Which manual was used?

[mike_zulu]

Re: Which manual was used?

Thank you kindly Gentlemen!

[thomas aagaard]

Re: Which manual was used?

Just my poor opinion on the oblique but not on the connection (or lack thereof) between SCOTTS and HARDEES.

In 1855 every soldier knew that it was done over the left shoulder... since the new book don't clearly say otherwise they would have gone on doing it over the left shoulder.
Old habits die hard.

[Silas]

Re: Which manual was used?

John, it's all about context. I'm going to walk through the paragraphs one by one to put them into context. Please note that I respect your opinion very much. I'm walking through the paragraphs for the benefit of others who don't spend much time reading manuals and who are following this discussion.

The paragraphs you mention about firing of two ranks (or by file) in Scott SoS 291 and following are for when the company is in three ranks, but only fires two of said ranks.

291. The firing of two ranks will be executed by the front and centre ranks ; the rear rank will not fire but load and pass the piece to the centre rank. By means of this arrangement the front rank will fire standing.

See, https://books.google.com/books?id=BU...page&q&f=false

The next several paragraphs provide instruction for firing in two ranks, but when firing in the three rank system. Using Scott SoS 291 is understandable as we're talking about firing two ranks. It's just not the correct paragraph. The focus should have been a few paragraphs beyond this instruction beginning at Scott SoS 301 regarding "General remarks on the Firings."

301. If the squad (company &c.) be drawn up in two, instead of three ranks, what has been prescribed above for the fire of the centre and rear ranks, where all three fire will apply to the front and rear ranks respectively, in the two rank formation.

See, https://books.google.com/books?id=BU...page&q&f=false

So, if you're in two ranks and firing in two ranks per Scott, how do the center and rear ranks in the three rank position fire? Per Scott SoS 285 :

285. At the command, aim, the front rank will take aim to the left without inclining the knee or stirring the feet. The centre rank men will take aim through the intervals to the left of their file-leaders without stirring the feet. The rear rank men will advance the left foot about six inches towards the right heel of the centre rank men of their files ; they will advance also the upper part of the body in bending a little the left knee, and take aim through the intervals to the left of their file-leaders.

See, https://books.google.com/books?id=BU...page&q&f=false

So, the front man in a two rank formation aims like the center man in the three rank formation : he aims left without moving his feet. The rear rank man in a two rank formation aims like the rear rank man in the three rank formation : (1) he advances his left foot a mere six inches towards the right heel of his file partner, (2) advances the upper part of his body and (3) aims through the interval to the left of his file partner.

Accordingly, the general language of Scott SoS 301 and following isn't specific, but when read in context with the specific instruction of preceeding paragraphs Scott SoS 283 and following, there is instruction about how two ranks aim to the left oblique.

Regarding overlap, you've actually made my argument stronger. There's not a two year overlap, there are six years. In looking online, I've found reprints in 1855, 1857 and 1858. There are likely other years his tactics were reprinted. So that we're talking about the same volume, the above links I've placed able are all from an 1861 reprint of Scott's which continue to proclaim as being the "rules for the exercise and manoeuvres of the United States' infantry." See, title page for the 1861 reprint : https://books.google.com/books?id=BU...page&q&f=false

If Hardee's light infantry tactics (1855) mandated the revolutionary new idea that left oblique aiming only be through the right interval, there would have been something out there which said, "cease aiming through the left interval per Scott ; only aim through the right interval per Hardee or per the 1855 Tactics." Or better yet, Hardee would have specified it in the 1855 Tactics or his 1861 Revised Tactics. Same goes for Gilham's 1860 Instruction, the 1861 U.S. Tactics and 1862 Casey. The lack of something you would expect to see in such a radical change casts great doubt on whether there was any change from the left interval. The handful of sources during the war which specify an interval all say left. None specify right.

That someone asked the Army Navy Journal which interval is the correct interval tells me there was confusion then, too. It also tells me that some soldiers were certainly taught, incorrectly, to aim through the right interval then like is done today. Why else would someone ask? I admit it can be period correct to aim through the right interval today because some soldiers then must have aimed incorrectly throught the right interval. That doesn't mean it's proper to do such. I'd rather aim correctly today using the same correct method of the day.

[john duffer]

Re: Which manual was used?

Regarding overlap, you've actually made my argument stronger. There's not a two year overlap, there are six years. In looking online, I've found reprints in 1855, 1857 and 1858. There are likely other years his tactics were reprinted. So that we're talking about the same volume, the above links I've placed able are all from an 1861 reprint of Scott's which continue to proclaim as being the "rules for the exercise and manoeuvres of the United States' infantry." See, title page for the 1861 reprint : https://books.google.com/books?id=BU...page&q&f=false

Then we have to infer that all troops in 1861 used flintlocks, loaded in twelve times, didn't double, used the left shoulder carry, etc and would have done so through the end of the war had there been an 1865 reprint. :wink_smil As I point out below HARDEES is a different system than SCOTTs.

If Hardee's light infantry tactics (1855) mandated the revolutionary new idea that left oblique aiming only be through the right interval, there would have been something out there which said, "cease aiming through the left interval per Scott ; only aim through the right interval per Hardee or per the 1855 Tactics." Or better yet, Hardee would have specified it in the 1855 Tactics or his 1861 Revised Tactics. Same goes for Gilham's 1860 Instruction, the 1861 U.S. Tactics and 1862 Casey. The lack of something you would expect to see in such a radical change casts great doubt on whether there was any change from the left interval. The handful of sources during the war which specify an interval all say left. None specify right.

The error here is assuming HARDEES is some sort of linear successor or addition to SCOTTS. It's a different system and a stand alone work and doesn't need to say 'don't do it like SCOTTS' any more than 'quit doing what VON STEUBEN says'. In the end we're talking about two French manuals here. The 1845 clearly states in the preface that its a new separate work that utilizes a "theorie speciale". Silas Casey confirms this in his preface:

The following volumes of Infantry Tactics are based upon the French ordonnances of 1831 and 1845, for the manoeuvres of heavy infantry and chasseurs a pied. Both of these systems have been in use in our service for some years; the former having been translated by Lieutenant-General Scott, and the latter by Lieutenant-Colonel Hardee.

None specify right.

Actually HARDEES doesn't specify right interval for direct, right or left. The fact that's where the barrel is at the ready seems to imply it using the old 'when you hear hoof beats think horses not zebras' rule but it's not specified.

To be honest I think SCOTTS is only saying the centre and rear ranks fire to the left of the kneeling front rank man but that can wait for another post.

[Jimmayo]

Re: Which manual was used?

Well, depends upon the weapon used. If the impression is Confederate where the troops used Gilham and if the weapon used is the shorter rifle with the sword bayonet, then I'd have to go with the rifle manual : http://books.google.com/books?id=xmw...page&q&f=false If the impression is Confederate where the troops used Gilham and if the weapon is a musket with a triangular bayonet, I'd have to go with the musket manual : http://books.google.com/books?id=xmw...page&q&f=false
.

Just to muddy up the water a bit...The 9th Va. companies used a mixture of small arms. Company G was a pre-war militia unit and went to war armed with Remington M-1841 rifles. Company B was the Baltimore Artillery and may not have been initially carrying arms. Company K was initially armed with converted flintlocks. Since the 9th served till early 1862 as heavy artillery, some companies may not have been issued weapons at all until the 9th became a member of Armistead's Brigade in early 62.

[john duffer]

OBLIGUE FIRINGS REVISITED - HARDEES, et al

I put this in the Sinks since it's a bit half baked but plan shortly to post a more scholarly work. Lets pretend for a moment we're an 1855-1865 recruit (or present day reenactor) in the rear rank and look at what would happen if we simply followed the book for 1855 HARDEE'S (or 1861 HARDEE'S, US TACTICS, CASEY'S, et al) and did exactly what it says to do.

At the ready our piece is to the right of our file leader. At AIM we'd do the following:.

DIRECT - "carry the right foot about eight inches to the right, and towards the left heel of the man next on the right, inclining the upper part of the body forward." and fire through the right interval.

RIGHT OBLIQUE - "advance the left foot about eight inches towards the right heel of the man next on the right of his file leader and aim to the right, inclining the upper part of the body forward and bending a little the left knee." and fire through the right interval.

LEFT OBLIQUE - "advance the right foot about eight inches towards the right heel of the man next on the right of his file leader, and aim to the left, inclining the upper part of the body forward and bending a little the right knee." and fire through the right interval.

[thomas aagaard]

Re: Which manual was used?

I think you are wrong. You would look at what all the other soldiers do / listen to whoever drilled you... Since you havn't read the drill book your self...

