Let's take a nice, small, tactical Joint action going in to the New Year.
You're outnumbered six to two. Your enemy's ships are better armed, manned, and provisioned. They guard one of your cities that they have held for a year and they have many soldiers ashore.
Your army, navy, and nation are strangled by a blockade. You need that city. You need that port.
What do you do? Attack - of course.
For a naval attack he placed artillery and dismounted cavalry from Sibley's brigade, led by Colonel Thomas Green, aboard two river steamers, the Bayou City and the Neptune, commanded by Capt. Leon Smith. Magruder gathered infantry and cavalry, led by Brig. General William R. Scurry, and supported by twenty light and heavy cannons, to cross the railroad bridge onto the island to capture the federal forces ashore. To meet the attack Renshaw had six ships that mounted twenty-nine pieces of heavy artillery.The Northern invaders actually were hit even worse - they had over 400 soldiers taken prisoner.
The Confederates entered Galveston on New Year's night, January 1, 1863, and opened fire before dawn. Cook failed to seize the wharf because of the short ladders provided for his men. Naval guns helped drive back the assault. Then the Confederate "cottonclads" struck from the rear of the Union squadron. The Harriet Lane sank the Neptune when it tried to ram the Union ship, but men from the Bayou City boarded and seized the federal vessel despite the explosion of their own heavy cannon. Renshaw's flagship, the Westfield, ran aground, and the commander died trying to blow up his ship rather than surrender it. The other Union ships sailed out to sea, ignoring Confederate surrender demands, which could be enforced only upon the abandoned federal infantry in town.
Magruder had retaken Galveston with a loss of twenty-six killed and 117 wounded. Union losses included the captured infantry and the Harriet Lane, about 150 casualties on the naval ships, as well as the destruction of the Westfield. The port remained under Confederate control for the rest of the war.
Why did they lose? Simple - poor leadership and a lack of battlemindedness. The occupation made them complacent and over-confident. All the equipment in the world will not help you if you don't have the right leadership.
23 comments:
The HARRIET LANE got around, didn't she?
I wonder if it was a repeat of Washington's Battle of Trenton in spirit... (yeah bad pun :P)
Reminds me of Billy Mitchell, and Doolittle.
Like the SAS motto "Who Dares, Wins".
Wait a cotton pickin' minute! You mean to tell me that if one goes into a battle with the mindset that one should be ready to fight it makes a difference?! But... But... But... My leadership tells me that I should focus on TIP, diversity, sensitivity, sexual orientation, and how sailors feel about themselves. I have been assured that these make us a stronger fighting force. Surely there is an opposing historical perspective to juxtapose against your Fullbore Friday and support the sensitivity argument. Surely there must be!
Now if only men like that had been inchage of the css tennessee when she went a calling.
The fact that the Union held FT Pickens and fought off and on for Pensacola and surrounding areas, led to a sort of complacency among the Union Forces. The Union could and did come and go at will along the GOMEX. There were other audacious attacks int he forgotten theater known as the GOMEX.
good story Phib!
Montrose Toast
<span>"He either fears his fate too much, </span>
<span>Or his desserts are small, </span>
<span>Who dares not put it to the touch, </span>
<span>To win or lose it all."</span>
<span>James Graham, 1st Marquess and 5th Earl of Montrose, 1612-1650</span>
<span></span>
<span>(Common Paraphase: "Who Dares Wins")</span>
Lt. B, the South was almost ALWAYS out gunned and out manned. Only rarely were they out-fought.
A favorite toast of John Christian Falkenberg of Falkenbergs Legion ( a series of books written by David Weber, known as the "CoDominium Series").
Military sci-fi written by ex-military writers is ALWAYS good. And it always remembers Napoleons Maxim: "The moral is to the material as three is to one".
yep, but there is nothing more demoralizing as decisive enemy tech advantage - kind of like those: carpet bombing from 5 miles out while you have no air force - or laser guided karma thru window of safehouse...
There was also USN Commander Cushing's raid against CSS Albermarle, which was one of the most balls-on missions of the whole war. I'd also consider the USN's amphibious assault on Fort Fisher as another good story.
We often read about Old Ironside, and then somehow skip to Dewey at Manila, then right on to the Victory at Sea series, but the USN and CSN operations are full of amazing feats and stories that never seem to get the attention they deserve.
yup, and then there is first sub kill in history... at a heavy price
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._L._Hunley_%28submarine%29
Warrior METOC's. It's more important than given credit in the press.
Amateurs talk tactics. Prosfessionals talk logistics. Same then. Same now.
I believe the Harriet Lane was captured by the Confederates and used later as a blockade runner. Small point of history, the Harriet Lane is credited with firing the first Naval shot of the Civil War at Ft Sumter. She was a Cutter of the Revenue Marine before being transferred to the Navy.
Slight correction: <span>A favorite toast of John Christian Falkenberg of Falkenbergs Legion ( a series of books written by Jerry Pournelle, known as the "CoDominium Series"). </span> http://www.amazon.com/Falkenbergs-Legion-Jerry-Pournelle/dp/067172018X
David Weber also writes great books, but John Christian is not in them.
<span>Pretty amazing how much Galveston bay has been transformed....
Also, I would opine that in the days of shifty, shoaly, non improved waters and no GPS,...indeed no modern aids to navigation of any kind...you had to be a right competent SAILOR before you could even think about waging a sea battle...
<span>Bet this crew would not have fared so well</span>
Heck, even todasy, Galveston Bay is a challenge to get around in, as its generally only 10-15 feet deep pretty much everywhere outside the dredged channels.
Anyway, <span>more perspective on the battle</span>... more here.
And a cautionary tale about pressing civil ship designs into kinda sorta warships.</span>
Check out the transformation in the vicinity of Galveston from then ...especially the impacts of the creation of Pelican Island and the jetties...to now.
I stand corrected sir! I'll fault a foggy mind and my age :) . Still, Jerry Pournelle, David Weber, John Ringo and Robert Heinlein wrote some awesome military sci-fi. The best at it would be John Ringo...
Snort. "The South Will Rise Again!!!!!!!"
...and be crushed again by the North.
With all due respect, and not wishing to start the flame fest again, it took four and a half long bloody years for the North to prevail. There were several points in the war where the South nearly broke the Unions will to continue (which is the point of war, remember?) Never the less, I'd hardly call it "crushed".
<span>The South was indeed crushed, because that is what it took to defeat the South. Whereas the South would win should the North simply decide to quit the fight. </span>
Take a small army, separate the top half of officers and almost all the experienced NCOs on one side, and the bottom half of the officers and only a few NCOs on the other, and you will have the situation of the Civil War.
For most of the first two years of the war, the Federal troops largely consisted of semi-trained volunteers without experienced NCOs, and with indifferent leadership at best in the officer ranks.
Which is what makes battles like Shiloh, and Malvern Hill, and Antietam so noteworthy. The green Federal troops absorbed (and dealt) incredible punishment, so much so that European observers were flabbergasted. Courage, they had plenty of.
By 1863, men like Reynolds, Hancock, Sherman, Sheridan, Grant, Thomas, Buford, and Crook were at least equal to their counterparts. And once the Federal troops had learned their craft, they were, too.
And if Lee had listened to Longstreet at Gettysburg, Lincoln might have caved to the Democrats who wanted to end the war. It wasn't about crushing, it was about breaking political will, as wars tend to be.
Also, by 1863, a hell of a lot of Confedrate troops had been killed. It had started to become a numbers war, and the North simply had more men to feed the killing machine. Last, but not least, a fellow named Forrest ran the Union ragged all over Mississipi, Alabama and Tennesee 8-)
It took crushing to break the South's political will. Which is telling. Lincoln's balancing act was one of the most brilliant in the history of western government.
if Meade had listened to Hancock in the day after Gettysburg, the converse may have been true.
Yes, Forrest did do that. But not to much material advantage. Unlike Sheridan who ravaged the Shenandoah.
Post a Comment