"Was the Confederate Army superior at Gettysburg?" Topic

Is it correct to say that the Confederate Army was superior to the Union Army at Gettysburg but on that occasion it had a devil of a task in storming the Union position, which it was unable to complete?

Will the attacking force at Gettysburg always be at a disadvantage regardless of whether the sides are swooped for a wargame so that the Union attacks a defensive Confederate army upon Cemetry Hill and Cemetry Ridge, and along?

Superior in what way?

Certainly not numerically.
Nor logistically.
Nor in its artillery strength/ammunition.
Nor in its corps commanders.
Nor even morally, at least at the level of the individual soldier.

I would say no, it was not superior. If it were then they wouldn't have ever attacked there, or would have followed through and prevailed on the first day instead of stopping and letting the Union reinforce.

This one is going to get ugly… real soon

Pickett's Charge.

Regards, the Gorb

Overall-no.

This one is going to get ugly… real soon

Not until we cross post to the Napoleonics board and I ask "What if Wellington commanded the ANV at Gettysburg?"

Overall, I'd the give the ANV the edge in crack infantry battalions and a more unified command structure. The AoP had better artillery and cavalry and of course the edge in numbers of infantry.

NO- I love the Confederate army and thats my main collection but they were not superior by Gettysburg.
Arguably only one of their Corps Commanders -Longstreet- was up to the job. Hill and Ewell's jobs as Corps commanders is always questioned. Man for man the ANV and the AOP where the same…..quite a lot of veteran troops who had seen a few years of war and many battles. When lead at least competently they were equal.

I do think the strengths and weakness of both armies balanced well against the other… a sort of rough equality during the Gettysburg campaign at least.

Nor in its corps commanders. Nor even morally, at least at the level of the individual soldier

This may well be the answer.

However, I am interested to know from a wargame perspective whether the result is a foregone conclusion irrespective of which army takes the role of attacker. A simple wargame role reversal.

If the Union Army had attacked with the same numbers that the Confederates actually had at the battle would the quality of its Corp Commanders and infantry morale ensured victory?

NO

Is it correct to say that the Confederate Army was superior to the Union Army at Gettysburg…

Who won?
Numbers were even.
Who won?
Does anything else really matter, or are we going for Style Points?

Ya know… An awful lot of pinheads on TMP are always blasting me for asking this elementary question. Whether it is Robert E Lee, or Napoleon, or Grant, or Rommel or Terry Bradshaw. What else matters?
Statistics are something that losers fall back on to justify their losses.

The Myth of the Lost Cause lives on.

Captain DEwell, that would depend on whether or not the Confederates had the artillery advantage. There's a reason Mr. Hunt took his orders direct from General Meade.

They were equally balanced with different strengths and weaknesses. Yes, it could've ended differently, but it didn't.

I would say that the Army of the Potomac was superior. They had a long sad sorry history of losing. And yet, when it really mattered, with the numbers equal, they beat the snot out of the "superior" Johnnie reb. Put THAT in yer corncob pipe and smoke it!

If the Union Army had attacked with the same numbers that the Confederates actually had at the battle would the quality of its Corp Commanders and infantry morale ensured victory?

Irrelevant.

The Myth of Lost Cause is predicated on scapegoats and scalawags. And its a myth because they really lost fair and square.

And the infantry morale of an army, a corps, a division or a brigade is predicated on the military culture or standard the leadership sets.

As an Australian I have no dog in this fight. The ANV were definitely not superior at Gettysburg. Mistake led to mistake led to disaster.

Lee, who had been so superior in the past, had a REALLY bad few days. To attack on that ground, against that artillery and persist for 3 days at it – not good. Inferior command decisions. Hindsight is a wonderful things of course.

it could've ended differently, but it didn't

Quite so. Can't change that.

Back to the wargame table. I believe that half the fun of wargaming is the belief that you might prevail where the actual commanders failed in battle. Can the Battle of Gettysburg be won as a wargame by an attacker with the numbers of men, artillery, logistics, morale and corp commanders available to the Confederates? Is there anything in the various rule sets that sets General Lee at an advantage (whether classed as superior, or not)?

Is it worth wargaming at all!!

If the Union Army had attacked with the same numbers that the Confederates actually had at the battle would the quality of its Corp Commanders and infantry morale ensured victory?

If you're asking if the Confederates would have won, given those conditions: No.

Reminds me of the old SNL skit with John Belushi answering the question, "What if Eleanor Roosevelt could fly?"

The end result answers the question.

DM

Is there anything in the various rule sets that sets General Lee at an advantage (whether classed as superior, or not)?

Which they should not be doing.
I have had my say in the past about the "Stupid McClellan" rules that handcuffed so many ACW boardgames in the 80s.
YOU are the commander. Why saddle yourself with an albatross like Lee? Surely YOU can do better?

Surely YOU can do better?

Oh, yes.

SINE DIE

Captain Ewell, for starters I would give the Rebs more crack/elite infantry units. Too often I see ANV units in scenarios… particular units… classed as veteran, when they were crack units. Not all were crack/elite of course, but more than is commonly recognized. Even without going through the unit histories real thoroughly for historical accuracy, heck I would make 2/3 rds of the ANV crack/elite and in particular for the Gettysburg campaign b/c the majority knew how close they were to winning the war if they won there. Try doing that and see how it plays out. If its still not quite balanced… restrict/limit 6th Corps entry.

I think the confusion on this point is that the Army of Northern Virginia was as larger and better equipped than it had ever been before. It was rearmed with more uniform artillery, units had been reinforced and it had a core of veterans. It had never been so powerful to this point and would never be again. Looking at it in a bell jar it was the best ANV ever. Some folks only look at one side of an issue.
On the other hand, the AoP had improved at an amazing rate. Training, logistics, artillery, communication, and artillery were superior to the ANV. Some of the AoP units could and did hold their own against any ANV unit.
The only advantage I can see that the Confederates had was confidence in their higher command, and I think Lee was hoping he could pull one more victory out of his hat. The Rebs would have followed Lee anywhere. Meade's men, not so much. The middle command was equally competent with some winners and losers on both sides.
I don't think Lee thought he had an advantage in troops or equipment. He may have thought his men had an edge in morale, but I believe the Confederates put more stock in victory through morale, and the Union put more stock in victory through training and discipline.

Didn't the Union army have a larger proportion of freshly raised conscripted troops as compared to the Confederates, smaller but hardened by years of fighting?

Well put Agesilaus.

Two strong and motivated forces with well known strengths and weaknesses. Confederates relied on putting the Union armies on the back foot and throwing them off balance. This time the Union army didn't budge. The side with the best leadership over those few days won. Man for man it was even.

I believe it was Longstreet's chief of artillery EP Alexander who said "Give me Confederate infantry and Union artillery and I'll whip the world." The two armies were both fine military organizations but with different strengths and weaknesses.

The ANV did a much better job of keeping their existing units up to strength and filled with veteran troops. I suspect they were constantly cycling in veteran troops after extended leaves of absence for a variety of reasons. Anyone ever figure out how the Texas Brigade went in with 300 plus man battalions at Gettysburg after all those battles ? And wasn‘t Texas and Arkansas cut off from the rest of Confederacy for all practical purposes? Up to that time AoP and DC leadership didn't run things that way at that time.

That's right, the Texans missed Chancellorsville, IIRC. But the point remains the same.

I agree with Agesilaus. The Confederate army, at all levels, had the victory disease and believed that they could win because of higher morale.

As to the second part of the question, the defender undeniably has an advantage. In a 1:1 fight the attacker has a tough road to go.

02 Apr 2012 7:26 p.m. PST
I agree with Agesilaus. The Confederate army, at all levels, had the victory disease and believed that they could win because of higher morale.

But, they didn't, did they? So much for their "superiority".
Or, did I read the wrong books about Gettysburg? Do some actually say that the Rebs WON??? WOW! They sure deserved tom didn't they, with all that superiority!

I'd say fairly even in this case, but if you try to rearrange the positions or dispositions of units – then you don't have Gettysburg.

You could still have a cracking the fish hook scenario. No, I wouldn't advise making it strictly historical, but it could still be played out with the same objectives that Lee had in mind over the same ground.. breaking the Union line and forcing a retreat. Meade's avoid Confederate victory conditions. I'd give the Confederate's deployment zones rather than set pre-game positions and/or allow them to enter along extended table edges at will. Whereas the Yank positions would be known. It's possible.