Left Oblique:
So if we talk until 1861 they would all aim through the left interval, since that is what every soldier knew to be the correct way to do it.
Since Hardee didn't change it in any clear way the soldiers would have gone on using the left interval. (If he had wanted to change it, he would have written it clearly... and he did't.)

in 1861 you would ask any former soldier in the unit and he would tell you to use the left.
If there is none,.. and your officer don't find one to ask... then yes, your unit might try make it work over the right shoulder...

In 64 you might be the solder who actually asked about it in the United States Service Magazine... and got a reply that said to use the left interval.

[Silas]

Re: OBLIGUE FIRINGS REVISITED - HARDEES, et al

Thomas, Duffer has read way more manuals than a significant number of people in the hobby.

John, you've made two opposite affirmative statements. Which do you really mean? This one :

... At the ready our piece is to the right of our file leader. At AIM we'd do the following: .
[ ]
LEFT OBLIQUE - "advance the right foot about eight inches towards the right heel of the man next on the right of his file leader, and aim to the left, inclining the upper part of the body forward and bending a little the right knee." and fire through the right interval.

or this one :

Actually HARDEES doesn't specify right interval for direct, right or left. The fact that's where the barrel is at the ready seems to imply it using the old 'when you hear hoof beats think horses not zebras' rule but it's not specified.

In the first one, you make it appear that Hardee included instruction that the weapon is fired through the right interval. In the last one, you said he didn't specify an interval. It can't be both.

Also, in the second one here, you've stated that since the barrel is on the right at the ready, then the weapon should be thrust through the right interval. The below passage from Hardee's Revised SoS is where I believe you have this belief :

Oblique firing.

266. The oblique firings will be executed to the right and left, and by the same commands as the direct fire, with this single difference — the command, aim, will always be preceded by the caution, right or left oblique.

Position of the two ranks in the oblique fire to the right.

267. At the command, ready, the two ranks will execute what has been prescribed for the direct fire.

Only problem is that the same language is found in Scott :

The Oblique Fire

278. Oblique firing will be executed to the right and left, and by the same commands as the fire direct, with this single difference - the command, aim, will always be preceded by the caution, right (or left) oblique, which will be given after the command, ready.

279. At the command, ready, the three ranks will execute what has been prescribed for the direct fire.

Since we know Scott has firing through the left interval, the virtually identical language from Scott and Hardee can't be the source for your belief. For whatever reason, Hardee did not specify which interval. It was the question asked in the U.S. Service Magazine during the war which has caused this current difference of opinion :

S.L.H., Vicksburg.—"Through what interval does the rear-rank man aim in firing to the left oblique?" Answer.—Over the left shoulder of the man in front of him.

- See, Vol. III, United States Service Magazine, p. 285

You are firmly convinced the method is to the left through the right interval whereas I'm convinced it's to the left through the left interval. One is really difficult to do without a huge forward step to the right - way more than contemplated in the manuals - with a difficult time aiming while the other is a very short step to the right and an easy aim.

[john duffer]

Re: Which manual was used?

I think you are wrong. You would look at what all the other soldiers do / listen to whoever drilled you... Since you havn't read the drill book your self...

Left Oblique:
So if we talk until 1861 they would all aim through the left interval, since that is what every soldier knew to be the correct way to do it.
Since Hardee didn't change it in any clear way the soldiers would have gone on using the left interval. (If he had wanted to change it, he would have written it clearly... and he did't.)

in 1861 you would ask any former soldier in the unit and he would tell you to use the left.
If there is none,.. and your officer don't find one to ask... then yes, your unit might try make it work over the right shoulder...

In 64 you might be the solder who actually asked about it in the United States Service Magazine... and got a reply that said to use the left interval.

"Here's how we always did it" - Sounds like reenactors at drill. :) Why even use a manual when you can just ask old soldiers.

[john duffer]

Re: OBLIGUE FIRINGS REVISITED - HARDEES, et al

Silas

I was being a wee bit facetious about HARDEES specifying which interval. You stated that since he doesn't say right it must be left and I was pointing out he doesn't specify right for any of the firings, it's implied (the front rank is supposed to drop the right elbow a little to help the rear aim for example). This doesn't mean left or right is optional. The point is it wasn't felt necessary to specify an interval because if you follow the detailed step by step directions you always fire through the right interval. Period. Nowhere does it say now pass your piece over the file leaders head and fire to his left. Could that be because you don't? Doesn't that make more sense than the manual assuming in this isolated case you'll go by what the French did in 1831 while in three ranks? A book with hundreds and hundreds of detailed instructions skips the one that would support your theory so the book must be wrong? Horses not zebras (or unicorns for that matter)

In any case, I'm at ready - loaded, primed and at full cock. What's the procedure to safely get the barrel on the left side of my file leader? I know UPTON has one but that's in the future. In fact SCOTTS doesn't have it either for reasons I'll touch on in an upcoming post. This one was supposed to be what if we're drilling with HARDEES and follow the book rather than speculation.

