Would Artillery Be Armed?

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Would Artillery Be Armed?

Hallo!

And just a reminder that "armed" may need to be defined or operationalized.
Meaning...

Armed with offensive weapons for offensive roles? Or armed with a few defensive weapons such as long arms for camp guard or side arms for dispatching wounded team horses, etc.,?

Curt
Artillery fights with its guns Mess

[marine05]

Re: Would Artillery Be Armed?

This was an outstanding find and I am pleased that Chris was able to post it. The below two paragraphs are what many of us have been saying for quite some time on this subject. Especially those of us that are combat veterans can attest to the last sentence, if you don't need it you ain't going to hump it.

Batteries do not operate in the field without other troops. In a general sense, all the troops about them, whether a single battalion or an army corps, become their supports, and. reciprocally, they are supports to such troops. They each do their proper share of the battle with their own specific arms, using them in such a manner as to be most effective.
In spite of everything to the contrary, batteries will sometimes be lost in battle, even by the victorious party. But to attempt to prevent it by such ridiculous measures, such as the use of sabers and revolvers, is to tempt fate.
It is sometimes supposed that batteries require arms for their camp guards. Nothing is more erroneous. A driver’s whip in the hands of a sentinel at the picket line is far better for preserving order among the horses than a saber and revolver; and, as to the sentinels of the battery park, their function as watchmen are performed as well without as with arms. To the eye of the amateur soldier these suggestions may seem highly unmilitary, but it must be remembered in time of war all that is not actually useful should be discarded.

I would suggest that all AOP artillery units (mounted batteries) drop the Henry rifles, pistols, etc with the possible exceptions of officers and NCOs (perhaps gunners should be included as they are usually NCOs) that are not on the guns, if they desire to carry a weapon as a badge of authority. This post also helps to put to rest the question of "would they carry a rifle/pistol on picket duty?"

Anyway, again Chris thanks for posting this!!

S/F

Dan

[sedlakchristopher]

Re: Would Artillery Be Armed?

The thanks MUST go to James Brenner who posted this UNPUBLISHED memoir that would have otherwise collected dust on the shelf at Ft. Sill.

FYI - most of us have seen Tidball before! The famous photo of 3 or 4 officers at Fair Oaks leaning on a 3" gun, one has a open coat with a large bow tie and the gun wheels are covered in mud... the photo is used by the Civil War Historian Magazine on their banner... Tidball is one of them... I believe the one wearing the big bow tie... ironic, huh? He was Lt. in the photo and went on to great things in the Army, a Maj. Gen. after the war...?

James sent me Tidball's complete text from Fort Sill last year, it's about 100? pages... anyone wishing it, I could dig it up for you... James transcribed it all, so you better thank him really nicely!

This particular post helped settle the question about the enlisted carrying the light artillery saber... he stated "On the march it soon found its way, with other trash of its kind, to the caissons or carriages of the pieces, where battered, broken, and rusty, it was carried along as trash until such time as it could be brought before a duly authorized inspector for formal condemnation to be dropped from the property returns of the battery; or, more frequently, it was eliminated from the returns by the remark, “lost in action”."
good stuff...

Thanks again James Brenner!


Chris Sedlak

[James Brenner]

Re: Would Artillery Be Armed?

Aw, shucks. You guys make me blush.

Seriously, I'm pleased that you have all found it useful. In terms of sharing, I don't think there's a problem. Just be sure to reference the entire work as an unpublished manuscript at the Fort Sill archives/library.

[Pennvolunteer]

Re: Would Artillery Be Armed?

Since you all are slobering over our fine archive collection here at Fort Sill, and yes we do have some good stuff, it occured to me that I should mention that we are right now working on the new U.S. Army Field Artillery Museum, scheduled to open Jun 4 as part of the Army Fire Support Seminar.

We are working hard on it, but it is certainly a work in progress. Hope you all can come visit once we get it open.

[hta1970]

Re: Would Artillery Be Armed?

I'm going to bring this back to the Rob's original post dealing with the Maryland Line in the winter of 63-64.

Albert E. Trippe wrote to Secretary of War Seddon Nov 17, 1863 requesting appointment as an Ordnance Officer. He was appointed 2nd Lieutenant and Ordnance Officer to the Maryland Line December 3, 1863. He had been wounded July 3, 1863 at Gettysburg by a shell in the right breast under the collar bone fracturing the 1st rib. These wounds kept him on medical furlough through at least the end of 1864.

2nd Lieutenant Samuel G. Bonn, 1st Maryland Cavalry, served as acting Ordnance Officer for the Maryland Line for at least the period Nov '63 through March '64 and is listed on the March 31, 1864 muster roll as serving as the acting Ordnance Officer.

