Captured at Fort DeRussy: A Navy trophy with the wrong inscription

On this day (March 14) in 1864, Federals under the command of Brigadier-General Andrew Jackson Smith attacked and seized Fort DeRussy on the Red River in Louisiana.  In terms of blood spilled, the action was one of the war’s smaller actions, with less than sixty total casualties.  But, with the fort in Federal hands, the lower Red River was open for the gunboats of Rear-Admiral David D. Porter.   The Friends of Fort DeRussy maintain a website (recently revamped website I would add) with many articles and resources about the battle.

There is one surviving “witness” of that battle, which now resides at the Washington Navy Yard:

WashNY 21 July 266

However the trophy inscription would lead you to believe this gun was not at Fort DeRussy during the battle on March 14, 1864.

WashNY 21 July 270

The inscription reads:

Army 32-pdr //Banded and Rifled by Rebels // Captured from them by // Admiral D.D. Porter // At Fort DeRussy // May 4, 1863

But that inscription is in error.   The Fort DeRussy website has an article explaining this error in great detail.   The short version of that story is the reference found in the naval reports (ORN, Series I, Volume 26, page 26), under a listing of “guns captured at Fort DeRussy water battery.”  Line six of that list is:

One 32-pounder U.S. rifled, marked W.J.W. No. 289. This gun is an old Army 32-pounder, rifled, with band shrunk on the breech.

The muzzle markings leave no doubt.  This is that particular gun.

WNY 10 Apr 10 304

The inspector’s mark, “W.J.W.” for William Jenkins Worth, appear at the top of the face.  The registry number, 289, appears at the bottom.

The trunnion tells a little more of the weapon’s history.

WashNY 21 July 268

“I.M” and “C.F.” are John Mason and Columbia Foundry, respectively.  This weapon was cast across town in Georgetown, D.C.   On the other side, a sample scar cuts into the stamp showing the year of manufacture, which was 1834.

The gun was cast as a smoothbore 32-pdr Seacoast Gun Model 1829.  As with many obsolete weapons, during the war its owners rifled and banded the gun.

WNY 10 Apr 10 305

Seven grooves in what I consider a “sawtooth” pattern.  While no definitive markings or documentation pin this as a Confederate modification, the rifling and profile of the band lend to that conclusion.

WNY 10 Apr 10 307

The band extended over the breech face.  And it was built up with rings of wrought iron.  However the gun retained the ring over the cascabel.

WashNY 21 July 269

The gun itself offers an interesting study.  While I cannot firmly state the banding and rifling were done by Confederates, the physical attributes give that indication.  But where and who did the modifications?  Eason & Brothers in Charleston did such modifications.  But most of their work stayed in the Charleston or Savannah areas.  Tredegar also modified weapons along these lines.  Shops in Vicksburg and New Orleans had the capacity to do this work. Skates & Company, based in Mobile, Alabama, also may have done some modifications.  But all those sources remain speculative without firm documentation or some unseen mark under the paint of old 289.

As to the question raised in the article on the cannon about relocating the gun to Fort DeRussy (linked above), I’d say that would be an excellent “loan” should the particulars be worked out.  However, keep in mind this gun is now very close to its “birthplace,” if we can say such for a cannon.  It was, after all, cast a few Metro-train stops over in Georgetown.  Columbia Foundry was a vital weapons production facility for the early decades of the 19th century.  Perhaps some interpretation on that aspect of the weapon’s history would also serve the public.

Henry Benham, pontoons, and a lot of photos: What the engineers did over the winter

On January 25, 1864, Brigadier-General Henry W. Benham, commanding the Engineer Brigade of the Army of the Potomac, completed a lengthy report for Brigadier-General Joseph G. Totten, the Chief Engineer of the US Army.  The report touched upon several subjects, but largely concentrated on improvements to bridging techniques then in use. This was not a new round of correspondence.  Benham wrote a similarly lengthy and detailed letter to Totten in November 1863, discussing changes in the drill for pontoon bridging.

