I noticed in other histories of wars (specifically in the German army in WWII) that forming new units is not a good idea compared to sending new recruits into old units. Robert posted this:
**********************************************************
Well, training did not take as long as you are thinking, at least not in the Confederate army. While it took up to a year (according to General Sherman)to make a raw recruit into an effective fighting soldier in the Union army, this was because of the Union army's practice of forming brand-new regiments from their raw recruits, rather than using the recruits as replacements for existing units. The new guys couldn't learn from veterans in their ranks, because they were in a regiment full of new guys and no veterans. The Confederacy used their new recruits to beef up the existing units, which lead to increased unit morale, and also allowed rapid training of the raw recruits by the veterans in the unit. Training time for a Confederate recruit, because of this, was as little as 1-2 months.
**********************************************************
Would the North have fought more efficiently if the regulars and the recruits been mixed in, with the recruits learning from the vets? I think so.
Recruiting might have been more difficult. The local bigwigs would encourage enlistment because they were going to be officers in the regiments. Maybe if the new regiments were allowed to recruit from the old regiments? Say, the 90 day men signed on for the new regiments after an earlier draft passed?
There was some regiment hopping in the Civil War. Sometimes soldiers just walked away and signed up in a new unit under a new name. Not difficult in the days before databases and fingerprints.
**********************************************************
Well, training did not take as long as you are thinking, at least not in the Confederate army. While it took up to a year (according to General Sherman)to make a raw recruit into an effective fighting soldier in the Union army, this was because of the Union army's practice of forming brand-new regiments from their raw recruits, rather than using the recruits as replacements for existing units. The new guys couldn't learn from veterans in their ranks, because they were in a regiment full of new guys and no veterans. The Confederacy used their new recruits to beef up the existing units, which lead to increased unit morale, and also allowed rapid training of the raw recruits by the veterans in the unit. Training time for a Confederate recruit, because of this, was as little as 1-2 months.
**********************************************************
Would the North have fought more efficiently if the regulars and the recruits been mixed in, with the recruits learning from the vets? I think so.
Recruiting might have been more difficult. The local bigwigs would encourage enlistment because they were going to be officers in the regiments. Maybe if the new regiments were allowed to recruit from the old regiments? Say, the 90 day men signed on for the new regiments after an earlier draft passed?
There was some regiment hopping in the Civil War. Sometimes soldiers just walked away and signed up in a new unit under a new name. Not difficult in the days before databases and fingerprints.