GDG- Re: terrain and casualties

[Biggsk at aol.com]

Hugh writes:

>>>>.Do not most of the rivers in the East tend to run an  West/East axis, 
while in the West, the rivers tend to follow a North/South  axis? I think this 
was particularly true in Virginia, was it not?
If  so, than do we not have to consider who was attacking and who was 
defending  during those engagements, to better understand how the CSA was able to  
begrudge ground in the East despite lesser forces  employed?>>>>



Hugh,
 
Read Richard McMurry's "Two Great Rebel Armies," as he goes into the effect  
the rivers had in both theaters.  In the West, the Mississippi, Tennessee  and 
Cumberland Rivers were all north/south in nature and gunboat navigable for  
much of their length (for the Mississippi, all of it).  Thus, Union  strategy 
was the formation of a combined arms Army-Navy team that, once  unleashed, 
defeated everything the Confederates were able to do against them  with the 
capture of some 74,000 troops in 1862-1863.
 
Fixed fortifications are fine to a point and they need a formal field  army 
to help keep them in your control.  Once Grant bottled up  Pemberton  at 
Vicksburg, he was toast.  Once the Confederates went  back to their trenches at 
Donelson after knocking Grant back and opening the two  escape roads, they were 
toast.  The other garrisons did not have field  armies in support and the 
garrisons stayed where they were - and lost.
 
The east-west rivers of Virginia certainly helped Lee a great deal for the  
whole war.
 
Greg Biggs