The reports, including enclosures from subordinate officers, include over fifteen pages total in the printed OR.  Far too much for a single blog post.  So I might examine in fine detail at another date.  Feel free to browse the November 1863 letter or the January 1864 report if I don’t get to that examination in short order.  I suspect a detailed examination would elicit a long sigh at the discussion anchor bolts, abutment sills, and claw-balks.  So let me focus on something less “engineer-y” and perhaps a bit into the historiography side of things.  At the end of his November letter, Benham mentioned some photographs sent along with the correspondence:

I have the pleasure of inclosing you, for the further explanation of the method of laying these bridges, some photographic views taken during the progress of construction.

No. 1 shows the pontoons ready with the material, and the boat squads ready for the construction (at foot of East Fifteenth street).

No. 2 shows the progress of construction of the raft after four to five minutes’ labor.

No. 3 shows the progress of the bridge raft after six to seven minutes’ labor.

No. 4 shows the bridge completed, with the bridge squads formed ready to march off. Parts of a trestle and canvas pontoon bridge across a cove along the shore are in view here.

No. 5 shows, from a nearer point of view, the pontoon bridge ready for service.

No. 6 gives the view down the Eastern Branch with pontoon bridge to beyond Navy-Yard Bridge, and oarsmen having oars raised ready to move the bridge for dismantling. Parts of pontoon balk-head used for laying the bridge raft are shown in foreground as it was placed to save the men from the water, though rather delaying than expediting the work. (emphasis added)

Believing that they would also be interesting at the Department, I have also added two other photographic views.

No. 7, showing the old or generally practiced method of laying bridges by successive pontoons.

No. 8, a view of the pontoon bridges laid by the engineer brigade under my command on the morning of April 29, 1863, at Franklin’s Crossing, 2½ miles below Fredericksburg. This shows in the distance the ruins of the villa of Mansfield, the site of General Bayard’s death.

Photo “No. 8” referenced by Benham may be one of those examined by John Hennessy and Eric Mink in 2011.   Of the others described (or is it “captioned”) by Benham, I’ve found no direct matches.  However this photo from the Library of Congress collection is a close match to “No. 6”:

This shows two pontoon bridges across the Anacostia River, looking from the Navy Yard.  Lots of neat stuff to discuss in this photo.  But for today, let’s just consider this as establishing Benham’s practice of using photographs to support his suggestion (and I bet Benham would have loved PowerPoint!).

That in mind, consider a section from the January 25, 1864 report:

The modification I propose (of which I inclose sketch) in the French pontoon is to take off 3 feet in length from the bow and 2 feet from the stern, while the “floor” remains of the same length, the ends to the depth of one plank downward to be of a thick plank or timber, with a shield or bunter which should slope about 3 inches outward.

Benham went on to say this modification would prevent some of the damage to the pontoons while on the march and make handling much easier.  Here’s the line drawing included with the report:

Benham_Mod_Pontoon

Fairly typical comparison diagram, using dotted lines to demonstrate the differences between the original and proposed modification.  Probably sufficient to demonstrate the particulars for an engineer of Totten’s experience.  But what do they say – “A picture is worth a thousand words”?  How about this picture, might it offer a thousand words comparing two types of pontoons?

Notice the difference between these two pontoons, particularly at the bow end.  While not precisely matching the dashed lines in Benham’s drawing, the pontoon on the right is close to his proposed modification.  Was this a photograph taken for the benefit of Benhan to demonstrate his suggested changes?

Working against my suggestion, the Library of Congress record for this photo does not provide a location.  The original caption on the back of the stero-view card does not mention any special nature of the two boats:

This view shows two of the boats (of which the army bridge is made) on wheels ready for the march.  Each pontoon wagon is drawn by six mules.  These pontoons were always getting stuck in the mud, and the soldiers, struggling along under their own burdens, were obliged to haul on the drag ropes, and raise the blockade.  Probably no soldier will see this view without being reminded of the time when he helped to pull these pontoons out of the mud, and comforted himself by searing at the mules.

