Announcement

**Light 6 Pdr** · 03-01-2008, 08:34 PM

Re: Improving Artillery Impressions

Harry,
It is great to hear that you are undertaking this effort. It is a BIG subject. For what it is worth, here are a few of my thoughts as to areas that need improving with Artillery impressions:

1. A gun needs a limber, not just a limber chest. We all need to start somewhere, but a limber is a must to add right away.

2. Gun types, especially for CS are very important. The 3" Ordnance Rifle was the best rifled field gun, the Confederates did capture a lot of them, but not every CS gun was an Ordnance rifle. Everyone seems to want an Ordnance or Parrott Rifle, for obvious reasons, they are cool and easy to feed. Everyone wants the "best gun used in the war" , but confederate artillery did not have much of the best equipment. I can speak more authortatively about about western theater artillery, but the whole AOT, would have only a hand full of Ordnance rifles or Parrotts ( say 10/20)out of 150 cannons. In the west at least, the most overlooked CS Field Piece is the 12 Pdr Field howitzer. I see very few of them at reenactments, but for CS forces they were used in large numbers till late in the war. Also, in the west, they had a much larger percentage of Napoleons than rifled guns. CS rifled ammunition was often of poor quality. Smooth bored ammo is far simpler.

3. bronze is beautiful: I see very few bronze guns on the field, for obvious reasons, but bronze was the gun metal of choice during the period. It was, and is much more expensive than iron, but is underrepresented.

4. Lots o' stuff: No, not what you think, An artillery battery had a huge amount of items in it. I get ovewhelmed in imagining all of the things we do not have. A Battery at full strength would have 6 guns, 12 limbers, 6 caissons, battery wagon, traveling forge, supply wagons, 100+ horses, 100 saddles, 100 sets of harness..............A 12 Pdr Battery has 2 caissons per gun, with all of the extra horses. From an improving the impression angle, the gun has more implements than a sponge/rammer anda worm. There are sights ( lots of cannon owners don't have sights yet!) sight pouch, which the gunner uses, 2 haversacks (5 and 7), 2 tube pouches, 3 and 4. Rifled guns would have fuse cutters, the limber chest has a table of fire in it, the limber chest is marked for the caliber of the gun. There are fuse gouges, borman fuse punches, gunner's level, all indespensible items.

5. Know how to shoot: I am troubled by the lack of knowledge from a lot of artillerists about the practice of fire, when to fire case, when to fire shell, how many times have I heard crews calling out ranges to the target that are ridiculous, shell 1000 Yds and the target is 500 Yds away. When do you switch from shot to canister? Every gunner would know this off hand. You should also have a rudimentary knowledge of how to cut the fuse etc.

6. What little we know: We have been trying horse drawn artillery, but maneuvering one or 2 guns is different than maneuvering 4/6 of them. An artillerists knows his guns, his men his horses, how to tack them, harness them etc. I have studied for years, but yet there is so much more to learn, that is why I like this hobby so much.

Best of luck with the effort.

Take care,
Steve Cameron
Burrough's Battery

**GASharpshooter** · 03-01-2008, 09:43 PM

Re: Improving Artillery Impressions

How fast you got to pull them artilleries before you get em to fly??

wokawoka!!

I started in this hobby as a gunner. I'll go back to it when I'm too old to march. But it will be in a full size gun type of unit.

I weep when I see umpteen Confederate mountain howitzers at a "FULL SIZE ARTILLERY ONLY 57 INCH WHEELS STRICTLY ENFORCED!!" event and nobody does any enforcement.

Hell I'll forgive ya having a red painted oil lantern in camp if you'll just use a full size carriage :)

**hta1970** · 03-01-2008, 11:42 PM

Re: Improving Artillery Impressions

James,

Yeah those mountain guns and 3/4 scale artillery are something else. I actually think they are trying to hunt squirrel for dinner or something... Who knows....

I think the real shame is when units which never had artillery (CSMC) send artillery batteries to serve at reenactments of actual battles and also those small guns which also show up grab spaces which full scale artillery should really be filling because they were first to get registered. I think if those small guns and inauthentic units would get bumped when real artillery registered it might start sending a message for those wishing to serve as artillery to get real guns and act like real artillery or risk getting bumped from events when real artillery registers....

