Film Review: Dunkirk

By Seth Marshall

Christopher Nolan, director of the Dark Knight Trilogy, Inception and Interstellar has turned his attention on the miraculous evacuation of the Allied forces from Dunkirk in late May and early June 1940.

                On May 10th, 1940, the so-called Phoney War, a period of relative inactivity along the Western Front in Europe, came to a sudden and dramatic end when the German Army invaded France and the Low Countries. Over the course of the next several weeks, the Wehrmacht would conquer the Netherlands, Belgium, and ultimately France. Fall Gelb, Case Yellow, called for Army Group A under the command of General Gerd von Rundstedt to advance through the Ardennes, break through French defenses along the Meuse River at Sedan, and ultimately advance to the Channel coast, with the objective of cutting the Allied forces in half. Army Group B, under the command of General  Fedar von Bock, was to drive into Belgium and the Netherlands, with the objective of occupying those countries. [1] After several days of French resistance, the Wehrmacht successfully broke the French lines at Sedan, lead by armor commanders General Ewald von Kleist and General Heinz Guderian. By May 20th, Guderian’s tanks had captured Amiens and Abbeville, bisecting the Allied forces and leaving the entirety of the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) cut off from the rest of France. In an effort to stem the German advance and reserve the rapidly deteriorating situation, the commander of French forces, General Maurice Gamelin, ordered French forces in their increasingly poor position to attack towards the south. However, Gamelin was replaced on May 19th, and his replacement, General Maxime Weygand, delaying the counterattack proposed by Gamelin for three days while he inspected the front lines. By the time Weygand ordered the attack forward on May 22nd, the time for an effective counterattack had passed.[2]

                It was in this perilous situation that the BEF found itself in late May 1940. Commanding the BEF was Lord Field Marshal John Gort. Born in 1886 in County Durham, Gort had served with distinction during the First World War and was decorated with the Military Cross, the Distinguished Service Order with two bars, and the Victoria Cross, Britain’s highest military honor. Advancing through the ranks between the Wars, Gort had held various command positions, including Chief of the Imperial General Staff, prior to his promotion to full general in 1937.[3] Appointed as commander of the BEF in 1939, Gort encountered difficulties in working with his French allies. This would become apparent in the wake of the German invasion of France, as the BEF’s position became more and more tenuous. Ignoring calls for reinforcement by the French and London, Gort began ordering his forces to pull back- on the night of May 18-19th, Gort ordered the British I and II Corps to pull back to the Dendre River from the Senne River. On May 21st, tired of the dallying of French forces, Gort ordered the 5th and 50th Divisions, supported by 100 tanks, to attack south from Arras, with the objective of breaking through the German encirclement. Initially, the attack achieved a modicum of success, and the British forces began pushing back the Germans, causing some panic among local German commanders, including then-Major General Erwin Rommel: “Powerful armored forces had swarmed out of Arras, subjecting us to heavy losses in men and equipment. The anti-tank guns that we speedily brought into action proved too light to be effective against the heavily-armored British tanks. Most of them were put of action by the enemy artillery...”[4] The British Matilda tanks, more heavily armed and armored than most of their German counterparts, proved difficult to disable. In the end, only by resorting to artillery guns and 88mm anti-aircraft guns were the Germans able to blunt the British offensive.[5] On May 22nd, Guderian’s tanks began moving again, advancing north into Boulogne. At Boulogne, they encountered stiff resistance and fought for three days before finally taking the city on May 25th. By then, Gort had decided that the only viable option left to him was to evacuate the BEF. On the evening of May 23rd, Gort ordered the BEF to begin withdrawing to the port of Dunkirk, the last major port available for evacuation.[6] Withdrawing from Belgium, Gort ordered the garrison at Calais to remain behind as a rearguard and placed various forces at ideal locations to slow the German advance and buy time for an evacuation to take place. It was at this time that one of the more controversial decisions of the war in 1940 took place when on May 24th Hitler gave an order to halt the advance of the panzers, leaving the final capture of Dunkirk up to the infantry with the support of the Luftwaffe. After the war, various German officers offered their explanations for the delay. Von Kleist said that Luftwaffe commander Herman Goring had lobbied Hitler to give the Luftwaffe the opportunity to finish off the BEF from the air; “Goring had undertaken to settle Dunkirk’s hash with planes alone… He begged Hitler to bestow the honor not on the army but on the Luftwaffe, thereby making the battle of Dunkirk a victory for the regime.”[7] Von Rundstedt believed Hitler had halted the advance to create a more advantageous position for Germany to negotiate surrender terms with Britain; “The Fuhrer had counted on a speedy end to western operations… He deliberately let the bulk of the BEF escape, so as to make peace negotiations easier.” Von Rundstedt’s claim is negated by the fact that his own diary recorded him as having made the suggestion to halt to Hitler himself.[8] In any case, the combination of the delayed advance of the panzers and the stubborn resistance of pockets of BEF forces in locations such as Calais served to buy additional time for the BEF to organize an evacuation. Gort continued to withdraw his forces, forming a defensive perimeter around Dunkirk. In the meantime, the British Navy began preparing to carry out the evacuation.

Lord Field Marshal John Gort's official portrait. Despite Gort's difficult situation as commander of the BEF, he would come under heavy criticism as having perceived to have abandoned the French. Gort would later serve in the Mediterranean as Governor of Gibraltar, as the Governor of Malta, and lastly in the position of High Commissioner for Palestine and Transjordan. Photo: Wikipedia.

General Gerd von Rundstedt, commander of German Army Group A, which successfully broke through French defenses and swept into France. Rundstedt had retired in 1938 only to be recalled to active service when Germany invaded Poland. Rundstedt would be subsequently be dismissed in late 1941, the summer of 1944, and March 1945- by Hitler each time. An excellent commander, he was recalled to service several times to salvage defensive situations. Photo source: Wikipedia.

The campaign in France from 21 May to 31 May, ending with the encirclement of the BEF and elements of the French and Belgian armies at Dunkirk. Source: Warfare History Network.

                In command of the evacuation was Vice Admiral Sir Bertram Ramsey, who was the commander of Royal Navy forces at the port of Dover. Overseeing the operations from his headquarters in the catacombs beneath Dover castle, Ramsey ordered Captain William Tennant, the chief of staff to the First Sea Lord, to proceed to Dunkirk to function as the senior naval officer in place and send his recommendations back to Ramsey as to the best means of evacuating the BEF. On May 27th, the day following London’s official order to begin evacuation, Tennant proceeding across the Channel on the destroyer HMS Wolfhound, under frequent attack by Luftwaffe dive-bombers. On his arrival, Tennant made two observations that would prove critical in the evacuation. First, with the bombing of Dunkirk harbor by the Luftwaffe having caused serious damage, Tennant recognized that naval units would be unable to use the docks to embark men. Second, he realized that the harbor’s moles, which served as breakwaters for the harbor, were relatively undamaged and could be used in place of the devastated docks. Tennant tested the moles’ capability by directing the steamship Queen of the Channel to dock alongside one of the moles, which it accomplished successfully. Tennant recommended to Ramsey that he send every ship available to Dunkirk, first asking him to send them to the beaches, then advising that the moles be used as the primary means to extricate the soldiers. [9] Ramsey ordered the 129 ships at his disposal, including fast modern destroyers prized by the Admiralty as convoy escorts, into action to carry out the evacuation. In order to assist the evacuation, a call was put out to owners of private boats in southern England to take their vessels across the Channel and assist the evacuation by ferrying men from the beach to larger ships further out in the Channel, which would in turn take them to Dover. Some 1400 small ships, including fishing trawlers, motorboats, yachts, ferries, and barges, made their way from their home ports along the Channel and the Thames River estuary to Dunkirk to take part.[10]

Vice Admiral Sir Bertram Ramsey, in overall command of the evacuation of the BEF from Dunkirk. Working almost constantly in Dover castle, Ramsey's dedication and ultimate success in orchestrating the operation earned him a visit with King George VI as well as the title of Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath. Photo: Wikipedia.

As the senior Royal Navy officer on the ground, at-that-time Captain William Tenant (later Admiral Sir William Tenant) was in charge of overseeing evacuation efforts at Dunkirk. Photo: Wikipedia.

Among the most famous images captured during the evacuation of Dunkirk was this: the image of thousands of British troops waiting on the sands of the French coast in hopes of being evacuated. Photo source: Warfare History Network.

                By May 28th, the evacuation was proceeding at full speed. Destroyers began picking up boatloads of soldiers from the moles, while small boats ferried teams of men from the beaches to ships waiting further offshore. All the while, German artillery continued to rain down on Dunkirk and the Luftwaffe continued to torment the occupants of the harbor and beaches with constant machine-gun fire and bombing runs, coupled with the sounds of their sirens. The RAF attempted to disrupt the Luftwaffe’s operations by sending fighter patrols across the Channel, but their ability to provide protection was limited by their range, which meant that they could only spend a short time overhead. The RAF also had to provide aircraft for protecting sealanes, which limited the number of aircraft they could commit to the evacuation. As a result, the Stuka dive-bombers merely had to wait for RAF fighters to turn for home to refuel before renewing their attacks. During the day, the Queen of the Channel was sunk by aerial attacks, resulting in the civilian ships being limited to nighttime operations only.[11] Despite these difficulties, the British were able to evacuate 17,804 men on the 28th.

Amidst one of the seemingly endless Luftwaffe attacks, BEF soldiers take aim at attacking bombers with their rifles. Source: Warfare History Network.

                May 29th saw a turn for the better for the BEF. A number of French warships arrived to assist in the evacuation, and despite continuing German artillery fire, over 47,000 soldiers were taken off the beaches. Three Royal Navy destroyers were lost on this day to Luftwaffe raids, a U-boat attack, and one by Kriegsmarine E-boat torpedo attacks. The merchant ship Mona Queen was sunk by a mine, while six more ships were sunk by air raids.[12] Losses were such that the Admiralty forbade the use of modern destroyers in order to preserve them for convoy escort duty.[13] By May 31st, so many British troops had been taken off the beaches that the decision was made to remove Lord Gort from his position, as a Corps commander could take over from there. He therefore turned over command to General Harold Alexander.[14]

The Mona Queen, a liner from the Isle of Man Steam Packet Company, sinks after striking a mine on 29 May. Photo source: Wikipedia.

The French destroyer Bourrasque sinks after striking a mine on 30 May after having taken on a load of soldiers, who are now jumping overboard. Photo source: Warfare History Network.

                While the evacuation was proceeding, the scene at Dunkirk remained hellish, with artillery fire and Stuka dive bombers incessantly raining down destruction. On the beaches, there were still thousands of men waiting their chance to escape from the advancing Germans. Arthur Devine, the captain of a small boat shuttling men from the beach to larger ships offshore, recalled the scene years later:

“The picture will always remain sharp-etched in my memory- the lines of men wearily and sleepily staggering across the beach from the dunes to the shallows, falling into little boats, great columns of men thrust out into the water among bomb and shell splashes. The foremost ranks were shoulder deep, moving forward under the command of young subalterns, themselves with their heads just above the little waves that rode into the sand. As the front ranks were dragged aboard the boats, the rear ranks moved up, from ankle deep to knee deep, from knee deep to waist deep, until they, too, came to shoulder depth and their turn.”[15]

By the morning of June 1st, 200,000 Allied troops had been taken off the beaches. That day however saw the loss of four more destroyers within a short period, while four more were damaged. Even more civilian vessels were lost or damaged. Despite the ever-present artillery fire and Stukas, 68,000 more men were evacuated to Britain. Among the soldiers evacuated on this day was Norman Wickman, an engineer with the 62nd Chemical Warfare Company. Wickman was evacuated on board the destroyer HMS Worcester.

“Urging the men along the mole, I took a last look around, making sure everyone had gone, and then raced down the walkway. The destroyer was pulling away from its berth. I hesitated. The gap was too wide. “Jump, you silly bugger, jump” yelled a burly sailor at the ship’s rail. So I jumped. Immediately, I realized I had made a big mistake. In mid-air, I glanced down. The foaming water churned wildly where the destroyer’s sharp propeller blades were waiting to chop me to pieces. Leaning far out, the muscular sailor grabbed my shredded epaulette, flapping loosely from my uniform. With a crash, I slammed against the ship’s rail. Using brute strength, the sailor hauled me over, where I fell in a crumpled heap on the deck. Unbridled joy and relief overwhelmed me. I was on the destroyer, safe and on my way home. Then, all hell let loose. “Get up against the bulkhead,” shouted the sailor. Stunned and winded, I stumbled across the deck. As I pressed against the gray metal, I heard the planes. Stukas, 30-40 of them, dived on the Worcester time and time again. Bombs rained down like confetti all around the ship. The destroyer, so filled with troops it was top heavy, heeled over wildly at heart-stopping, stomach-lurching angles to evade the falling bombs. Bombs to the rear lifted the stern clear of the water. The massive propellers screamed until the ship crashed down again. Colossal columns of water washed over the ship. I closed my eyes and tried to make my body disappear into the bulkhead.By some miracle, none of the 100 bombs made a direct hit on the ship. Shrapnel killed 46 and wounded another 180 before the attacks tapered off. As sanity returned, I opened my eyes and looked round. The planes had disappeared. The Worcester, with its crowded decks, was steaming across the channel to the British coast. I may have been exhausted by the day’s events, but I felt exhilarated.”[16]

British soldiers board a destroyer at the mole at Dunkirk. Photo source: Warfare History Network.

British soldiers crowded on board of a destroyer following evacuation prepare to dock at Dover on 31 May. Photo source: Wikipedia. 

