Doesn't Pass the Common Sense Test:

[Restf]

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.

I didn't notice it when talking to my brother (KIA Mosel Iraq) but my father visited him and stated he was having nightmares. Unfortunately I wasn't able to talk to him before going back to Iraq, I found out after he deployed. Its tough stuff.

 

[Waterloo50]

I didn't notice it when talking to my brother (KIA Mosel Iraq) but my father visited him and stated he was having nightmares. Unfortunately I wasn't able to talk to him before going back to Iraq, I found out after he deployed. Its tough stuff.

I'm genuinely sorry to read about the loss of your brother, like you say, its 'tough stuff'.
Respect to you and yours.

 

[thomas aagaard]

6. Muzzleloaders are difficult to reload unless standing and the manual at arms was only taught that way.

Most drill books of the period actually do have instructions for loading kneeling and often lying down... but this was for use when in skirmish order.

In close ordered line both ranks stood up.

Even the rifled musket was a new thing.(...)
Studies made of front line American soldiers in WWII discovered that most soldiers would not intentionally aim at enemy individuals.

The rifle musket had been in use for 15 years... so not a new weapon any longer.

And Marshalls study have huge problems with his method used...
Modern studies show that most well trained soldiers do as they are drilled during combat.... the autopilot takes over. and many don't remember anything about it other than one second they where walking, and the next they where in a ditch returning fire and the combat drill was going as it should.

or as they saying goes, in combat you don't raise to the occasion, you fall to the level of your training.
(and it was rather poor for the typical civil war soldier, who never learned how to properly aim and use his weapon, at other than very close range)

the issue is not the ability to kill, but poor training and the stress of combat makes the soldier ineffective.

 

[thomas aagaard]

The rifled musket was in used during the French and Indian wars, 1 rifled musket was assigned to each of Maj. Rodgers's squad.

I believe you are confusing rifles, that was not a new weapon in the mid 18th century, with rifle muskets was was not developed until the 1840ties.

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.

Read some modern studies instead.
Marshall had a theory... and set out to prove it. And that is not how you do a serious study.

 

[Restf]

Most drill books of the period actually do have instructions for loading kneeling and often lying down... but this was for use when in skirmish order.

In close ordered line both ranks stood up.


The rifle musket had been in use for 15 years... so not a new weapon any longer.

And Marshalls study have huge problems with his method used...
Modern studies show that most well trained soldiers do as they are drilled during combat.... the autopilot takes over. and many don't remember anything about it other than one second they where walking, and the next they where in a ditch returning fire and the combat drill was going as it should.

or as they saying goes, in combat you don't raise to the occasion, you fall to the level of your training.
(and it was rather poor for the typical civil war soldier, who never learned how to properly aim and use his weapon, at other than very close range)

the issue is not the ability to kill, but poor training and the stress of combat makes the soldier ineffective.

Interesting. When we fight the battle before it is fought, the soldier will be loaded up with adrenaline, but you will think calm, cool, rational, wont feel pain, in creased strength and stamina with the added effect of adrenaline. I do not have a musket, but am looking to acquire one in order to evaluate it accuracy personally till then I wont elaborate too much due to lack of personal experience, as a rifled muzzle loader shooter they are quite accurate. I cast and shoot 525gr slugs from a smoothbore shotgun and find it to be quite accurate, so I have to assume that it is reasonable for the smoothbore musket close to that of a 12ga. shotgun.

 

[kevikens]

Interesting. When we fight the battle before it is fought, the soldier will be loaded up with adrenaline, but you will think calm, cool, rational, wont feel pain, in creased strength and stamina with the added effect of adrenaline. I do not have a musket, but am looking to acquire one in order to evaluate it accuracy personally till then I wont elaborate too much due to lack of personal experience, as a rifled muzzle loader shooter they are quite accurate. I cast and shoot 525gr slugs from a smoothbore shotgun and find it to be quite accurate, so I have to assume that it is reasonable for the smoothbore musket close to that of a 12ga. shotgun.

The recoil from a 12 gauge using slugs is more than a .58 caliber Minie ball. If your shotgun has a rifled slug barrel (some do) the accuracy is pretty similar out to somewhat over a 100-150 yards. If the barrel is smoothbore maybe to 75 yards. When I say accurate I mean a chest shot on a deer sized animal, not a bull's-eye target. The sensation of the black powder muzzle loader, to me, anyway, is more like a shove, from modern smokeless powder, a ball peen hammer blow. At the range I notice recoil, when hunting not at all. If you are looking for a shooter repro check our own site for bargains from forum members.

 

[Restf]

The recoil from a 12 gauge using slugs is more than a .58 caliber Minie ball. If your shotgun has a rifled slug barrel (some do) the accuracy is pretty similar out to somewhat over a 100-150 yards. If the barrel is smoothbore maybe to 75 yards. When I say accurate I mean a chest shot on a deer sized animal, not a bull's-eye target. The sensation of the black powder muzzle loader, to me, anyway, is more like a shove, from modern smokeless powder, a ball peen hammer blow. At the range I notice recoil, when hunting not at all. If you are looking for a shooter repro check our own site for bargains from forum members.

The use of modern powder recoil is quite different, I do expect the shotgun to shoot a fair bit better. Till I get a muket, Im looking for a black powder load data for a modern shotgun to at least use the same powder and see what the accuracy looks like.

 

[kevikens]

The use of modern powder recoil is quite different, I do expect the shotgun to shoot a fair bit better. Till I get a muket, Im looking for a black powder load data for a modern shotgun to at least use the same powder and see what the accuracy looks like.

You may find some reenactors in your area who would agree to take you out with their musket to try some live firing. Nothing beats firing a real charcoal burning smoke pole.

 

[Waterloo50]

the issue is not the ability to kill, but poor training and the stress of combat makes the soldier ineffective.

Are you serious? It is a well know fact that only a very small proportion of men 'psychopaths' can kill with complete disregard for human life, other's however require programming which is what I have already stated.

Perhaps a read of 'On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society' would be useful for you. It is an analysis of the physiological processes involved with killing another human being. In it, Grossman reveals evidence that most people have a phobia-level response to violence, and that soldiers need to be specifically trained to kill, the issue really is about the ability to kill, of course other factors have to be considered but I stand by what I say and that is that most of the men in the firing lines during the civil war subconsciously avoided killing.

 

[7thWisconsin]

SLA Marshall was a great storyteller. His books like The River and the Gauntlet, Porkchop Hill, Bastogne are all great reads. Men Against Fire, though, has been widely disputed and is no longer considered an authoritative work. In short, his highly unscientific method led to faulty results. I wouldn't trust it as a guide to how men behave in battle in the 20th century, let alone the 19th.

 

[1SGDan]

Changes in TTP's often take time to develop. The professional soldiers of the day had been trained in that style of warfare and were reluctant to change. As the war moved on changes in philosophy gradually took hold.

 

[Waterloo50]

SLA Marshall was a great storyteller. His books like The River and the Gauntlet, Porkchop Hill, Bastogne are all great reads. Men Against Fire, though, has been widely disputed and is no longer considered an authoritative work. In short, his highly unscientific method led to faulty results. I wouldn't trust it as a guide to how men behave in battle in the 20th century, let alone the 19th.

True but there are more recent and valid reports that offer a similar theory.

 

[Yankeedave]

That is what is being argued here.
It's totally essential in manuver. The object being getting a body of men on a point on the map.
The defender wants to break up these formations and their ability to function.
Invariably the defence is some smoothbore supported by infantry. This has to be reduced. Prior to the cw it was a duel between smoothbores. 500 yrd max.
The difference in the cw is lightweight effective rifled artillery. Now that range has doubled. Its increases the distance between forces and increases the distance to be covered in an attack. This decreases the likely hood that any formation will remain of the formation.
there were times when it was shoulder to shoulder and toe to toe. It took a serious set of nads.
semi-controled chaos.

 

[kevikens]

I sometimes wonder if those who have employed 'stand off weapons' in history have suffered as much hesitation or reluctance to use their weapons systems as the grunt in the tranches who often sees his foe close enough to recognize as a human being. Firing muskets into a mass of smoke is not quite the same thing as sticking a man with a bayonet as you watch him crumple in agony. You see even a lot less of the damage you cause from a B-17 at 22,000 feet than over the sights of an M1 Garand. I recall a story one of my high school teachers told about his experiences from WW II as a bombardier in a B-17. For some two years he flew missions over occupied France and Germany and from his Norden bombsight he could observe the hits over the target. He never thought much about what it was like to be on the receiving end of a string of 500 pound bombs, until one of his last missions. It was over Dresden, late in the war. The Luftwaffe was pretty much shot out of the sky and the triple A pretty light so the bombers went in low. He was in the lead aircraft and as he looked through the bombsight at low altitude he could see people clearly. The streets were packed with civilian refugees fleeing the Soviets. He then watched, mesmerized, as his ordnance exploded within the mass of humanity. He told us that he never again saw his bombing missions as ones that destroyed 'targets' and that he was very glad the war soon ended because he was beginning to doubt his ability to toggle a switch.

