This is great info Ron. I appreciate your contribution to this thread. Rifled artillery had the same change of effect on the battlefield that rifled musketry did. However as you have stated most combat was closer in. Field artillery like small arms was a line of sight weapon. If you couldn't see the target you probably couldn't calculate the distance to it, thus making all that West Point and VMI education worthless. Not to say that FIELD artillery wasn't used at ranges further than the eye could see. I agree with Ron's information that most combat that included field artillery was closer in than we might think. A half mile is realistic. I too know from reenacting that we call rounds as if the target was some distance off. In truth most reenacting happens on fields that would have been ripe for cannister. Hell, sometimes our aluminum foil and powder blast can become a danger to advancing infantry and cavalry on both sides. I remember an event a few years ago when we were charged by cavalry after section fire. (two guns in a four gun battery) Although the scenario was scripted those troopers were on us before number one could wet his sponge. So the actuality of "start at a walk and end a full gallop" was out of the question here. When that group of horsemen saw those two guns fire at the same time thay came at full throttle. I think it is very interesting to compare the two situations: actual battle and close in reenactment scenarios. I envy you Ron with your live fire experience and hope to meet you soon at Fort Shenandoah where I will be your most obedient servant and student. Thanks to T.R. too for getting this exchange started.

Keith Saunders
First Sergeant (gunner)
Third Richmond Howitzers
Artillery Regiment
First Division
ANV

(iron six pounder smoothbore)