"Three minute rule" for firing--why?

[10nycav]

Glad to see that artillery folks now have their own sub-forum! I started out in cavalry but this year have also been doing artillery driving. We have started with a team of 2 Canadian horses, and are in the process of training the second team so we can have a 4 up. The third team is probably another year down the road. My main focus/expertise has been in the horses and driving, so I have a lot to learn about the guns themselves.

Anyway, the two clubs I have driven for have different rules regarding rate of fire. In one club you must wait 3 minutes before firing the next shot. The other club has no such restriction. Can anyone comment on (safety) reasons why one would need to limit rate of fire to once every three minutes? Safety appears to be a concern, but I am not sure why it should be. What are potential issues to be aware of when firing very rapidly?

Another question--has anyone on this forum driven artillery horses with Joyce Henry when she used to be at Petersburg?

Thanks!
Ken Morris

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo Kamerad!

I cannot speak as to the thinking, intent, or desire of those that created and implemented the rule, but...
One view...
Having once competed in the live-fire artillery competitions of the N-SSA for a number of years- the lore was that the "wait" allowed a glowing ember a chance to burn itself out, and reduce risk to the "hands" at the muzzle. ;-)

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt
Phoenix Iron Works 3 Inch Ordnance Rifle Mess

[K Bartsch]

In one club you must wait 3 minutes before firing the next shot. The other club has no such restriction. Can anyone comment on (safety) reasons why one would need to limit rate of fire to once every three minutes? Safety appears to be a concern, but I am not sure why it should be. What are potential issues to be aware of when firing very rapidly?


You're correct. Waiting a set period of time between firing a blank round and introducing the next round to the muzzle is a safety consideration. The rationale is the interval will ensure any lingering embers/sparks from the previous shot will have been extinguished before introducing the next round. The USNPS requires an interval of 10 minutes, which is probably excessive. At any rate, if the gun detachment is properly trained, and conducts their service of the piece in accordance with the period manuals, there is no increased danger inherent in lesser intervals between shots. Important considerations 1) ensure the #3 man has the vent stopped properly during all actions up to and including the load -- and the entire gun detachment knows what an inadequately stopped vent's "hissing" sounds like and are prepared to call out "STOP VENT!" as a warning. 2) Ensure the #1 man sponges the tube properly after each shot (either immediately afterwards, or as part of the loading drill.) 3) Ensure the rammer end of the sponge rammer is properly made with a smooth face and therefore unlikely to prematurely pierce the cartridge as it is rammed home and finally, 4) ensure blank cartridges are intact and constructed properly and not prone to rupture as they are rammed to the gun's firing chamber/breech.

If you do all this, you should be fine -- but always remember, artillery is dangerous, period. You and everyone else must know what they're about and it's no place for kids, intoxicants or horseplay. Adding the horse-drawn element makes it simply the most dangerous aspect of reenacting since not only do you have a gun and relatively large quantities of blackpowder which can hurt folks, but now we have at least one two-ton vehicle only partially under human control. Good luck!

[Tom Ezell]

Anyway, the two clubs I have driven for have different rules regarding rate of fire. In one club you must wait 3 minutes before firing the next shot. The other club has no such restriction. Can anyone comment on (safety) reasons why one would need to limit rate of fire to once every three minutes? Safety appears to be a concern, but I am not sure why it should be. What are potential issues to be aware of when firing very rapidly?


Ken:

The "three-minute rule" is a modern safety measure, and its enforcement varies from organization to organization. Some units ignore it; others conscientiously enforce it, with somebody standing by with a stopwatch, others are a little more stringent... When I was serving on an NPS crew a couple of years ago, we waited 10 minutes by the watch from firing one round until the next charge was introduced to the bore.

The idea behind the wait is to let any remaining sparks in the barrel die out before putting a new charge in the tube, hopefully avoiding a premature discharge.

In combat, artillery pieces have a maximum rate of fire (how many times per minute the gun can be served and fired in a combat emergency) and then a sustained rate of fire, which is how fast the piece can be served and fired without the risk of a misfire or other delay causing you to have a round loaded in a hot tube (which is really bad juju). "Hot tube" in this case meaning that the temperature of the tube is elevated enough from firing that the heat may cause the RDX or other explosive filler in the projo to start melting. Max rate of fire is reserved for self defense or when the gooks or hajjis are in the wire; otherwise missions are fired at the sustained rate (1 round per minute for 155mm; one round every two minutes for the old 8-inchers). Add one minute shift time when engaging a new target.

The key thing to avoid in rapid fire is taking any shortcuts whatsoever... Getting in too much of a hurry means somebody overlooks something, and when that happens out on the gun line, somebody always gets hurt.

[mladair]

Don't forget, that as artilleryman, our job isn't to be the biggest powder burner in the field. To accurately portray artillery, we should be aiming shots, not wasting powder. Take the time to call for yardages, shot, adjust for elevations, windage, etc. You might be surprised at how it has a natural way of slowing the drill down.

Henry Hunt at Gettysburg gave orders that the artillery should fire no more than once every 5 minutes. He wanted his crews to make sure they took their time and saw the results of their previous shot and make the necessary adjustments so they weren't wasting ammunition. (Apparently some of the crews had the tendency to quicly fire off all their ammunition and then get out of harms way.)

[10nycav]

Thanks for the info. I am curious: what intervals are you all using between firing? Do you ever decrease the interval and if so, to what and how many consecutive shots would you fire?

Also regarding sponging, are there any common mistakes you have seen?

Re: danger, just in my own area of experience (driving) I have seen some pretty spectacular runaways/wrecks and heard of others. One I saw not too long ago (at a driving competition) involved a pair of Fresians who bolted (driver had not yet mounted) and took down a hefty light pole as if it was styrofoam. Then they headed into a barn (luckily, not the one containing the show office and bunches of people.) At Fresno 2 or 3 years ago one of the swing horses got tangled up in the traces (how, I'm not sure) and went down. (I was riding cavalry at the time and sw it from a distance.) One of the fellows sat on the horse's head and they got him out of his harness. Not pretty, but thankfully, horses and drivers were all OK. It definitely drives home the point that this is serious business and that horses and drivers must be well trained.

