Great Artillery Image

[Yellowhammer]

Guys,

Here is one of my favorite images of artillerists from either side.

It is entitled, "Removing Confederate Artillery, 1865" and shows a veteran AoP artillery crew on a captured Confederate gun.

http://www.civilwarphotos.net/files/images/517.jpg

If you look closely, there are some fantastic details.

[Jimmayo]

You Bet! Lots of neat stuff to see in this pic. Has anyone found the bayonet?

If the caption is correct, these may be CS works. If so, there is a lot of stuff laying around.

[Yellowhammer]

My favorite elements are:

The cavalry saber on the limber. Souvenier?

The guy in the scarf carrying a book. Another souvenier?

The blanket hanging by the hut chimney.

The personalized uniform/equipment details.

And the one cool thing so big I missed it the first few times. Check out the massive covered way or bombproof in the background!

[K Bartsch]

- leg guard on the limber pole

- "W" on the canteen of the guy by the limber splinter bar -- presumably for "Water" :wink_smil

- Canteens worn on wearers right. Why would artillerists wear them on that side -- because they can (no cartridge box)

- Skillet hanging between the limber wheels

- guy with scarf up on the limber wearing "McDowell"-style cap -- in 1865

- barrel-chimney with plank "cracker-box" crate lid? affixed -- to help with chimney draught?

- Slingless musket (P1853?)

- trousers tucked into boots (farby?)

- reasonably short hair, and they are all clean-shaven

Cordially,

[hireddutchcutthroat]

On a previous thread on this image somebody forwarded the thought that these men may be cav. Any futher thoughts on this? The one thing that backs this idea up in my mind is the way the branch of service trim shows up in the photographers lens.

Here is an image of a known trooper, and artillerist for comparison.

[CJSchumacher]

Keith said:
- guy with scarf up on the limber wearing "McDowell"-style cap -- in 1865

I must disagree only slightly with you here. The cap in question looks very similar to the 9th MA Battery cap in Troiani's collection. Scetches of this cap are prominent in Billing's Hardtack and Coffee as well. I've seen photos of the original and also an exact replica Joel Boyh produced as a prototype. After discussion with Joel regarding this style cap, it seems these may have been popular among issues to artillerists. While it does exhibit a shortened, rounded bill, the rest of the cap is fairly common "as issued." It also sports, quite noticeably however, a very small disk. The cap lacks any characteristics of being private purchase, ie. finer material, quilting, bound bill, etc. that most "McDowell" caps generally exhibit.

This style of issue cap appears often in sketches and photographs of artillerists.

Rob,

No way to be absolutely sure, but I'm pretty confident they are artillery. The only cav distinguishing piece is that saber...which was carried and used by artillery and infantry officers alike. That we know.

The "artillery" cap ;-), issued boots, position of gunners, lack of spurs, etc. all point to the mounted service of artillery.


Hope I've only added to the confusion...

Chris

[Jefferson Guards]

Possibly the trim did not show up well due to lighting factors, distance from subject, dirt, or it could have been removed.

Anyway....

A few tin cups strapped to the outside of haversacks.

A bunch of stuff strapped to the footboards of the limber and the limber chest.

Oil cloth covers on the caps? Two of them have more of a shine than the other.

Something strapped to the barrel above the trunnions.

And...look at the way the men are carrying themselves...sort of like a cool nonchalance..

One of my fav artillery images

[courier]

All that are visable are wearing issued boots.
Canteens worn very high up-above hip.
We agree all have MSJ
Excellent photo,thank you.
Regards,Rick Harris

[mladair]

One of my absolute favorite images! I've attached a couple of closeups for uniform details.

The jacket of the soldier on sitting on the trail has trim - the others are too hard to tell. His collar only has one row of piping on it. Privately modified? The soldier sitting to the front of the limber also appears to have a short collar, but with 2 buttons back to back, instead of top-down.

