Would Artillery Be Armed?

[CompanyWag]

Re: Would Artillery Be Armed?

Danny,

My apologies if I seemed to be lecturing regarding Gibbon's service record. In my opinion, just because a regular army officer served a short term as a West Point instructor does not neccesarily relegate him to the status of a desk jockey that is out of touch with current practices.

However, I agree that Gibbon's manual by itself does not neccessarily indicate actual practises in the field, but rather is only another period reference to consider when trying to understand the past from our modern viewpoint. Don't you suppose that Gibbon enforced his own opinions while Chief of Artillery?

Sadly, to support the opposing viewpoint to Gibbon's comments without primary references I am forced to regard that argument as only interesting conjecture.

On a somewhat related note, I recall being told years ago that artillery drivers were issued the sabre perhaps as much for quickly cutting the traces of a downed horse as for personal defence. However, since I could find not period reference illustrating this, I was hesitant to even bring this up.

Paul McKee

[CompanyWag]

Re: Would Artillery Be Armed?

Here is another reference regarding Gibbon's opinion (during the war) of the efficacy of artillery standing to its guns at a moment of peril. (This quote from
http://aotw.org/officers.php?officer_id=1000)

"John Johnson, detached from Company D, 2nd Wisconsin Volunteer Infantry, won his medal [Medal of Honor] for valor displayed at two engagements. While serving as a cannoneer at Antietam, Maryland on September 17, 1862 he assisted Brigadier General John Gibbon and two others in firing a cannon about to be overrun by the enemy. The double canister at point blank range was critical at turning back the charge and saving the battery."

Although seemingly ubsurd that a brigadier should briefly serve as a gunner and No. 3 on a gun soon to be overrun, it does emphasize his viewpoint that the cannoneers should look to their serving their guns as their ultimate salvation rather than small arms for personal defence. At least in this instance, Gibbon's views are vindicated.

Paul McKee

[Pvt Schnapps]

Re: Would Artillery Be Armed?

And here's something from Carl Schurz, writing about Gettysburg and quoted in This Blessed Place of Freedom (Mahin, 2003):

"Some rebel infantry had scaled the breastworks and were taking possession of the guns. But the cannoneers defended themselves desperately. With rammers and fence rails, hand spikes and stones, they knocked down the intruders. In Widerich's battery, manned by Germans from Buffalo, a rebel officer, brandishing his sword, cried out: 'This battery is ours!' Whereupon a sturdy German artilleryman responded: 'No, dis battery ist unser!' and felled him to the ground with a sponge-staff...."

Now like all good stories this may be apocryphal, but at the very least it tells us how Schurz thought artillerymen were armed.

It also tells us something about the audience for such a story. If Schurz's intended audience generally expected artillerymen to have pistols and carbines the story would fall flat. But it didn't then, and even now it retains a certain charm.

[Poor Private]

Re: Would Artillery Be Armed?

I have been following this thread from the beginning-- We have sen info on the federal side but nothing on the southern side is there any info/documentation of confederate artillary units use or not?

[hta1970]

Re: Would Artillery Be Armed?

For primary documentation on the Confederate use of small arms by artillery units, please see and read my earlier posts. There is evidence by those invoices that Confederate Heavy Artillery at Drewry's Bluff was issued muskets in Fall 1862. It is also clear that Austrian Rifles were issued to 2nd Corps ANV Artillery in Winter Quarters at Frederick Hall by the Richmond Arsenal around February 1864 and these rifles were turned back in to 2nd Corps ANV Artillery by the artillery battalions of that corps in April 1864 as they were leaving those same winter quarters at Frederick Hall.

There has been no evidence provided in this discussion of small arms or ammunition for small arms being issued to Confederate Field Artillery when not in winter quarters. Even without invoices for the small arms themselves, evidence of small arms ammunition invoices signed by field artillery battalion ordnance officers or battery commanders would lend proof to the possession of small arms by field artillery while not in winter quarters. If someone can provide such proof, I'd love to see it. If you can't find and show a battery was in the possession of small arms at the time and the scenario being portrayed at an event, the small arms should stay at home.

[rbruno]

Re: Would Artillery Be Armed?

Cris,
This has been an interesting thread to follow and has stayed alive much longer then I would have thought. My original post was focused on winter quarters/camp of the MD Line and the reading of original ordnance reports that I was confused about. Harry has done a stand up job to bring the post back a couple of times around the idea of winter quarter and garrison artillery. I have no idea what they would have been armed with in the field. I research mainly cavalry stuff, so I was looking for some of the artillery guys to help out. It seems like there is some references to both, some in the field and some in winter quarters.

