Talk:Battle of West Point

Effective range of Confederate cannon in Fort Tyler
The mention that LaGrange and his men were at some point while charging the bridge out of the effective range of the Confederate cannon in the fort is incorrect. The bridge, per Google Earth, was only 800 yards from the position of the Confederate 32 pounder and the effective range of a 32 pounder is two or three times that distance. That the 32 pounder was shelling Union troops at the bridge is well documented. The two 12 pounders (or possibly two 10 pounder Parrotts) in the fort were also well within range of the bridge but for all practical purposes they probably could not bear upon a target to the southeast of the fort like the 32 pounder could and did. We'll need to correct that statement regardless of what some historian said 100 plus years later.Rjr1960 (talk) 09:07, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Also, immediately after the surrender of the fort Union Col. O. H. Lagrange asked Confederate Col. James H. Fannin the number of Confederate troops in the fort. The surviving Confederates were lined up and they were all counted. There were 64 men and boys unhurt and standing in line in the fort after the surrender. This was told years later by Col. Fannin to the Atlanta Journal. Col. Fannin had a list of every survivor in his possession in 1896. The numbers given by Lagrange clearly count Confederates captured along the way to West Point and those captured in the West Point hospital and the West Point garrison outside the fort. There were some Confederate troops outside the fort at the bridge and in other redoubts. As was customary by this stage in the war any men in the area were also rounded up and taken prisoner. The West Point News (West Point, GA), March 25, 1949, Newspapers.com reprinting an article from the Atlanta Journal (1896). Rjr1960 (talk) 17:43, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

headlogs - a typo?
headlogs seems to be a typo but it is not obvious what it should be - can anyone figure out what it should be? (from Correct typos in one click)

There were no headlogs or head logs at Fort Tyler and there was some complaint about this after the battle, especially by any of the men how had served in the Army of Tennessee north of Atlanta or later when adding a log to peak through and fire through was common. In entrenchments they would add a smaller log perpendicular to the head log and slanting into the ditch in order for the log to roll harmlessly over and behind the shooter if the head log was dislodged and pushed back by artillery fire. Some complained that minie balls would create wood splinter projectiles and blind the shooter, thus some used them and some did not. Lack of head logs explains the high percentage of mortal and non-mortal wounds among the Confederate defenders being head shots. A quick Internet search shows this is usually spelled head logs but sometimes headlogs. Rjr1960 (talk) 09:03, 19 August 2020 (UTC)