Improving Artillery Impressions [Archive] - Authentic Campaigner Website & Forums

hta1970

03-01-2008, 04:37 PM

Without casting stones at anyone or any group, I have noticed a fair amount of less than authentic portrayals of Confederate artillery. (I'm not saying this is just a Confederate issue, but that is all I have been observing and researching)

I'd like to think that this is in part due to either the lack of compiled reseach material for reeenactors of Confederate artillery rather than a blatant disregard for historical fact. With that in mind I have started researching ANV artillery (2nd Corps actually to start) beginning with the compiled military service records of the batteries of VA, MD and AL, to be followed by NC and GA. I have also been reading memiors and other primary source material. My goal is to eventually have some for of reference which will allow the ANV artillery reenactor to bring a better impression to the field and avoid the "red tide" stereotype which they have gotten in many cases.

The coneept would be to study organization to include battalion staffs and officers (medical, ordnance, quartmaster, etc), uniforms, flags, tentage, camp equipment, types of cannon used in what percentages at different battles and time periods, etc...

Recognizing that most artillery today spends quite a bit of money on gun transportation and acquisition, I don't plan on getting too involved in the lack of horses issue. But some discussion of artillery drill would be worthwhile given not everyone follows the same drill.

What I have learned so far is (1) even if I stick to ANV this is one hell of a large project for me (2) I am a trained historian and work as a contractor at the National Archives, but I am not a subject matter expert in any sense of the word for Confederate artillery or uniforms (3) there is an iterest of those portraying other areas of operations like AOT or TMD among others which would have an interest in their Artillery being included (4) others might have some valuable information to include which I would be very short sighted to not be sure was included (5) the costs of publication rights of the images I'd love to use for uniforms, flags, photographs is very high.

My thoughts now are to make work one which will give the profits to some non-profit, be it battlefield/land preservation or towards some museum for the conservation or acquisition of artillery related artifacts.

So, here I am announcing my plans to the reenactor community for which I do sincerely hope I will be allowed to keep my head firmly attached to the reat of my body after this announcement.

My hope is that this type of work will be able to bring artillery in in line of march and step with the fine example set by so many infantry reenactors out there today.

Anyone interested in talking about the information I have so far discovered or interested in helping with the research and writing is welcome to contact me.

Light 6 Pdr

03-01-2008, 08:34 PM

Harry,
It is great to hear that you are undertaking this effort. It is a BIG subject. For what it is worth, here are a few of my thoughts as to areas that need improving with Artillery impressions:

1. A gun needs a limber, not just a limber chest. We all need to start somewhere, but a limber is a must to add right away.

2. Gun types, especially for CS are very important. The 3" Ordnance Rifle was the best rifled field gun, the Confederates did capture a lot of them, but not every CS gun was an Ordnance rifle. Everyone seems to want an Ordnance or Parrott Rifle, for obvious reasons, they are cool and easy to feed. Everyone wants the "best gun used in the war" , but confederate artillery did not have much of the best equipment. I can speak more authortatively about about western theater artillery, but the whole AOT, would have only a hand full of Ordnance rifles or Parrotts ( say 10/20)out of 150 cannons. In the west at least, the most overlooked CS Field Piece is the 12 Pdr Field howitzer. I see very few of them at reenactments, but for CS forces they were used in large numbers till late in the war. Also, in the west, they had a much larger percentage of Napoleons than rifled guns. CS rifled ammunition was often of poor quality. Smooth bored ammo is far simpler.

3. bronze is beautiful: I see very few bronze guns on the field, for obvious reasons, but bronze was the gun metal of choice during the period. It was, and is much more expensive than iron, but is underrepresented.

4. Lots o' stuff: No, not what you think, An artillery battery had a huge amount of items in it. I get ovewhelmed in imagining all of the things we do not have. A Battery at full strength would have 6 guns, 12 limbers, 6 caissons, battery wagon, traveling forge, supply wagons, 100+ horses, 100 saddles, 100 sets of harness..............A 12 Pdr Battery has 2 caissons per gun, with all of the extra horses. From an improving the impression angle, the gun has more implements than a sponge/rammer anda worm. There are sights ( lots of cannon owners don't have sights yet!) sight pouch, which the gunner uses, 2 haversacks (5 and 7), 2 tube pouches, 3 and 4. Rifled guns would have fuse cutters, the limber chest has a table of fire in it, the limber chest is marked for the caliber of the gun. There are fuse gouges, borman fuse punches, gunner's level, all indespensible items.

5. Know how to shoot: I am troubled by the lack of knowledge from a lot of artillerists about the practice of fire, when to fire case, when to fire shell, how many times have I heard crews calling out ranges to the target that are ridiculous, shell 1000 Yds and the target is 500 Yds away. When do you switch from shot to canister? Every gunner would know this off hand. You should also have a rudimentary knowledge of how to cut the fuse etc.

6. What little we know: We have been trying horse drawn artillery, but maneuvering one or 2 guns is different than maneuvering 4/6 of them. An artillerists knows his guns, his men his horses, how to tack them, harness them etc. I have studied for years, but yet there is so much more to learn, that is why I like this hobby so much.

Best of luck with the effort.

Take care,
Steve Cameron
Burrough's Battery

GASharpshooter

03-01-2008, 09:43 PM

How fast you got to pull them artilleries before you get em to fly??

wokawoka!!

I started in this hobby as a gunner. I'll go back to it when I'm too old to march. But it will be in a full size gun type of unit.

I weep when I see umpteen Confederate mountain howitzers at a "FULL SIZE ARTILLERY ONLY 57 INCH WHEELS STRICTLY ENFORCED!!" event and nobody does any enforcement.

Hell I'll forgive ya having a red painted oil lantern in camp if you'll just use a full size carriage :)

hta1970

03-01-2008, 11:42 PM

James,

Yeah those mountain guns and 3/4 scale artillery are something else. I actually think they are trying to hunt squirrel for dinner or something... Who knows....

I think the real shame is when units which never had artillery (CSMC) send artillery batteries to serve at reenactments of actual battles and also those small guns which also show up grab spaces which full scale artillery should really be filling because they were first to get registered. I think if those small guns and inauthentic units would get bumped when real artillery registered it might start sending a message for those wishing to serve as artillery to get real guns and act like real artillery or risk getting bumped from events when real artillery registers....

There is an interesting account of a battle in the Valley early in the war when Jackson has a battery of mountian howitzers attached to his troops. The guns were being carried on mules which actually started to roll aorund on their back to remove the guns which they were carrying and as such were not listed among Jackson's artillery after the battle as they were not considered effective artillery. The infantry had quite a laugh at that sight... You can only imagine how Jackson felt about mountain howitzers after that battle. If someone wants to know more, ask and I will try and dig up the reference...

GASharpshooter

03-02-2008, 12:22 AM

The guns were being carried on mules which actually started to roll aorund on their back to remove the guns which they were carrying ... The infantry had quite a laugh at that sight... You can only imagine how Jackson felt about mountain howitzers after that battle.

bwahahaha!!! Priceless! Please post the reference, I'd love to read that account.

Vicksburg Dave

03-02-2008, 12:56 AM

OldKingCrow

03-02-2008, 07:54 AM

As a part of Stonewall Jackson's wildly successful Valley Campaign a battery of mountain howitzers, on pack-carriages so they could be broken down onto mules for movement, was assigned to him under Major John D. Imboden. Jackson wanted the howitzers for the fighting at Port Republic. He felt that the light-weight guns would be useful for blasting General Shields out of the mountains around the town. However, the guns are not believed to have seen any action because their mules acted poorly under fire. They tried to shake off their loads, but they were too securely attached to their backs to come off easily. So instead the mules rolled around on their backs to scrape off the artillery pieces. The gunners were never able to get the guns into combat because they spent all of their time fighting the mules. According to Jennings Cropper Wise, the foremost historian of the Army of Northern Virginia's artillery:

While the battery did not accomplish much from a military standpoint, it afforded rare amusement to the men of the Infantry. With the air of men seeking technical information, they would seriously inquire whether the mules or the guns were intended to go off first, and whether the gun was to fire the mule, or the mule the gun. In the estimate of Jackson's artillery at Port Republic, Imboden's Battery was not included, for under the circumstances its guns could not be properly classed as effective ordinance.

Jennings Cropper Wise, The Long Arm of Lee: Vol. 1-Bull Run to Fredericksburg (Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1991), pp. 174-75

Ask and ye shall receive.

AZReenactor

03-02-2008, 09:43 AM

I started as Artillery and still serve as an artillery driver and gunner at a couple events every year. The quotes below provided a very good example of two of the biggest problems I see with artillery groups around the country.

I started in this hobby as a gunner. I'll go back to it when I'm too old to march.

Far too often artillery units are seen as a place to send reenactors out to pasture. Artillery is not the Veterans reserve Corps and shouldn't be treated as such. It takes work and mobility to properly crew a gun. If you think marching in the infantry is hard, try running along with a gun being pulled by a six up at the trot or gallop then unlimber and roll into action. All the horses and tack in a fully equipped battery makes for more horse related labor than would give a typical cavalryman nightmares. The artillery of the Civil War was crewed by soldiers, it was not then and should not now be haven of fat old men who would better serve the hobby with a civilian impression telling stories about what life was like during the war of 1812.

Hell I'll forgive ya having a red painted oil lantern in camp if you'll just use a full size carriage :)

This brings up another major problem with artillery (and even cavalry to some extent); the notion that because someone invests a lot in equipment, horses, tack, etc. entitles them to some exemptions to authenticity. Yes, artillery impressions are damned expensive but that should be cause to raise the standard for how they are presented, not negate it. A lot has been invested in the big gun and powder it consumes, why detract from its beauty by sullying it with a bunch of farbisms.

I can't count the number of times I've heard artillerymen state the assumption that because they had rolling stock as unit equipment that it some how enabled them to carry all the extra gear and equipment that makes their mainstream reenacting camp comfortable. The rolling stock of an artilleryman is there to haul necessary military equipment, not fire grates and camp chairs for old men. During the war it was even a question of whether gunners should be allowed to strap their knapsacks to the limber and caisson since that extra weight contributes to fatigue in the horses who are already pulling tons of necessary equipment and ammunition.

I suppose this has been a bit of a rant, but personally I'm a little weary of seeing old artillerymen sit around in the glow of red painted post war lanterns just waiting to grow old and leave the hobby. Not casting stones, firing canister...

Mbond057

03-02-2008, 10:30 AM

I will not argue that every artillery unit can improve their impressions with easily addressed items such as authentic uniforms, drill, and overall kit appearance. Each and every one of us can do that; however, really do some research into doing an artillery impression and some of the things mentioned are not in the control of the artillerist. If you play within the US or State park services there are safety rules that must be followed. I have participated with working with the History Channel on a few projects and we need special park permission to not use gloves, un-sleeved barrels, modern rolled tin-foil rounds, ear plugs, etc. It took several face to face meetings with park officials and several lawyers on both sides to come to arrangement before filming could even begin.