Ken Morris

[marine05]

I've read all the replies and agree that it is, again, another overzealous attempt to increase "safety". While I will wholeheartedly support safety, this consideration borders on the ridiculous. The most often touted justification is "to eliminate any burning embers" methinks that the wet sponge accomplishes that task and that stopping the vent reduces the amout of fresh O2 that may be introduced to the bore.

The USNPS 10 minutes is really way out there, but we adhere to that.

We have the option of setting our rate of fire, powder = money. If we only went to one or two events we'd blow off 1 lb charges and expend all remaining during those events, but we go with pretty much the standard limber load for a 10 lb parrot and as most of the scenarios are not much longer than an hour or so, that is plenty with out having to resupply from the "cassion."

Sometimes with safety, more is not better.

s/f

DJM

[1stMaine]

Comrades,

Comrade Adair wrote:

"Henry Hunt at Gettysburg gave orders that the artillery should fire no more than once every 5 minutes. He wanted his crews to make sure they took their time and saw the results of their previous shot and make the necessary adjustments so they weren't wasting ammunition. (Apparently some of the crews had the tendency to quicly fire off all their ammunition and then get out of harms way.)"

One of the "problems" with artillery at our events is the apparent delay between rounds, which seems out of place to most observers. This is due to two things. the first, of course, is hollywood and the huge barrage effects they empl;oy. This is not always out of place, but is proportional to the number of guns employed, which brings us to point two:
Events tend to have only a few guns on either side, and these are scattered by piece or section about the field. Occasionally there will be one battery of four or 6 pieces, but that isn't always the case. Coupled with the 3-minute delay per gun, this means that a 6 gun battery will be firing one gun every 30 seconds. That, to the distant observer, seems slow and out of place. What is missing, of course, is the battery multiplier. We can field a six gun battery, whereas there were usually at least four batteries per corps in the AOP, and these could be augmented by the reserve artillery.
Five six-gun batteries would, in theory, be firing one gun every 6 seconds, if my calculations are correct. That is a considerable increase in the rate of fire. That is the problem for observers at our events.
In the same vein that large masses of infantry are required to adequately give the impression of brigades and divisions maneuvering, so to are numerous batteries required to give the "feel" of the volume of fire that actually took place. Either the rate of fire needs to be increased by reducing the interval between rounds (and thus increasing the negative safety quotient), or the number of guns present needs to be increased, wherein the safety interval can be maintained, whilst giving the illusion of an increase in the rate of fire.
I agree that safety needs to be priority one, but if the period drill manuals are adhered to and the crews well versed in them, and well-supervised by responsible nco's and officers, then the add-on safety regulations would seem to me to be superflous.
respects,

[Jimmayo]

Been doing art. for a while with different gun crews and outside of the NPS wait time, havn't heard of the 3 min rule except for a failed primer. All the pieces I have served on do a wet sponge immediatly after worming out the foil and again after the load command. The vent is secured for the entire time. Thats two wet sponges between rounds. Should extinguish any live embers.

[Yellowhammer]

Guys,

While there is some interesting information in this thread, several posts devolved into farby reenactor "powder-burnin'." I'll be monitoring this thread to insure it stays on track.

While I agree the NPS 10-minute wait is probably overly long, the timings can easily be worked into an effective demo. We typically open with a shot and cease fire while the interpreter discusses the role of artillery at the battle in question. This generally covers the 10 minute period easily. The second shot is followed by a discussion of the piece, types of ammunition, and the roles of the cannoneers and drivers. We then demonstrate "load by detail" and then the loading procedure at full speed to give an idea of how fast the gun could be loaded in cases of necessity. We then end the program with another shot, cease fire and invite the park visitors forward to inspect the gun and ask questions.

All that said, I'm not sure of the advantage of firing any faster during a living history presentation.

If you are interested in you should still wait 3-5 minutes between shots. Remember, it takes time to lay a piece back into battery, point it, load it and fire a well aimed shot. If you are firing at realistic ranges, that is completely authentic.

If the infantry is getting close enough for you to need to fire rapidly, you should probably rethink that decision. I would advocate limbering to the rear or ceasing fire.

All that said, I should also mention the effects of a blank charge on a #1 man who's crew was firing rapidly and not adhering to proper safety procedures. "What are potential issues to be aware of when firing very rapidly?" In this case, losing a right hand, three fingers on the left hand, blindness in the right eye and "wax paper" vision out of the left. Call me crazy, but I like all my fingers and both eyes too much to lose them!

[K Bartsch]

John, et al,

I maintain that a firing interval of less than three minutes an be executed safely, if, as I've written it is done properly. Whether or not this constitutes "powder burnin'" is irrelevant. I agree that during public and/or educational demonstrations, a shorter interval than that is probably not indicated since, as you point out, the interpreter needs time to make his presentation. This fact notwithstanding, there are times at authentic events when a shorter firing interval is perfectly appropriate and true to history based on the "tactical" situation.

Cordially,

[JWolf]

Another safety measure is for #1 and #2-- how they hold their implements (the worm and sponge/rammer).

When holding the implement both hands should be positioned on the bottom of the staff palms facing up to grasp the implement. Additionally the thumbs should _not_ go over the top of the staff (i.e. baseball bat grip)- but they should also stay on the bottom of the staff next to to palms. Basiclly you are grasping the implement without using your thumbs.

This is of particular importance to the #1 as he rams the charge to the breech of the cannon. The thinking behind holding the rammer like that is that if (hopefully never!) the charge ignites during ramming and ejects the rammer, it will "slide" over the gloved hands minimizing resistance as the implement leaves the battel and hopefully minimize injury.



Jim

[Yellowhammer]

Actually Jim, that's not entirely correct.

As is spelled out in Load by Detail, during the last motion of Sponge, Number 1 actually has both hands on the rammer staff. (See below)

http://www.southernguard.org/education/artillerydrill/Fig1Left.jpg

This is safe because it is only to start the round moving down the tube. On the command Ram, he passes his left arm to the rear ending up in position with his left hand over the left trunion.

It's funny, in looking for the actual passage, MANY online artillery manuals have been edited to either comply with NPS guidelines or a unit's guidelines without a notation of the edit.

Keith,

I agree that there are times that it is tactically correct to fire more often than every 10 minutes. I think 2-5 minutes is adequate. However, I do not think that a sustained rate of fire of two shots/minute is safe. I have seen that rate of fire numerous times at reenactments.

[K Bartsch]

John

However, I do not think that a sustained rate of fire of two shots/minute is safe. I have seen that rate of fire numerous times at reenactments.

Agreed, a sustained rate of fire which results in a shot from an individual piece every 30 seconds is frankly, scary. In fact, if the limber is the proper distance from the piece and all details of the drill are followed closely (including aiming), it would be very difficult to do it safely -- particularly since there is an additional, modern requirement for #2 to introduce the worm and extract the expended cartridge foil "husk" after each shot. I don't think such a rate of fire could have been sustained during the period either unless firing canister at very close range -- and then, adrenalin would have helped, combined with the fact aiming would have been a snap, no fuse to cut, punch or install and no requirement for the gunner to "pass" the round. Unfortunately, by then, I also suspect the gun detachment would be employing the drill with diminished numbers which would somewhat mitigate the relative simplicity of loading canister.

Cordially,

[10nycav]

John wrote:
"All that said, I should also mention the effects of a blank charge on a #1 man who's crew was firing rapidly and not adhering to proper safety procedures. "What are potential issues to be aware of when firing very rapidly?" In this case, losing a right hand, three fingers on the left hand, blindness in the right eye and "wax paper" vision out of the left. Call me crazy, but I like all my fingers and both eyes too much to lose them!"

John,

I had this point driven home to me last year, when a young man who was a member of a Scout troop in my state lost his life due to a cannon mishap. (This was not at a living history event, nor did it involve a Civil War living history club, but it reiterated how very dangerous this hobby can be.)

What I was trying to get at (obviously I didn't explain it too well) was, in situations where tactically it would be appropriate and historically correct to increase rate of fire to more than once every 3-5 minutes, where specifically are the potential "danger points" where any deviation from correct drill will risk of premature ignition of the charge? We have some differences of opinion between the two clubs in my area; one says that you cannot fire more than one round every 3 minutes safely (and therefore some historically correct scenarios are simply too dangerous to be demonstrated); the other says that you can fire faster than this if correct drill is followed. If a faster rate of fire can never be made safe (knowing, of course, that there is ALWAYS inherent risk involved in the use of historical artillery), I would like to be able to point out exactly why this is the case, and get our club rules changed.

Thank you,
Ken Morris

[1stMaine]

Comrades,

Ken is very correct. My comments relate to the apaarent faster rate of fire caused my several batteries nearby. The more guns firing, the faster the rate seems to be, if they are firing by piece or section, even though, in actuality, they are firing at the same rate.

Placing a large number of guns in close proximity (even maintaining proper frontages) will give the appearance of an almost continuous rate of fire, even though some time may pass between a particular gun's fire and it's next round. For the modern viewer, then, the apparent slow rate of fire at an event is not incorrect, it is simply what one would see if an observer were to concentrate his attention upon one battery to the exclusion of the others.

respects,

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo Kameraden!

Having served as No. 1 on an original 3-Inch Ordnance Rifle for a number of years for N-SSA "live fire" competitions, I am always reminded of the "tension" between period concepts and practices and modern safety inclusions, additions, and alterations of period "drill" (and that extends to muskets as well- take PRIME for example and position/elevation of the muzzle in relationship to the front rank...)

In the 18th century, a pard of mine and I researched and experimented with a number of documented frontier loading and shooting practices, which ultimate lead to him training Daniel Day Lewis and Mel Gibson on period rapid loading/firing/reloading techniques as well as "loading on the run."
The concept and practices of "speed loading" with self-priming flintlock rifles, charging from the horn, spitting balls down the bore with the muzzle near or in one's mouth, seating the ball with a thump of the butt on the ground rather than a ramrod, etc., etc.
It is fully and patently obvious that any and off these VIOLATE safety issues left and right- and put the shooter at risk at many points. However, on the frontier, in a life-and-death combat situation, with death being the imminent an dimmediate outcome if "speed loading" practices and skills were not employed- the choice between violating common-sense and Real World safety practices and issues and death can change one's persepctive.

Not being in an imminent life-and-death situation, or the on occassion "necessities" of military combat, the balance between "history" and "modern versus period risk," and the acceptance or rejection of safety concepts- can come down to a personal choice.
I would, maintain, though, that "period drill" represents its own thought out, executed, and proven levels of safety versus risk. The rest is how much, we personally and collectively (and may be our insurance carriers...) fell is appropriate or enforceable.
And sometimes, weighing "period" with "modern" an apples and oranges kind of thing...

For me personally, I serious weigh the balance, and do not compromise on my personal concept of personal safety to me, and what I might being doing that affects the safety of others. And then go from there based upon knowledge, skill, and competency based upon proper "drill," "form" and repeated practice and fluidity.

Others' mileage may vary...

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

[K Bartsch]

John wrote:
"All that said, I should also mention the effects of a blank charge on a #1 man who's crew was firing rapidly and not adhering to proper safety procedures. "What are potential issues to be aware of when firing very rapidly?" In this case, losing a right hand, three fingers on the left hand, blindness in the right eye and "wax paper" vision out of the left. Call me crazy, but I like all my fingers and both eyes too much to lose them!"

John,

I had this point driven home to me last year, when a young man who was a member of a Scout troop in my state lost his life due to a cannon mishap. (This was not at a living history event, nor did it involve a Civil War living history club, but it reiterated how very dangerous this hobby can be.)

What I was trying to get at (obviously I didn't explain it too well) was, in situations where tactically it would be appropriate and historically correct to increase rate of fire to more than once every 3-5 minutes, where specifically are the potential "danger points" where any deviation from correct drill will risk of premature ignition of the charge? We have some differences of opinion between the two clubs in my area; one says that you cannot fire more than one round every 3 minutes safely (and therefore some historically correct scenarios are simply too dangerous to be demonstrated); the other says that you can fire faster than this if correct drill is followed. If a faster rate of fire can never be made safe (knowing, of course, that there is ALWAYS inherent risk involved in the use of historical artillery), I would like to be able to point out exactly why this is the case, and get our club rules changed.

Thank you,
Ken Morris

Ken,
Restating:

Important considerations 1) ensure the #3 man has the vent stopped properly during all actions up to and including the load -- and the entire gun detachment knows what an inadequately stopped vent's "hissing" sounds like and are prepared to call out "STOP VENT!" as a warning. 2) Ensure the #1 man sponges the tube properly after each shot (either immediately afterwards, or as part of the loading drill.) 3) Ensure the rammer end of the sponge rammer is properly made with a smooth face and therefore unlikely to prematurely pierce the cartridge as it is rammed home and finally, 4) ensure blank cartridges are intact and constructed properly and not prone to rupture as they are rammed to the gun's firing chamber/breech.

If you adhere to the above, ensure everyone in the detachment knows his job and does things "by the book," whether you are maintaining a firing interval of a minute or ten minutes, you should be equally safe.

Cordially,

[JWolf]

Thanks for the correction- in re-reading my post It doesn't make sense. I think I was mixing up ramming and sponging- that's what I get for being rusty with the artillery drill.

I should have referenced the manual and my unit's guidelines before posting. You make an excellent point about how the origional drill sometimes gets changed for modern safety guidelines.

Jim

Actually Jim, that's not entirely correct.

As is spelled out in Load by Detail, during the last motion of Sponge, Number 1 actually has both hands on the rammer staff. (See below)

http://www.southernguard.org/education/artillerydrill/Fig1Left.jpg

This is safe because it is only to start the round moving down the tube. On the command Ram, he passes his left arm to the rear ending up in position with his left hand over the left trunion.

It's funny, in looking for the actual passage, MANY online artillery manuals have been edited to either comply with NPS guidelines or a unit's guidelines without a notation of the edit.

Keith,

I agree that there are times that it is tactically correct to fire more often than every 10 minutes. I think 2-5 minutes is adequate. However, I do not think that a sustained rate of fire of two shots/minute is safe. I have seen that rate of fire numerous times at reenactments.

[tmattimore]

As it was explained to me many years ago the three minute rule is there so that when the attorney for the heirs of the deceased down range who was mortally injured by the rammer staff and the arm of number 1 asks the owner of the piece on the stand if he was following published saftey rules in the discharge of this deadly explosive device he may answer yes.

[marine05]

Having been an instructor at USAFAS and observing modern artillery drill, fire plans, battery emplacements, etc. and studying CW drill I have seen that the potential for an accident to happen increases dramatically when the drill is not followed. Serving a piece is a team effort requiring each individual to be at the top of his game at every instance. Failure to do so can result is serious injury or death and I can refer to the only combat fatality suffered by 10th Marines during Desert Shield and Storm. A cannoneer had his head crushed by the breach during the recoil of the weapon. The piece had suffered a mis-fire and he failed to wait the prescribed amount of time before approaching the rear of the weapon M-198 155mm howitzer (read failed primer for CW artillerists) as he bent down to either remove the first primer or insert a new one the piece discharged, slamming the breach into his head, the kevlar helmet did little to protect him.

Reenactor artillery suffers from a couple of problems, 1. little or no recoil so the cannoneers do not have to put the piece back into battery; 2. most reenactor artillerists do not display the same amount of realism as their infantry counterparts, as has been stated here before they are powder burners merely providing sound effects for the scenario; 3. We do not have to cut fuzes or move pieces about in response to the movements of the infantry units we support. Most gunners never even relay their pieces so as to engage different targets. The average gunner never even calls ranges or rounds (ranges are a little subject to interpretation as many times the scenario battlefield in compressed) with the 6s and 7s responding with the elevation; 4. We get no impact from shots fired and especially infantry fails to fall during scenarios when engaged with case or canister.(???!!!) 5. Many have not studied artillery tactics so we constantly see batteries emplaced in a line abreast formation. This was one of the formations used, but a right or left echelon was also used so as to enable to battery to respond to enfilade fire. However if most reenactors tried this some one would geek and try to explain the cone, and so on (this formation enables a gun, section or battery to change direction of fire up to 90 degrees).

Individual pieces firing every 3-5 minutes is not a problem depending on the situation. The 10 Minute time at the NPS is long unless as stated in another post you open,as many of us do, with at attention getting shot, narrate for 10 minutes or so and fire another. Artillery should, in most cases, provide a constant rain of death and destruction, the TOT or time on target (a battery or greater fire at a single point at the same time) is rarely used. As the fight gets closer guns fire to protect their infantry and themselves. Guns retreat or advance by moving and firing by the piece or section. Also their mission can change based on the needs of the operational commander, i.e. firing on troops in the open or counterbattery. The rate of fire is/was also determined by where the ammunition was being served from, remembering that a limber always went with the piece so should be kept as full as possible, especially if there was a high likelihood for movement and reengagement. Serving the piece from the cassion would take more time but was good practice as the cassion could leave to get resupplied from the ordnance train, leaving the limber/piece ready for combat.

You will hear a constant firing from batteries as the average division (CW) having three brigades could have had up to 3 batteries if the ratio of a section per regiment was used. Upwards to 18 pieces firing and moving as necessary.

Be safe and realistic is the point.

Field Artillery "The King of Battle"

See you at Fiddler's Green

s/f

DJM

[ejn]

In Massachusetts you must receive a Certificate of Competency for Cannon Firing to be in charge of a cannon. The State Fire Marshal issues the certification and you must apply to the local Fire Chief, in the town in which you'll use the cannon, for a permit. The state rules for the 3-minute fire are defined in CMR-22.07.5.