[Mississippian]

Re: Which manual was used?

Great thread guys.

But part of me wonders how much minor improvisation units did during the war when the manual wasn't quite clear. I seem to recall an incident in which a veteran unit in the AoT was doing drill in front of Gen. Hardee and he remarked that they weren't doing it exactly how he wrote it in his book. I don't think he meant that they drilled badly, just not exactly how it was supposed to be done. I'll have to find that reference.

Will MacDonald

[john duffer]

Re: Which manual was used?

I have no doubt that many things weren't done by the manual, clear or not :) . My point here is there's nothing unclear about this manual unless you count not saying what you want it to (well there's always which parade rest, etc, et al) - but there's nothing vague on this particular issue, it says exactly what to do.

[thomas aagaard]

Re: OBLIGUE FIRINGS REVISITED - HARDEES, et al

Thomas, Duffer has read way more manuals than a significant number of people in the hobby.

Iam very sorry that my first line was badly written. I didn't mean that mr. Duffer had not read the drill book. (but I understand how it was understood like it)

I don't believe the typical recruit in the regular army read the drill book himself. He just did as he was shown by his drill instructor.
When the war broke out some volunteers did get hold of drill books... but the wast majority surly did not read one and just did as they where shown.

so the "you" who hadn't read the books was our recruit... not Mr. Duffer.

Hope it clears it up.


I think there are a number questions that is connected but not the same:
How do the drill book tell us to do it?
How did Hardee want it done?
How did they do it? Prewar? during the war?


I think the text in HARDEES is not clear and how it is understood depend on the reader and his expectations.
I also think that if Hardee himself didn't think as much about this as we do. He just translated the text. So what ever his idea was, he thought is was obvious.

Looking at his text by it self I think it can be argued that it is obvious that you always use the right interval.

But you should always read a text in its contexts. And if done so (as Silas did in his article) I think it is just as easy to argue that it is obvious that it is done using the left interval, since that is how is was done in scotts, And in a standing army "this is how we use to do it" do have a clear influence... and changing things is not done overnight.

So I think the prewar army used the left interval... but during the war I think that there was units that used the right... because it was not clear to them, just as it is not clear to us.

Also Iam sure some units did things in their own way. using drill from some European army where members had served.
(in one early war New York company they drilled in danish with a Dane as drills sergeant... a veteran of the 3year war in 1848-50.. a danish civil war that also involved the German confederation and Prussia)

Scott:
If you use flintlock musket your ready position makes it easy to use the left interval.
The problem of getting your weapon over the head of the man in front of you do only show up with the use of percussion muskets and a new ready position.


Danish 1863 drill:
how the danish army did things in 63 do naturally not have any influence on how it was done during the civil war,. but thought you might find it interesting.

When firing normally the rear rank take a step forward and a bit to the right so they can fire using the right interval.
The distance between ranks should be one foot when firing. (the rear rank stand further back than in the US drill, when not firing so the forward movement is needed)

When doing right oblique - the rear rank step forward and to the left, and do a "half right face" so they still use the right interval.
When doing it to the left oblique - the rear rank step forward and to the right and do a "half left face" and still use the right interval.

So basically the front rank do a half face and the rear rank move so they are in the same position as normally when firing.
No distances is given for the steps, but more of a "make it work"

Since this move result in less space for the rear rank, than when firing normally... the firing is only done "by rank" with the rear rank firing first.

[john duffer]

Re: OBLIGUE FIRINGS REVISITED - HARDEES, et al

Looking at his text by it self I think it can be argued that it is obvious that you always use the right interval.

But you should always read a text in its contexts. And if done so (as Silas did in his article) I think it is just as easy to argue that it is obvious that it is done using the left interval, since that is how is was done in scotts, And in a standing army "this is how we use to do it" do have a clear influence... and changing things is not done overnight.

So I think the prewar army used the left interval... but during the war I think that there was units that used the right... because it was not clear to them, just as it is not clear to us.
.

To once again beat a dead horse - HARDEES is a totally different manual than SCOTTS, there are a goodly number of things that are done differently. But, let's assume that I'm a volunteer officer drilling volunteer soldiers using HARDEES and we get to the left oblique. At the ready I don't think there's any disagreement that the rear rank's piece is on the right of his file leader. I tell them to throw back their left shoulder, advance their right foot eight inches towards the right heel of the man on the right of their file leader and aim to the left, inclining the upper part of the body slightly and bending a little the right knee. Unless I'm overlooking something their piece is still on the right side and then our resident vet says 'we've always fired through the left interval" I point out the manual doesn't say that and doesn't tell me how to get the piece to the left side but I'm game so what's the method? Seems like a pretty big detail for the manual to omit but, hey, drill manuals are all about winging it and asking opinions so what are the commands?

On a side note, and I'm not sure how much info is available, considering the size of the standing army at the beginning and the enormous number of new men I think it would be a great thread to explore how many recruits were drilled by experienced men ( the Irish guy in GLORY aside )

[Silas]

Re: Which manual was used?

Here's the relevant text for discussion. All is from Hardee's Revised.

Load in nine times.
AIM.

SoS 176. The rear rank men, in aiming, will each carry the right foot about eight inches to the right, and towards the left heel of the man next on the right, inclining the upper part of the body forward.

Position of the two ranks in the oblique fire to the right

.
SoS 269. At the command, aim, [ ] each rear rank man will advance the left foot about eight inches toward the right heel of the man next on the right of his file leader and aim to the right, inclining the upper part of the body forward and bending a little the left knee.

Position of the two ranks in the oblique fire to the left.

SoS 271. At the command, aim, [ ] each man in the rear will advance the right foot about eight inches toward the right heel of the man next on the right of his file leader, and aim to the left, inclining the upper part of the body forward and bending a little the right knee.

For the direct aiming, the rear rank man's right foot moves to right eight inches. The manual doesn't say horizontally, but it appears to be pretty close to it. Stepping to the right allows the weapon to clear between the space between his file partner and the man on the right of his file partner. (This would be the right interval.)

For left oblique aiming, that same right foot moves the same eight inches toward the front rank man to the right. This means diagonally toward the man in the front right. If you put your feet in the inverted T position and measure eight inches to where that front rank man would be, the distance is just far enough to move the right heel around the left foot barely beyond the instep of the left foot.

I'll wait while you try that.



How'd that go? Let's resume.

My eighth grade algebra math isn't what is used to be, but my recollection of the Pythagorean theorem tells me that with a diagonal distance - the C part of the triangle - being eight inches, the base or A part of the triangle is going to be less than eight inches. To equal the same eight inch horizontal distance for the direct aim, the left oblique aiming soldier would have to step significantly farther forward and farther to the right. Reenactors move way to the right. From what I've seen, reenactors move that right foot, not eight inches from where their right heel started as instructed, but to a space within eight inches of the front rank man on the right. Hardee doesn't instruct that. He has them step less, not more. This tells me there is a problem with the idea of aiming left through the right interval.

When firing around the right interval to the left, which is the dominant foot balance? For direct fire, it could be either the left foot which points in the aimed direction or the right foot which is perpendicular to the aimed direction. For right oblique, the left foot moves and is pointed obliquely right toward the aimed direction. For left oblique, the right foot moves and is perpendicular to the aimed direction. Aiming left through the right interval does allow the right foot to be perpendicular to the aimed direction, but at what cost?

With a mere eight inch diagonal step as instructed, the extra distance must be gained from leaning forward and sticking the weapon way out there. This means that a soldier's weapon and center of gravity will be outside of the feet, not inside the feet. If you're only firing blanks, it's merely awkward. If you're firing live rounds, it's awkward as well as dangerous. As we all know, Hardee and company compiled instruction for firing live rounds safely.

From a safety point of view. The choice is obvious. I'll take through the left interval as is instructed specifically in Scott, the prewar militia manuals, Chandler, Pace and Upton. I'm still waiting to hear the name of any compiler who specified left oblique aiming through the right interval. I hear conjecture, argument and logic. I don't hear specific text.

To this discussion is that great answer in the U.S. Service Magazine to the very question being argued here : through the left interval. Had the answer been through the right interval, I'd have to agree with the argument that the weapon is on the right. Since Hardee doesn't say to go left, it must remain on the right. But the answer doesn't. So I don't.