historical casualties and SOP

[RvCap]

So to give you some background.. I graduated from West Point and, as part of our core classes, we studied the civil war extensively. But, one thing i don't recall (and not sure even exists), is truly understanding the amount of casualties at the regimental and brigade level that would have a commander begin thinking about a withdrawal. I know every engagement is different, but i'm wondering if anyone has ever heard of a "benchmark" for commanders in the civil war where casualties are too great to continue a fight. A standard operating procedure if you will. In the battles i've fought i generally like to break contact at around 15% casualties and swap with my reserve brigade if able. Interesting to see what others do, as I can't fathom that 50% and upwards casualties would make a brigade an effective fighting force at that point (even tho i have been able to keep brigades in the fight with more casualties than effectives).

[Wonko]

I don't have the personal history you do, nor can I definitively answer your question, but I think the answer is 'it depends'. If you've taken 30% but the boys are still steady and have ammo and the units on your flanks are still holding, you'd keep holding too. If you've taken 5% but the units on both your flanks are melting away - probably time to go.

It's worth remembering that 'elite' infantry units in the ACW were typically identified by how long they could withstand heavy fire rather than their ability to inflict losses or whatever. Thus nicknames like 'Iron' and 'Stonewall' etc.

[Operation Iraqi Freikorps]

I often forget about switching units out until I see them crack or route. Brigades that lose about 50% of their start of battle strength will break for the remainder of the battle. If I actually manage to swap out, it will be until another brigade is at a worse moral level, and the lowest morale unit can be pulled off the line to recover.

Side note, there were a couple of regiments that took ~80% casualties in a battle, if my memory is correct. Napoleon considered a regiment useless for the remainder of a battle if it had taken 33% casualties, though my memory fails me on recalling the source of that stat.

[CobaLT]

As a graduate of West Point I’m sure you have read ‘On Killing’. It was required reading when I was in. I believe that statistic gross man uses for battle effectiveness being lost is around 40% casualties. But that’s for a frontline unit. it’s different across services and experience. A rear line unit would not be expected to hold as much. This of coarse has to be paired with the conflict in question and the motivation and morale of the opponents. I’m sure there have been quite a few units that have sustained 80+% casualties and some even a 100. I believe in ken burns civil war there was a regiment on one side that received 120% casualties

[Rex Seattle]

I barely graduated from West High School, and I would likely run screaming like a girl at the first sight of a gun pointed at me, so please excuse the ignorance of my question:

How can a brigade sustain 120% casualties? Does this mean that one group takes 60%, and their reserve takes 60%? I'm assuming we're not talking about killing the men, and then killing their ghosts?

[millerpsc88]

The 1st Minnesota lost 82.7 percent at Gettysburg when Hancock ordered them to charge an entire Brigade so as to buy him a few minutes to plug in a gap in the line. To my knowledge that is the highest casualty rate of any Regiment in the Civil War, though I'm sure there were confederate regiments that had a higher rate at the battle of Spotslyvania but record keeping for the Confederates were pretty spotty, especially at that point of the war.

I've always wondered why the charge of the 1st Mn wasn't shown in the movie Gettysburg. Hancock ordering the unit to charge so as to buy him 5 mins. 262 men fix bayonets and charge a brigade of 1800 confederates and buys Hancock 15 mins. Only 47 men of the 1st returned

[Alex]

In the war the point where a unit would break contact was wildly different. In general units would fight until breaking point because of how uncoordinated the armies were.

Many battles show whole brigades fighting more than 50% casualties - hell, the war's most famous battle at Gettysburg had 13 brigades (6 CSA and 7 Union) fight to 50% or more, and most brigades fought to at least 30% losses if not 35%+.

[biblebrox]

The answer depends on the circumstances. In my country we have the example of an infantry battalions which held to the last man in ww2. Literaly. In Soviet Union you had the Brest fortress epic. In 1856 the Light Brigade was massacred but ultimately took out the artilery in Balaclava. If you want to learn about some observations about armies in Europe of late 19 century I would recommend you to try to find articles of Friedrich Engels (yes, the communist manifesto creator) about armies of his time. His observarions were very interesting.

[Wonko]

Originally posted by millerpsc88:

The 1st Minnesota lost 82.7 percent at Gettysburg when Hancock ordered them to charge an entire Brigade so as to buy him a few minutes to plug in a gap in the line. To my knowledge that is the highest casualty rate of any Regiment in the Civil War, though I'm sure there were confederate regiments that had a higher rate at the battle of Spotslyvania but record keeping for the Confederates were pretty spotty, especially at that point of the war.

I've always wondered why the charge of the 1st Mn wasn't shown in the movie Gettysburg. Hancock ordering the unit to charge so as to buy him 5 mins. 262 men fix bayonets and charge a brigade of 1800 confederates and buys Hancock 15 mins. Only 47 men of the 1st returned

It's kind of a shame, but I guess they had a very specific vision of how they wanted to do Pickett's Charge and knew it would take a ton of time. IMO the first two days were way more dramatic, they cut a TON of good material out of day 1 especially. The dudes retreating through the town carrying their gun, etc

[Wonko]

Originally posted by biblebrox:

The answer depends on the circumstances. In my country we have the example of an infantry battalions which held to the last man in ww2. Literaly. In Soviet Union you had the Brest fortress epic. In 1856 the Light Brigade was massacred but ultimately took out the artilery in Balaclava. If you want to learn about some observations about armies in Europe of late 19 century I would recommend you to try to find articles of Friedrich Engels (yes, the communist manifesto creator) about armies of his time. His observarions were very interesting.

Lol speaking of Engels, I was going through Union commanders and found this guy I'd never heard of named August Willich with really high Fame. I looked him up, dude was an early communist in Germany. Engels was his aide-de-camp in the Palatinate during the 1849 uprisings and he basically fled Germany after those got put down and ended up living in SW Ohio, where he volunteered for service in '61. Dude was a badass too, after a few months he got command of the 32nd Indiana. From Wikipedia:

"The 32nd saw action at Shiloh on the second day, during which Col. Willich displayed great leadership. When his troops became unsteady under fire, he stood before them, his back to the enemy, and conducted the regiment through the manual of arms. He had the regimental band play "La Marseillaise", the anthem for all republican movements in Europe. Recovering its stability, the 32nd launched a bayonet attack"

[Duck]

Originally posted by Rex Seattle:

I barely graduated from West High School, and I would likely run screaming like a girl at the first sight of a gun pointed at me, so please excuse the ignorance of my question:

How can a brigade sustain 120% casualties? Does this mean that one group takes 60%, and their reserve takes 60%? I'm assuming we're not talking about killing the men, and then killing their ghosts?

not every casualty is fatal or discharge from service. some people got hurt twice or more...

also, the 120% was not in one battle. it was over the course of the war. Which leads back to what i said about multiple casualties per person.

[Thorghul]

It depends on different aspects.

Is the brigade holding a crucial point like 20th Maine at Gettysburg? Then the lose of 99% would be okay if otherwise you would take heavy loses on other brigades and lose the whole battle.

Is it a rookie brigade? Well, 50% casulties good be easily replaced. Losing 50% of a full veteran brigade. Thats a tragedy.

Also you have to think about the importance of the battle. Maybe its better to untertake a tactical retreat to fight on better ground or have reinforcements.
Also think about whats coming after that battle? Are there a lot of other battles to come? Ever heard of a Pyrrhus-Victory? Quite important to save manpower and give soldiers a rest so they can perform in the next fight.
But if you fight a Waterloo like battle then you should invest all and at every cost.

[RvCap]

Originally posted by CobaLT:

As a graduate of West Point I’m sure you have read ‘On Killing’. It was required reading when I was in. I believe that statistic gross man uses for battle effectiveness being lost is around 40% casualties. But that’s for a frontline unit. it’s different across services and experience. A rear line unit would not be expected to hold as much. This of coarse has to be paired with the conflict in question and the motivation and morale of the opponents. I’m sure there have been quite a few units that have sustained 80+% casualties and some even a 100. I believe in ken burns civil war there was a regiment on one side that received 120% casualties

Right on yea that's about what i was looking for. All the posts in this discussion are great, casualties being situational - and with the right men in the right spot to sustain those casualties. Gives an added depth to the game that makes it even more realistic. There was another great comment in here too about Napoleon's 33% guideline. Interesting to find out his reasoning behind that and what steps he would take once a unit reached that point.

[millerpsc88]

Originally posted by Wonko:

Originally posted by millerpsc88:

The 1st Minnesota lost 82.7 percent at Gettysburg when Hancock ordered them to charge an entire Brigade so as to buy him a few minutes to plug in a gap in the line. To my knowledge that is the highest casualty rate of any Regiment in the Civil War, though I'm sure there were confederate regiments that had a higher rate at the battle of Spotslyvania but record keeping for the Confederates were pretty spotty, especially at that point of the war.

I've always wondered why the charge of the 1st Mn wasn't shown in the movie Gettysburg. Hancock ordering the unit to charge so as to buy him 5 mins. 262 men fix bayonets and charge a brigade of 1800 confederates and buys Hancock 15 mins. Only 47 men of the 1st returned

It's kind of a shame, but I guess they had a very specific vision of how they wanted to do Pickett's Charge and knew it would take a ton of time. IMO the first two days were way more dramatic, they cut a TON of good material out of day 1 especially. The dudes retreating through the town carrying their gun, etc

I agree, the movie is nearly flawless when it comes to historical movies in my opinion but they did miss out on filming a few great scenes. For one, they totally ignored culp's hill. A great supporting character would have been Wesley Culp who was born in Gettysburg but fought for the south and was killed at Gettysburg while fighting on his families property.