I am certain humans can be trained, harshly, perhaps, to deliberately kill other human beings. Maybe the Ancient Romans fostered gladiatorial games as a kind boot camp for accepting using the gladius at arms length. Certainly no centurion would tolerate a squeamish recruit in his century but as has been expressed above, killing one's fellow man probably does require a kind of training (or experience) that the average recruit of our Civil War very much needed, at least initially, as he had come from a society that had always been ambivalent about what was required to take human life. Certainly the murderous mayhem in some battles, the Bloody Angle at Spotsylvania or the Crater, show that he could kill, savagely, when he had to but I don't think it ever became comfortable for most Civil War troops to kill unless they had to. Remember that less than a year later both sides would be trading stories and sharing rations at Appomattox. Within a large population there will always be those who take to close combat as a kind of second nature but for most of us it requires an adjustment and a rearranging of priorities. How accurate SLAM Marshal's study was is debatable, but he does raise a valid point for further research. Do any readers know of any primary source material written by Civil War troops (not civilians) about any reluctance to kill on the battlefield?

 

[thomas aagaard]

Changes in TTP's often take time to develop. The professional soldiers of the day had been trained in that style of warfare and were reluctant to change. As the war moved on changes in philosophy gradually took hold.

The issue was not the professional solders stopping development. But the lack of professional soldiers.

If you look at period military thinking, Most accepted that you needed to open up the formations... Wellington often used as much as 1/3 of his infantry as skirmishers. And by 1860 the british still focused a lot on the ability to fight this way.
The french used 20% of line infantry as skirmishers. + specialized light infantry)
The Austrians used 1/3 of the men in each company as skirmishers.
Both Prussia and Denmark had changed to a heavy skirmish line as the main way of fighting... not close ordered formations.
Hell, even US drill books was designed around using 20% as skirmishers... but this idea was removed from Casey's book.

Without professional soldiers, both nco's and officers to train new regiments, there was a clear limit to how well you can train a regiment, where every man from private to COL are civilians...
And it is simply much, much easier to train men to fight in close order then in open order. And easier to control them during combat.

The result is that tactically the civil war is much closer to the 7 year war (as fought in Europe) with think lines going against each other...
Than the Napoleonic wars with it huge swarms of skirmishers used on both the offense and defense.

 

[kevikens]

The issue was not the professional solders stopping development. But the lack of professional soldiers.

If you look at period military thinking, Most accepted that you needed to open up the formations... Wellington often used as much as 1/3 of his infantry as skirmishers. And by 1860 the british still focused a lot on the ability to fight this way.
The french used 20% of line infantry as skirmishers. + specialized light infantry)
The Austrians used 1/3 of the men in each company as skirmishers.
Both Prussia and Denmark had changed to a heavy skirmish line as the main way of fighting... not close ordered formations.
Hell, even US drill books was designed around using 20% as skirmishers... but this idea was removed from Casey's book.

Without professional soldiers, both nco's and officers to train new regiments, there was a clear limit to how well you can train a regiment, where every man from private to COL are civilians...
And it is simply much, much easier to train men to fight in close order then in open order. And easier to control them during combat.

The result is that tactically the civil war is much closer to the 7 year war (as fought in Europe) with think lines going against each other...
Than the Napoleonic wars with it huge swarms of skirmishers used on both the offense and defense.

Not as the Seven Years War (French and Indian War) was fought in most of North America. Because of the heavy forests cavalry was rarely used at all and a battle like the Plains of Abraham was an anomaly. This was the war that taught the British the value of training men as light infantry and to aim at individual targets.

 

[AUG]

Do any readers know of any primary source material written by Civil War troops (not civilians) about any reluctance to kill on the battlefield?

I haven't read many accounts of ACW soldiers refusing to fire or intentionally firing into the air, and those ideas don't turn up consistently in their letters or diaries, at least that I have seen or am aware of. Have read ACW soldiers speak of how they could see so little along the firing line that they never really knew whether they hit anyone or not. When you do read of shots at individuals its usually along the skirmish line or picket line.

In the typical situation along the firing line, with all the smoke and confusion, if someone didn't want to kill they could easily intentionally miss if they wanted to without anyone noticing; however, I would imagine that while in the midst of battle most soldiers were much more concerned about their own safety than going out of their way to kill or not kill.

One account I have on hand:
Men in battle will act very differently; some become greatly excited, others remain perfectly cool. One of the boys in my rear was sitting flat on the ground and discharged his piece in the air at an angle of fort-five degrees, as fast as he could load. "Why do you shoot in the air?" I asked him. "To scare 'em," he replied. He was a pious young man, and the true reason why he did not shoot at the enemy direct, was because of his conscientious scruples on the subject. What struck me as being peculiar was that some of the boys swore energetically, who never before were heard to utter an oath.
- Corporal Henry C. Meyer with the 148th Pennsylvania Infantry at Gettysburg. Meyer, Civil War Experiences....

