bankerpapaw
Captain
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2007
- Location
- Rome, Georgia
They were called "Turkey Shoots" and still are called that today.Target shooting was a popular pastime in the south before the war.
They were called "Turkey Shoots" and still are called that today.Target shooting was a popular pastime in the south before the war.
I think that regardless of how good of shots they are at the range or after game, the majority of people can't point a gun at an individual and shoot him. (See also S.L.A. Marshall's WWII study) and tend to aim over the enemy's head or blindly into the mass. Hence why good snipers are difficult to come by, though it must have been easier then not having to see your "mark" to closely. Also why firing squads use a combination of blank and loaded rounds.
Not necessarily true. Accurate statistics point that:51% of the reb soldiers were listed as farmers, 50% for the yanks. Crack shots, i dunno. Competent around fire arms, probably.
Not to be trite but ask the Brits if Yankee Doodle was a good shot back in the Rev. War.
I doubt that the majority of soldiers purposely missed their target or refused to pull the trigger, most primary sources just don't support that, but there's no doubt that many still didn't like the thought of killing. I believe most troops just loaded and fired away into the smoke, not always even able to take proper aim at a particular individual, whether they intended to or not. Two opposing battle lines were often so obscured by smoke (sometimes heavily wooded terrain and brush as well) that almost only the muzzle flashes could be seen. Add to that lack of proper marksmanship training, the shock of being in combat, fatigue, etc., and you get hundreds of rounds expended for every hit.
And if there was a soldier sitting there on the battle line refusing to fire when he should be I think the other troops, file closers or closest officer would probably chew him out for it. Something like that would be seen as cowardice and was usually frowned upon. Through many accounts you often read of incidents where a particular soldier was refusing to fight or running in the opposite direction and is mocked and berated by his fellow troops or commanding officer. Even when many soldiers openly resented seeing thousands of men killed and wounded on either side they still felt as though it was every man's duty to stay in the fight.
Yes, those often-quoted statistics on rifles picked up off the field of Gettysburg are thrown around a lot, but there's not much basis for them. There was a thread on that a while ago here: http://civilwartalk.com/threads/loaded-muskets-picked-up-after-the-battle-of-gettysburg.121524/I strongly disagree with your statement. I take offense to you particularly on "And if there was a soldier sitting there on the battle line refusing to fire when he should be I think the other troops, file closers or closest officer would probably chew him out for it."
If you have ever done the slightest research at the battle of Gettysburg, you would've found that :
"
Along with the numerous corpses littered about the battlefield, at least 27,574 rifles (I’ve also seen 37,574 listed) were recovered. Of the recovered weapons, a staggering 24,000 were found to be loaded, either 87% or 63%, depending on which number you accept for the total number of rifles. Of the loaded rifles, 12,000 were loaded more than once and half of these (6,000 total) had been loaded between three and ten times. One poor guy had reloaded his weapon twenty-three times without firing a single shot. At first glance, this doesn’t seem to make any sense whatsoever."
Yes I agree with that as well, but I'm talking close quarter. It's the same reason the vast majority of hand to hand fatalities were with the rifle butt versus the bayonet.Yes, those often-quoted statistics on rifles picked up off the field of Gettysburg are thrown around a lot, but there's not much basis for them. There was a thread on that a while ago here: http://civilwartalk.com/threads/loaded-muskets-picked-up-after-the-battle-of-gettysburg.121524/
Whether truly that many or not, I wouldn't be surprised if there were a number of rifles found loaded with multiple rounds after a battle; however, that still doesn't prove that most soldiers refused to fire at the enemy or intentionally missed their target. What it would indicate is that amidst the chaos, shock and confusion of battle many troops accidentally loaded two or more rounds while trying to load and fire under pressure.
But back to the point, its not necessarily that I disagree that there were soldiers who couldn't bring themselves to kill the enemy, but as I stated in my last post, I believe that many just fired in the general direction of the enemy, into the smoke and brush. Combat in the ACW, with a few exceptions, often didn't allow for soldiers to personally pick out their target and see him fall. With the battlefield choked up with black powder smoke, men just blazed away on the firing line while hardly able to see the enemy. In that situation someone could easily intentionally miss if they wanted to, but I wouldn't go as far to say that the majority were doing so.
Here's a good excerpt from Major Samuel H. M. Byers' account of the battle of Champion Hill:
I could not see far to left or right, the smoke of battle was covering everything. I saw bodies of our men lying near me without knowing who they were, though some of them were my messmates in the morning. The Rebels in front we could not see at all. We simply fired at their lines by guess, and occasionally the blaze of their guns showed exactly where they stood. They kept their line like a wall of fire. When I fired my first shot I had resolved to aim at somebody or something as long as I could see, and a dozen times I tired to bring down an officer I dimly saw on a gray horse before me.
http://www.battleofchampionhill.org/byers.htm
I stand by my statement.Not necessarily true. Accurate statistics point that:
Farmers comprised 48 percent of the civilian occupations in the Union. Others included mechanics, 24 percent; laborers, 16 percent; commercial, 5 percent; miscellaneous, 4 percent; and professional occupations, 3 percent.
