Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Casualties at Yorktown

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Jim Voege

unread,
Dec 20, 2000, 7:07:48 AM12/20/00
to
"Da/l gCais" <Da_m...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:91q2q...@drn.newsguy.com...
> Casualties at Yorktown
>
> Losses on both sides were light:
> British and Hessian 156 killed
> and 326 wounded; French, 52 killed
> and 134 wounded; American, 20 killed
> and 56 wounded.
>
> http://darter.ocps.k12.fl.us/classroom/revolution/ytown.htm
>
OK, we have the opinion of a high school class. :-)

To be fair, the numbers don't look made up and I presume they got them from
somewhere. One would hope there is an authoritative source at the end of
the chain of provenance.

Jim Voege

kenstead

unread,
Dec 21, 2000, 8:15:27 AM12/21/00
to

"Da/l gCais" <Da_m...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:91qbi...@drn.newsguy.com...
> In article <zg106.6762$bv3....@newscontent-01.sprint.ca>, "Jim says...
> Add disease and toothache to the numbers. However the Americans were not
taking
> a lot of hits. The troops would not have had medical charts. Who knows
what the
> price of a battle was? Most sailors died from diseases rather than cannon
shot
> from the other team. It was before the bad weather AFAIK so they were
spared
> that.
>
> Da/l gCais
>

Yorktown is interesting as one of a very few failures of British general
strategy, which was to use a very small army capable of being put ashore
anywhere in the world by the Royal Navy and, if it got into trouble from
lack of numbers, of being rescued by the navy and sent elsewhere to pinprick
the enemy. Cornwallis did not need a land battle to persuade him he had
lost --- the absence of the navy told him that. Hence the small number of
casualties.

I can't think of many other examples. The loss of the Highland division in
France in WW2 is one, when the navy was preoccupied with Dunkirk.

Others instances, anyone?

Cheers

Ken


Jim Voege

unread,
Dec 22, 2000, 11:39:05 AM12/22/00
to
"kenstead" <kens...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:Vxx06.1371$RJV.60...@news.xtra.co.nz...
Dieppe perhaps.

Jim Voege

William Black

unread,
Dec 22, 2000, 1:34:39 PM12/22/00
to
Jim Voege <jfv...@sprint.ca> wrote in message news:NqL06.7601

> > Yorktown is interesting as one of a very few failures of British general
> > strategy, which was to use a very small army capable of being put ashore
> > anywhere in the world by the Royal Navy and, if it got into trouble from
> > lack of numbers, of being rescued by the navy and sent elsewhere to
> pinprick
> > the enemy. Cornwallis did not need a land battle to persuade him he had
> > lost --- the absence of the navy told him that. Hence the small number
of
> > casualties.
> >
> > I can't think of many other examples. The loss of the Highland division
in
> > France in WW2 is one, when the navy was preoccupied with Dunkirk.
> >
> > Others instances, anyone?
> >
> Dieppe perhaps.

I think that's when they realised that it wasn't going to work anymore and
in future theyw ere going to have to do things in a more organised manner.

--
William Black
--------------------------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three

0 new messages