Field ArTillery - US Army Center Of Military History

84 The OrganizaTiOnal hisTOry Of field arTillery
on infantry duty. We have no longer any artillery troops.” 30 The following year, the
Army’s Inspector General noted that “some of the light artillery is still plodding
along with the same guns they had at the close of the war of the rebellion, although
the Prussians learned from the Austrians . . . nearly a quarter of a century ago that
such guns would not meet modern requirements.” 31 Artillerists themselves worried
about the state of their arm, noting the lack of a general system of target practice
and the employment of artillery troops for duties other than as artillery. The fact that
the companies and batteries were widely scattered at posts throughout the country
exacerbated the problem. 32 An artillery officer in 1892 reported his observation that
“much of the artillery was stationed for years at posts where there was no artillery
materiel but a reveille gun. The spectacle was seen of men serving whole enlistments
without seeing a cannon other than the above-mentioned field piece.” 33
One effort toward improving field artillery was the recommendation in 1887
to reestablish a light artillery school at Fort Riley, which had closed in 1871.
After a long construction period, the School of Instruction for Cavalry and Light
Artillery officially opened on 9 January 1893. The curriculum stressed target practice,
concentrating more on field exercises and drill than on theory, and experi mented
with new systems of instruction. 34 Although it lacked the stature of the Artillery
School at Fort Monroe, it did make some strides in cooperation between cavalry
and its supporting artillery. The school closed during the War With Spain and did
not reopen until 1901.
The Ordnance Department also considered siege artillery. Since the Russo-
Turkish War of 1877–78, the trend in Europe had been toward heavier weapons
for field and siege artillery. In 1885, the Ordnance Department planned for a 5-inch
rifled siege gun and the following year designed a 7-inch howitzer. The capacity of
pontoon bridges to support the weapons restricted the upper weight limit of siege
guns rather than horse-drawing capacity, which limited the weight of the field pieces.
Field artillery cannon were restricted by the weight six horses could draw (about
5,000 pounds), given that teams larger than six horses were difficult to maneuver.
Teams could be larger for siege artillery where maneuverabil ity was not considered
as important, thus allowing a heavier weight limit.
In 1890, the Ordnance Department designed prototypes for a 3.6-inch gun to
replace the 3.2-inch field gun in the light batteries and a new 3.6-inch mortar for
30 Peter S. Michie, “The Personnel of the Sea-Coast Defense,” Journal of the Military Service
Institution of the United States 8 (March 1887): 8.
31 U.S. Congress, House, Report of the Secretary of War, 50th Cong., 2d sess., 1888, H. Doc. 1, pt.
2, 1:104.
32 Charles F. Benjamin, “The Artillery and Ordnance,” Journal of the Military Service Institution of
the United States 8 (December 1887): 361–80; James Chester, “The Theoretical Instruction of Gunners,”
Journal of the United States Artillery 1 (July 1892): 171–206; Charles D. Parkhurst, “Field-artillery, Its
Organization and Its Role,” ibid. 1 (July 1892): 250–77; Henry C. Davis, “Target Practice,” ibid. 2 (January
1893): 422–39, 543–88. A board met in 1888 to revise the tactics for infantry, cavalry, and light artillery,
but it concerned itself primarily with drill matters and did little to change tactics.
33 W. A. Simpson, “Our Artillery Organization,” Journal of the United States Artillery 1 (January
1892): 52.
34 Act of 29 Jan 1887, ch. 72, 24 Stat. 372; WD GO 9, 9 Feb 1887; WD GO 17, 14 Mar 1892.