Researching hearing loss and the artillery

[NoahBriggs]

Gents,

I will be working at a living history this June at Chatham Manor as a surgeon posted there. There will be a significant artillery demo as well, so I decided to research and discuss the damage caused by concussion and hearing loss.

I did the usual quick search on the forum regarding hearing loss, and I got this thread, which is the most applicable.

http://www.authentic-campaigner.com/forum/showthread.php?t=126&highlight=hearing+loss

It degenerated into a yelling match on the farbiness of wearing ear plugs, which is not what I am looking for.

I do not know all that much on artillery loading and safety procedures of the period. I have learned indirectly that the idea of the crew members leaning back from the gun with one hand slapped over their ear was not correct. Originally I heard it was supposed to help prevent the concussion from blowing out the eardrums. Then I heard this was not correct. I have no documentation to confirm or refute either of those statements.

I also do not know if it's accurate to say the Original Cast put either cotton wads or scrap cloth in their ears as ear plugs. It does not seem as reliable as modern foam ear plugs, which expand in the ear canal to take up the shape of the canal and prevent the sound from entering.

I do remember from my audiologist that loud, concussive sounds tend to be "heard" by the body by coming in through the mastoid bone. (This is the bone which has the socket for your jawbone.) In theory when out in the field, we should be wearing those big, shooters earmuffs, which cover the ear and the mastoid bone. In reality, though, you will only see that acceptable at NSSA matches.

All that being said, hearing loss and tinnitus (which I have) was a major complaint during the war, and was right next to Rheum and the trots as the reasoning for getting a pension after the War.

I am looking for (preferably) primary references which discuss hearing loss protection (or lack thereof) in both official (as in regulations, etc.) and unofficial (as in letter/diary entries describing how the artillerists coped with the noise). I am not looking for modern reenactor safety suggestions or where to get the best earplugs.

Thanks in advance for any assistance! I posted here instead of Szabo's Szoo 'cause I know the folks here are more interested in research than UVT* discussions.




*Us Vs. Them

[Ringgold]

Noah,

Shoot me a spark at ciderman@mindspring.com, I think I can help you out a bit with your research. It's a very interesting subject for us today, but it wouldn't have even raised an eyebrow back during the Rebellion.

[Danny]

Of course artillerymen of the period would cover their ears with their hands often enough to make it acceptable campaign behavior today. I'm surprised such questions, especially in this hobby where many strive for the immersion experience, yet occur. I'm not convinced (I'm naive perhaps) there are those who can possibly "know" that practices like hand-over-ear are "incorrect."

I agree it was probably not an issue either way at the time. Protecting the ear certainly was not critical official training procedure or even requiring written notice. Soldiers weren't directed to use corn cobs or big leaves after "necessaries" either.

Mankind has been covering their ears from loud noise (thunderclaps etc.) almost involuntarily since crawling out of caves. Another way to look at it is that it would be just as hard to prove that soldiers did not, at least occasionally, stuff scraps of cloth, cotton wads etc in their ears if they knew they were going to be "in it" for a spell.

Personally, I don't think the practice of hand-over-ear or even period earplugs can be legitimately challenged, especially as wads of cotton were commonly available as pulled from bales used as armor, slated to be burned, or in transit to be sold in many areas where soldiers passed on campaign.

Dan Wykes
Batt G 2nd IL

[sedlakchristopher]

Noah,

For your research, this is what the "manual" has to say on the topic.

FROM:
Instruction for U.S. Field Artillery. Prepared by a board of artillery officers.
Captain Wm. H. French, Captain Wm. F. Barry, Captain H. J. Hunt (1861),

can be found online at:
http://www.usregulars.com/nrhome.htm

"102. Ready. At this command, which is given as soon as the piece is loaded, or the firing about to commence, No. 1 breaks well off to his left with the left foot, bending the left knee, and straightening the right leg, drops the end of the sponge staff into the left hand, back of the hand down, and fixes his eyes on the muzzle. The heels should be parallel to the wheel, the body erect on the haunches, and the sponge and rammer held in both hands in a horizontal position, sponge-head to the left. The piece having been fired, No. 1 rises on his right knee, and returns to his position, as in the third motion of RAM. At the command LOAD, he steps in and performs his duties in the same manner as before.
….. (a little bit later) ...
At the command READY, he (#2) breaks well off to his right with the right foot, bending the right knee, and straightening the left leg; the body erect on the haunches, and fixes his eyes on the muzzle."


It continues to describe the duties of the rest of detachment and nowhere states anything about covering the ears.
Take it for what it is worth.

If anyone has the picture of the staged Ringgold Artillery at drill that they could post, it shows these positions wonderfully.
I know it is in hardcopy in L. VanLoan Naisawald's recent book Cannon Blasts: Civil War Artillery in the Eastern Armies.
I'm not sure what page as I don't have it sitting here.

