Arty education West Point

[milhistbuff1]

In another thread, the point was made that the Civil war era artillery under sherman's command could not precision fire the Artillery. Was it a lack of knowledge in the trigonometric field, or was it to do with the guns/ammunition itself being accurate or defective themselves being inaccurate? Additionally, were there any major changes in the artillery education recieved at the point between the 1840's and 1861?

Matt

[johan_steele]

In the hands of a proficient or expert a 3" Ordinance Rifle could consistantly put a round through a doorway at 1300 yards. There was no real experiance w/ indirect precision fire. The use of rifled cannon dramatically increased accuracy. Mathmatics was a primary coarse at the Point and was a very difficult field. Geometry & Trig were used quite heavily. For a student to grad out of the POint he had to have a working knowledge of mathmatics and this certainly helped w/ Arty work. But accuracy & skill came from practical experiance. From my own reading I have no doubt that the Western Armies had the more experianced and skilled artilleryman.

[milhistbuff1]

Shane,
First, let me thank you for your swift reply. I was thinking of the ANV at Gettysburg since they tended overshoot, due to the new longer fuses, correct? I know indirect fire was used extensively in WWI. Any indication of why the surveying and mapping for geometric and trigonometric coordinates for indirect wasn't used especially in light of the equipment problems? I dont know enough about the western front to comment at this time.
Respectfully,
Matt

[johan_steele]

I'm not sure how much of the problem was w/ too long of fuses but I know there were real issues, for both sides, w/ bad fuses. Upton mentions being forced to use the shells in one cassions as round shot as all the fuses were useless.

I think communication was a big issue as there was no provision for effective arty spotters and that forced almost all arty to be strictly line of sight. Mortors were used rather lightly but were devestating when used.

THere were no recoild absorbers of any kind on CW arty, so each gun had to be completely re laid to hit the same target and this was done either completely by eye or w/ a pendelum sight.

I'm an Infantry man by trade and preference and frankly my knowledge is less than perfect... I remember reading going to a presentation on Arty through the Ages by a Professional British Historian. IIRC he put the beginning of modern arty all the way back in the French & Indian Wars, but Arty as we know it didn't really come to be until the development of effective recoil compensation ie the barrel moving instead of the entire carriage.

As a note on the efectiveness of CW arty... quite a few 3" Ordinance Rifles were converted to Breach Loaders, given a different carriage and were still being used in WW2.

[Stoneyreb]

Johan brought about some good points on the Artiliery. Don't forget the guys who start out on the guns are not always the ones who end on the gun. Meaning you may end up with guys on a gun who have little time or none at all aiming firing or even loading the gun. Even though especially the Confederates over shot a lot they actaully forced the officers sitting in the back to move offten for the shells would come in each time they moved. Also with the guns wear can effect the gun along with the shell you are using. A great point was also brought up remember you can not see where your shot is going with out a spotter the ****her out you go.

[ole]

The most telling point is Shane's: the gun moves and the gunner (not likely West Point trained or even trained by a West Pointer) has to relevel it and resight it. The sights were fairly effective in sending a projectile in a given direction; the problem is the distance it travels and where it impacts.

When firing at a visible, fairly flat area, there was room for error -- you could fire short and bounce a ball through a target area with the same effect as if you'd hit a target area directly. Bursting a shell over the heads of a target gave some leeway given the size of the area affected by the blast. But the Confederate artillery on the 3rd day at Gettysburg had a not-so-unique problem.

Picture a "+" sign (or crosshairs if you'd rather). Placing a shot on the vertical line was a matter of the gunner's skill in levelling and aiming the piece. Dropping it at the juncture of the lines is a function of the elevating screw and the gunner's judgement.

The Confederate gunner's problem in front of Cemetary Hill might be visualized by a simple, mental exercise. Go to the furthest wall in your room. Draw a horizontal pencil line about 3" long. Go to the opposite wall and look at that line. This is what the gray gunners were trying to erase. An undershot plows into the hill. An overshot scares hell out of the officers, horses, and limber crews. And. There were so many guns firing, that it would have been impossible for any gunner to tell where his shot was falling.

Ole

[ewc]

Another problem the gunners had was the profusion of smoke from burnt powder that blanketed the field after several fires. This limitation of the visual field, to go along with the other reasons sited, helped nullify the ability to fire accurately. And on how many fields was there massed artillery fire, thus accentuating the effect of blindness due to this blanket of smoke.

I recall reading just recently how the Union was working on a quicker burning, less smoke producing powder during the war. Dang but i can't recall where, but shall endeavor to look out for it. regards, ed

[johan_steele]

The Union was working on a quicker burning smokeless powder. It wasn't perfected until several years after the war. I'm not certain who won the race to come up w/ an effective smokeless powder.