|
JAMiAM -> RE: Also, I'm getting killed - I don't think I've... (6/24/2008 6:28:02 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Berkut
Does that really make sense?
I cannot think of a single civil war battle where either side actually defended a river crossing in a fashion that would result in a tactical effect like that.
The Union pretty much dominated the major rivers, making it impossible for the South to really defend them in such a fashion. There was never "front lines" in a manner that made rivers meaningful as a tactical obstruction, since the armies could simply move a few miles away and cross somewhere else.
The only major battle I can think of where the river had immediate tactical effect was Shiloh, and even there it was not a terrain feature that was defended.
Uh...how about Fredericksburg, and Chancellorsville, for a couple of big ones? Fredericksburg in the face of a bluff overlooking a river. Chancellorsville, where the need for operational splitting of holding forces and maneuver arms caused a disruption in cohesive movement of the Union forces and allowed them to be more easily defeated.
Keep in mind that the battle is fought over a region, and that the river is a natural obstacle that will prevent the smooth movement of the attacker into said region, if nothing else.
|
|
|
|
