Thanks, that is the first time someone ever explained the math to me that made

any sense.

I wonder, though, if the decision was really made on the basis of such slim

advantage in the face of such woefull consequences.

Carl

--- In civilwarwest@y..., Jfepperson@a... wrote:

> No, not at all. Suppose I have a 100,000 man army, and

> you have a 60,000 man army. We fight a battle, and in this

> battle we both take 1,000 men prisoners, with 6,000 K&W.

> If we exchange prisoners, after the battle I have 94,000

> men and you have 54,000 men. If we don't exchange, I

> have 93,000 and you have 53,000. 93/53 is (very slightly)

> higher than 94/54, thus the superior force is better off

> not exchanging.

>

> Actually, there is some higher math involved, because

> one can show that, when making equal deductions from

> two forces, the smaller force is reduced by the greater

> fraction. This means an equal exchange policy is always

> a disadvantage (numerically) to the stronger force.

>

> JFE