What was Heavy Artillery in the Civil War?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 вер 2024
- What was the difference between artillery and heavy artillery units during the American Civil War? Douglas Ullman, Jr. breaks down these "hybrid" units that doubled as artillerists and infantrymen.
This video is part of the Battlefield U series in which we provide answers to your questions about the Civil War, Revolutionary War, and War of 1812. We aim to increase your baseline knowledge of American history, whether it be for school, battlefield visits, or trivia night! • Battlefield University
The American Battlefield Trust preserves America’s hallowed battlegrounds and educates the public about what happened there and why it matters. We permanently protect these battlefields for future generations as a lasting and tangible memorial to the brave soldiers who fought in the American Revolution, the War of 1812, and the Civil War.
Artillery was on the cusp of a major step forward in firepower. Between 1898 and 1918 naval ships were increasingly powerful. The Royal Navy and the German grand fleet were in the forefront of naval rifles and torpedoes.
New, more accurate and heavier artillery was required on the stalemated western front.
The French 75 and the German 105 howitzer led the way.
From what I was taught in my college history courses artillery in the history of U.S. Military and other nations units is overlooked. For example an American history professor told us that during the Battle of New Orleans, the first American artillery barrage killed the majority of the British officers. Later on there was the devastating time on target tactics used by American army artillery in the European theater during WW2. Okinawa was a nightmare for USMC and U.S. Army units because the well trained Japaneses artillery units meant for use in the Philippines were sent to Okinawa, so double the artillery units. The Japanese seemed to have had every square centimeter of ground pre-sighted in. The oral stories told by US military personnel who fought on Okinawa is very harrowing to listen to.
Ggg-grandpa sat in Fort Crutchfield in Chattanooga for a few months in 1865. 1st MN Heavy Artillery.
The thing that baffles me about the use of civil war artillery is that (at least as far as I know) it was almost always used in a direct fire role. When I think of the bombardment prior to Pickett's charge and how so many of the rounds went long, it seems to me that it would have been far more effective to use those guns more like a howitzer or a mortar. Using trigonometry, those artillerymen could have dropped every round just where they wanted it instead of relying on crude fuses. I understand that the canons used in a typical battery weren't designed for high angle shooting, but I have to wonder--why not?
Because obviously they couldn’t do that! Do you think they were stupid? They could only do that with howitzers, regular cannons couldn’t be used as howitzers. Part of the plan Alexander had was to move the howitzers forward with the infantry, but Pendleton had sent them away. Plus Confederate artillery had substandard ordnance, and the crews weren’t quite as efficient as Union crews.
I thought that was a great question.
@@dadsongs well I answered why it was not a viable idea. Cracks me up how people learn a little and think they’re an expert and have better ideas than those that were there. Dunning-Kruger effect strikes again!
There’s a lot to unpack here. Not sure where to start. You’re mixing a lot of terms.
Yes, ACW arty occasionally fired indirect, but usually it was direct fire. Perhaps you have confused the concepts of direct/indirect fire with mortars/howitzers. Two different concepts. “Indirect fire” just means the shooter can not see the target. A mortar can fire direct or indirect. A howitzer can fire direct or indirect. In theory, one could even fire an 1861 S’Field indirect.
The term “howitzer” has changed meanings over the years. In 1860s America it meant a subtype of cannon that did not fire solid shot, but mostly fired cannister, at a slightly higher angle (still less than a mortar), using less powder. As a result of needing less powder, the 1860 howitzer had a slightly shorter barrel, and thinner walls, and therefore weighed less. In the ACW, field armies preferred the heavier, all purpose 12 lb Napoleon, but howitzers were not uncommon. They used whatever they had.
You wrote, “Using trigonometry, those artillerymen could have dropped every round just where they wanted it”. On a sunny, windless day on the parade ground, perhaps. But on a windy day, in the driving rain, with 5,000 men across the way shooting at you, and the piece recoiling in the mud? The enemy doesn’t stop shooting at you while you do your trig tables.
You wrote, “instead of relying on crude fuses”. How exactly do you want the shell to explode without using a fuse? Did you mean without using time fuses? Percussion or impact fuses could not be used on spherical shell, making timed fuses the only answer. Rifled, conical shells sometimes used percussion fuses, but artillerymen usually preferred time fuses because they were going for airburst to maximize casualties.
@@RealityOrganized Thanks for your thoughtful reply. As you say, the question I ask requires a lot of unpacking and would have been better asked in person among a group of people familiar with Civil War era artillery. I keep thinking of those fuses used at Gettysburg and how they doomed any chance at success for the subsequent attack (if indeed, there ever was one). Had the artillery been used in a plunging fire attack, ideally those fuses would have set off the shells just above the ground occupied by the federal troops. But even if they did not explode until after they hit the ground, they would have done much more damage than all those rounds that went long in the direct fire role and exploded harmlessly behind the lines.
Ultimately, I think I know why artillery capable of indirect fire was not widely used in the field. It was probably beyond the technology of the time to build a canon that was capable of both direct and indirect fire. Given the importance of direct fire, especially when using canister to break up massed infantry attacks, it would be a no-brainer to build direct fire guns.
As far as I know, indirect or plunging fire didn't become the primary means of using artillery until WWI. A lot changed during that time, including developments in metallurgy and propellants. In all likelihood, the question I posed at the beginning of this was not a practical possibility in the 1860's, but again, thanks for engaging and replying with a thoughtful answer.
Great short. I knew most of the time. The heavy Guns were defending Forts. Thanks for sharing 💕💯👍
👍👍
Petersburg almost wiped out these so called soliders. Grant used them as cannon fodder.
Someone please inform the presenter about the 1st Maine Heavy Artillery Regiment. Yes, they were issued muskets. No, they weren't 'trained like every other grunt.' Who writes this stuff?
How do we know you know wtf you’re talking about though?