Jeff Beckner (PWC Magazine) wrote:
You do realize that McClellan had no real idea of how badly the Confederates
were hurt during the battle. He could make an educated guess, but that is
it. Basically what you are saying sounds like a paraphrase from a famous
politician that goes something like this "Yes your troops are hurt, but so
are they. You are all hurt together." McClellan understood something that
apparently a lot of people miss. It is easier to defend than it is to attack.
So on the 18th McClellan would only be able to attack with part of his army,
but Lee would be able to defend with his entire army.
Let me see. What changed during the day of the 17th. Let's start with
10,000 casualties and go from there.
Let me see. I guess all the Yankee bullets missed their marks.
Have you read "Taken at the Flood" yet? As for our other discussions, this
is the first time I've been on these groups that I have joined in on a discussion
of why McClellan didn't attack on the 18th. That is why I've never mentioned
it. I've also never said that the ammo situation was "paralyzing". That
word has connotations that do not fit in this instance. I said that he was
critically short of ammo. Sears acknowledges that lack of Parrot rounds
even as he dismisses it as meaningless. I think that the loss of the 20lb
Parrots is far from meaningless. They represented over 10% of the artillery
pieces, and as the largest caliber they probably represented a higher percentage
in actual combat power. Considering that artillery is the one branch that
McClellan knows is superior in all respects to the Confederates, such a loss
is far from trivial.
Where was this paralyzing lack of ammo in all of our other discussions? Has
Dr. Harsh written another book?