Better manpower than the French. Better logistics and railroads to get them there.
Losing more men becomes a problem when it starts affecting political will and/or can’t be replaced. That didn’t happen for either the Union (American Civil War) or the Prussians/Germans (Franco-Prussian War, respectively).
jackt-up on
Y’all be stealing Kapanash memes like crazy
BitReasonable208 on
away down south in the land of traitors
dreamdelusion- on
Strategy is for losers. Logistics is for legends.
loseniram on
Considering the vast majority of losses on bothsides was illness. Having only 1.2 k/d ratio adjusted isnt great when you’re outnumbered several times over and a third of your population actively wants to kill you or join the otherside.
mcjc1997 on
Proportionally the south always lost more men – except cold Harbour, which I would call Lee’s one clear cut victory over grant.
The campaign overall was unambiguously a union victory though.
Lord_Eln_8 on
Not like Lee’s casualties were that much better, and he didn’t have the manpower to replace them
Accomplished_Box8070 on
That’s just grants art of war. He knew how to use his manpower advantage and he was really good at forcing his opponents to fight on his terms. Lee wasn’t as good as Grant when it came to trench warfare, but was arguably better in open battles. We see that in the battle of the forest before Spotsylvania courthouse.
RocketSurgeon15 on
Grant really embraced and started the attritional warfare that the US used as a basis for its doctrine for over 100 years. Yes, in the 20th century the attrition was focused more on out-producing than out-bleeding the enemy, but you can see even in Vietnam the doctrinal basis of “we will hurt the enemy with more stuff than they can handle, and keep doing so until they give up”
LadderMadeOfSticks on
This simply isn’t true in a lot of cases.
There are fair number of battles where Grant lost fewer men that the Confederates: Belmont, Fort Henry, Fort Donelson, Chattanooga, Appomattox Court House, Iuka, and the Seige of Vicksburg.
KenseiHimura on
Apparently, among those immigrants was my German ancestor. After the war we procrastinated going back to Germany until we were fully settled with a family in Indiana. So I come from a long line of procrastinators.
Catalytic_Crazy_ on
The dark side of this meme is that often the little people doing the brunt of the fighting have no idea of the situation they are actually in.
MrMr_sir_sir on
Not to do a whataboutism or anything, but Lee did take more casualties than grants.
Of course, today we have the benefit of hindsight, but the confederate strategy was abysmally awful.
Much_Statistician864 on
To be clear this is not so, Grant did not lose more men then Lee. Total casualties amount to around 20% for Lee and 18% for Grant, despite Lee being on the defensive and thus having an “easier” go at it.
Fayraz8729 on
Honestly I wonder if the confederates engaged in guerilla warfare and insurgency would they have done better? I doubt they would since from the mindset of having slaves deliberately making yourself humble to sneak into places doesn’t sound like them
GargantuanCake on
The South: We’ll just cause so much death and destruction to their forces that the North will lose the will to fight. They’ll leave us alone after they realize it will cost them more lives than they want to spend.
The North: FUCK IT WE BALL FUCK IT WE BALL FUCK IT WE BALL FUCK IT WE BALL FUCK IT WE BALL FUCK IT WE BALL FUCK IT WE BALL FUCK IT WE BALL FUCK IT WE BALL FUCK IT WE BALL FUCK IT WE BALL FUCK IT WE BALL FUCK IT WE BALL FUCK IT WE BALL FUCK IT WE BALL FUCK IT WE BALL FUCK IT WE BALL
PraetorKiev on
“Grant lost more men!” They are really proud to have had their great great grandpappy kill people for someone else’s right to enslave people for the sake of profit.
EDF1919 on
I forgot the exact quote, but it was from Sherman, I believe, and he wrote it like a year or 2 before Ft Sumtner. Something along the lines of…
“You speak so lightly of war. Yeah, yall wanna fight, and you’ll probably do good in the beginning. But you won’t have access to the European market because of a union blockade. You can’t build a train or a steam ship. You can’t even make a yard of fabric without northern factories. You’ll starve and lose, and it will be your own doing.”
He basically predicted exactly how the war would go down years before it even started.
faros-hhhbbdd on
What did anyone expect from a slave-based economy? Aside from morality, a free-labour economy is superior to a slave-labour economy in every economic aspect. The Dixies were fools for preserving slavery.
There was no way the South could have managed its succession by force alone.
The only way the South could have managed its succession was by the approval of the North but obviously not happening.
Lincoln was mainly worried about foreign intervention, which was one of the reasons to outlaw slavery, since the other European powers outlawed slavery as well, and they didn’t want to tarnish their images about their civilisations especially Britain.
19 Comments
Prussia: Write that down, write that down!
Better manpower than the French. Better logistics and railroads to get them there.
Losing more men becomes a problem when it starts affecting political will and/or can’t be replaced. That didn’t happen for either the Union (American Civil War) or the Prussians/Germans (Franco-Prussian War, respectively).
Y’all be stealing Kapanash memes like crazy
away down south in the land of traitors
Strategy is for losers. Logistics is for legends.
Considering the vast majority of losses on bothsides was illness. Having only 1.2 k/d ratio adjusted isnt great when you’re outnumbered several times over and a third of your population actively wants to kill you or join the otherside.
Proportionally the south always lost more men – except cold Harbour, which I would call Lee’s one clear cut victory over grant.
The campaign overall was unambiguously a union victory though.
Not like Lee’s casualties were that much better, and he didn’t have the manpower to replace them
That’s just grants art of war. He knew how to use his manpower advantage and he was really good at forcing his opponents to fight on his terms. Lee wasn’t as good as Grant when it came to trench warfare, but was arguably better in open battles. We see that in the battle of the forest before Spotsylvania courthouse.
Grant really embraced and started the attritional warfare that the US used as a basis for its doctrine for over 100 years. Yes, in the 20th century the attrition was focused more on out-producing than out-bleeding the enemy, but you can see even in Vietnam the doctrinal basis of “we will hurt the enemy with more stuff than they can handle, and keep doing so until they give up”
This simply isn’t true in a lot of cases.
There are fair number of battles where Grant lost fewer men that the Confederates: Belmont, Fort Henry, Fort Donelson, Chattanooga, Appomattox Court House, Iuka, and the Seige of Vicksburg.
Apparently, among those immigrants was my German ancestor. After the war we procrastinated going back to Germany until we were fully settled with a family in Indiana. So I come from a long line of procrastinators.
The dark side of this meme is that often the little people doing the brunt of the fighting have no idea of the situation they are actually in.
Not to do a whataboutism or anything, but Lee did take more casualties than grants.
Of course, today we have the benefit of hindsight, but the confederate strategy was abysmally awful.
To be clear this is not so, Grant did not lose more men then Lee. Total casualties amount to around 20% for Lee and 18% for Grant, despite Lee being on the defensive and thus having an “easier” go at it.
Honestly I wonder if the confederates engaged in guerilla warfare and insurgency would they have done better? I doubt they would since from the mindset of having slaves deliberately making yourself humble to sneak into places doesn’t sound like them
The South: We’ll just cause so much death and destruction to their forces that the North will lose the will to fight. They’ll leave us alone after they realize it will cost them more lives than they want to spend.
The North: FUCK IT WE BALL FUCK IT WE BALL FUCK IT WE BALL FUCK IT WE BALL FUCK IT WE BALL FUCK IT WE BALL FUCK IT WE BALL FUCK IT WE BALL FUCK IT WE BALL FUCK IT WE BALL FUCK IT WE BALL FUCK IT WE BALL FUCK IT WE BALL FUCK IT WE BALL FUCK IT WE BALL FUCK IT WE BALL FUCK IT WE BALL
“Grant lost more men!” They are really proud to have had their great great grandpappy kill people for someone else’s right to enslave people for the sake of profit.
I forgot the exact quote, but it was from Sherman, I believe, and he wrote it like a year or 2 before Ft Sumtner. Something along the lines of…
“You speak so lightly of war. Yeah, yall wanna fight, and you’ll probably do good in the beginning. But you won’t have access to the European market because of a union blockade. You can’t build a train or a steam ship. You can’t even make a yard of fabric without northern factories. You’ll starve and lose, and it will be your own doing.”
He basically predicted exactly how the war would go down years before it even started.
What did anyone expect from a slave-based economy? Aside from morality, a free-labour economy is superior to a slave-labour economy in every economic aspect. The Dixies were fools for preserving slavery.
There was no way the South could have managed its succession by force alone.
The only way the South could have managed its succession was by the approval of the North but obviously not happening.
Lincoln was mainly worried about foreign intervention, which was one of the reasons to outlaw slavery, since the other European powers outlawed slavery as well, and they didn’t want to tarnish their images about their civilisations especially Britain.