"Battle of the Month" Club

[ole]

What might have been a sparring match on Brandy Station has turned, in a few days, to a discussion of cavalry actions. That's cool. And, as this has been a rather loosely constructed thread, I suppose we might agree that Ho Chi Minh qualifies. But let's not get too far afield. This is, after all, a Civil War board.

ole

[Hanny]

Originally Posted by timewalker

Hanny. That's great stuff. Can't wait to see your final analysis. A question: At Antietam, for instance, are you counting all the troops that McClellan brought to the fight or only those he actually used? Same for Burnside at Fredricksburg. In both engagements, large numbers of U.S. troops were on the sidelines. I can see calculating it either way. After all, the troops were there as a reserve. I was curious as to which way you were going.

I used the raw data, which is the fields strength returns from the reports made after the event, of course on hand and or effectives is not actually the same as those who were commited to action, thats level of distinction i dont think practical to get into, even those not commited, and its actually less than is commonly beliived or comented on by authors, for only a handfull of reg took zero casualities, even in reserve still ment losses from long range art, or parts of a Div commited while the DIv itself was not commited.Otoh, as you post, there are conflicting numbers for all engegments, and rather than use a mean of them, my initial feeling is to go with the totals given rather than numbers commited, much will depend on the quality and qauntity and data i can cull from the sources. F-burg for instnce, shows USA MIA ata high number, and CS returns show how many they took as POW, the difference between those numbers, in large part, would have been KIA and not recovered as the CS held the field, so i can see lots of tinkering with the data at later stage should i have the time and find the data to make such tinkering worth while.

Ive started from Livermores numbers, and there isa lot of data input to do before i cen get to the intresting stuff, Antietam for instance as an event, but also as a campaig, ie show Antietam with Harpers Ferry and Milroys and the forcing of the Mountains etc, this will allow a better grasp of force depleted than then the main event, which as the bloodiest day, is all nice and that, but those other associated enegagements actually had almost the same importantce in terms of loss of combat strength.

Bottom line, once the sheets up, changing the numbers to see difference between estimates of other source numbers, etc, will be a simple matter in any event, once all the linked cells have the formulas in, the base number can be changed at will to show end product.

[Hanny]

Ive competed tabulated casualties for over a milion US and 700k CS war time casulties for the eastern theatre, broken down into indivdual actions, and campaigns, done the principle engagements for the west. Listed chronological effiecency of ANV to AoP under differnt commnaders to show effieceny over time and so on, heresa quick example.
Table 1 Camapign of 62.
H Ferry/Martinsburg Sep 62 110 470 12520 14000 39 247 7 23000
South Mtn Sep-62 325 1403 85 28480 325 1560 800 17852
Antietam Sep-62 2108 9549 753 75316 2700 9024 2000 51844
Totals 2543 11422 13358 117796 3064 10831 2807 92696
Losses as a % of totals 2.16 9.70 11.34 117796 3.31 11.68 3.03 92696

Losses of own as a %
AoP KIA 2543
WIA 11422
MIA 13358
Total 27323
% lost 23.20
Own losses as a ratio of inflicted losses
0.61
ANV 3064
10831
2807
16702
18.02
Own losses as a ratio of inflicted losses
1.64
losses as a % of enemy total
2543 2.74
11422 12.32
13358 14.41
27323 29.48



3064 2.60
10831 9.19
2807 2.38
16702 14.18

The cost of inflicting 29.48% was the reduction by 18.2% for the CS, and vica versa
from a CS force 78% of the numbers used against it.


CS as a % of US 0.79
US as a % of CS 1.27

CS effiecency at casualty infliction 29.48, US at 14.18, campaign as a whole saw a +100% better casulaty infliction efficency by the CS.