Major Samuel H. M. Byers of the 5th Iowa Infantry at Champion Hill:
I could not see far to left or right, the smoke of battle was covering everything. I saw bodies of our men lying near me without knowing who they were, though some of them were my messmates in the morning. The Rebels in front we could not see at all. We simply fired at their lines by guess, and occasionally the blaze of their guns showed exactly where they stood. They kept their line like a wall of fire. When I fired my first shot I had resolved to aim at somebody or something as long as I could see, and a dozen times I tired to bring down an officer I dimly saw on a gray horse before me.
http://www.battleofchampionhill.org/byers.htm

 

[kevikens]

I haven't read many accounts of ACW soldiers refusing to fire or intentionally firing into the air, and those ideas don't turn up consistently in their letters or diaries, at least that I have seen or am aware of. Have read ACW soldiers speak of how they could see so little along the firing line that they never really knew whether they hit anyone or not. When you do read of shots at individuals its usually along the skirmish line or picket line.

In the typical situation along the firing line, with all the smoke and confusion, if someone didn't want to kill they could easily intentionally miss if they wanted to without anyone noticing; however, I would imagine that while in the midst of battle most soldiers were much more concerned about their own safety than going out of their way to kill or not kill.

One account I have on hand:
Men in battle will act very differently; some become greatly excited, others remain perfectly cool. One of the boys in my rear was sitting flat on the ground and discharged his piece in the air at an angle of fort-five degrees, as fast as he could load. "Why do you shoot in the air?" I asked him. "To scare 'em," he replied. He was a pious young man, and the true reason why he did not shoot at the enemy direct, was because of his conscientious scruples on the subject. What struck me as being peculiar was that some of the boys swore energetically, who never before were heard to utter an oath.
- Corporal Henry C. Meyer with the 148th Pennsylvania Infantry at Gettysburg. Meyer, Civil War Experiences....

Major Samuel H. M. Byers of the 5th Iowa Infantry at Champion Hill:
I could not see far to left or right, the smoke of battle was covering everything. I saw bodies of our men lying near me without knowing who they were, though some of them were my messmates in the morning. The Rebels in front we could not see at all. We simply fired at their lines by guess, and occasionally the blaze of their guns showed exactly where they stood. They kept their line like a wall of fire. When I fired my first shot I had resolved to aim at somebody or something as long as I could see, and a dozen times I tired to bring down an officer I dimly saw on a gray horse before me.
http://www.battleofchampionhill.org/byers.htm

I'd hate to tell that young man from the 148th Pa. but firing a firearm at a 45 degree elevation will give its projectile maximum distance and range. He may never have seen one of his bullets hit anyone but some unlucky guy 800 yards away might have had his whole life rearranged by this kind of firing. Firing any kind of gun into the air at any angle is NOT a safe way to discharge a firearm, as some modern folks engaging in celebratory shooting have discovered.

 

[Waterloo50]

I haven't read many accounts of ACW soldiers refusing to fire or intentionally firing into the air, and those ideas don't turn up consistently in their letters or diaries, at least that I have seen or am aware of. Have read ACW soldiers speak of how they could see so little along the firing line that they never really knew whether they hit anyone or not. When you do read of shots at individuals its usually along the skirmish line or picket line.

In the typical situation along the firing line, with all the smoke and confusion, if someone didn't want to kill they could easily intentionally miss if they wanted to without anyone noticing; however, I would imagine that while in the midst of battle most soldiers were much more concerned about their own safety than going out of their way to kill or not kill.

One account I have on hand:
Men in battle will act very differently; some become greatly excited, others remain perfectly cool. One of the boys in my rear was sitting flat on the ground and discharged his piece in the air at an angle of fort-five degrees, as fast as he could load. "Why do you shoot in the air?" I asked him. "To scare 'em," he replied. He was a pious young man, and the true reason why he did not shoot at the enemy direct, was because of his conscientious scruples on the subject. What struck me as being peculiar was that some of the boys swore energetically, who never before were heard to utter an oath.
- Corporal Henry C. Meyer with the 148th Pennsylvania Infantry at Gettysburg. Meyer, Civil War Experiences....

Major Samuel H. M. Byers of the 5th Iowa Infantry at Champion Hill:
I could not see far to left or right, the smoke of battle was covering everything. I saw bodies of our men lying near me without knowing who they were, though some of them were my messmates in the morning. The Rebels in front we could not see at all. We simply fired at their lines by guess, and occasionally the blaze of their guns showed exactly where they stood. They kept their line like a wall of fire. When I fired my first shot I had resolved to aim at somebody or something as long as I could see, and a dozen times I tired to bring down an officer I dimly saw on a gray horse before me.
http://www.battleofchampionhill.org/byers.htm

I wonder if the guilt associated with killing is why some firing squads were issued at least one rifle with a blank round, in fact, I have read that some WW1 firing squads only issued 2 live rounds in an 8 man squad, apparently there were several occasions when the officer would have to use his pistol because the firing squad failed to do the job, the officer would normally have to carry out the coup de grace and this happened on more than one occasion.