Army Life And Marksmanship

[MikeyB]

I forget the exact quote, but someone described Civil War army life as mostly boredom with a few short moments of pure terror.

Given all the free time in between battles and campaigns, and given all of the drilling, why was marksmanship not perfected? If either army could master the proper usage of the latest rifles, would this not be an overwhelming advantage in the field?

Did Stanton not want to spend the money on ammunition? Were their lack of qualified marksmanship instructors? No one thought of it? Takes too long to master the skill? Other reasons?

Mike

 

[Yankeedave]

In a large respect, time today on the range was time back then being in the field with very little basic training. Just thrown into the mix for those early regiment. There was drilling when fatigue duty wasn't on i.e. picket duty etc.
Later recruits to existing units picked it up as they went along.
Some men will get better and it won't take them that long. Some will never get it.
No amount of time on the range will stop a flustered guy from loading without firing.
The time spent actually in the field involved ramming home the rod with a rock. Or flipping the whole piece over and jamming it home that way. Read them also say not all fired. Some just loaded. Common sense would dictate who did what.
imho...and I read all this in different books etc.

 

[FedericoFCavada]

Earl J. Hess, _The Rifle Musket in Civil War Combat: Reality and Myth_ (University Press of Kansas, 2016)

 

[Reconstructed Rebel]

I've always been under the impression that the tactics of the day, imported from Europe, placed more emphasis on getting the soldiers to move in unison in large groups rather than on individual marksmanship. Hence, lots of time was spent in drilling, not shooting.

 

[jackt62]

I've always been under the impression that the tactics of the day, imported from Europe, placed more emphasis on getting the soldiers to move in unison in large groups rather than on individual marksmanship. Hence, lots of time was spent in drilling, not shooting.

Exactly. Military dogma of that time was based on close order formations that were able to deliver a high, concentrated, volume of volley fire. Individual marksmanship would come into play among sharpshooters in a skirmish line.

 

[MikeyB]

Exactly. Military dogma of that time was based on close order formations that were able to deliver a high, concentrated, volume of volley fire. Individual marksmanship would come into play among sharpshooters in a skirmish line.

When would you say the tactics evolved to where they were placing distance markers and riflemen were actively adjusting sights (what I saw in Zulu Dawn anyway)? Were they already doing that in professional armies in Europe or was this still a decade or two away?

 

[Don Dixon]

People confuse the capabilities of the rifle musket with the capabilities of the soldiers. It takes ammunition, range time, effort, and knowledge to train people to shoot military weapons at militarily useful distances. The Federal and Confederate Armies didn't, and the U.S. Army doesn't now.

 

[rob63]

When would you say the tactics evolved to where they were placing distance markers and riflemen were actively adjusting sights (what I saw in Zulu Dawn anyway)? Were they already doing that in professional armies in Europe or was this still a decade or two away?

It varied. The British army was teaching marksmanship, and using long range shooting effectively, in the Crimean War that preceded the Civil War. France was still confident of the value of the bayonet at the beginning of WWI. I'm having a brain fart and don't remember the guy's name, but there was a famous study done of the US Army that indicated American soldiers still weren't using rifles effectively in Korea. The development of the modern assault rifle was a direct result of the realization that soldiers rarely fired at anything over 300 yards away, not much different than the Civil War.

 

[rob63]

Earl J. Hess, _The Rifle Musket in Civil War Combat: Reality and Myth_ (University Press of Kansas, 2016)

Off topic, and don't take this as directed at Federico, I am sure he is posting that link related to the question of marksmanship training, but that is a book that is causing new myths to be created due to the nonsense that he introduced with his misunderstanding of ballistics.

From the review: "He notes that bullets fired from the new musket followed a parabolic trajectory unlike those fired from smoothbores; at mid-range, those rifle balls flew well above the enemy, creating two killing zones between which troops could operate untouched."

Every projectile follows a parabolic trajectory, including those from smoothbores. Thanks to Hess, now days people actually believe that the smoothbore was more accurate than the rifle-musket when the evidence from the actual tests conducted at the time illustrates why they adopted the rifle-musket.

Joseph Bilby wrote some fine books that discussed the realities of why the untrained troops didn't use the rifle-musket to its full capabilities and why it's not unreasonable to believe they would have been just as well served with a smoothbore at close ranges. I don't know why, but it really irks me that Hess's book dominates the field when he appears to have mostly copied Bilby's work and screwed it up in the process. I guess it's my nature. Sorry to get off track, and this isn't directed at you Federico, chalk it up as the pet peeve of a crazy old coot.

Civil War Firearms

Small Arms at Gettysburg

 

[FedericoFCavada]

Unfortunate wording... I don't think Hess bears as much responsibility as people who run with the error and propagate a new myth.

It is the case that as a general rule, ordnance development has long sought a higher velocity bullet in large part because the projectile will have a flatter trajectory. The flatter the trajectory, the less "drop" at realistic ranges, the less "arc," and an improved ability of the typical person firing a rifle to hit what s/he is shooting at, regardless of the misunderstanding of the actual range.

People were wowed and astonished with the capabilities of the new ogival-conoidal bullets, i.e. the compression types, the skirted Minie/Burton balls, and the paper patched Enfield/ Pritchett varieties. But the necessity of correctly estimating the range and setting the sights was paramount. Absent the training and ability to use the sights, there was indeed a so-called "dead space" where the bullets would sail harmlessly well above the heads of the enemy...

A far more dubious proposition, becoming dogmatized into a hardened myth, at least in my view, is the notion that officers were unconcerned about marksmanship in the era of smooth-bores. Going all the way back to "Old fuss and feathers" Winfield Scott, there are detailed descriptions of the "best practices" of the time to promote marksmanship among the ranks, descriptions of targets, recommendations that a booklet be kept recording scores and so on. All of this is simply vanished away with assertions that smooth-bores were understood to be inaccurate, and hence, there was no concern about it. What the actual practice was could be at considerable variance with the published recommendations but thanks to digitization, we can all actually consult the primary resources and read what officers of the past thought was a good or a bad idea...

 

[DixieRifles]

Every projectile follows a parabolic trajectory, including those from smoothbores.

Let me find Trigonometry book and that equation for a parabola.

 

[jackt62]

When would you say the tactics evolved to where they were placing distance markers and riflemen were actively adjusting sights (what I saw in Zulu Dawn anyway)? Were they already doing that in professional armies in Europe or was this still a decade or two away?

Close order infantry formations that were still common in the CW and that relied on mass and volume instead of marksmanship slowly evolved over time into loose formation "fire teams" in response to changes in weapons technology. (Interestingly, the British army continued to use close order formations when fighting African tribesmen equipped mostly with spears and clubs in the 1879 Zulu War). CW sharpshooter units were more likely to be adept at and practice adjusting sights depending on the rifle in use (such as Confederates armed with Whitworth rifles) but I'm not sure about the use of distance markers. Perhaps distance was determined as was practiced by the artillery in firing rounds to establish range.

 

[jackt62]

A far more dubious proposition, becoming dogmatized into a hardened myth, at least in my view, is the notion that officers were unconcerned about marksmanship in the era of smooth-bores

Patrick Cleburne was an officer who valued drilling his men in marksmanship. (Probably given his background in the British army.) How successful or useful that training was to his men is another story.

 

[Yankeedave]

Was it imported tactics? Moving men around in formation is global. If it's the tactics it's not Napoleonic to run your infantry up to the other guy in line till the other gives ground. Skirmishes start the fight and the artillery is the star.
If you walk your line towards the artillery, it will eat you alive. And you'll be attacked by the cavalry. That's Napoleon.
A large part of the fighting in America was in the woods.
And this is a rifle. It was settled by the bayonet in Napoleon's time. It CW times bayonet wounds are a rarity.
It's clearing a lot of ground to get to the point of standing toe to toe. It did happen but just not than commen.

 

[rob63]

Let me find Trigonometry book and that equation for a parabola.

There was a time, when I was a fresh faced engineering graduate, that I could have worked out that equation. Not anymore!

 

[Coonewah Creek]

It is interesting that when the "sharpshooter battalions" for each brigade in Heth's division were formed in the spring of 1864, the requirements for training and drill does not mention "markmanship," only drill in the "estimation of distances." Now, I suppose those chosen for the sharpshooter battalions may have practiced marksmanship, it is not noted in the excerpt below:

"Early in April, 1864, while Gen. Lee's army was encamped along the Rapidan, near Orange court house, I [Captain Robert F. Ward of the 42nd MS] was notified by Col. Feeney, of the forty-second Mississippi regiment, that I had been selected by Gen. Davis and himself to command the sharpshooters of that regiment ; that the company was to be composed of select men from the various companies of the regiment, one sharpshooter for every ten men present for duty ; that they were to be relieved from all camp duty, guard duty and fatigue service of any kind; that they were to be drilled six hours a day in skirmish drill and in the estimation of distances, until the opening of the approaching campaign."

Now he goes on to describe in more detail how drill in estimation of distances was conducted, but again, nothing about the actual marksmanship of the sharpshooter volunteers.

 

[Coonewah Creek]

nothing about the actual marksmanship of the sharpshooter volunteers.

Of course, I completely understand why Capt. Ward felt no necessity for actual marsksmanship practice. These were Mississippi boys after all...

 

[DixieRifles]

There was a time, when I was a fresh faced engineering graduate, that I could have worked out that equation. Not anymore!

Ditto. Except all of my parabolas had a vertical or horizontal axis. I would think the bullet trajectory would be a rotated axis.

The horizontal axis equation doesn't work as the bullet will start out horizontal.

I googled a simple equation that excludes some of the variables like Drag.

The "0" subscript means the starting speed in the (y) direction, (t) means time and (g) means the acceleration due to gravity, which is 9.8 m/s2​. We can simplify this if the bullet is fired perfectly horizontally, so it doesn't have a speed in the (y) direction.

 

[bayonet]

Exactly. Military dogma of that time was based on close order formations that were able to deliver a high, concentrated, volume of volley fire. Individual marksmanship would come into play among sharpshooters in a skirmish line.

The reason for such high casualties. The weapons more advanced then the Tactics.

 

[bayonet]

People confuse the capabilities of the rifle musket with the capabilities of the soldiers. It takes ammunition, range time, effort, and knowledge to train people to shoot military weapons at militarily useful distances. The Federal and Confederate Armies didn't, and the U.S. Army doesn't now.

All depended in what Army Unit you served in. Your Elite Units as in Ranger Batts or SF get plenty of range time. It's said Marines are Riflemen first and they place a big effort in Rifle Marksmanship. It's all in the Training. Better Training, better results. Whether CW, Military, or Law Enforcement. Main reason you see so many Law Enforcement mistakes, No Training or poor Training. Same for a CW Unit. Some Departments or Agencies only qualify once or twice a year.