Confederate Sharpshooters

[wmkane]

Re: Using Weapon Sights

The discussion of the stadia by John Sullivan has intruiged me. I have done some prelimenary searches that have come up blank. So I ask: Does anyone know of a source for stadia (either originals or reproductions?)

Many Thanks

[pipthelimey]

Re: Using Weapon Sights

I am not sure if there were stadia's in use with the artillery, although I know a form of the stadia is used by engineers. I am sure that ranges for fixed guns were often determined pre-bombardment using an engineer's stadia. I doubt if any type of stadia was used by foot troops, with the slightest possible exception of some sharpshooters. My personal experience with them is a wooden stick which I have premeasured marks on. I hold it upright at arm's length, and there are etches where I have used pre-measured ranges to mark where a man's head would be if I aligned his feet with the mark at the bottom of the stick. I don't use it much for reenacting, (in fact only once) but I use it for shooting live at distance. It's really for approximation more then anything. Here are two good links which discuss the principles behind it:

http://www.du.edu/~jcalvert/astro/stadia.htm

http://pasture.ecn.purdue.edu/~agen215/stadia.html

In the field, the most practical tool I have used is the following measurements. I'm not sure of the source.

2000 yards: infantry will appear as a black line
1200-1500 yards: ranks of infantry can be distinguished
1000 yards: The lines of heads and legs are visible
800 yards:The upper outline of men can be distinguished
600 yards: men are distinctly visible, but color can not be determined. Head dress can be recognized
400 yards: The ornaments on headdress can be seen, and colors are distinguishable
200 yards: mens heads are visible
100 yards: The line of the men's eyes are visible
80 yards: Men's eyes are distinct
25 yards: The whtes of the eyes are visible

The document I copied this from didn't have units of measurement. It may be feet, so any old grunts out there can probably give me an idea.

Andrew Jerram

[Tom Ezell]

Re: Using Weapon Sights

Now that somebody's dredged this up again, and having on my part joined up with a muzzleloader club that takes its marksmanship seriously, are you using full sight, half sight, or fine sight? There's a big difference, even when using adjustable rear sights.

MAJ Calhoun Benham's little manual A System for Musketry Instruction, implemented in Cleburne's Division during the winter of 1862-1863 is a valuable little handbook on the care and use of a black powder rifle, and sets out a good model for teaching marksmanship and the estimation of distances/range. They didn't get the live fire practice recommended in the book, but they mastered sighting and position drills, and spent hours judging the distance to a man sized target at different ranges.

And for you smoothbored smart@sses, use of the sights does too make a difference when you're trying to hit a man at battlesight distance, whether with round ball or buck and ball, rather than spray 'n pray, use the tang screw as your rear mark and line up the axis of the bore on your target... just like you would with a modern shotgun. You'll come a lot closer to getting your man rather than spraying to the left or right of him because your bore isn't in line.

[Longbranch 1]

Re: Using Weapon Sights

A very good question.

Not to dwell , and I look forward to researching this.

Personally, I believe the elevation sights were rarely used, and even more rarely ordered to use.

Pretty much throughout the chain of command in the armies of either side ( with the exception of Artillery), we were still fighting a Napoleonic type war.

This was the last " chivalrous " war.
Technology of the demise of your foe was increased more than at any other time .Between the invention of the bow and arrow and the invention of the atomic bomb.
More advancements in more areas.

All of these are optimaly designed , yes, to kill your opponent, but more importantly to make him submit to your will.

The technological revolution in weaponry 1850? was not accompanied by a comensurate advancement in tactics.

Just a thought,
Kevin Ellis,
26th NCT

[Fahlem]

Re: Using Weapon Sights

Every time my pads & I are out on the skirmish line, I always remember to flip up the rear sight & most of the other guys follow suit. We even go to the extent of estimating ranges and thus shout out the distance in yards or sometimes rods to each other. I will agree however, that the "little touches" are often over looked in the hobby. I wish more reenactors paid closer attention to what "real" effective fire would do & react properly rather than the unfortunate close quarter powder burner that most reenactments generally degrade into. It really does the hobby a disservice.

Michael Fahle
Co. F 2nd USSS

[Gary of CA]

Re: Using Weapon Sights

Actually, the British School of Musketry at the Hythe was patterned after the French model.

[Bill]

Re: Using Weapon Sights

In early 1860, the War Department conducted a series of accuracy tests on basically every weapon they had in their inventory, to include rifles, rifle muskets, altered muskets, and smooth bores. They had a ten man squad fire in volley, by file, and as skirmishers. The also had marksmen firing off-hand and from a rest. The target was ten feet square with a horizontal and vertical line through the center as an aiming point. Using the rifle musket, the results were pretty amazing. As an example, Firing as skirmishers, the squad fired fifty shots and twenty-one hit the target at 500 yards. At 100 yards every shot hit the target. Interestingly enough, it took five minutes for 10 men to fire those fifty shots! Drawing of the actual targets were included in the report. It looks like one man was shooting low and to the left!

IMHO, there was one major flaw in these tests. All shooting was done at measured distances that exactly matched the rifle sights; 100, 200, 300, and 500 yards. My M-1855 is actually sighted out to 800 yards. My guess is that accuracy would have declined quite a bit, if the soldiers had to guess various ranges.

In regard to the smooth bores. Very interesting. At 200 yards, many of the buck shot fired at that range failed to penetrate the target. Firing was stopped at that distance. The Board concluded that it was a waste of time and ammunition to shoot buck and ball at 200 yards, since even if you were lucky enough to hit someone, it probably wouldn't hurt them much!

This entire report was reprinted in Claud Fuller's book, "The Rifled Musket", that was published in, I believe, 1968. I paid $4.95 for the book. It costs a little more today!

[Craig L Barry]

Re: Using Weapon Sights

Re: Sights and Mark Jaeger's comments:
We recently worked together on translating from German to English the M-1854 Lorenz Manual called Osterrichische Infanterie - Feurgewehr, Wien, 1857 From what I can recall, the majority (80%) of "Austrian rifles" had the block type rear sight, set for 300 schritt (about 250 yards). The manual said to aim at the knees at 100 schritt, and then to elevate to the mid-section at another distance, and so on. I don't have the rough draft in front of me, but it does go along with what we see posted here on use of sights from other sources. Finally, since the Austrian Lorenz manual was intended only for officers, there was a comment in there about the predominant use of block sights since "soldiers are not smart enough to be good shots" or that was the thrust of the translation.

This is a bit off the subject of sights, but it seemed to me that one possible reason for the shooting accuracy complaints with the M-1854 was not the sights, but that the Ordnance department(s) made no effort to secure the correct size ammunition (13.9 mm or .556) for it. Additionally, Mark Jaeger's recent effort was the first attempt to translate Osterrichische Infanterie - Feurgewehr, Wien, 1857 from German to English. Meaning (ironically) neither side had an English translation of the "owners manual" for the M-1854 Lorenz during the Civil War.

Lastly, the title of the Brent Nosworthy book is "The Bloody Crucible of Courage: Fighting Methods and Combat Experience of the Civil War " (Published by Carroll-Graf, New York 2003; 752 pages). I have the citation practically memorized from referencing it so often...strongly recommended.

[Curt Schmidt]

Ohio Independent Sharpshooters

Hallo!

I owed someone a reference to the uniforms of the Ohio Indpendent Companies of Sharpshooters, but his e-mail dropped off my "saved file" and was lost.

U]History of Cuyahoga County Ohio [/U] Crisfield Johnson, 1879.

"On the companies being completed, the Fifth, Sixth and Seventh were organized in a battalion, and Capt. Barber, as the senior officer, was placed in command. The men were all picked with reference to their physical ability, and before being mustered each was required to make a "string" of not exceeding twenty-five inches in five shots, at one hundred yards off-hand or at two hundred yards at a rest. Their uniform was the same as that of the infantry, except that the trimmings were green, and they were armed with Spencer's seven-shooting rifles.

( I am sorry for the delay. My pard who had the book, was diagnosed with prostate cancer after some major bleeding problems, and was side-tracked for a spell.)

Curt
Company "C"
7th Ohio Independent Company of Sharpshooters

[GreencoatCross]

Re: Ohio Independent Sharpshooters

Curt, that's a great reference! I've seen similar uniform descriptions coming out of Illinois but never Ohio.

