GDG- Arty Anti-personnel Effectiveness

[Richard M Kadas]

Curt,
  I'd love to see the Asassumption set. It logically seems that if arty projectiles cause greater trauma on average less of those troops wounded by arty would make it to hospital. Therefore, hospital stats as to cause of wound might be unrepresentative of the universe of all wounded.
  Dick

ccj at infionline.net wrote:
  Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:


Dick (and Bob),

This objection was considered by operations research analysts working with 
the data sets. They concluded that "...It is probable that that there would 
be no significant difference in the percentage of casualties caused by each 
weapon, were figures available for causative weapons for battlefield 
deaths."

Regards,
Curt Johnson

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Richard M Kadas" 
To: "GDG" 
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 1:15 PM
Subject: Re: GDG- Arty Anti-personnel Effectiveness


> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
>
>
Nevertheless, the stats can't change the reality that only living 
casualties admitted to hospital were classified by wound type. They'll also 
miss the ones caused by arty submunitions which look similar enough to minie 
ball wounds to be mistaken for them.
> Dick


----------------------------------------------------------------
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/