longimanus
Civilian
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2016 5:28 pm

Information and Statistics on Divisions

Sat Jul 02, 2016 5:45 pm

Hello all,

I'm working on a mod for another game (hearts of iron 4) and I was wondering if you guys could help me. How many divisions did the CS and US have respectively at the outbreak of the war? I also understand the CS often had more men in brigades and thus divisions, but how much more in the start of the war? Just telling me the game numbers at least works for me.


I'm thinking of purchasing this game soon, but any help with this info right now would be much obliged.

User avatar
Wraith
Sergeant
Posts: 69
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 12:51 pm

Sat Jul 02, 2016 6:03 pm

Neither side began forming divisions until later in the war; at outbreak, the US did not have any "divisions," and the CSA certainly did not (as it was trying to declare independence).

I would avoid using "game numbers" to use for a mod, especially if you're trying to use HoI4. Better to simply use the manpower available and known formations (regiments and battalions of infantry, cavalry and artillery) than to specify divisions.

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5766
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Thu Jul 07, 2016 12:46 pm

That's not actually true. The Federal army at least did have divisions. Just because the game doesn't allow them until later, doesn't mean they didn't exist. The same goes for Corps
Image

User avatar
Jerzul
Captain
Posts: 153
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2010 10:10 pm
Location: Germantown, MD

Thu Jul 07, 2016 2:27 pm

Captain_Orso wrote:That's not actually true. The Federal army at least did have divisions. Just because the game doesn't allow them until later, doesn't mean they didn't exist. The same goes for Corps


In point of fact, the United States did not establish standing, organized divisions until 1916. While ad-hoc divisions were created as needed, none were in existence in April of 1861. General Scott argued against the necessity of creating divisions at all, as he and Zachary Taylor had fought the Mexican war without them.

The same goes for Corps. The US Army did not utilize that system of command until the creation of the I. Corps on March 13, 1862.
I have heard, in such a way as to believe it, of your recently saying that both the army and the government needed a dictator. Of course it was not for this, but in spite of it, that I have given you the command. Only those generals who gain success can be dictators. What I now ask of you is military success, and I will risk the dictatorship.

-Abraham Lincoln, 1863, in a letter to Major General Joseph Hooker.

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5766
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Thu Jul 07, 2016 5:13 pm

McDowell created divisions in organizing his forces many weeks before 1st Manassas, and even Paterson organized his brigades into divisions.

Whether congress put into law the military structure of the division in 1916 is inconsequential, as they were de facto a standard of US Army organization long before that.
Image

User avatar
Wraith
Sergeant
Posts: 69
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 12:51 pm

Thu Jul 07, 2016 7:29 pm

So why are we not allowed divisions early on in the war?

If just two commanders used a divisional format, that's not the wide-spread adoption of the division, and can't be used for evidence. Hooker, iirc, did away with corps and instead organized his forces into wings or something of that nature.

User avatar
Jerzul
Captain
Posts: 153
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2010 10:10 pm
Location: Germantown, MD

Thu Jul 07, 2016 8:08 pm

Captain_Orso wrote:McDowell created divisions in organizing his forces many weeks before 1st Manassas, and even Paterson organized his brigades into divisions.

Whether congress put into law the military structure of the division in 1916 is inconsequential, as they were de facto a standard of US Army organization long before that.


It's absolutely not inconsequential to the question being asked, which is: How many divisions did the USA and CSA have at the beginning of the war. The correct answer is zero. Yes, McDowell and Patterson began forming divisions as the troops arrived, but that does not mean any where in existence when the war began.

Wraith wrote:So why are we not allowed divisions early on in the war?

If just two commanders used a divisional format, that's not the wide-spread adoption of the division, and can't be used for evidence. Hooker, iirc, did away with corps and instead organized his forces into wings or something of that nature.


We can't form divisions until October to simulate the difficulty in managing the early game armies and to simulate the disorganization of the early troops.

