The "Self-Contained" Infantryman?

[Dave Hull]

Re: The "Self-Contained" Infantryman?

Summer months:
Wear-Uniform, shirt, hat, brogans. Drawers optional (they retain a good deal of sweat/rain and cause chaffing) socks, never in the summer (they stay wet from rain or sweat which lead to blisters or foot fungus)

Carry-Painted ground cloth or gum blanket
Tin bowl-doubles as a chow bucket, a cook pot, coffee cooker and shaving bowl
Spoon
Wash cloth
Spare shirt
Razor/brush/shaving soap (excess suds used for daily ablutions)
Tooth brush
Three day ration of Chow-Coffee for breakfast and an evening meal
Ammunition sufficient to fill the cartridge box, extra rounds in the pocket
Weapon
Bayonet
Leathers
Canteen

Excluding weapon and chow, about 10-12 pounds. Unless you absolutely must have something do not carry it. Summer events where it is raining in buckets, you will probably not get much sleep. One other observation, my all wool Federal uniform and issue shirt, while heavier and warmer, seem to do better (much drier) in summer months than the jean cloth Confederate uniforms, which retains sweat by the bucket load, leaving you wet.

[kderren]

Re: The "Self-Contained" Infantryman?

i read a soldier's memoirs recently (cant remember which one) but 3 guys shared their dog tent, 2 sides and one end covered, one carried a hatchet, one a frying pan,and one a coffee pot

[McKim]

Re: The "Self-Contained" Infantryman?

Such lessons are best learned by the hard necessities of extended campaigning, which does not often happen at a weekend event.

You made me think of this series found in "Jackson's Foot Cavalry" by John Worsham.

[flattop32355]

Re: The "Self-Contained" Infantryman?

I think it boils down to each man CAN be self-sufficient, but his life is made more liveable by sharing some of the burden with comrades.

Within the mess, there are period references (which I cannot dredge up at the moment) speaking of one man carrying the hatchet, one the pan, one the coffee pot, and rotating who carries what to make it fair. When stopped, one gathers wood, another water, another cooks, etc. If one is better at a given task than the others, it often became his to perform routinely, to the advantage of all.

Each had the ability to survive upon his own efforts. But many chose to survive better by combining effort to the benefit of each.

As Hank stated, this is not so critical at a typical mainstream event. I have often stood watching as each man waits around a fire to gain space to cook his own rations, rather than to throw much of it into a moderately sized skillet I'm holding that could accomodate enough for five or more men and still leave room for everyone to boil their coffee. Some of it may be the desire of each man to appear self-sufficient. Sometimes, though, it seems more a lack of forethought and practicality.

Such lessons are best learned by the hard necessities of extended campaigning, which does not often happen at a weekend event.

[John E. Tobey]

Re: The "Self-Contained" Infantryman?

Neat quote, RJ! I was surprised by the thickness of the material used in the muckets. 14 gauge is extremely heavy for such an item -- about 0.075" thick. The regular issue camp kettles were made of only 24 gauge (0.023" thick) and Sibley stoves made of 15 gauge (0.067")!!

John Tobey

[RJSamp]

Re: The "Self-Contained" Infantryman?

In my opinion, the kettles (or "pails," to use another contemporary term) were usually small tin-plated sheet iron cylindrical pails that held between two quarts and a gallon. Hosmer describes his as holding between two and three quarts. There is a nice example shown on page 148 of Stanley Philips first volume of "Excavated Artifacts" that would hold about a gallon. It's tinplate, about 6.5" dia and 8" tall, with a heavy wire bail and a decorative bead. Except for the size, I think this would illustrate the typical "kettle."

Lord shows another one in Volume I of his Encyclopedia that has a lid and was about 5.5 x 4.5, which would have held a little less than 2 quarts. He shows a couple more in Volume II that had slightly less capacity and resembled simple cylindrical tin pails. I own a Confederate one that looks like a big tin cup without a handle but with a wire bail that would barely hold a quart.

John Tobey

The 83rd PA was issued 48 oz Muckets (See Norton: "Army Letters 186-1865")....tin pails with a soldered on hinged lid and a wire bail (about 14 gauge). When they were near the seashore (Penninsula Campaign April 1862) they scooped out some seawater.....and boiled fresh chicken in it.....no need for seasonings with the seawater.....and a great tasting soup/stew.

[fedcampaigner]

Re: The "Self-Contained" Infantryman?

This has been a great thread. Even though I try to carry as little as possible, everyone's conrtibutions have made me question some "necessities". It has been very interesting to hear everyone's take on the subject.

[John E. Tobey]

Re: The "Self-Contained" Infantryman?

John,

Yes, the burden was shared, when there was one.

I think that the longer the troops were in the field, the simpler their baggage became. Why share a kettle or coffee pot when you have your faithful tomato can? Why share a frying pan when you have your handy canteen half?

When the soldiers were still starry-eyed recruits, they assumed that their necessary camp equipment would be carried on wagons -- i.e., the self-contained company. When it became apparent that things wouldn't work this way, they procured their own "indispensible" camp equipment, and were forced to share it out in order to carry it along -- the "self contained mess." Eventually, they learned that they could make do with extremely simple gear, and Voila! -- self-contained tentmates and self-contained soldiers! I think the pairs of tent-mates became the ultimate logistical and social building block of veteran CW regiments. If anything was shared (and I suspect that plenty was, from canteens and blankets to shelter halves and lucifers), it was between two men.

In my opinion, the kettles (or "pails," to use another contemporary term) were usually small tin-plated sheet iron cylindrical pails that held between two quarts and a gallon. Hosmer describes his as holding between two and three quarts. There is a nice example shown on page 148 of Stanley Philips first volume of "Excavated Artifacts" that would hold about a gallon. It's tinplate, about 6.5" dia and 8" tall, with a heavy wire bail and a decorative bead. Except for the size, I think this would illustrate the typical "kettle."

Lord shows another one in Volume I of his Encyclopedia that has a lid and was about 5.5 x 4.5, which would have held a little less than 2 quarts. He shows a couple more in Volume II that had slightly less capacity and resembled simple cylindrical tin pails. I own a Confederate one that looks like a big tin cup without a handle but with a wire bail that would barely hold a quart.

John Tobey

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: The "Self-Contained" Infantryman?

Mess'r Tobey,

Thanks for the great post! It seems to corroborate Chawls' observation than the burden was shared and, in the event of death/injury/capture/separation from gear, loss was felt.

I am curious what these veterans were carrying when they describe "kettles". What were they? How large? I am familiar with the sheet iron nesting kettles (currently reproduced by Stephen & Wendy Osman), but even the smallest kettle in that set would be quite large for an individual to tote along on the march, I would think.

Regarding eating several days rations at one sitting, upon issuance:
I have also read several such accounts of this. Translated to an event scenario, this makes "eating" nearly unneccessary while at the event. Rather, one could have a "big feed" before hitting the event site on a Friday. Several of us did this at Samboli's in Spring Hill before Outpost III, consuming calzones only slightly smaller than my thigh. The balance of my consumption for the event consisted of coffee, a little cornmeal gruel on morning, and opportunistic munching of the issued rations. As a sergeant at that event, I had little time for sleep, let alone cooking a meal. By Sunday, I was pretty hungry, but nothing really serious.

[Johnny Lloyd]

Re: The "Self-Contained" Infantryman?

Seriously?!?!?!


When we say "self-containing," do we mean self-sustaining??

Tom-

Ja, Ja... genau... ;)

Yep... that was how many bags all of the "mandatory" stuff to carry per batallion regs finally took-up.

Commanders, regardless of 1860s or 21st century, make their soldiers carry mandatory gear that one never uses.:angry_smi

I'm sure after 3-4 years of combat/marching/movement/losses of equipment in the Civil War, all of the extra junk... hat brass, gaiters, extra blankets, unesscessary uniform items, mess gear, etc. became very weighty and useless much as my load became such in combat.

If it isn't keeping you alive in some way or form, then why carry it? Suck-up the discomfort without that item and drive-on...

Tchuss- Johnny Lloyd

[tpallas]

Re: The "Self-Contained" Infantryman?

6 duffel bags worth of gear

Seriously?!?!?!


When we say "self-containing," do we mean self-sustaining??

[John E. Tobey]

Re: The "Self-Contained" Infantryman?

Howdy All,

I think it's difficult to make generalizations regarding campaign kits for the war as a whole -- the lists of what soldiers and groups of soldiers carried were dynamic, changing as time went on. In fact, a whole book could be written on the subject. In any case, here's a few things worth considering.

When troops were new to campaigning, there were more items deemed "indispensible" to them (pots, kettles, frying pans, etc). In order to tote them, they were forced to "pard up" and share the load.

As time went on, the list of "indispensibles" appeared to shrink -- however, this didn't cause the end of shared items. Instead, some of them started sharing vital pieces of camp gear to lighten their individual loads. Here's some examples:

Three men left us nice lists of what they carried during the Gettysburg Campaign. Ben Hirst of the 14th CT was a veteran campaigner and was self-sufficient, carrying only what he would use ("The Boys from Rockville," 138). George Fowle of the 39th MA recalled something that, in his words, "all of the old soldiers do in hot weather." ("Letters to Eliza," 32-33) According to George, one "old soldier" would carry both pieces of the shelter tent while the other man carried a wool blanket. I have seen references to this arrangement elsewhere, and have the suspicion that it was probably, as George tells us, fairly common amongst veteran troops in hot weather. Besides sharing weight, it also elminated the tedious procedure of buttoning the shelter halves together before pitching the tent.

Richard Van Wyck of the 150th NY ("A War to Petrify the Heart," 108,176)was on his first campaign (but not his first march). It appears that he and his pard carried a frying pan and kettle between them. James Hosmer of the 52nd MA ("The Color Guard" 112) described how he and his mess-mates shared a coffee-pot, frying pan, and kettle, but again -- it was relatively early in their careers. Andrew Chesnut of the 126th NY mentions sharing the load of a frying pan, hatchet, and kettle with two other men during their first long march (Gettysburg), but by the end of the summer both of his messmates were dead, the utensils gone, and he was sharing a rubber blanket and single shelter half with another man.

The above examples make sense to me, and when combined with similar anecdotes leave the impression that soldiers became, in many ways at least, more practical and probably more self-sufficient as time went on. There's always room for surprises, however -- Sgt. Bowen of the 12th US couldn't do without his louse powder and Henry Lott had to carry his slippers. Andrew Spencer and his tentmate took turns carrying a miner's pick on their way to Atlanta.

John Tobey

[LeftCoastYank]

Re: The "Self-Contained" Infantryman?

Kudos to Mr. Wickett - this is a FANTASTIC thread!

I think the "self contained mess" as opposed the "self contained man" holds a lot of weight - particularly with cooking implements, where communal use would be a no brainer. It just makes sense to me.

A mess was after all, a groups of like minded pards who banded together to share chores/duties and look after one another in order to make army life easier. Sharing a frying tin, stew bucket, etc, is just logical if meals are being prepared communally.

Furthermore, if the CO ordered "drop packs" everybody would be in the same boat, shared stuff or not.

Likewise, it also seems to me that if a member of the mess were to become a casualty, the other fellows would be far more concerned about the fate of their friend then that of a cup.

Dave Schwartz

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: The "Self-Contained" Infantryman?

What I have gotten from this thread is that it is "self contained mess" rather than "self contained man." Any thoughts on this?

I hate to agree with a self-professed scumbag, but...
That is the opinion that I am forming. :wink_smil

[lukegilly13]

Re: The "Self-Contained" Infantryman?

I've been to some cold weather events and seen guys marching out on Sunday looking like pack mules and thought, "somethin' ain't right here".

This is a great point...and no, probably it is not right! Here's why....they did this daily. We come out of our nice heated beds with electric blankets into a car that we probably let run and warm up for 10 minutes before setting down in it, wearing all the clothes we can still move in...to go to work where we have the electric heat set on 72. These guys camped when it was 90, then 70, then 50, then 30, and below....but they got used to it!!!! Survive the 10 degree nights, and 30 will feel like a heat wave. When it gets cold gradually (because you were there the whole time) it is more bearable. Of course there were the crazy nights where cold fronts came out of nowhere...those are what we read about. The others snuck up on them and was somewhat on them and gone before they knew it....In this sense, it is more difficult for us to endure climates because of the abrupt and random change and making "self contained" seem almost impossible.
Just a thought!

I can't get to the book to get the exact reference but in the book called "Grumble" about "Grumble" Jones and his cavalry, they talk about a soldier actually freezing to death in the saddle somewhere in transition. When they reached their location, the soldiers had to break him off of the saddle!!! This guy maybe should have depended more on his mates.