GDG- Artillery effectiveness

[Deichl]

A while back there was a post looking for more information on artillery
effectiveness against infantry.  I've done a fair amount of research
into this area and believe that the breakdown of casualties in the
Medical and Surgical History is more or less accurate.  According to the
reports, artillery caused slightly less than 10% of wounds.   The
accuracy of these statistics is often question because they only
includes wounded and it's assumed that artillery would cause a higher
percentage of killed (rather than wounded) than small arms.  I tested
this by looking for instances where artillery caused a higher percentage
of casualties than normal.  I compared Pickett's Division to the other
Confederate Divisions at Gettysburg and found that Pickett actually had
a lower than average killed to wounded ratio.  I also compared
Confederate casualties at Malvern Hill to the other Seven Days Battles
and once again found a lower killed to wounded ratio.  In comparing
Breckenridge's Division to the other Confederate Divisions at Stone's
River, I found the opposite to be true.  Breckenridge's Division did
have a higher ratio of killed to wounded than the Army of Tennessee
overall.  It would largely depend on the type of projectile being used
with solid shot and canister being more deadly than small arms with the
reverse being true fore case and shell.
What really struck me with the statistics in the Medical + Surgical
History was how few wounds were caused by canister.  Out of 141,961
wounds where the cause of the wound was identified, only 1,153 or less
than 1% of the wounds were caused by canister.  I decided to look at
this further.

I searched all volumes of Series I of the Official Records on the
keyword "canister" and reviewed all of the 2,889 references.  I included
only reports of the unit that received canister fire, since I felt these
would be the most reliable casualty figures.  Only regiments or smaller
organizations were included.   I found 357 references in which I could
easily determine casualties, either in the report itself or a reference
at the bottom of the page, to another report where I could find the
casualties.  When I refer to casualties, I am counting only killed and
wounded.   
      Of the 358 references, there were 129 where it appeared that
either all or the vast majority of casualties were inflicted by
canister. The average casualties for these references were under
sixteen.  Only in four cases were there more than sixty casualties
caused by canister.    In almost seventy-five percent of the instances
there were twenty or less casualties.  There were thirteen instances
where guns were captured and the casualties inflicted by canister could
be determined.  The average for these cases was thirty-seven. The median
was twenty.  In only three of these instances were there more than 30
casualties.	   
	At times canister was very effective.  The 4th Tennessee
reported 191 casualties from the canister of McAllister's 24lb Howitzers
at Shiloh.  It also appears that a high percentage of the Union
casualties at Port Hudson and Secessionville were caused by canister.
In both these cases Union troops were attacking fortified positions that
had heavy guns.  The 26th Connecticut suffered 175 casualties at Port
Hudson.  It's possible that most of these were caused by canister.
There were about a dozen other instances where the report of the unit
receiving the fire implied heavy casualties were caused, but it was
impossible to quantify them.  The above two instances are the only ones
where I could document more than eighty casualties probably came from
canister.
	Based on the work I've done, I personally believe that the
killing power of artillery and in particular canister has been
overrated.  I'm also willing to admit that my research is not
conclusive.  In addition I don't question the effect that artillery had
on morale.  If anyone can add information that either supports or
contradicts my conclusion, I would love to hear it.

Tim Deichl