Doesn’t sound as if this photograph captured a comparison of two type of pontoons. Maybe the studio felt the public would not appreciate the comparison, and thus offered a “pedestrian” caption.

However there are several other views of pontoons dated to the winter of 1864, taken at the Engineer Brigade camp at Rappahannock Station.  And some seem ready made for a comparison of the two types.  This photo carries the Library of Congress caption “Pontoon wagon and boat, 50th New York Engineers, Rappahannock (i.e. Brandy) Station, Va., March, (i.e. Feb.) 1864.”:

So the right time and place.  And this appears to be a standard “French Pontoon.”

Compare to this photo, also citing the 50th New York Engineer camp at Rappahannock Station in March 1864:

If not an exact match for Benham’s drawing, it does look like the pontoon on the right side of the photo above.  And another photo must have captured the same (or similar) boat from the front:

With more of these in the background… see them?

There’s even a photograph of a wagon without the pontoon:

And let’s not forget the canvas pontoon:

That photo, in particular, just stands out as if tailor made for illustrating some manual.  The men are in the background, not the foreground.  The subject here is the equipment, not the personnel.  These pontoon photos are like some “walk around” we would use today to demonstrate the particulars of a piece of equipment.

Maybe the photographer was just hanging out with the engineers taking in shots of the equipment.  But this is not some point-and-shoot camera we are talking about.   These were expensive (relatively speaking) glass plate photos.  So why waste a plate on some static equipment displays?  On the other hand, perhaps these and similar photos taken at the 50th New York Engineer camp were intended to help Benham illustrate his reports.

Something I’ve learned over the years – when studying Civil War photographs, it is just as important to know the “why” story as the “what” of the subject.

Howitzers recovered from Legareville

When the Confederates withdrew from their positions around Legareville on December 25, 1863, they left behind two 8-inch siege howitzers among other equipment.  Later that day, Brigadier-General George Gordon, commanding a Federal division posted to Folly Island, sent Captain Henry Krauseneck, of the 74th Pennsylvania Infantry, with 250 men to clear the Confederate positions.  With reports of Confederate forces returning to the batteries, Krauseneck had his men recover what equipment could be carried.  But the Federals had no way to pull off the howitzers.  Instead they damaged the carriages sufficiently to prevent Confederate recovery.  That night, Major John Jenkins, 3rd South Carolina Cavalry, sent scouts to the position and found the howitzers dismounted.

The problem facing both sides was the 2,600 pound (give or take) weight of the howitzers.  Even when mounted on a carriage, the howitzers were hard to handle in the marsh.  The Confederates ordered up sling carts with the intent to recover the howitzers under cover of the night.  But the Federals didn’t give them the time to work out those arrangements.

Commander George Balch ordered Lieutenant-Commander Richard Meade, of the USS Marblehead, to recover the howitzers on December 28.  Meade set out mid-afternoon with eight boats and some ninety men, including twenty-two marines to provide security.  Meade first landed men at the Lower Battery location to recover the howitzer there.  He and the rest of the party went to the Upper Batteries.

The marines were thrown well out in advance as pickets, to prevent surprise. The gun in the most northern work being dismounted, it proved an immense labor to raise it and lash it on the siege carriage; the trail of the carriage was then lifted by the main force of 30 men onto the 12-pounder howitzer carriage, brought for the purpose, then lashed there.  A rude wagon was thus formed.

It being impossible to drag the gun through the marsh (knee deep in stiff mud), which was the way we came in, a detour of over a mile was necessary.  Plank was laid along the edge of the marsh and the gun was hauled with great exertion to the bayou and gotten into the Marblehead’s launch. ….

Remarkable improvisation by the sailors. By 4 p.m. both howitzers were on the launches and proud trophies for the naval party.  As Meade put it, “The expedition returned in good order, and the rebels can boast two guns less than they had on December 24, 1863.”  Wartime photographs place one of these two trophies on the USS Pawnee:

Though it is erroneously identified as a 24-pdr howitzer (result, I think of identification in Meade’s initial report).  The howitzer is definitely an 8-inch Siege Howitzer Model 1841.  The two howitzers ended up as part of the Navy’s trophy collection at Washington Navy Yard. This howitzer is likely the same photographed on the Pawnee‘s deck:

WNY 10 Apr 10 550

The other howitzer in the pair exhibits considerable damage:

WNY 10 Apr 10 544

Both carry an inscription on the breech describing the action at Legareville in short words:

WNY 10 Apr 10 543

But aside from the inscription, there are only traces of some markings on the muzzle.  Nothing that might better identify the source of these howitzers.  Prior to the war, four vendors produced forty-six howitzers of this type (with Fort Pitt Foundry adding four more in 1861 to make it an even fifty).  Survivors of that lot exhibit standard markings as prescribed in pre-war ordnance instructions – inspector initials and registry number on the muzzle; foundry on the right trunnion; year of manufacture on the left trunnion; and weight stamp under the cascabel.

Looking carefully at the muzzle and trunions in the wartime photograph on the Pawnee, I see no markings.  So very likely these howitzers never had the standard set of markings.  That said, just after the war began, Tredegar Foundry produced two dozen of the same make and model for Confederate orders. Four of those went to Charleston in September 1861:

Page 91a

Signed over to Major, later Brigadier-General, J.H. Trapier in fact.  Tredegar foundry markings are notorious for being shallow and easily eroded with time.  And of course, Tredegar disregarded the “Yankee” ordnance instructions for markings early in the war.

Four 8-inch howitzers sent to Charleston in 1861.  Four howitzers of the same type used in the Christmas Day ambush in 1863, with two abandoned and captured.  Now two unmarked howitzers at the Washington Navy Yard.  While not positive proof, there’s enough to suggest the trophies were of Confederate manufacture and not of pre-war Federal stocks.

Regardless of origin, those two howitzers are surviving artifacts from the action at Legareville.

WNY 10 Apr 10 546

Those speak to the action for which four Medals of Honor were awarded, to include the first to an African-American sailor.

(Citations from ORN, Series I, Volume 15, pages 194-6.)

Guns of the CSS Atlanta: Part 1 – 6.4 inch Brooke Rifles

Back when this blog was “young” I posted about the CSS Atlanta and her guns at the Washington Navy Yard.  Time to revisit that topic and provide a bit more about the rebel ironclad.

Wash NY 1 Aug 039
The CSS Atlanta’s guns – all in a row

Let me start with a walk around of the 6.4-inch Brooke guns that comprised the ship’s armament.  There are two 6.4-inch Brookes in the set.  These Brookes are singled-banded and match all the standard factors seen on Brooke Rifles. Tredegar foundry number 1610 was the starboard side gun on the CSS Atlanta:

WashNY 21 July 300
6.4-inch Brooke – Tredegar #1610

And Tredegar number 1587 was the port side gun:

WashNY 21 July 288
6.4-inch Brooke – Tredegar #1587

The foundry numbers appear on the top of the muzzle face (and can faintly be seen on the top of the breeching jaws).

Wash NY 1 Aug 055
Muzzle face of 6.4-inch #1610

The rifling pattern shows seven grooves.  In a few places you can still see the ever slight lands of the Brooke-type rifling.

WNY 10 Apr 10 253
Bore of 6.4-inch Brooke Rifle

Looking down the muzzle of #1587, two of the three sight arrangements come into view.  There is a hole for a muzzle sight blade.  Further back, over the trunnions, is a block for a sight.

WashNY 21 July 295
Front view of #1587

Note also the flared rimbases in the view above.  The trunnions are just over 7 inches long, and just over 7 inches in diameter.  Those dimensions are perhaps the left over vestige of the IX-inch Dahlgren gun pattern used in the earliest Brooke Rifles.  The trunnion marks are “J.R.A. & Co // T.F.” on the right and “1862” on the left.

Looking from the breech, there is another feature alluding to the Dahlgren design – the rear sight base.

WashNY 21 July 291
Band and rear sight base of Brooke 6.4-inch Rifle

The band is thirty inches long.  At the base of the band is the weight stamp – 9110 pounds in the case of #1587, 9120 pounds for #1610.

Here’s a better view of the band and breech in profile:

WNY 10 Apr 10 265
Breech profile and Band

Notice the angles of the rear sight base and the hemispherical contours of the breech.  The blade type breeching jaws also come from the Dahlgren patterns.

WNY 10 Apr 10 258
Breeching jaws and socket for elevating screw

These two guns are the only surviving single-banded 6.4-inch Brookes, from at least eleven produced.  These two guns were cast in June 1862.  In October they were shipped to Savannah.  They were joined by two 7-inch Brooke rifles the following month.  One of those two sits beside the 6.4-inch guns at the Washington Navy Yard’s Willard Park today.

WNY 10 Apr 10 252
Four guns from the CSS Atlanta

But wait there are TWO 7-inch Brookes there.  And all four guns came from the CSS Atlanta, right?  Well there were actually three 7-inch Brookes shipped to Savannah for the ironclad.  In my next post on this subject, I’ll sort through the reason that three such guns are associated with that Confederate ironclad, though only two were captured with it.

150 years ago: Fireworks on the James – capture of the CSS Teaser

One hundred and fifty years ago today (July 4, 1862), Lieutenant Hunter Davidson, commanding the armed tug CSS Teaser, headed down the James River to place torpedoes (mines) and generally reconnoiter the Federal positions near Harrison’s Landing.  Meanwhile, the gunboat USS Maratanza, commanded by Lieutenant T.H. Stevens, was also on a reconnaissance of the river (with the USS Monitor in support).  The two ships crossed paths near Haxall’s Landing, adjacent to Malvern Hill, and began exchanging cannon shots.  The third round from the Maratanza passed into the Teaser‘s boiler.  Fearing destruction, the rebel crew abandoned ship. But the tug remained afloat and intact – and she became a prize of war.  (Guest blogger John Grady posted on the action at the Civil War Navy Sesquicentennial blog.)

And a prize she was!  The Teaser was an interesting, valuable vessel because of her employment – mine-layer and balloon tender.  On board, the Federals found torpedoes, telegraph wire (used to control the torpedoes), handling gear, maps and charts, official papers (some accounts indicate signal cyphers), and a hot air balloon.  Most important, in the immediate sense, was the intelligence gained from the capture of the Teaser.   Maps provided locations of the Confederate torpedoes upriver along the James:

And the capture allowed the Federals to examine the torpedoes up close.  They also gained knowledge as to how the weapons were placed and controlled.

But more interesting to me, were the two captured cannons! Stevens reported the Teaser’s armament included one 32-pdr 57 cwt banded and rifled gun and a 12-pdr rifled gun.  Photographers recorded the presence of both weapons on the captured warship.  The 32-pdr was typical of its class, appearing similar to weapons of the same caliber modified by both sides during the war.  The photo of the 32-pdr offers a great study of, not only the breech of the gun, but of the mounting and tackle.  The rear sight and other equipment were with the gun at the time the camera lens was uncovered.

The photographer also worked in a rifled shell, with a good profile study of the projectile. But that sailor appears to have his mind elsewhere… perhaps thinking of the prize money?

The photo of the 12-pdr rifle shows a much rarer gun.

Looks like a cross between a Parrott rifle and a Dahlgren boat howitzer!

