Re: False casualty numbers on Ancestry's Regt. Hist?
-
In reply to:
False casualty numbers on Ancestry's Regt. Hist?
Ted Pack 12/23/01
I am suspicious that maybe some of the figures have been scrambled.As you point out, only 10 officers and 2 EM killed or died of wounds sounds wrong.Even worse, though, is the 177 officers said to have died of non-combat causes.At full strength, a regiment only had 34 line officers.If 177 of them DIED (plus 10 more who supposedly died in combat) then the average regimental staff or company officer died, what, SIX TIMES????Being an officer in this regiment was one dangerous job!!!