American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)
http://www.wargame.ch/board/acwgc/

Army of Tennessee or the Army of the Potomac
http://www.wargame.ch/board/acwgc/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=23486		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  Blake [ Mon Dec 04, 2023 1:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Army of Tennessee or the Army of the Potomac
The Army of Tennessee or the Army of the Potomac - which army, from the period of 1862 - 1863, was more dysfunctional?

Anyone have a two-bit opinion to throw in?

This period for the AotP includes:
The failure on the Peninsula and McClellan's cautious generalship.
The failed experiment with Pope.
The return of Little Mac.
The tactical stalemate at Antietam followed by Lee's escape over the Potomac.
The merry-go-round of Union army commanders.
Infighting among the officer corps to remove [insert army commander name here].
The disasters as Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville.
The victory at Gettysburg.
The stalled offensives at Bristoe and Mine Run.

This period for the AoT includes (only tallying events after the fall of Corinth when Bragg took over):
The failed Kentucky Campaign.
The poorly fought Battle of Perryville.
The controversial retreat from Kentucky.
The loss at Stones River.
The revolt of the officers corps.
Jefferson Davis's continued support of Bragg.
The long retreat during the Tullahoma Campaign.
The transfer of numerous generals in an effort to appease Bragg.
The loss of Chattanooga.
The victory at Chickamauga.
The unfathomable defeat at Missionary Ridge.
The removal of Bragg from command.
Author:  Blake [ Mon Dec 04, 2023 1:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Army of Tennessee or the Army of the Potomac
Alright, I have to vote for the Army of the Potomac. At least the Army of Tennessee had a single commander throughout most of the time period in question. The Army of the Potomac requires a reference book to remember who commanded it and when. The Army of Tennessee had lots of internal drama but at least their fight was an internal one. The Army of the Potomac generals were not above enlisting newspapers and politicians from DC to promote their causes. Not that Polk and others weren't above these tactics in the west, but the opportunity to enlist mass media and politicians was less simply because of the distance from Tennessee to Richmond. Potomac officers could ride to DC, give an interview, and ride back in time for dinner.
Author:  Quaama [ Mon Dec 04, 2023 4:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Army of Tennessee or the Army of the Potomac
Based upon the raw numbers facing each other in the east and the west it must be the AotP. When the industrial might of the Union is also added to their tally the AotP clearly failed in a much bigger way.
Author:  Karl McEntegart [ Mon Dec 04, 2023 5:07 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Army of Tennessee or the Army of the Potomac
Gentlemen <salute>

All the foregoing may be as stated, but........................why would I not vote AotP :o :shock: :o :shock:
Author:  M. Johnson [ Mon Dec 04, 2023 5:17 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Army of Tennessee or the Army of the Potomac
The AotP was up against Lee and the best supplied and largest rebel horde. They went through the normal period of transformation that it takes all volunteer armies to become fighting machines. The ANV took time as well but were aided by Lee and superior leadership. When it mattered most the AotP was victorious and defeated Lee twice when he attacked the north.

The AoT was garbage. Even up against the third best Union army they could not manage a victory until their big brothers came to help them at Chickamauga. The AotP found its way to victory while the AoT was wiped out at Nashville.

AoT is the correct answer.
Author:  Thomas Marshall [ Thu Dec 07, 2023 4:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Army of Tennessee or the Army of the Potomac
I have to go with the Army of Tennessee as being more dysfunctional.

Sure, there was quite possibly more drama at the top of the Army of the Potomac (debatable point though - both were comically unprofessional) but the Army of Tennessee simply could not win battles. No Longstreet, no victory at Chickamauga IMO (and that's before we even get into the outcome if Wood's Division had stayed where they were). This is despite the undoubted courage & resilience of the AoT rank and file & I haven't seen anything which suggests the officer corps at brigade command and below were any worse than their counterparts elsewhere.

By 1863, the AotP was assembling a strong set of corps commanders - the standout ones were surely Hancock, Meade, and Reynolds, with an honourable mention for Sedgwick, but most of the others were solid (Dan Sickles probably deserves his own poll as to his competence). It's hard to point to an AoT officer besides Cleburne who could be trusted with some degree of independent command.

The advantages of the AotP is numbers, supplies, and munitions are of course well known. I would argue that the logistical challenges of moving deep into the Confederacy were correspondingly huge, and the failure of the AoT to take advantage of this is stark.

Ultimately though, if you round off 1863 by being routed off Missionary Ridge in utter chaos, it's hard to credibly question the competence of anyone else.
Author:  Robert Frost [ Thu Dec 07, 2023 5:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Army of Tennessee or the Army of the Potomac
Is this one of those questions for which there is no correct answer? In terms of leadership incompetence, the two armies were mirror images. There were political operatives and glory hounds on both sides. And, of course, the A of P faced Lee. Buell, and then Rosecrans, were not Lee.

Forced to come down on one side or other of the Mason-Dixon Line, I vote for the Army of Tennessee. The wilderness of much of the A of T territory should have been a game changer for playing defense. Even Bragg could do this. The difficulty of supplying Union armies moving south in the Western Theatre was extensive. I have been through the mountains around Chattanooga a number of times. The thought of moving an army (Rosecrans) through them without being contested clearly points to a failure in the A of T command. What would Lee have done in this situation? Interesting to ponder.
Author:  Blake [ Thu Dec 07, 2023 5:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Army of Tennessee or the Army of the Potomac
Robert Frost wrote:
What would Lee have done in this situation? Interesting to ponder.


