"How easy was it to target line officers?" Topic

How easy was it to target line officers in the middle of a battle? I'm talking regimental level, and not mounted. Mostly lieutenants and captains, but could also include major, Lt. colonel and colonel when not mounted.

Did the men in the ranks even care or try to shoot line officers on the other side? Did they have other things to worry about?

How easy is it to spot a dismounted officer 100, 150, 200 yards away mingled in with a line of battle? Then add fear, stress, physical exhaustion, and smoke?

The reason I ask is that we often hear about officers switching from wearing frock coats or fancy dress, to wearing plain infantry uniforms so they don't get singled out and become targets. Was it a real concern for captains and LTs?

I can see that when skirmish lines are fighting, individual soldiers are easy to pick out, and officers easy to distinguish. But what about when lines of battle are going at it? Every line officer eventually had to perform skirmish duty at one time or the other, so I can see that the concern is valid. After all, you only have one uniform to wear and you're not going to change clothes to go out on the skirmish line. I'm just curious if it was an issue when lines of battle are fighting.

Sam Watkins famously said he only shot at the guys with rifles; the guy with a sword couldn't hurt him!

Sam Watkins famously said he only shot at the guys with rifles; the guy with a sword couldn't hurt him!

I'll bet some soldiers had other ideas about that.

When a regiment is fighting in Line of battle the officers would be BEHIND the line directing their men. With the smoke, distance, confusion and bullets heading in YOUR direction I would bet ordinary men did NOT target officers. If they got hit… they got hit.

Unless at extremely close range (and maybe even then) I suspect most men just targeted the enemy UNIT not individual men.

If I remember right there were groups where shooting officer was there job.

Think about what you see at 100 yards or more, and the fact that most people at the time had uncorrected eyesight. They couldn't tell an officer from an enlisted man very easily at all.

Try to pick out the officers in this picture:

When in doubt, aim in the direction of the flags.

Given black powder, the excitement of battle and the ballistic skill of the average Civil War combatant I suspect that the average line officer was rarely targeted – hit often, but just the cost of being in the front line

So, was the fear of being singled out because of your uniform overstated, or a real fear? See my thoughts on the skirmish line in my original post.

I realize officers did try to blend in more. Perception is reality.

However I recollect from a topic on Napoleonic wars that segments of the line where officers stood suffered more.

Officers were often near the flags, and there is ample documentation of the flag bearers being hit out of proportion to their numbers. Being in close proximity to the flags was probably a MUCH greater danger for an officer than wearing a frock coat! And what about units that all wore frock coats? The increased danger probably wasn't from the officer's uniform, but from the actions (shouting, waving sword, leading an advance, grabbing the unit colors, etc.) of the man wearing it.

And for the most part soldiers didn't really "aim."

Wasn't that the reason officers in many country's went for minimal rank distinctions?

As noted, when a battalion was in line firing, the officers would all be out of sight behind the line (where they could supervise their men's firing. However, if the line was advancing then the officers would be back in the front rank and, in theory, the lieutenant colonel would be way out in front setting the line of advance, so they would be targets. But in a general firefight, there wouldn't really be any obvious officers for anyone to aim at (unless the field officers stayed mounted).

The statement that there would be officers near the colors is not correct. The color guard was attached to the left end of the right-center company (usually the fifth from the right) and when halted in line the commander of the 6th company would be right next to the color guard. But when firing, that officer would be in the rear of his company and when advancing, all the company commanders in the left wing shifted to the left end of their companies, (and the front rank of the color guard would be 6 paces in front of the line) so there wouldn't be any officers near the colors.

Of course ScottWashburn is correct, as in this Illustration:

I suppose my vision was impared by too many tiny reenactor groups and their flag, as well as all of the stories of brave officers holding the colors to rally their men in a battle!

$.02 USD
Yes Scott is right and that is the way things were designed to keep the officers alive.
In my reading I have noticed that the aiming issue varied from unit to unit. Reading about the Lorenz Musket apparently some units removed the sights and aimed down the barrel. The 2nd Wisconsin used the same weapon with deadly effect at Brawner's Farm, taking down 9 Colonels from the Stonewall Brigade IIRC and a couple of Generals. The Westerners lost many officers too.
Some of the regiments in later battles had as few as 100 man and the Colonel was often easier to spot. If advance bogged down they would sometimes try and lead from the front. General Reynolds was killed at Gettysburg leading a charge into McPherson's woods. General Archer was captured trying to rally his fleeing troops at the same fight.

Some regiments emphasized shooting skills into the members. The Michigan 2nd were really good marksmen. Company K from the 2nd was filled with Great Lakes Natives, they were very adept at skirmishing, scouting, and counter sniper missions.
Both sides had marksmen who were scary accurate with the period weapons. Early scopes and enhanced sights were in use as well, but not in huge quanties.

The more interesting side to this would be, of the officers hit, how many were mounted when shot? People under stress tend to aim high and I would think that because they were mounted, the leadership would suffer a disproportionate level of casualties in a fight simply by being higher and in the flight path of the round.
Larry

Yes, going into an assault mounted was asking to get shot.

Ask John Sedgwick

Kim

I can't. He's dead.

I don't think there was any particular need to target individual officers. Except in entrenched lines maybe.

The largely aggressive tactics employed meant that officers were always to the fore in an advance and the shear volume of fire directed at attacking troops would always claim a fair share of them.

When you consider the number of units that lost between 35-65% casualties in any given engagement its not hard to see that officers would inevitably pay the price along with the enlisted men.

We can all point to where this or that officer was shot or picked out of the crowd but anyone with any understanding of overall infantry tactics of the time will tell you it is just not the case. More the work of Shelby Foote or George Lucas fantasy and a good story but not necessarily ground truth.

VR
James Mattes

I agree with those who point out the practical difficulty of targeting officers. However in a war where a degree of leadership by example would have been expected, I'm not sure we can assume officer's positions based on tactics manuals alone.

I think we should also be wary of assuming practical difficulty.

If you go back to the Napoleonic period where opponents of the French were in 3 rank formation not 2 (so ignoring the British) its well documented that until they got their acts together, weakly or totally unopposed French skirmishers managed to have a significant impact on officers.

So picking them out could not have been that hard. My point being regardless of where the officer stood and the number of men supposed to be in front of him he had a good chance of being hit.

For what its worth Fox's Regimental Losses states that some 5,461 Union infantry officers died during the war a ratio of 1:16.7 against enlisted men.

At Gettysburg 27% of the officers were killed against 21% of the enlisted men based on the numbers engaged.

The 61st Penn had the highest losses in officers during the war, 19 being killed or mortally wounded including 3 Colonels

Probably what prompted officers to try to look more like privates was the rise in use of sharpshooters, not the general firing of a line of battle.

are we talking about average solder or someone who really knew what they were doing?

I suspect there were quite a bit of good shots who could hit what they were aiming at…and quite a bit who just pointed and shot…

I mean if Morgan's rifles killed a lot of british officers, then in the AWI,some people in the Civil War could do it

I suppose if you were an officer who got shot, it was pretty damned good.

Sharpshooters are going to be sniping at officers at much longer ranges than normal firefights. The officers aren't going to be expecting it (and thus may be out in front of their men) and there won't be any clouds of powder smoke to conceal them. I think this is when officers would be most vulnerable to deliberate attack. In a firefight it would just be a matter of bad luck to get hit no matter who you were.

Don't forget officers directing skirmish lines. There it is much easier to pick out the men with boards and hat brass. At some level though perception is more important than reality. If an officer thinks there is an advantage to being less conspicuous, the actual facts matter less in his sartorial splendor