DOCSLIB.ORG

Explosives and Demolitions

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

t¡£*r2 rlVlj"¿0 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY FIELD MANUAL EXPLOSIVES AND DEMOLITIONS HEADQUARTERS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY TAG^Mfcateg©« Library OCTOBER 1963 Bm 1A618, Pentagon Washmgrton, D.C. 20íífO *FM 5-25 FIELD MANUAL! HEADQUARTERS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY No. 5-25 WASHINGTON, D.C., 29 October 1963 EXPLOSIVES AND DEMOLITIONS Paragrftphs Page CHAPTER 1. EXPLOSIVES AND SPECIAL CHARGES Section I. Introduction 1-3 2 II. Explosives 4-18 2 III. Special charges 19-27 8 CHAPTER 2. FIRING SYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENT Section I. Nonelectric firing system 28-36 14 II. Electric firing system 37-47 34 III. Detonating cord firing system _- 48-56 47 IV. Dual firing systems -. 57-60 58 V. Demolition sets 61-63 60 CHAPTER 3. CALCULATION AND PLACEMENT OF CHARGES Section I. Requirements and procedures 64-68 63 II. Timber-cutting charges 69-73 67 III. Steel-cutting charges 74-78 70 IV. Pressure charges , 79-83 75 V. Breaching charges 84-88 77 VI. Cratering and ditching charges 89-95 81 VII. Land clearing and quarrying charges -- - 96-100 85 CHAPTER 4. DEMOLITION ORDERS AND PROJECTS Section I. Target reconnaissance and demolition orders 101-103 88 II. Techniques common to most demolitions 104-107 102 III. Bridge demolitions 108-122 103 IV. Disruption of transportation lines — - 123-128 117 V. Disruption of communications systems 129-130 122 VI. Destruction of buildings and installations 131-134 122 VII. Destruction of equipment and supplies ■ 135-139 123 CHAPTER 5. SAFE HANDLING, TRANSPORTATION, AND STORAGE OF EXPLOSIVES Section I. General safety precautions. - 140-142 125 II. Handling of specific explosives 143-149 126 III. Transportation, storage, and disposal 150-154 128 APPENDIX I. REFERENCES... 130 II. METRIC CALCULATIONS. 131 III. USE OF LAND MINES, AERIAL BOMBS, AND SHELLS AS DEMOLITION CHARGES 134 IV. SUMMARY OF EXPLOSIVE CALCULATION FORMULAS 136 V. POWER REQUIREMENTS FOR MULTIPLE FIRING CIRCUITS 138 VI. ADVANCED AND EXPEDIENT DEMOLITION TECHNIQUES 143 VII. USE OF EXPLOSIVES IN THE ARCTIC 152 INDEX 156 'This manual ivpersedes FM 5-25, 14 May 1959, including C I, 3 August 1960, and C 2, 27 December 1961. TAGO 10111-A—October CHAPTER 1 EXPLOSIVES AND SPECIAL CHARGES Seefîiera I. ÎMTRODUCTION 1. Purpose and Scope 2. Comments a. This manual is a guide in the use of explosives Users of this manual are encouraged to submit for the creation and demolition of military obstacles eomments or recommendations for changes for and in certain construction projects. The material improvement. Comments should be referenced to includes information on— the specific page, paragraph, and line of text, and (1) Types, characteristics, and uses of ex- reasons for each comment given to insure proper plosives. understanding and evaluation. Comments should be forwarded direct to the Commandant, U.S. (2) Preparation, placement, and firing of Army Engineer School, Fort Belvoir, Va. charges. (3) Calculation formulas. (4) Deliberate and hasty demolition methods Military demolitions are the destruction by fire, appropriate for use in the forward zone. water, explosive, and mechanical or other means, of (5) Handling, transportation, and storage of areas, structures, facilities, or materials to ac- explosives. complish the military objective. They have offen- (6) Safety precautions. sive and defensive uses, for example, the removal of enemy barriers to facilitate the advance, and the b. The contents of this manual are applicable to construction of friendly barriers to delay or restrict nuclear and nonnuclear warfare. enemy movement. m 4. ®@fQK)55iic2)[ñis almost instantaneously, producing a shattering a. Explosives. Explosives are substances that effect upon the target. Detonation rates range through chemical reaction violently change and from 3,281 feet to 27,889 feet per second. High release pressure and heat equally in all directions. explosives are used where this shattering effect is Explosives are classified as low or high according required—in certain demolition charges and in to the speed (feet per second) with which this charges in mines, shells, and bombs. change takes place. b. Low Explosive. Low explosives deflagrate or ü. ClnKäD'tsigta'bflks ©'S ¡MWiMvy IxplosDwgs change from a solid to a gaseous state relatively Explosives used in military operations possess slowly over a sustained period. This quality makes the low explosive ideal for pushing or shoving a certain properties or characteristics essential to target. Examples are the smokeless and black their function. In the past, many explosives have powders that change from the solid to the gaseous been studied for possible military use; but the state at relatively slow rates. requirements are such that less than a score have c. High Explosive. The change in