Farmers comprised 69 percent of the civilian occupations in the Confederacy. Others included laborers, 9 percent; mechanics, 5.3 percent; commercial, 5 percent; professional occupations, 2.1 percent; and miscellaneous, 1.6 percent.
Great post but you left out the all important task of hurry up and wait. You must always practice that. 10 years in Marine aviation maint. Not crew and i qualed 4 times including PI. I forgot so much by the second qual and now using the A2 i dropped from Expert to Marksman, how embarrassing. I did final get back to Expert but barely 2 more times. Takes time, money and the belief that it is still the basic mission of all Marines and not just a nice quote on a poster. Every Marine a Rifleman.NO!!!! As illustrated by the following factual account.
It has been widely assumed that Confederate troops were better shots than Federal troops. The evidence does not necessarily support that conclusion. Responding to an order from Lieutenant General William J. Hardee, Major General Patrick Cleburne directed the testing of .54 caliber Austrian rifles at 100, 150, 200, and 300 yards using ammunition manufactured in England and at the Confederate Atlanta Arsenal. The rifles -- probably Muster 1854, Type I's -- and ammunition were being issued to Army of Tennessee troops in quantity at that time. On 19 June 1863 Cleburne's ordnance officer reported on the resulting tests. He had been directed to use a company of average men from the 6th, 10th, and 15th Texas Consolidated Infantry from Cleburne’s Division. Although the troops from the consolidated regiment had been in service for a year and a half, the ordnance officer discovered during the 100-yard phase of his testing that three fourths of the men had never been instructed on how to load, aim, and fire military small arms. Contrary to the legend of Texican marksmanship in the American west, the troops’ accuracy of fire was extremely poor. The weather conditions during the 100-yard test on 18 June had been perfect; cloudy, dry, and windless. Each of the 20 men involved in the 100-yard test fired one shot using the Atlanta Arsenal ammunition at a 10-foot high by six foot wide target, achieving in aggregate 13 hits. None of the rounds hit the black painted six-inch bullseye at the center of the target. Prior to continuing with the tests, the ordnance officer had to instruct the men in basic marksmanship.
After training the soldiers in how to load and take aim, the testing was continued with five selected soldiers. The weather conditions remained the same; cloudy, dry, and with no wind. Firing 20 rounds of English manufactured ammunition at 150 yards, the troops achieved 18 hits. All of the hits were in a group considerably tighter than the hits from the Atlanta Arsenal ammunition used at 100 yards.
The tests were continued on 19 June 1863. At 200 yards 10 soldiers of “average ability as marksmen” were selected. Firing 10 rounds of Atlanta Arsenal ammunition and 13 rounds of English ammunition, they achieved 14 hits. Continuing with the 10 selected men at 300 yards the troops fired 27 rounds of Atlanta Arsenal ammunition and 16 rounds of English ammunition, achieving 12 hits. Again, the weather conditions were excellent; sunny with white clouds, dry, and with a light breeze from the front.
Ignoring the ordnance officer's lack of understanding of the scientific method, this is a powerful statement regarding the abysmal marksmanship skill set of a group of experienced Confederate troops: Texicans yet. Twelve hits out of 43 shots on a 10 foot high by 6 foot wide target at 300 yards. That is literally spitting distance for any half competent marksman who isn't being shot at at the time. Of course, the Confederate Army's quality ammunition produced by Atlanta Arsenal wasn't quite up to snuff either.
Major Bill: I had similar experiences. I taught marksmanship to active Army and Army Reserve troops for 28 years. In general, the reservists shot better than the active Army. I have the Distinguished Rifleman and Distinguished Pistol Shot Badges, and President's Hundred Tabs with service rifle and pistol, so I might have clue. The active Army's marksmanship skill set was so low at the beginning of the second war in the desert that it had to recruit knowledgeable, competent volunteers from the civilian marksmanship program to teach designated marksmanship courses to selected "marksmen" from deploying units. So, lack of marksmanship skills wasn't just a Civil War problem, or a World War I problem, or a World War II problem, or a Korean War problem, or a Vietnam War problem. He who learns nothing from history is domed to repeat it -- again and again and again and again. But teaching marksmanship requires functional ranges, time, skilled trainers, and ammunition. It takes time away from the truly important stuff, like shoe shinning, rock painting, grass mowing, and leaf raking.
“In no other profession are the penalties for employing untrained personnel so appalling or so irrevocable as the military.” General of the Armies Douglas MacArthur
Regards,
Don Dixon