Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [civilwarwest] Re: A few of my favorite statistics of the Civil War + more Bell Hood

Expand Messages
  • Bill Merritt
    Nevertheless, the Bayonet was an essential piece of equipment for the Civil War soldier. They served numerous purposes...for instance, they made superb
    Message 1 of 21 , Mar 1, 2004
      Nevertheless, the Bayonet was an essential piece of equipment for the Civil War soldier. They served numerous purposes...for instance, they made superb candle-holders, and were very good for cooking meat. I imagine, also, that far more pigs and cows were stuck by bayonets than were humans.

      Mark Peters <mark-peters.midlandsandnorth@...> wrote:
      --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "tmix" <tmix@i...> wrote:

      Tom and Joe,

      Interesting comments on bayonets, etc.  As has been suggested
      previously, the bayonet was certainly not a preferred weapon for most
      Napoleonic forces.  The British developed the use of the bayonet
      after attempting to combat the use of claymores by the Jacobites
      (mostly Scottish clansmen) in the '45.  The tactics of the Jacobites
      was to charge the Hanoverians, after receiving the initial volley,
      and close before reloading.  The musket was then useless in hand to
      hand combat.  Hence, the addition of a short sword on the end of the
      musket.  So Tom is quite correct in stating that this was essentially
      a defensive weapon.  Most Napoleonic tactics were developed in
      attempting to achieve the greatest amount of fire by a given number
      of troops ie. ranks v columns.

      With regards to cross-fire, as at Waterloo, I am unsure as to how
      many casualties could have resulted.  To fire at a group of marauding
      French cavalrymen would have been essentially a one, possibly two
      off, as reloading would have resulted in standing and lowering the
      bayonet being used for defence.  Therefore, I believe that only a
      shot at an advancement, and possibly one at retreat (unlikely due to
      time and recuperation) could have been possible.   

      Best wishes,

      Mark

      > I do not know of any stats. After such a fight the carnage would be
      > tremendous with little effort to assuage the actual cause on death.
      This
      > would especially be so when Hussars and Carabineers were involved,
      inter
      > mixing their fire with that of the squares. The cross fire as sort
      of a
      > given and accepted price of the combat. Without the square, the
      infantry
      > would be trampled down so the risk was worth taking. Kind of: the
      better
      > of 2 evils, with the square providing the best chance of survival.
      > Tom M.
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: hartshje [mailto:Hartshje@a...]
      > Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 9:44 PM
      > To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: A few of my favorite statistics of the
      Civil
      > War + more Bell Hood
      >
      > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "tmix" <tmix@i...> wrote:
      > > I was waiting for someone to catch the reference to Waterloo. All
      > > squares were a "tactical defensive" ploy as they were static. Of
      > > course the cross fire of squares took out a lot in friendly fire
      > > casualties.
      > > Tom M.
      > >
      >
      > Tom, 
      >
      >  I had never really considered the crossfire effect on the nearby
      > squares, but of course that must have done considerable "friendly
      > fire" damage.  Are there any statistics concerning this?
      >
      > Joe
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >

      > Yahoo! Groups Links

    • Mark Peters
      There was another problem, with bayonets and firing, I thought of after. Reloading a musket, with a bayonet attached must have been a problem in itself. Was
      Message 2 of 21 , Mar 1, 2004
        There was another problem, with bayonets and firing, I thought of
        after. Reloading a musket, with a bayonet attached must have been a
        problem in itself.

        Was it possibly the case that the musket was loaded, then bayonet
        attached after? Otherwise, the logic would be that the bayonet was
        attached at all time during combat, and we know that this was not the
        case. If so, this would have allowed one shot only before using the
        bayonet in defence/attack. As a result, crossfire could not have
        been much of a concern when forming square.

        Mark

        --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, Bill Merritt <bilmerritt@y...>
        wrote:
        > Nevertheless, the Bayonet was an essential piece of equipment for
        the Civil War soldier. They served numerous purposes...for instance,
        they made superb candle-holders, and were very good for cooking meat.
        I imagine, also, that far more pigs and cows were stuck by bayonets
        than were humans.
        >
        > Mark Peters <mark-peters.midlandsandnorth@m...> wrote:--- In
        civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "tmix" <tmix@i...> wrote:
        >
        > Tom and Joe,
        >
        > Interesting comments on bayonets, etc. As has been suggested
        > previously, the bayonet was certainly not a preferred weapon for
        most
        > Napoleonic forces. The British developed the use of the bayonet
        > after attempting to combat the use of claymores by the Jacobites
        > (mostly Scottish clansmen) in the '45. The tactics of the
        Jacobites
        > was to charge the Hanoverians, after receiving the initial volley,
        > and close before reloading. The musket was then useless in hand to
        > hand combat. Hence, the addition of a short sword on the end of
        the
        > musket. So Tom is quite correct in stating that this was
        essentially
        > a defensive weapon. Most Napoleonic tactics were developed in
        > attempting to achieve the greatest amount of fire by a given number
        > of troops ie. ranks v columns.
        >
        > With regards to cross-fire, as at Waterloo, I am unsure as to how
        > many casualties could have resulted. To fire at a group of
        marauding
        > French cavalrymen would have been essentially a one, possibly two
        > off, as reloading would have resulted in standing and lowering the
        > bayonet being used for defence. Therefore, I believe that only a
        > shot at an advancement, and possibly one at retreat (unlikely due
        to
        > time and recuperation) could have been possible.
        >
        > Best wishes,
        >
        > Mark
        >
        > > I do not know of any stats. After such a fight the carnage would
        be
        > > tremendous with little effort to assuage the actual cause on
        death.
        > This
        > > would especially be so when Hussars and Carabineers were
        involved,
        > inter
        > > mixing their fire with that of the squares. The cross fire as
        sort
        > of a
        > > given and accepted price of the combat. Without the square, the
        > infantry
        > > would be trampled down so the risk was worth taking. Kind of: the
        > better
        > > of 2 evils, with the square providing the best chance of
        survival.
        > > Tom M.
        > >
        > > -----Original Message-----
        > > From: hartshje [mailto:Hartshje@a...]
        > > Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 9:44 PM
        > > To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
        > > Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: A few of my favorite statistics of
        the
        > Civil
        > > War + more Bell Hood
        > >
        > > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "tmix" <tmix@i...> wrote:
        > > > I was waiting for someone to catch the reference to Waterloo.
        All
        > > > squares were a "tactical defensive" ploy as they were static.
        Of
        > > > course the cross fire of squares took out a lot in friendly
        fire
        > > > casualties.
        > > > Tom M.
        > > >
        > >
        > > Tom,
        > >
        > > I had never really considered the crossfire effect on the nearby
        > > squares, but of course that must have done considerable "friendly
        > > fire" damage. Are there any statistics concerning this?
        > >
        > > Joe
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        > ---------------------------------
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        > To visit your group on the web, go to:
        > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/civilwarwest/
        >
        > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        > civilwarwest-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        >
        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
        Service.
      • tasimmo
        ... War. Cross-fire would have been significant if two squares were formed next to each other, but, from what I have read, only one square was formed at a time
        Message 3 of 21 , Mar 1, 2004
          --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, Bill Merritt <bilmerritt@y...>
          wrote:
          > I have heard of eight times where a square was formed in the Civil
          War. Cross-fire would have been significant if two squares were
          formed next to each other, but, from what I have read, only one
          square was formed at a time in the CW.
          >
          > tmix <tmix@i...> wrote:I do not know of any stats. After such a
          fight the carnage would be
          > tremendous with little effort to assuage the actual cause on death.
          This
          > would especially be so when Hussars and Carabineers were involved,
          inter
          > mixing their fire with that of the squares. The cross fire as sort
          of a
          > given and accepted price of the combat. Without the square, the
          infantry
          > would be trampled down so the risk was worth taking. Kind of: the
          better
          > of 2 evils, with the square providing the best chance of survival.
          > Tom M.
          >
          > -----Original Message-----
          > From: hartshje [mailto:Hartshje@a...]
          > Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 9:44 PM
          > To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
          > Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: A few of my favorite statistics of the
          Civil
          > War + more Bell Hood
          >
          > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "tmix" <tmix@i...> wrote:
          > > I was waiting for someone to catch the reference to Waterloo. All
          > > squares were a "tactical defensive" ploy as they were static. Of
          > > course the cross fire of squares took out a lot in friendly fire
          > > casualties.
          > > Tom M.
          > >
          >
          > Tom,
          >
          > I had never really considered the crossfire effect on the nearby
          > squares, but of course that must have done considerable "friendly
          > fire" damage. Are there any statistics concerning this?
          >
          > Joe
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > ---------------------------------
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          > To visit your group on the web, go to:
          > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/civilwarwest/
          >
          > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          > civilwarwest-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          >
          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
          Service.



          Gentlemen,

          I've been boning up on my knowledge of the infantry square as used in
          Napoleonic times, and because of its "all-around facing" the square
          normally only fired to its FRONT; this would have been even more
          imperative when several squares were deployed within shooting
          distance of each other. Thus, the overall firepower of an infantry
          square was much reduced. It was the points of the bayonets within the
          3- or 4-rank deep square that kept charging cavalry horses "at bay".
          At Waterloo, the cavalry and smoke was so thick that the squares
          apparently could not even see one another.

          Tom S.
        • tasimmo
          ... a ... the ... the ... instance, ... meat. ... volley, ... to ... number ... the ... would ... the ... nearby ... considerable friendly ... Mark,
          Message 4 of 21 , Mar 1, 2004
            --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Peters" <mark-
            peters.midlandsandnorth@m...> wrote:
            > There was another problem, with bayonets and firing, I thought of
            > after. Reloading a musket, with a bayonet attached must have been
            a
            > problem in itself.
            >
            > Was it possibly the case that the musket was loaded, then bayonet
            > attached after? Otherwise, the logic would be that the bayonet was
            > attached at all time during combat, and we know that this was not
            the
            > case. If so, this would have allowed one shot only before using
            the
            > bayonet in defence/attack. As a result, crossfire could not have
            > been much of a concern when forming square.
            >
            > Mark
            >
            > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, Bill Merritt <bilmerritt@y...>
            > wrote:
            > > Nevertheless, the Bayonet was an essential piece of equipment for
            > the Civil War soldier. They served numerous purposes...for
            instance,
            > they made superb candle-holders, and were very good for cooking
            meat.
            > I imagine, also, that far more pigs and cows were stuck by bayonets
            > than were humans.
            > >
            > > Mark Peters <mark-peters.midlandsandnorth@m...> wrote:--- In
            > civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "tmix" <tmix@i...> wrote:
            > >
            > > Tom and Joe,
            > >
            > > Interesting comments on bayonets, etc. As has been suggested
            > > previously, the bayonet was certainly not a preferred weapon for
            > most
            > > Napoleonic forces. The British developed the use of the bayonet
            > > after attempting to combat the use of claymores by the Jacobites
            > > (mostly Scottish clansmen) in the '45. The tactics of the
            > Jacobites
            > > was to charge the Hanoverians, after receiving the initial
            volley,
            > > and close before reloading. The musket was then useless in hand
            to
            > > hand combat. Hence, the addition of a short sword on the end of
            > the
            > > musket. So Tom is quite correct in stating that this was
            > essentially
            > > a defensive weapon. Most Napoleonic tactics were developed in
            > > attempting to achieve the greatest amount of fire by a given
            number
            > > of troops ie. ranks v columns.
            > >
            > > With regards to cross-fire, as at Waterloo, I am unsure as to how
            > > many casualties could have resulted. To fire at a group of
            > marauding
            > > French cavalrymen would have been essentially a one, possibly two
            > > off, as reloading would have resulted in standing and lowering
            the
            > > bayonet being used for defence. Therefore, I believe that only a
            > > shot at an advancement, and possibly one at retreat (unlikely due
            > to
            > > time and recuperation) could have been possible.
            > >
            > > Best wishes,
            > >
            > > Mark
            > >
            > > > I do not know of any stats. After such a fight the carnage
            would
            > be
            > > > tremendous with little effort to assuage the actual cause on
            > death.
            > > This
            > > > would especially be so when Hussars and Carabineers were
            > involved,
            > > inter
            > > > mixing their fire with that of the squares. The cross fire as
            > sort
            > > of a
            > > > given and accepted price of the combat. Without the square, the
            > > infantry
            > > > would be trampled down so the risk was worth taking. Kind of:
            the
            > > better
            > > > of 2 evils, with the square providing the best chance of
            > survival.
            > > > Tom M.
            > > >
            > > > -----Original Message-----
            > > > From: hartshje [mailto:Hartshje@a...]
            > > > Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 9:44 PM
            > > > To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
            > > > Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: A few of my favorite statistics of
            > the
            > > Civil
            > > > War + more Bell Hood
            > > >
            > > > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "tmix" <tmix@i...> wrote:
            > > > > I was waiting for someone to catch the reference to Waterloo.
            > All
            > > > > squares were a "tactical defensive" ploy as they were static.
            > Of
            > > > > course the cross fire of squares took out a lot in friendly
            > fire
            > > > > casualties.
            > > > > Tom M.
            > > > >
            > > >
            > > > Tom,
            > > >
            > > > I had never really considered the crossfire effect on the
            nearby
            > > > squares, but of course that must have done
            considerable "friendly
            > > > fire" damage. Are there any statistics concerning this?
            > > >
            > > > Joe
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > ---------------------------------
            > > Yahoo! Groups Links
            > >
            > > To visit your group on the web, go to:
            > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/civilwarwest/
            > >
            > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            > > civilwarwest-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            > >
            > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
            > Service.


            Mark,

            Apparently, the bayonet "hedge" was provided by the (kneeling) front
            rank of the square, while the second, third and (sometimes fourth)
            ranks provided the firepower. I would imagine these ranks did
            not "fix" their bayonets.

            Tom S.
          • Bill Merritt
            Loading the musket with the bayonet attached was no problem at all; it was a socket, so the barrel of the gun was free. I ve done it often, without noticing
            Message 5 of 21 , Mar 1, 2004
              Loading the musket with the bayonet attached was no problem at all; it was a socket, so the barrel of the gun was free. I've done it often, without noticing the bayonet.

              Mark Peters <mark-peters.midlandsandnorth@...> wrote:
              There was another problem, with bayonets and firing, I thought of
              after.  Reloading a musket, with a bayonet attached must have been a
              problem in itself. 

              Was it possibly the case that the musket was loaded, then bayonet
              attached after?  Otherwise, the logic would be that the bayonet was
              attached at all time during combat, and we know that this was not the
              case.  If so, this would have allowed one shot only before using the
              bayonet in defence/attack.  As a result, crossfire could not have
              been much of a concern when forming square.

              Mark

              --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, Bill Merritt <bilmerritt@y...>
              wrote:
              > Nevertheless, the Bayonet was an essential piece of equipment for
              the Civil War soldier. They served numerous purposes...for instance,
              they made superb candle-holders, and were very good for cooking meat.
              I imagine, also, that far more pigs and cows were stuck by bayonets
              than were humans.
              >
              > Mark Peters <mark-peters.midlandsandnorth@m...> wrote:--- In
              civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "tmix" <tmix@i...> wrote:
              >
              > Tom and Joe,
              >
              > Interesting comments on bayonets, etc.  As has been suggested
              > previously, the bayonet was certainly not a preferred weapon for
              most
              > Napoleonic forces.  The British developed the use of the bayonet
              > after attempting to combat the use of claymores by the Jacobites
              > (mostly Scottish clansmen) in the '45.  The tactics of the
              Jacobites
              > was to charge the Hanoverians, after receiving the initial volley,
              > and close before reloading.  The musket was then useless in hand to
              > hand combat.  Hence, the addition of a short sword on the end of
              the
              > musket.  So Tom is quite correct in stating that this was
              essentially
              > a defensive weapon.  Most Napoleonic tactics were developed in
              > attempting to achieve the greatest amount of fire by a given number
              > of troops ie. ranks v columns.
              >
              > With regards to cross-fire, as at Waterloo, I am unsure as to how
              > many casualties could have resulted.  To fire at a group of
              marauding
              > French cavalrymen would have been essentially a one, possibly two
              > off, as reloading would have resulted in standing and lowering the
              > bayonet being used for defence.  Therefore, I believe that only a
              > shot at an advancement, and possibly one at retreat (unlikely due
              to
              > time and recuperation) could have been possible.   
              >
              > Best wishes,
              >
              > Mark
              >
              > > I do not know of any stats. After such a fight the carnage would
              be
              > > tremendous with little effort to assuage the actual cause on
              death.
              > This
              > > would especially be so when Hussars and Carabineers were
              involved,
              > inter
              > > mixing their fire with that of the squares. The cross fire as
              sort
              > of a
              > > given and accepted price of the combat. Without the square, the
              > infantry
              > > would be trampled down so the risk was worth taking. Kind of: the
              > better
              > > of 2 evils, with the square providing the best chance of
              survival.
              > > Tom M.
              > >
              > > -----Original Message-----
              > > From: hartshje [mailto:Hartshje@a...]
              > > Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 9:44 PM
              > > To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
              > > Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: A few of my favorite statistics of
              the
              > Civil
              > > War + more Bell Hood
              > >
              > > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "tmix" <tmix@i...> wrote:
              > > > I was waiting for someone to catch the reference to Waterloo.
              All
              > > > squares were a "tactical defensive" ploy as they were static.
              Of
              > > > course the cross fire of squares took out a lot in friendly
              fire
              > > > casualties.
              > > > Tom M.
              > > >
              > >
              > > Tom, 
              > >
              > >  I had never really considered the crossfire effect on the nearby
              > > squares, but of course that must have done considerable "friendly
              > > fire" damage.  Are there any statistics concerning this?
              > >
              > > Joe
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > 
              > > Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >
              > ---------------------------------
              > Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >    To visit your group on the web, go to:
              > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/civilwarwest/
              >  
              >    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              > civilwarwest-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              >  
              >    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
              Service.

            • tmix
              Yes, loading and re-loading were a challenge with the bayonet attached. Some of our re-enactors could better discuss this than me since they have done,
              Message 6 of 21 , Mar 1, 2004
                Yes, loading and re-loading were a challenge with the bayonet attached.
                Some of our re-enactors could better discuss this than me since they
                have done, although obviously not under life and death situations. But
                what you touched on is why a bayonet charge was very rare. When
                Chamberlain ordered his charge it shocked his men knowing it meant an
                all or nothing, do or die event. It was a chilling order that I found
                the movie to portray beautifully.
                In Napoleonic times it was more of given to use the bayonet. At
                Friedland the French engaged the Russian Guard who were quite tall. Thus
                the French found they had to jab in an upward motion. Napoleon's surgeon
                Larrey made quite a study of after battle results that helped him create
                advancements in the medical, like the first mobile field hospital near
                the front.
                During the Civil War, a bayonet charge was often regarded as a last
                resort suicide move. A very scary proposition.
                Tom M.

                -----Original Message-----
                From: Mark Peters [mailto:mark-peters.midlandsandnorth@...]
                Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 10:16 AM
                To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: A few of my favorite statistics of the Civil
                War + more Bell Hood

                There was another problem, with bayonets and firing, I thought of
                after. Reloading a musket, with a bayonet attached must have been a
                problem in itself.

                Was it possibly the case that the musket was loaded, then bayonet
                attached after? Otherwise, the logic would be that the bayonet was
                attached at all time during combat, and we know that this was not the
                case. If so, this would have allowed one shot only before using the
                bayonet in defence/attack. As a result, crossfire could not have
                been much of a concern when forming square.

                Mark

                --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, Bill Merritt <bilmerritt@y...>
                wrote:
                > Nevertheless, the Bayonet was an essential piece of equipment for
                the Civil War soldier. They served numerous purposes...for instance,
                they made superb candle-holders, and were very good for cooking meat.
                I imagine, also, that far more pigs and cows were stuck by bayonets
                than were humans.
                >
                > Mark Peters <mark-peters.midlandsandnorth@m...> wrote:--- In
                civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "tmix" <tmix@i...> wrote:
                >
                > Tom and Joe,
                >
                > Interesting comments on bayonets, etc. As has been suggested
                > previously, the bayonet was certainly not a preferred weapon for
                most
                > Napoleonic forces. The British developed the use of the bayonet
                > after attempting to combat the use of claymores by the Jacobites
                > (mostly Scottish clansmen) in the '45. The tactics of the
                Jacobites
                > was to charge the Hanoverians, after receiving the initial volley,
                > and close before reloading. The musket was then useless in hand to
                > hand combat. Hence, the addition of a short sword on the end of
                the
                > musket. So Tom is quite correct in stating that this was
                essentially
                > a defensive weapon. Most Napoleonic tactics were developed in
                > attempting to achieve the greatest amount of fire by a given number
                > of troops ie. ranks v columns.
                >
                > With regards to cross-fire, as at Waterloo, I am unsure as to how
                > many casualties could have resulted. To fire at a group of
                marauding
                > French cavalrymen would have been essentially a one, possibly two
                > off, as reloading would have resulted in standing and lowering the
                > bayonet being used for defence. Therefore, I believe that only a
                > shot at an advancement, and possibly one at retreat (unlikely due
                to
                > time and recuperation) could have been possible.
                >
                > Best wishes,
                >
                > Mark
                >
                > > I do not know of any stats. After such a fight the carnage would
                be
                > > tremendous with little effort to assuage the actual cause on
                death.
                > This
                > > would especially be so when Hussars and Carabineers were
                involved,
                > inter
                > > mixing their fire with that of the squares. The cross fire as
                sort
                > of a
                > > given and accepted price of the combat. Without the square, the
                > infantry
                > > would be trampled down so the risk was worth taking. Kind of: the
                > better
                > > of 2 evils, with the square providing the best chance of
                survival.
                > > Tom M.
                > >
                > > -----Original Message-----
                > > From: hartshje [mailto:Hartshje@a...]
                > > Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 9:44 PM
                > > To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                > > Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: A few of my favorite statistics of
                the
                > Civil
                > > War + more Bell Hood
                > >
                > > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "tmix" <tmix@i...> wrote:
                > > > I was waiting for someone to catch the reference to Waterloo.
                All
                > > > squares were a "tactical defensive" ploy as they were static.
                Of
                > > > course the cross fire of squares took out a lot in friendly
                fire
                > > > casualties.
                > > > Tom M.
                > > >
                > >
                > > Tom,
                > >
                > > I had never really considered the crossfire effect on the nearby
                > > squares, but of course that must have done considerable "friendly
                > > fire" damage. Are there any statistics concerning this?
                > >
                > > Joe
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >
                > ---------------------------------
                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                > To visit your group on the web, go to:
                > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/civilwarwest/
                >
                > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                > civilwarwest-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                >
                > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                Service.




                Yahoo! Groups Links
              • tmix
                I know of 2 squares in the ACW and they were individual efforts as opposed to interlocking compositions which was the norm in Napoleonic times. One of the
                Message 7 of 21 , Mar 1, 2004

                  I know of 2 squares in the ACW and they were individual efforts as opposed to interlocking compositions which was the norm in Napoleonic times.

                  One of the squares was at Chancellorsville which helped take out Stonewall and the 2nd was on the far right of the Confederate line on day one at Gettysburg. Another possible one may have been formed on Day 3 to repulse Kilpatrick’s stupid charge. Buford and Gamble had the good sense to not attack the CSA square on the 1st day but did make sure to worry and occupy the infantry units.

                  Could you give me some details on any other squares you may know of?

                  Tom M.

                   

                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: Bill Merritt [mailto:bilmerritt@...]
                  Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 9:44 AM
                  To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: RE: [civilwarwest] Re: A few of my favorite statistics of the Civil War + more Bell Hood

                   

                  I have heard of eight times where a square was formed in the Civil War. Cross-fire would have been significant if two squares were formed next to each other, but, from what I have read, only one square was formed at a time in the CW.

                  tmix <tmix@...> wrote:

                  I do not know of any stats. After such a fight the carnage would be
                  tremendous with little effort to assuage the actual cause on death. This
                  would especially be so when Hussars and Carabineers were involved, inter
                  mixing their fire with that of the squares. The cross fire as sort of a
                  given and accepted price of the combat. Without the square, the infantry
                  would be trampled down so the risk was worth taking. Kind of: the better
                  of 2 evils, with the square providing the best chance of survival.
                  Tom M.

                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: hartshje [mailto:Hartshje@...]
                  Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 9:44 PM
                  To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: A few of my favorite statistics of the Civil
                  War + more Bell Hood

                  --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "tmix" <tmix@i...> wrote:
                  > I was waiting for someone to catch the reference to Waterloo. All
                  > squares were a "tactical defensive" ploy as they were static. Of
                  > course the cross fire of squares took out a lot in friendly fire
                  > casualties.
                  > Tom M.
                  >

                  Tom, 

                  I had never really considered the crossfire effect on the nearby
                  squares, but of course that must have done considerable "friendly
                  fire" damage.  Are there any statistics concerning this?

                  Joe






                  Yahoo! Groups Links






                   

                • Bill Merritt
                  Sorry, I can t give any more details of the other squares, though I shall ask. It was a discussion, a few years ago, on the Gettysburg Discussion group. I got
                  Message 8 of 21 , Mar 1, 2004
                    Sorry, I can't give any more details of the other squares, though I shall ask. It was a discussion, a few years ago, on the Gettysburg Discussion group. I got bounced by that group (voluntarily, really), after a real heated discussion on Dan Sickles. I have another source, though, and shall get back to you.

                    tmix <tmix@...> wrote:

                    I know of 2 squares in the ACW and they were individual efforts as opposed to interlocking compositions which was the norm in Napoleonic times.

                    One of the squares was at Chancellorsville which helped take out Stonewall and the 2nd was on the far right of the Confederate line on day one at Gettysburg. Another possible one may have been formed on Day 3 to repulse Kilpatrickļæ½s stupid charge. Buford and Gamble had the good sense to not attack the CSA square on the 1st day but did make sure to worry and occupy the infantry units.

                    Could you give me some details on any other squares you may know of?

                    Tom M.

                     

                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: Bill Merritt [mailto:bilmerritt@...]
                    Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 9:44 AM
                    To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: RE: [civilwarwest] Re: A few of my favorite statistics of the Civil War + more Bell Hood

                     

                    I have heard of eight times where a square was formed in the Civil War. Cross-fire would have been significant if two squares were formed next to each other, but, from what I have read, only one square was formed at a time in the CW.

                    tmix <tmix@...> wrote:

                    I do not know of any stats. After such a fight the carnage would be
                    tremendous with little effort to assuage the actual cause on death. This
                    would especially be so when Hussars and Carabineers were involved, inter
                    mixing their fire with that of the squares. The cross fire as sort of a
                    given and accepted price of the combat. Without the square, the infantry
                    would be trampled down so the risk was worth taking. Kind of: the better
                    of 2 evils, with the square providing the best chance of survival.
                    Tom M.

                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: hartshje [mailto:Hartshje@...]
                    Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 9:44 PM
                    To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: A few of my favorite statistics of the Civil
                    War + more Bell Hood

                    --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "tmix" <tmix@i...> wrote:
                    > I was waiting for someone to catch the reference to Waterloo. All
                    > squares were a "tactical defensive" ploy as they were static. Of
                    > course the cross fire of squares took out a lot in friendly fire
                    > casualties.
                    > Tom M.
                    >

                    Tom, 

                    I had never really considered the crossfire effect on the nearby
                    squares, but of course that must have done considerable "friendly
                    fire" damage.  Are there any statistics concerning this?

                    Joe






                    Yahoo! Groups Links






                     

                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.