this type of proved satisfactory for standardization. The es- explosive to a gaseous state—detonation—occurs sential characteristics of military explosives are— TAGO lOlll-A a. Relative insensitivity to shock or friction; and 6. Selection of Explosives not liable to detonation by small arms fire. The explosives satisfactory for military purpose b. Proper detonating velocity. are generally selected on the basis of velocity of c. High power per unit of weight. detonation. For example, an explosive having a high detonating velocity is generally used for d. High density (weight per unit of volume). cutting and breaching; that of a lower velocity, for e. Sufficient stability to retain usefulness for a cratering, ditching, and quarrying. The types reasonable time in storage in any climate. commonly used are described below. /. Positive detonation by easily prepared primers. 7. TNT (Trinitrotoluene) g. Suitability for underwater use. Trinitrotoluene (fig. 1), commonly known as TNT h. Convenient size and shape to facilitate pack- is one of the least sensitive of military high ex- aging and logistics and handling by troops. plosives. It is reasonably stable in any climate, i. Capability over a wide range of temperatures. does not readily absorb water, and is quite stable 1/4 LB BLOCK 1/2 LB BLOCK OD COVER O.D. COVER I LB BLOCK TNT OD COVER THREADED CAP WELL Figure 1. TNT blocks. TAGO 10111-A TETRYL BOOSTER TETRYTOL TETRYL BOOSTER DETONATING CORD Figure S. Ml chain and MS demolition blocks. in closed storage. The detonation rate is 21,000 these threads. Fifty 1-pound blocks are feet per second. packed in a wooden box. o. Packaging. TNT is packaged in J^-pound, b. TNT is used primarily in cutting and breach- ^-pound, and 1-pound blocks. ing operations. (1) The J4-pound blocks are in an olive drab c. Detonation. Military electric or nonelectric cardboard container with metal ends. One blasting caps and PETN detonating cord, or any of end has a threaded cap well. Two the firing devices having a military cap attached hundred blocks are packed in a wooden may be used to detonate TNT. box. (2) The J^-pound blocks are in a yellow or 8. Tetrytol (Ml Chain Demolition Block) olive drab cardboard container with metal Demolition block Ml has all the desirable charac- ends. The yellow container has an un- teristics of TNT and is slightly more powerful, threaded cap well and the olive drab having a detonation rate of 23,000 feet per second. container, a threaded cap well. One It is thus more effective as a cutting or breaching hundred blocks are packed in a wooden charge. It is only slightly soluble in water and is box. brittle, breaking very easily when dropped (fig. 2). (3) The 1-pound blocks are merely two H- a. Packaging. Each block is 11 inches lang by 2 pound blocks in an olive drab cardboard inches square and weighs 2% pounds. A tetryl container with metal ends. One end has a pellet is cast into the block near each end. Eight threaded cap well. Priming adapters and blocks, spaced 8 inches apart, are cast lengthwise the standard base of firing devices fit onto a single line of detonating cord, 2 feet of which TAUO lOlll-A is left free at each end of the chain. Each block is 9. Tetrytol (M2 Demolition Block) inclosed in an olive drab asphalt-impregnated paper The M2 demolition block is similar to the Ml wrapper. One chain (8 blocks) is packed in an olive chain block except that it has a threaded cap well in , rfrab cloth haversack with a ■o^]sryiti& strap attached. each end but has no core of detonating cord. The The complete"Bäg"nieasures 4 oy 8 by 11 inches and I M2 demolition block measures 11 by 2 by 2 inches. weights about 22 pounds. It contains 20 pounds of I A booster tetryl pellet, cast into the"b'Kackî surrounds explosive. Two chains are packed in a wooden box. : each cap well. b. Use. The Ml chain demolition block may be ; a. Packaging. Eight blocks, 23^ pounds each, used in forward combat areas as an alternate to are packed in a haversack; and two haversacks, in a TNT. The complete chain, or any part of the chain, wooden box. may be laid out in a line, wrapped around a target, b. Use. The M2 demolition block is used in the or used in the haversack as it is packed. The entire same manner as the Ml block for cutting and chain will detonate, even though the blocks may not breaching. Chains may be made by connecting be in contact with each other. If less than eight blocks with detonating cord. blocks are needed, the required number is cut from 10. Composition C3 (M3 or M5 Demolition the chain. Each block must have 8 inches of Block) detonating cord attached. Composition C3 (fig. 3) is a yellow, odorous, c. Detonation. Tetrytol is detonated by the mili- plastic explosive more powerful than TNT. In tary electric or nonelectric blasting cap.
Recommended publications
  • Route 10 (Bermuda Triangle Road to Meadowville Road) Widening Project VDOT Project Number 0010-020-632, (UPC #101020) (VDHR File No

    Route 10 (Bermuda Triangle Road to Meadowville Road) Widening Project VDOT Project Number 0010-020-632, (UPC #101020) (VDHR File No

    Route 10 (Bermuda Triangle Road to Meadowville Road) Widening Project VDOT Project Number 0010-020-632, (UPC #101020) (VDHR File No. 1995-2174) Phase I Architectural Identification Survey Chesterfield County, Virginia Phase I Archaeological Identification Survey for the Route 10 Project (Bermuda Triangle to Meadowville) Chesterfield County, Virginia VDOT Project No. 0010-020-632, UPC #101020 Prepared for: Prepared for: Richmond District Department of Transportation 2430VDOT Pine Richmond Forest Drive District Department of Transportation 9800 Government Center Parkway Colonial2430 Heights, Pine Forest VA Drive23834 9800 Government Center Parkway Chesterfield, Virginia 23832 Colonial804 Heights,-524-6000 Virginia 23834 Chesterfield, VA 23832 804-748-1037 Prepared by: March 2013 Prepared by: McCormick Taylor, Inc. North Shore Commons A 4951 McCormickLake Brook Drive, Taylor Suite 275 NorthGlen ShoreAllen, VirginiaCommons 23060 A 4951 Lake Brook Drive, Suite 275 Glen Allen, VA 23060 May 2013 804-762-5800 May 2013 Route 10 (Bermuda Triangle Road to Meadowville Road) Widening Project VDOT Project Number 0010-020-632, (UPC #101020) (VDHR File No. 1995-2174) Phase I Architectural Identification Survey Phase I ArchaeologicalChesterfield County,Identification Virginia Survey for the Route 10 Project (Bermuda Triangle to Meadowville) Chesterfield County, Virginia VDOT Project No. 0010-020-632, UPC #101020 Prepared for: Prepared for: Richmond District Department of Transportation 2430VDOT Pine Richmond Forest Drive District Department of Transportation 9800 Government Center Parkway Colonial2430 Heights, Pine Forest VA Drive23834 9800 Government Center Parkway Chesterfield, Virginia 23832 Colonial804 Heights,-524-6000 Virginia 23834 Chesterfield, VA 23832 804-748-1037 Prepared by: March 2013 Prepared by: McCormick Taylor NorthMcCormick Shore Commons Taylor, Inc.
  • 1812; the War, and Its Moral : a Canadian Chronicle

