Thanks, J.[/b]
I do not recall ever finding a definitive listing of casualties by weapon type other then a general synopsis stating that approximately 10& of all casualties were caused by artillery. There was, however, a non-scientific study authored by Professor George R. Stewart from the U.C.Berkeley that provided an interesting summation of his research on casualties suffered during Pickett's Charge. (Here is a graph showing some of his data: http://gburginfo.brinkster.net/ChargeCasualties.htm) Much of Professor Stewart's findings are based upon meticulous "speculations" (sounds like an oxymoron, doesn't it...something akin to Government Intelligence?). Nevertheless, it does provide for interesting consideration.
The book, published in 1959, is titled Pickett's Charge: A Microhistory of the Final Attack at Gettysburg, July 3, 1863. In Appendix C, Professor Stewart attempts to ascertain the number of artillery casualties suffered by the participating members of Pickett's Charge. Stewart devised a methodology utilizing several base questions. For example:
1. Number of rounds fired.
2. Number of balls in a canister round.
3. Number of troops advancing.
4. Number of troops withdrawing.
5. Accuracy of artillery fired.
6. Number of casualties.
7. Etc.
Based upon the statistical data he acquired, Professor Stewart concluded there were approximately 500 Confederates who were casualties of artillery fire (shell, solid, spherical). He also concludes that approximately 1,000 Confederates were casualties of cannister. All other Confederate casualties he attrributes to small arms fire. (As an aside, he concluded that the vast majority of Federal casualties were caused by small arms.)
Further, there are no definitive medical records extant that can confirm the number of wounds caused by artillery fire.
I haven't looked at this one in a while, and I don't own it. I think I'd better get it. If you have it, and see something in it that would help us, let me know.Perhaps this little book will help.
Grape and Canister: The Story of the Field Artillery of the Army of the Potomac, 1861-1865
Great book, and thanks for the link, AJ, but it's all about hardware and not about the effects of artillery on infantry.BOSTON wrote:Not sure, but here's the linkAJ
Was that article based on smoothbore or rifled cannons? or both?
BOSTON
www.civilwarartillery.com/books/GIBBON.PDF
Yes--interesting that General Gibbon likes canister at 300 to 450 yards. This is farther than most canister ranges I've read. Unfortunately, he still doesn't give us a figure for the dispersion at different distances.Look in Chapter 8, page 249, Bob.
J
Southern Son wrote:I haven't looked at this one in a while, and I don't own it. I think I'd better get it. If you have it, and see something in it that would help us, let me know.Perhaps this little book will help.
Grape and Canister: The Story of the Field Artillery of the Army of the Potomac, 1861-1865
Isn't the dispersion he mentions "diverging from each other, in the form of a cone, the greater part of the balls being in the centre, and the extreme ones separating about one-tenth of the range" what you were looking for? I guess he's saying, for example, if the canister balls travel travel 100 yards they will disperse 10 yards? Of course I would imagine this would vary by type of tube.Kerflumoxed wrote:Yes--interesting that General Gibbon likes canister at 300 to 450 yards. This is farther than most canister ranges I've read. Unfortunately, he still doesn't give us a figure for the dispersion at different distances.Look in Chapter 8, page 249, Bob.
J