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

Re: Chattanooga

Expand Messages
  • captaindan20022000
    ... Six ... entire ... insubordination. ... or
    Message 1 of 59 , Feb 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In civilwarwest@y..., "Lieberum, Steve" <slieberum@b...> wrote:
      > HankC,
      >
      > I do so agree, I am a map man from why back, and the lack of maps in
      "Six
      > Armies" does make me lose track of what is going on....
      >
      > Steve L
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: hank9174 [mailto:clarkc@m...]
      > Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 10:48 AM
      > To: civilwarwest@y...
      > Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Chattanooga
      >
      >
      >
      > 'Six Armies' offers a concise, well-written explanation of the
      entire
      > campaign from Murfreesboro through Tullahoma to Chickamauga back to
      > Chattanooga and then to Knoxville.
      >
      > It has good battle detail, explanation of personalties (and
      > conflicts).
      >
      > Woodworth calls Polk and Longstreet to task for their
      insubordination.
      > He also gives Bragg credit for good strategic thinking rather than
      > merely blaming his *personality* for the AoT command failures.
      >
      > My major complaint is that he makes do with only half-a-dozen maps
      or
      > so!
      >
      > HankC
    • william
      Thnk you, I was under the impression that Cleburne was pretty much alone in the defence of the northern end. Bill Bruner
      Message 59 of 59 , Oct 25, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Thnk you, I was under the impression that Cleburne was pretty much alone in the defence of the northern end.

        Bill Bruner

        --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, SDE80@... wrote:
        >
        > Well, the whole point of Sherman assaulting the north end of the Ridge was
        > to both capture Chickamauga Station and cut Bragg off from Longstreet at
        > Knoxville. That, too, would have made MR untenable. Bragg properly
        > discerned that was Grant's main effort and concentrated 4 divisions in a
        > relatively small area. He counted on the natural strength and defensibility of MR
        > to try to hold the rest of it with three divisions. A. P. Stewart's
        > division basically had responsibility for three miles of ridge with only enough
        > men in a single rank to hold a little over a mile.
        >
        > Sam Elliott
        >
        >
        > In a message dated 10/25/2010 3:45:37 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
        > banbruner@... writes:
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > I was thinking also of Sherman's force to the north which was much larger
        > and much closer to Chickamauga Station.
        >
        > Bill Bruner
        >
        > --- In _civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com_ (mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com)
        > , SDE80@ wrote:
        > >
        > > Bragg would have indeed had a hard time holding MR with a Federal corps
        > > (Hooker's "column" had three divisions" at Rossville. Of course, Grant's
        > > original plan did not contemplate Hooker being a part of the attack, or
        > Hooker
        > > having more than one division.
        > >
        > > Sam Elliott
        > >
        > >
        > > In a message dated 10/25/2010 10:35:20 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
        > > banbruner@ writes:
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > I am looking forward to a trip in Nov. celebrating the Battle of
        > > Chattanooga.
        > >
        > > Looking the map in preparation, a peculiar thought occurred to me.
        > > That once Lookout Mountain and Rossville had been taken Braggs position
        > on
        > > Missionary Ridge was untenable. With both Lookout and Chattanooga
        > Vallies
        > > in union control and large forces on both north and southern flanks in
        > easy
        > > position to move to his (Braggs) rear and cut his communications and
        > line
        > > of retreat he would have been forced to retire after dark on the 15th
        > even
        > > if no charge had been made on his front.
        > >
        > > I'm wondering if this analysis has been put forth before or if I am
        > > completely wrongheaded.
        > >
        > > Bill Bruner
        > >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.