    1812; the War, and Its Moral : a Canadian Chronicle

    '^^ **7tv»* ^^ / ^^^^T^\/ %*^-'%p^ ^<>.*^7^\/ ^o^*- "o /Vi^/\ co^i^^.% Atii^/^-^^ /.' .*'% y A-^ ; .O*^ . <f,r*^.o^" X'^'^^V %--f.T*\o^^ V^^^^\<^ •^ 4.^ tri * -0 a5 «4q il1 »"^^ 11E ^ ^ THE WAR, AND ITS MORAL CANADIAN CHRONICLE. BY WILLIAM F?"C0FFIN, Esquire, FORMERLT SHERIFF OF THE DISTRICT OF MONTREAI,, LIEUT.-COLONKL, STAFF, ACIITB POROB, CANADA, AND H. M. AGENT FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF THE ORDNANCE ESTATES, CANADA. PRINTED BY JOHN LOVELL, ST. NICHOLAS STREET. 1864. E354 C^y 2. Entered, according to the Act of the Provincial Parliament, in the year one thousand eight hundred and sixty-four, by William F. Coffin, in the OfBce of the Registrar of the Province of Canada. Ea t\}t J^igfjt pjonourable ^ir (SbmtmtJ SSalhtr f cab, iarond, ^er Pajtstg's Post '§ononmbk ^ribg Council, ^nU late ffiobernor ©cneral anli C0mmanKcr4tt=(H;fjicf of IBxitislj Nortfj America, ©Ws (jrattatlinw (!>Uv0uicU 0f the ^m of I8I2 is rcspcctftillp tirtitcatEU, fig fjis fattfjful anU grateful .Scrfaant, WILLIAM P. COFFIN. Ottawa, 2nd January, 1864, TO THE RIGHT HONORABLE SIR EDMUND WALKER HEAD, BARONET. My dear Sir,—^I venture to appeal to your respected name as the best introduction for the little work which I" do myself the honour to dedicate to you. To you, indeed, it owes its existence. You conferred upon me the appointment I have the honour to hold under the Crown in Canada, and that appointment has given life to an idea, long cherished in embryo. The management of the Ordnance Lands in this Province has thrown me upon the scenes of the most notable events of the late war.
  • ACCESSION NO U&lt;;®I a GP G (20 Sep 44.-3 Dec 44)

    ACCESSION NO U<;®I a GP G (20 Sep 44.-3 Dec 44)

    Property oi ARCHIVESj • - !' H ' ::: !' :: —•' C&GSC F:.. enworth * - IACCESSION NO u<;®i ; A G.P G (20 Sep 44.-3 Dec 44) REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF STAFF ' is : w/Appendices p',+ " BwjgBPiPIciSlsii '• mMmm : ":'r.SB : ' * I1:' *%J9 :n: ;, : : ; : • • . • .• ••••• ' r Whitehouse Leather Products Company, Inc* 360 FURMAN STREET BROOKLYN, N. C-807 (20 Sep 44 - 3 Deo 44) REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF STAFF At the beginning of Sep *44, the German troops with­ drawing from southwestern and southern France and from the Paris sector came under the control of A Gp G, Genobst Blaskowitz, i'he Army Group was composed of First Army, Fifth Pz Army, and Nineteenth Army, The retreating First Army managed to form a thin line at Neufchateau—Longuyon**Briey, with bridgeheads to the south at Metz, Pont-a-Mousson, and Nancy• Nineteenth Army began to re­ assemble in the vicinity of Dijon and Belfort, Fifth Pz Army was to concentrate for a thrust into the deep flank of the American force advancing along the line Luxemb our g-*Metz—Nancy, On 10 Sep 4-4, the Americans penetrated the line at Longuyon on the right flank of First Army, The LXXXII Inf Corps was forced to withdraw behind the Moselle, Throughout Sep 44, the improvised Div .Nr 462 succeeded in repelling strong enemy attacks on Metz, An enemy bre-akthrough at Luneville toward Chateau-Salins in the middle of Sep 44 created a large gap between First Army and Fifth Pz Army, Nineteenth Army was forced to fall back to the line Charmes—Epinal—west of Belfort because of the threatening situa­ tion on both its southern and northern flanks.
  • Corinth: Fighting with Picks and Shovels

