Improving Artillery Impressions

[hta1970]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[OldKingCrow]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.