"Fire By Rotation" - Documented or Not?????

[ZouaveOutlaw]

I attended the 2004 Battle of Selma. My unit portayed Federals. During the Sunday battle, the Federal column (in excess of 100 men) were marching by the flank in two ranks (undoubled) on a wooded path when a squad or platoon of Confederates opened fire as the lead company emerged from the woods. The commander of the column halted the column and ordered the lead company's first file of two men to fire, then retire to the rear of their company to reload, while each successive file of two fired, etc. This went on for quite some time while the rest of the column simply stood bottled up in the woods. This foolishness lasted nearly as long as the ensuing main action. Now, I have done my share of reading tactics manuals and period battle accounts, but I have NEVER run across this "fire by rotation" (I am guessing its "proper" nomenclature) before. Am I missing something? It seems to me that you can't overwhelm enemy skirmishers with two muskets firing elbow to elbow! HELP! Farby or correct?

[Possum Skinner]

Before anyone really jumps on this one, let me say that Mr. Gaubert here is a fine soldier and the federal impression his unit does is not zouave. Although he probably needs to rethink the all caps and colors and sign his name, he did not exhibit any farb behavior and I believe, since I was in the same company, that he is asking a valid question.

The particular general officer in question is a fine friend and a fine reenactor. He is certainly not a farb by any stretch of the imagination either. I have seen the use of this tactic by him once before, except it was a wider road, and the battalion was marching by columns of fours. This particular road was not really wide enough to accomodate columns of fours as far as the officers were concerned.

I personally have not seen this tactic in print either, but I am also not as well read and versed in numerous, and I do mean numerous, drill manuals as the aforementioned officer. He also does other time periods as well.

My purpose is not to defend or offend anyone here, but in the interest of a genuine discussion, I would like to intervene before this post is deleted or addressed as a farb post.

[JimKindred]

I would be interested in the page and paragraph number of this "drill" myself. I have never run across it in any of the manuals I have read.

[NY Pvt]

While it is difficult to envision the battle you are describing completely, I must say that when your moving any large number of troops especially in wooded area you would have scouts and flankers out to prevent such ambushes. Perhaps this was your commanders first mistake......

[Kevin O'Beirne]

What is being described in the original post sounds like a routine that some of the local (in my area) Federal unit commanders love to call "Firing in the Advance", and that some Confederates in Michigan I know call, "Street Fighting". I have never heard of any Civil War drill manual that specifies that this thing exists or how it should be done, but the current commander of the Western Brigade swears to me that he's seen a historical reference to a Federal unit (15th Wisconsin...?) using this type of tactic at the battle of Chickamauga in 1863. I've also heard unit commanders in my region swear that this tactic is something that dates back to "manuals" (of what sort I have no idea) before the Civil War.

Okay, that said... I've never read about this being used in battle and the Chickamauga reference is the only one I have even HEARD of. I've seen a load of unit commanders from the Northeast to the Midwest come up with their own variations on "street fighting" (often used on trails during tacticals at events) and then teach it to their men like it's an essential manuever. Heck, just last weekend I was at a day-long drill for a local mainstream unit and, while they did not cover it, "firing in the advance" was on the agenda of stuff they wanted to cover.

I think this tactic, such as it could be called, appeals to the "fighting reenactor" as a way of blasting his way through an "ambush" during "battles". Frankly the whole idea, even if rooted in some historical fact, sort of cracks me up.

To me the idea is that a body of troops on the move in hostile territory (where they could be ambushed in the first place) should not be surprised because they ought to be covering their vanguard, flanks, and rear with skirmishers, flankers, and a rearguard. In particular, it's incredible how many "mainstream" "battles" start with two sets of troops bumping into each other and there's nary a skirmisher in sight. Of course, skirmishing is a lost art in the reenacting world, but I digress... For those who wish to avoid practicing reenactor interpretations of "firing in the advance" and "street fighting", just ask your unit commander to read Instructions for Skirmishers in your unit's adopted drill manual, and then pick up a copy of Dom's "Instructiongs of Guards and Pickets" and read the sections, in part adapted from Kautz, Butterfield, and Craighill, on flankers and advance and rear guards. It'll improve your reenacting experience, avoid a few ambushes, and save your unit a lot of gunpowder.

[markj]

Greetings,

The maneuver described by Mr. Gaubert may have been based on "street firing" (a legitimate method which is described in various period tactical manuals) or, perhaps, a variation on "Advance firing in four ranks," which was reportedly developed by BG August Willich in 1863 and used at both Liberty Gap TN and Chickamauga. The problem with "Advance firing in four ranks" is that no truly precise description of it is known to have been written down--the modern 49th Ohio uses it, but much of their procedure is based on speculation and common sense.

Having said this, we should give CW troops for being a lot more creative than we think they were. In "First Time Under Fire" (Harper's New Monthly Magazine, September 1864) Captain J. W. DeForrest, of the 8th New Hampshire, described an unusual tactic used by his regiment. While engaged near Bayou Lafourche LA, in October 1862, DeForrest's unit was directed to fire by file while on the advance. Needless to say, the unorthodox tactic worked and the Federals won the day.

Here is a link to the DeForrest article:

http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/cgi-b...BK4014-0029-77

Regards,

Mark Jaeger

[JohnTaylorCW]

I don't have my manuals handy, but the one place I know I've seen "street-fighting" described is in the back of the 1861 "Handy-Book for Soldiers" from J.B. Lippincott & Co.

John T

[ZouaveOutlaw]

Thank you, Ben. My point was really not to criticize our commander at Selma, who I have much respect for, but the tactic employed. I suspect he was ordered to employ it by the "general" over him. I saw no impediment in the nature of the woods which would have prevented the lead company from doing "By Company, Into Line" and executing firing in the normal fashion. I realize that Selma is a scripted, scenario-driven event catering to the "public", but surely the participants deserve a better and more accurate experience than what was given them. I have been to Selma on numerous occasions and this was the most disappointing experience in terms of the battle thus far.

Denis Gaubert aka Z.O.
The Hellfire Stew Mess

[Possum Skinner]

Denis and others,

I think another thing to consider on this one is the fact that this event is a mainstreamer. The quality of impressions and people there is getting better, but it is not what most here would consider a quality event. This battalion commander, and several others, often have to work with companies that are poorly outfitted, poorly drilled, rebuilt annually with new recruits, or a combination of the above. I am sure that he, and others like him have the patience of Job sometimes.

Whether the tactic would be suitable for an authentic event is certainly debatable, but one must consider the context of this one as well. I am not about to delve into the possible ego and command decisions that take place among big bugs on these things. I just do what I'm ordered to do on the field, gripe under my breath, think about it later, and smile when I see what is coming up on the calendar that is better. There are some jam up good people involved in that event and a few others that many would not consider quality events. If you go to those, just grin and bear and move on.

One of my possums had the best quote ever, "You know, we could get a heck of a lot done out here if it weren't for the officers!"

[dave81276]

The Federal commander last year at Fredericksburg used this tactic in the street scenario. Of course, it looked silly because we had so few Federals that when we took hits, we had to slink off and rejoin the rotation. If more of my comrades had galvanized like me, we wouldn't've had that problem.

On the flip-side, Fredericksburg is a small enough event that we always have good interaction with the spectators and townspeople.

-Dave Eggleston