Also, you would think John Billings, an artilleryman, would have said something about covering ears or making earplugs in Hardtack and Coffee?
I don't believe he does. Again, take it for what it is worth...

Best of luck in your research, eagerly awaiting your results...

Your obedient servant,
Chris Sedlak

[Danny]

It continues to describe the duties of the rest of detachment and nowhere states anything about covering the ears.
Take it for what it is worth. ...Also, you would think John Billings, an artilleryman, would have said something about covering ears or making earplugs in Hardtack and Coffee?
I don't believe he does. Again, take it for what it is worth...Chris Sedlak

Thanks Chris, good insights. Yet as a practical matter, keepin to the question posed on this thread, we know for certain, without any written resource to back it up, that artillerymen would occasionally shield their eyes from the sun, that they would cup both hands around mouth to shout, that they would cup one hand behind their ear to hear a call, and would also hand-over-ear in anticipation of a loud blast - not all the time for all of them, but absolutely some of the time for some of them.

We know this from servicing a piece ourselves today, where likewise no procedure was issued to do so. Goes again to the immersion experience.

We would, rather, need to see a period manual that specifically spells out that it was a violation of procedure to shield one's ear during battle or drill. We need that to justify an overstatement like "wasn't done." It might also help if we knew it wasn't possible to carry out manual instructions when covering one ear, but alas it is possible.

-Dan Wykes

[Vicksburg Dave]

I have as of yet to see a period photo of an artillery crew at drill where anyone had their hands over their ears. I have not read any accounts of such either. If you know of any, please show me, and I will change my mind on the subject. Moreover, unless you are in action as a single gun, it really does not help to cover your ear, for someone else is going to be firing on either side of you. The reason that the crew is supposed to be looking at different specified points and that the gunner uses hand gestures is because they will likely not be able to hear any commands during combat, or become confused with commands from adjacent guns. If I had the option of protecting anything dear to me in combat, my hands would be placed somewhere lower on my anatomy than my ears. <P>
I saw a reenacting crew once where both #1 and #2 turned their faces completely away from the muzzle, bent over, and covered their ears. Any oncoming infantry would have saw two fat rearends and a muzzle.

[Hank Trent]

I wonder... When more action photos were available at the turn of the 20th century, were artillerymen pictured covering their ears while servicing pieces where the drill would be similar to the Civil War?

Also, here's a pre-war discussion from Practical Observations on Aural Surgery and the Nature and Treatment of Diseases of the Ear by William Robert W. Wilde, London 1853:

Surgeon Thornton of the Royal Artillery, to whom I addressed a letter on the subject of haemorrhage, tinnitus, and deafness in gunners, writes to me as follows:--"Many of the men state that they have seen haemorrhage occur, but it is not so frequent as is supposed; dulness of hearing is, however, very common, especially among old gunners. The effect of position, with reference to the gun, is peculiar,--those men who stand nearest the muzzle feel the report most, but all who are to leeward suffer more than those to windward. Brass ordnance ring louder and make a sharper report than iron guns,--the usual effect of which, as I have myself experienced, is that of receiving a smart blow upon the tympanum; this, however, soon passes off, and leaves a singing or tingling sensation in the ear for two or three days. Another peculiar sensation is that of having water in the ear, as if after bathing. After some practice the ear becomes accustomed to the shock, and men learn by experience where to stand so as to feel the concussion least."

Here's something else:

It is a remarkable fact that comparativelyf ew cases of rupture of the drum occurring during the great artillery duels of our late civil war, have come under the observation fo surgeons, or at least that very few have been reported. I have seen a few cases of deafness resulting from concussion of the contents of the labyrinth, from the firing of artillery, especially when soldiers in the front rank lay down while cannon were fired immediately over their heads.

That's from Treatise on the Diseases of the Ear, 1869.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[Danny]

Dave -

There appears to be no written or photo account for either covering or not covering your ear with a hand while servicing the piece. That being the case how is it you require a source to change your view (to hand over ear), yet require no source to keep your view (no hand over ear) ? At a mimimum they are equally plausible.

Photography was not capable of recording combat or drill in action, so there's no mystery why a 2-second motion of a hand was never captured. If drill steps were recorded as stills, and some were, it was not a situation that required live ammo., especially around a large-format camera nearby, so no need to cover ear in that instance.

As you mention, covering your ear from a blast of your own piece only protects you from your own piece, not the adjacent piece. Still that qualifies as doing you some good, if only for one ear. A shield does not protect one from an arrow in the back, but for the sake of the spear in front one uses a shield.

The "two fat rearends" you mention could not have been watching the muzzle as per proper drill (holding two ears covered is not compatible with drill) so that is "farb." BUT covering one ear is compatible with drill and is effective when ear plugs are absent, a natural human response to noise in any event. These soldiers were no less human than we.

