Union vs Confederate Infantry

[Tennessee_Mountainman]

Generally, what were some key differences between Union and Confederate infantry? As I see it, the Union had better drilled infantry with better equipment. While the Confederates, fought harder and fought well close-quarters. These are just some stereotypes I have, but can a professional please correct me? It's something that has always intrigued me, but I think it's necessary to know so I can picture different battle scenarios easier.

 

[John Winn]

Other than the Union generally being better supplied and equipped I don't really see much difference. One can compare and contrast individual regiments but as for one side or the other I see them as pretty much the same in terms of training and fighting ability. On the training issue I think a lot of that would have been dependent on where and when a soldier ended up in the army. If one joined or got conscripted in the late fall, for instance, then he'd likely spend the winter drilling. If, though, he ended up in the ranks in the late spring he'd likely be campaigning right away.

Just my opinion based on reading lots of books about the common soldier.

 

[Greyfalcon]

Other than the Union generally being better supplied and equipped I don't really see much difference. One can compare and contrast individual regiments but as for one side or the other I see them as pretty much the same in terms of training and fighting ability.

I agree. The biggest differences were in the leadership and decisions of higher command. Shiloh, right off the bat, dissuaded many Southerners from the notion that Northern fighting men lacked in martial prowess, for example. They clearly didn't.

 

[Tennessee_Mountainman]

I agree. The biggest differences were in the leadership and decisions of higher command. Shiloh, right off the bat, dissuaded many Southerners from the notion that Northern fighting men lacked in martial prowess, for example. They clearly didn't.

Also, many of those Union troops at Shiloh came from western states that also came from generally rough backgrounds.

 

[gary]

Americans fighting Americans. Union soldiers were generally better supplied and fed than their Confederate counterparts. The Union also relied heavily on European immigrants, many of whom had no experience with firearms (and marksmanship training was not optimal). Those who survived, learned.

 

[1SGDan]

Generally, what were some key differences between Union and Confederate infantry? As I see it, the Union had better drilled infantry with better equipment. While the Confederates, fought harder and fought well close-quarters. These are just some stereotypes I have, but can a professional please correct me? It's something that has always intrigued me, but I think it's necessary to know so I can picture different battle scenarios easier.

Some of the closest close quarter fighting of the war was done at Spotsylvania, the Union troops did well enough there. Can you supply examples of where the Confederate infantry dominated the Union infantry in close quarters fighting?

 

[Billy Yank]

Other than what has been reported in the previous posts, the Federals were in for certain enlistment periods. When their enlistment was up, they went home. The Confederates were generally "in it" for the duration. I mention this distinction because it makes several points: 1.) The Federals generally brought fresh (though untested) units to the field. 2.) The Confederates were generally more battle tested and seasoned.

 

[AUG]

I think it depends on the unit, regiment or brigade, in question. Some on either side were certainly better commanded, drilled, disciplined and had a better overall morale than others. That Confederate units were not as well drilled as Union regiments isn't true. The 1st Missouri Brigade, for example, was probably as well drilled if not better than the US Regulars. By mid to late war I'd say most regiments that had seen their fair share of campaigning were all pretty tolerably drilled, though some more so than others depending on how well they were commanded and how often they were drilled.

That Confederates were better at close-quarters combat isn't true either. Of course there wasn't much hand-to-hand to judge by, but I'd say that the Pennsylvania Reserves stood up pretty well in the brawl over Cooper's and Randall's Batteries at Glendale, or a number of Federal regiments in the fight over the Mule Shoe at Spotsylvania. But I think how well a regiment, on either side, stands its ground in a close-range hand-to-hand fight would again greatly depend on how well drilled, disciplined, and commanded they are.

 

[AUG]

Other than what has been reported in the previous posts, the Federals were in for certain enlistment periods. When their enlistment was up, they went home. The Confederates were generally "in it" for the duration. I mention this distinction because it makes several points: 1.) The Federals generally brought fresh (though untested) units to the field. 2.) The Confederates were generally more battle tested and seasoned.

Actually after their initial one-year enlistment expired most Confederate troops enlisted for three years service with some units enlisting "for the duration". The standard three years of service was also the case for those conscripted. However, when their three-year terms expired mid war most Confederate units reenlisted and few if any were disbanded.

For the Federals enlistment periods varied, though most were in it for three years. When Federal regiments' enlistments expired the units that had enough men reenlist remained intact, but those that didn't were either consolidated with another unit or disbanded. Also, many of the men who chose not to reenlist initially later went back home and reenlisted in another unit later on, so not every Federal regiment recruited later in the war was entirely composed of inexperienced troops.

 

[thomas aagaard]

Plenty of cases out west where union infantry had inferior weapons compared to the csa.
Grant rearmed many of his regiments with Enfields after the capture of Vicksburg.

One difference is that the union generally raised new regiments, instead of reinforcing existing regiments.

Wisconsin was an exception to this.

The Union also relied heavily on European immigrants, many of whom had no experience with firearms (and marksmanship training was not optimal). .

Plenty of Americans had no experience with firearms. And if they did it was properly shotguns and similar.
There is no evidence that the average soldier knew anything about marksmanship. And with a few exceptions they never learned anything about during their service.

In comparison plenty of immigrants had served in European armies.
Most of "German"armies was based on universal male conscription, including Prussia.
So many of the "Germans" actually had military experience. The same in Scandinavia where a large part of the young men served in the army during their early 20ties.

Some Germans had combat experience from the rebellion in 1848.

The south did have one advantage when the war broke out. The military academies in the south gave them a good number of regimental level officers who knew what they where doing.
They also started out mobilizing about a month earlier then the union.


If there was any geographic difference I think it was more east / west then north south.
When we are talking infantry that is.
When looking at cavalry I think the south was clearly superior during the early war.
And in artillery the union had a huge advantage with the regular army batteries making up about 1/3 of the artillery.
(based on the oob at Gettysburg)

 

[Billy Yank]

Actually after their initial one-year enlistment expired most Confederate troops enlisted for three years service with some units enlisting "for the duration". The standard three years of service was also the case for those conscripted. However, when their three-year terms expired mid war most Confederate units reenlisted and few if any were disbanded.

For the Federals enlistment periods varied, though most were in it for three years. When Federal regiments' enlistments expired the units that had enough men reenlist remained intact, but those that didn't were either consolidated with another unit or disbanded. Also, many of the men who chose not to reenlist initially later went back home and reenlisted in another unit later on, so not every Federal regiment recruited later in the war was entirely composed of inexperienced troops.

I am reminded of President Lincoln's initial call to arms: 90 day enlistments.

 

[Tennessee_Mountainman]

Plenty of cases out west where union infantry had inferior weapons compared to the csa.

The musket I'm holding in the picture is actually a good example. It's an odd ball 72. caliber, the federal government usually bought these weird weapons for cheap and ship them out to western troops. We were portraying the 16th Wisconsin Infantry.

 

[thomas aagaard]

exactly.
The 15th Wisconsin was issued with french rifled muskets... a model that some of the Danes in the 15th might actually have used if they served in the danish army before leaving Denmark for the USA.
(and if they left after they turned 22, they properly did serve since most of the young men did thanks to conscription.)

 

[WhatWouldJacksonDo]

I have read more than a few times (from north and south) southern soldiers were known for being great fighters in the woods. I use to think the south had better fighters overall. Slowly that is changing in my mind.