You know some bright fellow needs to write a thesis comparing the effectiveness of the very small regiments that were left in the Confederate Army by 1863 vs. The model regiment of 1000 men in 10 companies or typical northern unit of the time. It is striking when you look at how small the regiments were by the start of the Atlanta Campaign yet how effective they continued to be against much larger numbers. Being a Southerner by birth I could associated this with the natural superiority of men raised in the Southern climate, but being a somewhat experienced Soldier, I suspect it has much more to do with leadership. And even here I am not proclaiming the superiority of Southern leadership (since that fact is so obvious!) but I rather suspect it really has something to do with the proportion of Officers, or Officers and NCOs to Enlisted soldiers. The model regiment had a COL, LTC, MAJ, 10 Captains, and about 30 LTs to control about 1000 men, in theory 25 Soldiers for every Officer. Of course almost no regiment every made it to its first engagement at anything like authorized strength. Most were organized at something less than authorized strength and by the time the obligatory round of Measles was over most units were lucky to make it to their first fight at more than 400-500, so the ratio was down to something close to 10 or 11 Soldiers for every officer. By the time of the Atlanta Campaign, I doubt the average regiment had more than 250 effectives; many had less, so the ration was down to something like 5-6 to one. I know there were corresponding officer vacancies, so these numbers are probably not accurate, but I suspect the trend is accurate, and yet look at what these small units were able to achieve in the face of the superior numbers and logistics that they were faced with. Somebody ought to write a paper.....