men.)



Berkut -> RE: Strength of both armies (1/9/2007 9:12:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Queeg

The amazing number, to me, is the fact that the CSA had roughly 12% of its white, male population in arms by early 1861, while the Union never exceeded 9% at any time in the war. Indeed, in mid-1861, the Union had less than 2% of its manpower under arms. (I'm assuming half of the South's 5.4m white population and of the North's 22m population were men.)



Difference between the War of Northern Agression and the War for reuinification.

The South saw this as a war against an agressive, outside invading army.

What is the quote from the Virginia soldier who is captured, and asked why he was fighting?

"I reckon it is because you are here..."



chris0827 -> RE: Strength of both armies (1/9/2007 9:16:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Queeg

The amazing number, to me, is the fact that the CSA had roughly 12% of its white, male population in arms by early 1861, while the Union never exceeded 9% at any time in the war. Indeed, in mid-1861, the Union had less than 2% of its manpower under arms. (I'm assuming half of the South's 5.4m white population and of the North's 22m population were men.)


I made a typo. The second line in the confederate section should be 6/30/1862 instead of 6/30/1861



Queeg -> RE: Strength of both armies (1/9/2007 9:26:40 PM)

So the ratios in mid-1862 were roughly 12% CSA vs. 5.5% Union? Still a pretty significant difference in commitment.



chris0827 -> RE: Strength of both armies (1/9/2007 9:37:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Queeg

So the ratios in mid-1862 were roughly 12% CSA vs. 5.5% Union? Still a pretty significant difference in commitment.


And still a 2 to 1 advantage in troops. Men are much more likely to sign up when their homes are threatened. Had the south conquered parts of the north for an extended period of time the ratios woul've changed. The North also needed men for both a large navy and a huge industrial machine, They could've easily raised more troops but at the cost of having them less well equiped.



Berkut -> RE: Strength of both armies (1/9/2007 9:46:29 PM)

I recall reading that the South mobilized considerably more men, but often more than they really wanted to - some men would ahve been better off staying behind and working. 



Queeg -> RE: Strength of both armies (1/9/2007 10:14:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: chris0827


quote:

ORIGINAL: Queeg

So the ratios in mid-1862 were roughly 12% CSA vs. 5.5% Union? Still a pretty significant difference in commitment.


And still a 2 to 1 advantage in troops.



Agreed. But if one just looks to the numbers for his version of "history," then the North should be more like 4 to 1. My point simply is that under any reasonable attempt to model history, the Union should reflect enormous potential largely unrealized. Yes, the North ultimately won through superior numbers, both economic and manpower. But it never, ever, throughout the entire war, brought its full weight to bear. Modeling anything else is fantasy.



chris0827 -> RE: Strength of both armies (1/9/2007 10:25:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Queeg

quote:

ORIGINAL: chris0827


quote:

ORIGINAL: Queeg

So the ratios in mid-1862 were roughly 12% CSA vs. 5.5% Union? Still a pretty significant difference in commitment.


And still a 2 to 1 advantage in troops.



Agreed. But if one just looks to the numbers for his version of "history," then the North should be more like 4 to 1. My point simply is that under any reasonable attempt to model history, the Union should reflect enormous potential largely unrealized. Yes, the North ultimately won through superior numbers, both economic and manpower. But it never, ever, throughout the entire war, brought its full weight to bear. Modeling anything else is fantasy.



There's nothing wrong with going by the numbers if you use the right numbers. A historically accurate game would not give the north a 4 to 1 advantage in troops because population does not equal troops. The north had about a 2.75 to 1 advantage. The north also had to man a large navy and garrison large conquered areas cutting into their advantage so that on the battlefield the advantage falls to well under 2 to 1.



Queeg -> RE: Strength of both armies (1/9/2007 10:48:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: chris0827

The north also had to man a large navy and garrison large conquered areas cutting into their advantage so that on the battlefield the advantage falls to well under 2 to 1.


I agree with you. So the game actually comes pretty close to matching the historical battlefield ratios.



chris0827 -> RE: Strength of both armies (1/9/2007 10:54:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Queeg


quote:

ORIGINAL: chris0827

The north also had to man a large navy and garrison large conquered areas cutting into their advantage so that on the battlefield the advantage falls to well under 2 to 1.


I agree with you. So the game actually comes pretty close to matching the historical battlefield ratios.



No it doesn't. Not even close. The union gets a 1.17 to 1 advantage at the start. The main confederate army in virginia gets 103,000 men. The real one had less than half that.



Queeg -> RE: Strength of both armies (1/9/2007 11:09:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: chris0827

The main confederate army in virginia gets 103,000 men. The real one had less than half that.


True. But what is the situation out West? The first thing many (most?) CSA players do in the game is send one of the ANV Corps out West to create a credible force there. So the imbalance seems to me to be one of geography as much as relative numbers.



chris0827 -> RE: Strength of both armies (1/9/2007 11:10:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Queeg


quote:

ORIGINAL: chris0827

The main confederate army in virginia gets 103,000 men. The real one had less than half that.


True. But what is the situation out West? The first thing many (most?) CSA players do in the game is send one of the ANV Corps out West to create a credible force there. So the imbalance seems to me to be one of geography as much as relative numbers.



What does the situation out west have to do with it?



regularbird -> RE: Strength of both armies (1/9/2007 11:22:39 PM)

I guess since most CSA players move a corp out west early in the game the numbers are only wildly inaccurate in the west? 



Queeg -> RE: Strength of both armies (1/9/2007 11:22:40 PM)

According to your historical figures, the North had roughly 1.75 times as many men under arms as the South on 1/1/1862. But as you correctly acknowledge, much of the North's manpower was diverted to the navy or to garrison or support troops who never made it to the battlefield. So the ratio reflected in the game, while admittedly imperfect, is closer to reality than I think you're giving it credit.

The geography issue I raised is merely the suggestion that the Southern forces currently are too heavily concentrated in the East.



chris0827 -> RE: Strength of both armies (1/9/2007 11:33:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Queeg

According to your historical figures, the North had roughly 1.75 times as many men under arms as the South on 1/1/1862. But as you correctly acknowledge, much of the North's manpower was diverted to the navy or to garrison or support troops who never made it to the battlefield. So the ratio reflected in the game, while admittedly imperfect, is closer to reality than I think you're giving it credit.

The geography issue I raised is merely the suggestion that the Southern forces currently are too heavily concentrated in the East.


The navy is not included in those numbers and garrisons are included in both ratios so tell me how 1.75 and 1.17 is close?



Berkut -> RE: Strength of both armies (1/9/2007 11:36:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Queeg

According to your historical figures, the North had roughly 1.75 times as many men under arms as the South on 1/1/1862. But as you correctly acknowledge, much of the North's manpower was diverted to the navy or to garrison or support troops who never made it to the battlefield. So the ratio reflected in the game, while admittedly imperfect, is closer to reality than I think you're giving it credit.

The geography issue I raised is merely the suggestion that the Southern forces currently are too heavily concentrated in the East.



hehe, this was a related point I was making in regards to the disease-combat deathcanard that has been trotted out time and again.



Queeg -> RE: Strength of both armies (1/10/2007 1:11:42 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: chris0827

The navy is not included in those numbers and garrisons are included in both ratios so tell me how 1.75 and 1.17 is close?



Because, historically, the North garrisoned much more of its back areas than did the South. Witness the lack of any real garrison in New Orleans, the South's most important port. So the garrison ratios were never equal historically.

There is a second consideration related to game play. I'm reasonably certain that no one playing this game ever musters troops to provide garrison forces for backwater positions. If a unit exists in the game, odds are the player is going to use it. So giving the Union its full manpower advantage, without accounting for the fact that a big chunk of those troops never got to the front, simply gives the Union player an advantage Lincoln never had in real life.

Again, I agree the numbers can be tweaked. But the broader issue is more subtle than it first appears.



chris0827 -> RE: Strength of both armies (1/10/2007 1:19:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Queeg


quote:

ORIGINAL: chris0827

The navy is not included in those numbers and garrisons are included in both ratios so tell me how 1.75 and 1.17 is close?



Because, historically, the North garrisoned much more of its back areas than did the South. Witness the lack of any real garrison in New Orleans, the South's most important port. So the garrison ratios were never equal historically.

There is a second consideration related to game play. I'm reasonably certain that no one playing this game ever musters troops to provide garrison forces for backwater positions. If a unit exists in the game, odds are the player is going to use it. So giving the Union its full manpower advantage, without accounting for the fact that a big chunk of those troops never got to the front, simply gives the Union player an advantage Lincoln never had in real life.

Again, I agree the numbers can be tweaked. But the broader issue is more subtle than it first appears.



In november 1861 the north hadn't conquered anything to garrison.



Erik Rutins -> RE: Strength of both armies (1/10/2007 1:50:42 AM)

The North did have a remarkable number of pre-war fortifications to garrison though, IIRC



chris0827 -> RE: Strength of both armies (1/10/2007 1:54:45 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

The North did have a remarkable number of pre-war fortifications to garrison though, IIRC


As did the South. They had a huge coastline to garrison.



Queeg -> RE: Strength of both armies (1/10/2007 1:57:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: chris0827

In november 1861 the north hadn't conquered anything to garrison.


Chris:

Go look at the numbers of Union troops that were relegated to garrison duty in the Northern states themselves. Most of the big cities had permanent garrisons, particularly during the draft riots. Then there was the permanent garrison in the Washington fortifications. (Not to mention the large field army that was kept in place as a perpetual screen.) Then there was the frontier and the Indian territories (remember what happened to Pope?) and California. The North never brought the same percentage of its mobilized force to any battlefield as the did the South - never.



Queeg -> RE: Strength of both armies (1/10/2007 2:06:21 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: chris0827


quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

The North did have a remarkable number of pre-war fortifications to garrison though, IIRC


As did the South. They had a huge coastline to garrison.


But the fact is they didn't garrison them for the most part. Not heavily. The North did not mount multiple invasions of the Confederate coast, not because the South had stout garrisons everywhere, but because of the logistical impossibility of supporting multiple invasions by sea - while trying to supply its initiatives elsewhere.



chris0827 -> RE: Strength of both armies (1/10/2007 2:07:41 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Queeg


quote:

ORIGINAL: chris0827


quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

The North did have a remarkable number of pre-war fortifications to garrison though, IIRC


As did the South. They had a huge coastline to garrison.


But the fact is they didn't garrison them for the most part. Not heavily. The North did not mount multiple invasions of the Confederate coast, not because the South had stout garrisons everywhere, but because of the logistical impossibility of supporting multiple invasions by sea - while trying to supply its initiatives elsewhere.


What Civil War are you talking about? The North did mount multiple invasions of the confederate coast.



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.75