I believe Lee was overconfident in his men and his opportunity, but with good reason on both fronts. The Army of Northern Virginia could not have had better morale. Not only had they spent the last two years beating and embarrassing the Army of the Potomac at nearly every turn, they were now taking the war to the enemy on the enemy's home ground, rather than their own. Beyond Gettysburg, both literally and figuratively, lay Washington, D.C.. If Lee defeated Meade decisively, the way was open to seize the Northern capitol and President Lincoln himself, possibly ending the war in rapid fashion. Meade at that point was not a well known quantity to Lee; Lee had every reason to assume that he was part and parcel of the inept leaders the Army of the Potomac had been subjected to so far. Lee weighed morale, opportunity and an apparent leadership advantage (whether real or not) against a better situated and better supplied foe… and lost. Even more significantly, it wasn't just one loss— it was a continuity of losses, any one of which should have told Lee (who should have known better, too) that the enemy's position and material were undefeatable at that location, and that its men and leadership were indeed equal at least to the task of defending their positions, if not equal or better outright. Lee failed in his duty to his men and his army, and I say that as an ardent admirer of Lee from my own boyhood. He over-reached both for himself and the South. From then on the end was inevitable.

So, as for the OQ, no, the Confederates were not superior to the Union at Gettysburg. In the end, they were inferior: they lost.

On the conscription/reinforcement issue. July 1863 is an interesting point in the ACW. The conscripts had not hit the front in the AoP yet. With the exception of a few militia units raised to meet the invasion, the vast majority of the AoP were volunteers and most were probably in the middle of their 3 year enlistment. Some of the ANV units had been bolstered with massive influxes of green recruits.
Also, if you say that the ANV had many units that were were veterans of early battles you beg the question, "Earlier battles against whom?" The answer is the AoP. All the surviving veterans on both sides, were at Gettysburg.

Anyone ever figure out how the Texas Brigade went in with 300 plus man battalions at Gettysburg after all those battles ? And wasn‘t Texas and Arkansas cut off from the rest of Confederacy for all practical purposes?

Captain JJ McBride of the 5th Texas returned to Texas in late 1862 or early 1863 and brought back, iirc, 50 recruits for his regiment. I suppose the other regiments in the brigade did the same. I'll have to check the exact time.

I think that the original question is a valid one but in order to answer it you have to look at the battle as it occurred, that is, on a day by day basis.

On the first day I would suggest that the AVV was "superior" to the AOP as it had more bodies on the field and was better concentrated. A more resolute attack particularly in the evening could have resulted in more Union casualties and the loss of the high ground

On the second day I would suggest that the armies were fairly balanced in terms of numbers and morale. Again more aggressive CSA attacks could have been successful changing the battle. The fight on Little Round Top was a "near run thing" and could have gone the other way if the CSA attack had been launched earlier.

By the third day the Union was cleanly superior in all aspects .

Of course the common factor in these three scenarios is the question of why the CSA attacks were not pushed as aggressively as they could have been . The key issue seems to be the lack of command and control between Lee and his corps commanders. Lee had a good strategic plan but his subordinates failed to execute it as he envisioned it. To me that is the key weakness in the ANV and would end up being the decisive factor in the battle. A big "what if" would be what would have happened if Lee had had Jackson and Longstreet as his Corps commanders instead
of the the three he had.

Despite the title to this thread, I think the real question is about playing the battle on the table. And, yes, the Confederates can win. I know. I've been on that side of a Pickett's charge game and we won by turning the Union right flank – at the angle – and then rolling them up on our way towards Little Round Top. Mind you, I normally play the Union side but this time I thought I'd give a go on the other side of the table – especially since most of the normal Confederate players wanted to be on the Union side since they figured they had a guaranteed victory. They did not. So, can it be gamed and have alternative outcomes? Of course it can. All that hypothesizing is fine but off the point of gaming.

I was put off Historical gaming for YEARS by my first ever – when I was about 13 – where I was given a Union Division at a Fredericksburg Re-Fight. 'Stupid McClellan' rules have nothing on 'Stupid Burnside' Legislation. "Can I go round?" "No". "Can I give up?" "No. Try another Frontal charge… that's how it happened."

