Dismounting Guns

[JPK Huson 1863]

I never knew how this was done- you just read words like ' dismounting guns ', etc., without the faintest idea of what on earth they're talking about. Most here probably did, I did not, what a massive undertaking for every, single gun, whoa! This is supposed to be after the Fort Hudson surrender, an LoC photo, from where I have it saved.

 

[richard]

It is my understand that a "dismount Gun" is one that was one that was more than likely knocked out action by having be hit by a shell and the carriage broken or destroyed . There have been instances where a shell actually entered the mussel of a gun and exploded.

 

[James N.]

I never knew how this was done- you just read words like ' dismounting guns ', etc., without the faintest idea of what on earth they're talking about. Most here probably did, I did not, what a massive undertaking for every, single gun, whoa! This is supposed to be after the Fort Hudson surrender, an LoC photo, from where I have it saved.

Not every single gun - only the large-caliber siege and garrison guns that made up part of Port Hudson's armament. I worked on Last of the Mohicans as "artillery cordinator" and one day the head of the set design and construction crew asked me if anything had been left out; I told him there was no gun gin. Of course despite his study of period fortifications and artillery, like you he'd given no thought about just HOW those enormous ( and totally anachronistic ) guns would've been hauled around in the wilderness. ( In reality, they wouldn'tve been because cannon that size weren't used in North America! )

A gun gin ( short for engine, like in cotton gin ) is/was a block-and-tackle suspended from a tall tripod and used to mount the tube ( cannon barrel ) onto its carriage. Large siege and garrison pieces were NOT transported any real distance ON their carriages; instead, carriage, wheels, and tube were moved separatly, either dragged or slung under a cart like in this CDV photo, then assembled in place for service. To take it apart is to dismount it, regardless if done by its crew in order to move it to a new location or by enemy counter-battery fire like richard suggests above.

Next time I visited the set, I was happy to see not one but TWO gun gins, a rough-looking one inside the fort and a very nicely-finished one outside in the French trenches!

Edit: JPKH, I misread your original post - you are of course right that when they were originally assembled at the arsenal, each and every tube had to be manhandled onto its carriage, regardless of size; also, when in the field repairs had to be made!

 

[AndyHall]

From Flickr:

The gin was equipped with a pulley system that made it possible for two men to lefy the barrel. The barrel was then attached to a horse- drawn carriage known as a sling or devil cart.​

 

[James N.]

Andy beat me to it, but here are a couple of photos I took on the set that show the British ( above ) and French gins in their positions at the right of each photo; they don't show up much in the movie, but I like to think they're my small contribution to the overall look.

Here's another much smaller one inside a blockhouse at Sutter's Fort in Sacramento, Calif. showing how they were used on smaller guns like this reproduction Napoleonic-era Russian howitizer. ( It also shows what the KNOB or cascabel at the breech-end of a cannon is there for! )

 

[rhp6033]

I guess the average artillaryman needed to know their knots and lashings as well as a sailor in those days.

 

[AndyHall]

M1819 24-pounder siege gun under a gin at Fort Moultrie, via Craig Swain's To the Sound of the Guns.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/50467989@N05/5069081875/

And a contemporary view from across the harbor, of secessionists mounting guns on Morris Island, 1860/61, via NPS:

Expired Image Removed

 

[reading48]

interesting piece of information....

 

[ExNavyPilot]

I saw a demonstration at one of the NPS battle sites--I think it was at Petersburg's Eastern Front Visitor's Center--of the dismounting/mounting of a light artillery piece. No gins were required and using the right technique it only took 2-3 men.

 

[ole]

Learned something new today.

 

[Dave Wilma]

The device in the photo is probably a "drug" used to haul logs out of the woods.

The wheels are too light for a field piece or caisson.

 

[Seduzal]

Learning something new, I sure did not know that. Thanks for posting

 

[JPK Huson 1863]

Yes, well I know I did, thanks very much! The pics are super, besides very enlightening. Another thread talked about the really huge number of horses it took to haul some of the pieces- times the number of guns, then add to that THIS caught my interest because it seemed so, so much MORE involved. When you read ' gun crew ', in the battle reports, etc., they're generally doing the ammunition, firing the gun. It hadn't occured to me, as in at all, all of what it took to be a 'crew'. The gin is one more thing to haul right? And maintain, and set up, or would gun crews share them, one per? Anyway, you read about how many miles long some of the armys were, when marching- the image in the beginner's head is all these men. It would really be gee- mile after mile composed of what it took to move all the guns.

Sorry so many questions- the more you look into this, the more involved it becomes, and the more you begin to see what on earth armies were composed of. These gins- seem to me like whatever the 'things' ( I'm such a female ) are called, for putting engines in and out of cars?

 

[44thGa]

Dismounting a gun at Ft. McAllister after capture.

 

[gary]

John Gibbon's Artillery Treatise has good illustrations on this subject matter.

 

[ExNavyPilot]

Yes, well I know I did, thanks very much! The pics are super, besides very enlightening. Another thread talked about the really huge number of horses it took to haul some of the pieces- times the number of guns, then add to that THIS caught my interest because it seemed so, so much MORE involved. When you read ' gun crew ', in the battle reports, etc., they're generally doing the ammunition, firing the gun. It hadn't occured to me, as in at all, all of what it took to be a 'crew'. The gin is one more thing to haul right? And maintain, and set up, or would gun crews share them, one per? Anyway, you read about how many miles long some of the armys were, when marching- the image in the beginner's head is all these men. It would really be gee- mile after mile composed of what it took to move all the guns.

Sorry so many questions- the more you look into this, the more involved it becomes, and the more you begin to see what on earth armies were composed of. These gins- seem to me like whatever the 'things' ( I'm such a female ) are called, for putting engines in and out of cars?

The heavy batteries manned the siege guns at the forts or went on campaign in the siege train (such as that used by McClellan in the Peninsula Campaign) and certainly needed lots of man and horse power to operate and move those huge guns. However, the light artillery batteries (field artillery) that were incorporated into the corps and divisions still needed lots of equipment.

Union light artillery batteries usually had 6 guns, normally of the 3", 10pdr, or 12pdr size (often a mix of howitzers, smoothbore and rifled guns.) Each gun required a carriage, a limber (to pull the gun carriage and carry an ammo box) and one or two caissons (each with a limber) that each carried three ammo boxes. The battery also had a traveling forge (portable blacksmith shop), a battery wagon and perhaps two supply wagons. As each gun carriage (over 3,000 lbs), caisson (almost 4,000 lbs), and wagon used 6 horses to pull them, and the officers and noncoms each had a mount, that means more than 120 horses. (Oh, and the horses each needed about 12lbs of grain, 14lbs of hay and 4 gallons of water per day). For manpower, each gun had a max of 9 men (cannoneers plus gunner & Sgt), and each team of six horses needed three drivers. The battery also had 2 buglers and up to 6 artificers/farriers to repair the carriages and harnesses, shoe the horses, etc. Add the officers and extras and you get about 150 men per battery. That's a lot of men, horses and stuff just for one battery. Looking at the order of battle for, say, Stones River, there were 38 Union batteries and 26 Confederate batteries. Even considering that Confederate batteries were often a bit smaller (a number of them had 4 guns rather than 6), that's a whole lot of flesh, wood, and iron.

 

[Robert Gray]

In Fort Sumter.

 

[JPK Huson 1863]

You know, it's like anything else, once you know what something is, you tend to pick them out everywhere- so, so many of the old photographs are slowly resolving themselves into formats I understand. Love that. Even ships, which I'm sorry, tend to be the most baffling to me, actually got a BOOK, carry the thing around like a Jr. High kid, getting the ' bits and pieces ' turned into objects the Navy used.

Good Lord. You just read about the battles, most authors, even the great ones, make it sound a little too 'easy', ( not the right word ), armies forming lines of battle. Not sure what they should do, or how it should be termed , I'd just never gotten a sense of the magnitude of what it took to DO that. Thanks for the breakdown, ExNavy, incredible- what a nightmare of logistics. Really dry-sounding departments take on a ton more respect, the quarter masters, gee whiz! Thanks for all of this, hopefully will retain most of it.

 

[Lampasas Bill]

The gun is being moved by a sling cart, especially designed for moving heavy artillery. Google artillery sling cart for plenty of examples.

 

[JPK Huson 1863]

The gun is being moved by a sling cart, especially designed for moving heavy artillery. Google artillery sling cart for plenty of examples.

They're amazing too! When first let off the leash on LoC ( meaning discovered their plethora of images from the war ), came across several of sling carts. Had no clue what on earth they were so of course asked here at CWT ( someone always has the answers ). Hang on, may have a few in this mess called ' files '.