What could have been done better at Gettysburgh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stig

Yeah that they were, but not only because they were black, but also because they were worse fighters.

---

Because they were poorly trained/equipped. If I remember correctly, at a battle, a black unit charged into a crater filled with white USA/CSA troops and was attacked by both.
The thing was: it was such a different world back then. Sure, racism and bigotry still runs rampant, but it is mostly frowned upon. To put it into perspective:
It took the Italians a good 100 years or so to become really accepted in America.
It took the Irish (Catholics, not the Protestants) about 400 (if one counts the Carribean sugar plantations as America).
Took the French about 200.
And these people all had the same skin colour as the White, Anglo-Saxon (well most in the South were actually Scottish, if I remember correctly) Protestant American everyman. Think of how hard it would be for a black man, mexican man, Native American, etc.
If an average commander was given a Black unit, he wouldn't try to equip them well, he would use them as shields of flesh, just like peasants

IrishArmenia, what are your sources for the blacks-as-human-shields claim. I'm curious. I've not read a lot on the black soldiers in the Civil War but I've not run into much in my readings supporting any such claim. I've read Longstreet and E.P. Alexander from the Confederate side and neither mentioned fighting against such tactics. Alexander mentions black Union troops a few times but usually to say that he didn't think much of their fighting ability.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glaucus

I recommend seeing the movie titled "Gettysburg" (what a coincidence...). Quite good, with Martin Sheen as Lee and Jeff Daniels as Joshua Chamberlain.

---

Can recommend it too. I'd seen the documentary "The Civil War" severals times before seeing the movie. The movie comprised a very faithful dramatisation of the events over the three days that the Gettysburg episode of the documentary portrayed.

Quote:

---

IrishArmenia, what are your sources for the blacks-as-human-shields claim.

---

Well it's not as such human-shields, the "blacks" were used as frontline troops, starting of with the attack.
This had 3 reasons:
1. They were less trained, so couldn't do much on the long term (as IrishArmenian says)
2. They were free in the North but slaves in the South, so many of them wanted revenge on their former masters.
3. Since they wanted revenge there were enough Confederate soldiers that were afraid of them

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IrishArmenian

Because they were poorly trained/equipped. If I remember correctly, at a battle, a black unit charged into a crater filled with white USA/CSA troops and was attacked by both.
The thing was: it was such a different world back then. Sure, racism and bigotry still runs rampant, but it is mostly frowned upon. To put it into perspective:
It took the Italians a good 100 years or so to become really accepted in America.
It took the Irish (Catholics, not the Protestants) about 400 (if one counts the Carribean sugar plantations as America).
Took the French about 200.
And these people all had the same skin colour as the White, Anglo-Saxon (well most in the South were actually Scottish, if I remember correctly) Protestant American everyman. Think of how hard it would be for a black man, mexican man, Native American, etc.
If an average commander was given a Black unit, he wouldn't try to equip them well, he would use them as shields of flesh, just like peasants

---

If you mean the Battle of the Crater at Petersburg, 1864, a division of black troops was scheduled to lead the Union asault, but Gen. Meade withdrew them because he feared they would take heavy losses and this would create political repercussions, with the Union being accused of precisely what you suggested above. White troops instead undertook the assault and got slaughtered because they had not been properly briefed. The black troops were then sent in to reinforce and got slaughtered as well by the now-prepared Confederates...and probably by both sides' artillery as well.
On the whole black troops were probably not as well-trained or experienced as they were usually used for garrison and rear-lines duties, but would have been enthusiastic. Whether they more frequently inspired terror or hatred in the Confederates opposite them I could not say. They were certainly the occasional victims of atrocities, eg. at Fort Pillow, and could expect little mercy if captured. You're right about attitudes though, black soldiers often seem to have had great difficulty getting their military pensions after the war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregoshi

IrishArmenia, what are your sources for the blacks-as-human-shields claim. I'm curious. I've not read a lot on the black soldiers in the Civil War but I've not run into much in my readings supporting any such claim. I've read Longstreet and E.P. Alexander from the Confederate side and neither mentioned fighting against such tactics. Alexander mentions black Union troops a few times but usually to say that he didn't think much of their fighting ability.

