Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!cbnews!military From: tiwasawa@netxdev.DHL.COM (Takashi Iwasawa) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Glory, strange tactics. Keywords: civil war Message-ID: <15576@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 14 Apr 90 04:11:10 GMT References: <15221@cbnews.ATT.COM> <15495@cbnews.ATT.COM> Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Organization: NetExpress Communications, Inc., Vienna, Va. Lines: 65 Approved: military@att.att.com From: tiwasawa@netxdev.DHL.COM (Takashi Iwasawa) In article <15495@cbnews.ATT.COM> ssc-vax!shuksan!major@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Mike Schmitt) writes: > >From: ssc-vax!shuksan!major@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Mike Schmitt) > > To understand the tactics, first we must understand the organization of > units and the difference between Union and Confederate. > > The regiment was the building-block of the infantry and represented the > smallest battlefield unit of manuever. Commonly, the brigade was the > tactical unit and the division or corps the grand tactical unit. > Confederate regiments usually bigger than Union regiments because Union > regiments were to waste away while fresh manpower was channelled into > new regiments, which meant new colonels could be created. A few Union states did recruit replacements for existing regiments. I think Wisconsin was one. Individual regiments sometimes tried to find replacement manpower by using officers on leave or men invalided home to find and sign up new recruits, but these efforts usually did not suffice to maintain regimental strength. > In complement, a regiment consisted of 2 to 4 battalions. ^^^^^^^^ Shouldn't that be "a BRIGADE consisted of 2 to 4 REGIMENTS (which had only one battalion each)" ? I thought that Civil War regiments normally had only one battalion, so that regiment and battalion were usually interchangable terms (applies to infantry only). There probably were exceptions; didn't Berdan's 1st U.S. Sharpshooters have more than one battalion? On the other hand, the Sharpshooters were a specialized unit, usually operating as separate companies attached to various Corps. > Each battalion had 8 companies of 60-100 men each. ^ I thought the standard Union regiment was supposed to have 10 companies of 100 men each, giving a battalion (regiment) of 1000 men. Of course, even if a regiment had that many at the time of recruitment, deaths and medical or other types of discharges would start reducing the numbers immediately, so that a regiment would be doing well to bring 800 or 900 men to its first battle. > A 'trench warfare stalemate' like we'd see in WWI was averted because the > Confederacy was physically and materialy exhausted. There was no stalemate in the Civil War because the area over which the war was fought was large, compared to forces available (look at the distance between Switzerland and the English Channel, and compare it to the distance between Mississippi River and the Atlantic seaboard, then check the size of populations of Germany, Britain, France, and Belgium in 1914 and compare to the populations of the Confederacy and the Union in 1860). Even in World War I, there was no 'trench warfare stalemate' on the Eastern front, where there was room to manuever. > mike schmitt I enjoyed your article, Mike. Thanks! Takashi Iwasawa DISCLAIMER: The above article does not represent any views, opinions, or policies of any companies that I have been employed at or might be employed at in the future. On the other hand, if I start my own company....