Muzzleldrs Sharpshooting From Trees?

[Nathan Stuart]

The illustration of the tree-positioned Union sharpshooter displayed by 7thWisconsin in post #8 above was painted by Winslow Homer in 1863 after he spent two months in the spring of '62 at Yorktown, VA, during the Peninsula Campaign. Interestingly, Homer later wrote to a friend in 1896 about his impressions of the scenes he witnessed of such sharpshooters armed with scoped rifles and said, ...'This struck me as being as near to murder as anything I could think of in connection with the army and I always had a horror of that branch of the service.'...

One modern informed commentator on this painting also observed how precariously balanced the tree-perched sharpshooter's position was, and noted in particular how his left arm was used to brace himself, in expectation of a recoil from the discharged weapon.

Long-range sharpshooting from concealed treetop positions was a hazardous occupation, in more ways than one.

 

[gary]

At Yorktown Homer had an opportunity to look through a scope and drew a quick sketch of a kepi wearing soldier leaning against a fence.

I saw Homer's The Army of the Potomac - A Sharp Shooter on Picket Duty painting when it, along w/his other Civil War themed pieces was at De Young Museum. It was stunning to walk into the exhibit and see that painting first. Still have the museum book for it too.

 

[Nathan Stuart]

Homer's The Army of the Potomac - A Sharp Shooter on Picket Duty

To me, a sharpshooter perched in a tree and armed with a scoped rifle does not seem somehow to fit Homer's painting description of 'A Sharp Shooter on Picket Duty'.

 

[gary]

Agree w/you NS, but Homer named it, not I.

 

[Nathan Stuart]

Agree w/you NS, but Homer named it, not I.

Gary, never expressed or implied you were responsible for creating that artwork description.

 

[7thWisconsin]

Wiki - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sniper

1. Pegler, Martin (2004). Out of nowhere : a history of the military sniper. Oxford: Osprey Publishing. p. 16. ISBN 1-84176-854-5. OCLC 56654780.
2. "Snipe". Online Etymology Dictionary. Retrieved 8 April 2019.

And also from talking with serving military historians. It sounds about right as it is said to be from British India (wherever that may be) and a lot of British india terms became standard army slang - Cuppa cha? Where's me bundook?, etc. These became widespread due to service with regulars in WW1

But the US military was not heavily influenced by British customs in the 19th century. The French tended to be the greater influence. The US army began picking up British customs in the 20th century, especially after WW2 and during the long Cold War in which many US soldiers and units served alongside British formations in Europe.

 

[Old Soldier]

But the US military was not heavily influenced by British customs in the 19th century. The French tended to be the greater influence. The US army began picking up British customs in the 20th century, especially after WW2 and during the long Cold War in which many US soldiers and units served alongside British formations in Europe.

One of the thing noted is that the US Army tends to do things 'the American way' and in their own formations - this despite having information being given and equipment offered. WW1 - everything went Pershing's way in their 6 months in The Line. The US army did not have the Lewis Gun and adopted mainly French equipment - and resented having to use a British-designed rifle (M1917)! WW2 they did it 'their way' at Kasserine Pass and failure forced the adoption of some British tactics. We did warn 8th AAF about the hazards of daytime bombing but they ignored it - and suffered 20% crew casualties and 5% aircraft lost/unusable. Same with D-Day. Hobart's 'Funnies' (specialist anti obstacle armor) developed after Dieppe (1942) was offered and rejected because there was no time to train US crews and they wanted it to be all-American. Then came Omaha Beach! It was a re-run of Custer's activities and intelligence in 1876

 

[gary]

US Army got time on target from the British Army. Flight time of the shell was known to hit a certain spot. Time on Target was the timing of all the shells of large, medium and small caliber to land on the target simultaneously for more devastating effect. US Army used that a lot in WW II.

Funny how in WW II British, American and German infantry battalions were composed of three infantry companies and a heavy weapons company. Each company had three infantry platoons and one heavy weapons platoon.

The difference is that the British regiment could have several battalions whereas an American regiment had only three battalions (US used the triangular system with each infantry division having three infantry regiments of three battalions each, one armor and one anti-tank battalion).

Basic marksmanship instruction was adopted from the Hythe's School of Musketry. As a Union Army officer, Henry Heth used it prewar to instruct his company and wrote an instructional manual (which was plagarized and published by another officer after war's outbreak). Post-war the American Army promoted marksmanship through competition where the highest scorer would receive the equivalent of a year's salary!

As for post-Civil War influence, the Germans were studied. Prussia won three wars in great succession (which is why von Moltke the Elder sneeringly said of the American Civil War, "Two armed mobs chasing each other with nothing to learn." Ever see those post-Civil War images of the 24th or 25th Infantry (Colored Troops) with pickelhaub headgear?

 

[7thWisconsin]

One of the thing noted is that the US Army tends to do things 'the American way' and in their own formations - this despite having information being given and equipment offered. WW1 - everything went Pershing's way in their 6 months in The Line. The US army did not have the Lewis Gun and adopted mainly French equipment - and resented having to use a British-designed rifle (M1917)! WW2 they did it 'their way' at Kasserine Pass and failure forced the adoption of some British tactics. We did warn 8th AAF about the hazards of daytime bombing but they ignored it - and suffered 20% crew casualties and 5% aircraft lost/unusable. Same with D-Day. Hobart's 'Funnies' (specialist anti obstacle armor) developed after Dieppe (1942) was offered and rejected because there was no time to train US crews and they wanted it to be all-American. Then came Omaha Beach! It was a re-run of Custer's activities and intelligence in 1876

Truth be told, the Americans nearly squandered the impact of US entry into the Great War with the sheer lack of preparation, equipment and training that they displayed. Basically, we went to Europe and said "Got any guns? And planes? And rifles? And machine guns? And..." The state of training was so poor that after the American attempt at the Meuse-Argonne, Allied high command was looking at pushing the war into 1919, and maybe talking the Americans into placing their divisions alongside other Allied commands. The myth of the Great War among Americans is that we went over there and kicked the Hun's heiny. The reality was a lot messier.

 

[7thWisconsin]

US Army got time on target from the British Army. Flight time of the shell was known to hit a certain spot. Time on Target was the timing of all the shells of large, medium and small caliber to land on the target simultaneously for more devastating effect. US Army used that a lot in WW II.

Funny how in WW II British, American and German infantry battalions were composed of three infantry companies and a heavy weapons company. Each company had three infantry platoons and one heavy weapons platoon.

The difference is that the British regiment could have several battalions whereas an American regiment had only three battalions (US used the triangular system with each infantry division having three infantry regiments of three battalions each, one armor and one anti-tank battalion).

Basic marksmanship instruction was adopted from the Hythe's School of Musketry. As a Union Army officer, Henry Heth used it prewar to instruct his company and wrote an instructional manual (which was plagarized and published by another officer after war's outbreak). Post-war the American Army promoted marksmanship through competition where the highest scorer would receive the equivalent of a year's salary!

As for post-Civil War influence, the Germans were studied. Prussia won three wars in great succession (which is why von Moltke the Elder sneeringly said of the American Civil War, "Two armed mobs chasing each other with nothing to learn." Ever see those post-Civil War images of the 24th or 25th Infantry (Colored Troops) with pickelhaub headgear?

I believe Sheridan observed the Germans in the 1870 war and that marks the rise of German influence in US military circles.

 

[Old Soldier]

Truth be told, the Americans nearly squandered the impact of US entry into the Great War with the sheer lack of preparation, equipment and training that they displayed. Basically, we went to Europe and said "Got any guns? And planes? And rifles? And machine guns? And..." The state of training was so poor that after the American attempt at the Meuse-Argonne, Allied high command was looking at pushing the war into 1919, and maybe talking the Americans into placing their divisions alongside other Allied commands. The myth of the Great War among Americans is that we went over there and kicked the Hun's heiny. The reality was a lot messier.

I'm glad YOU said that! The Brits developed 'fire and movement' (one part of a unit putting down covering fire, the other part moving) after the disaster of the first day of the Somme - 'over the top' - expecting he tremendous artillery barrage to wipe out the opposition. What did Pershing do? "During the three hours preceding H hour, the Allies expended more ammunition than both sides managed to fire throughout the four years of the American Civil War"( Artillery Capt. Harry S. Truman). then sent the 'over the top'. First Army casualties were over 9000 men lost and over 100,000 men injured since the start of Meuse-Argonne. it was a relatively quiet part of the front and they had advanced 10 miles - half the distance of their French allies. It was hard replacing those losses and developing a transport network to bring in reinforcements.

