Researching hearing loss and the artillery

[Danny]

Re: Researching hearing loss and the artillery

Hank, that is great info. Thanks for the link. I can now use it for Nat'l Park demos to demonstrate that whether or not all artillerists were using plugs at all times (probably not)...

Todd -

In now demonstrating that earplugs were not often used, won't you at the same time have to demonstrate that hand-over-ear or finger-in-ear probably were used?

There is nothing in the drill that would prohibit it. How else to explain the many red-leg veterans who made no mention of hearing loss in their memoirs - kind of proof in itself that many must have done something to protect their ears. In fact, if you think about it, how "stagey" and inauthentic to stoically refrain from covering an ear, even in drill demonstration. Perhaps we only have the luxury of not covering an ear today because our charges are only a pound or so and without a ball.

- Dan Wykes

[Todd Watts]

Re: Researching hearing loss and the artillery

Perhaps. The drill manuals do not make allowance to cover ears. Keep in mind that the above treatise is a NY surgeon writing to fellow doctors, and he says that before going into action the medical staff should be issuing the earplug material and solution. This may be possible in garrison or naval gunnery, but think like a soldier, especially field artillery. You have heard the gun fired a hundred times, with full charges. There is nothing "nifty-cool" about the action any more. You are jogging alongside the guns as they roll into the fields already full of missles with buglers and drummers calling orders to position the guns. At what point does the battery's medical officer rush forward ahead of the placing guns to distribute these items? Once the firing has commenced hot and heavy, at what point do the men run back to the medical staff and request the plugs?;) Yes, if they have the time to get the plugs sure it makes perfect sense. But as a routine practice I don't really think it was a universal item the cannoneers would have been using. And yes, they would no doubt occasionally covered an ear, but if you have ever worked a rapid-firing battery line, this is nearly useless. You can prepare with a finger in the ear for your particular gun, because it is loaded and you know the command to fire is coming, but the 2 on either side of you are firing at the same time you are working with both hands to load and prepare your piece, so what's the use? Besides that, in "OMG!" double cannister combat, the guys are in the process of getting new ammo to the muzzle the moment the command to fire is given so there is no time to lean back and stick your rump in the air and dramatically hold your hand over your ear. But it does look pretty cool for spectators I suppose.

One way to break this dramatic farb stance of #1 and #2 is to wait until they take the dramatic pose, and then don't command "fire" for a minute or two. It quickly no longer seems all that cool to be in that dramatic pose while waiting the gun to fire. Remember to think like an 1860s artillerist here. You are not posing for a dramatic picture or a crowd of tourists, you are discharging a cannon to kill an enemy as fast as you possibly can.

Oh, I have heard from Park Rangers doing our training that there was a medical study of hearing loss on veterans of the war. They tell me that they discovered that virtually all the men had som ehearing loss regardless of duty, but it was the right ears of infantry that suffered the most and it was deemed due to the higher pitched percussion caps. You won't be experiencing a lot of rapid permanent hearing loss at soldiering age even today due to not wearing hearing protection. The real damage is only evident many years down the road. The guy swriting after action reports probably are not all that concerned about a little muffle or ringing in the hearing, knowing it will be "back to normal" in a day or so. And 20 years later any hearing loss they have experienced is just "old age" or something they ignore and accept. It is not anything to write about in other words.

[annmaddox]

Re: Researching hearing loss and the artillery

For what it's worth you guys, we have a practicing Ear-Nose-Throat Surgeon in our unit. THis discussion has gone on many times within our Battalion, to which he ALWAYS responds "Covering your ears with your hands, fingers will not do a single thing to protect you."
It's just an instinctive thing people do.
He tells the men that being that close to your own gun & the firing of other guns near you the only thing that truly helps in OSHA approved earplugs.
He does always make sure the guys have those squishy earplugs available, it's their choice to use them or not.
I think he at one time acknowledged opening the mouth at time of fire helps somewhat.

Thought an Ear Specialist's opinion might help.

Ann Maddox
Ferguson's Artillery, Palmetto Battalion
Palmetto Soldiers' Relief Society

[Danny]

Re: Researching hearing loss and the artillery

Ann -

I'm not sure what specifically your ENT doctor was referring to, but of course it makes a lot of difference to have a finger in your ear compared to nothing. Your ears don't ring, and you can hear well enough to communicate after the battle. I'd bet he makes that claim so that everybody uses ear plugs, but in the situation where there are no ear plugs you should put a finger in your ear or at least cover it and you absolutely will be better off than if you didn't.

There are recruits reading these posts so I think it's important to clarify.

Dan Wykes

[Todd Watts]

Re: Researching hearing loss and the artillery

I think a finger in the ear or covering your ear does help, but only if you leave it that way until the decible levels have dropped below a certain point. If you remove the finger or hand the moment it fires, the decibles are still pretty high for a moment. And, an earplug is there whether the guns around you are firing or not. I personally feel no difference when I open my mouth as opposed to when I don't. I've been around them long enough now that I don't even take much notice a gun has fired unless I'm a #1 or #2, and I do wear plugs up there, and usually do on #3, #4 or gunner, but hardly ever on the back positions. My ears are already screwed up enough I guess.;)

[annmaddox]

Re: Researching hearing loss and the artillery

He was referring to hearing loss over time. Also to the fact some guys think the finger alone can protect them. Nope. Sorry. He says if you are anti-plugs cotton is better than the finger.

He has been an ENT Doc & Surgeon for at least 10 years, maybe 15 or 20. I'm not sure of his age. His medical advice is based on medical training & knowledge. Not what he thinks or feels about what they did.
He has served on cannon for 5 years I believe, so he has experience on the gun.

I never said his information made a difference in what people actually do on the field. Folks are gonna do what they're gonna do.

I just wanted to give you guys a doctors opinion I've heard him give over & over.

FYI, I think, I'm not positive, all of our cannoneers use the plugs. Safety.
Sorry so brief I'm in a rush.

Ann Maddox

[Danny]

Re: Researching hearing loss and the artillery

... And yes, they would no doubt occasionally covered an ear...but the 2 on either side of you are firing at the same time you are working with both hands to load and prepare your piece, so what's the use?....

and

One way to break this dramatic farb stance of #1 and #2 is to wait until they take the dramatic pose, and then don't command "fire" for a minute or two. It quickly no longer seems all that cool to be in that dramatic pose while waiting the gun to fire...

Todd -

You will allow that the distances between guns we typically do today were not typical at all for a period battery in battle. In those days plugging an ear would have been quite useful as it was effective for the close gun that mattered most. I'll allow that for drills in period, per photo evidence, the guns were as close as the distances we use today -- but of course there was time for earplugs to be issued in that case.

On your second point, one you've explored before, about the "dramatic farb stance," and even going out of your way to hold the command "fire" so that you can make the cannoneers feel foolish, well what do you hope to accomplish with that?

In exploring and offhand polling this season I'm finding that just as many serious artillery reenactors feel it right, even necesssary, to hold the prepare-to-fire stance as the period drill indicates they should. Many feel that it is not at all farby to do so nor do they agree that those early soldiers would have mostly lax about the stance even in the heat of battle (Reb raiders maybe, but not legit units). In other words it seems your case is not at all made on that point nor is it generally accepted that prepare to fire stances are "farb."

-Dan Wykes

[Todd Watts]

Re: Researching hearing loss and the artillery

Nowhere in any period drill manual does it tell #1 or #2 to lean way back, stick their butts into the air, lean the sponge rammer dramatically back and cup a hand over the ear. There are of course several pictures of guns in various states of drill from back then and it has never been shown in a photograph. Unfortunately, there aren't any pictures of guns in action, but I see no reason to believe that the men posing for a picture in drill would have then reverted to a dramatic "hey crowd, watch me!" pose when missles were incoming or outgoing for real. Maybe they did, but using some common sense I just see no reason to do that. Very often in real action back then, and today even, a gun may be ready with the crew ready to fire, and the gunner does not get the command to fire from the chief of the section or battery commander. How "farby" does it then look for the #1 or #2 men to get tired of standing/leaning in their dramaitc pose to then have to stand up and stretch and shift positions? That, in my opinion, looks pretty dumb. Hey, I must admit when I began artillery I was a re-enactor and was taught the "re-enactor's pose" by the gun crew, and even heard the artillery safety officer at Bridgeport, AL come by and tell us to lean way back "to make it look good for the spectators." I was un-taught the "re-enactor's pose" by the National Park Service which actually has Rangers dedicated to studying these sorts of things. We don't do the pose for living history demos simply because it is deemed by their research that it not only makes not sense, it ain't in the drill. But, when a quality re-enacting crew visits a NPS site, they don't try to stop the visiting crew from doing it since it causes no safety issue, and it is what that crew is used to doing.

A section of guns unless prevented by terrain was spaced pertty close together, roughly the same distance we often use today at events, about 10-15 yds between them. Artillery then as now must be capable of supporting itself against the same target. But, Marye's Heights saw them so close together men mentioned in memoirs that they had difficulty getting between some guns. They were spaced "hub to hub" as once described. Likewise, at the Hornets' Nest bombardment, Ruggles had collected about 30 guns and they were crammed into a distance of a little over 100 yds length. That is close! Stones River, again, on 2 separate days the Federal artillery collected 40+ guns and lined them up virtually hub to hub and fired for extended periods. The 2 Jan '63 bombardment was almost 50 guns and it was a 45 minute artillery bombardment. Fredericksburg, and Shiloh both saw use of heavy field artillery lined up in close spaces firing fiercely off and on. Gettysburg - no need to mention. All this means is that their guns were lined up very often the same distances we today see, both "hub to hub" as well as spaced several yards apart, or even hundreds of yds apart based on the battlefield conditions and needs. :) Ain't it fun to debate arty?

[Todd Watts]

Re: Researching hearing loss and the artillery

At Stones River, the 4th US Artillery, batteries H & M "Parson's Batteries" fired 2199 rounds from 12 guns. If you figure perhaps a total of say, 10 hrs of firing over the roughly 5 days of the battle, including the 2 main days and the small battles leading up to it as the armies bumped and ground against eachother, that comes to about 220 shots per hour. I don't care if they did have a crude ear plug or occasionally cupped a hand over their ear - those boys had a muffled ringing in their ears and need some asparin!;)

[Roger Hansen]

Re: Researching hearing loss and the artillery

During the first day battle at Murfreesboro attacking men of Cheatham's Division stopped in the cottonfield they were crossing to put cotton in their ears because the Yankee artillery shooting at them was so loud. No I am not going to find the reference. I had five ancestors in the attack and came across the reference to cotton stuffing many years ago.

[Ferguson's Artillery]

Re: Researching hearing loss and the artillery

An old thread, but it needs a professional perspective. I am an Otolaryngologist, Board Certified, and have been an artillery reenactor for fifteen years. So much for street cred. I can't offer any more historical evidence than has already been given in this thread, so I'll stick to what you should do to protect your hearing without looking ridiculous. If you don't use hearing protection while serving on a gun, you're an idiot. I have guys in my unit who refuse hearing protection, claiming that they already have hearing loss. They're going to have more. If you don't care to protect what God gave you, that's your business, but you're an idiot. I recommend ear plugs, the higher the noise reduction rating, the better. If you want to glue cotton to them, so much the better. Try to use the flesh colored ones if you don't use the cotton camo; those orange ones are as historically accurate as a wristwatch. You can forget the business of opening your mouth to protect your eardrums from barotrauma. That might possibly be an issue when you're serving a 105 mm howitzer, but there's no way that the concussion from a three inch gun, or a Napoleon, with a blank round, is going to perforate your eardrums if you're wearing plugs, and the whole "science" behind the pressure wave not affecting your drums with an open mouth is dubious, at best. I've seen eardrum perforations in soldiers taking near hits with RPGs, and they weren't keeping their mouths open. Enough pressure wave, and your delicate tympanic membranes are toast. Canoneers look foolish standing there with mouths hanging open, waiting for the gun to discharge. Don't do it.

The discussion of whether to put your hand over your ear at numbers one and two is a different kettle of fish. You don't have to do it if you're wearing earplugs. We don't do it in my unit, because the Patten drill we perform doesn't call for it. You can't hold your implement in the prescribed attitude, with two hands, if one is on your ear. I'm not going to get into the whole "who has the best drill" issue here, but if you're doing a "modern" drill which requires you to clap a hand on your ear, at least be intellectually honest when asked about it, and say that's the way you were taught, not that it was the way they taught it in the War.

Chris Rucker, MD

[GenuineInformation]

Re: Researching hearing loss and the artillery

Dr. Rucker,

Thank you for giving your professional perspective--your comments addressed the questions raised by years of watching reenactors portray CW artillery.

My follow-up question is this: are muskets just as detrimental? I generally try to always use hearing protection around firearms, except when I am hunting and need to be able to hear. When portraying infantry, I usually put cotton balls in my ears, but I'm not sure how much good--if any--that does. Does prudence in the presence of blank-firing muskets point toward modern hearing protection?

Thanks again for your insight.

Best,
Joseph

[Elaine Kessinger]

Re: Researching hearing loss and the artillery

A thought to ponder along these lines...

We've had military conflicts that have called our young men away in about every "generation" of this country.
Science shows that all soldiers suffer hearing loss to some degree.
Hearing loss is associated with "advancing age."

Is part of the reason we stereotype hearing loss with men's advancing age due to the number of men suffering hearing loss associated with military service?

Just a thought to ponder.

[Ferguson's Artillery]

Re: Researching hearing loss and the artillery

Joseph,

My experience with long arms is with a Rev. War group; I use a .72 cal. Charleville musket, and always wear earplugs. I don't think that I'm a fanatic about protecting my hearing, but that's a mighty loud weapon, not to mention those of my file partners. Cotton in your ears will go a long way toward decreasing hearing damage. I'd encourage everyone using a firearm to wear plugs. Again, the flesh colored commercial variety are pretty inconspicuous, especially so when you're maneuvering in the field, where spectators aren't apt to see them. Prudence certainly dictates the use of hearing protection whenever we use a firearm, blank or not. I'm surprised that event coordinators don't insist upon such, given our litigious society. I suppose that the generic release of liability forms we sign at registration make the coordinators rest easy, but I've seen lots of doctors get sued for complications even when their patients receive informed consent before surgery; attorneys still take the cases. Wear the hearing protection, and urge your pards to do the same.

Chris Rucker

[erik]

Re: Researching hearing loss and the artillery

I have served more than forty years in the Canadian Forces firing small arms and support weapons. This includes 40 years of reenacting Canadian Militia and 20 years of Civil War involment.
Back in the 60's we never thought of hearing protection at all, ever. After a range practice everyone went around with ears ringing for a week.
The 7.62 was very pronounced on the left ear and the .303 on the right. The 84mm Anti armour weapon was devestating.
When I joined the Sergeant's Mess the junior Sergeants used to joke about the WWII veterans at the bar dancing around to get their best ear to their neighbor.
I had an RSM who I thought was the most arrogant person that I had ever met as he would look away from you when addressed. He had his left eardrum blown out by a mortar bomb in Normandy.
As time went on we were required to wear earplugs then more complete protection from bone conduction.
Little wonder that soldiers exposed to small arms during this period are almost a shew in for a pension from the Department for Veterans Affairs.
Small arms are just as detrimental to hearing as cannon.
On my assessment, my audiologist wrote, "he cannot hear women's voices". My wife said that I bribed him to say that.
Wish it were true.
Watch out for your hearing.

Erik Simundson