AGEOD Forums

I would like to know these numbers behind the artillerys (20lb and so on) means it: more lbs is better?

And what about this "Rodman-Guns" are they the strongest canon in this game?

lbs is the abbreviation for pounds, so a 20lb means the piece fires a solid shot that weighs in at 20 pounds (Little over 9kg). Generally, yes, higher is better, though the 12lb gun was considered probably the best all around gun of the war.

Not sure about the Rodman, I don't have access to the game at the moment.

The 12 lbrs are the best guns to make for field artillery since they eventually magically become 20lbrs in-game. Six lbrs magically become 10lbrs. Rodmhans and Columbiads are better for fort defense or to punch a hole in the enemy line since replacements are so expensive imo. Mortars are for attacking and defending major dug-in positions or forts. Naval guns will defend exclusively against ships.

Hi!

I made myself the same questions when i started playing the game.
In this cool wiki article i found most of the answers!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_artillery_in_the_American_Civil_War

AACW tries to simulate the reality so knowing about how the real guns were back then is pretty interesting for game play also.
Cheers!

Rodmans, meant to signify 4 1/2" Siege Guns, are the most powerful mobile land artillery, slightly more powerful than the Columbiad.

Here is another good site for research: The Civil War Artillery Page

Thank you for all your fast answers

Now I would be interested in the "Horse Artillery", this Artillery is it likeI had the impression that this Artillery fires faster (maybe not so strong)? is it so?

Big difference betyween Yankee and Secesh horse artillery. Yankee is much more accurate, and costs almost double. The Yankees tended to use more 3-inch ordnance rifles for these units as replacements for the 10 lb Parrotts.

Both types use MedHorse movement rate instead of Wheeled. The historical difference between Horse artillery and regular 10 lb artillery was the addition of 30-50% more horses per battery, so that they could keep up with cavalry better.

Hi, Jabberwock!

Havely here. (Mae's out picking flowers to match her cute new shoes. )

I'm confused. I looked at Arsan's wiki link. It looks like 12 lbrs were 4-1/2" guns. You say that the 4-1/2" guns were better than Columbiads, but when I look at Dixiecrat's spreadsheet, it shows that Columbiads are a lot more bangy than a 12 lbr. Would you please explain?

,
Havely

PS Mae says that you can go to the front of the "smooch" line in her thread, if you answer quickly.

Aphrodite Mae wrote: It looks like 12 lbrs were 4-1/2" guns. You say that the 4-1/2" guns were better than Columbiads, but when I look at Dixiecrat's spreadsheet, it shows that Columbiads are a lot more bangy than a 12 lbr. Would you please explain?

I believe the confusion lies in the distinction between smoothbore and rifled artillery. The 12lbr in the game stands for the various smoothbore guns of that caliber in use during the war, primarily the M1857 "Napoleon". The 4.5in refers to the 4.5in rifled siege gun ("4.5-ordenance gun").

Aphrodite Mae wrote: It looks like 12 lbrs were 4-1/2" guns. You say that the 4-1/2" guns were better than Columbiads, but when I look at Dixiecrat's spreadsheet, it shows that Columbiads are a lot more bangy than a 12 lbr. Would you please explain?

I believe the confusion lies in the distinction between smoothbore and rifled artillery. The 12lbr in the game stands for the various smoothbore guns of that caliber in use during the war, primarily the M1857 "Napoleon". The 4.5in refers to the 4.5in rifled siege gun ("4.5-ordnance gun").

OK ... Here goes. There are a lot of issues when it comes to names for ACW artillery.

squarian is correct. There were two basic systems of nomenclature. A smoothbore cannon was designed and intended to fire spherical (typically iron) ammunition. A bore of of 4.62 inches gives a uniform weight of 12lbs for this type of ammunition. So for smoothbore cannon this system made sense.

A rifled cannon typically shoots pointy-ended cylindrical ammunition. The length of the cylinder (weight of the ammunition) can vary. This ammunition, fired from the same bore size, can weigh more than twice as much as spherical ammunition. A 4 1/2-inch rifled cannon will typically shoot ammunition that weighs 30-35 lbs, and use three times as much powder as a 12 lb napoleon. It therefore needs to be a much larger gun, to take that stress. So weight is not a good nomenclature for rifled guns, and comparing bore size is not a good way to compare them to smoothbore guns.

Confused yet? Along comes Robert Parrott, he doesn't want to use bore diameter to name his rifled guns, he wants to use weight. So a 2.9-inch or 3-inch Parrott is a 10 lb Parrott. When you get to the really large Parrotts, the Army and Navy start using different ammunition, so an 8" Parrott is called a 200 pounder in the Army, but a 150 pounder in the navy. An 8" smoothbore would be a much smaller gun, firing ammunition between 60-65 lbs.

