Give Artillery Muskets

[Landsknecht und Deutscher Ritter]

Melee is stupid, Artillerymen carried muskets to defend their guns. It would be cool if they would pop off a few shots while feeding the enemy canister.

[CrashToDesktop]

There were 25 men on average to man a cannon. Less than 10 of those were dedicated to the loading, firing, and maintainance of the piece. The rest were infantry assigned to protect the gun.

Yeah, having the artillery crew pop off some shots at whatever happens to wander within musket range would be nice.

[Bernstorff]

Light artillery did not have muskets issued.
Only one nco pr gun had a revovler... to kill wounded horses.
They did not use part of the force to guard the guns.

The rest of the men where bussy driving wagons with ammo, the forges, supply wagons and similar... behind the lines.

Light artillery was suppose to be supported by infantry.

Heavy artillery was issued infantry weapons and gear. but They where used to man forts... and by 1864 as infnatry units with no cannon... so no difference in game terms to infantry.,

[Aethelfirth]

With the exception of some units, Artillery crews were not armed.

[Landsknecht und Deutscher Ritter]

Originally posted by Aethelfirth:

With the exception of some units, Artillery crews were not armed.

Originally posted by The Soldier:

There were 25 men on average to man a cannon. Less than 10 of those were dedicated to the loading, firing, and maintainance of the piece. The rest were infantry assigned to protect the gun.

Yeah, having the artillery crew pop off some shots at whatever happens to wander within musket range would be nice.

[Bernstorff]

And he clealry don't know what he is written about.
When manning a cannon you weapon is that cannon. The crew got better things to do than take shots at the enemy with guns they don't have.
The rest of the men of the battery are either handling ammo and driving wagons or simply behind the lines doing support jobs.

[CrashToDesktop]

If you can describe what all 25 men per cannon does, please do. Of course you've got the numbers one through seven for the actual firing of the cannon and then the commanders for the battery and the drivers for the horses. But that hardly makes up 25 men per gun.

[Landsknecht und Deutscher Ritter]

Originally posted by Aagaard:

And he clealry don't know what he is written about.
When manning a cannon you weapon is that cannon. The crew got better things to do than take shots at the enemy with guns they don't have.
The rest of the men of the battery are either handling ammo and driving wagons or simply behind the lines doing support jobs.

dude is saying we don't know what we're talking about while also claiming that gun crews would be foraging for food in the middle of a battle, Or driving the limber for a gun that's being fired. He also called field artillery "light artillery" and siege artillery "heavy infantry"

[Landsknecht und Deutscher Ritter]

Originally posted by The Soldier:

If you can describe what all 25 men per cannon does, please do. Of course you've got the numbers one through seven for the actual firing of the cannon and then the commanders for the battery and the drivers for the horses. But that hardly makes up 25 men per gun.

In the modern Army the "door gunners" on a UH-60 are part of the maintinence crew. It's probably something like that where they have support staff who aren't part of the essential operation of the equipment, But they still use them to help defend it in combat. Because why waste the manpower?

[cromagnonman2k]

The Gibbon artillery manual specifically discourages light artillerymen from carrying small arms. Rather, they should fight their guns as their sole weapon, like true specialists.

Looking through the excellent Noe book on Perryville (because it has a nice OOB listing manpower and number/type of cannon), most batteries had less than 20 men per gun. While only a dozen were used to actually operate each piece, the rest had duties regarding the horses, limber, & caisson. In extremis, the gunners would fight the guns to the last possible moment while the rest of the batterymen got everything ready to head for safety.

Edit: clearly the intention was not “heavy infantry” but “heavy artillery.” These regiments, initially intended as garrison troops to defend fixed fortifications, combined rifle-armed elements with men operating large-caliber artillery from prepared positions. Many of these were strippedof their artillery and sent to the front as straight-up maneuver infantry in the Overland Campaign.
Light artillery was the wartime term for the smaller guns that could be moved about a battlefield by horses and men relatively quickly.

[Landsknecht und Deutscher Ritter]

Originally posted by cromagnonman2k:

The Gibbon artillery manual specifically discourages light artillerymen from carrying small arms. Rather, they should fight their guns as their sole weapon, like true specialists.

