Division Cap

[Rafiki]

[color="Blue"]Guys, we're straying pretty far from the subject of this thread. By all means, feel free to discuss the history of the ACW (as long as you do it, well, civilly ), but if it doesn't impact on the game, I have to point you to the history subforum (@ http://www.ageod-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=77)[/color]

[Green Howard]

Gray Lensman suggests we "find the numbers".

Skimming through "The War of the Rebellion"
online at http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/moa/browse.monographs/waro.html
I found these for the US Army of 30 April 1865 -
Series III, Volume IV, page 1283
Series I, Volume XLVI, Part III, page 1038
Series I, Volume XLVIII, Part II, page 262
Series I, Volume XLVIII, Part II, page 251
They are not orders of battle, but if you click on the "previous page" link
on some, but not all, of these pages you get a more detailed listing of units.

Any help ?

[W.Barksdale]

So far I've tallied 36 rebel divisions for departments in Tennesse, Mississippi, West Louisiana, the Gulf, Arkansas, Virginia. Taken from Shelby Foote's Narrative, Volumes 5: Gettysburg to Vicksburg, Volume 6: Tullahoma to Meridian, and the Official Records.

I need some help with some of their commanders, as well as any divisions in the Richmond garrison or elsewhere in Virginia, North Carolina, in and around Charleston with Bory, Georgia\Florida\Alabama coast, Texas maybe? I'm almost certain that I haven't double counted any in from Johnston and Braggs commands but let me know.

The timeframe is May\June\July 1863 BEFORE Braggs reorganisation of the Army of Tennessee.

Virginia
Lee with 10 divisions under Hood, McClaws, Pickett, Early, Johnson, Rhodes, Anderson, Heth, Pender, JEB (cav)

Tennessee
Bragg with 6 divisions under AP Stewart, Cleburne, Cheatham, Wheeler(cav), Forrest(cav). Theres one more leader that I can't pintpoint. Need some help here.

Buckner with 2 divisions (detached from Bragg). Help with their commanders.

Mississippi
Johnston with 5 divisions around about Jackson, under Breckinridge and WHT Walker (both detached from Bragg), another from Bory in SC need help with commander, and 1 cavalry division (under Mouton? Looks to be!)

Pemberton around Vicksburg with 5 divisions under Loring, Stevenson, Bowen, Smith, Forney.

Arkansas
Holmes with 2 divisions under Price, Marmaduke(cav)

Louisiana
2 divisions under Taylor, John Walker in West Louisiana
1 at Port Hudson under Gardner

Department of the Gulf
2 divisions under Maury, Cantey

Texas
1 division under H.P Bee
1 division around Galveston (commanderÉ)

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Green Howard]

More skimming yields this -

http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/moa/pageviewer?root=%2Fmoa%2Fwaro%2Fwaro0130%2F&tif=00053.

For anyone wanting to use "The War of the Rebellion" this page, and the next one, seem a good place to start.

[Green Howard]

More skimming suggests that for anyone wanting to use "The War of the Rebellion", Series IV, Volume IV, page xxv is a good place to start, with a special mention for page xliii.

[Green Howard]

Before I go any further I would like to say thanks to Gray Lensman for all the effort he's put into the game and this forum.

Now for Gray and anyone else so inclined -
For the Series I entries listed in post 62, try using the "previous page" AND the
"next page" links.
You might be pleasantly surprised by what you find.

[GraniteStater]

Also bear in mind that what North and South considered divisions and corps were quite often two different things.

At Gettysburg, for instance, the ANV was organized into three corps and that was almost solely due to the the death six weeks earlier of Jackson. At Chancellorsville, the ANV was two corps. Contrast this with the AoP structure at Gettysburg of what? Seven corps? Plus, what was a divison in either organization differed, as well as what the brigade sizes were also.

To be very, very, very loose in terminology, the South had 'square' divisons (i. e., a theoretical four brigades to a division) and the North 'triangular' (three brigades). Furthermore, Northern brigades were smaller than a corresponding Southern brigade, in general, in theory, on paper.

But even 'on paper' is only so useful. It cannot be stressed too strongly - modern ToEs did not obtain in 1861-5; brigades, divisions, and corps were, for the most part, ad hoc groupings.

It's not just apples and oranges; it's apples, chickens, and coal. This, to my mind, is why the design decison on DivCaps is a Good Thing - it reflects administrative and command/control limits for each side, per my discussion posted above. Is it frustrating in 1864? Yes it is, but it's not a bad design element IMHO, as I've said.

Just my twenty-five cents worth.

[Degataga]

But I don't get why the total number of divisions simulates command and control/administrative issues. Historically its not like divisions required much in the way of investment or administration from up above, seeing as how they were just a general and a handful of total amateurs serving as staff officers.

I thought the CP limits to corps simulated this, and is much more reasonable too, since a corp can hold at most 4 divisions (I think?) without command penalties. That represents the organizational limits and command and control issues you seem to want to simulate.

Capping the total number of divisions is just annoying from a game perspective and somewhat ahistorical. If the Confederacy or Union had had more troops, and most players go far over the historical numbers, they would've created as many divisions as necessary to organize them, not just stopped at some pre-ordained numbers. Neither army's command structure would have become overloaded or chaotic just by forming the divisions, since historically, it required almost no oversight or investment from Richmond or Washington. With subordinate corps commanders having to manage too many divisions, it might've run into administrative problems at that level, but I've always thought that's the purpose of the CP limits and penalties I pointed out above.

[GraniteStater]

Well, I'm probably haven't been expressing it as well as I can, but if you refer to my post above, there was a dearth of officers qualified to lead large bodies of men in an effective tactical manner. At the outbreak of the war, practically no one had led anything larger than a regiment - and these were the trained and experienced professionals. Couple that with the fact that marching and close order drill weren't for parades, they were the tactical bread 'n butter of the day. Now pile on no OCS, political strings from the states and local officials, new weapons and military ideas developing through the war, and a healthy dose of OJT with live bodies.

A former attorney general from Rhode Island who is now trying to control the efforts of 6,000 men in combat and co-ordinate his attack with twelve other similar formations might be forgiven if he's a little out of his league. Even after two or three years, there were still unqualified general officers.

The biggest factor in all the military campaigns you have ever read about, in all history, is health and logistics. Administration, supply, and keeping people physically ready to fight are much more important than the maneuvering (this is what Sun-Tzu refers to when he states that he who makes himself victorious first and then fights prevails over he who fights and hopes to win). It took intelligent competent men who had been bankers and politicians in 1859 two years or more to learn their craft, from the regiment on up, in all aspects of the job.

I don't know what AGE's criteria were for the design decision, but that's my personal interpretation: I see it as a C3I issue.

[W.Barksdale]

I've found two more divisions (CSA) in the department of the Gulf, 1 under Maury (west division), another under Cantey (east division). Timefram June 1863.

pg. 29 Series 1, Volume XXVI Part 2.
http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/moa/b...aphs/waro.html

I'll update my summary post above as well.

[W.Barksdale]

I've found another division in the Distric of Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico under H.P. Bee at Brownsville Texas.

pg.84 Series 1, Volume XXVI, Part 2

I've also found reference to a 2nd division in Texas.

pg.132 Series 1, Volume XXVI, Part 2.

I'll update my summary post too.

[Colonel Dreux]

Well, I'm probably haven't been expressing it as well as I can, but if you refer to my post above, there was a dearth of officers qualified to lead large bodies of men in an effective tactical manner. At the outbreak of the war, practically no one had led anything larger than a regiment - and these were the trained and experienced professionals. Couple that with the fact that marching and close order drill weren't for parades, they were the tactical bread 'n butter of the day. Now pile on no OCS, political strings from the states and local officials, new weapons and military ideas developing through the war, and a healthy dose of OJT with live bodies.

A former attorney general from Rhode Island who is now trying to control the efforts of 6,000 men in combat and co-ordinate his attack with twelve other similar formations might be forgiven if he's a little out of his league. Even after two or three years, there were still unqualified general officers.

The biggest factor in all the military campaigns you have ever read about, in all history, is health and logistics. Administration, supply, and keeping people physically ready to fight are much more important than the maneuvering (this is what Sun-Tzu refers to when he states that he who makes himself victorious first and then fights prevails over he who fights and hopes to win). It took intelligent competent men who had been bankers and politicians in 1859 two years or more to learn their craft, from the regiment on up, in all aspects of the job.

I don't know what AGE's criteria were for the design decision, but that's my personal interpretation: I see it as a C3I issue.

McClellan or the War Department in Washington also implemented the "boards" at some point, i.e., tests, to weed out really unqualified people. A lot of elected officers or political appointees just resigned their commission out of fear to taking the exam.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[W.Barksdale]

Incidentally, I don't care about max at any one particular time during the war, so much as total divisions formed by either side throughout the war. This gives a little "plus" to the game play.

Well Iève found reference to 36 Confederate divisions listed above. Add to that the 3 that were surrendered at Fort Donelson (Buckner, Johnson, and Floyd, I believe) thats 39 right there. Ièll look for any more soon as I can.

[Green Howard]

Does anyone have access to these books ?

The Union Army,1861-65 :
The Eastern Theater v.1:Organization and Operations

and

The Union Army,1861-65 :
The Western Theater v.2:Organization and Operations

both by Frank J. Welcher

[Green Howard]

...and this one ?

"Units of the Confederate States Army"

by Joseph H. Crute

[EDIT] The abbreviated unit histories in this book only make reference to Brigades and/or Generals and/or Armies. So it is no use in any discussion about Divisions. [ENDEDIT]