There is an interesting account of a battle in the Valley early in the war when Jackson has a battery of mountian howitzers attached to his troops. The guns were being carried on mules which actually started to roll aorund on their back to remove the guns which they were carrying and as such were not listed among Jackson's artillery after the battle as they were not considered effective artillery. The infantry had quite a laugh at that sight... You can only imagine how Jackson felt about mountain howitzers after that battle. If someone wants to know more, ask and I will try and dig up the reference...

**GASharpshooter** · 03-02-2008, 12:22 AM

Re: Improving Artillery Impressions

Originally posted by hta1970 View Post

The guns were being carried on mules which actually started to roll aorund on their back to remove the guns which they were carrying ... The infantry had quite a laugh at that sight... You can only imagine how Jackson felt about mountain howitzers after that battle.

bwahahaha!!! Priceless! Please post the reference, I'd love to read that account.

**Vicksburg Dave** · 03-02-2008, 12:56 AM

Re: Improving Artillery Impressions

One thing I would like to see is everyone get on the same page with drill. Most seem to have their own interpretation of it based on (in many cases) exaggerated safety concerns or on baseless claims (with no documentation) of "common sense suggests that they did it this way or that" At present, in most cases, you cannot take an artilleryman from one crew and place him another crew without retraining him, which is the antithesis of the purpose of having a drill in the first place.

**OldKingCrow** · 03-02-2008, 07:54 AM

Re: Improving Artillery Impressions

As a part of Stonewall Jackson's wildly successful Valley Campaign a battery of mountain howitzers, on pack-carriages so they could be broken down onto mules for movement, was assigned to him under Major John D. Imboden. Jackson wanted the howitzers for the fighting at Port Republic. He felt that the light-weight guns would be useful for blasting General Shields out of the mountains around the town. However, the guns are not believed to have seen any action because their mules acted poorly under fire. They tried to shake off their loads, but they were too securely attached to their backs to come off easily. So instead the mules rolled around on their backs to scrape off the artillery pieces. The gunners were never able to get the guns into combat because they spent all of their time fighting the mules. According to Jennings Cropper Wise, the foremost historian of the Army of Northern Virginia's artillery:

While the battery did not accomplish much from a military standpoint, it afforded rare amusement to the men of the Infantry. With the air of men seeking technical information, they would seriously inquire whether the mules or the guns were intended to go off first, and whether the gun was to fire the mule, or the mule the gun. In the estimate of Jackson's artillery at Port Republic, Imboden's Battery was not included, for under the circumstances its guns could not be properly classed as effective ordinance.

Jennings Cropper Wise, The Long Arm of Lee: Vol. 1-Bull Run to Fredericksburg (Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1991), pp. 174-75

Ask and ye shall receive.

**AZReenactor** · 03-02-2008, 09:43 AM

Re: Improving Artillery Impressions

I started as Artillery and still serve as an artillery driver and gunner at a couple events every year. The quotes below provided a very good example of two of the biggest problems I see with artillery groups around the country.

Originally posted by GASharpshooter View Post

I started in this hobby as a gunner. I'll go back to it when I'm too old to march.

Far too often artillery units are seen as a place to send reenactors out to pasture. Artillery is not the Veterans reserve Corps and shouldn't be treated as such. It takes work and mobility to properly crew a gun. If you think marching in the infantry is hard, try running along with a gun being pulled by a six up at the trot or gallop then unlimber and roll into action. All the horses and tack in a fully equipped battery makes for more horse related labor than would give a typical cavalryman nightmares. The artillery of the Civil War was crewed by soldiers, it was not then and should not now be haven of fat old men who would better serve the hobby with a civilian impression telling stories about what life was like during the war of 1812.

Originally posted by GASharpshooter View Post

Hell I'll forgive ya having a red painted oil lantern in camp if you'll just use a full size carriage :)

This brings up another major problem with artillery (and even cavalry to some extent); the notion that because someone invests a lot in equipment, horses, tack, etc. entitles them to some exemptions to authenticity. Yes, artillery impressions are damned expensive but that should be cause to raise the standard for how they are presented, not negate it. A lot has been invested in the big gun and powder it consumes, why detract from its beauty by sullying it with a bunch of farbisms.

I can't count the number of times I've heard artillerymen state the assumption that because they had rolling stock as unit equipment that it some how enabled them to carry all the extra gear and equipment that makes their mainstream reenacting camp comfortable. The rolling stock of an artilleryman is there to haul necessary military equipment, not fire grates and camp chairs for old men. During the war it was even a question of whether gunners should be allowed to strap their knapsacks to the limber and caisson since that extra weight contributes to fatigue in the horses who are already pulling tons of necessary equipment and ammunition.

I suppose this has been a bit of a rant, but personally I'm a little weary of seeing old artillerymen sit around in the glow of red painted post war lanterns just waiting to grow old and leave the hobby. Not casting stones, firing canister...

**Mbond057** · 03-02-2008, 10:30 AM

Re: Improving Artillery Impressions

I will not argue that every artillery unit can improve their impressions with easily addressed items such as authentic uniforms, drill, and overall kit appearance. Each and every one of us can do that; however, really do some research into doing an artillery impression and some of the things mentioned are not in the control of the artillerist. If you play within the US or State park services there are safety rules that must be followed. I have participated with working with the History Channel on a few projects and we need special park permission to not use gloves, un-sleeved barrels, modern rolled tin-foil rounds, ear plugs, etc. It took several face to face meetings with park officials and several lawyers on both sides to come to arrangement before filming could even begin.

But there are many misconceptions about doing an artillery impression in the hobby. Many guys think artillery is the place to go when you�re a little gray haired to march. You must have never pulled a Napoleon or Parrott Rifle using the prolonge to evacuate a position quickly then reposition the gun. Artillery can be a lot of work when there is good coordination and event tactical planning. Artillery isn�t a retirement home to those who have worked a good tactical artillery event.

It�s easy to say you need more limbers, battery wagons, caissons, etc. I have been investigating and researching horse drawn artillery to improve my unit�s impression. The insurance alone will probably kill this project.

There has been mention of more bronze barrels needed at events. I would love to see more bronze, but are you truly aware of the cost? Artillery is expensive and getting more expensive each year. It cost a lot to just feed the guns let alone upgrading to a bronze tube.

Here is a picture of a full scale Bronze 6 Pdr with limber. This gun was built and assembled by Master Carriage Builder, Ben Miller of Miller Wagon and Cannon Company. This entire artillery set can be yours for $32,000.

How many of you can truly afford the best authentic artillery equipment? Before you comment about an artillery unit�s equipment are you willing to reach deep into your pockets to show everyone how it should be done?

Once again I�m not arguing about improving the artillery impressions. I�m just illuminating the terrain we are currently discussing and articulating the true roadblocks that impact an artillery authentic impression.

**OldKingCrow** · 03-02-2008, 10:45 AM

Re: Improving Artillery Impressions

Nice set up. A few ?????

Please share your research knowledge of unpainted CS carriages in the war.

Did they still get the sealing undercoat (linseed) and just not get painted ?

A CS bronze 6 like that would it be relegated to early war ? Didn't the CS melt down bronze six's to recast into 12 pounder by GO ? Or Federal tube on CS carriage ? Federal unpainted carriage/limber ?

Thanks in advance
Fascinated CS research geek.

edited to add: Oooops I see your Federal now I am really confused.

**Mbond057** · 03-02-2008, 10:57 AM

Re: Improving Artillery Impressions

Christopher,

Hello!

You ask some excellent follow up questions, unfortunately I don�t have any details on the inspiration or research that inspired this cannon build.

Let me try and find out the details behind this particular piece so that I can share the information.

**hta1970** · 03-02-2008, 05:49 PM

Re: Improving Artillery Impressions

Christopher,

That is eaxtly what I had remembered reading and owning that book, am sure that was where I saw it.

