Talk:1st Missouri Field Battery

From FAC - describing the cannon
What is currently there:

"The 12-pounder James guns were 6-pounder smoothbores that had undergone the rifling process. Rifled cannons had a series of grooves engraved into the  gun barrel of the piece, which smoothbore guns lacked; the grooves spun the projectile when it was fired.  Guns that had undergone the rifling process were viewed as desirable, as they had a greater effective range and were more accurate.  The guns fired a 12 lb projectile based on the design used for the 14-pounder James rifle.  They had a bore of 3.67 in, weighed slightly less than 884 lb, and had a range of 1700 yards. The 6-pounder smoothbores fired a projectile that weighed about 6 lb and had the same bore as the 12-pounder James rifles.  The smoothbores weighed 884 lbs and had a range of 1500 yards.  They were considered to be mostly obsolete by that time.  All of the pieces would generally have required between four and six men to fire each one. Cannons during the American Civil War were drawn by horses when they needed to move, and were generally slow-moving and easily hampered by muddy roads. Field batteries consisted of field artillery, which were cannons that were easy enough to move that they could be brought on campaigns and moved around on a battlefield."

What I think a reader might expect.

''Cannon were long range weapons, at this period propelling projectiles about x to y feet. Most were direct fire weapons, except for howitzers, which used high-trajectory indirect fire. All cannon of the period were muzzle-loading, with the propellent and projectile being placed in the front of the bore and rammed home before being discharge. Cannons were in a period of transition during the ACW. Traditionally they were smoothbore, with the solid shot cannon ball necessarily being slightly smaller than the gun's bore to facilitate loading. This windage, as it was known, reduced the power, range and accuracy of cannon. They were considered to be mostly obsolete by that time. From XXXX some cannons were rifled, with a series of grooves engraved into the bore of the barrel of the piece; the grooves spun the projectile when it was fired. This allowed a smoother fit between the cannonball and the bore, which reduced the leakage of propellant gases and greatly improved the piece's weight of projectile, range, and accuracy. The 6-pounder smoothbores with which the battery was equipped fired a projectile that weighed about 6 pounds (2.7 kg) to a range of about 1,500 yards (1.4 km). The 12-pounder James guns were 6-pounder smoothbores that had undergone the rifling process and fired a 12 pounds (5.4 kg) projectile to a range of 1,700 yards (1.6 km).

''Both types of gun could also fire canister shot or grape shot for anti-personal fire, up to about XXX yards. Both types of gun weighed about weighed 884 pounds (401 kg) (with or without their carriages?) and required between four and six men each to fire. Cannons during the American Civil War were drawn by horses when they needed to move, and were generally slow-moving and easily hampered by muddy roads. Field batteries consisted of four to six cannon which were sufficiently manoeuvrable that they could be brought on campaigns and moved around on a battlefield. In use they would attempt to remain out of smallarms range and blah, blah.''

OK, that is off the top of my head and the ACW is not my specialist area, so treat with care. I have incorporated most of your very useful info. I am not saying "Use this". I am offering it up as a, IMO, fuller and more digestible account of what these cannon things were, how they worked and what they did. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:23, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I will look in after Hog Farm has re-worked ... hard for me to digest in italics and without wikilinks :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look either tonight after work or tomorrow morning. I will note that a few breechloading cannons did see use, such as the 12-pounder Whitworth rifle, so that part at least will be rephrased. Hog Farm Bacon 18:44, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , yeah, I had a vague memory of that. I just wanted to get something down, even if it got the "grandfather's axe" treatment. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * - I've made another attempt. If this seems painfully slow progress to you, it's because ordnance is most definitely not my area of familiarity.  I also only have one in-depth book about ACW cannons, and it's a bit of a technical volume, so the basics stuff is actually harder for me to source. Hog Farm Bacon 18:11, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have a good source for this sort of thing from the Napoleonic wars, so if you are OK with it, I may fill some of the gaps. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * - Yeah, that's fine by me. I'll read over it afterwards to make sure everything added reflects ACW norms, but I'd be grateful for the help. Hog Farm Bacon 18:18, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I couldn't see any obvious weaknesses. If you are aware of some, let me know what they are and I'll see what I have got. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, that's good. The phrasing is gonna be really rough, but I'll work on that. Hog Farm Bacon 21:51, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Ship of Theseus
According to the article, this unit started in Arkansas as "Roberts' Missouri Battery". It then finished the war in Louisiana as the "1st Missouri Field Battery" with a different commander, cannons and name. In what sense can this be said to be the same unit? Is there something which gave it continuity throughout – a pennon, its caissons, its artillerymen, an entry in the paymaster's ledger or what? The article doesn't seem to say.

And the article doesn't seem to go into much detail about the unit's makeup. What was its official strength, for example – how many soldiers and casualties did it have? And none of the sources seem to be devoted specifically to the unit – they all seem to be more general works. So, how do we know that this isn't a synthetic construct, cobbled together from a variety of passing mentions?

So, I'm not convinced that the unit was notable, let alone worthy of being featured. It doesn't seem to have won any battle honours or otherwise distinguished itself from numerous other small units. Right?

Andrew🐉(talk) 10:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. I still don't know why this was featured on the main page. What's so special about this unit? It seems like it was just another Confederate artillery company, and as you mentioned this unit doesn't seem to have any medals or any other awards or distinctions. Perhaps it was just added as trivia or something like that.  A2Bros (talk) 14:19, 4 January 2022 (UTC)


 * - Confederate artillery batteries were generally known by the name of their commander, so the unit simply renamed when Roberts resigned, which was the only significant change in the battery at the time. The "1st Missouri Field Battery" renaming was simply an administrative change (reasons aren't clearly given, but seem to be so that the unit could be better tracked in CSA gov't records). Of the two changes in cannons, the second was simply re-arming the unit, and the McGhee source makes it clear it kept lineage through the first change. McGhee contains a multipage work solely about this unit, and makes clear how the lineage stayed the same through the unit. It was not unusual for artillery batteries in the war to retain continuity after command or weapon changes. The overall strength and casualties are not always known - the Confederates kept very poor records as it was, and many were destroyed when the Confederacy fell. As to the other sources, Kennedy, Geise, Woodhead, and Ripley are only there for background information. There is significant coverage of this unit's actions in Shea (what it did during Prairie Grove), Bearss 1964 (its actions at Pine Bluff), and Forsyth for the whole Jenkins Ferry debacle (Forsyth isn't used as much in the article, as I wanted to keep source balance in the section by using McGhee and Johnson in there as well). So with McGhee's multipage complete history, and the coverage in Shea, Bearss 1964, and Forsyth, we have four sources that qualify for GNG, which is certainly higher than standards you have applied elsewhere. If you still have concerns with this article's FA status, you can take it to WP:FAR. There's normally a two-week waiting period for FAR for the FAC nominator's sake, but I'm okay with waiving that because I'd rather just get it over with. Hog Farm Talk 14:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The FAR offer applies to as well, if they aren't convinced by my defense. Hog Farm Talk 14:31, 4 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I read through McGee's account. This reads quite well but doesn't really explain the unit's formation.  There's an interesting clue in this discussion which lists a variety of details and sources.  It seems that a Captain Reid was in command in the early days and that Roberts relieved him.  There was some tension or dispute but this article does not explain this.  For more details, see Reid's Arkansas Battery which does have an account of the Rains, Reid, Roberts rivalry.


 * McGee does have some details of the unit's manpower though. For example, it says that "About 170 men served in the battery during the war.  Known fatalities include 6 soldiers lost in battle..."  It also explains that the crews were "largely untrained in artillery matters" and so the unit was improvised rather than being anything like a regular formation.


 * One of the FA criteria is that the article should be "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details..." This article seems to fall short.


 * Andrew🐉(talk) 16:54, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * - I'll add at the strength, I could've sworn that was in there. The history-sites forum is not RS, but I'll see if I can track down details in RS.  The "largely untrained in artillery matters" is referring to the unit when it was first formed, which is to be expected.  The Confederacy was attempting a revolt, so of course it had to take the rocky process of training civilians to shoot large cannons, "improvised" is not a good way to describe this as it was a standard unit that was inexperienced when it formed. Do you intend to take this to FAR?  I borrowed most of the books used to write this, so knowing if I should go pick stuff up from the library and my dad would be nice. (As an aside, McGhee's 170 figure is referring to over the source of the unit's life, not necessarily 170 at one time). Hog Farm Talk 17:06, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no particular plans for this page; I was just reading it as it was featured. Now that it is off the main page, just about no-one is going to read it and so there will be diminishing returns for further effort.  But it's on my watch list so I may do more as the fancy takes me.  Anyway, we still have an unsettled question; what gives this unit its identity?  It doesn't seem to be its commander, its name or its equipment so what is it? Andrew🐉(talk) 14:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The unit would have kept the same core of men, and was considered by the CSA to be a continuation of the same unit. Hog Farm Talk 14:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC)