Taking Hits

[CaptainPinson]

Re: Taking Hits

I agree with this notion generally, but only up to a point. I have seen the experience of casualties integrated successfully into EBUFU events in the past--Paynes Farm and Pickett's Mill in 2001 come to mind. the difference in both of those events was that the casualties were historically accurate and were actually separated from the battalion for the remainder of the event. This avoids the "Taps" factor and rather convincingly simulates the "after battle" experience. It creates a negative consequence.

At PM, I was in a large mess of ten men. After the battle, there were three of us. I didn't know whether to feel "lucky" or not. I was lonely, tired, and hungry and all my pards were gone. Those were real feelings, not reenacted ones. It was very effective.

At PF, casualties were light, so no pards lost, but there was a hospital set up and those who were casualties remained so the rest of the night. It was also very convincing.

If you're not going to create actual consequences of being a casualty, then why bother, as Troy said. However, it can be done effectively.

i agree with both of you bob and troy,as crazy as that sounds. i
always open to new ideas and new thoughts about things...but im cursed with being in a union outfit that cares more bout battle events than living history. but i deal with it.

[PogueMahone]

Re: Taking Hits

i always open to new ideas and new thoughts about things...but im cursed with being in a union outfit that cares more bout battle events than living history. but i deal with it.

Perhaps it is time you looked outside your "outfit" and found some like-minded folks so you can experience these things. Don't let a "status quo" unit hold you back. It sounds like you are wanting something new and improved, but the old and stodgy don't.

If you make it to the Atlanta LH you will meet a bunch of good guys who can help you down that path. And many are local to you.

(Doing my best impression of Darth Vader extending his hand to Luke Skywalker ...)

Come to the Dark Side.

[Hank Trent]

Re: Taking Hits

If you make it to the Atlanta LH you will meet a bunch of good guys who can help you down that path. And many are local to you.

And I was just going to mention Bummers... :D

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

[ephraim_zook]

Re: Taking Hits

Logistics of marking cartridges: Line up in two ranks. Open ranks. One rank turns around so neither rank can see the other. The "cartridge markers" come down between the ranks with a red and a black magic marker. They stop at every man and rummage around in his cartridge box. In some boxes they do nothing but rummage around. In others they mark a cartridge: Black line, you're dead. Red & black lines, you're wounded but can't leave the premises. Red line, straggle to the rear or to the shade or somewhere. No one knows who has a marked cartridge until he draws it. It gives you an "oh, [crap]" moment if you draw a marked cartridge. Predetermined percentage of casualties. Yes, it's the honor system. Most guys won't cheat. Some guys may never get to their marked cartridge at all. No big deal. Some who pick a marked cartridge as their first or second draw may fire a few before taking the prescribed action. A guy standing next to a pile of horse manure or poison ivy probably will wait for a better opportunity to go down. No big deal there either.

You aren't pre-making any additional rounds at your own expense in order to provide marked cartridges. You are using rounds each man already has.

But yes, I prefer fate cards over the above.

Ron Myzie

[guad42]

Re: Taking Hits

Sam, most Buglers don't much like doing Taps at events on the field either, Ok at a cemetary service or something, but not after the battle. It takes a good set of stones tho to not play what the event people/commanders want.
I haven't played Taps at a reenactment in years, but have heard it.

I agree, and I should have added that it does take sand and generally I respect the concept behind it.

On another note, as to the cartridge marking system - what if there was a way to limit the issue of cartridges or the number carried, so that while some might carry their full complement, others might just have two or three. (?)

Probably a lame idea, but a thought anyway.

-Sam Dolan

[PogueMahone]

Re: Taking Hits

Why not just agree within the company prior to the sham battle who is going to be a casualty, what kind and all others agree not to fall?

In a reenacting company of 30, you would generally need 1 dead and 2 wounded. That is 10% casualties. Or, a battalion/regiment level, if you know the unit had 15% casualties during the battle and your reenacting battalion has 150 guys, you need 22 or 23 casualties. Spread that as evenly as possible amongst your 3, 4 or 5 companies and have the company commanders make the arrangements within the company. With 4 companies that would be 5 guys for two companies and 6 for the other two. With a 4 company battalion, each company should have 37 or 38 guys.

Now, in most reenacting battalions of 150 guys, you'd have entire companies disappear and in some extreme cases only the colors and the commanding officer fall back under the protection of the drummer boy ...

Sorry, I went mainstream for a moment.

My point being that most units take too many casualties. There are casualties and there is decimation. We tend to portray decimation.

[Adam L]

Re: Taking Hits

I'm fairly sure that the exact statistics for casualties on both sides are documented somewhere for just about all battles that ever occured during the civil war. It seems to me that if we wanted to be accurate in the portrayal of the battles that the company commanders would do the math and figure out the correct percentage of their men that need to take a fall during the battle. Then simply have everyone count off and every 3rd, 4th, 5th or whatever man has to fall at some point. I don't know, that just my 2 cents worth on the matter.

Respectfully,
Adam LIPKA

[Pvt Schnapps]

Re: Taking Hits

I don't know -- wouldn't that make too much sense?

My only amendment to your suggestion would be to multiply the "casualties" by two or three, the balance being men who go to ground, skulk away, or simply run.

We don't do this enough, though writers from du Picq to S.L.A. Marshall say it was common enough.

Perhaps a more relevant quote comes from Augustus Dickert's History of Kershaw's Brigade:

I am writing a truthful history of the past and honesty forces
me to this confession. "All men are cowards" in the face of death.
Pride, ambition, a keen sense of duty, will make differences
outwardly, but the heart is a coward still when death stares the
possessor in the face. Men throw away their lives for their country's
sake, or for honor or duty like a cast off garment and laugh at death,
but this is only a sentiment, for all men want to live. I write so
much to controvert the rot written in history and fiction of soldiers
anxious to rush headlong into eternity on the bayonets of the enemy.

[PogueMahone]

Re: Taking Hits

I don't think skulkers and such would constitute 2 or 3 times the actual bleeding casualties on the field. You might have one or two max in a battalion, but I think peer pressure would keep many in the ranks.

What isn't being accounted for are the men that help a wounded man to the rear and conveniently don't catch up to the regiment until the shooting stops. That was such a problem that you find orders against it regularly.

[Strawfoot]

Re: Taking Hits

I dunno, it seems in the hobby I participate in the focus is really on how soldiers actually lived day by day not merely how a soldier died in 3 scheduled sham battles followed by a beer fest and ball. Irritated that men aren't going down when hit from a volley at 30 yards? You may want to try getting off of postage stamp battlefields and get to an event where men are focused on authentically recreating a snapshot of the lives lived by Civil War soldiers, perhaps even an event where you can march and maneuver over miles of terrain. When the adrenaline rush of a sham battle isn't the highlight of the weekend's experiences, taking a fake hit because it is the authentic result of the situation is a whole lot easier.

Civil War combat was life and death real for the participants and mock battles will always be the least authentic thing we can do. There is simply no way to authentically replicate the danger, desperation, and decisiveness of combat in a safe, scripted, pretend manner.

I think the closest I've seen this happen was the Saturday battle at Perryville in 2002. Pickett's Mill was pretty intense as well.

[Smokey Toes]

Re: Taking Hits

No doubt...going up that hill towards the fence line at Pickett's Mill was IT.
That was the only time I've ever seen a "battle" visually reflect what I had read about.
Everyone did a bang-up job on that one...

[Pvt Schnapps]

Re: Taking Hits

I don't think skulkers and such would constitute 2 or 3 times the actual bleeding casualties on the field. You might have one or two max in a battalion, but I think peer pressure would keep many in the ranks.

What isn't being accounted for are the men that help a wounded man to the rear and conveniently don't catch up to the regiment until the shooting stops. That was such a problem that you find orders against it regularly.

You can find examples in nearly every battle. I'd say the ratio would be two to three to one with your example of 10-15% casualties. In battles where the slaughter was greater, there would be fewer skulkers -- or fewer who could succeed in getting away without a scratch -- but you'd still have a significant number.

A good example is the Irish Brigade at Fredericksburg. I've seen counts of 1,200 to 1,600 men going into action. Meagher said he had only around 250 left at the end of the attack. The actual casualties -- horrendous enough -- came to over 500, but that would still leave somewhere around 400-800 men who wandered away or went to ground and only reported back later.

Pickett's charge provides a similar example. If all the men had pressed forward, possibly none would have survived. As it was, apparently many went to ground before closing.

Rather than tight phalanxes, I think civil war units must have represented "smears" -- some troops in column or line, but leaking more and more heavily as they came under fire.

How many times have you read of entire ranks falling to enemy volleys and then looked at the actual casualty returns for the units purportedly massacred?