If you're bored, you can see the rules we live under at http://www.mass.gov/dfs/osfm/fireprevention/cmr/527022.pdf

If you want to be certified in Mass. check out http://9thmassbattery.home.comcast.net/CannonCert.html

Ed

[James Brenner]

Years ago, while teaching Tactics at Ft. Sill, we hosted annual muzzle loading artillery matches. Some matches used full service loads. We adhered to the 3 minute rule for exactly the reason Tom mentioned. Before the match even began though, we borescoped each piece and checked the implements thoroughly ... particularly the sponges. If the sponges fit tightly and the the vent's thumbed properly, you've created a vacuum which will extinquish any embers. That, coupled with the wet/dry sponge, worming, and the 3 minute rule (as well as safety officers on the line), prevented any mishaps.

[10nycav]

Looking at the National rules (quotes on the website above) brings up another question. The National rules require dry sponging:

"After wet sponging, the same procedure is used with the dry sponge. The dry sponge is cleaned and dried off periodically with an absorbent towel-type rag. (The purpose of the dry sponge is to remove excess moisture from the bore; if water is left in the bore it may cause incomplete burning of the next powder charge, leaving dangerously glowing residue.)"

Do the NPS rules require dry sponging as well? I recall in my conversations with Joyce Henry that she felt that dry sponging was less safe as well as not being period correct. I'm no expert and would like to defer to the experts, but it seems that we have a major difference of opinion here. So I was wondering what everyone's opinions were on this subject.

Ken Morris

[tmattimore]

James
Having participated at the Ft Sill matches three times I can safely say that with the three minute rule in effect no one did not burn enough powder. Any one there who has watched Bruce Frazer drop a shell in a fifty meter circle at 2000 meters consistently, with a rate of fire of about once every five minutes, soon realizes that accuracy is a higher function of artillery. You would be ill advised to try to form a regiment within sight of a battery of ten pounders

[bugler3rdusarty]

Thanks for the info. I am curious: what intervals are you all using between firing? Do you ever decrease the interval and if so, to what and how many consecutive shots would you fire?

Also regarding sponging, are there any common mistakes you have seen?

Re: danger, just in my own area of experience (driving) I have seen some pretty spectacular runaways/wrecks and heard of others. One I saw not too long ago (at a driving competition) involved a pair of Fresians who bolted (driver had not yet mounted) and took down a hefty light pole as if it was styrofoam. Then they headed into a barn (luckily, not the one containing the show office and bunches of people.) At Fresno 2 or 3 years ago one of the swing horses got tangled up in the traces (how, I'm not sure) and went down. (I was riding cavalry at the time and sw it from a distance.) One of the fellows sat on the horse's head and they got him out of his harness. Not pretty, but thankfully, horses and drivers were all OK. It definitely drives home the point that this is serious business and that horses and drivers must be well trained.

Ken Morris

Hi Ken:

Nice to see others getting into horsedrawn artillery! My unit fields 4 6-ups, composed of Standardbreds. They're pretty darned calm around the guns, with veteran horses snoozing during the battles.

Anyway, having done darned near everything with the unit, we (a crew I was with) fired 52 rounds in one skirmish, without rushing a whole lot. We were firing at about a minute ten seconds between shots. We normally try for the 3-minute rule, but sometimes its longer and other times its shorter. I'd say our average is probably 2 minutes between shots.

[tenthovi]

I know on first hand account on what can go wrong, when common sense safety rules with the Artillery are ignored. Especailly the lack of 3 minutes between shots, dry spongeing, and incorrect material for implements.

It was 1997 at North College Hill, near Cincinnati. To make a long story short, the group had 3/4 scale gun. The crew was improperly drilled, and had 14 year old working #1. Rounds were oversized, for the gun. 10oz of powder, and 11 oz of flour. A local cable company got footage of this disaster. The camera focused on the crew for 3 shots. First shot went off, crew serviced the piece and introduced the next round in less 35 seconds. Fired and repeated all the steps very quickly, in a rushed manner. Approx. 35 seconds when the next round was intorduced. Again the piece is fired in less than 50 seconds.. The 3rd shot. The crew hurries through the steps. The round is inrtoduced at about 40 secs. The #1 is way out of position, and standing front of the barrel, by about 2 feet ramming the round home. He seats round draws back on the rammer and thrusts back in. Draws back and gets ready to hit the round a third time, when the piece discharges. This occured at about 45 seconds from when the last round was fired.

The #1 is caught in the balst and is blown out by about 15 feet from the blast. The portion of the rammer that was in the barrel disengrates, and the remaining portion of about 2 feet is shot down range. However the boy working #1 caught the majority of all the splinters. Of course we had several EMT's and ER nurses at the side of the injured boy with in 30 seconds due to them being reenactors. How ever several colleagues that were working the adjacent gun watch the crew tilt the barrel down, and estimate that over 2 cups of water poured out of the barrel. Several civilian reenactors in the crwod reported that ealrier in the battle they were discharging rounds with in 35 to 40 seconds.

So far you have a crew with oversized rounds, too fast of an interval, lack of proper procedure, too much water in the barrel. Also to top things off their implement were made of curtain dow rods. So that is why rammer disengrated in the barrel. And a person under age that should not of been in the position he was in. To top things off they were still firing with federal infantry less than 20 yards from the gun. Fourtanley the only person was injured was the young man working #1. I had many of friends down there get showered with splinters, and another one got slapped in the face with what was left of one of boys' glove. On my side of the field, I missed being impaled by the 2 foot remaining section of the rammer by about 15 seconds. I was a section commander for the Federal Artillery at the event.

The factors that caused the gun to discharge premature, was due to these facotrs: Working too fast, and too much water in the bore to extinguish any emeber. Some argue that water present should of distinguish the ember. You must remember if water gets hot enough, it will conduct heat. And most likely will not extinguish the ember. And the factor that over 21 oz of combustiable material in the round did not help.

Luckily the boy that was the #1 that day did survive his injuries. However he will be scarred for life. What saved his hands was him wearing gloves. Of course due the splintering of the rammer he has only 75% use of one hand. He is blind in one eye, and has bout 80% vision in his other.

Lesson here: Don't go less than minute between shots. If you can try to stick with the 3 minute rule. But I know it is hard in the heat of battle. I am guilty of getting rounds off in about minute and 20 seconds. Also if you wet sponge, and use considerable amount of water, then dry sponge.