But there are many misconceptions about doing an artillery impression in the hobby. Many guys think artillery is the place to go when you’re a little gray haired to march. You must have never pulled a Napoleon or Parrott Rifle using the prolonge to evacuate a position quickly then reposition the gun. Artillery can be a lot of work when there is good coordination and event tactical planning. Artillery isn’t a retirement home to those who have worked a good tactical artillery event.

It’s easy to say you need more limbers, battery wagons, caissons, etc. I have been investigating and researching horse drawn artillery to improve my unit’s impression. The insurance alone will probably kill this project.

There has been mention of more bronze barrels needed at events. I would love to see more bronze, but are you truly aware of the cost? Artillery is expensive and getting more expensive each year. It cost a lot to just feed the guns let alone upgrading to a bronze tube.

Here is a picture of a full scale Bronze 6 Pdr with limber. This gun was built and assembled by Master Carriage Builder, Ben Miller of Miller Wagon and Cannon Company. This entire artillery set can be yours for $32,000. http://usmdartillery.com/images/albums/NewAlbum_894d9/Bronze_6_Pdr..JPG

How many of you can truly afford the best authentic artillery equipment? Before you comment about an artillery unit’s equipment are you willing to reach deep into your pockets to show everyone how it should be done?

Once again I’m not arguing about improving the artillery impressions. I’m just illuminating the terrain we are currently discussing and articulating the true roadblocks that impact an artillery authentic impression.

OldKingCrow

03-02-2008, 10:45 AM

Nice set up. A few ?????

Please share your research knowledge of unpainted CS carriages in the war.

Did they still get the sealing undercoat (linseed) and just not get painted ?

A CS bronze 6 like that would it be relegated to early war ? Didn't the CS melt down bronze six's to recast into 12 pounder by GO ? Or Federal tube on CS carriage ? Federal unpainted carriage/limber ?

Thanks in advance
Fascinated CS research geek.

edited to add: Oooops I see your Federal now I am really confused.

Mbond057

03-02-2008, 10:57 AM

Christopher,

Hello!

You ask some excellent follow up questions, unfortunately I don’t have any details on the inspiration or research that inspired this cannon build.

Let me try and find out the details behind this particular piece so that I can share the information.

hta1970

03-02-2008, 05:49 PM

Christopher,

That is eaxtly what I had remembered reading and owning that book, am sure that was where I saw it.

Here is another account of the same event.

This from "Augusta County: "Stonewall Jackson in the Shenandoah," by John D. Imboden, June 1885

He (Jackson) said: "Charley Winder [Brigadier-General commanding his old 'Stonewall' brigade] will cross the river at daybreak and attack Shields on the Lewis farm [two miles below]. I shall support him with all the other troops as fast as they can be put in line. General 'Dick' Taylor will move through the woods on the side of the mountain with his Louisiana brigade, and rush upon their left flank by the time the action becomes general. By ten o'clock we shall get them on the run, and I'll now tell you what I want with you. Send the big new rifle-gun you have [a twelve-pounder Parrott] to Poague [commander of the Rockbridge Artillery], and let your mounted men report to the cavalry. I want you in person to take your mountain howitzers to the field, in some safe position in rear of the line, keeping everything packed on the mules, ready at any moment to take to the mountain-side. Three miles below Lewis's there is a defile on the Luray road. Shields may rally and make a stand there. If he does, I can't reach him with the field batteries on account of the woods. You can carry your twelve-pounder howitzers on the mules up the mountain-side, and, at some good place, unpack and shell the enemy out of the defile, and the cavalry will do the rest."

The plan of battle was carried out to the letter. I took position in a ravine about two hundred yards in rear of Poague's battery in the center of the line. General Shields made a very stubborn flight, and by nine o'clock began to look very serious for us. Dick Taylor had not yet come down out of the woods on Shields's left flank.

Meanwhile, I was having a remarkable time with our mules in the ravine. Some of the shot aimed at Poague came bounding over our heads, and occasionally a shell would burst there. The mules became frantic. They kicked, plunged, and squealed. It was impossible to quiet them, and it took three or four men to hold one mule from breaking away. Each mule had about three hundred pounds' weight on him, so securely fastened that the load could not be dislodged by any of his capers. Several of them lay down and tried to wallow their loads off. The men held these down, and that suggested the idea of throwing them all on the ground and holding them there. The ravine sheltered us so that we were in no danger from the shot or shell which passed over us.

Just about the time our mule "circus" was at its height, news came up the line from the left that Winder's brigade near the river was giving way. Jackson rode down in that direction to see what it meant. As he passed on the brink of our ravine, his eye caught the scene, and, reining up a moment, he accosted me with "Colonel, you seem to have trouble down there." I made some reply which drew forth a hearty laugh, and he said, "Get your mules to the mountain as soon as you can, and be ready to move."

lazarus

03-02-2008, 06:23 PM

Well, I guess this discussion comes around every couple of years or so, and I would have to agree that accurate artillery impressions are few and far between when we consider the number of artillery pieces brought to events. As a person who started with one of the best drilled and most accurate (I mean knowledge of cannon mechanics, firing, and equipment), the Palmetto Light Artillery, we could never get to the the point of complete accuracy. I have to concur with Mr. Bond that the cost itself of equipage, horse flesh, and individual commitment to learn and do better, is well over anything I've every invested as an infantryman for this period of time. Let's not even discuss how much time and money is required to train and maintain the horses and drivers necessary to pull one detachment.

Really, I find this question perplexing to the extreme. I currently work with one of the best artillery impressions in the South under Kent Oestenstad. We've attempted to address the "red tide" issue in several ways and also followed the strict guidelines of impression, researching and performing like an artillery detachment can. However, we still strive for more chances to do the best impression and it's not even close. We are still plagued by not enough men, horses with medical issues, and the inability of even commanding officers and infantry groups not knowing what to do with a fully functioning artillery piece. Some can't even imagine an artillery piece actually moving to the front lines, unlimbering, firing three shots, and be redeployed to the right flank to relieve a failing infantry regiment.

If any great thing needs to be done as for artillery impressions, as already suggested, it is understanding the role of artillery and how it differed in the various theatres. Then, fix drill, add horses, take out all us fat guys struggling to catch with the horses at full gallop, and then we might understand. Hell, I agree that if a group of chiggers could do the forementioned, then I would forgive their red kepis. By the way, really, a flying battery? Talk about a logistical nightmare of horses and unexperienced weekend warriors!

Cheers!

artillerybuff

03-02-2008, 06:28 PM

Hello all,

I may be able to add some info on this particular set up. You are right in that it is not correct in construction material or finish. The picture does not do it justice either, it is a remarkable looking creation, but it is NOT period correct, nor was it intended to be. All wood is Walnut and that is why the builder put a clear finish on it. It is simply a beautiful show piece.

But this is not the point. The point Mark was trying to make is how expensive artillery can be. A bronze Napoleon set up today with Carriage & Limber will run you close to $40,000 give or take, and that is only one piece (not much less for a 12 Pdr. Field Howitzer). So to be totally correct for one Battery impression you would need six of these with Limbers, plus six more Limbers with six Caissons, not even getting into the other wagons and forges etc... One fully equipped Caisson will run you over $13,000, which is why you hardly ever see them at a reenactment. So what do you think your grand total for one full Battery of 12 Pdr.s, would be? And we have not even talked about implements, leathers, harnesses, or horse flesh. I would be happy to make this a reality for you guys if you would front me at least a half a million dollars, and that isn’t too far off…

This is why most people use cast iron steel lined barrels. As far as bronze barrels goes, do you think they kept their barrels bright & shiny polished like gold? No, they let them patina or painted them black. Do you think they kept the Copper Limber Lids polished like mirrors? No, they let them patina or painted them black. The alternative is to give your enemy a big bright target to aim at.

I also agree the Artillery is no place to go when you are no longer able to march. Artillery is hard work! We need young strong men to help crew these heavy beasts. If you are into live fire shooting like we are, you must know they recoil 6 to 8 feet on every shot and must be returned to battery before loading again.

No artillery impression could ever hope to be 100% authentic in terms of duplicating all actual equipment used in one Battery. However, that does not mean should we compromise and allow less than reasonably accurate equipment, i.e. size, construction, color, and so forth. As far a bronze looking piece, there are some very good coatings available today that can decently replicate a bronze barrel, so if you want a shiny one without selling your home, car, and truck to pay for it you can make that happen. That is not to say steel barrels are inexpensive either. I have a pair of 10 Pdr. Parrott Rifles, and the tubes alone are over $9,000 each! The bottom line is whatever you have must be authentic and correct or it should not be allowed. It goes without saying NO scale pieces, period! Leave those in your front yard for decoration. BTW, if all 6 Pdr.’s were melted down and recast, why are there so many surviving 6 Pdr.’s today? The fact is many were used until the end of the war.

Good points made regarding drill. However, many concessions must be made for safeties sake that are not period correct, such as wearing gloves, ear protection, worming after every shot, double sponging, placing implements on top of the wheels after loading, and crossing implements over the piece in the event of a mis-fire. Other than that, the drill should use period correct commands, call for appropriate ammunition, include sighting the piece, moving back into battery after firing and so on. You can work with any of the six artillery units in the ACWS and not have to learn a different drill as we all use the same exact totally period correct drill, with the exceptions already noted above.

Be well~

2nd Lt. Anthony A. Variz
Battery D 5th US

ajroscoe

03-02-2008, 06:44 PM

Being a common infantryman, I know that I am not in all of your league with regards to artillery. That being said, the one thing I wish I could see artillery units do is show the infantry volunteers that served with the batteries. At one point in his diary, Col. Charles Wainwright, then serving as chief of artillery for the Union I Corps, said almost half of the 900 men in his artillery brigade were infantry volunteers. Now, I know most red legs would probably dislike the idea of putting infantry garb on while serving with the battery, but for various points of the war - specifically for the North - it would be very appropriate. At one point in the fall of '63, almost 80% of B, 4th US were volunteers from the Iron Brigade, leaving just Old Army men as the NCO's. I think this is something the public would be deeply interested to learn, much as I was.

OldKingCrow

03-02-2008, 07:56 PM

I may be able to add some info on this particular set up. You are right in that it is not correct in construction material or finish.

But this is not the point.

No that is the point. Both of the A/C and this thread "Improving Artillery Impressions"

To term it a show piece....a show piece of what ? What a CW cannon never looked like ? Improving artillery impressions ?

I know where you are coming from and I am not bustin your spherical cases personally....$32k or $0.32 why spend that kind of coin on the bronze 6lb'er and put it on an ersatz carriage and limber ? No different than a pillow ticking frock, really.

GASharpshooter

03-02-2008, 08:10 PM

Wait, hang on a second. I didn't mean to sound insulting.

I would LOVE to be in an artillery unit at a reenactment where we could actually MOVE a full size piece. But you want to know why I fell out of love with the arty?

Right when the artillery should be firing as quickly as safety allows, we were doing things like "From the right, 5 second interval, FIRE!!" Sure, the crowd loved it. But for cryin out loud, we should be shootin as fast as we can load! There's a war on :)

Certainly I know how much it costs to field and feed a gun. I always ponied up the money the C.O. asked for to get through a weekend, too bad many of the others would not. I paid double, because my son was with me.

