Were western infantry regiments...

[alexjack]

....better shots than their eastern counterparts? Can this be deduced from battle casualty figures?

 

[BlackHattedFeller]

....better shots than their eastern counterparts? Can this be deduced from battle casualty figures?

It probably couldn't be deduced. I wouldn't be surprised if they were as they were more frontier states though. The majority of casualties in both theaters were caused by rifle shots, besides a couple of outlier battles like Malvern Hill.

Johnston definitely seemed to think western Union troops were better than their eastern counterparts though.

 

[AUG]

I don't believe so, not in battle anyway. The casualty rates suffered by specific units in the western theater were generally not any higher than those in the East.

Though I do believe that regiments who came from the the western/midwestern states often had a particular 'roughness' about them, particularly those from the Trans-Mississippi. Although some that were largely recruited in major cities produced a lot of rugged characters as well; for example, the Irish Brigade which primarily came from New York City, or Wheat's and Coppens' Louisiana Battalions which were both recruited in New Orleans.

 

[Booner]

Westerners being better shots than their Eastern counterparts? Maybe so, but remember that being a good shot while hunting is a lot different than shooting in battle.

I'd be interested in knowing the how the common soldier from the West differed from his counterpart from the East. How much difference is there for someone from the rural area of Virginia vs the rural area of Iowa?

 

[leftyhunter]

Westerners being better shots than their Eastern counterparts? Maybe so, but remember that being a good shot while hunting is a lot different than shooting in battle.

I'd be interested in knowing the how the common soldier from the West differed from his counterpart from the East. How much difference is there for someone from the rural area of Virginia vs the rural area of Iowa?

That's a good point about hunting vs being under stress in combat. Not to mention fighting when its too cold or too hot not enough water or food plus the suns in your eye etc. How could we devise a metric to determine if western troops where better marksman the eastern troops?
Leftyhunter

 

[Elennsar]

First you'd have to put them in the same level of difficult situation, as far as thing terrain and range of engaging the enemy and equal weapons and experience.

 

[M.Warren]

That's a good point about hunting vs being under stress in combat. Not to mention fighting when its too cold or too hot not enough water or food plus the suns in your eye etc. How could we devise a metric to determine if western troops where better marksman the eastern troops?
Leftyhunter

Thats a tough one. It would be much easier to differentiate between rural and urban areas. Which armys or units were made up by a majority of each, and then compare the battlefield statistics of those units maybe?

 

[leftyhunter]

Thats a tough one. It would be much easier to differentiate between rural and urban areas. Which armys or units were made up by a majority of each, and then compare the battlefield statistics of those units maybe?

Just to make it more complex :just how complete and accurate where these statistical records? Alexjack poses an interesting question I just don't see if their is a definitive answer.
Leftyhunter

 

[AUG]

Whether or not someone was a good shot is somewhat out of the question when it comes to battle, with the exception of skirmishing and sharpshooting. Along with the points mentioned by Leftyhunter, the blackpowder smoke usually made it difficult to see anything beyond 10 or 20 yards after a battle had been underway for a while, and I imagine it would be a bit difficult to take an aimed shot after marching however many miles while loaded down with gear, if that was the case. Many accounts mention how they were bassically firing away into the smoke while scarcely being able to see the enemy, even though both sides were within 100 or so yards of each other.

I think a better question would be who generally had a better record in battle. As M.Warren said, the closest way to come up with an answer would be to compare units.

 

[M.Warren]

Just to make it more complex :just how complete and accurate where these statistical records? Alexjack poses an interesting question I just don't see if their is a definitive answer.
Leftyhunter

Agreed. Being a better shot also doesn't equal wins on the field either. I was just thinking of some way to form a baseline for a metric or standard to start a comparison. I can't think of any examples that stand out in my mind. I thought of the 26th NC and Irish brigade, off the bat, but regardless to location of the residence of their majorities, those two units basically destroyed each other. Determination goes further than accuracy, in my opinion and from my experience.

 

[leftyhunter]

Whether or not someone was a good shot is somewhat out of the question when it comes to battle, with the exception of skirmishing and sharpshooting. Aside from the points mentioned by Leftyhunter, the blackpowder smoke usually made it difficult to see anything beyond 10 or 20 yards after a battle had been underway for a while, and I imagine it would be a bit difficult to take an aimed shot after marching however many miles while loaded down with gear, if that was the case.

I think a better question would be who could march the farthest or who generally had a better record in battle. As M.Warren said, that would best be determined by comparing units.

Good points. We have had many threads in the past about which regiments are better then others . Their are has many of the posters pointed out so many variables. Some regiments such has the 1st Ark US got of to a rough start but they improved quite a bit. I have a thread called "Vindication for the 1st Arkansas " others have noted that many fine regiments just got ground down over time. Then we have to take into account if x or y unit had enough food and water, where they up after x amount of hours, did they have a new but bad CO? Did the overall commander send them to be slaughtered in a useless attack?
Not an easy chore that's for sure.
Leftyhunter

 

[AUG]

Good points. We have had many threads in the past about which regiments are better then others . Their are has many of the posters pointed out so many variables. Some regiments such has the 1st Ark US got of to a rough start but they improved quite a bit. I have a thread called "Vindication for the 1st Arkansas " others have noted that many fine regiments just got ground down over time. Then we have to take into account if x or y unit had enough food and water, where they up after x amount of hours, did they have a new but bad CO? Did the overall commander send them to be slaughtered in a useless attack?
Not an easy chore that's for sure.
Leftyhunter

Yeah, really I don't think we could arrive at any sort of conclusion here, as it often came down to that unit in particular rather than their state or exactly where they were from. The biased side of me wants to say that western troops generally had a better record, but I know that's not true, as there were many eastern units who's record equaled or surpassed some of those from the west. Many of those that did have a distinguished record had capable officers who could drill and discipline the men, while still earning their respect.

 

[jackt62]

I have read a lot of anecdotal stories about the contrasting military abilities of federal soldiers in the eastern vs. western armies but I don't know if this is backed up by significant factual evidence. The commonly held beliefs seem to be that the western armies were largely rural and composed of farmboys, whereas the eastern armies were predominately urban and composed of tradespeople and laborers. The other belief is that the westerners were better marksmen and more skilled in the ways of frontiersmen. Finally, there is a belief that the westerners were more susceptible to communicable disease and had higher death rates from sickness than their eastern counterparts, while the easterners suffered more disproportionate battle casualties.

 

[Elennsar]

I'm not sure if westerners in particular were more prone to disease, but it does make a certain amount of sense that people from relatively thinly settled rural areas would be more susceptible to "and then there were lots of diseases in camp" woe.

But we can find such people from Massachusetts to California, so what exactly is the point?

 

[FZ11]

....better shots than their eastern counterparts? Can this be deduced from battle casualty figures?

The troops most familiar with the outdoors and shooting were generally better shots,initially.

 

[jackt62]

I'm not sure if westerners in particular were more prone to disease, but it does make a certain amount of sense that people from relatively thinly settled rural areas would be more susceptible to "and then there were lots of diseases in camp" woe.

But we can find such people from Massachusetts to California, so what exactly is the point?

People who grew up without living in close proximity to others (such as farmers), were perhaps more susceptible to communicable diseases when they were suddenly placed in close quarters with other newly recruited volunteers in army camps. On the other hand, those who grew up in more crowded situations (such as city dwellers), may have developed more immunity to those types of diseases.

As the war dragged on, the differences became less noticeable as both types of populations developed greater immunities to deadly disease.

 

[Patrick H]

Westerners being better shots than their Eastern counterparts? Maybe so, but remember that being a good shot while hunting is a lot different than shooting in battle.

I'd be interested in knowing the how the common soldier from the West differed from his counterpart from the East. How much difference is there for someone from the rural area of Virginia vs the rural area of Iowa?

I think Booner has made a real good point here--and one that I didn't previously stop to consider. To paraphrase him: A country boy used to hunting in upstate New York or rural Virginia was probably as good a hunting shot as a country boy from Missouri. On average, St. Louis city boys and Boston city boys were probably comparable while learning to handle a rifle. Put them all together in combat and we would see the effects of military training--not necessarily individual marksmanship.

 

[Booner]

Thanks, Patrick,
You said it better than I did.

 

[PatW]

The notion that western soldiers were better shots than eastern soldiers would be based on the notion that the east had a primarily urban population that was new to handling fire arms and the west had a rural population that all grew up shooting squirrels in their spare time.

I believe that every state in the Union had the majority of its population from rural areas. The notion that most of the population in any state was made up of factory hands and clerks really does not pass muster. Even supposedly urban states had areas that were rural like Upstate New York and central Pennsylvania.

Even so, remember most Civil War units in 1861 were issued with whatever firearms the states could get their hands on. Many units, on both sides, were issued muskets. Even in the hand of a crack marksman, a musket's accuracy was problematic at even close ranges and you could forget about long range.

Also, the rifled musket suffered from having a very low muzzle velocity. The "ball" had to be smaller than the bore for rapid loading (a relative term for a muzzle loading fire arm). As the ball expanded, against the barrel and caught the grooves, it was robbed of velocity. That meant that accurate firing of the rifled musket at ranges beyond about 200 yards required accurate estimation of the range and proper setting of the sights. Only one officer made it a practice to train his men in this that I have heard of and he was Pat Cleburne.

But even so, you can't shoot accurately if you can't see your target. I read an memoir of a Union soldier. He was in the line of battle at Shiloh. His officer asked him why he was not firing. The soldier replied that he could not see any rebels. The field was obscured by a dense clouds of smoke from the black powder fire arms. The officer told him to just shoot.

 

[alexjack]

Yes I understand that there were of course rural areas of Maine and Pennsylvania, Virginia and the Carolinas and the other States whose men made up the eastern armies. I suppose I was surmising (wrongly perhaps) that the western states of both Union and Confederacy were at that time, don't want to offend anyone here, rougher, would that be the word?