Union Artillery Batteries with Howitzers

It's an interesting point, because the longer the tube the greater the velocity (and range). For the 18th and 19th century field howitzers that may have been tied to the assumed fragility of the projectile - in addition to the chamber and the reduced charge. Somebody here may know better.
The 1841 wasn't designed for long range and had a special design in the chamber that enabled it to achieve the velocity that it did have... It could fire solid, round and canister shot so the rounds weren't an issue.
1609369383392.png
 
One of Battery D's 24-pounder howitzers is a fourth "witness cannon." Battery D, 1st Illinois Light Artillery, was from Plainfield, IL. I grew up with some of Captain McAllister's decendents, who gave me access to his papers when I wrote a high school research paper. McAllister had been involved in the creation of the Shiloh Military Park and visited when the Illinois monuments were dedicated. There are two guns at the Battery D monument: a 24-pounder howitzer and a 12-pounder howitzer. McAllister noted from the tube number on the 24-pounder that it had been one of his guns during the war.

I exchanged messages with "TomP" - identified as a park historian - on this forum about this two years ago.

Regards,
Don Dixon
Hello Don Dixon, I am very interested in the paper you wrote about McAllister's Battery and the McAllister papers. I believe I might have just acquired a 24 Pdr. Field Howitzer ammmunition chest which belonged to McAlister's Battery. I will put it on display soon. I would like to talk to you about McAlister's Battery at your convenience. Thank you for your time. Duffy Neubauer, StarkvilleCivilWarArsenal.com 662-617-9962
 
Here is info about Union artillery at Chickamauga: (unless otherwise stated, the howitzers are 12 pounders - also most of these batteries had other guns too)

18 Indiana Battery - x4 mountain howitzers
D, 1 mich lt - x2
4th Indiana - x 2
C, 1 Ill Lt x2
8th Indiana x 2
3rd Wis x 2
H 4 US x 4
 
At the battle of Raymond, the Union forces had ZERO Napoleons. They had 22 (?) guns on the field, including 6 pounders, James Rifles, 12 pounder howitzers and 24 pounder howitzers.

My point is that, west of the Appalachians, Union forces tended to use more howitzers (and more obsolescent artillery in general) than in Virginia.
 
Hello Don Dixon, I am very interested in the paper you wrote about McAllister's Battery and the McAllister papers. I believe I might have just acquired a 24 Pdr. Field Howitzer ammmunition chest which belonged to McAlister's Battery. I will put it on display soon. I would like to talk to you about McAlister's Battery at your convenience. Thank you for your time. Duffy Neubauer, StarkvilleCivilWarArsenal.com 662-617-9962
Hey Duffy, Looking forward to see this chest. Happy New Year.
 
It's an interesting point, because the longer the tube the greater the velocity (and range). For the 18th and 19th century field howitzers that may have been tied to the assumed fragility of the projectile - in addition to the chamber and the reduced charge. Somebody here may know better.
Your guess is as good as anybody else’s at this point.
 
Here is info about Union artillery at Chickamauga: (unless otherwise stated, the howitzers are 12 pounders - also most of these batteries had other guns too)

18 Indiana Battery - x4 mountain howitzers
D, 1 mich lt - x2
4th Indiana - x 2
C, 1 Ill Lt x2
8th Indiana x 2
3rd Wis x 2
H 4 US x 4
The 18th Indiana Battery 12 pound mountain howitzers were known as the Jackass Battery. The 18th was Eli Lilly’s Battery assigned to Wilder’s Lightening Brigade. They did good service at Hoover’s Gap during the opening day of the Tullahoma Campaign. In letters, the men wondered about how Wilder had managed to get his hands on them. The 12 pnd mountain howitzers also did good service during Wilder’s attack on Cowen. Those are the most notable instances where mountain howitzers made a significant contribution to the outcome of a battle that I am aware of. I expect someone else knows about another. I have read several times that the crews took sinful pride in them, but they were of little military value.
 
@Don Dixon I am unsure about the possibility of a fourth witness gun and refer you to @TomP who is very knowledgeable about the artillery of Shiloh. He is also a Ranger in fact not just ID as one.
I can inform you that McAllister's 1st Illinois Light Artillery Battery "B" Monument has two 24-pounde Bronze Field Howitzers, Alger Model 1841 alongside at the Review Field location. Now if these tubes were swapped at some time in the past I do not know if that is possible.
Regards
David

The Review Field location of McAllister's Battery "B" where they fought from 9 am to 11 am on Sunday
View attachment 386207

This is single 24-pounder Bronze Howitzer, Alger, Model 1841, marks the Monday morning position of McAllister. This is the last of 24-pounder Howitzers marking McAllister's position.
View attachment 386216

Close up of the tablet marking the position of the battery
View attachment 386217qq

Once again, McAllister's Battery was Battery "D," 1st Illinois Light Artillery, not Battery "B."

I wrote the high school paper in November 1963. Among Captain McAllister's papers was a cabinet card photograph showing the Battery D monument and two howitzers. The photograph was taken from the front of the monument and the muzzles of the two guns. On the right was a 24-pounder howitzer, and on the left was a 12-pounder howitzer. Battery D was never equipped with 12-pounder guns and this was an incorrect placement by the Park Service. But, I wouldn't imagine that they had too many 24-pounder guns. McAllister had written [it was his own handwriting, verified by his elderly daughter, and similar to the handwriting in the rest of his papers] the following note on the side of the photograph under the 24-pounder howitzer "This gun belonged to McAllister's Battery and was in action here on April 6, 1862." The family story was that McAllister acquired the cabinet card when he visited Shiloh for the dedication of the park [more probably the Illinois monuments]. When he visited the monument he recognised the tube number on the 24-pounder gun. That would not necessarily surprise me, because a lot of us old soldiers can tell you the serial number(s) of weapons we carried in the military.

My parents attended a convention in Memphis in December 1964, and I drove out to Shiloh to tour the battlefield. Of course I visited the Battery D monument. At that time, a 24-pounder howitzer was still located on the right side of the monument and a 12-pounder howitzer on the left. I have no recollection of making any notes of the tube markings on the 24-pounder. Somewhere I have some photographs from the trip. From your [recent?] photographs, the Park Service has clearly moved things around since 1964, and perhaps they can track the tube numbers of the guns they moved. But, given the placements of the guns, I can't see why they would have gone to the effort to move the 24-pounder on the right side of the monument since there is still a 24-pounder gun there.

Regards,
Don Dixon
 
Last edited:
I suggest you contact @TomP as he compiled the list of the placement of the tubes and may be able to answer your questions.
Regards
David
 
I suggest you contact @TomP as he compiled the list of the placement of the tubes and may be able to answer your questions.
Regards
David

I have no questions. I have posted the information I have above, and I engaged TomP about the gun two years ago on-line and privately in another discussion on this site. Having provided what information I have on what I believe is a witness gun, the Park Service may do with it what they wish. Since the number of identified witness guns is apparently so small, I would think that they would be interested.

Regards,
Don Dixon
 
Once again, McAllister's Battery was Battery "D," 1st Illinois Light Artillery, not Battery "B."

I wrote the high school paper in November 1963. Among Captain McAllister's papers was a cabinet card photograph showing the Battery D monument and two howitzers. The photograph was taken from the front of the monument and the muzzles of the two guns. On the right was a 24-pounder howitzer, and on the left was a 12-pounder howitzer. Battery D was never equipped with 12-pounder guns and this was an incorrect placement by the Park Service. But, I wouldn't imagine that they had too many 24-pounder guns. McAllister had written [it was his own handwriting, verified by his elderly daughter, and similar to the handwriting in the rest of his papers] the following note on the side of the photograph under the 24-pounder howitzer "This gun belonged to McAllister's Battery and was in action here on April 6, 1862." The family story was that McAllister acquired the cabinet card when he visited Shiloh for the dedication of the park [more probably the Illinois monuments]. When he visited the monument he recognised the tube number on the 24-pounder gun. That would not necessarily surprise me, because a lot of us old soldiers can tell you the serial number(s) of weapons we carried in the military.

My parents attended a convention in Memphis in December 1964, and I drove out to Shiloh to tour the battlefield. Of course I visited the Battery D monument. At that time, a 24-pounder howitzer was still located on the right side of the monument and a 12-pounder howitzer on the left. I have no recollection of making any notes of the tube markings on the 24-pounder. Somewhere I have some photographs from the trip. From your [recent?] photographs, the Park Service has clearly moved things around since 1964, and perhaps they can track the tube numbers of the guns they moved. But, given the placements of the guns, I can't see why they would have gone to the effort to move the 24-pounder on the right side of the monument since there is still a 24-pounder gun there.

Regards,
Don Dixon
I can explain why guns are moved on NPS battlefields. The metal display carriages need to be cleaned & repainted as time goes by. That is done in the maintenance area. One of the cool things about being an NPS volunteer is getting a close look at the goodies at the maintenance area that visitors never see. Another factor is ongoing scholarship. The reason for citing markers & batteries in the early days of the National Battlefields was anecdotal in many cases. The information used during the lead up to the 1960 centennial was nothing like the quality & volume available today. As a result, especially during the lead up to the 150th, placement of markers & batteries on NPS battlefields were adjusted. Another factor outside the park boundaries are markers & occasionally cannons placed by private groups. The City of Franklin TN, for example, recently removed Battle of Franklin markers placed by a private group that were deemed inaccuate & misleading. Historians at all levels are doing their best to be rigorous, which isn't always the same as being popular.
 
Last edited:
I can explain why guns are moved on NPS battlefields. The metal display carriages need to be cleaned & repainted as time goes by. That is done in the maintenance area. One of the cool things about being an NPS volunteer is getting a close look at the goodies at the maintenance area that visitors never see. Another factor is ongoing scholarship. The reason for citing markers & batteries in the early days of the National Battlefields was anecdotal in many cases. The information used during the lead up to the 1960 centennial was nothing like the quality & volume available today. As a result, especially during the lead up to the 150th, placement of markers & batteries on NPS battlefields were adjusted. Another factor outside the park boundaries are markers & occasionally cannons placed by private groups. The City of Franklin TN, for example, recently removed Battle of Franklin markers places by a private group that were deemed invacuate & misleading. Historians at all levels are doing their best to be rigorous, which isn't always the same as being popular.
Good information. At any given time X number of guns at Gettysburg NMP are not on display and are undergoing maintenance.
 
Your guess is as good as anybody else’s at this point.
So I checked Gibbon, Roberts, Hazlett, etc etc - I even went back to Muller (1768 ed.) because he has a section on the "construction" of the "howitz". Nada. The best I can come up with is the intent to lessen velocity (which was less important to the purposes of a howitzer than to those of a gun), with the added benefit of reducing weight/increasing mobility. If you look at howitzers used by the RA in the AWI, the smaller calibers literally look like mortars but with (1) wheels and (2) reduced elevation. The M1857 Napoleon could fire all the ordnance and had much greater range than the M1841 12 lb field howitzer, so the lower weight of the latter would be more than offset by the gains. Tip: take this speculation FWIW.
 
So I checked Gibbon, Roberts, Hazlett, etc etc - I even went back to Muller (1768 ed.) because he has a section on the "construction" of the "howitz". Nada. The best I can come up with is the intent to lessen velocity (which was less important to the purposes of a howitzer than to those of a gun), with the added benefit of reducing weight/increasing mobility. If you look at howitzers used by the RA in the AWI, the smaller calibers literally look like mortars but with (1) wheels and (2) reduced elevation. The M1857 Napoleon could fire all the ordnance and had much greater range than the M1841 12 lb field howitzer, so the lower weight of the latter would be more than offset by the gains. Tip: take this speculation FWIW.
Thanks for the input. I think it is the difference between throwing a softball & a baseball. (The sizzling underarm pitch is not what I am referring to.) The trajectory & the throwing motion are very different. I use the comparison of throwing a softball & passing a football to explain rifled cannon fire to visitors. I think the softball-baseball analogy is similar.
 
The 1841 wasn't designed for long range and had a special design in the chamber that enabled it to achieve the velocity that it did have... It could fire solid, round and canister shot so the rounds weren't an issue.
View attachment 386231
The Army actually didn't issue solid shot to the M1841 12 lb field howitzer because of the resulting stress. Not sure whether the Confederates did. I note the image shows a "mountain howitzer" - any idea what the caliber is?
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the input. I think it is the difference between throwing a softball & a baseball. (The sizzling underarm pitch is not what I am referring to.) The trajectory & the throwing motion are very different. I use the comparison of throwing a softball & passing a football to explain rifled cannon fire to visitors. I think the softball-baseball analogy is similar.
And to finish, you mentioned this in an earlier post: "the battering job of a cannon". In short, I think that's the major factor. The more velocity, the harder the hit. Howitzers had a different purpose.
 
The Army actually didn't issue solid shot to the M1841 12 lb field howitzer because of the resulting stress. Not sure whether the Confederates did. I note the image shows a "mountain howitzer" - any idea what the caliber is?
I was referring to the 6lber which could fire solid, shot and canister. The diagram is to show the inner chamber which gave it the velocity that it had.
 
I was referring to the 6lber which could fire solid, shot and canister. The diagram is to show the inner chamber which gave it the velocity that it had.
Got it. I had been referring to the M1841 12 lb field howitzer so I assumed your reference was to that. Since the M1841 6 lb was a gun, it could handle solid shot. The M1841 mountain howitzer was a 12 lb.
 
Back
Top