Also, it was Burnside who reorganized the Army of the Potomac into "Grand Divisions" - Hooker actually re-instituted the Corps structure for the AoP.
I have heard, in such a way as to believe it, of your recently saying that both the army and the government needed a dictator. Of course it was not for this, but in spite of it, that I have given you the command. Only those generals who gain success can be dictators. What I now ask of you is military success, and I will risk the dictatorship.



-Abraham Lincoln, 1863, in a letter to Major General Joseph Hooker.

grimjaw
Colonel
Posts: 395
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2011 5:38 am
Location: Arkansas

Thu Jul 07, 2016 8:16 pm

So why are we not allowed divisions early on in the war?

You may already be familiar with the previous version of AACW, but in that game divisions were brought on in stages. First it was just a few divisions each side, then more, then the final number allowable. IIRC, it was still a limited number of divisions available even at the end, but I could be wrong. There was also a resource cost to form a division ...

This is just my two cents, since I haven't talked with any of the developers about why things were done this way. The full campaign seems designed to stay in line with the events as they happened in the original conflict, even if it doesn't make any sense. The front lines may be moved all the way to Maine, but the game still spawns things in DC and Richmond (and other places).

So, the build-up to the battle of Bull Run must exist. It can only exist such that it will be fought on that date in a disorganized manner. It can't be fought in a disorganized manner if the user can form divisions before the historical 1st Manassas. To deviate from this requires flexibility that is not currently built into the campaigns.

If divisions and corps are allowed from the start, or as early as they were formed in the actual conflict, either de facto or de jure, it opens a big can of worms. The game *could* be scripted to handle things differently, but it would take a significant amount of work. The game as-built is still so far removed from historically accurate events that I don't really care about that when playing single player.

Given the paucity of releases just to fix things that are broke or unbalanced, the way things are is probably the way they're going to stay unless you script it yourself. I'm very grateful that there is the ability to do this in CW2, but there are a few hard-coded things I can't change that keep me from spending more time on it.

Teatime
Lieutenant
Posts: 109
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 2:56 pm

Fri Jul 08, 2016 9:23 am

I think the game has it pretty right as to when these formations were effectively being used.

The Union certainly had divisions earlier than Oct 61, they were part of the organisation at 1st Bull Run. However given the inexperience of both the troops and the commanders with formations of division size the brigade was the tactical unit. I don't think it could be said that the divisional commanders were exerting effective command and control at that battle.

Corps were created as part of McClellan's reorganisation in early 62 and were used by the confederates by the time of Shiloh in April 62.

The Grand Divisions were multi corps formations (more akin to a wing of the army) and not divisional formations.

Armies of the size used during the civil war had never existed in Nth America prior to 1861 so there was a significant learning curve for officers of all levels in the early days, I think only being able to organise armies and brigades early on reflects the command difficulties experienced.

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5766
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Fri Jul 08, 2016 11:46 am

Wraith wrote:So why are we not allowed divisions early on in the war?


Because the doctrine of their use was not developed enough at the time that it would have had so much affect on the effectiveness of their use as is reflected by the introduction of division in October '61 in the game.

It was at one time being considered to allow division in the game from the start, but with some sort of reduction in their effectiveness, but this would have required some major changes in the engine, and in the end the return on investment of the required changes was not deemed worthwhile.

Wraith wrote:If just two commanders used a divisional format, that's not the wide-spread adoption of the division, and can't be used for evidence.


The use of divisional organization was implemented when the army commander determined it was of value. It was not an overall doctrine of the US or Confederate military, but at the discretion of the commanders in the field.

Wraith wrote:Hooker, iirc, did away with corps and instead organized his forces into wings or something of that nature.


No, Hooker divided his Corps into wings, but by the time Hooker was commander of the AoP, the use of Corps was actually put into law by congress; personally, I think congress did this, so that they could require the military to have their Corps commanders be confirmed by congress, the same as army commanders.

Jerzul wrote:It's absolutely not inconsequential to the question being asked, which is: How many divisions did the USA and CSA have at the beginning of the war. The correct answer is zero. Yes, McDowell and Patterson began forming divisions as the troops arrived, but that does not mean any where in existence when the war began.


Well, if you consider the 'beginning of the war' as April '61, they you are correct, there were no divisions on either side. So it's really a question of what longimanus was intending to ask. So I guess he'll have to clarify that.

Jerzul wrote:We can't form divisions until October to simulate the difficulty in managing the early game armies and to simulate the disorganization of the early troops.

Also, it was Burnside who reorganized the Army of the Potomac into "Grand Divisions" - Hooker actually re-instituted the Corps structure for the AoP.


Image If you try to equate the use the word 'division' by the military in all facets of its use during the war, you will only be taking gibberish. An infantry division, has nothing to do with a cavalry division, a 'division' as Burnside used the term in his case, nor a 'Military Division' as used by the War Department, which was about equivalent to what is now know as a military district.

grimjaw wrote:So why are we not allowed divisions early on in the war?


See my answer above.

grimjaw wrote:You may already be familiar with the previous version of AACW, but in that game divisions were brought on in stages. First it was just a few divisions each side, then more, then the final number allowable. IIRC, it was still a limited number of divisions available even at the end, but I could be wrong. There was also a resource cost to form a division ...


Image Once division are allowed, no aspect to them ever changes, and never has.

Originally in AACW, once divisions were allowed, there was a fixed limit to the number of division each side could have--33 for the CS and 66 for the US, IIRC--, but this never changed during the game.

This limit was eventually removed--actually set to 99, because that's the way the engine works and it is highly unlikely for a side to actually reach that limit--, because it was deemed unnecessarily restrictive to players who were successful enough to exceed the original limit.

grimjaw wrote:This is just my two cents, since I haven't talked with any of the developers about why things were done this way. The full campaign seems designed to stay in line with the events as they happened in the original conflict, even if it doesn't make any sense. The front lines may be moved all the way to Maine, but the game still spawns things in DC and Richmond (and other places).

So, the build-up to the battle of Bull Run must exist. It can only exist such that it will be fought on that date in a disorganized manner. It can't be fought in a disorganized manner if the user can form divisions before the historical 1st Manassas. To deviate from this requires flexibility that is not currently built into the campaigns.

If divisions and corps are allowed from the start, or as early as they were formed in the actual conflict, either de facto or de jure, it opens a big can of worms. The game *could* be scripted to handle things differently, but it would take a significant amount of work. The game as-built is still so far removed from historically accurate events that I don't really care about that when playing single player.

Given the paucity of releases just to fix things that are broke or unbalanced, the way things are is probably the way they're going to stay unless you script it yourself. I'm very grateful that there is the ability to do this in CW2, but there are a few hard-coded things I can't change that keep me from spending more time on it.


With regard to why divisions and corps can be used when, I pretty much agree.

About not being able to change things in the hard coding... Pocus would kill us, but it would be fun :wacko:

Teatime wrote:I think the game has it pretty right as to when these formations were effectively being used.

The Union certainly had divisions earlier than Oct 61, they were part of the organisation at 1st Bull Run. However given the inexperience of both the troops and the commanders with formations of division size the brigade was the tactical unit. I don't think it could be said that the divisional commanders were exerting effective command and control at that battle.

Corps were created as part of McClellan's reorganisation in early 62 and were used by the confederates by the time of Shiloh in April 62.

The Grand Divisions were multi corps formations (more akin to a wing of the army) and not divisional formations.

Armies of the size used during the civil war had never existed in Nth America prior to 1861 so there was a significant learning curve for officers of all levels in the early days, I think only being able to organise armies and brigades early on reflects the command difficulties experienced.


I pretty much agree completely with this. I'm reading The Early Morning of War - Edward G. Longacre, at the moment. It's very obvious that especially the army commanders had no idea how to effectively wield their forces; absolutely ineffective use of cavalry during marches; using a highly overextended railroad to move an army, when it could have marched the distance in less time; chaotic march organization; inability to provide equipment for troops. It's amazing that two forces were even able to meet and fight a battle which didn't exactly resemble The Batley Townswomens' Guild Reenactment of the Battle of Pearl Harbour [video=youtube;ce2jEDfPwG8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ce2jEDfPwG8[/video] ... then again, maybe it did :blink:
Image

Return to “Civil War II”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests