Drill in game.

[Bravescot]

So as it's know the calls for the drill book are being looked at. What I'm interested in ask is how do people think drill should be presented in WoRs?

So as we know rifle drill at the time had many different steps and movements be it stationary drill or drill on the move. What I was thinking is have the drill movements key bound to something like the number keys. Simply hitting the number will result in your character performing the drill move. There could be say 2 drill movement bound to 1 number the static drill and marching drill. So 6 could be trail arms whilst moving and stand easy whilst static.

[RhettVito]

I'm with you on drill I will be drilling the 23rdNC out of the Hardee's Infantry Tactics
Manual.

[McClellan]

Except Trail Arms was '64 manual for England, and wasn't used in the Civil War. Sorry Bravescot, you're English you have an excuse xD

[GeorgeCrecy]

On the contrary McClellan, Casey's 1861 and Hardee's 1862 both feature Trail Arms.

[McClellan]

But was pretty much never used. Everyone and their dog knows you go to Right Shoulder Shift on the double quick, trail arms tended to make your cap fall off, and was quite unsafe on the double quick, also it was awkward when in line of battle mid combat and ordered to double quick with trail arms, because half the time you end up poking the person in front of you with your bayonet. (been there done that)

[GeorgeCrecy]

Indeed. There are very few situations that it is used, though I (being a reenactor as well) have had occasions where it was used. For the double quick, usually you automatically go to the right shoulder shift. Sometimes I have seen or done port arms instead. Trail arms, or its lovely brother arms at will, on the other hand are useful for regular marching. Also, I will quote from Hardee's,

"198. ...Incline the muzzle slightly to the front, the butt to the rear and about four inches from the ground. The right hand supported by the hip, will so hold the piece that the rear rank men may not touch with their bayonets the men in the front rank."

So, to make sure to some readers, Trail arms does not necessitate the use of the bayonet with it, but when it is used with it, there are precautions made. Additionally, quoting Casey's Infantry Tactics,

"17. The distance from one rank to another will be thirteen inches, measured from the breasts of the rear rank men to the backs or knapsacks of the front rank men."

So there should be some room for error should the bayonet get into a pokey mood. :p

[Bravescot]

I'm looking into joining a Victorian era reenatcing group and I must say after trying out two of their events the amount that the British Army used trail arms is greater then I though. I personally find it to be a very conformable method for moving at the double quick with a Martin-Henry Mk.II and Lee-Metford. Trying to use any stances such as the right shoulder shift is awkward and simply impractical when you're getting from A to B as fast as possible. As by then all regiments learnt to fight as Lights and Line it meant that the drill became hybrid in a way. You never move at the double quick with your rifle in your shoulder, you trail it like the Rifles of 1807.

[GeorgeCrecy]

Now, here you find a slight difference in the weaponry that makes the items work in different ways. It comes to the weight and the balancing. With the Springfield or Enfield of the Civil War, with the bayonet on or off, it can be a bit awkward, though the weight distributes itself alright if you can avoid the rifle falling to the right. With the Martin-Henry or Lee-Metford, you have something the size of a longer carbine or musketoon when compared to 1860's standards, and the weight distributes differently. This means that there is less weight going downward into the hand and it is easier to fall off. That is what comes to my mind first when you mention that.

[Rithal]

Aaaaand this is where my Civil War knowledge reaches its limit. I admittedly no next to nothing about drill XD

[Bravescot]

Very true indeed George. I've handled an Enfield and it is so much heavier then it's next of kin the Snider and Martini. How man were able to double quick with them in the right shoulder shift position is something that blows my mind.

[GeorgeCrecy]

Well Bravescot, the double-quick is not exactly an all out run. Instead, it is a measured jog with a longer gait than the quick time (regular) pace. And, as with anything, practice makes perfect. And daaaaayyyyyuuuummmm son did they practice. Alot.

[Bravescot]

The British Double quick is so quick xD. Naturally they practiced. I just still find it amazing that they jogged about with that massive rifle on their shoulder.

[Historical Player]

The British Double quick is so quick xD. Naturally they practiced. I just still find it amazing that they jogged about with that massive rifle on their shoulder.

It is an amazing feat when you think about it.

[Bravescot]

Indeed. I'd like to strongly highlight that my question never got addressed in the end and that leaves me very sad.

[Soulfly]

How man were able to double quick with them in the right shoulder shift position is something that blows my mind.

You also need to think about their physical condition back then and that the human body is able to do astonishing things in stressful situations such as combat and as George already mentioned, training is everything, though i am in doubt that most of them got enough time for that.

[thomas aagaard]

What drill book was used depend on what regiment we are talking.

