Part I - Cannoneers Post!
...and the dog's position?
Part I - Cannoneers Post!
Somehow all this time I'd never even noticed the dog! He may have belonged to the owner of this ranch we were using as our weekend campground....and the dog's position?
...and the dog's position?
When the round is rammed, #3 moves their thumb from the vent to the rim - the appearance is the same but keeps #3's hand out of harms way when the round is being rammed
Inspector, checking whether every man is on his proper post....and the dog's position?
...somewhat faster ramming with only one hand - keeping the hand away from the muzzle as much as possible. we are only seating a blank charge in foil, not a 6-pd round with a cartridge bag in a fouled bore.
Do notice what I said in the OP: " The gun in this case is a full-scale replica 12-pounder mountain howitzer, the smallest gun utilized during the war other than the Dahlgren boat howitizer, a naval gun generally found aboard ship, and a few experimental types never in general service." I'd say your Tredegar with only 19 - 21 made falls into that category, although I wasn't thinking of it or any other specific gun type when I wrote this - I was just aware of the existence of oddballs that fall outside the norm. My main point was that since my photos show the drill being performed on a small gun like the mountain howitzer that the drill used was nevertheless still the same as that for larger and more common fieldpieces like Napoleons, Parrotts, etc. I don't know if that would be the case with the Tredegar which sounds like it might've been quite a bit smaller.… By the James, I don't want to say it, but I don't think the M1835 Mountain Howitzer, (MH) was the smallest gun of the War. The 2.25in Tredegar Mountain Rifle of which either 19 or 21 were made, (different sources say different things about them) with all but one being rifled bronze guns with a smaller bore than the MH and the barrel was small enough that it could be carried easier than the MH. The Tredegar Mountain Rifles apparently saw wide service for so few guns to have been made: One going to Mosby, (that gun supposedly survived and is on display at the Artillery museum in Oklahoma City)...
I don't want to contradict you James, but I just wanted to point out that there was a smaller gun than the MH. The Tredegar Rifles might have had a longer barrel, (not by too much), but their diameter was a lot smaller.
Do notice what I said in the OP: " The gun in this case is a full-scale replica 12-pounder mountain howitzer, the smallest gun utilized during the war other than the Dahlgren boat howitizer, a naval gun generally found aboard ship, and a few experimental types never in general service." I'd say your Tredegar with only 19 - 21 made falls into that category, although I wasn't thinking of it or any other specific gun type when I wrote this - I was just aware of the existence of oddballs that fall outside the norm. My main point was that since my photos show the drill being performed on a small gun like the mountain howitzer that the drill used was nevertheless still the same as that for larger and more common fieldpieces like Napoleons, Parrotts, etc. I don't know if that would be the case with the Tredegar which sounds like it might've been quite a bit smaller.
Speaking of that particular campaign that ended in the Battle of Prairie Grove, I was surprised when I learned that at least one of the Union columns - Herron's I believe - included at least one battery of the little mountain howitzers. I agree about the over-proliferation of them in many reenactments though.… No matter, only thing I don't like about the MH's is they are WAY over-represented at reenactments, they are fun guns to play with.
But amusing account concerning the Tredegar Mountain Rifle's ammunition from a Union point of view at the Battle of Cane Hill when a driver and two horses in the First Kansas Battery suffered their only casualties from one shot from:
"It was about the size and shape of an old-fashioned clock weight".
Speaking of that particular campaign that ended in the Battle of Prairie Grove, I was surprised when I learned that at least one of the Union columns - Herron's I believe - included at least one battery of the little mountain howitzers. I agree about the over-proliferation of them in many reenactments though.
...I was schooled in every position, and when I tried for the gunner's position commanding the piece I got the orders down right, but the "instructor" standing directly in front of the piece, (we were drilling, not firing ...that old fart would shout every time "Failed primer!..."Your crew is waiting for your orders! Give the proper command!" ...
In other words, the guy was a jerk, and not an expert (whoever he convinced that he was). First of all, there's no excuse for the old fart to be directing the gun from in front of the muzzle just because it was a drill. A drill is a drill. He wasn't the gunner or even a section commander, so no. Secondly, the muzzle area is an exclusion zone, period. A drill is a drill. Thirdly, it's not an observer's place to declare "failed primer!" That is totally, and only, the provenance and duty of any crewman actually servicing the piece - to include the Corporal, Gunner (you) or Gun Sargent. A drill is a drill: either it's training in mode or it isn't.
A legitimate observer vetts the drill after completion of the cycle, at "piece ready."
Unfortunately many reenacting Artillery newbys have had to endure the bluster of a particular puffed-up, self-pronounced "master of the piece." It's not until those newbys muster in with another unit on occasion that they realize how much of their own drill was based primarily on unit preference, and not at all on a bottom-line, authentic period drill in detail (which just about all units avoid as being needlessly risky). Every newby deserves to have that explained to them before having to be jerked around by some self-righteous "grizzled veteran" of the unit. Oh yeah, imho.
Well I wouldn't say he was jerking me around, it was just his way of teaching, and it stuck after about twelve different times of "stuff going wrong" so to speak, but it stuck.
Not being an artillery person, I enjoyed the walk through and the images and text.
Agreed, very interesting.
Despite the interesting subject matter, I prefer to in the infantry. Less noise.
There's sure no consensus about that among reenactment batteries. Many, if not most, keep the vent stopped by thumb until the split-second before the primer is inserted. It's the same reason it's kept stopped at other times in the drill: to limit the re-energizing of any remaining embers* during ramming, before the charge is fully seated.
In other words, what's the point of stopping the vent at any stage of the drill if it's going to be left uncovered for several extra seconds near the end of the drill?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
* highly unlikely by then, but still a remote possiblility
when sponging, the sponge is ( at least it should be ) a tight fit in the bore, forcing air out the vent during sponging. During ramming the charge, it Is a loose fit, and most of the air will escape around the charge through the bore. By not stopping the vent during ramming, it adds safety for #3 in the event of a discharge. I have seen a premature discharge on a gun next to the one i was a gunner on. Had #3 not moved her thumb off the vent, she most likly would have had a serious injury. Instead, she just had the sleeve of her jacket singed.