Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

46936Re: [civilwarwest] Envelopment

Expand Messages
  • Ronald black
    Jan 20, 2011
      I believe there is a fine line differance between flank and envelopment attacks.  In appearance, they are often the same with similar results.  It would be my choice of an attack as opposed to a frontal attack.  Everything said, at Chattanooga, the main reason Grant won was General Braxton Bragg/
      --- Original Message -----
      Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 2:47 PM
      Subject: [civilwarwest] Envelopment


      I thought that "envelopment" meant going around the flank(s) to get
      behind the enemy, not just attacking on the flank(s). If this is a
      correct definition, then Grant's plans at Chattanooga would seem to be
      flank attacks, not envelopments. Sherman was to get up on Missionary
      Ridge at the north end and "roll up" Bragg's army from that point.
      Hooker was to do likewise at the south end. Thomas was to hold the
      middle. As it turned out, Thomas' troops broke through the middle,
      aided by a somewhat late attack on the Confederate left flank by
      Hooker. Sherman was stopped by Cleburne's troops and did not "roll up"
      Bragg's army from his right flank. Thus, Grant's plans for attacks on
      Bragg's flanks were not very successful, while Thomas's troops did more
      than their planned part. It seems, therefore, that this battle was not
      a good example of attacks on the flank(s) and certainly not an envelopment.

      No virus found in this message.
      Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
      Version: 10.0.1191 / Virus Database: 1435/3391 - Release Date: 01/19/11

    • Show all 15 messages in this topic