---

I don't mean it literally. I mean that they were used to soak up fire.

Gettysburg... What a GREAT movie:iloveyou: I too must reccomend it. If you even have a fleeting interest in Civil War, WATCH IT! Great actors and music too.:charge:

Alas, the trip to Gettysburg was much too short. We only had 2 hours to spend on the battlefield, getting out of the bus at only four places. What I did do is take a series of pictures to compose a couple of panoramic pictures of the battlefield. Due to the size of the panoramas (file size [750KB] and dimension [14000x600]), I've provided the pictures via links. I think if you click on the picture you will get them at full size.

Little Round Top

This 5 picture panorama shows the lovely view from the top of Little Round Top. The west face is clear of trees and provides a wonderful field of fire for most of the field. However, the lack of trees on the side facing the Confederates made it a dangerous place as well. Quite a sniper battle took place between Little Round Top and Devil's Den. Far off to the right of center is the Peach Orchard where Dan Sickles placed part of the his 3rd Corps against orders from Meade. Just behind the treeline in front of Little Round Top is the Wheatfield that saw some of the bloodiest fighting in the battle. The statue on the right is that of General Warren who is credited with recognizing the significant of Little Round Top on the battlefield. Distant Seminary Ridge is marked as is Cemetary Ridge. Near the right-most arrow marking Cemetary Ridge is about where Sickles was supposed to place his 3rd Corp. You can see how far forward he place his men from the place they were supposed to be. The next panorama will show you a little bit better why he felt he needed to move forward to the Peach Orchard.

Gettysburg from atop the Pennsylvania Memorial

This panorama is composed of 16 images. I zoomed in a little to get some detail on more distant objects, hence the absurd number of images required to make this 180 degree view. The Pennsylvania Memorial sits just south of the target of Pickett's Charge. To continue the discussion of Sickles' placement of his 3rd Corps, we must look at the panorama starting at its left side. The stone house and white barn are about where Sickles was ordered to place his men. If you scroll to the right to where the Peach Orchard is, you will notice the ground slopes up towards the Orchard. Notice also the trees between where Sickles was supposed to be and the Peach Orchard. His position had no height and had very poor fields of fire thanks to the trees. The Confederates would be able to advance pretty close to Sickles under some good cover. It is easy to see why the Orchard might be considered a better position...had the rest of the army's deployment been adjusted to support the position better. So much for Sickles.

I note the placement of the Virginia Memorial because it is here where Lee came out to meet the fleeing survivors of Pickett's Charge. From the Virginia Memorial to the right edge of the panorama shows the field upon which Pickett's Charge took place. On the right end of the picture is the copse of trees which was the target of the charge. The single tree marked as "The Angle" grows right at the angle in the stone wall defended by the Union. And in the distance is the McDonalds where the Confederates stopped at the drive thru for a quick meal before crashing into the Union lines. :laugh4:

I have some prints from a couple of years ago that show a few other places on the battlefield including some closeups of Devil's Den, the Seminary, where Reynold's was shot, and the railroad cut to name a few. I'll try to scan a few of these in the coming days and post them.

Thanks for the shots Gregoshi sama. When i look in the panorama, it makes me wonder more and more why the rebels didnt move in to the big round top on the second day.If they could have put some artillery there they could have bombarded pretty much anywhere in the battlefield and also could have inspected any moves made by the Union army. An most likely could have turned the battle that way into defensive one.:inquisitive:

Those pictures really helped a lot...

Maps don't say everything, or even enough.
To me the surprise really is, why on Earth the rebels chose to attack pretty much in the only places where there were open land with enough extent to make their advance costly.

Also, that the Little Round Top actually looks like a sniper's dream, save the bushes. A flat line to the target, somewhat above him, good hard cover around and a nice blend of colours. Infantry should have been pretty safe among the boulders and rocks.

And now Pickett's charge seems even more foolish. The most open terrain, up against a strong defensive position and with open flanks more or less. GAH!

Lee's blood was up.

The 1st is hard to fault anyone for, a meeting engagement rarely proceeds according to any strategic plan. Buford and company just held a little better than usual and the Rebs didn't have enough energy left that day to put in a chin shot.

When the double envelopement effort of the 2nd failed to be decisive, he should have broken it off as a bad business.

Had he waited defensively on the 3rd, he could have begun a long flanking effort on the 4th -- actually screened by cavalry the way it was supposed to be -- and found better ground to face Meade again.

Lee believed in the greater ability of his soldiers -- with a lot of truth to it. Not only did they get across that field, but Lo Armistead came within an ace of triggering a localized panic at the Angle and achieving a break-through. Meade certainly had reserves to try to counter this, but many of his better regiments had been shot out and many of the AotP's regiments had fairly fragile morale. A few moment's more panic and just a dash of luck and it still might have worked. That they came that close to success despite the insane tactical choice to attack there and then says alot about those troops.

Speaking of Armistead, one of the surprising things I discovered in exploring Gettysburg in recent years is where he was shot during the charge. The movie Gettysburg has him shot by a cannon at the wall. The spot where he fell is marked with a monument and it is 20-30 yards beyond the wall!

Something that makes me wonder, upon reflection, is Sickles logic. He moved his men 1 mile forward of where he was supposed to be to get better ground, which makes sense with a narrow view of the terrain, but about 100 yards or so to his left stands the best position to be found on the field in Little Round Top. I guess 145 years of hindsight makes things more crystal clear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregoshi

Something that makes me wonder, upon reflection, is Sickles logic. He moved his men 1 mile forward of where he was supposed to be to get better ground, which makes sense with a narrow view of the terrain, but about 100 yards or so to his left stands the best position to be found on the field in Little Round Top. I guess 145 years of hindsight makes things more crystal clear.

---

Tunnelvision in it's most extreme.

Damn, this position is lousy... Ahh a mile ahead is a nice position. CAn't be bothered with my flanks, can't be anything important there, besides I would break my orders if I went out of the way.

:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Derfasciti

I recomend you reading some Alternate Civil War books. There are many and quite a few I believe focus on Gettysburg.

---

:coffeenews: Why not read about what *actually* happened instead of fantasizing over what might have been? :wall: :laugh4: There is no way of knowing what effect Jackson would have had. There is no way of knowing what would have happened if the battle had placed the ANV closer to Washington. Alternate history is not history and no conclusions can be drawn from the works of Turtledove, Stirling or the others. They may be a fun read but they are nothing more than guess work,...period. :thumbsdown:

Lee was simply overconfident, he had not lost a major battle before and thought the elan of his army would overcome the superior enemy numbers as had in the past. It is also important to note that the Union army of the summer 1863 was not the same army that marched to Bull Run in 1861, they had learned from their earlier defeats and were gaining the tactical advantages brought by better technology. The strategic advantage was also theirs in the form of a demographic and indutrial advantage,...after Gettysburg the South would have been well advised to have surrender.

Cheers.:book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

Flanking at tactical level was often impossible because of the visibility. Mostly when the tactical officers became aware of the need or possibilty, the other side had spotted them. So when they marched off to flank they could respond. However, if they had been more fluid and less in ranks and files such would have been possible.

Also, while the rifles in WWI were better (obviously) the combat inside the trenches was very much similar to the melee the infantry in the ACW experienced. A single shot then with bayonet from there on. And that was what the infiltration was about.

Northern armies were notoriously lax in anything but the most obvious way. They simply didn't have the same heart into the war as the CSA troops, generally of course (there were the regulars which tended to best the CSA troops in all departments).
They hadn't really advanced that much since Shiloh (in this department).

---

Kraxis, I do not normally disagree with too much of what you post but this time I have to say you are fairly far off the mark. The type of tactics you describe were simply beyond the capabilities of the south in ACW. Infiltartion takes training and discipline,...both commodities missing in the southern armies by 1863 (well, perhaps after Gettysburgh). What they had was moral and elan but that is a different asset entirely. Further, battles were not simply a matter of lining up at 50 yards, firing a volley and then charging in with the bayonet. Tactics, contrary to what some here believe, were developing and the armies were beginning to spread out. Ranges for engagements were growing and it was not uncommon for northern units equipped with rifled muskets to be able to begin accurately engaging the southern smooth bores from ever increasing ranges.

You also under estimate the advances made by the north since 1861, almost to the point of being unfair. While the north struggled to match the calibre of senior commanders facing Lee, the corps, division and regimental officers were made of sterner material. Gettysburg is a prime example of the devloping skill of northern officers in mastering their trade. By 1863 the dedcation of the average northern soldier was arguably just as strong as that of the southerners,...if not more so.

Cheers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

Also, while the rifles in WWI were better (obviously) the combat inside the trenches was very much similar to the melee the infantry in the ACW experienced.

---

Apart from machineguns, mortars, flamethrowers and handgrenades.

Quote:

---

A single shot then with bayonet from there on. And that was what the infiltration was about

---

That has nothing to do with infiltration tactics! That is about locating and attacking the weaker spots of a line while bypassing and surrounding the strong points as well as going deep to hit headquarters and artillery positions. Most of that doesnt make sense in a age of musket battlefield. And artillery couldnt be used to weaken the enemy in depth either.

Its on a completely different scale when looking at depth of defenses and troop densities and the small unit tactics are also different as fire and maneuver tactics were born in WW1 because of more available firepower.


CBR

Well, on a strategic level, the importance of Gettysburg was:

The casualties to Lee's infantry. He couldn't replace all of them. With the casualties he suffered, his hope of a lucky strike and breakthrough into Washington was gone.

The surrender of Vicksburg -- a foregone conclusion while Lee and Meade tangled in PA -- guaranteed a Southern defeat by severing the nascent country and giving the Union use of the Mississippi from end to end.


I disagree with infiltration tactics a la sturmtruppen being valid in the ACW. There simply had not been enough experience with modern trench fortifications for tacticians to work on this problem. Remember, the ACW was mostly a war of manuever aside from Chatanooga, Petersburg, and Vicksburg. They dug in whenever they could, but fought as many or more battles in Napoleonic upright fashion as not.

However, Lee most definitely had the troops to enact such tactics had they been conceptualized. Southern infantry was, on average, possessed of a lot more skill in woodscraft and greater capability to operate independently. Their discipline was excellent, especially by 1863, and would have transferred well to the kind of discipline needed for independent squad operation.

I put together a 90 degree panorama of the view of the ground of Pickett's Charge from the Seminary Ridge. Again, click on the picture to get the full size of it.

Pickett's Charge

The position of this picture is from where Trimble and Pettigrew stepped off to begin the charge. The Angle, copse of trees and the Emmitsburg Road are noted. On the right side is a thin line of trees jutting out into the field. Beyond these trees you can see another field. That field is where Pickett's men were positioned. The taller trees at the very edge of the pictures is another, larger group of trees that stick out into the field. It is here where Lee moved out to meet the survivors of the charge and proclaimed that the disaster is his fault.

BTW, I didn't note it on the Gettysburg from atop the Pennsylvania Memorial image I posted earlier, but you can see the Emmitsburg Road much better in that image. Look for some cars driving on it to the left of the Angle and you can then follow the fence-lined road to the left.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stig

Well it's not as such human-shields, the "blacks" were used as frontline troops, starting of with the attack.
This had 3 reasons:
1. They were less trained, so couldn't do much on the long term (as IrishArmenian says)
2. They were free in the North but slaves in the South, so many of them wanted revenge on their former masters.
3. Since they wanted revenge there were enough Confederate soldiers that were afraid of them

---

Just like at the Battle of Fort Wagnar I presume. Movie called "Glory" about it, I presume. Where a Black Bridge, with a white commander,led the first wave against the fort, and made it over the walls, but took heavy losses..