RE: [DL] shootin' folks

["Mark Chiddicks" <Mark.Chiddicks@descisys.com>]

Perhaps what the DIDN'T grasp was that more men would die from not fighting than from fighting - the mortality rate in camp was appalling.
 
IMHO the worst wars in history to fight it were the latter half of the Civil War and WWI because this was the period between the rifle and the tank, when war ceased to be mobile. Its never nice to be shot at, but its better to be shot at in a lot of different places, where food is available and have a sense that you are getting womewhere, than to be shot at in the same place for 6 months, knee deep in mud. Combat is always horrible, but its a small percentage of wartime. In the trenches its also horrible BETWEEN battles - something that was far less true in Napoleanic Spain or post D-Day Europe.

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: Daniel Gwyn [mailto:dgwyn@colba.net] 
	Sent: Tue 7/30/2002 9:42 AM 
	To: deadlands@gamerz.net 
	Cc: 
	Subject: Re: [DL] shootin' folks
	
	

	Hi,
	    I would like to add my observation on Grant vs. his Union colleagues.  I
	think that his colleagues "knew" the numbers of the battle, it was more a
	case they didn't have the stomach to keep on going after losing a goodly
	fraction of their forces.  They were a little too close to "their boys" and
	had a hard time giving the militarily necessary but unpleasant orders to
	move on.  Part of the problem was that the American army really wasn't
	psychologically prepared to fight a big and bloody war and so the officers
	were usually stunned by the high casualties.
	    Another observation, is that the American Civil War was just about the
	first major war for the Americans to feature rifled muskets using the Minié
	ball on both sides.  The Minié ball allowed a rifled muzzle-loader to be
	reloaded just about as fast as a smooth bore and still give an accurate
	range many times of that of a smooth bore.  In other words, suddenly the
	infantry was armed with a much longer ranged weapon.  It took some time for
	the generals to truly appreciate.
	          Daniel
	"Thus conscience doth make cowards of us all."
	     Hamlet, Act III, scene i.
	
	-----Message d'origine-----
	De : Mark Chiddicks <Mark.Chiddicks@descisys.com>
	À : deadlands@gamerz.net <deadlands@gamerz.net>
	Date : July 28, 2002 10:16 PM
	Objet : RE: [DL] shootin' folks
	
	
	>I don't disagree with a word you right, but THIRTEEN charges? THIRTEEN? And
	not a corpse within 50 feet of the wall. You'd have thought he'd have got
	the hint. Certainly Lincoln never removed a commander with such alacrity as
	he did old 'Sideburns'
	>
	>Anyway, at Fredericksburg it was Burnside who chose the ground, he could
	have crossed the river somewhere else.
	>
	>You are right about Grant & Sherman - Grant undersrood what no other Union
	Commander had grasped -  if you outnumber your enemy 3 to 1 you can take
	casualties at 2 to 1 and still win! In a war where the most dangerous think
	a soldier could do was stay in camp (deaths from disease outnumbered
	battlefield deaths by over 3 times) the most humane thing to do turned out
	to be wholesale slaughter! Look at Cold Harbour - a terrible Union defeat,
	by the standards of the war to date, but it was Lee who retreated
	afterwards. Lee didn't have the luxury of being able to think strategically
	after Gettysburg, every battle was about keeping his army between Grant and
	Richmond, and keeping the Confederacy alive one more day.
	>
	>Had McClellan understood what Grant did the war would have ended within a
	few months of Antietam.
	>
	>
	>-----Original Message-----
	>From: Matthew M. DeForrest [mailto:mmdeforrest@worldnet.att.net]
	>Sent: Monday, 29 July 2002 1:55 p.m.
	>To: deadlands@gamerz.net
	>Subject: RE: [DL] shootin' folks
	>
	>
	>Hi, Mark!
	>
	>-----Original Message-----
	>I once read that in the American Revolutionary War, it is estimated that
	>only 1 in every 200 musket balls fired hit someone! One of the main reasons
	>the civil war was such carnage is that the introduction of rifled barrels
	>increased this to about 1 in 20, but the generals took 3 years to notice!
	>--------------------------
	>
	>The stat you're referring to comes from the march back to Boston after the
	>Battles of Lexington and Concord.  The patriot militia, firing with
	>British-issue Brown Bess muskets, had atrocious accuracy (Hence the linear
	>tactics practiced by Western armies of the period -- line up in dense ranks
	>and fire -- maybe someone will hit something).  On the other hand, they
	>reloaded three to five times faster than the rifles available at the time
	(3
	>rds per minute on average compared to 1 shot per minute).
	>
	>As for the Civil War generals, they had the same problem as the
	>Revolutionary ones -- they had to fight where the battles were fought and
	>only one side got to choose.  Both side preferred to line up behind field
	>works and fire at the opposing force.  That's why, during Pickett's Charge,
	>the Union forces behind stone walls on the Cemetery and Seminary Ridges
	>chanted "Fredericksburg, Fredericksburg."  They may have been horrified,
	but
	>it was payback.  This is why most Union officers get the short end of the
	>stick on comparison with their Southern brethren.  While it's true that
	most
	>of the real geniuses went south, the Union did have some competent
	>commanders working under less than ideal conditions.  Don't get me wrong --
	>I'm with Winfield Scott.  If there's a great battle to be fought to save
	the
	>nation, give command to R. E. Lee.  At the same time, if there's a campaign
	>to be waged, I think I might lean towards Grant or Sherman over him (If
	>Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson isn't available.).
	>
	>The biggest problem both faced was communications.  You need to keep the
	men
	>relatively close because you need to move them efficiently.  Unless you
	have
	>genius to spare (like the Confederacy did early on), you need to be able to
	>contact sub-commanders quickly.
	>
	>I hope this ramble helps.  Take care.
	>
	>Matt
	>
	>
	>To unsubscribe, send a message to esquire@gamerz.net with
	> unsubscribe deadlands@gamerz.net
	>as the BODY of the message.  The SUBJECT is ignored.
	>
	>
	>To unsubscribe, send a message to esquire@gamerz.net with
	> unsubscribe deadlands@gamerz.net
	>as the BODY of the message.  The SUBJECT is ignored.
	>
	>
	
	
	To unsubscribe, send a message to esquire@gamerz.net with
	        unsubscribe deadlands@gamerz.net
	as the BODY of the message.  The SUBJECT is ignored.