I love the old war dogs, I certainly wasn't meaning to push anyones buttons. But in my region, at reenactments the full size guns are static due to event rules. That's pretty much why many older reenactors do artillery impressions around these parts... plus, old guys can afford the full size guns as long as they don't have too many ex wives.

Right now though I'm enjoying marching, firing, trying to look natural while taking a hit, and goin home with an empty cartridge box.

(Artillery has better rations too...)

artillerybuff

03-02-2008, 08:52 PM

Hey James, I see no insult, just good discussion.

Christopher, you are still missing the intent of Mark's post and looks like mine as well.

I made it VERY clear that picture posted is not a correct piece for reenacting, and if somebody wants to spend a million dollars on a pretty whatever I could really care less. That particular "show piece" is an example of fine workmanship in that you can actually see the detailed construction due to the clear finish. Paint can cover a multitude of sins; a clear finished product like hides nothing. Your work must be perfect to be able to make a piece like that, especially using expensive Walnut. That was the point of that project, which I was only trying to clarify.

I beleive Mark's intention was to illustrate how much this stuff can cost, and just happened to have that picure of a Bronze Cannon. I completely agree with you Christopher, I wouldn't spend a nickle on something that isn't correct or authentic, within reason. With that I mean I will substitute modern material (such as a steel barrel instead of cast iron) for safety, as long as it looks right and as it is dimensionally correct etc., or using a steel barrel painted bronze or even black for what was originally a bronze barrel. I take great pains to ensure my artillery equipment is as right as possible, and when I learn or discover something isn't quite right or needs improvement we are all over it. My Parrotts are fully and correctly rifled. How often do you see that?

How authentic do we really want to be? Do we want our cannons bursting like the orginal ones did? I think not, this is why today's cannon makers we use modern manufacturing techniques and why we reenactors incorporate modern steps in our artillery drill. There will always be compromises, we have to be realistic.

2nd Lt. Anthony A. Variz
Battery D 5th US

hta1970

03-03-2008, 12:17 AM

Several people have discussed artillery drill here which is not something I thought of origninally including in my work, but looks like it is something everyone is interested in here. As such it bears further work by me....

I have seen events such as Anders "Spetember Storm specify either Gilham's or Andrews' manual for Confederate drill, with a few NPS modifications...

I know the French, Berry, Hunt manual was also available to Confederate batteries... though there are several editions which I have not yet compared...

Is there a standard in safe authentic drill which can generally be agreed upon in this forum as the prefered way to conduct drill and a safe number of cannoneers?

Ringgold

03-03-2008, 12:50 AM

Hello all,

This is why most people use cast iron steel lined barrels. As far as bronze barrels goes, do you think they kept their barrels bright & shiny polished like gold? No, they let them patina or painted them black. Do you think they kept the Copper Limber Lids polished like mirrors? No, they let them patina or painted them black. The alternative is to give your enemy a big bright target to aim at.
. . .

2nd Lt. Anthony A. Variz
Battery D 5th US

These are interesting concepts. Do you have any documentation that backs these statements up? I can cite a few from the men of McKnight's Company M, 5th United States Artillery that seem to contradict this belief. They were very proud of their Light Twelve Pounders and the shine of their barrels and ammunition box lids was usually noted during inspections. As far as any unit painting their tubes black, I have never heard of this practice and am intrigued. I know many existing tubes have been subjected to painting by well-meaning, but ignorant care-takers who do not ( or did not) realize the damage they were doing to the protective patina they covering up.

As to the presentation of a big bright target, all I can say is that a battery deployed in the field is large enough to draw attention to itself regardless of any glistening metal they may be displaying. That's even assuming that there isn't any dust being kicked-up by the horses as they are going into battery.

Always trying to learn as much as I am able. Always looking for sources I haven't yet found.

Vicksburg Dave

03-03-2008, 02:40 AM

These are interesting concepts. Do you have any documentation that backs these statements up? I can cite a few from the men of McKnight's Company M, 5th United States Artillery that seem to contradict this belief. They were very proud of their Light Twelve Pounders and the shine of their barrels and ammunition box lids was usually noted during inspections. As far as any unit painting their tubes black, I have never heard of this practice and am intrigued. I know many existing tubes have been subjected to painting by well-meaning, but ignorant care-takers who do not ( or did not) realize the damage they were doing to the protective patina they covering up.

As to the presentation of a big bright target, all I can say is that a battery deployed in the field is large enough to draw attention to itself regardless of any glistening metal they may be displaying. That's even assuming that there isn't any dust being kicked-up by the horses as they are going into battery.

Always trying to learn as much as I am able. Always looking for sources I haven't yet found.<P>

I agree, the only painting of nonferrous barrels that I have heard of is for quaker guns. Leaving anything made of bronze or copper unpolished is an anathema to officer's everywhere. It's not like everyone on the battlefield did not know where the guns were once the action began.

OldKingCrow

03-03-2008, 06:44 AM

I found the retort of the "show piece" in post #9 to be in counter to the moderator's post #8 contention regarding a certain amount of arty's exemption from accuracy based on amount of funds expended.

or in other words....

look here is a arty kit that cost $32k....you got $32K to spend ? But on scrutiny the $32k arty kit is inaccurate, and 2 of "M-triad"..... materials and methods are incorrect.

This is coming from someone who entered the hobby by purchasing a full scale gun, only to sell it soon after learning how inaccurate I was.

AZReenactor

03-03-2008, 08:17 AM

Anthony,
I too am extremely curious about the notion that bronze tubes were allowed to oxidize, become dirty, or were painted. It has long been my understanding that keeping them polished was a safety issue as well as a matter of pride. The elasticity of a bronze barrel means it will begin developing dark colored veins and discolor before it fails. I haven't yet found a period source stating that barrels were to be kept polished and why but think this issue is alluded to in Gibbons' 1860 Artillerists Manual (http://www.google.com/books?id=8FEkwTZd9FMC&pg=PA84&vq=bronze&dq=artillery&lr=&source=gbs_search_s) where he talks about the inelasticity of iron guns and their tendency to fail catastrophically without warning when they rupture.

As others have mentioned, there are many references to the bronze tubes being highly polished and the vast target beyond a shiny barrel that a fully equipped battery present.

As far as bronze barrels goes, do you think they kept their barrels bright & shiny polished like gold? No, they let them patina or painted them black. Do you think they kept the Copper Limber Lids polished like mirrors? No, they let them patina or painted them black. The alternative is to give your enemy a big bright target to aim at.

artillerybuff

03-03-2008, 09:11 AM

Christopher, I give up trying to explain it, you seem really hung up on that picture. The price of that piece is representative of the approximate current price of a 6 Pdr. with Carriage & Limber, properly made of White Oak and correctly painted. The price is what I thought it was about. If not, how about if we let it go? We both agree the picture/piece it not authentic.

Troy and others, thank you VERY much for your questions & comments re: barrels and ammo box lids. I do not have documentation I can lay my hands on and you all may be very correct. I based those statements on what I thought were expert historians that I have come to know in the past 10 years of reenacting, people I trusted. I am continual ridiculed by experienced reenactors for always having my ammo box lids brightly polished and bronze barrels gleaming for the reasons I stated earlier. People always ask me, "is this all brand new"? When they find out some of it is many years old they cannot believe it. It is good to know I am justified AND period correct. Thank you all!

Next time those people speak up I am going to ask them for their source, not their opinion. Perhaps they based this on the fact that many surviving pieces were in fact painted, but without documentation to show it was done while in use I will continue to polish my stuff. This we at least know is correct...

Cheers!

Anthony A. Variz

OldKingCrow

03-03-2008, 09:41 AM

There really is nothing to let go....but ok. Just discussion.

Please post some pics of your bronze barrels and copper limber tops and lets get this thread loaded with some accurate representations.

Do you have a website for your unit and guns ?

Thanks in advance....

Scott Gutzke

03-03-2008, 10:34 AM

Has anyone ever really considered the modern logistics of moving 6 cannons, 6-12 caissons, traveling forge, battery wagon, 150 men and 150+ horses from their homes to an event? That alone is a daunting task for one group to do alone. Maintaining and storing all that equipment would be a full time job. Not to mention caring for and training the horses.

I know of one group in Illinois that has 6 guns and limbers, at least one caisson, one traveling forge, and one battery wagon. They use half a dozen converted school busses to move their equipment. However, they don't have horses (and who could blame them) because the logistics are just incredible. They also don't leave the Midwest.

An artillery group that I am part of (Light B, 4th U.S.) had a donor interested in letting us use his horses. The insurance was not the deal breaker because the person had a lot of money and was willing to cover the insurance, but having to train the horses was the trouble. We would have had to work with the horses pulling the gun for several hours almost every day. We did not have enough people living in the same area as the horse owner, and could not train the horses properly. It was too bad because it would have been a great step forward for Midwest artillery reenactors.

Scott Gutzke

03-03-2008, 10:38 AM

Mr. Roscoe

As a reenactor serving with the "Iron Brigade Battery" you mention (Light B, 4th U.S.) I would like to let you know that I, and several of my comrades, portray detached volunteers (men from New York, Wisconsin, Indiana, and Michigan). As you point out, this is historically correct for many regular army artillery units and this unit in particular. At one time, only 3 members of the battery (Capt. James Stewart, Bugler John Cook, and 1st Sgt. John Mitchell) were actually regular army soldiers. The rest were detached volunteers.

An interesting note I learned while reading a letter written by a detached volunteer who served with the battery. Apparently, many of the NCO positions were filled by volunteer troops. These volunteer troops were allowed to call themselves by their position (Sgt., Cpl.) but they could not wear the rank or receive the higher pay that they were entitled. It sounds like there was some regulation that volunteer troops could not serve as NCOs or Officers in regular army units. This soldier decided not to reenlist and was discharged at the end of his term of service because the army would not pay him or recognize him as a sergeant, a position he had occupied in the battery for several years.

However, in the same battery, Thomas Goodman was detached from his volunteer regiment (6th New Jersey Volunteer Infantry, Company K) were he was a First Lieutenant and served as a First Lieutenant with Battery B. He served with the battery for an unknown amount of time, on temporary duty until he was mortally wounded at Spotsylvania Court House, Virginia around May 9, 1864. I know that he served in the regular army artillery as an enlisted man before the war, but this fact does not seem to agree with the letter that this soldier wrote home as to why he was leaving the army. (I cannot seem to find this source at this time.)

Could anyone shed some like on this? Have any of you seen such a regulation? Is this veteran just making "excuses" for not continuing in the war? (Not that he had to, since he was in just about every major engagement that the Army of the Potomac fought in from 1861 until 1864.)

1stMaine

03-03-2008, 04:19 PM

Scott,

I do not have my copy of "Maine At Gettysburg" to hand, but there is mention in it of the 16th Maine Infantry (1st corps) having some 60+ men on detached duty to one of the 1st Corps batteries at Gettysburg. My reading of it indicated that they had been serving there for some time.

It was these men who were to form the nucleus of the reconstituted 16th Maine, after it was overrun and destroyed on Herr's Ridge on 1 July, 1861.

As to clothing, I would susoect that they were, indeed, all wearing their issued uniforms, and that any NCO's with them would have been wearing their insignia in branch colour, IE: blue. One of the nice things about Federal uniforms is that everyone gets to wear a sack coat. makes it easy tio uniform the battery, and except for Branch of Service insignia, hard to tell folks apart :)

ajroscoe

03-03-2008, 04:43 PM

Scott,
Thank you for your reply, its great to hear that an artillery unit does portray its infantry volunteers. I didn't realize that so much of a battery's man power would end up being made up of infantry volunteers, though I realize battery B is a special case, often being in the thick of the fighting. Its very interesting to find out that the volunteers couldn't "make rank" as it were, despite being on detached service. I suppose that if they were to be promoted, it would count against the regiment's NCO allotment.
Its nice to hear that you show that piece of history, as I have never seen another artillery unit show this practice. I think its important for all of us to remember that many of the batteries formed close associations with the brigades and divisions in which they served (at least prior to Gen. Hunt's reorganization of the artillery into brigades prior to Gettysburg for the Eastern Theater) as any units serving together are apt to do. Hopefully, reenactors can remember more often that the military is a team that relies on the advantages of each part of it to help overcome the weaknesses of the others. This is something little portrayed by us as reenactors, as we get caught in our own area: infantry, artillery, sharpshooter, cavalry, ect.

1stMaine

03-03-2008, 05:12 PM

Andrew,

Over on the CS side, Hood's Texas brigade had a similar affection for Battery D (Reilly’s Battery) 10th North Carolina State Troops (1st Regiment N.C. Artillery). Without exception, every memoir i own about Hood's Brigade mentions them in ine form or another, and usually with much admiration.

Respects,

artillerybuff

03-03-2008, 07:28 PM

[QUOTE
Please post some pics of your bronze barrels and copper limber tops and lets get this thread loaded with some accurate representations. Do you have a website for your unit and guns ?

Christopher, unfortunately my website is off line until my son returns from his deployment (I do not know how to do it myself), but I do have many pictures I can send to your personal email address if you like (do not know how to post them here, please forgive my computer ignorance). I personally own two fully rifled 10 Pdr. Parrotts, two Limbers, one Caisson, two Mountain Howitzers, two 24 Pdr. Coehorn Mortars (all pieces full scale with correct sized bores), and two 20 foot trailers to haul it all. Sold my 12 Pdr. Field Howitzer last year to help make room (hated doing that but the wife was ready to kill me!). Since our unit members are so spread out, I have to perform all of the maintenance by myself, and it is very hard to keep up with it all let me tell you. I have also previously owned two 6 Pdr's and an Ordnance Rifle.
PM me if you like and I'll send you more pictures than you'll know what to do with.

Anthony A. Variz

Light 6 Pdr

03-03-2008, 09:44 PM

Just for fun, let's look at the cost of a battery in today's prices. 1st an early war battery:

1. (4) 6 Pdr Gun tubes $18000 $72000 Bronze
2. (2) 12 Pdr Field Howitzer tubes $18000 $36000 Bronze
3. (6) #1 Carriages $8500 $51000
4. (12) Field Limbers (-boxes) $6500 $78000
5. (6) Caissons (-boxes) $7800 $46800
6. Battery Wagon $20000 $20000
7. Forge $19000 $19000
8. Limbers for 6,7 (2) $6500 $13000
9. implements X 6 $1000 $1000
10. Limber chests 14 limber, 12 caisson (26) $2800 $72800
11. Harness, 6 Per vehicle that is 6 pieces, 6 ciassons, 2 battery wagon and forge, that is 84 horses X a rough $1500 per horse $126000
12. Riding tack 1 Chief of piece, (6) Cpt (1) Lts (4) 1Sgt (1) (12 ) x say $1000 $12000

All this comes to $552,600 hmmmmm

Now, how about a later war battery of 6 Ordnance Rifles

1. (6) Rifled 3" Ordnance Rifle Tubes $7000 $42000 Rifled
So subtract $66000 from the above total and you have $486600. Still not very cheap.

Of course all of this is not counting horses or a basic load of ammunition.........96 horses @ $1500 ea would tack on $144000

6 Pdr Ammo is $13.75 powder charge +/- (1.25lbs) x 200 per gun x 4 $11000
6 Pdr Shot @ $10 each x 200 per gun, 4 guns $8000
12 Pdr Field howitzer is 13.75 per charge x 39 per box, x 4 per Howitzer $4290
12 Pdr Shot is $15 each from TRO $4680
12 Pdr Shells are say $40 ea $12480

A Battery of Field Artillery was and is a very expensive, very impressive array of equipment. In case you are wondering these prices are from Steen Cannons and Historical Ordnance Works.

As per other discussion:

1. Artillery invalid corps: You are totally correct, the artillery seems to be the home of the sick, lame and lazy all too often. Part of the reason for this is the dollars involved. Not too many 25 Year olds can afford the equipment (just a small piece of the list above) or the truck and trailer needed to transport said items around. This tends to make the average age of artilleryman a little older to say the least. I have been trying to get younger guys in our unit with little success. We have started horse drawn artillery which has its own list of problems. Now you have a branch that attracts older guys, with an activity that they are not able to do. The younger hard charging guys are drawn to infantry. Also, the level of work required is tremendious, maintining horses, harness etc is a lot of work and seems to put some people off too. This is even though I do 90% of it off the field.
I remember at 140th 1st Manassas I was with another battery. We were to take our Ordnance Rifle out on the field which was about 500 Yds away. We were supposed to get vehicle support which never materialized so we did it the olf fasioned way, the 7 of us rolled the 3000 lbs of ordnance and limber out on the field. We had not been there 15 minutes when some idiot came up and told us how he was going to do artillery when he was broken down and lazy like we were. The heat index was 105 or so that day, 1 guy died of heat stroke.
(also how many ordnance rifles were at the original battle ??? 0)

2. Horse drawn insurance: The National Rifle Association offers insurance for shooting or reenacting clubs. This is supplied through Lockton Risk services I think. Our policy is $1,000,000 and covers members and non members of the organization it is $600 per year. We had a broken shoulder at a practice last year and they paid without grumbling. They paid $5000 which is the max per medical issue. They even cover horse drawn activities etc.

3. Bronze tubes and limber chests were polished. The ordnance manual does not mention anything about painting them. Gibbon does not either. Mordechai doesn't mention it either. I often say to anyone that asserts they were allowed to tarnish, you weren't in the Army were you? I guess you never spent any time polishing copper pipes or painting rocks. My former Father in law was in AA Artillery stateside during the Korean war. He often said they cleaned their 90mm gun every day whether they fired it or not. From my time in the Army the greatest fear was to look "ate up" when your guns are not polished and equipment is dirty, you look ate up. I have read a reference to Dahlgren boat howitzer tubes were not to be polished in production. This implies the practice is not the norm. I have been unable to find it, but will keep looking.

Take care,
Steve Cameron
Burrough's Battery

Johnny Lloyd

03-03-2008, 10:36 PM

Without casting stones at anyone or any group, I have noticed a fair amount of less than authentic portrayals of Confederate artillery. (I'm not saying this is just a Confederate issue, but that is all I have been observing and researching)

Sir-
Excellent comment. Artillery is, I feel, totally under-represented at authentic events. This is probably due to cost, need for horses (or at least a good man-harness), and lack of easy mobility during tacticals.

Living Histories, which tend to be stationary in nature mostly, are excluded from the above comment.

But... if there was a way to do it (I'm sure there is and has been) then I'd be all for doing an Artillery impression. Crewing a fortification in the middle of a tactical field at an authentic event would be a wonderfully unique experience.

Isn't there going to be grey artillery at Marmaduke's Raid this year? Too bad I cannot fly more than 2 times this year to events- for me that is pushing it.

Thanks- Johnny Lloyd

Vicksburg Dave

03-03-2008, 11:09 PM

While the discussion of horseflesh and tack is all well and good. Realistically speaking, just getting units to work on the basics is a daunting tasks. Folks need to start throwing away paint roller sponge rammers, eliminate the goofy contortions during drill, and burn every red kepi in sight. Likewise, artillery crews, seem more prone to having an entourage-wives, girlfriends, children, dogs. Many artillery impressions I have seen look more like a Civil War themed family camping trip. But then again, I am preaching to the choir here.

hta1970

03-03-2008, 11:10 PM

Well, it seems we can all agree artillery is expensive and to be 100% authentic takes alot more than most can bring to bear in terms of resources.

That being said, I think there is room for a more authentic impression given what we all accept as the basics for artillery without breaking the bank:

(1) A period correct artillery piece (this would be a tube and carriage which is correct for the for the time and theater of war, i.e. provide information on the types of tubes present at given battles which are reenacted so anyone looking to buy a new gun can see what will be most useful for the theater (a napoleon makes a fine tube for the ANV throughout the war but a 6pdr has a limited usefulness) (also if it wasn't used at the battle, i.e. mountain howitzers and mortars, leave it at home for the lawn ornament, VFW salute, 4th of july fireworks or living history)

(2) correct limber and impliments are needed for each artillery peice on the field

(3) a better standard about what are the correct uniforms worn by artillery during the war just as has been done by infantry (early, mid, late war) and reduce the red tide....also to incude the wear of jackets on the field, haversacks, canteens, bedrolls and knapsacks as would have been done by an active battery in a battle..

(4) better information published on what a battery actually did carry to the field and used for camp (no camp chairs, wall tents, oil lanterns (where would Confederates have gotten the oil for them?), etc....)( if you want a chair find a fortification to do a living history as heavy artillery)

(5) a consensus developed among authentic artillery reenactors as to what is the correct drill to be used for the peice and that authentic drill to be used by all artillery units so one cannoneer can serve and piece anywhere eliminating reenactorisms which are not valid and accepted safety modifications. ( to incluuse sighting, moving the piece, etc...)

the infantry has lead the way in research and publication and training of their members. it is time that artillery make the same effort not only to improve ourselves, but to help others improve by providing them the compiled research (face it most reenactors won't do origninal research and analysis from primary sources, but they are much more likely to read good research made available to them...

Just some thoughts....

artillerybuff

03-04-2008, 12:48 AM

Good discussion gentelmen, and way to break it down Steve. I wasn't far off when I rough estimated a half a million dollars for one Battery was I?

Yes, any hope of a FULL true Artillery portrayal is all but impossible, however, as mentioned by many here, there is much we can do to improve without breaking the bank. This is one of the reasons I began a new US Artillery Unit in January 2007 in the ACWS, besides the fact that in our orgainzation CS Cannons outnumbered US Cannons 4 to 1. Somebody had to step up to help balance out the impression and realism, I just hope my four Confederate GGG Grandfathers understand that it is in their honor that I reenact the best that I can, even if it is in blue clothes now.

Be well~

Anthony A. Variz

GASharpshooter

03-04-2008, 07:40 AM

I just hope my four Confederate GGG Grandfathers understand that it is in their honor that I reenact the best that I can, even if it is in blue clothes now.

Don't worry about that. I'm sure they're happy to watch you, and really glad you aren't half starving and sick from rancid pork and course corn meal.

Ah, the famous Red Kepi. I was never so mortified to learn that I shouldn't wear a red kepi as a gunner for Union. No one said anything until my third event!

