Researching hearing loss and the artillery

[NoahBriggs]

Re: Researching hearing loss and the artillery

In my original e-mail to the NPS I mentioned the effects of concussion in enclosed areas like gun decks. It's worth noting that sometimes the sailors might report to sick bay with bleeding eyes, noses, ears and the like from the horrible concussions they received from the discharges. I would hate to have been on the gun crews on USS Monitor. Ouch!

The army may not have had as bad a time of it, but even in semi-enclosed areas where the batteries are positioned in open forts with gabion/sandbag protection there would be enough enclosure to amplify the concussive effects somewhat. Maybe not as bad as inside the gun decks, but enough to be potential problem later on in life.

Certainly something to amuse the Mythbusters on a future episode!

[Eric Wisbith]

Re: Researching hearing loss and the artillery

As a former Marine Corps artilleryman (2 tours Iraq, 80,000 rounds fired in combat and training), also with 18 years of time in this hobby, hear (pun, get it?) are my thoughts.
First, you dont slap a palm over your ear, you stick your booger picker in your ear, without all the ridiclulous posturing you see at reenactments. Its almost casual, since you KNOW when your gun is going off, that's what the prepatory command, drawn out, is for.
Second, addressing the neighboring guns, most reenactments place the guns hub to hub, in a completely inauthentic manner. Artillerymen valued dispersion along the gun line then too. Guns placed in proper (dispersed) positions won't bother your ear.
Third, hearing and understanding data precludes earplugs (now) and cotton, rags, or feces (then) in your ears. Unlike reenactor artillerymen, REAL arty depends on correctly hearing, understanding and acting on correct data, instead of just making noise. There's a LOT of math involved. Hence the differences in giving commands in infantry and artillery, the long drawn out rythym of arty and the clear enunciation of numbers. You screw up fuze time, elevation, range, time of flight, etc. you miss or kill the wrong people.
Fourth, real artillerymen know where the blast is. We knew, just as the WW I quote shows, where we could stand and not even bother with plugs or jamming a finger in your ear. It was also "cool" to act nonchalant and relaxed on fire missions. We ran the gun, she didn't run us.
Fifth, hearing loss is part to the job. I have tinnutis and about a 15% hearing loss, but the cause of that is not the howitzers, but the fact I was also a 240G machine gunner. That girl hammering in my ears did it.
Eric Wisbith
Former Artilleryman, Charlie Battery, 1st Bn., 11th Marines.

[Danny]

Re: Researching hearing loss and the artillery

...First, you dont slap a palm over your ear, you stick your booger picker in your ear, without all the ridiclulous posturing you see at reenactments. Its almost casual, since you KNOW when your gun is going off, that's what the prepatory command, drawn out, is for...

Eric -

Thanks for the first person input. It actually is the point I was trying to make about the immersion experience - my feeling that the boys back then would block their ears, and often enough to be considered authentic behavior today - though I'm reconsidering that approach. The thing you add is that a finger, more so than a palm, is the more effective for blocking the ear, as each of us can probably attest from experience.

In regards the prepatory command, that is part of period drill as well. That command does not somehow disallow the blocking of at least one ear as long as the complete stance is upheld, each position watching what it's supposed to watch. (Although both hands, or fingers, on both ears does interfere with proper drill stance).

While on the topic of stance, to what are you referring as "all the ridiculous posturing you see at reenactments?"

The period printed drill does in fact require an exaggerated stance for positons 1 and 2 in prep before fire, and certain pictures of staged drill (though I can't place where I saw them) indicate that sort of stance was actually practiced. I refer also to the very unatural posture of no. 3 when stopping the vent, the elbow cocked high out of the way in order for the gunner to site better down the barrel.

Dan Wykes
2nd Ill Bat. G

[Eric Wisbith]

Re: Researching hearing loss and the artillery

the "ridiculous posturing" I refer to is the tendency for reenactor artillerymen to always try to look like they are in a drill compitition, at completely inappropriate times, ie combat or non parade situations. Also the spurious non-period "saftey" of reenactors and NPS tends to breed a fear of the gun, making reenactor artillerymen step gingerly about the gun, instead of taking control of it.

[ArtilleryNick]

Re: Researching hearing loss and the artillery

First, I'd like to say that I've found this to be a very interesting topic. I've often wondered my self as to what impact being close to the cannons firing had on the men back then. Fortunatley, someone else brought up the subject since I've never found a good way of asking the question in a rather short and direct meathod.
Secondly, I've read over this topic a few times since it began and have been thinking over the comments about men never making mention of it in letters or journals, or books written post-war. Although I've never come across any instructions in any manuals, perhaps the topic of covering ears wasn't mentioned about because it was a common occurance. Of course, in the heat of battle when you're more concerned with actually staying alive, I could see how protecting the ears wouldn't have been a high concern.
Perhaps it's all a matter of priorities where we today may take the precautions to save our hearing since we're not comming under fire from other batteries or facing a wave of troops that could actually take us out for good.

[Todd Watts]

Re: Researching hearing loss and the artillery

Not all of the NPS crews "step gingerly around the piece" but I have seen that as well. I volunteer with Stones River's crew on a regular basis, and work with the Kennessaw Mt and Chickamauga crews as well as we travel between each other's parks, and sometimes Wilson's Creek's crew. Stones River's crew and I believe Kennessaw's as well were trained by an older trainer that knew his stuff, and it shows as we have been trained and trained one another in this drill which is virtually identical to the manuals of the era. Chickamauga's crew on the other hand does things safely, but they do that "re-enactor" drill we deride as the "arse in the air", holding a hand over their ear and leaning way back. It does look ridiculous. #2 never held the worm by the drill and they didn't worm the bore after shots back then. That is of course re-enactorism and it sticks. People I guess expect to see it. At Stones River men were fighting over a large cotton field at one point and even infantry paused under fire to plug their ears with cotton. It seems logical that artillerists also would have picked cotton for this purpose. As anyone that has worked cannons at active events can attest, there is no time to watch the battle so that is a reason there is not a lot written by Civil War artillerists. They arrived, served the pieces, and left. Their "world" revolves just a few yards around their pieces, so that's about all they saw or talked about. Plugging ears would not really have been worthy of writing down probably. Artillerists were pretty deaf in a short while anyway. I think what caused them as well as us the most irritation is not the sound, but the concussions. Those of us that have been on a hot line know about this. Even with ear plugs, the shock wave the guns create quickly gets real old.

The rule of thumb taught me at the NPS by "the wise ones" that trained me and have been doing it "right" for 20 years is to simply "think like a soldier." Rest-assured that they didn't do the contortions and theatrical poses with each shot. They worked their guns like an old machine they were accustomed around, and their drill was probably fairly accurate by the book, but they didn't step "smartly" once they got off the camp of instruction field. When the gun was fired, they simply broke away about like the manual said, but the "new coolness" was long gone by the time any of them made it to battle. Just get out of the way and wait for it to fire, then roll it back up and start the drill again was how they probably were. Soldiers were and still are notorious for being as lazy as possible.:D

[KCLoewe]

Re: Researching hearing loss and the artillery

Just to jump on board. I used to do artillery for 1812 on a six pounder (blanks were generally 1 pound of pounder - 1/2 a service charge). Something that was taught right off the bat was when the gun is fired look at the muzzle, open and breathe through the mouth. This I was explained equalized the pressure in your ears where you heard the bang but didn't get the concussion. This might explain the line posted earlier in this thread from a mannual that said "fixes his eyes on the muzzle".
I don't know what this would be like for the CW manual as the gun I served on the drill required the to front persons (loader and sponge rammer) to remain between the barrel and the wheel leaning on the axle when the gun was fired. A slight bit closer then what I see in CW. In the years I did this I never had an issue with hearing. My tinnitus I had before.

[Todd Watts]

Re: Researching hearing loss and the artillery

I personally think the reason they fixed their eyes on the muzzle was to know when their particular gun had fired and they could start the load sequence all over. No command of "Load!" had to be given once firing began, only "Cease Fire!" was given to stop it. In a line of artillery, it is confusing and can quickly become impossible to hear your own gun go off with enough certainty to know it is safe to approach your gun again. This is especially true once the men are deaf. And you can forget about any verbal commands out there.:D

The trick of opening your mouth has some merit in high-explossive stuff, but I haven't noticed it helping any at all with black powder. When dealing with h.e. artillery or explossive devices, standing on the balls of your feet, and yawning like you are trying to pop your ears can help with the sudden pressure wave that does hurt you. But black powder doesn't really make that sort of rapid increase of air pressure followed by rapid depressurization of the area and then sudden repressurization of the area. These are those white rings you can see on aerial cameras when h.e. bombs hit.

[Danny]

Re: Researching hearing loss and the artillery

Have to comment on the remarks about the "reenactorism" of using the worm during battle sequence and drill.

Our powder is in aluminum foil -- it doesn't just dissipate like cloth bags -- so we have to remove it after each fire. At least for a genuine Napolean 12 pdr., this is done to avoid the foil balling or otherwise interfering with a clean, predictable, ignition of the next charge.

So there we have it -- the one reenactorism: foil, is the reason for the other reenactorism: worming in battle sequence and drill. A better thing to ask is why we aren't using cloth bags today. The answer is because we have a very limited battle time compared to period battles - a few hours of use and we're done for the day. Cloth bags don't store well, are more susceptible to leaks and errant embers, cigars or sparks in the area, and who has the time to make up too many of them ahead of time. Aren't they closed with needle and thread?

It doesn't mean we don't understand how the worm was employed in CW period. It at least was available and was used on the front line at least occasionally so it's not exactly improper for authentic representation today.

In that respect it's like covering an ear for cannon fire - not improper for authentic representation today.

