Dear Editor,
Recently THE ZOUAVE has been carrying articles and correspondence concerning comparisons of ACW figures, and particularly Stone Mountain and Freikorps. Although I do not wish to fuel the fire, I would like to make an observation.
In my opinion, Freikorps generally makes a better figure as regards detail, proportions, and poses. However, the figures are extremely brittle and, in fact, 30% of the last order I received had broken rifles or bayonets. Since the figures are subject to use (and abuse) on the playing table, I tend to prefer Stone Mountain for the "generic" Confederate or Union regiments. On the other hand, because of the fine workmanship of the Freikorps figures, these are used by me for those "special" regiments, such as the Louisiana Tigers, Iron Brigade, and Irish Brigade. In the knowledge that this resolves absolutely nothing, I remain sincerely yours.
Dear Editor,
I am very pleased with THE ZOUAVE. Perhaps in the future a poll can be taken among your readers concerning the rules systems used, frequency of gaming, and the size of gaming groups.
(Editor's Reply): I like the idea and am requesting that each club send in a letter giving the above information. We discontinued using applications some time ago, but at last count JOHNNY REB led the pack by a fair amount, followed by ON TO RICHMOND, RALLY ROUND THE FLAG, STARS 'N BARS 3RD EDITION, and THIS HALLOWED GROUND - in that order.
Dear Brian,
Your remarks in Issue #6 regarding rifled artillery fire accuracy were thought provoking, but might be misleading to gamers trying to evaluate battlefield effectiveness, so I decided to write in with a few comments on the subject.
Wargame designers generally fall into one of two camps. They are either "hardware" men or "environmentalists". Your artillery article seems to place you in the ranks of hardware men on this particular issue. Being of the environmentalist school, I must consequently respond.
The Model 1861 3" Ordnance Rifle had a maximum range of 3972 yards (2 1/4 miles), while the 12 pounder Whitworth had a range of 10,000 yards (6 miles). We environmentalists concede that under optimum conditions guns of these types could hit small stationary targets at long range, but we feel that wargame rifled artillery "to hit" rules must reflect the effects of fire over a period of time (15 minutes in JOHNNY REB), not just one shot. They must also consider the many elements of the battlefield environment which effect accuracy.
One factor that dramatically effects the ability of any artillery to hit is smoke. This is, of course, true of all weapons that are sighted by eyeball. A salvo or two from a battery will envelope the battery in smoke, especially to its front. If firing is sustained for any length of time, visibility in front of the battery will soon be close to zero. Batteries usually fired at a much slower rate than they were capable of to allow the smoke to clear in front before the next shot was fired. These factors - lack of visibility and reduced fire must be considered in rules.
Another important factor effecting accuracy is movement of the target. It is one thing to carefully sight in on a clearly visible stationary target and hit it. It is quite another circumstance altogether to hit that same target if it is moving, especially if the target is trying to be as unobtrusive as possible.
The uneven character of even relatively flat ground tends to help mask moving targets. At the 1986 Bull Run reenactment it was amazing to see how often lines of troops were masked from my view by undulations in the ground, even though these troops were only a few hundred yards in front of me. I am not talking here about big hills significant enough to be represented on wargame tables that depict ground scale at 1" = 40 yards. Such minor dips and swales could not be represented in this large scale, but some rule consideration should be given to this very real circumstance of combat. In JOHNNY REB, we have automatically factored into the rules these intangible factors that effect performance in the battlefield environment.
Add to the above the elements of fear, mental confusion and fatigue, not to mention defective ammunition, and I feel that we battlefield environmentalists make a compelling case that, in the main, the maximum technical potential of hardware is not the measure of battlefield effectiveness. I was glad your article mentioned the fact that long range artillery hits did not generally cause many casualties, but were most effective at disrupting morale and formation. I certainly agree with you on this point.
I have the honor to be, general, with respect, your most obedient servant,
(Editor's Reply): For those who don't already know, Dean is quite a Civil War historian and is also responsible for much of the historical research that went into JOHNNY REB. I happen to agree with everything that was said in the above letter. My article's intended point was to show readers that rifled artillery COULD be used as a "sharpshooter" weapon. Knowing this, troops would often get a bit shaky if artillery was anywhere in the vicinity. If the first shot makes a hit (that one is unobstructed by smoke and is taken at the whim of the gunner), you can bet that the target unit dove for cover!
Dear Brian,
I have a question about the JOHNNY REB rules. At present, we in Las Vegas are engaged in replacing our 22mm ACW Eastern theater armies with a 15mm Stone's River force. We like to base our forces on the historic OB's from a given campaign, and herein lies the problem. The staple artillery piece of the early western armies was the rifled 6 pounder.
JOHNNY REB does not provide for a rifled 6 pdr. in the matrix for artillery types .......
I feel that a word or two should be passed on about the rifled 6 pounder. At the start of the war a large number of 1841 6 pdr. smoothbores were rifled per the James system. While the system did not hold up as well as the normal hexagonal riflings, it was widely used by both sides. Warren Ripley in his "Artillery and Ammunition In the Civil War" states that care should be taken when checking out reports that list "James Rifles" to avoid confusion with the less numerous James 12 pdr. rifle. What we have found is that the forces at Stone's River used quite a few of the 6 pdr. rifles.
Next, we would like to ask if anyone has an idea on what small arms the Confederate forces carries at the battle. We currently have a list of small arms for the Federal forces but lack similar data for the Confederate side.
(Editor's Note): I spoke to Dean West and he told me to tell you that, for all practical purposes, the 6 pdr. smoothbore, once rifled, became the equivalent of the 12 pdr. James Rifle. If you subscribe to Midwest Wargamer's Association Newsletter, put out by Hal Thinglum, Dean did an article not long ago on artillery at Chickamauga, including a few words about the 6 pdr. rifle.
Dear Sir;
Enclosed please find my check to cover the 1988 dues. I look forward to another year of receiving your fine magazine.
Dear Editor:
Here are my dues for 1988. You're doing a great job. Keep up the good work and please keep the scenarios coming!
Back to The Zouave Vol II No. 1 Table of Contents
Back to The Zouave List of Issues
Back to Master Magazine List
© Copyright 1988 The American Civil War Society
This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com