I never thought of what Lee might have been able to do in a hilly/mountainous terrain with a trained army. No wonder Grant was determined to run his army down before they could reach the mountains in 1865!
Author:  Thomas Marshall [ Fri Dec 08, 2023 7:51 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Army of Tennessee or the Army of the Potomac
I remember there was a fascinating discussion here a while ago, debating the merits of the various generals, North and South. Hood remains a more enigmatic figure than most, I believe. Of course, his name will always be linked with the slaughter in front of the Carter House, but I believe at Spring Hill, there was an attempt to emulate Lee's tactics of dividing his army & attacking enemy supply lines, which had the potential to be successful & hinted at a different side to Hood.

If Lee was commanding in the West, I see a more effective Army of Tennessee, certainly at division level and eventually also at corps level (which would have been an absolute game changer). Under Lee, I see the AoT being deployed at key choke points with extensive field fortifications. I believe Lee may have been more willing to give up Tennessean soil than Virginian soil, in the interests of extending Union supply lines & occupying the best defensive ground. Crucially, I also see Lee as being prepared to split his army and aim via manoeuvre to threaten or destroy enemy supply depots & therefore force his retreat. It worked in the Peninsula, it worked at 2nd Manassas, it would have worked at Sharpsburg but for SO191. It worked at Winchester in the Gettysburg campaign.

I also see a more effective Forrest (Lee clearly knew how to manage strong personalities) & we all know the Federal teamsters had a hard enough time in the West as it was.

However, it's extremely difficult to see who commands the ANV successfully in Lee's absence. If the Army of the Potomac was more successful than it was historically by virtue of not being opposed by Lee, then I am certain public, political, and military opinion, as well as the fundamental preferences & beliefs of the man himself, would have seen Lee returning to Richmond and command of the ANV.
Author:  Blake [ Fri Dec 08, 2023 12:35 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Army of Tennessee or the Army of the Potomac
Can Robert E. Lee find the equivalents of Longstreet, Stuart, and Jackson in the west?

Here's a fun game - 1864 in Georgia - Lee commands the AoT - who are his three CCs and cavalry leader?

CAVALRY
Forrest was a great raider but not a scout like Stuart. Lee could utilize Forrest like he did Mosby or others, but he wouldn't have been Stuart's equal and Lee wouldn't put him in charge. Lee might have had to bring Hampton with him to lead the cavalry (Wheeler was no great cavalryman either). Stuart and Hampton clashed so it is conceivable the South Carolinian would have accepted the transfer. Lee didn't like non-West Pointers, but he would eventually appoint Hampton to replace Stuart in 1864.

INFANTRY
Hardee maintains his post as CC. He was reliable and a veteran in the AoT. Lee would give him an opportunity.

Polk is transferred to the Trans-Miss. Lee couldn't deal with that much drama from a subordinate. Buckner seems a likely alternative that would have interviewed with Lee for the post. He was available (commanding in East Tennessee) and had a history with the AoT. Richard Taylor was another likely candidate. He was from the ANV originally, was a favorite of Jackson's, and was currently operating in Louisiana (maybe swap him with Polk). Between the two - I would say Taylor makes more sense because of his history with Lee in the ANV. Lee can then swap him with Polk and everyone saves face.

The final corps spot has to go to Hood. His history with Lee would seemingly make this a no-brainer. But there is also Stephen D. Lee to consider. Lee was in Alabama/Mississippi in 1864 and had a history with the ANV the same as Hood.


MY TWO CENTS:
A command corps of Hardee, Taylor, Hood, and Hampton all under Lee in Georgia. Polk is gone, Wheeler is returned to divisional command or transferred, Buckner stays in East Tennessee, Joe Johnston is shipped to the Trans-Miss or to a coastal post, Longstreet takes over the ANV. SD Lee is an "alternate" should one of the three CCs fail or become a casualty.

Could it have worked? Why not? This is all a bunch of conjecture anyways. But if Hood = Jackson, Hardee = Longstreet, and Taylor = AP Hill (on a good day), along with Hampton (who was very capable), this army leadership group could grow to be as solid as any in the ANV.



You know, someday we can just punch all this into a computer A/I program and it could do all the calculations for us to determine the feasibility of victory given all the thousands of factors. I used to think, "maybe in 50 or a 100 years," but with the way computer A/I is expanding now... maybe in our lifetimes.
Author:  Quaama [ Fri Dec 08, 2023 2:47 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Army of Tennessee or the Army of the Potomac
Thomas Marshall wrote:
It worked in the Peninsula, it worked at 2nd Manassas, it would have worked at Sharpsburg but for SO191.


An interesting aspect of that order, and a few others, is that when there are matters of welfare they precede any more military matters [191(I) - citizens, 191(II) - sick and wounded, 191(III-IX) - military movements, 191(X) Don't forget the axes]. The only thing that ever preceded such concerns was God, some orders relate solely to Him.

Blake wrote:
Can Robert E. Lee find the equivalents of Longstreet, Stuart, and Jackson in the west?

Here's a fun game - 1864 in Georgia - Lee commands the AoT - who are his three CCs and cavalry leader?


Your analysis looks fine. However, I cannot see how Lee would have been persuaded to leave Virginia at any time, let alone 1864. Perhaps you can also find a place for former Vice President (and later Secretary of War [CSA]) Breckenridge and the often overlooked Kirby Smith in the army.

A query is: in which month does Lee leave Georgia?
The obvious successor for Lee in Virginia is Longstreet but on 6 May Longstreet is badly wounded and doesn't return until October when he is still far from full health. Without Longstreet there is no obvious commander for the ANV.

[In 'strategy' games, I usually send Lee west as soon as I can. The command bonuses he has in such games are usually vital in turning the tide in the west, securing the Mississippi and then heading north.]
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/