Conference smurf::civil_war

    Can't give you a lot of specific info without recourse to my books, and
    even then not much.  There were smoothbores (mostly napoleons, whose
    design hadn't changed in 50+ years) and rifled guns (Parrott and
    Dahlgren).  Mortars were used to good effect by the Union during the
    Mississippy River campaign, but except in isolated instances were not
    decisive.
    
    Artillery, when it was used properly, had significant effect.  One of
    the most effective defensive uses was to place guns in a flanking
    position so that when the enemy attacked -- across a field, for example
    -- your guns could deliver enfilading fire.  This technique was used
    with terrible effect many times.  (Can't think of a specific one right
    now.  Help?)
    
    Straight-on fire worked well if the gunners were skillful enough and
    had a good field of fire.  Union guns at Malvern Hill devastated the
    Confederate right.
    
    -d

    I remember reading a book on the Monitor and Merimack (the first
    ironclad battle).  I seem to remember that the designer of the monitor
    also designed artillery pieces.
    
    Tom

    There's a lot to be said about artillery, so I'll try to add some data
    to .1 ...
    
    If you don't count naval guns, artillery can be divided into:
    
    	Field artillery - mobile guns to accompany moving troops
    
    	Siege artillery - heavy guns, able to be moved slowly, and needing
    some amount of work (hours or days) to emplace.  Used for destroying
    fortifications.
    
    	Garrison artillery - heavy guns (usually) to be used in forts
    
    Almost all ACW artillery, whether smoothbore or rifled, was
    muzzle-loading.  People were just beginning to figure out how to make a
    breach that could be opened and was strong enough.  The most common
    gun in both armies was the 12-pounder Napoleon smoothbore.  It was very
    inaccurate at long range, but was very effective as a short-range anti-
    personnel weapon; rather like a big shotgun.
    
    Rifled guns were more accurate.  Parrot rifles were one of the more
    common types, I think - easily recognized by the heavy reinforcing band
    around the breach.  I've seen smoothbores which were modified by adding
    rifling, too.
    
    Seige and garrison artillery could be much more accurate, because the
    firing platform was more stable and more precisely located.  (For field
    guns, range-finding was by eye and experiment!)
    
    Guns could fire solid shot (your basic cannonball), shell - a hollow
    shot with powder inside and a time fuze -, and anti-personnel rounds
    like cannister or grapeshot.  Smoothbores could also shoot trace
    chains, pieces of railroad rail, scrap iron, etc. - and _did_.  :^)
    
    I think I have some data on numbers, types, and ranges...
    
    MikeR

    re .1
    
    One instance which I recall off the top of my head is at 2nd Mannassas.
    Pope, still refusing to believe his subordinates who insisted that
    Longstreet had arrived on the field, ordered a general assault on
    Jackson's position in order to chase the "retiring" confederates back
    to Thoroughfare Gap.  As Longstreet overlapped the union left, and
    Jackson signalled for assistance, Longstreet moved several batteries
    forward and at right angles to Jackson's lines and raked the charging
    lines which were advancing over open ground.  Needless to say, the 
    yanks on this part of the line did not stand up to the storm of shot
    and shell which burst upon them.
    
    I recall reading somewhere that artillery caused roughly 10% of the
    battle casualties in the ACW.

         A very good book on all arms of the CW is Arms and Equipment of 
         the Civil War By Jack Coggins.  Lots of descriptive illustrations 
         done by the author.
         
         The following table is from this book.  All length are in inches, 
         all weight are in lbs, %=degree.  These are field guns.
   Type      Model    Cal    Tube    Tube  Carr.  Proj.   Charge  Range yds.
                             Lngt.    Wt.   Wt.    Wt.      Wt.   at 5% elev.
================================================================================
6-pounder    1841-44  3.67   60	      884   900	   6.10	  1.25	    1523	
12-pdr gun   1841-44  4.62   78	     1757  1175	  12.30	  2.50	    1663
12-pdr How.  1841-44  4.62   53	      788   900	   8.90	  1.00	    1072
24-pdr How.  1841-44  5.82   65	     1318  1128	  18.40	  2.00	    1322
32-pdr How.  1841-44  6.4    75	     1920  1175	  25.60	  2.50	    1504
12-pdr Nap.  1857     4.62   66	     1227  1128	  12.30	  2.50	    1619

As you may see the 12-pdr Nap. was over 500 lbs lighter with almost the same 
performance.  

The artillery started to engage both cavalry and infantry at about a mile.  in 
an assault like Pickett's charge the first 700 yards they would fire spherical 
case, for the next 300 yards solid shot and for the last 500 yards canister.
 
                              INFANTRY ATTACK

                           <----- 1500 YDS ----->
                         Time to travel by Infantry:

   at a quick step 10 mins.                3.5 mins.        2. mins.   40 sec

1500 yds                            650 yds            300 yds      100 yds
|_____________________________________|___________________|___________|________|

          20 rounds spherical            7 solid shot      9 canister   2 can. 

                                ARTILLERY FIRES
         
         Spherical case (shrapnel) was used from about 1500 yds to about 
         500 yds.  A 12 pdr had 78 musket balls in it.
         
         Solid shot was used against masses of troops or for battering.
         
         Canister was used against troops at close range, a 12 pdr had 27 
         cast iron shot in each canister, each about 1.5" diameter.
         
         As someone have pointed out the small arms fire was very dangerous 
         to the batteries advanced forward of their troops.  One gun in a 
         forward battery at the Bloody Angle in Spotsylvania, while fired 
         only 14 rounds before the gun and all the gunners disabled 
         had...27 balls passed through the lid of the limber chest while 
         number six was getting out ammunition. The sponge bucket on my gun 
         had 39 holes in it....
         
         In the civil war to serve in the artillery you had to be 
         dedicated.  By the way it is estimated that about 20% of 
         causalities were from artillery fire.

    Artillery fire could be deceptively dangerous.  As a ball became spent,
    it would slow down to the point that it might go bounding along like a
    baseball or soccer ball thrown underhand.  A ball like this carried
    tremendous kinetic energy, and many soldiers, thinking to stop one for
    a souvenir, found themselves minus a hand.  There is a sickening photo
    of a Federal infantryman's corpse lying in a field, disemboweled by a
    slowly bounding 12-pdr shot, in my book on CW firearms.
    
    -d

    Is this the same photo where part of the man's left arm is lying about
    three feet from the rest of his body, and his rib-cage is visible?  I'd
    always wondered what had happenned to him if it's the same man...
    
    Ziff

    RE: .7
    
    I think it may be.  He is lying with his head toward the right side of
    the picture, musket with bayonet propped across his body pointing to
    the left, with his canteen visible near the butt.
    
    -d

    Yep, that's the one.  Thanks for clearing up a many years old personal
    mystery for me.
    
    Ziff

>    Artillery fire could be deceptively dangerous.  As a ball became spent,
>    it would slow down to the point that it might go bounding along like a
>    baseball or soccer ball thrown underhand.  A ball like this carried
>    tremendous kinetic energy, and many soldiers, thinking to stop one for
>    a souvenir, found themselves minus a hand.  There is a sickening photo
>    of a Federal infantryman's corpse lying in a field, disemboweled by a
>    slowly bounding 12-pdr shot, in my book on CW firearms.

I don't doubt the factuality at all, but can you define "slowly bounding" 
for me?  Is it "slow" compared to the initial muzzle velocity or just 
casually rolling along like they'd actually thrown it underhanded?  
I can see where a shot still moving 50 MPH (or 73.33 FPS if I did the calc 
right) would do some damage, but "slowly bounding" conjures images of a 
shot rolling on the ground much slower.  While sticking a hand in front of 
it may not stop it, but I can't see where the shot would take the hand off 
either.

Scott 

    "Slowly bounding" is indeed what is meant.  A pitched baseball (major
    leagues) travels something between 80 and 100 MPH.  I can easily throw a
    baseball 50 MPH underhand, and it will bound lazily along.  The cannon
    ball won't slow down as quickly because of its greater inertia, but it,
    too, will bound lazily along.  A car going 50 MPH looks moderately fast,
    because we don't expect it to go a lot faster; a cannon ball moving at
    the same speed is *slow*.
    
    I just ran the calculation through, and a 12-pdr ball moving 50 MPH is
    carrying some 10,080 foot-pounds of kinetic energy.  That is about 3/4
    as much as the 13,303 ft-lb a .58-cal. bullet has when it leaves the
    rifle's muzzle.  It's *plenty* to take off a man's hand.
    
    -d
    

    re .11
    
    Perhaps this belongs in the rathole, but the energies you give
    are about an order of magnitude too high.
    
    A 12# ball traveling at 50mph has a kinetic energh of about 1000
    ft-lb.  The muzzle energy of a .58 cal bullet from a CW era
    rifle is about 1400 ft-lb (I don't know its muzzle velocity and
    mass exactly).
    
    1400 ft-lb concentrated in a piece of lead as small as a bullet
    is indeed deadly; 2/3 of that energy in a much larger piece of
    metal would do much less than 2/3 of the damage to a human body,
    for the energy is not concentrated in such a small area.
    
    Perhaps the soldiers who lost fingers and hands were injured by
    projectiles weighing considerably more than 12#, or traveling
    quite a bit faster than 50 MPH.  At any rate, I wouldn't get
    in front of one to see how much energy was safe!
    
       Jay

    Sorry, I calculated in newtons and converted, using an obviously
    incorrect conversion factor.  Back to Physics 101 -- what's the correct
    formula, please??
    
    But the ratio of energies is roughly comparable.  (A 12-pdr ball
    actually weighs about 12.3 pounds.  A .58 cal. bullet weighs 505
    grains.)  A 12-pdr at 50 MPH is plenty mean.
    
    -d

    Kinetic energy:
    
        0.5 x MASS x (VELOCITY) x (VELOCITY)
    
    If you want the energy to come out in foot-pounds, velocity
    has to be in feet per second, and mass has to be in slugs.
    Mass in slugs is obtained by dividing the weight in pounds
    by g, or 32.174: a mass of one slug weighs 32.174 pounds on
    earth.  (Of course, to first get weight in pounds,
    if you have grains, you have to divide by 7000).
    
    Metric units are easier here: velocity in meters per second
    and mass in kilograms gives you kinetic energy in joules.
    (Perhaps you used newtons for mass?  You can't do that:
    newtons are weight, not mass.  That would explain numbers
    being high by almost a factor of ten, since a kilogram weighs
    9.8 newtons.)
    
    Now, back to the war.
    
       Jay
    

Re: .14

Thanks.  The mass/weight thing threw me...a kilogram of mass just neatly
happens to weigh a kilogram, and pounds/slugs is different.

A 12-pdr ball moving 50 MPH has 1028 ft-lb of energy.  A .58 cal.
bullet at 1100 fps has an energy of 1357 ft-lb.

I would not want to try stopping a 12-pdr at that speed...

-d

    Last night I read an excerpt of the memoirs of a surgeon who
    accompanied the AoP on the Penninsular Campaign.  This is paraphrased,
    so if anyone wants exact quotes let me know and I'll put 'em in.
    He chose to remain behind with the wounded during one of the Seven
    Days Battles and was captured with them.  While between the lines,
    his group was caught in the middle of an artillery duel.  Some of the
    confederate balls fell short and rolled more or less slowly along the 
    ground.  Some of his men went out to get a few souvenirs.  One of them
    stuck out a leg as one would to stop a foot-ball.  In the doctor's
    words, he went down; without a leg and in all likelihood without a
    life.  If a leg will come off, I don't doubt that a hand would.
    
    Ziff

Reprinted without permission:

	The artillery of the Civil War was, like the small arms, a remarkable
mixture of types and styles for the same reason; the science of artillery was
just at the point where new techniques of manufacture and new theories of
construction were jostling one another in the world's armies and market
places.
	The Crimean War in Europe had revealed the shortcomings of the
traditional muzzle-loading artillery piece of cast bronze or cast iron. Soldiers
had long ago learned to live with them, but the Crimean War had introduced the
'war correspondent' and, lacking any stirring battles to write about, they 
had written about the difficulties facing armies, mentioning the problems of
heaving massive artillery about in foul weather conditions.
	Numerous manufacturers had taken note of this and had attempted to
bring artillery into the age of the Industrial Revolution; few armies had,
as yet, made the plunge and moved from their old weapons to the newer designs,
but the new designs were being tested and, meanwhile, they were being offered
to anyone willing to try them out. As a result, both sides in the Civil War
found themselves acting as semi-official testbeds for various artillery
theories.
	
	Even so, the majority of the artillery engaged was of the traditional
type. At the outbreak of the war the standard field artillery battery would
consist of four guns and two howitzers; a nominally 12-pounder battery would
have two 24-pounder howitzers, while a nominally 6-pounder battery would have
two 12-pounder howitzers.
	These weapons were smoothbores, dating from the 1840's, and usually
of bronze. The 6-pounder had a caliber of 3.67 inches and was five feet long.
On the usual type of wooden two-wheeled carriage it weighed about 1750 pounds
and fired a six pound ball to about 1500 yards range. The accompanying 12-
pounder howitzer was 4.62 inch caliber, shorter, weighed about 1700 lbs in
action and fired a nine-pound shell to just over 1000 yards range.
	The 12-pounder gun was the same caliber as the howitzer but was 
6 feet 6 inches long, weighed 2900 pounds in action and fired a 12-pound ball
to about 1700 yards, while the 24-pounder howitzer was 5.8 inch caliber,
weighed 2500 pounds and fired an 18 pound shell to some 1400 yards.

	Broadly speaking, the difference between the gun and howitzer is that
the gun fires on a flat trajectory while the howitzer fires up in the air so
as to drop its projectile behind protecting walls or cover; moreover the 
howitzer normally has an adjustable propelling charge so that various trajectory
options can be selected to suit the particular target. In the days of the Civil
War, however, the distinction was rather a fine one, since neither guns nor
howitzers had carriages which admitted of very much elevation. Where high
trajectory fire was demanded, the 'mortar' was the chosen instrument; the
principle feature of the howitzer was that it fired with a lower charge and
propelled an explosive shell instead of a solid ball.

	Other ammunition options available at this time were 'spherical case
shot' better known by the name of its inventor Henry Shrapnel, canister shot
and grape shot. All were anti-personnel weapons and the availability of three
types was to allow a selection to be made according to the range. When enemy
troops appeared at long range, spherical case was used; this was a round ball
containing a very small charge of black powder and a filling of musket balls,
operated by a burning time fuze. As the shell approached the target, the fuze
ignited the black powder which split open the shell and released the musket
balls, which flew onward with the forward velocity of the shell, so giving the
effect of musket fire at ranges which no musket could achieve.

	As the range shortened, canister shot would be brought into play; this
took its name from its appearance, a thin-walled metal canister filled with
musket balls but with no explosive or fuze. Fired from a smoothbore gun, the
canister would disrupt in the bore, due to the pressure of the propelling
charge, and was ejected from the muzzle in the manner of a shotgun charge. This
was effective at ranges from 100 to 400 yards.
	When the enemy were at the gun's muzzle, grape-shot was used; this took
it name from being a cloth bundle containing large lead shot, lashed around with
cord, giving the appearance of a bunch of grapes. It, too, exited the gun like
a shot charge but, with no canister to constrain it, spread immediately from 
the muzzle. Also, since the balls were heavier they had less range, and grape
was useful up to about 200 yards from the gun. In an emergency, of course,
grape could be extemporized by ramming a powder cartridge into the gun, 
following it by a wad, and then shoveling down any scrap iron which could be
found - horse shoe nails, pieces of chain, even small rocks. The erratic flight
of such a load made it, if anything, more dangerous than the regular grape shot.

	Two technical innovations faced artillery in the 1860's; rifling and
breech-loading. To the most forward-looking artillerymen their utility was not
in doubt, but the engineering aspects presented problems. There was, of course,
a hard core of reactionary soldiers who would have nothing to do with either
idea, but this was common in all countries and was perhaps best exemplified by
the Prussian general who, on his death-bed, asked that the volley over his
grave be fired by smoothbores and not by rifles. As younger officers assumed
command during the Civil War, so the prospect of improved artillery was grasped
and newer weapons began to appear.

	In spite of all these technically advanced weapons, though, the brunt
of the artillery's war was taken by the smoothbore's, and principally the 
12-pounder 'Napoleon' Model of 1857. The Napoleon probably represents the
zenith of the smoothbore, even though in appearance it was little changed from
what had gone before. Its improved performance lay in more careful manufacture,
more accuracy of the bore and the ammunition, screw elevating gear for more
precision and a robust carriage to give it stability when firing. Officially
classed as a 'gun-howitzer', the Napoleon was lighter than previous 12-pounder
guns by over 500 pounds, due to using a shorter, lighter barrel devoid of
ornament, yet it fired the same cartridge and shot the same range as the earlier
guns. It could also fire shell - hence the 'howitzer' part of its title - and
it emerged from the war with an extremely high reputation.

	While breech-loading was attractive, it must be admitted that in the
1860's the mechanical problems of sealing the breech were still not adequately
solved, and as a result the guns were not universally popular. On the other
hand the advantages of rifling were appreciated, and therefore the idea of 
putting rifling into muzzle-loaders was widely adopted. This involved either
rifling the existing smooth bore or boring the barrel out and inserting a new
rifled liner; in practice the latter course proved best, producing a gun which
was actually stronger than the original, which led to a interesting variety of
weapons.

					Article written by John S. Bowman


					The Alabama Slammer  

    Thank you for putting that in. It is a very educational writing.
    Many of the books which I have read gave little attention to some
    of the technical aspects of the artillery used and only used terms
    which I am not familure with.
    Jeff Filer

    
    	No problem, I've got some info from the same writer on siege
    artillery if ya'll is interested?
    
    						The Alabama Slammer

    Sure, love to read more! These BIG guns get into more pictures but
    seem to get VERY little in the text. Thanks in advance.
    Jeff Filer

    A fellow named Ripley wrote a book on ARtillery and Ammunition of the
    Civil War.  Ripley says that grape shot was almost univresally
    abandoned after the first few months of the war.  While it was
    relatively effective against cavalry because the big shot could knock a
    horse down, it was found that the smaller number of shot and shorter
    range made it a second choice to cannister.
    
    A 12# gun (the Napoleon) fired a cannsiter round containing 27 iron
    balls, 1 1/2" in diameter.  It could be double shotted at close range.
    
    A 12# field howitzer fired a cannister round containing 48 iron balls,
    1" in diameter.  The howitzer's shorter barrel and lighter construction
    made it less practical for shooting solid shot.  Howitzers were used
    alsmost exclusively for shell, shrapnel, and cannister.
    
    A 12# mountain howitzer fired a cannister round containing 148 lead
    musket balls, .69" caliber.  The mountain howitzer was so light it was
    not used to throw even shell or shrapnel much over 500-600 yards.
    
    I've never seen grape shot prepared as the essay entered by Ken
    described.  The only grape I've ever seen was clamped together by to
    iron plates and a long bolt.  Hence the expression, "A stand of grape."
    I've seen the top and bottom plates in museums.
    
    Most muzzleloading artillery ammunition was issued "fixed."  That is,
    the powder was in a cloth bag and attached to the projectile by bands
    of leather or thin metal.  I don't know just when the practice started,
    but most projectiles were issued with a wooden sabot, or shoe, that was
    loaded between the projectile and the powder.  In the case of
    cannister, especially, this improved performance by reducing in-bore
    bursting.  In the case of shell, this improved performance by reducing
    the exploding of guns and resultant slaughter of their crew!
    
    ARtillerists work  harder than any troops on the field.  IN battle,
    they are prime candidates for the enemy artillery, and suffer high
    casualties.  Batteries are also prime targets for infantry attacks. I
    love to watch the guns work, but man, I wouldn't be an artilleryman for
    anything!
    
    
    Wess

    
    
    

Reprinted without permission:


	The heavier types of ordnance which accompanied the field army
were classed as Siege or Garrison artillery, depending upon whether their
role was offensive or defensive. Most of the siege train weapons were
elderly smoothbores which were still quite adequate for a leisurely
approach to the beseiged place followed by an equally leisurely and
sustained battering of the defences until something gave way.

	The principle factor in choosing the size of siege guns was
the difficulty of getting them to the scene of the action by a team of
horses. The 24-pounder smoothbore was at the near-maximum weight, just
over five tons and demanding a ten-horse team to shift it on a good
surface. The 5700 pound barrel was carried on the usual type of
wooden two-wheeled carriage, but for traveling the barrel was lifted
back on to the trail and the trail itself was supported on a two-wheeled
limber, so distributing the weight more equally between the four wheels
of the assembly.

	Numbers of these and other calibers of smoothbore were rifled,
in an endeavor to improve their accuracy, anf their worth was conclusively
proved during the bombardment of Fort Pulaski in 1862 when the fire of
rifled guns breached the southeast salient with comparative ease; the marks
are still to be seen. 

	But rifling these elderly guns frequently led to their destruction
upon firing and in order to strengthen them numbers were 'hooped' or
reinforced by having wrought iron bands shrunk over the chamber area, the
point of greatest strain. As an expedient this was passable, but it did
not entirely guarantee a long life to either the gun or its crew, and new
designs were brought forward in which improved mechanical principles were
adopted. The Blakely gun used a succession of hoops shrunk one upon the 
other to reinforce the basic barrel, while the Parrot rifled gun used a
thickened area around the chamber to provide extra strength.

	The most scientific, and successful, approach was by Major Rodman,
who devised a method of casting guns by using a hollow central core 
through which cold water was passed while the metal cooled. this caused the
outer layers of metal to act in compression on the inner, so strengthening
the gun as it was being made. Rodman guns were subsequently built in
calibers up to 20 inches and proved to be adequately strong.

	The most pratical rifled siege gun proved to be the 30-pounder
Parrott, used by Union troops. This was of 4.2 inch caliber and fired a
29-pound projectile to 2200 yards with immense destructive power.

	Garrison artillery was almost entirely confined to use in 
seacoast defenses, and as with all such defenses the variety of weapons
in use was considerable. Early works used 32-pounder and 42-pounder
smoothbore guns for close-in defense, later supplemented by 8-10- and
15-inch smoothbores designed to hold an attacking fleet at arms' length.

	With the adoption of rifled guns, a number of Parrott and Blakely
designs were taken into coast artillery service, the largest of these 
being a 12.75 inch Blakely, the barrel of which weighed 27 tons. A few 
Armstrong breech-loaders were also put to use in this area, but experience
showed that they were not well suited to coast defense fire against ships
since their breech sealing was not sufficiently strong to stand the heavy
charges needed to propel shot capable of penetrating ships. They were 
largely relegated to local defense tasks or protecting possible landing
places by firing shrapnel or canister shot at short range.

	The last group of artillery to see regular use were the mortars,
short-barreled, high-angle pieces capable of overcoming defensive walls
and protective obstacles. These always fired at 45% elevation, their 
range being varied by adjusting the charge of powder behind the shell.
Mortars of 8 inch and 10 inch caliber were used by the field armies since
they were light enough to be transported; mortars fired not from a 
carriage but from a 'bed', a simple frame of wood or iron set down upon
layers fo timbers, so that they had to carried in carts or on specially
strengthened wagons. Smaller, and extremely useful in trench warfare, was
the 5.8 inch 'Coehorn' mortar, named for the famed Dutch fortress engineer
who had designed it in the 17 century. This could be quickly emplaced by
a group of men and fired a useful 17 pound bomb to about 1200 yards with
good accuracy.

	Heavy mortars of 10 inch and 13 inch caliber were used as seacoast
defense weapons. The 13 inch fired a 220 pound bomb which could create
immense damage to the upperworks and decks of a warship, but the time of
flight of the bomb meant that the target could move a considerable distance
between the firing of the mortar and the arrival of the bomb; moreover,
fire control systems of the time were relatively primitive, and so the
seacoast mortar was only of use against a ship which had anchored in order
to bombard the land.

	Finally we should not overlook the 'lunatic fringe' of gun 
designers who appear in every war with improbable ideas. There was, for
example, the steam gun designed by Ross Winans, a well-known locomotive
builder; at least one of these was built and went to the front, only to
be captured by General Ben Butler. It relied upon a boiler to generate
high pressure steam which was then tapped to propel a shot on its way.
As might be imagined, the whole device was cumbersome and prone to
mechanical disorders and was never used again.

	An inventor called Pate devised a 'revolving cannon' and had
two built in Petersburg, Virginia; his design was simply that of the hand
revolver translated into artillery caliber, with the cylinder revolved
by hand and firmly wedged to the barrel for each shot. The first gun
exploded during its initial testing, killing three men; what happened
to the other is in some doubt, but it survived to rest outside a
Petersburg museum to this day.

	Who invented the double cannon is not known, but, again, one
survives in an museum to entertain us. The object in view was to discharge
both barrels simultaneously, each having been loaded with a cannon ball.
The two balls were linked by a long piece of chain, and the theory was that
the two balls would travel at the same speed, side by side, carrying the
chain stretched between them so as to scythe down anyone in their way.
	Unfortunately, no matter how carefully the thing is arranged, it
is virtually impossible to make two guns fire identically; when the double
gun was fired the two shot inevitably were unbalanced, whirled off to one
side, broke the chain, and then set forth on their own unpredictable
courses.

				Article written by John S.Bowman

						The Alabama Slammer

	

Reprinted without permission:

	An alternative to artillery which had been explored in the past
was the war rocket, and a few specimens of these managed to appear during
the Civil War.

	The British Army had adopted Congreve's Rocket in 1805 and had
used it with some success for many years, among the successes being the
bombardment of Washington during the War of 1812. Numbers of Congreve's
rockets were bought by the Confederate Army and used on one or more
occassions, but their performance tended to be erratic, particularly if
the rocket struck the ground, or an obstacle, while still burning; it
would then ricochet off some totally new course, or even, on occassion,
turn around and head back the way it had come.

	In appearance, Congreve's Rocket resembled the ordinary fireworks
rocket used for entertainment, a cylindrical casing mounted on a long
stabilizing stick. The body of the rocket contained a two-stage blackpowder
propelling charge, and the head carried a hollow shell filled with
shrapnel or with some inflammable mixture, and when the rocket performed
properly its effect was enormous. But since it performed properly only
a percentage of the time, its use was eventually abandoned as being to
speculative.

	The Union Army adopted Hale's War Rocket, an American design which
used three canted vents in the rear of the rocket to spin it and so
stabilize its flight, instead of relying upon the drag stabilization by
means of a stick as had the Congreve rocket.
	Although Hale's design showed theoretical advantages, it fell
down because of manufacturing defects, notably a tendency for the
propulsive filling of black powder to crack in storage or transport and
then flash through and explode instead of burning steadily. As a result
it saw little use during the war.

	Finally we should mention hand grenades; these, in the middle 19th
century, were usually small iron balls filled with black powder and ignited
by a length of burning fuze, and they were offically issued to be thrown
into the ditch outside a fort to deter assaulting parties. The invention
of the percussion cap made ignition somewhat easier (though very little
safer) and the Civil War brought several primitive hand grenades into use,
most of them locally manufactured to meet an urgent need.
	One of the 'approved' designs was Ketcham's grenade, an oval
powder-filled head with an finned tail which ensured that it flew straight
and landed upon its fuse. This fuse consisted simply of a protruding
plunger which, on striking the ground, was driven on to a percussion cap
which then fired the black powder.

	The Union Army alone bought nearly 100,000 of these, and copies
were adopted by the Confederate forces.

				Article written by John S.Bowman


					The Alabama Slammer

    re: 22
    
    
    	There is another surviving "double" in front of the Athens,GA
    City Hall.  A marker stated that, when it was tested, the gun
    failed to fire in sync and the chain decapitated the crew.  The
    weapon never saw battle.
    
     2
    R  

    Ken, thanks for entering these essays.  For overview-type pieces, they
    are very effective.  I've been to Ft. Pulaski, and the effects of those
    rifles is, indeed, still visible and very thought-provoking.  The shore
    batteries were across the inlet from the fort, and out of range of
    Pulaski's smoothbores.  The officer who decided to try the rifles on
    the fort had no idea what effect they might have; he was just puttering
    around.
    
    Rifles were also more economical of powder.  The projectile fits
    tightly into the rifling, so that 100% of the propellant gasses are
    used.  In a smoothbore, there is, of necessity, more windage between
    the projectile and the bore.  This windage allows blow-by of the
    gasses, and a lot of power is simply released in smoke and fire.
    
    An interesting anecdote:  At Knoxville, Alexander rigged wooden
    platforms that elevated his howitzers enough to use them as mortars.
    The platforms were constructed by his crews, and only through herculean
    labor.  Longstreet changed his plans, though, and the platforms had to
    be moved clear around the town.  Just as the batteries were getting
    ready in their new locations, Longstreet changed his mind again, and
    the attack was made at the original point, but without artillery
    support.  The effect was a crushing defeat of the attacking columns.
    
    Good 1st person artillery books include Alexander's memoir, "Fighting
    for the Confederacy," Hunt's memoir on artillery in the Army of the
    Potomac (the title eludes me at the moment) and Augustus Buell's, "The
    Gunner," another Federal account.  It seems to me there is also one
    called, "A Gunner with Stonewall," or something like that.
    
    A technical nit on the essays Ken entered:  The phrase, "Parrott gun"
    is a contradiction in terms.  A gun is, by definition, a smoothbore.  A
    Parrott rifle is rifled.  The Napoleon was a gun, or "gun-howitzer."
    Rodman made both guns and rifles.  Blakely made rifles.
    
    
    Wess

    RE .25:
    
    As a nit on a nit, the terminology might depend on "when" you are.
    
    In _modern_ parlance, where smoothbores have disappeared, the
    distinction between "gun" and "howitzer" is one of trajectory; a
    "rifle" is a small arm, not artillery.
    
    So we may have a case of an author using modern categories instead of
    period technical language, which leads to talking about "rifled guns"
    and "smoothbore guns", etc.
    
    MikeR
    

	re: .25  Augustus Buell's book is called "The Cannoneer," not "The
    		Gunner."  Sorry.
    
        re: .26


    I have seen plenty of period references to Parrot rifles, and Brooke
    rifles.  I've also seen ordnance returns that refer to ammunition for
    12 pounder guns and, under a distinct category, ammunition for 10 and
    20 pound rifles.  The Whitworths were called rifles.  The Monitor
    mounted 11" naval rifles.
    
    Certainly the distinction has been blurred over the years, and the
    whole matter is a true "nit."
    
    In muzzleloading parlance, a howitzer was a smoothbore (like a gun)
    that had a reduced-diameter breech.  This reduced diameter allowed the
    piece to be fired with considerably less powder than a gun.  The
    smaller charge required a higher trajectory, and howitzers could not
    generate enough velocity to be effective with solid shot.  They were
    quite effective with shell and shrapnell, and absolutely murderous with
    cannister.
    
    All of this about reduced-diameter breeches is from Ripley's book.
    
    
    Wess
                                       

In the Winter 1992 issue of _American_Heritage_of_Invention_
and_Technology_ is an article (written by Edward R. Crews)
on the Tredegar Iron works of Richmond and the man who ran
the company: Joseph R. Anderson.

One of the products of this factory was the first railroad
gun used in combat.  Quoting from that article:

    "The railroads offered immediate possibilities.  Both
    sides relied on trains to move armies, supplies, and
    equipment, and eventually somebody was sure to see that
    a large rail-mounted cannon could have a devastating
    effect.  Robert E. Lee was the man, and Tredegar made
    his vision a reality, developing the first rail gun
    used in combat.

    "Lee suggested creating such a weapon in June 1862, only
    days after taking command of the Army of Northern Virginia.
    He knew that the gun could help him defend Richmond
    against a drive by Gen. George McClellan's Army of the
    Potomac.  On June 5 Lee wrote his chief engineer to
    speculate about the enemy's ordnance: 'It has occurred
    to me that he is constructing a railroad battery, probably
    plated with iron, to push along the road and sweep the
    country.... Can you not ... erect a battery to oppose him?
    If we could construct a railroad battery, though, plated
    and protected with a heavy gun, it would probably be
    preferable to a fixed gun.  What do you think of its
    practicability?'  Lee also wrote on the same day and the
    same subject to Colonel Gorgas and Capt. George Minor, the
    naval chief of ordnance and hydrography.

    "The navy, Lee knew, had had experience with both large
    guns and armored, plated warships.  Minor passed Lee's
    request to Lt. John Mercer Brooke, who had distinguished
    himself in the U.S. Navy as an inventor and sailor and had
    become a jack-of-all-trades for the South's navy, designing
    warships and cannon, inspecting fortifications, testing
    weapons, and even creating the official button for the
    Confederate naval uniform.  Brooke worked extensively with
    Tredegar during the war and spent hours in company shops
    talking to and soliciting advice from officers and workers
    alike.  He and Anderson came to know and admire each other.
    'I always found the directors and employees of the Tredegar
    Works apparently anxious to obtain the best results; they
    impart such information as can only be obtained from the
    practical mechanic,' Brooke wrote.  'I have not hesitated to
    avail myself of their experience.'

    "Brooke's rail gun had a sloping roof and sides and looked
    much like an ironclad on wheels.  Tredegar build the
    contraption with two-inch iron plate meant for the ironclad
    _CSS_Richmond_.  The gun itself, a rifled thirty-two-pounder,
    also came from Tredegar.  The project was completed by June
    22.  Two days later Minor reported to Lee that the rail gun
    had been supplied with two hundred rounds, some of them
    armor piercing, presumably for use against a similar Union
    weapon.

    "The gun went into action outside Richmond on June 29 during
    the battle of Savage's Station, just a few miles from where it
    was built.  Gen. John Bankhead Magruder used it to clear
    Union troops from alongside the railway and noted the gun's
    'terrible effect' in a report that praised both the weapon
    and its commander, James E. Barry, for their performance
    under intense Federal fire.  Confederate and Union generals
    went on to use similar weapons for the remainder of the
    war, and rail guns eventually saw service in both world
    wars.  Perhaps the most famous was the Paris gun, designed
    by Krupp to fire a round seventy-five miles."

[Subscriptions to this interesting publication, which has articles
on all aspects of the history of industry and technology in the U.S.,
are available by calling 1-800-627-4022.]

   Jay

re .25
>    are very effective.  I've been to Ft. Pulaski, and the effects of those
>    rifles is, indeed, still visible and very thought-provoking.  The shore
>    batteries were across the inlet from the fort, and out of range of
>    Pulaski's smoothbores.  The officer who decided to try the rifles on
>    the fort had no idea what effect they might have; he was just puttering
>    around.

	I have also been to Ft. Pulaski [aside - there is also a monument on
	the island to mark where Charles Wesley landed, and family tradition
	is that our first ancestor to land in the U.S. was on the same ship],
	and I don't entirely agree with the above. The officer in charge was
	Capt. Quincy Adams Gillmore, and his report of the operation of 
	setting up the batteries was published in pamphlet form by van 
	Nostrand in 1862 (which I have read). While he may not have predicted 
	the exact effect of his fire, obviously he felt it would succeed 
	or he wouldn't have gone to the trouble of constructing the batteries.

	Robert E. Lee himself had worked on the fort construction as a
	young Engineer and thought it impervious to artillery fire, and
	the U.S. Chief of Engineers had called it as solid as the Rocky
	Mountains, yet it surrendered after only 30 hours of bombardment
	when shells breached the main wall and began landing near the
	magazine. Gillmore received an immediate promotion to Brigadier
	General.

	But artillery was not a miracle weapon, as shown by Gillmore's
	campaign against Fort Sumter. He was able to turn the fort's
	walls into piles of bricks, but once the defenders dug into the
	rubble they were safe from cannon fire. The Union forces did not
	try an amphibious attack which was the only way to dislodge them.
	Since all of the fort's guns had been dismounted, the fort had
	very little military value left, however. Gillmore also used a
	giant cannon to fire a few rounds at Charleston until it burst.
     

    
    
    	Will one of you kind fellows please educate me as to some
    of the many terms used to describe how a gun is placed either
    in the field or a fort.  It would help me visualize some of the
    discussions.
    
    For example:  Breastworks?  Ramparts?  Battery?  Do they refer
    to an arrangement, a numerical grouping, or a structure that
    supports them?  I imagine some of the terms can be used
    interchangeably?
    
     2
    R

    RE .30:
    
    I'll take a stab at one term.
    
    "Battery" in artillery-related talk has a couple of meanings.  (Neither
    of them has to do with the electrical use of the term, except that
    early electrical batteries were made of "batterys" of cells.  :^} )
    
    The most common use of the term is to refer to a group of guns, or to
    the organization of men and equipment which uses the group of guns.  In
    the ACW, a battery of field artillery was supposed to have six guns
    (three sections of two guns each); in practice, many had fewer.  The
    artillery battery corresponded to the infantry company and the cavalry
    troop: all were the "basic building block" for larger organizations,
    and were nominally commanded by a captain.
    
    The use of one word to cover both cannon and an organization could lead
    to sentences like "Battery C, 69th Rhode Island Artillery, had a
    battery of two Napoleons, one Whitworth rifle, one 10-pounder Parrott,
    and a howitzer."  (Which is totally ridiculous, BTW! :^} )
    
    A further confusing offshoot of this use of the word is to use
    "battery" to mean a fortification built primarily for a group (battery)
    of guns.  In "Glory", the 54th Mass. Infantry attacked Battery Wagner,
    a Confederate fortification whose guns were protecting Charleston
    harbor.  The difference between a "fort" and a "battery" could get a
    little fuzzy, so don't worry too hard about it for now.  (A "fort" was
    _usually_ built of more permanent materials, and was _usually_ larger,
    than a "battery".)
    
    The second use of the term "battery" relates to the firing position of
    a gun or guns.  A battery (organization) of field artillery would march
    to an open area, then wheel (turn) to bring their battery (guns) into
    battery (lining them up to fire).  In field artillery, "battery" in
    _this_ sense means an imaginary line on the ground that represents the
    firing position of the guns.  Once fired, the guns recoil, and must be
    brought back "into battery" (i.e. up to the firing point) before they
    are reloaded and fired again.
    
    Guns in fortifications also had a firing position, and were likewise
    "brought into battery" after recoil.
    
    Of course, in the navy, you use battery to refer to groups of guns,
    too.  "Main battery" in modern naval parlance means the biggest guns on
    the ship, as in "The U.S.S. Massachusetts has a main battery of nine
    16-inch guns."  In sailing-ship days, you had starboard and port (or
    larboard, just to confuse you  :^} ) batteries of guns, referring to
    the groups of guns that could fire to one side or the other.
    
    Does that make things better, or worse?
    
    MikeR
    

    
    Re:. 30
    
    	Mike covered it pretty well, but I'll try to put it into laymen's
    terms.. :^)
    
    	BATTERY: As Mike stated, it usually referred to a grouping of field
    artillery consisting of a standard group of four guns and two
    howitzers. At the outbreak of the war the standard field artillery
    battery would consist of four bronze 12-pound smoothbores (which fired a 
    12-pound ball, hence the name 12-pounder) or bronze 6-pounder smoothbores.
    If they were at all lucky, stolen or captured, they would have had four
    12-pounder "Napoleon's" which represents the "zenith" of the
    smoothbores. They were set on an wooden two-wheeled carriage and I
    believe the total weight averaged about 1750 pounds. Drawn by a team of
    horses and serviced by a company of either 6 or 8 men. Not including
    the Officer.
    	The howitzers were either 24 pounder or 12 pounder, smoothbores
    also. Broadly speaking, the difference between gun and howitzer is that
    the gun fires on a flat trajectory while the howitzer fires up into the
    air so as to drop its projectile behind protecting walls or cover. 
    	Hence the term "Battery C wheeling into line". The Battery would
    charge forward, disengage from the cassions, withdraw the team of
    horses and cassions (sp?) and thus begin firing.
    
    	BREASTWORKS: Were usually mounds of dirt, stones, thrown up in front of
    cannons. They would also include (if they had the time to dig in proper
    like) logs, timber, etc., for extra support. Usually if they had time
    to throw up "works" the battery was usually supported by infantry to
    make the job of over running a battery that much harder. But, out in
    the open field, they were pretty much easy picking's for the riflemen
    of the opposing force. Especially since they would have to turn their
    backs to the opposing force to reload. 
    	Hence the story of when Lee was invading Pennsylvania, a certain
    woman was standing on her porch with a Union flag draped across her,
    when one Confederate soldier spoke and said; "I'd be right careful
    about that there flag, Ma'am. We's right fond of charging breastworks".
    
    	RAMPARTS: Just a fancy word for either a Fort or Garrison. (a.k.a
    Fort Sumter, for example) They usually were fortified with either
    Blakely or Parrot rifled guns. The Parrott, I believe, was a
    30-pounder, 4.2 inch caliber and fired a 29-pound projectile about
    2200 yards with immense destructive power. While the Blakely was an
    12.75 inch, with the barrel weighing about 27 tons. Not something ya'll
    would like to drag around in a hurry...
    	Most garrison artillery was almost entirely confined to use in
    seacoast defenses and forts around Washington, D.C. :^) Early works
    used 32-pounder and 42-pounder smoothbores for close-in defense, I
    guess "Old Abe" wanted a good nights sleep??  :^) They were largely
    relegated to local defense tasks or protecting possible landing places
    by firing shrapnel or canister shot at short range.
    
    	Battery Wagner, that the 54th Mass. charged into glory too, was an
    earthern type garrison, not the variety of the more permanent stone
    forts. I believe it held a variety of both siege and smaller smoothbore
    cannons.
    
    	Enough rambling, I hoped I helped a little?  Anybody else have a
    different opinion or viewpoint?
    
    					The Alabama Slammer   
    
    	 

    
    	I was really way off on my idea of what breastworks were.  I
    was thinking of something more permanent, rather than "field"
    oriented.  I imagine it was what, as a defender, you built when
    you had the time...
    
    	Thanks for the explanation guys.  The closest my ancestors got
    to this conflict was in sheltering blockade runners.  In fact, I've
    even read of a famous one called "Habana", but that's another story...
    
    
     2
    r

    RE .32:
    
    Perhaps the excellent Sgt. Noah Little, being a field soldier, got a
    bit confused over certain terms more familiar to the garrison-type
    soldier...
    
    RAMPART - a portion of a fort; the term refers to the area at the top
    of the wall which is open to the sky.  A side-view sketch:
    
    	parapet ------>	|  rampart
    			|_________
    	wall of fort ->	|
    			|  covered area, called a casement
    
       			  <-- opening to shoot through, called
    			|       an embrasure
    	usually a ditch	|_________________________________________
    ___	 or moat here  /
       \______________/
    
    
    Guns could be mounted either in the casements, or up on the ramparts.
    On the ramparts, they were obviously more vulnerable to enemy fire, but
    the crew didn't tend to suffocate from powder smoke, either.  Not all
    forts had casements - the "rampart" might have been just a narrow
    platform for infantry to stand on, like in the Old West movies of
    wooden forts.
    
    
    Yep, breastworks were field (temporary) fortifications.  _Technically_,
    a barrier built above ground level to hide behind was a breastwork,
    while if you dug a hole to stand in, you were in a trench (or
    "entrenched").  If trenches were dug, the dirt had to go somewhere, so
    it was usually piled out front to make a breastwork.  "Breastwork" was
    the term because they were originally built to the height of a
    soldier's breast, the right height for shooting over standing up.
    
    Cannon could also be placed, in the field, in what was called a "gun
    pit".  As the name suggests, it was a shallow hole with earth, stones,
    etc. piled around the edges to make the gun and crew a harder target to
    hit.
    
    In .32, Slammer uses the term "company" to refer to the six or eight
    man crew of a gun - a slight misnomer.  Each gun had a crew; two or
    more guns and crews made up a section, and two or three sections made
    up a battery (the equivalent of an infantry company, though I believe a
    full-strength battery of six guns was 120 men, rather than the 100 men
    of an infantry company or a cavalry troop).
    
    ...and _another_ thing!  :^)  A field gun was made up of a metal
    barrel, the two-wheeled wooden carriage it sat on, and the wooden
    "trail" sticking out the back - this trail and the two wheels formed
    the tripod the gun sat on, and it dug itself into the ground a bit when
    the gun was fired to help absorb the recoil.  (Field guns would jump
    back several feet when fired.)  For movement, the trail was lifted and
    hooked to the rear of a two-wheeled cart called a "limber", which was
    pulled by eight(?) horses.  Or mules.  A "caisson" was a separate
    horse-drawn vehicle which carried the ammunition (or most of it - a
    small amount was kept in the limber for quick access).
    
    	Soooo..., when artillery marched (drove, actually) into their
    firing position, the guns and limbers would wheel from a line ahead
    into a line abreast and stop.  The guns would be "unlimbered"
    (unhitched) and the limbers moved a bit to the rear.  Caissons would be
    parked still further back from the line of guns.
    
    	Catton records that a well-trained artillery battery could gallop
    into position, unlimber, disassemble the guns until all the parts of
    gun and carriage were separate on the ground, and then put everything
    back together and go galloping away in several seconds less than one
    minute.
    
    MikeR
    

    
    	My compliments to Sah Raskob for correcting this here ole'
    southern boy on the error of his ways.. :^)
    	I agree, I do know more about the 'wheelin', 'by the files
    right',etc. than I do about the arty.
    	I always seem to be on the business end of the cannon, rather than
    the fun end.. :^0
    	Yes, you're right, it's a crew not a company, but what do ya'll
    expect from a grisly old sargeant? I've been marching to long and get
    confused with third shift foggies!!
    	But, that's what this here notesfile is all about. I would rather
    learn correctly, than incorrectly.....
    	I sincerely hope that I did not confess anybody with my
    mis-information.
    
    	Sah Raskob, my second will be contacting you soon.....
    I do believe since I'm the insulted party, I have choice of weapons?
    :^)
    		How about Howitzers at 1000 yards?
    
    						The Alabama Slammer

Can anyone explain the firing mechanism of CW era artillery?

I saw a video tape blurb at the Gettysburg vistor's center when we were
there last weekend... basically, I got that there is a primer cord with some
mysterious friction gadget inserted into the powder bag. The gunner yanks a
string, the friction gadget does something, the primer ignites, the cannon
goes boom...

    RE .36:
    
    	Actually, you've basically got it.  There were two main methods
    used.  The "simple" method did not use a lanyard (string) - the gun is
    loaded (powder charge, shot, and wad), a sharp object is used through
    the touchhole to pierce the powder bag, loose powder is placed in the
    touchhole (priming charge), and the gunner uses a _long_ stick with a
    burning piece of rope on the end (slow match) to ignite the primer
    which ignites the main charge.
    
    	Slow match is a problem in the rain, and nobody likes to have fire
    around black powder if they can help it, so the lanyard and friction
    gadget replaces the slow match.  The friction gadget produces a spark,
    which sets off the primer, which sets off the main charge.  In both
    methods, the gunner must stand OUTSIDE the wheel of the gun, since they
    jumped backwards several feet from the recoil.  (So they use a _long_
    string, too!)
    
    	If you want to know more detail, I can look up a reference for you.
    
    MikeR