Artillery Quartermaster Sergeant

That's the cuirasse (breastplate) of a French Cuirassier, possibly from a member of General Milhaud's cavalry corps which was in the vanguard of the first of Napoleon's mass cavalry charges in the afternoon of the battle. The Allied gunners stayed by their guns until the last possible moment, firing into the massed cavalry at point blank range before running for the cover of the infantry squares.

The effects of artillery have never been easy to convey in movies or TV, at least until the digital age, because they are so messy. This was my arm of the service and what I know about artillery ammo and what it can do...even way back then, would make most people's skin crawl. This is one reason that in days of old, where guns were right up in the front line and batteries were sometimes overrun, it was customary not to offer any quarter to the gunners.

There are a few scenes in a few movies that convey the purpose and effect of artillery fairly well, however. In the film "A Bridge Too Far," British 25pdr guns fire a rolling barrage with live ammo, and this can be told by the recoiling of the gun barrels. It's probable that the scenes of the rounds impacting were actually filmed with buried explosive charges with controlled detonations, but they captured the rolling or "standard" barrage very well. I'm told this was a Canadian Army innovation from WWI, but I have never verified this.

There re also a few scenes in the miniseries "Band of Brothers" that convey pretty closely, or so I think, what it would be like to come under artillery fire. I can't say for sure because I've only ever been on the giving end of this, and never at the receiving end, though my experiences in the observations posts witnessing the impacts at a distance would seem to confirm the realism.

Years ago, as a newly promoted sergeant of artillery, I was an instructor on a combat leader's course at Valcartier which included candidates from all the combat arms. I was astounded how none of the infantry guys on this course had ever been given any instruction on what artillery could to for them or to them. They were literally amazed that we could detonate HE munitions 7 meters above their heads and spray shell fragments right into their trenches.

Gunners do it with a bang.

Glidah Drivah wrote:

Kimono Troop Command wrote:

I'm not crazy about Parrots.  I think the 3 inch rifle was better, lighter, and safer to operate.  Apparently though McClellan had a battery of the rare and huge 20pdr Parrots at Antietam.  That's the only instance I've found them listed on any Orbat.  

Of course, the place that will forever live as the battle where Union Artillery proved how effective an arm it was, is Malvern Hill. Still, they were in a way just copying what Napoleon used to do with his "grande batteries." Not war, but murder.  

It's amazing that while George McClellan had the sense to assign one regular battery to each artillery brigade to serve as model for training and organization, he failed to do anything similar for his cavalry, which would have been very much to their benefit in the first couple of years of the war.  

Yes, it’s a Troiani painting titled “Retreat by Recoil”. Malvern Hill certainly showed the professionalism and effectiveness of Union artillery. McClellan’s decision could have been influenced by the better overall effectiveness of confederate cavalry for the first half of the war.

-Nate

McClellan was chiefly influenced by the same doubts and fears that plagued his overall command of the army. In the first place, he lacked a proper understanding of the utilization of the arm. He was an engineer, and though he had been posted to a cavalry regiment before the war, he never actually joined it or served in it. JEB Stuart of course was a cavalryman had a very warm relationship with Joe Johnston, the first commander of the ANV, and had therefore far more influence over cavalry organization than say George Stoneman, who was in any case, everything a cavalryman ought not be: slow, untra conservative and totally unequal to the handling of large bodies of men.

Secondly. he resisted creating larger cavalry formations for the same reason he resisted the creation of infantry corps; he did not like the idea of creating too many subordinate commands.

Finally, he was terrified that if a regiment or brigade were routed in a clash with the enemy cavalry, the newspaper would have a field day with it whereas if a small patrol was sent packing, no-one would ever pay any attention to it. It never seems to have occurred to him that it would be far less likely that a large formation would ever be routed than a small one, even of the combat were with another large formation.

McClellan was definitely over cautious. (He and Bragg should have remained staff officers. Their reputations would be much better today.) I’ve heard that Malvern Hull was won in spite of him. (It’s the one high point of the Peninsula campaign.) Apparently his subordinates wined and dined him the eve of the battle to take him out of the planning. My artillery NCOs and Berdan sharpshooters are supposed to be at Malvern Hill. This effect of artillery was devastating, and Malvern Hill foreshadowed the Civil War showcasing the deadly combination of rifled explosive shells.



