In the Field Red Leg Eye Candy

[Belfoured]

I am not going to go into the weeds on a forum like this one. I have a profound understanding of the manufacture of friction primers. I have my copy of the manual lying next to me. When I am communicating with people who know absolutely nothing about the subject, keeping it simple & easily understood is always the first order of business.

Actually, during the Civil War, they discovered that using a wet sponge was very dangerous. The water caused the residue in the barrel to chill & form a crust. Live embers would be trapped inside. When the round was rammed, premature misfires would happen. The solution was to order the use of dry sponging. NPS drill is to use a damp sponge because it forms a better seal & thus a better vacuum when the sponge is removed. Parks Canada does the same. The year to year casualty list from reenacting cannon crews is enough to give anyone pause. That is not an aspersion, that is a fact. Preparing safety lectures based on accidents is one of my duties, so I am well versed on both historic & current dismemberments. The last major casualty in a National Park demo was in the 1960's before anybody knew what they were doing.

As to the NPS drill. I participated in the development of the current manual. Ranger Jim Lewis, who wrote the manual is here at Stones River N.B. I can assure you that the current NPS drill is as close to the late Civil War practice as can be & comport with modern safety concerns. Part of the research involved study of stacks of C.W. photos. I assure you that there are no photos of gun crews bent over with hands on their ears in any of them.

I made my comments about reenacter drill, which include a disclaimer, because people who are not conversant with the Civil War don't know what the drill is supposed to look like. I mean no reflection on reenacting in general, but I have seen too many gun drills with absurd crouching kneeling postures & melodramatic number ones flinging the sponge rammer into the bore to not include a note about it. Getting the history right is my only priority.

If you google National Park living history & historic weapons program policies, you will find the NPS manual for 20 different classes of weapons. That includes WWII weapons as well. "Beach Apparatus Drill Manual (including use of Lyle Gun)" is something that I have absolutely no idea what it is. It is right above Matchlock, I will have to look at that. The photo header includes a shot of the back of my head. My wife is number two on the gun to my left. I believe you will find the drill manuals both interesting & useful.

Absolutely the best C.W. artillery manual is 'ARTILLERIST'S MANUAL, Compiled from various sources & adapted to the service of the United States" By Brig-Gen. John Gibbon, U.S. Vols., Captain Fourth Artillery, U.S. Army. Second Edition, Revised & Enlarged.' (aint that a mouth full?) It is the was produced in 1863 to include Rifled Ordnance that was not in the prewar manual. It starts with the discovery of gun powder, how to manufacture it & continues right up the the state of the art in rifled cannon practice. It is available online. It is the how to book of all how to books.

Agree on the Artillerist's Manual. The only limitation is that its material on tactics is a bit limited and (obviously) couldn't account for adaptations influenced by the War. But that was true of all the manuals and it's why Hunt's September 1862 Directions, expanded in January 1864 (the expansion is in the OR) is an important adjunct. I've always found it interesting that Gibbon apparently made his revisions after having firmly committed to the infantry in early 1862.

 

[Rhea Cole]

Indeed. I've been following the thread since the photos were posted. Thanks for thinking of me, though, cousin !



Man number 3 cleaned the vent and put his thumb over it before the bore was sponged. He kept his thumb on the vent until the new round was rammed home. He then spiked the powder bag and inserted a primer into the vent. He held the primer in place until number 4 had extended the lanyard and was ready to fire the piece. The purpose of the thumb was to help prevent air from being sucked into the tube and creating sparks while the new round was being rammed. So, the thumb was removed before the big bang.

It was not the thumb over the vent that is in question. Before friction primers, Number Three would place his hand over the quill primer or priming powder to protect it from wind or rain. As the linstock was slung around in an arc to quicken the slow match, & before Number Four brought the glowing match into contact with the primer, Number Three would step out. He had to get clear of the wheel before the recoil. In the pre-Civil War manuals used at the start of the war, that was still the drill. Needless to say, with a friction primer, putting your hand over the primer was no longer needed or sensible. In an over zealous attempt to imitate an early war firing, some of the men who formed the Eli Lilly living history battery followed the drill to the letter. The skin grafts & scars that mark the passage of the friction primer tube & the jet of plasma from the vent is really something to see. So, when I teach new volunteers how to properly hold the lanyard while Number Four steps out, I have a very vivid 'don't let this happen to you' parable to hammer home the 'why' of the drill.