                The following day, June 2nd, Ramsey ordered a halt to the daylight evacuation, fearing disproportionate losses in ships and naval personnel; instead, he planned to continue the evacuation under the cover of darkness that night. Some 4,000 British soldiers remained ashore functioning as a rear guard, while another 50-60,000 French troops continued to hold the defensive perimeter, which was gradually being reduced by the Germans. For the next day and half, ships would continue to make the approach to Dunkirk at night and take even more men. By 11PM on June 2nd, the last of the BEF rearguard had been evacuated; Tennant reported back to Ramsey, “Operation Dynamo complete. Returning to Dover,” before leaving the beach.[17] While the BEF had now been extricated, ships continued to embark French soldiers. On the night of June 3rd-4th, the odd assembly of ships crossed the Channel for the final night of the operation. Over 26,000 French soldiers were taken back to Britain before the operation was finally called off in the early hours of June 4th.[18] The destroyer Shikari, with 383 soldiers on board, was the last ship to leave Dunkirk, pulling away at 3:40AM.[19]

                For an evacuation that was initially estimated to be capable of saving 40,000 men, Operation Dynamo had been an astounding success. Some 198,000 British and 140,000 French and Belgian troops were taken back to England from the pocket at Dunkirk. [20] Some 40,000 Frenchmen remained behind as a rearguard in Dunkirk and were killed or captured. While nearly 200,000 British soldiers were saved, the BEF still suffered heavily- 11,014 killed, 14,074 wounded, and 41,338 captured since the campaign had begun.[21] In addition, the BEF had left nearly all of its heavy equipment- it left behind 2,472 guns, 63,879 vehicles, 20,548 motorcycles, and 500,000 tons of supplies. In the air, the RAF had lost 106 fighters, inflicting a roughly equal number of losses on the Luftwaffe. The Royal Navy had lost six of its destroyers, while 19 more suffered damage. Including the lost destroyers, 243 ships of all types had been sunk.[22] Nonetheless, the manpower of the BEF had in large part been saved. However, for Lord Gort, his command of the BEF would prove to be his last major command. He was appointed to several Governor positions, most notable in Malta while the island was under siege, before his retirement. Gort died in 1946 just shy of his 60th birthday.

British soldiers, just having arrived at Dover exhausted from their ordeal in France, await a train to take them north. Photo source: Wikipedia.

Not all soldiers were successfully evacuated from Dunkirk. Some 40,000 French soldiers, left behind as a rearguard to hold off the Germans, were captured when the Wehrmacht finally overran the port. Photo source: Warfare History Network.

                Christopher Nolan’s film is the third film to be released that focuses on the subject of the evacuation at Dunkirk, though the evacuation has appeared in other films as a background. At 106 minutes, Dunkirk is one of Christopher Nolan’s shortest films, particularly in light of his more recent films, Interstellar and The Dark Knight Rises, both of which were well over two hours long.[23] Much of the film was shot on location at present-day Dunkirk, which certainly lends an air of authenticity to the film.  Among the cast are previous actors who have appeared in Nolan films, including Tom Hardy, starring as Spitfire pilot Farrier, and Cillian Murphy, who appears as a distressed BEF soldier. Other members of the cast include: Kenneth Branaugh as Commander Bolton, James D’Arcy as Captain Winnant, Fionn Whitehead as a young soldier named Tommy, and Mark Rylance as Dawsett. In an effort to make the film accurate, Nolan used three Spitfires and a Hispano Buchon painted as an ME-109 to depict the aerial sequences. Additionally, he used the French destroyer Maille-Breze as a stand-in for a period destroyer. While this ship wasn’t commissioned until the 1950s, it is visually similar to destroyers of the period.

Nolan wanted to use as much period-correct vehicles as possible to lend historical accuracy to the film. Pictured is one of several Supermarine Spitfires used in the film. Photo: Wikipedia.

Though there are a number of ME-109s that remain airworthy, none are the correct version that would have been flying in 1940. As a result, Nolan used a Hispano HA 1112 "Buchon" as a substitute. This aircraft is a post-war design based on the airframe of the ME-109 paired with the engine of the Spitfire. Buchons have been used as ME-109s in film before, most notably in the 1968 film "Battle of Britain." Photo source: Wikipedia. 

The retired French destroyer Maille-Breze, built in the 1950s, was used as a substitute for British destroyers in the film. Photo source: Wikipedia.

The MLV Castor was one of several ships used to portray a number of minesweepers in the film. Photo source: Wikipedia.

                With all of these efforts to maintain a semblance of historical accuracy then, the film is surely a knockout, right? Well, this is not so easy to say. Readers should be warned that hereafter will be spoilers. The film is presented along three timeframes that eventually converge at the climax of the movie. We are first introduced to the perspective of the soldier Tommy, played by Fionn Whitehead. His story, one of scarcely avoiding death and escape, is told over the course of a week. The story of the crew of a small pleasure boat, captained by Dawson (played by Mark Rylance), takes place over the course of a single day. The third timeline is told from the perspective of Farrier, played by Tom Hardy, a RAF Spitfire pilot flying a hour-long patrol towards Dunkirk. Each of the individual’s stories are very unique and are well-crafted examples of the types of experiences that were had by those who were actually there. Tommy’s story as the soldier frequently alternates be long stretches of boredom interspersed with moments of sheer terror. One of the most striking moments of the film occurs in its opening moments when Stuka dive bombers plummet downwards towards Tommy’s location on the beach. Their howling sirens overwhelm all other sound and we can clearly see the panic on soldiers’ faces. Later, there are moments when Tommy seems safe and everything is suddenly upended by a torpedo strike. With Dawson, the viewer gains the sense of the dedication to sailing across the Channel out of either patriotism or duty, and also of the moments of indecision that suddenly creep up upon the boat captain and his two crew members. Farrier’s story is the opposite of Tommy’s- everything that the pilot does is relegated by time limits and fuel consumption. Eventually, he is decides to set his own personal safety aside by sacrificing his precious fuel in an effort to save ships attempting to make their way across the Channel. These converging personal stories make for a very intricate film- but not one without faults.

                The primary issue that I have with Dunkirk is that the evacuation from Dunkirk was absolutely massive, almost incomprehensibly huge. Over 330,000 men were successfully taken off the beaches, and thousands more remained ashore as a rear guard against the advancing German forces. Yet, despite these numbers of men and the correspondingly large numbers of ships and aircraft engaged on both sides, we never truly get a sense of the scale of the evacuation in this film. Dunkirk the film works well as a microcosm of the evacuation, but fails on presenting the big picture of the operation. Watching Nolan’s film, the viewer hears the number of men taken off the beach, but never sees anything amounting to near that number of people- taking the film at face value, one might be left to conclude that only a fraction of the true number were even involved at Dunkirk. I think that this problem lies rooted in Nolan’s general dislike of computer effects. CGI could have been used to great effect to illustrate how vast the evacuation of the BEF really was, and how many people were involved both in operating the boats that take the men off and in the aircraft attempting to prevent the Luftwaffe from ceaselessly bombing the ships and beaches.

                So how then does the film measure up? I think that Dunkirk works well as both a relatively historically accurate movie and as a well-directed film. Viewers would do well to remember that the movie primarily tells the stories of three people involved in different aspects of the evacuation and not the operation as a whole. It’s worth saying this again- Nolan’s Dunkirk provides a glimpse into this momentous event, a microcosm of Operation Dynamo; it is by no means a panoramic of Dunkirk.             

