Comments on: Federal artillery east of the Antietam http://behind.aotw.org/2007/11/30/federal-artillery-east-of-the-antietam/ the backwash of a digital history project Mon, 26 Jul 2010 18:50:59 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Dean Essig http://behind.aotw.org/2007/11/30/federal-artillery-east-of-the-antietam/comment-page-1/#comment-13530 Dean Essig Sun, 03 Aug 2008 20:29:15 +0000 http://behind.aotw.org/2007/11/30/federal-artillery-east-of-the-antietam/#comment-13530 Gladly. Will do. BTW, your site is a magnificent resource! Gladly. Will do.

BTW, your site is a magnificent resource!

]]> By: Brian http://behind.aotw.org/2007/11/30/federal-artillery-east-of-the-antietam/comment-page-1/#comment-13524 Brian Sat, 02 Aug 2008 23:24:16 +0000 http://behind.aotw.org/2007/11/30/federal-artillery-east-of-the-antietam/#comment-13524 Thanks Dean - let us know what you find, would you? Thanks Dean – let us know what you find, would you?

]]> By: Dean Essig http://behind.aotw.org/2007/11/30/federal-artillery-east-of-the-antietam/comment-page-1/#comment-13523 Dean Essig Sat, 02 Aug 2008 21:59:50 +0000 http://behind.aotw.org/2007/11/30/federal-artillery-east-of-the-antietam/#comment-13523 Great to find this here, Tom, as we chatted about the XII guns briefly at the park. I'm looking into the issue about the arms the two units had (4 and 6 Batteries, 1 Maine Lt Artillery). "Artillery Hell" shows them both with 3 inch and smoothbore weapons, but repeats the 1940 table showing them as 20 pdr (the same table is shown in Paul Chile's B&G article). After coming to a conclusion of which listing is in error, looking into their ammunition use and availability on the 18th would be the next step. Great to find this here, Tom, as we chatted about the XII guns briefly at the park. I’m looking into the issue about the arms the two units had (4 and 6 Batteries, 1 Maine Lt Artillery).

“Artillery Hell” shows them both with 3 inch and smoothbore weapons, but repeats the 1940 table showing them as 20 pdr (the same table is shown in Paul Chile’s B&G article).

After coming to a conclusion of which listing is in error, looking into their ammunition use and availability on the 18th would be the next step.

]]> By: Tom Clemens http://behind.aotw.org/2007/11/30/federal-artillery-east-of-the-antietam/comment-page-1/#comment-11722 Tom Clemens Sun, 16 Dec 2007 20:48:57 +0000 http://behind.aotw.org/2007/11/30/federal-artillery-east-of-the-antietam/#comment-11722 Well there are some reports, but they are spotty. Regular ordnance reports by quarter started in the fourth quarter 1862, at least that is my experience. Some battery commanders reported the rounds expended in their OR reports, but if they didn't do that then some shovel and spade work in the NA is required. Well there are some reports, but they are spotty. Regular ordnance reports by quarter started in the fourth quarter 1862, at least that is my experience. Some battery commanders reported the rounds expended in their OR reports, but if they didn’t do that then some shovel and spade work in the NA is required.

]]> By: Brian http://behind.aotw.org/2007/11/30/federal-artillery-east-of-the-antietam/comment-page-1/#comment-11417 Brian Sun, 02 Dec 2007 18:38:11 +0000 http://behind.aotw.org/2007/11/30/federal-artillery-east-of-the-antietam/#comment-11417 Howdy Tom - Thanks for joining in. Another good question! I expect there are ordnance reports somewhere accounting for the rounds issued to the batteries. Any ideas? Howdy Tom – Thanks for joining in.

Another good question! I expect there are ordnance reports somewhere accounting for the rounds issued to the batteries. Any ideas?

]]> By: Tom Clemens http://behind.aotw.org/2007/11/30/federal-artillery-east-of-the-antietam/comment-page-1/#comment-11368 Tom Clemens Sat, 01 Dec 2007 03:11:30 +0000 http://behind.aotw.org/2007/11/30/federal-artillery-east-of-the-antietam/#comment-11368 Brian, Thanks for posting this, I was sort of counting guns myself and hadn't gotten around to posting it. What intrigues me is that one of the reasons stated for not renewing the fight on the 18th was that the long-range guns were out of ammo. However, there were two batteries, 12 guns, of 20 pdrs. from the XII Corps that were left at Upper Bridge as a guard, although Clermont Best said they were left near Mac's HQ. Question is - If these 12 guns didn't fire on the 17th could they have been used on the 18th? Were they out of ammo too? Brian,
Thanks for posting this, I was sort of counting guns myself and hadn’t gotten around to posting it. What intrigues me is that one of the reasons stated for not renewing the fight on the 18th was that the long-range guns were out of ammo. However, there were two batteries, 12 guns, of 20 pdrs. from the XII Corps that were left at Upper Bridge as a guard, although Clermont Best said they were left near Mac’s HQ. Question is – If these 12 guns didn’t fire on the 17th could they have been used on the 18th? Were they out of ammo too?

]]>