Improving Artillery Impressions

[vamick]

Re: Improving Artillery Impressions

here is a picture of the cassion we built for the Hunley crew funeral in Charleston SC and a few of our guns, let me tell ya the shine on that 12 pdr field howitser will fry yer retinas!:D

[1stMaine]

Re: Improving Artillery Impressions

There is credible evidence that 12 Pdr. Mountain Howitzers was used at Gettysburg. In 2009 the Gettysburg Anniversary Committee will allow a limited number of MH to work with the cavalry in support of the following documentation presented to them this past fall.

“I'm sure most of us are familiar with the variety of artillery present during the Battle of Gettysburg, but how many know that the 12 Pdr Mountain Howitzer were used to defend the base of Little Round Top during the fighting on July 2, 1863?”

"The rebels came from all directions for the guns, and lost all formation. They waved their
battle flags, a dozen being just in front of me. They came to where a number were shot down; then they recoiled, and retreated through the wheat field and woods. To my' right and rear; among the rocks, I could see a twelve pounder mountain howitzer at work. A soldier asked me what kind of a gun it was: he said it kicked over at every' discharge.” 1st Lt. Page, 3rd U.S. Infantry. (Quoted in Powell's The Fifth Army Corps, p.535-36.)

Comrade,

Taken at face value, based on the evidence listed, the only way that a mountain howitzer could be credibly used at that event is ONE during the scenario defending Little Round Top. To allow them to be used in any other context is not therefore historically accurate. We might just as easily say that, because there were 2 regiments of Federal Sharpshooters at the battle, that fellows with that uniform can fall in anywhere they want to at any scenario.

However, I am certainly mustified by the evidence put forward to alledge the use of this gun. I simple review of the Federal artillery ehahed at Gettsburg shows NO mountain howitzers. In fact, the only 2 Howitzers listed are with the 2nd CT Light Artillery, which were M1841 12lb howitzers, along with 4 James Rifles.

We are supposed to be attempting to raise the bar, not maintaining the status quo. There are certainly places where mountain howitzers are appropriate, but allowing for their use at Gettysburg, based upon a single source documentation, seems to me to be questionable at best, and more likely designed to assuage the feelings of a partivulr unit, rather than an attempt to recreate an historic scenario.

That's my 2-cent's worth anyway :)

[flattop32355]

Re: Improving Artillery Impressions

As an infantryman, I appreciate the respectful nature of most of the posts here.

One of the early items of concern was standardizing drill. If I remember correctly from informal talks with a unit member who does mostly artillery, were there two manuals in use at the time? If more than one, is it possible for a consensus to be reached on the preferred one to use?

Along with that, some daring soul could take the "risk" of presenting a proposed article on necessary modern safety measures to be addressed and how best to address them. It could then be discussed/debated among the learned folk and until a viable and comprehensive paper could be agreed upon. I'd hazard that event sponsors would find such useful in determining who the more attractive units are to attend their event.

In both cases, there will still be those out there who will not abide, but there's not much you can do about them.

[hta1970]

Re: Improving Artillery Impressions

There is credible evidence that 12 Pdr. Mountain Howitzers was used at Gettysburg. In 2009 the Gettysburg Anniversary Committee will allow a limited number of MH to work with the cavalry in support of the following documentation presented to them this past fall.

“I'm sure most of us are familiar with the variety of artillery present during the Battle of Gettysburg, but how many know that the 12 Pdr Mountain Howitzer were used to defend the base of Little Round Top during the fighting on July 2, 1863?”

"The rebels came from all directions for the guns, and lost all formation. They waved their
battle flags, a dozen being just in front of me. They came to where a number were shot down; then they recoiled, and retreated through the wheat field and woods. To my' right and rear; among the rocks, I could see a twelve pounder mountain howitzer at work. A soldier asked me what kind of a gun it was: he said it kicked over at every' discharge.” 1st Lt. Page, 3rd U.S. Infantry. (Quoted in Powell's The Fifth Army Corps, p.535-36.)

I'm all with Tim on this one.

One mountain howitzer referenced by a Infantry officer at Little Round Top does not equal a limited number mountain howitzers operating with cavalry. How does that work in support of that documentation?

The Army of the Potomac has some great material preserved in records. I think whomever decided they wanted to bring their squirrel gun to play with the Artillery needs to do some real research on artillery and stop trying to put square pegs in round holes.

Then again maybe they can fall in with the Marines at Gettysburg or bring their coehorn mortar too.

AC is supposed to be, as Tim says, about raising the bar in authenticity of impressions. Just my two cents but that Committee is a farce and only doing a service to the profiteers running the "show" as it clrealy isn't a reenactment anymore.

[hta1970]

Re: Improving Artillery Impressions

As an infantryman, I appreciate the respectful nature of most of the posts here.

One of the early items of concern was standardizing drill. If I remember correctly from informal talks with a unit member who does mostly artillery, were there two manuals in use at the time? If more than one, is it possible for a consensus to be reached on the preferred one to use?

Along with that, some daring soul could take the "risk" of presenting a proposed article on necessary modern safety measures to be addressed and how best to address them. It could then be discussed/debated among the learned folk and until a viable and comprehensive paper could be agreed upon. I'd hazard that event sponsors would find such useful in determining who the more attractive units are to attend their event.

In both cases, there will still be those out there who will not abide, but there's not much you can do about them.

Bernard,

I have actually found a few manuals.

Gilham would have been an influence to any battery either commanded by former VMI cadets or trained by VMI drillmasters.

Andrews' manual came out in 1863 for a Confederate audience.

French, Berry, Hunt came out in 1860 with additional editions in at least 61, 62 and 64. Andrews refers to it being the only manual of worth in circulation at the beginning on the war and obviously read by Confederate Artillery officers and familiar to any former US officer in Confederate service.

Patten's Nov 61 book on Artillery fell into the hands of Andrews at Mechanicsville and he was greatly impressed apparently using it as a basis for his own manual.

Those are four manuals which have at least a minimal impact of Confederate Artillery drill, though I have not compared them in drill as of yet and would really prefer someone much more familar to make further coment on the details described.

[Vicksburg Dave]

Re: Improving Artillery Impressions

NPS drill is as close to Hunt's as I have seen, and would probably be a good starting point since NPS events are a major part of the hobby. Moreover, a good portion of period photos point toward Hunt as the dominant drill manual.

[Mbond057]

Re: Improving Artillery Impressions

Harry & Tim,

It is amusing to me. You guys want documentation. It’s provided in a credible source and you guys change the parameters of your argument on research to continue forcing your agenda. No one is arguing that artillery impressions cannot be improved. But to make a foolish comment that Mountain Howitzers should just be lawn ornaments goes against what you preach. I’m not saying that Mountain Howitzers are not over represented in reenacting today, but let’s evaluate why they are: It comes down to money.

I’m not saying that Mountain Howitzers were used in any great numbers at Gettysburg. I’m not saying that they were used in the Peach Orchard or in support of any other action occurring during the Gettysburg fighting. I have no evidence that would support this. I do have documented evidence that at least one Mountain Howitzer was used in the Gettysburg Battle and that’s what I reported. I do not sit on the board of the Gettysburg Anniversary Committee. The committee will allow MH starting in 2009 in limited number with Cav. Once again is this one or ten MH? I don’t know this answer or how they will be used with the Cav. Don’t shot the messenger.

The documented fact is that 12 Pdr. Mountain Howitzers were used during the Civil War. They were mounted on pack and prairie carriages. I have been doing a southwest federal artillery impression in Arizona and MH was part of the 3rd US Artillery and 1st New Mexico Infantry. I’m still learning the history of the CW in the Southwest but I am using an artillery piece that was assigned to both of these units.

You want more authentic artillery impressions, so does everyone on this board. No matter how you argue the fact it comes down to money. You can try and continue the argument that it’s not about money but we all know that’s not the case in artillery impressions. The big guns, cost big money! The drill and uniforms of course are easier to address and make more authentic. But ignoring the elephant in the room (expense) is not going to make authentic artillery reality.

If an artillery unit cannot meet the required authentic impression and guidelines of the event then they need to look for alternative events. Just be aware that there will not be many artillery units that cannot meet this requirement of horse drawn light artillery.

[hta1970]

Re: Improving Artillery Impressions

Mark,

Don't want to shoot the messenger here and if in fact there is diocumented evidence that the Mountain Howitzer was used at Little Round Top (sounds like one since the singular was used in the original account) then by all means sure it would be great to see that added to the Little Round Top scenario when that one is used at an event.

My problem is taking that use, if correct, at Little Rond Top in very rough terrain and using that to justify its use with cavalry is plain out wrong. Thus my square peg round hole comment...

Yes, mountain howitzers were used in the war, as we have seen under Imboden at Port Republic for example in VA, though having the mules roll around on the ground with them while the crews try to manage the mules would not be what most artillery crews would want to do with their day at a reenactment. And true in the west they were used much longer in the east. Nothing wrong with using them in the south-west if they were used there.

We as reenactors are educators. The public like it or not looks up to us to make the names , dates and phots of the war real for them. It is therefor our responsibility to improve what we do, make changes needed and realize that if we are "X" unit which is very specific to a certain place and time, we don't try to fit into "y" event just becasue we want to be there unless we can be a generic unit which would have been present. Keeping that in mind is why a Napoleon is such an ideal tube for any CS artillery unit in the ANV because it was around for the whole war and many times in very large numbers. As shown right after Gettysburg, they were 40% of the ANV artillery less Stuart's Horse Artillery.

If a unit want to be specialized, they can do whatever they want, but they should also realize that such specialization in portrayal will limit which events are appropriate for them to attend given their uniforms and equipment.

I think we all know and have discussed ad nauseum the expense and difficulty of having horse drawn artillery.

But just because we don't have horses doesn't mean that we should use that fact to justify the lack of 57" wheels.

[cannoneer]

Re: Improving Artillery Impressions

From what I have read in this thread the general drift is;
1. Less furniture
2. Improved drill (minus the exaggerated movements, etc.)
3. Continue to research your unit's history and try to bring to bear the correct equipment
a. caissons
b. correct cannon/s for unit and time frame
4. Improve uniforms (stop the red tide)

I have to say that only the third line item is the hard one because of the costs.

With so few AC artillery units, the one thing we (in the artillery) can do is to help guide the units we are in to a better and more authentic impression.

Respectfully,

[Fauxban]

So many good points, so few conclusions

First. lets applaud the thread itself, & trust it'll actually DO something progressive...

Forgive me for tackling several points in different posts. I type very slowly & am easily bored, & there’s quite a lot to respond to here.

On manuals

Instructions for Field Artillery AKA French, Barry & Hunt (FBH):
F, B, & H were Regular Army artillery captains sitting on a board to revise the then current manual of drill, maneuver & training. Comparing the 1846 manual with "FBH '61, & FBH '64 one finds surprisingly few differences. School of the piece is identical. The '61 edition expands the training & maneuver portions anticipating the use of massed batteries rather than detached sections. The ’64 edition provides firing data for the new rifled pieces entering into service. “Rifle” drill isn’t addressed at all, being simply the procedure used to load any unfixed ammunition.

Everything in American artillery derives from the pre-war Instructions for Field Artillery. Period.
Patten & Gilham cribbed, edited & outright plagiarized from the work of FBH. Andrews captured a copy of Patten, re- revised, edited & published it while on convalescent leave (see CS EoG for his jacket, frightening!!) In NONE of these various iterations is the School of the Piece changed, even the errors are repeated!!

We have ONE root source for our drill, collectively all we disagree on are the “modern safety changes”… Sorting THAT mess out is a task for Solomon.

[Lazarus Driver]

Re: Improving Artillery Impressions

First let me say that it is good to see an artillery discussion and I will add some of my own commentary. I will start off by saying that I am a driver for Kent Oestenstad. Thanks to his hard work and dedication to doing it right makes it even more enjoyable when we take the field. Mounted Artillery is not the place for the out of shape crowd. You work your butt off, water groom water groom harness up unharness groom water feed, do horse watch at night and then start all over again. Would I trade this, heck NO it is part of the experience. One problem is that most events are geared towards the Infantry and there ability to move and not the artillery’s. Put the guns on the goal line and the INF will play on the rest of the field. When you add horse drawn into the mix you get I don’t know what to do syndrome. Mr. Lloyd you made the comment about artillery be under-represented at authentic events. Well I have a list that I would like to share showing that it can and has been done. These are in no real order and not all had horses but here goes Port Gibson, Shiloh, 2nd Raymond (4 gun mounted battery, guns and caissons) Picketts Mill remember the dead company and the man harness . Pickett’s Mill mounted, Stones River, Gettysburg (Ringgold can tell you about working with Kent) This past Chickamauga with the WIG. Fort Sumter Fort Jackson Fort Gaines and finally I portrayed an Artillery Officer at the last two IM600’s. So yes it is done, is it easy NO. Especially getting the different groups together to form a battery. As to Drill just read French, Barry, and Hunt. The book has tons of info in it. Yes a lot of it applies to horse drawn use however all units should have an understanding of how a battery moved even if you will never have horses. Learn how to put on the chain lock and how and when it is used. I will get out of the saddle now.

Bill Thomas
Driver
Lazarus Battery

[hta1970]

Re: Improving Artillery Impressions

Ok, did a little updating on the ANV artillery tubes at 3 points in time. Sharpsburg information from the AOTW site, Gettysburg from the ORs and about June 64 from the ORs. In the case of Gettysburg and 64 the horse artillery is not included.

Sharpsburg

59 6pdr Gun 23% of ANV Artillery
57 12 pdr Howitzers 22% " " "
48 3in Ordnance Rifles 18% " " "
48 10pdr Parrotts 18% " " "
30 Napoleons 12% " " "
8 Blakely Gun 3% " " "
4 24pdr Howitzers 2% " " "
4 Naval Howitzer 2% " " "
2 Whitworths .5% " " "
1 Hotchkiss Gun .5% " " "
261 Guns Total

Note: AOTW only lists 3 Naval Howitzers in the ANV but the 2nd Richmond Howitzers had 1 Naval Howitzer (their only howitzer) mentioned in a 9/22/62 report in the ORs

Gettysburg

101 Napoleons 40% of ANV Artillery
63 3in Ordnance Rifles 25% " " "
37 10pdr Parrotts 15% " " "
25 12 pdr Howitzers 10% " " "
12 20pdr Parrotts 5% " " "
5 24pdr Howitzers 2% " " "
3 Navy Parrotts 1% " " "
2 Whitworths 1% " " "
1 6pdr Gun 1% " " "
254 Guns Total

Note: 3 of Cutts' 3 inch ordnance rifles were really Navy Parrotts, McIntosh had 1 gun which was disabled or unspecified type, and Garnett had 2 guns captured and 2 turned in of unspecified type. These guns are given in the total but not the tyep beakdown, except for the Navy Parrotts.

246 Caissons (just short of 1 per gun)
9 Battery Wagons (roughly 1 per every 2 battalions)
45 Forges (roughly 1 per every battery)

June '64

94 Napoleons 49% of ANV Artillery
48 10pdr Parrotts 25% " " "
32 3in Ordnance Rifles 16% " " "
12 20pdr Parrotts 6% " " "
6 12 pdr Howitzers 3% " " "
1 24pdr Howitzers 1% " " "
193 Guns Total

[OldKingCrow]

Re: Improving Artillery Impressions

Mr. Aycock,

Great work ! Thanks.

For curiosity....what do you get for hits on "mountain howitzer" in the OR's ?

[hta1970]

Re: Improving Artillery Impressions

Christopher,

I actually haven't done a check on that yet, but can put it on my list.

BTW - Are you involved in FL event artillery? I have thought about adding information at the very least on CS artillery at Olustee if there is an interest....

[OldKingCrow]

Re: Improving Artillery Impressions

Does a one-legged duck swim in a circle ?

I descend from a CS / Olustee cavalryman.

Much, much obliged.


BTW - Are you involved in FL event artillery?

I gave up on "reenacting" but maintain a keen man, method and material research interest.

CR