Question:

In 'Rapid Fire,' what defines a gunner within an infantry battalion?
--Alex Webb

Answer:

Specialist gunners are needed for artillery and artillery batteries. As I read the rules weapons integral to a battalion do not need gunners, whether 47mm or 6pdr or even infantry guns. It is not clear in the rules what is actually meant and even more unclear in the points. In last Sundays game when the 65mm infantry gun was uncrewed any battalion members should have beeen able to man it. Likewise if a dedicated antitank battalion of 47mm had been fielded then infantry from the battalion with the 47mm would have been able to man the gun if the AT battery became uncrewed. The 47mm gunners if they had lost the guns could have crewed the artillery.
--Shaun Groves

Question

I am confused - were Battalions used as a building block in ACW armies ?
--J. P. Filkins

Answer

In the early part of the war with regiments being raised at many levels the battalion was used, as were legions. The number of companies also varied from 8-12. Over the course of 1861 and the aftermath of First Manassas the armies pushed for a more formal structure, i.e 10 companies aiming for 1000-1200 fighting men and support. There are actually quite a lot of references to battalions in 1861 (One such being the famous 79th New York). As for the top up situation this is another one of those part myth situations - The Union did top up just as much as the Confederates, however, the Union problems were being caused by the short term enlistments. The Union tended to raise more regiments, because they could! There are several references to Confederates receiving recruits without weapons and then having to pick them up as they went along.

The other reason for Confederates being topped up more frequently was because each Confederate regiment saw almost twice as much action on average than a Union one!! By late war regimental strength had dwindled to crazy figures, a lot in the 300-500 range, certainly few near full strength. There wer regiments with numbers as low as 80 at times, less than the number required for a full strength company!
--Ian Hammond

Question:

Is it true the Confederate army was very badly equiped and uniformed?
--J. P. Filkins

Answer:

I wouldn't fully agree with the Confederate Equipment though, it seems to air the ragged rebel myth a step to far.

Although a lot is true for the early part of the war (1861) such as discarding of the bayonet, over the course of the war the Confederates were not as badly off as many believe and also came to recognise the worth of much of their equipment. There are far more witness accounts of Knifes and pocket pistols being thrown away within the first week of marching, besides if you threw away your bayonet what do use to hold candles?

Due to early Confederate success they managed to capture a fair amount of equipment, boots however (on both sides but particularly the south) were always a problem. Armament actually grew substantially better as the war continued, however it is interesting to note that many Union regiments at Gettysburg had substandard muskets! The best route to follow for Confederates is still fairly uniformed, although they wore butternut it would have still been cut to the proper patterns, and also trousers tended to arrive in separate issues to jackets and hats etc. During the late war the Confederate defensive tactics actually help resupply and I think the Army of Northern Virginia actually recieved new equipment as late as the Appotamax Campaign.
--Ian Hammond

*Dr O'Seedy is not a real doctor - its a pun relating to that disease suffered by most gamers ( which is not contagious) commonly known as obsessive compulsive disorder.

Not all the answers are correct - they merely are the viewpoints of one individual who may know more than the person asking the question.