Table 2 excluding Harpers Ferry.
H Ferry/Martinsburg Sep 62 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
South Mtn Sep-62 325 1403 85 28480 325 1560 800 17852
Antietam Sep-62 2108 9549 753 75316 2700 9024 2000 51844
Totals 2433 10952 838 103796 3025 10584 2800 69696
Losses as a % of totals 2.34 10.55 0.81 103796 4.34 15.19 4.02 69696


Losses of own as a %
AoP KIA 2433
WIA 10952
MIA 838
Total 14223
% lost 13.70
1.15

ANV 3025
10584
2800
16409
23.54
0.87
losses as a % of enemy total
2433 3.49
10952 15.71
838 1.20
14223 20.41



3025 2.91
10584 10.20
2800 2.70
16409 15.81

.
The cost of inflicting 20.41% was a reduction by 23.54% to the CS
and vica versa, from a CS force of 67% of the number used against it.


CS as a % of US 0.67
US as a % of CS 1.49

CS effieceny 20.41 US,15.81 at casualty infliction.

Now i know the ratio of force levels, times ratio of losses it inflicts, i can adduce the level of weight of munitions and posture(attack/defence/ each with counterattck) had, or rather the 40 principle battles in Va produce a base % effieceny of killing, (ratio of CS over US force level, * ratio of CS over US Losses * 40 is the wars effiecency at causing losses, with all the differnt circamstances of attacker v defender, not quantified but expressed in the end result of x lost. ww2 examples use 1-1.5 asa factor, but i dont think those models valid and wanted to get the range myself. Compared to the total lost and expressed in the same manner, i can find the differnce all those other factors had, and make a mathamatical expression to be within that range of effect, which will change the efieceny of the example i gave, but will provide what i dont think anyone has done before, a full breakdown of effiecency at causing losses.

[M E Wolf]

Dear Hanny,

I agree with your last paragraph. As, one can shoot off 50 rounds from a cannon per se--doesn't mean the effect was good or bad; unless the gun is identified specificly to deaths of (for example) First brigade, under General So-in-so.

Now, if these guns/cannons were accurate and effective; the ratio of rounds per death would then give totals and percentages. However, I highly doubt that most cannoneers had time to record numbers of bodies per hit--some rounds would destroy a body so well, nothing but bits spread over the ground would remain; e.g. General R. Garnett's Pickett Charge-disappeared totally, body never found.

Just some thoughts.

Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf

[Hanny]

Originally Posted by M E Wolf

Dear Hanny,

I agree with your last paragraph. As, one can shoot off 50 rounds from a cannon per se--doesn't mean the effect was good or bad; unless the gun is identified specificly to deaths of (for example) First brigade, under General So-in-so.

Now, if these guns/cannons were accurate and effective; the ratio of rounds per death would then give totals and percentages. However, I highly doubt that most cannoneers had time to record numbers of bodies per hit--some rounds would destroy a body so well, nothing but bits spread over the ground would remain; e.g. General R. Garnett's Pickett Charge-disappeared totally, body never found.

Just some thoughts.

Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf

Ive played a round with a couple of ways of doing it, i can adduce the weight of munitions required to causea single casualty, G-Burg for instance, i know the ave number of rounds fired, and can therfore get a weight of munition used to causea loss, the wilderness is another pointer, the 19 million rounds expended by both sides and the losses of each gives/takes me another pointer as to how much lead it took to cause a casualty. Im not sure exactly how im going to end up with that part of the expresion, as im still colecting data.

of course most exchanges would have this built in in any event as ive used a ratio of side a over side b, its not as though side a had more munitions expended becuase it had more rounds per man to expend, or another way to express what i mean, would be since the number firing is a ratio of the two sides, the number of rounds fired is already taken into acount, by the ratio of men each firing x rounds.

Im more intrested in using weight of munitions to see if the RR armed brigades were cost effective, which of course would have expended vastly more rounds in the same amount of time, and as you say estimating its effect on enemy losses, as a% of losses from all such attacking fire, is a problem, so what im after isa means of estimating the weight of munitions used to cause a casualty, and then comparing the RR using formation with for instance 3 times the rounds used as a minie ball formation, so i can guiestimate the likly range that formation inflicted, this then keeps the expression the same as i now have an infllicted value.

