"Denyav" wrote in message
...
In fact Lee lost a greater percentage of his troops then
Grant ever did and Sherman's losses were suprisingly small
considering the boldness of his

Surely,If your Army is 100000 men strong the loss of 5000 men
percentagewise
insignificant,But if you have only 25000 men,loss of 5000 men is very
significant.


Conversely if outnumbered you should be husbanding
your scarce manpower.

Even during so called Union victory at Gettysburg, Union lost more
soldiers
than Confederates but percentagewise Union casaulties were less than 25%
of
their streght,but Lee lost almost half of his force.


Incorrect. While exact figures for the Confederate casualties arent
available
the most common estimates place them at between 20,000 and 28,000
while Union casualties were 23,000. The Confederates were
around 75,000 strong while the total strength of the army
of the Potomac was aroun 97,000. However on the first
day only a fraction of the Union force was present

considering the boldness of his campaigns, marching
across the confederacy with an army of 60,000 men
cutting their own roads through forests and swamps

Dare to compare their actions with Nathan Forrests'.
(He could not even dream of having 60000 men )


He could have if Lee hadnt left 25,000 of them at Gettysburg

a complete revolution in military practise. Sherman
and Grant were in many ways the first of the modern
Generals ffighting a total war.

He was simply a Butcher without military finesse of Lee and other
Confederate
commanders.

Not so, he outmanoevered and outfought the Confederates deep
in their own territory

His legacy is the main reason why US military was and is unable to win
anywhere
without "overwhelming power" which always means "lots of gun fodders".

It was Lee who threw away men's lives at Gettysburg
and Nathan Bedford Forrest who had his men launch a
frontal attack on a Union force that badly outnumbered
them at Tupelo suffering considerable losses to no effect.

They had no other chance,unlike Union that was able to replace losses
within
days with fresh immigrants,they had no chance of fighting on equal or near
equal terms.


Which makes throwing away lives pointlessly even more stupid.

Worse still at Franklin John Bell Hood murdered 6000
of his own men and 6 generals in pointless frontal attacks
that fatally weakened his army and led to its rout at
Nashville.

True.But when you speak about Confederates you speak about American
Aristocrats
and Knights,a breed that unfortunately does not exist in US anymore.

No. Nathan Bedford Forrest was a slaver who murdered his prisoners.
In the 20th century he'd have been executed for war crimes.

BTW I am sure you know the story of light cavallery during Crimean
War.Mistakes
happen in wars,sometimes the mistakes themselves show the quality of
fighters
who try to carry out orders.

Enough of them lose the war.

Keith