However I think a reverse Gettysburg has possibilities.

Might Union Artillery have kept the Rebs heads down longer, so that the charge had a hope? Maybe?

Pat

Parzival said: Even more significantly, it wasn't just one loss— it was a continuity of losses, any one of which should have told Lee (who should have known better, too) that the enemy's position and material were undefeatable at that location, and that its men and leadership were indeed equal at least to the task of defending their positions, if not equal or better outright.

Not sure I agree. Lee clearly won the first day. Could have been a better win, but still a solid one.

Second day was very close, but honors to Meade.

Agree that third day should never have happened. But as a Southern boy, I'll play Pickett's charge, because it could still happen!!

Mike

Not until we cross post to the Napoleonics board and I ask "What if Wellington commanded the ANV at Gettysburg?"

Now why would Wellington be commanding the Army of North Vietnam at Gettysburg?

And wouldn't you post that question on the Science Fiction Discussion board?

Two things helped the Union army enormously: they had a vast superiority in artillery and for the first time the Union Cavalry was superior to the Reb cavalry. For the Union cav some of that advantage was their weapons and ammo but the men actually had enough experience and good officers that were not shackled to HQ to be a truly effective fighting force.

The Rebs did have some very powerful infantry brigades but that was off-set by some poorly led ones as well. The overall Union brigades were good with a few really good ones and a few mediocre ones. The Union's were more all in the middle of the Leadership scale and the Rebs vary.

Besides Antietam, Gettysburg is (as for most) another favorite battle. I will not go into statistics of veterans or abilities of officers(both sides had veterans by this time). Bufford was at the right place at the right time and with arriving infantry the north held up the south long enough to attain favorable position. Even then a hotheaded union unit( can't remember his name) lost his life and regiment by advancing too far and leaving a whole in the lines. The south failed to take advantage …then Chamberlain was the right man at the right place( he knew his men were at the breaking point) and succeeded in capturing a brigade.
It was hot those days and the south was engaged in lots of maneuver and charging uphill through dense terrain. That can be very exhaustive. With Stuart unavailable, Lee was short on scouting ability …things could have played different if Lee knew where the baggage train was.
This can go in circles though, as other what ifs focus on Mac's " halfheartedness " at pursuit of Lee. His troops were victorious but banged up with several regiments mauled and command officers needing replaced. And as stated it was really hot, men were exhausted and the terrain was pretty dense.
It's easy to armchair a battle, but you gain appreciation by viewing the site.
Hell, I've been on missions myself where I've wondered if the planners even knew what a contour line was! ;)
so I'd say the north did get some good breaks and the south's dice were broken.
;)

While this thread can go on forever there is one area that should be commented on. Artillery in the ANV was a Division asset, with the Artillery Reserve being only two Battalions as an Army asset, in the AOP it was Corps assets with the Artillery Reserve being five Brigades as Army support.

To really understand modern military doctrine and military history you have to examine the nine principles of war. In a nutshell;

Mass Concentrate combat power at the decisive place and time.

Objective Direct every military operation towards a clearly defined, decisive, and attainable objective.

Offensive Seize, retain, and exploit the initiative.

Surprise Strike the enemy at a time, at a place, or in a manner for which he is unprepared .

Economy of force Allocate minimum essential combat power to secondary efforts.

Maneuver Place the enemy in a position of disadvantage through the flexible application of combat power.

Unity of command For every objective, ensure unity of effort under one responsible commander.

Security Never permit the enemy to acquire an unexpected advantage.

Simplicity Prepare clear, uncomplicated plans and clear, concise orders to ensure thorough understanding.

VR
James Mattes

I agree with this statement:
"I believe Lee was overconfident in his men and his opportunity".
I also think it could have gone either way though, but it was mostly in the hands of the Union Army. It was thier's to lose.

Pat.
Some toolbox actually did a re-fight of Fredricksburg, without allowing deviation from "the way it happened", and gave a 13 year old a Union division? That's child abuse!
So much for "recruiting the youngsters".

OFM-
You raise a great question- How far should one take "commander quality" in any wargame?