Artillery Post Part 1

[Gfran64]

Artillery Post Part 1

A battery of field artillery is worth a thousand muskets.
General William Tecumseh Sherman

As we returned a Yankee battery of eight guns had full play on us in the field, and our line became a little confused; we halted, every man instantly turned and faced the battery. As we did so, I heard a thud on my right, as if one had been struck with a heavy fist. Looking around I saw a man at my side standing erect, with his head off, a stream of blood spurting a foot or more from his neck. As I turned farther around, I saw three others lying on the ground, all killed by this cannon shot. The man standing was a captain in the 42nd Va. Regt., and his brains and blood bespattered the face and clothing of one of my company, who was standing in the rear. This was the second time I saw four men killed by one shot. The other occurred in the battle of Cedar Run, a few weeks earlier. Each time the shot struck as it was descending - the first man had his head taken off, the next was shot through the breast, the next through the stomach, and the fourth had all his bowels torn out.
From the diary of Pvt. John H. Worsham, 21st Va.

Of actions taken at Gettysburg on July 2nd, 1863:
I was obliged to leave one caisson and one caisson body on the field for the want of horses to bring them off, but subsequently recovered them.
My loss in men was as follows: One man killed, 16 men wounded, and 3 missing, 2 of whom are known to be prisoners. I had 17 horses killed, and 5 disabled so badly that I was obliged to abandon them.
Of the conduct of the officers and men, I can only say that it was in the highest degree commendable for courage and bravery.
I am, captain, your obedient servant,
A. JUDSON CLARK,
Captain First New Jersey Artillery, Comdg. Battery B.

Only about six percent of the soldiers in the American Civil War were enrolled in the artillery branch of the service, yet the artillery played a pivotal role in almost every major engagement of the War. These units had very low turnover rates and were very highly trained and cohesive. For all the strengths of TC2M, it seems that the function of artillery at longer ranges was significantly underestimated. Most players have found that to be successful with TC2M artillery it has to be used within canister range. Hence the extended battle line mod. Was this true for the ACW? Based on what I’ve read so far, I would say partly. No doubt canister was the gold standard but the other ordnances were also effective at what they did. Artillery was fiercely guarded and only deployed forward by mistake or extreme necessity. These men were not considered “expendable.” They were kept well back from the fighting in most instances. Artillery units on both sides had reserve men/horses within the battery. They were also armed with cap and ball pistols.
Most Union batteries were made up of 105 men and between 80-110 horses. They had 4 guns and 2 howitzers. These were pulled by teams of 6 horses. Each gun had a limber. The gun also had a caisson and its limber in support. The gun was manned by an 8 man crew but could be loaded and fired by 2 men. Remember also that there were trained men in reserve within the battery that could be called upon to service the gun. The gun was placed, the limber behind it some 15 yards and then the caisson behind that and then the horses well back of the caisson. The reason for this was to minimize the collateral damage should a limber or caisson be hit and explode. Confederate batteries had 2 guns and 2 howitzers and only allocated 4 horses to pull each gun. The artillerists in both armies walked so as to spare the horses.
They could fire on average 2 times a minute, possibly 3 if the barrel sponging step was skipped and many times in combat it was. The type of ammunition and fuse cutting was performed as the first step in the loading process. The gun was aimed at the end of the process. One crate of ammunition was stored on the limber and two more on the caisson. When the battery expended all this, the caisson was sent to the ammunition wagon to get more. The wagon was not brought to the caisson or limber. Had an ammunition wagon driven into the field of fire of the enemy’s rifled guns and stopped to re-supply a battery, there would have been quite a fireworks display. These wagons were generally kept out of the direct line of sight of the rifled guns, but may have still been in range of the howitzers.
Now, as far as accuracy goes, there is a lot of variability in the literature I have read and documentaries I have watched. I do know that modern re-enactors are very, very accurate with the rifled guns with solid shot on a fixed target. There are reports of confederate generals being shot out of their saddles at distances well over 1000 yards. Accuracy is really a function of how well you know the yardage to your target as well as its elevation relative to your position and how many previous times you have made that shot. Forward observers were used to adjust fire, (Little Round Top).
The process started with the first round being thrown in high so as not to obscure the target. If you went long, there was a still a good chance you would hit their horses. Then fire was adjusted downward. Notes were taken and soon the ranges were known to various locations on the battlefield. When there was no action, guns would still fire a round here and there to determine the ranges to strategic areas on the field, (i.e. the wood line along Seminary Ridge). From what I have read, commanders rarely had all guns in a battery fire the same type of ordnance at a target. They seemed to try to get as many different types of metal on a target as possible. Clarke opened up on rebel columns at GB day 2 at 400 yards with solid shot, shell, case and canister all at the same time.
Concerning strategy, it seems that when the enemy artillery engaged in counter battery fire against you started to find its range, then your battery was withdrawn and redeployed elsewhere. The converse would also be true. As far as engaging infantry, the longer the infantry unit stayed in one spot, the worse it got for them as range to target would become clearer. The infantry tactic of advancing on guns and then lying down just before the guns fired and then standing up and advancing on them while they reloaded was countered by the battery firing its guns one at a time. What seemed to give artillerists the most trouble was when they were receiving counter battery fire and they had enemy infantry in there area. Then they had to split their resources between the two. Part of the battery would fire on infantry and the other part as counter battery.
It seems to me that the longer a gun remained in one place, the more accurate its fire became because of the data it gained from the day’s events. Now this does not take into account smoke. Surely smoke hindered the visibility of an area for both sides and you may not see the result of your work, (Porter Alexander, Day 3 Gettysburg), but well placed forward observers could and they would provide some direction to your fire. Artillerists did not necessarily need to see their target, they just needed to know that it was there. If they had reports of troops moving out of a wooded area but could not see that movement due to fog, smoke or terrain they could still deliver fire to that area if the range and direction were known or they had made that shot previously.

More to follow,

Greg:)

[ironsight]

Greg, great post!
The more one fights TC2M battles, the more apparent the importance of well placed artillery becomes. Its too bad the effect of those TC2M guns are unrealistic at long range. Its not uncommon to have 4 or 5 of my batteries pounding a lone enemy battery with negligable effect until the enemy guns run out of long range ammo and then finally start retreating one by one. Totally unrealistic IMO.

Moving the artillery as close to the front line as safely practical with the infantry has usually worked well for me but as you mentioned this was probably seldom done during the real war. This is definitely a high risk tactic as i typically lose a percentage of guns in the process due to retreat, something that would be intolerable during a real battle.

[Ephrum]

More to follow,

Looking forward to it!

[Hancock the Superb]

When I play as artillery, I'll get my guns out there and I don't care what happens, my job is to help out the infantry and goddamn those generals that place me in the rear! I'll find a secluded spot protected by infantry, and cannister!!!

[dale]

I read in Bruce Catton's Glory Road that Henry Hunt, the head of the Union artillery branch AOP demanded that his gunners take a full two minutes between shots. He was concerned about the waste of ammunition and he wanted to increase the amount of time spent aiming for each shot. I imagine that all bets were off if the infantry was in canister range.

I hope that there is a rule change from TCSM concerning the artillery units retreating if they had run out of canister. I have read of many instances that shrapnel was fired with 1 sec fuses.

Hunt also directed his batteries when firing in counter battery fire to drive the enemy off by directing the fire at ONE Gun at a time. Definitely not an option in TCSM. Hopefully, the new game will have improved individual targeting, with increasing accuracy when the target has been ranged.

In TCSM howitzers and Napoleons are useless unless within 200 yards of the target. This can not be accurate.

[ironsight]

Howdy dale!
TC2M artillery and its ineffective long range impact especially on enemy batteries has been and i'll geuss the number one complaint. Cavalry is probably number two.
Hopefully, the TC2M veterans who are now NSD members will see to it that artillery is a little more effective in the new game.
Careful what we wish for though as the enemy's artillery will be equally effective. :huh:

As far as arty targeting, one of my wishlist items for the new game is to implement manual targeting for guns. A target area or enemy flag could be clicked on anywhere on the battle field withing range of the gun. The gun would stay on that target until changed, destroyed or in the case of a regiment, runs.

I could be mistaken but in TC2M i think in the case of multiple red halo's, the gun will fire at the nearest one. Maybe someone here knows for sure.

[dale]

Hi Ironsight,

I have been a viewer of the log for about 3 months now. Looking forward to playing this new game in the near future.

Part of the game balancing against artillery should come with the use of skirmishers. In TCSM skirmisher casualties did not diminish noticeably when cannister was fired at them in skirmisher mode as opposed to line mode and the skirmisher unit would route after relatively few losses. Secondly, I think that infantry should be able to target artillery from a greater distance than 160 yards. This would keep most artillery units back to a more historical distance. Another game balancing point against artillery would be to further prohibit the movement of artillery through deep woods. In TCSM infantry and artillery move at about the same rate through deep woods--not very true in my opinion. In fact, Grant recognized the ineffectiveness of artillery in a rough terrain environment and converted some artillery units into infantry before starting the Overland Campaign. One other little fact that would be interesting in the game would be that some Confederate infantry units were cross trained for artillery duty as well as US Regulars just in case they chanced upon captured guns. This would effect the Green status of some captured artillery. One other game balancing against artillery units would be a better infantry melee system. My goodness, the losses I have suffered trying to get infantry to melee from 15 yards away from a cannon. This would be more historic since it was possible to sweep away an "invulnerable" artillery position like the Confederates did at Gaines Mill.

[Hancock the Superb]

Henry Hunt's artillery guides (I use these).

1. Long range-artillery:
Except in the circumstance of an enemy advancing, ALL pieces are focused on couterbattery. Even a badly aimed shot can hit infantry, so why not aim for the guns.

2a. General idea is SEE THE ENEMY. Observers weren't a major factor until WWI with real artillery, so each gun commander (sergent) would judge in the holes of the smoke the shot. He might be below or above the gun (on a hill, not far away) to try and get around the smoke from the gun.

2b. Infantry - pour everything but cannister on! Solid shot, case shot, shells, any thing you have you put on. More often, it was what the powder monkey picked up than by choice.

2c. For infantry, even if you can't see them, you fire, by guess. If there was infantry below a knoll in front of you, you poured on solid. If you fired too low, the ball would bounce right up the hill.

2. Short range-artillery:
Anything works. Only thing, fire as rapidly as possible. God damn any person that didn't take risks to get that gun firing almost as fast as a person can fire a rifle. 4 times a minute for cannister wasn't uncommon - due to the lack of aiming and such.

So, as you can tell, Hunt cared for accuracy while in long range, but as soon as cannister was in use, you did as much as possible to fire the gun as rapidly as possible. On many occasions, gunners would just stand there and get brutally mauled by infantry, and eventually lose their battery to 1 regiment. This is why guns would get the hell out of the way when an enemy advance was on.

[ironsight]

In TCSM skirmisher casualties did not diminish noticeably when cannister was fired at them in skirmisher mode as opposed to line mode and the skirmisher unit would route after relatively few losses.

dale, i personally don't disagree with much of what you've said.
In the case of skirmish formations, well thats another sore point of mine. They are next to useless because they typically run in the face of any kind of enemy threat. That being said, there is some historical precedence for keeping CW units closely knit in tight line formations for command, rallying and confidence purposes.
It makes somewhat sense to me at least that a skirmish formation should theoretically be less immune to cannister than say a tight line formation. The casualties should be fewer in the skirmish formation if for no other reason than there's more space between the troops. However, the down side might be, the Commander is by definition of a skirmish formation, far far away from his individual skirmishers to do any worthwhile rallying. With no direct rallying type supervision, individuals are likely to skeedaddle on their own.
I have to say though in TC2M, the skirmishers are way too skiddish!