Perhaps your guns are not as big as ours (12 pdr. Napoleons + one banded 20 pdr., all actual tubes) but as many in this forum can attest, today if we didn't have ear plugs available most of us would at least some of the time cover an ear prior to "fire" -- my God, man, wouldn't you? Do you really think they didn't back then? I mean, think about it.

My vote: assume the boys covered their ears at least some of the time because there are no accounts or photos to the contrary.

Thanks again Hank, for the accounts you posted.

Dan Wykes
Batt G 2nd Ill.

[Vicksburg Dave]

I have to respectfully disagree. If no evidence exists showing that the artillerymen diverted from their training, then I will not assume that they did it differently. There are plenty of photos out there of men in different stages of drill, and most all of them are according to the manual. I thought that this is what being authentic is all about, documenting, rather than assuming.
<P>Look at the Harpers Weekly. It has tons of drawings of batteries in action. They show men dying, explosions occuring, and all manner of mayhem, but yet not one shows anyone with even one hand over his ear.<P>
<P>As for experience with cannon, I have trained over 100 artillerymen and have fired over 500 rounds of 1lb charges from a 12lb Napoleon in the last four years.

[Danny]

David -

You assume that artillerymen did not cover their ears, yet there is no documentation of that either.

Still, I respect that you have made a case and will try and get my mind around your way of looking at it. Were I to rebut, I would make these points:

As far as the authentic thing - Suppose that when you fired your over 500 rounds over the past few years you didn't have earplugs available, that you were actually in the circumstance of the period soldier you portray. Would you or would you not have covered your ears with your hand?

Consider also how very disciplined those stout boys of the CW would have to be, that none ever covered their ears around cannon fire, even though there was nothing in regulation drill to forbid it.

- Dan Wykes

[Vicksburg Dave]

Dan,
While I disagree with your position, I respect your gentlemanly manner of stating it. Maybe someone will uncover something definitive one day.

Cordially,

[3rdUSRedleg]

For the life of me I can not find the online Diary (posted script I read maybe 2 years ago) of a widow from a member of the Second United States Artillery Co. M who states that while at the Battle of Antietam her husband was hospitalised for head trauma from the cuncussion of the guns, ear bleeding, ect. and was eventually discharged, placed in an asylum where he later died from going crazy (brain damage). The widow was trying at the time to recieve War pension.

That information I lost in my last computer, but the story never has left my memory and amasement of the report of such force from the cuncussion.

I know just by live firing yearly with only half of a service load behind a projectile will blow out your eardrums and may cause bleeding if ear protection is not used..

There is a HUGE diffrence in the sound, force of its velocity, with a round infront of a charge versus the typical reenacting version of the same charge being free to expand in the muzzle without pushing a projectile....

With only experiencing a FULL SERVICE CHARGE behind a round a few times myself... I can not fathom the repeaded effect this would have brought to the soldier without shoving something in there ears!!

Hope someone comes across that report... it was very constructive with information on this particular thread....

[NoahBriggs]

Gents,

Thanks for posting your thoughts, pro and con. I, too, forgot there was a significant difference between blanks fired by reenactors and the live-fire reports using projectiles.

Mr. Pflum, I sent you an e-mail per your suggestion. I have not heard back from you; it's possible my address was dumped in your spam box. Starts with "bluemass . . ." if you care to look around. Otherwise I can resend the message.

[Robert A Mosher]

Although it does not directly address your query, Noah, I would call to your attention the experiences and practices of shipboard gunners. Even during the Napoleonic wars, seamen were aware of the dangers to their hearing from working on the guns placed below decks. The confined spaces, of course, concentrated the sound of the firing cannons such that some accounts noted sailors bleeding from the ears as the result of the repeated concussive noise. Seamen often wore rags or cloth bands tired around their heads so as to cover their ears when serving the guns. It didn't provide a lot of protection but was better than nothing. I offer the observation principally to support the thoughts that our ancestors did understand the risks to their hearing from the noise of firing cannon and were willing and able to do something about it.

Robert A. Mosher

[Jim Mayo]

Something else to consider. When firing amongst other guns it is impossible to shield your ears with your hand from the gun next to yours. At times it can be very defening especially when concrentrating on working your gun and the other one is fired catching you by surprise. That is why I don't worry about covering my ears and use cotton. earplugs or a piece of rag stuffed in the ear. By the way, Walmart carries flesh colored foam ear plugs 6 for a dollar. A cheap investment to save your hearing.

[NoahBriggs]

In my original e-mail to the NPS I mentioned the effects of concussion in enclosed areas like gun decks. It's worth noting that sometimes the sailors might report to sick bay with bleeding eyes, noses, ears and the like from the horrible concussions they received from the discharges. I would hate to have been on the gun crews on USS Monitor. Ouch!

The army may not have had as bad a time of it, but even in semi-enclosed areas where the batteries are positioned in open forts with gabion/sandbag protection there would be enough enclosure to amplify the concussive effects somewhat. Maybe not as bad as inside the gun decks, but enough to be potential problem later on in life.

Certainly something to amuse the Mythbusters on a future episode!

[Eric Wisbith]

As a former Marine Corps artilleryman (2 tours Iraq, 80,000 rounds fired in combat and training), also with 18 years of time in this hobby, hear (pun, get it?) are my thoughts.
First, you dont slap a palm over your ear, you stick your booger picker in your ear, without all the ridiclulous posturing you see at reenactments. Its almost casual, since you KNOW when your gun is going off, that's what the prepatory command, drawn out, is for.
Second, addressing the neighboring guns, most reenactments place the guns hub to hub, in a completely inauthentic manner. Artillerymen valued dispersion along the gun line then too. Guns placed in proper (dispersed) positions won't bother your ear.
Third, hearing and understanding data precludes earplugs (now) and cotton, rags, or feces (then) in your ears. Unlike reenactor artillerymen, REAL arty depends on correctly hearing, understanding and acting on correct data, instead of just making noise. There's a LOT of math involved. Hence the differences in giving commands in infantry and artillery, the long drawn out rythym of arty and the clear enunciation of numbers. You screw up fuze time, elevation, range, time of flight, etc. you miss or kill the wrong people.
Fourth, real artillerymen know where the blast is. We knew, just as the WW I quote shows, where we could stand and not even bother with plugs or jamming a finger in your ear. It was also "cool" to act nonchalant and relaxed on fire missions. We ran the gun, she didn't run us.
Fifth, hearing loss is part to the job. I have tinnutis and about a 15% hearing loss, but the cause of that is not the howitzers, but the fact I was also a 240G machine gunner. That girl hammering in my ears did it.
Eric Wisbith
Former Artilleryman, Charlie Battery, 1st Bn., 11th Marines.

[Danny]

...First, you dont slap a palm over your ear, you stick your booger picker in your ear, without all the ridiclulous posturing you see at reenactments. Its almost casual, since you KNOW when your gun is going off, that's what the prepatory command, drawn out, is for...

Eric -

Thanks for the first person input. It actually is the point I was trying to make about the immersion experience - my feeling that the boys back then would block their ears, and often enough to be considered authentic behavior today - though I'm reconsidering that approach. The thing you add is that a finger, more so than a palm, is the more effective for blocking the ear, as each of us can probably attest from experience.

In regards the prepatory command, that is part of period drill as well. That command does not somehow disallow the blocking of at least one ear as long as the complete stance is upheld, each position watching what it's supposed to watch. (Although both hands, or fingers, on both ears does interfere with proper drill stance).

While on the topic of stance, to what are you referring as "all the ridiculous posturing you see at reenactments?"

The period printed drill does in fact require an exaggerated stance for positons 1 and 2 in prep before fire, and certain pictures of staged drill (though I can't place where I saw them) indicate that sort of stance was actually practiced. I refer also to the very unatural posture of no. 3 when stopping the vent, the elbow cocked high out of the way in order for the gunner to site better down the barrel.

Dan Wykes
2nd Ill Bat. G

[Eric Wisbith]

the "ridiculous posturing" I refer to is the tendency for reenactor artillerymen to always try to look like they are in a drill compitition, at completely inappropriate times, ie combat or non parade situations. Also the spurious non-period "saftey" of reenactors and NPS tends to breed a fear of the gun, making reenactor artillerymen step gingerly about the gun, instead of taking control of it.

[ArtilleryNick]

First, I'd like to say that I've found this to be a very interesting topic. I've often wondered my self as to what impact being close to the cannons firing had on the men back then. Fortunatley, someone else brought up the subject since I've never found a good way of asking the question in a rather short and direct meathod.
Secondly, I've read over this topic a few times since it began and have been thinking over the comments about men never making mention of it in letters or journals, or books written post-war. Although I've never come across any instructions in any manuals, perhaps the topic of covering ears wasn't mentioned about because it was a common occurance. Of course, in the heat of battle when you're more concerned with actually staying alive, I could see how protecting the ears wouldn't have been a high concern.
Perhaps it's all a matter of priorities where we today may take the precautions to save our hearing since we're not comming under fire from other batteries or facing a wave of troops that could actually take us out for good.

