Artmiser
Posts: 179
Joined: 12/4/2006 Status: offline
|
Ok according to one of your sources you site, Fox. Concerning the Confederacy. The Confederate Armies lost, in the aggregate, nearly 10 per cent. in killed or mortally wounded. The average loss in the Union Armies was 5 per cent. But in the latter there were over 300 regiments which were not in action, with as many more which were under fire but a few times. A large part of the Union Armies was used in protecting communications, guarding lines of supplies, in garrison duty, and as armies of occupation. The Confederate regiments were all at the front, and, although repeatedly filled up with recruits, were held there until many of them were worn out by the constant attrition. For these reasons it is evident that although the Confederate Armies were much smaller, their losses were not necessarily smaller in proportion. Their generals displayed a wonderful ability in always confronting the enemy with an equal force at the point of contact. What mattered Hooker's extra thousands at Chancellorsville? In two corps not a shot was fired. What if Meade did have 20,000 more men at Gettysburg than Lee? The Sixth Corps lay in reserve. But in these battles, as in others, every Confederate regiment was put in and not relieved until they had lost killed and wounded men by the score. The aggregate of killed and mortally wounded in the Confederate Armies during the war was 16,000 less than in the Union Armies; or, adding the usual proportion of wounded, a difference of about 60,000, killed and wounded, in favor of the Confederates. Up to 1864 the aggregate of losses on each side was substantially the same. There was a small percentage in favor of the Confederates up to that time; but, if their casualty lists could be subjected to the same revision as that recently applied to the nominal casualty lists of the Union Armies, it is probable that their official returns as thus corrected would show an increase which would largely offset the difference prior to 1864. The excess of 16,000 killed, in the Union aggregate --or, its equivalent of 60,000 in killed and wounded--occurred almost wholly in the campaigns of 1864-5. The severity of the losses among the Confederates, and the heroic persistency with which they would stand before the enemy's musketry, becomes apparent in studying the official returns of various regiments. Concerning the Union The number of men killed in a regiment during its term of service has thus far been considered only in respect to the maximum of loss, and the result is of value only so far as it defines the limit of casualties to which regiments of this size are exposed. But, though similar in formation, the regiments varied in numbers according to the recruits or transferred men received. Some regiments received large numbers of recruits to make good their losses, while other commands went through the war with constantly lessening ranks and carried only the original thousand, or less, upon their rolls. Some regiments which reenlisted at the end of their three years' term received large accessions from other commands which, returning home, left detachments in the field composed of recruits with unexpired terms, or reenlisted men. Distinction must be made, in the matter of losses in action, between the regiments whose ranks were always kept full, and the ones which received no fresh material. I never said the union didnt reinforce, I said the confederacy reinforced more then the Union and if a limit on camps was going to be set the North should not get as many as the south. Correction I did say early that historicly the Union didnt reinforce, in that I am somewhat mistaken. But they did not reinforce regiments at anywhere the same rate as the south. Which I think I have proven, and I did enjoy using one of your own sources to do it.
< Message edited by Artmiser -- 1/31/2007 12:55:03 AM >
_____________________________
Former Marine Retired Deputy Sheriff Wargamer untill I die
|