A few years ago, I was invited to attend a battlefield walk of the first day's fighting that was held as training for some reserve army group.
At the end of the day, the guy who was leading, asked, "In light of our current battle doctrine, What should Lee have done?"
All heads stared at the ground. I remarked that that was a reassuring reaction.
The answer was that Lee should have pressed the attack, leaving isolated Union points, and mopping them up later.

Lee's artillery was previously supplied with fuses from the Richmond arsenal. An accident at that facility forced them to bring in fuses made in Charleston and Augusta. Those fuses burned more slowly than the Richmond fuses. The gun crews didn't have any real experience with the new fuses prior to Gettysburg. That is was so many shots buried themselves in the mud before detonating instead of bursting in the air to rain shrapnel.

Some historians also believe the Augusta fuses had a much higher percentage of duds.

Whatever the reason, they created havoc on the backside of Cemetery Ridge. It is good that Meade did not have anything other than his HQ there.

I don't have a problem with the B-52 at the top. Still, the only slight might be that it didn't serve in a World War. It didn't go against opponents of the same caliber, or on the same technical level. The B-52 didn't go against the best of its time, say Russia. The B-17 did, Germany and Japan. I think my main problem with the bomber list is having the B-17 rated 10th. No way. Its rated lower than the Tupo, a bomber that could barely fly. Its only claim is that the US fell for its propaganda value. I do like the selection of the Mosquito. I think the one plane for its time, that could do everything. Also, the Gloster jet flew in service from WW2 to the 70's. So by the B-52 criteria, then it should be rated fairly high.
THe tank selection looks good. I probably would have put the panther tank in there somewhere, though. Possbily the Centurion a bit higher. It did last into the 70's. So a fairly long service life.
Tom

Correct. German doctrine is exactly the same, stiff points of resistance should be pinned with covering forces, and bypassed. The infantry could mop them up later. Or a more extreme theory that a lot of German tank commanders used was to simply drive around them at full speed and radio back to the following infantry that their is a pocket they need to take care of.:D (note this was usualy a good idea when fighting anyone but the Russians. On the French it worked very well.)

But these days a modern motorized division can cover over 50 miles in a day, in the Civil war they lacked the mobility to use such tactics.

Most historians regard that story as urban legend. Look at the map of Gettysburg:


http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&source=hp&q=gettysburg%2Cpa&aql=&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wl

All of those roads existed in 1863. It is an incredibly strategic location for a military base intended to support an invasion of the North. Highway 30 is the historic "National Road", one of our first Interstate highways, it ends in Chicago at one end and Washington DC at the other, from the others, Harrisburg (the capital of PA) and New York can be invaded and the entire East Coast threatened. Coming from the South, re-supply routes on good roads, and to the South East, a route right into Baltimore, a city full of Southern sympathizers right in Washington's back yard that would be easy pickings for Lee. If he could destroy the Army of the Potomoc, from a base in Gettysburg he would only face local militia defending the biggest cities in the US - and had his pick of which cities he wanted to possess. His army was huge at that point. After removing the threat of the Army of the Potomac, he could divide it into task forces and ravage the North into surrender as he burned Pittsburg, Chicago, Harrisburg, and even New York, to the ground.

While Lee refused to say what his plans were or why he was in Gettysburg after the war (unlike Grant and Sherman, he left no memoirs), most historians think it is obvious Lee intended to take Gettysburg for it's strategic value, it just doesn't make sense that he would risk his entire army for a place that was "accidental". There was nothing accidental about it. If Lee could win the Battle of Gettysburg by destroying the yankee army, he could rest and reenforce his army, split it into separate forces, and threaten all the major cities of the North from G-burg - just look at the map. Just possessing Gettysburg alone would have put the citizens of the North into a panic that would have forced Lincoln to sue for peace, without another shot being fired, and many historians think that was Lee's intended plan for ending the war.

The story you relate is an exaggerated version of real events. On the first day of battle, the small brigade of Union infantry attempting to hold back the entire Confederate Army, after a day of heroic fighting and horrendous casualties, finally broke and literally ran thru downtown Gettysburg with the Confederates chasing them. Many of the Confederate soldiers stopped to loot the local shoe store, allowing many of the Yankees to retreat to safety on Cemetary Ridge, where the main Yankee army was arriving and fortifying it's strong position behind the ridge's stone walls.

Yes, I stand corrected, it was a wooden fence, not a stone one, I've looked right at it a dozen times. It is odd the Confederates left it standing, you can look right down the barrels of the antique cannons along Seminary Ridge right at it, they could have blasted it out of the way.

Correct. It can't be but a couple of hundred yards from the Seminary Ridge gun positions to those fences. The question remains, "Why did they ever leave them standing?"

The stone fence, or "breastwook" to make it sound more impressive was the the Union line on Cemetery Ridge. I know the "wall" there now isn't but 2 feet high. I think I remember period phots showing it might have been just a little higher. Not much protection, but better than nothing.

I have difficulty imagining fighting one of those battles where opposing lines stood a hundred feet apart and blasted each other. I suppose recruiting the units from the same area helped hold the men in their places. There was no way to go home if you showed cowardice in front of all your neighbors.
Still, amazing stamina.