The cav saber: I can't speak for other states, but the majority of sabers issued to Michigan artillery units were cav sabers. The soldier on the rear of the limber is wearing a saber belt, and it looks like it might be attached to saber.

Has anybody figured out what that blasted "block of wood" is strapped to the top of the gun? It has been bugging me for months!

[K Bartsch]

Has anybody figured out what that blasted "block of wood" is strapped to the top of the gun? It has been bugging me for months!

Matt,
Can you post a similarly enlarged shot of the trunnion area of the tube and we'll see about your "block of wood." It might just be a gunners haversack sitting up there, but I can't make out sufficient detail as is.

cordially,

[mladair]

Matt,
Can you post a similarly enlarged shot of the trunnion area of the tube and we'll see about your "block of wood." It might just be a gunners haversack sitting up there, but I can't make out sufficient detail as is.

Looking at the close-up, I'm pretty sure it isn't a gunners haversack. What it might be, though, I haven't a clue....

[BorderRuffian]

Looking at the close-up, I'm pretty sure it isn't a gunners haversack. What it might be, though, I haven't a clue....



Gentlemen,
The "block of wood" appears to have leather harness attached to it.Could it be a wooden pass box?I have only seen leather ones but just was a guess.What are your thoughts?


Forrest Peterson
Landis Light Artillery

[1stMaine]

Comrades,

Whatever it's use may be, it appears designed to fit over or under the barrel. A cursory examination reveals that the underside is cut with an arch so as to allow it to rest evenly on the barrel. Look at how the sides fall below the top of the barrel. This is a purpose built item, but for what purpose I cannot say.
respects,

[Ringgold]

Comrades,

Whatever it's use may be, it appears designed to fit over or under the barrel. A cursory examination reveals that the underside is cut with an arch so as to allow it to rest evenly on the barrel. Look at how the sides fall below the top of the barrel. This is a purpose built item, but for what purpose I cannot say.
respects,



Howdy Lads!

This is a Jim-dandy image to be sure!

Is that a Tredegar Rifle? The lines just don't look true to a Wrought Iron Rifle from PICo to me. And I've seen plenty. It seems to have the larger, slightly more bulbous base ring area, and slightly flatter cascable that is shared by the Southern cousins of the 3". Then again, it might just be the camera angle . . .

As for that mysterious block, I have a theory. (straight out of my aft torpedo tube. hurrah.)

As it appears to me that since this accessory has harness that can secure it to the piece yet still allow it to be removed easily, and the piece was captured at Petersburg, it may be some sort of protection device. Since the neck of an embrasure is only supposed to be about 2 feet wide, and the distance from the outside of each cheek of the gun carriage for a 3" Rifle is roughly 16" (which appears to be the width of "the mystery block"), this contraption would provide a large amount of safety for the gun crew against incoming small arms fire when the piece was not being fired. From my readings, many batteries at Petersburg suffered harrassing fire from sharpshooters who would position themselves to take advantage of the openings in the gun embrasures in order to shoot cannoneers. Perhaps the previous owners had had enough of pesky pot-shots and decided to remedy the problem. It's just a thought . . . and it might help explain that small chunk of missing cheek shown in the picture.

If the piece wasn't set up for a pendulum hausse, I'd have another hair-brained theory.

Hey Keith - it almost looks like that driver's leg guard is being used as a splint for that limber pole, don't it! Not much help when they try to pull the piece, unless they've nailed it fast. I sure would like to look at this specimen first-hand, and I don't mean the picture! :tounge_sm

[roundshot]

There is a fair possibility that these Yanks belong to the 2nd Pennsylvania Heavy Artillery, Army of the James, which drew garrison and clean up duty in Petersburg after that city's fall. Members of this unit are seen frequently in ID'd photos taken right after the seige, particularly on the ramparts of Ft. Mahone and in the famous "picket post" shots. They often wore the light artillery shell jacket in the field. They were also the Union's largest regiment, at one time mustering over 4000 men on its rolls.

There is no way to know for certain, however.

Bob Williams
Reilly's NC Btty.

