"F&F Confederate v's Union" Topic

I have just read the F&F rules for the first time and I note the following 3 'hard wired' differences between Union and confederate troops
1) CS cavalry have half the firepower of US equivalent
2) CS artillery is less effective than US (except cannister)
3) CS (but not cavalry) have a +1 in charge combat

Are these accurate & justified?

and if so……………..

Was it better weapons or doctrine that made the US cavalry firepower so impressive compared to CS?

Is the artillery effectiveness basically a simple way to model the higher proprtion of rifled weapons in Union armies or is it something more?

I don't pretend to know the exact reasoning behind these rules, but the sound fairly justified. Blanket rules like these are are never going to work for every battle because conditions varied; however, Confederate cavalry did generally lack the modern carbines available to their Federal counterparts, and Confederate artillery was both older and often had lower quality munitions. As for the charge bonus the willingness of CSA soldiers to go in with the bayonet, and their effect when doing so was noted as early as first Bull Run.

It is also a way to give two very similar armies some flavor. Both of these were commanded/trained by the same schools and officers. You should feel free to change those based on scenario.

It's hard to assign absolute values to such general categories, but the Fire and Fury authors have some good historical reasons for those differences.

1.
Confederate cavalry tended to be armed with a mix of pistols and shotguns. There were quite a few carbines in the CSA cavalry, but not every man had one, and the carbines available tended to be older models. Union cavalry tended to be armed with both pistols and carbines, and the Union carbines reflected the best in available technology, especially as the war passed its mid-point.

2.
US artillery tended to have more rifled guns, but I suspect the difference in firepower has more to do with superior Union ammunition. The Confederacy did wonders with very limited resources, but they never really fielded reliable artillery ammunition, with their fuses being especially faulty. Gunners from both sides commented that the inferior Confederate powder really hampered CSA artillery effectiveness.

3.
In most battles the Confederates were outnumbered, but attacked anyway. I've always assumed that the +1 for Confederates charging is the game designers' attempt to persuade a CSA gamer to adopt a historical boldness.

The decisions behind the three differences you noted are:

1) More breach loaders and repeaters among U.S. cavalry
2) As you point out, a higher proportion of rifled guns in the Union army
3) An encouragement for the Confederates to attack despite the defensive advantages usually given to the defender. This is one of those "feels right" modifiers that just seems to work and provide the right play balance for the scenarios.

Mark

Union batteries also represent more guns, 8 Union vs 6 Confederate per battery if I remember correctly.

Having been extensively involved in F&F playtesting, BFMARK is correct, as is SCOMAC's point on poor overall quality of CS ammunition.

Mike

Actually the battery difference was 6 guns vs. 4 for most artillery. My reading supports the above conclusions.

FWEW, technically, the real problem with CS artillery wasn't so much the ammunition itself, but the fuzes. Confederate fuzes were less than satisfactory, so much so, that by Gettysburg, Lee had prohibited CS artillery from firing over the heads of his own troops. Many shells detonated short, while as many others failed to detonate, or detonated past the range they were cut for.

Powder, too, was less powerful than Federal powder, especially so for infantry small arms ammunition. Although the quality control was better for it than for the fuzes, the CS arsenals still felt compelled to use increased loads in order to make up the difference in power between what they produced, and what the Federals manufactured.

One other point I would offer is, based upon my own research, pistols in CS cavalry units are way overdone. The CS government simply had no way of manufacturing enough, and even with purchases abroad and battlefield captures, cavalrymen with pistols were a rare beast, and CS artillerymen with them were virtually unheard of.

The majority of CS cavalry had one firearm, usually a rifle or rifle-musket, but many with a muzzle-loading carbine or shotgun. As the war progressed, the shotguns tended to disappear, being replaced by rifles or rifle-muskets, so that many CS units could well appear (and function) as mounted infantry.

respects,

well historically Union batteries had 6 guns of the same type [less so in the western theater] while Confederate batteries tended to have 4 guns [2 sections] of various types. At one point Pendleton suggested re-balancing the ANV artillery to a more homogeneous battery composition, but circumstances and reluctance from the artillery personnel prevented it from happening.

As far as rifles, it did not take too long for the favored gun to become the 12# Napoleon. BG Henry Hunt considered the 3" ordinance rifle the weakest and worst weapon ever devised and wished he could exchange all of them. Who cares if it was accurate if it could not damage the enemy? And the small bore of the rifled guns meant less projectiles in the case shot and canister versus the 4.62 in diameter of the 12# Napoleon.

The eastern-Union army had for the most part of the war, the advantage of a sizable artillery reserve at army level, while the ANV parceled theirs out as corps reserve. So the Union had more flexibility [and an artillery commander that was very aggressive vice the ANV's artillery commander].

Hunt was chagrined when Grant sent the artillery reserve back to Washington, and reduced the batteries to 4 guns upon commencement of the Wilderness campaign; but then that was no terrain for artillery anyway.

having in the last 6 months played a fair bit of fire and fury .. i think its a great game -- fun and fast play .

i would 100% recommend the army generator system on the fire and fury website ..

i always play the rebs and am often undone by the bigger union brigades :(

Justified, IMHO, especially at the level F&F represents.

BG Henry Hunt considered the 3" ordinance rifle the weakest and worst weapon ever devised and wished he could exchange all of them.

Could you cite your source for this?

-Will

As well, the Rebs never did manage to get a reliable source of ammunition for any magazine carbines they captured – I think the reduced firepower is accurate, especially mid to late war when many Union cavalry regiments had breechloaders or magazine carbines

As to artillery, as noted, poor ammo, fewer guns, at the start of the war poorer quality guns – so OK with the Reb artillery rules

As the the +1 on charge, I guess the jolly old Rebel yell

We play F&F all the time – I think they work well

"i always play the rebs and am often undone by the bigger union brigades :("

??? According to my reading, it was mostly the Rebs who had the bigger brigades!

Will,

"The Man Behind the Guns" – A military Biography of General Henry J. Hunt Chief of Artillery, Army of the Potomac

by Edward G. Longacre 2003.

Hunt described the 3 inch ordinance rifle "the feeblest in the world".

In 1864, when Grant took over Hunt was involved in changing the ratio of rifle to smoothbore 12# from a nearly 2 to 1, to a 56%/44% ratio. Hunt preferred the 12# gun-howitzer, as did many other artillery officers.

the 3 in ordinance rifle did have its supporters; it was more reliable than cast iron rifled pieces and very accurate and light. That is why it was assigned to the cavalry artillery brigades. It was also very accurate.

Hunt also stripped away the small arms from artillery batteries. He rightly saw, and argued, that the armament of the battery was the guns themselves, and that if the crews were allowed to maintain pistols and carbines, that, when push came to shove, they would abandon their guns and rely upon their small arms for self-defense.

Hunt ordered that all batteries in the AOP turn in all small arms, allowing the various units to retain 3-4 carbines for foraging and guard duty. Officers and the chiefs-of-pieces were allowed to retain their revolvers in order to shoot horses and maintain discipline. Otherwise, the battery was to depend upon servicing it's own guns for self-defense.

He also, thus, forced the hand of Infantry commanders to provide sufficient force(s) to support the batteries against infantry attack(s), which was the proper tactical doctrine, both then and now. Batteries need infantry support for self defense of their position, and from the time Hunt took over, that was the way things worked in the AOP.

Respects,

@rmcaras- thanks, I'll check it out! I ask since I reenact with a group that has two 3" Rifles and all the research I've done shows that it was a well-liked gun. But that was from the crew standpoint- I'd be interested in getting a broader view on it. The gun tends to be lauded for the reliability and accuracy, I had not heard it was considered underpowered!

-Will

Union batteries also represent more guns, 8 Union vs 6 Confederate per battery if I remember correctly.

Sorry, should have been more clear. In the rules, batteries represent 6 or 8 guns. They aren't a 1 for 1 representation of a historic 4 or 6 gun battery.

Well I always thought it was the Parrot rifles( 10 lb) that were underpowered, somewhat unreliable( at least in the minds of the gunners) and that the 3" OR was a very welcome replacement for them. Like a lot of other things , I guess this might be a wrong assumption or maybe not.

As for the CSA +1 modifier, it is part evidence, part myth, take it or leave it as you wish!!

I figured the +1 for charging infantry was the rebel yell.

They sure did attack a lot.

Many thanks one and all, I think I get the picture, the rules are generally a good call for most of the war and if you are playing early War or the scenario suggests otherwise give it a little 'local tweak'

I find the artillery Napoleon v's Parrot & 3" debate very intersting. I have to say that it is immediately apparent when one starts to climb up the ACW reading mountain that there was no consensus on this at the time, there still isn't and I suspect there never will be.

The historian half of me finds this an unsatisfactory conclusion and demands more data but from a gamers perspective having two weapons with different strengths and no clear winner is excellent news: range and accuracy or firepower?

We also take into account the battle being simulated and the theater. For example the +1 given to confederates MAY make sense in the east -- early in the war, but not in the western Theater. When we played (when I had opponents around) the western theater we dropped the Confederate +1. And depending on the campaign, the Union got the +1 (i.e. the Vicksburg Campaign).

There is a misunderstanding present in this disucssion around F&F artillery.

F&F does not represent specific batteries. Depending on the scale chosen (200:1 or 150:1) each gun stand represents 8 or 6 guns. So if a Union or Confederate corp has 46 guns it would have 6 gun stands or 8 gun stands depending on scale.

I believe Marcus Brutus is right about gun scale. There is no attempt to represent specific battery size. Another reason for better Union ratings is that Confederate batteries used 6pdrs much longer into the war than the Union. Sure, they eventually got rid of them in the East, but the rules are intended to abstract the differences over the entire war.

For the regimental game we have talked about limiting the "cold steel" option (similar to +1 for Confederates charging) to Confederates in the East and Union in the West with some exceptions. Rich seems to be leaning toward letting everybody have than option (no firing is permitting when you charge with cold steel), but I would rather limit it to troops with more aggressive reputations.

Mark

Hunt was chagrined when Grant sent the artillery reserve back to Washington, and reduced the batteries to 4 guns upon commencement of the Wilderness campaign; but then that was no terrain for artillery anyway.

IIRC, Grant ordered the Art. Res. away NOT at the beginning of the campaign, but after several days, as one way to reduce the size of the AoP's tail. However, Hunt talked him into keeping the Art. Res. and reducing all batteries to 4 guns instead.

1) Union cavalry was throughout the war generaly better equipped then there CSA counterparts and some advantage would be justified in general. I would disagree that it should be 1/2 of USA firepower (more like 75%). Would be better to indicate the actual weapons carried for such an advantage.

2) Historical results of artillery duals give the advantage to the USA. Larger batteries in general, fuse issue, rifled pcs, all had some influence as well as the union tactical doctrine for employment of effective fire. All in all, an equal number of union artillery pieces would whip their confederate counterparts.

3) Should be on Mythbusters. This myth has been propagated through more rules sets over 40 years then I care to count. Both sides throughout the war attacked (charged) with equal valor and success (and failures) in a varity of situations. There is no evidence that confederate attacks where any more likely to succeed then union attacks. Read too much into "Attack and Die" would be my guess.

Kim

3)Perhaps the myth persists because it is needed in the gaming world; if the Union has all the advantages who is going to want to play the confederacy?

Contentiously, from the limited amount I have read so far, I am however left with a feeling of general persistance despite losses on the part of the Confederacy. This may be evidence of a latent prejudice on the part of the authors or that I just happen to be reading about occasions where they were indeed particularly determined (East, early war). Hopefully as I have no ACW prejudices more reading will allow me my own balanced view.