Researching hearing loss and the artillery

[NoahBriggs]

Gents,

I will be working at a living history this June at Chatham Manor as a surgeon posted there. There will be a significant artillery demo as well, so I decided to research and discuss the damage caused by concussion and hearing loss.

I did the usual quick search on the forum regarding hearing loss, and I got this thread, which is the most applicable.

http://www.authentic-campaigner.com/forum/showthread.php?t=126&highlight=hearing+loss

It degenerated into a yelling match on the farbiness of wearing ear plugs, which is not what I am looking for.

I do not know all that much on artillery loading and safety procedures of the period. I have learned indirectly that the idea of the crew members leaning back from the gun with one hand slapped over their ear was not correct. Originally I heard it was supposed to help prevent the concussion from blowing out the eardrums. Then I heard this was not correct. I have no documentation to confirm or refute either of those statements.

I also do not know if it's accurate to say the Original Cast put either cotton wads or scrap cloth in their ears as ear plugs. It does not seem as reliable as modern foam ear plugs, which expand in the ear canal to take up the shape of the canal and prevent the sound from entering.

I do remember from my audiologist that loud, concussive sounds tend to be "heard" by the body by coming in through the mastoid bone. (This is the bone which has the socket for your jawbone.) In theory when out in the field, we should be wearing those big, shooters earmuffs, which cover the ear and the mastoid bone. In reality, though, you will only see that acceptable at NSSA matches.

All that being said, hearing loss and tinnitus (which I have) was a major complaint during the war, and was right next to Rheum and the trots as the reasoning for getting a pension after the War.

I am looking for (preferably) primary references which discuss hearing loss protection (or lack thereof) in both official (as in regulations, etc.) and unofficial (as in letter/diary entries describing how the artillerists coped with the noise). I am not looking for modern reenactor safety suggestions or where to get the best earplugs.

Thanks in advance for any assistance! I posted here instead of Szabo's Szoo 'cause I know the folks here are more interested in research than UVT* discussions.




*Us Vs. Them

[Ringgold]

Re: Researching hearing loss and the artillery

Noah,

Shoot me a spark at ciderman@mindspring.com, I think I can help you out a bit with your research. It's a very interesting subject for us today, but it wouldn't have even raised an eyebrow back during the Rebellion.

[Danny]

Re: Researching hearing loss and the artillery

Of course artillerymen of the period would cover their ears with their hands often enough to make it acceptable campaign behavior today. I'm surprised such questions, especially in this hobby where many strive for the immersion experience, yet occur. I'm not convinced (I'm naive perhaps) there are those who can possibly "know" that practices like hand-over-ear are "incorrect."

I agree it was probably not an issue either way at the time. Protecting the ear certainly was not critical official training procedure or even requiring written notice. Soldiers weren't directed to use corn cobs or big leaves after "necessaries" either.

Mankind has been covering their ears from loud noise (thunderclaps etc.) almost involuntarily since crawling out of caves. Another way to look at it is that it would be just as hard to prove that soldiers did not, at least occasionally, stuff scraps of cloth, cotton wads etc in their ears if they knew they were going to be "in it" for a spell.

Personally, I don't think the practice of hand-over-ear or even period earplugs can be legitimately challenged, especially as wads of cotton were commonly available as pulled from bales used as armor, slated to be burned, or in transit to be sold in many areas where soldiers passed on campaign.

Dan Wykes
Batt G 2nd IL

[sedlakchristopher]

Re: Researching hearing loss and the artillery

Noah,

For your research, this is what the "manual" has to say on the topic.

FROM:
Instruction for U.S. Field Artillery. Prepared by a board of artillery officers.
Captain Wm. H. French, Captain Wm. F. Barry, Captain H. J. Hunt (1861),

can be found online at:

http://www.usregulars.com/nrhome.htm

"102. Ready. At this command, which is given as soon as the piece is loaded, or the firing about to commence, No. 1 breaks well off to his left with the left foot, bending the left knee, and straightening the right leg, drops the end of the sponge staff into the left hand, back of the hand down, and fixes his eyes on the muzzle. The heels should be parallel to the wheel, the body erect on the haunches, and the sponge and rammer held in both hands in a horizontal position, sponge-head to the left. The piece having been fired, No. 1 rises on his right knee, and returns to his position, as in the third motion of RAM. At the command LOAD, he steps in and performs his duties in the same manner as before.
….. (a little bit later) ...
At the command READY, he (#2) breaks well off to his right with the right foot, bending the right knee, and straightening the left leg; the body erect on the haunches, and fixes his eyes on the muzzle."


It continues to describe the duties of the rest of detachment and nowhere states anything about covering the ears.
Take it for what it is worth.

If anyone has the picture of the staged Ringgold Artillery at drill that they could post, it shows these positions wonderfully.
I know it is in hardcopy in L. VanLoan Naisawald's recent book Cannon Blasts: Civil War Artillery in the Eastern Armies.
I'm not sure what page as I don't have it sitting here.

Also, you would think John Billings, an artilleryman, would have said something about covering ears or making earplugs in Hardtack and Coffee?
I don't believe he does. Again, take it for what it is worth...

Best of luck in your research, eagerly awaiting your results...

Your obedient servant,
Chris Sedlak

[Danny]

Re: Researching hearing loss and the artillery

It continues to describe the duties of the rest of detachment and nowhere states anything about covering the ears.
Take it for what it is worth. ...Also, you would think John Billings, an artilleryman, would have said something about covering ears or making earplugs in Hardtack and Coffee?
I don't believe he does. Again, take it for what it is worth...Chris Sedlak

Thanks Chris, good insights. Yet as a practical matter, keepin to the question posed on this thread, we know for certain, without any written resource to back it up, that artillerymen would occasionally shield their eyes from the sun, that they would cup both hands around mouth to shout, that they would cup one hand behind their ear to hear a call, and would also hand-over-ear in anticipation of a loud blast - not all the time for all of them, but absolutely some of the time for some of them.

We know this from servicing a piece ourselves today, where likewise no procedure was issued to do so. Goes again to the immersion experience.

We would, rather, need to see a period manual that specifically spells out that it was a violation of procedure to shield one's ear during battle or drill. We need that to justify an overstatement like "wasn't done." It might also help if we knew it wasn't possible to carry out manual instructions when covering one ear, but alas it is possible.

-Dan Wykes

[Vicksburg Dave]

Re: Researching hearing loss and the artillery

I have as of yet to see a period photo of an artillery crew at drill where anyone had their hands over their ears. I have not read any accounts of such either. If you know of any, please show me, and I will change my mind on the subject. Moreover, unless you are in action as a single gun, it really does not help to cover your ear, for someone else is going to be firing on either side of you. The reason that the crew is supposed to be looking at different specified points and that the gunner uses hand gestures is because they will likely not be able to hear any commands during combat, or become confused with commands from adjacent guns. If I had the option of protecting anything dear to me in combat, my hands would be placed somewhere lower on my anatomy than my ears.

I saw a reenacting crew once where both #1 and #2 turned their faces completely away from the muzzle, bent over, and covered their ears. Any oncoming infantry would have saw two fat rearends and a muzzle.

[Hank Trent]

Re: Researching hearing loss and the artillery

I wonder... When more action photos were available at the turn of the 20th century, were artillerymen pictured covering their ears while servicing pieces where the drill would be similar to the Civil War?

Also, here's a pre-war discussion from Practical Observations on Aural Surgery and the Nature and Treatment of Diseases of the Ear by William Robert W. Wilde, London 1853:

Surgeon Thornton of the Royal Artillery, to whom I addressed a letter on the subject of haemorrhage, tinnitus, and deafness in gunners, writes to me as follows:--"Many of the men state that they have seen haemorrhage occur, but it is not so frequent as is supposed; dulness of hearing is, however, very common, especially among old gunners. The effect of position, with reference to the gun, is peculiar,--those men who stand nearest the muzzle feel the report most, but all who are to leeward suffer more than those to windward. Brass ordnance ring louder and make a sharper report than iron guns,--the usual effect of which, as I have myself experienced, is that of receiving a smart blow upon the tympanum; this, however, soon passes off, and leaves a singing or tingling sensation in the ear for two or three days. Another peculiar sensation is that of having water in the ear, as if after bathing. After some practice the ear becomes accustomed to the shock, and men learn by experience where to stand so as to feel the concussion least."

Here's something else:

It is a remarkable fact that comparativelyf ew cases of rupture of the drum occurring during the great artillery duels of our late civil war, have come under the observation fo surgeons, or at least that very few have been reported. I have seen a few cases of deafness resulting from concussion of the contents of the labyrinth, from the firing of artillery, especially when soldiers in the front rank lay down while cannon were fired immediately over their heads.

That's from Treatise on the Diseases of the Ear, 1869.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[Danny]

Re: Researching hearing loss and the artillery

Dave -

There appears to be no written or photo account for either covering or not covering your ear with a hand while servicing the piece. That being the case how is it you require a source to change your view (to hand over ear), yet require no source to keep your view (no hand over ear) ? At a mimimum they are equally plausible.

Photography was not capable of recording combat or drill in action, so there's no mystery why a 2-second motion of a hand was never captured. If drill steps were recorded as stills, and some were, it was not a situation that required live ammo., especially around a large-format camera nearby, so no need to cover ear in that instance.

As you mention, covering your ear from a blast of your own piece only protects you from your own piece, not the adjacent piece. Still that qualifies as doing you some good, if only for one ear. A shield does not protect one from an arrow in the back, but for the sake of the spear in front one uses a shield.

The "two fat rearends" you mention could not have been watching the muzzle as per proper drill (holding two ears covered is not compatible with drill) so that is "farb." BUT covering one ear is compatible with drill and is effective when ear plugs are absent, a natural human response to noise in any event. These soldiers were no less human than we.

Perhaps your guns are not as big as ours (12 pdr. Napoleons + one banded 20 pdr., all actual tubes) but as many in this forum can attest, today if we didn't have ear plugs available most of us would at least some of the time cover an ear prior to "fire" -- my God, man, wouldn't you? Do you really think they didn't back then? I mean, think about it.

My vote: assume the boys covered their ears at least some of the time because there are no accounts or photos to the contrary.

Thanks again Hank, for the accounts you posted.

Dan Wykes
Batt G 2nd Ill.

[Vicksburg Dave]

Re: Researching hearing loss and the artillery

I have to respectfully disagree. If no evidence exists showing that the artillerymen diverted from their training, then I will not assume that they did it differently. There are plenty of photos out there of men in different stages of drill, and most all of them are according to the manual. I thought that this is what being authentic is all about, documenting, rather than assuming.

Look at the Harpers Weekly. It has tons of drawings of batteries in action. They show men dying, explosions occuring, and all manner of mayhem, but yet not one shows anyone with even one hand over his ear.

As for experience with cannon, I have trained over 100 artillerymen and have fired over 500 rounds of 1lb charges from a 12lb Napoleon in the last four years.

[Danny]

Re: Researching hearing loss and the artillery

David -

You assume that artillerymen did not cover their ears, yet there is no documentation of that either.

Still, I respect that you have made a case and will try and get my mind around your way of looking at it. Were I to rebut, I would make these points:

As far as the authentic thing - Suppose that when you fired your over 500 rounds over the past few years you didn't have earplugs available, that you were actually in the circumstance of the period soldier you portray. Would you or would you not have covered your ears with your hand?

Consider also how very disciplined those stout boys of the CW would have to be, that none ever covered their ears around cannon fire, even though there was nothing in regulation drill to forbid it.

- Dan Wykes

[Vicksburg Dave]

Re: Researching hearing loss and the artillery

Dan,
While I disagree with your position, I respect your gentlemanly manner of stating it. Maybe someone will uncover something definitive one day.

Cordially,

[3rdUSRedleg]

Re: Researching hearing loss and the artillery

For the life of me I can not find the online Diary (posted script I read maybe 2 years ago) of a widow from a member of the Second United States Artillery Co. M who states that while at the Battle of Antietam her husband was hospitalised for head trauma from the cuncussion of the guns, ear bleeding, ect. and was eventually discharged, placed in an asylum where he later died from going crazy (brain damage). The widow was trying at the time to recieve War pension.

That information I lost in my last computer, but the story never has left my memory and amasement of the report of such force from the cuncussion.

I know just by live firing yearly with only half of a service load behind a projectile will blow out your eardrums and may cause bleeding if ear protection is not used..

There is a HUGE diffrence in the sound, force of its velocity, with a round infront of a charge versus the typical reenacting version of the same charge being free to expand in the muzzle without pushing a projectile....

With only experiencing a FULL SERVICE CHARGE behind a round a few times myself... I can not fathom the repeaded effect this would have brought to the soldier without shoving something in there ears!!

Hope someone comes across that report... it was very constructive with information on this particular thread....

[NoahBriggs]

Re: Researching hearing loss and the artillery

Gents,

Thanks for posting your thoughts, pro and con. I, too, forgot there was a significant difference between blanks fired by reenactors and the live-fire reports using projectiles.

Mr. Pflum, I sent you an e-mail per your suggestion. I have not heard back from you; it's possible my address was dumped in your spam box. Starts with "bluemass . . ." if you care to look around. Otherwise I can resend the message.

[Robert A Mosher]

Re: Researching hearing loss and the artillery

Although it does not directly address your query, Noah, I would call to your attention the experiences and practices of shipboard gunners. Even during the Napoleonic wars, seamen were aware of the dangers to their hearing from working on the guns placed below decks. The confined spaces, of course, concentrated the sound of the firing cannons such that some accounts noted sailors bleeding from the ears as the result of the repeated concussive noise. Seamen often wore rags or cloth bands tired around their heads so as to cover their ears when serving the guns. It didn't provide a lot of protection but was better than nothing. I offer the observation principally to support the thoughts that our ancestors did understand the risks to their hearing from the noise of firing cannon and were willing and able to do something about it.

Robert A. Mosher

[Jim Mayo]

Re: Researching hearing loss and the artillery

Something else to consider. When firing amongst other guns it is impossible to shield your ears with your hand from the gun next to yours. At times it can be very defening especially when concrentrating on working your gun and the other one is fired catching you by surprise. That is why I don't worry about covering my ears and use cotton. earplugs or a piece of rag stuffed in the ear. By the way, Walmart carries flesh colored foam ear plugs 6 for a dollar. A cheap investment to save your hearing.