[marine05]

This is one of my favorite images as it shows so much detail. I believe this was in the works outside of Petersburg although not sure of which side. The artillery driver boots caught my eye more than a year ago, many of our battery members have them. They are the standard issue boot for artillery and cavalry. As far as the trowsers tucked in, I sort of thought they came from fatigue duty along the picket line (horse). But it could have been an individual preference. The box on the tube has been a mystery to us also, but the personal gear on the limber is not. I also like it as it shows field artillerymen wearing roundabout style blouses with trim.

I have read where the long-haired bearded soldier of the ACW was not the norm as they distained body parasites. Sort of the same reason we still wear our hair short.

s/f

DJM

[K Bartsch]

There is a fair possibility that these Yanks belong to the 2nd Pennsylvania Heavy Artillery, Army of the James, which drew garrison and clean up duty in Petersburg after that city's fall. Members of this unit are seen frequently in ID'd photos taken right after the seige, particularly on the ramparts of Ft. Mahone and in the famous "picket post" shots. They often wore the light artillery shell jacket in the field. They were also the Union's largest regiment, at one time mustering over 4000 men on its rolls.

There is no way to know for certain, however.

Bob Williams
Reilly's NC Btty.

Bob,

I think these are light artillery guys. As you probably know, "Heavies" were NUG (normally, usually, generally) uniformed and accoutered the same as infantry -- except for branch trim on frocks and dress hat brass/cord. IMHO, too many MSJ's and boots for late-war heavy artillery. Further, looks like the guy seated on the gun carriage is wearing mounted service trousers.

Cordially,

[roundshot]

Keith: The 2nd retained their MSJs throughout the war and driver's boots were also common on the 2nds ranks and are conspicuous in many of the IDd Petersburg photos. See my article "The North's Largest Regiment" in the Jan/Feb 2004 issue of Military Images along with accompanying photos. These guys were armed as infantry but multi tasked as artillery, and had just come from the Bermuda front. Photos around Ft. Mahone show them wearing arty shells, sacks, frocks, boots, shoes, forage caps, slouches, and a whole conglomerate of stuff.

I'm not adamant about this, just tossing it out as a possibility. Take care.

Bob Williams
Reilly's NC Btty.

[10TnVI]

I may have an actual location for this shot. While looking through the official atlas last night I came upon the seris of plans drawn of the Petersburg works. The only one that seemed to have a stand-alone bombproofof that general configuration was Ft. Davis. Just a tentative judgement presented for your consideration.

Guys,

Here is one of my favorite images of artillerists from either side.

It is entitled, "Removing Confederate Artillery, 1865" and shows a veteran AoP artillery crew on a captured Confederate gun.

http://www.civilwarphotos.net/files/images/517.jpg

If you look closely, there are some fantastic details.

[ejn]

I can not remember seeing a reference to a leg guard before. Do you know where I can find a reference? How would it protect a leg? I'd think the buckles and straps would cause more problems for a leg than a piece of (hopefully) smooth wood.

Ed

- leg guard on the limber pole

[Barry Smithson]

Ed,
Leg guards were issued to help protect the drivers’ right legs from getting crushed between the limber pole and the horse. Besides the leather, there is a metal shaft that runs on the outside of the guard. I would be happy to show how you how it works next time in the field.

Regards,

[ejn]

Great! I look forward to it. - Ed

Ed,
Leg guards were issued to help protect the drivers’ right legs from getting crushed between the limber pole and the horse. Besides the leather, there is a metal shaft that runs on the outside of the guard. I would be happy to show how you how it works next time in the field.

Regards,

[Clifford Hyde]

It is also interesting to note that a few of the men have their trowser cuffs rolled and the man sitting atop the limber with the ''McDowell'' has no chinstrap. Also the man next to him has lost part of the crown ribbon on his hat. Clifford E. Hyde

[vamick]

On a previous thread on this image somebody forwarded the thought that these men may be cav. Any futher thoughts on this? The one thing that backs this idea up in my mind is the way the branch of service trim shows up in the photographers lens.

