Did new weapons cause troops to learn different drill?

[D.H. Hill]

It is well-known that at the outbreak of the war there were separate drills for volunteers (presumably armed with smoothbore muskets; drill such as found in Gilham's manual) and riflemen (as seen in Hardee's Tactics and Gilham's "Manual of Arms for the Rifle", which were essentially the same). (Many reenactors simply refer to the volunteer manual as "Gilham's" and the rifle manual as "Hardee's".) However, later in the war with rifles becoming more common many units were re-armed. Would they then switch to the rifle manual, though their tactical function hadn't necessarily changed?

Thanks,
Dan

 

[scarter92]

It is well-known that at the outbreak of the war there were separate drills for volunteers (presumably armed with smoothbore muskets; drill such as found in Gilham's manual) and riflemen (as seen in Hardee's Tactics and Gilham's "Manual of Arms for the Rifle", which were essentially the same). (Many reenactors simply refer to the volunteer manual as "Gilham's" and the rifle manual as "Hardee's".) However, later in the war with rifles becoming more common many units were re-armed. Would they then switch to the rifle manual, though their tactical function hadn't necessarily changed?

Thanks,
Dan

 

[scarter92]

Yes most certainly, but I'm not familiar enough to know how the drill changed.

 

[johan_steele]

By mid war the US had switched to Casey's, a variation of Hardee, for all infantry. The CS was a little different but by and large was all using Hardee by 63.

 

[Frederick14Va]

Another thing to keep in mind that frequently confuses the modern mind... is that in period military writings the term "Rifle" tended to refer to the shorter barreled arm... originally designated for light infantry and skirmish companies... such as the M1841 Mississippi Rifle... What we today may refer to as two banders... A "Musket" whether smoothbore or rifled typically refers to the longer three band weapon for infantry of the line... The manual of arms and drill for these were basically no different... and didn't really matter if the weapon was smoothbore or rifled... the loading, handling and manner of use was the same... In short order the weapons and field use pretty much became all one and the same and these specific designations of companies and arms typically faded out...

Most of the drill manuals of the day were an evolutionary transition to slightly modify, update, abbreviate, consolidate, or simplify a previous known standard drill manual... Gilhams, Hardee's, Caseys, had all been modifications, and simplification variations of the earlier hefty Scotts drill manual... that mostly ruled the land during the flint-lock era.. but of course needed to be updated to reflect the changes in arms and field/rank maneuvers.

In the earlier months of the war we can find all sorts of strange drill manuals being used including some British and French Army drill manuals.... along with very old dusty versions of Scotts... regardless for what type or model of arm it was intended to be used for.... As newer versions became more available in print it eventually evolved and became more standardized... In the Western theater we tend to find more references to CS troops using mostly Hardee's... in the East we commonly find lots of references to using Gilhams...

 

[Stainless Steel Mucket]

I agree that the manuals of arms became more unified as the war progressed, but there were differences within the various books about which manual of arms to use for which weapon. For example, Gilham's manual includes instruction for the longer musket beginning at para. 94 and the shorter rifle beginning at para. 142. You can find similar treatment of longer musket verses shorter rifle in the US Tactics of 1861 which were Hardee's Tactics with Simon Cameron's name on the cover.

Since the shorter rifle is discouraged in reenacting, most reenactors don't receive an opportunity to learn about the different manuals of arms for different weapons.

Scotts had been around a long time and continued to have its proponents. His manual was the method for the prewar New York State Militia. It was difficult to root out old habits. You find his method in Baxter and Chandler which was used by the early Wisconsin troops - think Iron Brigade - past Gettysburg.

The two manuals left standing by the end of the war are Hardee's Revised (1861) and Casey (1862). Orders were generated making each the the official manual for its side of the conflict. Two of the biggest differences in these two manuals are the method for fixing/unfixing the bayonet and for stacking arms. Hardee incorporated the new methods of reaching across the body with the right hand to fix and the "swing" method for stacking. Casey kept the old method for fixing bayonet which was based upon drawing the longer sword bayonet with the left hand for the short rifle. His stack is the Scott stack which Gilham also used.

- S.S. Mucket

 

[mofederal]

Having never did any drill with newer types of weapons while reenacting, there almost had to be some physical changes, when some units began using The Henry, the Spencer and Sharpe's rifle. no rammers, and in two no caps, no b have some changes, bayonet for the Henry. Smoothbores or rifles would have been similar, but we used Casey's for drilling in all of the units I was in.

 

[gary]

With respects to drill ala Hardee or the later Casey, I don't think there's any distinction between rifles and muskets. By 1863, most soldiers were seasoned and there was hardly any time for officers and men to adapt to a new drill standard.

The terms can be confusing (and we know the difference between the two types of firearms) but the military is slow to change. I have a 1909 Musketry Manual for rifle shooting (not drill).

 

[Eric Wittenberg]

That it has perpetuated a bunch of myths that I despise with a burning passion, such as Buford's men having Spencers and the nonsense about Buford making a stand at Thoroughfare Gap.

 

[mofederal]

Buford's men had regular carbines, but I am speaking of infantry, not cavalry.

 

[lelliott19]

Another thing to keep in mind that frequently confuses the modern mind... is that in period military writings the term "Rifle" tended to refer to the shorter barreled arm... originally designated for light infantry and skirmish companies... such as the M1841 Mississippi Rifle... What we today may refer to as two banders... A "Musket" whether smoothbore or rifled typically refers to the longer three band weapon for infantry of the line...

Wow! Interesting.......this could be really helpful. Sorry if this is derailing your thread @D.H. Hill ....I apologize in advance. Im sure you weapons and tactics guys probably already knew this, but I had no idea. @Frederick14Va and @johan_steele and anyone else who can provide additional info....Can you please elaborate on this distinction.....for someone who knows nothing about tactics? I'm sorry if this is a dumb question but you guys are already aware that I know nothing about arms or tactics - wouldn't know a right shoulder shift from a hollow square (well maybe I could possibly tell those two apart )

If I am understanding correctly, then......... if a regiment had some Companies originally issued "Rifles" and some other Companies originally issued "Muskets" they would have been issued the weapons based on what duty their Company was expected to perform?
For example (these are copied, not my descriptions):
Co A - 95 Enfield rifles with sword bayonet & scabbards
Co B - 87 Enfield rifles with sword bayonet & scabbards
Co C - 4 Enfield rifles with sword bayonet & scabbards + 77 Enfield Muskets with bayonets
Co D - 99 Enfield rifles with sword bayonet & scabbards
Co E - 3 Enfield rifles with sword bayonet & scabbards + 70 Enfield Muskets & bayonet
Co F - 4 Enfield rifles with sword bayonet & scabbards + 77 Enfield Muskets (doesnt look like they recd bayonets)
Co G - 89 Enfield rifles with sword bayonet & scabbards
Co H - 86 Enfield Muskets & bayonets
Co I - 95 Enfield rifles with sabre bayonets & scabbards
Co K - 81 Enfield rifles with sabre bayonets

Total: 557 Enfield Rifles w sabre bayonet + 310 Enfield Muskets = 867 in all
(If I did the math correctly)
So from that info can you tell who would have been doing what? Also, can you tell from their Company designations and the arms they were issued how they would have lined up in line of battle?

Thanks guys!
Laura

 

[johan_steele]

Wow! Interesting.......this could be really helpful. Sorry if this is derailing your thread @D.H. Hill ....I apologize in advance. Im sure you weapons and tactics guys probably already knew this, but I had no idea. @Frederick14Va and @johan_steele and anyone else who can provide additional info....Can you please elaborate on this distinction.....for someone who knows nothing about tactics? I'm sorry if this is a dumb question but you guys are already aware that I know nothing about arms or tactics - wouldn't know a right shoulder shift from a hollow square (well maybe I could possibly tell those two apart )

If I am understanding correctly, then......... if a regiment had some Companies originally issued "Rifles" and some other Companies originally issued "Muskets" they would have been issued the weapons based on what duty their Company was expected to perform?
For example (these are copied, not my descriptions):
Co A - 95 Enfield rifles with sword bayonet & scabbards
Co B - 87 Enfield rifles with sword bayonet & scabbards
Co C - 4 Enfield rifles with sword bayonet & scabbards + 77 Enfield Muskets with bayonets
Co D - 99 Enfield rifles with sword bayonet & scabbards
Co E - 3 Enfield rifles with sword bayonet & scabbards + 70 Enfield Muskets & bayonet
Co F - 4 Enfield rifles with sword bayonet & scabbards + 77 Enfield Muskets (doesnt look like they recd bayonets)
Co G - 89 Enfield rifles with sword bayonet & scabbards
Co H - 86 Enfield Muskets & bayonets
Co I - 95 Enfield rifles with sabre bayonets & scabbards
Co K - 81 Enfield rifles with sabre bayonets

Total: 557 Enfield Rifles w sabre bayonet + 310 Enfield Muskets = 867 in all
(If I did the math correctly)
So from that info can you tell who would have been doing what? Also, can you tell from their Company designations and the arms they were issued how they would have lined up in line of battle?

Thanks guys!
Laura

The rifles w/ saber bayonets likely references the P56/58/60 series arms while the other likely references the P53. Ideally the two flank companies were supposed to be armed with rifles while the rest should have been armed w/ rifle muskets. But the reality of arms availability made that an ideal vs reality. Many CS units would be ordered to trade their rifles for rifle muskets and their rifles would be issued on to a Cav unit.

The two flank companies were expected to provide skirmishes while the rest of the Regiment fought in line. The reality once again set in and skirmish duty was often rotated through the companies on an as needed basis. I've read of one US unit that was expected to provide skirmishes for the whole brigade and never actually fought in line. But that is an extreme.

I hope that helps some.

 

[Frederick14Va]

In the ideal environment and organizational structure... as mentioned a full Infantry Regiment would typically have two companies designated as Light Infantry, armed with rifles, to serve primarily as Skirmish Companies.... Ideally these would be the two most senior and able companies of a regiment... Frequently found to be Co.A & Co.B, which also if arranged in line of battle according to manuals of the day would also be the two companies initially placed on each end flank of a regiment.. These commonly would be the guys out in advance of a main battle line to find and feel out the location and strength of opposing forces... kinda like your advance recon scouts of sorts.... also be used spread out to guard and protect the side flanks of a battle formation... these ideally would be armed with the shorter rifle.... The rest of the Companies in the regiment would by design be armed with the longer muskets and act as Infantry of the Line... those occupying the main battle formations...

The changes in arms... as well as the haphazard arms availability issues.... and alterations of battle maneuver tactics pretty much made the above nearly obsolete... and later in the war just about any company of a given regiment may be deployed for whatever task and role that was necessary at the time... and many accounts of entire regiments being deplored as advance skirmishers to screen in front of entire brigades or larger forces in a given engagement... not unusual..

The P53 ("three bander") musket was a rifled arm, but full length and generally intended for Line Infantry... This one used a triangular type of bayonet... The p56 Enfield Rifle... was just a shorter (two bander) version of the other.. which used a large sword bayonet... Thus if a Ordinance record gave reference to the respective Enfields being issued with a sword bayonet, its a good indicator that its likely the shorter P56 type rifle.. Many such records may give reference to bayonet types and or caliber of weapon to give us further clues of what they actually received...

 

[lelliott19]

Thanks @johan_steele and @Frederick14Va I appreciate the additional information. The ordnance records referenced above, all written by the same man on the same day, definitely differentiate between the "Enfield rifle with sword bayonet" and the "Enfield Musket" as some appear on the same form. Here is the one for Co F with both types requisitioned on the same form.

So @Frederick14Va would the companies have aligned like this?
Co A - 95 Enfield rifles with sword bayonet & scabbards

Co C - 4 Enfield rifles with sword bayonet & scabbards + 77 Enfield Muskets with bayonets
Co E - 3 Enfield rifles with sword bayonet & scabbards + 70 Enfield Muskets & bayonet
Co G - 89 Enfield rifles with sword bayonet & scabbards
Co I - 95 Enfield rifles with sabre bayonets & scabbards
Co K - 81 Enfield rifles with sabre bayonets
Co H - 86 Enfield Muskets & bayonets
Co F - 4 Enfield rifles with sword bayonet & scabbards + 77 Enfield Muskets (doesnt look like they recd bayonets)
Co D - 99 Enfield rifles with sword bayonet & scabbards

Co B - 87 Enfield rifles with sword bayonet & scabbards

 

[Frederick14Va]

In theory, in the perfect organizational structure of the day.... The more experienced or senior ranked companies typically would have their designation letter first, then in sequence.. the lessor or more junior companies would be in the latter designations... Co. A would have the higher merit and standing so forth down to Co. K etc....

The formation of companies into line... as mentioned the two most senior companies would generally be on the two end flanks.... the next in line of that progression as Co.C, or the Third company would be the center-right company... the remaining companies would be staggered so wouldn't have a cluster of junior companies side by side....

If you were standing in or behind the Regiment rank formation... the Companies would usually be aligned Left to Right like this:

B-G-K-E-H-C-I-D-F-A

Remember that this was the designed perfect formation per period drill... once the niceness of war flew out the window such details in many commands generally were no longer adhered too that much.... Some still did... many didn't.... Some times a senior officer may designate which company may be called upon to lead the regiment in the column of march that day (far right company), and the rest behind it just fell in wherever... The old Napoleonic and pre-war designated task and roles breakdown of the different companies within an Infantry Regiment faded out as they mostly were all armed and fought the same way by then... Commonly little regard to what they might be armed with anymore... since that tended to also change and evolve from month or month.... Seniority status chain standing in a Regiment then typically reflected the rank date of the Captain of a given company, rather than the Letter designation it might have...