Help support TMP


"Crusader's ACW: Which packs for Union, CSA?" Topic


14 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

Please remember that some of our members are children, and act appropriately.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the ACW Product Reviews Message Board


Areas of Interest

American Civil War

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Link


Featured Showcase Article

1:600 USS Conestoga

Adding a timberclad to my Union fleet.


Featured Profile Article

Coker House Restored

Personal logo reeves lk Supporting Member of TMP updates us on progress at this Champion Hill landmark.


Featured Book Review


1,218 hits since 22 Mar 2009
©1994-2026 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

CPBelt22 Mar 2009 4:04 p.m. PST

link

Crusader's 'shirt' and 'jacket' labels are confusing me. Which packs would be good for Union and which for CSA troops?

Frederick Supporting Member of TMP22 Mar 2009 4:23 p.m. PST

Well, either could be used for either, but the frock coat was distinctly uncommon in the South, while short jackets were much more common – as well, the kepi (or forage cap) was more common among Union troops

So, I would suggest

Union
– ACW Frock Cap and Kepi
– ACW Frock Cap and Kepi command

Confederate
– ACW Shirt and Kepi (actually, it looks more like a short jacket to me)
– ACW Shirt and Kepi command

Either
– ACW Jacket and Kepi
– ACW Jacket and Kepi command

Bearing in mind, of course, that most Confederate troops, especially after the first year of the war, wore slouch hats

aecurtis Fezian22 Mar 2009 5:10 p.m. PST

Frock coat, sack coat, and shell jacket would probably be more useful monikers for the three variations. I ain't getting into the details of what's right and what ain't.

Allen

avidgamer22 Mar 2009 6:00 p.m. PST

First of all… don't buy more than a 'few' models with shirts. Period. For some odd reason English sculptors like them… I don't know why. They wore _jackets_ and _coats_, not so much shirts without. It was just not a proper thing to do back then. People today (reenactors) seems to like to wear shirts only because they are "too hot" and need to take off their coats. Well back in the day those soldiers never knew what air-conditioning was and didn't have electric fans. They were used to hot weather and it was the custom to wear jacks/coats while outdoors at all times. Yes… even in the heat. They even for long johns all year round. So stay away from shirts whenever you can unless you are pansy reenactor. ;)

CPBelt22 Mar 2009 7:02 p.m. PST

I figured as much about the shirts being rare.

– ACW Shirt and Kepi (actually, it looks more like a short jacket to me)

I thought so as well. Odd.

I figured I'd go with OG 2nd Edition and maybe use these for some variety.

ACWBill23 Mar 2009 6:11 a.m. PST

At Shiloh and Manassas several units had companies that wore "Battle Shirts". These are useful figures for early war. Perry makes a fine model with these type of shirts. Other than the very early-war period, Confederate Troops wore shell jackets of 7-9 button fronts. These varied from the Richmond and Atlanta (as well as many other smaller) depots where they were made. North Carolina actually produced a sack coat style as well which was similar to the US variety. Frock coats were very popular throughout the war on the CS side. Also, US Heavy Artillery units wore these along with Kepis when they were sent into battle as infantry during the 1864 Over Land Campaign.

JCBJCB23 Mar 2009 7:09 a.m. PST

Battle shirts, of course, are not undershirts, and undershirts are what you see most often in the world of miniatures. Battle shirts, when not tucked into the pants (which seems to be uncommon, judging from period photographs) could extend as far down as mid-thigh, and often had a buttoned, "bib" front – although other patterns existed, too. Such battle shirts were generally of heavier cloth (wool, for example), and in a solid color, with "tape" in a contrasting color around the collar, buttons and plackets. The sleeves were looser, and all equipment would be worn over the battle shirt, just as you would do with a shell jacket or sack coat.

As far as sack coats go, Confederates did use them. They are far more frequently seen out west, though North Carolina manufactured them, and some apparently were seen in the ANV during late '64/early '65. Most Confederate sacks had five or more buttons – not the four buttons seen on federal sacks.

Frock coats were indeed worn by Confederate troops, but seem mainly to have been acquired reasonably early (if by government issue) or by private means (if acquired a bit later in the war). For examples of Confederate frock coats (which, among the rank-and-file, were worn more frequently in the western theater), see the excellent book "Echoes of Glory: Arms and Equipment of the Confederacy."

The best thing you can do is decide what general theater of the war you're working on, and go from there. You can never go wrong with federal units wearing sack coats – they're seen everywhere. If in the west, your Confederates can wear shorter jackets (like the ubiquitous Columbus, Alabama or Atlanta depot issue) with some frocks and sack coats mixed in – say, a ratio of 70/15/15, respectively (this would be a good mid-war mix). Out east, the shell should dominate, and you should see mostly shell jackets (with a nine or so buttons), with a *sprinkling* of sacks and maybe – maybe – an occasional frock or two.

(State tendencies vary, though, so take a look at "Echoes of Glory" and get a sense of what each Southern state issued to its soldiers, and how often such issues actually made it to the troops.)

JCBJCB23 Mar 2009 7:16 a.m. PST

One further comment: I've always been surprised that no one has ever made a Confederate infantryman wearing the Columbus Depot jacket. I'd love to see one sculpted, with either the six- or seven-button front, and a sculpted "line" for the colored cuffs and collar. This coat was a staple of the Army of Tennessee from the middle of the war on, and I've never seen one (unless I've missed the a listing).

And while I'm griping – I wish sculptors would take a long look at actual, surviving copies of hats, and good period photographs of headwear. Too many figures have slouch hats that are shaped like a western Stetson cowboy hat. That "front-to-back" fold that creases the crown of the hat all along is really annoying, and not accurate to the period. The vast majority of surviving hats – and those hats clearly seen in photos – have crowns "folded" in a dished-and-raised style.

Don't get me started on the prevalence of straw hats, or bad canteen sculpting. Aargh!

ACWBill23 Mar 2009 7:59 a.m. PST

Seconded on the Columbus Depot Jacket.

JCBJCB23 Mar 2009 8:44 a.m. PST

Wouldn't that be fun, ACWBill? A regiment with a goodly proportion of depot jackets?

Keep wishing, I guess. :)

ACWBill23 Mar 2009 10:40 a.m. PST

To reach, the unreachable heights. : )

avidgamer23 Mar 2009 12:11 p.m. PST

It would take an American sculptor who knew the differences and actually cared. A rare breed.

JCBJCB24 Mar 2009 7:27 a.m. PST

I have to start sculpting. Every time I try, I get intimidated and drop it. I have no idea why I was willing to "learn" to paint, but have not been willing to learn to sculpt.

Maddening.

avidgamer24 Mar 2009 7:44 a.m. PST

JCBMinis,

At least if you learned to do it you'd get it right. I've often wondered why some sculptors never do the proper research BEFORE they start? The same basic mistakes keep getting repeated over and over and over again. Why? It is easier to do it right than do it wrong.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.