GDG- Arty Anti-personnel Effectiveness

[ccj at infionline.net]

Sounds like a factoid to me.  Actually, it would be a relatively simple 
matter to prove or disprove if one were truly interested (although it does 
smack somewhat of sawing sawdust).  The basic data is readily available.

Curt Johnson

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <Batrinque at aol.com>
To: <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 8:38 AM
Subject: Re: GDG- Arty Anti-personnel Effectiveness


> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
>
>
> In a message dated 11/30/06 7:53:56 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> ccj at infionline.net writes:
>
>> Who is stating that the "greatest number of artillery casualties were
>> inflicted at close range by canister"?  And, on what basis?  I couldn't
>> disagree with this more.
>>
>
> I believe that this is a very widely accepted view, a piece of the usual
> conventional wisdom - but am not at all sure there is any real hard data 
> to back
> it up.  OTOH, given the realities of CW munitions, it is probably not an
> unreasonable scenario.  Shot for shot, canister seems a much more 
> effective round
> than solid shot or exploding shell.  Of course, in any individual battle 
> to be
> considered, it is necessary to ask whether the enemy was within canister 
> range.
>
>
> Bruce Trinque
> Amston, CT
>                   ----------------------------------------------------------------
> You may unsubscribe by going to 
> http://mailman.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg
>
> You can add yourself to the GDG map at: 
> http://www.frappr.com/gettysburgdiscussiongroup
>
> View archived posts from May 2004 -  present at 
> http://mailman.arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg/
>