Union regiments should generally be using "US infantry tactics 1861".
The Wisconsin regiments in the Iron brigade should use "Chandler"

When we are talking CSA it also depend.
NC regiments should be using Hardees revised.
Virginia regiments was most likely using Gilhams.
The rest... good question... I would say Gilhams but it is in most cases a guess.

Naturally when we are talking school of the soldier and school of the company the main differences are in the manual of arms.

Do you carry the musket in the left or right hand when at "shoulder arms"?

Do you place the musket between the legs or to the left of the left leg when loading and fixing bayonets...


How man were able to double quick with them in the right shoulder shift position is something that blows my mind.
If you cant run when at "right shoulder shift arms"... then you are not doing it correctly... like many reenactors.
Suggest you read this:
http://web.archive.org/web/20091003221726/http:/www.southernguard.org/education/rss.html

[A. P. Hill]

True most of that, at the beginning of the conflict. As the war dragged on and new recruits filled the ranks, both militaries eventually standardized on one manual each.

The 1861 manual for the north and Hardee's for the south.

[GeorgeCrecy]

True most of that, at the beginning of the conflict. As the war dragged on and new recruits filled the ranks, both militaries eventually standardized on one manual each.

The 1861 manual for the north and Hardee's for the south.

Which, if you are speaking of Casey's 1862* or Infantry Tactics (1861) and Hardee's, you are essentially speaking of the same books with little to no actual difference between them.

*EDIT: mistype corrected in thanks to post below.

[thomas aagaard]

1st - first of all you can't mention Hardee without specifying if you are talking his original books from 1855 or his revised version from 1861.
Since there are rather clear differences in the manual of arms.

2nd - Casey is irrelevant. His book was approved on the 11th of August 1862 and was not yet issued to the union armies.

Much of the text in the different drillbooks are word for word the same... but there are TWO manual of arms. One for muskets and one for rifles... (and variations) and if the soldiers carry their musket in the right hand or at the left shoulder when at "shoulder arms" is not what i would call "no actual difference"

change from many books to one...
The drill books used is the north was mostly "U.S. Infantry Tactics (1861)" authorized by Sec’y of War Simon Cameron.

The manual of arms used depended on if they had rifled muskets or smoothbore muskets.
If you had smoothbores you sued the musket MoA and if you had rifled muskets you used the rifle MoA.

But as mentioned a number of Wisconsin regiments (2nd, 5th, 6th and 7th is documented) was trained with a book by a guy named Chandler... and they keeped using some of it true out the war.
It is generally copied word for word from Scotts... even mention a middle rank in one place.(clearly a mistake) but for some strange reason you place the but of the musket between the legs when loading...

Then in in late 1862 Casey did standardized things and everyone was to use the Moa for rifles...
But not all units did actually change completely to it.
(the Wisconsin regiments in the Iron brigade. did fix bayonets and stack arms like described in Chandler... in 1864 and not how it is in Casey... we know this since the temporary brigade commander complained about it. sine he did not complain about shoulder arms it is logical that they changed that to the right hand... but keeped doing the others since the old musket version is actually a lot easier )


Gilham was a Virginia manual and was used by many Virginia units.
But since the hardee 1855 was never copyrighted there where a lot of them printed when war broke out in 1861.

Out west where Hardee himself where they used his revised book... since he was used as drillmaster and inspector of the infantry in the west..

North Carolina made his revised book the official one and spend money on printing books and issuing them to their officers.

The CSA congress did decide to make his revised book the official one... but didn't actually print any or make sure the change was done... so if and when a specific regiment change is the question.
Virginia military institute had changed to it by the time they got involved in the battle of new market in 1864.
So when we are talking the army of Northern Virginia in 1862 some regiments used Hardee's revised and some used Gilham.. .and some might have used the 1855 version of Hardee's.

The Manual of arms.
But Hardee revised, gilham and Casey do not use the same manual of arms. There are a number of differences... but I agree that much is the exact same.

7th wisconsin - "Shoulder arms" like it is in the manual of arms for muskets... carried in the left hand with the hand under the butt of the musket.
1326

Shoulder arms like the manual of arms for rifles. Carried in the right hand where you hold around the small of the stock, the hammer and trigger guard.
1327

Casey and Hardee 1855 use the rifle version
Gilham and Chandler use the musket version.

The rifle MoA was made for a much shorter rifle...
When you load: "place the butt between the feet, the barrel to the front"
and fix bayonets is the same and the bayonet is handled with the left hand.

the older MoA for muskets is natually made for the longer muskets
"With the right hand carry the piece directly downwards along the left thigh, seizing it with the left hand above the right, and letting the butt come to the ground without shock, so that the piece shall touch the left thigh ; the muzzle opposite the centre of the body."
Similar when fixing bayonets it is placed on the outside of the left thigh and the bayonet is handled with the right hand.


Hardee when he revised his book realsied that most csa soldiers used muskets or rifled muskets. (both long) so mix the two Manual or arms to what works the best
Shoulder arms is done witht he right hand. but load and fix bayonets is copied from the musket MoA.


booklet about US infantry tactics for rifles: (Hardee 1855 is the same)
http://www.zipcon.net/~silas/Drill/RifleBooklet.htm
booklet about US infantry tactics for muskets: Gilham is the same)
http://www.zipcon.net/~silas/Drill/SmoothboreBooklet.htm
booklet about Hardee revised:
http://www.zipcon.net/~silas/Drill/HardeeRevisedBooklet.htm

[GeorgeCrecy]

I do appreciate your pointing these out, and I will clarify to say that I meant the 1855 version of Hardees in being incredibly similar to those of Casey's and Infantry Tactics (1861). As I understand, Casey wasn't the least bit the actual author of the book with his name, but had his name attached by the US government as they were rather embarrassed that their main drill book had been written by a (at the time) Southern general. They changed the book by cover more than by anything inside to call it "Infantry Tactics" in 1861, then afterward went on to put Casey's name on it in 1862 as you described, but again with little difference to the actual content. And welcome to the forum btw! :D

[A. P. Hill]

I have to also concur with George. I wasn't specific .... but good information for me to add to the reservoir. Thanks.


With the possible exception of my McClellan Biography, any other book on commanders/units/etc ... have never really been specific when giving this information on drill manuals. So I'm only as good as the information I put in ... kinda like a computer. Garbage in ... Garbage out. ;)

[thomas aagaard]

I do appreciate your pointing these out, and I will clarify to say that I meant the 1855 version of Hardees in being incredibly similar to those of Casey's and Infantry Tactics (1861). As I understand, Casey wasn't the least bit the actual author of the book with his name, but had his name attached by the US government as they were rather embarrassed that their main drill book had been written by a (at the time) Southern general. They changed the book by cover more than by anything inside to call it "Infantry Tactics" in 1861, then afterward went on to put Casey's name on it in 1862 as you described, but again with little difference to the actual content. And welcome to the forum btw! :D

:-)
Yep the Manual of arms for rifles is used in all 3 and the rest of the text is almost word for word the same...
But the US infantry tactics also had the manual of arms for muskets that is, as mentioned different... and was used by some regiments.

One of the things Casey did do was to remove the manual of arms for muskets.... so every union regiment should used the same one.
He also added drills for brigades and higher... something that was new. (Hardees 1855 only go to the battalion level)
But not that relevant to us...

On the CSA side Gilham was in wide use in the army of northern Virginia. And that book also use the manual of arms for muskets.
So most CSA solders should very likely be carrying his musket in the left hand when at "shoulder arms".
(with the clear exception of soldiers in NC regiments)
If the game was in 1865... then only Hardee's revised should be used...


So what I am suggesting is that you at some point add the manual of arms for muskets and hardee's revised... (and Chandler that is also a mix)
So the soldiers use the correct manual of arms.

But I do realize that it is not a high priority atm.


And now we are talking the details. the way our union soldier in the movie handle his ramrod is not correct.

He should: Half draw the rammer by extending the right arm ; steady it in this position with the left thumb ; seize the rammer between the thumb and forefinger of the right hand, the thumb under and finger over the rammer ; fingers extended, palm of the hand to the front.
161. (Second motion.) Clear the rammer from the pipes by again extending the arm ; the rammer in the prolongation of the pipes, palm
of the hand to the front.
162. (Third motion.) Turn the rammer by closing the fingers, the little end passing near the left shoulder, turning the back of the
hand to the front ; steady it by extending the forefinger of the right hand ; place the head of the rammer on the ball, the rammer in
prolongation of the barrel.

text from Hardee's revised... My bold...

and again, yes a minor detail... but still Loading is a rather central element to the fighting...


and thanks. now I just need to see how much money I can afford to spend on this...

[TrustyJam]

Thank you for the very in depth input!

We'll do our utmost to stay as authentic as possible, however, we can only do so much (less while not having funding) while still actually making progress on the game - and I will argue that we're very close to the real thing when it comes to loading. One can easily get sucked into the tiniest of details, and trust me we do spend a lot of time on the details, but it's a fine line indeed. Our team is small, we have no funding (yet!) to pay anyone to actually work on the project full time so either it's an acceptance of some rather minor inconsistencies or there'll be no forward momentum in the devlopment at all. :)

That being said, expect authenticity as well as all other game related things to improve when we do get funding!

- Trusty