Great Artillery Image

[marine05]

Re: Great Artillery Image

This is one of my favorite images as it shows so much detail. I believe this was in the works outside of Petersburg although not sure of which side. The artillery driver boots caught my eye more than a year ago, many of our battery members have them. They are the standard issue boot for artillery and cavalry. As far as the trowsers tucked in, I sort of thought they came from fatigue duty along the picket line (horse). But it could have been an individual preference. The box on the tube has been a mystery to us also, but the personal gear on the limber is not. I also like it as it shows field artillerymen wearing roundabout style blouses with trim.

I have read where the long-haired bearded soldier of the ACW was not the norm as they distained body parasites. Sort of the same reason we still wear our hair short.

s/f

DJM

[K Bartsch]

Re: Great Artillery Image

There is a fair possibility that these Yanks belong to the 2nd Pennsylvania Heavy Artillery, Army of the James, which drew garrison and clean up duty in Petersburg after that city's fall. Members of this unit are seen frequently in ID'd photos taken right after the seige, particularly on the ramparts of Ft. Mahone and in the famous "picket post" shots. They often wore the light artillery shell jacket in the field. They were also the Union's largest regiment, at one time mustering over 4000 men on its rolls.

There is no way to know for certain, however.

Bob Williams
Reilly's NC Btty.

Bob,

I think these are light artillery guys. As you probably know, "Heavies" were NUG (normally, usually, generally) uniformed and accoutered the same as infantry -- except for branch trim on frocks and dress hat brass/cord. IMHO, too many MSJ's and boots for late-war heavy artillery. Further, looks like the guy seated on the gun carriage is wearing mounted service trousers.

Cordially,

[roundshot]

Re: Great Artillery Image

Keith: The 2nd retained their MSJs throughout the war and driver's boots were also common on the 2nds ranks and are conspicuous in many of the IDd Petersburg photos. See my article "The North's Largest Regiment" in the Jan/Feb 2004 issue of Military Images along with accompanying photos. These guys were armed as infantry but multi tasked as artillery, and had just come from the Bermuda front. Photos around Ft. Mahone show them wearing arty shells, sacks, frocks, boots, shoes, forage caps, slouches, and a whole conglomerate of stuff.

I'm not adamant about this, just tossing it out as a possibility. Take care.

Bob Williams
Reilly's NC Btty.

[10TnVI]

Re: Great Artillery Image

I may have an actual location for this shot. While looking through the official atlas last night I came upon the seris of plans drawn of the Petersburg works. The only one that seemed to have a stand-alone bombproofof that general configuration was Ft. Davis. Just a tentative judgement presented for your consideration.

Guys,

Here is one of my favorite images of artillerists from either side.

It is entitled, "Removing Confederate Artillery, 1865" and shows a veteran AoP artillery crew on a captured Confederate gun.



If you look closely, there are some fantastic details.

[ejn]

Re: Great Artillery Image

I can not remember seeing a reference to a leg guard before. Do you know where I can find a reference? How would it protect a leg? I'd think the buckles and straps would cause more problems for a leg than a piece of (hopefully) smooth wood.

Ed

- leg guard on the limber pole

[Barry Smithson]

Re: Great Artillery Image

Ed,
Leg guards were issued to help protect the drivers’ right legs from getting crushed between the limber pole and the horse. Besides the leather, there is a metal shaft that runs on the outside of the guard. I would be happy to show how you how it works next time in the field.

Regards,

[ejn]

Re: Great Artillery Image

Great! I look forward to it. - Ed

Ed,
Leg guards were issued to help protect the drivers’ right legs from getting crushed between the limber pole and the horse. Besides the leather, there is a metal shaft that runs on the outside of the guard. I would be happy to show how you how it works next time in the field.

Regards,

[Clifford Hyde]

Re: Great Artillery Image

It is also interesting to note that a few of the men have their trowser cuffs rolled and the man sitting atop the limber with the ''McDowell'' has no chinstrap. Also the man next to him has lost part of the crown ribbon on his hat. Clifford E. Hyde

[vamick]

Re: Great Artillery Image

On a previous thread on this image somebody forwarded the thought that these men may be cav. Any futher thoughts on this? The one thing that backs this idea up in my mind is the way the branch of service trim shows up in the photographers lens.

Here is an image of a known trooper, and artillerist for comparison.

Well that fellar on the left is cav for sure..if you enlarge it it 'peers to me that hat brass says 'CAL 100' which would make him one of the "Callifornia 100" cav troops who had a few horse races with Mosby's command in No Va. believe I may have seen this same image in a Mosby history

[Horton]

Re: Great Artillery Image

I love the facial expression of the guy sitting on tn the gun.

[Michael Comer]

Re: Great Artillery Image

Well that fellar on the left is cav for sure..if you enlarge it it 'peers to me that hat brass says 'CAL 100' which would make him one of the "Callifornia 100" cav troops who had a few horse races with Mosby's command in No Va. believe I may have seen this same image in a Mosby history

Where do you see hat brass on any of these guys? The fellow on the left doesn't have any that I can tell and there's certainly nothing legible. In fact, it looks like he is wearing a rain cover over the forage cap.

Never mind - I went back and looked at the photo and then noticed the hat brass on the post comparing a cavalryman and an artilleryman. Since the discussion is about the photo posted originally, your post threw me since there is no argument that the fellow you're commenting on is cavalry.

[vamick]

Re: Great Artillery Image

Where do you see hat brass on any of these guys? The fellow on the left doesn't have any that I can tell and there's certainly nothing legible. In fact, it looks like he is wearing a rain cover over the forage cap.

Never mind - I went back and looked at the photo and then noticed the hat brass on the post comparing a cavalryman and an artilleryman. Since the discussion is about the photo posted originally, your post threw me since there is no argument that the fellow you're commenting on is cavalry.

HAAHAHAHHA yeah threw me too, since I didnt "read for comprehension"..I missed that part about him being a known cavalryman till after I posted

[dclarry]

Re: Great Artillery Image

One of my absolute favorite images! I've attached a couple of closeups for uniform details.

The jacket of the soldier on sitting on the trail has trim - the others are too hard to tell. His collar only has one row of piping on it. Privately modified? The soldier sitting to the front of the limber also appears to have a short collar, but with 2 buttons back to back, instead of top-down.

The cav saber: I can't speak for other states, but the majority of sabers issued to Michigan artillery units were cav sabers. The soldier on the rear of the limber is wearing a saber belt, and it looks like it might be attached to saber.

Has anybody figured out what that blasted "block of wood" is strapped to the top of the gun? It has been bugging me for months!

This post draws attention to a uniform detail that shows up consistantly in extant images of original members of Battery F, Ist Penn. Light Artillery (Rickett's Battery). This is the single row of trim on a low collar, lower than an SA or St. Loius MSJ. Artillerymen were known to have their MSJs privately modified, lowering the collar to a more practical height. There is a photo of an original artillery MSJ in one of Troiani's books labeled a 'New York State' artillery jacket, and it is stated the jacket was modified. I do not think anyone questions that MSJs were sometiomes modified. However, not one, but every image that I've seen of an original Battery F member wearing an MSJ shows a low collar with one row of trim and one button. The phrase "that I've seen" is operative here, as I have not done any systematic extensive study of Civil War images. However, I suggest that some artillery units may have had their own particular jackets, especially state units. I have attached an image of two Battery F members, Moore and Patterson. Their jackets clearly have one row of collar trim, one collar button, and , interestingly enough, only nine front buttons, not the expected 11 or 12. I can imagine a company tailor lowering the collar, but not altering the jacket to have nine buttons.

I suggest that some units had 'oddball' jackets, which were not modified SA or StL MSJs. I would further suggest that these units were most likely state-supplied units, and that these oddball jackets were probably a one-time issue and that standard MSJs were issued to new recruits later in the war or as the original issue oddball jackets wore out.

This is all conjecture, but I respectfully put forth these suggestions for comment by other forum members. I would love to know the real deal about these jackets.

[suckerboy]

Re: Great Artillery Image

Great image- Have to imagine that is a leg guard hanging on the limber pole and notice the lynch pins are the correct straight ones. Ken Baumann