Ranking of U.S. Presidents by historians

My personal opinion is the South had much better fighters (more fight in their blood) and much better Generals to lead them. Just look at the battles throughout the entire war and the evidence is written in the blood that was spilled.

Lee was a fricken genius in my book and knew how to make the most with the least amount of resources. Probably the most militaristic and strategic minded person this world has ever known. He's up there with Douglas MacArthur in my list of "men who knew how to fight a war". He was a very disciplined person and never received a single demerit at West Point during his 4 years there. That's unheard of for a school that's so strict!

To me, Grant wasn't a great General at all. And I'm not saying this because I'm so pro-South. The fact is, he just had a lot more men to throw at the South. Give him a small force and he'd lose. Give him a big force and he'd win, but you could rest assured that his big force would be nothing more than a handful of wounded men by the end of the battle. I think this led to him becoming such a bad drunk. It's got to be hard to swallow the "could of/should of" reality when you're responsible for the literally thousands of young lives being lost due in large part to your poor military tactics I can imagine.

It's my opinion that the north suffered such heavy losses during the war because of Grant's poor leadership. There were other northern Generals that used this same method as well. It's so easy to just throw numbers at the enemy to win. Anybody who's into RTS games will know this. We're all guilty of doing the same thing in games like Red Alert. Just create a ton of infantry and charge at the enemy with them and you'll most likely win no matter what equipment they have on their side or how they're strategically setup on the map. You're gonna suffer heavy losses but you're guaranteed to win.

[Sailor Steve]

You may not think Grant was a great general, but his enemies, including Lee, said he was.

Lee was a great defensive commander, but the two times he went on the attack he lost. He was beaten by McLellan and he was beaten by Meade. If either of those two had bothered to chase him the war might have ended much sooner.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

You may not think Grant was a great general, but his enemies, including Lee, said he was.

Lee was a great defensive commander, but the two times he went on the attack he lost. He was beaten by McLellan and he was beaten by Meade. If either of those two had bothered to chase him the war might have ended much sooner.

This is due to their much larger numbers of course.

If Lee had fought for the north, the war would have been over in a month.

[UnderseaLcpl]

I have to admit, I'm a little shocked to see just how many people think Grant was a great general. With the vast superiority in resources he had, I would expect more from a really great general, but it seems that everyone else thinks he is, and I assume you probably have reasons for that in addition to what you've posted here, so I cede the argument. Grant was a great general, apparently. I can't believe I said that. Yes, people's minds can be changed on the internet.

However, if one person.... and I mean even one person suggests that Bernard Montgomery was a great general, I will personally execute you all KGB-style.

[August]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

I have to admit, I'm a little shocked to see just how many people think Grant was a great general. With the vast superiority in resources he had, I would expect more from a really great general, but it seems that everyone else thinks he is, and I assume you probably have reasons for that in addition to what you've posted here, so I cede the argument. Grant was a great general, apparently. I can't believe I said that. Yes, people's minds can be changed on the internet.

This is why we like you so much.

However, if one person.... and I mean even one person suggests that Bernard Montgomery was a great general, I will personally execute you all KGB-style.

Well it won't be me. I'm a Paratrooper and as you know the Airborne community has had a long standing beef with that man.

[UnderseaLcpl]

I didn't figure it would be you, August. I just wanted you to agree with me, as I get tired of disagreeing with you when there are other opinions that are so much more disagreeable. I prefer to be on the same side as you.

[August]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

I didn't figure it would be you, August. I just wanted you to agree with me, as I get tired of disagreeing with you when there are other opinions that are so much more disagreeable. I prefer to be on the same side as you.

I just would like to thank you for allowing me to express my dislike of Montgomery. I would do it all again.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by thorn69

This is due to their much larger numbers of course.

At Antietam, that's arguably true, but at Gettysburg Lee ignored Longstreet's advice and ordered Pickett's charge. I don't think it can be denied that that was a major blunder. He had developed a case of what pilots call "target fixation."

If Lee had fought for the north, the war would have been over in a month.

I don't think it would have been that quick or easy, but I agree with your point. I'm not denying that Lee was one of the greats, both as a general and as a man, but he made some of the same mistakes Grant did. I'm merely saying that contemporary quotes from Lee and others show Grant to be underrated as both by later generations.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

At Antietam, that's arguably true, but at Gettysburg Lee ignored Longstreet's advice and ordered Pickett's charge. I don't think it can be denied that that was a major blunder. He had developed a case of what pilots call "target fixation."


I don't think it would have been that quick or easy, but I agree with your point. I'm not denying that Lee was one of the greats, both as a general and as a man, but he made some of the same mistakes Grant did. I'm merely saying that contemporary quotes from Lee and others show Grant to be underrated as both by later generations.

I won't deny that Lee screwed up at Gettysburg. I think he got a little over zealous in that battle and thought he had it whupped. He could have won that battle had he listened to Longstreet! But it's a good thing for the north that he did screw up. Otherwise Lincoln was about ready to abandon ship and end the war. Lincoln wasn't going to allow and couldn't afford to let the South to invade the north like the north had been invading the South.

Originally Posted by thorn69

This is due to their much larger numbers of course.

If Lee had fought for the north, the war would have been over in a month.

