American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

Can anyone explain the reasons for the differences in the Armies fielded by North & South during the civil war? I mean, for so long the Union persisted with undersized Divisions of two Brigades whilst, despite being the one's with more of a manpower challenge, the Rebs seem to a have gone for the much more capable establishment of five Brigades in a Division. But then we see all sorts of variations from one extreme to the other.

What was the thinking behind the differently structured formations and who or what were the reasons for it?

Did events prove a certain organisational doctrine correct (or incorrect) and why does thinking on the subject still appear to have been undecided at the wars end?

There are endless volumes in print about the principal battles and leaders from the war, plenty about the weapons and to an extent, the tactics used. But not so much easily found about the operational/organisational side of the forces involved...

Colonel Jim Wilkes.
2nd Brigade, Cavalry Division, XX Corps.
AoC. U.S.A.

Bill, are you saying size matters after all?[:p]

<font color="red"><font size="2">Who knew?</font id="size2"></font id="red">

Lt. Gen. Ed Blackburn
I/I/VI/AoS

"Forward Bucktails"

I think one thing, is that bigger formations put more stress on the commanders in question.

Both sides had a great number of mid grade officers with little or no military experience before the war.

Which would be easier for that officer to command, a division of two brigades, or one of five?

So, by being split into smaller units, the Union forces would have been making things a hair easier for their Division grade officers.

I don't know if it was intentional, but it certainly seems like a better approach to me, especially for the Union, since they had a larger army, -and- the majority of Regular Army officers went CSA, pushing the command problems harder.

Major General Gary McClellan
1st Division, XXIII Corps
AoO,USA

I think Bill provided some good information. Sherman noted in his memoirs that Wisconsin regiments were the exception to the rule of creating new regiments rather than sending replacements to existing regiments, and said a Wisconsin regiment late in the war was reckoned the equivalent of a brigade.

I think part of the difference stems from the fact that union regiments were recruited for a period of time ranging from three months to three years, so what to do with replacements who were left when the regiment's term of service expired. This was illustrated in the movie Gettysburg, when some Maine men were forcibly attached to the 20th Maine when their regiment's term of service expired.

After 1862, Southern regiments by and large didn't have this problem as everyone was in it for the duration. It wouldn't have made much sense to organize recruits into new regiments as they came of age and made a great deal of sense to send them to join their neighbors in existing regiments. The exception might be when the Confederacy expanded the conscription age, in which case a few new regiments might be formed of old men and young boys.

For the most part, formations in both armies were pretty stable, with regiments, brigades and divisions remaining with their parent organization most of the time. There was some consolidation of corps in the Union armies prior to the 1864 campaigns when I and III Corps were folded into II and V Corps and XI and XII Corps consolidated into (I think) the XXI Corps, but I think the subordinate formations remained more or less intact. Probably more in the West, where a larger number of three-year men reenlisted for the duration in 1864, than in the East, where a smaller number chose to reenlist.

MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA

It is interesting how little you can find on the subject. Especially since both sides were trained in Napoleonic style warfare but neither side organized their armies along Napoleonic lines. Napoleon favored an army organization of four Corps which moved in a more or less diamond (or square) formation with each Corps within a days march of the others. Each Corps was a minature army of all arms and was suppose to be able to at least fight a holding action for one day to pin an opponent in place while the other Corps maneuvered against them. The diamond positioning of the Corps gave Napoleon the flexibility to attack in any direction once on of the Corps made contact. The Corps in contact became the center the other nearby Corps became the left and right flank and the furtherest Corps became the reserve.

Lee's ANV was organized into two Corps with the larger under Longstreet. This probably worked best for his style of fighting. One large Corps to fix the enemy and one smaller mobile Corps to flank it. Once he lost Jackson he went to three Corps which was probably a better balance. Three's seem to work better in a military organization. It gives the commander at Army, Corps or Division level the option of holding one part in reserve. A division of two brigades gives the division commander few choices in deployment. Probably some of the bigger division with like five brigades created the opposite problem and gave the division commander a frontage to long for him to control.

The Union organization of five or more Corps probably had similar problems as the division with five brigades. It gave to many commanders answering to the Army commander for good control. Which is probably why most of them made add hoc organizations of three wings. Grant finally reduce the number but add other unsound organizations due to the pecular politicial situation of having him traveling with the army and seniority problems within the army command.

LG. Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
1/1/III AoM (CSA)