    Corinth: Fighting with Picks and Shovels

    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Corinth Shiloh National Military Park Corinth Civil War Interpretive Center Fighting with Picks and Shovels Battery Robinett, 1862 Silent Sentinels Many surviving Civil War battlefields are living testimonials to the extensive use of field fortifications during that conflict. Fortifications made from mounded soil, baskets, timber, and even bales of cotton, were proven to be very effective during the war. The area surrounding Corinth, Mississippi was fortified heavily by the Union and Confederate forces who struggled for control of the strategically important town. Today, those earthworks stand as silent sentinels, bearing witness to the bloody affairs of war. They are some of the best preserved earthworks in the country, and are designated National Historic Landmarks. Viewing these fragile remnants is a highlight of touring Civil War Corinth. The Use of Field Field fortifications had several purposes. For example, after serving as commander of Fortifications The first, and most obvious, was to provide Confederate forces in and around Corinth protection against incoming fire. Projectiles during the spring of 1862, General P.G. T. would bury themselves in earthworks, Beauregard had this to say of his army and inflicting little damage to the soldiers inside. fortifications, ”They had come to fight, and Second, fortifications were meant to place not to handle the pick and shovel….Before I obstacles in front of an attacking force in had left that gallant army, however, I had order to impede and slow the assault. Abatis, learned how readily the humbler could aid trees felled in the direction of the enemy with the nobler duty.” sharpened ends, offered such obstacles.
  • The Bulletin Number 73 July 1978

    The Bulletin Number 73 July 1978

    The Bulletin Number 73 July 1978 CONTENTS The History and Archeology of Fort Independence on Tetard's Hill, Bronx County, New York Julius Lopez 1 Editor's Note 1 A Petroglyph in the Mid-Hudson Valley Michael F. Laccetti 28 Readings in Long Island Archaeology and Ethnohistory Series - Volume II Dr. Carlyle Smith and Louis Brennan 31 Historical Archaeology: A Guide to Substantive and Theoretical Contributions Robert Schuyler 32 No. 73, July 1978 1 THE HISTORY AND ARCHEOLOGY OF FORT INDEPENDENCE ON TETARD'S HILL, BRONX COUNTY, N.Y. Julius Lopez, NYSAAF Metropolitan Chapter "Unfortunately for historical preservation, the sites of ... forts upon the commanding eminences attracted the owners of the property in deciding on sites for their residences, and with few exceptions large houses were built on the forts, with ruinous regarding and distruction of their interesting form and character. In Independence the Giles family built a large house and but little trace of the ramparts of the fortification are left.' Reginald Pelham Bolton, 1916, p. 202 Editor's Note This is the second report from the inventory of unfinished manuscripts by the late Julius Lopez. Like the first (Lopez 1971) it is based on the notes and research papers compiled by Lopez. The major portion of the text and illustrations were complete in draft form. I have striven to follow the guidelines he outlined in his notes for the completion of the article. I wish to thank the many individuals whose efforts and cooperation made this publication possible. These would include the members of the participating crew, then known as "The New York City Archeological Group", headed by Julius Lopez; especially Harry Trowbridge for making the initial survey and testing pinpointing the area for excavation.
  • Glossary of Terms

    Glossary of Terms

    www.nysmm.org Glossary of Terms Some definitions have links to images. ABATIS: Barricade of felled trees with their branches towards the attack and sharpened (primitive version of "barbed wire"). ARROW SLITS: Narrow openings in a wall through which defenders can fire arrows. (also called loopholes) ARTILLERY: An excellent GLOSSARY for Civil War era (and other) Artillery terminologies can be found at civilwarartillery.com/main.htm (Link will open new window.) BAILEY: The walled enclosure or the outer courtyard of a castle. (Ward, Parade) BANQUETTE: The step of earth within the parapet, sufficiently high to enable standing defenders to fire over the crest of the parapet with ease. BARBICAN: Outworks, especially in front of a gate. A heavily fortified gate or tower. BARTIZAN (BARTISAN): Scottish term, projecting corner turret. A small overhanging turret on a tower s battlement. BASTION: A projection from a fortification arranged to give a wider range of fire or to allow firing along the main walls. Usually at the intersection of two walls. BATTER: Inclined face of a wall (Talus). BATTERED: May be used to describe crenellations. BATTERY: A section of guns, a named part of the main fortifications or a separate outer works position (e.g.. North Battery, Water Battery). BATTLEMENTS: The notched top (crenellated parapet) of a defensive wall, with open spaces (crenels) for firing weapons. BEAKED PROJECTION: see EN BEC. BELVEDERE: A pavilion or raised turret. BLOCKHOUSE: Usually a two story wood building with an overhanging second floor and rifle loops and could also have cannon ports (embrasures). Some three story versions. Some with corner projections similar to bastions.
  • Handbook on USSR Military Forces, Chapter VI: Fortifications War Department (USA)

    Handbook on USSR Military Forces, Chapter VI: Fortifications War Department (USA)

    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln DOD Military Intelligence U.S. Department of Defense 1-1946 Handbook on USSR Military Forces, Chapter VI: Fortifications War Department (USA) Robert L. Bolin , Depositor University of Nebraska-Lincoln, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/dodmilintel War Department (USA) and Bolin, Robert L. , Depositor, "Handbook on USSR Military Forces, Chapter VI: Fortifications" (1946). DOD Military Intelligence. 27. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/dodmilintel/27 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the U.S. Department of Defense at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in DOD Military Intelligence by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Technical Manual, TM 30-430 Handbook on USSR Military Forces Chapter VI Fortifications Robert L. Bolin, Depositor University of Nebraska-Lincoln, [email protected] Technical Manual, TM 30-430, Chapter VI 1 January 1946 Handbook on USSR Military Forces Chapter VI Fortifications War Department Washington, DC Comments The copy digitized was borrowed from the Marshall Center Research Library, APO, AE 09053-4502. Abstract TM 30-340, Handbook on USSR Military Forces, was “published in installments to expedite dissemination to the field.” TM30-430, Chapter VI, 1 January 1946, “Fortifications,” is a detailed discussion of earthworks and structures used for defensive purposes. This chapter is illustrated with numerous drawings, diagrams, and charts. This manual is listed in WorldCat under Accession Number: OCLC: 19989681 1 Jan 46 TM 30-430 CHAPTER VI FORTIFICATIONS TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Figure Section I.
  • RAIL REPAIR in BOSNIA by Major Gcncrcrl Rohert B

    RAIL REPAIR in BOSNIA by Major Gcncrcrl Rohert B

    RAIL REPAIR IN BOSNIA By Major Gcncrcrl Rohert B. Flowers Conzmarzdant, U.S. Army Engirzeer School NFORCE was a great success this year, with the Next, I invite you all to a conference this fall that will be Engineer Tattoo being one of the most memorable just as rewarding as ENFORCE. A mine warfare symposium Ehighlights in an event-filled week. I want to thank sponsored by the Association of the United States Army everyone for their long hours and hard work and for paying (AUSA) will be held at Southwest Missouri State University attention to the small details to ensure everything went [SMSU] in Springfield and at Fort Leonard Wood. The smoothly. I am proud that Fort Leonard Wood was able purpose of the conference is twofold: to showcase how the again to shine and demonstrate that it is one of the Army's United States is leading the international effort to demine the premier installations. (See article, page 13.) A job well done world; and then, after an introduction to our current mine by all. doctrine, to conduct a live-fire demonstration of two self- During his speech at ENFORCE, LTG Ballard destructing [SD] mine systems. Final dates and details will announced the new regimental vision encompassing the follow. entire corps and stressed the importance of everyone The first day, at SMSU, will include a series of participating in the process to develop a truly comprehensive lectures and displays. Presentations will cover the vision. I echo our chiefs comments and expect everyone to spectrum of the entire landmine debate, from official get involved: read the vision, think about it, and provide policy and training of deminers to treating and feedback.
  • The Professionalization of the American Army Through the War of 1812

    The Professionalization of the American Army Through the War of 1812

    State University of New York College at Buffalo - Buffalo State College Digital Commons at Buffalo State History Theses History and Social Studies Education 8-2012 The rP ofessionalization of the American Army through the War of 1812 Robert L. Heiss State University of New York College at Buffalo, [email protected] Advisor Andrew D. Nicholls, Ph.D., Chair and Professor, History and Social Studies Education First Reader Andrew D. Nicholls, Ph.D., Chair and Professor, History and Social Studies Education Second Reader David A. Carson, Ph.D., Distinguished Service Professor, History and Social Studies Education Department Chair Andrew D. Nicholls, Ph.D., Professor of History To learn more about the History and Social Studies Education Department and its educational programs, research, and resources, go to http://history.buffalostate.edu/. Recommended Citation Heiss, Robert L., "The rP ofessionalization of the American Army through the War of 1812" (2012). History Theses. Paper 10. Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.buffalostate.edu/history_theses Part of the United States History Commons Abstract The Professionalization of the American Army through the War of 1812 The American military tradition stretches back to the militia of England. The English colonists brought a tradition of militia service and a fear of standing armies to America. Once in America, the colonies formed their own militias, using them for defense and then later for offensive operations. At the time of the American Revolution the American colonies had to combine the militia with an army. The fear of a standing army hindered the Continental Army, and then later the American Army, from being an effective force.
  • The Civil War Defenses of Washington

    The Civil War Defenses of Washington

    A Historic Resources Study: The Civil War Defenses of Washington Part I: Appendices A Historic Resources Study: The Civil War Defenses of Washington Part I: Appendices United States Department of Interior National Park Service National Capital Region Washington, DC Contract No. 144CX300096053 Modification# 1 Prepared by CEHP, Incorporated Chevy Chase, Maryland A Historic Resources Study: The Civil War Defens es of Washington Part I Appendices Appendix A: Alphabetical Listing of Forts, Batteries, and Blockhouses Appendix B: Alphabetical Listing of Known Fortification Owners, Their Representatives, and Fortifications on Their Land Appendix C: Naming of Forts Appendix D: Correspondence Concerning Appropriations for the Defenses of Washington Appendix E: General Reports about the Defenses Appendix F: Supplement to Commission Report Appendix G: Mostly Orders Pertaining to the Defenses of Washington Appendix H: A Sampling of Correspondence, Reports, Orders, Etc., Relating to the Battle of Fort Stevens Appendix I: Civil War Defenses of Washington Chronology Bibliography Appendix A. Alphabetical Listing of Forts,. Batteries, and Blockhouses Civil War Defenses of Washington Page A-1 Historic Resources Study Part I-Appendix A Appendix A: Alphabetical Listing of Forts, Batteries, and Blockhouses Fortification Known Landowner or their Representative Fort Albany James Roach and heirs, J.R. Johnson Battery Bailey Shoemaker family Fort Baker · Sarah E. Anderson, Ann A.C. Naylor & Susan M. Naylor Fort Barnard Philip J. Buckey, Sewall B. Corbettt Fort Bennett Wm. B. Ross, Attorney John H. Bogue, B.B. Lloyd Fort Berry Sewall B. Corbettt Blockhouse south of Fort Ellsworth Elizabeth Studds' heirs, George Studds Blockhouse between Fort Ellsworth & Fort Lyon, also battery Henry Studds Fort Bunker Hill Henry Quinn Fort C.F.
  • The Civil War Defenses of Washington Part I: Appendices

    The Civil War Defenses of Washington Part I: Appendices

    A Historic Resources Study: The Civil War Defenses of Washington Part I: Appendices A Historic Resources Study: The Civil War Defenses of Washington Part I: Appendices United States Department of Interior National Park Service National Capital Region Washington, DC Contract No. 144CX300096053 Modification# 1 Prepared by CEHP, Incorporated Chevy Chase, Maryland A Historic Resources Study: The Civil War Defens es of Washington Part I Appendices Appendix A: Alphabetical Listing of Forts, Batteries, and Blockhouses Appendix B: Alphabetical Listing of Known Fortification Owners, Their Representatives, and Fortifications on Their Land Appendix C: Naming of Forts Appendix D: Correspondence Concerning Appropriations for the Defenses of Washington Appendix E: General Reports about the Defenses Appendix F: Supplement to Commission Report Appendix G: Mostly Orders Pertaining to the Defenses of Washington Appendix H: A Sampling of Correspondence, Reports, Orders, Etc., Relating to the Battle of Fort Stevens Appendix I: Civil War Defenses of Washington Chronology Bibliography Appendix A. Alphabetical Listing of Forts,. Batteries, and Blockhouses Civil War Defenses of Washington Page A-1 Historic Resources Study Part I-Appendix A Appendix A: Alphabetical Listing of Forts, Batteries, and Blockhouses Fortification Known Landowner or their Representative Fort Albany James Roach and heirs, J.R. Johnson Battery Bailey Shoemaker family Fort Baker · Sarah E. Anderson, Ann A.C. Naylor & Susan M. Naylor Fort Barnard Philip J. Buckey, Sewall B. Corbettt Fort Bennett Wm. B. Ross, Attorney John H. Bogue, B.B. Lloyd Fort Berry Sewall B. Corbettt Blockhouse south of Fort Ellsworth Elizabeth Studds' heirs, George Studds Blockhouse between Fort Ellsworth & Fort Lyon, also battery Henry Studds Fort Bunker Hill Henry Quinn Fort C.F.
  • Corinth Shiloh National Military Park Corinth Civil War Interpretive Center

    Corinth Shiloh National Military Park Corinth Civil War Interpretive Center

    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Corinth Shiloh National Military Park Corinth Civil War Interpretive Center Fighting with Picks and Shovels Battery Robinett, 1862 Silent Sentinels Many surviving Civil War battlefields are living testimonials to the extensive use of field fortifications during that conflict. Fortifications made from mounded soil, baskets, timber, and even bales of cotton, were proven to be very effective during the war. The area surrounding Corinth, Mississippi was fortified heavily by the Union and Confederate forces who struggled for control of the strategically important town. Today, those earthworks stand as silent sentinels, bearing witness to the bloody affairs of war. They are some of the best preserved earthworks in the country, and are designated National Historic Landmarks. Viewing these fragile remnants is a highlight of touring Civil War Corinth. The Use of Field Field fortifications had several purposes. For example, after serving as commander of Fortifications The first, and most obvious, was to provide Confederate forces in and around Corinth protection against incoming fire. Projectiles during the spring of 1862, General P.G. T. would bury themselves in earthworks, Beauregard had this to say of his army and inflicting little damage to the soldiers inside. fortifications, ”They had come to fight, and Second, fortifications were meant to place not to handle the pick and shovel….Before I obstacles in front of an attacking force in had left that gallant army, however, I had order to impede and slow the assault. Abatis, learned how readily the humbler could aid trees felled in the direction of the enemy with the nobler duty.” sharpened ends, offered such obstacles.