GDG- Arty Anti-personnel Effectiveness

[Richard M Kadas]

Jim,
  Perhaps we can infer PPT assault casualty mix from U.S. Army data on all surgical cases admitted to hospitals 1861-65. Of over 400K cases 58% were from gunshot wounds. Of these cases over 80% were to the extremities. It is also reported that less than 2% were from edged weapons. Did arty cause the missing 40% of all casualties. The reason that 80% of those who made it to hospital were extremity wounds is that wounds to the head, thorax, and abdomen are more likely to be fatal. Considering that arty is more likely to cause massive trauma which makes hospitalization irrelevant. Thus it really could have been responsible for the missing 40%. would the big gun fans be satisfied with being credited with causing roughly 2/3s as many casualties as from gunshot. I'm still trying to find a copy of "Medical and Surgical History of the War of the Rebellion (1861-65) that was . printed in 1870 by the GPO. It probably has the best data on the effectiveness of ACW arty.
  Dick
  
James Cameron <cameron2 at optonline.net> wrote:
  Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:


<< From
data I've collected a cannister round's effective range lies between 300 
and 600 yards dependent upon the upward angle of the cannon muzzle. 
Cannister was either fired directly or reflectively by aiming it to hit the 
ground some distance in front of its infantry target and have it skip upward 
ijnto them like a stone skipped across a pond. >>

600 yards sounds a bit extreme. The cannister balls may well carry that 
far, but the pattern spread is going to be so wide at that distance that 
effectiveness will be very limited.


<< Do you think that battery fronts were scientifically derived by U.S. 
Army ordnance to give interlocking field of fire for a battery firing 
cannister. >>

My impression is that it had more to do with providing a safe interval 
between pieces in the event of a limber chest explosion. I believe it was 
also to allow enough room for the gun teams to maneuver when going into and 
out of battery.

<< It is well known that arty batteries frequently had all their horses 
killed or wounded by opposing infantry. However, given the general absence 
of infantry target practice or training in marksmanship one might assume 
that this occurred more frequently in mixed terrain where trees and rocks 
were available to give infantry cover. In an open area Arty. firing 
cannister might have the advantage over untrained infantry firing a rifled 
musket at ranges of 200 -300 yards. If this logic is sound then over 50% of 
the casualties in the PPT assault may to have come from arty. >>

Cannister did have an advantage over small arms fire in that it was fired 
from a heavy, stable gun platform, by crews of well trained specialists. 
I've seen some descriptions of CW artillery firing cannister as tactically 
similar to WW1 or WW2 heavy machines. That analogy breaks down at some 
point, for any number of reasons, but does have some application. As to the 
percentage of casualties inflicted during the Charge, we'll never know for 
sure.

Jim Cameron


----------------------------------------------------------------
You may unsubscribe by going to http://mailman.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg

You can add yourself to the GDG map at: http://www.frappr.com/gettysburgdiscussiongroup

View archived posts from May 2004 - present at http://mailman.arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg/