I presume it was dug on a Wilmington Campaign battlefield
They were indeed used during the CW even thought sparingly as the ammo was not readily available per the info below. A total of seven unfired Armstrong shells, long and short pattern types, were recovered near were the Battle of Painsville occurred.
HDQRS. ARTILLERY, FIRST CORPS,
February 28, 1865.
[Gen. PENDLETON: ]
GEN.: I received this morning your note directing me to turn over
four 3-inch rifles to the cavalry; but while making arrangements to
execute it, I beg to submit that it will seriously weaken my rifle
armament, already, I believe, the weakest in the army. The 10-pounder
Parrotts in my command I have condemned entirely, and have made
arrangements with the Ordnance Department to exchange them all for
24-pounder howitzers, having found it impossible to get satisfactory
firing from them, and I hope to be rid of every one when we take the
field. I have only six now, including two in Hardaway's battalion; this
will leave with sixty-four smooth-bores, eighteen 3-inch rifles, and five
Armstrong and one Whitworth in Cabell's, Huger's, Haskell's,
Hardaway's, Stark's and Johnson's battalions the Armstrong and
Whitworth are only temporary guns, as the ammunition for the former
is limited, and when it is gone I wish to replace them all with
smooth-bores, which will give seventy smooth-bores and eighteen rifles
a proportion of rifles which I think you will agree with me is too small
to be diminished. Should Owen's battalion return in place of any other
it will diminish the proportion of rifles, as it has none, and should
Hardaway rejoin his corps he will take away six of the eighteen 3-inch.
Many of my smooth-bores will also be howitzers of less range than
Napoleons. I do not like any rifle with our ammunition, but must have some.
Cannot the cavalry take 12-pounder howitzers? I consider them the
best gun for their service, and would prefer them to anything were I in
that arm. Our 3-inch have no shrapnel; their shell very defective and
uncertain, even when they explode at all, and you know the frequent
complaint on this head and their canister is very small and inferior. The
Yankees have shrapnel and canister with lead balls, and thus use them
very efficiently, but our 3-inch are not their 3-inch by a great deal. The
12-pounder howitzer is lighter, its ammunition cheaper and more
abundant; it formidable shrapnel; its shell seldom ever fails, and its
canister is but little inferior to that of Napoleons. Where guns have to
protect themselves against a charge of either infantry or cavalry, I
believe the 12-pounder howitzer superior to the Napoleon and worth
twice its number of 3-inch rifles. Is not this gun better adapter to the
service of cavalry than a gun whose only recommendation its has a very
long range and one-half of whose projectiles never burst (and when one
does burst it does not make a dozen fragments), and which is very
dangerous to our own men when fired over their heads? I have entire
forbidden their use by my battalions over our infantry.
N. AND SE. VA., W. VA., MD., AND PA. [CHAP. LVIII. PAGE 1267-96
[Series I. Vol. 46. Part II, Correspondence, Etc. Serial No. 96.]
I have sent in to Col. Brown to know what he can give me to replace
the 3-inch, if you still desire the exchange. I don't want Parrotts (would
rather have mountain howitzers,) and prefer 12-pounder howitzers to
Napoleons, of which I have enough. It will also be dangerous to take
my guns from the lines while awaiting even the unavoidable and
especially the probable delay.
Cannot the horse artillery be ordered to provide themselves with
12-pounder howitzers, and report to me to be directed where to
exchange them for 3-inch rifles? Please reply to me by telegraph, care
of Gen. Longstreet, if you wish the exchange to go on as you have
directed in you note.
Very respectfully, yours,
E. P. ALEXANDER,
Brig.-Gen. of Artillery.
Forum Host
Bringing the