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

Re: shiloh plan of attack

Expand Messages
  • acesdugout
    Hi Y all With the exception of tripping overthemselfs, the Confederate plan of attack was correct vs the style of most by sending in brigades at a time to
    Message 1 of 5 , Apr 6, 2002
      Hi Y'all
      With the exception of tripping overthemselfs, the Confederate plan
      of attack was correct vs the style of most by sending in brigades at
      a time to become cannon fodder.
      The full corps attack was wiping the field of the separated Union
      commands until they began to consolidate.
      And as time would show the Command not listening to the frontline
      as in past and future wars preconcieved notions of your adversary
      can lead to disaster.


      May all the sprits that still march the fields of battle rest in the
      knowledge that they have not fought in vain or are forgotten.

      James
    • carlw4514
      this has lead to confusion for me as well, as to forbid attacks by corp does sound like advocating piecemeal destruction ....
      Message 2 of 5 , Apr 7, 2002
        this has lead to confusion for me as well, as to forbid attacks by
        corp does sound like advocating piecemeal destruction ....
        --- In civilwarwest@y..., "acesdugout" <acesdugout@c...> wrote:
        > Hi Y'all
        > With the exception of tripping overthemselfs, the Confederate plan
        > of attack was correct vs the style of most by sending in brigades at
        > a time to become cannon fodder.
        > The full corps attack was wiping the field of the separated Union
        > commands until they began to consolidate.
        > And as time would show the Command not listening to the frontline
        > as in past and future wars preconcieved notions of your adversary
        > can lead to disaster.
        >
        >
        > May all the sprits that still march the fields of battle rest in the
        > knowledge that they have not fought in vain or are forgotten.
        >
        > James
      • Kristin Scherrer
        To James s last comment....amen. Kristin acesdugout wrote: Hi Y all With the exception of tripping overthemselfs, the Confederate
        Message 3 of 5 , Apr 7, 2002

          To James's last comment....amen.

          Kristin

            acesdugout <acesdugout@...> wrote:

          Hi Y'all
          With the exception of tripping overthemselfs, the Confederate plan
          of attack was correct vs the style of most by sending in brigades at
          a time to become cannon fodder.
          The full corps attack was wiping the field of the separated Union
          commands until they began to consolidate.
          And as time would show the Command not listening to the frontline
          as in past and future wars preconcieved notions of your adversary
          can lead to disaster.


          tomatohouse21
          James



          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



          Do You Yahoo!?
          Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax

        • hartshje
          Carl and James, It was not the idea of attack by corps that was flawed, it was the execution. The corps were piled in one on top of another; this was what
          Message 4 of 5 , Apr 7, 2002
            Carl and James,

            It was not the idea of "attack by corps" that was flawed, it was the
            execution. The corps were piled in one on top of another; this was
            what caused so much confusion. The corps' fronts should have been
            much narrower, with each corp being represented in the front line,
            and each having an adequate reserve unto itself.

            Also, if I'm not mistaken, there was virtually no cavalry on either
            flank of either army. I could be wrong about that though, since the
            thought just occurred to me and I haven't researched it. Someone
            please correct me if I am in error.

            Joe H.

            --- In civilwarwest@y..., "carlw4514" <carlw4514@y...> wrote:
            > this has lead to confusion for me as well, as to forbid attacks by
            > corp does sound like advocating piecemeal destruction ....
            >
            > --- In civilwarwest@y..., "acesdugout" <acesdugout@c...> wrote:
            > > Hi Y'all
            > > With the exception of tripping overthemselfs, the Confederate
            > > plan of attack was correct vs the style of most by sending in
            > > brigades at a time to become cannon fodder.
            > > The full corps attack was wiping the field of the separated
            > > Union commands until they began to consolidate.
            > > And as time would show the Command not listening to the frontline
            > > as in past and future wars preconcieved notions of your adversary
            > > can lead to disaster.
            > >
          • wh_keene
            ... I read somewhere that the union cavalry was in the middle of being reassigned as to which division each unit was attached to and on the morning of the 7th
            Message 5 of 5 , Apr 8, 2002
              > Also, if I'm not mistaken, there was virtually no cavalry on either
              > flank of either army.

              I read somewhere that the union cavalry was in the middle of being
              reassigned as to which division each unit was attached to and on the
              morning of the 7th most of the cavalry was moving camps so was not
              out on active duty. Will look for where I read this.

              -Will



              --- In civilwarwest@y..., "hartshje" <Hartshje@a...> wrote:
              > Carl and James,
              >
              > It was not the idea of "attack by corps" that was flawed, it was
              the
              > execution. The corps were piled in one on top of another; this was
              > what caused so much confusion. The corps' fronts should have been
              > much narrower, with each corp being represented in the front line,
              > and each having an adequate reserve unto itself.
              >
              > Also, if I'm not mistaken, there was virtually no cavalry on either
              > flank of either army. I could be wrong about that though, since
              the
              > thought just occurred to me and I haven't researched it. Someone
              > please correct me if I am in error.
              >
              > Joe H.
              >
              > --- In civilwarwest@y..., "carlw4514" <carlw4514@y...> wrote:
              > > this has lead to confusion for me as well, as to forbid attacks
              by
              > > corp does sound like advocating piecemeal destruction ....
              > >
              > > --- In civilwarwest@y..., "acesdugout" <acesdugout@c...> wrote:
              > > > Hi Y'all
              > > > With the exception of tripping overthemselfs, the Confederate
              > > > plan of attack was correct vs the style of most by sending in
              > > > brigades at a time to become cannon fodder.
              > > > The full corps attack was wiping the field of the separated
              > > > Union commands until they began to consolidate.
              > > > And as time would show the Command not listening to the
              frontline
              > > > as in past and future wars preconcieved notions of your
              adversary
              > > > can lead to disaster.
              > > >
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.