"Lee" vs "Grant"

[BulletRat]

Check out the differences:

Amongst other changes, note the long 75mm as opposed to the Grants short '75.

[CombinedArms]

Originally posted by DingoBreath:

I've always said Lee was the better general and Grant won cause of bigger forces/logistics. A good analagy is to compare Lee to Rommel and Grant to Patton/Monty.

Huh? Grant and Lee tanks..nebermind...

What kind did Boggy drive in Sahara?

Grant's generalship is severely underrated by many, in large part because his campaign against Lee was such a bloodly, costly slog. But he did what he needed to do to win that campaign, which every Union general from McClellan to Pope to Burnside to Hooker to Meade had been unwilling or unable to do--he pushed on toward Richmond, placed it under siege, and ultimately destroyed Lee's army. This is what Lincoln had been asking for from this top general all along. When Lee's subordinants asked why he wasn't pulling off the brilliant manuevers he had used on other Union leaders, he replied, "Because Grant won't let me." Grant kept such relentless pressure on Lee that he was never able to launch one of his dashing counterattacks. And Grant refused to see a rebuff as a defeat.

If you want to study Grant's tactics against the South's generals who were not-quite-so-good-as- Lee, they reflect as well on Grant as Lee's battles against the North's second-rung generals. There is much brilliance to be found in Grant's planning and execution of the campaigns vs. Ft. McHenry and Donelson, showing his tactical and strategic sense, and his famous tenacity. His encirclement of Vicksburg was a flat-out brilliant manuever campaign, ending in a successful siege. And his campaign for the relief of Chattanooga was also brilliant--my favorite Grant battle and one of the most decisive battles of the Civil War. It released the Western armies from a dangerous bottleneck and set Sherman loose on his decisive march to the sea. Even when he was caught flatfooted, as at Shiloh, hung tough and managed a victory of great strategic importance.

Each of Grant's victories had a profound strategic point. He also planned and coordinated the grand strategy by which the South was defeated. In my opinion, Grant was Lee's equal, or nearly his equal, as a tactician, and vastly his superior as a strategist. Lee had trouble seeing beyond Virginia, his native state. Grant thought very effectively on a continental scale, the only Union general able to think in those terms.

Grant was, IMHO, as good a general as Lee-possibly better. He was, also IMHO, a significantly better general than Rommel, Monty or Patton. He had all of their strengths, which he united in one individual, and none of their weaknesses. Think, for example, of Patton's and Monty's immaturity and grandstanding--which made Ike's job such a headache. He had none of that. He never thought only in terms of his own army or his own personal glory. His one drawback, from a publicity standpoint, was a total lack of swagger or dash, which means historians have a hard time making him look exciting or colorful. But, this was a plus, in real miltiary terms. Was Grant a truly great general? In my opinion, yes. Was he one of the half-dozen greatest generals in history?--in my opinion, yes!