Rains after a battle.

[B7B Southern]

It appears as if after 2-3 day battles there was always torrential type down pours of rain. It is hard to believe this was just an incidental type thing the way it always seems happened. It happened at-
Gettysburg
Manassas or Ox hill.
Fredericksburg.

Any others?

Anyone have any thoughts about this? Is there any scientific study about it?

Marshall

[KICK]

Allah willed it..

[semperpietas]

Originally Posted by B7B Southern

It appears as if after 2-3 day battles there was always torrential type down pours of rain. It is hard to believe this was just an incidental type thing the way it always seems happened. It happened at-
Gettysburg
Manassas or Ox hill.
Fredericksburg.

Any others?

Anyone have any thoughts about this? Is there any scientific study about it?

Marshall

I believe coincidence. There were no rains after Chickamauga, Franklin, Cold Harbor, or other major battles.

[Admiral]

Not sure of any science behind it, but it is something many agrarians (farmers) around the world think might well be possible & has to do with the concussive effects of artillery or bombs on some relatively local weather conditions - but conditions would already have to be such that a little stimuli would induce it further. No significant artillery fire or bombs, no rains? Old timey 'Rain Makers' in America - after the observation that precipitation often occurred after battles which included alot of explosives or artillery - used Cannon as a portion of their efforts. Some may have been 'seeding' but most of it occurred before 'seeding' became a thought or even known as a 'possibility' to them. Most of the ol time Rainmakers were just con-men. Many actually believed & were at least successful in terms of showing up & rain soon following sometimes. (Maybe just good forecasters taking advantage?) Call me skeptical of most of the stuff, but... like I said, I think science is out on the explosive concussion theories, but often in the history of many battles - in areas where rain is not altogether uncommon (IOW, not deserts & such) - rain, even hail has often occurred later in a long ''concussive' battle or soon after.

Coincidence?

[Lucky 6]

The thought has been around for a while.

"Extraordinary rains pretty generally fall after great battles" - Plutarch

[Admiral]

Concussive effects would also be a result of large drumming cadence - even before explosives.

As a percussionist in me youth, my instructor told a few stories of - & on 2 occasions, I myself experienced - rainfall occurring after Drum & Bugle Corp championships after all contestants participated (football field - full scale) in closing ceremony mass maneuvers/exhibition. Prolly better than 1,000 Field Drums with 50 Field Bass Drums in cadence. IOW, as a spectator & participant you could really feel the concussion of it all. I've also been to some seriously loud outdoor concerts throughout the mid-west where it rained near the end or soon after. One was in 79' in Great Bend KS (Summer Jam) with 12 big time Bands each playing an hour set & one of the largest/loudest combined outdoor sound systems w/remotes I've ever seen & heard. With less than 20% forecasts of precipitation, it rained in short bursts 3 times over the 12 hours. Like I said, it could be coincidence, but that sort of thing sure almost makes you want to think it's possible. After all, if even a deaf person (one among us was deaf from birth & still loved the concerts - head 'bangin' motion just like the rest of us BECAUSE he could feel the bassier rhythms) can seriously feel the concussive percussion, then it seems to be a distinct possibility that environmental elements might be somehow stimulated &, with the right natural conditions, maybe cause precipitation that might otherwise have remained less likely.

Still, even along those lines I am yet a bit of a skeptic - would be interesting to see some serious scientific thought along those lines, though.

I wonder if Cheetah might have some insight into things most of us seldom notice to any real extent because we can hear?

I'm sure stranger things are possible & actually occur in the world, enh.

[Cheetah772]

Admiral,

A good question. To be perfectly honest, I don't know any better than you do. I don't have some unusual insights into the things of that nature.

However, what you can hear can be often be felt miles away. Except for a battle in Kentucky (don't recall the exact name of the place) where a unique acoustic phenomenon prevented the commanders from hearing the sounds of battle even though they were very close to the battlefield.

Now as for the question of whether such sound waves caused rain to fall upon the battlefields is something I'm afraid is out of my purview, and frankly outside of science as well. However, that'd be an interesting area of study for meteorologists covering the historical battles.

Sorry, Admiral, I may be a deaf person, but I don't have any helpful insight. I'm just human like you are!

Dan

[semperpietas]

Originally Posted by Cheetah772

Admiral,

A good question. To be perfectly honest, I don't know any better than you do. I don't have some unusual insights into the things of that nature.

However, what you can hear can be often be felt miles away. Except for a battle in Kentucky (don't recall the exact name of the place) where a unique acoustic phenomenon prevented the commanders from hearing the sounds of battle even though they were very close to the battlefield.

