Re: [DS and SG] Regiments of the Crown

Anyway, in the GZG FH, I assumed that various sessionist states would be
placated by having units carry their names...

Which is why you'll never see a 10th Nebraska Armored. Who cares what
Nebraskans feel? ;->=

The_Beast

By the way, I got way behind in my list readings; between the comments
about US southerners, Aussies, and Brits, I've been splitting my sides
continuously for about half an hour. YOU GUYS CRACK ME UP!

PPS. Just saw Soldier yesterday. RE: Genetic soldiers, it was an
interesting feeling if not much on details. Can hardly wait for those of
you SGII boys to pick it up for scenarios.

John and Roxanne Leary <realjtl@sj.bigger.net> on 10/24/98 12:18:37 PM

Please respond to FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
							      
							      
							      
 To:	  FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk				      
							      
 cc:	  (bcc: Doug Evans/CSN/UNEBR)			      
							      
							      
							      
 Subject: Re: [DS and SG] Regiments of the Crown	      


John M. Atkinson wrote:

> The "Civil War" styles (State names, usually in the format "XYZth
> Statename Infantry") above were for the Volunteer and Militia
regiments,
> both anscestors of today's National Guard regiments.	Regular Army
units
> do not trace their anscestry to state-affiliated regiments.
>
> John M. Atkinson

John,
    In many cases you are correct.    However, the 7th Volunteer
Michigan Cavelry (Custers Regiment) was turned into a regular
unit, the 7th U.S. Cavelry Regiment after the Civil War.

For additional information contact:

Capt. Dale Vinton, Cav. Btln. CO, <dvinton@ca0501.caso.ca.blm.gov>

Bye for now,
John L.