War and Peas - Hortlund (J) vs. Canoe (A)

[Canoerebel]

I think Bragg's reputation is dead on. His troops and his officers despised him (with Preston being a rare exception). They had zero confidence in his ability, which contributed greatly to the deterioration of his army, even before Chickamauga but much, much more afterwards. His health was chronically poor, which affected his judgment and stamina to stay on top of things and act boldly. He was irrascible, always picking fights with his commanders.

Imagine if Joe Johnston or Longstreet had command of the Army of Tennessee beginning in early 1863 (just after Stones River).

[paullus99]

Stuart did a great job for the most part, but you are right to say that he didn't have a whole lot of competition for a long period of time. He forgot, at the worst possible moment, that the true role of cavalry on the strategic level was provide information & screen the movements of the Army.

Richard Taylor is extremely underrated and would have received far more attention had he not spent almost the entire war in the Far West, beyond the Mississippi - also, Forrest is underrated as well & probably could have done much more, at a higher level of command, if his "raider" reputation hadn't gotten in the way and his exploits downplayed by people like Bragg.

If you substitute Bragg for Johnson in 1863, you'd still have to deal with Rosecrans. While not the greatest leader in the Union Arsenal - he was extremely methodical & planned his middle Tennessee campaign very well. Perhaps there would have been a fight for Chattanooga, instead of what we had historically - but I don't think Johnson, given his reputation, would have performed any differently than he did in front of Atlanta.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

[Luzon: Bataan finally fell yesterday.

Can we get a VP ratio post-Bataan?

[Canoerebel]

Johnson (or Longstreet) would have made a great operational difference in the west in 1863. Bragg retreated all the way from Tullahoma past Cumberland Mountain past Lookout Mountain past Chattanooga and was almost ready to fall back on Rome, Georgia. This over a period of about two months without putting up a fight anywhere. Johnston would have slowed Rosecrans considerably, so that the South wouldn't have lost Chattanooga until late 1863 or into 1864. That would have complicated things for the north, because then the South could have retained northeast Tennessee, permitting rail transport between Virginia and Tennessee. The South had a decided advantage in the interior lines until Bragg lost Chattanoonga. Longstreet strongly advocated using that advantage even after Chancellorsville, prefering a consolidation in Tennessee rather than an invasion into Pennsylvania.

Ultimately, of course, the South was doomed. So "Johnston in command" probably just drags out a tragic war longer.

[Flicker]

Bragg was "naturally disputatious":

...a story about Bragg when he was both company commander and quartermaster. As commander of the company he made a requisition upon the quartermaster-himself-for something he wanted. As quartermaster he declined to fill the requisition, and endorsed on the back of it his reasons for so doing. As company commander he responded to this, urging that his requisition called for nothing but what he was entitled to, and that it was the duty of the quartermaster to fill it. As quartermaster he still persisted that he was right. Bragg finally went to the post commander for resolution of the problem who declared “My God, Mr. Bragg, you have quarreled with every officer in the army, and now you are quarreling with yourself.”

That story tickles me every time.

Bragg, Johnson, or Longstreet - they still had to deal with George Thomas...

PS - great game.

[Canoerebel]

Here's a comparison between 3/1/42 and 4/12/42 for several major categories (edited because the Forums certainly have problems dealing with formating):

Japanese Points: 12,913 to 18,959
Allied Points: 8,397 to 7,910

Japanese Men Lost: 453 to 634
Allied Men Lost: 3,354 to 6,704

Japanese Ships Lost: 55 for 528 points to 97 for 953 points
Allied Ships Lost: 216 for 1734 points to 239 for 1,841 points

Of these, you can see that only in ships are the Allies making progress. This is attributable to two things: (1) As the aggressor, Steve has to send shipping into harm's way, which results in attrition; and (2) Allied subs have been pretty effective (against merchant shipping, not against combat ships).

[Crackaces]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Johnston is widely admired in the South. He is viewed as an able tactician that had an impossible task. I think most people are aware that his troops thought very highly of him also.

