Picket Placement

[Reconstructed Rebel]

basically all military manuals in use during the 1850-65 period was based on European manuals.
Sometimes direct translations (like the drill books that do tell you to use the teeth to tear the cartridge)
others where based on two or more books.
(some of the books on marksmanship come to mind)

By the later part of the war the most common book for the federals on outposts and pickets was "made" by Daniel Butterfield.
As he writs in the preface. "selections have been made from the orders of Crawfords's division of the British army, MacDougall's "the theory of war, and from the pamphlet issued by the war department on cavalry outpost duty."

It is one of the big criticisms I got of the prewar US army.
All of its drill, tactics and similar was based on the French. For fighting large scale wars in Europe.
This obviously became pretty useful when the civil war broke out, but it was mostly irrelevant for what the army was during in the decade leading up to the war. Where a handbook on hw to take 30 men and fight 10 bandits, Indians or Mexicans would be more useful, than a book on how a battalion of infantry fight of cavalry in the open fields of Europe.

This is the man to listen to!
I was referring to some earlier threads debating whether or not teeth were required and how many. (Union, yes to that; Confederate, no) But that source had nothing to do with picket placement or tactics. Thanks for the correction and apologies for my confusion.

The need of a work on enlisting and discharging soldiers, written with especial reference to the wants of the military service, at the present time, renders an apology for the appearance of this book unnecessary. Tripler's Manual, and Henderson on the Examination of Recruits, although very excellent, are scarcely complete enough to suit the present emergency in military affairs. The deficiencies in these, the only American authorities, are not supplied by the works of foreign military medico-legal writers, — our military system differing in many material respects from the military systems of other nations. I have availed myself freely of the labors of such of these foreign writers as were accessible, whenever their material was suitable to my purpose, and have drawn upon my own observation and experience, — which have not been inconsiderable.
Source:

https://archive.org/details/62430200R.nlm.nih.gov/page/n4/mode/1up

 

[thomas aagaard]

using the teeth is a holdover from the flintlock musket.
When loading a flintlock musket you are holding the gun with the left hand at the prime position (since you prime with power from the cartridge and then load the rest), when you open the cartridge. So you need to use the teeth to open it.

With a percussion musket you hold the musket in the load position since you open the cartridge and then pour all the powder down the barrel. Here you can use the fingers of the left hand.

The british had decided to take this into account and changed their manual of arms.
(with the whole Issue with rebellion in India being a factor)

The French in their 1845 drill had not. And as such their way is found in the US civil war drill books.
(the danish army also still used the teeth)

 

[Reconstructed Rebel]

using the teeth is a holdover from the flintlock musket.
When loading a flintlock musket you are holding the gun with the left hand at the prime position (since you prime with power from the cartridge and then load the rest), when you open the cartridge. So you need to use the teeth to open it.

With a percussion musket you hold the musket in the load position since you open the cartridge and then pour all the powder down the barrel. Here you can use the fingers of the left hand.

The british had decided to take this into account and changed their manual of arms.
(with the whole Issue with rebellion in India being a factor)

The French in their 1845 drill had not. And as such their way is found in the US civil war drill books.
(the danish army also still used the teeth)

Not to hijack this thread - but I thought it was you who pointed out in one of those threads that the British had to use a specific grade of paper for cartridges you could tear with your fingers. At the start of our CW, in the rush to provide ammunition asap, it was decided that refitting the paper mills to produce this special paper would be too time consuming, so our war was fought by the Union with cartridges that needed to be torn with the teeth. I'm not sure if the Confederacy was supplied with tearable cartridges from England.

But that is a topic for another thread. Apologies again.

 

[CaptSpook]

Pickets were simply outposts, "tripwires" to warn of an approaching enemy.

U.S. Army Regulations of 1861, pp 87-89, describes in fair detail pickets, police guards, and grand guards.

Key to understanding the intent of picket duty is on page 89, para 615. "In detached corps, small posts of picked men are at night sent forward on the roads by which the enemy may attack or turn the position. They watch the forks of the roads, keep silence, conceal themselves, light no fires, and often change place. They announce the approach of the enemy by signals agreed upon, and retreat, by routes examined during the day, to places selected, and rejoin the guard at daybreak."

Generally, pickets are part of the Grand Guard, as described in the Regulations. Their distance out from the main body of an army depends on a number of factors. "The sentinels and vedettes are placed on points from which they can see farthest, taking care not to break their connection with each other or with their posts. They are concealed from the enemy as much as possible by walls, or trees, or elevated ground. It is generally even of more advantage not to be seen than to see far. They should not be placed near covers, where the enemy may capture them".

The Regulations continue to describe the responsibilities of various battalion authorities in selecting, placing, rejoining, and so on grand guards, pickets and vedettes.

In actual practice, I think it's safe to say that pickets, despite the formality offered by regulations, were deployed by officers as far forward of a main body of troops as to provide sufficient warning of an approaching enemy. Good sense would dictate how far forward that would be. Terrain would play a major role, and also, the opposing force expected to be lurking beyond your lines.

 

[Chalmers' Division]

I can't speak to any standard, but it makes sense that cavalry pickets were placed farther out due to the speed of horses and their ability to retreat or deliver messages faster.

Absent horse transportation, my placement of pickets would depend on geography and how fast those pickets could reasonably notify the main camp of an attack or raid. And that may literally come down to: "How fast can you run a mile?"

"How fast can you run a mile"--- 20 years ago--- 6:04 mile, 12:12 two miles, three miles, 18:28.... Today--- thinking about smoked ribs and ice cold beer--- not running miles anymore. HAHAHA. You bring up a valid point, though--- distance and communication. I suppose shots would give away positions, but I am curious about orders for opening up upon sight of the enemy on picket duty... Interesting.

 

[Nathan Stuart]

Believe pickets were relatively smaller size units of infantry soldiers who were typically posted in a scattered line in front of the mass troop formation. Their function was to guard and/or warn in the event of an enemy attack.

Thought the distances of their discretionary deployment in advance of the main force could generally be measured as hundreds, not thousands, of yards out front. (For any deployment, it was necessary for pickets to be practicably able to maintain contact with the main force). The distance of deployment (from the main body) in any situation would depend on specific factors like terrain, weather etc..

 

[Peace Society]

Browsing through the thread: The Perilous Picket Post, distances forward ranged from three quarter mile, to two miles, two and a half, and even 5 miles!