Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

thomas aagaard

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

164 Excellent

About thomas aagaard

  • Rank
    Junior Lieutenant

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

582 profile views
  1. If you want to read a great story about the war, that is mostly correct Foote is great. If you want to read something written by a historian and want to study the civil war, stick to Canton. The issue is the simple fact that Foote don't use footnotes and don't give us his sources for what he writes. This makes his books useless for any serious study of the war.
  2. Suggest your read my post again. There was never a german doctrine called blitzkrieg. An army doctrine is something you will find in the army handbooks explaining how to fight. The army would have been training for that way of fighting for years. The army structure made to support that doctrine. Their plans made to support that way of fighting. Had it existed as a doctrine you would find references to is all over the German military handbooks of the period. And you don't. It simply don't exist. How the journalists in the west (true lack of understanding of German military traditions) invented an name have no influence on German doctrine... and is irrelevant to my post. The wiki page about this actually explain the issue rather well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blitzkrieg
  3. Jomini and Sun Tzu are about strategy and maybe about the operational level. They are not about tactics. Two other things. There was never a German doctrine called Blitzkrieg. What they did was nothing more than old style Prussian military thinking with new toys. Tactics during the civil war had very very little to do with tactics of the Napoleonic wars. Had french infantry tactics from the start of the century been used on the 3rd of july 1863 Their infantry would have gone forward in columns covered by a thick screen of skirmishers (something like 25% of the attacking force) and they would have been followed by horse artillery going forward to provide support. During the civil war we rarely see 25-33% of a infantry force fighting deployed in front of the lines as skirmishers... something that was the norm when the french and british fought each other.
  4. It is also not historical. The AoP had large numbers of Enfields in use. From the army perspective the 1855, 1861 and 1863 version of the Springfield was considered the exact same and what type one soldier was issued was not noted in the paperwork. And plenty of regiments used a mix. Having a mix of enfields and Springfield was also common. (both north and south) If the goal is to be historical many of the weapons should simply be one type... All the Springfields should be one weapon. Or allow the same brigade to use a number of different weapons.. and just giving the brigade the weighted average of the weapons.
  5. I can't find the math I read a year or two ago... But just looking at it logical with the numbers from some of their main battles. (numbers from http://www.civilwar.org/) Most of grants early battles was smaller in size and he had fewer. He lost about 13k at Shiloh, 2,5k at Champions Hill 5k at Vicksburg 6k at Chattanooga... When he came east this naturally changed with 18,4k at Wilderness, 18k at Spotsylvania, 12,7K at Cold harbour... Lee in comparison fight more big battles and got a few very costly one. Starting out when he took over command of ANV on June 1st 1862. Bever Dam, Glendale, Malvern Hill and Gains Mill cost him 20k Second Manassas 8,3k Antietam 10k, Fredricskburg, 4,5k Chancellorsville 13k, Gettysburg with 28k, Wilderness 11k, spotsylvania 12k, Cold harbour 4,6K This is not in any way scientifically done. Some smaller fights not included, the Petersburg siege missing and so one... And note, Iam not blaming Lee in any way. But he simply fought more battles, and they often where bigger and he took serious loose during the 7days and at Gettysburg. So by the time Grant comes east Lee have lost a lot more men than Grant have. And even if Grant suffers way more during the overland campaign this simply don't make up for it. I don't think Lee was a butcher... He knew he had to go for the big win. But neither was Grant he did what he could with the force he had.
  6. And what is your Evidence that he drugged himself during the time he was in command of Union troops? And if Grant was a butcher, then so was Lee. Lee lost more men over a shorter period of time than Grant did.
  7. The devs have said from the start that there would be wipes.... This is part of the testing process you decided to get involved in... So stop crying.
  8. Yep, the attack forced Lincoln to call up the militia. And that made Virginia and the rest join the CSA. (as was expected) But in my opinion by April 1861 both Lincoln and Davis needed the war... the current situation could not have gone on. Lincoln would not have been able to call up the volunteers with out an act of war and with out it there was no way to force the south back into the Union... but he did hope that in time Union sentiment and calmer heads would get them to come back. Davis knew that the CSA needed the rest of the south. (especially Virginia) and they had already made it clear that they would not join atm, but also that they would side with the south in case of a war.
  9. Just a quick commend to an old post... It was the CSA government that gave the order. Not Beauregard. And no that is not why. The simply reason is the idiotic US system where one president stay in power about 3 month after the election of a new president. Buchanan was a coward not willing to try solve the issue... and left the crises develop until Lincoln took office in march. He did nothing when the south was taking over federal property by force. Mints, postal offices, ships, forts, armories... and finally taking US soldiers as prisoners in Texas... that is why the war did not start until april. Because of a lame duck president with no spine.
  10. Give me a source for just one regiment going into combat with its full strength... you can't. And no a battalion and a regiment is not the same. Regiment is a administrative organisation. Battalion is usually a tactical organisation, but sometimes also an administrative organisation. Company is both a tactical and administrative organisation. A battalion is two or more companies operation together as one battalion. An infantry regiments was usually 10 companies and did operate as one battalion. But the new regular army regiments was to have 3 battalion of 8 companies each. (but most only ended up having two battalions) There are plenty of cases where a regiment had one or more companies detached for guardduty or similar. There are plenty of cases of depleted regiments operating together as one battalion... or some companies from one regiment and some companies from another regiment operating as one battalion on the battlefield.(US regular army companies at 1st bull run...)
  11. Please... try actually look a bit at the actual historical strength of the units during different battles. As I already mentioned as replies to some of your other posts. The regiments was never at full strength.. by the time they saw combat they had already lost a lot of men to sickness and other issues. At Gettysburg the average union regimental strength was just 375 men. This really should be very basic knowledge... And in the few cases where regiments was at 7-800 men.. then the game simply deploy them as a smaller "brigade" that is named for the regiment. In the end it is just a name... some units are small brigades... others are big regiments.
  12. maybe simply let a unit that is not moving slowly improve their "cover"?
  13. The regiments was never at full strength. around 4-500 men was more common.(with CSA regiments a bit larger than US regiments) At Gettysburg the union average regimental strength was just 375 men. And that is why this game is a brigade level game... and work fine as such. Allowing it in the camp - sure that could be fun. But not on the battlefield. that would change the game to a battalion level game and that is a totally different game.
  14. And how many reenactment units include all the other personal in a battery? The blacksmiths, the teamsters and similar? The current numbers are not that fare off. They just include the men doing support roles behind the lines. The current brigade structure work fine. In the early battles many of the enemy units are in fact regiments if you look at their names. And they where never at full strength. Both sides did very bad jobs at keeping their units at full strength. (the csa better than the US, but still rather bad) At gettysburg the average strength of the union infantry regiments was just 375 men. Later in the campaign you are facing brigades. Historically late in the war some union heavy artillery regiments (fighting as infantry) was broken into battalions on the field, so the basic unit was still around 400men... This simply made much more sense than having one regiment the size of most brigades.
  15. How do you blog someone? 1st Vermont has finally exhausted my patience beyond repair.

    1. Show previous comments  1 more
    2. Mr. Mercanto

      Mr. Mercanto

      Thanks. I couldn't stand to read another one of his ridiculous anti-intellectual posts.

    3. Mr. Mercanto

      Mr. Mercanto

      Meh, clearly I decided not to block. 

    4. Mr. Mercanto

      Mr. Mercanto

      No, I don't think Thomas would appreciate that. 

  • Create New...