Sources

1.       Rickard, J. “Operation Dynamo: The Evacuation from Dunkirk, 27 May- 4 June 1940.” History of War, Historyofwar.org, 16 Feb. 2008, www.historyofwar.org/articles/operation_dynamo.html, 17JUN2017.

2.       “Lord John Gort.” History Learning Site, Moocow, 20 Apr. 2015, www.historylearningsite.co.uk/world-war-two/military-commanders-of-world-war-two/lord-john-gort/, 17JUN2017.

3.       Diamond, Jon. “Site Navigation.” Warfare History Network, Sovereign Media, 1 Dec. 2016, warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/wwii/miracle-at-dunkirk, 17JUN2017.

4.       “The Evacuation at Dunkirk, 1940.” Eyewitness to History, Ibis Communications, Inc., 2008, www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/dunkirk.htm, 17JUN2017.

5.       “History.” Dunkirk 1940 Museum, dynamo-dunkerque.com/en/history, 17JUN2017.

6.       Wickman, Norman, and Pauline Hayton. “Site Navigation.” Warfare History Network, Sovereign Media, 2 Sept. 2016, warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/wwii/a-royal-engineer-at-dunkirk-tells-his-story, 17JUN2017.

7.       Robinson, Bruce. “History - World Wars: Dunkirk.” BBC, BBC, 17 Feb. 2011, www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/ff2_dunkirk.shtml. 17JUN2017

8.       Dunkirk (2017).” IMDb, Amazon.com, 2017, www.imdb.com/title/tt5013056/. 17JUN2017

[1] http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/operation_dynamo.html

[2] http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/operation_dynamo.html

[3] http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/world-war-two/military-commanders-of-world-war-two/lord-john-gort/

[4] http://warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/wwii/miracle-at-dunkirk/

[5] http://warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/wwii/miracle-at-dunkirk/

[6] http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/dunkirk.htm

[7] http://warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/wwii/miracle-at-dunkirk/

[8] http://warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/wwii/miracle-at-dunkirk/

[9] http://warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/wwii/miracle-at-dunkirk/

[10] http://dynamo-dunkerque.com/en/history/

[11] http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/operation_dynamo.html

[12] http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/operation_dynamo.html

[13] http://warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/wwii/miracle-at-dunkirk/

[14] http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/operation_dynamo.html

[15] http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/dunkirk.htm

[16] http://warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/wwii/a-royal-engineer-at-dunkirk-tells-his-story/

[17] http://warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/wwii/miracle-at-dunkirk/

[18] http://warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/wwii/miracle-at-dunkirk/

[19] http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/operation_dynamo.html

[20] http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/ff2_dunkirk.shtml

[21] http://warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/wwii/miracle-at-dunkirk/

[22] http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/operation_dynamo.html

[23] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5013056/

Tools of War: Battleship Mikasa

In the late 19th Century, the Imperial Japanese Navy sought to catch up with more modern navies by constructing modern warships. Lacking its own shipbuilding capacity at that time, it contracted a number of battleships to be constructed in the UK. One of those the Mikasa, became the flagship of Admiral Togo Heihachiro during the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905. Today, it survives as the world’s last remaining pre-dreadnought battleship.

                                                           By Seth Marshall

            By the late 19th Century, Japan had made great strides towards becoming a globally recognized power. For Japan, an island nation, one of the more critical areas of obtaining this recognition was the modernization of its navy to a standard that would put it on par with European and American navies. To this end, in the 1890s, the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) ordered the construction of six battleships and six armored cruisers. Lacking shipyards of its own capable of constructing such warships, the IJN was forced to outsource the building of these ships to firms in the UK. The IJN Mikasa was the 6th Japanese battleship built in England.[1]

            Mikasa took her name from Mount Mikasa, a mountain in Nara, Japan.[2] Contracted to Vickers Shipbuilding, she was laid down in Barrow-in-Furness on January 24, 1899. She was launched the following year on November 8th, and commissioned on March 1, 1902.[3] When completed, her armament was comprised of four 12-inch guns housed in two turrets, fourteen 6-inch guns, twenty 3-inch guns, and four torpedo tubes.[4] She was 122m in length and had a beam of 23.2m. Her engines, making 15,000 horsepower, drove two propeller shafts that allowed the Mikasa to reach 18 knots. Up to 9 inches of armor gave protection to her crew of 860 officers and men.[5] Following her completion, the Mikasa visited a number of English ports, then made her way to Japan. Her arrival was timely. Tensions between Russia and Japan were rising, and Mikasa quickly became the flagship of Admiral Togo Heihachiro, commander of the IJN. Mikasa did not have to wait long for her first action.

Marshal-Admiral The Marquis Togo Heihachiro. Born on January 27, 1848, in Kagoshima Prefecture, Togo was a member of the Japanese Navy from the age of 15. He spent much of the 1870s studying in England, returning to Japan in 1878. Given various commands and seeing combat in the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895, Togo was made Commander in Chief of the Combined Fleet in 1903. He held this command through the Russo-Japanese War, and was ultimately made Marshal-Admiral, equivalent in rank to the US Navy's Fleet Admiral. He died on May 30, 1934 at age 86. Photo: Wikipedia.

            On February 9, 1904, Mikasa took part in the Battle of Port Arthur, the Japanese surprise attack on the vital port which opened the Russo-Japanese War. Mikasa was damaged by shellfire from shore installations which wounded several sailors and an officer. The battle ended with several Russian ships suffering damage requiring repairs, but casualties were relatively light for both sides.[6] Mikasa was also involved in the brief action of April 13th, which ended in the death of Russian Vice Admiral Stepan Makarov, along with all hands of his flagship, the battleship Petropavlovsk, which struck a mine.[7] Several months later, on August 10, 1904, the Mikasa saw action during the Battle of the Yellow Sea. With the exception of Tsushima some 9 ½ months later, the Battle of the Yellow Sea was perhaps the largest naval clash during the Russo-Japanese War. Mikasa was hit over twenty times by Russian naval gunfire, which resulted in a large number of casualties and one of the 12-inch gun turrets disabled. Despite this, the Russian Navy sustained serious damage itself. The Russian flagship, Tsarevich, was hit by two Japanese battleship shells nearly simultaneously, which killed Admiral Vitgeft, Makarov’s replacement, as well as the helmsman and much of the personnel manning the bridge. [8] Both sides suffered similar casualties and damaged ships, and both would subsequently retire to their home ports.

Japanese warships exchange fire with the Russian fleet during the Battle of the Yellow Sea. Source: maritimeprofessional.com. 

Mikasa's after turret, damaged in the Battle of the Yellow Sea. Source: National Institute for Defense Studies, Ministry of Defense.

            Mikasa’s most renowned action came the following year in late May during the decisive Battle of Tsushima. Though the battle occurred in May of 1905, the battle was set in motion the previous fall in October, when Vice Admiral Zinovi Rohestvensky was ordered to sail the Second Pacific Squadron to the conflict zone, a voyage covering an unprecedented distance of 18,000 miles.[9] Rohestvensky’s fleet was centered around four new Borodino-class battleships, the Borodino, the Emperor Alexander III, the Orel, and the Kniaz Suvarov. The fleet had an inauspicious voyage made all the more difficult by the limited range of the warships, requiring frequent coaling. Russian crews were inexperienced and given few opportunities to refine their skills, a point driven home early in the voyage on October 22, when the Russian squadron encountered a fleet of fishing trawlers. Thinking they were Japanese ships attempting a torpedo attack, the Russian ships opened fire. Despite firing countless rounds, the Russians succeeded only in sinking a single trawler and damaging one of their own cruisers with friendly fire.[10] Months later, Russian Navy headquarters dispatched the Third Baltic Squadron, commanded by Rear Admiral Nikolai Nebogatov. This fleet was composed of older vessels; Rohestvensky had initially declined to take these vessels with him, knowing that they would slow him down. Nonetheless, the fleet was dispatched and used the Suez Canal to catch up with the rest of the Russian vessels, finally joining together at Cam Ranh Bay in Indochina.[11] Adding to Rozhestvensky’s worries was the growing displeasure of his crews, who attempted at least one mutiny during the course of the voyage. After an eight month voyage, the Russian fleet finally arrived in the Far East.

The commander of the Russian fleet at the Battle of Tsushima, Admiral Zinovy Rozhestvensky. Born on November 11, 1848 in St. Petersburg, Russia, Rozhestvensky also joined the navy at an early age. He saw action during the Russo-Turkish War (1877-1878), and afterwards was promoted to various commands before being appointed commander of the Baltic Fleet in 1904. Rozhestvensky commanded his fleet on its ill-fated voyage to the Pacific from 1904-1905. Following his the disaster that befell his ships at Tsushima, he was held prisoner and released at the conclusion of the war. On his return to Russia, he was court-martialed for his defeat and found guilty, though the Tsar would commute his sentence of execution to a short stint in prison. He died of a heart attack on January 14, 1909. Photo: Wikipedia.

The circuitous route of the various components of the Russian fleet on its way to the Pacific Ocean, from 1904-1905. Source: Wikipedia.

            The Battle of Tsushima began soon after. Early on the morning of May 27th, the Japanese auxiliary merchant cruiser Shinano Maru spotted the Russian fleet making its way northeast in the Yellow Sea. The cruiser along with additional scout ships shadowed the Russians throughout the morning, concealing themselves in heavy fog. The Russian Second and Third Baltic Squadrons were composed of the four Borodino-class battleships, four older battleships, three coastal defense battleships, six cruisers, and 26 other warships.[12] Admiral Togo ordered the Japanese fleet to sea at 0615- the Japanese force was made up of four battleships, two armored cruisers, six cruisers, and 30 destroyers. Sailing south from Pusan, Korea, the Japanese sighted the Russians in the Tsushima Strait at 1345 that afternoon.[13] The Russian fleet was arranged roughly in two columns- Togo attempted to “cross the T” of the Russian fleet with the Mikasa, while sending his cruisers to attack from the rear left flank.[14] The Russian flagship Knayaz Suvorov opened fire first, followed shortly thereafter by return fire from the Mikasa. The Japanese maneuver, which subsequently became known as the “Togo turn”, saw the Japanese warships reverse course. This tactic could have backfired for Togo, as his ships all passed through a single point, which ought to have allowed Russian gunners to zero in and hit each Japanese ship in turn. However, the Russians proved unable to consistently hit the Japanese.[15]

            Using a six-knot speed advantage, Togo’s fleet quickly took advantage of the Russians’ inability to hit their targets. Gunfire from Japanese warships sank the battleship Oslyabya and disabled Rohestvensky’s flagship. Rohestvensky himself was incapacitated from a concussion. During the remainder of the day, the battleships Emperor Alexander III and Borodino were lost to Japanese gunfire, and Knayaz Suvorov succumbed to torpedoes. The wounded Admiral Rohestvensky was taken off his flagship by the destroyer Buyny. In the evening, Togo ordered his destroyers to attack the Russians at will. The destroyers fired 74 torpedoes, which sank the battleship Sysoy Veliky and cruisers Admiral Nakhimov and Vladimir Monomakh. Three additional badly-damaged ships were scuttled the following morning by their crews. Only a handful of Russian ships managed to escape- one cruiser-yacht and two destroyers slowly made their way to Vladivostok, while three damaged cruisers fled to Manila, where they were interned for the duration of the war.[16] On May 28th, the Japanese captured the destroyer Buyny, along with Rohestvensky, who surrendered what remained of his fleet. The battle had utterly annihilated the Russian presence in the Pacific- six battleships, four cruisers, and six destroyers were sunk, while another two battleships and several additional ships were captured.[17] Casualties for the Russians were enormous; 4,545 were killed, 6,106 captured, and 1,862 interned. Against these impressive figures, the Japanese had suffered three torpedo boats sunk and several warships damaged- casualties totaled 117 killed and 583 wounded. During the battle, Mikasa had been hit 32 times, suffering 8 dead.[18] The Russian loss was disastrous- less than four months after the battle, the war ended in a mediated peace.

The battleship Knyav Suvorov, Rohestvensky's flagship. Hit countless times by Japanese gunfire, including a hit which incapacitated the admiral with a head wound, the battleship was abandoned and sank. Photo: Wikipedia.

Admiral Togo on the bridge of the Mikasa during the Battle of Tsushima. The original painting now hangs in the lower deck of the Mikasa. Photo: Wikipedia.

            Shortly after the war ended, the Mikasa suffered a disaster. On September 11th, 1905, she was anchored in Sasebo harbor when one of her magazines exploded, blowing open a large hole in her port quarter and killing 339 of her crew. She sank following the explosion, but was later refloated and repaired.[19] By 1908, Mikasa was back in service on coastal defense duties. She remained functioning in this role through World War I until she was decommissioned in 1922. Her decommissioning took place in accordance with the Washington Naval Treaty, which limited the tonnage that each nation’s navy could have. Owing to her historical nature however, an effort was made to have the Treaty committee approve her preservation as a museum ship. During the mid-1920s, a campaign was launched to restore the ship, which had deteriorated severely, to her former condition. By 1926, the signatories on the Washington Naval Treaty had acquiesced to the preservation request. On November 12th that year, the Mikasa was unveiled before Crown Prince Hirohito and an elderly Admiral Togo. [20] The warship stayed a museum ship during the interwar period, but was severely neglected in the aftermath of World War II. Mikasa’s guns, funnels, and many topside fixtures were removed as a result of postwar policies. However, in 1955, the Japan Times began a campaign to renovate the warship. The newspaper had been a significant force in getting the warship restored the first time; once again, it worked towards returning the warship towards its former state. With the support of the US Navy and Admiral Chester Nimitz, the warship was refitted with its guns, funnels, and numerous other parts. In 1961, the ship was once again opened as a museum ship. Since then the Mikasa has remained open to the public.

