GDG- A little clarification please.
CWMHTours at aol.com
CWMHTours at aol.com
Sat Jan 28 09:24:52 CST 2012
Don't come to DC and call the soldiers dumb but honest. There's soldiers
all over the place around you. In no way would I guarantee your survival.
A Loyal Neo-Anti Unionist,
Peter
In a message dated 1/28/2012 10:20:17 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
georgeconnell at mac.com writes:
Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
For years I wondered why the Army hated the very idea of a Marine Corps.
Then I realized it's simply jealousy. If everybody could be a Marine it
wouldn't be the Marines.
DId you know Pershing kept a brigade of Marine long-service regulars at
the port of Brest working as stevedores rather than letting them go to the
front?
I can't stand the AIr Force (even though it's very, very good), but I like
the Army--dumb but honest.
Semper fi,
George
26ª11'56"N 81ª48'19W"
On Jan 27, 2012, at 4:05 PM, John Lawrence wrote:
> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
> Well, I learned the term" grunt" in the army while not serving in the
war Dennis, Bob (nor I for that matter) do not feel us appropriate for the
group.Who really wants to through those arguments again?
> Anyway, I apologize for assuming that the term "grunt" was coined in the
army.
> But you have to agree that it sounds a bit too sophisticated for a
marine.
>
> OK. I went a long way to get there, but it was worth it. :>)))
>
> My grandson is, discharged and he and his wife have just started
construction of our third great grand child.
> Thanks.
> Jack
> George, for the sane of full disclosure,
> The finest CO I everservvrd under was a former Marine. He taught me as
much about service as my father did about life.
> Probably an anomaly.
>
>
> George Connell <georgeconnell at mac.com> wrote:
>
>> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
>> Marines coined the term "Grunt" in the early 60s (before that conflict
Dennis doesn't want us to mention) when just about everyone in the Army was
mechanized. That's a fact, Jack!
>>
>> Is your grandson still on active duty?
>>
>> Semper Fi,
>>
>> George
>> 26ª11'56"N 81ª48'19W"
>>
>> On Jan 27, 2012, at 11:35 AM, Jack Lawrence wrote:
>>
>>> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
>>> I thought you were a Marine?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Jack
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "George Connell"
<georgeconnell at mac.com>
>>> To: "GDG" <gettysburg at arthes.com>
>>> Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 9:40 AM
>>> Subject: Re: GDG- A little clarification please.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
>>>> Rookies talk about strategy, professionals talk logistics!
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> George
>>>> A Grunt
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 27, 2012, at 9:54, dherko at kc.rr.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
>>>>> Lee could not have drawn the AoP away from their supply base by
going North.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Union had developed a series of permanent and temporary supply
depots. I did quite a bit of study on City Point. Montgomery Meigs was the
QM General, Ingals was the AoP QM chief. As the AoP moved across Virginia
throughout the war, the War Department closed and opened temporary depots
- city point was the best example. Permanent depots were just informed by
telegraph or other means on how to push supplies and to where they would go.
>>>>>
>>>>> The greatest example of Union Supply efficiency was the mail for
Sherman's Army. Sherman had not informed the war department on the exact
timeand place of where he would emerge at the end of his march. His troops
received the fisrt batch of mail within the week, I think actually four days
but less than seven is good enough for arguement's sake. The Union Supply
system was that good.
>>>>>
>>>>> At Petersburg, if I was a regimental QM, I could request a set of
shoes size 16EE. The request would flow up the chain of command (QM side)
through the AoP to Ingals office, as the now Chief of QM for the Armies
Operating around Richmond (or whatever title he had). His department was
operating out of the Epp plantation house overlooking the City Point Warfs. If
the clothing warehouses did not have the set of shoes, the request was
passed to Meigs HQ in DC, where the request would be sent to the depot for
clothing (lets say Boston for instance) if Boston Depot did not have the 16EE,
they would contact the manufacturer and several sets of 16EE shoes were
made, sent to Boston, forward an intermediate depot if one was assigned for low
priority routine deliveries or possibly put on a ship right to City Point
if the request was given a higher priority. Remember City Point was, during
the seige, the busiest port in the world.
>>>>>
>>>>> Conferderate Soldiers who for months smelled fresh bread being
delivered to Union troops at Petersburg were in awe when they were proceessed
through City Point as prisoners.
>>>>>
>>>>> Again that is Lee not truly understanding what he was up against.
His men were supplying themselves for two years on Union good (sadlles,
blankets, weapons, clothing, wagons, cannon, anything they could pick up) the
supply never stopped. The wagon train that Stuart captured had 250 brand
new wagons with brand new bits, straps, harnesses, theat stuff was being
crated at record pace.
>>>>>
>>>>> As Lee was running out of serviceable horses, Meade had more than he
could use. Hunt was able to create a secret wagon train filled with
ammunition for a big fight. The corperate Union Army, that was prosecuting the
war strategically was light years ahead of the CSA. Only Sherman's Army
during his Georgia was the only Union Army that ever was completely severed
fro the Union supply system.
>>>>>
>>>>> VR
>>>>> Don Herko (US Army Loggie)
>>>>>
>>>>> --- Tom Barrett <tbarrett21 at cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From a military standpoint, I think he wanted to draw the AoP far
enough so
>>>>>> that they were separated from their supply and support bases and
far enough
>>>>>> that they would be tired, scattered, and not able to concentrate
>>>>>> effectively. Drawing them toward Harrisburg was a good plan, but
spreading
>>>>>> them out would have been even better, so the AoP Corps couldn't
quickly
>>>>>> support one another.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think he figured that his forces would be more rested and better
>>>>>> concentrated than the AoP, and that he'd pick off and defeat the
Union units
>>>>>> as they came north.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As it turned out, Gettysburg wasn't far enough, and the AoP was
well
>>>>>> organized, well supplied, and was able to concentrate effectively.
For
>>>>>> whatever reason, Lee chose to attack anyway.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> TB
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
>>>>>>>> I tend to favor the notion that Harrisburg was a decoy to draw
Union
>>>>>> forces out into the open. I absolutely believe that Lee would have
sent
>>>>>> forces into the city, primarily to destroy railroad
infrastructure, damage
>>>>>> manufacturing operations, capture supplies, and generally create
further
>>>>>> panic in the north, but holding the city was never an option. I
believe
>>>>>> there was a relatively small window of opportunity for the ANV to
operate
>>>>>> in Pennsylvania.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Jan 26, 2012, at 2:13 PM, keith mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
>>>>>>>>> I've read a couple of posts where the esteemed member insisted
that Lee
>>>>>> did not intend to hold Harrisburg if he did in fact assault and
take it.
>>>>>>>>> I don't know if it was more than one poster or only one several
times.
>>>>>>>>> My
>>>>>>>>> question is, does anyone think he would have attempted to hold
it? I
>>>>>> don't think anyone has put forward that POV, but I might have
missed it.
>>>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>>>> K.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
>>>>>> -to unsubscribe
>>>>>> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives
>>>>>> -----
>>>>>> No virus found in this message.
>>>>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>>>>> Version: 2012.0.1901 / Virus Database: 2109/4768 - Release Date:
01/26/12
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com -to unsubscribe
>>>>>> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com -to unsubscribe
>>>>> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives
>>>>
>>>>
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com -to unsubscribe
>>>> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com -to unsubscribe
>>> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives
>>
>>
>>
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com -to unsubscribe
>> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives
>
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com -to unsubscribe
> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
-to unsubscribe
http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives
More information about the Gettysburg
mailing list