Looking through the excellent Noe book on Perryville (because it has a nice OOB listing manpower and number/type of cannon), most batteries had less than 20 men per gun. While only a dozen were used to actually operate each piece, the rest had duties regarding the horses, limber, & caisson. In extremis, the gunners would fight the guns to the last possible moment while the rest of the batterymen got everything ready to head for safety.

Edit: clearly the intention was not “heavy infantry” but “heavy artillery.” These regiments, initially intended as garrison troops to defend fixed fortifications, combined rifle-armed elements with men operating large-caliber artillery from prepared positions. Many of these were strippedof their artillery and sent to the front as straight-up maneuver infantry in the Overland Campaign.
Light artillery was the wartime term for the smaller guns that could be moved about a battlefield by horses and men relatively quickly.

There wasn't light or heavy artillery during the civil war, There was siege and field artillery. Also i have to question why both sides were manufacturing muskets specifically designed for artillerymen if they weren't being issued to artillerymen.

[CrashToDesktop]

Originally posted by Kanmusu Marine Sexpert:

There wasn't light or heavy artillery during the civil war, There was siege and field artillery. Also i have to question why both sides were manufacturing muskets specifically designed for artillerymen if they weren't being issued to artillerymen.

I don't care if what you say is right or not, but you *always* have this superiority complex, like you're always right and know more about random bits of the Civil War than anyone else, and there's no way you could possibly be wrong.

Yes, there were units called "light artillery" in the US military at the time. Also known as horse artillery. Had a lot more horses, went a lot faster too. Used by cavalry, if that wasn't obvious.

[Landsknecht und Deutscher Ritter]

Originally posted by The Soldier:

Originally posted by Kanmusu Marine Sexpert:

There wasn't light or heavy artillery during the civil war, There was siege and field artillery. Also i have to question why both sides were manufacturing muskets specifically designed for artillerymen if they weren't being issued to artillerymen.

I don't care if what you say is right or not, but you *always* have this superiority complex, like you're always right and know more about random bits of the Civil War than anyone else, and there's no way you could possibly be wrong.

Yes, there were units called "light artillery" in the US military at the time. Also known as horse artillery. Had a lot more horses, went a lot faster too. Used by cavalry, if that wasn't obvious.

That's clearly not what he was describing. And i just have to shake my head at the language policing bit.

[CrashToDesktop]

Siege, garrision, field, heavy, light, and horse artillery are all perfectly reasonable terms to refer to the intended type of battery (whatever it may be, so long you're talking about the same thing). But outright saying that, and I quote, "There wasn't light or heavy artillery during the civil war" is just wrong on so many levels.

Taking a look at the Civil War Trust's video on artillery, they say that it took 8-10 men to move and fire each gun (including the drivers for the horses). Looking into this[www.essentialcivilwarcurriculum.com] source on artillery, it states that 15-20 men were required to man and move the gun (crew and drivers), and that the canoneers weren't issued weapons. Looking at the order of battle for Gettysburg, Union artillery batteries had between 12 and 21 men per gun, with maybe 18 on average. Confederate artillery battalions had around 22 men per gun. The only reasonable assumption to make about these extra men per battery above what's needed to run each gun is that they were infantry assigned to the battery from other units in the division. An argument could be made for other artillerymen standing aside as replacements for battlefield casualties, but then again, those are a masive number of men doing absolutely nothing and are incapable of doing any other thing. As artillery during the Civil War were independent units seperate in the divisional structure rather than within a brigade or even a regiment, the former sounds much more reasonable. I would give a solid answer based on research, but it's difficult to find sources on this rather narrow topic.

In regards to UGCW having 25 men per gun (which is on the very high end), I think it might just be exaggered for balance to make artillery less squishy against enemy fire, which is reasonable for that purpose.

Looking back at some more information, artillerymen generally weren't issued firearms (as stated above). Their section and battery commanders were armed with pistols, sure, but the vast majority were unarmed save for the cannon itself. The most a regular artilleryman might get was a sword if they scrounged, or bring their own sidearm if they were lucky. The most you'd probably see is an artilleryman whacking an enemy trooper over the head with the ramrod.

[cromagnonman2k]

Originally posted by The Soldier:

Siege, garrision, field, heavy, light, and horse artillery are all perfectly reasonable terms to refer to the intended type of battery (whatever it may be, so long you're talking about the same thing). But outright saying that, and I quote, "There wasn't light or heavy artillery during the civil war" is just wrong on so many levels.

Taking a look at the Civil War Trust's video on artillery, they say that it took 8-10 men to move and fire each gun (including the drivers for the horses). Looking into this[www.essentialcivilwarcurriculum.com] source on artillery, it states that 15-20 men were required to man and move the gun (crew and drivers), and that the canoneers weren't issued weapons. Looking at the order of battle for Gettysburg, Union artillery batteries had between 12 and 21 men per gun, with maybe 18 on average. Confederate artillery battalions had around 22 men per gun. The only reasonable assumption to make about these extra men per battery above what's needed to run each gun is that they were infantry assigned to the battery from other units in the division. An argument could be made for other artillerymen standing aside as replacements for battlefield casualties, but then again, those are a masive number of men doing absolutely nothing and are incapable of doing any other thing. As artillery during the Civil War were independent units seperate in the divisional structure rather than within a brigade or even a regiment, the former sounds much more reasonable. I would give a solid answer based on research, but it's difficult to find sources on this rather narrow topic.

In regards to UGCW having 25 men per gun (which is on the very high end), I think it might just be exaggered for balance to make artillery less squishy against enemy fire, which is reasonable for that purpose.

Looking back at some more information, artillerymen generally weren't issued firearms (as stated above). Their section and battery commanders were armed with pistols, sure, but the vast majority were unarmed save for the cannon itself. The most a regular artilleryman might get was a sword if they scrounged, or bring their own sidearm if they were lucky. The most you'd probably see is an artilleryman whacking an enemy trooper over the head with the ramrod.

My thought on the practical side is that it would be somewhat complicated logistically to provide the correct ammunition to a battery’s integrap ‘fusileers’ if they weren’t issued a standard small arm; and it doesn’t seem that they were. I recall seeing somewhere (maybe the Gettysburg visitor center) a ~24” “artillery sword” that was straight and said to be very rare - they kind of thing sold privately rather than issued. I think another reasonable question about 2-band so-called “artillery” rifles is, why make them shorter? All I can figure is that they were not intended for bayonet/close-quarters use. The sources I saw for CS 2-band guns like the Fayetteville suggested they were made shorter to save on raw materials.

[Aethelfirth]

Originally posted by Kanmusu Marine Sexpert:

Originally posted by cromagnonman2k:

The Gibbon artillery manual specifically discourages light artillerymen from carrying small arms. Rather, they should fight their guns as their sole weapon, like true specialists.

Looking through the excellent Noe book on Perryville (because it has a nice OOB listing manpower and number/type of cannon), most batteries had less than 20 men per gun. While only a dozen were used to actually operate each piece, the rest had duties regarding the horses, limber, & caisson. In extremis, the gunners would fight the guns to the last possible moment while the rest of the batterymen got everything ready to head for safety.

Edit: clearly the intention was not “heavy infantry” but “heavy artillery.” These regiments, initially intended as garrison troops to defend fixed fortifications, combined rifle-armed elements with men operating large-caliber artillery from prepared positions. Many of these were strippedof their artillery and sent to the front as straight-up maneuver infantry in the Overland Campaign.
Light artillery was the wartime term for the smaller guns that could be moved about a battlefield by horses and men relatively quickly.

There wasn't light or heavy artillery during the civil war, There was siege and field artillery. Also i have to question why both sides were manufacturing muskets specifically designed for artillerymen if they weren't being issued to artillerymen.

You literally have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Artillery during the Civil War was indeed referred to as Light or Heavy Artillery. Look it up. The Heavy Artillery units (who had no cannon) were taken out of their fort garrisons and sent into the meat grinders of Cold Harbor.