"Perry Plastics, no frock coats on enlisted men?" Topic

I just received a box of the ACW plastic infantry. I quickly noticed that the generic idea of using the figures for either side really doesn't work.

These are really nice sculpts, but they took a shortcut trying to make a generic infantry set as opposed to doing a proper federal infantry set and a seperate confederate one.

First of all, you can't really use the soldiers that have on four-button blouses as confederate soldiers, not as average confederate soldiers any way. Only two states I know of(I think North Carolina was one of them) issued a confederate four button blouse that was a southern copy of the federal issue one. And instances of the confederates capturing federal blouses and actually having them redyed gray or butternut was very rare. The four button blouse was overwhelmingly a federal garment, not a generic garment at all when placed on a miniature soldier to be used as generic ACW soldiers.

Further, the vast majority of confederate soldiers wore the single-breasted, waistlength jacket in gray or butternut or confederate versions of the federal frock coat.

Really the only thing you can do with this set therefore is to take all the figures that have on the four button blouses and use those as federal soldiers, and then use the rest that have on shell jackets as confederate soldiers, or you could use the whole set for federal soldiers, as some federal enlisted men did wear the federal issue shell jacket as their choice of coat in the field. But my point is that you can't really use the whole set as confederates, not if you're paying attention to uniform details. But again maybe it doesn't matter to some gamers, but it does matter to me.

What was most surprising to me was that the Perry's produced a set with NO FROCK COATS(9-button skirted coats) on any of the enlisted men!! The only figures who have the frock are the officers. I wonder what prodcution issues led to this decision. All have blouses or short jackets. Very strange and ironic. If they had soldiers in frock coats, those could have been used for either side to a greater degree, but the decision to cloth them all in federal four button blouses and short "generic" shell jackets is kind of bizarre.

In addition, the concept of a generic set doesn't work with regards to some of the gear. The haversack is generic enough to be sure, simply a canvas bag with a shoulder strap that was issued in plain white canvas(in the case of most confederate ones) or painted black(in the case of most federal issue ones), and so that is neutral enough to be used generically for both sides. Before these items were painted, both sides in the war produces haversacks that were essentially the same item in terms of shape.

But the canteen is certainly not! Unless you're fielding units of confederates that are entirely equipped with captured federal issue canteens. None of the sculpts have any type of southern made canteens(the cheesebox shaped tin or wooden ones I mean). All the sculpts have standard federal issue canteens(the oblate spheriod), which is apparent enough and sticks out enough even in 25mm scale.

So, based on my knowledge of uniforms and equipment and what average or generic soldiers would have worn in the Civil War(and my research in extensive), this is in reality a set of Federal infantry only, or a set of confederate infantry of which half have on innacurate coats and ALL have captured canteens.

Not a set that is suitable to being generic at all. You can't use them and mix them for both sides indiscriminately, not at all.

Try it again!

I don't think many gamers will really care, and that is a good thing IMO. In model railroading, we call such nitpicking "rivet counting". I guess in gaming we should call it "button counting"? In gaming and modeling you always must make compromises. This is a compromise many gamers can easily live with it seems.

I agree with CPBelt;

I'm a long time gamer and "thought" I knew my ACW history.

Well…..I didn't know all the stuff campaigner is talking about and would not be looking for those uniform style differences in my game pieces.

I appreciate campaigner1's information and depth of knowledge, but I don't think it matters that much in gaming.
Good gaming;
Joep

I'm going to have to go with CPBelt and Joep. The differences in uniforms can't really be that much of a big deal. The confederates must have gotten stuff from all over the place. Some of them were probably wearing all kinds of union kit after time. Some of them almost right away.

If there is one thing that is true about war it is that soldiers don't stay uniformed for very long.

Mix 'em. Match 'em. Have fun.

Well, I sure ain't RE-painting mine.

"And instances of the confederates capturing federal blouses and actually having them redyed gray or butternut was very rare."

Wouldn't they have just worn them without redying them anyway? You can paint them whatever colour you want.

BTW, they paint up real nice no matter what they are wearing:

picture
picture
picture

Note: It always amazes me the sins the camera shows that the eye cannot see.

Virtualscratchbuilder,

Very nicely done.

They look nice, Virtualscratchbuilder. And I agree with you about the camera's cruel eye!

Interesting reading your comments, Campaigner1. I am always fascinated by how much detail people can master on topics that interest them. I don't know much at all about Civil War uniforms – I'll probably do a little reading up if I buy some of these figures (which I suspect I will), but I doubt I'll absorb enough of the details that I am going to be too fussed by slight uniform inaccuracies.

Campaigner, I am with you! I know that a lot of gamers don't care about what the diferences were between a Union and a Confederate uniform, but I do! But we still need to speak up and let manufacturers know what is correct and what is incorrect! One day, maybe someone will get it right and we will be buying their figures! This has been discussed before on here. People who have studied the Civil War generally do care about historical accuracy. People who just wargame any period don't seem to care one way or the other whether something is historically incorrect! This ought to start a discussion again!

Campaigner1, I tip my kepi to your knowledge of ACW uniforms. I immediately saved your post for future reference and I thank you for it.

It is Murphys law that you can't find this sort of information until you have painted/sculpted/molded figures. The more time and/or money you spend on models the more it seems to energise people to show you how much of a screw up your rendition is.

The perry figures look siff and aren't at all animated. Oops! That just slipped out. (slaps self on wrist)

Campaigner1,
I see your point. Being a former Iron Brgade reenactor, I think frock coats are essential, especially with Western units. Many gamers like ACW because it is more generic than Napoleonics. I use figures for things they weren't intended for. (Of course I do 10mm). ACW is more generic, but it isn't just "anything goes." Most companies start out making generic figures and then add to their lines as the demand increases. Posts like this help.

I can see campaigner1 point on this….

If I dont care about ACW (and I dont) and I just wanted this for fun I dont think I would care but if I am an ACW fan in the way I am a Nappy fan it would bother me.

For example if French infantry wore a belgic shako then I would not be interested in buying them.

Take a look at PSR and see how they judge figures on a number of different criteria, including sculpting and historical accuracy.

I salute the Perry Brothers for what they have done. Bringing awesome historical plastic miniatures to the table is great for us gamers on a budget. I am sure most of us are willing to improvise/ let it slide.

As for the complainers, stick to metals…

I wholeheartily agree with TheCaptain!

Hmmm. I'm not a rivet counter, but I do expect things to be generally correct. If there were four versions of the haversack, it's okay to pick just one and go with it. Perhaps that version was phased out by 1863, and someone could complain the figs no longer work past then, but I would consider that minor. At LEAST it was a proper haversack, for the proper side, for some portion of the war (hopefully a main theater).

Why the Perry's didn't put 6 figs per sprue wearing the 4-button blouse, and 6 wearing the short jacket is beyond me. And it bugs me.

I already mentioned in another post that I thought – by and large – only rebs wore their bedroll around their chest. I have seen yhundreds of photos of rebs like that, and never a union photo.

Somebody posted a link in reply to that thread to a single photo of union soldiers with bedrolls like that. I'm not saying it wasn't done, but it's not my mental image. I wish the Perry's had done the 6 short jackets with bedrolls, and the 4-button blouses with haversacks. It would have made for a more visual cue when looking at the troops.

I don't want to look at my minis and think "They are all the same, just painted differently." What fun is that? Union should look more orderly, the rebs more rag-tag. It's what most people expect. It's what I expect.

So thanks Campaigner, you helped educate this old warhorse today, and I appreciate it. I have been tempted to get into ACW using 28mm figs, precisely because of the Perry figs in plastic. Now, with the infantry crossed off the list, there is no further pull in that direction.

Steve
(Now, more than ever, convinced 15mm is the way to go, although perhaps 1/72 plastic figs should be considered)

I have to say I agreee with Campaigner1. I've been observing with some surprise how everyone has waited with baited breath for the release of these new plastics and once pre-released saying how great they were going to be even though it was obvious that real ACW buffs and soon-to-be ACW buffs would notice the shortcomings of the generic system.

In conclusion, I think that the Perrys should have done a proper federal infantry set and a seperate confederate one.

On another point, some of the poses are noticeably more akin to character-type poses than typical firing line ones.

I am fully aware that most people seem to be over the moon with them, the good news is that they are an excellent introductory line and even a unit booster which means other 28mm ACW producers may not have to be so worried.

The above discussion is precisely why I will NEVER get into Napoleonics. I thought ACW would be a bit safer, and it will for what I want to play. I accept they aren't perfect, to the extent that I will be splitting boxes so that the uniforms are better for one side or the other. However, things like buttons really don't bother me, hell, you can't see all the buttons on most of them anyway, shave one of them off if you want to.

As for making a Union box and a Confederate box, yeah, it would have been nice and I'm sure they would have liked to do it. Given the costs involved though, I doubt they could afford to risk it. They've certainly not sold anywhere near enough to get their money back on this one yet.

In general, I'm not an AR type of gamer. I like things to be accurate, but I'm happy to use 1809 French for Waterloo or 1812 Russians for 1805. Having said that, I want my 1809 French and 1812 Russians to be correct. I was pretty excited about the Perry ACW, but after looking at the figures I just thought, these are wrong, and I'm no expert on the ACW. Looking at these painted up as CSA would just bug me. I'm afraid I'm with Campaigner1 on this one.

Perhaps they Perry's are expecting us to supplement the plastic boxes with their metal line that they are also said to be coming out with on their web page. Here you could bulk out on a few boxes and then buy filler in metal.

Just a thought. I too am going back and forth about getting these. I have both armies completed for my game needs, but thought it might be nice to have 6 more infantry units per side. But I do like a lot of animation in my units, and with only 18 poses, that's not too much. Plus some of the other comments made in this thread that make them limiting to me.

Sash and Saber gives 40 poses with the command pack and 30 different infantry. And that is just the marching union. You get the same for the confederate side. So that's a lot of animation per unit.

Yes the Perry plastic would fit in with the Sash and Saber figures and you could add some more poses into the over all mix, but I could not see myself getting these to build my entire army if I was starting out.

They are still very well done and I am glad that the Perrys have taken this step towards a more affordable (for a few years maybe) figure line that is able to fit in nicely with just about any other range produced.

Matthew

Do the perry's come with leather or hemp shoe laces?
Real ACW buff's want to make sure!

On page 13 (photo on page 16)of" A Catalogue Of Uniforms In The Collection Of The Museum Of The Confederacy" copyright 2000, is a single breasted, 4 button sack coat issued to Cpl Thomas Vaden Brooke (1844-1933) in the summer of 1864 in the city of Richmond, VA. It is described as being "light brown (probably undyed) wool jean cloth with black collar facing". It has no insignia, sleeve facing or piping. It has 4 composite buttons and a pocket outside on the left.

The entry goes on to say that there are at least 4 jackets of this general pattern that still exist, all with histories in the Richmond area. They do not appear to be of Richmond production, however, and may be products form an unknown depot sent to Richmond for distribution. Cpl Brooke was wearing the coat at the Appomattox surrender.

Virtualscratchbuilder's sack coat guys are a black collar and dark buttons away from being a dead ringer for the pictured coat. So that's at least 4 guys in sack coats; if the museum can be believed. I have no idea if production/issue documents exist, as the catalogue doesn't mention it.

Ken

I am with Campaigner1…and this si the problen with cheap generic ranges..

Sounds like a Larry Leadhead (Plastichead?)

Larry, why did you just walk past that Confederate Unit in the woods? They blew you to bits!

Well, I thought they were Union troops trying to look like Confederates. They had Union canteens and four button blouses. How was I to know they really were Rebs?

Odd, I thought the purpose of cheap plastics was to make it more accessible to those that might not normally play ACW?

I'd rather have a few new people able to play something I'm interested in than be a stickler about if they only had 2 or 3 buttons on their pants flap.

But thats me… At the end of the day, I'd rather have a game going than cringing at a figures mistake.

It takes all kinds I suppose… So for those that want to count buttons. Cheers, and have fun!

I enjoy studying the strategy and tactics of the ACW and that's why I game it but I can't say I'm too bothered about the level of uniform details being discussed in this post. I have bought and will be buying more of the Perry figures because they look good to me. I particularly like the anatomy of the figures and the 'feel' they give me of ACW soldiers. I will undoubtedly be buying their metal figures to augment the plastics. If others don't like the figures then that's fine and they will obviously buy elsewhere. We all buy figures for different reasons and whilst one person may be driven mad by an incorrect water bottle, tunic or whatever, another will be quite content with it provided it attains their own criterion. At the end of the day it's your choice on where you spend your cash…unless you're married of course!

Well that's your opinion Campaigner, and you might even be correct, but I like 'em anyway.

"In model railroading, we call such nitpicking "rivet counting".

That's why I got out of MRR. I got tired of hearing "That's not prototype".

I am with Campaigner in this one.

He has written a fair and accurate criticism.

What is shocking (at least is shocking for me) is how much passion causes criticism to certain sculptors/companies.