[Todd Watts]

Not all of the NPS crews "step gingerly around the piece" but I have seen that as well. I volunteer with Stones River's crew on a regular basis, and work with the Kennessaw Mt and Chickamauga crews as well as we travel between each other's parks, and sometimes Wilson's Creek's crew. Stones River's crew and I believe Kennessaw's as well were trained by an older trainer that knew his stuff, and it shows as we have been trained and trained one another in this drill which is virtually identical to the manuals of the era. Chickamauga's crew on the other hand does things safely, but they do that "re-enactor" drill we deride as the "arse in the air", holding a hand over their ear and leaning way back. It does look ridiculous. #2 never held the worm by the drill and they didn't worm the bore after shots back then. That is of course re-enactorism and it sticks. People I guess expect to see it. At Stones River men were fighting over a large cotton field at one point and even infantry paused under fire to plug their ears with cotton. It seems logical that artillerists also would have picked cotton for this purpose. As anyone that has worked cannons at active events can attest, there is no time to watch the battle so that is a reason there is not a lot written by Civil War artillerists. They arrived, served the pieces, and left. Their "world" revolves just a few yards around their pieces, so that's about all they saw or talked about. Plugging ears would not really have been worthy of writing down probably. Artillerists were pretty deaf in a short while anyway. I think what caused them as well as us the most irritation is not the sound, but the concussions. Those of us that have been on a hot line know about this. Even with ear plugs, the shock wave the guns create quickly gets real old.

The rule of thumb taught me at the NPS by "the wise ones" that trained me and have been doing it "right" for 20 years is to simply "think like a soldier." Rest-assured that they didn't do the contortions and theatrical poses with each shot. They worked their guns like an old machine they were accustomed around, and their drill was probably fairly accurate by the book, but they didn't step "smartly" once they got off the camp of instruction field. When the gun was fired, they simply broke away about like the manual said, but the "new coolness" was long gone by the time any of them made it to battle. Just get out of the way and wait for it to fire, then roll it back up and start the drill again was how they probably were. Soldiers were and still are notorious for being as lazy as possible.:D

[KCLoewe]

Just to jump on board. I used to do artillery for 1812 on a six pounder (blanks were generally 1 pound of pounder - 1/2 a service charge). Something that was taught right off the bat was when the gun is fired look at the muzzle, open and breathe through the mouth. This I was explained equalized the pressure in your ears where you heard the bang but didn't get the concussion. This might explain the line posted earlier in this thread from a mannual that said "fixes his eyes on the muzzle".
I don't know what this would be like for the CW manual as the gun I served on the drill required the to front persons (loader and sponge rammer) to remain between the barrel and the wheel leaning on the axle when the gun was fired. A slight bit closer then what I see in CW. In the years I did this I never had an issue with hearing. My tinnitus I had before.

[Todd Watts]

I personally think the reason they fixed their eyes on the muzzle was to know when their particular gun had fired and they could start the load sequence all over. No command of "Load!" had to be given once firing began, only "Cease Fire!" was given to stop it. In a line of artillery, it is confusing and can quickly become impossible to hear your own gun go off with enough certainty to know it is safe to approach your gun again. This is especially true once the men are deaf. And you can forget about any verbal commands out there.:D

The trick of opening your mouth has some merit in high-explossive stuff, but I haven't noticed it helping any at all with black powder. When dealing with h.e. artillery or explossive devices, standing on the balls of your feet, and yawning like you are trying to pop your ears can help with the sudden pressure wave that does hurt you. But black powder doesn't really make that sort of rapid increase of air pressure followed by rapid depressurization of the area and then sudden repressurization of the area. These are those white rings you can see on aerial cameras when h.e. bombs hit.

[Danny]

Have to comment on the remarks about the "reenactorism" of using the worm during battle sequence and drill.

Our powder is in aluminum foil -- it doesn't just dissipate like cloth bags -- so we have to remove it after each fire. At least for a genuine Napolean 12 pdr., this is done to avoid the foil balling or otherwise interfering with a clean, predictable, ignition of the next charge.

So there we have it -- the one reenactorism: foil, is the reason for the other reenactorism: worming in battle sequence and drill. A better thing to ask is why we aren't using cloth bags today. The answer is because we have a very limited battle time compared to period battles - a few hours of use and we're done for the day. Cloth bags don't store well, are more susceptible to leaks and errant embers, cigars or sparks in the area, and who has the time to make up too many of them ahead of time. Aren't they closed with needle and thread?

It doesn't mean we don't understand how the worm was employed in CW period. It at least was available and was used on the front line at least occasionally so it's not exactly improper for authentic representation today.

In that respect it's like covering an ear for cannon fire - not improper for authentic representation today.

- Dan Wykes
Batt. G 2nd Ill.

[Forquer]

Have to comment on the remarks about the "reenactorism" of using the worm during battle sequence and drill.

Our powder is in aluminum foil -- it doesn't just dissipate like cloth bags -- so we have to remove it after each fire. At least for a genuine Napolean 12 pdr., this is done to avoid the foil balling or otherwise interfering with a clean, predictable, ignition of the next charge.

