GRANT'S TACTICAL RECORD AND PERFORMANCE
| Battle |
attk | win | union | loss | confed | loss |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Belmont | U | C | 3,114 | 607 | 4,000 | 642 |
| Donelson | U | U | 27,000 | 2,832 | 21,000 | 2,000 |
| Shiloh | C | U | 62,682 | 13,047 | 40,335 | 10,694 |
| Champion's Hill | U | U | 29,000 | 2,441 | 22,000 | 3,851 |
| Big Black River | U | U | 10,000 | 279 | 4,000 | 1,700 |
| Vicksburg Assault | U | C | 35,000 | 3,200 | 12,000 | 2,500+ |
| Chattanooga | U | U | 56,359 | 5,824 | 64,165 | 6,667 |
| Wilderness | U | C | 101,895 | 17,666 | 61,025 | 7,750 |
| Spotsylvania | U | C | 65,785 | 14,267 | 53,275 | 10,000 |
| Cold Harbor | U | C | 108,000 | 13,000 | 59,000 | 3,000 |
| Petersburg 18.6.64 | U | C | 63,797 | 11,386 | 41,999 | 2,900# |
| Petersburg 30.7.64 | U | C | 20,708 | 3,798 | 11,466 | 1,500 |
| Petersburg 2.4.65 | U | C | 63,299 | 4,140 | 18,579 | 2,900# |
| TOTAL(13) | - | - | 646,669 | 92,487 | 413,844 | 46,479 |
| Commander |
number | % enemy men | % casualties | % enemy cas. | Efficiency Index | enemy Eff. Index |
| Grant win attack | 6 | 141 | 8 | 91 | 94 | 121 |
| Grant lose attack | 6 | 164 | 16 | 229 | 70 | 264 |
| Grant win defense | 1 | 155 | 21 | 122 | 170 | 323 |
| Grant lose defense | 0 | - - | - - | - - | - - | - - |
| All Grant | 13 | 156 | 14 | 199 | 72 | 224 |
+ = Confederate loss estimated from efficiency index for Cold Harbor
# = Confederate loss estimated from efficiency index for Cold Harbor
| Tactical Effectiveness Summary | |||
| commander |
Attack Frequency | Attack Efficiency | Total Efficiency |
|---|---|---|---|
| GRANT | 92% | 50% | 53% |
| SHERMAN | 44 | 25 | 67 |
| LEE | 23 | 67 | 81 |
| JACKSON | 50 | 80 | 90 |
Source: Livermore's Numbers and Losses
M. Collie May 1993
Back