PDA

View Full Version : Prior military service vs. reenacting style



tompritchett
06-15-2006, 09:52 AM
Over the years I think that I may have noticed a general trend in reenacting styles versus prior military background. However, being a scientist, I won't jump to conclusions without actually acquiring more definitive data to test my hypothesis against. Thus the below poll (besides I wanted to test the polling system).

Basically I wish to poll the readers about their primary reenacting style (mainstream versus campaigning) versus their prior military background. If you do both styles please pick the one that you do most often. Also, if you were a reenactor first who then later joined the military, please consider yourself a non-veteran unless your military service as caused you to change your primary style of reenacting. I am not discounting your service to the country but rather am focussing exclusively on how your service to your country has affected your choice of reenacting styles.

The options will be:

Combat Veteran - Primarily mainstream
Non-Combat Veteran - Primarily mainstream
No military service - Primarily mainstream
Combat Veteran - Primarily campaigner
Non-Combat Veteran - Primarily campaigner
No military service - Primarily campaigner

At the end of the polling, I will summarize the results and let you know whether or not my initial hypothesis was correct or not.

P.S. I know that posting only here may bias my results as this primarlly a Mainstream board so could a couple of the campaigners post a link to this poll over on the AC forum. Thanks.

Henry_Rifle
06-15-2006, 11:35 AM
Tom,

Asking if someone is mainstream or campaigner is like asking them whether they drive to work or take their lunch.

tompritchett
06-15-2006, 12:06 PM
Over on the Camp Chase forum there is an interesting discussion just about what these labels do indeed mean especially in terms of events. However, it would be safe to summarize that in terms of events the labels are very subjective and relate to each individual's perceptions of the meaning. Therefore, for the poll I really do not care how others may perceive one's reenacting style but rather how the individual, himself or herself, personally perceives hsi or her primary style to be.

FWL
06-15-2006, 02:45 PM
Tom I have always found it very interesting how many veterans I meet in the hobby. I'm not a veteran, never served. But the stories I have heard around the camps fires (at non-FP events) are chilling especially from the Vietnam Vets.

I asked a couple of Vietnam combat vets why they liked CW reenacting so much. The comment was automatic it provides "some" of the camaraderie they had in their "real units" without the danger.

indguard
06-15-2006, 05:38 PM
Personally, I don't think there is much connection to anything or anything to reveal by how many actual veterans (combat or no) are in the hobby.

However, I think I have noticed that fewer real veterans go "hardkewel" than go Mainstream. But, that too might just be an illusion that only I have experienced.

reb64
06-15-2006, 05:46 PM
sounds about right. I remember the ealry service days were, just couldn't wait to try on all the new issued gear and wear the uniforms around everywhere, gung ho. After twenty years, you chill out a bit. Reenacting is the same then, the vets are more relaxed, focused on the main tasks, non vets are more harcore not having their bones worn down a bit, focused on the details.

tompritchett
06-15-2006, 09:22 PM
However, I think I have noticed that fewer real veterans go "hardkewel" than go Mainstream. But, that too might just be an illusion that only I have experienced.

That was an apparent trend that I had noticed among the various reenactors I have met and have interacted through emails and forums and currently is seeming to emerge from the preliminary poll results. It will be interesting in seeing how the final numbers play out.

FWL
06-16-2006, 08:27 AM
That was an apparent trend that I had noticed among the various reenactors I have met and have interacted through emails and forums and currently is seeming to emerge from the preliminary poll results. It will be interesting in seeing how the final numbers play out.


Tom in all fairness to test your thesis, you need to post this same poll on AC forum. Lets face it both forums have different "sample populations". This forum tends towards more mainstream reenactors than the AC forum. If you did it in both places and adjusted the results by the total number of respondents I think that would give a clearer picture.

Since I have generally stopped going to mainstream events I can't say much about them. However at the campaigner/cross over events I have gone to I have noticed allot of vets in the units. In fact this was a topic of discussion at Shenandoah 62 around company B's camp fire. I would say out of the 6 or so of us only 2 had not served.

AZReenactor
06-16-2006, 10:12 AM
I wonder if more mainstream reenactors could also mean more mainstream veterans. Of course the other side would also be true. More mainstream reenactors also means more mainstream non-veterans. (Especially if one counts all the wimens and childrens in the military camps.)

In the end all the interpretations will be based on the views of the interpreter, not really on the statistics themselves, right? Why not just put the conjecture out in the open with out the facade of a survey? ;-)

tompritchett
06-16-2006, 04:24 PM
Tom in all fairness to test your thesis, you need to post this same poll on AC forum. Lets face it both forums have different "sample populations". This forum tends towards more mainstream reenactors than the AC forum. If you did it in both places and adjusted the results by the total number of respondents I think that would give a clearer picture.

Done. For those who do monitor both forums, I ask that you only vote in one poll and not the other. Thanks.

FWL
06-16-2006, 04:30 PM
Done. For those who do monitor both forums, I ask that you only vote in one poll and not the other. Thanks.


Thanks

Frank Lilley
"fomer Gallup Pollster Intern and Pollester Wanabe Mess"

PS its all in the sample size the larger your sample size the more the sampling errors are reduced (never can be eliminated). This way you should reduce the affects of self definition issue.

tompritchett
06-16-2006, 04:39 PM
Why not just put the conjecture out in the open with out the facade of a survey?

See post #6. Being a scientist I wanted to test my initial impression against hard numbers in as unbiased manner as possible. By initially posting the supposition, I was afraid that I might accidently affect the results.

tompritchett
06-20-2006, 11:35 PM
Even if you have no prior military experience, please respond. Based upon responses on another forum, I have realized that I may have accidentally biased this poll by selection iof the title.

RJSamp
06-21-2006, 05:10 PM
My father was a combat medic in the ETO during WWII....7th Army, 100th Div, 399th Rifle Regiment, 3rd BN, Co. K, 1st Platoon. Living out in the snow rain and mud for months on end was not a fun experience. A classic story.....no hot chow for a few weeks.....Thanksgiving they get the real deal and hot..... Dad gets the food in a rainstorm but keeps it covered up.....sits down, leans forward to dig in, and a deluge of rainwater comes off of his poncho into his mashed taters, cranberry sauce, and hot turkey breast. ******************** right he started to cry.

When I was growing up, Dad cooked Sunday AM breakfast. Always. Everything meant to be hot was served hot....warming plates in the oven, melted butter, hot syrup, straight from the griddle to the plate, and food kept warm with covers on it (aluminum foil, pot lid, keep it in the oven, etc).

Why? Because he never ever wanted to eat cold food like he had during the war.

Reenacting? He kind of chuckles at our efforts.....you can't reenact the fear, misery, ill health, fatigue, mind dumbing boredom, filth, and horror of campaigning and combat......no matter how great your clothes and research..... wonder about the results of your poll if being a military veteran in combat conditions would change the way they reenacted

We've got over a dozen mainstream reenactors in our battalion who were combat with firing veterans from GS/Panama/Grenada. My brother was a peacetime warrior in Baumholder, CAL Nasty Guards, and two tours behind the wire at Camp Victory Baghdad...now he's at 7th Army HQ in Heidelberg. Another mainstreamer.

RJ Samp

captain_kirk
06-21-2006, 10:54 PM
I served as a combat engineer for 8 years and at age 60 I joined the Alabama State Defense Force and am a Brigade HQ Commander. I added it up once, and over 2 and one half year have been spent sleeping on ground, with and without canvas. I make many events, but as a company commander in the :p 4th Alabama, I make officers call from "Fort Ramada". Enough is enough!!!!

major
06-27-2006, 09:14 PM
Kirk
I have sent you several e-mails about the gun deal and I don't get any response. Are you getting my mail?
Terry

tompritchett
06-28-2006, 04:26 PM
Unfortunately this now the only version of this poll still online as it appears that the AC version has been deleted. Because it is the end of the semester, again, where I teach, I had not been logging into the AC over the past few days so I have no idea what message flow may have caused the decison to be made. I have left a PM with a senior moderator asking for clarification but would appreciate any feedback from members here who were monitoring the thread there.

A real shame because the results there were very enlightening in several ways. In particular the last time I checked, it appeared that a slight majority of those that viewed themselves campaigners had prior military service - a trend not seen in the responses here. Since the AC has a much larger campaigner audience, the loss of that data essentially kills the whole purpose of the poll. D*mn shame.

tompritchett
06-28-2006, 11:28 PM
As I posted elsewhere, the version of the poll posted on the AC forum has been pulled. Thanks to Elizabeth Clark, I was able to retrieve the results at the time the poll was pulled. They are as follows:

123 voters
Combat Veteran - Primarily campaigner 21
Non-Combat Veteran - Primarily campaigner 32
No military service - Primarily campaigner 47
Combat Veteran - Primarily mainstream 4
Non-Combat Veteran - Primarily mainstream 9
No military service - Primarily mainstream 10

Popeye
07-04-2006, 10:09 AM
To see the large margin for non-military campaigner, I wonder what the numbers break down like. Are these kids that are of age to serve but for whatever reason, most lame, do not? Are they men of older age that for whatever reason, ,mostly lame, chose not to serve? I have to wonder, why would those of non-military service opt for the campaigner method? Why would they want to try and get a "taste" of what it was like for those men? Even a peace time Army spends time in the field and though your not ducking and dodging live rounds, you can to some degree, afford yourself a small 20th-21st century sample of life in the field. It is vastly different today than it was then or, in WWI or WWII or Korea or Viet Nam, but still some elements of life in the field under combat conditions, will never change.
Any thoughts on why so many non-military take the campaigner route vs. the mainstream?
I will never accept, not that anyone needs or wants my approval or blessing, going to college out of high school and "so I was not able to serve". Yes, we are all able to serve right out of high school for 2,3 or 4 years and then get out and go to college. Too many use it as an excuse and it's lame at best. I call it other things. I understand that there are medical conditions to prevent service but, that's the only reason I can accept. I even read that some chose not to serve because Jimmy Carter was the President! WTF!? That's when I served, and Reagan too.....who is president makes no difference. My father served under 6 different Presidents. Am I to understand that he should have got out for this one, gone back in for that one, gotten back out for the other one and back in for another? I can only shake my head in disbelief!
None of us have to serve, that's the beauty of living in this country. However, I believe that because we have that right, we should all consider it an honor to serve, peace time or not and, we should be proud to have done it as a first order of life after high school.

Keith "Popeye" Rayeski
NRA Life Member

Popeye

Footslogger
07-04-2006, 11:00 AM
It seems that reasons for and against combat Vets campaigning vary, although a different countries army I too am a combat veteran, serving my country in both N Ireland two tours and the Falklands, but still my primary style of re-enacting is still campaign. but I am the only one in my unit, all other vets I know over here combat or otherwise are all mainstream. Their reasons differ but the main one is they have done it for real and don't see the point of putting up with the hardships in a hobby. My reason is I feel a greater affiliation with the guys in my unit because we share the tasks and certain hardships as I did with my buddies in the real army, and get a greater sense of camaraderie through campaigning, something I felt was lacking in my mainstream days (which I very soon got out of).
Just my 2c's worth.

Ol'Hickory
07-04-2006, 11:02 AM
After I left secondary school I thought i'd like to join the British Army in the Royal engineers, then thought about the RAF (Ground crew). But I thought i'd go to college becuase I hadent decided, two years later i am job seeking..but unlike others my age i WANT a job.

captdougofky
07-06-2006, 09:30 AM
Everyone in the Battery is a Veteran except one young man who's father just retired from active duty. Our overall comment about the A/C side of the hobby is if they want to do it that way fine for those of us who have been in the real service, been there done that and have the T-shirt.

Doug
Lyons Battery
Kentucky

DaveGink
07-06-2006, 06:25 PM
First off, I'd like to say hi, this is my first post.

I voted "Non-Combat Veteran - Primarily mainstream".

I spent 6 years as an Armor Crewman, (non-combat). That was from 1980 to '86. I was a tank commander on the M60A1's, A3's and first M1's. I guess I have a "been there, done that" attitude as well. Although I am just now looking at getting back into reenacting.

During my teens and up until I joined the Army in 1980 I was a reenactor (Cavalry [and Armor] nut since I was a kid) and a member of the SVR. I am now in my mid-40's and looking to get back into reenacting again (because my 14 year-old nephew has taken an interest). While I respect historical accuracy and museum-grade realism, and those that strive for it, I am definitely viewing this as a hobby and for family fun. Hopefully if I and my family do get into this we will not be turned-off by those who demand hand sewn button holes and the proper number of stiches-per-inch in my leather (Some of the things I have been reading on this site and elsewhere have me a bit concerned). Fortunately, the Unit I am talking to and will be meeting at an event on July 15th, seem to share my values that way (2nd U.S. Cavalry - Hartford, WI).

I am really looking forward to meeting them and possibly getting back into this hobby, and hopefully it will stay positive and fun for me and my family if we do. I really hope we wont get grief because we have stainless steel canteens and $35.00 forage caps while starting out.

Dave Gink,
Milwaukee, WI

tompritchett
07-06-2006, 06:47 PM
In order of service, M60A1's, M60A3's for AOBC, and then M48A5's. When I returned to my original Bn, they had gone back to M60's but I was busy being a Red-ey Platoon Leader, XO, and then Bn Spt Plt Ldr.

Infantry holds ground, Armor takes it! (ADA & Artillery just assists both of the others in their missions.) ;)

captdougofky
07-06-2006, 06:59 PM
Dave

I am part of a mainstream unit Lyons Battery 1st. Ky Vols C.S. on the field we do it right and safe, back at camp BIG COOLERS and fellowship, look for a unit with like in mine. The A/C side of this hobby is right in a lot of ways they just have a mean way of putting it across. I take my family so should you. Wall tents and coolers, I will not hold that against you.

Always Doug
Lyons Battery
Kentucky

Shortround
07-07-2006, 10:14 AM
In order of service, M60A1's, M60A3's for AOBC, and then M48A5's... Red-ey Platoon Leader...

Infantry holds ground, Armor takes it! (ADA & Artillery just assists both of the others in their missions.) ;)

Personally, I thought the old M48A5 was the best tank ever made for the reserve system. It was cheap for the tax payers and the equal of any Soviet tank.

I've never seen a Redeye, only the Stinger. Heck, by the first three to four years of the '80s the Redeye was long gone.

The "old" Artillery's job was not to assist the other's with their mission. It was to radiate the land in nuclear fires :) . But that was outlawed under a treaty in the late 80s :( .

My son's in BCT right now. He does not like reenacting. He wants me to buy a nice boat so we can take pretty girls on towed tubes behind the boat.

It is with artillery that war is made
Napoleon

Artillery is the God of War
Stalin

Our Artillery left the enemy dazed and confused
MacArthur

If this new round (VT) is adopted by all armies then we shall have to find some new way to wage war
Patton

"Field Artillery Puts Steel into the sky
Muslim puke prepare to die
Exploding shells make the ground quake
Allah creates but we cremate"

Signed,
A redleg.

MickCole
07-10-2006, 02:04 PM
This is a bit of a challenging question for me as I tend to be more "campaigner" in my persona, but infirmities stemming at least in part from my combat/military experience tend to keep me in more of a mainstreamer camping style.
I spent 7 years in the Air Force, mainly flying airborne communication reconnaisse patrol (see http://www.silent-warriors.com/) missions (RC-135, EC-121, and C-130BII backender responsible for monitoring North Vietnamese Air Force fights comms, and sending out appropriate alert warnings) over the Gulf of Tonkin and Plaines des Jarres. Accumulated a few hundred combat missions ranging from 10 to 24 hours in duration--enough missed sleep for a lifetime.:D
Also went through a few attacks at Rocket City (DaNang AB), including the big rocket attack on July 15, 1967. Slept in a tent about 200 yards from the active runway with F-4's, etc., taking off on full afterburner 24/7--more opportunities for missed sleep.:D
Which is a bit of long-winded way of saying I have enough experience in campaign-style sleeping to recognize the benefits of mainstreaming camping style.
Mick Cole

Frenchie
07-10-2006, 09:35 PM
"Ils s'aprocher et tirer vite (Get close and shoot fast)." - Marshal Ney's advice to the artillery.

reb64
07-10-2006, 10:22 PM
[QUOTE=Shortround]Personally, I thought the old M48A5 was the best tank ever made for the reserve system. It was cheap for the tax payers and the equal of any Soviet tank.


The m48 was good but ******************** at target aquisition, Its range finder required a stable platform, couldnt shoot on the move or until fully stopped and then maybe a chance for a first time hit, but more likely the seconfd or third. the first engine was gas as well.

Shortround
07-11-2006, 07:36 AM
"The m48 was good but ******************** at target aquisition, Its range finder required a stable platform, couldnt shoot on the move or until fully stopped and then maybe a chance for a first time hit, but more likely the seconfd or third. the first engine was gas as well."

The M48A5 was a stop-gap modification to the M48 fleet after the stocks of US Armor inventories of M60 tanks had fallen due to suppling tanks to Israel during the 1973 Arab/Israeli war. Indeed, I have reference material at my home which has pictures of Vietnam-era battle damaged M48A2 models being rebuilt at the Warren, Michigan tank plant to M48A5 standard. Modifications included a new engine deck, a new diesel power pack and transmission, a new 105mm gun (excellent weapon), modified track system, and revamped gun aiming system. The result was the M48A5 was the equal of the M60 or the M60A1. The M48A5 was not the equal of the M60A3 with the shoot-on-the-move ability. Conversely, the M48A5 was much better than the M60A2 missile tank with the 152mm gun firing the Shellaleigh (sp?) missile, kind of a cruddy pre-TOW anti-tank missile that never worked.

The M60A3 was the best model of the Patton (Pershing) series of tanks starting with the T26 of WWII. Indeed, what most American's don't know that the Patton is actually sort of evolved from a Soviet KV-1 tank. America was giving tanks to the Soviets in their fight against Germany. Stalin sent a KV-1 tank to the USA with a suggestion that if you're going to give us free tanks then could they be copies of this one? The Soviets copied the Superfortress and we used the KV-1 as a guide for tanks. Personally, I think we got the better deal. The US Army M-26 Patton tanks of Korea bested Soviet T34/85s. Ironic that the American son of a KV-1 should stop Communist armor in Korea.

Yes, the first models of the M48 were gas powered and armed with a 90mm main gun. However, that was a model from the mid-1950s and by the time this poster was in the Army all the M48s had been modified to M48A5 standard. Indeed, there was a proposal to modify the M48A5 to an M48A6 standard. This modification would have given the '48' the same aiming systems of the M60A3 for shoot-on-the-move ability and reactive armor that could absorb shape-charge warheads, such as the infamous RPG. The proposed M48A6 would have been the equal of Soviet T-72 tanks. However, the M1 and M1A1 were coming into full production and the proposal for the M48A6 was never seriously considered. The days of the 30 year old tank were coming to an end.

In service the M48A5s were generally assigned to National Guard or Reserve units. They were obsolete by the mid-1980s. By the early 1990s the M48A5 were gone out of the Army inventories. It is not uncommon to see them in front of VFW halls or National Guard Centers. The M48A5 and the M60 look very close except for the front armor.

The M48A5 was intended to be just a reserve system tank, not a first line tank. The exception to this was Korea were the M48A5 was a font line vehicle until the M1 production freed up stocks of M60 tanks.

The first models of the M48 would have been hard pressed to defeat a Soviet T55 in the late 1950s. Israeli ex-West Germany M48s modified to a near M48A5 standard had an excellent combat record in the '73 Yon Kippor war and was Israel's most powerful tank in that conflict until stocks of M60A1 tanks could replace them.

tompritchett
07-11-2006, 01:01 PM
The M48A5 was intended to be just a reserve system tank, not a first line tank. The exception to this was Korea were the M48A5 was a font line vehicle until the M1 production freed up stocks of M60 tanks.

When I was in AOB, we had a group of Marine officers training with us. If I remember correctly they were all going back to units equipped with M48A5's.
You are correct about the fire control control. The M48A5's that I saw had identical fire-control computers and range finders as the M60A1's that I had initially worked with.

Trooper Graham
09-07-2006, 09:25 AM
This was a very interesting thread to read. I agree with many of the comments made, too numerous to respond to. The poll is closed but I would have voted Combat/Mainstream. Mainstream because of personal reasons but not because of lack of authenticity. Comraderie and the never die intererst of military history replaces many bad memories and recalls the better times. I think the poll should have included what I really wanted to know is how many members who reenact/relive history are military retired. Spending three years is time served honorably but few can stay the time to retire. Like one poster wrote about his dad saying why do this because you'll never really know how it really was. Those are the ones I like to see respond. Why after 20-30 years involving combat, deprived of food, sleep, low pay, putting up with assinine officers, invasion of privacy and living today with disabilities do you retirees still feel the want or need to still put on a uniform.

For me the body is retired but not the uniform. It still hangs in the closet and still fits as it did 21 years ago. I started reenacting some part of history soon after. Some may ask, why get out after 20 years? Assinine officers come to mind. I guess it's sort of like the old saying "you can take the boy out of the country but you can't take the country out of the boy"

Rob Weaver
09-09-2006, 07:30 AM
I've shot and commanded the M60A1 and A3, and the M1. Missed the M48-series, but the fire-control is, as has been pointed out, the same as the A1. It was so satisfying to put steel on target with that tank! (The M60A1, that is)First you acquire the target, issue your fire command and pull the gun over so the gunner can acquire. Now drop down into the turret, mash your face against the coincidence range finder (mangling your glasses in the act) and spin the whiz-wheel until the images line up, or 4 turns from mechanical stop, which was 1200m. Either way, now you've left a good bit of skin off your knuckles on the turret ceiling. Hang on to something and yell "Fire" (when the Loader yells "Up!) Like a mini-aerobics class. Remember that "3 threat tanks direct front" gunnery engagement? That was my favorite! You had to open in something like 6 seconds and close in 27 to max the engagement. I also like the "firing from the short halt" engagement. There's something really cool about firing and then riding through the cloud of smoke and dust you created. Granted the A3 and the M1 are/were a lot more accurate and quicker to shoot, still the commander doesn't have all that old-fashionsed physicality.
I never shot the M60A2. It was gone before my time. As I understand it, that fire-direction system was just too smart for its own good. The commander had a target designator in the cupola which allowed him to lay on a second target from the gunner, and when the gunner completed the first engagement, with the push of a button, the turret would slew around to lay on that second target. Apparently if you pointed the gun at one fender, and the TC's cupola at an opposite rear fender, and hit the target designator, the turret would spin around in a circle, unable to acquire the second target, but also unable to stop itself from searching for it. I fired the M551 once and that was enough to convince me that there's such a thing as too much gun on too small a tank. But that's another story...

tompritchett
09-09-2006, 01:11 PM
Personally, I liked using the battlesight settings with the M60A1 and M48A5. Have the gun loaded, the range pre-set for the round and then aim for the base of the target. As long as the tank is closer than the pre-set range, you will hit the target as the maximum elevation of the round in flight would be less than the height of the tank. Then for the second shot, you can get a more accurate range, if necessary. Although our tanks had longer effective ranges than the Soviet tank, terrain would often dictate closer engagements where speed was of the essence since you would almost always be outnumbered - worse than the Union army outnumbered the Confederates. However, the range advantage really showed its merits during both of the Gulf wars where our tanks were able to engage and destroy the Iraqi tanks well outside their effective ranges. For non-tankers, the difference in effective ranges was due to the fact that Soviet tanks up to the T-72 used smoothbore cannons to maximize muzzle velocities, and thereby penetrating ability of the sabot rounds, while NATO tanks used rifled cannons to maximize rank. Sounds familar doesn't it.

Rob Weaver
09-10-2006, 03:32 PM
Remember when your gunner was trained to add "target forms" when firing? I used to love to shoot off the 105D sight, too.
The difference in range that American tanks can generate over the Soviet-era tanks isn't just the gun but the ammunition fired. Depleted uranium APDS is extremely hard, but also extremely light. For many years, the Soviets made sabot rounds out of cast steel. Not only inferior for penetration, but limited to about half the range of a DU round. They intended to make up for this deficiency by getting close quickly and overwhelming the enemy with volume of fire. Not all that different than engaging with an infantry brigade with smoothbore muskets.

tompritchett
09-10-2006, 10:40 PM
When did we shift to depleted uranium for sabot rounds? I always remembered the round being a special tungsten-steel alloy but that was back in Winter 79.


They intended to make up for this deficiency by getting close quickly and overwhelming the enemy with volume of fire.

That tactic goes all the way back to WW II. That is how the Russians broke the Tiger and Panther formations during the Battle of Kurst.

Forquer
09-11-2006, 06:06 AM
When did we shift to depleted uranium for sabot rounds? I always remembered the round being a special tungsten-steel alloy but that was back in Winter 79.

Tom -

I think the tank rounds with the depleted uranium cores came about after they were developed for the A-10 Warthog's 30mm chain gun. You can't argue with success.

Bummer
09-11-2006, 03:02 PM
......... what I really wanted to know is how many members who reenact/relive history are military retired. Spending three years is time served honorably but few can stay the time to retire. Like one poster wrote about his dad saying why do this because you'll never really know how it really was. Those are the ones I like to see respond. Why after 20-30 years involving combat, deprived of food, sleep, low pay, putting up with assinine officers, invasion of privacy and living today with disabilities do you retirees still feel the want or need to still put on a uniform.

For me the body is retired but not the uniform. It still hangs in the closet and still fits as it did 21 years ago. I started reenacting some part of history soon after. Some may ask, why get out after 20 years? Assinine officers come to mind. I guess it's sort of like the old saying "you can take the boy out of the country but you can't take the country out of the boy"

I'm one of the retired guys. I also am one of the old guys who went up Rich Mt. I think you said it with that quote in the end...there's just something about soldiering. As an old Colonel of mine once said; "You know you're a soldier when you learn to love to hate it."
I was in Leg infantry most of my career--which is about the closest to CW soldiering. So when things like not getting your knapsack one night happens, it's 'oh well, suck it up & drive on, it's nothing that hasn't happened before'. I am a history nut first and foremost--I want to feel a little about what the original CW soldier felt--not just any soldier, but the Civil War Union soldier. There are a lot of common experiences most any combat arms soldier gets, but there are also many that are unique to the Civil War armies--those latter are what I am looking for.
Sometimes at a good 'hardcore' event I get a little taste of the classic sh*t without the sugar that all field soldiers have gotten--then that's a good event because I know it is approaching reality.
As I said on a thread on the A-C forum during the hoo-haw about Rich Mt., I'm not doing this for fun, but for satisfaction--to step a ways in the original boys shoes for a bit. And that's why I do the authentic hardcore thing--it is closer to what it was like...and that's what I'm looking for.

