Improving Artillery Impressions

[OldKingCrow]

Re: Improving Artillery Impressions

Speaking of display pieces and howitzers....175 lbs think it is typo or perhaps describing a Mtn Howitzer ? Tredegar also made a mtn rifle ????

From the Richmond Dispatch, 3/7/1862, p. 2, c. 3

New Artillery Company. – A specimen of the brass field pieces, intended for the use of Capt. Thos. T. Croppers’ Artillery company, was exhibited on the Capitol Square yesterday, to a large number of interested spectators. It was made at the Tredegar foundry, of brass, and weighs, as the others will, 175 pounds each. On trial, first round, with twenty musket balls, scattered about twenty feet in 200 yards; with forty balls, about thirty feet, and with sixty balls, thirty seven feet. It would cut in infantry a perfect lane. Capt. Cropper expects to use ten of these guns. They shoot with a single ball, with accuracy, over one mile. Capt. C.’s office is opposite the Law Building, Franklin street.

[hta1970]

Re: Improving Artillery Impressions

Christopher,

Interesting reference there. That paper has some great information in it and it's nice to see it was digitized by UR.

Thomas T. Cropper was a Captain and commander of Cropper's Company of Light Artillery which was part of the 24th (known as Scott's) Battalion Partisan Rangers. The battalion consisted of 3 cavalry and 1 artillery companies.

The artillery company was broken up in June 1862 and the men assigned to other commands.

[marine05]

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.

Dave,

Re: your message concerning drill, that is why, if you do a searc, you'll see our "redlegs from the sky" idea. So far we have integrated cannoneers and detachments from different batteries, all using HBF drill.

Give me a shout!

Dan

[marine05]

Re: Improving Artillery Impressions

No 12lb - A number of the CS were Tredegar Napoleons too..much different look..no swell.

I wonder if in fact there were CS Tredegar 3in Rifles (cast) present as well..64 captured 3in Ordnance Rifles ?

At Gettysburg, there was only one 6lb gun on the field, that in Alexander Latham's battery in James Longstreet's I Corps, Army of Northern Virginia.

Thomas, Dean S., CANNONS: An Introduction to Civil War Artillery. Thomas Publications, Gettysburg, PA, 1985.
Coco, Gregory A., A Concise Guide to the Artillery at Gettysburg. Thomas Publications, Gettysburg, PA, 1998.

According to Tredegar's history they did cast ordnance rifles. They actually found tubes still in the molds that had been tossed into the James after the war ended. If you get the opportunity you should pay the park a visit, pretty interesting, plus Belle Isle is directly across the river from the foundry.

S/F

Dan

[OldKingCrow]

Re: Improving Artillery Impressions

My question wasnt whether Tredegar cast them or not...but rather were the 64 enumerated CS 3in Rifles present at Gettysburg all Ordnace Rifles ? Tredegar and Noble cast 3 in rifles. Read my quip again.

[marine05]

Re: Improving Artillery Impressions

Chris,

After I posted I re-read your post and it did seem to not ask if they made them but rather who made the ones present. Sorry, good question. I have a reference book on the existing CW artillery pieces known and where they were cast. This may not shed light on where the 64 in question were cast, but may be able to contribute to a statistical analysis of percent produced by one foundry versus another.

S/F

DJM

[Mbond057]

Re: Improving Artillery Impressions

Here are some photos of 12 Pdr. Mountain Howitzers during the Civil War in the eastern theater.




Fort Sumter, South Carolina
12 Pdr Brass Barrel Mountain Howitzer
April, 1863




Union Soldiers with 1841
12 Pdr Mountain Howitzer in April 1865

[hta1970]

Re: Improving Artillery Impressions

Wehat I see int he photos is a very early war infantry unit with one at Washington DC. Does anyone know what became of that gun?

The Fort Sumter photo is the use of 12pdr MH to defend against amphibious assault. But unfortunately does nothing to porve the use of the MH in the field in 1863.

The thrid photo looks like an ordnance yard or park. Again does not support field usage in the Eastern therater in 1865.

It's important to remember that just because you have a photo of a Mountain Howitzer doesn't mean everyone in the eastern theater wore jaguar pants for the entire war.

Do you have any official records from units using the Mountain Howitzer or ordnance reports from units using the Mountain Howitzer which might connect its use in the eastern theater to specific campaigns or battles in which they were used?

[Mbond057]

Re: Improving Artillery Impressions

Harry,

There is documentation that MH were used in eastern battles such as the Gettysburg example I have offered. Mosby’s Rangers used a MH in some of their attacks. I’m not going to try and argue that the MH technology was not becoming dated by the start of the CW. The MH had a maximum affective range of 900-1000 yards and that’s pushing the envelop.

A Bronze 12 Pdr. Mordecai 1849 Mountain Howitzer barrel mounted on a number 1 prairie carriage saw action in the Battle of Greenbrier River, VA (Now WV) with the 1st W. Va. Light Artillery regiment.

Both the West Point Museum and the US Army Ordnance Museum at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland have MH on displays that were in the Civil War.

Here is a photo I took of the MH at Aberdeen, MD.





Here is an article titled the Bull Pup: The 1841 Mountain Howitzer by Steven Grizzell. It’s a good article on the CW MH.

http://www.currensnet.com/cwcongrs/M...mh_a_index.htm

[dbunny23]

Re: Improving Artillery Impressions

Gentlemen;

Speaking of "red tide", is the grey wool shell jacket with red cuffs and collar that dominates most confederate artillery reenactors wardrobe authentic, or what? I have never seen a photo or reference to their authenticity. Like the red kepis, very much overdone.

George Royal
North Florida Artillery

Semmes' Battery, 1st Confederate Light Artillery
Hexamer's Battery, Battery A, 1st NJ Volunteer Light Artillery

[marine05]

Re: Improving Artillery Impressions

Mark,

Thanks for the very educational article. The howitzer certainly did see varied service. Although from a logistics standpoint I wonder how the infantry units that kept their guns carried projectiles and charges, not to mention, moving the pieces themselves.

I'm not saying they didn't or couldn't, just thinking of the how's.

S/F

DJM

[OldKingCrow]

Re: Improving Artillery Impressions

So with respect to PEC a mountain howitzer is a very limited impression (Cavalry drawn, Garrision in Fort, etc) and not like you see at events here in Florida....battery vs battery of mtn hwtzrs each manned by a full compliment of artillerists ?

[Mbond057]

Re: Improving Artillery Impressions

Dan,

Hello!

That’s an excellent question. Supplies and other logistics must have been tough to manage. I suspect the Ordnance Sergeant for the Infantry or Cav constructed rounds from regimental supplies and the unit’s blacksmith skills when on campaign. This is only an educated guess because I haven’t been able to find any documentation to how these units supplied their small amount of field artillery while on campaign.

Many in the hobby and historians overlook the Mountain Howitzer role in our military history. Because of its size and limited range it is less glamorous then other carriage artillery of the period. I have provided photos and a well written article based on good acceptable scholarly sources on the MH roll in the CW. If others chose to ignore these facts then they have limited their knowledge base and altered reality to support their agenda’s despite the evidence presented. This occurs a lot in studying history in which interpretations must be made based on limited or incomplete information.

When the hobby started to get bigger in the 80’s someone who didn’t do their homework made a 57” artillery wheel rule out of ego and that somehow stuck. Without doing their homework many assumed that the MH was only used out west or in desperation so the MH once again fell out of favor with eastern people in the hobby. They were more interested in drawing a paying crowd then presenting history as best we could interpret. When a mountain howitzer was used within its designed limits it was a healthy weapon to add to the unit’s firepower.

So if others still think that the MH is only a lawn ornaments it’s based on perception and not historical information.

I’m surprised that in the campaign side of the hobby that the MH is still under this myth. With campaigners wishing to do more intense scenarios with small units and raids, etc. it would be a perfect campaigner artillery given the battle scenarios of smaller immersed events. IMHO I think it would make for a great tactical event to study a few raids and battles in which the MH participate and have a weekend tactical event around allowing for a mess to get a better understanding of the MH. The challenges of dragging the MH through the woods, rocks, stream, hills, etc. with a three or four man crew would put theory to practice allowing for a deeper understanding of the struggles of an infantry outfit using a MH.

Respectfully,

[hta1970]

Re: Improving Artillery Impressions

Other than Moseby's irregular cavalry, not serving as part of Stuart's Cavalry Corps, are there any references to regular cavalry in the ANV or AOP using the Mountain Howitzer.

Is there any documented use of the Mountain Howitzer by an Artillery Battery, not as part of of an infantry unit, in the ANV or AOP after the summer of '62?

It seems that the use at Gettysburg is attributed to an infantry brigade by Steven Grizzell in his article on the Mountain Howitzer, not an artillery battery. Also if you check the reference in the original book by Powell "The Fifth Army Corps" publixhed in 1896, you find the letter is mentioned in a footnote written some time after the was as the author of the letter is a Lieutenant Colonel where he apparently was a Lieutenant at the time of the Battle of Gettysburg. The letter is undated and there is no reference stating where this letter can be found.

I'm not saying that this source is wrong or was not there. I'm just saying if we have no official record of any artillery battery having this type of gun, why has no one wishing to use this type of gun followed on with Grizzell's work and sought to check the records of the infantry units present there at Little Round Top to see if they can find any official record there for proof that at least on of these guns was present at the battle? It seems clear, that even if one on these guns saw use at this one point on the battlefield, it is clearly not being used by artillery, but by infantry as Grizzell states.

Also, I have seen online a very incorrect quote from Alexander's report following the Battle of Gettysburg. The individual making this quote has added the word "mountain" in from of howitzer to support the use of the Mountain Howitzer by Confederate forces at Gettysburg.

"The sum total of the losses in my battalion during the period covered
by this report are as follows: In the battle of Gettysburg, July 2 and
3, killed, 19; wounded, 114; missing, 6; total, 139 men. There were
also 2 killed and 3 wounded of a detachment of 8 gallant Mississippians
at Captain Moody's guns, who volunteered to help maneuver them on very
difficult ground. Horses killed and disabled in action, 116. Many of my
wounded sent to Cashtown fell into the hands of the enemy there. On the
night march across the Potomac, 8 men missing. Deserted near
Martinsburg, 3 men. Upset near the pontoon bridge and thrown into the
river, by order to clear the passage to the bridge, one limber of 24-
pounder howitzer caisson. Destroyed in action, one 12-pounder mountain
howitzer, two 12-pounder howitzer carriages, and six wheels. Report of
Col. E. Porter Alexander, C. S. Army, commanding battalion Reserve
Artillery JUNE 3-AUGUST 1, 1863.--The Gettysburg Campaign

If any wishes to check the actual report in the ORs it can be found in Vol 27, Part 2, pg 429-431 and you will see that mountain does not appear and it was simply a 12lb Howitzer which was lost. The alteration/distortion of official records to support facts is not in keeping with a search for historical authenticity.

This forum is a place to work through discussion to improve the historical authenticty of artillery and not to promote any personal adgenda.

The use of iron guns painted with bronze paint, the flying of post war flags or the use of artillery clearly not part of the historical record of events portrayed to the public and connecting inappropriate/inauthentic artillery (i.e. the coehorn mortar) with the batteries involved does not contribute to improving the historical authenticity of this branch of service.

[ajroscoe]

Re: Improving Artillery Impressions

Mark,
From the information provided, it seems that there is shaky information at best to support the existence of 1 Mt. Howitzer present at the Battle of Gettysburg, while the United States Army had some 358 guns and the Confederate States Army had some 262. Having 1 Mt Howitzer for 610 full sized guns makes it clear to me that this is a piece that should be shown as part of the main armies. This forum strives to recreate the look and experience of the common soldier in the Civil War. To that end in the infantry side, having an M1842 Rifled Musket for an earlier 1862 event while the unit portrayed for the weekend was armed with M1861 Rifled Muskets is acceptable, but showing up carrying an M1803 Rifle is just as unacceptable as an M1863 Zouave. It is no different for uniforms. Having one man in ranks wearing Zouave dress would stick out like a sore thumb and make spectators wonder, "Why is the man dressed differently?" If the unit in question never wore Zouave dress, that would be totally inappropriate. It seems that by and large, having a Mt Howitzer is unsupportable in any event depicting any part of the large Armies.
Someone earlier said that having a Mt. Howitzer at a Gettysburg event is now alright since someone brought up that report of a Mt. Howitzer on Little Round Top. No! Unless you're portraying Little Round Top during the part of the battle when the Regulars where at the base of it getting slaughtered (since that is where the report originated), it is totally inappropriate. That would be a HIGHLY specialized impression of one short time frame simply to accommodate one piece of artillery who's historical authenticity is shaky to begin with.
If there is an event, such as a raid, early war, mountain area, ect, where it can be shown that there was one there, or even if good historical investigating can lead to good evidence that one was probably there (past pattern of behavior by a partisan leader, ammunition returns, ect), then put it in the event. But by and large, that is not most events. I'm sorry, but having them in action at all seems dicey enough that if they are to be seen at all, they must be highly controlled in our portrayals to the public, otherwise, they'll think Mt Howitzers were the norm, not the extreme exception to the rule.