ACW 'national' characteristics

[aktr]

Hi,
I don't really know much about the ACW at the moment but I am eyeing up the new Perry boxset
I know it comes with the Firepower rule set but if i did get it I would be tempted to butcher an existing rule set to make it fit the period (i'm thinking CoC because i'm daft like that)

the big question I have is how do you make the 2 sides feel different?

As I said I don't know much about the ACW, I imagine that the 2 sides would have used very similar doctrine but where there any differences in organisation, tactics or equipment which i could use to make the sides feel a bit different

I know the South had problems with supply but how noticeable was this?
Did one side have more cavalry or cannon, did one sides cavalry prefer pistols and the other sabers, what was the moral like on each side?
Also what exactly is the Rebel Yell?

Thanks for you time

[olyreed]

Might be worth keeping an eye out fot sharp practice 2. Should have some interesting things in it for acw

[Gangleri]

It's very difficult to provide precise answers to your questions because a great deal depends on time and place; both the nature of the war and the appearance of the soldiers changed quite rapidly.  I also don't know how some of this information would be reflected on the tabletop, since it's strategic and logistical rather than tactical.

did one sides cavalry prefer pistols and the other sabers,

The Confederate cavalry preferred revolvers almost from the get-go, while the Federal cavalrymen were still trained to close with the saber. Furthermore, Federal doctrine, especially under McClellan, tended to undervalue cavalry as an arm in its own right, both strategically and tactically. The result was that Southern cavalry tended to outperform the Northern horse during the early parts of the war.  By 1863, however, Union cavalry doctrine had evolved, and a few spirited Federal actions (in particular Brandy Station) greatly stiffened the cavalry's morale and enthusiasm, such that by '64 they were a match for their Southern opponents.

Did one side have more cavalry or cannon,

The Federal artillery was generally superior to that of the Confederates. The North's industrial power permitted the manufacture of more and better guns and munitions, while the South had to import foreign arms and use captured Union guns to supplement the meager output of their foundries.  Union batteries fielded six guns to the Confederates' four per battery. Southern artillery was organized at the divisional level, Federal at the corps level, so the North could mass artillery more effectively.  Furthermore, Union artillerymen were excellently trained, and their skill only improved as the war went on. There were, of course, fine Southern gunners as well, but even Southerners acknowledged the superiority of the Federal artillery in ability and organization.

the moral like on each side?
Also what exactly is the Rebel Yell?

It's impossible to describe each side's morale because morale is inconstant.  Morale fluctuated considerably on both sides and depended on many things: whether the men liked their officers, what the weather was like, and, critically, whether they felt they were suffering and dying for nothing.  Generally, soldiers on each side were happy to give up their lives if they believed some good would come of it but became dispirited if they felt their lives were being wasted.  So the answer to your question really depends on the campaigns and battles you're interested in. Popular conception of the war, in part because of the "Lost Cause" mythology, presents the Southerners as dashing and valorous and the Union men as timorous and unreliable.  This is of course total garbage.

Shelby Foote describes the Rebel Yell as a mix between "a banshee squall and a fox-hunt yip" - a kind of wild, enthusiastic, high-pitched sound that sent chills up the spine.  This was countered by the "deep, generous, manly shout of the North" - usually a loud "hurrah" (not unlike that of the USMC) but sometimes other slogans.

I know the South had problems with supply but how noticeable was this?

The answers to these questions also depend on the particular phase of the war you're interested in.  Certainly, in the beginning of the war, Confederate troops were well actually fairly well-dressed (sometimes better than their opponents).  As with artillery, the South had to scrounge for arms and had to import muskets and rifles from Europe (though the North did too).  But the shortages became more noticeable as the war dragged on and the Union blockade became tighter, and they certainly began to bite in '63.

Hope this helps a bit.  PM me if you'd like more specific information.

[MaleGriffin]

Gangleri did an excellent job of giving an overview on a very complex subject. 

