Scourge of War Boards

I've been browsing the historical forums here and finding lots of great stuff. But not seeing a discussion specifically about how Lee could have won at Gettysburg?

Prior to getting hold of SoW I was not real familiar with GB, apart from the very general dimensions of the battle (Union delaying action on Day 1; fierce defensive fighting on Day 2; Pickets Charge on Day 3 and CSA retreat), and of course the fact that it was the "high water mark" of the Confederate offensives against the Union.

The overall strategic purpose of the 1863 GB campaign seems to have been very sound. CSA leaders must have been keenly aware that anti-war sentiment was never higher in the north. They were probably also aware that, a peace settlement as a result of internal dissent in the north was about the best they could ever hope for; meaning that, no matter how much esprit du corps the rebs had, they were never gonna truly 'defeat' the Union.

The purpose of asking the question is not to impugn Lee, who was clearly a brilliant General; after all hindsight is 20/20.

Having played a bit with RedBuglers 3 day GB scenario I can see that, GB is really excellent defensive terrain and the way the Union had itself deployed was quite effective.

What might Lee have done differently to have won at GB?

Or should he have followed Longstreet's advice and pulled back in order to confront the Union at a location less favorable to the defense?

The book "Lost Triumph: Lee's Real Plan at Gettysburg--and Why It Failed" looks interesting (haven't read it yet). It talks about how JEB Stuart was supposed to be part of the attack on the last day by circling around and attacking the center from the rear while Longstreet was attacking from the front. He was stopped at the East Cavalry Field though. I haven't read the book to know the full argument for this but I have seen some people say that Stuart was only supposed to follow up a breakthrough in the Union line by attacking routed union units or that too many other things went wrong for Lee that day that Stuart would not have made a difference if he actually got there.

The BMI did a fantastic job in the lead-up to Gettysburg. Meade knew where every single rebel division was and in what strength. Lee was blind. Unless that changed, Lee couldn't win. It helped that they were in Pennsylvania, no doubt.

It started at Chancellorsville. My opinion is that the creation of the BMI by Hooker was the turning point of the war in the east. Even though any and everything that could go wrong did go wrong for the union at Chancellorsville, it doesn't change the fact that Hooker caught Lee with his pants down, mainly because of the intelligence turnaround.

Interesting ideas, and both sound plausible. What does BMI stand for? Don't recognize that.

I'll guess though, Bureau of Military Intelligence?

Ah! Almost

Bureau of Military Information

Interesting, I had never even heard of such a thing.

ADDIT: I'm curious specifically what the BMI would have done to provide Hooker with intell during the GB Campaign?

I would guess that they had a number of civilian agents throughout the area, as well as perhaps having briefly contracted youths who had access to a horse. One agent sees Stuarts Cav Corp moving north, he runs down the road to a nearby farmhouse, and sends a 14 year old boy on a pony to ride to find Hooker / Meade with a note? Maybe in some sort of cipher?

Of course, informally I'm sure both sides enjoyed this sort of 'local intelligence' to some informal extent whenever they operated in friendly territory. But having formally created a group to collect information and distribute it must have made a huge difference.

Always loving hearing how intelligence can make or break a military campaign

ADDIT: Just to add, what really motivated me to post this question was trying to play RedBugler's three day Gettysburg scenario as Lee and finding it pretty challenging. So in addition to a discussion of what Lee might have done in real life, I'm kind of wondering what a player can do to win that scenario (assuming HITS play).

I find that RB's scenario is rather constraining for HITS play (2 hour long days). So I created a 12 hour long version but have yet to play it out in HITS mode. The difference between having to use couriers and only able to see from your saddle is huge. I can easily win even the 2 hour version pretty handily in Normal difficulty.

I am not sure Lee could have won Gettysburg. I have played where I moved around to the right took the Devils Den, Big and Little Round Top. But in the end the Union has many troops on the field and toward the end of the battle the Confederate Army is just about done. The Union had many more troops available that were not at Gettysburg and if they were determined, I believe the end result would have been pretty much as history has it. If Lee would have moved to the right I think he would have killed more Union troops but numbers are numbers especially in a war of attrition.

Another good question is should he have fought at Gettysburg? and did he have a choice?

Another good question is should he have fought at Gettysburg? and did he have a choice?

Just watching the 1993 Turner "Gettysburg" epic, which I had not watched for several years. There is a scene middle-late afternoon on Day 1 where Lee is conferring with Heth and his aide brings word that Ewell's corp is about to arrive on the field. Heth insists that "Sir, that is 3 divisions, we should attack." Lee is portrayed as making the decision right there, and says "My orders to all my Generals are to attack."

This of course managed to dislodge the forward Union positions on the northwest and west side of town and in a subsequent scene Longstreet and Lee are meeting as dusk gathers on Day 1.

Longstreet says "Ah this is perfect. We got them exactly where we want them. Now all we have to do is move south and east and get between them and DC. Then they will have to attack and we can force the battle on good defensive ground of our choosing."

Lee disagrees for what are portrayed as primarily 'psychological' reasons: "We have prevailed. If Meade's army is on those heights tomorrow, how can I ask this army to retreat?"

Longstreet tries to correct him that it isn't "retreating" it is "redeploying" but obviously Lee will hear none of it.

Moving south and east would seem to have put the Rebs right IN BETWEEN the forces in Gettysburg and whatever else was coming from DC area, so that might have been disastrous. Howwever, the overall point remains. If Lee had not committed to an all out attack on an obviously numerically superior force which had good defensive ground, maybe the war might have turned out differently?

Seems like there were many mistakes made but that overall mistake of committing to fight at Gettysburg would seem like the most suspicious as the cause of Reb defeat.

http://youtu.be/lrXxz4iniRs

An interesting video about why the battle was fought where it was and when. Also other interesting things

Oh yeah, that is a good video!

My view is that the lack of staff is what doomed Lee at G'burg. I remember reading, I don't remember where, that the entire ANV at G'burg had approximately the same number of staff that a typical French division had during the Napoleonic wars. Is it any wonder that troop dispositions and coordinating attacks on the wings were so poorly handled? It's not that Lee had no Berthier, he had virtually no one at all.