So there we have it -- the one reenactorism: foil, is the reason for the other reenactorism: worming in battle sequence and drill. A better thing to ask is why we aren't using cloth bags today. The answer is because we have a very limited battle time compared to period battles - a few hours of use and we're done for the day. Cloth bags don't store well, are more susceptible to leaks and errant embers, cigars or sparks in the area, and who has the time to make up too many of them ahead of time. Aren't they closed with needle and thread?

It doesn't mean we don't understand how the worm was employed in CW period. It at least was available and was used on the front line at least occasionally so it's not exactly improper for authentic representation today.

In that respect it's like covering an ear for cannon fire - not improper for authentic representation today.

- Dan Wykes
Batt. G 2nd Ill.

As for today's use of the worm, it is certainly necessary. Where most reenactors fall into error is when #2 is constantly holding the worm throughout operations. There are plenty of images that show #2 with his hands empty. No reason why after worming, #2 can't place the worm back on the carriage.

As to your question about ammunition, the answer depends on the type of piece you are servicing. For smoothbore pieces firing fixed ammunition, per the 1861 Ordnance Manual, refer to pages 277-278. Powder bags are filled and levelled in a magazine. They are removed to another room where the sabot of the strapped shot is placed directly on top of the powder. The open end of the bag is tied around the groove of the sabot. Once the bag is tied, it is gauged to make sure it will fit the caliber of the barrel.

I've run across nothing in the manuals that refers to the powder bags of rifled guns. Since they are seperate from the round, it would stand to reason that the bags would be filled, levelled, and then sewn at the arsenal.

[Kevin Hall]

Just a common mans few words in reference to cloth verses foil powder charges. Just think of all the events over the years that have fire danger restrictions, which is especially common here in the west. A cloth bag down the bore would drive event organizers nuts. Personnaly I think foil is a good trade off considering the other option would be a fire bucket brigade on hand at all times.

Kevin Hall

[Hank Trent]

I don't think this has been mentioned on this thread yet. Tim Kindred posted an excerpt on another topic from an 1861 medical book elsewhere, and when I went to look up the context, a discussion on earplugs and hearing loss for the artillery was on the same page. It's at http://books.google.com/books?id=td3EBXbjACIC&pg=PA116 It's from A Practical Treatise on Military Surgery by Frank Hastings Hamilton, 1861.

Among other things, it says, "Let the Medical Staff of each regiment keep prepared a quantity of glycerine, mixed with belladonna, say in about the proportion of forty grains of the latter to the ounce of glycerine oil. Let each gunner be provided before an engagement with wool or cotton (the former is preferable), saturated with the mixture, to place in his ears."

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[jimw]

Noah,

Not sure if this will help any, but back in 1969 when I was taking my artillery training at Fort Sill, they actually had a name for it, "Artillery Ear". I suspect that there may be some record of it's usage in the files at the Artillery Museum located on Fort Sill.

Sincerely,

Jim Worrell

[NoahBriggs]

Like I said before, thanks for all your input. The Chatham Manor event is long over. I never did discuss hearing loss with the visitors. As usual they all went ga-ga over the surgical aspects and "gruesomeness" of amputations. Thanks a lot, History Channel. Go back to your documentariess on whether Hitler's dog was psychic from methamphetamine in the Pacific campaigns.

The research was not a waste of time, though. It's here in the AC Forum archives, and now we know a little more about it should the topic ever come up. I am sure you redlegs (real and reenactor) get asked about it all the time. Anything to help out fellow enthusiasts!

I did hear the guns discharge in the demo field some ways away from me. It seems I have the "loud sounds make me twitch with anxiety" syndrome, even if I did not have ringing ears (well, not ringing anymore than they are already). I have no idea how I got it, since I was never in a genuine life-threatening situation with guns involved.

A lonely crusader fighting to kill CW medicine mythos with actual research- the thin, sutured line,

I remain,

[Todd Watts]

Hank, that is great info. Thanks for the link. I can now use it for Nat'l Park demos to demonstrate that whether or not all artillerists were using plugs at all times (probably not), there was more understanding of the issue of hearing loss and prevention of damage than we think they actually had. It is interesting to see that he wrote about a phenomenon we today notice as well, that the #1 and #2 men "feel" the concusion more than the rest of the artillerists, and that some days the report seems harsher than others, which he describes as leeward or windward effects. I had not thought of that before but now will start making those observations to see if it proves true.

[Danny]

Hank, that is great info. Thanks for the link. I can now use it for Nat'l Park demos to demonstrate that whether or not all artillerists were using plugs at all times (probably not)...

Todd -

In now demonstrating that earplugs were not often used, won't you at the same time have to demonstrate that hand-over-ear or finger-in-ear probably were used?

There is nothing in the drill that would prohibit it. How else to explain the many red-leg veterans who made no mention of hearing loss in their memoirs - kind of proof in itself that many must have done something to protect their ears. In fact, if you think about it, how "stagey" and inauthentic to stoically refrain from covering an ear, even in drill demonstration. Perhaps we only have the luxury of not covering an ear today because our charges are only a pound or so and without a ball.

- Dan Wykes

[Todd Watts]

Perhaps. The drill manuals do not make allowance to cover ears. Keep in mind that the above treatise is a NY surgeon writing to fellow doctors, and he says that before going into action the medical staff should be issuing the earplug material and solution. This may be possible in garrison or naval gunnery, but think like a soldier, especially field artillery. You have heard the gun fired a hundred times, with full charges. There is nothing "nifty-cool" about the action any more. You are jogging alongside the guns as they roll into the fields already full of missles with buglers and drummers calling orders to position the guns. At what point does the battery's medical officer rush forward ahead of the placing guns to distribute these items? Once the firing has commenced hot and heavy, at what point do the men run back to the medical staff and request the plugs?;) Yes, if they have the time to get the plugs sure it makes perfect sense. But as a routine practice I don't really think it was a universal item the cannoneers would have been using. And yes, they would no doubt occasionally covered an ear, but if you have ever worked a rapid-firing battery line, this is nearly useless. You can prepare with a finger in the ear for your particular gun, because it is loaded and you know the command to fire is coming, but the 2 on either side of you are firing at the same time you are working with both hands to load and prepare your piece, so what's the use? Besides that, in "OMG!" double cannister combat, the guys are in the process of getting new ammo to the muzzle the moment the command to fire is given so there is no time to lean back and stick your rump in the air and dramatically hold your hand over your ear. But it does look pretty cool for spectators I suppose.

One way to break this dramatic farb stance of #1 and #2 is to wait until they take the dramatic pose, and then don't command "fire" for a minute or two. It quickly no longer seems all that cool to be in that dramatic pose while waiting the gun to fire. Remember to think like an 1860s artillerist here. You are not posing for a dramatic picture or a crowd of tourists, you are discharging a cannon to kill an enemy as fast as you possibly can.

Oh, I have heard from Park Rangers doing our training that there was a medical study of hearing loss on veterans of the war. They tell me that they discovered that virtually all the men had som ehearing loss regardless of duty, but it was the right ears of infantry that suffered the most and it was deemed due to the higher pitched percussion caps. You won't be experiencing a lot of rapid permanent hearing loss at soldiering age even today due to not wearing hearing protection. The real damage is only evident many years down the road. The guy swriting after action reports probably are not all that concerned about a little muffle or ringing in the hearing, knowing it will be "back to normal" in a day or so. And 20 years later any hearing loss they have experienced is just "old age" or something they ignore and accept. It is not anything to write about in other words.

[annmaddox]

For what it's worth you guys, we have a practicing Ear-Nose-Throat Surgeon in our unit. THis discussion has gone on many times within our Battalion, to which he ALWAYS responds "Covering your ears with your hands, fingers will not do a single thing to protect you."
It's just an instinctive thing people do.
He tells the men that being that close to your own gun & the firing of other guns near you the only thing that truly helps in OSHA approved earplugs.
He does always make sure the guys have those squishy earplugs available, it's their choice to use them or not.
I think he at one time acknowledged opening the mouth at time of fire helps somewhat.

Thought an Ear Specialist's opinion might help.

Ann Maddox
Ferguson's Artillery, Palmetto Battalion
Palmetto Soldiers' Relief Society

[Danny]

Ann -

I'm not sure what specifically your ENT doctor was referring to, but of course it makes a lot of difference to have a finger in your ear compared to nothing. Your ears don't ring, and you can hear well enough to communicate after the battle. I'd bet he makes that claim so that everybody uses ear plugs, but in the situation where there are no ear plugs you should put a finger in your ear or at least cover it and you absolutely will be better off than if you didn't.

There are recruits reading these posts so I think it's important to clarify.

Dan Wykes

[Todd Watts]

I think a finger in the ear or covering your ear does help, but only if you leave it that way until the decible levels have dropped below a certain point. If you remove the finger or hand the moment it fires, the decibles are still pretty high for a moment. And, an earplug is there whether the guns around you are firing or not. I personally feel no difference when I open my mouth as opposed to when I don't. I've been around them long enough now that I don't even take much notice a gun has fired unless I'm a #1 or #2, and I do wear plugs up there, and usually do on #3, #4 or gunner, but hardly ever on the back positions. My ears are already screwed up enough I guess.;)

[annmaddox]

He was referring to hearing loss over time. Also to the fact some guys think the finger alone can protect them. Nope. Sorry. He says if you are anti-plugs cotton is better than the finger.

