IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v96y2015i4p1153-1168.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Refighting Pickett's Charge: Mathematical Modeling of the Civil War Battlefield

Author

Listed:
  • Michael J. Armstrong
  • Steven E. Sodergren

Abstract

type="main"> We model Pickett's Charge at the Battle of Gettysburg to see whether the Confederates could have achieved victory by committing more infantry, executing a better barrage, or facing a weaker defense. Our mathematical modeling is based on Lanchester equations, calibrated using historical army strengths. We weight the Union artillery and infantry two different ways using two sources of data, and so have four versions of the model. The models estimate that a successful Confederate charge would have required at least one to three additional brigades. An improved artillery barrage would have reduced these needs by about one brigade. A weaker Union defense could have allowed the charge to succeed as executed. The Confederates plausibly had enough troops to take the Union position and alter the battle's outcome, but likely too few to further exploit such a success.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael J. Armstrong & Steven E. Sodergren, 2015. "Refighting Pickett's Charge: Mathematical Modeling of the Civil War Battlefield," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 96(4), pages 1153-1168, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:96:y:2015:i:4:p:1153-1168
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/ssqu.12178
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David Connors & Michael J. Armstrong & John Bonnett, 2015. "A Counterfactual Study of the Charge of the Light Brigade," Historical Methods: A Journal of Quantitative and Interdisciplinary History, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(2), pages 80-89, June.
    2. James G. Taylor & Gerald G. Brown, 1983. "Annihilation Prediction for Lanchester-Type Models of Modern Warfare," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 31(4), pages 752-771, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Stephen Biddle & Stephen Long, 2004. "Democracy and Military Effectiveness," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 48(4), pages 525-546, August.
    2. González, Eduardo & Villena, Marcelo, 2011. "Spatial Lanchester models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 210(3), pages 706-715, May.
    3. N. K. Jaiswal & Meena Kumari & B. S. Nagabhushana, 1995. "Optimal force mix in heterogeneous combat," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(6), pages 873-887, September.
    4. Chad W. Seagren & Donald P. Gaver & Patricia A. Jacobs, 2019. "A stochastic air combat logistics decision model for Blue versus Red opposition," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 66(8), pages 663-674, December.
    5. Israel David, 1995. "Lanchester modeling and the biblical account of the battles of gibeah," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(4), pages 579-584, June.
    6. Anelí Bongers & José L. Torres, 2017. "Revisiting the Battle of Midway: A counterfactual analysis," Working Papers 2017-01, Universidad de Málaga, Department of Economic Theory, Málaga Economic Theory Research Center.
    7. Patrick S. Chen & Peter Chu, 2001. "Applying Lanchester's linear law to model the Ardennes campaign," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 48(8), pages 653-661, December.
    8. Michael J. Armstrong, 2004. "Effects of lethality in naval combat models," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 51(1), pages 28-43, February.
    9. Kjell Hausken & John F. Moxnes, 2005. "Approximations and empirics for stochastic war equations," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 52(7), pages 682-700, October.
    10. Gregory Levitin & Kjell Hausken, 2012. "Resource Distribution in Multiple Attacks with Imperfect Detection of the Attack Outcome," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(2), pages 304-318, February.
    11. Hausken, Kjell & Moxnes, John F., 2002. "Stochastic conditional and unconditional warfare," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 140(1), pages 61-87, July.
    12. G T Kaup & D J Kaup & N M Finkelstein, 2005. "The Lanchester (n, 1) problem," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 56(12), pages 1399-1407, December.
    13. Ian R. Johnson & Niall J. MacKay, 2011. "Lanchester models and the battle of Britain," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 58(3), pages 210-222, April.
    14. Gregory Levitin & Kjell Hausken, 2010. "Resource Distribution in Multiple Attacks Against a Single Target," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(8), pages 1231-1239, August.
    15. David L. Bitters, 1995. "Efficient concentration of forces, or how to fight outnumbered and win," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(3), pages 397-418, April.
    16. Moshe Kress, 2020. "Lanchester Models for Irregular Warfare," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-14, May.
    17. David Connors & Michael J. Armstrong & John Bonnett, 2015. "A Counterfactual Study of the Charge of the Light Brigade," Historical Methods: A Journal of Quantitative and Interdisciplinary History, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(2), pages 80-89, June.
    18. M.P. Wiper & L.I. Pettit & K.D.S. Young, 2000. "Bayesian inference for a Lanchester type combat model," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 47(7), pages 541-558, October.
    19. Wayne P. Hughes, 1995. "A salvo model of warships in missile combat used to evaluate their staying power," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(2), pages 267-289, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:96:y:2015:i:4:p:1153-1168. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0038-4941 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.