Article

2007-07-03 -Short Attention Span Theater-

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Mike 2007-07-03 08:08|| E-Mail|| Front Page|| [11136 views ] Top

#1 Given the disastrous result of the British attack on fortified US defenses in the Battle of New Orleans, one would have thought that an American army would not have copied that folly. Lee did. And the day before Pickett's charge, he ordered troops to attempt to take the Ridge by means of a long front. Waves of Southern soldiers were repeatedly turned back with huge losses. As to why Lee didn't use either concentrated force or flanking to break the Union line, is a mystery because it would have succeeded at least in part.

Posted by McZoid 2007-07-03 08:37|| 2007-07-03 08:37|| Front Page Top

#2 Not just Pakenham's New Orleans maneuver, Lee also had first-hand experience with a massed frontal assault when the ANV repelled the Federal attack on Maryes Heights during the Fredricksburg battle.

Posted by mrp 2007-07-03 08:50|| 2007-07-03 08:50|| Front Page Top

#3 The whole Civil War showed again & again the folly of attacking fortified defenses on a long line, not only in Pickett's charge, Fredericksburg, etc. etc. 50 years later, generals were still committing the same mistake in Europe. Lee took advantage of being on the plus side of fortifications, most of the time, except at Gettysburg. One of Lee's flanking attempts was stopped cold by the 20th Maine at Little Round Top, on 2 July 1865.

Posted by Pearl Greaper5013 2007-07-03 09:05|| 2007-07-03 09:05|| Front Page Top

#4 Whoops, it happened in 1863, not 1865.

Posted by Pearl Greaper5013 2007-07-03 09:05|| 2007-07-03 09:05|| Front Page Top

#5 Lee had done the same thing at Malvern Hill in 1862, with equal results. Having assaulted the Union line on the flanks at Little Round Top and Culp's Hill, they probably figured the Union forces had buttressed the flanks at the expense of the center.

Frontal attacks would continue through the war and still continue to be a tactic, just look at the Boar War, Russo-Japanese War, WWI [a nadir in military execution], D-Day, many of the Pacific island battles, or even today. What has been learned and what is attempted is to disrupt, suppress, and reduce a portion of the enemy's defenses to create a rupture allowing the attacker to then tactically or operationally penetrate, flank and/or cut off the defender. Achieving mass at a specific point in the defense.

The problem in the 1860s is that movement upon the battlefield was at the pace of the infantryman. By the time you could achieve suppressive firepower with the technology available upon the enemy's defenses and the subsequent time to cross the 'killing field' in an organized manner, the defender, with reserves, could plug the gap.

Posted by Procopius2k 2007-07-03 09:22|| 2007-07-03 09:22|| Front Page Top

#6 Not to forget Little Round Top was a close-run thing. History could have gone very differently but for the bravery of the Union line. "Fix bayonets."

Posted by Excalibur 2007-07-03 10:54|| 2007-07-03 10:54|| Front Page Top

#7 Note that Grant finally figured it out after Cold Harbor.

50 years later the Europeans spent most of WWI sending mass assaults against machine guns.

Posted by DoDo 2007-07-03 11:51|| 2007-07-03 11:51|| Front Page Top

#8 I always thought Lee was a genius...until I actually went to Gettysburg. Looking at the distance that Pickett's troops had to cross before they reached the Union lines, I was stunned and amazed. Hell, I'm no general but you don't have to be to see that Pickett's charge was ordered by a man temporarily divorced from reality.

I've always believed that Gettysburg was lost at Chancellorsville. If Stonewall Jackson had lived, I'm convinced he would have persuaded Lee to try something other than a direct frontal assault. Longstreet was a good general, but his reputation will always be stained with his failure to stand up to Lee on this issue.

Posted by Mac 2007-07-03 17:57|| 2007-07-03 17:57|| Front Page Top

#9 The battle for Culp's Hill raged for 7 hours earlier on July 3rd at the barb of the 'fishhook', so Lee may have thought by attacking directly opposite against the same army which retreated about 2 miles on July first, his men would route the unconfident Union soldiers and grab the high ground for more days of fighting. Lee had been spoiled by success, but this time, the Union was on home turf. Also, the actual size of the Union army at Gettysburg may have been miscalculated. Lee had 75,000 going in, Meade, 93,000. Casualties were about equal going into July 3.

Posted by wxjames 2007-07-03 22:15|| 2007-07-03 22:15|| Front Page Top

#10 There are times when a frontal assault against an entrenched opponent has worked, but it helps if the opponent is demoralized or is led by an idiot. Consider Chattanooga.

Tomorrow is the anniversary of the surrender at Vicksburg; there are other ways to fight wars. But Sherman's March decided all.

Posted by Eric Jablow">Eric Jablow 2007-07-03 23:50|| 2007-07-03 23:50|| Front Page Top

23:53 3dc
23:52 Super Hose
23:50 Eric Jablow
23:49 Barbara Skolaut
23:49 Super Hose
23:47 Zenster
23:45 Ulavise Scourge of the Antelope7037
23:41 Pappy
23:40 trailing wife
23:38 Pappy
23:36 Super Hose
23:35 Super Hose
23:30 Pappy
23:29 Zenster
23:22 Zenster
23:12 JohnQC
23:08 Zenster
22:56 Mike N.
22:50 trailing wife
22:38 Broadhead6
22:37 wxjames
22:34 JohnQC
22:33 Mike N.
22:28 Broadhead6
Merry-Go-Blog