We just ran into this issue at BGA Shiloh. While the scale of regiments and squadrons has downsized in the last 15 years, the artillery pieces are still there. Tongue in cheek I mentioned to the BGA Federal leadership that all artillery guns had to have a minimum 1 horse per gun and 4-6 guns per CAPTAIN to drive on site. The rest of them can stay home.
Originally Posted by reddiamond
There's your differentiator for MmM.
A Battery is 4-6 guns, 1 Captain, 110 horses, 150 artillerists. We don't need 100 guns manned by 8 'man' crews. We do need battery wagons, caissons, mounted artillery battery Captains and Buglers. We don't need 100+ duallies + trailers churning the less than ideal road surfaces into quagmires (which just happened at Shiloh) which KO'd water distribution and portalet servicing. Why does artillery camp so heavy? because we let them. What's wrong with a tarp over the gun \ limber \ caisson for a tent? Does it have to be cots coolers and wall tents and lack of non-striped or officer artillerists? Used to be that a Corporal was important in the artillery....now it seems like everyone and their SISTER (or Mom) are running around with stripes.
And horses? Yea I know we can't afford 6 horses per gun and the trailer and trained outriders, etc. I'm tired of seeing dozens of artillery captains, majors, colonels WALKING around ACW reenacting battlefields at National Events. Twas a stirring sight to see Craddock, Woodburn, Owens of the WIG MOUNTED as the Field Grade Officer's for the 15th Iowa MARCHING Infantry at BGA Shiloh. Simply Stupendous! If I never saw a horseless artillery captain again (or a Light Field Artillery DRUMMER) it would make my day. All light field artillerists need to be fully acquainted with horses....possibly giving them something to do at reenactments besides the 64qt cooler and their wall tents?
4 guns per 500 rifles would be a nice minimum ratio...... with 4 artillery horses ( Captain, Lt. or two, bugler or two mounted?).
Horniste! Blas das Signal zum Angriffe!
"But in the end, it's the history, stupid. If you can't document it, forget about it. And no amount of 'tomfoolery' can explain away conduct that in the end makes history (and living historians) look stupid and wrong. "