[Danny]

Re: Would Artillery Be Armed?

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.

Michael -

In my opinion, a single quote shouldn't carry far more weight, just a little weight. To me, it's many quotes that would carry far more weight.

I also feel that common sense should carry some weight in the absence of many quotes. If not, we get the circumstance as in a prior thread here, the one about artillerymen covering their ear when their gun goes off. Several posters literally claimed that didn't happen because it's not in any period drill or static photo (the only kind of photo they had back then).

Most agree, I agree, that personal weapons were not issued to individual artillerists below officer grade, unless you count the short Artillery sword that we speculate was never used in light artillery, or the driver's saber. But it's no speculation that pistols were commonly available either from home or as picked up or traded, or won in a bet, on campaign. It's an acceptable speculation to suppose that carbines or rifles commonly found their way into the Battery box if only for markmanship drills, hunting for game etc. etc.

The point I was making on the flag-bearer thing is that it's a speculation on the part of an officer, then or now, to suppose that if an artillerist had a personal weapon (besides cannon equipage) they would not vigorously defend with the big gun first, that somehow their resolve and bravery in defending his unit would be deficient. Using the identical reasoning, an infantryman should not be issued a rifle because that would discourage his resolve and bravery to pick up the flag to continue a vigorous attack or defense on behalf of his unit.

After all that, I don't disagree that the only sure standard for a rigidly held impression is to adhere only to that which can be documented, common sense and informed speculation notwithstanding.

Dan Wykes

[Pvt Schnapps]

Re: Would Artillery Be Armed?

Danny, given that we already have quotes, manuals, and ordnance returns indicating that artillerymen serving as artillery did not carry personal weapons, I stand by my statement that a single quote supporting your view would carry far more weight than continued speculation.

Lack of documentation doesn't absolutely rule out a possibility, but at least some documentation seems necessary to establish the difference between "informed" speculation and something worth little more than the wind it takes to utter.

Your appeal to "common sense" also seems like a pretty slim reed in the absence of something more to go by. To me, "common sense" would dictate that a battery wagon carry that which belongs to the battery, not the personal fowling pieces of individual enlisted men. We have numerous accounts of officers throwing out unauthorized items from infantry knapsacks; "common sense" would dictate similar attentiveness on the part of artillery officers.

It also seems common sense that if artillery doctrine calls for the guns to be served until the very last moment, or the command to withdraw, then it would require that the gunners not be distracted from their duty by turning themselves into an inferior kind of skirmish line.

Your make a flawed analogy to the infantryman -- for the infantryman the musket is his weapon and the flag is a symbol. To the artilleryman, the gun is both, and best preserved by being used.

Speaking of common sense, I've also begun to wonder whether the use of personal weapons by artillerymen has any place at all in reenacting. It's ahistorical and, besides looking silly, just seems unsafe. As an infantryman, I have learned to avoid discharging a weapon anywhere near a limber. Knowing that cap and ball pistols firing blanks are inherently much leakier than a musket, I can't imagine why you guys would allow it.

To me, it just completely contradicts common sense.

[Brian Baird]

Re: Would Artillery Be Armed?

Danny,
I was an artillery reenactor from 1976 to 1999. During that time, I read every book written on artillery and every diary and first person account I could find. Some of these books include Grape and Canister: The Story of the Field Artillery of the Army of the Potomac, 1861-1865, Charles Wainwright’s A Diary of Battle, My Dear Wife, The Story of a Cannoneer Under Stonewall Jackson, Cannoneers In Gray, Osborn’s book (Chief of Artillery on the march to the see), History of the Washington Artillery, Philip Stephenson’s memoirs of the 5th Company of Washington Artillery, Yankee Artilleryman, The History of the Allegeny Artillery and Illinois Artillery Officer’s Civil War. One of the members of our Battery (Cheney’s Battery F, 1st Illinois Light Artillery) , Comrade Bill Tometich went through his copies of the OR’s (this was before they were on line or on a CD) and typed out 20 pages of excerpts of after action reports and not one of them mentions enlisted cannoneers pulling pistols to defend a piece.
Did a canoneer carry a pistol? Maybe early in the war but have you done the complete artillery drill? Not just the standing gun drill but the mechanical drills of changing the wheels, dismounting the tube, etc. and the section and battery drill with horses? If the drill is anything faster than a walk, the cannoneers will be running to keep up with it’s piece.

