STRENGTH OF THE CONFEDERATE ARMIES & MORE TAKE A LOOK !

[72ndPA]

What's with the massive thread?

Ikr, he should do a Union one now at least.

Working on it

[Melsyo]

What's with the massive thread?

Ikr, he should do a Union one now at least.

Working on it

The union isn't deserving

[Ry1459]

What's with the massive thread?

Ikr, he should do a Union one now at least.

Working on it

The union isn't deserving

Shots fired.

[Incognitoandahalf]

Texas Fielded 37 regiments of Cavalry not 28.
source: http://gen.1starnet.com/civilwar/texmain.htm

Another thing to note is that your battle casualty rates are a bit misleading. For example you mention the first Texas which did indeed suffer the listed casualty rate but that was only for the few companies that participated. This somewhat downplays other regiments like the 26th North Carolina that only suffered 71%, but with the entire regiment participating making them the highest number of casulties suffered.

[gmanburger]

Texas Fielded 37 regiments of Cavalry not 28.
source: http://gen.1starnet.com/civilwar/texmain.htm

Another thing to note is that your battle casualty rates are a bit misleading. For example you mention the first Texas which did indeed suffer the listed casualty rate but that was only for the few companies that participated. This somewhat downplays other regiments like the 26th North Carolina that only suffered 71%, but with the entire regiment participating making them the highest number of casulties suffered.

Don't mess with Incog he knows his shit

[72ndPA]

Texas Fielded 37 regiments of Cavalry not 28.
source: http://gen.1starnet.com/civilwar/texmain.htm

Another thing to note is that your battle casualty rates are a bit misleading. For example you mention the first Texas which did indeed suffer the listed casualty rate but that was only for the few companies that participated. This somewhat downplays other regiments like the 26th North Carolina that only suffered 71%, but with the entire regiment participating making them the highest number of casulties suffered.

dont try to over sale the 26th NC just because your in it

[MackCW]

Texas Fielded 37 regiments of Cavalry not 28.
source: http://gen.1starnet.com/civilwar/texmain.htm

Another thing to note is that your battle casualty rates are a bit misleading. For example you mention the first Texas which did indeed suffer the listed casualty rate but that was only for the few companies that participated. This somewhat downplays other regiments like the 26th North Carolina that only suffered 71%, but with the entire regiment participating making them the highest number of casulties suffered.

dont try to over sale the 26th NC just because your in it

Oversell?

Gotta admit, that is a sick way to look at things.

[Jonny Powers]

Texas Fielded 37 regiments of Cavalry not 28.
source: http://gen.1starnet.com/civilwar/texmain.htm

Another thing to note is that your battle casualty rates are a bit misleading. For example you mention the first Texas which did indeed suffer the listed casualty rate but that was only for the few companies that participated. This somewhat downplays other regiments like the 26th North Carolina that only suffered 71%, but with the entire regiment participating making them the highest number of casulties suffered.

dont try to over sale the 26th NC just because your in it

Well, if we're here "overselling" (read: fact checking to the best of our ability) our regiments, I decided to check up on the 5th Georgia's numbers.

Regiment: 5th Georgia
Battle: Chickamauga
Division: Cheatham's
Strength: 317
Killed: 27
Wounded: 165
Missing: 2
(Casualty?)%: 61.1

In my research, I found that, while your numbers for the 5th Georgia's strength (referred to as Total Effective in the War Dept. records) are correct, your percentage didn't match up. According to The war of the rebellion: a compilation of the official records of the Union and Confederate armies. ; Series 1 - Volume 30 (Part II) (linked at the end of my post), the percentage is 54.95, not 61.1. Doing a little math, I found that the percentage is calculated to reflect the Aggregate Effective numbers, which is, as far as I can tell, the sum total strength of the force when in battle. With this in mind, I assume the number of dead, wounded, and missing to also be taken from the Aggregate numbers, not the Total. Why there are 2 different numbers, I don't know. If someone can explain the difference between the two I'd be grateful!

Relevant table of casualties

Report of Col. Daniel, 5th Georgia Infantry

Article on the 5th Georgia's War Record, originally appearing in America's Civil War with relevant info highlighted

Chickamauga, A short film made by Robert Enrico based on the battle. Not relevant info-wise, but cool nontheless

[72ndPA]

Texas Fielded 37 regiments of Cavalry not 28.
source: http://gen.1starnet.com/civilwar/texmain.htm

Another thing to note is that your battle casualty rates are a bit misleading. For example you mention the first Texas which did indeed suffer the listed casualty rate but that was only for the few companies that participated. This somewhat downplays other regiments like the 26th North Carolina that only suffered 71%, but with the entire regiment participating making them the highest number of casulties suffered.

dont try to over sale the 26th NC just because your in it

Well, if we're here "overselling" (read: fact checking to the best of our ability) our regiments, I decided to check up on the 5th Georgia's numbers.

Regiment: 5th Georgia
Battle: Chickamauga
Division: Cheatham's
Strength: 317
Killed: 27
Wounded: 165
Missing: 2
(Casualty?)%: 61.1

In my research, I found that, while your numbers for the 5th Georgia's strength (referred to as Total Effective in the War Dept. records) are correct, your percentage didn't match up. According to The war of the rebellion: a compilation of the official records of the Union and Confederate armies. ; Series 1 - Volume 30 (Part II) (linked at the end of my post), the percentage is 54.95, not 61.1. Doing a little math, I found that the percentage is calculated to reflect the Aggregate Effective numbers, which is, as far as I can tell, the sum total strength of the force when in battle. With this in mind, I assume the number of dead, wounded, and missing to also be taken from the Aggregate numbers, not the Total. Why there are 2 different numbers, I don't know. If someone can explain the difference between the two I'd be grateful!

Relevant table of casualties

Report of Col. Daniel, 5th Georgia Infantry

Article on the 5th Georgia's War Record, originally appearing in America's Civil War with relevant info highlighted

Chickamauga, A short film made by Robert Enrico based on the battle. Not relevant info-wise, but cool nontheless

Thanks for input