So, the gist of the story is that on flat, hard ground with no natural protection for the soldiers, casualties were higher. Do I have that right? Did it take years of study to figure that out?
:’)
On the History Channel I saw a show where they investigated the importance of terrain at Bloody Lane. They showed the line of sight from the road as one person walked the Union line of advance. They topped a hill where they were raked with gunfire, but then descended and advanced under protection of another hill. When they topped that they were right on top of the Confederate position, and overran it.
This is what they concluded, at any rate.
“So, the gist of the story is that on flat, hard ground with no natural protection for the soldiers, casualties were higher. Do I have that right? Did it take years of study to figure that out?”
I was asking the same.
You're right. Some researcher has mastered the obvious. I hope taxpayers weren't paying for his time.