"Wargaming, Battlefield Interpretation, and writing" Topic

My newest entry in Ramblings of a Military Historian is on line under the title: Making the Connections.
johnmpriest.blogspot.com/2019/06/making-connections.html

The separate tables idea is interesting, but they'd all have to progress at the same rate in order to allow interaction, such as firing from one table to another.

Correct. All turns start and stop at the same time. We will be playtesting it.

I was a little surprised when your article stated "the average Civil War small arms fire occurred at about 200 yards". I would have thought it was less than that.

For example, Paddy Griffiths (in 'Battle Tactics of the Civil War') has a small table (with much discussion) that states the overall average musket fire as 127 yards. He lists averages at: Seven Pines as 68 yards; Other 1861-62 as 122 yards; 1863 as 127 yards; and 1864-65 as 141 yards. I recall other accounts I've read as also coming in well below 200 yards due to a variety of reasons (including terrain, inexpert marksmen, lower quality weapons [especially earlier in the war]). A close-range and bloody business.

That citation is attributed to Joseph Bilby's "Small Arms at Gettysburg." I agree it varied based upon the unique circumstances on the field. I will amend my statement to read "at Gettysburg."

The terrain at Gettysburg (not counting Culp's Hill) was more open that most battlefields of that war. That might account for it.

I would agree.

I have updated my last blog entry in response to a comment. Ramblings of a Military Historian by including a game turn chart.

Was firing at longer ranges deliberate on the part of controlling officers – as the war developed, did commanders become more aware of the effects of firing at shorter ranges – and in this, they were less inclined to close with the enemy?

JMP wrote – "That citation is attributed to Joseph Bilby's "Small Arms at Gettysburg." I agree it varied based upon the unique circumstances on the field. I will amend my statement to read "at Gettysburg."

This, of course, calls into question Paddy Griffith's judgments regarding the tactical efficacy of rifled muskets versus smoothbores based upon simple averaging of ranges mentioned in the OR. How unique was the field of Gettyburg? Failure to take into account the particular nature of the terrain and other conditions (visibility, time of day, etc) under which an engagement was fought renders the sample of dubious value. What would the range values have looked like with numerous accounts having been drawn from The Wilderness battles.

Another matter which concerns me is whether Griffith weighted or adjusted his data on the basis of the percentages of shoulder arm types actually in use. For example, at least 90 percent of the Union infantry at Gettysburg carried rifled muskets and, without having done the math, I would venture a guess that most of those were the most modern Springfield/Enfield models. This was not the case, for example, a year earlier in the Peninsula Campaign.

Strictly my opinion, of course.

All the above having been said, I fully agree with your latest blog post.

B