Jump to content
Shiloh Discussion Group
Sign in to follow this  

Ranges and Tactics

Recommended Posts

John, I'll try to answer your questions, but I also have to defer to the folks here who know more about weaponry than I do. But I agree that it's a fascinating subject.

#1 - Generally speaking, yes, I think the ranges at Shiloh were usually close enough for smoothbores to be as effective as rifled-weapons. There were exceptions, such as the long-range firefight in the Peach Orchard area and the ravines to the east on April 6th, but as the Confederates closed the distance during their assault, it would have negated the advantage of rifled-weapons.

#2 - At close range, yes, the buck-and-ball would have been pretty devastating. It's sort of a combination of a regular smoothbore and a small shotgun. I don't know about the spread pattern, but I'd guess it would be pretty close to what they show in that video. As with a 'regular' smoothbore though, the greater the distance, the lower the accuracy. But at close range, say anything from about 50 yards or so in, a buck-and-ball round would probably be even more deadly than a rifled-round or a single ball from a smoothbore, again as they show in that video. It has a greater chance to hit something, and do so with enough force to break bones or kill someone.

#3 - I honestly don't know about comparing a recruit of 1862 with their modern-day counterpart, but broadly speaking, my guess would be that in general they probably had a little more experience with firearms prior to entering the service than would be the case today. Again, that's just a guess.

But from what I've read, most men on both sides did not have much in the way of actual target practice with their Civil War weapon prior to entering their first actual combat. A lot of drilling and such, but not much time shooting live bullets.

I also don't know that hunting animals is necessarily going to translate to an advantage in armed combat. There's the story of a Union veteran of Fort Donelson trying to steady some jittery members of the 53rd Ohio at Shiloh by telling them that combat was just like shooting squirrels, "only these squirrels have guns, that's all." It apparently got a laugh out of the men and broke the tension a little, which was probably the idea. But it also makes a valid point about hunting vs combat. Squirrels don't usually shoot back.

I think the casualty rate at Shiloh, as bad as it was, probably could have been quite a bit higher. The stress of combat combined with some other factors, such as a soldier's first time in battle, difficulty seeing through battle smoke and underbrush, and fatigue as the day wore on, probably combined to cause a lot of bullets to miss their mark that otherwise may have hit home.

One example from late on April 6th comes to mind, when a Confederate cavalry troop was charging a group of retreating Federals, possibly a battery, I can't quite recall. But, they were closing in on Grant's Last Line without realizing it, until they suddenly topped a hill and were face-to-face with a long line of guns pointed right at them, at very short range. The Union line unleashed a volley that General Buell, standing nearby, was certain would empty every saddle. Instead, it appears that not one single Confederate soldier was hit by that volley. Buell and several other Union witnesses expressed astonishment at this.

I can't recall which army these men belonged to, whether Grant's or Buell's, but if this was the first time they ever encountered enemy troops in battle, it might explain why they missed from what appeared to be a can't-miss distance. Having a line of armed men on horses thundering toward you isn't like drawing down on a small animal sitting perfectly still.

The thing that always amazes me about Shiloh is the number of men on both sides who did not simply drop their weapon and run away in sheer terror. We always hear about the ones who did, especially on the Union side, since they have that big historical spotlight shining down on them at the landing, where they were all drawn like metal to a magnet. It was just as bad in the Confederate rear except there was no central gather spot like at Pittsburg Landing. But most of the men on both sides stood to it, which is pretty remarkable. The same can probably said for their accuracy, given all the circumstances. They might not have scored as many hits as more experienced armies might have done, but all things considered, they probably did better than anyone had a right to expect.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Am writing a book right now on firearms at Shiloh. The basic question, "Did it make a difference,?" being armed with a rifle or smooth-bore musket. It made a lot of difference to the average recruit of 1861. They wanted rifles! and would be really angry if given a smooth-bore, especially on the Federal side. The poor Confederates in Johnston's Department No.2, from September of 1861 to April of 1862 were short of firearms. The majority of the firearms carried by the Confederates were smooth-bores and the majority of the firearms carried by the Federals were rifles. Now--------- Did it make a difference which one you had at Shiloh. Many say it did not because of the distances of combat and firing, much of it in dense forest and brush under 100 yards. That is the contention of these small arms writers, because of the distances fought-- rifles did not make a difference overall. Well, I have been researching battle accounts at Shiloh that at different times and circumstances it did make a difference. These I will share in my book. The idea of rifles shooting these big arcs is interesting, but more of theory than actual shooting. I have been a member of the N-SSA for 40 years and have shot every kind of Civil War firearm at a multitude of distances-- including targets at 300 yards. I have watched my fellow N-SSA shooters hit a target at that distance 4 times in a row. NOW these guys practice-- but I will tell you if they were shooting at a target, a cannon crew, or a line of infantry from 200 to 300 yards away-- their sighting would be to arc their rounds into a specific target--  like shooting a bow and arrow-- you arc your shot. If you missed, you would have missed an individual target, and yes your shot might hit the ground a number of yards behind that man or cannon-- true. But you were not looking for a volley fire effect. You had one target and one target only.   Over 100 yards your chances of hitting a man with smooth-bore was down to 30% or less. I have tried it and that is a fact. The Confederate Army at Shiloh it appears did not have a disadvantage being armed with smooth-bores at Shiloh. They pushed the Federals back two miles or more, but did take a lot of casualties doing it. They were stopped at times by Federals armed with rifles, hidden behind trees and in ravines for hours. That is a fact.... So-- wait for my book and send me all those accounts where Soldiers at Shiloh were thankful they had Enfields or were mad because their smooth-bores did no damage. To far away!

8th Mis.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Create New...