So here is a fine example of why there is a 3 minute rule with most organizations and events, and using the dry sponge. I pray to god that I am never involved in another incident like this. This what can happen in a worse case scenario. We must remeber that this not real combat. We are not trying to kill our fellow man before he kills us.

Remeber that safety comes first, then authenticity when you are working with artillery.

[K Bartsch]

I know on first hand account on what can go wrong, when common sense safety rules with the Artillery are ignored. Especailly the lack of 3 minutes between shots, dry spongeing, and incorrect material for implements.

It was 1997 at North College Hill, near Cincinnati. To make a long story short, the group had 3/4 scale gun. The crew was improperly drilled, and had 14 year old working #1. Rounds were oversized, for the gun. 10oz of powder, and 11 oz of flour. A local cable company got footage of this disaster. The camera focused on the crew for 3 shots. First shot went off, crew serviced the piece and introduced the next round in less 35 seconds. Fired and repeated all the steps very quickly, in a rushed manner. Approx. 35 seconds when the next round was intorduced. Again the piece is fired in less than 50 seconds.. The 3rd shot. The crew hurries through the steps. The round is inrtoduced at about 40 secs. The #1 is way out of position, and standing front of the barrel, by about 2 feet ramming the round home. He seats round draws back on the rammer and thrusts back in. Draws back and gets ready to hit the round a third time, when the piece discharges. This occured at about 45 seconds from when the last round was fired.

The #1 is caught in the balst and is blown out by about 15 feet from the blast. The portion of the rammer that was in the barrel disengrates, and the remaining portion of about 2 feet is shot down range. However the boy working #1 caught the majority of all the splinters. Of course we had several EMT's and ER nurses at the side of the injured boy with in 30 seconds due to them being reenactors. How ever several colleagues that were working the adjacent gun watch the crew tilt the barrel down, and estimate that over 2 cups of water poured out of the barrel. Several civilian reenactors in the crwod reported that ealrier in the battle they were discharging rounds with in 35 to 40 seconds.

So far you have a crew with oversized rounds, too fast of an interval, lack of proper procedure, too much water in the barrel. Also to top things off their implement were made of curtain dow rods. So that is why rammer disengrated in the barrel. And a person under age that should not of been in the position he was in. To top things off they were still firing with federal infantry less than 20 yards from the gun. Fourtanley the only person was injured was the young man working #1. I had many of friends down there get showered with splinters, and another one got slapped in the face with what was left of one of boys' glove. On my side of the field, I missed being impaled by the 2 foot remaining section of the rammer by about 15 seconds. I was a section commander for the Federal Artillery at the event.

The factors that caused the gun to discharge premature, was due to these facotrs: Working too fast, and too much water in the bore to extinguish any emeber. Some argue that water present should of distinguish the ember. You must remember if water gets hot enough, it will conduct heat. And most likely will not extinguish the ember. And the factor that over 21 oz of combustiable material in the round did not help.

Luckily the boy that was the #1 that day did survive his injuries. However he will be scarred for life. What saved his hands was him wearing gloves. Of course due the splintering of the rammer he has only 75% use of one hand. He is blind in one eye, and has bout 80% vision in his other.

Lesson here: Don't go less than minute between shots. If you can try to stick with the 3 minute rule. But I know it is hard in the heat of battle. I am guilty of getting rounds off in about minute and 20 seconds. Also if you wet sponge, and use considerable amount of water, then dry sponge.

So here is a fine example of why there is a 3 minute rule with most organizations and events, and using the dry sponge. I pray to god that I am never involved in another incident like this. This what can happen in a worse case scenario. We must remeber that this not real combat. We are not trying to kill our fellow man before he kills us.

Remeber that safety comes first, then authenticity when you are working with artillery.

Mr Edwards,
The incident you describe was indeed a tragic accident. Made more so by the fact it could have been avoided. I would like to make a few points.
First, water, now matter how hot, cannot lead to the ignition of a solid like black powder, therefore I fail to see how an excessively wet bore could have led to this premature discharge.
Further, among the procedural flaws to these folks drill you have detailed, you describe the number two man as having repeatedly rammed the charge. As you know, this practice is very dangerous as well as being inauthentic. Someone should have noticed and stopped it. In my opinion, at this point, it becomes the responsibility of every person who witnesses such action and knows better to do whatever is necessary to put a stop to it.
Thirdly...partial scale artillery? A bad omen indeed.
It does indeed sound as though these folks' rounds were too large for their undersized piece. Presumably someone weighed them before the event to determine they came in at 10oz (with 11oz of flour?)
All that to say simply, and based on your description of the events which led to this accident, these poor folks were practically doomed to a serious mishap, and I respectfully suggest dry sponging, or the lack of it had very liitle to do with it. An increased firing interval may have saved them this time, but we'll never know. Again, based on your description, a legitimate safety inspection conducted by the event artillery staff before these folks took the field should have caught the 1) oversize rounds, 2) the sloppy and dangerous drill, 3) the bogus ersatz rammers, and the 4) child serving as #1.

Again, I wasn't there, you were, but based on your description, the above points came to mind. Thanks for sharing, it does indeed point out just how dangerous things can get sometimes.


Cordially,

[RedCordCO]

And a person under age that should not of been in the position he was in.

:eek: Yes, folks, it is not only at the event just described. It happened again this year. Though the results were incredibly tame and luckily without incident of injury.
Reading this post really brought back an ugly incident that happened just this year at an event I was at out here. Forgive the fact that I was at this event, please. The man who was the Battery Commander was a man who had my great respect until he pulled what I am about to relay to all of you. Suffice to say, I will NOT allow myself to go to any future event while he is in command of artillery. It is too much of a risk and an affront to all who respect the power of the true weapon a cannon is.
Without naming the location, Battery Commander or person[s] involved, let me say that an 11 year-old was placed on what was essentially a 'noisemaker' trying to be pulled off as a Naval 'Deck Gun' as #1. She was with her father for this affair while on the piece and they BOTH were placed on this gun by the Battery Commander [who shall remain anonymous- because THANKFULLY his unit and he do not do artillery reenactments anymore except for decidedly non-period gigs like this one]. A real 'Battery Commander' would've had his straps pulled and would have been booted from the Army- my opinion.
Anyway, despite the protestations of the piece's gunner and #4, this CHILD and her father were allowed to remain on the gun. While nothing bad arose from it, it confirms my hard opinion that no child under the legal age of 18 should EVER be placed on any cannon. I really don't care whether or not the piece is owned by a parent, or this is Uncle Henry's gun and he decides his crew, or well, we need the bodies.. Gods, you want the bodies alive or dead folks?!
[speaking for myself]I, as a legal adult, sign up to do this of my own free will. I take full responsibility for DOING artillery even if it it is only with black powder and no live rounds. I am ABLE to take such responsibility because I am a legal adult in every sense of the word.
A child is far different.
Had anything happened to this child, the lawsuits would have been flying around to everyone associated with this mess. It matters not that her father and legal guardian was there. The mother would not have cared and the father would've likely sided with her to avoid a divorce. Everyone in vicinity would have been sued and condemned. Likely, a few artillery units would have been rendered defunct because, ultimately, the Battery Commander let his ego override his common sense. Not to mention the protestations of the cannoneers of legal age on this piece. To which he would've likely asked the ones protesting to leave the event and would have LEFT a completely innocent and untrained child on this gun while a distinct lack of trained cannoneers were attempting to cover every gun there.
The gunner and #4 remained on this piece and made sure the child was kept from harm's way.

As stated above, I refuse to do any event of any stripe where this man is in command of artillery. Unfortunately, it is the nature of some of the folks in this Hobby to believe their superior 'experience' can dictate anything unless the most stringent rules are in place and ENFORCED. We were all damned lucky that St. Barbara was watching over this affair and nothing went awry.
I just wish that the so-called MAN who was in ultimate command had not even appointed a CHILD to ANY piece in the first place!

[marine05]

All,

I'm reading various things here that claim to advocate the use of a 3 minute rule. Some are tactically correct, but others alluding to crews that are untrained, have 'guests', used less than full scale pieces or deviated from the prescribed period drill do not support the use of waiting 3 minutes, it is comparing apples and oranges (please forgive the hackneyed expression). Dry sponging, not period and not correct for field artillery (I can't speak for coastal, naval or other heavy artillery as I am not up to speed on their drill) is done for what reason? What happens when the "dry" sponge gets wet? Drying off the "dry" sponge with a towel periodically lends to more junk around the gun. Where does the other sponge go, on one of those farby stands? So now the #1 is switching sponges, period correct? I think not.

In answer to one question, concerning dry sponging, no, the NPS at least Gettysburg, does not require as it is not period correct. We are doing living histories at those places.

The primary means of reducing accidents is to train, train, and train. Practice does not make perfect, but perfect practice makes perfect. The more inauthenic and in some cases undocuments steps that are added the more dangerous it becomes as there is more margin for error.

Age does come into play, but having #4s not step backwards becaue "old Bob" who is nearly 75, tripped and fell, thus discharging the piece in not justification for having all #4s not walk backwards. My son started as a #5/6 at 14, he is now 17, nearly 18 and has served in all positions on the piece except gunner. Making a blanket statement that only people over the age of 18 should be permitted is sort of foolish. Afterall how old were our forebears who originally served these pieces? How old are the average field artillerymen of today.

Time can be added to the firing sequence by properly adhering to the drill and having gunner/section officer/BC specifiy targets, etc. We the FA, should also be employed properly.

s/f

DJM

[K Bartsch]

Dan,
Speaking strictly for myself, I maintain that a field piece can be discharged safely with a shorter firing interval than three minutes -- if everything is done properly, which can be evaluated objectively. I agree competely with your point about the necessity of training, discipline and adherence to time-proven drill per the manuals.

With regards to having children among the gun detachment, I respectfully disagree. I freely admit some young teenagers are both physically and mentally mature enough to serve, I feel its best to have an age limit and enforce it. In this way, subjectivity is eliminated form the equation. Afterall, opinions vary about which boys are "old enough." Personally, I think 16 should be the lower age limit for all positions, and only after the young man has proven his ability to safely serve the piece. I would even support an age floor of 17. Did boys younger than 16 serve in field artillery batteries during he period? Absolutely. This, however, IMHO is not sufficient to justify their use in this capacity today. We should also be vigilant for the old "switcheroo." I've seen folks try to substitute boys during an "engagement" after passing the safety inspection during which they employed an all adult gun detachment.

This is a great discussion and I'm glad we finally have a forum here to address these important issues.

Cordially,

[Jefferson Guards]

In the interest of bringing a period resource into the argument over the time elapse between shots I submit the following from Hunt's General Order No. 2, 1864:


4. Expenditure of ammunition: One of the evil effects of firing at small bodies is the waste of ammunition. Rapid firing at large bodies and opening at long ranges are additional causes of waste. In small skirmishes between 300 and 400 rounds per battery are expended; the fire, according to the reports, frequently averaging, and sometimes exceeding, one round per minute for each gun. In general engagements batteries have been known to expend all the ammunition in their chests in a little over an hour and a half. An officer who expends ammunition in this manner proves his ignorance of the proper use of his arm, and a want of capacity for the command of a battery. He also incurs a heavy responsibility by throwing a whole battery out of use, and should be held to answer for the consequences. There has been an improvement in this respect, but there is still too great a consumption of ammunition. It is not so much the loss of the ammunition that should be considered--limited as is the amount which an army can transport--as the loss of effect from too distant and too rapid firing. In no case, except when firing canister at short ranges, should the rate exceed one round from each gun in two minutes; and that rate should only be reached at critical moments, when the distance, numbers, and formation of the enemy are such that the fire is sure to be effective. At all other times one round in four to six minutes is as rapid firing as should be permitted. The value of the rifled cannon consists principally in its accuracy. Accuracy requires careful pointing, with close observation of the effect, and these require time. Twelve shots in an hour at an object over 1,000 yards distant, the time being spent in careful 1oading and pointing, will produce better results than fifty shots will ordinarily produce from the same gun in the same time. If a heavy artillery fire is required it should be obtained not by rapid firing, but by bringing a large number of guns into action, and firing each with the greatest accuracy attainable. The campaign allowance is calculated to suffice for a general action and the combats which usually precede it; and, under ordinary circumstances, an officer who expends all his ammunition in a few hours renders himself liable to the suspicion that his reckless expenditure was prompted by a desire to quit the field. In future, batteries will not be permitted to leave their positions under this plea. The guns and cannoneers will remain on the ground until ammunition is furnished them. As soon as one caisson from each section has been emptied the empty caissons will be sent to the rear, under charge of a non-commissioned officer, to replenish at the ammunition train. At a time when all the resources of the country are taxed to the utmost to provide the army and navy with munitions of war, the non-effective expenditure of ammunition, in addition to other evils, diminishes greatly the efficiency of fire to which the artillery might attain; for the consequent excessive demand gives us, in many instances, imperfectly made and hastily inspected projectiles, instead of carefully manufactured and approved ones.

