Artillery troops small arms

[plymouthairrifle]

Went to an auction today that had a Gywn & Campbell carbine. The "story" with the gun was that it had belonged to a guy that served with the 1st IN Heavy Artillery, the Jack *** Regiment. My question is what type of small arms were issued to the artillery troops?

 

[Billy1977]

I think artillery carbines and revolvers. Not sure exactly what type. For the Confederate artillerymen I know that (possibly among other things) they used a short version of the Enfield. This is an Enfield P53 Type II artillery carbine imported from Britain


There was also a P58 Enfield artillery carbine that looked like this


Also there was a P53 Enfield artillery officers carbine or "short rifle" that looked like this

 

[Billy1977]

And don't forget that in addition to small arms artillerymen also had edged weapons, though the utility of them doesn't seem readily apparent. They had artillery swords that looked like this, this is a Union one:


And this is the Confederate equivalent:

 

[johan_steele]

By and large the men of the Light Arty batteries carried few if any small arms; their weapons were their cannon. The Heavy Arty Regiments arms would largely have been indistinguishable from that of the typical infantry Regt.

 

[major bill]

The 15 various Michigan Artillery Regiments were issued mostly cavalry sabers. They were issued artillery sabers as well and some units received revolvers and sabers. However none had carbines or other longarms.

 

[Don Dixon]

1st Heavy Artillery ("The Jackass Regiment," "21st Indiana Infantry"): The regiment was organized at Indianapolis on 24 July 1861, as the 21st Indiana Infantry. In February 1863, the regiment was redesignated as the 1st Indiana Heavy Artillery. The regiment was mustered out of service on 10 January 1866.

Two companies of the regiment were issued Enfield rifle muskets at Indianapolis, while the remaining eight companies were issued a mixed lot of converted smoothbore muskets. In October 1861 the defective Enfields and the smoothbore muskets were replaced with Austrian and Belgian rifled muskets in Baltimore, Maryland. Unsatisfied with the replacements provided by the Army, the men of Company K purchased their own Merrill .54 caliber breach loading rifles. In March 1862, while on shipboard to Ship Island, Mississippi, for the invasion of New Orleans, eight companies of the regiment were rearmed with a half and half mix of Enfield and Austrian rifle muskets.

Writing from Fort Williams in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on 1 May 1864, Colonel John A. Keith complained to the chief of artillery, Department of the Gulf, that Major General Banks had ordered that his regiment be equipped as infantry. The regiment had been ordered outside its fortifications to relieve units ordered to the front, and one of the companies was performing provost duties. Regarding his arms, Colonel Keith wrote that "The guns furnished us are of the poorest description, being Austrian rifles, .54 caliber, many without bayonets, and those with bayonets without bayonet scabbards. The locks are very defective." Colonel Keith "begged" that the regiment be reequipped as artillery at the earliest possible time. In making his complaints about being issued infantry weapons Colonel Keith was flying the face of contemporary doctrine because heavy artillery units were supposed to be cross trained and equipped as infantry. Many heavy artillerymen discovered this fact when they were pulled out of the fortifications around Washington, DC, and burned up in Lieutenant General Grant's Overland Campaign and Siege of Petersburg in 1864 and 1865.

As for the artillery short swords, they were engineer tools used for clearing fields of fire and building field fortifications. They were only secondarily weapons. From a functional standpoint, think machete.

Regards,
Don Dixon

 

[Ralph Heinz]

The photos of two "artillery carbines" Pattern 1853 (above) are the type weapon issued to Confederate cavalrymen rather than artillerymen. The third rifle shown is a Pattern 1858 "bar on band" short rifle and the fact that the one shown has a checkered stock indicates it most likely was intended for sale in England to one of the Volunteer units there and not something that made it across the Atlantic. The auction description -- if it indicated this was an "artillery officer's rifle" -- is in error and probably made to help sell it as an American Civil War item rather than what it actually was. The best reference on these weapons, Pritchard's and Huey's fine book, The English Connection, would clear this all up for anyone interested. Officers were not equipped with rifles in the Civil War. However company grade officers were in Viet Nam.

I have a well used 1861 dated artillery carbine with the stock stamped in a circle: BENTLEY & PLAYFAIR MAKERS BIRM, and with a small set of soldier's initials carved in the buttstock. This may have been one imported by W. Grazebrook. The fact that these short carbines were originally equipped with a long sabre bayonet is nothing short of ridiculous as cavalrymen did not fight with bayonets.

 

[Story]

Went to an auction today that had a Gywn & Campbell carbine. The "story" with the gun was that it had belonged to a guy that served with the 1st IN Heavy Artillery, the Jack *** Regiment. My question is what type of small arms were issued to the artillery troops?

This is the auction, right?
https://www.cowanauctions.com/lot/gywn-campbell-type-ii-carbine-1596565

According to this nice little writeup, the 3rd & 4th IN were issued them.
http://www.civilwararsenal.com/tag/gwyn-and-campbell-carbine/

You want a definitive answer, see if Gywn & Campbell carbines were issued to the 1st Indiana HA (formerly the 21st IN Inf).

BV 3054 contains lists of quartermaster stores and of property seized and foraged; records of gun firings; and reports of operations
http://www.indianahistory.org/our-c...ana-heavy-artillery-regiment-records-1861.pdf

 

[Mr. King]

It may have been mentioned earlier, but the short artillery swords had one very important purpose: to cut dead horses loose from the team.
When you're under fire and trying to get the heck out of Dodge, nobody has time to carefully remove all that leather harness rigging and what-not. You pull out that weird sword, and you start chopping.

 

[Billy1977]

The photos of two "artillery carbines" Pattern 1853 (above) are the type weapon issued to Confederate cavalrymen rather than artillerymen.

I see now I probably shouldn't have chimed in on this subject but I thought I had a little bit to offer. Thanks for correcting that, I'm very glad you did. I would hate to disseminate faulty information thinking it was correct. I had just gone by what the description was as an "artillery carbine" and figured that was who used it.

the short artillery swords had one very important purpose: to cut dead horses loose from the team

I had never thought of that! Brilliant! I had thought they were just a traditional holdover from an earlier era when edged weapons for artillery perhaps had more obvious utility (shorter-range cannon placed farther forward, making hand-to-hand combat more likely? That's what I was thinking).

 

[Billy1977]

Plymouthairrifle, I apologize for giving you faulty incorrect information.

 

[plymouthairrifle]

Thanks to everyone who answered my question. I had no idea what arms were issued to artillery troops. I had never given it a thought until I saw the gun at Cowans auction. The family letter that came along with the gun did not mean much to me. "This was the gun my GG Grandfather used in the civil war" is never proof that the gun was the actual gun the person was issued and used. And yes maybe he was not issued this carbine but he picked it up and carried it during the war.

 

[Mr. King]

I see now I probably shouldn't have chimed in on this subject but I thought I had a little bit to offer. Thanks for correcting that, I'm very glad you did. I would hate to disseminate faulty information thinking it was correct. I had just gone by what the description was as an "artillery carbine" and figured that was who used it.




I had never thought of that! Brilliant! I had thought they were just a traditional holdover from an earlier era when edged weapons for artillery perhaps had more obvious utility (shorter-range cannon placed farther forward, making hand-to-hand combat more likely? That's what I was thinking).

When I was a 12 year old drummer boy in a Louisiana reenacting outfit, the Captain of our little band of rebels used to have a nice reproduction short artillery sword with the scabbard included. He used to let me carry it on my belt during our battles. Do not be fooled by it's size. It is a heavy little sword. If you were in hand to hand combat, it's probably the last thing you'd want to use. I was only 12, but it was very heavy. The weight would make it perfect for chopping leather straps, or frankly, horse meat.

 

[Specster]

And don't forget that in addition to small arms artillerymen also had edged weapons, though the utility of them doesn't seem readily apparent. They had artillery swords that looked like this, this is a Union one:
View attachment 135645 View attachment 135646

And this is the Confederate equivalent:
View attachment 135647 View attachment 135648

One of my treasures is my 1832 Ames heavy Artillery sword. From what I have been tolf it was used mainly to cut down vegetation so the cannon could be in a clear site

 

[kevikens]

The US artillery sword of 1832 was almost an exact copy of the French infantry short sword that replaced the Napoleonic 'briquet'. The French troops nicknamed it the "cabbage chopper", which may tell us what they thought of the weapons.

 

[thomas aagaard]

The only firearms that was usually issued, was a few revolvers for the sergeants... for shooting wounded horses.

One of my treasures is my 1832 Ames heavy Artillery sword. From what I have been tolf it was used mainly to cut down vegetation so the cannon could be in a clear site

In 1854 all danish infantry was armed with a "sidearm" similar to the french one. (sidevåben M1854)

The regulations very specifically said that the men should NOT be drilled in how to use it for hand to hand combat... since this would undermine their trust in the bayonet.
It was issued as a tool, for cutting paths true the thick "bocage"(similar to what you might know from Normandy) often found in the (then) southern part of the danish whole state. (where a war with "germany" would be fought)
Since it is actually very hard to get true, it actually had its use in 1864. And later when the siege at Dybbøl became it again was useful when making faskins and similar for the earthworks.

So it makes perfect sense for artillerymen to have them for similar use.

 

[D.H. Hill]

Artillery short swords are often sneered at because the context is forgotten. They were designed for heavy artillery, not field artillery. Of course they suck in the field because they were not designed for the field.

In addition to the engineering tasks already mentioned they are very functional in trench warfare. In the confined spaces of a trench or fort a musket and bayonet is difficult to maneuver. By that point it's too late for canister and withdrawing the guns is not an option.

That's why they were intended for issue to heavy artillery, while field artillery were to receive sabers, which could be put to use on horseback while retreating, and were not typically worn at the gun because there was no need to. There was a push at the beginning of the war to have cannoneers armed with short swords so they could wear them at the piece, but taking that animal out of its specific niche was found unsatisfactory. It's like body armor- splendid to have during a trench raid, but a pain to have to march in.

I think when other small arms were issued it was mainly for guard duty, etc. Thus a battery would only need a couple carbines, since only a few men would have to be on guard at any given time &c.