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