Markmanship of Yanks vs. Rebs

[DougCooper]

Re: Markmanship of Yanks vs. Rebs

My opinion has always been that there likely was no difference one could measure...but there were generally more targets in blue than gray, and more instances where the North was attacking and South defending than vice versa. When the barn is bigger and out in the open, it is easier to hit it.

[rebel7398]

Re: Markmanship of Yanks vs. Rebs

I don't think that many and/or most southerners were hunters and were poor had a lot to do with the marksman issue. The north's population was much more dense thus there was not as much game to be had and there were markets to purchase meat. The population of the south was more rural and game was abundant so hunting for fresh meat was a way of life. And..if you were poor you certainly kept the price of powder, cap, and ball in the back of your mind when you took aim.

Donald Hawkins
46th Tennessee

[6thWis]

Re: Markmanship of Yanks vs. Rebs

Experience may have had more to do with expending more fire than reserving it. Common sense might tell us that inexperienced "volunteer" soldiers would take more time to load and fire their muskets at the enemy in a combat situation, taking time to try and handle the excitement and fear of battle while taking note of all that was going on around them.

Older, more experienced soldiers could handle their emotions in battle a little better, and rely on their training more instinctively. I seem to remember hearing about Cross' brigade in action at the Wheatfield at Gettysburg on the second day, how one or two of the regiments had expended most of their ammunition within 10 minutes, not even reaching the Confederate lines in the woods. - This was a veteran unit, that had been engaged at battles like Antietam and Fredricksburg. They were pumping out a continuous fire at the enemy. Granted, its much tougher to load live rounds into a rifle musket, with the fouling of the barrel, and the stress of combat, but to expend your ammunition in 10-15 minutes of battle, thats got to mean something to experienced soldiers and officers, especially since all the time, we read about officers shouting things like, "pour it on em boys," or "keep up your fire," or my personal favorite from the 1st day at Gettysburg, "Rake the Sh#t outta them!" - I think its a safe assumption that most officers would order their men to load and fire at the enemy as fast as possible.

That's one of the main theories of combat that involves firing projectiles right? Fire as much as you can in the enemy's direction, and even if you don't kill or wound him, you'll keep his head down so your comrades can fire and maneuver.

I doubt most units thought too much about taking careful aim at the enemy - even experienced ones. The smoke and confusion of combat would make it very hard to pick out targets, unless there was a wind, or you were very close to the enemy.

JMHO

Ryan Alcaino

[Rear Guard]

Re: Markmanship of Yanks vs. Rebs

I was re-reading Co. Aytch and noticed how many times Sam Watkins made reference to how the lowly private was fined 25 cents for every lost or wasted cartridge in Bragg's army. Now, I'm wondering if this policy may have had an effect on rate of fire. Hmmmm.......

[Hank Trent]

Re: Markmanship of Yanks vs. Rebs

Let me throw in something totally off the wall. On another forum, someone mentioned the book On Killing by Lt Col Dave Grossman. Totally modern book, totally modern discussion. I haven't read it, but it apparently includes the premise that most men have an innate resistance toward killing, and military training seeks to reduce that resistance. That's the part which applies here. The discussion which followed included this observation by a poster:

Soldiers in World War Two, like all soldiers before them, had not been conditioned to kill. Brigadier General S.L.A Marshall ... found consistently that only 15 - 20% of infantry soldiers would fire their weapons at the enemy in an engagement. The rest did not flee or hide or panic - indeed they often undertook other much more dangerous tasks such as rescuing wounded or running messages. They simply would not fire...

These conclusions are supported by a range of data produced since then, including American Civil War studies, Medieval Warfare studies, and the historic records we have of Ancient battles....

After Marshall's findings, a comprehensive effort was made to improve shooting rates. Marshall concluded that a natural resistance to killing fellow humans existed, and that weapon drill and discipline obviously weren't enough to permanently overcome it. Thus, it had to be disabled...

The new training methodology was very simple:

1. Human-shaped targets
2. Human-like behaviour from targets (appearing and disappearing suddenly)
3. Instant reward - a successful kill results in the target lying down
4. High rates of repetition

By the Vietnam War, a study similar to Marshall's found that 95% of combatants would fire at the enemy. The training had worked.

The whole discussion on the other forum is off topic here, but it does include some short analysis of Civil War firing and kill rates. Here's a link to the thread: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=85651

My point is, though, have the psychological reasons for good or poor marksmanship been addressed specifically concerning Civil War era training and battlefield performance? There's no doubt there were many poorly aimed shots, and the usual explanation is fear, or hurry to keep up the rate of fire. But were Civil War soldiers (and similarly trained soldiers before and since) poorer marksmen in battle than one would expect, due to an innate resistance to killing?

Would the cultural background of northerners vs. southerners have affected this, if there was a difference? The cliche explanation, true or not, that southerners were more handy with guns, being more rural, may explain why they could potentially be better marksmen. But I wonder also if someone used to hunting and butchering would have already begun to overcome the psychological resistance to killing, at least having gone through the four steps above in relation to living animals rather than humans. While a city boy who learned only to shoot in a target range might be as proficient with the use of his weapon, but not yet used to seeing a living thing in his sights.

I've not studied the psychology of killing in military training, so can't begin to comment on anything present in Grossman's book or the snippet from the thread quoted above, but when reading that discussion I thought of this thread and the comments on poorly aimed fire in battle.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[Dan Munson]

Re: Markmanship of Yanks vs. Rebs

A couple of reasons to discount (at least somewhat) the standard "average reb was a more experienced hunter" explanation for better southerner marksmanship -- if in fact that was the case -- are A) the situational differences between hunting and combat, and 2) the difference between typical hunting arms and the typical military arms. Seems to me most of the game these rural southerners would have been bagging for the ol' cooking pot -- squirrels, rabbits and the occasional deer -- did not offer that much personal danger to the shooter (no racing pulse, no sweaty palms, no sense of “hurry,” etc.). Also most of them would be taken at pretty close range - shooting a squirrel or rabbit over open sights at 100 yards or so could be just a tetch tricky, don’t you think? Then, too, hunting with shotguns and squirrel guns does not exactly equate to getting a steady aim, under pressure, with heavier arms such as a Springfield or Enfield (see my previous comments in this thread about volley versus “by file” firing) . And on top of that, it is questionable how much the “experience” with these civilian hunting arms would carry over to the heavier military arms with their different performance characteristics. I’m not saying that prior hunting experience didn’t help the 1860s volunteer soldier (I’ll bet it was a help to snipers, since that “art” is akin to hunting). I just don’t believe this is a sufficient explanation for any marksmanship “advantage” southerners may have had.

Dan Munson