"The Wilderness - Medical details from theOR" Topic
31 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 do not use bad language on the forums.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the ACW Discussion Message Board
Areas of InterestAmerican Civil War
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Workbench ArticleGenerating portraits using Deep Dream Generator.
Featured Profile ArticleIf you were a kid in the 1960s who loved history and toy soldiers, you probably had a WOW figure!
|
Trajanus | 22 Oct 2014 2:31 a.m. PST |
Found some interesting stats while I was poking round in the Offical Record. Thease are for the casualties in Union Army during The Wilderness Location of injury, &c. Head and face 640 Neck 130 Shoulder 484 Thorax 473 Abdomen 326 Back and hips 378 Perineum and genitals 48 Superior extremities 2,416 Inferior extremities 2,403 Large arteries or nerves 4 Total 7,302 Deaths in field hospitals 207 Shell wounds 231 Cannon-shot wounds 6 Bullet wounds 7,046 Sword wounds. 2 Bayonet wounds 4 Amputations performed 560
Couple of things stand out: The low number of artillery caused injury, probably due to lower use in close terrain and possibly higher fatality. Virtually no bayonet wounds, suggesting that hand to hand really was as infrequent as thought, or you died before being helped. Possible that this changed at Spotsylvania. Given the number of wounds in the extremities, there are far less amputations than I would have thought! |
67thtigers | 22 Oct 2014 2:48 a.m. PST |
Remember that the injuries of those killed outright, or considered mortally wounded were not recorded. |
avidgamer | 22 Oct 2014 3:55 a.m. PST |
Bayonet wounds would kill someone quicker than medical aid could be rendered so Doctors would probably not see these cases. IN both the Wilderness fighting and Spotsylvania the aid stations were very far from the close fighting. Particularly the fighting in the Mule Shoe. Many soldiers were killed AFTER they went down, getting hit over and over or trampled into the mud. |
TKindred | 22 Oct 2014 4:06 a.m. PST |
Yup. Bayonets and clubbed muskets were used frequently, and with deadly results. The myth about bayonets not being used, which so many historians cling to, comes from the Medical OR's and their showing fewer than 1K bayonet wounds treated in federal hospitals. The problem is, as 67thtigers has pointed out, one of context. Bayonet wounds were almost always fatal, or light enough that you could be patched up at the field dressing station and sent back to your unit. Only those injuries which could not be handled at the field dressing station were sent by via ambulance to the Division Hospitals. As regards amputations, the Division Hospitals only performed those when absolutely required to save a life. It was possible, even at places like The Wilderness, to have a wounded man assessed at the field dressing station, then sent via ambulance to the Division Hospital and then on to a General Hospital at Washington, Baltimore or Philadelphia within 48 hours of his wounding. Thus, a man with a serious injury to an appendage which MIGHT require amputation would quickly find himself at a General Hospital where the wound would be treated, watched, and only then an amputation performed if sepsis was not able to be controlled, or gangrene set in. The majority of those amputations performed at the Division Hospital would be when the wound caused sufficient damage that saving the limb was not possible, or practical. The AAR's of the Division Hospitals during the Overland campaign are fascinating reading, because you see the first incarnation of what would later become the army's MASH units and today's FAST units. V/R |
McLaddie | 22 Oct 2014 7:01 a.m. PST |
Bayonet wounds were almost always fatal As this seems to be the general consensus, what is that conclusion based on? Any number of Napoleonic officers stated that they'd never seen bayonets crossed, but instead one side or the other ran. Just curious. |
67thtigers | 22 Oct 2014 9:10 a.m. PST |
Most bayonet wounds are in the back. There was little "fencing", but a lot of stabbing the fleeing foe in the back. |
TKindred | 22 Oct 2014 11:03 a.m. PST |
Two accounts come to mind from my own research. The 1st was during the 7-day's battles in 1862. The 3rd maine Infantry had been posted behind a rail fence, in advance of the federal battle line. They were prone, with a ot of cover because the grass and weeds had grown up a fair amount. As the confederate line advanced towards them, Lt.Colonel (later Colonel of the unit) Moses Lakeman wrote that "we rose up and fired a volley, then pitched into them with bayonets and clubbed muskets, and drove them back over a mile." Jonathon Newcomb, of Co. A, 3rd Maine wrote about the action in Pitzer's Woods on 2 July 1863. He said that the confederates charged at them with bayonets level and they got into a brisk and vicious close-quarter battle." The same thing was repeated in the Peach Orchard, where the 3rd Maine got into a melee with bayonets with one of Barksdale's regiments before being overrun and the survivors fleeing back towards Cemetery Ridge. The 7th Maine had a sharp bayonet fight in the orchard of Piper's Farm at Antietam, and another one in the Wilderness, both times reporting that their saber bayonets served them well. The contemporary accounts of the combatants of both sides are at odds with the historian's views of bayonets not being used in actual combat. |