5. The custom which obtains in some batteries of bringing from the ammunition-chests a number of rounds and placing them near the gun on the ground is a bad one, and is positively prohibited. It not only leads to too rapid firing, but in case of a sudden movement of the battery this ammunition is apt to be left on the ground, as it requires time properly to repack it.

6. Opening fire: That the enemy is within range is not a sufficient reason for firing upon him. The fire is not to be commenced until the enemy is within effective range--that is, so near that at least one-quarter of the shots are hits. Firing at too great a distance wastes ammunition which will be wanted at the critical moments of the battle, and emboldens the enemy's troops by giving them a contemptuous idea of the effects of our fire. Frederick the Great, in his instructions on this subject, says:
It sometimes happens that the general in command, or some other general, is himself forgetful, and orders the fire to be opened too soon, without considering what injurious consequences may result from it. In such a case the artillery officer must certainly obey, but he should fire as slowly as possible and point the pieces with the utmost accuracy, in order that his shots may not be thrown away. Such a fire is only pardonable when the general wishes to attract the enemy's attention to one point so as to make movements in another.
But in such a case as this the object of the fire should be explained to the artillery officer. Accuracy of fire is of more importance than quickness. The fire should be slow while the enemy is at a distance, is to be quicker as the distance diminishes, and is to become rapid when canister shot is being fired at effective ranges. There are moments in which we should not fire, or only very slowly, and others of a critical nature in which there should be no question of saving of ammunition but the latter are only of Short duration and do not lead to a lavish expenditure, while the inefficient constant fire at long ranges always has that effect. A careful record will be kept of the amount and kinds of ammunition used.


Also, from Robert's Hand book of Artillery (1863):

41. Should the indiscriminate expenditure of am*munition be permitted in the field during action?

Upon no account; ammunition should at all times be carefully husbanded, particularly at the commencement of an action, as the want of it at the close may decide the fate of the day; it should also be sparingly used in skirmishes and minor affairs, especially when at a distance from supplies, or in anticipation of a general action.

[K Bartsch]

Sage advice from the AoP's chief of artillery.

It is useful to highlight the nubbin of his guidance:

There are moments in which we should not fire, or only very slowly, and others of a critical nature in which there should be no question of saving of ammunition but the latter are only of Short duration and do not lead to a lavish expenditure, while the inefficient constant fire at long ranges always has that effect.

In most cases, a relatively rapid firing interval is only indicated when we are simulating conditions when spherical case shot or canister is being employed at relatively short ranges against massed troops or cavalry.

A splendid example is that of "Key's Battery" (AKA Helena Light Artillery) at Pickett's Mill:

Major Hotchkiss’ Battalion occupied the ground opposite the Wheatfield located off the White Trail. Apparently Hotchkiss’ works were not far enough forward to allow the guns to fire into the ravine. General Cleburne ordered the works torn down and new works built for a better field of fire. After the Union attack started, Captain Goldthwaite’s Battery was sent by General Cleburne to the Confederate right flank in order to place an enfilade fire upon the Union troops in the cornfield. Unfortunately, there was no position Captain Goldthwaite could unlimber his guns and therefore had no real impact on the battle. Captain Key moved one section (2 guns) of Howitzers to fire into the ravine by having his men hand roll the guns into position. From roughly 5:00 p.m. till 8:00 p.m. May 27, 1864, the two Howitzers under Captain Key fired 187 rounds of canister and spherical case shot.
Written by James Wooten, (the "Haggard" ) Interpretive Ranger of Pickett's Mill Park.

Source: Cannoneers in Gray University of Alabama Press 1984

If we do the math, and assume both howitzers fired approximately the same number of rounds, it works out like this. Conservatively, 187 rounds divided by 180 minutes = about a round per minute from two pieces. That's a shade under a round from each gun every two minutes. I suspect they were not firing during the entire 180 minute period and thus the interval at times was probably even less.

Cordially,

[marine05]

Dan,
Speaking strictly for myself, I maintain that a field piece can be discharged safely with a shorter firing interval than three minutes -- if everything is done properly, which can be evaluated objectively. I agree competely with your point about the necessity of training, discipline and adherence to time-proven drill per the manuals.

With regards to having children among the gun detachment, I respectfully disagree. I freely admit some young teenagers are both physically and mentally mature enough to serve, I feel its best to have an age limit and enforce it. In this way, subjectivity is eliminated form the equation. Afterall, opinions vary about which boys are "old enough." Personally, I think 16 should be the lower age limit for all positions, and only after the young man has proven his ability to safely serve the piece. I would even support an age floor of 17. Did boys younger than 16 serve in field artillery batteries during he period? Absolutely. This, however, IMHO is not sufficient to justify their use in this capacity today. We should also be vigilant for the old "switcheroo." I've seen folks try to substitute boys during an "engagement" after passing the safety inspection during which they employed an all adult gun detachment.

This is a great discussion and I'm glad we finally have a forum here to address these important issues.

Cordially,

Check. I also believe on a lower age limit. We do have youngsters serving at times as #5/6, but usually their parent is a battery member.

I too am glad for this subforum for on often the "king of battle" is silent.

s/f

DJM

[James Brenner]

Never mind. I recalled the message as my comment's already been mentioned.