This reminds me, I'm not sure if you've seen it yet, but there is a blue Federal frock with rubber eagle buttons and green trim down in the Atlanta History Center. On display with the frock is a blue forage cap with rubber buttons. I am unsure of the provenance but from photos of the frock it looks like the green trim was not original to the coat.

Brian White
Wambaugh, White, & Co.

[Dan Munson]

Re: Using Weapon Sights

Bill Rodman's recitation, above, about the 1860 weapons test contains another piece of data that would impact the accuracy results. Bill states: "As an example, Firing as skirmishers, the squad fired fifty shots and twenty-one hit the target at 500 yards. At 100 yards every shot hit the target. Interestingly enough, it took five minutes for 10 men to fire those fifty shots!" As I read this, it sounds like a firing rate of 1 shot per man per minute. Pretty darned deliberate -- much more so than would have occurred on a battlefield (well, until the bores got fouled, anyway).

Dan Munson

[BobbyHughes]

Re: Ohio Independent Sharpshooters

Kurt,

I was the feller that you were talking to about the OICSS, and I thank you for getting back to me on that!

The guys in my unit took a looooong look on doing Birge's, and decided against it, but I really thank you for the info... thats what I love about A/C, everyone so helpfull and willing to share knowledge!

YOS
Bobby Hughes

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Ohio Independent Sharpshooters

Hallo!

Bobby lad!

You are welcome, and sorry for the delay.

Back to guarding General Sherman impressions. ;)

Curt

[RJSamp]

ANV Tactics: 3 lines of skirmishers...cloud of skirmishers.

Am reading Gettysburg stuff (again, it's always fun to see coffee smears on a page that you read 10+ years ago). Every couple of years I ask the same question on different forums. Buford on July 1st 1863 makes the comment that they'll be coming (a-booming) in their usual style....with 3 lines of skirmishers (it's a line in the GBurg movie as well). Then the modern authors quote each other about the CSA advancing in the 'usual' style with 3 lines of skirmishers....or in the 'orthodox' style. In "Witness to Gettysburg" they have two 'modern' references and then one to the OR. This was for HETH's advance......Davis's Miss. NC Brigade. If I keep reading you can find similar references to the skirmishers preceeding the Pickett/Pettigrew/Trimble Assault.

Temper this with the recent reading of "Shock Troops of the Confederacy"....where mile long sharpshooter battalion lines and references to a single line controlled by the bugle are rampant.....along with groups/4's/clusters/firing by 4+ rifles simultaneously at a single target abound. i.e. NOT 3 lines, NOT a cloud. So Blackfords deployment on July 1st between Oak Hill and Gordon's Brigade along Steven's run was a single line.

NOTE: I think the observers are astute enough to recognize a mile long line at 5+ pace intervals from a line of platoon or company skirmish line reserves at x00 yard intervals...and they note the advance coming in Columns (of companies most likely) and then deploying into long double ranked lines.

1. What was the ANV practice....what manual /writings sheds light on 3 lines of skirmishers being the 'usual' style? Only in the ANV ??

2. clouds of skirmishers?

3. single line of skirmishers seems to be the usual practice for USA (including Berdan's) and CSA Sharpshooter battalions.

Anyone experimented with this....tried to reenact it? This wasn't done at A135 unfortunately, but then again skirmishing is the lost tactical art of ACW combat.....

Thanks!

[Jubilo]

Re: ANV Tactics: 3 lines of skirmishers...cloud of skirmishers.

Dear Enfant Terrible ,
Brilliant post as usual . Later Napoleonic period tactics all involve swarms of skirmishers. Didn't Sharpe single handedly defeat Boney ?
The best use of skirmishers in my personal experience was at the Monocacy event which was filmed for the "NO Retreat from Destiny ," film .
The clouds of skirmishers , theory always made me wonder why the skirmishers didn't knock down the fences or bring engineer troops with them to do so previous to Pickett's Charge.
Most for the accounts of Sherman's troops in the Atlanta campaign mention "Indian " fighting " skirmishing , which I would assume is single line.
Once this issue is addressed we can proceed to how cavalry both mounted and dismounted were used and how mounted infantry manuevered and were armed.
all for the old flag,
David Corbett