We do fire by linstock one weekend a year. Waters Alabama Battery had such a load of useless friction primers that they stayed up all night making quill primers. Gotta say, using the linstock is way more up close & personal than the friction primer! Even the six inch recoil of our gun with a blank has to be avoided with care. In the accounts were they say that the hot guns were jumping into the air in recoil, some Number Fours must have lost a toe or two, don't you know.

It might be productive to mention that I have been a National Park Service qualified gunner for historic black powder cannon. There is nothing like teaching something to make you really understand it, so the hundreds of volunteers I have helped trained have my undying thanks. That said, there is always something to learn.

 

[Rhea Cole]

@John Winn, as an artillery aficionado, you will love these photos and comments!

Great photos, very informative text and indeed "eye candy". Every single one of them is a "one in a million" shot, thank you!

Thanks.

 

[Rhea Cole]

@John Winn, as an artillery aficionado, you will love these photos and comments!

Great photos, very informative text and indeed "eye candy". Every single one of them is a "one in a million" shot, thank you!

Thanks

 

[Rhea Cole]

btw, in these photos the limber is too close to the piece by period drill standards, but the view is cool nonetheless.

Actually, the regulation is the same for the nose of the lead horse or the head of the limber pole. We are very particular about that kind of thing. I must be a trick of perspective if it looks too near. Thanks for taking the time to comment.

 

[Rhea Cole]

@Rhea Cole when is the artillerist supposed to use the protective thumb cover over the vent hole? It seems to me, looking at the picture, that the flame coming out would scorch right through the leather protecting the thumb. Since I know nothing about it, when and how long would they use the protective thumb guard over the vent hole?

The Number Three steps in & thumbs the vent any time Number One is inside the wheel, even to just search the piece before a program. At the order of load, Numbers One, Two & Three step in. Number three thumbs the vent as One sponges & rams the round. Number Three turns to the right, walks behind the gunner & assists with aiming. The gunner gives a touch down sign, Number Three returns to their place beside the whee. Numbers Three & Four step in together at the order, ready. Three pierces the powder bag, Number Four places the friction primer in the vent already attached to the lanyard. Number Three holds the lanyard until Number Four steps out, putting a slight strain on the lanyard. Number Four nods, & Number Three steps out. Fire, booom! Number three immediately steps back & thumbs the vent as Number One steps in & sponges the bore. Repeat until the gunner calls, cease firing.

 

[Rhea Cole]

Agree on the Artillerist's Manual. The only limitation is that its material on tactics is a bit limited and (obviously) couldn't account for adaptations influenced by the War. But that was true of all the manuals and it's why Hunt's September 1862 Directions, expanded in January 1864 (the expansion is in the OR) is an important adjunct. I've always found it interesting that Gibbon apparently made his revisions after having firmly committed to the infantry in early 1862.

I think of it as more of an owner's manual than drill book.

 

[John Winn]

It was not the thumb over the vent that is in question. Before friction primers, Number Three would place his hand over the quill primer or priming powder to protect it from wind or rain. As the linstock was slung around in an arc to quicken the slow match, & before Number Four brought the glowing match into contact with the primer, Number Three would step out. He had to get clear of the wheel before the recoil. In the pre-Civil War manuals used at the start of the war, that was still the drill. Needless to say, with a friction primer, putting your hand over the primer was no longer needed or sensible. In an over zealous attempt to imitate an early war firing, some of the men who formed the Eli Lilly living history battery followed the drill to the letter. The skin grafts & scars that mark the passage of the friction primer tube & the jet of plasma from the vent is really something to see. So, when I teach new volunteers how to properly hold the lanyard while Number Four steps out, I have a very vivid 'don't let this happen to you' parable to hammer home the 'why' of the drill.

We do fire by linstock one weekend a year. Waters Alabama Battery had such a load of useless friction primers that they stayed up all night making quill primers. Gotta say, using the linstock is way more up close & personal than the friction primer! Even the six inch recoil of our gun with a blank has to be avoided with care. In the accounts were they say that the hot guns were jumping into the air in recoil, some Number Fours must have lost a toe or two, don't you know.

It might be productive to mention that I have been a National Park Service qualified gunner for historic black powder cannon. There is nothing like teaching something to make you really understand it, so the hundreds of volunteers I have helped trained have my undying thanks. That said, there is always something to learn.

I was only referring to the process during the war using friction primers. Ah, I really didn't mean to say number 3 held the primer in place; I meant to say he held the lanyard attached to the primer until number 4 was ready and the lanyard was taut. My bad.

Wish I could apprentice with you guys ! I did get to be number 4 at a demo one time (3 inch ordnance rifle).

 

[byron ed]

Actually, the regulation is the same for the nose of the lead horse or the head of the limber pole. We are very particular about that kind of thing. I must be a trick of perspective if it looks too near...

That's it then. A trick of perspective, feet appearing as yards.

From period images of batteries at the line we know that the pole, horses attached or not, at times pointed away from the cannon, much to the chagrin of those striving for authenticity today, those eliciting strict adherence to period regulations (the limber box opening towards the piece! noooo!). This variation was covered in an earlier thread* I only mention it to point out to inquiring minds the vagaries of artillery procedure, that no one source defines CW or CW demonstration practices.



- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
* https://civilwartalk.com/threads/limber-pole-towards-or-away.142610/#post-1743766, images at post #29 and following, and post #54 and following, and particularly post #59

 

[CivilWarTalk]

Hey, just wanted to say that I like this thread, the content and the concept is decent. I think this thread can go places.

There's no reason to fight over petty differences of opinion. Agree to disagree and move on. You know who you are!

Get back on topic and get back to shooting artillery and hitting a sheet of newsprint at a mile. Lecture over.

 

[Belfoured]

I think of it as more of an owner's manual than drill book.

Again we agree. There's actually no true "drill" material in it. My point was simply that none of the "manuals" - Gibbon, the Board, Patten, the Roberts Q&A, Andrews - had a ton on tactics and that they had did not include lessons that were being learned during the War.

 

[Rhea Cole]

I was only referring to the process during the war using friction primers. Ah, I really didn't mean to say number 3 held the primer in place; I meant to say he held the lanyard attached to the primer until number 4 was ready and the lanyard was taut. My bad.

Wish I could apprentice with you guys ! I did get to be number 4 at a demo one time (3 inch ordnance rifle).

Come on down, we are always looking for lads.

 

[Rhea Cole]

Hey, just wanted to say that I like this thread, the content and the concept is decent. I think this thread can go places.

There's no reason to fight over petty differences of opinion. Agree to disagree and move on. You know who you are!

Get back on topic and get back to shooting artillery and hitting a sheet of newsprint at a mile. Lecture over.

One of the problems with this format is that there is little nuance. Things you could sort out with the nod of a head face to face take endless meandering exchanges to get right.

 

[CivilWarTalk]

One of the problems with this format is that there is little nuance. Things you could sort out with the nod of a head face to face take endless meandering exchanges to get right.

Or, you just need to accept that it's a text based chat, and it will never be perfect, and move on.

Nuance is awesome when you are writing an article, it's not something to get stuck on during a casual conversation.

And if somebody wants to be critical of your hard work, that's okay too, happens to me all the time, tell them, thanks for your opinion, and move on.

 

[Rhea Cole]

I agreed there:

...but this is a CW site. We can handle more than "its like a .22 blank"

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I agreed there:



- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Overplayed. There is no national yearly CW artillery casualty list collected by anyone. The artillery schools, NPS or otherwise, project (estimate) from the incidents they happen to find out about, those that made it beyond local news outlets or as volunteered by venues, unit commands or the artillery associations -- none of whom are beholding to report that information to a central data base. Anyway compared to casualties from other causes (small arms, horses, heart, heat) the artillery toll is not especially high.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Overplayed. There's been very few "dismemberments" in reenactment history. But I agree there have been too many artillery accidents that could have been avoided with consistent application of safety procedures and regular safety lectures. Thank you and your fellows for doing that. It's much appreciated by pards, significant others, spouses, children, parents, cousins and nervous venue organizers.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I agreed there:


We only differ in attitude. For me the posture has some safety value in mainstream reenacting, with little downside. Yes I too think it looks a bit silly and inauthentic. I have supported our unit going a more authentic stance and we do it when we can.

btw in my experience when somebody says something like "I have a profound understanding" or "I am well versed" it's a prelude to an accident about to happen. Artillery is about crew concurrence.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Say what? I have for many years found the drill manuals both interesting & useful, including the Gibbon fat book but not only that. Is it useful or interesting that either of us would claim the ne ultra of CW artillery knowledge based on what we've each managed to accrue on the topic?

Rather, thanks for the discussion.

FYI, there is no dedicated data base for reenactor. However, a person with reasonably sophisticated computer skills can easily find artillery reenactor's casualty reports. The idiots who blew up a new 3" ordinance rifle in lower Egypt Illinois, the teenage boy who suffered horrible injuries, the video of men who suffered traumatic amputations at a football game, the goofs who fired a sponge rammer at Fort Ticonderoga & broke a picnicker's leg, the terrible injuries suffered by onlookers at a parade, etc. etc. etc. etc. are not hard to find. I keep a file Reenactor artillerists suffer almost a fatality/year. Its in the public record for all to see.

I use the first accident I have found, a Portuguese number one who suffered traumatic amputation before being flung out the embrasure & falling fifteen feet (?) into the sea as example #1 in my safety introduction to new volunteers. I am absolutely serious about this; the safety of of our volunteers depends on it.

 

[byron ed]

...There's actually no true "drill" material in it.

That is so, there is no specific drill in Gibbon, I checked and was wrong on that.

...none of the "manuals" - Gibbon, the Board, Patten, the Roberts Q&A, Andrews - had a ton on tactics and that they had did not include lessons that were being learned during the War.

That's also right, though I find one small exception regarding thumbing from the 1862 Benton manual* which alludes to Rhea Cole's earlier mention:

"...435. Precautions. After a piece has been discharged the bore should be well sponged, to extinguish any burning fragments of the cartridge that may remain; and to prevent the current of air from fanning any burning fragments that may collect in the vent, it should be kept firmly closed with a thumb-stall in the operation of sponging. Experience shows that the use of a wet sponge in dangerous, as it contributes to form, from the fragments of the cartridge bag, a substance which retains fire " [underline mine - b.e.].

That of course does not apply for the modern reenactment practice of aluminum foil cartridge bags, where the use of a wet sponge is not specifically dangerous since there's no cloth to form a substance that retains fire. Being practical today, using a wet sponge is safer than not using a wet sponge, even if not authentic to the CW period.



- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
* "Course of Instruction in Ordance and Gunnery..." 2nd edition, 1862. Capt. J.G. Benton. Chapter IX, section 435: "Loading, Pointing, and Discharging..."

 

[Belfoured]

That is so, there is no specific drill in Gibbon, I checked and was wrong on that.



That's also right, though I find one small exception regarding thumbing from the 1862 Benton manual* which alludes to Rhea Cole's earlier mention:

"...435. Precautions. After a piece has been discharged the bore should be well sponged, to extinguish any burning fragments of the cartridge that may remain; and to prevent the current of air from fanning any burning fragments that may collect in the vent, it should be kept firmly closed with a thumb-stall in the operation of sponging. Experience shows that the use of a wet sponge in dangerous, as it contributes to form, from the fragments of the cartridge bag, a substance which retains fire " [underline mine - b.e.].

That of course does not apply for the modern reenactment practice of aluminum foil cartridge bags, where the use of a wet sponge is not specifically dangerous since there's no cloth to form a substance that retains fire. Being practical today, using a wet sponge is safer than not using a wet sponge, even if not authentic to the CW period.



- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
* "Course of Instruction in Ordance and Gunnery..." 2nd edition, 1862. Capt. J.G. Benton. Chapter IX, section 435: "Loading, Pointing, and Discharging..."

Good catch, although I'm not sure that literally comes from actual experience in the War itself - as opposed to pre-war drilling or even the Crimean War or the Second War of Italian Independence in the mid- and late 1850's. .

 

[Rhea Cole]

Good catch, although I'm not sure that literally comes from actual experience in the War itself - as opposed to pre-war drilling or even the Crimean War or the Second War of Italian Independence in the mid- and late 1850's. .

The entire section on rifled cannons was added in 1863. It was, of necessity, based on wartime experience. The smoothbore section was edited to reflect lessons learned since publication in 1859. Somethings, loading horses into boats for example, probably hadn't changed since Roman times. My well thumbed drill manual & Gibbon are two sides of a coin. They serve two very different functions. My drill book, the section on smoothbores & ammunition are always in my haversack. Like Einstein said, owning a phone book is a lot like knowing all the numbers.

 

[Belfoured]

The entire section on rifled cannons was added in 1863. It was, of necessity, based on wartime experience. The smoothbore section was edited to reflect lessons learned since publication in 1859. Somethings, loading horses into boats for example, probably hadn't changed since Roman times. My well thumbed drill manual & Gibbon are two sides of a coin. They serve two very different functions. My drill book, the section on smoothbores & ammunition are always in my haversack. Like Einstein said, owning a phone book is a lot like knowing all the numbers.

The reference above is to Benton's 1862 observation about sponging, which could easily have been based on pre-War experience. If you're referring to Gibbon, the 1863 revision discusses rifle technology based on the adoption of rifled guns in 1861. Most of that discussion is based on principles of rifle technology which had been around for a good while (including rifle muskets, etc.); refers to 'experimental" experience; covers foreign (e.g., French, Belgian, British) work which had been ongoing before the War Department adopted it; and says nothing notable about tactics or the results of using the new pieces in the War. His discussion of tactics also doesn't reflect Civil War experience - although he does mention lessons from the War with Mexico. In fact, the 2d edition still refers to the prescribed battery as 4 6 pounders and 2 12 lb howitzers - long gone by 1863. Regarding actual tactics, there's nothing remotely like Hunt's "Directions" that I've referred to. Hunt went into detail regarding the proper use of different gun types and ordnance, including advocating restraint on the use of canister, greater use of solid shot, etc. etc. That was expressly based on a year's worth of practical experience and was issued in his capacity as McClellan's artillery chief. Gibbon also had moved full time into infantry command in early 1862 and while obviously still highly knowledgeable about field artillery, was no longer involved on that side of the fence. The Board "Instructions" revision in 1864 also noted the adoption of rifles but, again, didn't reflect any meaningful adaptation of tactics. As we've already discussed, this may in part be due to the fact that the drill manuals and Gibbon weren't intended as detailed tactical guides.

 

[Rhea Cole]

The reference above is to Benton's 1862 observation about sponging, which could easily have been based on pre-War experience. If you're referring to Gibbon, the 1863 revision discusses rifle technology based on the adoption of rifled guns in 1861. Most of that discussion is based on principles of rifle technology which had been around for a good while (including rifle muskets, etc.); refers to 'experimental" experience; covers foreign (e.g., French, Belgian, British) work which had been ongoing before the War Department adopted it; and says nothing notable about tactics or the results of using the new pieces in the War. His discussion of tactics also doesn't reflect Civil War experience - although he does mention lessons from the War with Mexico. In fact, the 2d edition still refers to the prescribed battery as 4 6 pounders and 2 12 lb howitzers - long gone by 1863. Regarding actual tactics, there's nothing remotely like Hunt's "Directions" that I've referred to. Hunt went into detail regarding the proper use of different gun types and ordnance, including advocating restraint on the use of canister, greater use of solid shot, etc. etc. That was expressly based on a year's worth of practical experience and was issued in his capacity as McClellan's artillery chief. Gibbon also had moved full time into infantry command in early 1862 and while obviously still highly knowledgeable about field artillery, was no longer involved on that side of the fence. The Board "Instructions" revision in 1864 also noted the adoption of rifles but, again, didn't reflect any meaningful adaptation of tactics. As we've already discussed, this may in part be due to the fact that the drill manuals and Gibbon weren't intended as detailed tactical guides.

Like I said, the reason I like Gibbon is that it is an owner's manual, not an endless counting in ten times instruction book.