"Realistic Artillery Ranges" Topic

Like many other tabletop gamers I have developed/ came up with house rules and have been thinking on just what would be some good realistic ranges for artillery.

Now I have found several different sources and well not all of them were the same.

So I am coming here to get some inputs from fellow gamers and to see just what we think should be good realistic artillery ranges.

Now I use 15mm figures and for distance 1" = 50 meters. So 12 inches would be a distance of 600 meters.

Now I am not trying to get every single type of artillery piece as that would be a tad much. So for this I have combined them into:

4 Pounders – Covers the small arty pieces and Regt guns.

6 & 8 Pounders – These are the standard arty pieces for divisions and corps.

12 Pounders – These are the heavy arty pieces.

Now for the ranges I considering breaking it into one of the following: Leaning towards the first.

Canister, Short, Medium & Long.

Canister, Effective & Long.

Now I do have some distances in mind but the information I pulled up for Canister is causing the biggest problem.

Using the 1" = 50 meters a mile would be about 32".

So any thoughts on this?

The only problem i can see is that you have equated meters with miles (second last sentence), which could blow your sums out of the window.

we had to refigure the speed of light into furlongs per fortnight in school.

yeah it was a really really big number

First, all of the calibers you have listed are field artillery. None of them would be classed as heavy artillery. Effective range for the artillery of the period for roundshot would be about 1,000 yards. The range could be effectively doubled for ricochet fire.

At 1" = 50 yards, 1 mile would be 35.2"

There are 2 basic ways to go about it:

1. Use a few standard ranges (all the same) for all 3 types of guns. Say, 2", 4", 6", 8", 10", 12", or …

2. Use difference ranges for each type. For instance:
4-pdrs 2" (short cannister), 8" (effective cannister), 12" (short shot), 16" (effective shot), 24" (ricochet shot).
6-8-pdrs 3" (short cannister), 9" effective cannister), 15" (effective shot), 22" (ricochet shot).
12-pdrs 4" (short cannister), 12" effective cannister), 20" (effective shot), 30" (ricochet shot).

I'm not recommending these specific distances, just showing you the kind of thing that can be done. The former idea (1 set of ranges for all) is simpler; the latter (varied ranges) perhaps more realistic, or at least gives you an incentive to have/use larger guns.

Couple of questions first. How are artillery and even musketry ranges in relation to movement rates? What are you trying to achieve with artillery fire?

Basically, are you trying to fit ranges and rates (fire & movement) into an arbitrary time frame or are you trying to fit effect into a time frame?
Check out these designer notes: link

Caveat, at this point in my life I think I fall more into the "Mustafa School" of rules than any other.

Wait, let me expand on my last point …
The Mustafa School and the TFL school.

The first thing you need to know is that most nations had two different canister rounds for each piece – a light one with lots of small balls for short range work, and a heavy one with fewer but larger balls which, due to higher sectional density and higher initial energy, would still cause casualties at longer range. This could explain the disparites in data you are seeing.

The British had only one nature of canister, but they did have spherical case (aka shrapnel, after its inventor) which allowed longer range anti-personnel fire.

Next factor – the degradation of efficiency in ball fire with range is not particularly great until it starts bouncing, when the effect depends on the nature of the ground being struck. On the other hand, the anti-personnel effect of ball isn't stunning to start with. The morale effect of being shot at without a chance to reply, however, can be serious.

Counterbattery fire is a different matter. Instead of a line (and remember that battalion column consists of succesive divisions or companies in line) that is wider that the normal dispersion of your round, you are firing at point targets. Batteries don't set up hub to hub, there's always a significant space between pieces (if the commander is even halfway competent). That leaves a lot of empty space that you can ram balls through all day without fazing the enemy. So increasing range means decreasing chance of hitting a gun (or its crew).

So what you need is two or three zones for canister (at very short range, two rounds would be loaded), and at most two for ball for fire against infantry and cavalry, maybe more for counterbattery fire.

Scale of the game you intend to play is important… the effectiveness and accuracy of artillery at long ranges may not register in terms of figure removal, or damage to units in your game.
So what kinds of effects are you after in these artillery rules?
If you want realistic range of results then you`ll probably a few more range bands to model these effects smoothly – but I found that this can get rather more confusing for players; having to consult their range charts and checking ranges on the tabletop.