A few other notes. Although I believe Confederate artillery crews were as skilled as their Federal counterparts, they did sometimes have mixed batteries and suffered from poor fuses for their shells making them much more unreliable. Some rule sets such as Fire and Fury reflect this by making Confederate artillery less effective. Confederate artillery used both horses and mules while Federals used horses. Confederates usually had four to a team and Federals usually six.

While we are on the subject, one of my pet peeves is that artillery is usually painted incorrectly. The predominant color should be olive with gloss black fittings. Tans, natural "wood" color, blue, brown, red or yellow are wrong. Unprotected wood dries out, cracks and rots so regulations required painting and the regulation stated "olive" (I used to have the formula) Tubes were usually either black or bronze (think brass) colored depending on the metal they are made of. Iron/Steel are painted black and bronze left unpainted. Parrots and 3" Ordinance rifles are black while Napoleons were bronze.

Early war both sides were well uniformed although the same regiment may have multiple different styles of uniforms as most regiments were made up of ten companies and each company may have been a separate militia company before the war with their own unique unit names and uniforms. Since the Confederate States often provided or failed to provide supplies to troops from their state, you can find examples of Texans shivering in rags while North Carolina had hundreds of thousands of uniforms in storage at the end of the war. I vote to paint your figures as you like. Uniformity or many different styles as you wish.

As to either side having more cavalry or artillery, there are extensive records as to the Order or Battle for any engagement.

Confederate cavalry often carried multiple pistols as well as a wide variety of carbines. Federals were issued one pistol and although they too may have had a wide variety of carbines, virtually all were breech loaders with repeaters coming in late in the war. Both sides used sabers.

I have heard many a discussion whether either side used "cavalry" in the European sense as both sides spent most of their time operating as dragoons. There are exceptions (Brandy Station).

As for the Rebel yell, do a search on YouTube and you can find videos of very old Rebs trying to recreate their youth as well as well researched versions supported by the Museum of the Confederacy based on written descriptions of the yell.

I too hope this helps and would be happy to answer any questions as well.

[ffrum]

You might also consider leadership styles and training and experience differences for the officers of the North and the South.  In the early war, many of the standing army and West Point trained officers went to the South out of loyalty to their home states.  The Union did not have the same skilled military practitioners to fill those vacancies.  There were also many appointed commanders that did not have the skill levels of their Southern counterparts.  This was more a factor early in the war but became less so during the later period of that conflict.  So, in different scenarios the Union may or may not have skilled commanders in a battle, equal to their Confederate foes.

[commissarmoody]

Exactly and do to attrition lots of the "good" southern commanders were killed off and replaced. Where as the north was able to replace poor leaders.
Also as pointed out, the troops where roughly the same quality with training, fatigue,  moral and leadership being the deciding factor.

[Gangleri]

Gangleri did an excellent job of giving an overview on a very complex subject. 

How kind

Early war both sides were well uniformed although the same regiment may have multiple different styles of uniforms as most regiments were made up of ten companies and each company may have been a separate militia company before the war with their own unique unit names and uniforms. Since the Confederate States often provided or failed to provide supplies to troops from their state, you can find examples of Texans shivering in rags while North Carolina had hundreds of thousands of uniforms in storage at the end of the war. I vote to paint your figures as you like. Uniformity or many different styles as you wish.

You hit upon several important points here.  For one, the militia system in the South expanded markedly in the late 1850's, and each company (typically representing a single county) was free to devise its own uniform.  Once the war broke out, these formerly independent companies were merged in state regiments.  The result was a hodgepodge of sometimes highly unorthodox and distinctive uniforms, even within a single regiment (see Company B, 3rd Mississippi Infantry).  This diversity didn't last too long into the war, however.  The same applies to a lesser degree with Northern regiments that included or were formed around existing militia companies.  Secondly, Confederate states were highly reluctant to cooperate or share with one another.  In political-strategic terms, belief in the supremacy of states' rights, which had prompted secession in the first place, proved an almost insurmountable obstacle to Richmond's prosecution of the war (on several occasions, Georgia threatened to secede from the CSA rather than yield to Richmond's demands!).  In practical terms, this disunity meant that some states, in particular Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia, could clothe and arm their soldiers quite well, even into late '63, while others suffered from limited resources almost from the start. 

Not wanting to beat the dead horse any further, I will say again that what you do with the uniforms really depends on how much effort you want to devote to the painting/modeling aspect.  But unless you tend towards button-counting, I wouldn't worry about the fine points too much.

As for the Rebel yell, do a search on YouTube and you can find videos of very old Rebs trying to recreate their youth as well as well researched versions supported by the Museum of the Confederacy based on written descriptions of the yell.

Interestingly, I've also read of Confederate veterans refusing to "perform" the Rebel Yell after the war: they said it couldn't be done properly except at the run and on an empty belly 

In the early war, many of the standing army and West Point trained officers went to the South out of loyalty to their home states.  The Union did not have the same skilled military practitioners to fill those vacancies.  There were also many appointed commanders that did not have the skill levels of their Southern counterparts. 

Only about a quarter of active-duty US officers wound up fighting for the Confederacy, and likewise only a quarter of officers returning to duty from civilian life joined the CSA.  And both sides were burdened with political appointees - the North more than the South, admittedly. 
 

[aktr]

Hi,

Thanks guys for the information
You say that it depends on the period of the war so if i for example just go for early in the war and being VERY generic could i get away with saying that

Confederate
Better Leadership
Better Calvary with lots of pistols
Better Moral

Union
Better equipped
More artillery

as i said i'm just being very generic to start with, also better is a very relevant term

Also quick semi related question
on Paper whats the organisation of a normal infantry platoon - I've seen a few different sources but say say a group is 8 men and other 10 men with 4 sections in the platoon

Thanks again

Andy

[MaleGriffin]

Both sides in the ACW followed similar organization at full strength:

2 sections to the platoon roughly 25 men each
2 platoons to the company, roughly 50 men each
10 companies to the regiment roughly 100 men each
2-5 regiments to the Brigade, usually 3
2 to 4 brigades to the division usually 3
2 to 3 divisions to the corps usually 3
2 to 4 corps to an army usually 3

This is the paper organization. By the end of the war, some regiments were down to 25 men.

Check this site out: http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/warfare-and-logistics/warfare/regiment.html

[HerbyF]

Early in the war organization was almost identical. But as the war progressed the south tended to place new recruits into existing units bring them back up to strength as best they could where as the north raised full new units, letting standing units reduce until they were nearly ineffective. Therefore the south had veterans integrated with their new recruits & the north would field full strength green regiments with just a small cadre of veterans mostly from disbanded units that volunteered to re-up with a newly formed unit. At the beginning of the war Federal troops wore dark blue uniforms & state militias mostly grey. In the south men leaving the federal army discarded their federal blue & donned their state militia uniforms. In the north State militia units that turned out soon trades in their grey uniforms for blue because the were taking fire from their own side mistaking them for rebels. Also in the beginning some militia units & many of the newly raised volunteers had very fancy & colorful uniforms that were quickly exchanged for basic blue or grey because the bright colored uniforms were bullet magnets. In the south there was also a uniform color called butternut. This was used for units coming from some of the poorer states that didn't have grey cloth or dye available in large quantities. Some units from poorer areas went to war in homespun or civilian clothing.   

[Cubs]

Not much to add really, as everyone has said, you can loosely divide between pre-Gettysburg and post-Gettysburg, but it was really a gradual shift over time of course.

Certainly at the beginning of the war, as stated, the Southern soldier was generally seen as superior - the leadership was generally superior, the marksmanship and fieldcraft was regarded as better and (at least in the East), a look at the actions fought, their results and the numbers involved seems to bear this out. The only advantages the North seemed to enjoy was in sheer numbers, artillery and supply.

As the war progressed though, the Union soldier because more experience whilst the Confederate soldier suffered badly from attrition, a lack of supply, dwindling morale  and increasingly obsolete weaponry. Many Southern infantry were still using muzzle-loading black powder muskets whilst the Northern infantry were being supplied with breech loading modern rifles in greater numbers. Southern cavalry had a great love of shotguns and revolvers, giving them enormous firepower at short ranges and an advantage over early single-shot Union carbines. But later on, the Union was being supplied with repeater carbines and the balance shifted in favour of them. Both sides had a mix of weaponry though, very much depending on what the commanding officer wanted the men equipped with and what they were able to get!

[Gangleri]

Hi,

Thanks guys for the information
You say that it depends on the period of the war so if i for example just go for early in the war and being VERY generic could i get away with saying that

Confederate
Better Leadership
Better Calvary with lots of pistols
Better Moral

If you're planning to focus on early-war battles, it's interesting to note that Northern morale was quite high in '61 and '62.  The surge of patriotic feeling that arose when war was declared lasted quite a long time (though its nature changed), and in '62 the Federal armies in the East were full of the martial spirit instilled in them by McClellan's training program and eager to get to grips with the Rebels.  Morale dropped, however, at the beginning of 63' in the aftermath of Fredericksburg and the Mud March and remained shaken until Gettysburg.

Certainly at the beginning of the war, as stated, the Southern soldier was generally seen as superior - the leadership was generally superior, the marksmanship and fieldcraft was regarded as better and (at least in the East), a look at the actions fought, their results and the numbers involved seems to bear this out. The only advantages the North seemed to enjoy was in sheer numbers, artillery and supply.

I can't say I agree with you on these points.  Northern armies were indeed larger - especially in the East.  But one ought not to forget that at many battles in the war's earlier phase, tens of thousands of Union soldiers, though present at the battle, were never sent into action.  When one compares the number of men actually engaged in battle, Confederate and Union armies come much closer to parity.  And at critical moments during battles, Confederate generals were often able to concentrate their men more effectively, so that Union troops at key points were heavily outnumbered.

Furthermore, in the pitched battles both in the Eastern and Western theaters, most Federal troops fought ferociously and with little regard for their lives - one need only look at the casualties they sustained in pressing home hopeless assaults.  It's no reflection on the quality of the Federal soldier that his army's commanders didn't make better use of him.

The real weakness of Union leadership was at the top - its corps and army commanders.  I don't know how one would represent this weakness on the table-top, however, since the OP will presumably take the place of one of these generals and get a chance to do a better job.  At the lower tiers of command (colonels, brigadiers etc.), though, there wasn't much difference between North and South.

[Cubs]

I can't say I agree with you on these points.  

I'll try to cope with that.

Southern soldiers tended to be from more rural backgrounds, being experienced with hunting and sleeping outside. This gave them generally superior fieldcraft. Yes, there would have been exceptions of course, but we're talking generally.

Ditto their familiarity with handling long arms made them generally better marksmen, at least to begin with.

I make no claims as to relative morale or courage, which you alluded to. Nothing you stated regarding the ferocity of Union troops is really relevant to the above points.

Since the original poster was asking for opinions, I gave mine, taken from my reading of the subject. I'm pretty sure they still stand.
 

[sepoy1857]

I have to say...you can't over-generalize as both sides had good and mediocre commanders and troops! A green regiment with high morale can still run away given the right circumstances. There are many circumstances that caused mistakes in battle form officer casualties, missed or misinterpreted orders, wrong directions, poor maps, missed opportunities, dense woods, and the list goes on. During the early battles in the east (Peninsula Campaign/Seven Days) there are lots of examples of things going wrong. So it's best to do some research into the battles you are interested in and find out exactly what happened on the ground, and who was involved.

[commissarmoody]

I'll try to cope with that.

Southern soldiers tended to be from more rural backgrounds, being experienced with hunting and sleeping outside. This gave them generally superior fieldcraft.

 

Also a falsehood, the north also had a very large rural  population of citizen farmers. Who where also very well suited to hunting and sleeping outside. It's because the south was lacking in material wealth that they had to make do with out basic supplies.
Also you have to consider that  most of the war was fought in the south. Of course they will have better knowledge of there own backyard.