timurilank | 31 Mar 2014 3:52 a.m. PST |
A number of regiments and battalions in the Army of Tennessee under General Braxton Bragg have the title of "Sharpshooters" after their numeric and state designation. To name a few, Palmetto (S. C.) Sharpshooters, 3d Ga. Bn. Sharpshooters, 4th Ga. Bn. Sharpshooters, 17th Ala. Bn. Sharpshooters, 32d and 45th Miss., Sharpshooters. and there are yet others from different states. Were these simply titles or did these units have a particular expertise or weaponry that earned them the name "sharpshooters"? Cheers, Robert |
Murphy | 31 Mar 2014 4:47 a.m. PST |
The majority of them IIRC were just named that. While it is true that the CS forces had match style rifles, (scoped ones), for some of their "sharpshooters", the majority of them didn't. |
Rich Bliss | 31 Mar 2014 5:18 a.m. PST |
Yeah, basically most of the CSA forces picked their battalion names based on what they thought sounded "cool". Sharpshooters, Guards, Roughnecks, etc. I certainly wouldn't give them any additional abilities based on name.. |
zippyfusenet | 31 Mar 2014 5:35 a.m. PST |
Ac-tu-a-ly. Take a second look at some of those battalions of sharpshooters. In the Army of Northern Virginia, I believe in 1863, they formed one battalion of sharpshooters in each brigade and kept them for the rest of the war. They didn't necessarily have better rifled muskets than anyone else (although there might be a few target rifles among them), but the men were supposed to be the best shots in the brigade, chosen to deliver long-range harrassing fire, snipe at officers and gunners, and so forth. |
John the Greater | 31 Mar 2014 6:12 a.m. PST |
This is one of those early vs later War things. When units were first raised they often chose names based on the coolness factor (for example, many were called "phalanx" but certainly never carried sarissas!). There were a few units calling themselves sharpshooters who really were, for example Brady's Michigan sharpshooters, but the majority simply liked the name. By mid 1863, as Zippy points out above, the ANV selected men who really could shoot and put them into special battalions of sharpshooters. They may have had Whitworth rifles, but the majority of them had Enfields. These guys really proved their worth starting at Spottsylvania (ask Gen Sedgwick). |
timurilank | 31 Mar 2014 7:06 a.m. PST |
Gentlemen, Thank you for the input. As Rich and Murphy pointed out, that was my initial impression. However, the special units of sharpshooters is worth considering as most of these units are in Longstreet's Corps which marched from Gettysburg to support Bragg for the Chickamauga campaign. Cheers, |
Onomarchos | 31 Mar 2014 7:16 a.m. PST |
If you would like more detail on the ANV's Sharpshooter Battalions, I would suggest Fred Ray's "Shock Troops of the Confederacy." It details the development of the concept and practice of sharpshooting. But it is also a great read on the evolution of small unit tactics during the Civil War. Mark |
ColCampbell | 31 Mar 2014 1:48 p.m. PST |
I asked a couple of my co-workers here at the Miss. Archives who are military historians/researchers. They were both of the opinion that most of the sharpshooter battalions were initially raised as specialist units composed of riflemen who were good to excellent shots. One unit they both mentioned was the 9th Miss. Sharpshooter Battalion. Jim |
Frederick | 31 Mar 2014 2:25 p.m. PST |
I think that it was a bit of a mixed bag but I understand that when the Confederates formed their sharpshooter units they did make an effort to make sure they had good shots in them As to unit names – especially early war -anything goes! |
enfant perdus | 31 Mar 2014 8:30 p.m. PST |
FWIW, I've noticed in many OOBs for the western theaters, the "Sharpshooter" battalions are often at a markedly lower strength than "line" regiments. It's also striking that, as the campaigns come and go and the line regiments receive dwindling numbers of replacements, and then are eventually amalgamated, the Sharpshooters never significantly recover personnel. They slowly (and sometimes rapidly) fade away. This would suggest a degree of selectiveness, which is not to suggest they were specially armed, or even that every man was a Hawkeye. It does seem, however, they had a higher standard. |
timurilank | 31 Mar 2014 11:09 p.m. PST |
Thank you for the additional input. Lower strength they would certainly have been as most listed are noted as battalions. And, such units having a higher degree of skill is certainly worth considering, even for both sides. General Rosecrans had the 1st bn. Ohio Sharpshooters attached to his headquarters. Cheers, |
Princeps | 01 Apr 2014 4:45 a.m. PST |
My great, great Grandfather was in Company L of the Palmetto Sharpshooters. He was mortally wounded at Frayser's Farm. As far as I can tell, at the time the regiment was raised in 1862 (it was an amalgamation of companies from other regiments) it was just a name and did not denote any particular battlefield role or specialisation. |
Old Contemptibles | 01 Apr 2014 9:28 p.m. PST |
There were not any Confederate "Sharpshooters", that I know of that were sharpshooters like the 1st and 2nd U.S. Sharpshooters under Berdan. At least I never heard of the 1st and 2nd C.S. Sharpshooters. You can make the argument (and I have) that those two Union regiments are the only units in any game that should get a sharpshooter bonus of any kind. As was said earlier the term "sharpshooter" was used in the South as a recruitment tool. That is not to say there weren't specially armed companies or parts of companies or one or two individuals in a C.S. Army that were armed with something like Whitworth Rifles with telescopic sights. But not any were organized and trained to the extent that Berdan's regiments were. Berdan was famous for their actions at Gettysburg. At Antietam, the Georgians at Burnside Bridge held up the enemy for quite a while. I have heard them described as "Sharpshooters" I am sure someone who knows better than I can tell me if they were the real deal or not. I think this designation is scenario specific and if the author of the scenario designated a unit as sharpshooters then so be it. I Just played a Chickamauga scenario published by Potomac Press that designated one three base regiment as Confederate Sharpshooters. That was fine, I trust them to have done the research to verify that. But the scenarios that I design I want to see several sources that convinces me that the unit were actual sharpshooters, trained and armed as such. I have in the past had this argument with "Rebelphiles" that since the unit had the word "sharpshooter" in it's title then of course that is what they are. Which is simply not true. I want to see three independent sources. There were also Confederate infantry regiments who called themselves cavalry. Do the Nashville "Bushwhackers" get a melee bonus? But I will check out "Shock Troops of the Confederacy." That sounds interesting. I am certainly open to changing my mind. |
Cleburne1863 | 02 Apr 2014 12:48 p.m. PST |
I was recently part of a discussion with Chickmauga ranger Jim Ogden and David Powell, author of the upcoming multi-volume set on the battle. They are of the opinion that the sharpshooter battalions, at least in the Army of Tennessee, were trained extensively as light infantry. Their primary job was as skirmishers, usually for the brigade to which they were attached. Were they better shots? Possibly, but as stated above, nowhere near to the training and standards as Berdan's. It depends on the balance of the game, but you could give them a better bonus for movements or cover while in skirmish formation in a game. I don't know that they would be any better shots though. And sometimes they were just names. At Chickamagua take a look at the two "sharpshooter" battalions in Ector's Brigade; Stone and Pound. They were merely the remnants of regiments whose other companies had been surrendered at Vicksburg. They didn't have any special training or marksmanship talent. |
Old Pete | 03 Apr 2014 1:39 p.m. PST |
Rallynow 'Shock Troops of the Confederacy: The Sharpshooter Battalions of the Army of Northern Virginia' by Fred Ray is an excellent and very, very interesting read. Can be bought for the Kindle at Amazon, or as a paper back for around £12.00 GBP in UK or $22 USD in US. Covers both CSA and US troops explaining various tasks, tactics and uses as light infantry. |