Heavy (Foot Artillery) or Light (Field Artillery) and Heavy Artillery without Cannon.

Waterloo50

Major
Joined
Jul 7, 2015
Location
England
I was reading how during the Colonial wars, the British had specific units/Regiments whose job it was to protect the artillery. Were there specific regiments during the CW whose role it was to protect the artillery?
Also, I'm a little confused as to the difference between Heavy and Light artillery, was the name Heavy or Light applied because of the size of the cannons that each used or was it more to do with the amount of equipment that they carried?
To add to my confusion further, I have read a few accounts that claim there were so many extra regiments of heavy artillery that many of them were issued muskets rather than cannon. Is there a list of those regiments that were designated 'Heavy artillery' but were in fact infantry?
Artillery clearly isn't something I know a great deal about, so I would appreciate a little help here. Is there a chart/diagram that shows how artillery regiments were organised?
 
Artillery was usually covered by whatever Infantry units were nearby, however they were mostly on their own. Field (or light artillery) was usually guns 20 pounders or less and heavy (or siege) artillery was over 2o pounders. The Heavy Artillery units that were converted to infantry was many of the units that manned the guns around Washington DC and in 1864 when Grant needed additional troops, he stripped the forts of many of their artillery regiments and sent them to the Army of the Potomac where they were used as infantry.
 
I was reading how during the Colonial wars, the British had specific units/Regiments whose job it was to protect the artillery. Were there specific regiments during the CW whose role it was to protect the artillery?
Also, I'm a little confused as to the difference between Heavy and Light artillery, was the name Heavy or Light applied because of the size of the cannons that each used or was it more to do with the amount of equipment that they carried?
To add to my confusion further, I have read a few accounts that claim there were so many extra regiments of heavy artillery that many of them were issued muskets rather than cannon. Is there a list of those regiments that were designated 'Heavy artillery' but were in fact infantry?
Artillery clearly isn't something I know a great deal about, so I would appreciate a little help here. Is there a chart/diagram that shows how artillery regiments were organised?

The heavy artillery regiments were those trained to use the large emplaced guns in forts and posts around the country and to also man those posts as a garrison. So, the heavy artillery regiments were (generally) trained in the use of both infantry weapons and artillery pieces.

In the spring of 1864, Grant activated a number of heavy artillery regiments because he needed the manpower for the Overland Campaign. That said, many of the men in these units were unhappy because they believed that they had not joined up to be regular infantry.

Ryan
 
The heavy artillery regiments were those trained to use the large emplaced guns in forts and posts around the country and to also man those posts as a garrison. So, the heavy artillery regiments were (generally) trained in the use of both infantry weapons and artillery pieces.

In the spring of 1864, Grant activated a number of heavy artillery regiments because he needed the manpower for the Overland Campaign. That said, many of the men in these units were unhappy because they believed that they had not joined up to be regular infantry.

Ryan
You couldn't really blame them, for three years they had served in probably the cushiest job in the Union Army, Washington DC was probably the most fortified city in the world and until Early's Raid, there hadn't been a shot fired in anger. These "bandbox soldiers" so called because of their clean, unfaded uniforms had some of the largest regiments available to Grant and at places such as Cold Harbor they suffered some of the heaviest casualties of the AoP.
 
You couldn't really blame them, for three years they had served in probably the cushiest job in the Union Army, Washington DC was probably the most fortified city in the world and until Early's Raid, there hadn't been a shot fired in anger. These "bandbox soldiers" so called because of their clean, unfaded uniforms had some of the largest regiments available to Grant and at places such as Cold Harbor they suffered some of the heaviest casualties of the AoP.

I don't blame them at all. I had several relatives who joined the HA after having served in the infantry. They knew the score and I don't blame them for wanting a leisurely posting after having seen 2 years of service and combat.

Ryan
 
I was reading how during the Colonial wars, the British had specific units/Regiments whose job it was to protect the artillery. Were there specific regiments during the CW whose role it was to protect the artillery?
Also, I'm a little confused as to the difference between Heavy and Light artillery, was the name Heavy or Light applied because of the size of the cannons that each used or was it more to do with the amount of equipment that they carried?
To add to my confusion further, I have read a few accounts that claim there were so many extra regiments of heavy artillery that many of them were issued muskets rather than cannon. Is there a list of those regiments that were designated 'Heavy artillery' but were in fact infantry?
Artillery clearly isn't something I know a great deal about, so I would appreciate a little help here. Is there a chart/diagram that shows how artillery regiments were organised?
For field artillery, each Battery consisted of sections (2 guns) commanded by a Lieutenant, in the Union Artillery there were usually 6 guns (4 guns / 2 sections in the Confederate Artillery) (3 sections) to a battery and it was commanded by a Captain and there was 5 batteries to a Brigade and it was commanded by a Colonel. About the best artillery web site that I have found is www.civilwarartillery.com if you are interested in an all encompassing view.
 
In theory, "Heavy Artillery" would have manned the larger guns at Garrisons, and were also trained as infantry as they would also perform guard duty. Heavy Artillery would also man the siege guns - heavy artillery that would be taken in the field and set up on semi-permanent mounts (such as those used for the attack on Ft. Pulaski, Georgia) - but in reality, were frequently used as infantry units.

Light Artillery - generally did not need separate protection, as they would be with either infantry units or cavalry (many times bringing up the rear retreating by prolong covering the retreating infantry as they ran past. :smile:)

Here is an example of what the 1st Ohio Heavy Artillery was doing (This is from the 'Official Roster of the Soldiers of the State of Ohio in the War of the rebellion, 1861-1866, vol 10' - quite a name for a book)
FIRST Regiment Ohio Volunteer Heavy Artillery

Formerly known as the One Hundred and Seventeenth Ohio Infantry

....In May 1863, orders were issued by the War Department changing the organization into the First Regiment Heavy Artillery, Ohio Volunteers....the regiment constructed the extensive fortifications around Covington and Newport. During the fall and winter of 1863-64 the regiment, in battalions of detachments, was engaged in guard duty at various points in Kentucky. On Feb. 19, 1864, it started under orders, through heavy snow and extreme cold, over the mountains to Knoxville, Tennessee, arriving March 9. Util September the regiment was engaged in guarding the railroads through Tennessee, and participated in Burbridge and Stonemans raids against Saltville. During the winter of 1864-65 it was constantly engaged in foraging and fighting guerrillas throughout east Tennessee and North Carolina. .... The regiment was engaged in guarding mountain passes and garrisoning captured points in Virginia and North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Tennessee.

you can see that their duties had nothing to do with artillery.
 
Last edited:
There was a joke that went around the AotP: when a regiment of Heavies marched past someone would ask "What Division is that?" because by that point in the war no regiments even approached that size. (Partially due to the truly stupid policy of recruiting entirely new regiments rather than sending replacements into older, battle-depleted ones, one of the worst decisions of the war and one which cost a lot of lives as green troops led by green officers made 1862-ish mistakes that veteran outfits never would have)

Anyway, someone noted above that the heavies were also stuck in early-war mode tactically as their training in infantry tactics had mostly not evolved as it had in units which had been in the field for 2 or 3 years. Bull Run and Seven Days open field maneuver and massed fire tactics against well-entrenched Confederate veterans was nothing less than slaughter. They paid a very heavy price for those years of hot meals and comfy beds in the forts around Washington.

And I may be mistaken - around here it doesn't take long for somebody to pull you up short when you blow it - but wasn't it a regiment of heavies that was the replacement unit for the assault on the crater? Not only were they not trained for the mission, as the USCT troops who they replaced at the last minute were, but they were also unused to an infantryman's imperative to keep going forward. Certainly, veteran officers and NCO's would have known it.

Also it should be noted that another reason they stood out in AotP camps wasn't just that they showed up in spiffy clean uniforms but that they were very spit and polish troops. It was the heavies who got called out for ceremonies and parades and such around Washington, which was frequent. Grant certainly hadn't left any infantry regiments sitting around for those purposes, so it was the heavies who turned out, rifled musket in hand, for ceremonial and parade review duties.

So they were the ultimate example of the "paper collar" soldiers which by then everybody mocked. Clean, neatly turned out, well drilled, terrific on the parade ground and next to useless in a tight spot on the battlefield.
 
In theory, "Heavy Artillery" would have manned the larger guns at Garrisons, and were also trained as infantry as they would also perform guard duty. Heavy Artillery would also man the siege guns - heavy artillery that would be taken in the field and set up on semi-permanent mounts (such as those used for the attack on Ft. Pulaski, Georgia) - but in reality, were frequently used as infantry units.

Light Artillery - generally did not need separate protection, as they would be with either infantry units or cavalry (many times bringing up the rear retreating by prolong covering the retreating infantry as they ran past. :smile:)

Here is an example of what the 1st Ohio Heavy Artillery was doing (This is from the 'Official Roster of the Soldiers of the State of Ohio in the War of the rebellion, 1861-1866, vol 10' - quite a name for a book)
FIRST Regiment Ohio Volunteer Heavy Artillery

Formerly known as the One Hundred and Seventeenth Ohio Infantry

....In May 1863, orders were issued by the War Department changing the organization into the First Regiment Heavy Artillery, Ohio Volunteers....the regiment constructed the extensive fortifications around Covington and Newport. During the fall and winter of 1863-64 the regiment, in battalions of detachments, was engaged in guard duty at various points in Kentucky. On Feb. 19, 1864, it started under orders, through heavy snow and extreme cold, over the mountains to Knoxville, Tennessee, arriving March 9. Util September the regiment was engaged in guarding the railroads through Tennessee, and participated in Burbridge and Stonemans raids against Saltville. During the winter of 1864-65 it was constantly engaged in foraging and fighting guerrillas throughout east Tennessee and North Carolina. .... The regiment was engaged in guarding mountain passes and garrisoning captured points in Virginia and North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Tennessee.

you can see that their duties had nothing to do with artillery.

Absolutely agree but that was the West. There were no ports or heavily fortified cities that needed to be defended from a Confederate Army which was somewhere just over the horizon.

In the East there were, what, something like 40 forts ringing Washington just chock-a-block full of big guns that needed manning, plus forts up and down the coast such as the wonderful Fort Zachary Taylor in Key West - if you've missed it, put it on your list, I promise you it's awesome with a collection of huge guns like no other - which had to be manned.

Sherman had none of that so I would suppose his Heavy units evolved into something a little more useful.
 
The heavy artillery regiments comprised twelve companies/batteries, vice ten companies in an infantry regiment. They were organized into three battalions, and as others have noted, while on garrison duty they were more likely to be close to full strength, as many as 1800 men.

Five of the heavy regiments assigned to the AofP during the Overland campaign were formed into a division under B. Gen. Edward Tyler. Five regiments would normally be a brigade, but in this case their numbers were comparable to a division, so they were so designated.

Another, perhaps better, option was to attach heavy regiments to existing infantry brigades, so they could benefit from the experience of veteran soldiers and commanders. For example the 1st Vermont Heavy Artillery was attached to the Vermont Brigade. One fly in the ointment, however, was that the colonel of an artillery regiment fresh from the defenses of Washington might become the senior officer in a brigade which had suffered heavy combat casualties.

Light artillery units had their own guns, but heavies generally did not; rather they would man whatever guns were provided at a fort or garrison where they were assigned.

p.s. "guns" in military terminology refers to artillery pieces. Ironically, light artillery units had their own cannons, but most of the men did not carry small arms. Heavy artillery had rifles but did not have cannons organic to the unit.
 
Last edited:
There was a joke that went around the AotP: when a regiment of Heavies marched past someone would ask "What Division is that?" because by that point in the war no regiments even approached that size. (Partially due to the truly stupid policy of recruiting entirely new regiments rather than sending replacements into older, battle-depleted ones, one of the worst decisions of the war and one which cost a lot of lives as green troops led by green officers made 1862-ish mistakes that veteran outfits never would have)

Anyway, someone noted above that the heavies were also stuck in early-war mode tactically as their training in infantry tactics had mostly not evolved as it had in units which had been in the field for 2 or 3 years. Bull Run and Seven Days open field maneuver and massed fire tactics against well-entrenched Confederate veterans was nothing less than slaughter. They paid a very heavy price for those years of hot meals and comfy beds in the forts around Washington.

And I may be mistaken - around here it doesn't take long for somebody to pull you up short when you blow it - but wasn't it a regiment of heavies that was the replacement unit for the assault on the crater? Not only were they not trained for the mission, as the USCT troops who they replaced at the last minute were, but they were also unused to an infantryman's imperative to keep going forward. Certainly, veteran officers and NCO's would have known it.

Also it should be noted that another reason they stood out in AotP camps wasn't just that they showed up in spiffy clean uniforms but that they were very spit and polish troops. It was the heavies who got called out for ceremonies and parades and such around Washington, which was frequent. Grant certainly hadn't left any infantry regiments sitting around for those purposes, so it was the heavies who turned out, rifled musket in hand, for ceremonial and parade review duties.

So they were the ultimate example of the "paper collar" soldiers which by then everybody mocked. Clean, neatly turned out, well drilled, terrific on the parade ground and next to useless in a tight spot on the battlefield.

This is very interesting, so, what you're saying is that these ' Heavies' were lacking skills that the dedicated 'Infantry' had developed over the course of the war, although its argued that the same may not count for those similar regiments in the East. How well were these Heavy/Infantry regiments supplied when they were in the field, were they at the back of the queue when it came to weapons/food etc, were regular infantry units better equipped, I'm beginning to think that the men of the heavies were little more than cannon fodder especially given the fact that they had received very little in the way of developing infantry tactics.

Could either your good self or anyone else give me a few names of some of the heavy artillery regiments that performed as infantry albeit rather badly.
Many Thanks.
 
p.s. "guns" in military terminology refers to artillery pieces. ....

This is also broken down a little further. In addition to the artillery pieces being referred to as guns, they were also broken down into 2 more categories - cannon (smooth bores like the M-1841 6-pdr field guns, M-1857 12-pdr Napoleons) and Rifles (3" ordnance rifle, 10-pdr Parrot, James Guns)
 
The heavies were in the same position as a newly formed infantry regiment, familiar with basic infantry drill, formations, etc. but lacking the knowledge which comes with experience in the field.

You might look up the Spotsylvania or Cold Harbor Union order of battle in Wikipedia; you'll see some heavy regiments included in infantry brigades and a few units just of heavies.

On your question of troops assigned to protect the artillery, you'll sometimes see a battalion of a heavy artillery regiment included in a corps artillery brigade otherwise made up of light batteries; I believe these were serving in the infantry role, providing security or train guards.
 
The heavies were in the same position as a newly formed infantry regiment, familiar with basic infantry drill, formations, etc. but lacking the knowledge which comes with experience in the field.

You might look up the Spotsylvania or Cold Harbor Union order of battle in Wikipedia; you'll see some heavy regiments included in infantry brigades and a few units just of heavies.

Reminds me of the story from late in the war when a brigade got an order to charge a Rebel position and a newly arrived regiment jumped up and started forward. The veteran regiments next to them yelled "Get down you g*******d fools, you can't take those guns". As the story goes, the new guys apparently chose to take the advice.
 
Could either your good self or anyone else give me a few names of some of the heavy artillery regiments that performed as infantry albeit rather badly.
Many Thanks.

Well, I'm sure at least some of them performed admirably enough. Their main problem was inexperience compared tothe men around them on both sides.

As an example, at Cold Harbor you find the 2nd, 4th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 14th New York Heavy Artillery. Also the 1st Massachusetts, 1st Maine, 2nd Connecticut, 1st Vermont and 2nd PA.

I don't know about the other states but New York has a terrific website with fairly detailed histories of every state regiment. They seem to list all of the above along with field artillery units.

https://dmna.ny.gov/historic/reghist/civil/artillery/
 
There's a good description of the heavies' baptism of fire in Gordon C. Rhea's book To the North Anna River. Several of the newly arrived regiments found themselves in the path of a Confederate probe of the Union right flank and rear around Harris Farm.
 
Heavy Artillery units transferred to Infantry duty seem to have been as well armed and supplied as normal volunteer infantry, I don't recall ever seeing any complaints about that. Besides lack of "hard knocks" field experience, they suffered a great deal from long marches. Although they might be veterans of 2 or more years service, they hadn't done "the first thousand miles" of slogging through the mud and dust, and were largely unprepared for the trial they were about to face. Their feet suffered terribly. Many such units, however, gave very good account of themselves.
 
Back
Top