"Which brigades get a -1?" Topic

Courtesy of one poster suggesting it, to accompany the other thread, what brigades qualify for a -1 to their dice rolls?

(the exact rule set is irrelevant, these are the brigades that get a penalty on your table).

Keep it polite.

McClenands division at Shiloh. Any CSA brigade armed predominantly with Smoothbores. The entire CSA army at Franklin. Union brigades with less than 3 months service.

While its true that McClernand's division broke at the initial engagement at The Crossroads, the division fought admirably during the counterattack just a few hours later, and as well as the rest of the Army of the Tennessee the next day. In game terms, I would just chalk that up to bad rolls.

the division fought admirably during the counterattack just a few hours later

It's things like this that make me feel like the +1s and -1s should be rolled for, maybe with a modulo to keep things within a range. To use a WWII example: what would you rate the refuelling company of the New Zealand Division, or the Searchlight Regiment, if you know nothing about their performance on Crete and at Calais respectively?

Rich,

The entire CSA army at Franklin.

I think that you are off-base here. The brigades of the Army of Tennessee, for the most part, marched into a hurricane of artillery and rifled musket fire, carrying their attacks through until the bodies were piled in front of the Union defenses. If they would have had a "-1" on their morale, for example, they never would have closed.

Jim

The Confederate army at Franklin? It came close to carrying the day against an entrenched enemy. Poor senior leadership surely, but superb infantry. Read Wiley Sword's "Embrace an Angry Wind" aka "The South's Last Hurrah."

These are subjective ratings usually based on a units performance in a particular battle without regard to any contributing factors. I think there is also a tendency to accept "conventional wisdom" regarding a unit as gospel.

I think rules writers use them to try to give "flavor" to their rules which may only reflect their own preconceptions.

I don't like + or – unless you have armies that have vastly different training (green vs veteran), vastly different equipment, or vastly different numbers (a fresh, full-strength unit vs a unit that is weary and under strength). In most cases, I would treat them the same and let the dice gods see who will gain eternal glory or infamy.

USA, Philadelphia Brigade -1. CSA, Imboden's cavalry brigade -1. John Miller

I was speaking completely facetiously. I think the question is misguided for the reasons stated. I don't think there is much to distinguish between any given brigade on either side.

Why the Philadelphia Brigade? The only time they broke was at Antietam, when they were attacked on three sides by the rebs and were ordered to break. Now if you said any Federal unit commanded by O.O. Howard, I might agree.

Only Howard in the East. Once he went west, he re-invented himself (as did XI and XII Corps troops who went with him) as a competent warrior.

On any given day any brigade could "not feel it"

In most ACW rules I have seen, anyone wearing a dark blue jacket.

In more general terms, units with good cohesion, decent leaders and lots of combat experience might rate a +1, inexperienced and poorly trained and led units might warrant a -1.

In later Nineteenth century warfare though, morale took a secondary place to numbers, doctrine and weaponry in determining combat outcomes.

The Austrians in 1866 I were very brave indeed, but bravery only goes so far against troops trained to fight in company skirmish columns armed with breech loaders.

I think leadership has a lot to do with it. Gibbon's Iron Brigade was surprised on the march at Brawner Farm, their first experience of combat. They deployed from line of march and stopped Stonewall Jackson's corps dead in their tracks, badly wounding Dick Ewell in the process. Green troops, they fought like elites.

On the other hand, experience might be of the wrong sort. Mott's veteran division performed so poorly at the Wilderness and Spotsylvania that it was broken up, regiments parceled out to other commands. This had once been Joe Hooker's division. It had been ground up badly at Gettysburg. Mott may have been OK earlier, but by '64 he was past his use-by date. Poor leadership and traumatic experience produced a lousy outfit.

AICUSV: Many years ago I came away with a general impression that the Philadelphia Brigade had suffered from rather poor leadership throughout most of its' early service and as a result was considered somewhat ill disciplined as a unit. Their Brigade commander at that time was a Col. "Paddy" Owens, (Welch not Irish), I think. I agree that what happened at Antietam was something that would cause any other brigade to break, and that is not the reason for my impression of their less then stellar military prowess. If I remember correctly,(always on shaky ground here), there are several books which mention their perceived lack of discipline, if only in passing, (of course I can't remember which ones off hand). In any case thanks for responding to my remarks.

vtsaogames: Agree as to poor leadership. From my reading it appears to make a great difference in a units performance, IMHO. Having attained the exalted rank of PFC during my brief military service I'm not really qualified to judge, however.

Thanks, John Miller

Yes, the key difference in units was the quality of the leadership.

Another factor is past experience. Units can get in the habit of winning or losing. That is, if they have always won in the past, they expect to keep on winning -- same for losing.

XI Corps at Gettysburg. After Chancelorsville they were very gun shy.

On the subject of leadership, an interesting study in that regard is the story of Willard's Brigade, ("The Harper's Ferry Cowards"), and General Alexander B. Hayes at Gettysburg. John Miller

All Union brigades… :)

Rich,

The entire CSA army at Franklin.

I think that you are off-base here. The brigades of the Army of Tennessee, for the most part, marched into a hurricane of artillery and rifled musket fire, carrying their attacks through until the bodies were piled in front of the Union defenses. If they would have had a "-1" on their morale, for example, they never would have closed.

Jim

Have to agree with this. If anything they should probably be at +1 for Franklin just to get them as close as the got.

Now if you want to give a -1 to the whole army, do it at the next battle they fought, Nashville.

Kim