The interweb is your friend, do the research. Remember, friends don't let friends wear red kepis!!

ajroscoe

03-04-2008, 07:42 AM

Since everyone is talking about the costs of a full battery, I was wondering how common it would have been to see the full battery together anyways. I understand the guns and their limbers would be together, but the caissons and their limbers as well as the forge and battery wagon would have been some distance to the rear in many cases, wouldn't they? When reading Col. Wainwright's diary entries for the fight at Gettysburg, he said that all his battery's save one (Stewart's B, 4th US) had left their caissons and wagons on Cemetery Hill when moving towards the fighting on Seminary and McPherson's Ridges. So, if we're talking about an accurate battlefield impression, wouldn't those items be away from the guns anyways, cutting down the costs of an accurate impression? Don't get me wrong, I understand that even given that, it would still be big bucks for six guns, limbers, limber chests, horses, and horse gear, but that would still mitigate the costs, wouldn't it?

1stMaine

03-04-2008, 08:53 AM

Ancrew,

There are always exception, but the Caissons need to be within supporting distance of the battery, because they carry 2/3rds of the ammunition. The battery wagon and forge could be further behind, but they would also need to be able to get up in a reasonable amount of time to repair any damage to the guns once they are withdrawn, or are not further needed.

The biggest problem with artillery is the logistics of it. Anyone can be taught to operate the guns themselves, but it takes a great deal of planning to account for the care and feeding of the animals, including drawing rations in advance so as not to have to worry about running out on the march, keeping tabs on ammunition expenditure, where the reserve ammunition trains are located and how best to get there from where you are, keeping tabs on the material condition of the battery's equipment and how and when to do maintenance, the care and feeding of the men, etc.

Add to that that the commander of the battery has to not only know how to ploy and deploy his battery for best effect, but also needs a good eye for the lay of the land so as to determine the best way for all his guns to get from where they are to where they are needed, and back again if needs be. He needs to be able to quickly asses the condition of the ground. Is it suitable for jorses, or might his battery become disabled or bogged down and caught in a bad spot?

Bit I digress. The caissons need to be fairly close by in order to feed the battery, and then also know where the trains are in order to replenish their chests. Lots of decisions to be made, usually under fire and with not much time to make them in. :)

Johnny Lloyd

03-04-2008, 09:03 AM

Don't worry about that. I'm sure they're happy to watch you, and really glad you aren't half starving and sick from rancid pork and course corn meal.

Ah, the famous Red Kepi. I was never so mortified to learn that I shouldn't wear a red kepi as a gunner for Union. No one said anything until my third event!

The interweb is your friend, do the research. Remember, friends don't let friends wear red kepis!!

Gents-

Sorry soapbox... something really hit a chord with me personally... don't mean to take-away from the Artillery Discussion

Coming from the point-of-view of a real war vet, I would have absolutely NO problem if 100+ years from now, or even tomorrow, someone wanted to reenact the Iraq War. Just make sure you do it properly/correctly/realistically and in the memory of those that were fought, wounded, and died to make America great.

No one should ever make a mockery of the great tragedy of our war dead. I try to remember that when I reenact the AmCiv- I wouldn't want it done to MY war that I'm part of now.

The only ones to be able to TRULY call themselves "hardcores" are those that fought the war themselves, I feel. Guess, I'm a "hardcore Iraq War reenactor" based upon that assertion... that's why I sometimes joke that way- a way to laugh at the strange things that happen to you in combat. LOL ;)

But remember, they had fun too. They had laughs and fellowship as much, if not more sometimes, that only can be had with long times spent together facing death every day in some shape or form. We laughed in Iraq with one another because to not do so would mean going insane- so did the men that fought the Civil War because human nature doesn't change. They played practical jokes, told jokes, played games, wrestled and drank with one-another just as much as soldiers of today do. It helps you keep your sanity in a world that looks like it has lost its own sanity.

I feel "the ancestors" would take pride in the fact that we try to relive, as best as we know we can do so, their moments that defined their lives.

War changes you in big ways and little ways- sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse.

I don't feel being in a "Civil War circus" farbonzo-fest, no matter how noble the intentions, does anyone any good on studying what the real war was like or who really fought it and lived it as horrifying reality. You know, I might be offended if those Iraq War reenactors 100+ years from now aren't even willing to try to experience what I actually went through. But they certainly do have good intentions...

...perhaps it is a grey area there on how I feel. ;)

But... You're right, our American ancestors are probably looking down from heaven right now and happy America is strong, free, and at peace within itself. I know they must be happy we are keeping a true part of our American heritage alive for others to get interested-in and study its lessons presented.

I KNOW they are also saying... "You guys are crazy to do this for fun."

Huzzah. Ha!

If I'm lucky, then I will shake their hands one day and tell them how much I admire their sacrifice.

:wink_smil

I remain-
Johnny Lloyd
Captain, US Army
Iraq War- Jan 2006- Mar 2007

PS- Back to the thread discussion: In EOG-Confederacy, there is a picture of the Hart's Battery kepi and it's red. Possible re-enactorism against Confederate Red Kepis??? Hmmm... clarification? :confused:

BumpusTN

03-04-2008, 09:47 AM

Possible re-enactorism against Confederate Red Kepis??? :

Johnny,

Thank you for your service.

I think the "reenactorism" is more against the old "Spencer Firearms" type red kepi. Yeah, I had one in the old days. I thinks my kids play with it now.

Scott Bumpus

Johnny Lloyd

03-04-2008, 10:04 AM

Johnny,

Thank you for your service.

Scott Bumpus

Have to digress... sorry

Not a problem... I was happy I fought in my generations war. I did it not for thanks, but to know I helped in some small way. I'm sure there were similar individual motivations in the War Between the States too.

Others have had more heroism than I. I think every vet feels that way.

I said the above comment because I feel, even I, sometimes forget to remember that men actually died horrid deaths fighting to make our country one again...

... but with that, they also lived the life of a soldier as well- which has changed little in centuries. That includes the laughs and fellowship along with the horrors of war.

While we cannot readily reenact actual killing (you wouldn't want to, trust me, I know) ... To not do justice to the life of a soldier, and not just death of the soldier, is really missing the war's impact as a whole on the men who fought it.

After all, isn't that what we study so carefully to reproduce?

:wink_smil

Thanks- Johnny Lloyd

hta1970

03-04-2008, 02:31 PM

Ok, lets get back on track on how we can improve artillery.....

I have a little breakdown of ANV artillery at Gettysburg.

98 Napoleons 40% of ANV Artillery
64 3in Ordnance Rifles 27% " " "
39 10pdr Parrotts 16% " " "
21 12 pdr Howitzers 9% " " "
12 20pdr Parrotts 5% " " "
5 24pdr Howitzers 2% " " "
2 Whitworths 1% " " "
214 Guns Total

228 Caissons (just short of 1 per gun)
8 Battery Wagons (roughly 1 per every 2 battalions)
32 Forges (roughly 1 per every 2 batteries)

It should be remembered that ANV Artillery had recently reorganized into 4gun batteries with a battalion staff, with each battalion assigned to a division and each Corps having 2 battalions of Reserve Artillery.

Just a snapshot showing what was in the field for the ANV in July '63.

Note the complete lack of 6pdr guns at this point in time and also that the Napoleon makes up almost half the field pieces in the ANV.

1stMaine

03-04-2008, 03:37 PM

Harry,

Do you have any stats for the ANV Cavalry Corps? I have a breakdown of gun types & numbers by battalion and, in some cases, battery, for the 3 Corps & the Artillery Reserve, but nothing listed for the cavalry. It had been my understanding that those 6lb guns, or at least some of them, were assigned to the Cavalry's batteries, but I may be mistaken there.

Respects,

GASharpshooter

03-04-2008, 04:49 PM

GASharpshooter

03-04-2008, 05:13 PM

Aren't those 98 Napoleons 6lbrs?

J

Ok, lets get back on track on how we can improve artillery.....

I have a little breakdown of ANV artillery at Gettysburg.

98 Napoleons 40% of ANV Artillery
64 3in Ordnance Rifles 27% " " "
39 10pdr Parrotts 16% " " "
21 12 pdr Howitzers 9% " " "
12 20pdr Parrotts 5% " " "
5 24pdr Howitzers 2% " " "
2 Whitworths 1% " " "
214 Guns Total

228 Caissons (just short of 1 per gun)
8 Battery Wagons (roughly 1 per every 2 battalions)
32 Forges (roughly 1 per every 2 batteries)

It should be remembered that ANV Artillery had recently reorganized into 4gun batteries with a battalion staff, with each battalion assigned to a division and each Corps having 2 battalions of Reserve Artillery.

Just a snapshot showing what was in the field for the ANV in July '63.

Note the complete lack of 6pdr guns at this point in time and also that the Napoleon makes up almost half the field pieces in the ANV.

OldKingCrow

03-04-2008, 05:33 PM

duplicate post sorry - Selector on 2 post burst

OldKingCrow

03-04-2008, 05:34 PM

Aren't those 98 Napoleons 6lbrs?

J

No 12lb - A number of the CS were Tredegar Napoleons too..much different look..no swell.

I wonder if in fact there were CS Tredegar 3in Rifles (cast) present as well..64 captured 3in Ordnance Rifles ?

At Gettysburg, there was only one 6lb gun on the field, that in Alexander Latham's battery in James Longstreet's I Corps, Army of Northern Virginia.

Thomas, Dean S., CANNONS: An Introduction to Civil War Artillery. Thomas Publications, Gettysburg, PA, 1985.
Coco, Gregory A., A Concise Guide to the Artillery at Gettysburg. Thomas Publications, Gettysburg, PA, 1998.

cannoneer

03-04-2008, 05:40 PM

From what I have learned a Napoleon is a 12 pounder, based off a French cannon designed by Napoleon the third.

I am really happy to see this thread grow and evolve in a civil manner. (no pun intended)
Being in an artillery unit that is mainstream I see what is being said first hand.

Don't get me wrong, I am working my impression to the Authentic side. I continue to research my units history.

hta1970

03-04-2008, 06:04 PM

At Gettysburg, there was only one 6lb gun on the field, that in Alexander Latham's battery in James Longstreet's I Corps, Army of Northern Virginia.

Thomas, Dean S., CANNONS: An Introduction to Civil War Artillery. Thomas Publications, Gettysburg, PA, 1985.
Coco, Gregory A., A Concise Guide to the Artillery at Gettysburg. Thomas Publications, Gettysburg, PA, 1998.

Christopher, my bad there. I actaullay was quoteing those numbers from the ANV artillery after Gettysburg. You are quite correct, when I went back to the ORs, the Barch Artillery commanded by Latham "Lost 1 6-pounder, said to be turned in, and 1 12-pounder howitzer, abandoned." The 6pdr was not listed in the table of lost or present artillery, only in the remarks which is why I missed it.

I will go back and take a closer look at the remakes and may post a revised table to reflect a more accurate accounting...

As to the Horse Artillery, there was nothing listed for them in the OR, but if anyone has anyinformation, I would be most interested in seeing it...and adding it to what I have from the ORs...