I also do mainstream events too as any CW event is neat for me. I also shoot in the N-SSA for the additional experiences that can only be found there too.

Rob Weaver
09-11-2006, 09:18 PM
When did we shift to depleted uranium for sabot rounds? I always remembered the round being a special tungsten-steel alloy but that was back in Winter 79.



That tactic goes all the way back to WW II. That is how the Russians broke the Tiger and Panther formations during the Battle of Kurst.
Certainly by 84 when I went to OBC we were, although the ballistic data was still classified at that time. When we trained Soviet style tactics, everything was done according to drill, to keep it fast and minimize radio traffic (since only commanders could transmit!). In a 3-tank Soviet platoon, all three vehicles took their cues from the platoon leader. When he fired, they were expected to fire on the same target with 3 rounds immediately. They also intended to engage at approximately 25 mph, on the move, at less than 1700m. That's really a lot of fire coming down quickly in one place, remembering that the target area was bombarded by artillery both before and after each eschelon of maneuver troops.

KarinTimour
09-12-2006, 07:33 AM
Popeye, good to see you back. You asked who were these people who consider themselves campaigners, but who never served in the military. I'm one. I never served in the miliary, but I want to experience and portray what the women of the 1860s did. My primary interest is the average working woman -- I want to DO things at events -- laundry, cooking, cleaning, gardening, etc.

When I started reenacting, I spent eight months on the internet fora, reading, asking questions and getting advice. I wasn't interested in doing an upper class impression -- none of my family were (or are) upper class. My grandparents and gggrandparents were all farmers, factory workers, people who had to earn or grow what went on their family's table. That's who I wanted to bring to life in reenacting.

My first event was Red River II, my second was Hammonassett (classic mainstream event). I wasn't a member of a group when I started, didn't have a husband or boyfriend in a military unit. The mainstream events that I attended, it seemed like I drove 6 hours to sit in a field under a fly for the weekend. I know there are mainstream events that have demonstration areas or lectures for civilians, but I wanted to actually experience more of what they did, saw, spent their time doing.

I consider myself more of a "campaigner" or a "hardcore" citizen. I've refugeed (Outpost 2000, Bentonville 2000), been pillaged by occupying troops (Red River II), been caught in the cold rain with nothing but a floorcloth (Saylor's Creek), had Union troops disrupt a Confederate Soldier's Aid meeting, searching the members as they left the church where we were meeting (McDowell 2003), been caught on a back road in the rain with one friend by a lone, nervous, suspicious and trigger happy Union cavalryman (Saylor's Creek), begged Union troops for food (Bentonville), had a Union cavalry straggler come down a lonely road after us, scaring us so badly we crawled under some serious brambles where his horse couldn't follow (Bentonville 2000), been hunted down and dragged out of the woods by force by Union soldiers (Saylor's Creek), helped recapture (which involved a bit of scrapping) a Union POW who hid in our outhouse when the Confederates marched the rest off to prison (Outpost 2000), been refused permission to cross Confederate lines to my home -- necessitating spending the night bedded down with my family in the open on the side of a road (Recon II), been a smuggler (Inn at Pike's Mill 2005), a Confederate postmistress (Red River II), a barmaid (McDowell 2001), a cook hired by Union officers (many living histories at Fort Delaware), a Union army laundress (Harrison's Landing, Winter of '64), a poor farmer's widow (nearly always).

Spence Waldron said it pretty well:
"I'm not doing this for fun, but for satisfaction--to step a ways in the original boys shoes for a bit. And that's why I do the authentic hardcore thing--it is closer to what it was like...and that's what I'm looking for."

Me too.

Sincerely,
Karin Timour
Period Knitting -- Socks, Sleeping Hats, Balaclavas
Atlantic Guard Soldier's Aid Society
Email: Ktimour@aol.com