Very basic question: What were they shooting at?

[LSBusch]

I know, I should know this, but I don't. I knew the soldiers used guns but didn't think much more about it. (In a quick search of my book, I found more "rifle pits" than rifles and more "musketry" than "muskets.") I recently read (or re-read) The Red Badge of Courage, and I noticed the soldiers were just loading or reloading and firing, not aiming. So was the idea to just shoot in the direction of the opposing line and hope you hit someone? In other words, hitting someone or being hit was a matter of luck? They weren't trained to hit targets? It's not like aiming at an animal when you're hunting?

 

[DixieRifles]

So was the idea to just shoot in the direction of the opposing line and hope you hit someone?

That may have been true in the American Revolutionary War when they fired smoothbore muskets. By the time of the Civil War, their rifles had rifling that made them more accurate and they had good sights---unlike the Am Rev War muskets. It may appear that they are not aiming but it doesn't take long to put your gun to your shoulder and set your sights on a target and pull the trigger---especially if bullets are coming your direction.
Of course, there were a lot of misses. This would be due to lack of training, as noted in many of the early battles where troops had never fired their rifle in formation. Terrain elevation and smoke could cause a soldier to aim too low or too high. It is amazing to read the estimate of the number of bullets fired when compared to the much smaller number of casualties.

 

[7thWisconsin]

Marksmanship wasn´t really a training objective as much as rate of fire was. The command preceeding ¨Fire!¨ in all the American manuals is ¨Aim¨ rather than ¨Present,¨ so deliberately ¨drawing a bead¨ on the opposing line was theoretically the goal. However, the majority of the men firing weren´t hunters or woodsmen. Their familiarity with firearms was not great, contrary to legend. All the rifled muskets in major use by both sides are pretty accurate firearms by themselves, but the various factors of actual combat made soldiers poor marksmen. They tended to fire high. Bruce Catton feels that the most dangerous place on the battlefield was about a foot over your head, which coincidentally, is where your right arm is going every time you ram down a cartridge. My favorite description a soldier left behind of the first shot he ever fired is something along the line of ¨I raised up and blazed away at no one in particular.¨ I really think that individual marksmenship wasn´t really very good during the Civil War; there was just so much deadly junk in the air at any given time that some of it was bound to hit someone eventually.

 

[thomas aagaard]

I know, I should know this, but I don't. I knew the soldiers used guns but didn't think much more about it. (In a quick search of my book, I found more "rifle pits" than rifles and more "musketry" than "muskets.") I recently read (or re-read) The Red Badge of Courage, and I noticed the soldiers were just loading or reloading and firing, not aiming. So was the idea to just shoot in the direction of the opposing line and hope you hit someone? In other words, hitting someone or being hit was a matter of luck? They weren't trained to hit targets? It's not like aiming at an animal when you're hunting?

The majority of civil war soldiers did in fact not receive any marksmanship training.
And no, using a rifle musket at 100+ yards is not comparable to using a shotgun or small-bore rifle to hunt small game as very close range.

This is the core reason for the post war creation of the NRA.

And just to back 7thWisconsin up.

From "Ten years in the regular army." by august meyers.
(this is after a fight near Petersburg in summer 1864, where he serve as brigade ordonnance sergeant in the regulars brigade)
Lieutenant Pond, who had reported for duty, ordered me outside of the breast-works during the afternoon of this day with wagons and a large detail of men to collect the abandoned arms on the battle-field. The wounded had been removed and the dead buried; only dead horses remained. After dark I was sent out again to the picket line on the ground of the first day's battle. There we collected a large number of arms, remaining until approaching daylight warned us to depart and avoid drawing the enemy's picket fire. On the following night this was repeated under a heavy, soaking rain. I collected upwards of fifteen hundred fire-arms, of which more than half were those of the Rebels. There were rifles, muskets and carbines; also bayonets, swords, belts and cartridge boxes. The arms were rusty from having lain on the field during several days' rain.

It was necessary to classify these arms, make a report of them and turn them over to the ordnance depot at City Point. This work kept me, with the assistance of the ammunition guard, occupied for several days. Arms that were charged had to be fired, or the charges withdrawn, which was difficult in their rusty state. This work proved interesting to me and coincided with my own observations when in the ranks with my company in battle. I found that the ram-rods were missing from a considerable number of discharged guns, and a greater number had failed to be discharged on account of defective caps, or a befouled nipple. Some were doubly charged, and an occasional one had three, or even four, cartridges in the barrel, indicating that the soldier continued to load without noticing that his piece had not been discharged. Others were bursted at the muzzle, showing that the tompion had not been removed before firing. There were some with stocks broken by violence, probably by cool-headed men taken prisoners, who thoughtfully rendered their arms unserviceable. Such of the guns as had more than one charge in the barrel were fastened to a tree and, after fresh priming, we pulled the trigger with the aid of a string, at a safe distance. A few that could neither be drawn nor discharged, we buried in the ground. It has been said that it takes a man's weight in lead for every soldier killed in battle. I am inclined to almost believe that, from my own observations and from the amount of ammunition I knew to be expended on the battle-field of the Weldon Railroad, where I noticed innumerable bullet marks on trees standing on level ground, at height that could only endanger birds.

 

[RedRover]

I know, I should know this, but I don't. I knew the soldiers used guns but didn't think much more about it. (In a quick search of my book, I found more "rifle pits" than rifles and more "musketry" than "muskets.") I recently read (or re-read) The Red Badge of Courage, and I noticed the soldiers were just loading or reloading and firing, not aiming. So was the idea to just shoot in the direction of the opposing line and hope you hit someone? In other words, hitting someone or being hit was a matter of luck? They weren't trained to hit targets? It's not like aiming at an animal when you're hunting?

You can't aim at what you can't see. and when you can see them, they can see you.
But in any case, if they're shooting at you, you might as well shoot back anyways.

The battlefields in America were, more or less, wooded, and more or less uneven ground. The enemy wasn't always visible, though at least the smoke of their firing would be.

So while many of the troops in the war had rifled muskets, in ranks, in combat, the lines of battle in fighting each other frequently delivered a rapid and heavy "musketry"... the smoke further obscuring their vision. For example, Cosmo Bailey of the 7th Florida Volunteers at Chickamauga noted of their fighting about the East Vineyard Field on Sept. 19, 1863 could distinguish no clear targets. "I stood some time without firing looking for something to shoot at," said Bailey. He was disappointed in this. Seeing his comrades firing indiscriminately he joined in too, firing to his front "right ahead of me."
Leander Stillwell of the 61st Illinois, at Shiloh in 1862 describes the effect generally...

John Worsham of Jackson's "foot cavalry" mentions of the battle of Cedar Mountain in 1862 that before such fighting, it wasn't always clear exactly where the enemy was, where they were covered by some woods or chance of the ground:

But that the smoke in the woods from the heavy firing obscured the scene to the line of battle such, that their enemy's advance had to get really close before they even knew they were there...

Even in such close combat, to the extent it occurred with the enemy very near, aiming might not be attended to with greatest care. Henry O. Dwight, the adjutant of the 20th Ohio, in describing a close combat between his regiment's line of battle and the 7th Texas at the battle of Raymond, Miss., May 12, 1863, noted that taking too much time to carefully aim was a matter of some nerve...

"The fact is when you start to draw a bead on any chap in such a fight you have to make up your mind mighty quick whom you'll shoot. There are so many on the other side that look as if they were just getting a bead on you that it takes a lot of nerve to stick to the one you first wanted to attend to. You generally feel like trying to kind of distribute your bullet so as to take in all who ought to be hit. So a good many get off who are near enough to be knocked over the first time."

He mentions a sergeant determined to get his man, and in carefully aiming:

"One of the sergeants shouted to me as I stood beside him, but I could not hear. He was loading his gun, and he roared again in my ear, "They've got me this time sure, but I'm going to have one more pop at them." He took careful aim and fired, and fell backward into the brook, with a bright red hole in his shoulder. Then I understood what he meant."




The particular value of the gun sights, and aimed fire, was in skirmishing as an action commenced. Skirmishers were men deployed from the line into an extended order, taking cover and generally taking aim when firing. This is where the men had freest use of their arms, not being closely crammed together in two ranks. Usually a battle commenced between the skirmishers sent forward between the lines to drive each other, to cover their respective lines of battle, and to develop the exact position of the enemy where concealed. Here, where the men were free to take cover, etc., they could make such use of their riflemanship as they could.

Carleton McCarthy's "Detailed Minutiae of Soldier Life..." gives a generic description of what a soldier could see in combat. Starting with the skirmishers deployed in front, and concluding with the advance of the line of battle...

A skirmish line...

...

It is notable that he doesn't bother to describe what anyone particularly does, or sees, in the firing line of battle, as their busy loading and firing... (see Stillwell's account above).

 

[roundball1]

Marksmanship wasn´t really a training objective as much as rate of fire was. The command preceeding ¨Fire!¨ in all the American manuals is ¨Aim¨ rather than ¨Present,¨ so deliberately ¨drawing a bead¨ on the opposing line was theoretically the goal. However, the majority of the men firing weren´t hunters or woodsmen. Their familiarity with firearms was not great, contrary to legend. All the rifled muskets in major use by both sides are pretty accurate firearms by themselves, but the various factors of actual combat made soldiers poor marksmen. They tended to fire high. Bruce Catton feels that the most dangerous place on the battlefield was about a foot over your head, which coincidentally, is where your right arm is going every time you ram down a cartridge. My favorite description a soldier left behind of the first shot he ever fired is something along the line of ¨I raised up and blazed away at no one in particular.¨ I really think that individual marksmenship wasn´t really very good during the Civil War; there was just so much deadly junk in the air at any given time that some of it was bound to hit someone eventually.

Sounds like a great reason for the continued popularity for "buck and ball".

 

[LSBusch]

Marksmanship wasn´t really a training objective as much as rate of fire was. The command preceeding ¨Fire!¨ in all the American manuals is ¨Aim¨ rather than ¨Present,¨ so deliberately ¨drawing a bead¨ on the opposing line was theoretically the goal. However, the majority of the men firing weren´t hunters or woodsmen. Their familiarity with firearms was not great, contrary to legend. All the rifled muskets in major use by both sides are pretty accurate firearms by themselves, but the various factors of actual combat made soldiers poor marksmen. They tended to fire high. Bruce Catton feels that the most dangerous place on the battlefield was about a foot over your head, which coincidentally, is where your right arm is going every time you ram down a cartridge. My favorite description a soldier left behind of the first shot he ever fired is something along the line of ¨I raised up and blazed away at no one in particular.¨ I really think that individual marksmenship wasn´t really very good during the Civil War; there was just so much deadly junk in the air at any given time that some of it was bound to hit someone eventually.

Interesting!

 

[LSBusch]

The majority of civil war soldiers did in fact not receive any marksmanship training.
And no, using a rifle musket at 100+ yards is not comparable to using a shotgun or small-bore rifle to hunt small game as very close range.

This is the core reason for the post war creation of the NRA.

And just to back 7thWisconsin up.

From "Ten years in the regular army." by august meyers.
(this is after a fight near Petersburg in summer 1864, where he serve as brigade ordonnance sergeant in the regulars brigade)
Lieutenant Pond, who had reported for duty, ordered me outside of the breast-works during the afternoon of this day with wagons and a large detail of men to collect the abandoned arms on the battle-field. The wounded had been removed and the dead buried; only dead horses remained. After dark I was sent out again to the picket line on the ground of the first day's battle. There we collected a large number of arms, remaining until approaching daylight warned us to depart and avoid drawing the enemy's picket fire. On the following night this was repeated under a heavy, soaking rain. I collected upwards of fifteen hundred fire-arms, of which more than half were those of the Rebels. There were rifles, muskets and carbines; also bayonets, swords, belts and cartridge boxes. The arms were rusty from having lain on the field during several days' rain.

It was necessary to classify these arms, make a report of them and turn them over to the ordnance depot at City Point. This work kept me, with the assistance of the ammunition guard, occupied for several days. Arms that were charged had to be fired, or the charges withdrawn, which was difficult in their rusty state. This work proved interesting to me and coincided with my own observations when in the ranks with my company in battle. I found that the ram-rods were missing from a considerable number of discharged guns, and a greater number had failed to be discharged on account of defective caps, or a befouled nipple. Some were doubly charged, and an occasional one had three, or even four, cartridges in the barrel, indicating that the soldier continued to load without noticing that his piece had not been discharged. Others were bursted at the muzzle, showing that the tompion had not been removed before firing. There were some with stocks broken by violence, probably by cool-headed men taken prisoners, who thoughtfully rendered their arms unserviceable. Such of the guns as had more than one charge in the barrel were fastened to a tree and, after fresh priming, we pulled the trigger with the aid of a string, at a safe distance. A few that could neither be drawn nor discharged, we buried in the ground. It has been said that it takes a man's weight in lead for every soldier killed in battle. I am inclined to almost believe that, from my own observations and from the amount of ammunition I knew to be expended on the battle-field of the Weldon Railroad, where I noticed innumerable bullet marks on trees standing on level ground, at height that could only endanger birds.

