Malcolm Hunt wrote:
J. Ferry wrote:
"The north doesn't need a good general, just a competent butcher."
Yup, his name was US Grant.
That was exactly my thought, compared to the Union generals that went before that sentence sums Grant up perfectly.
Not in a tactical sense. Grant was just as wily and cunning and always seeking to use diversions and feints and imagination in planning his battles. He was probably more subtle in his handling than some of his previous commanders. His tolerance of casualties became apparent in the bigger picture.
These are grand tactical scenarios ...it's a tactical game engine. The Union has next to no chance of winning a stand up fight between equal forces whatever methods it employs and I find that all good planning and handling of forces on a tactical level is irrelevant.
It's a good job I play Chess 'cos I find a dogged application of et practices: regardless of terrain or timing is the answer to most situations.
My "command" is of no importance and that can't be right?
Corinth was fun, Ozark was fun, Franklin & Vicksburg were fun? Overland isn't 'cos the Union is having to employ operational and strategic superiority to win the tactical fight.