Requesting assistance for a review of tactical manuals

[Pvt Schnapps]

A question came up in my company recently about the appropriate tactical manual for USCT infantry. The quick answer is the manual specifically issued for that purpose in July 1863. The not-so-quick answer is that, especially for units formed before mid-1863, one of the earlier manuals might apply, being more familiar to the officers.

This raises the further question -- what difference does it make? The attached is an attempt to answer that question based on a paragraph by paragraph comparison of the infantry manual issued in May 1861, Casey's, and the USCT manual. I would appreciate anyone with an interest taking a look at this and letting me know where I may have gone astray, either in identifying differences or appraising their significance.

By the way, my quick answer to the second question is that it makes very little difference to reenactors and that significant changes only appear in areas of the School of the Battalion that we make little use of.

My answer to an additional question is that the USCT manual didn't represent a "dumbing down" but an update that in some areas pointed the way to Upton's. But there are many of you with much more experience with these texts than I have and I would appreciate any comments you might have.

Thank you in advance.

USCT Infantry Tactics Reviewed.doc

[thomas aagaard]

Re: Requesting assistance for a review of tactical manuals

Hopefully Silas Tackitt will drop by with some insights.

I Havn't studied Upton that closely... But as I understand it, his book got Inversions over the place... But with his Fours, a company that is inverted is not a problem and similar it is no problem if the companies get inverted. So he simply don't care...

Also, Square is in article 9 in the school of the battalion. point 1337 and forward.
Might be useful against Indians... The british used it very effectively in a number of colonial wars.

[Pvt Schnapps]

Re: Requesting assistance for a review of tactical manuals

Thank you! I knew I missed a bit. Looks like it would be more accurate to state that the USCT manual takes a step in Upton's directions on squares, being of similar length.

I made the statement about inversions based on the Board's report in the intro stating in part "The special advantages are: That it dispenses with the manoeuvring by the rear rank, by inversion, and the counter-march, and substitutes therefor rapid and simple conversions of front, and changes from column into line." But I admit to being fairly new to any attempt to closely read the manuals.

[Pvt Schnapps]

Re: Requesting assistance for a review of tactical manuals

On the question of squares, I screwed up by looking at the 1875 Upton's rather than the 1868... like I said, new... :(

- - - Updated - - -

By the way, I went to find the USCT manual on Google books and the full version seems to have disappeared -- maybe because I bought one of those print on demand reprints. An older link to it seems to work, though, for anyone interested: http://books.google.com/books?id=C2aWMIb5n3UC&pg=PA3#v=onepage&q&f=false

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: Requesting assistance for a review of tactical manuals

Schnapps,

My apologies for not replying! I saw your post on FaceBook.

Honestly, I am not familiar with the USCT manual. As you mention about, it appears that things are largely similar across manuals until you get above company level.

It is interesting that they opt for the "swing" stack.

As much as we try to adhere to the manuals as "gospel" and then try to figure out who was following which manual when, there are no absolutes. As Mark Jaeger's great articles and posts on the letters to the Army Navy Journal show us, "The Old Fellows" struggled with this stuff, too, often cherry-picking the elements from different manuals.

If I were portraying a member of a USCT regiment trained subsequent to the publishing of the USCT manual, I would be tempted to follow it and give it a try. Follow it as written and see what works and what doesn't.

Like Shakespeare's plays, the manuals were intended to be acted out, not read as literature.
;-)

[Pvt Schnapps]

Re: Requesting assistance for a review of tactical manuals

Thanks, John, you're right. As literature they make for quite a slog... :)