Hustle in combat

[byron ed]

In artillery reenacting for the morning drill a cannon crew paces itself in order to establish synchronicity and inter-unit communication (eye-contact) cues. That's all well and good.

But during the battle doesn't it look a bit stupid and inauthentic to maintain mere morning drill pace while the entire field is in motion (cavalry and infantry assaults etc.) while crews seem to stand as chess pieces oblivious to live battlefield dynamics. Crews generally don't even take hits early in the battle, only later and "with permission," as if no one noticed the early volleys aimed directly at the crews.

At some events I've seen that if a canonneer flinches or ducks behind a wheel when being fired at, they are reprimanded. Or if the powder runner* trots rather than walks the charge forward, they are ridiculed. Or if the crew momentarily ducks for cover under obvious and aimed fire, it gets rolled eyes.

Now I am in no way suggesting that a crew abandon it's positions unless commanded to do so, but I'm pretty sure it's more authentic (and was ok) that there was some hustle at the gun, which doesn't mean running and tripping.

In real combat the powder runner would be getting the charges to the muzzle faster rather than slower for a higher rate of fire. I'm also pretty sure command didn't want it's crew standing like chess pieces under direct aimed fire. They certainly preferred live crew with enough sense to duck for cover -- then to resume. Replacing a dead man or two after each enemy volley takes too long.

Thoughts? Or should I just get over it.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
* btw "powder monkey" was a Naval slang. It's a reenactorism for an Army reenacting impression, and so is using boys for the job. Boys were not expected to be artillery crew, they were expected to be drummers.

 

[Burning Billy]

Is there a historical basis for a slower, more deliberate pace?

Modern artillery crews are definitely expected to perform with a lot of hustling. See this example. Did something change, or did 19th Century gun crews also move with the same sense of purpose?

 

[byron ed]

Modern artillery crews are definitely expected to perform with a lot of hustling. See this example. Did something change, or did 19th Century gun crews also move with the same sense of purpose?

My OP is only about CW artillery reenactors, that apparently they are not expected to hustle to go by what I've seen over the years. Period manuals don't have much on pace, I suppose it was just so obvious that in combat you step it up, duh.

But heck ya, I think that CW reenactor crews should be hustling like your modern Marine artillery. Thanks for that.

 

[redbob]

My OP is only about CW artillery reenactors, and they are definitely not expected to hustle, by what I've seen over the years. But heck ya I think that CW reenactor crews should be hustling like your modern Marine artillery.

The Gun Captain (the Marine that is moving around from position to position) is checking the type and setting of the fuze, correct number of powder bags, whether the gun still has the correct sight picture, the primer and the safety of the crew. It is a ballet of activity, especially if it is being done within the confines of the turret of a self propelled gun. I would imagine that this same ballet takes place on Army gun crews also.

 

[UCVRelics]

I would imagine that this ballet also takes place on Army gun crews also.

In the turret of an M1 Abrams its like a precision ballet in a phone booth and a GREAT gun crew can put a lot of metal down rage with accuracy. I would think it would have been the same with any CW gun crew that had trained together.

 

[byron ed]

...I would think it would have been the same with any CW gun crew that had trained together.

...I would imagine that this same ballet takes place on Army gun crews also.

and heck ya, CW Army gun crews too.

so heck ya, should be CW reenacting gun crews too.

 

[AUG]

I recall reading in a few memoirs (Fours Years Under Marse Robert by Robert Stiles or Civil War Memoir of Philip Daingerfield Stephenson) of instances where the crew was working the guns while on their hands and knees while under a heavy fire, or loading and firing as quickly as possible in a desperate situation. Might post some excerpts later if I have time.

 

[WJC]

Is there a historical basis for a slower, more deliberate pace?

Modern artillery crews are definitely expected to perform with a lot of hustling. See this example. Did something change, or did 19th Century gun crews also move with the same sense of purpose?

I have no doubt that a 19th-century artillery crew would move with the same urgency as a modern artillery crew.

 

[byron ed]

I have no doubt that a 19th-century artillery crew would move with the same urgency as a modern artillery crew.

That's probably so, but again this thread isn't about that. Who would question it anyway? Per the OP this thread is about CW artillery reenacting. One modern comparison was perhaps worthwhile, but only in how it relates to reenacting.

Back on track, we're considering the behavior of CW artillery reenacting crews. We're considering authenticity and habits of CW artillery reenacting. If there is a valid issue here -- and nobody's concurred on that yet -- it's about CW artillery reenacting.

 

[WJC]

That's probably so, but again this thread isn't about that. Who would question it anyway? Per the OP this thread is about CW artillery reenacting. One modern comparison was perhaps worthwhile, but only in how it relates to reenacting.

Back on track, we're considering the behavior of CW artillery reenacting crews. We're considering authenticity and habits of CW artillery reenacting. If there is a valid issue here -- and nobody's concurred on that yet -- it's about CW artillery reenacting.

Thanks for your response.
My response was aimed at the video clip. However, to answer your question in the statement,

during the battle doesn't it look a bit stupid and inauthentic to maintain mere morning drill pace while the entire field is in motion (cavalry and infantry assaults etc.) while crews seem to stand as chess pieces oblivious to live battlefield dynamics.​

Yes, it does.
Further, I agree with your statement, "I'm pretty sure it's more authentic (and was ok) that there was some hustle at the gun...."

 

[drezac]

I have found there can be some factors that affect how we operate during reenactment battles. The main problem is with the command level, from the top level command, battery commander (when we have enough guns for that) and section command. frequently they dictate the pace. Especially when we have an officer in charge of the batteries or sections that wants to show off with various types of synchronized firings ( left to right, by section, etc). That can really slow down the pace, especially when some of the crews do a drill that takes more time than the rest of us. I'm not criticizing those crews, I have no problem with them doing it how they want to. But I do have a problem with command constantly calling for section or battery firings where those crews then slow down the pace.

We also have had problems with some in command that are stingy - they don't want to burn powder. We come to an event to burn powder, we don't want to take any back home. If you are in charge of a section, let your gun stand down to save your powder, don't stand us down also.

My son Adam was just promoted to Capt. of our battery. Last year he was a Liet. and was frequently in charge of a section or battery at events. His idea is that we will start out with some type of battery fire, but then he turns us loose on our own for the most part. He hands command down to the section. If he is in charge of a section, he lets the gunners take command of their guns. that way if someone wants to conserve powder, they can. as for us, we increase our rate of fire and keep things moving. Once in a while he will call for a battery fire, but for the most part backs off and lets us fire at our own pace.

We had a problem at Perryville a few years ago. Adam was in charge of the battery, and gave the command for section chiefs to take control of their sections. our section commander was with the gun next to us, and was one of the stingy ones. He kept slowing down the rate of fire and having us stand down. Nothing worse that going to all that work getting set up to just stand there. If he did not want to burn his powder, he could have at least let the gunners take command of their guns.

When we are able to operate on our own, we up keep the pace of fire and only slow down if we are running low on rounds or primers.

 

[captaindrew]

I've only worked a battery once and it was many moons ago when I was volunteered to help out a crew that was short on manpower so I'm not really too familiar with artillery drill but isn't there a mandatory wait time in firing the guns anyway? Something like 3 minutes, am I correct? That would naturally take away some of the urgency so why not be safe. That and with any reenacting you could never duplicate the stress and urgency of actual combat and really being shot at, it is what it is.

 

[Frederick14Va]

Unfortunately there are multiple different parallels and factors co-existing within the artillery reenacting community. Those also commonly vary by region. Which drill method one may be using frequently is the general basis of the respective differences. Many are utilizing a modern conceived drill format. Habitually one will do how one is trained. If the respective "drill" utilizes a static demo parade ground pace of gun drill.. They typically will do the same regardless if its a park demo or a battle recreation. If the habits of that section of the reenacting community is to "put on a show". Its usually void of any replicated sense of urgency or danger on the field. Rate of fire may or may not affect how things are portrayed on the field. Because a battery is ordered to do a slower rate of fire... one can still play their part without hanging out, lounging on the limber, joking and talking about latest football scores...

Previously the only ones consistently doing a more "authentic" version of drill was the gun crews of the NPS. This is still slightly modified version of the French-Berry-Hill manual, but was much closer to the original drill than any others were. The pace of the demo is generally slower since this is normally an educational demonstration that is narrated to the public to explain the roles of each cannoneer. This can vary by NPS sites. Ours we go through the steps slowly while being explained by a Ranger to the public in a non-firing cycle...Once that has concluded... We bring it up to full speed with a firing.

In recent years there has been an increasing emergence of artillery groups shifting towards a more authentic portrayal. This primarily existing within the campaigner side of the hobby but its quickly gaining more interest across the fence as well. Also using the same FBH original drill and bringing it even closer to what was actually done then from what the NPS does. Only a few minor concessions used since we are still using foil cartridges rather than woolen flannel ones, hence some guns require use of the worm... and #3 not cupping the primer which was a manual holdover from the prior days of using quills. Otherwise by the original manual evolutions and drill. Some will balk its unsafe... however one must remember that this manual was the result of near 200 years of experience to ensure safety of the crew and efficiency on the field, and works very well. Drill is only one aspect.. How to grease or replace a wheel.. How to dismount and remount a gun tube... how to sling a gun tube with the limber... method of spiking and unspiking a gun.. and many other items that would likely not be used on the reenactment field... but the cannoneers were originally trained how too... Drill drill drill... then drill some more... everyone rotating through all positions and second nature habit and proficiency in each.. What and how to continue with reduced numbers... who gos where and combines what and how...

We also have several horse teams and when able and practical several of our batteries will go mounted for a given event. We practice this on an off the field. All are taught horse sense.. feeding, grooming, picking feet, and harness.. How to harness up to the limber pole... How to quickly and safely untangle a trace if a horse accidently gets a leg over it... Things that every artilleryman would generally know... here they have opportunity to train on it and experience it first hand... Portrayal, uniform and gear taught and explained for the given impression being done at the time.. What to do when the situation gets threatened and hot... We see period illustrations of cannoneers huddled down at their guns between their steps of the loading process when the bullets and shells start to come near... yes we practice this too...

There is a significant difference in the hobby in the habits of the mounted, and what most batteries do that are only ever static placed on the field. Yet those items should be near identical. Because one doesn't have access or ability to use horses, doesn't mean your actions and habits on the field should be any different.. One main reason you rarely ever see an authentic battery with the sponge bucket sitting on the ground... it remains attached to the carriage... you don't have equipment and gear scattered all around the area... Regardless if you have horses hitched to your limber at the ready... or pretend they are "in the rear"... your portrayal would still be expected and ready to move out in a minutes notice just the same... The training, knowledge and mindset overall is a vital key for a good historically correct impression. This authentic side of the hobby with artillery has been quickly gaining more ground and more batteries each year... Others watch and see what we do, how we do it... and want to do it too...

pics from of one such event

 

[Noonanda]

I've only worked a battery once and it was many moons ago when I was volunteered to help out a crew that was short on manpower so I'm not really too familiar with artillery drill but isn't there a mandatory wait time in firing the guns anyway? Something like 3 minutes, am I correct? That would naturally take away some of the urgency so why not be safe. That and with any reenacting you could never duplicate the stress and urgency of actual combat and really being shot at, it is what it is.

That sounds like a misfire drill having to wait a certain amount of time

 

[Frederick14Va]

I've only worked a battery once and it was many moons ago when I was volunteered to help out a crew that was short on manpower so I'm not really too familiar with artillery drill but isn't there a mandatory wait time in firing the guns anyway? Something like 3 minutes, am I correct? That would naturally take away some of the urgency so why not be safe. That and with any reenacting you could never duplicate the stress and urgency of actual combat and really being shot at, it is what it is.

Depends on the location and event... NPS requires 10 min between firings... Most State and Local Park regs require 3 min. Other events may vary, or not regulated at all.

 

[Miles Krisman]

In artillery reenacting for the morning drill a cannon crew paces itself in order to establish synchronicity and inter-unit communication (eye-contact) cues. That's all well and good.

But during the battle doesn't it look a bit stupid and inauthentic to maintain mere morning drill pace while the entire field is in motion (cavalry and infantry assaults etc.) while crews seem to stand as chess pieces oblivious to live battlefield dynamics. Crews generally don't even take hits early in the battle, only later and "with permission," as if no one noticed the early volleys aimed directly at the crews.

At some events I've seen that if a canonneer flinches or ducks behind a wheel when being fired at, they are reprimanded. Or if the powder runner* trots rather than walks the charge forward, they are ridiculed. Or if the crew momentarily ducks for cover under obvious and aimed fire, it gets rolled eyes.

Now I am in no way suggesting that a crew abandon it's positions unless commanded to do so, but I'm pretty sure it's more authentic (and was ok) that there was some hustle at the gun, which doesn't mean running and tripping.

In real combat the powder runner would be getting the charges to the muzzle faster rather than slower for a higher rate of fire. I'm also pretty sure command didn't want it's crew standing like chess pieces under direct aimed fire. They certainly preferred live crew with enough sense to duck for cover -- then to resume. Replacing a dead man or two after each enemy volley takes too long.

Thoughts? Or should I just get over it.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
* btw "powder monkey" was a Naval slang. It's a reenactorism for an Army reenacting impression, and so is using boys for the job. Boys were not expected to be artillery crew, they were expected to be drummers.

I cannot comment on reenactors, but in real life, anything goes! The following took place at the Battle of Antietam/Sharpsburg.

The Yankees rushed forward into the sunken road, firing into the backs of the retreating Confederates. There were no Rebel troops near to hold the centre, except a few hundred rallied from various brigades. The Yankees crossed through the sunken road and occupied a cornfield and orchard in advance of it. They had now got within a few hundred yards of the hill that commanded Sharpsburg and the Confederate rear. The Rebels drew forward their artillery to halt the onslaught. About seventy rounds of canister were poured into the Federal line which was less than seventy yards away. As artillerymen went down, infantry men, even General Longstreet and his staff, served the guns. It was obvious to all that the centre must not be broken. The batteries were soon firing double charges of canister from the red hot barrels. Gunners avoided the time consuming task of swabbing the barrels after each discharge by "thumbing the vents", a dangerous process by which a Gunner kept his thumb over the gun vent to prevent oxygen from entering the chamber and setting off the charge prematurely while the loaders tamped in powder and shot. When the gunner removed his thumb the cannon immediately fired. Firing these heavy double canister loads, made the gun recoil four or five feet and the gunner who was firing with his thumb had to ride the gun back. A commander of a Federal regiment facing this onslaught commented later that the artillery fire coming out of the orchard was the most effective he had ever experienced and that no one could survive its' fire.[1]


[1] "Warrior In Gray – General Robert Rodes of Lee's Army" by James K. Swisher, page71

 

[byron ed]

... isn't there a mandatory wait time in firing the guns anyway? Something like 3 minutes, am I correct?...

That's not correct. Many here know so I apologize ahead for the following basic explanation on your behalf:

So unless there's an intervening technical issue (primer failure, trouble extracting foil, still smoking vent etc.) or some command issue ("hold fire" or "on Captain's signal" or any special order of any kind from a non-com or officer assigned to your gun -- or even a "hold" or "stop vent" called by you or any other crewman on your gun) you can fire as fast and furious as you can handle.

Well-drilled teams with command permissions can even skip calling out order of fire, leaving only the gunner to verbally initiate each sequence. Of course that's not something that newby or hastily-mustered crews should be doing but you do see it being done. It's an acceptable form of Hustle. Personally I think we should see more of it. It's combat we are portraying.

As far as your recollection on the 3 minute thing, that's only in the event of an obvious primer failure, which is instantly verified and called by the gun Corporal or Sargeant. That causes an immediate shift to a failed primer drill that begins with a (typically) 3 min. pause, followed by a confirmation of no smoke, and only then changing out the dud primer.

I'm thinking that if what you remember is the 3 minute thing, the unit that day must of had a batch of stinko primers they wanted to use up before cracking out a fresh pack. Artillerists can be real Mother Hubbards about stuff like that