View single post by Paulson
 Posted: Sat Apr 13th, 2013 03:41 pm
 PM  Quote  Reply  Full Topic 

Joined: Sat Apr 13th, 2013
Posts: 6

  back to top

I've always considered that 6% figure dodgy, as should anyone who understands statistics. It's never wise to take a stat at face value if you can't look at how the stat was arrived at. I've tried to find out how that 6% figure was derived, and have NEVER seen a source that explained how artillery wounds were determined to be as such.

As Mark implied, if a guy has a ghastly through-and-through, it's anyone's guess as to what might have caused it.

Even so, it's important to remember that there were a lot battles where the damage done by artillery was minor, and a lot of engagements where artillery played no role whatsoever. Properly used artillery with good fields of fire was devastating, but many Civil War battlefields had poor fields of fire, and even when they didn't the artillery wasn't always used to best effect.

 Close Window