Mike.

If you want to keep it simple, say the 12 pounders can fire effectively at 800 yards. Beyond this they have trouble spotting the fall of shot even on clear days. It's true folks can get killed by rolling shot well beyond this range but tactically effective fire is another story.

Then have them fire more effectively at half range, 400 yards. Assume canister of various types is being used. Then scale down your other calibers, with 6-8 pounders firing out to 700 or 750 yards, smaller guns to 600 or 700 yards, canister at half range for each.

If that's too simple, then by all means get more complicated. After all, they're your rules.

I would disagree about giving different ranges for roundshot between 6 to 12pdrs.
At sub 1000 yards there was little difference in accuracy and little difference in plain killing power.
Where they differed most was the capability to punch through hasty field works – 12pdrs could make them almost pointless whereas 6pdrs could not.

A lot depends on the troop ratio being used. With any guns maximum range does not equal effective ranges.

At a large troop ratio, the battery of 8 guns would be the firing unit. The target would be a mass target of several 100 men.

At a small troop scale with the firing unit being a single gun or section of two guns, the target would be someing that they can effective sight (seeing is not always sighting). Such conditions as weather, terrain, smoke and other troop formations will all have an affect of the sighting/ firing distance.

Why no rockets?:-)

Artillery ranges in Gaming – Canister.

To set artillery ranges, you need to know how many kills artillery makes at each distance and in which time period. You then check that those are the same as your gaming kill rates for the time of one game turn. Simple! Even maximum range is 'effective' if you have all day to hit something.

So, for example, Cannister balls (assuming large balls, a 12 pder with 1/3rd weight charge) and that the enemy is in a usual formation):

Yards to target : % hits against Cavalry : % hits against Infantry.

100 : 11/16ths : half
200 : 1/3rd : 2/9ths
300 : 1/4 : 1/6th
400 : 1/6th : 1/9th
500 : 1/8th : 1/12th
600 : 1/9th : 1/14th

Spread
The balls also spread, of course, vertically as well as horisontally. And the spread for large balls at 100 yards was reckoned to be 15-18 ft.

If a man formed in line takes up 2 ft of width in the formation, then at 100 yards with a 3-deep line (assuming a large number of balls) you're threatening 7-9 men in the front rank (and those behind him). Say 27 men if all are hit.

Rates of artillery fire verses musketry
But in one game turn, how many times can your artilley fire? Once? A 12 pounder could safely fire one and a half cannisters every minute. And in that time, infantry can fire new muskets 5 times. So you have to sychronise your guns to your muskets and decide if you're going to give muskets more shots per turn. If your game turn represents 40 seconds, then we can assume one cannon shot per go, (and three infantry volleys!). But if a game turn allows for just one volley, then your cannon are shooting in just 1 in 3 turns, or, we can say, with a 1/3rd effectiveness.

Therefore canister from one gun, in the 100 yard range example, will threaten, and probably take out 7-9 men per turn, or under 1/60th of the battalion.

Guns per model
But how many guns does your artillery model represent? A battery of 6 guns? Fine; then in the 100 yard range example you could kill 27-54 men, or, say going for the high score), one in 12 men in the battalion per turn.

Kills per gaming 'hit'
And now it's about how many game 'lives' a battalion has in your game? i.e. how many accurate 'hits' can a battalion take before it dies? Perhaps you want, say 3 successful 'hits' for the battalion to die, and you're reckoning collapse at 50% casualties for a line battalion? So three hits represent 300 casualties; one 'hit' represents about 100 men?

Dice used as a delay device, not 'luck'.
And now the dice. Well, frankly, with a 12 pder, large-ball cannister at 100 yards (with 1/3 weight charge), luck doesn't come much into it!! But you're hitting 50 men per turn which will reach nearly enough men to register a game 'hit' every 2 turns. To represent the delay, you can say there's a one in two chance of a game 'hit' in any one turn, i.e. that you have to roll a 4, 5 or 6 with a 6-sided di(c)e to score a hit.

