Confederate Sharpshooters

[Masked Battery]

Re: Lane's Brigade sharpshooter badges

Ryan: Try "Lee's Sharpshooters, Or The Forefront Of Battle. A Story Of Southern Valor That Has Never Been Told" by William S. Dunlop. And...
"Brief Sketches Of The North Carolina State Troops In The War Between The States" by James Cook Birdsong. This has a section about Lane's Brigade Corps Of Sharpshooters.
The CS Army by early 1864 had learned that a detail of men from a brigade, detatched on a semi-permanent basis, could form a very effective skirmishing force. These men were exempt from fatigue duties, specially trained, and allowed to build unit cohesion. The old system of forming a force of skirmishers from a brigade entailed levying a few men from every company, most of whom didn't know each other, and throwing them together for a short while under officers they didn't know.
I've read that some of these Sharpshooter Corps had badges, so they wouldn't be meddled with by pesky officers. I also read (perhaps in Dunlop's book) that at least one of these Corps was issued "two-banded" Enfields, with bayonets, and that four or six men were given Whitworths.

Hope this helps. Neal

[privstull]

Re: Lane's Brigade sharpshooter badges

Neal,

I am much obliged with your response. I will go check out the sources you suggested. I believe that will help me solve my question. Godbless!

[JWolf]

Re: Lane's Brigade sharpshooter badges

Another source is Sharpshooters of the Civil War 1861-1865 by Philip Katcher

There is a bibliography at the end with about 12 sources, including the Dunlop book listed in one of the previous threads.

It describes sharpshooter badges as varying betweeen different commands but overall being fairly similiar. The theme seemed to be a red cross on one arm with the orientation as a "plus" instead of an "X".

Jim Wolf

[kemper_rifles]

Re: Lane's Brigade sharpshooter badges

There was an issue of "America's Civil War" a while back about ANV sharpshooter battalions. They mentioned sharpshooter badges for a certain brigade, may have been Lane's, as being red trefoils. As I recall, they had a picture too, but it was more of a pointy trefoil. You might try a search on an internet forum for "sharpshooter badges". Hope that helps.

[privstull]

Re: Lane's Brigade sharpshooter badges

I have looked into the books: "Brief Sketches of NC state troops in the war between the states" and "Sharpshooters of the Civil War 1861-1865" but have found no information about Lane's brigade sharpshooter badges.

"Lee's sharpshooters" and "The Forefront of Battle. A Story of SOuthern Valor that has never been told" were not at my library but I feel that the answer to my question may lie in one of those books. Does anyone know if there are any sources regarding how Lane's brigade shapshooter badges looked in these books, or any other sources you can think of? I would be much obliged if someone could help me out.

[Mike Hendricks]

Re: Lane's Brigade sharpshooter badges

Ryan,

Try Major Thomas Wooten or Wooten's Battalion Sharpshooter's. There is a brief war record posted on Robeson County, NC. Military Records about Major Thomas James Wooten. Thomas Wooten was the Major of the 18th. NCST and commanded the battalion of Sharpshooter's from Lane's Brigade. I have not found a description of Wooten's Battalion's Sharpshooter badge yet but hope to soon. From the information I have found every brigade in A.P Hill's III Corps had a sharpshooter battalion as early as the fall of 1863. The organization of the sharpshooter battalions where carried out by order of General Lee. I hope this helps.

Regards,
Mike Hendricks
Portsmouth National Grey's, IVR

[msmjr]

Using Weapon Sights

Say, here’s a little something I’ve often wondered about but have never mentioned...

From my vantage, why has there never been any reenacted use of the sights on our infantry weapons while firing in formation at folks far away? I’ve never even been encouraged to "up" the sight one notch when the bad guys have yet to get close. There have been lots of times I’ve marched upon a field and NEVER been told to do anything other than elevate and shoot.

Is it just me or is this just one of those things we've formally overlooked?

Respectfully,
-Mike Montgomery

[john duffer]

Re: Using Weapon Sights

I'm guessing this is one of the major reason for the lack of hits in reenactor battles. :)

[MassVOL]

Re: Using Weapon Sights

Say, here’s a little something I’ve often wondered about but have never mentioned...

From my vantage, why has there never been any reenacted use of the sights on our infantry weapons while firing in formation at folks far away? I’ve never even been encouraged to "up" the sight one notch when the bad guys have yet to get close. There have been lots of times I’ve marched upon a field and NEVER been told to do anything other than elevate and shoot.

Is it just me or is this just one of those things we've formally overlooked?