Here is another account of the same event.

This from "Augusta County: "Stonewall Jackson in the Shenandoah," by John D. Imboden, June 1885

He (Jackson) said: "Charley Winder [Brigadier-General commanding his old 'Stonewall' brigade] will cross the river at daybreak and attack Shields on the Lewis farm [two miles below]. I shall support him with all the other troops as fast as they can be put in line. General 'Dick' Taylor will move through the woods on the side of the mountain with his Louisiana brigade, and rush upon their left flank by the time the action becomes general. By ten o'clock we shall get them on the run, and I'll now tell you what I want with you. Send the big new rifle-gun you have [a twelve-pounder Parrott] to Poague [commander of the Rockbridge Artillery], and let your mounted men report to the cavalry. I want you in person to take your mountain howitzers to the field, in some safe position in rear of the line, keeping everything packed on the mules, ready at any moment to take to the mountain-side. Three miles below Lewis's there is a defile on the Luray road. Shields may rally and make a stand there. If he does, I can't reach him with the field batteries on account of the woods. You can carry your twelve-pounder howitzers on the mules up the mountain-side, and, at some good place, unpack and shell the enemy out of the defile, and the cavalry will do the rest."

The plan of battle was carried out to the letter. I took position in a ravine about two hundred yards in rear of Poague's battery in the center of the line. General Shields made a very stubborn flight, and by nine o'clock began to look very serious for us. Dick Taylor had not yet come down out of the woods on Shields's left flank.

Meanwhile, I was having a remarkable time with our mules in the ravine. Some of the shot aimed at Poague came bounding over our heads, and occasionally a shell would burst there. The mules became frantic. They kicked, plunged, and squealed. It was impossible to quiet them, and it took three or four men to hold one mule from breaking away. Each mule had about three hundred pounds' weight on him, so securely fastened that the load could not be dislodged by any of his capers. Several of them lay down and tried to wallow their loads off. The men held these down, and that suggested the idea of throwing them all on the ground and holding them there. The ravine sheltered us so that we were in no danger from the shot or shell which passed over us.

Just about the time our mule "circus" was at its height, news came up the line from the left that Winder's brigade near the river was giving way. Jackson rode down in that direction to see what it meant. As he passed on the brink of our ravine, his eye caught the scene, and, reining up a moment, he accosted me with "Colonel, you seem to have trouble down there." I made some reply which drew forth a hearty laugh, and he said, "Get your mules to the mountain as soon as you can, and be ready to move."

**lazarus** · 03-02-2008, 06:23 PM

Re: Improving Artillery Impressions

Well, I guess this discussion comes around every couple of years or so, and I would have to agree that accurate artillery impressions are few and far between when we consider the number of artillery pieces brought to events. As a person who started with one of the best drilled and most accurate (I mean knowledge of cannon mechanics, firing, and equipment), the Palmetto Light Artillery, we could never get to the the point of complete accuracy. I have to concur with Mr. Bond that the cost itself of equipage, horse flesh, and individual commitment to learn and do better, is well over anything I've every invested as an infantryman for this period of time. Let's not even discuss how much time and money is required to train and maintain the horses and drivers necessary to pull one detachment.

Really, I find this question perplexing to the extreme. I currently work with one of the best artillery impressions in the South under Kent Oestenstad. We've attempted to address the "red tide" issue in several ways and also followed the strict guidelines of impression, researching and performing like an artillery detachment can. However, we still strive for more chances to do the best impression and it's not even close. We are still plagued by not enough men, horses with medical issues, and the inability of even commanding officers and infantry groups not knowing what to do with a fully functioning artillery piece. Some can't even imagine an artillery piece actually moving to the front lines, unlimbering, firing three shots, and be redeployed to the right flank to relieve a failing infantry regiment.

If any great thing needs to be done as for artillery impressions, as already suggested, it is understanding the role of artillery and how it differed in the various theatres. Then, fix drill, add horses, take out all us fat guys struggling to catch with the horses at full gallop, and then we might understand. Hell, I agree that if a group of chiggers could do the forementioned, then I would forgive their red kepis. By the way, really, a flying battery? Talk about a logistical nightmare of horses and unexperienced weekend warriors!

