Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: The Confederate Loss

Expand Messages
  • William A. Turnier
    No i think it is important to look at percentages. yes grant killed more men but in turn he killed more of the those peoples soilders. Remember that the
    Message 1 of 164 , Feb 7, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      No i think it is important to look at percentages. yes grant killed more
      men but in turn he killed more of the those peoples soilders. Remember that
      the south was having problems replaceing them. don't think of it as
      percentages but as loss of man power. with 10% loss that is 10% loss of man
      power man power they could not replace. i think lee was discoverd a long
      time ago in the civil war that the wasr would not be won with takeing of
      land but distruction of the will of the people and the army. The souths
      victory/defeats were leading to more and more deaths. the army was being
      widdled away like a bar of soap and what could the south do about it.

      > Cash,
      >
      > With all due respect, it is illogical to use the average percentage
      > killed on each side as a significant measure of success in warfare.
      > Using it, absurd conclusions will undoubtedly ensue. An example: two
      > opposing armies of 100,000 men, each suffer 10,000 casualties for a
      > percentage loss of 10%. If one army had doubled in size, thus giving
      > it a great advantage in battle, and they still lost 10,000 men, then
      > their percentage loss would only be 5%. Why with twice the men they
      > performed twice as well ... not! They really performed twice as
      > badly. Therefore, use of such a statistic is completely inappropriate.
      >
      > At the Ulysses S. Grant Homepage, the same error is made. An excerpt
      > from its FAQ page states as follows:
      >
      > "It is frequently said that Grant was injudicious with the lives
      > of his soldiers and that his casualty rate high. It is true that
      > the Union army's casualties at Shiloh were appalling, but so
      > were Confederate losses. In the Wilderness campaign against
      > Lee, the Federal casualties were again vast. However, in a
      > comparison against his great opponent, Robert E. Lee , Grant
      > is shown to have lost less men per 100 than the Virginian. In
      > 1862-3, Grant's average percentage of killed and and
      > wounded is 10.03 percent, and Lee's is 16.20 percent. In
      > 1864-5, Grant's average remains 10.42 percent. Lee's
      > casualty rate cannot be determined after 1864 because no
      > accurate records exist, but Lee lost 50% of his army during
      > the Virginia campaigns in 1864."
      >
      > Here the writer seems to be trying to prove, by using such faulty
      > statistics, that Grant was the victor in the campaign which included
      > the Wilderness, Spotsylvania, Cold Harbor, and the failed assaults on
      > Petersburg. This is proof enough of their worthlessness.
      >
      > Sincerely,
      > Joseph


      _________________________________________________________________
      Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
    • William A. Turnier
      No i think it is important to look at percentages. yes grant killed more men but in turn he killed more of the those peoples soilders. Remember that the
      Message 164 of 164 , Feb 7, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        No i think it is important to look at percentages. yes grant killed more
        men but in turn he killed more of the those peoples soilders. Remember that
        the south was having problems replaceing them. don't think of it as
        percentages but as loss of man power. with 10% loss that is 10% loss of man
        power man power they could not replace. i think lee was discoverd a long
        time ago in the civil war that the wasr would not be won with takeing of
        land but distruction of the will of the people and the army. The souths
        victory/defeats were leading to more and more deaths. the army was being
        widdled away like a bar of soap and what could the south do about it.

        > Cash,
        >
        > With all due respect, it is illogical to use the average percentage
        > killed on each side as a significant measure of success in warfare.
        > Using it, absurd conclusions will undoubtedly ensue. An example: two
        > opposing armies of 100,000 men, each suffer 10,000 casualties for a
        > percentage loss of 10%. If one army had doubled in size, thus giving
        > it a great advantage in battle, and they still lost 10,000 men, then
        > their percentage loss would only be 5%. Why with twice the men they
        > performed twice as well ... not! They really performed twice as
        > badly. Therefore, use of such a statistic is completely inappropriate.
        >
        > At the Ulysses S. Grant Homepage, the same error is made. An excerpt
        > from its FAQ page states as follows:
        >
        > "It is frequently said that Grant was injudicious with the lives
        > of his soldiers and that his casualty rate high. It is true that
        > the Union army's casualties at Shiloh were appalling, but so
        > were Confederate losses. In the Wilderness campaign against
        > Lee, the Federal casualties were again vast. However, in a
        > comparison against his great opponent, Robert E. Lee , Grant
        > is shown to have lost less men per 100 than the Virginian. In
        > 1862-3, Grant's average percentage of killed and and
        > wounded is 10.03 percent, and Lee's is 16.20 percent. In
        > 1864-5, Grant's average remains 10.42 percent. Lee's
        > casualty rate cannot be determined after 1864 because no
        > accurate records exist, but Lee lost 50% of his army during
        > the Virginia campaigns in 1864."
        >
        > Here the writer seems to be trying to prove, by using such faulty
        > statistics, that Grant was the victor in the campaign which included
        > the Wilderness, Spotsylvania, Cold Harbor, and the failed assaults on
        > Petersburg. This is proof enough of their worthlessness.
        >
        > Sincerely,
        > Joseph


        _________________________________________________________________
        Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.