2nd Lieutenant William H. Edelin, 2nd Maryland Infantry, served as acting Ordnance Officer for the Maryland Line for at least the period April through Jun '64. He also served as Acting Assistant Quartermaster of the 2nd Maryland Infantry.

Below you will find invoices for the Maryland Line. These come from the files of Lt Bonn, Edelin in thier unit files and also 2nd Lieutenant James Dinwiddie in the CSA Officers files. Dinwiddie served at the Richmond Arsenal and signed invoices for Lietenant Colonel J. Wilcox Broun, Superintendant of the Armory Workshops.

In the case of Bonn and Edelin, they were signing for all ordnance going to units of the Maryland Line at Hannover Junction during the winter of '63-64. Trippe is a name on a roster, but was on medical furlough and never did duty with the Maryalnd Line.

[Danny]

Re: Would Artillery Be Armed?

Hello,
I have also read accounts tho' where the personal sidearms (pistols, knives, etc.) of the men were taken away just before a battle, as the officers wanted the men to serve the guns, and not rely on these personal weapons....

Tom -

Let's have those accounts then, the one or two...

This is one of those things that pops up as justification anytime, in reenactment, a Sergeant or Commissioned officer denies Artillery Corporals or privates any sort of personal defense weapon, not only pistols but the 1832 Artillery short sword "of course".

Pistols, though not issued to Artillerists, were commonly available to every soldier or common citizen and were used in any particular instance where they were wanted and could be had. Some horse Artillery privates, of which there were hundreds, certainly carried pistols. It's also likely that at least some carbines or even long guns were carried in the Battery wagon and would have been seen on the battlefield in the hands of a light Artillerist in more than one instance. Though admittedly the evidence for those practices is no stronger than the evidence they "didn't have them", the point is that neither view is more than an assumption.

btw the 1832 pattern Artillery short sword was not only manufactured and purchased by the Federal Gov't until mid-war, but it was an issue item throughout that war and indeed until 1872. Not to mention the cash-strapped Confederates felt it significant enough to spend time, money and resource making and issuing their own version of that sword, and it is a dug item on many battlefields - too many to be "not used" much. Again today, the assumption is made, and repeated with an aire of justification by the same officers that deny use of pistols by Artillerists, or long arms, that "of course" it wasn't used much, and "only by the heavies.", but after all that's just another assumption.

On this personal weapon issue, typically is cited a period regulation or account or two of a particular commander, who like their modern-day reenacting counterparts were sometimes more enamored of their own accroutements signifying their stature than they were concerned about improper use of personal defense weapons.

If there is valid justification for Artillerists not having pistols, it would be the safety consideration today, though much more is made of that than what actually poses much of a risk.

Dan Wykes

[rbruno]

Re: Would Artillery Be Armed?

Harry,
Are you coming this weekend to the COI for the MD Line? I heard some of the artillary guys were coming even with out the gun. I would like to see your information. As we posted earlier, we each had a few different items from those mentioned officers. I would like to compare notes. If you want, send me a PM if you are going to be able to make it out.

[hta1970]

Re: Would Artillery Be Armed?

Rob,

I will be there giving the "Sick and Wounded 101" class Saturday afternoon. Jim Ward, with the battery, will be there also on Saturday giving a class on aspects of artillery, though I am not sure everything he will be going over. With our trailer just about completed its complete overhaul this winter, I hope the battery will make it out next year with the gun too.

I will see you there!

Let me know if there is anything specific you want me to bring along.

YOS,

[CompanyWag]

Re: Would Artillery Be Armed?

In addition to the marvelous Tidball reference quoted above, please note the following from Gibbon's Artillerist's Manual (pgs 355-356):

Artillery cannot defend itself when hard pressed, and should always be sustained by either infantry or cavalry. The proposition made to arm the cannoneers with small -arms, such as revolvers, short rifles, &c., is calculated to do more harm than good. They should be taught to look upon their pieces as their proper arm of defense, to be abandoned only at the very last moment. The fate of many a battle has turned upon the delivery of a few rounds of grape or canister at short range upon an advancing column; and if they have the means, how natural for men to resort to them for personal safety in time of extreme danger, forgetting for the moment that the fate of the whole army, may be imperiled whilst they are defending themselves only. I Let the rifles,therefore, be given to the infantry, and the sabres and revolvers to the cavalry; guard the artillery with these arms, and teach them that their salvation is in sticking to their pieces.

This of course doesn't mean small arms were not carried by some artillery. On the contrary, the fact that experienced artillery officers should warn against the practise would indicate that less experienced artillerymen might be making that mistake.


Paul McKee

[marine05]

Re: Would Artillery Be Armed?

Paul,

Good post from Gibbon's and thanks for posting.

S/F

DJM

[Danny]

Re: Would Artillery Be Armed?

In addition to the marvelous Tidball reference quoted above, please note the following from Gibbon's Artillerist's Manual (pgs 355-356)...This of course doesn't mean small arms were not carried by some artillery. On the contrary, the fact that experienced artillery officers should warn against the practise would indicate that less experienced artillerymen might be making that mistake. Paul McKee

...or, just as likely those manuals and their writers, by then desk jockeys, were not all that relevant. The experience level of artillerymen and line officers on campaign increased through the CW, perhaps overshadowing whatever was written in a years-old tactic. Trench warfare and bushwhacking were becoming as common as warbook scenarios, so the mistake would be in NOT having small arms. After all, small arms were undeniably useful in putting down wounded horses down in order to re-hitch, or for immediate zone/perimeter defense in the heat of battle, or for personal defense in the event of a line breach, or to fire the big gun in a pinch (a pistol fired over over the vent when friction primers or quill/linstocks aren't available, in spite of cannon kick-back risk, less with close-quarter ammo that with solid shot or shell).

On campaign, unless there were direct orders to desist from carrying, it's likely some or even many artillerymen optioned to carry small arms, their experienced officers trusting their men to first protect the big gun with vigor, honor-bound to do so. After all, armed infantrymen would drop their rifles to pick up the unit's banner under fire, and Artillerymen were no less brave or valiant.

Dan Wykes

[CompanyWag]

Re: Would Artillery Be Armed?

...or, just as likely those manuals and their writers, by then desk jockeys, were not all that relevant. The experience level of artillerymen and line officers on campaign increased through the CW, perhaps overshadowing whatever was written in a years-old tactic.

Gibbon wrote the Artillerist's Manual in 1859 while serving as instructor of artillery tactics at West Point. The manual was only two years old at the start of the war and was highly regarded and used by both sides. Its second edition was published in 1863 during the war (while its author was serving actively in the field).

For the record; Gibbon was hardly a desk jockey. He started the war as a captain commanding Btty B, 4th US Artillery, became Chief of Artillery under McDowell, went on to command the Iron Brigade at Brawner's Farm and South Mountain and Antietam, raised later to division and corps command by wars end. He also served actively in the field during the Indian War campaigns until he was assigned to department command. Only by the 1880's could Gibbon be considered anything close to a "Desk Jockey"...well after the Civil War had ended.

Paul McKee

[Danny]

Re: Would Artillery Be Armed?

Gibbon wrote the Artillerist's Manual in 1859 while serving as instructor of artillery tactics at West Point. The manual was only two years old at the start of the war...Gibbon was hardly a desk jockey. He started the war as a captain ...went on to command the Iron Brigade at Brawner's Farm and South Mountain and Antietam, raised later to division and corps command by wars end. ... Only by the 1880's could Gibbon be considered anything close to a "Desk Jockey"...well after the Civil War had ended.Paul McKee

Paul, thanks for the overview, and point taken. I've got a copy of that manual as well. In there you can see that there are procedures and comments, the quote on personal weapons being a comment, not a procedure. The book was, as you noted, written 2 years before the war. It was reprinted only when the author was away serving in the field. So the author was, after all, riding a desk (at West Point) when he authored the book, so had based the book on his pre-CW war experience, years old tactics per my original point.

Anyway, not to deny the validity of the Gibbon's comment on personal weapons, but rather to point out it's perhaps not the definitive indication of what was happening throughout the later and very much larger wartime Army beyond Gibbon's particular command, given the obvious usefulness of personal weapons in Artillery service.

Dan Wykes

[Pvt Schnapps]

Re: Would Artillery Be Armed?

...
On campaign, unless there were direct orders to desist from carrying, it's likely some or even many artillerymen optioned to carry small arms, their experienced officers trusting their men to first protect the big gun with vigor, honor-bound to do so. After all, armed infantrymen would drop their rifles to pick up the unit's banner under fire, and Artillerymen were no less brave or valiant.

Dan Wykes

A single quote from a letter, journal, manual, or other contemporary source would carry far more weight for your argument than simple speculation. Besides, your logic seems flawed: the artillery equivalent of an infantryman dropping a musket to pick up a flag would be to drop their pistol/short-sword/carbine/implement and put a shoulder to the wheel to get the gun out of there.