Interesting!

 

[Southern Hoosier]

That may have been true in the American Revolutionary War when they fired smoothbore muskets. By the time of the Civil War, their rifles had rifling that made them more accurate and they had good sights---unlike the Am Rev War muskets. It may appear that they are not aiming but it doesn't take long to put your gun to your shoulder and set your sights on a target and pull the trigger---especially if bullets are coming your direction.
Of course, there were a lot of misses. This would be due to lack of training, as noted in many of the early battles where troops had never fired their rifle in formation. Terrain elevation and smoke could cause a soldier to aim too low or too high. It is amazing to read the estimate of the number of bullets fired when compared to the much smaller number of casualties.

What is just as interesting to me were the number of bullets not fired! It is reported that at the battle of Gettysburg, that both Confederate and Union troops were often terrified -- so scared that many of them simply forgot to shoot. Some 27.500 muskets were recovered on the field after the battle. Of these, more than 12,000 contained 2 charges. They had been loaded, but not fired, and loaded again. Another 6,000 contained 3 to 10 charges and balls, and one musket was found stuffed with 23 rounds.
(Source: The Complete IDIOT'S guide to the Civil War, 3rd edition, 2011 by Alan Axelrod, Ph. D.)

 

[RedRover]

What is just as interesting to me were the number of bullets not fired! It is reported that at the battle of Gettysburg, that both Confederate and Union troops were often terrified -- so scared that many of them simply forgot to shoot. Some 27.500 muskets were recovered on the field after the battle. Of these, more than 12,000 contained 2 charges. They had been loaded, but not fired, and loaded again. Another 6,000 contained 3 to 10 charges and balls, and one musket was found stuffed with 23 rounds.
(Source: The Complete IDIOT'S guide to the Civil War, 3rd edition, 2011 by Alan Axelrod, Ph. D.)

Mr. J.G. Dudley, the master armorer at the Washington Arsenal, did indeed report this relevant to the arms forwarded there from the Gettysburg battlefield...

 

[Story]

Another factor is the habit of the untrained to flinch and close their eyes when pulling the trigger.

Makes for less-than-desirable accuracy

Flintlock for exaggerated illustration

 

[DixieRifles]

Another factor is the habit of the untrained to flinch and close their eyes when pulling the trigger.

I thought no real rifleman would flinch. But a friend's son bought a Kentucky flintlock. Their photos shows a huge flame shooting out sideways from the frizzen pan's touch hole. I think they used way too much primer powder.

 

[Rhea Cole]

Sounds like a great reason for the continued popularity for "buck and ball".

In " The Rifled Musket" Fuller reproduced tests that were conducted by the Ordinance Department in 1860. A wide variety of long arms were shot at 6' X 6' paper targets. Trained infantrymen were the testers.

As can be seen, at 100 yards a smoothbore musket scattered balls randomly around the target.

The grouping of the rifled muskets is dramatically different. Even at 300 yards the rifle pattern is tighter than the smoothbore at 100 yards.

With buck & ball at 100 yards only a fraction of the buck & ball reached the target. Many of the buckshots that did bounced off the paper, unable to penetrate.

The finding was that beyond 50 yards Buck & ball was ineffective. A regiment armed with smoothbores firing buck & ball could not support artillery. At 200 yards only a fraction of the smoothbore rounds reached the target. Opposing infantry that achieved fire superiority at 300 yards was a suicidal undertaking. Even more so with buck & ball that didn't even travel 200 yards.

I believe that "The Rifled Musket" by Fuller is an essential reference everyone should have. It is out of print but is available used online for a few dollars.

 

[MAJOR DUNDEE]

About Tom Aagard comment ("Some were doubly charged, and an occasional one had three, or even four, cartridges in the barrel, indicating that the soldier continued to load without noticing that his piece had not been discharged ")...

I've read somewhere that soldiers from the era, because of panic maybe, didn't shoot their rifles and instead of firing, reloaded them too much. That would possibly occure damage on the gun and even on the soldier's arms or face.

 

[Johnny_Reb_1865]

Drawing on what I know from what I've read (as I've never been in combat) is that most of the time you never even see the enemy. You might see movement or smoke or maybe a flash of the opposite uniform but generally you never see the enemy.

I know that this isn't a very good example however the environment is somewhat similar. In the game Hell Let Loose for example the enemy players don't have any labels or anything that says they're the enemy. One of the maps is mostly fields and woods (The basic environment of civil war combat) and the basic thing that I've noticed at least is that I tend to shoot at anything like movement or the general direction the enemy happens to be or simply because that's where everyone else is shooting.

The game never tells you if you got anyone so sometimes you could literally be shooting at nothing and not even know it.

I know it's not really a good example but it's the closest thing I have personally experienced besides reading first hand accounts and hearing actual combat veterans speak on the topic.

Most of the time you can't see what you're shooting at and if you do you're not always going to know for sure if you hit what you were shooting at. Other times it's like... "Hey everyone's shooting at that set of bushes there so I might as well join in."

Like with the North Carolina troops that shot General Jackson. Most of them probably fired because that's what everyone else was doing and that's the order that was given.

 

[thomas aagaard]

That may have been true in the American Revolutionary War when they fired smoothbore muskets. By the time of the Civil War, their rifles had rifling that made them more accurate and they had good sights---unlike the Am Rev War muskets. It may appear that they are not aiming but it doesn't take long to put your gun to your shoulder and set your sights on a target and pull the trigger---especially if bullets are coming your direction.
Of course, there were a lot of misses. This would be due to lack of training, as noted in many of the early battles where troops had never fired their rifle in formation. Terrain elevation and smoke could cause a soldier to aim too low or too high. It is amazing to read the estimate of the number of bullets fired when compared to the much smaller number of casualties.

This was the norm trueout the war. The soldiers very rarely fired their guns outside of combat.

In early 1864 Meade had to order the issue of 10 rounds pr soldier, because it was well known than many soldiers had been in combat multiply times, with out ever managing to fire their gun at the enemy.

So the company officers had to make sure each man fired 10 rounds successfully. The order had nothing about hitting a target, only successfully firing the gun.

Also, most soldiers had no knowledge about how the sights worked, how a correct sight picture was or the critical skill of range estimation.
Then add the fact that that most soldiers who fired a riflemusket was using a cartridge that was not correct for the sights.
(the one exception was csa soldiers using imported british enfield cartridges)

And when in the case of the Lorenz. It was sighted in Austrian military steps, something that few soldiers knew. And in the federal service it was often re-bored to 58cal... without changing the sights. Sights that btw was designed t use different sight pictures depending on the range.

All of this is not an issue at 100yards, but at longer range it makes accurate shooting impossible.

 

[13 IL Cav & 64 GA Inf]

What is just as interesting to me were the number of bullets not fired! It is reported that at the battle of Gettysburg, that both Confederate and Union troops were often terrified -- so scared that many of them simply forgot to shoot. Some 27.500 muskets were recovered on the field after the battle. Of these, more than 12,000 contained 2 charges. They had been loaded, but not fired, and loaded again. Another 6,000 contained 3 to 10 charges and balls, and one musket was found stuffed with 23 rounds.
(Source: The Complete IDIOT'S guide to the Civil War, 3rd edition, 2011 by Alan Axelrod, Ph. D.)

When a large number of soldiers became caught in an impossible position and surrendered en masse, they had to drop their weapons on the field, whether loaded or unloaded. This resulted in a large number of rifles remaining on the battlefield, many of which were loaded.

 

[thomas aagaard]

When a large number of soldiers became caught in an impossible position and surrendered en masse, they had to drop their weapons on the field, whether loaded or unloaded. This resulted in a large number of rifles remaining on the battlefield, many of which were loaded.

Also if "loaded" = have a bullet in the barrel, then it also count.
anyone who get shot before firing his gun. During a maneuver from a to b.
Or who is in the process of priming.

This static have been used to show that the men did not want to kill the enemy. but it do nothing of the kind.
The 2+ rounds in the barrel do point to issues of training.

 

[DixieRifles]

Also if "loaded" = have a bullet in the barrel, then it also count.
anyone who get shot before firing his gun. During a maneuver from a to b.
Or who is in the process of priming.

What deer hunter enters the woods without loading his gun???

 

[Johnny_Reb_1865]

What deer hunter enters the woods without loading his gun???

A particular friend of mine who has the intelligence of a bag of rocks. HAHA