Respectfully,
-Mike Montgomery

There is a whole chapter on this subject in "The Crucible of Battle" by Brent Nosworthy, which I found very informative. I do not have it in front of me so I don’t want to get into to much detail because I don’t recall exact places and names.
Synopsis:
With the evolution of the rifled musket it was realized that some form of marksmanship training would be needed to effectively bring to bear the new range accuracy of the weapons at hand. Numerous studies were conducted in Europe, specifically Great Britain which founded a marksmanship school for this purpose.
It was slowly recognized in America while Jefferson Davis was the Secretary of War and steps were taken to implement a school in America to teach the fundamentals of marksmanship.

Thats about all I can say in certainty without referencing the book. Essentially Buchanan comes to office, the funding is cut while the diverging schools of thought fight over whether long range fire will even be utilized in the field and whether or not its worth spending the money on training no one will use or understand. I highly recommend that you check out the text of the book.

[PieBoy96]

Re: Using Weapon Sights

When firing at will, I set the sight of my rifle for my own, personal touch of detail. I don't know if the guys around me notice or not, but really I do it for me. Allows me to also really take aim at the enemy (when at distance), thus making each round taking longer to fire, and then not burning up my freakin cartridge box in just one fight. I find it enjoyable to add this tiny touch, again for my own, personal experience.

But heck, you're right - I've never really heard any type of prompt like this, and have never even read an account of it.

[markj]

Re: Using Weapon Sights

Greetings,

Hard to say. I've read letters and diary entries discussing target practice (both formal and informal) by troops in fixed or semi-permanent camps but not once have I ever seen anything mentioned about their using sights in battle. Perhaps some did but logic suggests that most troops didn't since:

1. Battlefield smoke and/or climatic conditions often rendered use of sights pretty much irrelevant.

2. There was presumably a concentration on quantity, rather than "quality," of fire. Throwing large amounts of lead in the general direction of the enemy ensured SOMETHING would get hit.

3. Flipped-up sights were likely a distraction, even downright pain-in-the-a**, especially when loading.

Most of the "targeting instructions" I've seen in contemporary documentation mainly consisted of "fire low" or "aim at their kneecaps." Folks who are into shooting sports and ballistics can undoubtedly say more about this subject, and correct me if I'm wrong, but the general impression I get is that troops had a recurring tendency to aim too high or rifles would "shoot high." This is why commanders advised their troops to aim low. Indeed, I found a letter in the "United States Army & Navy Journal" from an officer recommending that the standard firing commands be revised to state something to the effect of "Ready. Aim-LOW. FIRE."

Your thoughts?

Mark Jaeger

[DougCooper]

Re: Using Weapon Sights

I think you got something there Duffer...now I get it!

Seriously, I cannot recall ever reading of an infantry commander at any level calling out ranges or site settings or anything of the sort. Have never read of ranges being marked off on defensive positions, other than trees being cleared to provide a field of fire. Instead you often read about waiting to fire at almost smoothbore ranges.

[Fod]

Re: Using Weapon Sights

Mark framed the discussion properly - what does the historical record say about sight usage? Contemporary accounts? Memoirs?

There is a great memoir account of the battle of Pea Ridge in William Watson's "Life in the Confederate Army" where he describes his unit (3rd La) pushing fast through the terrain so they could keep the engagement range at under 100 yards. Even though the US troops laid down heavy fire, the CS troops did not suffer many casualties. After the fight, his men went back over the battlefield and saw many trees marked high up from bullets. They recovered enemy rifles and noticed they had "adjustable sights" set for 200 yards.

The Confederates appropriated the new rifles and knocked the sights off.

(I think that's the gist of the passage, if someone wants to put the exact text in, that would be good).

[Tom Ezell]

Re: Using Weapon Sights

From my vantage, why has there never been any reenacted use of the sights on our infantry weapons while firing in formation at folks far away?

1. Because we aren't (or at least shouldn't be) using ball or other live ammunition where sight picture, steady hold factors, or any other marksmanship consideration comes into play. With rare exception, we're shooting blanks, and you don't have to hit 'em to get 'em.

2. Again, with rare exception, basic rifle marksmanship wasn't taught the way we do it now, or even a couple of decades later (presuming you've observed some of the British practice as depicted in Zulu).

3. Most small arms engagements during the Civil War fell within the range of what we now call "battlesight zero,", meaning that if you have a good aim on a man-sized target, you have a pretty good chance of landing a round somewhere on that target even without screwing with the sights.

Tom

[Rmhisteach]

Re: Using Weapon Sights

Mike ,
I have been in this hobby since 1985. I have seen authenticity come a long way. I remember being told to shoot at an upward angle ( about 45 degs) in an effort to be safe. I really think that you are on the something. Perhaps reenactors like our nineteenth century counterparts feel that they need to be tactically behind the times and be unaware of the effective range and the need to revise tactics. just a thought.