I have seen of late all these personal attacks on General Grant and I come with this thread to end these attacks on the General Grant. General Grant was simply the best general of our civil war. If you go by the causality data, Grant wins hands down.
He does win, but not how you think, he suffers the worst combat effectiveness of the war amongst Northern field commander at causing a battlefield casualty.
Using Purdues list of the top 300 engagements of the war and breaking out grant and Lees combat casualties suffered we find the following.
Grant lost KIA/WIA 23714 122036 total 145750
Lee KIA/WIA 30276 156945 total 187221
Le was always outnumberd, often by more than 2 t one. Grrant was never outnumberd except for one instance early war. in other words his comat effectives is lower than lee by a significant margin, its one of the lowest of any field commander of the war..
During the the war, he lost a little over 15% of his soldiers under his command to combat while Lee lost a little over 20% of his soldiers under his command to combat.
Lee ANV inflicted over 50% of all US wartime combat casualties, while incurring 20% in doing so is not measuring Grant as being successful, but a measure of how good the ANV under lee was at doing so. Grant lost from 64 onwards, what lee lost in the entire war, ie he was quicker at getting his men as combat casualties than anyone on either side.
There were several other generals that lost over 19% of their soldiers to combat.
Who are they then sonny?.
Here is a link to a page in a book that goes over the causality data showing it was better to be a soldier under Grant then Lee if you wanted to survive the war untouched. Scroll down to the the header The Other Side: and start going over the causality data comparing the two generals...
This book does not measure combat casualties, it does not even use the same terms for what a combat casualty is as does the military, pows are non hostile casualties, not combat casualties, they were Germany entire armed forces become combat casualties as they surrendered as a result arising from combat, not combat itself. US had c 2,672,000 enlisted, of which 1 c385k became combat casualties to the CS of c288k of same, from a low of 750k to a high of 1000000 enlisted. It avoids that under Grant from 64 to end of war, over half of all US wartime casulaties occur to the AoP which incurred 35% causalities to all who served. Bonekemper contends. “The South suffered a 3.5-to-1 numerical disadvantage among men of fighting age, yet Lee was fighting like he was a Union general with unlimited resources" its only against Grant that lee causes more combat casualties than the government is enlisting, and Bonekemper has the enlisted age group, incorrect into the bargain, prob one of the worst books ever to be written, it measures only losses not what it took to inflict them as a measure of effectiveness, imagine having to use 200k to inflict 10k on a an enemy of 20k, who also inflicts 10k, and say, the 100k is more effective at casualty infliction as they only lost 10%.
in other words, a CS soldier was 3 times mere effective at causing a casualty, at 750k droping to twice as likely if 1000000 Cs, than was a USA solider, the cost of that was that the CSA forces incurred 35% casualties to its 750k or 28% to its 1000000
Is not the object of war is to kill more of your foe then of your own? Lee fails this test while Grant passes with flying colors...
Nope thats not the object of war. Grant failed to keep his men alive, thats the cost he was willing to pay to win.
Grant at Wilderness, his CEV ( combat effectiveness value of inflicting losses ) is .33, Spotsylvania, Grant obtains .37. Cold Harbor: 0.09
Petersburg: 0.15
Crater: 0.12
Lee against Grant is where Lee performs his best outcomes of the war and over achieves
Wilderness: 4.54
10th May at Spotsylvania: 2.56
12th May ditto: 2.86
Cold Harbor: 11.11
Petersburg: 6.67
Crater: 8.33
Meade
GBurg 0.88
Hooker
Chancelrsville 0.26
Burnside
F/Burg 0.2
Pope
2nd Mann 0.24
Union Iuka 0.96
Union 2nd Corinth 1.54
Union Stones River 0.65
Union Chickamauga 1.34
Union Mechanicsville 4.5
Union Gaines Mill 3.55
Union Peach Orchard, Glendale and Malvern Hill 1.28
Union South Mountain 0.64
Union Antietam 0.7
Union 2nd Manassas and Chantilly 0.24
Union Fredericksburg 0.2
Union Chancellorsville 0.26
Union Gettysburg 0.88
Union Mine Run 0.22
Union Shiloh 0.37
Union Champion Hill 0.74
Union Missionary Ridge 0.7
Union Wilderness 0.22
Union 10th May at Spotsylvania 0.39
Union 12th May ditto 0.35
Union Cold Harbor 0.09
Union Petersburg 0.15
Union Crater 0.12
Union Franklin 2.69
Union Peachtree Creek 1.15
Union Nashville 0.59
Union Resaca 0.17
Union Kennesaw Mountain 0.4
Confederate Iuka 1.04
Confederate 2nd Corinth 0.65
Confederate Stones River 1.54
Confederate Chickamauga 0.75
Confederate Mechanicsville 0.22
Confederate Gaines Mill 0.28
Confederate Peach Orchard, Glendale and Malvern Hill 0.78
Confederate South Mountain 1.56
Confederate Antietam 1.43
Confederate 2nd Manassas and Chantilly 4.17
Confederate Fredericksburg 5
Confederate Chancellorsville 3.85
Confederate Gettysburg 1.14
Confederate Mine Run 4.55
Confederate Shiloh 2.7
Confederate Champion Hill 1.35
Confederate Missionary Ridge 1.43
Confederate Wilderness 4.55
Confederate 10th May at Spotsylvania 2.56
Confederate 12th May ditto 2.86
Confederate Cold Harbor 11.11
Confederate Petersburg 6.67
Confederate Crater 8.33
Confederate Franklin 0.37
Confederate Peachtree Creek 0.87
Confederate Nashville 1.69
Confederate Resaca 5.88
Confederate Kennesaw Mountain 2.5
Union Atlanta 2
Union Seven Pines 1.6
Confederate Atlanta 0.5
Confederate Seven Pines 0.66
So 1 is the expected perfermance, higher you have done better than you should lower the reverse. Side Type median
1: Union Normal 0.675
2: Union Def 1.540
3: Union Att 0.260
4: Confederate Normal 1.485
5: Confederate Att 0.660
6: Confederate Def 3.850
So, Union when defending scores 1.5 to CS 3.8, so CS is far better when defending, and everyone defends better than they can attack, on attacking, US scores 0.3 to CS 0.7, so CS is better at attacking, normalised the CS was better by just better all roun
