Would Artillery Be Armed?

[Danny]

Re: Would Artillery Be Armed?

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.

Fellas; after pondering this more, I get it. I concede on every point:

- Personal weapons were not issued or used by light artillerists assigned to a piece.

- Light artillerists assigned to a piece didn't have pistols, carbines, rifles or swords even if they did want to use them. Their commanders didn't allow them to be obtained. (The exceptions to that, i.e. some artillery drivers had sabres, etc.,do not meet a standard of usual practice for our reenactments).

- Contemporary Artillery manuals clearly discouraged the practice of personal sidearms or carbines by light artillerists serving a cannon. (Not sure why they would have to make a point of that unless it was actually being done in the field, but whatever).

- There is no scenario now nor common occurrance back then where personal weapons other than cannon equipage or other makeshift weapons like clubs or stones were used by light artillerists on a piece. If exceptions can be found, they weren't common and so should not be used in reenactment today.

- Light artillerists could not be trusted to tenaciously hold their piece in defense of themselves and their Battery if they had pistols or carbines.

- Artillerists did not cover or plug their ears upon firing of the piece. There's nearly no documentation for it.

- An artillerist wearing a pistol just looks silly, a farbism if there ever was one.

Dan Wykes

[Danny]

Re: Would Artillery Be Armed?

safety sarg, huh?

Bryant, uh...yes, we have a Sargeant, typically Armory, or an officer assigned to safety at events, EBUFU or otherwise, and all weapons, unit or personal, must pass inspection.

Your unit too, huh?

dw

[GrumpyDave]

Re: Would Artillery Be Armed?

- Personal weapons were not issued or used by light artillerists assigned to a piece.

- Light artillerists assigned to a piece didn't have pistols, carbines, rifles or swords even if they did want to use them. Their commanders didn't allow them to be obtained. (The exceptions to that, i.e. some artillery drivers had sabres, etc.,do not meet a standard of usual practice for our reenactments).

- Contemporary Artillery manuals clearly discouraged the practice of personal sidearms or carbines by light artillerists serving a cannon. (Not sure why they would have to make a point of that unless it was actually being done in the field, but whatever).

- There is no scenario now nor common occurrance back then where personal weapons other than cannon equipage or other makeshift weapons like clubs or stones were used by light artillerists on a piece. If exceptions can be found, they weren't common and so should not be used in reenactment today.

- Light artillerists could not be trusted to tenaciously hold their piece in defense of themselves and their Battery if they had pistols or carbines.

- Artillerists did not cover or plug their ears upon firing of the piece. There's nearly no documentation for it.

- An artillerist wearing a pistol just looks silly, a farbism if there ever was one.


I learned all that 12 years ago. Huh. Thank you Mark Pflum.

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: Would Artillery Be Armed?

This thread is closed.