Civil War History - General DiscussionFor Discussions on Civil War Era Personalities, Politics, Issues, Campaigns, Battles, and more. Serious Civil War Discussions Only Please! All other posts will be deleted.
Grants lost 2% 10% 2.3% of the men he commanded. Its a prety fair picture from start to finish.
(snip)
Lee lost 3.50% 15.30% 2.50% of the men he commanded. Its a poor picture due to lack of data post wilderness, which fuller does not have beyond a guestimate.
In those engegements, US inflicted at a combat loss ata rate below half that of the CSA, Simply, the CS was 100% as effiecent at causing losses,
My appreciation as well, Hanny. First, an assumption: The "Total" listed on each line is the total engaged.
Second, if Grant lost 2, 10 and 2.3 percent of the men he commanded and Lee lost 3.5, 15.3 and 2.5 percent of the men he commanded, how does it fit that the US inflicted a combat loss at half the rate of the CSA? Or are the rates of McDowell, McClellan, Pope, Burnside, Hooker and Meade folded in?
And yes, the board translator doesn't pick up formatting well. Maybe someone knows how to get around that particular glitch?
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
My appreciation as well, Hanny. First, an assumption: The "Total" listed on each line is the total engaged.
Second, if Grant lost 2, 10 and 2.3 percent of the men he commanded and Lee lost 3.5, 15.3 and 2.5 percent of the men he commanded, how does it fit that the US inflicted a combat loss at half the rate of the CSA? Or are the rates of McDowell, McClellan, Pope, Burnside, Hooker and Meade folded in?
And yes, the board translator doesn't pick up formatting well. Maybe someone knows how to get around that particular glitch?
ole
ole:
I think Hanny was pointing out that although Lee lost men at a greater rate than Grant, it took Grant greater numbers to achieve those losses. It is a way of looking at it that I had not considered.
If it takes me 50 men to cause you one casualty and it takes you 20 men to cause me one casualty, then you are more "effective" than I am. Of course, as part of this, you have to factor in that the attacker is almost always going to suffer higher casualties than the defender. But in, say, the Wilderness, which side do you classify as the attacker?
It all depends on how you count the numbers. While statistics are important, I would recommend to all the book How to Lie With Statistics by Darrell Huff. I have used it in cross-examining expert witnesses and it is a treasure.
Sorry if I am misunderstanding your numbers, Hanny.
__________________ "There must be more historians of the Civil War than there were generals figthing in it... Of the two groups, the historians are the more belligerent." David Donald, Lincoln Reconsidered (1961)
But you don't have to apply who had more men. That's why you use percentage instead of number totals. Of course it took Grant more men to extract more damage... If I throw a 50 lb brick and a 20lb brick at 2 different windows... the 50 lb one will do more damage, obviously. While Grant had more men to kill with, Lee in turn had less men to kill.and being on the defensive almost constantly from Wilderness to the end, you would expect his casualty rate to be less then Grant, or considering the numbers, at about the same, Grant's numbers negating the benefits of staying on the defense. To be on the defense and still lose more? Well then, your defense either wasn't that good, or your fighting force was not efficient.
__________________ "In mortal combat, a man may and will become so infuriated by the din and dangers of a bloody fight that his heart will turn to stone and his every de sire [be] for blood."
John Hadley, 7th Indiana after the battle at Port Republic
Thank you Hanny for the statistics - Always nice to have numbers and ratios.
I would like to add though; the records are incomplete with the CSA forces; as General Lee mentioned that many records were distroyed by those in Richmond, when the Union was nearing--thus; Lee and Colonel Walter H. Taylor both acknowledged numbers in some campaigns were missing and had to rely on the Union's numbering of troop strength, losses and such. In reading how frequently the Union over estimated Lee's troop strength--it can be misleading.
That said; I do have to agree with Dred; when you have 1000 men and loose 500, its 50% casualty. When you have 100,000 men and suffer 500 fatalities; the percentage is a lot less.
But, time after time; numbers have never decided battles --it is having other things involved; such as timing, location, weather, type of troops and or leaders, condition of the troops--not just numbers.
Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf
Wow! Several different nangles from which to view statistics! Thanks Hanny, Timewalker, Dred and M.E. A sixth dimension.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
"But, time after time; numbers have never decided battles --it is having other things involved; such as timing, location, weather, type of troops and or leaders, condition of the troops--not just numbers."
Agreed, M. E, but given time, numbers do decide wars regardless of the outcome of single battles. We have seen this in other conflicts as well.
__________________ David
"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person" diddyriddick
Yes, when you do have numbers, when the enemy has 1,000 troops and all but a few remain; then you look at your side that might have 1,000 troops just as one's escort with 10,000 ready for a brawl--numbers do matter. [Grins]
Just some thoughts.
Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf
"But, time after time; numbers have never decided battles --it is having other things involved; such as timing, location, weather, type of troops and or leaders, condition of the troops--not just numbers."
Agreed, M. E, but given time, numbers do decide wars regardless of the outcome of single battles. We have seen this in other conflicts as well.
The American Colonist and the Viet Cong would disagree with you.
"I again saw under the sun that the race is not to the swift and the battle is not to the warriors, and neither is bread to the wise nor wealth to the discerning nor favor to men of ability; for time and chance overtake them all." Ecclesiasties 9:11
“The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet.” - Damion Runyon
__________________ "There must be more historians of the Civil War than there were generals figthing in it... Of the two groups, the historians are the more belligerent." David Donald, Lincoln Reconsidered (1961)
"The American Colonist and the Viet Cong would disagree with you."
At the risk of hijacking, I'm not sure that I agree with the SE Asia reference. I'm not quoting directly here, but Ho Chi Minh said that you can kill ten of mine for every one I kill of yours, and I will still win. Given the numbers of casualties on both sides when tallied, this was eerily prophetic. It seems to me that we won all the battles in Vietnam, but lost the war.
And do you include the french in your American colonist equation?
__________________ David
"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person" diddyriddick
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