Now as for the question of whether such sound waves caused rain to fall upon the battlefields is something I'm afraid is out of my purview, and frankly outside of science as well. However, that'd be an interesting area of study for meteorologists covering the historical battles.

Sorry, Admiral, I may be a deaf person, but I don't have any helpful insight. I'm just human like you are!

Dan

The battle was Perryville where an "isolated" Union corps was attacked by 16,000 Confederates under Bragg while several more Union forces sat nearby under Buell. Despite severely outnumbering Bragg, Buell never engaged more than one corps because he didn't hear the battle going on. Bragg realized what a grave error he made, and beat a withdrawal to Tennessee, despite the tactical victory he had won against the single Union Corps.

I believe the official name for the phenomenon is acoustic shadow.

Yet one can read of other battles like Waterloo, where miraculously appearing Prussians were summoned "by the sound of the guns" despite being quite a distance away. It is almost like Divine intervention.

[B7B Southern]

Originally Posted by semperpietas

The battle was Perryville where an "isolated" Union corps was attacked by 16,000 Confederates under Bragg while several more Union forces sat nearby under Buell. Despite severely outnumbering Bragg, Buell never engaged more than one corps because he didn't hear the battle going on. Bragg realized what a grave error he made, and beat a withdrawal to Tennessee, despite the tactical victory he had won against the single Union Corps.

I believe the official name for the phenomenon is acoustic shadow.

Yet one can read of other battles like Waterloo, where miraculously appearing Prussians were summoned "by the sound of the guns" despite being quite a distance away. It is almost like Divine intervention.

Wasn't it General Pickett that was at a Shad Bake and didn't here cannons going off a couple miles away?

Also, the rail bridge over the South Branch where it empties into the Potomac, was being knocked down by General Imbodens men with cannon.
Folks that lived near by didn't hear the cannon but heard the cannon ball hit the bridge!

[semperpietas]

Originally Posted by B7B Southern

Wasn't it General Pickett that was at a Shad Bake and didn't here cannons going off a couple miles away?

Also, the rail bridge over the South Branch where it empties into the Potomac, was being knocked down by General Imbodens men with cannon.
Folks that lived near by didn't hear the cannon but heard the cannon ball hit the bridge!

Pickett and Fitz Lee I believe. He (Pickett) was supposedly relieved of command for this (or Sayler's Creek. I cannot remember), but in the confusion of the abandonment of Richmond and Petersburg, never got the order (or refused to acknowledge it) and still hung around HQ, even after his division had ceased to exist as a fighting force.


Don't you think it would have been better to burn that bridge? Unless it was stone. But even then, VMI is a testament to how ineffective cannon can be against stone.

[B7B Southern]

Originally Posted by semperpietas

Pickett and Fitz Lee I believe. He (Pickett) was supposedly relieved of command for this (or Sayler's Creek. I cannot remember), but in the confusion of the abandonment of Richmond and Petersburg, never got the order (or refused to acknowledge it) and still hung around HQ, even after his division had ceased to exist as a fighting force.


Don't you think it would have been better to burn that bridge? Unless it was stone. But even then, VMI is a testament to how ineffective cannon can be against stone.

The bridge was steel.

[semperpietas]

Originally Posted by B7B Southern

The bridge was steel.

Oh. Then a cannon would be practical then.

[B7B Southern]

Originally Posted by semperpietas

Oh. Then a cannon would be practical then.

Here is a picture of that bridge. Just so happened when I took this picture there was a large rock that was out far enough for a picture and had steps built down to it.

Marshall

[TomDeFranco]

Originally Posted by semperpietas

Pickett and Fitz Lee I believe. He (Pickett) was supposedly relieved of command for this (or Sayler's Creek. I cannot remember), but in the confusion of the abandonment of Richmond and Petersburg, never got the order (or refused to acknowledge it) and still hung around HQ, even after his division had ceased to exist as a fighting force.


Don't you think it would have been better to burn that bridge? Unless it was stone. But even then, VMI is a testament to how ineffective cannon can be against stone.

There was a third Confederate general at the Shad Bake, too. Wasn't it Tom Rosser (or was he still a colonel?).

Concentrated artillery did prove effective against the brick walls of Ft. Pulaski, though in April 1862. It signalled a change in the way that forts should be constructed.

[semperpietas]

Originally Posted by TomDeFranco

There was a third Confederate general at the Shad Bake, too. Wasn't it Tom Rosser (or was he still a colonel?).

Concentrated artillery did prove effective against the brick walls of Ft. Pulaski, though in April 1862. It signalled a change in the way that forts should be constructed.

Yea, I believe it was Rosser. I am well aware of what happened to Fort Pulaski. I am also well aware of how Union Artillery also failed against VMI, so Union troops had to burn it down.