I agree that many of these would be men "helping" their comrades off the field, but others would probably have come up with other excuses. I like how often Berdan found himself checking into the ammunition supply and -- since I mentioned Fredericksburg -- Meagher had a habit of falling off his horse or getting sick he got close to the fighting.

If we believe Dickert, a lot of men felt the same way.

[NoahBriggs]

Re: Taking Hits

In my opinion, what events lack is the stream of wounded walking back from the firing line in search of the aid stations and field hospitals.

Agreed.

The doctors did not come to the wounded, the wounded came to the doctors.

Not entirely accurate, depending on the definition of who was going to whom. Assistant surgeons and their orderlies made an effort to move as close as they could under cover to set up aid stations to triage and treat wounded. Indeed, either stretcher bearers or miscellaneous fellows would dash into the mayhem, and retrieve those who could not move themselves, but by and large wounded might eventually meet up with the hospital staff.

Most wounds statistically were in the right arm and hand from what I have read (think how high your arm goes when you draw your rammer and how soldiers are constantly shooting too high). This should be the case to eliminate or reduce the number of silly limps and musket crutches.

A casual look at a lot of the hospital patient registers reveals far more wounds on the left side of the body - up to 80%, roughly, which makes more sense when you realize that one presents the left side of their body when they are about to fire. Also, we see far to few recreations of scratch wounds, near misses, people being knocked down just by a close call or a spent round. The Columbia Rifles cranked out an excellent article on how to take realistic hits and remove the silliness one encounters at regular events. They also have an article which discusses lying prone - when, how and why, and it merely confirms that the Original cast were not mindless automatons standing in two straight lines blasting at kneecaps in order to hit at belt buckle level.

As a recovering assistant surgeon, I'd like to hint that it sure would be nice if people also tried imitating the symptoms of shock - disorientation, thousand-yard stare, extreme thirst. At the least it will increase your chances of getting a belt of medicinal whiskey to help bring you around.

[briangauthier]

Re: Taking Hits

I have appreciated this post for much too long. Now I am late making my lesson plans for tomorrow.

A note about taking hits. Earlier it was said by someone who didn't know how to take hits that he was actually congratulated by people for taking such a great one. *pause for dramatic effect* Isn't this it? Isn't this what we would expect to see? When you get punched by someone, do you [I]know[I] how to take it? Doesn't it hit you by surprise? I read the Columbia Rifles article and nearly fell out of my seat. I think it would be worthwhile for any one of us to approach a mainstream commander and "enlighten" him about this. How amazing would it be for the public to see, if only a shadow, of how it might have looked.

I was injured at a reenactment some time ago, and had occasion to sit out. I watched as one company of 20 union soldiers bravely made their way at a snails pace around the ENTIRE (to borrow Martin Sheen's accent) Confederate army, only then to be ridden into by cav. How many do you think fell over? 1? 3? All? None. Not a single person took a hit, ran away, or even REACTED! At LBL about 3 years ago, I was nearly run over by a Critter and I almost crapped myself. Now, imagine I have a one shot musket and a 1500lb animal is bearing down on me with a guy and a sword and pistols. Hell no I ain't gonna just sit there like a stoic. I'm gonna get my sorry ass somewhere else.

My two Lincoln heads,

[tomarch]

Re: Taking Hits

There was one campaign event I attended around 10 yrs. ago that had what I thought was a good system. It was one of the early T.A.G. events in AZ. at Kelly Canyon. Rather than work out a system of who was shot or not, we made manouver the thing codified within some basic "rules of engagement"
In other words:
1.) When two equal sized bodies meet (skirmish line to skirmish line, or company to campany) neither can advance except by flanking the opponent.

2.) When two unequal sized bodies meet (skirmish line to company or company to battalion) the lesser shall give way to the larger (to try to slide around on it's flank if possible)

3.) personaly taking a hit is optional to the individual

The rules being what they were, and becaude it was a campaign type event, and held in the AZ mountains in July, there was a gooly amount of straggling which cut down on the relative stregnth of the units in an appropriate fashion.

I have always felt the whole taking hits thing seemed to be based on an antiquated idea that each soldier is engaged in single combat with his foe. This is not conducive to unit cohesion. If you make the deciding factor manouver, then every one has more incentive to operate as a unit, take pride in the unit's effectiveness and less time to worry that the "other fellow" didn't take a hit.