Now we get to the name. Rodman did not make the Rodmans that use his name in the game. Rodman was famous for making coastal artillery, 15" and 20" rifled guns that could throw ammunition weighing half a ton five miles. They were very slow to load and aim, but that's beside the point. They were the biggest guns around (30-60 tons). Apparently somebody in the AotP heard Rodman made the biggest guns around, and decided that meant 4 1/2-inch siege rifles. He had nothing to do with making those guns, but you see the name occasionally used in official reports, "we moved the Rodmans to Turkey Hill just before the rebels attacked there". (This is similar in some ways to the Confederates calling every 10lb Parrott they captured an ordnance rifle. The 3-inch ordnance rifle was the same size and could fire the same ammunition as a 10lb Parrott, but it was a much better gun.) It just sounds more impressive to say "we moved the Rodmans to Turkey Hill", or "we captured a battery of ordnance rifles".

PS Mae, you never answered my question about whether Dixicrat was a figment of your imagination, or you were a figment of his. One way, the smoochie line sounds great ... the other way, I'm not so sure ...

Nice info Jabberwock.

Yankee Heart wrote:Thank you for all your fast answers

Now I would be interested in the "Horse Artillery", this Artillery is it likeI had the impression that this Artillery fires faster (maybe not so strong)? is it so?

These are called brass guns. I guess that denotes weak. The nice thing about them is they can fly around with your cav. Historically, some generals like Forrest actually created cavalry corps and used them like mechanized infantry. They'd beat an enemy to a point, then actually dismount and fight as generic infantry, with their brass guns in support.

Almost all ACW cavalry fought dismounted, particularly against opposing infantry. The amount of firepower available meant that being up on a horse within rifle range was suicidal. So, for example, the USA cavalry on the first day of Gettysburg fought dismounted. The downside with fighting dismounted is that about 1/4 of your men are back behind the lines holding the horses. The upside is mobility. Mostly, though, cavalry did not fight much in major battles. Their job was to scout, cover the army's movements, raid supply lines, and suchlike.

Daxil wrote:...These are called brass guns. I guess that denotes weak...

Might you mean bronze? This is a quote from an excellent article at GlobalSecuirty.org. While the article is specifically about sailing ship armament, cannons are cannons, right?

"In the 1700's cast-iron guns became the principal artillery afloat and ashore, yet cast bronze was superior in withstanding the stresses of firing. Because of its toughness, less metal was needed in a bronze gun than in a cast-iron one, so in spite of the fact that bronze is about 20 percent heavier than iron, the bronze piece was usually the lighter of the two."

The article goes on to say that bronze guns were roughly twice as expensive as cast iron guns, but "...the initial saving was offset when the gun wore out. The iron gun was then good for nothing except scrap at a farthing per pound, while the bronze cannon could be recast 'as often as you please'."

Here's a link to the article.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/sail-armament.htm

Regards,
D'crat

You might be right.

Just dropping in on Jabberwock's explanation of ACW artillery types.

Rodman guns were originally so called because they were cast using a process he developed for cooling the tube from the inside out. This produced a weapon much less prone to bursting than those constructed by the conventional "outside-in" cooling method.

He particularly applied his method to the construction of large smoothbores so that many later Columbiards of 13, 15, and 20 inch bore were cast in this way and subsequently classified as Rodman Columbiards. Further, because of the additional strength of their tubes, it proved possible to rifle Rodman cast smoothbores without dangerously weakening them. Thus many (perhaps most) guns classified as Rodman rifles actually began life as smoothbores.

None of that is represented in-game and it's difficult to see how it could be; but as background it's all fascinating stuff - well, to me anyway.

epaminondas wrote:Rodman guns were originally so called because they were cast using a process he developed for cooling the tube from the inside out. This produced a weapon much less prone to bursting than those constructed by the conventional "outside-in" cooling method.

Might you (or anyone, for the matter) cite a reference for this? This sounds fascinating. And why did this method make such a qualitative difference?

Thanks in advance,
Dixi

Normally I don't cite Wikipedia (because I'm a snob - that's why), but this is a pretty good article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodman_gun

Normally I don't cite Wikipedia (because I'm a snob - that's why), but this is a pretty good article.

The Civil War Artillery Page - Thomas Jackson Rodman

National Park Service - The Rodman Process

In effect, the hardest, but most brittle metal was at the bore, and when fired was supported by the progressively softer more flexible metal around it. In a normal cannon the soft metal would compress outwards against the harder metal. If it compressed too much, it would burst.