Here is an image of a known trooper, and artillerist for comparison.



Well that fellar on the left is cav for sure..if you enlarge it it 'peers to me that hat brass says 'CAL 100' which would make him one of the "Callifornia 100" cav troops who had a few horse races with Mosby's command in No Va. believe I may have seen this same image in a Mosby history

[Horton]

I love the facial expression of the guy sitting on tn the gun.

[huntdaw]

Well that fellar on the left is cav for sure..if you enlarge it it 'peers to me that hat brass says 'CAL 100' which would make him one of the "Callifornia 100" cav troops who had a few horse races with Mosby's command in No Va. believe I may have seen this same image in a Mosby history

Where do you see hat brass on any of these guys? The fellow on the left doesn't have any that I can tell and there's certainly nothing legible. In fact, it looks like he is wearing a rain cover over the forage cap.

Never mind - I went back and looked at the photo and then noticed the hat brass on the post comparing a cavalryman and an artilleryman. Since the discussion is about the photo posted originally, your post threw me since there is no argument that the fellow you're commenting on is cavalry.

[vamick]

Where do you see hat brass on any of these guys? The fellow on the left doesn't have any that I can tell and there's certainly nothing legible. In fact, it looks like he is wearing a rain cover over the forage cap.

Never mind - I went back and looked at the photo and then noticed the hat brass on the post comparing a cavalryman and an artilleryman. Since the discussion is about the photo posted originally, your post threw me since there is no argument that the fellow you're commenting on is cavalry.

HAAHAHAHHA yeah threw me too, since I didnt "read for comprehension"..I missed that part about him being a known cavalryman till after I posted

[dclarry]

One of my absolute favorite images! I've attached a couple of closeups for uniform details.

The jacket of the soldier on sitting on the trail has trim - the others are too hard to tell. His collar only has one row of piping on it. Privately modified? The soldier sitting to the front of the limber also appears to have a short collar, but with 2 buttons back to back, instead of top-down.

The cav saber: I can't speak for other states, but the majority of sabers issued to Michigan artillery units were cav sabers. The soldier on the rear of the limber is wearing a saber belt, and it looks like it might be attached to saber.

Has anybody figured out what that blasted "block of wood" is strapped to the top of the gun? It has been bugging me for months!


This post draws attention to a uniform detail that shows up consistantly in extant images of original members of Battery F, Ist Penn. Light Artillery (Rickett's Battery). This is the single row of trim on a low collar, lower than an SA or St. Loius MSJ. Artillerymen were known to have their MSJs privately modified, lowering the collar to a more practical height. There is a photo of an original artillery MSJ in one of Troiani's books labeled a 'New York State' artillery jacket, and it is stated the jacket was modified. I do not think anyone questions that MSJs were sometiomes modified. However, not one, but every image that I've seen of an original Battery F member wearing an MSJ shows a low collar with one row of trim and one button. The phrase "that I've seen" is operative here, as I have not done any systematic extensive study of Civil War images. However, I suggest that some artillery units may have had their own particular jackets, especially state units. I have attached an image of two Battery F members, Moore and Patterson. Their jackets clearly have one row of collar trim, one collar button, and , interestingly enough, only nine front buttons, not the expected 11 or 12. I can imagine a company tailor lowering the collar, but not altering the jacket to have nine buttons.

I suggest that some units had 'oddball' jackets, which were not modified SA or StL MSJs. I would further suggest that these units were most likely state-supplied units, and that these oddball jackets were probably a one-time issue and that standard MSJs were issued to new recruits later in the war or as the original issue oddball jackets wore out.

This is all conjecture, but I respectfully put forth these suggestions for comment by other forum members. I would love to know the real deal about these jackets.

[suckerboy]

Great image- Have to imagine that is a leg guard hanging on the limber pole and notice the lynch pins are the correct straight ones. Ken Baumann