Realistic Battle Scenes

[John Winn]

Would a Confederate soldier have called out "corpsman" when looking for medical help for his buddy?

No. Somehow I'd missed that. Well, OK, so it's not so accurate after all. Quoting Gilda Radner "never mind."

 

[Lost Cause]

I have been watching a lot of ACW battle scenes and I am wondering if the battle scene in 'Wicked Spring', Wilderness Battle, could be considered as one of the most authentic movie ACW battle scenes. I think that the battle in this particular scene manages to convey a sense of confusion and panic which is what I imagine these types of battles would have been like. I am interested to know if anyone thinks that there is a more realistic or historically accurate scene out there.

Regards

Waterloo

The opening scene of the Battle of Antietam during Glory had a realism to the War's brutality.

 

[Waterloo50]

No. Somehow I'd missed that. Well, OK, so it's not so accurate after all. Quoting Gilda Radner "never mind."

I need educating, why wouldn't a confederate soldier call for a corpsman, corpse man?

Waterloo

 

[Legion Para]

I need educating, why wouldn't a confederate soldier call for a corpsman, corpse man?

Waterloo

The term 'Corpsman' is used by the United States Sea Services, not the United States Army. To the best of my knowledge, the term 'Corpsman' as we know it today, did not exist during the Civil War.

 

[Patrick H]

I wondered about "corpsman" too. I don't have an answer. This is the first time I've seen this scene. On the whole, I liked it a lot. I agree that a lot of the horrible wounds were implied rather than actually shown (we did see a boy getting his foot nearly blown off at the outset). I think the confusion of the battlefield was pretty well depicted here. Imagine trying to stay organized in a fairly densely wooded area like that, where you can barely see the other end of your own platoon--let alone the rest of your company or brigade.

 

[John Winn]

I need educating, why wouldn't a confederate soldier call for a corpsman, corpse man?

Waterloo

What @Legion Para said. A naval medical corps wasn't established until the Spanish American war and that's when "corpsman" came to mean a medic.

In the CW there were no medics in the field. After the battle there'd be stretcher bearers assigned to go find the wounded who weren't able to get back to a field hospital but they weren't medically trained. If you got hit you were on your own basically. Some guys carried tourniquets with them (like the ones the surgeons used) hoping to maybe survive a hit to a limb. I think it amazing that as many survived as they did.

 

[AUG]

I need educating, why wouldn't a confederate soldier call for a corpsman, corpse man?

Waterloo

Well, first of all, 'corpsman' is particularly a Naval term; a corpsman is a medical specialist in the US Navy Hospital Corps. Someone in the US Army today would call for a medic, not a corpsman. But back then there were no medics, however, there were 'ambulance corpsmen' from the Ambulance Corps, who served as stretcher-bearers and brought the wounded back to the field hospital. But ACW soldiers were not known to call out for "corpsman" as they might today.

 

[M.Warren]

What @Legion Para said. A naval medical corps wasn't established until the Spanish American war and that's when "corpsman" came to mean a medic.

Indeed. 1898 I believe. Loblolly boy, nurse, bayman, then corpsman came around the turn of the 20th century.

 

[Waterloo50]

I wondered about "corpsman" too. I don't have an answer. This is the first time I've seen this scene. On the whole, I liked it a lot. I agree that a lot of the horrible wounds were implied rather than actually shown (we did see a boy getting his foot nearly blown off at the outset). I think the confusion of the battlefield was pretty well depicted here. Imagine trying to stay organized in a fairly densely wooded area like that, where you can barely see the other end of your own platoon--let alone the rest of your company or brigade.

I think that I like this particular scene because its how I imagine a battle to be. I spent some time once with a veteran from Dunkirk, he told me that when he was being shot at he never know where the shot came from, he said that he wanted to dig a hole in the sand with his bare hands and hide. The point is, there is a moment in the scene where a soldiers looks around, you can see that he is scared and not sure where to turn next. I would probably do the same if I found myself in a similar situation.

 

[Patrick H]

Yes, there are a good mix of human reactions shown in this scene--from utter confusion to utter calmness. I'm unfamiliar with the scene. What's it from?

 

[Waterloo50]

I think the British troops of the same period would have called for either an Orderly or Stretcher Bearer. Medic sounds like a WW2 term.

Waterloo

 

[ole]

I was mightily impressed with that when I first saw it. I think it does portray how it likely really was more than other movies. The only criticism I have is that all the artillery incoming explodes on the ground which I don't think is accurate for a number of reasons (which I will spare you enumerating). For an independent B movie the whole thing's really pretty darn good IMO.

Shells that exploded on impact were used at Gettysburg. It makes sense that they were in wider use almost a year later.

 

[Waterloo50]

Yes, there are a good mix of human reactions shown in this scene--from utter confusion to utter calmness. I'm unfamiliar with the scene. What's it from?

Hi,

The scene is taken from a Movie called 'Wicked Spring'

I have to be honest about this film, It didn't get great reviews, most people complained about the lack of a decent plot, however, it did get great reviews from Civil war buffs because of its accuracy with the battle scenes and the uniforms were apparently very good. Strange bunch of people these Civil War buffs, they only seem to be worried about historical accuracy. Who would have thought it?

Waterloo









Waterloo

 

[Poor Sharecropper's Son]

Great observations throughout. We do tend to romanticize the war but yes it was a bloody savage mess. And consider that as bad as the battlefields were, more men died from disease back at camp than from combat. So add that to your reenactment protocol too

 

[MajGenl.Meade]

I think the point about artillery shell explosions is that ground hits were quite rare. They were fused to burst above the heads of troops, spreading shrapnel down and around. In the Wilderness there were many reports noting the explosions high up in the trees, sending fragments of shell and vicious wood splinters flying. Also, were there that many opportunities for cannon in densely wooded areas?

I thought the scene was highly effective in terms of the confusion, the lack of understanding of what exactly was happening nearby, and the general tone. I'm not so sure there would have been that many bayonets attached... among other nitpicks. Seems to me we don't need to get more blood-and-guts depictions but we would prefer greater accuracy in weapons, uniforms, actual events and people, etc.

OTOH all we need to do is get Quentin Tarantino to direct a remake of Gettysburg and we'll probably not notice any of those details for all the blood! I can't imagine a Spaghetti-Rebellion movie!

 

[John Winn]

Shells that exploded on impact were used at Gettysburg. It makes sense that they were in wider use almost a year later.

Yes, percussion fuses certainly existed. However, they were limited to rifled guns, were not used at close ranges against infantry, often didn't explode when striking the ground or only did so rather harmlessly after burrowing in, would not have been effective in timber where they would have likely struck trees before the enemy, and would generally not have been employed shot over the heads of friendly troops in such circumstances.

Artillery at the close ranges necessitated by being in the woods - which would have also limited target visibility - would have used canister. In fact, I don't think artillery was used that much in the wilderness because batteries couldn't negotiate the dense vegetation.

Thus, I think it inaccurate to show every artillery round being a percussion round exploding on the ground - with the range rather precisely tuned in for advancing infantry - and maybe inaccurate to show artillery actively engaged at all in dense timber.

 

[Waterloo50]

Oh God no, don't let Quentin Tarantino anywhere near Gettysburg, He would have Robert E Lee running around with a pink beard and green eye patch.

Waterloo

 

[Specster]

It would be a nice option if you could zoom in on the pics. Were the originals detailed?

 

[Poor Sharecropper's Son]

Just watched the clip - sorry if this point was made already but would there really be that much helping the wounded? It sounds harsh but I would think at that point it's everyone for himself and let the wounded sort out afterwards.

Plus there wasn't near enough screaming to be accurate

 

[Rebel from Finland]

Quite a good scene IMO, can't say if it's realistic or not. Private Ryan was so realistic, that it was shown to me here in Finland as I entered to the service at fortress island during army days. Commanding officer at the island said that it shows what is like to make a landing under fire, the scene was shown us to encourage us (the defenders). When Private Ryan continues, it's accuracy suffers a bit. Especially the scene where the searching party is on its way, and possibly behind the enemy lines lines, and they calmly walk on open meadow.. In real life they would never have strolled like that across theat open meadow.