Artillery casualty percentage: underestimated ?

John Winn

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Mar 13, 2014
Location
State of Jefferson
So, another thread made me once again wonder about the often-repeated statistic that artillery only accounted for about ten percent of battlefield casualties. Frankly, I think that's underestimated. Nobody kept good records so I'd think it's based on guesswork to start with - likely just reflecting whatever scant notes were made by surgeons or mentioned in diaries and letters. It would also seem to me that if artillery wasn't any more effective than that there'd have been less use of it and more resources allocated to increased infantry strength.

Obviously, both sides thought field artillery worth allocating lots of resources to it and to maintaining and using a large number of batteries (which required a lot of resources - e.g. horses, wagons). One would think if it really didn't do the job that such would not have been the case.

So, what do y'all think about the ten percent issue - about right, overestimated, underestimated ? On what do you base your opinion ?

I have no evidence for my opinion other than gut feeling and the fact that a lot of resources were allocated to field artillery which doesn't seem right if it wasn't that effective (and I think that would have been keenly observed).

I thank you in advance for your time and consideration.

Your ob't &etc

JW
 
I think I would probably agree with that, though I also don't have any sources other than gut feeling. But then thinking about it - take Sharpsburg, often referred to as "Artillery Hell", 10% would be about 1200 or so casualties on either side and that seems to be low; but given the savage infantry fighting maybe not.
 
Intuitively, I'd guess that the casualty numbers may be lower than we'd think for these reasons:

1. artillery was not always involved in battles, although infantry/cavalry were
2. in places like the Wilderness, artillery was of little use most of the time
3. At Gettysburg, the rebel bombardment on day 3 was tremendous but did little damage (borne out in WW1 experience too)
4. it was inaccurate or unreliable most of the time, especially on the rebel side. Of course some rifles were great but the average was not so high. (But then again, there was Bishop Polk!).
5. what is "effective"? No necessarily just killing people but scaring the **** out of them. Cheatham at Franklin came under a galling fire from Fort thingie (Stevens?) and many of his men drifted off to the left for fear of the explosions. Everyone wanted to avoid being under artillery fire - regardless of statistics. Psychological effect was important - both ways. The infantry always felt better if the artillery was banging away at the other guys
6. artillery spent a lot of time shooting at other artillery. Counter battery fire took up a lot of their time in many battles.

I'm sure there must be other (better) thoughts than those but it's a start
 
And now I think I'm remembering that I heard the 10% figure came from the surgeons who sometimes (often?) kept notes of the injuries they saw. This also is where the low bayonet use claim comes from. But how easy would it be to tell the difference between a leg shattered by a mini ball and a 3" Ordinace canister ball?
 
Thanks for posting this thread. The above noted points are well taken. I always wondered whether I was the only person who thought about this stuff! I too, have come across the relatively low artillery casualty rate (whether it be 10% or even less) in my various readings. Without being able to cite any specific source, I recall that most reminiscences and histories point to the overwhelming number of casualties caused by musketry, as opposed to artillery. Of course, because of the devastating effects of shot, shell, and canister, I would have to say that most of the casualties caused by artillery were KIA. In contrast, the majority of casualties who were wounded probably were hit by gunfire. So therefore, I think one would have to differentiate the casualty rate between killed and wounded, and then try to make some comparisons about the relative rates. Does this make any sense?
 
It depends on the battle; at Malvern Hill I bet artillery accounted for up to 30 - 40% of the Confederate losses, wheres maybe less at the Wilderness or Chickamauga. Obviously battles in which artillery could gather and concentrate their fire on infantry, and get close enough to use canister, would produce the most casualties from artillery fire.

Some instances other than Malvern Hill where infantry marched into massed artillery: Pickett's Charge, Franklin (though mostly canister fire from individual batteries at close range), Breckinridge's attack on Jan. 2 at Stones River, Marye's Heights at Fredericksburg.
 
And now I think I'm remembering that I heard the 10% figure came from the surgeons who sometimes (often?) kept notes of the injuries they saw. This also is where the low bayonet use claim comes from. But how easy would it be to tell the difference between a leg shattered by a mini ball and a 3" Ordinace canister ball?


What surgeon hip deep in wounded had the time and presence of mind to record such information?

http://www.civilwarfamily.us/battlefield-medicine/


Battlefield Medicine
feed.png


A fallen soldier

02/20/2015



"This skull belonged to a soldier of the 54th Massachusetts Volunteers, an African-American unit that took part in a July 1863 assault on Fort Wagner in Charleston Harbor. The regiment sustained 272 killed, wounded, and missing during the attack.

By examining the skull, researchers determined how this soldier died. The size of the wound and the remains of the projectile indicate that he was killed by an iron canister ball from one of the fort’s two 12-pound field howitzers. The ball entered behind his left ear and traveled upwards through the lower part of the brain.”

(Photo and Caption taken from display at the National Museum of Health and Medicine, Washington DC)


Posted on 02/20/2015 at 03:19 PM in African American Soldiers, Archaeology, Artifacts - Military, Artillery, Battlefield Medicine | Permalink | 0 Comments

- See more at: http://www.civilwarfamily.us/battlefield-medicine/#sthash.Ghdsf8Hr.dpuf


nUVKDIT.jpg
6a00d8341cb81853ef01bb07f4c729970d-500wi.jpg


-
 
I once owned a 19th century medical book, rescued from the dumpster of a Historical Society! The reason I dug it out was a huge post-war section examining the types, locations and causes of wounds. It included a lot (a lot) of bones and photos of live humans. I wish I still had it or could remember much of it. But I do recall their conclusion based on what they had (stress that) that infantry arms caused the majority of wounds by far.

They also had some interesting discussion about head, neck and hand wounds - which became more and more common as entrenchments figured into warfare. They were examining the difference between attacker and defender, regardless of terrain and noted that as the war went on, body wounds in defenders seemed to go down. For attackers of course, that didn't hold true
 
Last edited:
The Civil War was the first time an official photographic study of wounds was conducted.


Shooting_Soldiers_Final copy.jpg
 
I saw an exhibit some years back of CW photography which had a separate section on medical photography. I must say that looking at some of those photos makes one cringe.
 
According to my calculations, one out of every four Confederate infantry casualties at Gettysburg was caused by artillery fire. The percentage was derived by compiling a list of those whose wounds are specifically recorded as to type. I am up to 1,253 individuals, which is a significant sample size. Of this total, artillery accounted for 313 (25.0 %), gunshot 930 ( 74.2 %), and all other 10 (0.8%). The artillery number includes a few indirect wounds caused by flying wood splinters, fence rails, rock fragments, etc. caused by incoming rounds. The "other" category includes bayonet, clubbed musket, etc. Those few who were struck both by artillery and musketry are counted in both categories.

In Pickett's Division alone, which fought only on July 3, artillery caused 82 casualties (23.5 %), gunshot 266 (76.2 %), and other 1 (0.3%). The sole "other" is an officer who died after falling on his own sword.

The high percentage of artillery casualties should not be surprising considering the generally open ground, offensive posture of the Confederates throughout this battle, and the increasing lethality of artillery with decreasing range. The percentage of artillery casualties drops dramatically for units that fought mainly in wooded terrain, as on Culp's Hill.

Incidentally, this analysis is also interesting when it comes to differentiating between types of artillery rounds: solid shot, shell, canister, etc. Solid shot, for instance, typically took out only one or two men in a file, but the results were inevitably fatal, however, I will save this data for another time.
 
Majority of the medical statistics were gleaned from Medical/Surgical case records... These were only taken upon those wounded that survived long enough to make it to the surgeons table. Majority of these were of course small arms fire. Those that had been killed outright, or died soon thereafter on the field of battle were not counted nor evaluated for mechanism of injuries that were inflicted. Less one very small brief study of same that occurred reviewing the dead just prior to burial at one engagement. Canister and shrapnel made rather nasty wounds... Artillery fire in some cases also created what is deemed "secondary missiles"... meaning if the artillery shot struck a stone or brick wall... the fragments of same would be blown in all directions... being struck by one of these items many times can be just as deadly.... One may not have been hit directly by the shot/shell.. but its effects created secondary projectiles that did.... few that had been so unlucky to be struck survived long enough to be tallied... One being run through the body with a bayonet... same issue... Having studied medical/surgical records for decades.. it was quite obvious that many that were killed by these means are greatly underestimated in the routine published reports... Since they were not examined nor counted into the statistics.

Additional... Yes there were engagements whereas Artillery use was limited or impractical, that's a given. However those events considered and tossed in don't really balance out the existing low number figures, Since only a given lower percentage was recorded to start with.. The limited means that were employed to record casualty causes overall.. being mostly only those with minor or moderate wounds that survived long enough to be counted into the statistics... If one were to examine a given set of Surgical stats... it would generally give impression that overall majority of wounds received were to the extremities.. A relatively very low number of cases of Head, Chest, Thorax wounds... Small arms, shrapnel, canister, bayonet.... Not necessarily because there were so very few of them... but because these wounds were generally quickly fatal... Unfortunate for us now these were not evaluated for causes and recorded. Can only really speculate that these statistics that are known are near the low end of the scale at best... not an average.. nor the top...

It wasn't formally until WW-II that a handful of medical officers decided to try to record the causes of death of those killed outright off the field. both for medical recording and basic data to evaluate possible means to improve soldiers gear.... Working with burial register folks to examine the dead just before burial to record the injuries examined. Even then many times it was difficult to determine the type of projectile(s) that caused it.. Sometimes relying on known characteristics of different types of wounds to make a best guess... Even then it was a relatively small percentage that were recorded. and only taken in one European campaign, as periods of campaigning and condition of bodies sometimes made the effort impractical sometimes for weeks or months at a time...
 
Last edited:
As a subset to the larger question posed in this thread, I'm wondering what the percentage was of artillery men and officers who were casualties of incoming artillery?
 
As a subset to the larger question posed in this thread, I'm wondering what the percentage was of artillery men and officers who were casualties of incoming artillery?

The sample size is much smaller, so one must be careful about drawing conclusions, but among the Confederate artillery units at Gettysburg I have counted 55 casualties from artillery (79.7 %) , 11 by gunshot (15.9 %), and 3 "other" (burst gun, capsized cannon, injury from a wheel).

For Federal artillery, I only have 27 counted thus far: 11 by artillery (40.7 %), 15 by gunshot (55.6 %) and 1 other, but clearly it was often much more up close and personal for them.
 
According to my calculations, one out of every four Confederate infantry casualties at Gettysburg was caused by artillery fire. The percentage was derived by compiling a list of those whose wounds are specifically recorded as to type. I am up to 1,253 individuals, which is a significant sample size. Of this total, artillery accounted for 313 (25.0 %), gunshot 930 ( 74.2 %), and all other 10 (0.8%). The artillery number includes a few indirect wounds caused by flying wood splinters, fence rails, rock fragments, etc. caused by incoming rounds. The "other" category includes bayonet, clubbed musket, etc. Those few who were struck both by artillery and musketry are counted in both categories.

In Pickett's Division alone, which fought only on July 3, artillery caused 82 casualties (23.5 %), gunshot 266 (76.2 %), and other 1 (0.3%). The sole "other" is an officer who died after falling on his own sword.

The high percentage of artillery casualties should not be surprising considering the generally open ground, offensive posture of the Confederates throughout this battle, and the increasing lethality of artillery with decreasing range. The percentage of artillery casualties drops dramatically for units that fought mainly in wooded terrain, as on Culp's Hill.

Incidentally, this analysis is also interesting when it comes to differentiating between types of artillery rounds: solid shot, shell, canister, etc. Solid shot, for instance, typically took out only one or two men in a file, but the results were inevitably fatal, however, I will save this data for another time.

Did you count Colonel Williams under the wounded as well since he was shot from his horse before falling on his sword?

R
 
Yes. 10 percent sounds low. But one has to figure in how many battles there were that artillery was empoyed against infantry. Lots and lots of battles were fought without artillerary majorly involved.
 
Thanks everybody for the statistics and ideas; I do appreciate it.

These comments reinforce my feeling that the ten percent figure is not only the product of poor records but also of an averaging - including battles where artillery wasn't used much - that is misleading. As has been pointed out, where artillery was used extensively casualties caused by it were no-doubt greater than ten percent of the totals. Casualties in batteries per se were also likely greater due to being specifically targeted by enemy batteries and not being a moving target.
 
Casualty % maybe close, maybe its a little higher. But the effect of artillery and the boom made people second guess moving forward and had the effect of groups stalling or turning back from a charge, hence had a great impact on a battle.

A comment on here reminds of a question that a group of people asked me while I was walking around Gettysburg National Cemetery years ago. Would you rather be in the infantry or the artillery? one guy argued that because artillery was often targeted by not only infantry charges, but also from counter battery fire, that he would have rather been in the infantry than working a gun
 
Overall, I'd say the percentage is pretty close considering that there were a lot of battles where artillery played a minimal role. In those battles where artillery was heavily used, the numbers are obviously going to be higher but, considering the war as a whole, the numbers are probably as close as anyone can realistically come up with.

R
 
Back
Top