Thanks for verifying my comment!
..and not what was transcribed by Heth.

Nice try though.

Cheers, NYGiant

Do you understand the Civil War?

Context should be considered, don't you think regarding Lee's comments.

It looks like the confederate ratio of rifled pieces was only half that of the federal, and the casualty rates suffered by the opposing gunners is suggestive : rebel artillery casualties were double those of the yankees, and is there a corollary here ?

I got you beat...65 years of not only reading, and study, and passing exams,, but also walking battlefields.

Quote:

Quite probably. Much of the Union artillery fire from the batteries on the east side of Antietam Creek was counterbattery, while most of the Confederate artillery fire was in direct support of their infantry. There are exceptions of course, Stewart's Battery during the morning played a big role in repelling the two Confederate counterattacks - Lawton's and Hood's - along with other I and XI Corps batteries between the North and East Woods.

Finding a skeletal row of videttes would be enough to discourage McClellan from attacking. And failure to continue the fight at all is not winning a battle.

No...it`s a rather accurate interpretation of Little Mac...not colored by sycophants. McClellan deserves credit for training that army and giving it some pride....but he was a "parade ground soldier."

Try reading and educating yourself about the march that Lee and his battalions made to establish that line at Sharpsburg. They were not just camping out and roasting smores before Mac got there . They were making hard forces marches...with underfed men, many sick, as my relatives in Cobb`s brigade would attest to..many of them sent back to Richmond with infirmities...also as my relatives could attest to.

The fact remains...had MacClellan not fumbled his tactical plan at Sharpsburg...he would have won a decisive victory....but the fact that he chose not to attack Lee`s position on the next day , regardless of his walking the line and finding.....artillery....does not give him a battlefield victory in my opinion...and the opinion of many historians.

Quote:


So what are your competencies?

Does any one here know how many rounds of artillery fire were expended by the two armies in the battle ?

An approximate number, or even an informed guess, would do.

I’ve read that at Gettysburg the North fired fifty per cent more artillery rounds than the South.

I’ll take a look at Porter Alexander’s account and see if I can find anything.

Well, I have read more, studied more , passed more exams and have toured many more battlefields than you have.

You may have more writing experience. However, my specialty in English was public speaking, and not writing. And I am able to communicate to the student the meat of any battlefield walk. I bring a "hard science" to any battlefield discussion, which elevates my tours above just a battlefield walk.

Alan Nolan was my friend and companion on tours.

Quote:

Um, how do you know?



Quote:

If you are incapable of doing research, citing sources to back up your opinions with facts, applying logic and critical thinking to a question, or even focusing on a question, then your skills at public speaking aren't useful. If you are so evidently incapable of following an argument and supporting your own with relevant citations you aren't bring "hard science" to anything; you're bringing bluster and rudeness, which has been amply displayed in your various replies to other posters on this site.



And, yeah, I've done "public speaking" as well, presenting analytical studies to corporate and government clients, lecturing military and civilian government employees, and teaching critical thinking and structured analysis.

So?



Quote:

Quote:

I don't believe it was recorded by either side. In December, Hunt did complain that batteries were averaging 300 rounds expended per engagement and the battery reports show anything from 75 rounds in 48 minutes to 300 to 400 rounds for the battle for a battery. A total of about 50,000 rounds is estimated for both sides.

Quote:

Alexander wasn't there.

Once sarcasm enters the debate, I know I have won.

Quote:

Be happy in your victory. I tend to resort to sarcasm when I realize I'm debating with a crackpot and will never get a thoughtful response.

Alexander not at Sharpsburg ? I tend to refer to his memoir, there’s something transcendental in his narrative, and I made the mistake of assuming that he was always there when things counted ! There’s a big chapter on Antietam in his volume, so I confess to being rather embarrassed at my mistake.

Fifty thousand is a very big number for a single day : I would venture a guess and reckon on four to five thousand killed or wounded by artillery fire at Antietam. The battlefield was one of the most panoramic of the war, which gave the gunners a decent chance to ply their trade.

Whoops...I forgot that name calling is another sign that one has lost the debate.

Quote:

I'm happy to see you continue to prove my point.

Quote:

No he wasn't. He was at Harper's Ferry. It was later when he relieved S.D. Lee that he asked Lee what Sharpsburg was like and received Lee's famous response "It was Artillery Hell!"

Quote:

That is for both sides and may be slightly inflated. You could go through the extant battery records in OR and derive an estimate based on that but it would remain a WAG. On average in the ACW its been calculated that possibly only 10 percent of casualties were due to artillery fire.

If Antietam entailed - in one day - anything approaching fifty thousand artillery rounds being fired, then the implications for the intensity of the combat are striking, bearing in mind that fewer than seventy thousand were fired in three days at Gettysburg.

Regards, Phil

Artillery Noisy – not deadly or dangerous

Rich & Phil & group,

In 100 Great Battles of the Rebellion by Wesley P Kremer 1906
Page 306
Table

Artillery Noisy – not deadly or dangerous

Says Gettysburg July, 1-4 artillery rounds fired 32,781 (both sides)
Stones River, Dec 30 1862; 20,000 rounds

Does not give specific source but his sources mainly Official Records and Adjutant General reports

Says estimate of 1 casualty for 500 rounds fired from guns.
seems way low if 10% losses from guns??
B P Hughes, Firepower p167 estimates 1-2 wounded per round artillery shot ( over all average for all types rounds)

This work (Kremer) mainly tables of casualties for Civil War battles
Thanks, Mike_C.
mikecmaps

Phil,
yes 1:500 certainly way off.

So found a good table in MEDICAL AND SURGICAL HISTORY OF THE WAR OF THE REBELLION part iii vol 2 1883
P20
wounds of lower extremity only being about 31% of all wounds.
And for 1864-65 Union troops various commands

2649 wounds artillery; “large projectiles, cannon shot, shell, bomb fragments, grape and canister”
27960 “small projectiles, musket, carbine, rifle, pistol balls,
and small missiles from shrapnel and canister”
2649 large projectiles = 9% of 30609 total but many gun wounds included in 31k as small missiles from shrapnel and canister, so still not really clear number.

Unquestionably in many situations artillery was especially deadly and effective.

Haven’t made through reading of 1200 pages but first table gives some data.

If I guesstimate 10% (wild guess) of small missiles from guns, the overall per cent goes from 10% to ~20% (18%) an important difference.

“Another probable cause why proportion of wounds of limbs was smaller in the field hospital returns, is that a large number of rapidly mortal wounds of head and trunk appear on the field casualty lists, representing patients who never reached the base hospitals.”

Sorry all this is pretty fragmentary but gives a little intro into to some of the data.
Google books retrieved 11272022
For your consideration,
Yours, Mike_C.
mikecmaps