Hobhood4 | 21 Aug 2016 9:34 a.m. PST |
I'm a complete newcomer to ACW and using the simple Neil Thomas 1 hour Wargame rules. I've read some general history, but i'd like to know if was common to move artillery during the fighting to positions adjacent to or behind their own sides advanced firing line to gain from shorter ranges. In other words in a wargame set up where artillery has to start near to the edge of the board, would it be accurate to move forward as the battle progresses, or just make use of long range shooting. I was thinking of tweaking the simple rule mechanism by giving short range artillery extra effectiveness. |
rmaker | 21 Aug 2016 9:45 a.m. PST |
First, it would never fire from directly behind the firing line. Overhead fire was greatly discouraged. But, yes, artillery could be moved forward during an action. |
Extra Crispy | 21 Aug 2016 9:46 a.m. PST |
Artillery was reasonable mobile, though in general you would find a good position and stay there until you had to withdraw. But yes, artillery often tried to advance with the infantry. |
Dances with Clydesdales | 21 Aug 2016 9:48 a.m. PST |
Certainly artillery did maneuver for position, and did get rather close to the enemy. It was not always relegated to long range. |
jowady | 21 Aug 2016 10:09 a.m. PST |
One of the problems with advancing artillery in this period is that the gunners, and just as importantly the horses, were extremely vulnerable to infantry fire. So if you are looking to move them with a general advance, that generally didn't happen. Guns would move up as positions were taken, they didn't act like modern day tanks and take positions themselves. Now there were exceptions, for example at Gettysburg the plan was to advance some howitzers in order to give Pickett some close support however these guns had been withdrawn before they could be ordered to advance. |
TKindred | 21 Aug 2016 10:35 a.m. PST |
Major Thomas Hyde was commanding the 7th Maine at Antietam. He was ordered to advance on the Piper farm and drive out some Confederates positioned there. As he advanced. a battery galloped up and deployed behind him to support his attack. Their first round took out 4 men in the 7th's right hand company. Things got very tense between the two units for a couple minutes. The battery was ordered off to the flank. |
jowady | 21 Aug 2016 11:59 a.m. PST |
At Gettysburg a Union Artillery unit was firing over the heads of an infantry unit. After a while of being peppered by pieces of sabots and the like the infantry Colonel asked the artillery to cease fire, which they did for a while and then they opened fire again, this cycle repeated itself a few more times. The Infantry Colonel finally sent back word that if the firing didn't stop this time he would about face his unit and charge the guns. The firing stopped. The story is perhaps apocryphal but the fact that it was told and believed at the time says something. The situation was worse in the Confederate Army. Confederate fuses were notoriously unreliable and in addition to the normal debris from firing, pieces of sabots and wadding, sometimes still burning raining down on the men in front you had the added danger of shells going off right over your own men. And of course there was no way that you would ever try to fire canister over your own troops. So firing over Confederate troops was only done in extreme emergencies. |
Trajanus | 21 Aug 2016 1:54 p.m. PST |
jowady, The charging the battery incident is probably apocryphal but as far as I know, a factual equivalent did take place where an enraged Union officer entered a battery with a cocked revolver in hand and threatened to shoot the artillery men if they didn't stop firing over heads of his Regiment! |
79thPA | 21 Aug 2016 3:06 p.m. PST |
You can move your artillery to wherever you think it will do the most good. A number of people add house rules to OHW. Try the search function and you will get some ideas of what other people are doing. I do not like the ACW variant of the rules at all. In my opinion, you need house rules just to make it a decent rule set for a game.
|
KimRYoung | 21 Aug 2016 3:13 p.m. PST |
At Antietam, when Hookers initial thrust into the cornfield faltered he brought up 36 guns from the rear to blast the confederates before renewing his attack. First, it would never fire from directly behind the firing line. Overhead fire was greatly discouraged. But, yes, artillery could be moved forward during an action. At Gettysburg, as the Iron Brigade was withdrawing from Willoughby Run, they retired to a position in front of Seminary Ridge behind a 2 foot barricade. Union Artillery was brought forward and positioned on higher ground on top of Seminary Ridge, 40 yards behind them (Cooper, Steven's batteries and a section of Wiber's battery). As Pettigrew's brigade advance these guns opened fire halting them. Perrin's brigade passed through Pettigrew's to continue the assault. Major Finnicum of the 7th Wisconsin described the attack and the fire delivered from the supporting artillery behind their lines. We have had this discussion before. TMP link The FACTS are that supporting fire from artillery over friendly troops was common. Look at maps from the Official Records and you will see plenty of positions where guns are deployed behind infantry in advance. When you read the action reports you will find accounts of fire being issued in support. Gettysburg alone has many accounts. I have post numerous examples of this, and there are many, many more if you do the research. The majority of commercially available ACW rules do a very poor job of modeling how artillery was actually used an how effective it really was. Kim |
Hobhood4 | 22 Aug 2016 3:16 a.m. PST |
It's not so much the firing overhead issue that I'm concerned about although there is clearly an interesting historical debate to be had here. Could I clarify? a) Was it common for artillery to brought up close during an encounter (presumably still out of firearm range) to make the most of the shortened range and therefore inflict more damage, even if it had started the action, and started shooting, at a greater distance. b) I'd like to bolt on a house rule to the very simple rules that I am using to make artillery more effective at short range. So,if infantry got close enough to enemy guns to inflict firearm damage, then would the artillery, if they were able to respond, be causing greater casualties among the attacking infantry because of the short range? I'd assume this was correct but just wanted to check as I don't know much about the types of ammunition used. |
Panzerfaust | 22 Aug 2016 4:37 a.m. PST |
ACW artillery was very deadly at approximatly 300 yards or less, firing canister. At longer ranges firing shot, shell or shrapnel it would only be extremely deadly when concentrated against an enemy battery or firing down the length of an enemy formation with shot. Low explosive shell and shrapnel of the time was laughably (from a modern armchair) ineffective. So, why not bring it close to an enemy formation and blast great holes in the line with canister? It wasn't normally brought forward to that range because the enemy formation would shoot your batteries to pieces (the horses and men) before they could deploy and fire. This due to the longer range of the minie ball rifle. Therefore artillery was very effective only in defense, when the enemy had to march into your canister range. Of course you will find some exceptions, but otherwise it was more of a harassment factor. |
KimRYoung | 22 Aug 2016 5:06 a.m. PST |
a) Was it common for artillery to brought up close during an encounter (presumably still out of firearm range) to make the most of the shortened range and therefore inflict more damage, even if it had started the action, and started shooting, at a greater distance. Certainly, The best know example was at Shiloh where Confederate General Daniel Ruggles brought up over 50 pieces of artillery to blast the Hornets Nest at close range to break the Union position. The example I previously post from Antietam is also a good one. While artillery could range effectively for close to a mile (and further for riled artillery) at a range of 800 to 1000 yards it was considered to be very effective and was an ideal range to open against massed infantry. Any good set of rules should reflect a higher degree of effectiveness of shot, shell and case shot at closer ranges. Kim |
Trajanus | 22 Aug 2016 8:36 a.m. PST |
Antietam is a good example of artillery being used in close support from all points of the compass. I'd recommend looking at Gottfried's "The Maps of Antietam" for an idea on the complex lines of fire. Another thing is that artillery on defence was still vulnerable if not well sited and supported by infantry. A fine example of which were the Union batteries in support of III Corps at Gettysburg which were over run by Confederate brigades coming from several directions when their infantry support withdrew. However, regrouped batteries joined by artillery reserves stopped the rot when an effective gun line was formed. |
John the Greater | 22 Aug 2016 8:38 a.m. PST |
Depending on the scale, you might want to differentiate between rifles and smoothbores as far as short-range effectiveness. Smoothbores were better as far as canister went as the ammo for rifles was not really ideal for short range work. Books have been written on this subject (not by me). |
donlowry | 22 Aug 2016 9:06 a.m. PST |
The correct answer to both of your questions is: It depends … |
vtsaogames | 22 Aug 2016 7:10 p.m. PST |
Bottom line: moving guns forward into effective canister range involved getting close enough that the infantry might start picking off gunners and teams. Batteries didn't have a lot of personnel. More than a few gunners down would really screw up firing. More than a few horses would impact mobility – a real problem if the spot moved into turned out to be so hot they needed to get away. It could be done. It might not be wise. Simple OHW fix: give guns increased effectiveness when within range of infantry small arms. Agree with 76thPA, ACW is not the strong suit of the OHW rules. Seven Years War, now that's pretty good. |
Hobhood4 | 24 Aug 2016 4:18 a.m. PST |
Thanks for more comments gentlemen. I'm aware that OHW is not liked for ACW. Its just that I've got the minis and want to play.I enjoy the simplicity, the speed, and the fact that playing the scenario rather than a pitched battle is stimulating. I'd thought of going 18th century, but I have no knowledge of the period or figures at the moment. For ACW bolting on a melee rule would be useful,and giving guns increased effectiveness with in 12 inches of small arms would be the way to go. |
John Thomas8 | 25 Aug 2016 10:42 a.m. PST |
Then you should look at "They Couldn't Hit An Elephant". Not so much for the melee, but the arty is spot on. |