Artillery question

[archieclement]

I'm currently reading a book where the author in most battle description is distinguishing whenever he describes a battery and placement whether its a iron or brass guns.... I'd assume there's a weight difference which would be largely irrelevant in context to a battle description because the guns are already there and not moving great distances. Is there any other major difference between iron and brass tubes that would make it relevant, or is the author just an artilleryophile?

 

[UCVRelics]

Which book are you reading. I believe he is trying to distinguish between the 12lb Napoleon type and a 3 inch field gun which had a longer more accurate range then the brass one.

 

[archieclement]

Which book are you reading. I believe he is trying to distinguish between the 12lb Napoleon type and a 3 inch field gun which had a longer more accurate range then the brass one.

JO Shelbys Iron Brigade hes doing it with 6 pdrs, 12 pdrs, 12 pdr howitzers, still in early war part, imagine there will be 3 in rifles later on, a lot of cavalry battles, but he does it with garrison cannon and mixed battles too. Hes even specified a 12 pdr howitzer in a blockhouse was iron, if its in a blockhouse would assume it isn't going to be moving.

 

[redbob]

JO Shelbys Iron Brigade hes doing it with 6 pdrs, 12 pdrs, 12 pdr howitzers, still in early war part, imagine there will be 3 in rifles later on

These would usually be smoothbore and brass (bronze) and be of shorter range than rifled iron guns.

 

[byron ed]

Is there any other major difference between iron and brass tubes that would make it relevant

The brass (bronze) guns in use, typically not being rifled, could be considered a tactical shortfall if range and accuracy were needed to carry the day. That would be a reason to distinguish types of artillery available. Also, bronze Napoleons (6 and 12 pndrs) were a workhorse gun that could use all varieties of ordnance, where some of the iron guns, because of bore or rifling, were restricted; a tactical consideration in a fast-changing battle. As an aside, crews were aware that bronze guns were not as prone to explode as iron pieces, but of course that wasn't allowed to be a tactical factor.

 

[Cpl. Smith]

Mabey he's just trying to help you imagine the situation?

 

[67th Tigers]

With smoothbores brass pieces were lightweight field pieces and iron pieces were heavier siege or naval guns.

Field howitzers and rifled guns, with lower powder charges, used iron. Brass is lighter for an given piece, but has less heat capacity and so can't fire at the same rate.

 

[Saphroneth]

Also, bronze Napoleons (6 and 12 pndrs) were a workhorse gun that could use all varieties of ordnance, where some of the iron guns, because of bore or rifling, were restricted; a tactical consideration in a fast-changing battle.

The main restriction being that the smoothbore guns could fire canister while the rifled ones could not, so an iron rifled gun would be vulnerable if under close attack.
As a point of interest, the British at this time used an iron gun (the Armstrong) which could fire what was effectively canister, because they had a special and quite expensive multi-purpose round that included an option to fire it with an "instant" fuze. (It burst on leaving the barrel, so it would act like canister.)

 

[Cpl. Smith]

The main restriction being that the smoothbore guns could fire canister while the rifled ones could not, so an iron rifled gun would be vulnerable if under close attack.
As a point of interest, the British at this time used an iron gun (the Armstrong) which could fire what was effectively canister, because they had a special and quite expensive multi-purpose round that included an option to fire it with an "instant" fuze. (It burst on leaving the barrel, so it would act like canister.)

That is pretty cool about the Armstrong.

What about the experimental bronze rifles.

 

[Saphroneth]

That is pretty cool about the Armstrong.

What about the experimental bronze rifles.

They tended to wear quickly, because the lands of the rifle (the actual rifled bits) were made of bronze and thus softer than iron (plus metal gets softer and easier to erode when heated by firing, and bronze takes less firings to get hot). They're a good stopgap, kind of, but they really don't last long.

 

[Cpl. Smith]

They tended to wear quickly, because the lands of the rifle (the actual rifled bits) were made of bronze and thus softer than iron (plus metal gets softer and easier to erode when heated by firing, and bronze takes less firings to get hot). They're a good stopgap, kind of, but they really don't last long.

Thank you. That makes sense.

 

[Western Reserve Volunteer]

It should also be noted that very early in the war many older smoothbore guns were made of iron, which us why the author might be trying to distinguish between the two... the US Army tried to use iron guns from it's earliest days but the metallurgy of the time was not up to it for the most part and by the 1840s had gone back to bronze cannons. Iron guns had a disconcerting tendency to explode, especially when used in smaller caliber weapons like 6 lbers, Older guns, like the 1819 Walking Stick 6 lb era, and others still saw use during the war, especially in garrison service to free up are modern weapons, so if he is speaking of guns in a blockhouse he may be trying to communicate that the cannons there were old and obsolete models.

 

[Saphroneth]

As an aside, it was actually a common problem for the US military to do this - more than others, I mean. If a major war had broken out requiring full National Guard mobilization in 1900 then the deployed forces would still have had Civil War era bronze smoothbore artillery...

 

[TomP]

The author is probably (like myself) an artilleryphile. In describing the use of different field pieces there is really no great reason why you would choose iron over bronze. Weight would not be an issue nearly as much as whether the tactical conditions called for a rifle, a smoothbore, or a smoothbore howitzer. If you were in need of a rifle it probably would not affect your decision if you had iron or bronze to choose from; you just needed a rifle.
It is very true that bronze rifles tended to wear out faster than their iron counterparts. A large number of Model 1841 6-pounders were rifled to make up for a shortage of rifles but they were obsolete by mid-war if not sooner. When Gen. Charles T. James died in 1862 they stopped making the James projectiles that bore his name though the weapons rifled using his system saw continued service using other projectiles such as Shenkles and Hothkiss'. A few other point of interest from a certified artillery nerd:
* Brass cannon were very rare during the war. Though many reports and personal accounts refer to brass weapons they were in fact bronze.
* Napoleons or, light 12-pounder guns, were ALWAYS 12 pounders. There are some "false Napoleons" at Gettysburg NMP which are simply 6 pounder guns or rifled 6-pounders which were modified after the park was established to look like a Napoleon. The park was trying to place the type of weapon a particular battery used with the position where they saw action.
* Rifles fired canister. "Civil War Ordnance: An Introduction" by Robert H. Gregory shows some fine examples of canister for rifles in Chapter Five, as does "Shiloh, Shells, and Artillery Units" by George F. Witham.
* There was a distinct difference in the capabilities of a cast iron or wrought iron cannon. Cast iron, such as the Parrott, could have a tendency to be brittle, which is why the wrought iron reinforce was added to the breech. The wrought iron 3" Ordnance Rifle was probably the best piece in the war for reliability and accuracy. The process to make the 3" Ordnance Rifle is explained in the Images of Americabook on "West Point Foundry" by Trudie A. Grace and Mark Furlow.
* There werre some good iron smoothbores produced in the 1820's and 1830's but the most prevalent smoothbore at the outset of the war was the bronze Model 1841 6-pounder. Seven different foundries produced over 854 of these guns, which is more than all of the different iron 6 pounders combined.

I apologize for carrying on but I am indeed fascinated with Civil War artillery.

Tom

 

[byron ed]

...Napoleons or, light 12-pounder guns, were ALWAYS 12 pounders. There are some "false Napoleons" at Gettysburg NMP which are simply 6 pounder guns or rifled 6-pounders which were modified after the park was established to look like a Napoleon.

There was the model 1841 six-pounder which you referred to. Are you saying that bronze gun cannot be classified as a Napoleon?

 

[TomP]

There was the model 1841 six-pounder which you referred to. Are you saying that bronze gun cannot be classified as a Napoleon?

Not all bronze guns were Napoleons. A bronze 6-pounder smoothbore, a bronze rifled 6-pounder, bronze howitzers, and bronze rifles are never considered as Napoleons. All are very different.

The Napoleon was named for a nephew of Napoleon I, Prince Charles Louis Napoleon Bonaparte, who became Emperor Napoleon II of France. The Model 1853 "Napoleon" was designed to fire the spherical case shot or shell of howitzers, the solid round shot of guns or the canister of either. Its purpose was to combine the direct fire of a gun and the indirect (or lobbing arc) of the howitzer. But unlike a true howitzer it did not have a powder chamber in the bore. It was beyond doubt the most popular and versatile weapon of the war.

Though the Napoleon was designed as a bronze, smoothbore weapon weighing, on average, 1,200 pounds, there are a few variances in length and weight. The Ames Manufacturing Company cast five rifled Napoleons. They must not have been a success as no more were manufactured. The Phoenix Iron Company actually produced a single wrought iron Napoleon.

These six odd ones aside, ALL Federal Napoleons based on the 1853 specifications were 12-pounder bronze smoothbores.

The Confederates designed six types of Napoleon cannon, one of which never left the drawing board. All six have distinctly different qualities in their outward appearance though they are all 12 pounder smoothbores. The most prevalent type was a 12-pounder IRON gun that has more of the appearance of a Parrott Rifle than an 1853 Napoleon. Even still, it was a 12-pounder smoothbore.

Did I succeed in muddying the waters?

I would recommend Field Artillery Weapons of the Civil War by Hazlett, Olmstead, and Parks.

 

[drezac]

There was the model 1841 six-pounder which you referred to. Are you saying that bronze gun cannot be classified as a Napoleon?

Correct. Those are M1841 6-pdr Field Guns (I'm standing next to one in the photo)

 

[drezac]

and to muddy the water a little more, this link is to a report in the OR regarding armament of the Army of the Cumberland in 1863. A majority of the batteries are armed with a mix of smooth bores and rifles - on the average, 2 bronze napoleons (the light 12-pdr, 4.62 that is listed) and 4 rifles which varied from 3" ordnance rifles, parrots, and James (James were typically a rifled M-1841 6-pdr field gun)

Army of the Cumberland Artillery, 1863

this makes sense - 4 rifles for longer range, and 2 12-pdrs for when things get hot and nasty up close.

 

[TomP]

and James (James were typically a rifled M-1841 6-pdr field gun)

Drezac, nice photo!

There were six types of James' Rifled Cannon; the rifled 6-pounders were just one of those. The other five types all had the profile of the 3" ordnance rifle. Here at Shiloh we have twenty-one of the rifled 6-pounders out in the field and seventy-five of the James rifles with the ordnance profile. We have the largest collection of James rifles including three rare ones made of steel.
The photo is of an equally rare Type 2, Series 1, of which only five were ever cast. (These five had a seven-groove rifling pattern).This particular piece was captured by the Confederates at Shiloh and recaptured by the Union during the Battle of Corinth. There is a light inscription on top of the barrel "Captured Oct 4 1862/Corinth, Miss/by/1 US Inf" It is one of the park's most prized artifacts and it sits only yards from where it was retaken.

 

[Cpl. Smith]

Drezac, nice photo!

There were six types of James' Rifled Cannon; the rifled 6-pounders were just one of those. The other five types all had the profile of the 3" ordnance rifle. Here at Shiloh we have twenty-one of the rifled 6-pounders out in the field and seventy-five of the James rifles with the ordnance profile. We have the largest collection of James rifles including three rare ones made of steel.
The photo is of an equally rare Type 2, Series 1, of which only five were ever cast. (These five had a seven-groove rifling pattern).This particular piece was captured by the Confederates at Shiloh and recaptured by the Union during the Battle of Corinth. There is a light inscription on top of the barrel "Captured Oct 4 1862/Corinth, Miss/by/1 US Inf" It is one of the park's most prized artifacts and it sits only yards from where it was retaken.

View attachment 190243

That is cool!!!!