Debunked: Left Oblique Aiming Over Right Shoulders

[john duffer]

Re: Debunked: Left Oblique Aiming Over Right Shoulders

This is 1835 SCOTT'S very slightly paraphrased but as the three rank formation was suspended when SCOTT'S was accepted not sure why it would be around in 1850 (on a side note do we have any Mexican War students that would have insight as to whether we used two or three ranks in that conflict?). In any case "men in front", "file leaders" and "pass it over the head of the man directly in front". refers to the kneeling front rank man.

[Pvt Schnapps]

Re: Debunked: Left Oblique Aiming Over Right Shoulders

It seems to be indeed firing over the left shoulder. More clarification from the United Service Journal, Volume I, Number 13, Saturday, October 13, 1850:

Fire to the left.

283. At the command ready, the three ranks will execute what has been prescribed for the fire direct.

284. At the cautionary command left oblique, the three ranks will throw back the left shoulder, and look steadily at the object on which they ought to fire; in this position the men of the centre and rear ranks will be ready to take aim in the interval to the left of the men in front, and in an oblique direction.

285. At the command aim, the front rank will take aim to the left without inclining the knee or stirring the feet. The centre rank men will take aim through the intervals to the left of their file leaders, without stirring the feet. The rear rank men will advance the left foot about six inches toward the right heel of the centre men of their files; they will advance also the upper part of the body in bending a little the left knee, and take aim through the intervals to the left of their file leaders.

256. At the command load, the three ranks will come to the priming position, the pieces still obliquely to the left, and prime; the rear rank will bring back the left heel to the hollow of the right foot. In casting about, the three ranks will take the same position as in the fire direct.

Remarks on the Oblique Firings.

287. Throw back a shoulder in taking aim;
In order to be able to direct the sight more or less obliquely, according to the position of the object aimed at.

288 The Instructer [sic] will render this principle practically intelligible to recruits by placing a man in front, more or less to the light (or left), to represent such object, when they will fully understand the joinery or mechanism of the oblique firings.

289. Advance of tlhe left foot and upper part of the body in the rear rank;
To avoid accidents, because, without this precaution, the pieces of the rear rank would not sufficiently project along beyond the front in the oblique firings.

290. In firing obliquely to the left, to draw back the piece and prime in the oblique position;
Because, if the direct position were resumed, it would be necessary, in drawing back the piece to the priming position, to pass it over the head of the man directly in front.

https://books.google.com/books?id=ha...page&q&f=false

Notice how the footing differs from Hardee's/Casey's though, Jason.

In Scott's, to fire to the left oblique the rear rank man steps forward -- that is, with his left foot toward the right heel of the man in front, whose feet are T'd (rather than to his toe as when firing obliquely to the right). This differs markedly from Hardee's/Casey's, in which the rear rank man steps with his right foot toward the right heel of the man to the right of his file leader.

And in 1850 the "ready" position is vertical.

Both of those differences -- as well as those in Upton's -- obviate the need for the front (or middle) rank man's head to briefly dematerialize if you want to move your feet and come to "aim" as in Casey's yet still fire over the left interval.

[john duffer]

Re: Debunked: Left Oblique Aiming Over Right Shoulders

To be realistic for a moment:

It's mid war and the average, non professional, officer or NCO is using HARDEE'S, GILHAM'S, US TACTICS, et al. He doesn't know about how French troops fired in three ranks in 1831, what Upton will do post war or what a booklet written 150 plus years in the future may say but he does have a book in front of him to go by. I'd say it's pretty certain the rear rank fires in the right interval for direct and right oblique so at the left oblique the rear rank man is told to throw back his left shoulder, where to look, where to move his right foot, where to aim, to bend his body slightly and to bend the right knee a little. After going into this much detail did the manual forget to mention shifting to the left interval and how to get the weapon over there or how to get it back ? I don't see many 'aha, I bet they meant to say' moments cropping up so at the very least it's hardly a reenactorism that can be debunked.

Your mileage may vary.

[Palmyra Possum]

Re: Debunked: Left Oblique Aiming Over Right Shoulders

I don't see many 'aha, I bet they meant to say' moments cropping up so at the very least it's hardly a reenactorism that can be debunked.

There were resources available other than just blindly trying to figure it out from a drill manual. For example, this is from United States Service Magazine, p. 285 (New York, 1865):

[john duffer]

Re: Debunked: Left Oblique Aiming Over Right Shoulders

They didn't have to blindly figure out anything, the manual gives explicit instructions (they were designed to quickly bring yearly drafts up to speed) and, in any case, a book in the hand seems a more likely resource than a reply in a magazine that won't be printed for another couple of years.

[Palmyra Possum]

Re: Debunked: Left Oblique Aiming Over Right Shoulders

"[E]ach man in the rear will advance the right foot about eight inches toward the right heel of the man next on the right of his file leader…"

Have you ever gotten out a ruler and measured your foot positions? On me, the heel of my right foot, after I move it, is pretty much up against the arch of my left, about where Silas diagramed it in his post of 06/30/18. Aim around the right shoulder of the front rank man from this position and the majority of the rear rank will promptly lose its balance and fall over. Common sense tells us something is wrong with his interpretation. Most reenacting units "correct" this problem by having the rear rank step out a foot and half to two feet instead of the prescribed eight inches.

You can blow off an article because it's 1865 instead of 1863 all you want, but it does document that aiming over the left shoulder was a correct way of doing a left oblique. You have provided no documentation that aiming over the right shoulder was also a correct way of doing a left oblique. You seem to want us to believe that not only did commanders misinterpret the manual (something I concede is possible), but that it happened with such uncorrected frequency that it warrants being the norm as it is portrayed at most reenactments. Unless you can support that contention with documentation, I will need to file your post under "opinions and assumptions."

[john duffer]

Re: Debunked: Left Oblique Aiming Over Right Shoulders

" Unless you can support that contention with documentation, I will need to file your post under "opinions and assumptions."

If you mean documentation besides HARDEE'S 1855 & Goetzel, U.S. TACTICS, GILHAM'S, CASEY'S and the 1845 ORDONNANCE DU ROI then you're right, I'm just assuming and opining - unlike your solid conclusion based on a sentence in an 1865 magazine and a diagram from six weeks ago.

On a side note I never once fell over firing at the left oblique as a reenactor while following the instructions given. Read the manuals instead of starting with a conclusion and working backwards.

[john duffer]

Re: Debunked: Left Oblique Aiming Over Right Shoulders

I'm honestly surprised this is even in contention. I'm a rear rank man -- ordered to fire by company (or whatever) and given READY at which point I'm directly behind the front rank man with my feet teed and my piece to his right. At left oblique aim I step to my right and bend forward a little to get my piece further past him and fire. Where is the instruction to raise my piece and shift to the left interval ? Typo in all my manuals?

That being said I've always considered Upton to be a 'lessons learned' indicator and have to believe that by the end of the war it was thought more logical to fire through the left interval and extra steps added to the manual in order to shift sides. I feel there's sort of a missing link in between and have to wonder if the 1865 magazine quote reflects the shift towards what Upton calls for and perhaps that is what prompts the confusion and someone writing to ask for clarification.

I stand by my assertion that anyone going by the bulk of the manuals in use during most of the war will fire by the right interval. Safety while firing in close ranks depends on everybody doing the same thing and predictability, there's a risk in improvisation.

Whoops, had to edit as I forgot the instruction that "When recruits are formed in two ranks to execute the firings, the front rank man will raise a little less the right elbow, in order to facilitate the aim of the rear rank men." Yet another instance where the scatterbrained manual writers forgot to mention the left oblique exception.

[Matthew Joe Mallory]

Re: Debunked: Left Oblique Aiming Over Right Shoulders

To be realistic for a moment:

It's mid war and the average, non professional, officer or NCO is using HARDEE'S, GILHAM'S, US TACTICS, et al. He doesn't know about how French troops fired in three ranks in 1831, what Upton will do post war or what a booklet written 150 plus years in the future may say but he does have a book in front of him to go by. I'd say it's pretty certain the rear rank fires in the right interval for direct and right oblique so at the left oblique the rear rank man is told to throw back his left shoulder, where to look, where to move his right foot, where to aim, to bend his body slightly and to bend the right knee a little. After going into this much detail did the manual forget to mention shifting to the left interval and how to get the weapon over there or how to get it back ? I don't see many 'aha, I bet they meant to say' moments cropping up so at the very least it's hardly a reenactorism that can be debunked.

Your mileage may vary.

To the average soldier with no prior military experience, you may be absolutely correct (evidence tends to point that way, as the article showed), but we must remember that not everyone started their fight in 1863, nor did they start off with Hardee, Gilham's, or the U.S. Tactics. Pre-war military academies were popular, and many of those Cadets ended up as officers and non-commissioned officers in a position where they could instruct people to fire through the left interval, as the manuals they trained under instructed them. We also cannot ignore the immigrants with military experience that ended up teaching others as well. I've been doing some (admittedly light) research on my own ancestor's unit, the 40th Mississippi Infantry, and was a bit shocked to find out that they originally drilled in the French manual.

Yes, I concede that the average and previously untrained soldier will have difficulty knowing what to do with such vague instructions in Hardee's, Gilham's, etc., but they were not the only soldiers that fought. Many veterans with prior training were on hand, and even if they weren't the drill instructors, it's still likely they gave a hand when something confusing came up.

[john duffer]

Re: Debunked: Left Oblique Aiming Over Right Shoulders

Yes, I concede that the average and previously untrained soldier will have difficulty knowing what to do with such vague instructions in Hardee's, Gilham's, etc., but they were not the only soldiers that fought. Many veterans with prior training were on hand, and even if they weren't the drill instructors, it's still likely they gave a hand when something confusing came up.

The instructions are only vague if you're determined to prove they didn't mean what they said.

[Silas]

Re: Debunked: Left Oblique Aiming Over Right Shoulders

I'm still waiting for someone to produce a source which says to aim through the right interval.

The manuals either state expressly to fire through the left interval or they don't state any interval. Despite this, the accepted method in the hobby has been to fire through the right interval.

Clinging to a practice which runs contrary to all available authority because the practice is the way its always been done sure sounds like a reenactorism.

[Matthew Joe Mallory]

Re: Debunked: Left Oblique Aiming Over Right Shoulders

The instructions are only vague if you're determined to prove they didn't mean what they said.

Exactly, and since they didn't specifically state "right shoulder", as Hardee and company left out, then the method used for decades prior would be the commonly acceptable method. Surely if they had meant to reinvent the wheel, they would have said so.

[john duffer]

Re: Debunked: Left Oblique Aiming Over Right Shoulders

I'm still waiting for someone to produce a source which says to aim through the right interval.

The manuals either state expressly to fire through the left interval or they don't state any interval. Despite this, the accepted method in the hobby has been to fire through the right interval.

Clinging to a practice which runs contrary to all available authority because the practice is the way its always been done sure sounds like a reenactorism.

At READY my rifle is in the right interval, (I won't know if it's oblique until AIM). I step to the right and bend my right knee, my rifle is in the right interval. My rifle is still in the right interval when FIRE is given. Sure looks like I fire through the right interval if I'm using HARDEE'S so I don't see any confusion or reenactorism. Troops used the manual they followed not a mishmash of different ones put together for them.

By your logic Silas we can never know which interval to use for direct fire and right oblique since it never says to the right.

[john duffer]

Re: Debunked: Left Oblique Aiming Over Right Shoulders

Exactly, and since they didn't specifically state "right shoulder", as Hardee and company left out, then the method used for decades prior would be the commonly acceptable method. Surely if they had meant to reinvent the wheel, they would have said so.

HARDEE'S and company didn't leave anything out, you always fire through the right interval - left - direct - right. Do what the manual says instead of saying it must be wrong if it doesn't fit a pet theory. And firing to the left of the kneeling front rank man in three ranks has nothing to do with the HARDEE'S era. Gilham relies heavily on 1835 SCOTT'S including his musket stack and method of forming the company but when he fires in two ranks he uses right interval. How do I know this if he doesn't say so? Because if I follow instructions that's where my rifle always is when FIRE is give. As I mentioned there's no confusion unless you're trying to create some. When you start assuming something was left out or a wise old sergeant showed a few hundred thousand men the way he liked to do it in the old days - well.....

[Matthew Joe Mallory]

Re: Debunked: Left Oblique Aiming Over Right Shoulders

I think the problem is you're believing that people like Hardee and Gilham can't make mistakes. Even as they reinvented tactics in their time, they still drew from the previous ones such as Scott and the French. They left out a lot of things, which required many instances of where they had to find it from the earlier source, of which was primarily Scott's.

We're not guessing that there was confusion on the issue, we know that there was confusion on the issue. We also know that when that confusion came up, the answer was given that it goes over the left interval. It's not making up confusion, it already exist and existed.