 

[ArcLight]

Concealment <> Cover

 

[Old Soldier]

On another thread we were talking about the very restrictive sighting arrangements for the M1861 (100,300,500 yards) This was done in 1858. British and French sights were set to 900 - 1100 yards at 50 yard intervals. It got me to thinking why. The US Army does not seem to have though much about unit fire tasks, just individual/small unit fire tasks. Was this because they had no experience of fighting large opposing units? Sure, there were Indian Wars and skirmishes, but no BIG formations. Did they think they never would?
As for delaying training & supply - the same could be said for 1861-1863 since once Harper's Ferry went down, there was no infrastructure or alternative. Many firms contracted never met their production target! (1917 - Springfield M1903s were few on the ground so they contracted for the already contracted British P1914 to be re-designed for the 30-06 round (fairly simple actually) and issued 2 MILLION of them as M1917s.

 

[Old Soldier]

Concealment <> Cover

Concealment is cover from view. Cover is generally interpreted as cover from fire.

 

[R. Porter]

It was my understanding that when the Americans arrived in Europe in World War I they ignored everything the British, French, and other allies had learned the hard way during the previous years of fighting and proceeded to learn it the hard way themselves. That suggests a failure at the top and reinforces the idea that an army starts the next war by fighting the previous one again.

 

[R. Porter]

On another thread we were talking about the very restrictive sighting arrangements for the M1861 (100,300,500 yards) This was done in 1858. British and French sights were set to 900 - 1100 yards at 50 yard intervals. It got me to thinking why. The US Army does not seem to have though much about unit fire tasks, just individual tire tasks. Was this because they had no experience of fighting large opposing units? Sure, there were Indian Wars and skirmishes, but no BIG formations. Did they think they never would?
As for delaying training & supply - the same could be said for 1861-1863 since once harper's Ferry went down, there was no infrastructure or alternative. Many firms contracted never met their production target! (1917 - Springfield M1903s were few on the ground so they contracted for the British P1914 to be re-barreled (and re-magazined) for the 30-06 round and issued 2 MILLION of them.

In the Spanish American War the U.S. Army was still issuing black powder Trapdoor Springfields to units. The Spanish troops they were fighting were using smokeless powder. That made some U.S. positions easier to target for the Spanish snipers in the trees who were difficult to locate for the Americans.

 

[Old Soldier]

It was my understanding that when the Americans arrived in Europe in World War I they ignored everything the British, French, and other allies had learned the hard way during the previous years of fighting and proceeded to learn it the hard way themselves. That suggests a failure at the top and reinforces the idea that an army starts the next war by fighting the previous one again.

The First Army did not reach the Front Line until May 1918 after training by French, British and Australia troops. The Allies were told these US troops could only take part in US-led offensives. However, the first major operation in World War I to involve US troops concerned individual infantry platoons of the 33rd Division, which were attached to battalions of the Australian Corps for the Battle of Hamel on the 4th of July. So now we are down to 5 months fighting.

Those with Brits and Aussies were issued with SMLEs, but the army equipped itself mainly with French tanks, artillery, machineguns and the dreaded Chauchat (sho-sho) 'machine rifle'.

 

[Old Soldier]

In the Spanish American War the U.S. Army was still issuing black powder Trapdoor Springfields to units. The Spanish troops they were fighting were using smokeless powder. That made some U.S. positions easier to target for the Spanish snipers in the trees who were difficult to locate for the Americans.

There is a story that some of the USCT of 1917 were still in blue uniforms and carrying M1884 trapdoor Springfields when they were first assembled!

 

[Old Soldier]

But the US military was not heavily influenced by British customs in the 19th century. The French tended to be the greater influence. The US army began picking up British customs in the 20th century, especially after WW2 and during the long Cold War in which many US soldiers and units served alongside British formations in Europe.

"Right shoulder shift" - US Army................................"Portez vos armes." French Army

 

[ArcLight]

Concealment is cover from view. Cover is generally interpreted as cover from fire.

Exactly.
Shooting from a tree can leave you exposed.

Hence the "<>" (not equal to) symbol