Notice anything unusual about this 24 pdr. flank howitzer?

[cannonmn]

I got to the VGCA gun show today and photographed this howitzer.  Do you notice anything unusual about it?  I did, see if you can pick it out.

[intoodeep]

Ok, I'll take a crack at it. It looks to me (by the photos) that the "US" marking is upside down???

[Double D]

It appears to be double marked.  But wasn't US located by the vent?   Also is that rusty Iron or bronze?

[GGaskill]

Looks like the vent wasn't drilled.

[cannonmn]

OK great, intoodeep got it, the "US" is stamped upside-down.  I have no idea why, except in 1863 when this was made they had to be in a hurry.  This was inspected by Thomas J. Rodman, a very famous officer by that time as most of you will recognize.  I have to do some reading to figure out whether the "U.S." mark would have been applied before he inspected the piece ( suspect it was) or not.  If the inverted "U.S." was there when he inspected it, he must have decided to let it go with that minor defect, given the wartime need.  As deeply as the U.S. is cut into the iron, there was no way at that time it could have been corrected.

This model is always cast iron.

The howitzer has a vent, but it is presently obstructed with something as if spiked.

I wonder if anyone shoots this model?  The largest gun or gun-howitzer I see in matches on a regular basis is the 12 pdr. gun-howitzer (aka Napoleon.)  I think a 24 pdr like this would be kind of fun to shoot at old cars or something, but feeding it would be a bit hard on the wallet.

This model was normally mounted on a special flank-defense pivot carriage for use inside masonry forts, and as far as I can't tell wasn't used in the field, unless the South may have pressed some into that role at some point.  Its weight, 1488 lbs. for the tube only, was more than what either side wanted to drag around with horses during the Civil War.

[cannonmn]

>the "US" is stamped upside-down.

I'll correct that before someone catches me.  The marks were stamped then engraved to make them deep enough to last a long time.  Certainly the "U.S" on this particular piece had to be engraved after the initial stamp was struck, as deep as those letters are.  The muzzle marks are not nearly as deep and are possibly stamped only.  Does anyone know for sure?  Ed Olmstead and Wayne Stark researched this and I guess it was Wayne who wrote the article on stamping vs. engraving.

[Double D]

Was this the type of gun that was set up to shoot along the wall of fort versus shooting out from the Fort?  A fort I visited was set up like this, Fort Pulaski?

[cannonmn]

The M1844 howitzers were mounted just inside the fort's walls, behind slits (some fort person pls supply proper name here) built for the purpose.  They were mounted on flank carriages, which consisted of a small "naval looking" upper carriage which rolled in recoil upon a long pivoted plank.  A pair of them was usually positioned with one on either side of a fort entrance.  Their position and arc of fire would enable them to fire on any enemy troops close to the fort.  Look here:

http://www.cwartillery.org/ve/howsiege.html

[intoodeep]

But wasn't US located by the vent?  

 DD,

 The "U.S." markings were placed on the top of the tube between the trunnions.

[Artilleryman]

"The M1844 howitzers were mounted just inside the fort's walls, behind slits ....."   The correct term is embrasure.  On a star shaped fort they were mounted in such a way as to produce a cross fire covering the face of the walls.  These embrasures would have iron shutters to protect the gunners from rifle fire.

[Terry C.]

Here are some photos of bastions at Fort Clinch in Fernandina, FL.

The embrasures are the shorter squarish openings near the bottom. The taller slits are rifle ports. There are five bastions at Fort Clinch, each has four embrasures.

[cannonmn]

Terry C., do you know quite a bit about the military history of Fernandina, FL?  I'm looking for some answers regarding a piece captured there, that would require a detailed knowledge of military actions in the area during March 1862. 

[Terry C.]

Not a lot, just the basics, and some of what I 'thought' I knew has turned out to be wrong. I was always more interested in the construction of the fort itself and it's intricacies than specific historic dates and events.

A little background: When I was a kid (late '60s and very early '70s) my family would spend two weeks every summer camping at Fort Clinch State Park. We had friends and semi-relatives that were Park Rangers there. I was literally a kid in a candy store, fascinated by the fort. It was a much different place back then. I don't much care for the direction the fort management has taken in more recent years and all of the old timers are either retired or dead, so I don't visit nearly as often as I used to. To go any farther would turn into a rant, so I'll leave it at that.

Anywho, if you send me the information you have, I may or may not be able to find someone who can help. The Ranger that I'm semi-related to (it's a southern thang) has returned to this area. I met up with him last year at my father's funeral and he invited me out to his river house, but I have yet to take him up on it. Maybe now would be a good time to go do some fishin'? If there's anybody still connected with the fort that might have an answer, he will know who they are.

[cannonmn]

Thanks for the offer of help.  Know what you mean about the changes there.  I can't get a return phone call from the person who is supposed to be the expert, all I can do is leave messages with a receptionist.  Maybe they can't afford to return a phone call I don't know, but I had to give up on any direct contact after a bunch of wasted time.

Here's the question.  The Spanish mortar pictured has the same capture inscription as a larger one that's on the parapet of the Castillo de San Marcos.  Mine is a 6-inch mortar dated 1750.  The inscription reads, approximately:  "Captured by Rer. Ad. Dupont at Fernandina, FLA, Feb. 3rd 1862."

So Dupont captured two old Spanish mortars, a 9-inch, and a 6-inch, at Fernandina.  Since the best info we have is that at the time of the Civil War, there were probably no Spanish weapons left at Fernandina from the old fort in the town there, Fort San Carlos, as that had been abandoned long before, and any bronze would have been claimed by someone, not just left there.  We believe the two bronze mortars were the same ones left the Spanish on transfer of Castillo de San Marcos.  One 6 in. and one 9 in. bronze mortar are mentioned in the various inventories as being present at the Castillo during the early 19th C.  You can find these inventories in Manucy's book "Artillery Through the Ages."  So we're pretty sure the Confederates moved any useful and movable artillery from St. Augustine to Fernandina ca. 1861, including the two mortars.  We're almost certain the inscriptions on both pieces contain one error, that Dupont's victory there was on March 3rd. 1862, not Feb. 3rd.

Here's what I'm trying to find out:

1.  Is there any documentation of the movement of artillery by the South from St. Augustine to Fernandina?
2.  Where in Fernandina would these mortars have been placed by the South (or make the question "where in Fernandina were they at the time of the capture by Dupont?")
3.  Is there any documentation of the capture of these two mortars (or either one) other than the engraved inscriptions on the pieces themselves?  I've got Dupont's official report and there's nothing with that level of detail in it.

I've searched the Official Records... which is now online, and there are many entries relating to Fernandina.  I didn't find what I was looking for there.

Hopefully, maybe your contacts will know something or suggest some sources to check.  Thanks.

[intoodeep]

cannonmn,

 This mortar looks familiar and the history you described makes me think that I have stumbled across it. Just out of curiosity, was this the one listed on Craigslist's list in the FL & DC areas? If so, were you the seller or buyer?

[cannonmn]

Mr. F, you are just too sharp!  Yes this is the same one.  An item came up that I thought I couldn't live without, but neither the sale nor the purchase went anywhere, so I took it off the market and am planning to make an authentic Spanish mortar bed for it.  I have the drawings which are on plate XXVI of de Morla's well-known series of 6 vols, pub. 1803-1816.