"Early War" Knapsacks

[theknapsack]

I have done a search, no results.

I am looking to buy a new knapsack. How common was the usage of the "hardpack" double bag throughout the war? I am speaking of the type that they have by the "campaign" display at the Gettysburg Museum. I need a new, more authentic knapsack, but I can't buy one for 1861 events and the other for 1862 on. Would I be better off just getting the "1862" knapsack?
The other problem I have is the units I am currently in do not have many photos, and they do not have records as to what was issued to them.

If anyone could, could you post pictures of originals and define maybe from letters or something what was common among Western Federals?

Thanks,

[10TnVI]

Re: "Early War" Knapsacks

Riley- Assuming your talking about the Federal Issue double bag with interior frame. The frame it's self was removable and there are numerous references to soldiers doing just that while on the march. You can pick up a copy of the 'early war' hardpack doublebag from Bob Serio at MB&S. You can then remove the frame for 'later war' portrayals and restore it for those times it's appropriate.
As a side light- over two years ago I took my new 'early war' bag on a march and chucked away the frame about halfway through. Found it was chaffing my back too much. Two weekends ago, while again marching in the same area I actually located several elements of the frame still surviving.

I have done a search, no results.

I am looking to buy a new knapsack. How common was the usage of the "hardpack" double bag throughout the war? I am speaking of the type that they have by the "campaign" display at the Gettysburg Museum. I need a new, more authentic knapsack, but I can't buy one for 1861 events and the other for 1862 on. Would I be better off just getting the "1862" knapsack?
The other problem I have is the units I am currently in do not have many photos, and they do not have records as to what was issued to them.

If anyone could, could you post pictures of originals and define maybe from letters or something what was common among Western Federals?

Thanks,

[theknapsack]

Re: "Early War" Knapsacks

That is what I was talking about. They have one without the frame at the Gettysburg museum.
What I read from your post is that it will look like a "later" war knapsack if I remove the frame. Did I read that right? However, there are many differences between the two. The "early war" one has (more) square flaps (on the issue clothing side) and a smaller "V" pocket. Also the "1862" version has leather covering the brass on the shoulder straps, and scalloped ends. I was wondering whether the "early war" version was common throughout the entire war. If I get a "1862" version, then what would I do for 1861 events?

Thanks,

[MontReb]

Re: "Early War" Knapsacks

That is what I was talking about. They have one without the frame at the Gettysburg museum.
What I read from your post is that it will look like a "later" war knapsack if I remove the frame. Did I read that right? However, there are many differences between the two. The "early war" one has (more) square flaps (on the issue clothing side) and a smaller "V" pocket. Also the "1862" version has leather covering the brass on the shoulder straps, and scalloped ends. I was wondering whether the "early war" version was common throughout the entire war. If I get a "1862" version, then what would I do for 1861 events?

Thanks,

Mr. Serio of MB&S has a great article regarding knapsacks and this "1862 version business." www.missouribootandshoe.com/index. I'm also aware that the knapsack sent to Denmark as part of the Danish exchange event in 1853 was the "post 1862 version" (covered studs, scalloped strap ends, etc). Anyway, good info that may answer your question.

[10TnVI]

Re: "Early War" Knapsacks

Riley-
an item issued to a soldier in 1861 would have continued in use until it was lost, destroyed or wore out. Depending on the various factors it would be entirely within the bounds of reason for an 'early war' knapsack to remain in use through the entire war. Just because a 'new model' came out doesn't mean the old were replaced. Additionally, unless the item is destroyed in action or reaches the end of it's service life, the individual's pay would be docked for replacement. A excellent reason for a soldier to maintain an older piece of equipment in service as long as possible:-)
So the gist is, an 'early war' bag could be present at an '1862' or later event, especially if the unit being portrayed was mustered in prior to the general issuance of the newer style 'late war' bag.
As a side note, in my reading I've seen many accounts of soldiers drawing new clothing, tents, shoes, etc. but rarely reports on drawing new accoutrements.

[markj]

Re: "Early War" Knapsacks

Riley-
As a side note, in my reading I've seen many accounts of soldiers drawing new clothing, tents, shoes, etc. but rarely reports on drawing new accoutrements.