The attacker requires at least a 3 to 1 superiority in numbers to assure success, and will almost always suffer heavier casualties. (The latter situation has been offset largely in modern warfare.)

[Bilge_Rat]

a couple of points:

1. superiority of men and material is nice, but has never been a garantee of success (as Napoleon, the German Army in 1940-42 and the IDF can attest ). You still need someone on top who knows what he is doing and the determination to do it. If the commanding general is incompetent (Pope, Burnside) or does not have the killer instinct (McClellan, Hooker, Meade), numerical superiority means squat. McClellan blew numerous chances to crush Lee's army before, during and after Antietam; its doubtful Grant would have made the same mistakes. Just compare the speed and the fury shown by Grant in his pursuit of Lee in April 1865 with the very cautious approach shown by McClellan and Meade after Antietam and Gettysburg, respectively;

2. I have not seen any evidence that the average Confederate soldier or officer was better than his Union counterpart. The results are skewed by Lee's performance in the East. The results in the West were closer to what you would expect given the Union's superiority. Many confederate generals in the ANV look very good when all they were doing is following Lee's orders. Many of the same generals performed much worse when given an independent command (Hood, Longstreet);

3. Lee's performance and reputation were helped by having a brillant subordinate. His greatest successes came in 1862-63 when Stonewall Jackson, who in many ways was as brillant as Lee, was his point man. After Stonewall was killed, the performance of the ANV dropped off measurably. It is interesting to speculate how Gettysburg would have turned out if Stonewall was still around;

4. Grant's reputation as a drunk was overblown. There is no evidence that he drank when campaigning, certainly not during the 1864 overland campaign against Lee in may-june 1864. The rest of the time it was about average for a Civil War General (they tended to be a hard drinking lot );

5. as to Monty, I guess we can keep that for another thread...

[Raptor1]

Originally Posted by Snestorm

The attacker requires at least a 3 to 1 superiority in numbers to assure success, and will almost always suffer heavier casualties. (The latter situation has been offset largely in modern warfare.)

This has to be the most often cited and possibly least accurate theory about warfare I have ever head (And keep hearing). There's no such thing as 'assure success' and the amount of forces required by an attacker to have a reasonably high chances of succeeding is heavily dependent on the state of the defending force.

Also, an attack can suffer much less casualties regardless of ridiculously high numerical superiority if it's properly executed.

Originally Posted by Raptor1

This has to be the most often cited and possibly least accurate theory about warfare I have ever head (And keep hearing). There's no such thing as 'assure success' and the amount of forces required by an attacker to have a reasonably high chances of succeeding is heavily dependent on the state of the defending force.

Also, an attack can suffer much less casualties regardless of ridiculously high numerical superiority if it's properly executed.

Your point is well taken in modern warfare, but USA's civil war was the beginning of the end of linear tactics, and restrictions.

Let's luck at muzzleloaders (Springfield / Enfield).
Defender: Fire, reload, fire, at capacity.
Attacker: Fix bayonette. Advance. Usualy 1 shot, if one lives to fire it.

Artillary.
Attacker: Pre-advance barage.
Defender: Fire, reload, fire, at capacity. Final round = grapeshot.

That's where that 3 to 1 pretext came from. However, in the end, you are correct. Nothing is even close to being written in stone, and there are infinate possabilities that can have a minor, or major effect.

An often overlooked handicap of the attacker is logistics. It's a whole discussion in itself.
And a very complex one at that.

[Raptor1]

Originally Posted by Snestorm

Your point is well taken in modern warfare, but USA's civil war was the beginning of the end of linear tactics, and restrictions.

Let's luck at muzzleloaders (Springfield / Enfield).
Defender: Fire, reload, fire, at capacity.
Attacker: Fix bayonette. Advance. Usualy 1 shot, if one lives to fire it.

Artillary.
Attacker: Pre-advance barage.
Defender: Fire, reload, fire, at capacity. Final round = grapeshot.

That's where that 3 to 1 pretext came from. However, in the end, you are correct. Nothing is even close to being written in stone, and there are infinate possabilities that can have a minor, or major effect.

An often overlooked handicap of the attacker is logistics. It's a whole discussion in itself.
And a very complex one at that.

Or it could go like this:

Defender: Fire. Reload as fast as possible under heavy rifled artillery barrage. Fire again, but you're blinded by your own smoke so you can't aim well.

Attacker: Close range, fire massed volley. Fix bayonets and charge the disoriented and shocked enemy, breaking and dispersing them while taking negligable casualties.

As I said, it all depends on a huge number of factors regardless of the era the battle takes place in.

I can even think of cases in WWI, where defensive technology far outpaced offensive doctrine, in which outnumbered but properly led and handled troops could attack strong defensive positions while taking far fewer casualties than the defenders.

And logistics can effect the defender just as much as the attacker.

[August]

The 3-1 superiority rule of thumb comes from the concept that fortifications can increase a defenders combat effectiveness against an enemy who is attacking in the open. The specific term is "Force Multiplier". Technology can also be a force multiplier as can esprit de corps.

The 3-1 ratio *I think* comes from WW1 and is based upon the weaponry, armor and defensive structures of that time period. Obviously that will change as technology and training levels improve over time.