Proper Wearing of Gear

[Sanssouci]

Gents,
I was curious if Confederate troops wore both their waist belt (for their cap box) and cartridge box sling (for rounds), or put both their cap and cartridge box on their waist belt. I've seen both and was wondering what is more accurate.

Thanks for all the help. Semper Fi.
John Turner

[SGulley]

Re: Proper Wearing of Gear

John,

The first thing I would do is go straight to the source. Check out all of the original pics and documents you can find. Researching for yourself is the best option. Anyhow, check out these sites:

http://www.authentic-campaigner.com/forum/local_links.php?action=links&catid=11

[markj]

Re: Proper Wearing of Gear

Hi John,

The short answer is..."it all depended." Some did and some did not for a variety of personal or practical reasons. This is where your research skills will need to come into play: you will need to focus your question more (e.g., look at the cases of specific units). Sufficient photographic and artistic evidence exists to establish that both of the practices you mentioned were common in the Confederate armies. The photographs taken of Confederate dead at Sharpsburg, Gettysburg, the Wilderness, and Petersburg alone are good examples of what I'm talking about. If you really want to get hardcore, you might even look at surviving Confederate regimental and clothing books at the National Archives (Record Group 109).

I would suggest you look in several "coffee table" books about the war, the two series of Time-Life Civil War books, "Echoes of Glory," or the multivolume Civil War Times Illustrated books about CW photography for a start.

Regards,

Mark Jaeger

[Jefferson Guards]

Re: Proper Wearing of Gear

What you need to do before you do anything is read these posts:

http://www.authentic-campaigner.com/...ead.php?t=2165

http://www.authentic-campaigner.com/...ead.php?t=2167

http://www.authentic-campaigner.com/...ead.php?t=2168

http://www.authentic-campaigner.com/...ead.php?t=2169

http://www.authentic-campaigner.com/...ead.php?t=2928

http://www.authentic-campaigner.com/...ead.php?t=2935

Once you have read them and understood what they contain then you will have the tools to find your answer.

[JimConley]

Re: Proper Wearing of Gear

Also, you must keep in mind that some infantry soldiers had no other choice. Many earlier style manufacture cartridge boxes did not have the buckles for a sling. Those genrally fall more along the lines of the .69 caliber boxes.

[kemper_rifles]

Re: Proper Wearing of Gear

Gents,
I was curious if Confederate troops wore both their waist belt (for their cap box) and cartridge box sling (for rounds), or put both their cap and cartridge box on their waist belt. I've seen both and was wondering what is more accurate.

Thanks for all the help. Semper Fi.
John Turner

Its really personal preference. Personally I don't use a sling. Less is more. The cost is less too.

Now, if your research shows that both are accurate then it boils down to personal preference. Are you the type of feller that would rather have his box on a sling? If so, bully for you. Are you the type of feller that would rather carry your box on your waist belt. If so, bully for you just the same.

*As always prices and participation may vary. If you are not doing a generic impression, and research shows slings were prevelent as opposed to no slings or vice versa, you better go with what your research findings show. Offer good while supplies last.*

[GBaylor]

Re: Proper Wearing of Gear

I'll just say this, you should try wearing your cartridge box with 40 live rounds on both the belt or shoulder belt, then make your decision as how you'll wear your traps. Just my opinion.

John Sweeney

[john duffer]

Re: Proper Wearing of Gear

If you try it both ways as experimental archology you'll have to simulate the weight of live rounds. A cartridge box full of blanks rides on the belt much differently.

[markj]

Re: Proper Wearing of Gear

I'll second that. As I mentioned in another thread folks should try stuffing their haversacks, for example, with the equivalent of two or three days' rations to get a better feel about how their 'sacks should "ride" and how they should wear their canteens. An 1863 article in the "United States Army and Navy Journal" noted "The bulging double-convex shape of the canteen prevents it from being worn in the regulation style, 'on the left side, outside the haversack,' especially when the latter is crammed with rations."

Regards,

Mark Jaeger

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Proper Wearing of Gear

Hallo Kameraden!

Indeed, and Herr John and Herr John beat me to it... ;-)

While we know from research and documentation (artifacts, manuals, and pictures are great) that some cartridge boxes can be worn on a waistbelt, some on both waist and shoulder, and some only by shoulder belt- etc, etc.

I find the .58 cartridge box "annoying" to wear on a waistbelt when "rigged" with roughly 4 pounds of lead to simulate a box filled with live rounds (although the "experimental archeology" gets bent when the 40 rounds have been used up and the "empty" box still weighs as full. But that is a longer discussion on "how often" a man's box was full versus empty...)
But, whether I wear "shoulder belt " or "waist belt" depends upon the unit being portrayed.

Outside of specific units, I do prefer the shoulder belt as it can be, IMHO "more" of a PEC thing or even "Generic" thing, and the experience of carrying a "fully loaded" box gives me a "druthers" or "personal bias."

Part of this, in general, is assuming that one has a certain body-type, shape, or weight/build inline with a CW soldier. For a 300 pound lad (and nothing against 300 pound lads), with a light bulb shaped body profile- there may be little or nothing but a "slope" for the actual accoutrements to slide down to the thighs and not stay at or near the natural waist?

The post 1857 pattern .58 boxes could be rigged for waistbelt or shoulder belt carry, but I am reminded of the pre War report (not fully adopted) arguing that the waistbelt method caused the men to march poorly as well as causing hernias from the weight.

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

[markj]

Re: Proper Wearing of Gear

Greetings,

For whatever it's worth to the conversation, here is an image (precisely dated 2 May 1863) of Private Garret Larew, 86th Indiana Volunteer Infantry. The photo has been "corrected" due to being a reversed image.

Regards,

Mark Jaeger

[firstexas]

Re: Proper Wearing of Gear

John.

I agree that it would have depended on the soldier's preference and comfort. Also it would have depended on whether or not the soldier's cartridge box had provisions for a shoulder strap only, belt only or both. I remember reading in Phillip Katcher's book "The Army of Robert E. Lee" that most of Lee's men wore their boxes on their belts. Just my 2 cents.

Best regrads, Bill

[Csayankee]

Re: Proper Wearing of Gear

Just wondering, since no one had mentioned it, how much of the sling/no sling photos had anything to do with supply. Just tring to learn more, does anyone have any resources of supply problems with box slings.

Thanks
Daniel MacInnis

[1stMaine]

Re: Proper Wearing of Gear

Comrades,

One of the things that I have always pondered is the alledged tendency among Confederates to wear the cartridge box upon the waist belt instead of using it with a sling.
Now, I use the word alledged on purpose, their being sufficient images showing both forms of box conveyance. There certainly were times where the lack of leather might be be a reason to reduce or eliminate construction of box belts, and yet their seems to be an attempt to provide box belts through the use os painted cloth or plain cloth construction. These items would also be supported through the reclamation of captured Federal box belts.
Certainly there is documentation through written descriptions and accounts of Confederates using boxes on waist belts, so something else must be at play here, besides personal whim/preference or lack of availability of the item in question.
Could it be possible that, in certain cases, the lack of a box belt was due to the unit using Hardee's rifle tactics? Hardee's was written, of course, with the idea that the box would be worn upon the waistbelt, and slid about when in use for loading, then returned to the small of the bock when finished.
To be sure, the weight of the box is not inconsequential, and so Hardee's system called for a waistbelt fully 2" wide. It's also why he has the soldier reach around and hold onto the box when grounding arms, to keep it from sliding about and getting out of position.
I'm not saying that all soldiers who wore the box on the waist belt used Hardee's system, but it seems to me that it MAY be likely that some units purposely used them in this fashion, in order to comply with his methods. it makes sense to me, but of course, that's no reason to accept this as anything more than specualtion upon my part.
A review of any documentation regarding the specific use of waist-belt suspension for the cartridge box, could be coupled with research to see what types of arms were in use as well as, if possible, what manual the unit trained with. It would be interesting to see how many rifle versus rifle-musket armed troops used Hardee's system, and whether or not they intentionally opted for the waist-belt suspension.
That's my two-cents into the matter. Maybe I'm just barking at the moon, but i do believe it to be a valid question in the box-belt or waist-belt debate.
Respects,

[markj]

Re: Proper Wearing of Gear

Comrades,

One of the things that I have always pondered is the alledged tendency among Confederates to wear the cartridge box upon the waist belt instead of using it with a sling.
Now, I use the word alledged on purpose, their being sufficient images showing both forms of box conveyance. There certainly were times where the lack of leather might be be a reason to reduce or eliminate construction of box belts, and yet their seems to be an attempt to provide box belts through the use os painted cloth or plain cloth construction. These items would also be supported through the reclamation of captured Federal box belts.
Certainly there is documentation through written descriptions and accounts of Confederates using boxes on waist belts, so something else must be at play here, besides personal whim/preference or lack of availability of the item in question.
Could it be possible that, in certain cases, the lack of a box belt was due to the unit using Hardee's rifle tactics? Hardee's was written, of course, with the idea that the box would be worn upon the waistbelt, and slid about when in use for loading, then returned to the small of the bock when finished.
To be sure, the weight of the box is not inconsequential, and so Hardee's system called for a waistbelt fully 2" wide. It's also why he has the soldier reach around and hold onto the box when grounding arms, to keep it from sliding about and getting out of position.
I'm not saying that all soldiers who wore the box on the waist belt used Hardee's system, but it seems to me that it MAY be likely that some units purposely used them in this fashion, in order to comply with his methods. it makes sense to me, but of course, that's no reason to accept this as anything more than specualtion upon my part.
A review of any documentation regarding the specific use of waist-belt suspension for the cartridge box, could be coupled with research to see what types of arms were in use as well as, if possible, what manual the unit trained with. It would be interesting to see how many rifle versus rifle-musket armed troops used Hardee's system, and whether or not they intentionally opted for the waist-belt suspension.
That's my two-cents into the matter. Maybe I'm just barking at the moon, but i do believe it to be a valid question in the box-belt or waist-belt debate.
Respects,

One way to (partially) answer this question would be to conduct a comprehensive review of the Confederate regiment or company books extant in NARA Record Group 109. Just as now, commanders were anal-retentive about "numbers" and I've found a number of company arms, accoutrement, and equipment inventories which, at least, provide snapshots of what was on-hand at a given moment.

The problem, of course, is that we are completely dependent on how well iinventory-takers did their job or even listed individual items. For example, a 25 January 1864 inventory, made at Dallas GA, indicated that, by and large, troops of the 18th & 26th Tennessee regiments were pretty well equipped--only minor shortfalls in accoutrements. Unfortunately, they only list "belts" and "cartridge boxes"--this leaves open the possibility that the bean-counters simply didn't count box slings as separate items. Another inventory made around the same time, for a company in the 32nd Tennessee, seems to indicate the same thing. Incidentally, the 18th & 26th TN carried a mix of "Belgium" and Enfield rifles, while the 32nd reportedly used Enfields and Austrians.

However, I did find the following in the "Record of Events" for the 48th (Nixon's) TN:

Company E [Tullahoma, Tennessee]

On February 25, 1863 [Marcus Logan] Martin had stolen from him while on prisoner duty the following articles: one cartridge box, $2.50; one cartridge box belt, $1.00; one cap pouch, $1.00; one bayonet, $5.00; one waist belt, $.75; one gun sling, $.35; forty cartridges, $10.00 [i.e., 25 cents apiece]; fifty-two caps; five _______ equal $2.60. Was relieved from payment by recommendation [of] court martial.

JAMES C. COOPER, Captain,
Company E, Forty-eighth Regiment,
Tennessee Volunteers.

(Extract from "Record of Events for the Forty-eighth Tennessee Infantry (Nixon's) November 1861 - February 1864." Supplement to the Official Records, Vol. 67, Records of Events, Broadfoot Publishing Company, http://www.broadfootpublishing.com/cg_ref.htm)

Regards,

Mark Jaeger