Another ACW query

[FierceKitty]

Can more experienced and expert heads tell me if ammunition exhaustion was a factor needing to be considered? I do know it was a big thing in Crimea and in the Scramble for Africa, but my knowledge of American history is rather less extensive (as, of course, is American history itself).

[Leman]

At Second Manassass some Confederate units were reduced to hurling rocks at the attacking Federals. Old Glory  even had a couple of 15mm Confederates figures armed with rocks.

[holdfast]

I certainly think so and have factored it in. Fire and Fury has a 'Low on ammo' result as one outcome of firing.
For all my games I use a dial counter for artillery ammunition, usually starting with 8 or 10 rounds per battery. That greatly reduces the speculative firing that players otherwise indulge in, on the off-chance of rolling high.
Henry Hunt the AoP Chief of Artillery was concerned at long-range fire which wasted ammo, and constantly nagged his battery commanders to remember how much an artillery round cost. The Confederate artillery ammunition supply was quite a lot worse. Recall Alexander at Gettysburg telling Longstreet that he had better get going as ammo was running low.
Small arms ammo appears to have been less of a problem. Running low on ammo usually meant that fire was reduced while ammo was redistributed. But it was still a factor.

[FierceKitty]

OK, I'll leave it in my rules then. ty.

[holdfast]

While on the subject of artillery, I have a bee in my bonnet about Sets of Rules that allow batteries that are separated from one another to concentrate their fire on a single target, apparently by using telepathy, since radios weren't available. In our games we only allow separated batteries to concentrate their fire on a single target if that target is the only one available.
Where several batteries are deployed together under the command of an artillery brigade or battalion commander, we allow him to direct the fire onto a single target, but with one battery in the first turn, then a second and then a third. More than three batteries onto onre target seems unlikely to me due to the smoke that would be involved.

[cameronian]

FOB2 deals with this nicely under the 'Grand Battery' rules.

[Bernie]

Coupled with low on ammo would be the fouling of muzzle-loaders which also reduced down rate of fire.

First volley or two were the best, if that did not break the enemy battles tended to default to "firefight" mode of slow firing, lots of men seeking cover and lots of haranguing by officers to keep up the firing. Neither side now unable to break the enemy settled down to a slow often desultory exchange of fire that could last hours. Probably accounts for why it was important to have to have follow up units to freshen the combat line - press on through or better still try and deliver fire or even an attack from a new angle of approach.

For artillery the instruction was to preserve rounds for targets in effective range rather than long range firing with little effect. With raw troops it was often felt that a battery should be attached to each brigade to give moral support to pepper the enemy directly opposite. Later when brigades/battalions of artillery of a number of batteries were introduced the emphasis was on husbanding the deployment of batteries until a good target was found - thus at Malvern Hill the Union massed their artillery as the terrain was like a glacis and perfect for the gunners. As Holdfast has said the rebel powder was poor and had fewer rounds and so at Gettysburg the Rebel battery was not able to deliver sufficient weight of fire to force the Union to ground and the howitzer batteries which were supposed to have supported Pickett did not seem to be committed - The Union guns now no longer under fire soon began playing on Pickett and the rest is history

[Leman]

I would argue that that may be important in an individual piece in a skirmish level game, but in a battle, where one model may represent anything from a four gun battery to several batteries, then the effectiveness of the battery does tend to be written into the rules based on the type of gun(s) it is composed of. In the FPW most rules make the French 4pdr much less effective than the Krupp guns based on its type (muzzle loader), ammunition (timed air burst) and artillery doctrine of the French army. Most ACW battle rules do the same sort of thing, e.g. Confederate batteries usually had fewer guns, poorer ammunition, mixed guns in a battery and so on.

[Dr Dave]

Units actually very rarely run low on ammunition. The issue is that actual rates of fire were very low. Perhaps a round a minute of aimed fire. The folks who might get through their ammo are the chaps with breech loaders or repeaters. They have means of getting through it much quicker. Glory Hallelujah! (the BP supplement) allows troops with these weapons to run low, but then they simply resort to "normal fire".

[FierceKitty]

Skipping back a couple of centuries, I've seen ECW regulations threatening punishment for infantrymen caught throwing away their shot to create an excuse to leave the field because they were out of ammo. Forward a bit, Prussian foot were accompanied by ammo carts because it was recognised they'd need the resupply, which suggests that other SYW troops must have run low at times. And as I mentioned earlier, it was certainly a problem at Inkerman, and very likely at Ishlandwana. Scattered evidence, but the problem clearly existed.

Come to think of it, Cresson (was it?) saw crusader crossbowmen cut short a necessary supporting fire action because they'd shot off all their bolts.

[holdfast]

I'd be interested to see what 'Units very rarely run low on ammunition' is based on. Fire discipline was an issue throughout the ACW. Lee was opposed to the introduction of breech-loaders for that very reason. Running low on ammo and the unit on the flanks giving way were two commonly quoted reasons for retiring in unit reports in the Official Records.

[Orcs]

There was a lot of questions asked before THe US government agreed to supply the Army with the Garand rifle in the 1930's as they thought the average infantryman would shoot all his ammo very quickly.

[toxicpixie]

That always comes up - see the SLR and autofire capability argument... or the Prussians with the Needlegun and other European armies scoffing at it as the troops would blaze off their ammo then be defenceless...

I'm sure it probably got argued over by Roman Centurions about Pila or darts or...

[d_Guy]

An Interesting discussion (and it seems to have moved from artillary to infantry weapons). I think ammunition expenditure (be it M1 clips to darts) is an underappreciated factor in wargaming. Leman may be correct that it is a much more critical consideration in skirmish games but depending on the time and place (FK gave some examples) and entire force might be affected.

Montrose (1644 particularly) had constant problems with the supply of powder, match or ball. At Tippermuir his force was said to have had only one round per man and at least one of his elements resorted to throwing rocks at the approaching enemy horse.

I greatly appreciate rules that allow for ammunition use and supply. Currently experimenting with Simon Miller's To the Strongest which make them integral to the game.

@ Dr. Dave - when you wrote about "one aimed round per minute", was this artillary? That seems a tad low even for a rifled musket but not my period.

[toxicpixie]

I like the way BBB (and it's similar in ethos sets counts it) - roll particularly well, run low on ammo. Retire for a move, replenish - don't retire and fire at half effect (or worse).

It does discourage speculative shooting quite well, and so long as the random factor is set about right gets the right feel without meaning you need to track a shed load of extra info...