Re: Help with numbers present in several Union regiments
- The different measures of strength (P, PFD, PFDE, Effectives etc.) are
For the Confederates in one way it's easier. They tended to use
effectives or muskets, and so we can have a good idea the bayonet
strength where this data is available.
The Union tended to include detachments in their regimental PFD
reports, so Union strength tends to be overstated. A vast quantity of
information about the 91st PA is online
and worth a look. Unfortunately, the database of Morning States starts
in Feb 63.
However, deducting 1/3rd of the PFD is a fair indicator of actual
combatants in this period. When Sherman later took over the Army of
the Cumberland he noted that fully half the army were non-combatants.
Taking Harsh's figures, at Antietam it looks like 30,000 odd CS
infantry squared up against 40,000 US infantry, but the figures are
> Trying to determine actual present for field duty strengths for
> almost any battle of the War has been a most challenging task.
> Antietam is particularly challenging due to the lack of more
> complete Confederate records.
> 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: "Bryn Monnery" <littlegreenmen.geo@...>
> To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2008 7:49 AM
> Subject: [TalkAntietam] Re: Help with numbers present in several
> Union regiments
> --- In TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com, "Rob & Patti Erickson"
> <pattirobpatti@> wrote:
> > Bryn, thanks for all the info. What source(s) did you use?
> The Sid Meier game, which itself sourced Carman. I've verified
> regimental strengths and it seems to be okay, certainly to best
> Antietam is one of those battles I've had real problems
> actual combat strengths, and I'm still looking for better.
> > BTW, what is "F188" that you included with the 82nd PA?
> Spreadsheet error. I think the list in Bde/Div/Corps order was in
> F188 and I made a mistake copying and pasting.
> > --- In TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com, "Bryn Monnery"
> > <littlegreenmen.geo@> wrote:
> > >
> > > 82nd Penn+F188 298