He has been an ENT Doc & Surgeon for at least 10 years, maybe 15 or 20. I'm not sure of his age. His medical advice is based on medical training & knowledge. Not what he thinks or feels about what they did.
He has served on cannon for 5 years I believe, so he has experience on the gun.

I never said his information made a difference in what people actually do on the field. Folks are gonna do what they're gonna do.

I just wanted to give you guys a doctors opinion I've heard him give over & over.

FYI, I think, I'm not positive, all of our cannoneers use the plugs. Safety.
Sorry so brief I'm in a rush.

Ann Maddox

[Danny]

... And yes, they would no doubt occasionally covered an ear...but the 2 on either side of you are firing at the same time you are working with both hands to load and prepare your piece, so what's the use?....

and

One way to break this dramatic farb stance of #1 and #2 is to wait until they take the dramatic pose, and then don't command "fire" for a minute or two. It quickly no longer seems all that cool to be in that dramatic pose while waiting the gun to fire...

Todd -

You will allow that the distances between guns we typically do today were not typical at all for a period battery in battle. In those days plugging an ear would have been quite useful as it was effective for the close gun that mattered most. I'll allow that for drills in period, per photo evidence, the guns were as close as the distances we use today -- but of course there was time for earplugs to be issued in that case.

On your second point, one you've explored before, about the "dramatic farb stance," and even going out of your way to hold the command "fire" so that you can make the cannoneers feel foolish, well what do you hope to accomplish with that?

In exploring and offhand polling this season I'm finding that just as many serious artillery reenactors feel it right, even necesssary, to hold the prepare-to-fire stance as the period drill indicates they should. Many feel that it is not at all farby to do so nor do they agree that those early soldiers would have mostly lax about the stance even in the heat of battle (Reb raiders maybe, but not legit units). In other words it seems your case is not at all made on that point nor is it generally accepted that prepare to fire stances are "farb."

-Dan Wykes

[Todd Watts]

Nowhere in any period drill manual does it tell #1 or #2 to lean way back, stick their butts into the air, lean the sponge rammer dramatically back and cup a hand over the ear. There are of course several pictures of guns in various states of drill from back then and it has never been shown in a photograph. Unfortunately, there aren't any pictures of guns in action, but I see no reason to believe that the men posing for a picture in drill would have then reverted to a dramatic "hey crowd, watch me!" pose when missles were incoming or outgoing for real. Maybe they did, but using some common sense I just see no reason to do that. Very often in real action back then, and today even, a gun may be ready with the crew ready to fire, and the gunner does not get the command to fire from the chief of the section or battery commander. How "farby" does it then look for the #1 or #2 men to get tired of standing/leaning in their dramaitc pose to then have to stand up and stretch and shift positions? That, in my opinion, looks pretty dumb. Hey, I must admit when I began artillery I was a re-enactor and was taught the "re-enactor's pose" by the gun crew, and even heard the artillery safety officer at Bridgeport, AL come by and tell us to lean way back "to make it look good for the spectators." I was un-taught the "re-enactor's pose" by the National Park Service which actually has Rangers dedicated to studying these sorts of things. We don't do the pose for living history demos simply because it is deemed by their research that it not only makes not sense, it ain't in the drill. But, when a quality re-enacting crew visits a NPS site, they don't try to stop the visiting crew from doing it since it causes no safety issue, and it is what that crew is used to doing.

A section of guns unless prevented by terrain was spaced pertty close together, roughly the same distance we often use today at events, about 10-15 yds between them. Artillery then as now must be capable of supporting itself against the same target. But, Marye's Heights saw them so close together men mentioned in memoirs that they had difficulty getting between some guns. They were spaced "hub to hub" as once described. Likewise, at the Hornets' Nest bombardment, Ruggles had collected about 30 guns and they were crammed into a distance of a little over 100 yds length. That is close! Stones River, again, on 2 separate days the Federal artillery collected 40+ guns and lined them up virtually hub to hub and fired for extended periods. The 2 Jan '63 bombardment was almost 50 guns and it was a 45 minute artillery bombardment. Fredericksburg, and Shiloh both saw use of heavy field artillery lined up in close spaces firing fiercely off and on. Gettysburg - no need to mention. All this means is that their guns were lined up very often the same distances we today see, both "hub to hub" as well as spaced several yards apart, or even hundreds of yds apart based on the battlefield conditions and needs. :) Ain't it fun to debate arty?

[Todd Watts]

At Stones River, the 4th US Artillery, batteries H & M "Parson's Batteries" fired 2199 rounds from 12 guns. If you figure perhaps a total of say, 10 hrs of firing over the roughly 5 days of the battle, including the 2 main days and the small battles leading up to it as the armies bumped and ground against eachother, that comes to about 220 shots per hour. I don't care if they did have a crude ear plug or occasionally cupped a hand over their ear - those boys had a muffled ringing in their ears and need some asparin!:eek:;)