1stMaine

03-04-2008, 06:21 PM

Harry,

See here:

http://aotw.org/weapons.php?weapon_id=12

Seems to be quite a few at Sharpsburg, then tapering off.

ajroscoe

03-04-2008, 06:27 PM

Gentlemen,
This is from a Gettysburg Order of Battle complied by Carl Smith (Copyright, Osprey Publishing Ltd, 1998):

Beckham's Battalion (Maj. R.F. Beckham) 434
1st Stuart's Horse Arty/Breathed's VA Btty 106 4/3R
Chew's VA Btty (w/Jones, not at Gettysburg) 99 4 guns
2nd Baltimore Griffin's MD Btty 106 4/10P
Hart's SC Btty 107 8/BR
2nd Stuart's Horse Arty/McGregor's VA Btty 106 2/N, 2/3R
Moorman's VA Btty (not at Gettysburg) 112 4 guns

The first number being men present for duty 1 Jul 63 and the second being the number of guns/type of gun. Since Napoleons are represented by an "N," 3 Inch Rifles by "3R," 12lb Howitzers by "12H," 10lb Parrot Rifles by "10P," 20lb Parrot Rifles by "20P," and 6lb guns by "6G" in this report, I assume Mr. Smith did not know the composition of those two batteries. Maybe someone else can guess as to what "BR" is supposed to represent. Some kind of rifled gun, probably.

Tim, thank you for you information about the caissons and battery wagons. I freely admit I don't know much about the administration end of artillery.

Hope this could help.

OldKingCrow

03-04-2008, 06:35 PM

BR = Brooke Rifle

hta1970

03-04-2008, 11:11 PM

I suspect the BR means Blakely Rifle aka Blakely Gun. It was a 12pdr rifled gun imported from England.

In fact the Washington Artillery (aka Hart's Battery) was armed with 4 Blakely Guns.

Brooke Rifles were used as far as I know, exclusively for fixed defensive works and aboard Confederate Naval vessels and the smallest size Brooke Rifle was 6.4 inches weighing over 9,000 lbs.

OldKingCrow

03-05-2008, 03:18 AM

Absolutely correct Blakely...I do not know why I typed Brooke..just realized it.

I am going to crew and fire the 7 inch Brooke @ Columbus Naval Museum end of this month at the school of the sailor..so I had Brooke on the brain.

GASharpshooter

03-05-2008, 07:31 AM

Chris whats the date this year?

Absolutely correct Blakely...I do not know why I typed Brooke..just realized it.

I am going to crew and fire the 7 inch Brooke @ Columbus Naval Museum end of this month at the school of the sailor..so I had Brooke on the brain.

hta1970

03-05-2008, 07:57 AM

Mbond057

03-05-2008, 11:00 AM

vamick

03-05-2008, 11:35 AM

Captain Lloyd that was a great post!

Now, as far as the red kepi, I was a Union artillerist at the time, and it was gently pointed out to me, with a reference that I can't remember, but 'ol Dudley the first shirt pretty much knew the score on uniform items, that Union artillerists did not wear red kepis.

Now, Confederate, otoh, you could have a solid red kepi or a gray one with red branch trim. Although it seems like the sutlers only sell the red ones with the dark blue trim on them, which I think goes with red trousers in some Union infantry regiments. Someone tune me up again (it keeps happening...) if I have it wrong ;)

Those red kepis with the dark blue trim are authenic to ANV and some even survived the war,( infantry especially loved to call the arty boys 'woodpeckers' because of em, wonder if thats were the term 'peckerhead' comes from?:D) however, for my self at least and many of the boys of the 1860's " those little french caps" are next to worthless when yer out there in the elements, give me any ole hat anytime over those 'sexy' kepis!

vamick

03-05-2008, 11:45 AM

a great read on ANV horse artillery is Galloping Thunder by Robert Trout,

a great many details are found in the diary's and letters! and even a few 'zingers' that I believe challenge a few of our modern day 'reenactorisms'

and another full of facinating details even weather!, is "Three Years in Confederate Horse Artillery by Neese,a gunner in Chews Battery ( incendently the first Confederate horse artillery, formed out of co D Ashby's 7th Va cav.) its out of print but can still be had

vamick

03-05-2008, 11:49 AM

here is a picture of the cassion we built for the Hunley crew funeral in Charleston SC and a few of our guns, let me tell ya the shine on that 12 pdr field howitser will fry yer retinas!:D

1stMaine

03-05-2008, 12:07 PM

There is credible evidence that 12 Pdr. Mountain Howitzers was used at Gettysburg. In 2009 the Gettysburg Anniversary Committee will allow a limited number of MH to work with the cavalry in support of the following documentation presented to them this past fall.

“I'm sure most of us are familiar with the variety of artillery present during the Battle of Gettysburg, but how many know that the 12 Pdr Mountain Howitzer were used to defend the base of Little Round Top during the fighting on July 2, 1863?”

"The rebels came from all directions for the guns, and lost all formation. They waved their
battle flags, a dozen being just in front of me. They came to where a number were shot down; then they recoiled, and retreated through the wheat field and woods. To my' right and rear; among the rocks, I could see a twelve pounder mountain howitzer at work. A soldier asked me what kind of a gun it was: he said it kicked over at every' discharge.” 1st Lt. Page, 3rd U.S. Infantry. (Quoted in Powell's The Fifth Army Corps, p.535-36.)

Comrade,

Taken at face value, based on the evidence listed, the only way that a mountain howitzer could be credibly used at that event is ONE during the scenario defending Little Round Top. To allow them to be used in any other context is not therefore historically accurate. We might just as easily say that, because there were 2 regiments of Federal Sharpshooters at the battle, that fellows with that uniform can fall in anywhere they want to at any scenario.

However, I am certainly mustified by the evidence put forward to alledge the use of this gun. I simple review of the Federal artillery ehahed at Gettsburg shows NO mountain howitzers. In fact, the only 2 Howitzers listed are with the 2nd CT Light Artillery, which were M1841 12lb howitzers, along with 4 James Rifles.

We are supposed to be attempting to raise the bar, not maintaining the status quo. There are certainly places where mountain howitzers are appropriate, but allowing for their use at Gettysburg, based upon a single source documentation, seems to me to be questionable at best, and more likely designed to assuage the feelings of a partivulr unit, rather than an attempt to recreate an historic scenario.

That's my 2-cent's worth anyway :)

flattop32355

03-05-2008, 12:28 PM

hta1970

03-05-2008, 02:36 PM

There is credible evidence that 12 Pdr. Mountain Howitzers was used at Gettysburg. In 2009 the Gettysburg Anniversary Committee will allow a limited number of MH to work with the cavalry in support of the following documentation presented to them this past fall.

“I'm sure most of us are familiar with the variety of artillery present during the Battle of Gettysburg, but how many know that the 12 Pdr Mountain Howitzer were used to defend the base of Little Round Top during the fighting on July 2, 1863?”

"The rebels came from all directions for the guns, and lost all formation. They waved their
battle flags, a dozen being just in front of me. They came to where a number were shot down; then they recoiled, and retreated through the wheat field and woods. To my' right and rear; among the rocks, I could see a twelve pounder mountain howitzer at work. A soldier asked me what kind of a gun it was: he said it kicked over at every' discharge.” 1st Lt. Page, 3rd U.S. Infantry. (Quoted in Powell's The Fifth Army Corps, p.535-36.)

I'm all with Tim on this one.

One mountain howitzer referenced by a Infantry officer at Little Round Top does not equal a limited number mountain howitzers operating with cavalry. How does that work in support of that documentation?

The Army of the Potomac has some great material preserved in records. I think whomever decided they wanted to bring their squirrel gun to play with the Artillery needs to do some real research on artillery and stop trying to put square pegs in round holes.

Then again maybe they can fall in with the Marines at Gettysburg or bring their coehorn mortar too.

AC is supposed to be, as Tim says, about raising the bar in authenticity of impressions. Just my two cents but that Committee is a farce and only doing a service to the profiteers running the "show" as it clrealy isn't a reenactment anymore.

hta1970

03-05-2008, 02:51 PM

As an infantryman, I appreciate the respectful nature of most of the posts here.

One of the early items of concern was standardizing drill. If I remember correctly from informal talks with a unit member who does mostly artillery, were there two manuals in use at the time? If more than one, is it possible for a consensus to be reached on the preferred one to use?

Along with that, some daring soul could take the "risk" of presenting a proposed article on necessary modern safety measures to be addressed and how best to address them. It could then be discussed/debated among the learned folk and until a viable and comprehensive paper could be agreed upon. I'd hazard that event sponsors would find such useful in determining who the more attractive units are to attend their event.

In both cases, there will still be those out there who will not abide, but there's not much you can do about them.

Bernard,

I have actually found a few manuals.

Gilham would have been an influence to any battery either commanded by former VMI cadets or trained by VMI drillmasters.

Andrews' manual came out in 1863 for a Confederate audience.

French, Berry, Hunt came out in 1860 with additional editions in at least 61, 62 and 64. Andrews refers to it being the only manual of worth in circulation at the beginning on the war and obviously read by Confederate Artillery officers and familiar to any former US officer in Confederate service.

Patten's Nov 61 book on Artillery fell into the hands of Andrews at Mechanicsville and he was greatly impressed apparently using it as a basis for his own manual.

Those are four manuals which have at least a minimal impact of Confederate Artillery drill, though I have not compared them in drill as of yet and would really prefer someone much more familar to make further coment on the details described.

Vicksburg Dave

03-05-2008, 05:22 PM

NPS drill is as close to Hunt's as I have seen, and would probably be a good starting point since NPS events are a major part of the hobby. Moreover, a good portion of period photos point toward Hunt as the dominant drill manual.

Mbond057

03-05-2008, 06:45 PM

Harry & Tim,

It is amusing to me. You guys want documentation. It’s provided in a credible source and you guys change the parameters of your argument on research to continue forcing your agenda. No one is arguing that artillery impressions cannot be improved. But to make a foolish comment that Mountain Howitzers should just be lawn ornaments goes against what you preach. I’m not saying that Mountain Howitzers are not over represented in reenacting today, but let’s evaluate why they are: It comes down to money.

I’m not saying that Mountain Howitzers were used in any great numbers at Gettysburg. I’m not saying that they were used in the Peach Orchard or in support of any other action occurring during the Gettysburg fighting. I have no evidence that would support this. I do have documented evidence that at least one Mountain Howitzer was used in the Gettysburg Battle and that’s what I reported. I do not sit on the board of the Gettysburg Anniversary Committee. The committee will allow MH starting in 2009 in limited number with Cav. Once again is this one or ten MH? I don’t know this answer or how they will be used with the Cav. Don’t shot the messenger.

The documented fact is that 12 Pdr. Mountain Howitzers were used during the Civil War. They were mounted on pack and prairie carriages. I have been doing a southwest federal artillery impression in Arizona and MH was part of the 3rd US Artillery and 1st New Mexico Infantry. I’m still learning the history of the CW in the Southwest but I am using an artillery piece that was assigned to both of these units.

You want more authentic artillery impressions, so does everyone on this board. No matter how you argue the fact it comes down to money. You can try and continue the argument that it’s not about money but we all know that’s not the case in artillery impressions. The big guns, cost big money! The drill and uniforms of course are easier to address and make more authentic. But ignoring the elephant in the room (expense) is not going to make authentic artillery reality.

If an artillery unit cannot meet the required authentic impression and guidelines of the event then they need to look for alternative events. Just be aware that there will not be many artillery units that cannot meet this requirement of horse drawn light artillery.

hta1970

03-05-2008, 07:12 PM

Mark,

Don't want to shoot the messenger here and if in fact there is diocumented evidence that the Mountain Howitzer was used at Little Round Top (sounds like one since the singular was used in the original account) then by all means sure it would be great to see that added to the Little Round Top scenario when that one is used at an event.

My problem is taking that use, if correct, at Little Rond Top in very rough terrain and using that to justify its use with cavalry is plain out wrong. Thus my square peg round hole comment...

Yes, mountain howitzers were used in the war, as we have seen under Imboden at Port Republic for example in VA, though having the mules roll around on the ground with them while the crews try to manage the mules would not be what most artillery crews would want to do with their day at a reenactment. And true in the west they were used much longer in the east. Nothing wrong with using them in the south-west if they were used there.

We as reenactors are educators. The public like it or not looks up to us to make the names , dates and phots of the war real for them. It is therefor our responsibility to improve what we do, make changes needed and realize that if we are "X" unit which is very specific to a certain place and time, we don't try to fit into "y" event just becasue we want to be there unless we can be a generic unit which would have been present. Keeping that in mind is why a Napoleon is such an ideal tube for any CS artillery unit in the ANV because it was around for the whole war and many times in very large numbers. As shown right after Gettysburg, they were 40% of the ANV artillery less Stuart's Horse Artillery.

If a unit want to be specialized, they can do whatever they want, but they should also realize that such specialization in portrayal will limit which events are appropriate for them to attend given their uniforms and equipment.

I think we all know and have discussed ad nauseum the expense and difficulty of having horse drawn artillery.

But just because we don't have horses doesn't mean that we should use that fact to justify the lack of 57" wheels.

cannoneer

03-05-2008, 07:15 PM

From what I have read in this thread the general drift is;
1. Less furniture
2. Improved drill (minus the exaggerated movements, etc.)
3. Continue to research your unit's history and try to bring to bear the correct equipment
a. caissons
b. correct cannon/s for unit and time frame
4. Improve uniforms (stop the red tide)

I have to say that only the third line item is the hard one because of the costs.

With so few AC artillery units, the one thing we (in the artillery) can do is to help guide the units we are in to a better and more authentic impression.

Respectfully,

Fauxban

03-05-2008, 08:10 PM

First. lets applaud the thread itself, & trust it'll actually DO something progressive...

Forgive me for tackling several points in different posts. I type very slowly & am easily bored, & there’s quite a lot to respond to here.

On manuals

Instructions for Field Artillery AKA French, Barry & Hunt (FBH):
F, B, & H were Regular Army artillery captains sitting on a board to revise the then current manual of drill, maneuver & training. Comparing the 1846 manual with "FBH '61, & FBH '64 one finds surprisingly few differences. School of the piece is identical. The '61 edition expands the training & maneuver portions anticipating the use of massed batteries rather than detached sections. The ’64 edition provides firing data for the new rifled pieces entering into service. “Rifle” drill isn’t addressed at all, being simply the procedure used to load any unfixed ammunition.

Everything in American artillery derives from the pre-war Instructions for Field Artillery. Period.
Patten & Gilham cribbed, edited & outright plagiarized from the work of FBH. Andrews captured a copy of Patten, re- revised, edited & published it while on convalescent leave (see CS EoG for his jacket, frightening!!) In NONE of these various iterations is the School of the Piece changed, even the errors are repeated!!

We have ONE root source for our drill, collectively all we disagree on are the “modern safety changes”… Sorting THAT mess out is a task for Solomon.

Lazarus Driver

03-05-2008, 09:31 PM

First let me say that it is good to see an artillery discussion and I will add some of my own commentary. I will start off by saying that I am a driver for Kent Oestenstad. Thanks to his hard work and dedication to doing it right makes it even more enjoyable when we take the field. Mounted Artillery is not the place for the out of shape crowd. You work your butt off, water groom water groom harness up unharness groom water feed, do horse watch at night and then start all over again. Would I trade this, heck NO it is part of the experience. One problem is that most events are geared towards the Infantry and there ability to move and not the artillery’s. Put the guns on the goal line and the INF will play on the rest of the field. When you add horse drawn into the mix you get I don’t know what to do syndrome. Mr. Lloyd you made the comment about artillery be under-represented at authentic events. Well I have a list that I would like to share showing that it can and has been done. These are in no real order and not all had horses but here goes Port Gibson, Shiloh, 2nd Raymond (4 gun mounted battery, guns and caissons) Picketts Mill remember the dead company and the man harness . Pickett’s Mill mounted, Stones River, Gettysburg (Ringgold can tell you about working with Kent) This past Chickamauga with the WIG. Fort Sumter Fort Jackson Fort Gaines and finally I portrayed an Artillery Officer at the last two IM600’s. So yes it is done, is it easy NO. Especially getting the different groups together to form a battery. As to Drill just read French, Barry, and Hunt. The book has tons of info in it. Yes a lot of it applies to horse drawn use however all units should have an understanding of how a battery moved even if you will never have horses. Learn how to put on the chain lock and how and when it is used. I will get out of the saddle now.

Bill Thomas
Driver
Lazarus Battery

hta1970

03-06-2008, 04:46 PM

Ok, did a little updating on the ANV artillery tubes at 3 points in time. Sharpsburg information from the AOTW site, Gettysburg from the ORs and about June 64 from the ORs. In the case of Gettysburg and 64 the horse artillery is not included.

Sharpsburg

59 6pdr Gun 23% of ANV Artillery
57 12 pdr Howitzers 22% " " "
48 3in Ordnance Rifles 18% " " "
48 10pdr Parrotts 18% " " "
30 Napoleons 12% " " "
8 Blakely Gun 3% " " "
4 24pdr Howitzers 2% " " "
4 Naval Howitzer 2% " " "
2 Whitworths .5% " " "
1 Hotchkiss Gun .5% " " "
261 Guns Total

Note: AOTW only lists 3 Naval Howitzers in the ANV but the 2nd Richmond Howitzers had 1 Naval Howitzer (their only howitzer) mentioned in a 9/22/62 report in the ORs

Gettysburg

101 Napoleons 40% of ANV Artillery
63 3in Ordnance Rifles 25% " " "
37 10pdr Parrotts 15% " " "
25 12 pdr Howitzers 10% " " "
12 20pdr Parrotts 5% " " "
5 24pdr Howitzers 2% " " "
3 Navy Parrotts 1% " " "
2 Whitworths 1% " " "
1 6pdr Gun 1% " " "
254 Guns Total

Note: 3 of Cutts' 3 inch ordnance rifles were really Navy Parrotts, McIntosh had 1 gun which was disabled or unspecified type, and Garnett had 2 guns captured and 2 turned in of unspecified type. These guns are given in the total but not the tyep beakdown, except for the Navy Parrotts.

246 Caissons (just short of 1 per gun)
9 Battery Wagons (roughly 1 per every 2 battalions)
45 Forges (roughly 1 per every battery)

June '64

94 Napoleons 49% of ANV Artillery
48 10pdr Parrotts 25% " " "
32 3in Ordnance Rifles 16% " " "
12 20pdr Parrotts 6% " " "
6 12 pdr Howitzers 3% " " "
1 24pdr Howitzers 1% " " "
193 Guns Total

OldKingCrow

03-06-2008, 05:37 PM

Mr. Aycock,

Great work ! Thanks.

For curiosity....what do you get for hits on "mountain howitzer" in the OR's ?

hta1970

03-06-2008, 06:31 PM

Christopher,

I actually haven't done a check on that yet, but can put it on my list.

BTW - Are you involved in FL event artillery? I have thought about adding information at the very least on CS artillery at Olustee if there is an interest....

OldKingCrow

03-06-2008, 07:07 PM

Does a one-legged duck swim in a circle ?

I descend from a CS / Olustee cavalryman.

Much, much obliged.

BTW - Are you involved in FL event artillery?

I gave up on "reenacting" but maintain a keen man, method and material research interest.

CR

OldKingCrow

03-07-2008, 06:01 AM

Speaking of display pieces and howitzers....175 lbs think it is typo or perhaps describing a Mtn Howitzer ? Tredegar also made a mtn rifle ????

From the Richmond Dispatch, 3/7/1862, p. 2, c. 3

New Artillery Company. – A specimen of the brass field pieces, intended for the use of Capt. Thos. T. Croppers’ Artillery company, was exhibited on the Capitol Square yesterday, to a large number of interested spectators. It was made at the Tredegar foundry, of brass, and weighs, as the others will, 175 pounds each. On trial, first round, with twenty musket balls, scattered about twenty feet in 200 yards; with forty balls, about thirty feet, and with sixty balls, thirty seven feet. It would cut in infantry a perfect lane. Capt. Cropper expects to use ten of these guns. They shoot with a single ball, with accuracy, over one mile. Capt. C.’s office is opposite the Law Building, Franklin street.

hta1970

03-07-2008, 11:03 AM

Christopher,

Interesting reference there. That paper has some great information in it and it's nice to see it was digitized by UR.

Thomas T. Cropper was a Captain and commander of Cropper's Company of Light Artillery which was part of the 24th (known as Scott's) Battalion Partisan Rangers. The battalion consisted of 3 cavalry and 1 artillery companies.

The artillery company was broken up in June 1862 and the men assigned to other commands.

marine05

03-10-2008, 08:33 AM

One thing I would like to see is everyone get on the same page with drill. Most seem to have their own interpretation of it based on (in many cases) exaggerated safety concerns or on baseless claims (with no documentation) of "common sense suggests that they did it this way or that" At present, in most cases, you cannot take an artilleryman from one crew and place him another crew without retraining him, which is the antithesis of the purpose of having a drill in the first place.
Dave,

Re: your message concerning drill, that is why, if you do a searc, you'll see our "redlegs from the sky" idea. So far we have integrated cannoneers and detachments from different batteries, all using HBF drill.

Give me a shout!

Dan

marine05

03-10-2008, 08:59 AM

No 12lb - A number of the CS were Tredegar Napoleons too..much different look..no swell.

I wonder if in fact there were CS Tredegar 3in Rifles (cast) present as well..64 captured 3in Ordnance Rifles ?

At Gettysburg, there was only one 6lb gun on the field, that in Alexander Latham's battery in James Longstreet's I Corps, Army of Northern Virginia.

Thomas, Dean S., CANNONS: An Introduction to Civil War Artillery. Thomas Publications, Gettysburg, PA, 1985.
Coco, Gregory A., A Concise Guide to the Artillery at Gettysburg. Thomas Publications, Gettysburg, PA, 1998.
According to Tredegar's history they did cast ordnance rifles. They actually found tubes still in the molds that had been tossed into the James after the war ended. If you get the opportunity you should pay the park a visit, pretty interesting, plus Belle Isle is directly across the river from the foundry.

S/F

Dan

OldKingCrow

03-10-2008, 09:27 AM

My question wasnt whether Tredegar cast them or not...but rather were the 64 enumerated CS 3in Rifles present at Gettysburg all Ordnace Rifles ? Tredegar and Noble cast 3 in rifles. Read my quip again.

marine05

03-11-2008, 03:33 PM

Chris,

After I posted I re-read your post and it did seem to not ask if they made them but rather who made the ones present. Sorry, good question. I have a reference book on the existing CW artillery pieces known and where they were cast. This may not shed light on where the 64 in question were cast, but may be able to contribute to a statistical analysis of percent produced by one foundry versus another.

S/F

DJM

Mbond057

03-12-2008, 03:10 PM

Here are some photos of 12 Pdr. Mountain Howitzers during the Civil War in the eastern theater.

http://usmdartillery.com/images/ny_7th_reg_in_dc_april_1861.jpg

Fort Sumter, South Carolina
12 Pdr Brass Barrel Mountain Howitzer
April, 1863

http://usmdartillery.com/images/fort_sumter_12_pdr_mountain_howitzer.jpg

Union Soldiers with 1841
12 Pdr Mountain Howitzer in April 1865

http://usmdartillery.com/images/brass-howitzers_in_richmond__va_dmws.jpg

hta1970

03-14-2008, 11:24 PM

Wehat I see int he photos is a very early war infantry unit with one at Washington DC. Does anyone know what became of that gun?

The Fort Sumter photo is the use of 12pdr MH to defend against amphibious assault. But unfortunately does nothing to porve the use of the MH in the field in 1863.

The thrid photo looks like an ordnance yard or park. Again does not support field usage in the Eastern therater in 1865.

It's important to remember that just because you have a photo of a Mountain Howitzer doesn't mean everyone in the eastern theater wore jaguar pants for the entire war.

Do you have any official records from units using the Mountain Howitzer or ordnance reports from units using the Mountain Howitzer which might connect its use in the eastern theater to specific campaigns or battles in which they were used?

Mbond057

03-15-2008, 02:25 PM

Harry,

There is documentation that MH were used in eastern battles such as the Gettysburg example I have offered. Mosby’s Rangers used a MH in some of their attacks. I’m not going to try and argue that the MH technology was not becoming dated by the start of the CW. The MH had a maximum affective range of 900-1000 yards and that’s pushing the envelop.

A Bronze 12 Pdr. Mordecai 1849 Mountain Howitzer barrel mounted on a number 1 prairie carriage saw action in the Battle of Greenbrier River, VA (Now WV) with the 1st W. Va. Light Artillery regiment.

Both the West Point Museum and the US Army Ordnance Museum at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland have MH on displays that were in the Civil War.

Here is a photo I took of the MH at Aberdeen, MD.

http://usmdartillery.com/images/albums/NewAlbum_894d9/tn_1841_MH_at_APG.jpg

http://usmdartillery.com/images/albums/NewAlbum_894d9/tn_1841_MH_Orginal.jpg

Here is an article titled the Bull Pup: The 1841 Mountain Howitzer by Steven Grizzell. It’s a good article on the CW MH.

http://www.currensnet.com/cwcongrs/Mountain_hwtzers/mh_a_index.htm

dbunny23

03-16-2008, 05:22 PM

Gentlemen;

Speaking of "red tide", is the grey wool shell jacket with red cuffs and collar that dominates most confederate artillery reenactors wardrobe authentic, or what? I have never seen a photo or reference to their authenticity. Like the red kepis, very much overdone.

George Royal
North Florida Artillery

Semmes' Battery, 1st Confederate Light Artillery
Hexamer's Battery, Battery A, 1st NJ Volunteer Light Artillery

marine05

03-17-2008, 08:15 AM

Mark,

Thanks for the very educational article. The howitzer certainly did see varied service. Although from a logistics standpoint I wonder how the infantry units that kept their guns carried projectiles and charges, not to mention, moving the pieces themselves.

I'm not saying they didn't or couldn't, just thinking of the how's.

S/F

DJM

OldKingCrow

03-17-2008, 09:57 AM

So with respect to PEC a mountain howitzer is a very limited impression (Cavalry drawn, Garrision in Fort, etc) and not like you see at events here in Florida....battery vs battery of mtn hwtzrs each manned by a full compliment of artillerists ?

Mbond057

03-17-2008, 10:17 AM

Dan,

Hello!

That’s an excellent question. Supplies and other logistics must have been tough to manage. I suspect the Ordnance Sergeant for the Infantry or Cav constructed rounds from regimental supplies and the unit’s blacksmith skills when on campaign. This is only an educated guess because I haven’t been able to find any documentation to how these units supplied their small amount of field artillery while on campaign.

Many in the hobby and historians overlook the Mountain Howitzer role in our military history. Because of its size and limited range it is less glamorous then other carriage artillery of the period. I have provided photos and a well written article based on good acceptable scholarly sources on the MH roll in the CW. If others chose to ignore these facts then they have limited their knowledge base and altered reality to support their agenda’s despite the evidence presented. This occurs a lot in studying history in which interpretations must be made based on limited or incomplete information.

When the hobby started to get bigger in the 80’s someone who didn’t do their homework made a 57” artillery wheel rule out of ego and that somehow stuck. Without doing their homework many assumed that the MH was only used out west or in desperation so the MH once again fell out of favor with eastern people in the hobby. They were more interested in drawing a paying crowd then presenting history as best we could interpret. When a mountain howitzer was used within its designed limits it was a healthy weapon to add to the unit’s firepower.

So if others still think that the MH is only a lawn ornaments it’s based on perception and not historical information.

I’m surprised that in the campaign side of the hobby that the MH is still under this myth. With campaigners wishing to do more intense scenarios with small units and raids, etc. it would be a perfect campaigner artillery given the battle scenarios of smaller immersed events. IMHO I think it would make for a great tactical event to study a few raids and battles in which the MH participate and have a weekend tactical event around allowing for a mess to get a better understanding of the MH. The challenges of dragging the MH through the woods, rocks, stream, hills, etc. with a three or four man crew would put theory to practice allowing for a deeper understanding of the struggles of an infantry outfit using a MH.

Respectfully,

hta1970

03-17-2008, 11:06 AM

Other than Moseby's irregular cavalry, not serving as part of Stuart's Cavalry Corps, are there any references to regular cavalry in the ANV or AOP using the Mountain Howitzer.

Is there any documented use of the Mountain Howitzer by an Artillery Battery, not as part of of an infantry unit, in the ANV or AOP after the summer of '62?

It seems that the use at Gettysburg is attributed to an infantry brigade by Steven Grizzell in his article on the Mountain Howitzer, not an artillery battery. Also if you check the reference in the original book by Powell "The Fifth Army Corps" publixhed in 1896, you find the letter is mentioned in a footnote written some time after the was as the author of the letter is a Lieutenant Colonel where he apparently was a Lieutenant at the time of the Battle of Gettysburg. The letter is undated and there is no reference stating where this letter can be found.

I'm not saying that this source is wrong or was not there. I'm just saying if we have no official record of any artillery battery having this type of gun, why has no one wishing to use this type of gun followed on with Grizzell's work and sought to check the records of the infantry units present there at Little Round Top to see if they can find any official record there for proof that at least on of these guns was present at the battle? It seems clear, that even if one on these guns saw use at this one point on the battlefield, it is clearly not being used by artillery, but by infantry as Grizzell states.

Also, I have seen online a very incorrect quote from Alexander's report following the Battle of Gettysburg. The individual making this quote has added the word "mountain" in from of howitzer to support the use of the Mountain Howitzer by Confederate forces at Gettysburg.

"The sum total of the losses in my battalion during the period covered
by this report are as follows: In the battle of Gettysburg, July 2 and
3, killed, 19; wounded, 114; missing, 6; total, 139 men. There were
also 2 killed and 3 wounded of a detachment of 8 gallant Mississippians
at Captain Moody's guns, who volunteered to help maneuver them on very
difficult ground. Horses killed and disabled in action, 116. Many of my
wounded sent to Cashtown fell into the hands of the enemy there. On the
night march across the Potomac, 8 men missing. Deserted near
Martinsburg, 3 men. Upset near the pontoon bridge and thrown into the
river, by order to clear the passage to the bridge, one limber of 24-
pounder howitzer caisson. Destroyed in action, one 12-pounder mountain
howitzer, two 12-pounder howitzer carriages, and six wheels. Report of
Col. E. Porter Alexander, C. S. Army, commanding battalion Reserve
Artillery JUNE 3-AUGUST 1, 1863.--The Gettysburg Campaign

If any wishes to check the actual report in the ORs it can be found in Vol 27, Part 2, pg 429-431 and you will see that mountain does not appear and it was simply a 12lb Howitzer which was lost. The alteration/distortion of official records to support facts is not in keeping with a search for historical authenticity.

This forum is a place to work through discussion to improve the historical authenticty of artillery and not to promote any personal adgenda.

The use of iron guns painted with bronze paint, the flying of post war flags or the use of artillery clearly not part of the historical record of events portrayed to the public and connecting inappropriate/inauthentic artillery (i.e. the coehorn mortar) with the batteries involved does not contribute to improving the historical authenticity of this branch of service.

ajroscoe

03-17-2008, 11:22 AM

Mark,
From the information provided, it seems that there is shaky information at best to support the existence of 1 Mt. Howitzer present at the Battle of Gettysburg, while the United States Army had some 358 guns and the Confederate States Army had some 262. Having 1 Mt Howitzer for 610 full sized guns makes it clear to me that this is a piece that should be shown as part of the main armies. This forum strives to recreate the look and experience of the common soldier in the Civil War. To that end in the infantry side, having an M1842 Rifled Musket for an earlier 1862 event while the unit portrayed for the weekend was armed with M1861 Rifled Muskets is acceptable, but showing up carrying an M1803 Rifle is just as unacceptable as an M1863 Zouave. It is no different for uniforms. Having one man in ranks wearing Zouave dress would stick out like a sore thumb and make spectators wonder, "Why is the man dressed differently?" If the unit in question never wore Zouave dress, that would be totally inappropriate. It seems that by and large, having a Mt Howitzer is unsupportable in any event depicting any part of the large Armies.
Someone earlier said that having a Mt. Howitzer at a Gettysburg event is now alright since someone brought up that report of a Mt. Howitzer on Little Round Top. No! Unless you're portraying Little Round Top during the part of the battle when the Regulars where at the base of it getting slaughtered (since that is where the report originated), it is totally inappropriate. That would be a HIGHLY specialized impression of one short time frame simply to accommodate one piece of artillery who's historical authenticity is shaky to begin with.
If there is an event, such as a raid, early war, mountain area, ect, where it can be shown that there was one there, or even if good historical investigating can lead to good evidence that one was probably there (past pattern of behavior by a partisan leader, ammunition returns, ect), then put it in the event. But by and large, that is not most events. I'm sorry, but having them in action at all seems dicey enough that if they are to be seen at all, they must be highly controlled in our portrayals to the public, otherwise, they'll think Mt Howitzers were the norm, not the extreme exception to the ru