I started on that because i looked at Custers contribution, ( not sure if this numbers right as dont have the data in front of me but its of that order of magnitude)he had 1.7% of the men at Gburg but lost over 2% of the losses, similary for Wilderness, and it struck me that this was not cost effective, but thats because teh table did not consider what Custer inflicted, and it bugged me.

[Hanny]

as part of trying to get a grip on how ground and posture effected losses, in the East, i put together some numbers to get a feel for what its effect may have been, so as to use it in the expresion of effiecency, so that its efferct is in proprtion to the data and does not distort it, and thought others might find the data of intrest. Sample size is approx 400k of casualtys. Effiecncy is a ratio of forces * ratio of casualties inflicted, example 200 v 100 and each casue 50 casualtys, is one at 50% efiecency and the other 25%, so all events are expressed in that way. Except when broken down with a comment, then i also give the totals used as if it was a single event rather than the average of the samples to comapare the two.

Table of ANV and AoP effiecency under leaders. 62-65
Johnston31.20 Fair Oaks MaClellan 23.79
Lee 29.48 Antietam campaign MaClellan 14.18
Lee 16.6 7 Days campaign MaClellan 22.61
Lee 33.08 2 Bull Run Campaign Pope 12.15
Jackson 13.95 Cedar mountain Banks 16.66
Lee 21.86 F-Burg Campaign Burnside 5.01
Lee 29.37 Challorsville Hooker 13.11
Lee 30.73 G-Burg Meade 31.8
lee/Ewell25.33 Stevensons Depot Milroy/Meade 3.87
Lee/Stuart9.26 Brandy station Pleasenton 3.49
Lee 1.68 Mine Run Meade 2.37
Lee 19.96 Appotomax Campaign March29-April 9 Meade 22.82
Lee 30.07 Welldon RR Meade 7.98
Lee 79.53 May5-June18 (wild/Spott/Cold harbour) Meade 29.17
Lee 12.82 North Anna May23-27 Meade 9.09
Lee 8.26 Crater Meade 1.62
21.89 12.29

Broken down a little
AoP ANV for comparison.
MaClellan 23.79 31.20
MaClellan 14.18 29.48
MaClellan 22.61 16.6
20.19 25.76

US 253909 commited to battle
56128 casualtys
CS 229993 commited to battle
48010 casualty
Effiecency for this period of the war:US 18.91 CS 24.40 (this effiecency is not an average of the sample,(thats the 20.19 V 25.76) but instead using the same method of expressing it as a calculation, as if the entire US and CS fought one battle instead. Mac had 23% of the total sample used and lost 25% of the total losses, Pope-Hooker was 25% and 21% and Meade 51 and 53%. ANV by comparison, was 29% and 27%, 23% and 15% and 47% and 57% against them.
Pope 12.15 33.08
Banks 16.66 13.95
Burnside5.01 21.86
Hooker 13.11 29.37
11.73 24.57
US 279065 commited to battle
48748 casualtys
CS 178376 commited to battle
27270 casualty
Effiecency for this period of the war:US 9.75 CS 27.33

Meade 31.8 30.73
Milroy/Meade 3.87 25.33
Pleasenton 3.49 9.26
Meade 2.37 1.68
Meade 22.82 19.96
Meade 7.98 30.07
Meade 29.17 79.53
9.09 12.82
1.62 8.26
12.47 24.18
US 553063 commited to battle
119613 casualtys
CS 365213 commited to battle
102184 casualty
Effiecency for this period of the war:US 18.48 CS 32.75
Between 62-65
US 1086037 commited to battle
224490 casualtys
CS 773582 commited to battle
177464 casualty

Effiecency for this period of the war:US 16.35 CS 29.02

[diddyriddick]

Sorry, Ole. Won't happen again.

[M E Wolf]

Dear Hanny;

In looking at the 1862 Army Officer's Pocket Companion, A Manual for Staff Officers in the Field; Pg. 60 under; Composition and Equipment of a Battery for War:

According to their chart (which won't cut and paste correctly);
Guns - Ammo-Shot--12 pounder (pdr) has 560 rounds
Guns - Ammo-Shot--12 pdr light has 504 rounds
Guns - Ammo-Shot--6 pounder has 400 rounds
-----------------
Guns-Spherical case - 12 pdr has 224 rounds
Guns-Spherical case - 12 pdr light has 504 rounds
Guns-Spherical case - 6 pdr has 320 rounds
----------------
Guns-Shell case --12 pdr. light has 168 rounds
------------------
Guns-Canisters --12 pdr. has 112 rounds
Guns-Canisters --12 pdr. light has 168 rounds
----------------------------------
Howitzers
Howitzers-spherical case - 12 pdr. has 112 rounds
Howitzers-spherical case - 6 pdr. has 80 rounds
----------------------------------
Howitzer-shells - 12 pdr. has 168 rounds
Howitzer-shells - 6 pdr. has 120 rounds
----------------------------------
Howitzer-canisters - 12 pdr. has 42 rounds
Howitzer-canisters - 6 pdr. has 32 rounds.
=====================================
Total Nummber of Rounds with Battery:
12 pdr. - 1218 rounds
12 pdr. light - 1344 rounds
6 pdr. - 1112 rounds

Note: Extra ammunition for the guns (cannons) and Howitzers are in the artillery reserve park.

---------------------------------------
For the two 32 pdr. Howitzers, carriages and four caissons, the number of rounds of ammunition would be 84 spherical cases; 112 shells, 14 canisters for a total of 210 rounds (according to this same reference book; 1862 Army Officer's - Pocket Companion--A Manual for Staff Officers in the Field -pg. 69)
------------------------------------------
Same reference; "...The number of friction primers is 50% greater than the number of rounds furnished with the ammunition.

The campaign allowance of ammunition is doubled what has been here prescribed (above chart), or about 400 rounds per piece, of which 200 rounds per piece accompanies the battery, the remainder with the reserve parks. "The Battery"is supposed to consist of six pieces.

Same reference - pg. 83-84; Employment of Artillery;
Howitzer shells are useful to set fire to or to shower shells upon any shelter behind which the enemy is protected. With cannon balls, material obstacles found in front can be destroyed or troops out of reach of an attack, e.g. behind a river, etc.; Canisters especially several at a time, produces disastrous results if fired at 200-300 yards against lines of columns, particularly on a dry and hard soil. (bounces/skips).

Same reference - pg 71; Artillery should not be fired at infantry beyond 1000 yards; cavalry not beyond 1200 yards unless ground is suited to ricochet firing (hard ground). Pg. 72 - Favorable ground - solid shot from field guns range 1600-1800 yards or more. Greatest possibility of hitting something is at 500 yards.


----------------------------------------
I find this information interesting and may prove useful as to understand what cannons/guns were on the field.

Just some thoughts.

Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf

[M E Wolf]

Dear List Members;

Using The 1862 Army Officer's Pocket Companion-A Manual for Staff Officers in the field; pg. 69 - Article 31-Action and Effect of Different Arms; calculations made add to any 'battle' or 'action';

"..Fire from ordinary musket uncertain beyond 200 yards. However, still deadly at 650 yards with musket ball."

Effective range of the rifled spherical ball is over 400 yards.

Effective range of the oblong rifled ball is at 1,000 yards.
--------------------------------------
Moving men targets-
In common time - 90 steps = 70 yards
In quick time - 110 steps = 86 yards
In double quick time - 140 steps = 109 yards.
----------------------------------
Horses moving -
Walking - 100 yards per minute
Trotting - 200 yards per minute
Galloping - 400 yards per minute
--------------------------------------
These figures were for how to aim and measure distances. Interesting!

Combined with Official Reports, it certainly would piece things in and fill in some of the gaps.

Just some thoughts.

Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf

[cw1865]

Originally Posted by M E Wolf

Effective range of the oblong rifled ball is at 1,000 yards.

Is this the Minie Balls?

Is that effective or maximum range? It seems far for effective range. How far away for a typical soldier?