Why, I wonder…

For sad muppets who love to have the correct uniforms in the exact right detail,there are I believe a number of ranges of figures in metal for the ACW that cater to this requirement.

Are the canteens the model 1858, or model 1862 "bullseye" pattern. If the latter, is it the one with six concentric rings or with four. If it is the former, is it the Cincinnati issue with cork stopper and hemp twine, or the New York issue with cork stopper and chain. Are the dead Rebs pictured at Alsop's farm the only ones that used Federal pattern canteens?

How far do you have to go to be close enough to accurate? Does one have to figure out the ratio of canteens issued? There were at least two patterns of canteen purchased from sources in England. How many soldiers would you have to model before one of them showed up?

I don't require computer modeled faces of the actual persons at Shiloh before I play a game with them. Is it even possible to correctly portray the 5th Georgia Infantry in 1861? Given that most of it's companies had their own, distinct, uniform, I don't think one can mix and match the different figures made by all miniatures companies and get much closer than half right.

How about the second type of zouave uniform adopted by the 11th Indiana Volunteer Infantry, CSA? To the best of my knowledge, there is no definitive information, only speculation, as to the uniform change in 1861. Please provide a source if you can correct me there.

If you don't think You're compromising accuracy regardless of your miniatures choices, I believe you are simply not being honest with your self. Feel free to carry on as you wish.

Ken

If you want something less expensive than metal (notice I did not say cheaper as that can be construed as a value/quality judgement), then some compromises have to be made.

I would NEVER buy a 28mm scale army for ACW in all metal.
It never would have crossed my mind considering the other projects I have on the bench (and my bank balance).

BUT, with a range of good looking plastics on offer (backed up by exact same scale metals), I may consider it.

Sooo, I guess that was the point of making them anyway.

Considering the investment it takes to produce plastic sets (the sheer volume you need to sell to make it worthwhile), there really isn't a way to model every variant.

I'll buy them regardless of the buttons.

"For sad muppets who love to have the correct uniforms in the exact right detail"

Ah yes, those who actually want their miniature armies to look like the troops they are supposed to represent are the "sad muppets."

Well, that pretty much sums it up.

Campaigner1 is correct but I thought that the Perry's were going to add variety with their complimentary metal range – you get a bucket or two of the plastic and add variety with systematic metallic additions.

I'm not a rivet counter but I like to see a few rivets in place and I have no dog in this fight as I am a confirmed Sash and Saber guy.

I just can't believe they're all common. No rares? No collecting? Where's the fun in that? Don't these "Perrys" know how plastic should be marketed?

I'm one of those fellows who isn't particularly bothered if the buttons aren't quite right – but I also don't see anything wrong with people who _are_ interested in that level of detail in the figures they are collecting. So I don't see them as sad muppets or in any way wrong, mis-giuded, etc. Their approach is just different than mine.

I am with Campaigner in this one. He states his case very well and is dead on.

I wonder how many people would get all crazy if an American company produced a line of miniatures of Saxons and Normans and all the helmets were wrong?

RE the Union troops with blanket rolls: I don't know about photos but the war artist Forbes who extensively covered Union troops often drew regiments with blanket rolls. Looking at his drawings, it seemd to be a issue of what the colonel allowed.

I would prefer histoical accuracy whenever possible but I feel somewhat uneasy when someone puts out a new range for someone to note some minor inaccuracy. It's not wrong for us to expect it but somehow it just bothers me. Maybe It's becasue I get the feeling that it's not the figure so much as it is someone trying to show off how knowledgeable they are. I'm not saying that his campaigner1's intent but all of us have ran into that type.

I was speaking to a friend on the phone and he got on this discussion about how the sword on these 15mm cavalry figures were not quite right and how he was going to have to substitute arms from other figures to get it right. While he was going on about for quite some time, I kept thinking to myself, this is a person that I never want to game with or go to a historical movie with.

Look… The boxes of plastics are good. They are a great dollar value. You can never expect the same level of detail of plastics as with metal miniatures. It's just the nature of the process. Everyone knows that. I really don't think anyone has an argument with that.

What bothers some are items _ON_ the figures or NOT on the figures is what is worth discussing. Can anyone make a plastic box set of anything and please EVERYONE? No, of course not.

My take of this would be that the Perry's have produced a box set with half Rebs and half Yanks. You have to split the box. I bought 5 boxes of them and am happy with that. I'm sure their metal range will expand what is currently on the plastics range. The plastics will bulk out what I buy in metal. I have oodles of Sash and Saber so I'm set really. I just wanted the plastics for 'filler'.

Campaigner's comments are very good. I would also have liked to see the cartridge boxes at least half of their size. They are waaaaaaaaaaay too huge. The haversack and canteeens are too big as well. Some of the models don't even have cartridge boxes or canteens. I don't get that but… that's me. Still.. the take home message is that they are great filler troops and not front line models. Period. I expect the Perry metals to be VERY GOOD and will pick them up by the dozens.

You would be absolutley distraught if you saw the PSR site then. They review every 1:72 plastic figure going and criticise based on a number of criteria including "historical accuracy".

I didnt regard campaigner1 comments as "showing off", I think he made a reasonable case for his point of view and I feel we should respect him for that.

As long as a figure's 80% accurate, a bit of green stuff will sort out any problems. The 'stitch counters' out there, myself included, have to be prepared to do a bit of work to get things right, otherwise we can sound a little like spoiled whingers.

Muppet. Noun. An idiot, an objectionable person.

Continuous use of this word in sports fan forums around the UK obviously leads the poster to believe it is acceptable. It is not. It is offensive.

Campaigner1 was expressing an opinion that, not surprisingly, other members of this forum agree with.

Sad times indeed when one cannot express one's own point of view without incurring the wrath of others.

Well I was reading this post and I was thinking… I sure hope that the Warlord Games Romans don't come with machinegun :P

Is that the M.48BC light machine gun or the later Augustan variant?

I respect and read with interest everybody's viewpoints on this, whether they be in agreement or not, or somewhere in between!

I am certainly not disputing that this a fantastic way to bulk out 25mm ACW armies for one's forces at home, they certainly fill the requirement of achieving mass on the table top at a great cost savings over metal. And when painted well, the detail on the Perry sculpts is really, really impressive.

I was a Civil War reenactor for 15 years before I ever picked up a miniature soldier or paint brush. And it was a love of the Civil War and a passion for it and for its monumental mark it left on our country that led me to falling in love with all the details of that war, from politicians, to grand strategies, to social issues, and right down to the minutest uniform details.

So, naturally, when I ventured into miniature wargaming, I took that appreciation of detail with me, and I don't regret doing so.

I can CERTAINLY appreciate and relate to those on here who have said they would never play a game with some of the overbearing and fluffed-up people who seem to be more interested in spouting volumes of their own knowledge to show off rather than enjoy an afternoon of gaming with a good friend and sharing a love history. And I could not agree more!

My agenda here was not to spill forth my superior knowledge onto the "ignorant gaming masses", that would be arrogant to claim superiority and not constructive in the least.

What I most desired to do was to shed some light on the fact that what many gamers consider small details, are certainly not small at all, not when one gains a basic knowledge of a military period and the basics of what was produced, worn and used. The details that I have criticized in the Perry boxed set are big enough details for other gamers here to have immediately acknowledged them as well. They are details that in my mind should be corrected or improved, or expanded so that what the Perry's are calling a set that "can be used as either confederate or federal infantry", can actually be used as such. As it stands now, they simply cannot be used that way by me. Others may simply appreciate the mass the plastics allow them to build up, and not bother with those details. Nothing wrong with either approach.

I fully understand that many gamers here share the same love of history that I do, but choose not to burden themselves with the level of detail that I and others have chosen to. And that is perfectly fine. For me to say that you have "experienced Civil War gaming less" than I have simply because you have taken this route is simply arrogant and would be entirely repulsive to even make that claim.

As a reenactor, it would have been equally arrogant of me to claim that another fellow who cared less about uniform detals than I do had less of an experience as a reenactor than I. I have seen men dressed in blue at events with tears filling their eyes, overcome by the emotions of what we were portraying, and what we were experiencing and how profound it was that a "mock battle" could produce such powerful emotions. Those emotions were shared equally by those wearing precisely correct uniforms and those choosing to wear cheaper and less accurate clothing. In those moments, the most important thing was savoring the flavor and feeling the emotion and passions of an era gone by, and for a few moments, relive it again.

What I'm really trying to say I suppose, is that it was precisely because of my intense love for this time period of the ACW that caused me to love the details of it so much. And as I said, it was only natural that that love of detail would follow me into miniature wargaming. This is the path I have chosen, it's certainly not the right path for all and indeed need not be.

I was just expressing my love for history and hoping to share some thoughts with my fellow gamers and hoping to share some information that might lead the Perry's to improve their future plastics releases, and to try to produce some sets that have some of the details I have mentioned, have those details available to those of us who wish to pay attention to them.

Mike

Just a quick note regarding use of the blanket roll or "horse collar".

This detail is not an issue with the Perry set. The Perry's were correct to place it randomly on their sculpts while leaving it off of others. This represents perfectly the notion that some soldiers would toss off their blankets when a battle was iminent, for the sake of comfort and ease of travel and movement. The method of slinging a blanket over the left shoulder and resting on the right hip was a universal one employed by both sides during the Civil War. It was simply the lighter way to carry a blanket and a few articles of clothing rolled in it. As was posted above, it was sometimes at the discretion of regimental commanders whether they allowed the practice, or required their troops to march with regulation and full knapsacks. But being that most commanders were more concerned about their men's ability to fight and march effectively, it was generally permitted and universally adopted.

The practice went back to well before the Revolutionary War period and into the early 1700's. It was probably employed by armies going back to medieval and ancient times, being so simple and useful.

One last note: it is a misnomer of many gamers and Civil War buffs that the federals used the knapsack only, while the confederates used the blanket roll only. This is entirely false. Both sides as I said used the blanket roll extensively, but more importantly – the confederates produced their own versions of the knapsack, many times single bag instead of the federal double bag, but nevertheless knapsacks were used as extensively by rebels as by yankees.

I just want to leave this for everybody so that they can appreciate my perspective on the Perry boxed set.

To have confederate soldiers clothed in four button federal blouses(to one who loves the details of the Civil War as much as I), is to me as apparent and obvious when I spot it, as it would be for a WWII gamer to spot a 25mm Tiger tank chassis that has a Sherman turret glued on it. Somehow it seems to me that the tank example would bother gamers a lot more. Why a uniform detail should be less important I have a hard time understanding. You wouldn't mix and match tank turrets and chassis in your WWII armor divisions, and so in my mind you wouldn't mix and match issue uniforms in the Civil War.

Both details to me are equally as obvious and equally as wrong. But again, no hard feelings, this is just the level of detail that I have chosen to care about!

Cheers,
Mike

Campaigner,

As you probably already know… sometimes Union troops were NOT permitted to drop their packs. In the book Soldiering by Rice Bull, he tells that before a campaign begun all the men in his brigade were given 7 days rations and 160 rounds. The cartridge box helf 40 rounds so all the rest and food could only be held in the knapsack. That must have been VERY heavy.

If you look closely at many Troiani prints you'll notice Union regimental markings on knapsacks worn by Rebs in his works. :)

I have reenacted for 19 years now. In all these years I prefered the knapsack over the blanket roll or horse collar. Granted.. that's like saying I prefer to have my knees broken over my elbows or ribs busted. It still all hurts! I felt the blanket was too hot for me and as long as you traveled light the knapsack was 'okay'. You just have to learn what's important and what ain't.

avidgamer,

Great post and great book, the Rice Bull one! Fantastic work by an articulate and brave man to say the least!

And I agree entirely your point about the knapsacks vs. the blanket rolls. Indeed as you have eluded to, many confederates during the actual war felt that lightly packed knapsacks were more comfortable than the blanket roll, it was all a matter of how the things were packed and the preference of the soldier. And, you are 100% right, the confederates captured and used thousands of federal knapsacks and kept the original owner's unit stencils on them untouched! Great detail in the Troiani paintings.

What's interesting about reenactor's perspectives is that they often echo the opinions of the soldiers who lived then. I've read some accounts where soldiers preferred the knapsack because the blanket roll tended to intefere with the loading process, as well as rubbing against the cheek and chin by the rubber or wool blanket up at the shoulder and causing chafing on the face. In addition, to wear the rubber blanket on the outside of a blanket roll on a hot day, the black rubber coating gets as hot as an innertube or car tire on hot pavement, not something you want to have rubbing your face and cheek!

And good lord, I can't imagine the load that Rice Bull describes….160 ROUNDS and SEVEN days rations? That amounts to about SEVEN lbs. of salt pork and SEVENTY hardtack crackers plus ammunition and spare clothing and personal effects. OMG. No wonder those guys threw stuff away despite orders to the contrary. I've carred as much as 100 spare rounds(but blanks, no lead of course), and as much as three days actual rations in a knapsack, crowned with a blanket and shelter half, and I found that load to be completely unbearable after marching a short distance.

God bless the boys that actually fought that war!