I agree that the "boots" theory has been largely discounted. From what I've read, by the time the ANV arrived in Gettysburg there was very little left in stores, or homes for that matter. Most of the goods had been transported to safer locations.

Jolly, so I take it that you disagree with the Gettysburg movie where Lee asks the name of the town where all the roads intersect as he had taken off his spectacles.

Well, that could have been the point he had a revelatory experience, but I think he intended it as his primary objective from the start. If one considers it in it's times, the area around G-burg is just right for a military base for the kinds of armies used in the 19th Century - it was at that time (and still is) one of the richest agricultural areas of the North, and in those days infantry was the WMD of the day and food and clean water is it's main requirement, not to mention horse fodder which that area also produced in abundance - it is also excellent country for calvary operations for screening the base, and immune to naval bombardment. As a staging area, recruits and reinforcements could come from any where in the South, as I stated, just look at the map - he could also support defensive operations in the Upper South and the Border states as well, or in the Carolinas if need be, all from one central spot. Lee was a genius, if it had succeeded, it would probably be Fort Lee today, from which the CSA would have kept a watchful eye on the dreaded North, a Southern Gitmo.

just look at the map
Which map? The copy of the Gen. Warren "Map Of the Battle-Field of Gettysburg" that is hanging on my wall?
They say all roads lead to Rome. Even a cursory glance shows that a great many roads lead to Gettysburg.

Its been fun agreeing with you, for a change.

It is true that much of the southern army needed boots.

Stonewall Jackson's men marched faster and longer than any other units of that era and were able to participate in more battles because of their speed.

In Grant's memoirs he talks about the supply lines needed to feed an army....400 wagons to haul food for instance....think about feeding an army of 100,000 men and their horses....suppy was one of the most important elements of being successful.

Before Grant was a general he was a supply person...

Its true that they needed boots.
Its not true that they went to Gettysburg, specifically to get boots.
As Jolly R points out all roads lead to Gettysburg. That means if your army is scattered all about south central PA, Gettysburg is the rallying point.

I have tried to envision command of a civil war era army--no trucks, not even radio for communications, and subordinate commanders who might actively misinterpret orders, or at least delay implementing them. Supplying such an army must have been a logistical nightmare.

From what I recently read about Gettysburg, from Lincoln's biography, Lee was trying to make a run on Washington and Lincoln sent his army to meet them before they did.
Nobody chose Gettysburg as a battleground. Both army's just happened to meet there.
As far as the battle, Lee went against the recommendations of all his Generals and decided on the frontal assault. It was an extremly bad idea.
Historically the battle is considered a draw but it's significance is it's the first battle the Union army didn't lose.
Lincoln was extremely upset at Meade for not following and destroying Lee's army, which he was ordered to do. In my opinion that would have been the deciding factor in the battle.
Looking forward Grant did a much better job then any of his 4 predecessors but he had extermely high losses. See Spotsylvania and the Wilderness battles.
Looking back Lincoln made a lot of mistakes. The first and foremost in my opinion was appointing McClellan against the recommendation of Winfield Scott, and later refusing to remove him.

Danny

Danny,
Your understanding of Gettysburg is pretty much the standard, but it fails at a few points.
The confederates actually made three invasions of the North.
1862--Antietam/ Sharpsburg
1863-- Gettysburg
1864--They actually got to the outskirts of DC, and fired on Lincoln, himself.

The Union officers, and men, would be surprised to hear that gettysburg was the first battle they didn't lose.

Lincoln, ( and other armchair commanders) were upset with Meade for not pursuing Lee, but the view of the Army, itself, and the Commanders who were actually involved would have disagreed. The army was at least as worm out from its victory as Lee's was from its loss. Add to that the rains which made the roads difficult. Don't forget that Lee's rear guard was spoiling for a fight to repiar their image form that loss. Much as Longstreet told Lee on the evening og July 2 after Lee indicated that he would attack if Meade was still there, " If he is there its because he wants you to attack." Lee would have wanted Meade to attack.

Grant's genius is that he recognized that it was a war of attrition, and he simply had more guns, ammo, food, and most importantly, MEN then did Lee. Grant did what no previous Union commander had done--after he was beaten by Bobbie Lee, ( no shame in that) and continued towards Richmond rather than retreating to the North.

Gettysburg, or any historical event for that matter, is quite complex, and a number of myths become "the" history. I recommend reading primary sources to get a better flavor for the event. These first person accounts may not accurately reflect what happened, but they give a presonal aspect to the event that helps understanding.

My personal favorite for Gettysburg is Union Lt Artemis Haskell's account. Besides giving some of the emotion of the event, he was a pretty good historian. He remarks early in his account, ( I'm working from memory so the quote may not be exact), " This is MY account of the battle. Because I say that such and such was important, it does not mean that some other event at some other point on the battlefield was not important. This is what I saw and what I did. ... At some time in the future, someone who was not at the battle, whose eye did not withness the events will write what will be called, " The History of the Battle of Gettysburg." and we, if we are alive will have to be content with that."
Haskell never read that book. He was killed at Cold Harbor. Ironically leading a hopeless charge against an impregnable, entrenched position--much like the exact opposite of his role in defending against Pickett's assualt at G-burg.
Of such is history made.

McClellan was excellent at organization. He never wanted to actually USE the army he lead.