Doesn't Pass the Common Sense Test:

[Restf]

http://www.american-firearms.com/american-firearms/z-html/company-R/Robbins & Lawrence/Robbins & Lawrence.html

Appreciate the link

 

[mofederal]

It took guts to stand on the line of fire. They were trained to do so, after all linear formations is how wars were fought, but there were skirmishers, and other innovations, the start of trench warfare. Y uncle who was an infantryman in WWII said you shot to kill, because they were trying to kill you. SLA Marshall got it wrong, he was the one who pushed this theory, but upon talking to surviving G.I., in the 70's and 80's, an ex infantry captain found that Marshall's theory was garbage. Some may not have shot to kill, but many did. He published the whole story in the 80's. Marshall it seems had secrets of his own. He claimed he was an infantryman in WWI, he was not. The shoot to wound or miss theory was his baby. He fabricated the whole theory, and many in the infantry community were not happy.

 

[Cavalry Charger]

Another thing is most soldiers will not intentionally aim at an enemy. The notion in the British army up into the Napoleonic wars was that aiming was murder. If everyone just pretty much fires in the general direction, it is seen as fair. Death is a matter of statistics.

Studies made of front line American soldiers in WWII discovered that most soldiers would not intentionally aim at enemy individuals. Soldiers have to be conditioned to do so. Our soldiers now do this. The problem is that most soldiers believe that killing is wrong. They come back after combat with severe psychological problems like PTSD. Apparently, teaching people to kill is easy. Teaching them how to survive doing so is not. Our military can teach them to kill. But our military has not figured out how to teach their killers how to bear the guilt and trauma of killing.

When I created a thread about the death of General John Sedgewick, others posted about the sniper who killed him. One, who was thought to have fired the fatal shot, made the claim that 'this rifle' killed poor old Uncle John. I picked that up at the time, and thought it very interesting...the way he said the rifle, and not he, had killed Sedgewick.

 

[Yankeedave]

Im somewhere in the middle on this. Paintings show neat lines and volleys. A yank wrote home saying dont beleive that. It isnt like that. D. H. Hill wrote that reb battle lines were "crooked as a ram's horn".
File closer's talk of how the men, after firing, would step back to load and not quite return to the line to fire. The file closer's said they fought a constant retrograde movement of the firing line.
The rifle you fire may not be yours and you may not have loaded it. Have read of the line being behind some defensible spot, some loaders, some fire.
Add the artillery to the mix. How long is that line going last? Pickett/Pettigrew using linier formations got wrecked by the artillery at gburg.
Most infantry fights involved one force moving on another. The defender is invariably hunkered down not standing in an open field. It's the attacker who runs the risk of being in the open. When contact is made the defender may rise and each side pump's volleys into the other. These fights dont last long.
Shoulder to shoulder happened but under certain circumstances.
Kind of like this: Form unit in field. Fire blindly into woods 150 yrds away. Have someone mortar your position steadily. Have a single machine gunner fire on your position. The line will break.
The attempt by leaders was to close the distance quickly.

 

[Waterloo50]

Despite much nonsense being written about the British soldier from that period he was better trained, armed and supplied than his Continental counterpart and generally could be expected to defeat anything like equal numbers on any battlefield against anybody's army.

I would give you 10/10 for that statement alone.

 

[kevikens]

I would give you 10/10 for that statement alone.

Thanks. When I used to do reenacting of the Revolutionary War one of the regiments I belonged to was the 43rd of Foot. Our commander insisted that we learn what went into the making of a regular British soldier, including getting everything right from the appearance of our uniform and kit to the proper manual of arms. Many of the regiment's members went to the UK in the 1980's with all their gear, including Brown Bess muskets, and I recall hearing of a gentleman from the linear descendent of the 43rd (Green Jackets Ox and Bucks ?). The 43rd, in full kit, complete with goat skin packs, visited that regiment and put on a bit of a drill and tactical for them. It was at dawn and the regiment marched over a rise out of a rising sun evaporating a fine mist, with drums beating and one loud fifer. That gentleman approached the regiment with tears in his eyes that someone would still recall the original regiment that became his own. He secured neckties for each member and he said that only members of the present regiment should wear but the 43rd had rightfully earned for itself. That told me a great deal about the traditions of a British regiment and helped me to learn a great deal about the 18th century British Soldier. Later on I was accosted by a gentleman on the streets of London who asked me how I got that tie and I was delighted to tell him. And so a toast to the 43rd. "To bloody battles and deadly plagues and the promotions that follow".

 

[Waterloo50]

Thanks. When I used to do reenacting of the Revolutionary War one of the regiments I belonged to was the 43rd of Foot. Our commander insisted that we learn what went into the making of a regular British soldier, including getting everything right from the appearance of our uniform and kit to the proper manual of arms. Many of the regiment's members went to the UK in the 1980's with all their gear, including Brown Bess muskets, and I recall hearing of a gentleman from the linear descendent of the 43rd (Green Jackets Ox and Bucks ?). The 43rd, in full kit, complete with goat skin packs, visited that regiment and put on a bit of a drill and tactical for them. It was at dawn and the regiment marched over a rise out of a rising sun evaporating a fine mist, with drums beating and one loud fifer. That gentleman approached the regiment with tears in his eyes that someone would still recall the original regiment that became his own. He secured neckties for each member and he said that only members of the present regiment should wear but the 43rd had rightfully earned for itself. That told me a great deal about the traditions of a British regiment and helped me to learn a great deal about the 18th century British Soldier. Later on I was accosted by a gentleman on the streets of London who asked me how I got that tie and I was delighted to tell him. And so a toast to the 43rd. "To bloody battles and deadly plagues and the promotions that follow".

Fascinating and very interesting to read that there is an interest in the USA with British regiments, I have seen a few vids of American reenactors in Brit uniform and I think that its excellent that people get to see how the British looked and drilled and why not, The British military is just as much a part of your history as it is mine. Nice one.
The 43rd of foot eventually joined along with the 52nd of foot, my GG Grandfather was an Infantryman for 22 years with the 52nd at Waterloo. I believe that the 52nd and 43rd along with another Infantry regiment eventually formed the Light Infantry Brigade which was under the command of Sir John Moore, as history has a habit of repeating itself, I eventually joined the Light Infantry Regiment and I did my basic training at Sir John Moore Barracks. Our cap badge was the silver bugle with a red felt background, I still have it today.

 

[kevikens]

Fascinating and very interesting to read that there is an interest in the USA with British regiments, I have seen a few vids of American reenactors in Brit uniform and I think that its excellent that people get to see how the British looked and drilled and why not, The British military is just as much a part of your history as it is mine. Nice one.
The 43rd of foot eventually joined along with the 52nd of foot, my GG Grandfather was an Infantryman for 22 years with the 52nd at Waterloo. I believe that the 52nd and 43rd along with another Infantry regiment eventually formed the Light Infantry Brigade which was under the command of Sir John Moore, as history has a habit of repeating itself, I eventually joined the Light Infantry Regiment and I did my basic training at Sir John Moore Barracks. Our cap badge was the silver bugle with a red felt background, I still have it today.

I am so glad you do. I am certain some good memories attach themselves to that cap badge. By the way one item I have in my artifact collection is a Brown Bess bayonet with the regiment and company markings and this regiment(Seventh, Company A) fought at Germantown in October of 1777 and at Monmouth Court House in June of 1778, both pretty close to where I live. I hope it only frightened a few Continentals.

 

[Waterloo50]

I am so glad you do. I am certain some good memories attach themselves to that cap badge. By the way one item I have in my artifact collection is a Brown Bess bayonet with the regiment and company markings and this regiment(Seventh, Company A) fought at Germantown in October of 1777 and at Monmouth Court House in June of 1778, both pretty close to where I live. I hope it only frightened a few Continentals.

One final question, what kind of reaction do the Brits get from the spectators. I watched a parade in the USA of a Brit infantry regiment and they were booed the entire length of the town, it was all in good fun though.

 

[kevikens]

One final question, what kind of reaction do the Brits get from the spectators. I watched a parade in the USA of a Brit infantry regiment and they were booed the entire length of the town, it was all in good fun though.

Good natured bantering. Nothing more and certainly among the older set some fond memories of staunch allies. Among the younger set probably more bemused than anything else. I don't think there is any other nationality who Americans are more comfortable with, except perhaps Canadians, who may not even be seen as foreign. I am a volunteer docent at the Indian King Tavern Museum in Haddonfield, NJ and we have many Brits come through the museum. The tavern was the headquarters of the local Committee of Safety at the start of the Revolution and served as the capital of the State of New Jersey for a while during the war. I wear one of my uniforms and the one I most often wear if that of Rogers Rangers, a provincial regiment during the Seven years War. The coat is forest green and cut more like a coat of 1760 than 1775 and it allows me to make my UK visitors comfortable without upsetting my patriotic Whig friends. This regiment was reactivated during the Revolutionary War as a Loyalist regiment and you may know its commander, John Graves Simcoe. If you google that historic site you may catch one of the videos showing uniforms of various regiments who come to that site and perhaps yours truly in his green jacket. In addition, on occasion the 42nd, the Black Watch, performs on this side of the pond and they are always cheered and applauded.

 

[civilken]

I certainly understand what you're saying it sounds insane that they would do this. But you must remember the times and thinking of the men standing next to each other to his right could be his father and his brother or his uncle and just as much all the men from his town how could he not much forward. To think he would rather be dead than have someone tell his parents or wife he was a coward that idea for those men would have been worse than death itself. It was truly one for all and all for one.

 

[AUG]

Im somewhere in the middle on this. Paintings show neat lines and volleys. A yank wrote home saying dont beleive that. It isnt like that. D. H. Hill wrote that reb battle lines were "crooked as a ram's horn".
File closer's talk of how the men, after firing, would step back to load and not quite return to the line to fire. The file closer's said they fought a constant retrograde movement of the firing line.

A couple good accounts of what combat was like, or at least the best that they could describe it.

Once engaged, the soldier's attention is too much taken up with delivering his fire effectively to give heed to much else – it is hard work and hot work, in the literal, no less than in the figurative, sense, and extremely dirty work withal. The lips become caked with powder grime from biting the twist of cartridges, and after one or two rounds the hands are blackened and smeared from handling the rammer; the sweat streams down and has to be cleared from the eyes in order to see the sights of the rifle, and the grime is transferred from hands to face. Think you of a gang of coal-heavers who have just finished putting in a winter's supply ordered by some provident householder in midsummer, and you get a fair impression of troops at the end of a day's fighting. The line soon loses all semblance of regular formation; the companies have become merely groups of men, loading and firing and taking advantage of any accident of ground – natural depression, tree, rock, even a pile of fence rails that will give protection. But if the soldier is about where he belongs – to the right or left of the regimental colors, according to the normal place of his company in line – he feels reasonably sure of resuming formation whenever the command may come to "cease firing" and to "dress on colors" preparatory to an advance or charge. If the latter, though the move may begin in perfect order, it is almost immediately lost.

- Allen C. Redwood (55th Virginia Infantry), Photographic History of the Civil War, Vol 8.

Since I am writing this as a heirloom for Benson 1963 which I hope will go down amongst my descendants for a long time, and since amongst those there will be many who will go through life without ever experiencing the excitement of battle, and who, unless they imbibe very different ideas of these things from what I did in my boyhood, before I had seen for myself, may get quite false notions in regard to it, I want to try to tell something of how the fighting really goes on. I supposed a battle was carried on in the order and style of first-class drill, knees all bent at the same angle and at the same moment, guns leveled on a line that was even as a floor, and every trigger pulled at one moment making a single report.

For a battle is not a drillroom, nor is battle an occasion for drill, and there is the merest semblance of order maintained. I say semblance of order, for there is an undercurrent of order in tried troops that surpasses that of the drillroom; — it is that order that springs from the confidence that comrades have in each other, from the knowledge that these messmates of yours, whether they stand or lie upon the ground, close together or scattered apart, in front of you three paces, or in rear of you six, in the open or behind a tree or a rock, — that these, though they do not 'touch elbows to the right,' are nevertheless keeping dressed upon the colors in some rough fashion, and that the line will not move forward and leave them there, nor will they move back and leave the line.

A battle is entered into, mostly, in as good order and with as close a drill front as the nature of the ground will permit, but at the first "pop! pop!" of the rifles there comes a sudden loosening of the ranks, a freeing of selves from impediment of contact, and every man goes to fighting on his own hook; firing as, and when he likes, and reloading as fast as he fires. He takes shelter wherever he can find it, so he does not get too far away from his Co., and his officers will call his attention to this should he move too far. He may stand up, he may kneel down, he may lie down, it is all right; — tho' mostly the men keep standing, except when silent under fire — then they lie down.

And it is not officers alone who give orders, the command to charge may come from a private in the line whose quick eye sees the opportunity, and who's order brooks then no delay. Springing forward, he shouts 'charge, boys, charge!' The line catches his enthusiasm, answers with yells and fallows him in the charge. Generally it is a wild and spontaneous cry from many throats along the line, readily evoked by the least sign of wavering in the enemy.

A battle is too busy a time, and too absorbing, to admit of a great deal of talk, still you hear such remarks and questions as 'How many cartridges you got?' — 'My gun's getting mighty dirty.' — 'What's become of Jones?' — 'Looky here, Butler, mind how you shoot; that ball didn't miss my head two inches.' 'Just keep cool, will you; I've got better sense than to shoot anybody.' 'Well, I don't like your standing so close behind me, nohow.' — 'I say, look at Lieut. Dyson behind that tree.' — 'Purty rough fight, ain't it Cap'n?' — 'Cap'n, don't you think we better move up a little, just along that knoll?' — all this mixed and mingled with fearful yells, and maybe curses too, at the enemy.

And a charge looks just as disorderly. With a burst of yells, a long, wavering, loose jointed line sweeps rapidly forward, only now and then one or two stopping to fire, while here and there drop the killed and wounded; the slightly wounded, some of them, giving no heed but rushing on, while others run hurriedly, half-bent, to the rear. The colors drop, are seized again, — again drop, and are again lifted, no man in reach daring to pass them by on the ground. — colors, not bright and whole and clean as when they came fresh from the white embroidering fingers, but since clutched in the storm of battle with grimy, bloody hands, and torn into shreds by shot and shell."

- Berry Benson (Gregg's 1st South Carolina Infantry and later Dunlop's Sharpshooter Battalion), Memoirs of a Confederate Scout and Sharpshooter, 22-23.

 

[Yankeedave]

Allen C. Redwood (55th Virginia Infantry)

Since you quoted Redwood i thought i'd illustrate it with his drawing of him and his relatives and townsmen etc. fighting around McPherson's Barn, Gettysburg, afternoon July one.

There is some firmation some not. If you get stuck on one concept and can not adapt the enemy will make you.

 

[Waterloo50]

After 20+ years in the "Profession At Arms" I still cannot wrap my mind around the act of standing in an open field on line facing another line throwing volleys at each other. Why didn't they change battle from lessons learned during the King Phillips/French & Indian and Revolution, course the exception is snipers and cannon/mortar use. Any known reasons?

Something that we get told quite often is that a reasonably large proportion of troops almost never fire their weapons and only a small proportion even fire towards the enemy. In 1947 there was a large study carried out in the United States, General S.L.A Marshall interviewed a number of troops that had fought during WW2 and what he discovered was, that fewer than a quarter of the troops ever fired their weapons in the direction of the enemy when they were in a position to do so. The troops at the front that were in a position to shoot didn't most of the time, he also discovered that 1% of fighter pilots accounted for 50% of fighter pilot kills in the American Army Air force and that the other 99% of pilots were responsible for the other 50% of enemy kills. General Marshall's research showed that modern military forces were relying on only a small number of men to do the killing. Also from his research it was shown that only 2% of men actually shot to kill, these were men that deliberately and knowingly put their sights on the enemy with the intention of killing.
There have been many similar incidents throughout history, during the American Civil War there were incidents of men reporting paralysis of their trigger hand, they just couldn't bring themselves to fire their weapon and during WW1 German troops referred to trigger finger frost bite.

Test were also carried out for the musket period, one particular test was carried out in the 1700's in Prussia and some surprising results happened, the test was based upon a battalion that were ordered to fire their muskets at a target, the target was a length of white cloth which was pegged out to the same height as a man and it covered the length of a battalion firing line. The firing line was in three ranks and the men were ordered to take one volley shot only at the target, when the firing was finished they counted the holes in the target, they counted approximately 500 hits from all of the men in the battalion, they wanted to compare the test results with the results that they were getting under battlefield conditions. It turned out that under battlefield conditions the same men were scoring '3' hits for every volley, they were puzzled as to why so few kills were being made, they made allowances for things like smoke, noise and fear and the fact that the men were being shot at but that still wouldn't explain why only 3 hits were on average being made.

The conclusion from the tests were that just as in WW2 the men didn't really want to kill anybody and that the men were subconsciously aiming high, in other words these firing lines had 'aimed to miss', nobody wanted to kill, they just wanted the opposing side to leave, it was a case of making noise and hoping that the other side would walk away.
There are a great many reports from WW1 where small groups of soldiers would accidently walk into their enemy and rather than shooting at each other there would be a verbal exchange and then the men would put down their rifles and look for something to throw, a rock or piece of metal, it never occurred to them to use their rifles, this happened because it is not a normal reaction to shoot someone dead, what men tend to do is posture shout and intimidate, killing is always the very last resort. It wasn't until the military discovered conditioned reflex that that things really began to change. Prior to ww2 the targets that the men trained with were square pieces of wood or card but with the introduction of conditioned reflex the military introduced 'human shaped targets' it wasn't just how straight the soldiers could shoot but also how willing they were to shoot at other men. By the start of the Korean war the military had managed to increase the men's ability to kill without question up to about 50%, by the 1980's the British army had managed to increase the men's ability to shoot at the enemy to 95% and by the 1990's the USA had managed to train their men to kill by 95%.

So here's my point, the vast majority of those men in civil war firing lines (both sides) didn't want to kill, only a small percentage (2%) were capable of killing, what appears to us to be complete madness was in fact far more complex than men just standing opposite each other and facing certain death.
If you are interested in the psychology of war then I could recommend a book called 'Men against Fire, the problem of Battle Command'. written by S.L.A Marshall.

 

[kevikens]

I recall reading about this some years ago and being astounded by SLAM's findings. This may help to explain something else I recall from a work of the 1970's titled something like "War in the Age of Reason" which I found equally baffling. The observer reports watching two battalions approaching each other, one an Austrian force, the other Ottoman. Neither fired until within spitting distance of each other and then one side unleashed a volley from hundreds of muskets. The observer counted 33 bodies on the ground after the other side broke and ran off. At that range just pointing the muskets in the general direction of their opponents should have brought down more than that. Perhaps in that encounter there were not more than forty or fifty soldiers who really wanted to kill the enemy. Maybe all those reports of it requiring a man's weight in lead to kill him did not emanate so much from inaccuracy of their arms or their eyesight but their reluctance to kill other soldiers. Had the Confederacy an army of Nathan Bedford Forests the war might have turned out differently.

 

[Restf]

Interesting read. The act of intentional killing or creating serious bodily harm on another is not easy, I believe it's because one has go against taught consciousness (spelling?) from birth. Consciousness is not natural act its taught, being taught not to hurt another/punished for hurting another is ingrained. Every time I leveled a firearm on a threat, one gets the most sickening feeling in the stomach. Im sure those who were in the "Profession At Arms" knows the feeling and had to overcome it. It is only preferable to wound the enemy if they evacuate the wounded, for every wounded it takes two more enemy off the field. If they don't evacuate wounded you have to incapacitate as many as possible by any means possible. Not everyone can do it.

 

[Waterloo50]

Interesting read. The act of intentional killing or creating serious bodily harm on another is not easy, I believe it's because one has go against taught consciousness (spelling?) from birth. Consciousness is not natural act its taught, being taught not to hurt another/punished for hurting another is ingrained. Every time I leveled a firearm on a threat, one gets the most sickening feeling in the stomach. Im sure those who were in the "Profession At Arms" knows the feeling and had to overcome it. It is only preferable to wound the enemy if they evacuate the wounded, for every wounded it takes two more enemy off the field. If they don't evacuate wounded you have to incapacitate as many as possible by any means possible. Not everyone can do it.

I think that's why the number of men that can become snipers is also very small, many soldiers possess the skills to become snipers but its only a small minority that can pull the trigger. Its true that we have a sense of right and wrong, killing is not a natural behaviour for humans. There were a number of cases during WW2 when British troops in France were ordered to hold the line or a position, many newly arrived Brit troops could see the enemy but they didn't fire, the reason given for not engaging the enemy was normally because it hadn't occurred to them to kill, in their minds they were simply following orders 'hold the line', if the enemy weren't a threat then the Brits just sat and observed.

 

[Waterloo50]

I recall reading about this some years ago and being astounded by SLAM's findings. This may help to explain something else I recall from a work of the 1970's titled something like "War in the Age of Reason" which I found equally baffling. The observer reports watching two battalions approaching each other, one an Austrian force, the other Ottoman. Neither fired until within spitting distance of each other and then one side unleashed a volley from hundreds of muskets. The observer counted 33 bodies on the ground after the other side broke and ran off. At that range just pointing the muskets in the general direction of their opponents should have brought down more than that. Perhaps in that encounter there were not more than forty or fifty soldiers who really wanted to kill the enemy. Maybe all those reports of it requiring a man's weight in lead to kill him did not emanate so much from inaccuracy of their arms or their eyesight but their reluctance to kill other soldiers. Had the Confederacy an army of Nathan Bedford Forests the war might have turned out differently.

I really do believe that human conditioning would be a reason why there were so few deaths in face to face firing lines, especially given that most of the men fighting in the ACW had limited military experience and limited training, you only have to look at the massive increase in the killing ability of modern soldiers compared to their CW counterparts, from 2% killing ability to a 95% killing ability in the first Gulf War. The down side of course is that we still haven't managed to work out how to deactivate the reflex killing instinct which the military use, that could in some way explain why we see a higher incidence of recorded PTSD.

 

[Restf]

I really do believe that human conditioning would be a reason why there were so few deaths in face to face firing lines, especially given that most of the men fighting in the ACW had limited military experience and limited training, you only have to look at the massive increase in the killing ability of modern soldiers compared to their CW counterparts, from 2% killing ability to a 95% killing ability in the first Gulf War. The down side of course is that we still haven't managed to work out how to deactivate the reflex killing instinct which the military use, that could in some way explain why we see a higher incidence of recorded PTSD.

I wonder if its the inability to detach oneself from the act of knowingly killed others, kind of like a light switch turn it on turn it off. At work we put on the war paint, one's persona changes and have the ability to kill without question or hesitations, then at home turn it off and become the routine mom/dad, neighbor ect...

 

[Waterloo50]

I wonder if its the inability to detach oneself from the act of knowingly killed others, kind of like a light switch turn it on turn it off. At work we put on the war paint, one's persona changes and have the ability to kill without question or hesitations, then at home turn it off and become the routine mom/dad, neighbor ect...

That's exactly what it is, I worked for years in a professional role with ex-military PTSD sufferers, when these men return home they go through a transition and they try to take on a different persona, they try to pick up where they had left from, in combat they face horrors that most people in civilian life will never have to experience but within days of returning home they are expected to adjust to the relative security and certainty of civilian life. Some men and women are able to detach themselves from the combat that they have experienced but for others the images and memories have a tendency to linger 'flash backs' you then get situations where servicemen then self medicate with illicit drugs and alcohol. The problem is that the military spend years training people how to kill but they haven't quite worked out how to flick the switch back to normal. I've lost count of the families that I have met who told me that their 'father, brother etc.' never talked about their experiences, I think most of us know or have known men like that. PTSD is not always about what the men experienced but more often than not its about guilt. What became normal in combat often appears inconceivable in civilian life, Its all very sad.