            The author visited the ship in late May 2016 during a trip to Japan. The Mikasa is located in Yokosuka harbor. Tours of the ship are available on a daily basis for the reasonable price of 600 yen- roughly $6. The exterior of the ship has been restored to a grey exterior, with black and white paint around the funnels. The ship’s guns have been returned to their original positions. However, the interior of the ship is not the same as it once was. The topside areas, including pilothouse and radio room, have been restored to close to their original condition, but below-decks is a different story. Only the two decks below the main deck are accessible- the rest were filled in with concrete as part of the terms of the ship being preserved following the Washington Naval Treaty. The deck that is open to the public has largely been converted into a museum, with many models, paintings, display panels, and artifacts relating the ship’s history, the history behind the Russo-Japanese War, and Admiral Togo. There are some exceptions to this, such as Togo’s stateroom, the galley, and the wardroom. Despite the fact that much of the ship has been filled in by concrete and is now inaccessible, the Mikasa is nonetheless important as the last pre-dreadnought battleship in existence. What’s more, the restoration efforts have vastly improved the ship from the condition it was in during the 1950s. Curiously, while the Mikasa is the last example of its type around, one of the few Russian ships to survive the disaster at Tsushima, the cruiser Aurora, also is currently a museum ship, moored at St. Petersburg. However, the Mikasa, as the Japanese flagship in that tremendous battle, has tremendous presence- visitors to the Tokyo area would be well-advised to pay a visit to the old warship.

View of the bow of the Mikasa, as it appears today. This view clearly shows the ship's current location on land, with much of its lower decks filled in with concrete. Additionally, the ship's secondary armament, 14 6.5-inch guns, are evident in this picture. Photo: author.

A view from the battleship's superstructure, looking out over Yokosuka harbor. Much of the Mikasa's upper works are not original, having been stripped following World War II and replaced by reproductions during the post-war restoration. Photo: author.

A typically restored room on board the Mikasa, in this instance the communications room. A number of artifacts are on display with the aid of placards. Photo: author.

The Mikasa had additional armament in the form of four 3.5-inch guns, two on each side. Photo: author.

The bow turret of the Mikasa, with its 12-inch battery. The turret and guns are reproductions put in place during the warship's postwar restoration. Photo: author.

The interior of the Mikasa's main bridge. Photo: author.

One of the Mikasa's secondary 6.5-inch guns. The galleries where these guns are housed have been converted into exhibit space, supported by large text and photographic panels. Photo: author.

Along one of the side corridors on the Mikasa's lower deck is this gallery, which is comprised of models representing many classes of ships and aircraft which have served in the Imperial Japanese Navy and Japanese Self Defense Forces. Photo: author.

One of the many exhibits which are located on the lower deck of the Mikasa. This lower deck has been converted in large part into a museum space. Photo: author.

The main museum area house several very large-scale models of Imperial Japanese Navy ships that served in the Russo-Japanese War. Photo: author.

An officer's bathroom on the lower deck of the Mikasa. Photo: author.

The officer's wardroom on board the Mikasa. The stern cabins of the Mikasa have been the subject of a much more intense restoration effort.

Sources

1.      "Mikasa, Historic Warship." Mikasa, Historic Warship. Mikasa Preservation Society. http://www.kinenkan-mikasa.or.jp/en/index.html . Web . 21 May 2017.

2.      "Museum Ships." Museum Ships. WebOke, 2014. http://museumships.us/japan/mikasa. Web. 21 May 2017.

3.      Morrison, Geoffrey. "Japan's 114-year-old Battleship Mikasa: A Relic of Another Time." CNET. CBS Interactive, 05 Aug. 2016. https://www.cnet.com/news/japans-114-year-old-battleship-mikasa-a-relic-of-another-time/. Web. 21 May 2017.

4.      "Battle of Arthur." The Battle of Port Arthur. Russojapanesewar.com, 2002. http://russojapanesewar.com/index.html. Web. . 23 May 2017.

5.      "The Battle of the Yellow Sea." The Battle of the Yellow Sea. Russojapaneswar.com, 2002. http://russojapanesewar.com/bttl-yellow-sea.html. Web. . 29 May 2017.

6.      Reynolds, Brad. "Warfare History Network." Warfare History Network. Sovereign Media, 3 Mar. 2015. http://warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/military-history/naval-history-the-battle-of-tsushima-in-the-russo-japanese-war/.  Web. 23 May 2017.

7.      Cooper, Tom. "Battle of Tsushima: When Japan and Russia's Most Fearsome Battleships Squared Off." The National Interest. The Center for the National Interest, 29 May 2017. Web. 30 May 2017.

8.      Corkill, Edan. "How The Japan Times Saved a Foundering Battleship, Twice." The Japan Times. Japan Times LTD. Web. 21 May 2017.

[1] http://www.kinenkan-mikasa.or.jp/en/mikasa/index.html 5/21/17

[2] http://museumships.us/japan/mikasa 5/21/17

[3] http://www.kinenkan-mikasa.or.jp/en/mikasa/index.html 5/21/17

[4] https://www.cnet.com/news/japans-114-year-old-battleship-mikasa-a-relic-of-another-time/ 5/21/17

[5] http://www.kinenkan-mikasa.or.jp/en/mikasa/index.html  5/21/17

[6] http://russojapanesewar.com/battle-pa.html 5/23/2017

[7] http://russojapanesewar.com/maka-dies.html 5/23/17

[8] http://russojapanesewar.com/bttl-yellow-sea.html 5/29/17

[9] http://warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/military-history/naval-history-the-battle-of-tsushima-in-the-russo-japanese-war/  5/23/17

[10] http://www.navalofficer.com.au/mikasa/ 5/23/17

[11] http://www.navalofficer.com.au/mikasa/ 5/23/17

[12] http://www.navalofficer.com.au/mikasa/ 5/23/17

[13] http://www.navalofficer.com.au/mikasa/ 5/23/17

[14] http://warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/military-history/naval-history-the-battle-of-tsushima-in-the-russo-japanese-war/ 5/23/17

[15] http://www.navalofficer.com.au/mikasa/ 5/23/17

[16] http://www.navalofficer.com.au/mikasa/  5/23/17

[17] http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/battle-tsushima-when-japan-russias-most-fearsome-battleships-20896?page=2 5/30/17

[18] http://www.navalofficer.com.au/mikasa/  5/23/17

[19] http://www.navalofficer.com.au/mikasa/  5/23/17

[20]

Battlefield Visit: Stones River

In an attempt to retake the important city of Nashville, a Confederate army commanded by General Braxton Bragg was engaged by the Union’s Army of the Cumberland, lead by Major General William Rosecrans, near the town of Murfreesboro, Tennessee at the close of 1862. The battle was to be one of the bloodiest of the Civil War.

