Siege in the Field...

[LtTevis]

Hey all,
So I've wondered about Siege guns in primarily Field environments.
Such as when McClellan emplaced the Heavy Guns during the Peninsular,
( eventually possibly using at the gates of Richmond, but to my knowledge, never moving very far from their initial lay )
or when Lee emplaced the 30 Lb Parrots at Fredericksburg.
Major efforts were required to move/deploy these massive guns. As such, was there any measurable benefit for employing these pieces in primarily field operations?

 

[Manassas 1861]

Hello, siege artillery in a field artillery environment was pretty rare during the war. Seige guns were thousands of pounds and took a lot of time to move, and many horses were needed to transport them. Large guns were made for permanent fortifications, so they were rarely used outside of these kinds of fortifications. You might have had an advantage seeing as they could fire massive shells weighing anywhere from 100-400 lbs, which could do some serious damage. But these take time to load and fire, so it probably wasn't necessary.

 

[Dan Kohli]

Firstly I'd like to mention that most of the guns that could fire shells in the triple digits were mostly considered sea cost artillery. The siege artillery was the smallest and had the highest mobility of what was classified as heavy artillery.
There was apparently enough benefits to have a pair of 4.5 inch siege rifle batteries permanently attached to the Army of the Potomac. The siege artillery could possibly be used in the field, but they were not as maneuverable as the field artillery. Due to their weight and how the siege carriage was designed to carry that weight, the siege guns could not be deployed as quickly as the field artillery.