Most prevalant artillery ammuntion

B

Bruce Golling

Guest
Can anyone say what the type of round was the most fired in some of the large artillery barrages. Say for instance during Gettysburg or Fredricksburg. Were cannon balls or exploding shells preferred? Movies seem to like the idea of exploding shells as happened in more modern times, but I always leaned towards ball. I cannot seem to find any written explanation of what was preferred.
 
Shells were used for longer range fire, bolts for hard targets, canister for short range massed personnel and solid and exploding spherical for massed personnel or general mid range firing solutions. As a rule, spherical (round) shot were not quite so accurate or long range as shells from rifled guns.
 
The type of round used was a matter of distance and type of target engaged. Put another way: there wasn't a preference per se.

Solid shot was used against hard targets (e.g. fortifications, buildings, other artillery) and against infantry on relatively flat ground at ranges of about 350-650 yards. When used against infantry it was typically fired in a low trajectory so as to skip along on the ground.

Shells or case were used against infantry or cavalry when they were out at close to effective range - i.e. perhaps 1500 yards - or when infantry was using terrain as cover. It was timed so as to try and have it go off above - and with case in front - of the lines so as to spray down into them.

Canister was used when troops got close - less than 350 yards or so.

Ammunition with contact fuses - i.e. that could explode on contact - only came about with the advent of rifled artillery later in the war. Rifled guns, while they could be used against infantry at a distance (they didn't fire canister well), were most commonly employed against other artillery due to accuracy, greater range, and contact fuses. All the movies typically show cannon fire against infantry as exploding on the ground when, in fact, that would have been rather unusual.

Hope that helps.

edit: I was typing when you posted @redbob

edit 2: "friction primer" changed to "contact fuse".
 
Last edited:
...Ammunition with friction primers - i.e. that could explode on contact - only came about with the advent of rifled artillery later in the war. Rifled guns, while they could be used against infantry at a distance (they didn't fire canister well), were most commonly employed against other artillery due to accuracy, greater range, and friction primers. All the movies typically show cannon fire against infantry as exploding on the ground when, in fact, that would have been rather unusual.

Hope that helps.

Good overall description, John, but you got confused on one aspect: detonation on impact was the result of using contact fuses; whereas friction primers are the ignition placed in the vent of the piece to ignite the propellant charge, not the shell itself!

Of course for the movies to actually use correct air bursts against infantry would be too dangerous (like the original!) so they resort to using what they call mortars which are actually retorts sunk in the ground to simulate ground bursts. Movies like War and Peace and Waterloo are almost ruined because of the filmmakers insistance that artillery fire HAS to be accompanied by HUGE explosions, gouts of fire, etc., even in situations where cannister would've been the preferred choice.
 
Good overall description, John, but you got confused on one aspect: detonation on impact was the result of using contact fuses; whereas friction primers are the ignition placed in the vent of the piece to ignite the propellant charge, not the shell itself!

Of course for the movies to actually use correct air bursts against infantry would be too dangerous (like the original!) so they resort to using what they call mortars which are actually retorts sunk in the ground to simulate ground bursts. Movies like War and Peace and Waterloo are almost ruined because of the filmmakers insistance that artillery fire HAS to be accompanied by HUGE explosions, gouts of fire, etc., even in situations where cannister would've been the preferred choice.

So right you are. I knew that ! That's what happens when your fingers get ahead of your mind.:D

I've edited my original post (but your quote shall remain as evidence of my senior moment).
 
What I've always wondered is how often were percussion/contact fuses used for rifled guns, and/or how many were typically supplied per gun?

In Capt. Hubert Dilger's official report of Gettysburg he mentions how ineffective or unreliable the timed fuses were and recommends using percussion instead.

"In regard to the ammunition, I must say that I was completely dissatisfied with the results observed of the fuses for 12-pounder shells and spherical case, on the explosion of which, by the most careful preparation, you cannot depend. The shell fuses, again, were remarkably less reliable than those for spherical case. The fuses for 3-inch ammunition caused a great many explosions in our right before the mouth of the guns, and it becomes very dangerous for another battery to advance in the fire of his batteries , which kind of advancing of smooth-bore batteries is of very great importance on the battlefield, and should be done without danger. I would, therefore, most respectively recommend the use of percussion shells only."
http://www.13nybattery.com/battles/dilger_gettys.htm
 
What I've always wondered is how often were percussion/contact fuses used for rifled guns, and/or how many were typically supplied per gun?
....

That's a good question. The 1864 manual discusses how to use Bormann fuzes but doesn't mention percussion ones. It also doesn't list how many fuzes are in a chest although it does list everything else.

My reading leads me to believe that percussion fuzes wouldn't have been the choice against infantry or cavalry but would have been the choice for use in counter-battery fire or against any sort of breastworks. I've read that rifled shells with percussion fuzes tended to dig themselves into the ground before exploding (they being bullet shaped and not round) thus making them not as effective against on-coming troops.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: AUG
That's a good question. The 1864 manual discusses how to use Bormann fuzes but doesn't mention percussion ones. It also doesn't list how many fuzes are in a chest although it does list everything else.

My reading leads me to believe that percussion fuzes wouldn't have been the choice against infantry or cavalry but would have been the choice for use in counter-battery fire or against any sort of breastworks. I've read that rifled shells with percussion fuzes tended to dig themselves into the ground before exploding (they being bullet shaped and not round) thus making them not as effective against on-coming troops.
As to what effect percussion shells had when used against infantry - Lt. Benjamin F. Rittenhouse, commanding Hazlett's Battery on the third day of Gettysburg, wrote of the effect percussion shells had on Pickett's Charge: "Many times a single percussion shell would cut out several files, and then explode in their ranks. Several times almost a company would disappear, as the shell would rip from right to left."

In Rufus Dawes' "Service with the Sixth Wisconsin," when describing the opening actions of the battle of Antietam (page 87), he writes, "We had marched ten rods, when whiz-z-z! bang! burst a shell over our heads; then another; then a percussion shell struck and exploded in the very center of the moving mass of men. It killed two men and wounded eleven. It tore off Captain David K. Noyes's foot and cut off both arms of a man in his company. This dreadful scene occurred within a few feet of where I was riding and before my eyes."

I would imagine that the nature of the ground itself, i.e. soft and muddy, hard and dry, etc. would probably have an effect on whether or not they buried themselves in the ground prior to detonating. When percussion shells did work as intended it sounds like they certainly caused a lot of damage though.
 
Last edited:
As to what effect percussion shells had when used against infantry - Lt. Benjamin F. Rittenhouse, commanding Hazlett's Battery on the third day of Gettysburg, wrote of the effect percussion shells had on Pickett's Charge: "Many times a single percussion shell would cut out several files, and then explode in their ranks. Several times almost a company would disappear, as the shell would rip from right to left."

In Rufus Dawes' "Service with the Sixth Wisconsin," when describing the opening actions of the battle of Antietam (page 87), he writes, "We had marched ten rods, when whiz-z-z! bang! burst a shell over our heads; then another; then a percussion shell struck and exploded in the very center of the moving mass of men. It killed two men and wounded eleven. It tore off Captain David K. Noyes's foot and cut off both arms of a man in his company. This dreadful scene occurred within a few feet of where I was riding and before my eyes."

I would imagine that the nature of the ground itself, i.e. soft and muddy, hard and dry, etc. would probably have an effect on whether or not they buried themselves in the ground prior to detonating. When percussion shells did work as intended it sounds like they certainly caused a lot of damage though.

I think you're probably right about the hardness of the ground. That was certainly a factor with solid shot: muddy ground and they wouldn't skip. Ah, the mechanics of war.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AUG
I'm not sure if the OR records each Artillery battery individual shell expenditures, but in the Naval Records, the after action reports of each individual ship usually records how many rounds were fired, by number and type.
 
The site listed below is a dandy reference for pretty much all things Civil War artillery.

http://www.civilwarartillery.com/

To expand on this, only because @AUG351 mentioned Hazlett's Battery:

image.jpeg


How 'bout a great reference book written by a Hazlett descendent?

(SOURCE: http://www.press.uillinois.edu/books/catalog/26tys4fk9780252072109.html)
 
Last edited:
I think you're probably right about the hardness of the ground. That was certainly a factor with solid shot: muddy ground and they wouldn't skip. Ah, the mechanics of war.

I've mentioned this before, but that was the big factor delaying Napoleon's attack at Waterloo until around 1:00 pm. If he hadn't had to wait to make the superior French artillery's fire effective and been able to attack in the morning it's probable the British and their Dutch-Belgian allies would've been driven from the field before the Prussians were able to arrive on the French flank.
 
For what it is worth I have a note taken from a report of Henry Hunt: " Solid shot is much more and shrapnel much less valuable than generally supposed, and the large proportion of hollow shot used has been unfavorable both to usefulness and
reputation of the artillery."
 
  • Like
Reactions: AUG
For what it is worth I have a note taken from a report of Henry Hunt: " Solid shot is much more and shrapnel much less valuable than generally supposed, and the large proportion of hollow shot used has been unfavorable both to usefulness and
reputation of the artillery."

According to E. P. Alexander in his original memoir, finally published as Fighting For the Confederacy, his favorite gun type was the then-obsolete 12-pounder howitzer, which could be used to "skip" solid shot into enemy formations, obstructions, etc. He told of the devastating use he made of one at Fredericksburg against a nest of sharpshooters positioned in a house there.
 
Those with greater expertise can advise, but I have broken down the identified artillery casualties inflicted on Pickett's Division on the third day at Gettysburg (including the artillery duel beforehand, as well as the advance/retreat) into five broad categories:

1. Solid (spherical) shot/bolt, or unexploded round: 5
2. Fragment from an exploding round (Common shell): 25
3. Canister balls/Case shot balls/Grape shot: 11
4. Explosion itself (concussion or burn): 3
5. Indirect (rail thrown by a shell): 1

I have excluded the many mentions of a bursting shell because they might fall into either category 2 or 3. I suppose that fragments can also originate from the external casing of a Canister/Case shot/Grape shot, rather than from the enclosed balls; if so some casualties listed under category 2 ought to fall under category 3. My sense is that solid shot was primarily directed against opposing artillery, although a mass of infantry would also make a tempting target. But against a standard two-line formation, a solid shot strike would typically take out only one or two men.
 
Those with greater expertise can advise, but I have broken down the identified artillery casualties inflicted on Pickett's Division on the third day at Gettysburg (including the artillery duel beforehand, as well as the advance/retreat) into five broad categories:

1. Solid (spherical) shot/bolt, or unexploded round: 5
2. Fragment from an exploding round (Common shell): 25
3. Canister balls/Case shot balls/Grape shot: 11
4. Explosion itself (concussion or burn): 3
5. Indirect (rail thrown by a shell): 1

I have excluded the many mentions of a bursting shell because they might fall into either category 2 or 3. I suppose that fragments can also originate from the external casing of a Canister/Case shot/Grape shot, rather than from the enclosed balls; if so some casualties listed under category 2 ought to fall under category 3. My sense is that solid shot was primarily directed against opposing artillery, although a mass of infantry would also make a tempting target. But against a standard two-line formation, a solid shot strike would typically take out only one or two men.
Are those numbers casualties? I do believe Picketts division suffered far worse then that. Something along the lines of 500 casualties BEFORE the attack even began. It's usually stated that artillery fire only caused 6% of the casualties during the war but I believe during picketts charge it was closer to 20%. Canister alone probably caused at least 500 casualties
 
Back
Top