GDG- Leader losses

[Chet Diestel]

 Esteemed GDG Member Rick Barber Contributes:

   Surely the loss of middle-grade officers cut both ways, affecting the ANV 
and the AoP equally.  If you want to make the argument that Gettysburg 
occurred too soon after Chancellorsville for the ANV to recover from its 
C'Ville losses, don't you also have to recognize that the ranks of the AoP 
were similarly decimated at C'Ville, and the whole impact thing ends up 
being a wash? - Regards, Tim

    I don't think so - on the one hand, it brought (by Couch's resignation, 
to be sure) Hancock into Corps Command, which had a huge effect at 
Gettysburg; and I think that quite a few other good officers finally made 
their way into the command structure. And on the other, about half the AOP 
never pulled a trigger at Chancellorsville, and most of the heavy losses in 
manpower and officers was confined to the III and XI Corps.

   In Lee's army, virtually every unit in the army saw major combat, and was 
on the attack most of the time, which is where the loss of frontline 
officers is (and was) the most severe.  I don't have any exact figure at 
hand, but the proportion of Regiments and Brigades that were under new 
leaders at Gettysburg was huge, and certainly much greater than in the AOP.

    Rick Barber

  In making any evaluation of the fighting ability of the ANV between 
Chancellorsville and Gettysburg one has to take into consideration the 
major --- and necessary --- reorganization of the army following the first 
battle and the death of Jackson.
  Lee's army went from two corps to three --- with two inexperienced corps 
commanders as the result --- along with the shifting to new commands of some 
divisions, reorganization of others and even the creation of new ones as the 
three corps, three division T/O was hammered out.
  In short, as organized, and in many ways was led, the ANV was a very 
different army at Gettysburg than it had been at Chancellorsville.
    With regards,
           Chet