Trajanus | 22 Oct 2014 12:20 p.m. PST |
Remember that the injuries of those killed outright, or considered mortally wounded were not recorded. Absolutely – Taken as read, hence my comment on Artillery rounds. You can see that effect in the shell casualties and "cannon shot wounds" as well as the bayonet. Being hit by a shell fragment may be survivable, being clipped by a 12pdr Ball not so much! |
Trajanus | 22 Oct 2014 12:32 p.m. PST |
As this seems to be the general consensus, what is that conclusion based on? Any number of Napoleonic officers stated that they'd never seen bayonets crossed, but instead one side or the other ran. It's often attributed to the psychology based concepts of – Defensible Space, or Territoriality. In the Napoleonic Wars more actions were in the open field, so there was nothing to ‘own' other than grass. That being the case, running in front of a bayonet charge was an easy option, what have you got to get killed over? A field fortification, or a rifle pit, or even a ‘scrape' along a unit's front marks out their turf. Then it becomes caveman stuff and people fight over it. Obviously that's something the Civil War didn't start out with but later became an accepted part of tactics. Military psychologists are still using this theory to examine the ‘will to fight' right up to the present day. |
67thtigers | 22 Oct 2014 12:56 p.m. PST |
"Being hit by a shell fragment may be survivable, being clipped by a 12pdr Ball not so much!" Although one poor sod had an exploded 12 pdr shell removed from his posterior. Don't know if that's lucky or unlucky…. |
ironicon | 22 Oct 2014 1:07 p.m. PST |
"Then give them the bayonet".-Stonewall Jackson |
McLaddie | 22 Oct 2014 8:26 p.m. PST |
I'm quite willing to accept that bayonets were used. It just seems you'd want a little more than adjectives in understanding what happened in a ACW melee. For instance, the 3rd Maine in the accounts quoted above was in two "brisk and vicious close-quarter battles" ending with the regiment turning their back and running. The 3rd Maine started with 196 men and 14 officers. Casualties were: 1 officer and 17 men killed, 2 officers and 57 men wounded, 45 men missing. Now, even if we assume that ALL the men killed were with a bayonet, that's only 8% or 8 out of a hundred though over 100 were casualties or MIA. Considering they were overrun, certainly most of the 45 missing were prisoners, but as the Union retained the field, those killed would have been accounted for with a margin for error. If we followed the statistics that started this thread, we would be be surprised if one of the wounded was injured by a bayonet. It would be more realistic to see only part of the killed being from bayonets, which raises the question of how many bayonet casualties are caused by even 'vicious' melees? One example doesn't make a rule, but it does raise the question. |
Blutarski | 23 Oct 2014 3:25 a.m. PST |
DuPicq ("Battle Studies") was of the opinion that a defending unit in the field rarely stood to oppose a bayonet attack that had succeeded in "closing to contact". He wrote that the defenders would typically break and flee before actual physical contact occurred, with laggards being stabbed in the back. I am also of the opinion that period medical records cannot be used to compare battlefield weapons lethality. They largely only count surviving wounded who were able to make their way to an aid station. The higher the lethality of the weapon, the fewer surviving wounded arrived to be counted by the doctors. Hence bayonets and artillery were quite likely a great deal more lethal than they have been given credit for. A similar sort of phenomenon was encounters by WW2 operational research into causes of bomber losses over Germany. B |
Trajanus | 23 Oct 2014 8:04 a.m. PST |
I think you have to exercise some caution with DuPic as he was locked into European tradition and his only first-hand experience was in the Crimea, which was very close to Napoleonic battle and his fatal involvement in the Franco-Prussian war. These interspersed with a stint of Colonial Warfare. Also his prime military influence is often cited as Bugeaud – one of Napoleon's Generals. My point being he had no knowledge of the American Civil War and its differences nor as far as I know tried to draw any conclusions outside of European conflicts. So it's risky using his opinion on something it doesn't relate to. Bayonets may well have been more lethal than we give credit for but the other part of that conundrum is how often they were really used. |
McLaddie | 23 Oct 2014 11:04 a.m. PST |
It surprises me at times to see the technical thought that went into such a simple weapon. Bayonets were given "T" shaped blades or triangular to create wounds that would be difficult to close. The concave area on the blades of bayonets was there to save on metal, but also to allow air into the wound so suction caused by the surrounding skin sealing around the blade wouldn't occur, making it easier for a soldier to pull out the blade. Blades had rounded edges because the point was the 'sharp end' and dull blades wouldn't get stuck in bone. Technicians before and during the ACW tested blade configurations on pig carcasses. |
ironicon | 23 Oct 2014 12:30 p.m. PST |
Triangular shaped blades created a wound that was almost impossible to heal. I was told that they were outlawed by law. |
McLaddie | 23 Oct 2014 5:35 p.m. PST |
When were they outlawed…by law? They certainly existed in the 19th Century. I have a bayonet that was used in the Civil War and then sold as war surplus to France and carried in the 1870 war. It was a sword bayonet, but It had a ridge on the top making a 'T' cut. |
guineapigfury | 23 Oct 2014 6:22 p.m. PST |
I think we're missing something here … close combat wounds only occur in close combat. A guy shot in the arm during a firefight 100 yards from the enemy can walk to the aid station or be carried by his comrades if they hold the ground or retreat in good order. If a regiment is running away, anyone getting bayoneted by the enemy isn't going to get away. So presumably you've got to account for a lot of men killed in close combat who were then buried by the enemy if they held the field. I'm guessing they didn't tabulate the causes of death for their foes. |
McLaddie | 23 Oct 2014 8:19 p.m. PST |
So presumably you've got to account for a lot of men killed in close combat who were then buried by the enemy if they held the field. I'm guessing they didn't tabulate the causes of death for their foes. It all depends on who holds the field at the end of the battle. There were efforts at regimental level to find and account for losses after a battle. There are even photographs of men hunting for and finding fallen comrades after Antietam and Gettysburg. The cause of the wounds might not be known, but as above with the 3rd Maine, it is still possible to draw a circle around the possibilities. |
Trajanus | 24 Oct 2014 3:11 a.m. PST |
Bayonet wounds were almost always fatal, or light enough that you could be patched up at the field dressing station and sent back to your unit.Only those injuries which could not be handled at the field dressing station were sent by via ambulance to the Division Hospitals So far, I'm liking this as the best explanation of how OR figures could be lower than I expected but it still means to me that either a heck of a lot of people died as a result of being stabbed, or not many people were stabbed at all. Or at least not seriously. |
Trajanus | 24 Oct 2014 4:05 a.m. PST |
Some lines grabbed from the OR. I swear if I read "at the point of the bayonet" again I'll scream! "The bayonet was freely used on both sides, the enemy fought desperately, and nothing but the formation of our attack and the desperate valor of our troops could have carried the point. Not a shot was fired by [my] men until they mounted the works."
"At the time we advanced on and drove the skirmishers of the enemy, part of my line engaged them in the wood in a well-sustained hand-to-hand conflict, using the bayonet freely" "There we lost many of our best and bravest men. It is believed that the enemy suffered considerable loss from the bayonet, which our men used freely over the enemy's works, from which the regiment was only driven by the force of superior numbers." Lieutenant Johnston, of the One hundred and Twenty-first New York, received a bayonet wound through the thigh. Private O'Donnell, Ninety-sixth Pennsylvania Volunteers, was pinned to the parapet, but was rescued by his comrades. "Colonel Jeffords, commanding the Fourth Michigan, was thrust through with a bayonet while gallantly attempting to rescue his colors from the grasp of the enemy." "Lieut. John Orr, adjutant Sixth Louisiana, was the first man to mount the enemy's breastworks on the 14th, receiving in the act a bayonet wound in the side" "The charge was impetuously made, and was an instance where bayonets were really crossed, several of the enemy being killed with that weapon and several of the Sixtieth now being in [the] hospital bearing bayonet wounds upon their persons." "In this charge we drove the enemy in great confusion and inflicted serious loss upon him, killing several with the bayonet." "A portion of the Twenty-third received his advance upon their bayonets, and men on both sides fell from bayonet wounds; but the enemy's strength was overpowering, and could not be resisted" Something there for everybody I think! I particularly like "several of the Sixtieth now being in [the] hospital bearing bayonet wounds upon their persons." OK, so where were these guys on Medical Reports? |
TKindred | 24 Oct 2014 4:33 a.m. PST |
An interesting bit on Hood's Texas Brigade and it's experiences with bayonets. From here: link Legend tells us that the bayonet was little seen in Lee's army, and many writers quote with approval the comment of artillerist Carlton McCarthy that "The infantry found out that bayonets were not of much use, and did not hesitate to throw them…away."27 In fact, bayonets seem to have been carried by the Texans throughout the war. The receipt for the initial issue of arms to the company does not list bayonets. It does however list scabbards, with the implication that bayonets were also issued at that time or shortly thereafter, and the Frank Chilton photo of the same period shows a triangular socket bayonet. Bayonets also figure prominently in accounts of the Texan battles. Polley describes a bayonet charge by the 4th Texas at Gaines Mill, and quotes brigade member William Hamby's description of using fixed bayonets to repel a Union cavalry counterattack.28 An account of the same battle by a lieutenant of the 5th mentions his men fixing bayonets to try to turn back a fleeing Georgia regiment!29 The detailed letters written by John C. West of the 4th Texas in 1863 also make clear that bayonets were in common use. He mentions a mock bayonet charge at a review in May, 1863,30and there are several references to using the bayonet for real at Little Round Top.31 West also left a detailed account of his own experiences during the first day at Chickamauga, noting that when the Texans broke the Union line, he took his bayonet off his musket and sheathed it so he could fire more rapidly. A bullet struck his bayonet in his scabbard and he was wounded badly by the flying fragments.32 Polley adds a story of a member of Co. D, of the 4th at who engaged in a bayonet duel Chickamauga with several Yankees.33 Some bayonets apparently did get too heavy during the brigade's trek to Knoxville. Polley reports that …While in East Tennessee, [some soldiers of the 1st] took a notion that they could march with greater ease if relieved of the weight of bayonets, for which they had never had any need and never expected to have, and they threw them away. When at Spotsylvania quite a number of them felt the point of bayonets in the hands of the enemy, they "saw the point" that such weapons were good things to have, and quiet was no sooner restored than they went in search of them and were soon well-equipped with them--securing many from the abandoned guns of the Federals, and borrowing, "unbeknowst" to the owners, others from an Alabama brigade of another division."34 The bayonets served well as entrenching tools during the Wilderness/Spotsylvania campaign,35and Polley mentions their use in the desperate defense of Ft. Harrison in September of 1864.36 27 Carlton McCarthy, Detailed Minutiae of Soldier Life in the Army of Northern Virginia, Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1993, p. 27. 28 Polley, Hood's Brigade, p. 60. 29 Polley, Hood's Brigade, p. 64. 30 West, p. 55. 31 Polley, Hood's Brigade, p. 169; Harold B. Simpson, Gaines' Mill to Appomattox, 2nd ed., Waco, TX: Texian Press, 1988, p. 140. 32 West, p. 107. 33 Polley, Hood's Brigade, p. 212. 34 Polley, Hood's Brigade, p. 238-9. 35 Polley, Hood's Brigade, p. 236. 36 Polley, Hood's Brigade, p. 253. |
Trajanus | 24 Oct 2014 8:49 a.m. PST |
Some interesting detail here showing men, rifles, bayonets and scabbards didn't always match each other! link |
d effinger | 25 Oct 2014 10:38 a.m. PST |
Slightly off topic but…. the NEXT book coming out in the "Maps of…." series is the Wilderness!!!!!!!!! Woo hoo!!! Don |
McLaddie | 25 Oct 2014 1:32 p.m. PST |
Yes, and it seems the all the men in a regiment never all had bayonets… |
Trajanus | 25 Oct 2014 4:29 p.m. PST |
Hey Don! That's good news, have you heard when? |
Trajanus | 25 Oct 2014 4:31 p.m. PST |
Yes, and it seems the all the men in a regiment never all had bayonets… Indeed! I wonder if this was a Confederate supply issue, or if the Union had the same problem. I guess if people lost or ditched them it could happen to both sides. |
guineapigfury | 25 Oct 2014 9:56 p.m. PST |
If you've ever been in the military you stop being shocked at what your dumber troops can misplace. My personal favorite was a guy losing a pistol magazine that was literally strapped to his leg (in one of those Robocop holsters). |
1968billsfan | 06 Nov 2014 4:09 p.m. PST |
If you are in a melee and have shot your muzzle loader and are mixed up with a bunch of people from both sides. What do you do? Do you put down the base of your club/spear , take both hands off of it to open your cartidge box and then your cap box and raise your arms to pour in powder? During that time, your are helpless. The butt of the musket (useful for bashing in somebody's face) is on the ground. The pointy end is waving around your head while you try to pour powder down that 2/3 inch hole. You are balancing this act together, while some bad guy can run up to you and spear you in the guts or crack open your head with his musket butt, which he has two hands on. I would suggest that anytime that enemies got intermingled, the spear/club became the weapon of choice. It would only take an "accident" of terrain, stuck in a trench, smoke, something to hinder running away to get this to happen. |
Inkbiz | 10 Nov 2014 9:39 p.m. PST |
Trajanus, slightly off topic but your link of Oct 24 is curious in that it also shows a bit more men possessing knapsacks (and interestingly these are Confederates) than most recent figures manufacturers seem to portray. |
TKindred | 10 Nov 2014 11:26 p.m. PST |
Inkbiz, The Oct 1864 report of clothing & equipment issued from the Richmond Depot shows that THAT depot, at least, issued more than 80,000 knapsacks from it's stores since the previous report. This seems to be born out by contemporary CS accounts that talk about carrying knapsacks, inspection reports, etc. Over the past 30+ years I have come to believe that the adage of CS troops pared down to a blanket roll and a musket is in keeping with the post-war revisionism of the Confederate soldier being under-fed, under-supplied, under-armed, etc, in order to help soften the loss. |
|