Brian Baird
Captain, Cheney’s Battery F, 1st Illinois Artillery
Captain, Stone’s battery
Major, Chief of Artillery, Western Brigade
Military Order of Saint Barbara
Retired

[RJSamp]

Re: Would Artillery Be Armed?

Good stuff Mr. Shaffner. We need to be very specific on this topic.
1. Light Field Artillery [LFA].
2. In the Field.

Put them in a fort, have their own fort guards (Heavy Artillery), or put them on a ship/barge/river boat/privateer, and all bets are off.

LFA Sergeants were issued pistols to shoot injured horses. If your reenactor unit doesn't have horses, then no need to carry a pistol. We have a rule at most events that I attend that dismounted personnel of all branches and ranks do not load pistols. Period. No need for an infantry captain to start firing at 100 yards....or 50 yards....

Mounted artillery buglers were issued a saber and pistol for self defense.

Again, if you aren't mounted, don't have horses, and you are portraying an LFA in the field, no need for pistols.....

What we are looking for is simply a couple of Dozen quotes that the 3rd Wisconsin, or Battery G, 4th US Artillery, et al while at the battle of you name it.....ran out of ammo....needed firepower to the rear/flank faster than they could turn the guns....watched in disbelief as their infantry support melted away and they were forced to form their own picket post line with Enfield Rifles......something that says that an LFA battery, on July 2nd 1863, stood off the Rebel Hordes with rifles, pistols, non artillery lethal weapons.

Did it happen anyway withOUT the quotes, probably, certainly, most likely. Is your unit going to portray that specific battery at that specific battle? No Way (otherwise you'd have the quoteS). so it's a moot point. Until you come up with the documentation.

I'll throw out a similar circumanstance.
US Army Infantry medics in WWII, in the front lines in a combat zone, didn't carry firearms, weren't issued firearms, the weapons for the medics were NOT in the TO&E. Therefore, US Army Combat medics never carried them. And you probably can't find the documentation to show that they did.

During Operation Nordwind (German Riposte in January 1945 to hit at the stretched out thin from the Bulge US Army lines) my combat medic father was 'issued'/given an M1 Carbine (officer's carbine, semi-auto selector) and stood guard at night. He didn't wear his metal pot helmet with the red crosses on it, simply the liner. and he took the arm bands off of his upper arm sleeves.

But then again, US Combat Infantry medics were never 'issued' sidearms during WWII......

but they did.

[Danny]

Re: Would Artillery Be Armed?

...Speaking of common sense, I've also begun to wonder whether the use of personal weapons by artillerymen has any place at all in reenacting. It's ahistorical and, besides looking silly, just seems unsafe. As an infantryman, I have learned to avoid discharging a weapon anywhere near a limber. Knowing that cap and ball pistols firing blanks are inherently much leakier than a musket, I can't imagine why you guys would allow it. To me, it just completely contradicts common sense.[/FONT]

Pvt. -

In my unit we typically don't allow cannoneers to have pistols while servicing the big gun, for the reasons you state. Some events allow it in pre-planned scenario, though, and in our unit common sense prevails and if our safety sarg checks us out we sometimes participate.

But I appreciate that for some in the hobby it's about absolutes.

btw a pistol was something worn identically by any soldier or officer that wore them, whether in belt or holster, so if "silly" looking on one, silly looking on all, no reason to slam artillerists.

Dan Wykes

[Pvt Schnapps]

Re: Would Artillery Be Armed?

Some events allow it in pre-planned scenario, though, and in our unit common sense prevails and if our safety sarg checks us out we sometimes participate.


Dan Wykes

What kind of "pre-planned scenario"? If the scenario has anything to do with history, then it's hard to see where revolvers would come into play at all, unless you need to shoot one of your horses.

If you can document otherwise, I'll happily accept the correction; I'm always glad to learn new things. It's not about "absolutes"; it's about what actually happened.

If on the other hand the scenario doesn't have to do with history, don't you feel any obligation as a student of the civil war to say something and offer a viable alternative weapon, like a fence rail?

Here I make the additional assumption that no one is holding one of those revolvers to your head and forcing you to do something that, yes, looks silly.

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: Would Artillery Be Armed?

Speculation and "Common Sense" does constitute documentation. Get real. Get documentation.

"If they'd had it, they'd have used it" is a classic farbism and violates on of this forums three founding rules.

