heavy artillery books

[alwion]

are these two books the same?  or do they have different content?. I would assume they cover different some different stuff than Jack's book, and are still a viable reference

[Pete George]

  Those two books (both by Kerksis & Dickey) have entirely different content.  Notice the difference in the titles ...specifically, "Field" artillery and "Heavy" artillery projectiles.

  If I recall correctly, the K&D Field Artillery Projectiles book was published in 1968, and their Heavy Artillery Projectiles book in 1972.

  At the time of the civil war, there were three basic Classes of artillery:
Field Artillery
Siege-&-Garrison Artillery
Heavy Artillery

  "Field" refers to cannons which were lightweight enough for the army to haul around on frequently-muddy roads without great difficulty (during "campaigning in the field").  "Heavy" refers to the huge cannons whose enormous weight made them impractical to frequently haul from place to place ...and therefore they were emplaced in permanent fortifications such as river and seacoast defense forts.

  The "middleweight" class, called Siege-&-Garrison artillery, referred to cannons which were heavier than the Field calibers, but were still light enough for the army to use if they did not need to be moved very often ...such as, during the long-lasting siege of a city.  Examples of Siege-&-Garrison artillery are 30-pounder Parrott Rifle, 32-pounder Howitzer, and 8-inch mortar.

Regards,
Pete

[alwion]

And that is my eyesite going, or my mind:)  I read it, and thought they had the same title. Thanks Pete:)

[alwion]

would these be a reference waste if I already have the 1993 D&G and Bells book, or would there be enough different material shown to study to justify the purchase?  books are always good:), but I'm on a strict budget till work picks up

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Different Fuzes on the cover also. I still have my Field Artillery book by Dickey and Kerkisis.
John

[Pete George]

Alwion wrote:
> Would these be a reference waste if I already have the 1993 D&G and Bells book,
> or would there be enough different material shown to study to justify the purchase?

  In my opinion, buying either of the Kerksis-&-Dickey books would not be worth the (significant) expenditure of money required, because the "material" in both of them has been VASTLY superceded by more-recent books.

1968 K&D Field = 307 pages
1980 D&G Field = 509 pages
1993 D&G Field = 552 pages (plus 127 additional photos over 1980 Edition)

1972 K&D Heavy = 277 pages
2003 Bell Heavy = 537 pages

  By "superceded" I don't just mean nearly doubling the number of pages and the amount of information given.  In addition to that, the more-recent books correct important errors of identification given in the K&D books.  The only exception I can think of is that K&D's Heavy Artillery Projectiles book contains one or two shells which are so extremely rare that Jack Bell couldn't locate one to photograph.  (I know because I asked him, and that's what he told me.)

  If anybody here can think of some CORRECT information in the K&D books which is missing in the more-recent books, please tell us about it.

Regards,
Pete

[Garret]

Jack Melton is also putting together a new book that will certainly add more information to the study of CW artillery.  Does anyone know when Jack's book is coming out? 

[divedigger]

in about a year, he still has a lot to do, like taking a picture of my 60 lb Parrott !!(hopefully)

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Hey Dive,
In the meantime why don't you let us see your 60 pdr. Parrott.
John

[divedigger]

Hello John, it is in a tub of water right now, going through the electrolysis stage of it's conservation. I plan on diving today and will take it out for pictures when I get back. It's a pretty one, sabot and Schenkle fuse.

[divedigger]

by the way, I haven't forgot, well actually I did, but you asked to see a picture of my 30lb case shot last summer, I will do both while I am at it.

[alwion]

Thanks all. i'd rather have new shells than a book, but references are important also, but no need to double up Thanks all  alan

[divedigger]

it's too cloudy, my flash comes on and leaves shiny spots, will do again tomorrow

[CarlS]

The old books are neat for nostagic purposes but for reference they leave a lot to be desired.  The Melton-Pawl, Dickey-George, Jack Bell or any of the soon to be released books would be of nearly infinite more value.  In fact, as a plug for Jack's website, the site civilwarartillery.com is far, far more useful than the old books.  It has much more information, more accurate information and Jack is ok at taking pictures.    (For those who may not know, Jack is a professional photograher and his images of relics are top notch.) 

This is not meant to be a slight on the older books.  I have them and at the time they were great.  I wouldn't get rig of them but it's purely for nostagia that I don't.  It's like comparing a 1968 Mustang to the new ones.  The old ones are neat but in no way compare to one purchased off the lot now.