Artillery & Knapsacks?

[Ringgold]

Hey Buckeye!

Hmmmmm. Maybe one of my ancestors picked up one of those packs. Naw doubt it being my family was in Va. My grandmothers side maybe? Never know. Do you know the location of where that caisson fell, or atleast what railroad, Im guessing B&O?

Regards,
Southeastern Ohioan

Isaac,

My mistake. It was northeastern Ohio!

It appears that the fine people of Pittsburgh had been entertaining the boys of the battery rather merrily, and even went so far as to assemble a bunch of the local men to unload the artillery off of one train and transfer it onto flatcars of the Fort Wayne road. The loss of the caisson was detailed only as follows:

"The train left Pittsburg at 10 P.M. and was in motion nearly all night. A long stop was made at Loudonville, Ohio, to fasten the artillery which was loaded on open cars, for it had been discovered that one of the caissons had gone overboard. After leaving Crestline, one of the men fell from the moving train, and was supposed to have been killed, but he afterward turned up with a bruised head and neck."

And almost a month later we find . . . "Lieutenant Loeser returned to camp the next day and reported that Captain Durell was at Lexington (KY) with the lost caisson. It was found at Cincinnati in bad shape. It was broken in many places, the boxes were all in a bad condition, the powder bags were broken open, and a number of projectiles were found to be worthless. The boys' knapsacks that had been attached to it were all gone, and they were obliged to pay for the new clothes they drew in place of the lost garments."

Orderly Sergeant Andrews goes into greater detail about what was lost and the circumstances that caused it in his diary, but I don't have that handy at the moment. :(

You may be wondering why so many things were falling from the train on their trip. Here's a description of the quality of the road: "The track was rough, and the freight cars did not ride very easy. It seemed, at times, as if the wheels were off the track and running over the ties." Now that's a bumpy ride!

[GunnyGibby]

Re: Artillery & Knapsacks?

Phil,
I didn't mean to imply drivers wore knapsacks. They had valises. I'm not discounting your assertion that knapsacks might have been kept with baggage in the battalion trains, nevertheless, artillerymen, just like infantry, needed routine and quick access to their belongings carried in their knapsacks and I believe its more reasonable to expect them to have kept them handy for that reason. Also, the TO&E of an battery didn't include wagons dedicated to baggage of enlisted soldiers. The list of regulation contents of battery wagons is long, but it was almost exlusively composed of spare parts and maintenance supplies needed to keep the battery in service on campaign. Also remember, cannoneers were not encumbered with the additional weight of cap/cartridge boxes, muskets and bayonets. The additional weight of their knapsack should not have been too much of a burden, particularly when compared to the typical infantry soldier's personal load. I can share that I have worn a knapsack while riding an ammunition box during quick jaunts. The jarring of the knapsack is the least of your problems. :wink_smil The bigger problem is the complete lack of suspension and/or springs and the corresponding lack of any shock absorption as the vehicle is pulled over all kinds of terrain. You are literally hanging on for dear life. Finally, you can do your job as a cannoneer w/out dropping your pack. In fact, our unit takes some pride in the fact we do so with all our accouterments worn -- including packs. Frankly, there's really nothing you can't do in and around a gun that you could do without your pack. We also contend its more authentic, particularly in situations where you are prone to "shoot and scoot" since there is precious little time to limber-up and move out for the next firing position.

Cordially,

Keith,

I agree with most of your comments, especially wearing a pack if doing a "shoot and scoot". Surely some units wore packs on the march if not mounted. But soldiers being soldiers, I think they tried to stick them anywhere they could except on their backs. i.e. limbers, wagons, caisson. A long march, manhandling the gun over rought terrain, poor health = where can I stick this pack?

Did light artillery wear packs on the march? Yes, but on a limited basis would be my answer. It was probably much more common to see an artilleryman tromping along with haversack and canteen.

On the issue of serving on the gun with a pack, again, yes if you are doing a scoot and shoot. More than that I'm guessing that pack would have found its way to the ground pretty quick. Even in todays military, do we fight with our pack on or do we drop it with a vehicle or at an ORP.

Today when we go out for a weekend it is easy for us to be hard core for a couple of days and wear a good deal of equipment. However, we are in good health and enjoyed our air conditioning on the way to the event. Those fellows in the 1860's did it day in and day out. Self preservation taught them to find ways to conserve energy and take care of themselves.

Great that you guys wear your packs for the "quick jaunts". I think that is very accurate and wish that there was more of that on the field. All to often we see artillery units walk up to the static gun with nothing on but a uniform. If you portray foot artillery, then you should have at a minimum, haversack and canteen.

Great thoughts Keith,

YOS

Phil

[K Bartsch]

Re: Artillery & Knapsacks?

Phil,
All I would add is simply this. We're pretty sure the items carried by veteran troops on campaign was minimal. IMO, a pack containing the typical spread of "stuff" worn by a cannoneer just doesn't amount to much beyond a blanket, a shirt, socks, oilcloth/gumblanket, perhaps a shelter half and a few personal hygiene items. A young troop in decent health should be able to bear that load, as well as a canteen and haversack indefinitely, particularly (as I've said), he's not toting a musket and its accouterments. To put it in perspective, this load certainly didn't exceed the weight of a modern soldiers LBE/V, protective vest, Kpot, ammo, chem gear, etc. -- not including the pack which I agree he'd not wear in combat.

For the record, the federal manuals specified knapsacks if carried on the vehicles, were to be strapped to the footboards of the limbers. This was specified because that's the best place for them because it ensures they'll be out of the way and would not impede access to the ammunition. We're also pretty sure men strapped packs to the spare wheel carried on the caisson. Other than that, there simply wasn't any other place at the battery or even battalion level to stow them on the march. As has been stated, the issue of allowing the men to ride the limbers or even stow their personal gear on these vehicles was the additional load on the animals, not the men's backs. Bottomline, the horses couldn't lighten their load, but we all know the men certainly did by discarding unnecessary items.

Glad you agree we should see more artillerists 'coutered-up on the field. Unfortunately, most 'streamer cannon-poppers I've been around don't agree with us. In fact, sometimes its hard to see them even wearing coats/jackets! Of course, lots of them manage to strap on their pistolas! :wink_smil

Cheers,

[GunnyGibby]

Re: Artillery & Knapsacks?

Keith,

Good and valid points. From what I have seen, there is a larger following of authentic artillery each year. The key is education and great discussions like the ones found on this forum.

Regards,

Phil

[ejn]

Re: Artillery & Knapsacks?

Andrews' Mounted Artillery Drill by R. Snowden Andrews (1863) also states that the knapsacks are to be strapped on the floorboards of the limbers. So it was standard practice for the Confederates as well.

Ed

Phil,
All I would add is simply this. We're pretty sure the items carried by veteran troops on campaign was minimal. IMO, a pack containing the typical spread of "stuff" worn by a cannoneer just doesn't amount to much beyond a blanket, a shirt, socks, oilcloth/gumblanket, perhaps a shelter half and a few personal hygiene items. A young troop in decent health should be able to bear that load, as well as a canteen and haversack indefinitely, particularly (as I've said), he's not toting a musket and its accouterments. To put it in perspective, this load certainly didn't exceed the weight of a modern soldiers LBE/V, protective vest, Kpot, ammo, chem gear, etc. -- not including the pack which I agree he'd not wear in combat.

For the record, the federal manuals specified knapsacks if carried on the vehicles, were to be strapped to the footboards of the limbers. This was specified because that's the best place for them because it ensures they'll be out of the way and would not impede access to the ammunition. We're also pretty sure men strapped packs to the spare wheel carried on the caisson. Other than that, there simply wasn't any other place at the battery or even battalion level to stow them on the march. As has been stated, the issue of allowing the men to ride the limbers or even stow their personal gear on these vehicles was the additional load on the animals, not the men's backs. Bottomline, the horses couldn't lighten their load, but we all know the men certainly did by discarding unnecessary items.

Glad you agree we should see more artillerists 'coutered-up on the field. Unfortunately, most 'streamer cannon-poppers I've been around don't agree with us. In fact, sometimes its hard to see them even wearing coats/jackets! Of course, lots of them manage to strap on their pistolas! :wink_smil

Cheers,

[BarryDusel]

Re: Artillery & Knapsacks?

This is a really great topic. I've been following it from day 1 without comment. I love the Art'y branch of service and think that it is something that needs to be addressed in our endeavour . anyway. I'm certain from everything I've read, this is diaries, regs, manuals, monthly returns, etc. That Art'y. was issued and thus used knapsacks. As well they had haversacks and canteens. As has been quoted throughout this thread. The proof is there. Which brings me to the next thought. Going back to another Arty thread on this site. There is a misconception, finally being addressed by Mr. Pflumm and others. That is Arty isn't something one gets into when one is too old to be a "grunt" . For too long though , since I've been in this endeavour. The thought process on many, but not all , particpants part. Is that doing Arty, other then the gun itself, is the cheapest way of getting into the hobby. I know there are members of crews that own absolutely nothing other then a "costume". They own no canteens, no haversacks, let alone a knapsack. Fortunately they are being winnowed out. Finally, the Arty is being treated seriously. I do believe Mr. Pflumm and a few others are largely responsible for this movement. Thank you Mark!

[ejn]

Re: Artillery & Knapsacks?

This link is for a material requisition that included 147 knapsacks: http://9thmassbattery.home.comcast.net/Req620801.html

Ed