Infantry Stacking

[RebBugler]

X Navy Seal wrote:

if you do not want to get column charged don't move your art up to the line. It seems that you would like to have it both ways. That is, with "gentleman's rules" applying to inf but not your art.

Exactly the point

As long as the game allows TC, players will move troops in columns to attack or capture, simply because that's the fastest way to get from point A to point B. Presently, we're trying to deter players from using their guns offensively up close, enabling capture while limbering is the latest step. Norb's also looking into infantry being able to engage guns at longer distances, 160-300yds. This is tricky, because in retaining historic play, we need infantry vs infantry engagement ranges to be closer, 130-160, pretty much as they behave now.

I think we'll all agree that the best deterrent for moving guns in close is improving their mid range effectiveness, 200-500yds. If other deterrents aren't enough, I'm sure this could be looked into, but changing those historically based 'artillery hit' tables will be a last resort, and maybe not even considered. 'Historically Based' must remain our bottom line.

[Kerflumoxed]

<strong>RebBugler wrote:</strong>

X Navy Seal wrote:

if you do not want to get column charged don't move your art up to the line. It seems that you would like to have it both ways. That is, with "gentleman's rules" applying to inf but not your art.

Exactly the point

As long as the game allows TC, players will move troops in columns to attack or capture, simply because that's the fastest way to get from point A to point B. Presently, we're trying to deter players from using their guns offensively up close, enabling capture while limbering is the latest step. Norb's also looking into infantry being able to engage guns at longer distances, 160-300yds. This is tricky, because in retaining historic play, we need infantry vs infantry engagement ranges to be closer, 130-160, pretty much as they behave now.

I think we'll all agree that the best deterrent for moving guns in close is improving their mid range effectiveness, 200-500yds. If other deterrents aren't enough, I'm sure this could be looked into, but changing those historically based 'artillery hit' tables will be a last resort, and maybe not even considered. 'Historically Based' must remain our bottom line.

Thanks for your observations, RebBugler.

There have been a myriad of posts discussing the ranges of artillery fire since this forum was started, most questioning why the ranges were so limited as well as the inaccurate limbering/unlimbering times and initial gun placement. For the moment, limiting the discussion to ranges, we find the least effective Civil War gun was the 12 pound Howitzer which had an effective range of 1,072 yards at 5 degree elevation. I don't believe that is the effective range in the game. Another example is the Napoleon which was the most used gun in the war. At the same 5 degrees, it had an effective range of over 1,500 yards which, again, is not reflected in the game. One final set of examples are the 10# Parrott and the 3" Ordnance Rifle, both with an effective range of over 1800 yards! Again, not reflected in the game.

Once again, to continue beating the "dead horse", effective canister range was 400 yards, not the 200 yards presented in the game. This is a simple fact as recorded in many historical accounts and exhaustive research!

If these ranges were improved to reflect "historical accuracy", then there would be no need to bring the artillery closer to the line! Bottom line: The current system (pardon the screaming) is inaccurate and NEEDS TO BE IMPROVED to reflect the "historical accuracy"! Further, I ask that my word not be presumed to be either correct or incorrect. Accordingly, here is a list of references to document my assertions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_arti ... _Civil_War

It is important to note that Wikipedia is not normally a reliable source of information. In this quote, however, there is an abundance of evidence supporting their assertions:

Cole, Philip M. Civil War Artillery at Gettysburg. New York: Da Capo Press, 2002. ISBN 0-306-81145-6.

Eicher, David J. The Longest Night: A Military History of the Civil War. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2001. ISBN 0-684-84944-5.

Hazlett, James C., Edwin Olmstead, and M. Hume Parks. Field Artillery Weapons of the American Civil War, rev. ed., Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1983. ISBN 0-252-07210-3.

Nosworthy, Brent. The Bloody Crucible of Courage, Fighting Methods and Combat Experience of the Civil War. New York: Carroll and Graf Publishers, 2003. ISBN 0-7867-1147-7.

Pfanz, Harry W. Gettysburg: Culp's Hill and Cemetery Hill. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1993. ISBN 0-8078-2118-7.

Ripley, Warren. Artillery and Ammunition of the Civil War. 4th ed. Charleston, SC: The Battery Press, 1984. OCLC 12668104.

Thomas, Dean S. Cannons: An Introduction to Civil War Artillery. Gettysburg, PA: Thomas Publications, 1985. ISBN 0-939631-03-2.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... _77673473/

http://library.thinkquest.org/27411/wea.html (When reading this article, please note the effective range of the 1861 Springfield as well.)

The list is endless...just do a search for Civil War Artillery Ranges, for example.

Finally, there is the example of the Federal artillery during Pickett's Charge. Their muzzles, while in a defensive posture, were in the front line with the infantry...an "historical accuracy" contrary to what some pundits have said.

The one negative I envision regarding the creation of "historical accuracy" is the "playability" of the game with corrected ranges as well as performance of the gun crews, BOTH of which needs to be improved. Nevertheless, the creation of this game has provided all of us, gamers and historians, a brilliant game and my comments are not to miscontrued as being negative! I have said, repeatedly, that Norb and the team members are to be congratulated on a fine game!

Thanks

J

[Kerflumoxed]

For those interested in infantry, here is a brief review of the latest publication on infantry tactics in the Civil War. Particularly note his conclusion of the ACTUAL ranges at which many battles were fought!

The Rifle Musket in Civil War Combat: Reality and Myth. By Earl J. Hess. Modem War Studies. (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, c. 2008. Pp. [viii], 288. $29.95, ISBN 978-0-7006-1607-7.)

In this book Earl J. Hess investigates the use of the rifle musket in the Civil War and concludes that it did not have a great impact on how the war was fought or cause the war to be so bloody. From first-person accounts of twenty-four battles, Hess finds that rifle fire was exchanged at an average distance of 94.4 yards, which is within the killing range of a smoothbore musket. Thus, he concludes, the casualty rate would have been similar even if the soldiers had not used rifles.

Provocative, to say the least, especially when one considers all the previous works disputing the distances at which CW infantry fought.

J

[NY Cavalry]

[Jim]

The "effective range" is just a measure of roughly how far a solid shot would go at the specified tube elevation. It is not a measure of the range at which the gun was practically effective. That is decided by the accuracy of the gun. The overall accuracy is is a combination of the accuracy of the tube itself and the skill of the crew in accurately operating the gun. The accuracy settings were determined by examining scores from a number of North-South Skirmish Association cannon competitions. By looking at the scores, the exact size of the targets, and the range, one can calculate the dispersion (group size). It is a truism of ballistics that the dispersion angle is constant and independent of range. By knowing the dispersion angle, the group size can then be calculated at any specific range using basic geometry. So the hit probability for all types except canister are based on modern and accurate data from real people firing real cannon. For canister we were not able to find any numerical data to base calculations on. For that I did a large series of calculations based on a range of dispersion angles to try and find the data that provided the best match with historical reports of effectiveness at various ranges. While individual shot will carry for 500 yards or so, the dispersion angle becomes so large that the casualty rate is tiny. We also found in early testing that with longer canister ranges, an infantry unit could wait at long range for a battery to exhaust its store of canister and take few casualties. The infantry could then advance with impunity. That's not the way it worked historically. The numbers we picked are not perfect, but they work well enough for the AI standing in for a trained artillery officer.

-Jim

[NY Cavalry]

[Kerflumoxed]

<strong>Jim wrote:</strong>

The "effective range" is just a measure of roughly how far a solid shot would go at the specified tube elevation. It is not a measure of the range at which the gun was practically effective. That is decided by the accuracy of the gun. The overall accuracy is is a combination of the accuracy of the tube itself and the skill of the crew in accurately operating the gun. The accuracy settings were determined by examining scores from a number of North-South Skirmish Association cannon competitions. By looking at the scores, the exact size of the targets, and the range, one can calculate the dispersion (group size). It is a truism of ballistics that the dispersion angle is constant and independent of range. By knowing the dispersion angle, the group size can then be calculated at any specific range using basic geometry. So the hit probability for all types except canister are based on modern and accurate data from real people firing real cannon. For canister we were not able to find any numerical data to base calculations on. For that I did a large series of calculations based on a range of dispersion angles to try and find the data that provided the best match with historical reports of effectiveness at various ranges. While individual shot will carry for 500 yards or so, the dispersion angle becomes so large that the casualty rate is tiny. We also found in early testing that with longer canister ranges, an infantry unit could wait at long range for a battery to exhaust its store of canister and take few casualties. The infantry could then advance with impunity. That's not the way it worked historically. The numbers we picked are not perfect, but they work well enough for the AI standing in for a trained artillery officer.

-Jim

Au contraire, there is an exceedingly large amount of contemporary accounts (real people firing real cannons in a real war!) available to dispute your findings and the statements of NSSA "experts" as I continue to beat the proverbial "dead horse" for recognition that the game, as fine as it is, continues to do injustice to the artillery! (Of course, we have all learned that an EXPERT is 1) anyone who is more than 50 miles from home, and 2) an "X" is an unknown quantity with a "SPERT" being a drip under pressure, etc.) Although I do not currently own a "gun" (and probably won't again at my age :dry: ), I have been fortunate to have owned and served on various pieces including a Napoleon, a 6 pounder gun and an original 3" Ordnance Rifle, but do not consider myself any type of "expert"....just an interested observor who has probably spent too much time "in the books!"

But in the spirit of the "dead horse", let's consider the following accounts (being careful not to ignore the preponderance of evidence already published in this thread supporting the need for increased ranges and accuracy). For example, let's start with the U.S. Army's own instructions to the cannoneers (which were subsequently copied by the Confederate War Department)from the "Table of Fire. Light 12-Pounder Gun. Model 1857" (Napoleon) chart posted on the inside lid of the limber chest as it states what type or round is to be used and when it is to be used:

"Use SHOT at masses of troops, and to batter from 600 yards up to 2,000 yards. Use SHELL for firing buildings, at troops posted in woods, in pursuit, and to produce a moral (sic) rather than a physical effect; greatest effective range 1,500 yards. Use SPHERICAL CASE SHOT at masses of troops, at not less than 500 yards; generally up to 1,500 yards. CANISTER is not effective at 600 yards; it should not be used beyond 500 yards, and but very seldom and over the most favorable ground at that distance; at short ranges, (less than 200 yards,) in emergency, use double canister, with single charge. Do not employ RICOCHET at less distance than 1,000 to 1,100 yards." At the bottom of this large sheet are the instructions: "(This sheet it to be glued on to the inside of the Limber Chest Cover.)" This same type of data was included in each limber for all different type of guns.)

Question: How much more definitive evidence and better authority is needed then the U. S. Army's own instructions, pasted on every limber chest for ALL guns? If we follow the U. S. Army instructions, the game range of cannister needs to be increased a minimum of 300 yards for canister and when under 200 yards, double canister...plus ranges of the other types of shell should be increased as well!

But, if you are still in doubt as to the "imperfect numbers", please pick and choose from any of the following (if more evidence is needed that the "numbers" need to be reconsidered, please ask):

http://civilwar.bluegrass.net/Artillery ... ister.html (Discusses the effects of canister and notes it could be fired up to 600 yards)

http://www.civilwarartillery.com/tables.htm (Information obtained from The Confederate Ordnance Manual pages 367-369 and The Artillerist Manual pages 455-462.)

http://thomaslegioncherokee.tripod.com/ ... ation.html (Photos of the various guns and their ranges)

http://www.willegal.net/iron_brigade/artillery.htm (A nice page describing the various types of Ordnance used during the war and accompanying ranges at the bottom of the page)

http://civilwartalk.com/plugins/p2_news ... icleid=288 (Understanding the differences in types of guns)

http://hmscivilwarproject.wikispaces.com/Canister+shot (Descriptions of the use of canister)

http://www.gallantpelham.org/articles/s ... ?id_art=82 (Good description of the composition of canister)

http://www.warbooksreview.com/war-books ... l-war.html (Notes canister at 400 yards)

Additionally, here are some contemporary books that provide additional information on ranges:
John Gibbon, "The Artillerist's Manual", D. Van Nostrand, 1860 (reprinted by Greenwood Press, Westport, Conn., 1970).

William E. Birkhimer,"Historical Sketch of the Organization, Administration, Materiel, and Tactics of the Artillery, United States Army", Thomas McGill & Co., Washington, DC, 1884.

Augustus Buell, "The Cannoneer", The National Tribune, Washington, DC, 1890.

Fairfax Downey, "The Guns At Gettysburg", David McKay & Co., NY, 1958.

L. Van Loan Naisawald, "Grape and Canister: The Story of the Field Artillery of the Army of the Potomac", Zenger Publishing Co., Washington, DC, 1960.

James C. Hazlett (et. al.), "Field Artillery Weapons of the Civil War", University of Delaware Press, 1983.

Gary Gallagher, Ed., "E. Porter Alexander, Fighting for the Confederacy", University of North Carolina Press, 1989.

Hopefully, all will find these sources interesting, as well as undeniable and reconsideration to the "imperfect numbers" will be taken under advisement. Personally, I have a tendency to rely more upon the published accounts of the actual participants than on modern-day artillerists who lack the military training of the '61-'65 men serving the piece and served daily for, perhaps, up to four years and witnessed the effects at ranges not typical of the 20th century target shooter with limited range.

As to infantry waiting for the artillery to exhaust their canister, fine! Let them wait, and wait, and wait, ad nauseum!

In conclusion, any artilleryman worth his salt, must be able to quote future Federal General Alfred Pleasanton who witnessed General Zachary Taylor observing Captain Braxton Bragg at Buena Vista:

"What are you firing, Captain?
"Cannister, sir."
"Double or single?"
"Single, sir."
"Then double it and give 'em Hell!"

Thanks for your time and understanding.

J :blink:

[Kerflumoxed]

I found the reference to RICOCHET particularly interesting in my last post on the subject of artillery fire, especially in regards to firing at ranges of 1,000 to 1,100 yards. After a few minutes of research, I rediscovered the following information from Cole's Civil War Artillery at Gettysburg:

"At times, trained artillerists would fire the canister shot towards the ground in front of advancing enemy troops, causing the conical pattern to flatten out as the balls ricocheted and skipped off the terrain. This in effect widened the killing zone. An example of this tactic was at the first day of Gettysburg, where Lt. James Stewart's Battery B, 2nd U.S. Artillery on Seminary Ridge skipped canister shot at Alfred M. Scales's approaching Confederate infantry, breaking up their attack and forcing them to take cover in a depression."

I have read the poster on the inside of the Limber Chest many times but never considered that RICOCHET might be referring to cannister, having always presumed it referred to solid shot. But, now, after rereading Cole's work more carefully, I find it necessary to reconsider. (Wow! What an interesting addition this would be to the game!)

J

[Rich Mac]

So what you are saying is that canister (utilizing the ricochet technique)was employed at ranges of over 1000 yards?

As I remember, the weather prior to the Battle of Gettysburg was rather wet. I would think that most of the canister "shot" would bury itself into the damp, soft ground making this technique ineffective. Not that some of the shot would deflect and skip off the ground, but I would think most would be absorbed.

[Kerflumoxed]

<strong>Rich Mac wrote:</strong>

So what you are saying is that canister (utilizing the ricochet technique)was employed at ranges of over 1000 yards?

As I remember, the weather prior to the Battle of Gettysburg was rather wet. I would think that most of the canister "shot" would bury itself into the damp, soft ground making this technique ineffective. Not that some of the shot would deflect and skip off the ground, but I would think most would be absorbed.

Quite honestly, Rich, I can't imagine canister ricochet being an effective weapon in most situations other then on solid rock! Same with a 1,000 yard range. I suppose it might be like skipping a rock across a pond, however. Still, it kind of boggles the mind to think of it as an "effective" weapon in most cases. :huh: BTW, that is not what I am saying; that is what the U.S.Army is saying...and, of course, the army never, ever lies or stretches the truth. :dry: But, given the evidence of at least one battery (2nd U.S.Artillery), it must have utilized at least once.

J.