Re: [SG/DS] Unit Size Definitions

On Mon, 8 Jul 2002 11:44:04 -0700 (PDT), John Leary
<john_t_leary@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>I would submit the photographs by Brady as being
>a better source of reality, I have not seen 100
>man companys in his work, about sixty is normal.
>The only regimental photo is 10 Co. of sixty men.

Well, not to beat it to death, but 1000 men and up regiments were fairly
common during the war... when they were raised. As I mentioned, they
dropped
in size fairly rapidly, mostly due to disease and the fact that
recruitment
officers weren't that picky. Combat strength was, as I mentioned,
between 300
and 600 on average (often even a lot less). There is an account of a
Union
heavy artillery regiment being pressed into service as an infantry
regiment
during Grant's Overland campaign. It was at full strength. There are
numerous
references to the soldiers having never seen its like, it being so huge
in
numbers of men.

We're not in disagreement here. I didn't see anything in your original
post
that said you were talking about combat strength. I will argue that if
you're
talking average regiment size, 600 is a little high.

Oh, and my source is the Official Records (not always the most accurate
source
for battle reports, but usually pretty good for unit strengths).

Allan Goodall		       agoodall@hyperbear.com
http://www.hyperbear.com

"At long last, the earthy soil of the typical, 
unimaginable mortician was revealed!" 
 - from the Random H.P. Lovecraft Story Generator: