"AVERAGE range of artillery engagements?" Topic

I'm doing this all from memory, so forgive me if I'm off a bit on things. Normally I see statements that ACW field guns had effective ranges of around a mile(depending on model/type), but obviously for various tactical reasons they were not able to engage targets at that range all the time.

So I was just curious about if anyone had done a study or research on the average range that artillery(not any particular type or caliber) engaged the enemy(any target, not just other arty) like the studies done for infantry rifled musket firefights. The results of one study I recall being 127 yards, far short of the theoretical effective ranges of the various models/calibers.

I'm guessing the average range of arty engagements was similarly much reduced. Does anyone have any information that could shed some light on this subject? TIA for any input.

Artillery since last say 1700, is governed by several parameters. There is a maximum range which is seldom used. There is effective range and a maximum effective range. In the 1900s this also applied to rifles and MGs when doing range cards and planning.
Prior to 1900, maximum effective range was the range they switched ammo to canister.
Regardless effective range was dictated by visibility. Weather, hills, trees or buildings among other terrain.

Of course, your question is a bit like "how long is a piece of string?" Some basic considerations: Type of gun, type of round being fired, (being the most basic). I found this chart that covers most major guns and their ranges by ammo type. Should at least give you some specific data to study:

civilwarartillery.com/tables.htm

Hope this helps, Blackhorse MP.

TP and Dye4…Thanks for the replies. If I'm reading your responses correctly, you aren't aware of any studies or research that specifically discusses the average range of actual arty engagements with enemy units either. Information on the maximum and effective range of various gun and ammo types is widely available as it has been studied exhaustively.

What I'm trying to find is, is there information on when(at what range) did the average arty battery open fire on the enemy, due to all factors, including not just range considerations.

I mentioned that these kinds of studies were done for infantry rifled muskets. IIRC the methodology was taking the ranges, mentioned in soldier accounts, of when those soldiers first fired at the enemy to begin a firefight, adding them all up and dividing by the specific number of soldier accounts studied. The resulting total being the average range when firefights began. The results of one study, as I mentioned above, being 127 yards. Far short of any maximum or even effective range distances. So gun/ammo and maximum/effective range info is only a small piece of the puzzle.

I don't think any such studies for artillery were ever done, but if there were I don't think they got much attention, as I've never seen any references to them while having seen many references to the same type of studies on rifled muskets. Hopefully someone comes along and proves me wrong.

Often, artillery fire doesn't start until you want to achieve something. Ammunition was the limiting factor as a cassion only carries so much. You might fire to make an opponent deploy out of march column or to soften up their position prior to you sending in an attack. 400 yds was sometimes used as a gage since it was the max for cannister, but early in the war you could let it be closer as many troops had muskets that were effective out to 50 yds, that changed when rifles started seeing widespread use and the Minie ball was developed.

Often, artillery fire doesn't start until you want to achieve something.

Exactly. one of the other types of factors I am talking about other than gun/ammo types and max/eff ranges. 400 yds, as you say, is max canister range, but what if the guns were masked by friendly troops until the enemy was only 150 yds away? Only after the friendly troops moved out of the way could the battery then open fire, meaning that 150 yds was the range at which they engaged the enemy. Therefore, in this case, any talk of gun/ammo type or max/eff range is moot.

So if I were doing a study, that case would be 150 yds, and let's say my study examined 5 artillery engagements and the other ranges at which the artillery opened fire, for whatever reason, were 600, 800, 300 and 450 yds. Combining those gives me a total of 2300 yds. Dividing those by the number of engagements(5) gives me an average of 460 yds. That's the AVERAGE range I'm looking for. Obviously from a much bigger sample of engagements as was done, again, with the rifled musket.

As the cabbie used to say, "Mister, the average varies." Lumping rifled guns with smoothbores will not give you useful information.

Unless you're talking artillery battalions? As I keep saying, giving us more information in the initial question will give you better answers.

Actually studies depends on the era.
Between the American Revolution 1783 and the War of 1812, the Americans did an intensive study on the 6pdr, iirc, including moving, limbering, unlimbering and other tasks. Gun effectiveness was one of them. The booklet has been a staple of the Eastern Museum Group which controls what is sold in girt shops. This is where I got my copy.
After WW2 the US Army conducted several studies at the end of the War. Back in the 1970s, these could be found in military libraries at military bases. Actually used by officers and NCOs for advanced studies. Not sure how available they are now. They should be at Federal Book Depository often located at major Universities. You might check the Inter-library loan program.
I would guess the Americans did similar studies after every wars.

Terrain would play a big part, as trees (woods, forests) often blocked line of sight.

"Terrain would play a big part, as trees (woods, forests) often blocked line of sight."

Which is why I'm trying to get Blackhorse to be more expansive. "Rarely fired above 800 yards because it was a waste of ammo" is a very different thing from "rarely fired above 800 yards because you didn't often get a clear line of sight." They have different implications for rule and scenario design, and chanting "but I just want an AVERAGE" does not address that.

As the cabbie used to say, "Mister, the average varies." Lumping rifled guns with smoothbores will not give you useful information.

Sure it will, because what info I'm asking for is gun/ammo/theoretical range/doctrine agnostic. All guns don't start firing at their maximum range at all times. Rifles don't always start shooting before smoothbores just because they have greater range. As we know there are many other considerations involved. For example, a 12lb Napoleon battery in one battle opens fire at 1000 yds, because it's able to due to the tactical situation and it's commander wants to. In a second battle due to the tactical situation and smoke obscuring the target the commander chooses to not open fire until the target reaches 600 yds. And in a third engagement that same battery commander has to hold off till 400 yds because the battery only has canister ammo left. So as can be seen there are 3 different ranges at which the guns open fire, and if we were looking for an average range at which this battery opened fire in these engagements we'd get 666 yds. That info, encompassing armies on both sides, in all theaters and over all(or at least multiple) years gives us the type of average range I'm talking about. Yes it's general and not totally scientific but it gets us in the ballpark.

The study on rifled muskets I've been referencing was done by the great Paddy Griffith in his book Battle Tactics of the Civil War(pg 147). He looks at 113 cases and ends up with an overall infantry firefight range of 127 yards.

Which is why I'm trying to get Blackhorse to be more expansive. "Rarely fired above 800 yards because it was a waste of ammo" is a very different thing from "rarely fired above 800 yards because you didn't often get a clear line of sight."

Not for my purposes. All I want is the range, not why the battery commander chose to open fire at that range. Because that range combined with(hopefully) hundreds of other accounts will give me, as I said above, the general range that artillery first opened fire on their targets. Just like Paddy Griffith's work.

Robert, you're asking for more information, but I'm at a loss of how to lay out any more clearly what info I'm looking for or how that info was/is derived. It appears to me that no such study or research similar to Paddy Griffith's on rifled muskets was ever done on artillery or someone here would have heard of it.

Artillery since last say 1700, is governed by several parameters. There is a maximum range which is seldom used. There is effective range and a maximum effective range.

To close, here is a perfect example of useful information but not at all what I need. All that matters is the range, be it maximum, max effective or effective. Also irrelevant is the type of ammo, be it shot, shell or canister. Just at what range(in yds, not category), and what range only, did the guns begin firing? TimePortal, no disrespect intended by using your example as a negative. Thanks for pitchin' in.

Well, not sure about artillery but a lot of work has shown that WWII infantry weapons – which had a maximum range in the neighbourhood of 2,000 m – were most commonly used at 300 – 500 m

Ok, so if artillery at the Wilderness was engaged at canister range at 360 yards and at Antietam with 20 lb parrott rifles at a mile and one-half, that's 3000 yards. So, the average is 1500 yards.

So what? What the hell does that tell you about Civil War artillery? Nothing.

That's like asking for "What is the average number of points all professional sports teams produced last season in Football, Baseball, Basketball and Hockey?"

You are not getting in the "Ballpark" because you are also on the court, the gridiron, and the ice rink.

I understand what you are asking, but there is no valuable information you can get from it. If the average turns out to be 800 yards, are you going to write a rules set with that being the range? Great, now I cannot recreate Antietam or Gettysburg with accuracy.

Also, artillery does not hold fire until canister range because that is the only ammo they have, the battery is withdrawn.

I don't think you really understand ACW artillery very well and should do some deeper research.

Kim

Kim…so in other words you have no idea. Why didn't you just say so? You could have saved so many words. Thanks for playing though.

You have asked if anyone has done a study of the "average range at which artillery engaged the enemy". To my knowledge the answer is "no". With so many variables I cannot imagine why a general study would be helpful. The better question might be whether studies have been done on the range at which artillery engaged the enemy in a particular action. By limiting the study to a particular battle or a particular phase of a battle the number of variables can be reduced. One example of such a study is here: link

Bill N…Thanks for the link. Looks very interesting. I will be reading it. I'm in agreement with you about no study on this topic being done.

I think it's very feasible to do an exhaustive study of a particular battle to determine what range that the artillery first began firing, but that only tells about one action, at one location, under one unique set of circumstances and therefore tells us nothing meaningful about the war as a whole, which is what I'm interested in. Again, I know it's general and not totally scientific, but it is interesting to me and I would like to see the results of such a study.

Now I'm curious…what do you think of the research on the opening ranges in infantry firefights that was done by Paddy Griffith and some others(whose names I do not know)? I would imagine you're probably familiar with at least some of it because it seems to be pretty common and has been out there awhile. Do you think there's anything valuable to be learned or was it all wasted effort?

I'm not trying to put you on the spot, but it seems some people in this thread are trying to poo-poo any research of this kind as being worthless for artillery, but no one has commented on the value or lack thereof of similar research on the infantry firefight. So I'd just like to hear some other's opinions.

Well here are some reasons why such a serious study hasn't been done-Too many variables In every shot, Man is involved. No two are alike- maybe similar but not the same.

Consider this: The gun is only as good as the trigger puller. In the case of artillery- to what level were the crew trained in loading, aiming and when was the last time the barrel was cleaned? Windage of the barre; quality of the powder; when did the gun commander give the order to fire; terrain involved; to name just a few. Because it is impossible to discover and quantify these unknowns, an average cannot be arrived at. Best I could help with was the data recorded by testing which I initially provided you. YOU would know the gun type, extreme range (by ammo type) and hope that the same crew fired every gun in the experiment. So after studying a few battle reports that detail when which battery came into action-how long they fired what type of rounds, time between shots and documented distance/time to target and the results of each shot, would one be able to more accurately give you a best guess based upon the stats. I have a copy of the Ordinance Officers handbooks (ACW- confederate) re-print. It does provide data for the Ordinance officer's research in the field and looks like a very useful tool.I'm afraid that may be the ultimate for your answer without doing a masters paper on the subject. I understand you asking the hive the question as someone may have already have the answer to your question but after all these responses, you maybe should consider either popping smoke and moving on OR do some more digging into period research materials and arrive at your own conclusions. (Then share them with us and explain why you came to your conclusions. Just remember that the factor of man (a VERY variable factor) will always be the great unknown. Good luck, Blackhorse MP. We'll be pulling for you.

Well here are some reasons why such a serious study hasn't been done-Too many variables In every shot, Man is involved. No two are alike- maybe similar but not the same.

I agree that there are a bewildering array of potential variables and it's likely batteries opened fire at different ranges in different engagements due to those different variables, but as no one seems to want to acknowledge, what I'm asking for doesn't require WHY they opened fire but simply at WHAT RANGE. That's all. A study would consist of someone, and no I'm not going to attempt it, life's too short, finding as many first-hand accounts as possible of when batteries first opened in each battle. And these accounts will include batteries from both sides, in all theaters and will encompass, if possible, all years of the war. You then take the total combined range distance and divide by the number of first-hand accounts and that's how you get your average. For instance, 187,500 yds combined divided by say 300 sample first-hand accounts gives us an average of 625 yds. That's all there is to the methodology. And I only suggest it because that's how Paddy Griffith did it in his research on the infantry firefight, and no one so far as I'm aware is dismissing him as a mindless heretic. Because if his methodology is valid for infantry firefights, why not the same methodology for artillery engagements? And speaking of Paddy's research, I notice no one has weighed in on it yet.

So to close the loop on this, because I am tapping out(hold the applause), let me just acknowledge that those results would certainly not be any final word on artillery performance in the war but they could be a useful addition to all the other data that includes all the variables others here mentioned. Useful to counter, say someone who is totally enamored of the technical possibilities and theoretical capabilities of ACW artillery and treats any mention of guns firing at anything less than maximum range to be an aberration. Yes, I've had a conversation with such as person and didn't enjoy it.

Good luck, Blackhorse MP. We'll be pulling for you.

Dye4…Thanks for kind words, but I'm not battling a life-threatening disease or anything…so I'll be ok.

Good luck, Blackhorse MP. We'll be pulling for you.

That sentiment was in hope of you finding a satisfactory answer to your question. Sometimes a quest for an answer is all consuming for a period in one's life. Perhaps, better stated, We hope you find that elusive bit of research as many of us have been there, bought the T shirt kind of "all in".

The following is from Earl Hess, Civil War Field Artillery: Promise and Performance on the Battlefield, 2023, p. 108.

Average Distance of Firing

Many factors affected the distance of firing, but rifling was the only one that was new to the Civil War. The average distance of actual firing on the battlefield becomes a significant point as a way to gauge the effect of rifled artillery on field operations.

Based on statistics from 336 examples in which the distance was reported, the average distance between muzzle and target was 917 yards, roughly half a mile. There was almost no pattern among these 336 examples. Field artillery in the East fired at about the same distance as that in the West, and no differences between Union and Confederate fieldpieces could be detected.

The only pattern evident related to the type of target. In 50 examples the reports indicated that the guns were firing at opposing infantry, with an average distance of 489 yards. This is roughly a quarter of a mile, about half the average distance for all 336 examples and just beyond the recommended distance of cannister. In 77 other examples, reports indicated the target was artillery, and in these cases the average distance came to 1,122 yards, close to three-quarters of a mile. Unfortunately, the reports did not consistently indicate whether the pieces were smoothbore or rifled.

If we consider the bracket between 489 yards and 1,122 yards, it is obvious that the capabilities of both smoothbores and rifles fell easily within that pocket. These findings fail to support an argument that rifles were hugely successful or were used in dramatically different ways than smoothbores under battlefield conditions. Nor do they support an argument that smoothbores were more successful than the new rifles. The relative importance of smoothbores and rifles can be said to have achieved a state of equilibrium.

Thank you,
Let's all roll with 917 yeards and click this solved.
Appreciate the help.

Was asked to post this for another individual:

"SB explosive shell and both SB and Rifled shrapnel were limited by maximum fuze burn time (Bormann Fuze = 5 seconds max IIRC) and effective SB solid shot range was influenced by smoothness and firmness of the ground."