[FloridaConscript]

Re: Would Artillery Be Armed?

safety sarg, huh?

[rgilbert]

Re: Would Artillery Be Armed?

Here's is an account from cpl. Moore - gunner - that adds some insight on artiullery carrying small arms, artillery being over run and fighting back, staying by the guns, and infantry support. Interesting read.

"The last Charge of The Louisiana Tigers

What An Item in the “Advertiser” Brought forth – Graphic Description of the Battle where Myron French Lost His Life

In noting the camp-fire held by the Myron French Post, No. 512, in our last issue, we did not mention the most important feature of the occasion owing to the lateness of receiving the particulars. The Advertiser being instrumental in bringing about the event, the attached communication will be very interesting to our readers, and especially to our old veterans. To make plain the matter we reproduced an item that appeared in the Advertiser four weeks ago, reading as follows:
“Myron French Post will hold a camp-fire in Roberts Hall, Jackson, PA, on the evening of Dec. 10th, 1886. An address will be delivered by the Hon. J. W. Dargill, Good music, short speeches, joking and story telling will be the order of the evening. The old army bean will parade in full uniform. Come one, come all.”
Philadelphia, Dec 5th, 1886 227 Chestnut Street
The above mentioned in the New Milford Advertiser, carries me back to the memorable night of July 2, 1863 when the famous charge of the Louisiana Tigers was made upon Battery F, 1st Pennsylvania Light Artillery – a charge that has been so graphically describe by the pen of “Dalch” in the following manner:
Just as the sun was disappearing in the red west and soft gray shadows of twilight were gathering like a ghost by me, the defenders of Cemetery Hill saw emerging from behind an eminence a long line of infantry formed for assault. The line was formed by brigades of Hays and Hoke led by the famous “Louisiana Tigers”. The moment they came in sight, the faced the test of death. Stevens opened on them with every gun: Wiedrick and Ricketts joined in the chorus. The slaughter was immediately terrible; men dead from the iron storm at the rate of a dozen a minute. The guns of Ricketts were charged with canister, and they fired every fifteen seconds. Stevens battery, enfilading the Confederate line, wreaked furious destruction upon the storming column, which, through it all, in the face of the very hell of war, kept on their upward way. As the “tigers” came within musket range of the crest of Cemetery Hill, Howards infantry, hidden behind the stone wall poured volley after volley into the face of the wild headed and [illegible]. But the eyes of two armies were on the “Tigers”, they carried the guidon of fame that they had never failed in a charge. They could not halt now, the hour of their hardest trail. Over the stone walls they went with a bound. Stevens was obliged to cease firing for fear of killing friends. Wiedrick was unable to stand the shock; his supports and his men are sweep back together before the force of the human tornado. Ricketts quailed not, the full strength of the storm falling upon his devoted men, falls in vain. His left piece is taken. The “tigers” are within the cage. The remaining guns are still served with admirable discipline and courage, drivers and officers taking the place of dead cannoneers. A struggle takes place for the guidon; it is in the hands of a Tiger; Lieutenant Brockway seizes a stone, and hurls it full at the head of the soldier, which fells him to the ground – and in a moment the Tiger is shot by his own musket by Sergeant Strafford.
The wildest confusion (a bedlam of terror) now ensues. The rapidly gathering darkness makes friends and foes indistinguishable. The men at the batteries are being overpowered by their desperate and maddened assailants, but still they cling to their gun; with hand spikes, rammers, and stones they defend their position, the moment is most critical – the fate of the issue is at hand. At this instant Carroll’s Brigade rushes into [illegible] with wild shouts they burst upon the almost exhausted foe. They wavier, they turn, they retreat in confusion. Ricketts men fly to their guns, double shot them, and fire deadly parting salutes at the defeated Tigers. Their charge is over, they had been beaten. Nearly twelve hundred of their seventeen hundred are left dead and dying. It has been indeed a bloody half hours work. They pass down the hill, out into the darkness, are seen no more in history.
In the above charge Myron French, my Sergeant, was killed. I forward you, with this letter, the spurs he wore that night, which are just as they were taken from his feet that night, with the soil of Gettysburg still clinging to them. They have never been cleaned or worn since. I was not aware of a post named after him, or I should have sent them before. I have always prized them highly, for the owner’s sake whom I respected and only surrender them where I hope they will be prized by many instead of one.
Yours on F. C. and L.
L.E.C. Moore
George G. Meade Post, No. 1, Dept PA"