By Seth Marshall

            As the year of 1862 drew to a close, the situation for the Union was rather bleak. General George McClellan’s Peninsular Campaign had been turned back in Virginia, fought to a costly draw at Antietam, and had met a disastrous defeat at Fredericksburg. And while the Western Theater had not seen similar setbacks, neither had it seen significant progress towards pushing the Confederacy back. Commanders on both sides were under pressure from their governments to change the situation.

            The Union’s Army of the Cumberland was commanded by Major General William Rosecrans. An 1842 graduate of the Military Academy at West Point, Rosecrans replaced Major General Don Carlos Buell, who had been heavily criticized for his failure to pursue Confederate General Braxton Bragg after his defeat at Perryville in October. Rosecrans was concerned about the ability to keep his army supplied during a campaign against the South. His hesitation caused much angst with his superior, Major General Henry Halleck, as well as with President Abraham Lincoln. Halleck wrote Rosecrans:

“The President is very impatient at your long stay in Nashville. The favorable season for your campaign will soon be over. You give Bragg time to supply himself by plundering the very country your army should have occupied. From all information received here, it is believed that he is carrying large quantities of stores into Alabama, and preparing to fall back partly on Chattanooga and partly on Columbus, Miss. Twice I have been asked to designate some one else to command, the Government demands action, and if you cannot respond to that demand some one else will be tried.”[1]

The Union commander was therefore under substantial pressure to counter the Confederate forces in middle Tennessee.

Major General William Rosecrans. An 1842 graduate of West Point, Rosecrans had taken command of the Army of the Cumberland from Major General Don Carlos Buell, who had been criticized for his lack of action.

            Rosecrans opposite number commanding the Confederate forces was General Braxton Bragg. Like Rosecrans, Bragg was a graduate of West Point, a member of the class of 1837. A veteran of the Mexican American War. Known for his highly abrasive personality and tendency to argue with other argues, Bragg was highly disliked by his subordinates. Described by southern diarist Mary Chestnut as having a “winning way of earning everyone’s detestation”[2], Bragg was so disliked by his officers and men that a number of them attempted to have him ousted from his command. However, Bragg was liked by Confederate President Jefferson Davis, and remained in place.

General Braxton Bragg was the commander of the Confederacy's Army of the Tennessee. A West Point graduate from the class of 1837, Bragg was highly suspicious of the members of his staff and extremely disliked. Despite attempts by his staff to remove him, he remained in command of the Army of the Tennessee.

            Bragg made his move before Rosecrans in late 1862. He moved his army to Murphreesboro, 30 miles southeast of Nashville, Rosecrans’ base of operations. He intended to retake Nashville, thus depriving the North of a vital supply hub. However, his attack was delayed by supply shortages as well as reductions in the number of his troops. His delay allowed Rosecrans the time to get his army in order. The day after Christmas, Rosecrans began moving south towards Murphreesboro and arrived in the vicinity of Bragg on December 29th. The following day, both armies prepared to battle one another while the commanders laid their plans. Curiously, both generals planned to assault their opponents rights and roll up the other’s flank. As it transpired, Bragg would be the first to strike.

The tactical situation on December 30, 1862.

            Early on the morning of December 31st, the 43,000 men of Rosecran’s army were either just waking or still sleeping.[3] Despite indications that the Confederate forces were preparing to attack, most Union commanders had not chosen to put their men on alert. Among these commanders was Major General Alexander McCook. He ignored the reports of increased activity and slept on. As a result, two of his divisions were unprepared for the Confederate assault, which began at 6 AM when Major General John McCown’s division led the attack into the Union lines. Most Union soldiers were just waking up and cooking breakfast and were caught by surprise; they did not present serious resistance before falling back. One of the brigades,  2nd Brigade of the 2nd Division, commanded by Brigadier General Edward Kirk, suffered 826 casualties of its 1,933 men, included Kirk himself, who was seriously wounded.[4]

The Confederate attack on the morning of the 31st.

            The sole brigade who was prepared for battle was commanded by then-Brigadier General Phillip Sheridan. Sheridan had woken his men at 4 AM and ensured that they were manning their posts and guns when the Southerners attacked. Sheridan’s division came under attack at around 7 AM and would fight an effective withdrawal under fire fore the next four hours, claiming to having inflicted some 2,000-3,000 casualties while suffering 990 casualties out of its 5,000 men strength.[5] Sheridan’s performance bought the rest of Rosecran’s army time to establish a more defensible position. After he realized the seriousness of the situation, Rosecrans himself led from the front. “He rode all about the battlefield, asking for reports, giving succinct orders, and providing encouragement where needed, and it was much needed on that morning.”[6]

Major General Alexander McCook, commander of the Union's right wing, disregarded reports of Confederate activity along his front and did not order his men to stand to at dawn. As a result, two of his divisions were quickly overrun by the Confederate attack.

            Confederate forces pressed the attack through the morning. Union forces fell back on an area known as Round Forest. Artillery had been brought up  to the Nashville turnpike, and on the approach of Confederate units began to fire as quickly as they could reload, inflicting heavy casualties. The Union continued to absorb heavy losses as well, among them was Rosecrans’ chief of staff, Colonel Julius Garesche, who was decapitated by a cannonball that just missed Rosecrans himself. Rosecrans, splattered with gore from his friend and West Point classmate, continued to lead the Union forces though shaken by Garesche’s violent death. The Union line held, having inflicted serious damage on numerous Confederate units, and the day finally came to an end.[7]

Confederate infantry, taking fire from the Union defensive line along the turnpike, struggle to advance across the cotton fields.

The tactical situation at the end of December 31st, following the Union withdrawal to the turnpike.

            Both sides spent the first day of 1863 licking their wounds. Bragg was surprised that morning to find Rosecrans still in front of his position- the previous night, he had sent a telegram to Jefferson Davis proclaiming: “The enemy has yielded his strong position and is falling back. God has granted us a happy New Year.” On January 2nd, Bragg discovered that the Union had occupied a hilltop on his right. Desiring the terrain for his own artillery, Bragg ordered division commander Major General John Breckenridge to take the position. Breckenridge, aware of how difficult it would be to take such a strong position, protested the order, but Bragg overruled him. At 3PM, Breckenridge began massing his men in preparation for his attack. [8] Across the river, Breckenridge’s preparations had not gone unnoticed, and Rosecrans set about placing 58 guns in two positions to provide defensive fire. [9]

Confederate Major General John Breckenridge was very reluctant to mount the charge proposed by Bragg. Despite his protests, Bragg ordered him to carry out the attack.

Breckenridge's Division attacks the Union position atop a hill next to the river.

            One hour later, Breckenridge began his attack. Though the Union infantry put up a fierce fight, Breckenridge successfully overwhelmed their position an survivors began falling back across the river, taking refuge behind the line of artillery. Breckenridge’s initial attack had taken 400 prisoners and several flags. Across the river, Colonel John F. Miller, commanding a brigade from Negley’s Division, ordered his men to hold their fire until the retreating Union infantry passed through their lines. At this point, Breckenridge ordered his men to continue their attack, and they charged across the river- straight into the line of artillery and infantry. The Union guns poured fire into the charging Confederates and inflicted terrible casualties. One Confederate soldier later wrote:

“The nearest the Yankees came to getting me was shooting a hole in my pants and cutting my hair off my right temple. I know a peck of balls pass in less than a yard of me… The man in front of me got slightly wounded… the one on my right mortally and the one on my left killed.”