That brings up an interesting point. What is the general perception of Confederate generals in the south today:

Elite: Lee, Jackson, Forrest. Stuart, Longstreet
Very Good: Johnston, Johnson, Early, Gordon, A.P. Hill, Hood (at least as a divisional commander),
Good: Wheeler (probably inflated), Cleburne, Hardee, Polk, Pickett
Mediocre: Buckner, Beuregard, D.H. Hill, McLaws
Below Average: Cheatham, Breckenridge, Pemberton
Poor: Ewell
Terrible: Bragg

Those are just some off-the-cuff estimates.

Alot of lost-cause types blamed Longstreet for Gettysburg for awhile, even though it was Lee's fault by his own admission.

Stuart, IMO, is the most overrated Confederate general. He was decent, but was helped immensely by the very poor state of Union Cavalry out east. He made a very serious blunder in the Gettysburg campaign. The tide turned once the Union got some real cavalry leaders out there.

The most underrated Confederate General, IMO, was Richard Taylor.

I also don't think Bragg was that bad. He somewhat unimaginative and needed to go, but he wasn't Fremont or Ben Butler bad.

I noted an emphasis on the Eastern and Tennesse valley fronts .. Price was awful and Van Dorn was worse ..they outnumbered the enemy but were defeated in kind ... Magruder was awful too but was quickly reassigned to Texas ...[8D]

[Canoerebel]

Notice for the Record: I was in the main forum and clicked on "War and Peas," but a split second later noticed (before the AAR opened) that it was not MY "War and Peas." I clicked off before the page even opened, so I didn't see anything at all. Just wanted you guys to know in case my name showed up as a reader. (If it did it could only registered for a nanosecond.) I'm honored that my AAR name was chosen instead of PH's, 'cause I am the good guys, of course.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Here's a comparison between 3/1/42 and 4/12/42 for several major categories (edited because the Forums certainly have problems dealing with formating):

Thanks. This was helpful.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Notice for the Record: I was in the main forum and clicked on "War and Peas," but a split second later noticed (before the AAR opened) that it was not MY "War and Peas." I clicked off before the page even opened, so I didn't see anything at all. Just wanted you guys to know in case my name showed up as a reader. (If it did it could only registered for a nanosecond.) I'm honored that my AAR name was chosen instead of PH's, 'cause I am the good guys, of course.

S'Ok. There's nothing there. We're exchanging recipes. [:)]

[Canoerebel]

4/14/42

Carriers: No sign of the KB. I've frozen mine in place to provide cover for the reinforcement convoys coming up.

India: Steve's speerhead is spread out all over the place. I'm looking for an opportunity to strike while trying to avoid getting caught and bludgeoned. The chain of bases between Calcutta and Cawnpore, and even further west, is now well garrisoned. Things are about as well organized as possible, considering I feel like I'm living in an avalanche (truly, though, I'd rather be fighting in India than in Oz, simply because the overall system - infantry, ships, bases, supplies, convoy systems - is in a state of a far more advanced or "mature" configuration.)

China: I pucker, therefore I am.

North America: Quiet. I'm begining to gather units at San Fran in contemplation of a future move.

South America: Nothing's happned here the entire war.

Oz: Nothing major at the moment. That'll probably change soon in some unsavory way.

[Canoerebel]

Is there any reason I should not shut down industry in the Indian cities likely to be overrun in the near future? Calcutta, for instance....

[JocMeister]

WTH is "pucker"? [&:]

[Canoerebel]

LOL. Can anybody explain what I meant?

Here's my best effort: It is common, especially amongst American men, to refer to something called "the pucker factor." In general, this means when you are startled, or worried, or frightened, or nervous, you "pucker up." While "pucker" generally refers to one's lips in American lexicon (as in, "he puckered his lips to give her a big kiss") in the way I spoke of it refers to the rectum, in the sense that you feel a definite tightening in that region when something startling happens.

In other words, I'm worried.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

WTH is "pucker"? [&:]

Ever had a colonoscopy?

[Cap Mandrake]

Involuntary, neurally mediated increase in sphincteric tone

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel


China: I pucker, therefore I am.

Ah - Descartes brought down to street level! Love it! [:D][:D]

[Capt. Harlock]

GJ, I would neve have expected folks across the sea to have such detailed knowledge about rather obscure (obscure overseas, not amongst American Civil War buffs) Confederate officers. How did you come about such knowledge?

Clearly, by following my Civil War 150th thread! [;)]

BTW how about Kirby Smith, who scored what Shelby Foote described as the closest thing to a Civil War Cannae, when he wiped out "Bull" Nelson's Army of Kentucky?

[Canoerebel]

Here's my current assessment of where things stand by theater:

North America: I'm pretty sure Steve is winding down things here. The problem is that he can easily dial-up things by quickly transferring lots of aircraft to his airfields. The threat of bombing missions "keeps me honest," preventing me from transferring away too many fighters. Overall, though, I think the threat level here is considerably diminished. The Allies are contemplating possible offensive action.

The Pacific: Hawaii and New Zealand are left to stand alone. The are vulnerable - especially NZ - but I cannot see any way that Steve would dilute his schwerpunk by engaging in sizeable operations here. These areas shall stand on their own. (I do have three combat TFs on dispersed patrols north of New Caledonia and Fiji, so I'm not totally naked.) If I decide not to attack somewhere in NoPac, this would be my second choice.

Oz: The vulernability of Oz worries me very much, but given the known whereabouts of so many of Japan's divisions, I don't think there's any real threat posed to the SE corner. I won't put up much of a fight at Perth or Townsville.

India: I am worried, but I also know that currently the Allies ae in fairly good shape considering the date. Steve just about has to come for Socatra to isolate India. I'll soon have 400 AV there, meaning he would have to employ well more than two divisions. If I bring in the reinforcements already on the way (700 AV is close), I think India will stand long term. The only threat I see short term would be if China folded so early that Steve could reinforce quickly.

China: Where I was guardedly optimistic two weeks ago, I'm now guardedly pessimistic. I like the war in China. I think I'm decent at it. But I'm being pushed in ways I haven't been pushed before. I'm wondering if there's any way to stand up to a sustained campaign employing bombers and massed use of divisions against weaker Chinese troops. I don't want to lose China. I'll do my best not to. But, long term, the most important thing might be to wage war with the ultimate goal of making sure Steve can't roll through and head to India soon enough to make a difference there.

Carriers: As tough as the Allied position is right now it would be far worse if I lost a major carrier battle. The thought of enduring a blockade of India or Oz is not pleasant. I think the Allies struck first. I think Hosho and Taiyo were sunk or scuttled. I would do well to play cautiously and endeavor to find openings to strike.

[Canoerebel]

Here's an idea I'm toying with.

Invasion of coastal Alaska or the Aleutians in about 40 days. The likely target would be centered on Sitka, Juneau and two other bases. This region is fairly remote. My current expectation is that the bases are lightly held. I would need air cover and I still don't know the whereabouts of Kaga and Akagi. I think they're gone, but I can't be positive. I could wait for them to show up in the IO or around Oz...

Or I could shift Hornet, Lex and Ent to the Pacific via Capetown and Balboa. This might take 40 days.

Upside: It would overwhelm whatever forces Steve could commit. It would nearly guarantee the success of the amphibious operation.

Downside: The KB will own the IO for something like three months - well, for part of that time Steve wouldn't know my carriers were absent, which would keep him honest during that interval, but after they showed themselves, there would be heck to pay.

Hmm. Sounds like I'd be better off keeping my carriers in the IO (raiding towards Australia if I see an opportunity to hit some battleships or light carriers), wait to see if Kaga and Akagi show up, and go with Yorktown and Saratoga in NoPac.