Home Forums Miscellaneous Topics Military Hard military trivia

Get it and win a prize!

Precentage wise, this unit lost more troops than any regiment in the U.S. Civil war. Either side.?????

They may not have lost the most percentage-wise, but the 5th New Hampshire Infantry lost the most men during the Civil War.

The numbers vary widely from individual State records as compared to official War Department records of the Civil War, but the 1st Maine Heavy Artillery Regiment may have had the highest percentage loss of men.

WOW I left off,

"in one day"

Dang I messed that up.

Precentage wise, this unit lost more troops than any regiment in the U.S. Civil war IN ONE DAY. Either side.?????

As you change the nature of the question, I have to change my answer. The worst single day battle of the Civil War was Antietam on September 17, 1862. On that day, Gen. Hood's 1st Texas Regiment lost 186 killed and wounded out of their original strength of 226 men.

WMAcD, you are correct. Sorry about blowing that question.
I'll think up a harder one, it's bisquit time!

There have probably been more books written on the Civil War than any other conflict our country has been involved in. I used to win all the beer I could drink making bar bets about whose home was what is now Arlington National Cemetery.

That property used to (and arguably still does, though he would approve of it's use) belong to Gen. Robert E. Lee.

Damnyankees stole that, too.

I'm reading ANOTHER one now, "The Sword of Lincoln" by Jeffery D. Wert, I came across the stat on the First Texans.
Ever notice how 'John Bell Hood' and 'heavy casualties' seem to go together? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

Gen. Hood was both daring and reckless. His severest critics were fellow Southern commanders. From what I have read over the years, I don't think any officer higher than the company level is worthy of worship. Field grade officers and above have the stuff needed for pompous asses, not heroes.

The Iron Brigade on the first day of Gettysburg.

Excellent choice, but the question was limited to the regiment that sustained the highest loss in one day of battle. The Iron Brigade was composed of 5 regiments, one of which was the 24th Michigan Infantry. The 24th Michigan suffered 397 casualties out of their 496 men at Gettysburg, a slightly lower percentage than the casualties of the 1st Texas at Antietam.

Still JB Hood was a poor choice in defence of Atlanta, when caution was needed, he was a go gettum no holds barred sorta general. Not afraid of a fight, he was wounded what, five times, had a limbs blown off and needed to be strapped into the saddle. All this to impress a girl, whew she musta been some shot of leg <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

True, but as for not being afraid of a fight, as much credit might be given to the horses shot out from underneath him. A far more inspiring story is that of Col. Joshua Chamberlain, Commander of the 20th Maine Volunteers, and the performance of his regiment on Little Round Top during the second day of the Battle of Gettysburg.

He won the Medal of Honor that day and went on to fight many other battles, during the course of which, he was wounded 6 times. He was so highly regarded that Gen. Grant accorded him the honor of receiving the formal surrender from the Confederates at Appomattox.

In a show of respect to the valiant men that had heretofore been the enemy, he ordered his men to salute the defeated Confederate Army. That had to be an awe-inspiring moment for both sides.

You get no objections here - anyone that can get lost, run out of ammunition, and then bluff-charge his way out of a Confederate over-run has my vote for bravery.



Well, that and he had more class in his pinky finger than did the drunkard Grant in his whole mis-fitted, dirty, and rumpled uniform; some "general he who was still recovering - and would for the whole next day - from the effects of the preceding night's libations.



True, and granted. Chamberlain was both a soldier and a gentleman when both sides needed such and few were left among either ranks. 'Tis a shame that he, and not that drunkard, was not elected President following the war. Might have made healing the wounds of such an uncivil conflict much the easier.

You sir, sound like a gentleman in the finest Southern tradition. Glad to make your acquaintance.

And I yours, sir. 'Tis a long and proud tradition, and those of us who have inherited it are obligated to try to uphold it, and honored when we come close.

WMacD, a fellow Southerner, are ya'? Myself, I have ancestors (numerous) that fought throughout Virginia - some of whom were with Lee at Appomattox and walked home in time for dinner that night.

Re: opinions of Grant, Sherman, etc.

Some of the Yankee officers, and even a few of their generals, were gentleman. Unfortunately, and esp. late in the War of Northern Aggression, the scoundrels took the reins. Grant was a ruthless drunkard, a poor military commander who relied on sheer numbers fed into a meatgrinder to win a war of attrition - the only manner in which he could manage a victory. His strategy, and his leadership caliber, was on par with the Communist Chinese in North Korea - overmatched, and outclassed - but with the advantage of sheer numbers and the lack of consideration for his own troops and for noncombatants to use and lose those numbers in order to win.

Sherman was even worse. A thug, thief, and vicious war criminal (by the modern definition) who brutalized opposing soldiers, noncombatants, civilians, and who used his forces to burn, rape, murder, and lay waste to anything in his path - under direct orders from Grant to do so.

That said, the South had it's own reprehensible characters. N. B. Forrest, for one, who, though a brilliant military mind, was a brute racist, a murderer, and largely inconsiderate of military decorum, his troops, or the larger objectives of his superiors.

Sorry to break your bubble, but I'm a damn Yankee from Michigan. I do however, pay homage to your fine Southern tradition of honor. I am also Scottish, and if it's any consolation, many of my clansmen fought for the Southern cause, if for no other reason than we love to fight.

Guess there's no point in inviting you into the "U. S. Grant Fan Club", huh? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

While I'm inclined to agree with you regarding Grant's tactics in the 1864/65 campaigns, I think Grant's Mississippi and Vicksburgh campaigns are worthy of study. He got his men on dry ground on the east side of the river and pinned Pemberton fast while he beat Joe Johnston. Alot of folks just look at "Grant the Butcher" and forget he had some good campaigns. As to his drinking, there are a few incidents of him getting plastered, but always during bogged down times when boredom was a factor. In no way shape or form have I ever heard of this being a problem when there was an active campaign.

Can't say much for "Uncle Billy" Sherman though. Why he didn't finish Hood in Goergia is a mystery. He coulda shortened the war by a year.

I disagree about Forrest too. Although he was a slave trader prior to the war, he quit the Klan when he found out what was actually going on. As for Ft pillow, there were no charges against him that stuck, and military courts were inclined to chalk it up to overzelous troops, out of Bedford's control. Any way you cut it, you just gotta admire anyone with that much fight. He had (I think) 13 horses shot out from under him, but killed 14 yankee soldiers, thus "finishing a horse ahead". <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

I'm not saying that Grant and Forrset had no fualts, but a ballanced look at each will reveal much to be admired, just as there are many fualts.

Shreck, I got one for you now. Since we're on the subject of Antietam. At that battle the 132 PA Infantry was routed, but not from confederate fire. What forced the unorganized retreat of this regiment?
7mm