Hey Larry! While an extensive rating system would be very interesting to see, such a thing goes well beyond my needs here. I m concerned about units that haveMessage 1 of 48 , Feb 1, 2008View SourceHey Larry!
While an extensive rating system would be very interesting to see, such a thing goes well
beyond my needs here.
I'm concerned about units that have not gotten enough time on the drill field to obtain
even the minimal proficiency an otherwise green (no combat) unit would be expected to
This status will affect the unit in a number of ways, but in a nutshell it makes the
formation more sluggish and unwieldy as well as reducing its ability to generate firepower.
There might be more effects (skittishness and such), but testing will allow me to get to the
point where I can tell when there is "enough" as opposed to "too much" or "not enough"
effect (some of these units acquitted themselves well, they were just clumsy).
So, the definition revolves around drill and training as opposed to the previous experience
--- In TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com, "eighth_conn_inf" <eighth_conn_inf@...> wrote:
> Looks like "green" may require your imposed definition. If you define
> it as a regiment with a majority of men who have never been in
> combat, then you have a good list already. But as you point out
> then "green" could also then mean a regiment with a majority of men
> who have been together for several months and have drilled, etc.,
> then that is a different kettle of fish (fresh fish). This would
> include most of the heavy artillery units around DC which turned into
> excellent cannon fodder during the Overland Campaign.
> IMO, "green" means a regiment which never has been in combat. But
> arguably a green regiment having drilled together and perhaps had
> marksmanship training would likely be much more effective than
> a "green" one which had none of that. I suppose you could assign a
> number from 1 to 10, 1 being brand new with no experience in anything
> to 10 being a regiment which has been in combat several times. This
> sounds like a great masters thesis topic.
> Larry F.
Dear Stephen, One thing is clear...the Sunken Road slide, and I suspect the others....are meant to be viewed in either a magic lantern or a stereoscopic viewerMessage 48 of 48 , Feb 9, 2008View SourceDear Stephen,
One thing is clear...the Sunken Road slide, and I suspect the
others....are meant to be viewed in either a magic lantern or a
stereoscopic viewer of some sort.
This particular photo seems to be one of the more famed post view
views of the Sunken Road. The cabin in the distance is, IIRC,
that built for one of the freed slaves formerly owned by Mr
Piper. The cabin is on the edge of the Piper Farm property.
Yr. Obt. Svt.
G E "Gerry" Mayers
To Be A Virginian, either by birth, marriage, adoption, or even
on one's mother's side, is an introduction to any state in the
Union, a passport to any foreign country, and a benediction from
the Almighty God. --Anonymous
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Recker" <recker@...>
Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2008 8:46 AM
Subject: [TalkAntietam] Recher photo dates
>I am trying to date these photos/stereoviews taken by
> E.M. Recher.
> SUNKEN ROAD
> I believe the printing of this stereoview dates from 1880-1882.
> It is
> on a flat orange mount with rounded corners with no list on the
> It is in a series with views of Simon's dedication (1880). I
> have found
> the photo in three books with three different dates for the
> negative -
> 1872, 1877, and 1880. The log cabin is present in a 1904 view
> of the
> 130th PA veterans, so that does not help with the dating.