Official Artillery Manual?

[Poor Private]

What was the official artillery Manual of the 2 sides during the civil war. Is it like the Infantry with various manuals written or compiled during and before the war?

[RJSamp]

What was the official artillery Manual of the 2 sides during the civil war. Is it like the Infantry with various manuals written or compiled during and before the war?

Hunt or Gibbon for the Federals....Truman Seymour's manual never caught on.... Roberts was used for heavy artillery: http://members.cox.net/ltclee/Roberts.htm

[Poor Private]

RJ,
My understanding that Gibbons was just a compilation of other manuals and not a true manual on it's own. And that initially it was an instruction or course book for the cadets at West Point.
Is this true? Or is my info wrong? Because I have currently a book approved by the Sec. of War and prepared by Hunt, French, and Barry . It is revisions of the manual from 1860. and published in 1864.
"The 1864 Field Artillery Tactics" is it's title.

[RJSamp]

RJ,
My understanding that Gibbons was just a compilation of other manuals and not a true manual on it's own. And that initially it was an instruction or course book for the cadets at West Point.
Is this true? Or is my info wrong? Because I have currently a book approved by the Sec. of War and prepared by Hunt, French, and Barry . It is revisions of the manual from 1860. and published in 1864.
"The 1864 Field Artillery Tactics" is it's title.

Hunt's is fine.

Could you explain to me what a 'true' manual is? All of these manual's (infantry, artillery, cavalry) were copied from the French and each other.....including Hunt's.

[rooney]

For the federal service, the manual was INSTRUCTION FOR FIELD ARTILLERY by French, Barry & Hunt. Approved in 1860 John B. Floyd, Sec of War

Rooney

[Artyman]

Poor Private,

It is well that you seek period info in these manuals, but for all intent and purpose in reenacting we resort to the official drill manual of the ACWAA. I don't want to come across as snooty about this matter but the ACWAA is safe when used correctly and is taught at the ACWAA certification schools. I do not advocate mixing original evolutions into any demos of any kind that involve blank or live fire, private or public, training or otherwise, because of the legal issues that would 'gore your ox' if you had an accident, or someone watching your non ACWAA drill tried to use it themselves and had an accident. It is not enough to suggest that the original drill is OK simply because it was the one they used then.

The ACWAA drill is based upon the original evolutions enough to get the point across to the public.

By all means educate yourself as to the original manuals, but if you have the chance to get certified at an ACWAA event I suggest you do so (presuming you ain't already). If you find me at an event this fall I can fill you in on what I have in my library!

Harry

[TobiasJones]

It is not enough to suggest that the original drill is OK simply because it was the one they used then.

Agreed but I was trained in the Stone & Andrews artillery manual when I was an hourly employee at a Civil War park in the area. We used that (original) drill for the artillery demonstrations. When you see the whole drill step-by-step every step a soldier takes and every move the make is intentional for their safety.

When I have the chance at an event I like to watch the artillery work. Most of the time, I'm shocked at the lack of safety of the units where guys stand in front of the muzzle and behind the wheels of a loaded piece. It may just be a sloppy drill, but it's scary.

The original manuals were written by actual black powder artillery experts for not only efficiency and effective fire but also for safety of the operating soldiers. In my opinion, it isn't enough to say they are old and unsafe and throw them aside in favor of a modern manual written by a modern person written for an gun that is long past its intentioned use. And yes, I understand the legal requirements of using the ACWAA manual. This isn't a point against it. However, it seems to me like the modern manuals need to be revisited and compared to original manuals and tightened up for historical accuracy which will yield better safety. Just because it's old, doesn't means it's broken or wrong.

Evan O'Dell

[Artyman]

Evan,
You are SOOO right about what you see when you watch crews at work today. At a recent event where we were infantry rather than artillery we had the chance to watch several crews do their stuff. We were all concerned at the mistakes being made by these guys who you would have thought should have known better. Many of my men were able to compile quite a list of violations being committed not just by one crew, but several. It was pretty obvious that they didn't have their "card" or that they chose to ignore what they were taught.

It is true that some schools teach differently than other schools. I have a friend who no longer attends and instructs at a well known Arty school because the guy in charge deviates from the hard line ACWAA rules. They had words about it last year. I will not go into what was done/said for it would serve no purpose other than start a p****** match. However, this underscores a problem we still have in the hobby regarding an absolute set of standards governing drill, cartridge loads and construction, gun and carriage standards, appendage and equipment requirements and the 800 pound gorilla in the room, age minimums. It is well to note that as you may have already found out, any time you approach these guys about a mistake being made they get all defensive, puff up and get indignant, tell you how many years they have been doing it, quote the names of great Arty men they say they know and who do it the same way, etc. etc.

Is it that we are too big and too many to get a handle on it? I think not. The handle would be best applied by being careful to assign Arty safety officer jobs only to certified men who are forceful enough to enforce the regulations and not back down from these white haired gentlemen who believe in their own invincibility. I've seen it done successfully an BAR events, NWTA events, F&I events. Why not in ACW events?

What I see as the most commonly spurned safety issues are overloaded cartridges, throwing the rammer down the bore, and children working in the skilled positions. Each of these issues will get you in trouble quick if you confront the gun commander about it. It seems they have the blinders on themselves rather than their horses!

Harry

[FloridaHoosier]

The original question was about manuals, not a discussion of certification and which drill, modern or authentic, is correct. It is a fact that there probably will never be one official national overseer or governing group, and in the end what matters is who is in charge for a given event. Safety is indeed an important factor in what we do, but so should authenticity. I've worked with groups who used modern drill and with groups that used the manuals exclusively, and both ended up just as safe as the other. It is a personal choice to each individual - authenticity or safe powder burning, and it is my experience that you can have both.