Cheers!

**artillerybuff** · 03-02-2008, 06:28 PM

Re: Improving Artillery Impressions

Hello all,

I may be able to add some info on this particular set up. You are right in that it is not correct in construction material or finish. The picture does not do it justice either, it is a remarkable looking creation, but it is NOT period correct, nor was it intended to be. All wood is Walnut and that is why the builder put a clear finish on it. It is simply a beautiful show piece.

But this is not the point. The point Mark was trying to make is how expensive artillery can be. A bronze Napoleon set up today with Carriage & Limber will run you close to $40,000 give or take, and that is only one piece (not much less for a 12 Pdr. Field Howitzer). So to be totally correct for one Battery impression you would need six of these with Limbers, plus six more Limbers with six Caissons, not even getting into the other wagons and forges etc... One fully equipped Caisson will run you over $13,000, which is why you hardly ever see them at a reenactment. So what do you think your grand total for one full Battery of 12 Pdr.s, would be? And we have not even talked about implements, leathers, harnesses, or horse flesh. I would be happy to make this a reality for you guys if you would front me at least a half a million dollars, and that isn�t too far off�

This is why most people use cast iron steel lined barrels. As far as bronze barrels goes, do you think they kept their barrels bright & shiny polished like gold? No, they let them patina or painted them black. Do you think they kept the Copper Limber Lids polished like mirrors? No, they let them patina or painted them black. The alternative is to give your enemy a big bright target to aim at.

I also agree the Artillery is no place to go when you are no longer able to march. Artillery is hard work! We need young strong men to help crew these heavy beasts. If you are into live fire shooting like we are, you must know they recoil 6 to 8 feet on every shot and must be returned to battery before loading again.

No artillery impression could ever hope to be 100% authentic in terms of duplicating all actual equipment used in one Battery. However, that does not mean should we compromise and allow less than reasonably accurate equipment, i.e. size, construction, color, and so forth. As far a bronze looking piece, there are some very good coatings available today that can decently replicate a bronze barrel, so if you want a shiny one without selling your home, car, and truck to pay for it you can make that happen. That is not to say steel barrels are inexpensive either. I have a pair of 10 Pdr. Parrott Rifles, and the tubes alone are over $9,000 each! The bottom line is whatever you have must be authentic and correct or it should not be allowed. It goes without saying NO scale pieces, period! Leave those in your front yard for decoration. BTW, if all 6 Pdr.�s were melted down and recast, why are there so many surviving 6 Pdr.�s today? The fact is many were used until the end of the war.

Good points made regarding drill. However, many concessions must be made for safeties sake that are not period correct, such as wearing gloves, ear protection, worming after every shot, double sponging, placing implements on top of the wheels after loading, and crossing implements over the piece in the event of a mis-fire. Other than that, the drill should use period correct commands, call for appropriate ammunition, include sighting the piece, moving back into battery after firing and so on. You can work with any of the six artillery units in the ACWS and not have to learn a different drill as we all use the same exact totally period correct drill, with the exceptions already noted above.

Be well~

2nd Lt. Anthony A. Variz
Battery D 5th US

**ajroscoe** · 03-02-2008, 06:44 PM

Re: Improving Artillery Impressions

Being a common infantryman, I know that I am not in all of your league with regards to artillery. That being said, the one thing I wish I could see artillery units do is show the infantry volunteers that served with the batteries. At one point in his diary, Col. Charles Wainwright, then serving as chief of artillery for the Union I Corps, said almost half of the 900 men in his artillery brigade were infantry volunteers. Now, I know most red legs would probably dislike the idea of putting infantry garb on while serving with the battery, but for various points of the war - specifically for the North - it would be very appropriate. At one point in the fall of '63, almost 80% of B, 4th US were volunteers from the Iron Brigade, leaving just Old Army men as the NCO's. I think this is something the public would be deeply interested to learn, much as I was.

Announcement

Announcement

Improving Artillery Impressions

Improving Artillery Impressions

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment