Talk:Field artillery in the American Civil War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Maintained The following user(s) are actively contributing to this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
Hlj (Hal Jespersen) (talk • watchlist • email)
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.

Contents

[edit] 14-Pounder James Rifle

(developed by Gen. C.T. James; mfg. by Ames Mfg. Co., MA)

What was the scope of use of the above (i.e., how many were in the field)? Should they be included?--Fix Bayonets! 06:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

...a six-pounder version is seen here
--Fix Bayonets! 03:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] edit of October 17

I deleted a sentence regarding ranges from the Whitworth paragraph. The quotation that is there now about accuracy is immediately followed by a sentence that discusses that accuracy. Interposing additional range information between those two sentences makes the following accuracy sentence inappropriate. The range at 5° is already covered in the table, so if you think it is important to discuss the range at 35°, you need to find a different place in the paragraph to add it.

I also adjusted the footnote to conform to the style that I use in my other American Civil War articles -- list the book in the References section and provide a brief page number citation as the footnote. In this style, the Notes section needs to follow the References to make sense. Hal Jespersen 14:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge per AFD

per this afd, please merge this into the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Placebo Effect (talk • contribs) 01:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reorg

Perhaps the sections should be reorg'ed here. How about some general headings (not all inclusive of course):

Guns: SB - 6pdr, 9pdr, 12pdr, Napoleons

Rifled - Parrott 2.9 and 3in, Ord 3in, Parrott 20pdr, Ord 4.5in, CS 3in, James series, Whitworth and other English imports

Howitzers: 12pdr series, 24pdr, 32 pdr

Mortars: 24pdr coehorn was considered by many sources a "field" weapon.

Other: Mountain and infantry weapons and Boat Howitzers

That might reduce some confusion about types.

Since I wrote this article, people have been fooling around with the headers in a way that makes it more confusing than it was originally. Also, the intent of the article was to highlight common weapons, not to be a fully exhaustive list. I actually do not think an exhaustive list is a good idea for an article of this format -- one with tables and gallery photographs. It would soon become much too lengthy to be of interest to the average reader. So if your intent is to add brief mentions of alternative weapons within categories, that should be fine and your proposed reorganization is okay, too. One other thing: the intent of this article was to highlight weapons commonly used in the field, in the artillery batteries that did not have "Heavy" in their names. I note that a few of the pieces you have in your list above are listed in the reference by Hazlett et al as being "Too Big for the Field," so we should limit discussion of such weapons in this context. Hal Jespersen (talk) 19:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


"Too Big for the Field" was those particular author's opinion of the weapons. In the case of the larger weapons, even Hazelett and others agree the 4.5in Rifles, 30pdr Parrotts, and heavy FIELD howitzers were used in the tactical armies of the day, but not without a lot of labor.

I'd also ask why the facts concerning the Confederate Napoleons keep getting rolled back? --Caswain01 (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The opinions of the authors of the secondary sources that we use as references are the guiding principles for writing articles in Wikipedia. What we are trying to do in this article is to describe the common uses of field artillery, not provide an exhaustive look at every piece that ever was conceivably deployed. I don't object to having lists of links to articles about artillery pieces that fall into the lesser used categories, but I would object to a large expansion of this article to include the amount of detail comparable to the detail there now for the common pieces. Wikipedia has whole taxonomies of List articles that try to be exhaustive, but more descriptive articles really bog down when they attempt to do so.
The claims regarding the Confederate Napoleons were unsourced. I posted a flag requesting a citation, waited about two weeks without a response, and then deleted the sentence, reflecting that fact in the edit summary. This is a very common practice in Wikipedia. If you wish to restore the claim, provide a citation from a secondary source. Thanks. Hal Jespersen (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

First I am stating that you are indeed using an "opinion" to classify what is "field artillery" here if you opt to throw out references to weapons that were indeed classified as "Field Artillery" in the Ordnance manuals of the day. There are some primary sources that cite the use of, say, the 12pdr Field Gun in the field armies of the time. Also recall the use of 4.5in rifles, which the Army of the Potomac always had at least a section of when in the field.

Wikipedia uses secondary sources for its opinions. If the Ordnance manuals of the day say something, I'm sure you can find secondary sources that cite them. Hal Jespersen 13:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Second, I did indeed cite a source for my comments about the Confederate Napoleons. I used the very same source you cite later in the article - the definitive work on the subject of Hazlett, Olmstead, and Parks. If you are saying it is the policy of Wikipedia to have sourced comments removed, then I've got to cry foul. --Caswain01 (talk) 01:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I saw no footnote on the claim. That's what the "citation needed" flag is asking for. Hal Jespersen 13:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chain Shot

The section about Chain Shot should be removed entirely. Chain shot was never standard issue for field artillery, used against ships, and no documentation I can cite reference its use during the ACW by any field units.--Caswain01 (talk) 03:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Double-barreled cannon

The Double-barreled cannon link was added to See also and I think this is the appropriate place for it. This article on field artillery was meant to be a catalogue of widely used FA pieces and related topics. Since the double-barreled cannon was a curiosity never deployed to the field, it doesn't belong in the main text. Hal Jespersen (talk) 22:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)