Remarkably, both guns survive today.  Like many captured weapons, the guns found their way into the trophy collection of the Washington Navy Yard.  The 32-pdr is still there.

WNY 10 Apr 10 310
Navy 32-pdr Gun of 57cwt, Banded and Rifle

Tredegar cast the gun for a pre-war Navy contract in 1852.  It bears inspection marks from Charles W. Skinner. It weighed 6526 pounds (give or take).  The number “642” appears on the muzzle, and is probably Tredegar’s foundry number.  The gun’s recorded registry number was 733 (although I think that is now covered by the band).

The Navy saw fit to record the origin of this trophy with an inscription on the breech. The left side reads “Navy 32 pdr banded and rifled.”

WNY 10 Apr 10 317
Left side of trophy inscription

The right side reads “by the Rebels. Taken in tug Teazer.”

WNY 10 Apr 10 316
Right side of trophy inscription

Yes, Teazer instead of Teaser.

The 12-pdr rifle is listed on records as a “10-pdr Confederate Navy Parrott Rifle.”  Unfortunately at present the “Navy Parrott” is not on display.  I snapped the photo below in the 1990s as the gun, along with some other rare types, was prepared for storage.

WashNYGuns
10-pdr Navy Parrott and other guns preparing for storage

So until the gun is returned for public display, I cannot show you the markings and inscriptions.

After capture, the US Navy put the Teaser to good use.  The tug served the North Atlantic Blockade Squadron, primarily in the Chesapeake, Potomac, and Rappahannock.  She was engaged with Confederate batteries from time to time.  After the war, the Navy sold the tug and she returned to civilian tug role.  Eventually, as will happen with any old ship after many years of work, she was broken up.

But two artifacts survive today – one on public display, another stored in a warehouse – as reminders of the brief Independence Day fight between the Teaser and Maratanza.

Architects Escorting Cannon: Albert West’s 1861 Trip to Charleston

Another storyline from the Citizens Files that captures my fancy.

Some time back while looking over the records for the Charleston, South Carolina firm of J.M. Eason & Brothers, I notice a handwritten “see West, Albert L.” note, presumably from the archivist.  So I had to follow that trail.  That search brought me to this letter dated August 10, 1861 addressed to Mr. Albert L. West:

In the letter, Josiah Gorgas, Chief of Ordnance, directs West to Portsmouth Navy Yard and receive a cannon from Commodore French Forrest.  Gorgas instructed West to then ship the cannon to “Charleston, S.C. by way of the Wilmington and Florence thence to Charleston.”  In Charleston, West would deliver the cannon to Eason & Company, collecting a receipt and return to Richmond.  Gorgas gave additional instructions to “Observe and if you can expedite any Ordnance Stores you may see in the way….”

The receipt from Eason & Brothers was filed with Gorgas’ letter.

West delivered four 32-pdrs to Eason & Brothers on August 20.  By order of Gorgas, the firm would rifle the guns.

The documentation does not specify the make or model number of the guns.  Presumably, being on hand at Portsmouth, these were “navy” models.  If so, the end product would resemble this 32-pdr banded and rifled gun at the Washington Navy Yard:

WNY 10 Apr 10 310
32-pdr Banded and Rifled Navy Gun

This particular gun armed the CSS Teaser, captured on the James River on July 4, 1862.  But other than being banded and rifled by someone in the Confederacy, there is nothing to link this gun to Eason & Brothers and by extension Albert West.  Wartime photos of the gun exist, before rust and corrosion removed marks on the bands.  But the photos do not reveal any manufacturers marks, only a few numbers.  Eason’s files have no records for 1861, leaving the paper trail a dead end.

At the end of his trip, West charged the Confederate government $55 “for service as travelling (sic) agent from Richmond to Portsmouth and from Portsmouth to Charleston supervising the transportation of guns.  Eleven days at $5.”  He filed the invoice on August 24th.

So who was Albert West and why did the Confederate Ordnance Department seek out his services?  West was an architect working in Richmond before the war.  There is little indication West had the qualifications to work on ordnance.  But at the start of the war, he offered his services to the Ordnance Department.  Later in the war, West worked at the Confederate Powderworks in Augusta, Georgia and at the Confederate Laboratories in Macon, Georgia.  After the war, West continued his architectural work including several Methodist churches.

While it would be nice to know the particulars of the four 32-pdrs, if for nothing else to complete the story with a physical footnote.  But failing that, the paper trail provides at least one point to consider.  In those early war months, the Confederate government felt the need to task agents to ensure cannons being transported around the country were received in good order – even paid the agents $5 a day.

Imported for the Confederacy: Austrian 6-pdr Field Guns – Part 2

In part one, I introduced an old Austrian 6-pdr at Fort Monroe:

9 July 2011 219
Austrian 6-pdr Cast in 1812

The old gun resembles the Liechtenstein-system guns developed in the mid-1700s  that formed the basis of Austrian cannons through the Napoleonic Wars.  Beside this gun is an Austrian 6-pdr with a different, cleaner exterior form.

9 July 2011 229
Austrian 6-pdr cast in 1857

The “new” model 6-pdr retained the semi-circular handles, with round cross-section, along with the low set trunnions.

9 July 2011 233
Handles and Trunnions

But the Austrians dispensed with all but the reinforce step and muzzle swell ring, offering a very streamlined form.

9 July 2011 235
Vent Field of Austrian Gun

The vent has a rather generous grain.  Next to the vent is the stamp “No. 1CC” similar to that on the older gun.  Also present is the letter “A” in front of the vent.

9 July 2011 236
Left Side of Base Ring

Like that on the older gun, the base ring inscription has the administrative data for the cannon.  On the left side is “Nr. 280 729”.

9 July 2011 234
Right Side of Base Ring

To the right is “Wien 1857.”  An “S” appears below the sight pad.  And note the sight pad is similar to that seen on American weapons of the time.  The Austrian guns probably used a pendulum hausse type sight, not unlike contemporary American weapons.   The plaque at the base suggests the gun was originally a rifle, but bored out to smoothbore.  The lack of sight mounts to the side (seen on the rifled Austrian guns at the Washington Navy Yard) argue against this.   The bore diameter also rebuts the presumption about rifling.

9 July 2011 232
Bore Measure of the Austrian Gun

The bore diameter is not far off that of the older gun steps away.  Roughly 3-3/4ths inches (or 3.75 inches).  Such is close to the cited bore diameter in the Confederate ordnance instructions.  The line forming a circle around the bore appears to be a machining mark left behind by a turning lathe. But I wouldn’t count out the possibility the Austrians used a bore liner insert, particularly with the four spaced “dimples” along the line.

Mention of these Austrian guns in the Confederate instructions indicates the new owners considered the weapons “battle worthy”.  However, little mention is made of the type outside the ordnance manuals.  Like the 24-pdr field howitzers from Vienna, these 6-pdrs probably saw limited service in the backwater garrisons.

For comparison, consider two of the rifled Austrian field guns at the Washington Navy Yard.  Here’s a “new” pattern gun cast in 1854.

WashNY 21 July 220
"New" Austrian Rifled 6-pdr at Leutze Park

On the other side of Luetze Park is a rifle using the older form, cast in 1843.

WashNY 21 July 168
"Old" Austrian Rifled 6-pdr at Leutze Park

The artifacts on display at Fort Monroe and the Washington Navy Yard do tell a story about weapons development.  As the Americans did on this side of the Atlantic, as the Austrians first deployed rifled artillery they opted to reuse existing bronze gun patterns.  The Austrian guns are analogous to the bronze James Type I and II rifles produced here in the U.S.

In addition to about a hundred thousand Lorenz muskets, the Confederacy imported several dozen bronze field pieces from Austria.  A handful of surviving weapons tell the story of those imports today.