Field ArTillery - US Army Center Of Military History

36 The OrganizaTiOnal hisTOry Of field arTillery
effective, formal system of artillery, standard characteristics and distribution of
weapons had to be determined. Until the mid-1800s, the Army had been fighting
with a hodgepodge of artillery pieces, varying in caliber, type, and manufacture.
This situation exacerbated ammunition and spare parts supply and complicated
training. As the Chief of Ordnance, Colonel Wadsworth in 1816 had announced a
system of artillery materiel, but it was simply a list of weapons categor ized by type
and caliber. Wadsworth did, however, make a study of the British system and in
1818 recommended that the plan for adopting the Gribeauval system be discarded
in favor of the British system. Before making a decision, Secretary of War Calhoun
sought the advice of a board of artil lery and ordnance officers. The board rejected
Wadsworth’s recommendations. It subsequently put forth its own proposals based
largely upon the Gribeauval system, which became the first and complete artillery
system to be adopted for the Army. 58
Lt. Daniel Tyler, a young artillery officer, went to France in 1828 to make a
complete study of the Gribeauval system. After translating the Gribeauval manual
and making detailed drawings, he discovered that the French had admitted the
superiority of the British designs of weapons and accoutrements and were in the
process of adopting them. Tyler’s report to the War Department, made upon his
return to the United States in 1830, recommended the adoption of the French artillery
system, which was similar to that proposed by Wadsworth twelve years before.
At his own expense, Tyler had translated copies of the French evalua tions and also
had obtained complete drawings and specifications of the Système anglais modifié,
which the Americans later named the “stock-trail system” after the design of the
car riage. The new trail consisted of a solid block of wood, simpler and stronger
than the old split-trail then in use by the American army, and was significantly superior
in maneuverability. Because sufficient studies and tests had been completed,
Secretary of War Lewis Cass in 1835 called for a new board of artillery and ordnance
officers to convene. The following year, Cass approved the board’s pro posal
to adopt the stock-trail system, which remained in use with only slight modifications
until after the Civil War. 59
Another problem discussed by the various ordnance boards was the controversy
between the use of iron and bronze for artillery pieces. Until the nineteenth century,
bronze was predominantly used. Bronze was light and strong but expensive—its
constituent elements of copper and nickel had to be imported. Iron was readily
available, but it was heavier and not as strong. Because of new techniques introduced
in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries in manufacturing iron
cannon, that metal became more efficient as well as more economical. Therefore,
in 1801, Secretary Dearborn had directed that artillery pieces be made of cast iron.
58 Stanley L. Falk, “Artillery for the Land Service,” Military Affairs 28 (Fall 1964): 97–99;
Birkhimer, Historical Sketch, pp. 226–48.
59 Ibid., pp. 99–110; Birkhimer, Historical Sketch, pp. 226–48; Stephen V. Benét, A Collection
of Annual Reports and Other Important Papers Relating to the Ordnance Department (1812–1889),
4 vols. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1878–90), 1:53–54, 185–86; 202–03,
212–13, 273–74; WD GO 50, 24 Aug 1835; WD GO 63, 12 Sep 1835.