Charge Bayonets.

[sgt1863]

I'm sure this has been covered extensively, but was unable to find anything through a general search.

A company sized group of us will be gathering for our annual drill weekend. While brushing up on my Casey's Tactics and going over our schedule of items to cover in detail in dawned on me that no where in the manual is what the 2nd rank is to do at the command "Charge Bayonet."

Since it is not a command offen heard on a reenactment field, most don't worry about it, but I'm a stickler for drilling by the book. I have seen the rear rank go to either "port arms" or "right shoulder shift" both I know are incorrect.

So my question is anyone aware of the proper position for the rear rank for "Charge Bayonet"?

[BrianHicks]

Re: Charge Bayonets.

This article is pretty good, and gives info on what the manuals actual say (or fail to say) on the position of the weapons in the second rank when going to 'Charge Bayonet'

http://www.33wis.com/articles/pdf/chargebayonet.pdf

[Jeremy Bevard]

Re: Charge Bayonets.

As a fellow stickler it is "arms port". It is reversed from the other commands. Probably because it sounds to much like support arms when said in the normal order.

[Silas]

Re: Charge Bayonets.

Here's an article I cranked out ten years ago about this : http://44tennessee.tripod.com/rightshouldershift.html Nice period account from a letter sent home about what orders were given to the front and rear ranks during a mock charge performed for General Hardee. Hardee wasn't pleased.

[CompanyWag]

Re: Charge Bayonets.

I have an 1862 edition of Kelton's New Manual of the Bayonet. Those that have read this manual will note that Kelton claims his method was introduced to the Corps of Cadets at West Point. True or not, on page 79 there is an interesting reference to his method of conducting a charge. Although this reads more as a dramatic way of commencing bayonet excercise rather than manuvering in the face of an actual enemy, no where does he refer to the rear rank being at Right Shoulder Shift.

Far from conclusive, it is from this reference that the Mudsills conducted charges with both ranks at Arms Port until closing with the enemy.

Paul McKee


THE CHARGE

(Plate XXV, FIG. 40)

103. The squad (platoon, or company) being in two ranks and at "carry arms," and supposed to be forty or fifty yards from the enemy, the instructor will command:

1. Prepare to charge.
2. Double quick - MARCH!

At the first command, seize the piece with the left hand at the height of the right breast, and bring it diagonally across the middle of the body, the bayonet slightly advanced, the right hand holding the handle at the height of the hips,the left hand in front and at the height of the left breast. At the second command the squad (or company) will move off at the "double quick," carrying the piece as described.

104. After moving to the front forty or fifty paces, the command "Halt!" will be given as the left foot is coming to the ground, when both ranks will halt and take the position of Guard. The front rank may then be required to move to the front about ten feet by the "front passade," in order that the company may be exercised in the manual.

105. The charge by company, resembling the actual movement in battle, will instruct the men to act with that concert which alone renders a charge formidable.

[sgt1863]

Re: Charge Bayonets.

The only reason that leads me to believe that it is not "port arms" is that there is no "port arms" in Casey's manual. It's not logical to use a position that the men drilled in Casey's would not have learned in the manual of arms. Though once again its only speculation again.

"Sgt. Tom" is not an allowable signature for this forum. Please review the link to the rules which you'll find below my own signature in the next post. Consider this your solitary warning. - Silas, one of them moderators

[Silas]

Re: Charge Bayonets.

The only reason that leads me to believe that it is not "port arms" is that there is no "port arms" in Casey's manual. It's not logical to use a position that the men drilled in Casey's would not have learned in the manual of arms. Though once again its only speculation again.

Huh? What are you trying to say? A restatement of your comment would be appreciated. Sounds like you're saying "arms port" isn't in the manual of arms, but I don't think you mean that.

Pretty hard to go against a direct source from Kelton's manual. Your fidelity to Casey is commendable, but his isn't the only manual in town. There's also the manual from the fat old man with all that gold braid on his uniform :

Remarks on Arms Port, Charge Bayonet, and Trail Arms.

466. When a battalion or line is to charge bayonet, the whole are, in the first instance, to come to Arms—Port, and advance at a firm, quick step, but in the most perfect order possible, until they reach the enemy. (See No. 545.)

467. It is at that instant that the front rank are necessarily to bring their firelocks down to the charging position, and the whole are to press forward with the utmost energy. The enemy being routed, it will depend on the officer commanding to give the word Halt; when the front rank will resume the position of Arms—Port, and proceed as may be afterwards directed. But the word Halt is on no account to be given during a charge, or as preparatory to the front rank bringing the firelock down to the charging position. It is, therefore, to be understood, that, in the charge, or quick attack upon the enemy with fixed bayonets, either previous to, or after firing, (which usually commences at a distance of one hundred, or one hundred and fifty yards, as the ground may permit,) the charging position of the front rank is to be assumed only at the instant of attack or defence.

468. In cases such as passing through a thick wood, shouldered arms is impracticable; and a soldier has sometimes recourse to his firelock as a necessary support, as in climbing the steep sides of an eminence, and crossing ditches; it becomes, therefore, necessary that the instructer should sometimes make the soldiers practise the motions of Arms—Port, and of Trail—Arms, whilst marching, to teach them to avail themselves most advantageously of their firelocks, under different circumstances.

Source : Scott's Abstract of infantry tactics: including exercises and manœuvres of light-infantry and riflemen; for the use of the militia of the United States (1830). Link : http://books.google.com/books?id=6M4...page&q&f=false

Pretty hard to ignore a source like Scott.

[CompanyWag]

Re: Charge Bayonets.

Tom,

Note that Kelton's does not make mention of "arms port" by name. However, I assume your question is simply in regard to exercising the company in the manual of arms rather than practising a charge. In that case, just open the ranks as noted in the School of the Company and have both ranks execute the same movements.

Paul McKee

[sgt1863]

Re: Charge Bayonets.

It's a little more than just drilling in the manual of arms. We do school in McClellan's bayonet drill which has come in quite handy when drunk and rejected officers come riding through our picket line at 3AM. The only time we use "charge bayonet" is while engaged a living history for the park service or a local event. The public always likes it. We've always gone to "Right Shoulder Shift" more for safety sake but also because it's standard to go to "right shoulder shift" while men are at the double quick which would proceed the actual final charge itself. I would like to avoid combining manuals, that's a slippery slope that leads to a bastardized drill that I'm sure we've all seen from time to time. We have these big drill weekends once a year and I just wanted to get everyone on the same page for the start of the 150th cycle. You guys have been very helpful in this topic.

H.M Tommarello

[CompanyWag]

Re: Charge Bayonets.

Often I have found that if something is unclear or not fully explained in a given manual, that referring to an earlier manual can yield a fuller explanation. Perhaps later authors assumed certain principals were so well established in previous periods that detailed explanations for some things were left off.

Given the arms position for the charge specified by Scott in 1830 which is echoed in 1861 in Kelton's manual, and given the absense of other period manuals to the contrary, I fear that having the rear rank go to right shoulder shift may be bastardizing the drill already. But you must run your company as you see fit. If you feel uncomfortable teaching anything to your company without a direct reference in Casey's, then you might consider leaving it off your training agenda altogether. Sometimes less is more.

Paul McKee

[john duffer]

Re: Charge Bayonets.

I’ve quite a bit of reading to do yet but some early observations on Dom’s article “proving” the rear rank going to Arms-Port: The 1829 ABSTRACT OF TACTICS is the abridged version for militia use of the 1825 TACTICS. It’s based on the English system, the French influence doesn’t take place until the 1835 TACTICS. Arms-Port is part of the regular manual of arms, there’s no such thing as Right-Shoulder-Shift so that’s not an option. I have 1804 and 1823 English manuals that agree with this. When the French based 1835 TACTICS arrives, Right-Shoulder-Shift is introduced and Arms-Port is mentioned only in the section about relieving sentinels. I somewhat suspect that over four years among millions of men - rear rank charge bayonet/rear rank arms port/rear rank right shoulder shift - all may have occurred but I don’t think the 1829 A.O.T. can be used to prove the case for one over another. Hopefully I can update in more depth with further study.

[flattop32355]

Re: Charge Bayonets.

While not necessarily conclusive, most items of drill and manoeuver were done in the most expeditious and compact way possible. There was a reason they chose to do things in certain ways, rather than others.
That said, and without more current direction than Scott's manual/abstract, what might the most efficient, comfortable way of doing "The Charge" be?

Is there an advantage to advancing at Port Arms over Right Shoulder Shift, or any other position of arms? I should think that there are a few: Ease of carrying the weapon during the advance, stability of the position during a speedy advance, less effort to bring the weapon to its attack position near the point of contact, less chance of fumbling the weapon in bringing it to the attack position, and in the rear rank, less chance of injury to the front rank men both during the advance and at contact.

Admittedly, Scott's does not take into account the greater opposing firing accuracy at increased distance of rifled weapons that theoretically occurred, but I'm not sure if that would have any bearing on how the attacker would able to advance.

Can men move faster over distance at Port Arms compared to Right Shoulder Shift, or visa versa? Keep in mind that the bayonet charge was not made at maximum possible speed, but at a rate that kept the formation together for maximum weight of impact at the point of contact, whenever that occurred.

Is it possible that it is more efficient to begin the advance at RRS, and then change to Port Arms somewhere during the approach? That would require one more order being given and conducted during a relatively speedy advance.

It's also possible that it was done differently by different formations/commands at particular times.

[john duffer]

Re: Charge Bayonets.

" stability of the position during a speedy advance "

Right Shoulder Shift or Trail Arms are the prescribed methods for the double quick 1855 on, with RSS being the default unless something else is ordered.

" Admittedly, Scott's does not take into account the greater opposing firing accuracy at increased distance of rifled weapons that theoretically occurred"

The faster speeds of 1855 Hardee's (1845 Ordonance) are an attempt to address this.

" It's also possible that it was done differently by different formations/commands at particular times."

It's strictly my opinion, but I think this the most likely scenario.