You’ve probably seen it, but as a Canadian, you might find this a nice read:



-Nate

McClellan certainly would have made a better chief of staff than an army commander. it's a rare man that can go from commanding no more than a company to an army of 105,000 men, even if he had been a railroad president in between. It's funny though how Custer went from being a first lieutenant and brevet captain on a general's staff to being a brigadier general, and yet turned in a very creditable performance in the Gettysburg campaign, despite have been promoted to brigade command a few days earlier. Though he'd already participated in several actions including at least one charge in the Louden Valley, he did so as a staff officer on Alfred Pleasanton's staff. He'd never commanded a troop or squadron nor even a detachment before being promoted to Bgen but did rather well for himself in the Civil War from 1863 onward. I guess he hit is high point early.....

Great looking figures, Nate, and excellent informative thread, guys!!!

Man, I don't believe your wife wouldn't let you get that Napoleon, bummer. What a display piece that would make with a few figures!

Didier wrote:

Nice !
I'd love to have a Lili Ledy Joe once.
What horse is that ?  He looks good too.

The other figure is Cotswold on a Marx horse.

-Nate

Kimono Troop Command wrote:

If there's one thing I don't do in these forums is discuss politics or express political opinions.  There are lots of other places for me to do do that.

Seriously now Gary?
And of course the battles under lengthy discussion/analysis here have nothing at all to do with politics? 
Could I politely and respectfully just point out that you have frequently made your own personal value judgements on the suitability of the military personnel involved.
To many, (even myself) that could possibly be seen as .....political?
And I was just making a little play on words in a spirit of some levity.

Yes, totally seriously.

War may be, as Clauswitz stated continuation of politics,, however he also remarked that politics do not sink into the details of war.  "Sentries are not posted, patrols are not sent out because of political considerations."  What I discussed were the details of historical wars, not the politics behind them, the politics of the military men involved, or the overlap of military and political decision making at the highest levels of war.

I challenge anyone to point at any hint of politics or of a personal political opinion in my opinion that a cuirasse likely belonged to a Cuirassier of Milhaud's division at Waterloo or the effects of artillery fire at Malvern Hill, of George McClellan or Braxton Bragg's or George Stoneman's failures as military commanders, which are not in serious dispute by any American Civil War historian that I am aware of, or of Armstrong Custer's excellent performance as a cavalry brigade commander in the Gettysburg campaign only SIX DAYS after he was promoted from brevet captain on Alfred Pleasanton's staff.

There were certainly politics involved in McClellan's retention in command until November of 1862, and both politics and skullduggery involved in Custer's promotion to brigadier-general, along with two other officers from Pleasanton's staff; Wesley Merrit and Elon Farnsworth. Farnsworth's promotion especially was especially political, incidentally.  Again, I didn't go into them and there's no serious dispute among historians on the issue.  

The current political situation in America is a much different affair. Unlike all of the above, in which there is no real dispute historically or otherwise, the current situation in America is volatile and touchy and while I definitely have my (strong) opinions about the recent election there, and as I am aware that not everyone here may share my opinions,  I choose to stay away in this forum from anything that touches upon the American election or any other touchy political issue even if only in jest. It's too easy to write something that may offend the political view of someone else here, so I stay away from it.  There are a plenty of other places I can do this (and do), but this is a place I come to "play" and have fun with my action figures, nothing else.  For the record, I don't want to discuss Canadian politics either.     It's that simple.

Kimono Troop Command wrote:

The current political situation in America is a much different affair. Unlike all of the above, in which there is no real dispute historically or otherwise, the current situation in America is volatile and touchy and while I definitely have my (strong) opinions about the recent election there, and as I am aware that not everyone here may share my opinions,  I choose to stay away in this forum from anything that touches upon the American election or any other touchy political issue even if only in jest. It's too easy to write something that may offend the political view of someone else here, so I stay away from it.  There are a plenty of other places I can do this (and do), but this is a place I come to "play" and have fun with my action figures, nothing else.  For the record, I don't want to discuss Canadian politics either.     It's that simple.

Your lecture aside, if you'd care to go back and actually read the comment you seem to have taken objection to, you'd perhaps notice that it was carefully worded to NOT favour either side of whatever situation you assumed I was referring to. It was in fact a reply to a previous comment.
Of course you may set your own rules, (for yourself) but I choose not to signal my virtues here, or lack of them, but to occasionally just lighten up a little. 
Yes, it's that simple.

Your comment, if I recall was "The impeached is replaced by the impaired." There is no doubt that one individual was impeached, but it is a matter of opinion, not fact that the other is impaired, beyond having a slight stutter. I would have found it difficult to reply to this without taking a side in the issue.

Kimono Troop Command wrote:

Your comment, if I recall was "The impeached is replaced by the impaired."  There is no doubt that one individual was impeached, but it is a matter of opinion, not fact that the other is impaired, beyond having a slight stutter. I would have found it difficult to reply to this without taking a side in the issue.  

It's just a word play....peach...pear, .....a pun if you will. 
You yourself have made unfavourable comments here on the mental capabilities and unsuitability for office of the military figures you discuss.

LeStryge wrote:

Kimono Troop Command wrote:

Your comment, if I recall was "The impeached is replaced by the impaired."  There is no doubt that one individual was impeached, but it is a matter of opinion, not fact that the other is impaired, beyond having a slight stutter. I would have found it difficult to reply to this without taking a side in the issue.  

It's just a word play....peach...pear, .....a pun if you will. 
You yourself have made unfavourable comments here on the mental capabilities and unsuitability for office of the military figures you discuss.

The comments I've made about George Brinton McClellan and George Stoneman are comments about their abilities as military commanders in battle and in a historical context having no bearing whatsoever on current US politics which is a topic I sincerely wish to avoid within this forum.  If on the other hand you or anyone want to challenge my assessment of McClellan, or Stoneman or if you take a different view of Custer's Civil War career than I do, then I heartily welcome a civil discussion on any of these matters.  For the record, both McClellan and Stoneman were widely liked, even loved by their troops, though it wasn't for their ability to win battles.

Gents, let’s not derail things. My other piece of 1/6 artillery.



-Nate

Quite right. We've gotten way off topic.  I love Bofors guns! Here are a couple of photos of one that was fully restored five years ago. The gun is now in the Longue Pointe museum in Montreal. Everything on it works.

20160301_Bofors_0027 by Gary  Menten, on Flickr

20160301_Bofors_0073 by Gary  Menten, on Flickr

At the National Museum of the pacific War in Texas:







And just down the street:






-Nate

By the looks of it, just down the street to you is in Fall River, Ma.

3guns by Gary Menten, on Flickr

Now if you want to talk about 25pdr guns, here are three mostly functional ones (the recoil systems have been disabled to make them....street legal) owned by 3rd Montreal Field Battery, a volunteer ceremonial unit comprised mainly of former members of the Royal Canadian Artillery and which operates with permission of the 2nd Field Regiment, RCA out of the Côte-des-Neiges Armoury, Montreal.

25pdr night firing. by Gary Menten, on Flickr


25pdr night firing by Gary Menten, on Flickr

Kimono Troop Command wrote:

Quite right.  We've gotten way off topic.  I love Bofors guns! Here are a couple of photos of one that was fully restored five years ago. The gun is now in the Longue Pointe museum in Montreal. Everything on it works.  

20160301_Bofors_0027 by Gary  Menten, on Flickr

20160301_Bofors_0073 by Gary  Menten, on Flickr

That is an impressive looking gun! And travels up to 40 miles per hour? Very formidable.

Daryl

Glidah Drivah wrote:

Gents, let’s not derail things. My other piece of 1/6 artillery.



-Nate

Nice Nate! I bet those go for a pretty penny. I would love to have one, but to be honest I don't know
where I would put it. The house I live in is fairly small.

Daryl

Glidah Drivah wrote:

Kimono Troop Command wrote:

I have a Britain's 25prdr gun also, purchased on e-bay.  It replaces the original one I had as a kid, purchased on a trip to the UK in 1973.  Eventually, I mounted it on top of a wooden periscope my father had build me so I could pretend to be a submarine captain, and rigged it to fire by pulling a string.  I also have a Timpo 12-pdr, again a replacement for one I purchased in the UK in 1973.

The James guns, if memory serves were a less than perfectly successful attempt to convert old 1842 6-pdr smoothbore guns to rifles.  The problem was that the bronze or brass brass barrels were too soft for the shells made for rifled guns and the rifling wore out quickly.  

I think the barrel of the monster 12pdr in the photo is around 1800lbs...but I'm not 100% sure.  

Yes, the James guns were attempts to use older 6-pdr tubes until Napoleons or Ordnance rifles were available in quantity. I believe the bore diameter was about 3.67”. We were able to fire softballs out of them. Here’s my 1/6 battery. Marx, MPC and Topper Toys/Deluxe Reading howitzers.




-Nate

I'm envious! The one on the right looks huge! But I would really like to have one of the other two for my Joes.

Daryl

Kimono Troop Command wrote:

By the looks of it, just down the street to you is in Fall River, Ma.  

Now if you want to talk about 25pdr guns, here are three mostly functional ones (the recoil systems have been disabled to make them....street legal) owned by 3rd Montreal Field Battery, a volunteer ceremonial unit comprised mainly of former members of the Royal Canadian Artillery and which operates with permission of the 2nd Field Regiment, RCA out of the Côte-des-Neiges Armoury, Montreal.

Yes, I live about 20 minutes from Fall River. My wife grew up within sight of Battleship Cove. Great pics of the Montreal group. I believe the Irish Army was using 25 pdrs into the 2000s. Probably reserve units.

-Nate

That's correct. One of the 25pdrs in the pic, the one firing at night with the muzzle brake was gift from the Irish Army when they got rid of them. It was actually made in Sorel, Quebec during WWII and sold to Ireland after the war. 3rd Field Battery members actually went to Ireland, picked out five guns and brought them back to Canada. We kept one for ourselves and gifted the other four: two to museums, one to the Juno Beach memorial, and one to a branch of the Royal Canadian Legion.

I visited Battleship Cove, the Massachussets and Lionfish when I was 12 years old, in 1974. I have a photo of me somewhere...manning one of the Bofors.

That’s really cool about the 25 pdrs returning home to Canada, especially to Quebec. The 75mm pack howitzers we used also had disabled recoil mechanisms.

-Nate

Glidah Drivah wrote:

That’s really cool about the 25 pdrs returning home to Canada, especially to Quebec. The 75mm pack howitzers we used also had disabled recoil mechanisms.

-Nate

Though we are allowed to use a Reserve Armory to keep our guns, limbers and gun-tractors (we have three of each) 3rd Montreal Field Battery is nonetheless a civilian group composed mostly of retired military people...but still civilians for legal purposes. To avoid legal problems we had to disable the recoil systems on the 25pdrs. I guess law enforcement is afraid we might shell a police station or something...as if we could get live 25pdr ammunition, which is only made in Pakistan nowadays, and without an end-user certificate.

This is all hilarious because there is nothing to stop us loading the muzzle loaders from the Westmount Battery with ball bearings or langridge or broken glass and firing those at something....

Kimono Troop Command wrote:

 To avoid legal problems we had to disable the recoil systems on the 25pdrs.

I am not sufficiently familiar with artillery to understand. Perhaps you can enlighten me. Why is the recoil mechanism required to be disabled on non-military artillery pieces?

I'm surmising that when firing low power blank cartridges "for show," there is no real need for a recoil mechanism, but that a recoil-damping mechanism would be necessary if firing actual projectiles that have significant mass. So basically, the disabled cannons are good for smoke and fire but nothing more. Is that the idea?

And... could the guns be restored to working order? Or does "disable" mean "mess 'em up good so they can't be fixed?"