- Dan Wykes
Batt. G 2nd Ill.

[Forquer]

Re: Researching hearing loss and the artillery

Have to comment on the remarks about the "reenactorism" of using the worm during battle sequence and drill.

Our powder is in aluminum foil -- it doesn't just dissipate like cloth bags -- so we have to remove it after each fire. At least for a genuine Napolean 12 pdr., this is done to avoid the foil balling or otherwise interfering with a clean, predictable, ignition of the next charge.

So there we have it -- the one reenactorism: foil, is the reason for the other reenactorism: worming in battle sequence and drill. A better thing to ask is why we aren't using cloth bags today. The answer is because we have a very limited battle time compared to period battles - a few hours of use and we're done for the day. Cloth bags don't store well, are more susceptible to leaks and errant embers, cigars or sparks in the area, and who has the time to make up too many of them ahead of time. Aren't they closed with needle and thread?

It doesn't mean we don't understand how the worm was employed in CW period. It at least was available and was used on the front line at least occasionally so it's not exactly improper for authentic representation today.

In that respect it's like covering an ear for cannon fire - not improper for authentic representation today.

- Dan Wykes
Batt. G 2nd Ill.

As for today's use of the worm, it is certainly necessary. Where most reenactors fall into error is when #2 is constantly holding the worm throughout operations. There are plenty of images that show #2 with his hands empty. No reason why after worming, #2 can't place the worm back on the carriage.

As to your question about ammunition, the answer depends on the type of piece you are servicing. For smoothbore pieces firing fixed ammunition, per the 1861 Ordnance Manual, refer to pages 277-278. Powder bags are filled and levelled in a magazine. They are removed to another room where the sabot of the strapped shot is placed directly on top of the powder. The open end of the bag is tied around the groove of the sabot. Once the bag is tied, it is gauged to make sure it will fit the caliber of the barrel.

I've run across nothing in the manuals that refers to the powder bags of rifled guns. Since they are seperate from the round, it would stand to reason that the bags would be filled, levelled, and then sewn at the arsenal.

[Kevin Hall]

Re: Researching hearing loss and the artillery

Just a common mans few words in reference to cloth verses foil powder charges. Just think of all the events over the years that have fire danger restrictions, which is especially common here in the west. A cloth bag down the bore would drive event organizers nuts. Personnaly I think foil is a good trade off considering the other option would be a fire bucket brigade on hand at all times.

Kevin Hall

[Hank Trent]

Re: Researching hearing loss and the artillery

I don't think this has been mentioned on this thread yet. Tim Kindred posted an excerpt on another topic from an 1861 medical book elsewhere, and when I went to look up the context, a discussion on earplugs and hearing loss for the artillery was on the same page. It's at http://books.google.com/books?id=td3EBXbjACIC&pg=PA116 It's from A Practical Treatise on Military Surgery by Frank Hastings Hamilton, 1861.

Among other things, it says, "Let the Medical Staff of each regiment keep prepared a quantity of glycerine, mixed with belladonna, say in about the proportion of forty grains of the latter to the ounce of glycerine oil. Let each gunner be provided before an engagement with wool or cotton (the former is preferable), saturated with the mixture, to place in his ears."

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[jimw]

Re: Researching hearing loss and the artillery

Noah,

Not sure if this will help any, but back in 1969 when I was taking my artillery training at Fort Sill, they actually had a name for it, "Artillery Ear". I suspect that there may be some record of it's usage in the files at the Artillery Museum located on Fort Sill.

Sincerely,

Jim Worrell

[NoahBriggs]

Re: Researching hearing loss and the artillery

Like I said before, thanks for all your input. The Chatham Manor event is long over. I never did discuss hearing loss with the visitors. As usual they all went ga-ga over the surgical aspects and "gruesomeness" of amputations. Thanks a lot, History Channel. Go back to your documentariess on whether Hitler's dog was psychic from methamphetamine in the Pacific campaigns.

The research was not a waste of time, though. It's here in the AC Forum archives, and now we know a little more about it should the topic ever come up. I am sure you redlegs (real and reenactor) get asked about it all the time. Anything to help out fellow enthusiasts!

I did hear the guns discharge in the demo field some ways away from me. It seems I have the "loud sounds make me twitch with anxiety" syndrome, even if I did not have ringing ears (well, not ringing anymore than they are already). I have no idea how I got it, since I was never in a genuine life-threatening situation with guns involved.

A lonely crusader fighting to kill CW medicine mythos with actual research- the thin, sutured line,

I remain,

[Todd Watts]

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), there was more understanding of the issue of hearing loss and prevention of damage than we think they actually had. It is interesting to see that he wrote about a phenomenon we today notice as well, that the #1 and #2 men "feel" the concusion more than the rest of the artillerists, and that some days the report seems harsher than others, which he describes as leeward or windward effects. I had not thought of that before but now will start making those observations to see if it proves true.