Field ArTillery - US Army Center Of Military History

diverging missiOns
high-angle fire in siege artillery. The new mortar was superior in both range and
projectile weight than the old Coehorn used in the Civil War and also had a carriage
that permitted variable elevation, which the Coehorn lacked. Both the field gun and
the mortar reflected the trend toward heavier field weapons and high-angle fire. A
7-inch mortar, similar to the 3.6-inch model, was also adopted. Other improvements
considered at the time were smokeless powder, a new sight for the 7-inch howitzer,
and a hydraulic recoil buffer for the 5-inch siege gun, all of which were significant
advances affecting both siege and field artillery. 35
The War With Spain
The modernization and creation of many coastal installations, as well as the
shortage of field and siege artillery, made it apparent in the late 1880s that artillery
was understrength, but it took the threat of war in 1898 before Congress acted and
authorized an increase. In 1887, General Schofield had calculated that with the existing
organization of twenty-five infantry and ten cavalry regiments, at least thirty-four
field batteries were needed for a balanced force. To obtain such an artillery force,
he recommended the addi tion of twelve artillery regiments for a total of seventeen,
each with two field batteries in addition to coastal defense units. That October, an
artillery council, comprising ten artillery officers, met in New York City to discuss
improvements in the arm. Among its recommendations, the council proposed the
addition of two artillery regiments, for a total of seven, and a chief for the arm. In
his report two years later, Schofield revised his estimate to two rather than twelve
additional regiments, and from then until 1898, the plea for more artillery troops
appeared annually in the reports of the Secretary of War. 36
Although some advances in field and siege artillery were realized during the late
nineteenth century, the Army devoted most of its time and resources in strengthening
coastal defenses. In 1896, Chief of Ordnance Brig. Gen. D. W. Flagler told a congressional
committee on appropria tions: “Until these 27 forts are made impregnable,
it is a fact that foreign nations might, in a few weeks, land armies on our coast. We
ought, of all nations, be ready to resist an army on land, and to do this, we must have
field and siege artillery.” 37 General Flagler took care to explain that during previous
years a large proportion of funds had been allotted to building coastal fortifications
and that, as a result, field and siege weapons had been neglected. He pointed out
that the Army had 150 light 3.2-inch field guns of modern design, but that to equip a
field army of 500,000 the artillery would need ten times that number. Siege artillery
was in a similar state. The Chief of Ordnance based his estimate on the old standard
ratio of three guns per 1,000 men, which was the minimum he thought possible,
35 Nesmith, “Quiet Paradigm Change,” Ph.D. diss., pp. 227, 229–32, 240, 242, 246, 248.
36 Report of the Secretary of War, 1887, 1:5, 119–21; ibid., 1889, 1:4, 72–73; U.S. Congress, House,
Report of the Secretary of War, 54th Cong., 2d sess., 1896, H. Doc. 2, 1:7; ibid., 55th Cong., 2d sess., 1897,
H. Doc. 2, 1:7; Benjamin, “Artillery and Ordnance,” pp. 361–80; J. P. Sanger, “The Artillery Council of
1887,” Journal of the United States Artillery 49 (September-December 1918): 233–63.
37 U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Appropriations, The Fortification Appropriation Bill Hearings,
54th Cong., 1st sess., 1896, p. 20.
85