Actually, I'm not so sure the above is true. I just got back from a lengthy trip to the National Archives and looked at the surviving regimental books for Brown's Brigade (Steven's Division, Hardee's Corps, AoT) as well as a surviving clothing issue book for Company F, 54th Virginia (both collections are in RG 109). Several men are listed as having lost their arms and accoutrements under varying circumstances (one did so while escorting "prisoners"!) and were charged accordingly, unless replacement costs were remitted by a regimental board of survey. Ditto for some unfortunate troops in the 26th Tennessee (AoT) as is stated in the "Record of Events" entry for that regiment in the "Supplement to the Official Records." Another company inventory for, as I recall, the 45th TN showed a list of troops who had deserted along with their accoutrements/arms, etc.!

Also, my quick (but pretty systematic) check of 1862, 1863, and 1864 arms/ordance returns from Indiana regiments carried in the "Annual Summary of Quarterly Returns of Ordnance and Ordnance Stores..." strongly indicates that many Hoosier regiments very likely HAD to have turned in their accoutrements for new ones due to their switching arms at various points during the war. The 4th Quarter 1862 (ending 31 Dec 62) ordnance return for the 87th Indiana (organized in late summer 1862), for example, shows it concurrently used no less than FIVE different types of arms. Among these were Austrian .58's, Austrian or "Prussian" .70-.71's, Belgian or French .69's, .54 "Jager Rifles" with sword bayonets, and even a sizeable number of piece o' crap European smoothbore .70's-.71's. Oddly, 87th IVI troops were concurrently listed as using .58 cartridge boxes, which must have made for some interesting improvisation on their part when filling them up.

In another case, the 32nd (German) Indiana was initially issued a mix of "Greenwood" altered .69 rifles and "long Enfields" in late September 1861. In January 1862, the 32nd was directed by D. C. Buell to swap its Greenwoods for the Enfields held by its brigade-mate, the 49th Ohio. I would say the odds are pretty good that a certain percentage of accoutrements also changed hands at that time due to the different cartridge boxes used for each respective weapon. The 32nd, incidentally, also had the bad luck to have a large portion of its men captured at Stones River (approximately 200 men) so it stands to reason that a large percentage of those troops also lost their accoutrements and had to replace them after being paroled. I think the same can be said in the immediate aftermath of Chickamauga: the "OR" carries a post-battle inventory by AoT QM's indicating (I'm working from memory) that something like 7,000 rifles of all types fell into their hands after the battle. Needless to say, a lot of accoutrements were also found abandoned on the field, were taken off of Federal dead/wounded/POW's, or were encountered on the road to Chattanooga by Confederates as they advanced to the heights around that city. All of this materiel had to be replaced within the units that lost them.

Thoughts anyone?

Regards,

Mark Jaeger

[10TnVI]

Re: "Early War" Knapsacks

On your points I'm in total agreement- references to new accoutraments being acquired in mass by units reequipping after a weapons change or rearmament are common. I was referring to letters/diaries/journals entries where an individual notes drawing new a knapsacks, etc, to replace a damaged one. I have seen many comments about drawing new clothing, shoes, blankets, tents, etc. but few dealing with accourtements.
another side note- I once come across a notation on a TN-CS muster card of a man being charged for unexplainably losing four(4) cartridges while traveling between Corinth and Tupelo. Talk about a petty Ordanance officer:-)

[hireddutchcutthroat]

Re: "Early War" Knapsacks

On your points I'm in total agreement- references to new accoutraments being acquired in mass by units reequipping after a weapons change or rearmament are common. I was referring to letters/diaries/journals entries where an individual notes drawing new a knapsacks, etc, to replace a damaged one. I have seen many comments about drawing new clothing, shoes, blankets, tents, etc. but few dealing with accourtements.
another side note- I once come across a notation on a TN-CS muster card of a man being charged for unexplainably losing four(4) cartridges while traveling between Corinth and Tupelo. Talk about a petty Ordanance officer:-)

Leland

One case would be in Alfred Bellards Gone For a Soldier. Bellard states that he lost his knapsack (and contents) about three times due to theft, being burned in a grassfire, and sunk on a barge.

[lhsnj]

Re: "Early War" Knapsacks

I once come across a notation on a TN-CS muster card of a man being charged for unexplainably losing four(4) cartridges while traveling between Corinth and Tupelo. Talk about a petty Ordanance officer:-)

Not to sidetrack the discussion, but isn't there a reference by Sam Watkins in Co Aytch about them getting charged for missing cartridges? Something like 10 or 20 cents.