Canister characteristics
As you get further away, strange things happen with cannister because the spread widens and gets more people in its arc. So at 150 yards against line, you may even kill more men than at 100 yards! Further out, the balls are flying on curved tragectories because they're not perfectly round and more miss see chart above). The gun in the example will kill at 1000 yards, but the chances will diminish rapidly, (i.e. exponentially), and for game purposes, even 500-600 yards for this gun with this type of shot and charge may be the 'effective' gaming limit: requiring a roll of 6 on a d6 to score a hit of 100 men. Use a d12 (one hit = 50 men), and, Bingo! you increase your effective range!

Cavalry.
Cavalry, is, of course, much easier to hit than infantry, being twice the height and all! It should be easier to hit: you can work out a short-range kill scale based on the fact a horse took up about a yard of frontage.

Range verses dice roll
The easiest way to get a range-finder against dice-rolling effectiveness (which is what you really want), is to plot the calculations for three ranges on a simple graph, and the boundaries between gaming short, effective and long ranges become obvious.

National characteristics
British cannister had a longer range than French , because of the quality of powder and the more aerodynamic balls. But if you're using smaller balls, then the French might actually kill more men at short ranges.

French 12-pounders had a sustained rate of fire of one round per minute. The smaller calibers (4-, 6-, and 8-pounders) had a sustained rate of two rounds per minute.

For emergencies, the rate of fire would increase per the skill of the crew. Two to four rounds per minute for an emergency would not be unheard of, such as the situation Senarmont found himself in at Friedland when he was attacked by the Russian Guard Cavalry. The gun crews swung trails, relaid the pieces, and fired two rounds of canister apiece and stopped the charge.

Thanks for the responses.

To answer some of the questions.

The reason why I put the reference that 32" would be about a mile is that for some they might want to know this.

As for the scale my battalions are currently 12 figure for most and 16 for Austrian. Artillery is one figure for two guns so a six gun btry would have 3 figures and a cannon.

Game turns would be around 30 minutes of battle time and though an arty btry might be able to fire 30-50 rounds in that time frame this post is about the ranges. The part of how effective they are at those ranges is a whole new subject.

True to be closer to being realistic you could have a chart that covers about 8-10 ranges and has all of the type of arty on it. But I like to make things as simple as they can be so having 3-4 ranges does that.

Yes there are different types of rounds but in game turns we are trying to cover what could happen in a 30 minute time period. So the type of rounds would not be consider here.

As Don pointed out I did come up with some initial ranges that are very close to what he had stated.

Setting the ranges is the easy part it working up the realistic causalities that is a whole lot harder.

Lots of very good insights from many people here. One of the advantages with the bigger positional pieces when firing against troops in the field was not the range of their roundshot, but the range of their canister. ramker makes a very good point about different kinds of canister. Also, many artillerist would double load canister when the range was especially short, or against charging cavalry.

We can discuss rates of fire and potential casualty rates and national characteristics and weight of shot, etc. but you also need to think about "effective" range. In your rules, at what point should artillery fire become a factor. Sure a 12 pounder could shoot a certain distance and theoretically could hit a target at that long range but in practice was that done sufficiently to model in your rules. For instance, if you assume that a 12 pounder can shoot 1000 meters, or 20" in your rules, then you will see players shooting at targets 20" away, causing little or no damage BUT changing the pace of the game. In reality artillery crews may have only fired at that long range if a perfect target appeared otherwise they would try to conserve ammunition. However, if you say that the "effective" long range of the artillery is 16" (or even less) then you probably decrease the frequency of artillery fire rolls but increase the probability of casualties.
Whatever range you set is the range players will start shooting.

The other question is, what are you modelling? If it is the disruptive effect of artillery at long range then your rules must reflect that. I've seen rules where at long range you can hope to disorder a unit. But the problem is disorder is often removed by the unit remaining still. In game terms this was usually ineffective because a defensive unit would almost always remain still and an offensive unit could afford to take the time to reorder.

Remember, just because you can model variances and unpredictability doesn't mean you have to. The fewer times a player has to roll during a turn the faster the turn goes.