Union forces counterattack following the destruction of Breckenridge's Division.

The Confederate charge, which had been a success just minutes earlier, became a disaster. In less than an hour, Breckenridge’s division suffered 1800 killed or wounded.[10] As their attack fell apart, Miller ordered his men forward and swept the remaining Southerners back across the river and fields which they had just taken, capturing several Confederate guns and prisoners in the process. Eventually, Miller ordered his men back to their original position, where they remained until relieved.[11] As the survivors of Breckenridge’s attack made their way back to Southern positions, Breckenridge was reduced to tears, crying “My poor Orphans! My poor Orphans! My poor Orphan Brigade! They have cut it to pieces.”[12]

Breckenridge's Division, having sustained 1800 killed or wounded in less than an hour at the hands of 58 Union guns, retreat back across the river.

            The annihilation of Breckenridge’s assault effectively ended the battle. Skirmishing would continue through the remainder of the 2nd and into the 3rd, but Bragg’s forces had taken serious losses, and with Union forces certain to receive reinforcements from Nashville, their position was untenable. On the night of the 2nd, Bragg met with his subordinates and agreed to retreat 36 miles south to Tullahoma, where the Army of Tennessee would go into winter quarters. Bragg suffered 10, 266 casualties, including over 1300 killed and 7900 wounded- these losses represented 27 percent of his army. The Army of the Cumberland suffered 13,200 casualties, including 1700 killed, 7800 wounded, and 3700 wounded- a 31 percent casualty rate. These casualty figures made the Battle of Stones River one of the bloodiest of the war.[13] Though a costly win, Rosecrans’ victory at Stones River secured Middle Tennessee for the Union for the remainder of the war. President Lincoln would later write to Rosecrans, remarking of the battle, “I can never forget, if I remember anything, that at the end of the last year and the beginning of this, you gave us a hard-earned victory, which had there been a defeat instead, the country instead, the country scarcely could have lived over.”[14] On January 4th, Rosecrans entered Murphreesboro and began constructing what eventually became known as Fortress Rosecrans, an enormous supply base with a large garrison and protected by numerous artillery batteries, to provide a forward staging base for continued operations in Tennessee.

            Today, the area where the battle was fought has been preserved by the National Park Service. Established as a National Battlefield in 1927, the park incorporates much of the area over which the events of December 31, 1862- March 2, 1963 occurred. While the town of Murphreesboro has grown substantially in the intervening 150 years and portions of the former battlefield have been commercialized, the park includes a substantial portion of the ground over which the initial Confederate attack took place on December 31st. At the center of the park is a visitor center, which includes a small museum dedicated to explaining the events of the battle and sharing personal stories from the individuals who fought there. Numerous artifacts including a cannon, small arms, clothing, and personal artifacts are included in the exhibits. Across the street, a cemetery serves as the final resting place for many of the soldiers who fell during the battle, and a large memorial stands at its center. Visitors can follow miles of paths and retrace tactical movements of units during the battle, which are enumerated on by several placards placed around the battlefield. Also part of the park is the oldest Civil War monument in existence, the Hazen Brigade Monument, which was built in 1863. Not far outside of the park is the remains of Fortress Rosecrans, of which several earthen bastions remain standing- one of the large portions of the former defensive position has been incorporated into a separate park- many of the earthworks where Union guns once occupied remain and are accessible to visitors by wooden boardwalks. With these preservation efforts in place, Stones River National Battlefield is one the best preserved battlefields in the former Western Theater.

The entrance to Stones River National Battlefield.

Cannons mark the edge of one of the fields through which Confederate troops advanced.

An area known as the Slaughter Pen- Union troops held out here among the limestone outcroppings as long as they could, until Sheridan's troops ran out of ammunition and forced the troops here to retreat along with them.

Trenches remain from the positions that were occupied by the Pioneer Brigade.

A road and pedestrian path wind through the cotton field- the scene of the last Confederate assaults on December 31st- the Union had dug in along the turnpike, the position of which would be along the right side of this picture.

It was at this position that 58 Union guns were assembled and inflicted terrible losses against Breckenridge's Division during its attack on January 2nd. 

A monument marks the spot where Union artillery halted Breckenridge's attack.

A monument to the Union dead who are buried in this cemetery stands at its center. 

The oldest remaining Civil War monument stands at the former site of a battery of Union artillery, which was in part responsible for repelling the final Confederate attacks on the 31st. 

Inside the remains of Fortress Rosecrans, one of the largest fortifications constructed during the war. The rises on the left are what remain of the walls. 

Sources

1.      "The Battle of Stones River Summary & Facts." Civil War Trust. Civil War Trust. Web. 11 Apr. 2017.

2.      Cist, Henry. "The Battle of Stone's River (Union View)." The Battle of Stone's River (Union View). Civilwarhome.com, 1997. Web. 11 Apr. 2017

3.      Cheeks, Robert. "Battle Of Stones River." HistoryNet. Wieder History Group, 29 Aug. 2006. Web. 11 Apr. 2017.

4.      Cheeks, Robert. "Battle of Stones River: Philip Sheridan's Rise to Millitary Fame." HistoryNet. Wieder History Group, 12 June 2006. Web. 11 Apr. 2017

5.      Thompson, Robert. "New Year's Hell." Civil War Trust. Civil War Trust, 2014. Web. 11 Apr. 2017

6.      "The Soldiers and the Battle of Stones River." Www.nps.gov. National Park Service, 02 June 2008. Web. 11 Apr. 2017.

7.      "A Hard-Earned Victory." National Park Service. National Park Service, n.d. Web. 11 Apr. 2017.

[1] http://www.civilwar.org/battlefields/stones-river.html?tab=facts

[2] http://www.civilwar.org/battlefields/stones-river.html?tab=facts

[3] http://www.civilwarhome.com/stonesriverunion.html

[4] http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-stones-river.htm

[5] http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-stones-river-philip-sheridans-rise-to-millitary-fame.htm

[6] http://www.civilwarhome.com/stonesriverunion.html

[7] http://www.civilwar.org/battlefields/stonesriver/stones-river-history/new-years-hell-1.html

[8] http://www.civilwar.org/battlefields/stonesriver/stones-river-history/new-years-hell-1.html

[9] http://www.civilwarhome.com/stonesriverunion.html

[10]https://web.archive.org/web/20080602203526/http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/twhp/wwwlps/lessons/40stones/40facts1.htm

[11] http://www.civilwarhome.com/stonesriverunion.html

[12] http://www.civilwar.org/battlefields/stonesriver/stones-river-history/new-years-hell-1.html

[13]https://web.archive.org/web/20080602203526/http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/twhp/wwwlps/lessons/40stones/40facts1.htm

[14] https://www.nps.gov/stri/learn/historyculture/aftermath.htm