Kevin F Kiley
''French 12-pounders had a sustained rate of fire of one round per minute.''
That's an average only. At longer ranges, especially against attacking troops it takes longer to aim and choose charge and tests reckoned on 2 shots in 3 minutes. Shorter ranges, with easy aiming you can get down to 3 shots in two minutes.

Mithmee
''Game turns would be around 30 minutes of battle time and though an arty btry might be able to fire 30-50 rounds in that time frame this post is about the ranges. The part of how effective they are at those ranges is a whole new subject.''

Interesting. But…….Make little sense Sir!:-)

If you're not considering ''effectiveness'', what do you mean by ''range''???

I mean, if you load a 12 pder with enough charge, set the aim once only, had the barrel at the optimum angle for a long flight, chose the best shot and tried 30 times in your 30 minutes with 6 guns, you probably manage to get something 5000 yards away! But you wouldn't kill anything with it! You have to define what the minimum effect is, or else the cut-off range is just arbitary.

At 3680 yards, for example, a 12 pder (according to Prussian trials) can hit a battalion target once in every 20 shots. But if you used cannister, it probably wouldn't even break skin.

On the other hand, your target, obviously, effects range. If your infantry 'unit' is a division, then it's going to get hit at further distances than a lone battalion.

A more modern term used by military planners is the amount of rounds into a target area within a given amount of time.

As Cacadore points out all factors are relative. In regards to the amount of damage that a single firing unit (battery) can inflict upon a single target (battalion) within a given time frame.

With such an extended time frame as 30 minutes, the target will not remain in the same target area for the entire time. This is especially true if the target is advancing to make contact. The range will drastically change, requiring both gun and ammo type adjustments as well.

All will affect the AEV (artillery Effectiveness value)as we call it in our rules. The BIR (barrage Intensity Rating) is the term we tend to use in regards to the amount of rounds into a target area and it will be affected by factors other than simply range as well.

In designing my Napoleonic rules I went through this process,
In my reading of a few books and playing of a few rules
I agreed with Hughs in firepower in that

A British 6 pounder is equal to 100 men (a company is what is stated)

A musket has a max range of 400meters, fired leveled; the ball will strike the ground at 200m. A rifle has a max range of 600 and 300 level.

A musket has twice the rate of fire of a rifle.

A 12 pounder is twice as effective as a 6 pounder but firers slower than a 6

So you get in a "turn"

If a rifle armed company fires one dice then a musket armed company must get to fire two dice.
A 6 pounder gets two dice
A 12 pounder gets one dice (must fire slower). Wait is has potential of less that of a 6 but was considered that it was twice as good. Humm so less potential but twice the effect on the battle field. This must mean that it had greater range and was more accurate so that in use it was twice as effective. Make this work. Ha! Throw in less mobility into the mix and it is headache time

Now this as a base we tested by playing a battle in which the damage that artillery damage is known.

Artillery tested was weak so I added a bombardment phase to the move, fire phases of the turn.
A penalty was decided of a fatigue counter (minus to fire effect and moral possibility of minus to movement.) when a artillery unit fired in both phases in the same turn.
So if you use long range fire you where less effective in short range and so players wanted to save fire, which is what was done in history.
This also gave the rapid fire capability that artillery had in the pinch.

Since the artillery in bombardment fire at long range (before movement) this increased the effect just right, and the players had anther decision to make (to fire in bombardment or not- fatigue or not to fatigue)

Our refight of Neerwinden started with a two-hour bombardment to knock out the enemy artillery so the infantry could close. My fellows are experience and looked at the chart and realized that to close on guns unshot up or unfatigue would get you shot up.
Now training (or lack really) will decrease this potential.

You see rate of fire is a good way to compare, it dose represents a potential.
Now figure out scale which figures, time of turn, numbers of troops per figure movement rates and fire.

Oh some game designers think that these guns could not fire effectively at long range.
Example mercer decided to fire at a French battery at long range (1000m+) over Hougomount. They fired back and Mercer decided to stop firing as the enemy artillery was heavier that his unit (12pdr). The exchange was only a few round and resulted in only one casualty to Mercer's unit but he stop shooting because the enemy long range fire would have been effective if they kept on.

Just some thoughts.
Lord Ghee

a civil war general put his foot out at first bull run to stop a roll shot at the very end of it's range and got it broke off at the knee. the rounds where dangerous until they stopped.

Lord Ghee

Cacadore,

You don't appear to understand what I'm saying about rates of fire. It has nothing to do with ranges, but how the piece is rated in that respect. The sustained rate of fire of a piece, and it is rated by caliber, is what the gun tube is capable of handling without overheating and putting exceptional wear and tear on the gun tube. Each caliber has a gun tube life expectancy which is calculated in how many rounds are fired from it at full charge.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Cacadore,

I would also recommend that you find the difference between maximum range and maximum effective range for the pieces of the period. Field artillery had a maximum effective range of only about 1,000 yards. Canister was about half that or less. Firing at longer ranges was inaccurate and did little harm, if any. Nobody fired at 5,000 yards. And the effects of ricochet fire could not be calculated as the roundshot would bounce randomly after the first graze.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Abit of topic, but I would like to know.

If his rules art. unit is a battery and turn duration is 30min., if the unit fires, how many rounds will be used up in that turn? and how many turns could the art. unit fire before it had no more balls to play with (sorry, could not resist)

Cheers

Guns almost always fired at the closest target. Certainly the command perspective of the rules described should not give the gamer the prerrogative of choosing other targets.

The rate of fire for most batteries was one round every one to three minutes. This conserved ammunition, prevented an overheating of the barrel and more importantlyd delayed crew fatigue. Shovelling it home at a rate of 2 or three times per minute only occurred when under direct threat and it would be extremely inconvenient were the vent to blow or the barrel to sag, or a round to fire prematurely due to an overheated barrel.

Based on the number of rounds available per gun, I suspect that many gamers place a greater faith in the effect of cannister than the artillerymen of the era did. French 12lb guns had a few long range cannister rounds (12 one pound balls) but appear to have been content to use ball which they found just as effective, till the range shortened to 200 yards or so.

The range of guns is mostly greater than the sight lines on even the flattest or hilliest battlefield. The chance for a hit at long range was certainly much less than effective range. Even so given the number of balls fired vs. the number of overall casualties it appears that most were fired at targets at long range.

good gaming.

Bob Coggins

Bob,

The rate of fire also increased when supporting an attack or your own infantry. There was no direct threat for example in Senarmont's or Drouot's artillery attacks at Friedland and Lutzen. I don't think the rate of fire then was one round every one to three minutes.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Kevin,

I was referring to individual foot batteries assigned to support the infantry,they made up the vast majority of guns in an army.

The guns you refer to were massed from corps and army reserves for a grand tactical purpose – usually to blow a hole in the enemy's line. Even so the rate of fire would be no more than one round per minute. To fire at a greater rate until a target got within 200 yards or so would be a waste of ammo. Only when the enemy got within 200 yards or so did they shovel it in.

Senarmont created two Grand Batteries and then he was killed. Never again did so called grand batteries operate as they did under Senarmont. At Friedland Napoleon said to Berthier he feared Senarmont was going to lose the guns. At Wagram the massed French guns suffered horrific casualties when they advanced. Once massed these batteries were capable of blowing a hole in the enemy's line but they had little capability of redeploying to support the attack which all too often blocked their fire. The battle simply left them behind.

The massed guard battery at Lutzen was deployed behind a screen of cavalry and when uncovered it blew the Allied line apart, after which the French advanced over the Allied bodies, masking the guns. Having visited Lutzen I can vouch for the fact that there was no place to hide or shelter. Save for some irrigation ditches along one road, it is almost as flat as a pool table with a few bumps of a few meters. Wagram being a parade ground is much the same.

Good Gaming

Bob Coggins

Bob,

What I stated holds true for wherever an artillery company was assigned or attached.

Senarmont's battery was made up of I Corps artillery only, of which he was chief. He also made use of the same tactic at Ucles in Spain, but the mission was different. His action at Friedland was the de facto main attack. His employment at Ucles was an economy of force mission as the main attack was from the French left flank.

Senarmont fired most of the 2500 rounds expended in 25 minutes against the Russian center. He had 30 guns in line. If he was only firing one round per minute, then that is only 750 rounds. There were two volleys of canister against the Russian Guard cavalry. Taking away, say 500 rounds for the amount fired outside the 25 minute parameter (which is probably too many), that leaves 2,000 rounds to be fired in 25 minutes. That averages to over two rounds per minute.

The expenditure for Senarmont is in both Senarmont's after action report and the I Corps after action report, which was in all probabability not written by Senarmont, as they numbers of rounds expended don't match. They're close, but not a match. Senarmont's is probably the more accurate.

That tactic was not designed to be under either cover or concealment. Generally speaking, artillery had to either be in the open, except for howitzers, on somewhat high ground, or behind some type of field fortification.

Do you have a reference for Drouot's battery being screened by cavalry? I have an eyewitness account, and it isn't mentioned. And Drouot's artillery attack was on Senarmont's model, it was over twice as large, however, and did more damage. The mission was to pave the way for an infantry assault. Both Senarmont and Drouot did the same thing-the blew out the enemy's center. Senarmont counted 4,000 bodies where his action took place the day after the battle. I don't see any cavalry screening a movement that went into slingshot range of the enemy's line. Whose unit was it supposed to be? The Guard cavalry didn't do it, and Latour-Maubourg was on the French left flank. As raw and inexperienced as the French cavalry were in 1813 I can't see them being assigned a mission like that.

Further, French artillery was employed in similar manner to Friedland at Raab, Hanau, Wagram as you mentioned, Ligny, and at Waterloo after the French cavalry attacks, though not under one man's command. Seanrmont revolutionized smoothbore artillery tactics and the French used them until the end of the wars.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Bug above.

Kevin F Kiley,
''You don't appear to understand what I'm saying about rates of fire. It has nothing to do with ranges, but how the piece is rated in that respect….what the gun tube is capable of handling without overheating and putting exceptional wear and tear on the gun tube. Each caliber has a gun tube life expectancy which is calculated in how many rounds are fired from it at full charge.''

Perhaps you're confused a touch: what's maximim 'number of rounds' got to do with 'rate of fire' on a battlefield? Actually, maximum rates of fire are a function of troop training. And it is affected by range, in that adjusting the gun for long range (trajectory as well as direction) gives a rate of much less than the 1 minute you stated. At close range, 3 shots in 2 minutes was considered acceptable for Prussian 12 pders, not 1 minute as you indicated. Perhaps you're confusing rates of fire with saftey recommendation rates: both these rates, were within that advice, cheeky man!

''Field artillery had a maximum effective range of only about 1,000 yards''.
Have a read back. Perhaps you missed the bit where we were asking what ''effective'' means in the first place! You'll find that ''effectiveness'' is relative to quantity of shot. The figures for 10 degrees of elevation, first strike are that one in 20 shots can hit an infantry target, 3 in 40 can hit a cavalry target. If you multiply this by just 3 batteries, then you're hitting with every salvo, especially as each strike is killing in the battalion to a depth of 34-50 yards! And as you probably know, 10 degrees means:

3 pder: 1,700 yards, 6 pder 2,680, 12 pder 3,680 etc. Does your ''1000 yards'' come from some literature? Was it perhaps a mistake?

''Canister was about half that or less. ''Firing at longer ranges was inaccurate and did little harm, if any.''
No. Again, surprisingly simplistic if I may say so. If you use 7 and a half oz balls in the cannister, then up to 1000 yards was considered a usual ''effective'' firing range. But please show us your figures if you have any.:-)

''And the effects of ricochet fire could not be calculated as the roundshot would bounce randomly after the first graze.''
Nope: in fact all countries produced figures for hard ground and for soft ground, but in either, the bounce is only going to be random against rocks! A 3 pounder at 1 degree in dry ground will bounce shot at 1,050, 1,400, 1,575, ,1620 and at 1,665 paces for example. At just under 1000 years, a 12 pder cannonball with half shot charge, landing in a battalion would kill 36 men! Hardly ineffective!
But can you tell us some of your figures, Kevin. It would be interesting to compare them. If you've got any questions then I'd be happy to help.

''Nobody fired at 5,000 yards''.
I never claimed they did, silly!

Best regards

I respectfully disagree. Large groupings of artillery were used in a mobile manner at Friedland, Ocana and Wagram. Mobile being the operative word.

Large massed batteries were used at many subsequent battles including those you referred to. In the French army as the quality of infanty decreased the number of guns increased but so too did the opponents increase the number of their guns, thus the slaughter of the Wagram battery when it advanced. I would buy into the advance of the guns in the grand battery at Borodino at the end of the day as the Russians feeblely attempted to maintain order but other than increasing the slaughter and expending more rounds the redeployment did not add to the victory.

At Raab the guns were used to bombard the fort and town, they did not advance because a stream and soft ground protected the Austrian front. At Hanau 30 or so Guard guns slipped around the flank of a wood and discomfitted the Bavarians after which the Old Guard pushed Wrede out of the way. At Ligny a massed battery was set up in the Tombe de Ligny where it remained bombarding Ligny, St.Armand and the Prussian reinforcements. The only practical crossing was through Ligny which did not fall till the end of the battle. Because of this the guns did not move. At Waterloo the guns remained stationary the entire day, doing what they could. Most were captured for the lack of horses and the fatigue of the men.

Senarmont may or may not have been a genious but he certainly did not do anything that was not thought of by some of the French military philosophers in the 18th Century. The size of his battery at Friedland was 30 some guns the vast majority of which were 4lbrs and the Russians as all too often occurred were suffering from a failure in command. Thus units stood and died as the Russians always did, stoically. So too at Ocana was Senarmont's target practically immobile. They did not die stoically they ran away and were run down by the French cavalry.

I am highly respectful of the quality of the French and English guns and the gunners especially the French but I am highly dubious of a group of guns gaining some sort of magical increase in firepower. If there was magic it was in the concentration of the firepower on a narrow front.

It is not a coincidnece that the more guns Napoleon had the less successful he was. Even his stunning victories in 1813 for the lack of pursuit were hollow.

You are of course free to think otherwise.

Good Gaming.

Bob Coggins

Cacadore,

I would be most happy to see your references.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Bob,

The greater majority of Senarmont's battery at Friedland was 6-pounders. It's in the after action reports. And, yes, Senarmont did do something different. Commanders had massed guns before, but no one had taken a large battery and employed it as the main attack in a major battle. That was new, and quite effective. Drouot's attack at Lutzen was the same thing, but larger, and the massed artillery at Ligny did the same thing.

The breakdown by caliber of Senarmont's battery at Friedland is: 20 6-pounders, 4 4-pounders, and 6 5.5-inch howitzers. It is in his after action report which is reproduced on pages 224-226 of the book Grand Artilleurs by Girod de l'Ain. Rounds expended by the battery and casualties are also listed in the report.

It appears that we will have to agree to disagree.

Sincerely,
Kevin

just some thoughts,

why is it that 1000yds is consider to be max effective range?

My belief is that it is do to the fact that it is very hard to see damage done to the enemy.

on the history channel I saw a black powder cannon shoot out. a group gets together to fire cannons. The smooth bore 12 lber competed well until the thousand yard range where the two 3" guns out shot it (2 to 1 if I remember) then the 3" civil war errors guns fire at a news page on a 4 by 8 sheet of ply wood, scary thing is that it came down to the closest to center as both guns hit the paper.!!

lastly

At waterloo the French guns displaced twice and some moved three times.

Lord Ghee

The French artillerist Gassendi was of the opinion that effective artillery roundshot ranges were:

4 pounder: 700 metres
8 pounder: 800 metres
12 pounder: 800 – 900 metres

With canister:

4 pounder: 400 metres
8 pounder: 550 metres
12 pounder: 600 metres

Howitzers with shell 700 – 1200 metres.

I've always felt these were given as practical maximums bearing in mind likely undulations in terrain, effects of smoke on visibility and the need to use ammunition effectively and efficiently.

- Allan

Hello Mithmee,

Just a question on what theather you are playing – I am assuming that the period is 18thC. If you are gaming a European field of battle on flat or rolling plains very good. If you are playing AWI / FIW then terrian will make a big difference in the effective range of your guns. Also movement of the guns on the battlefield will also be less in NA.

This seems to be getting into a forest for the trees argyment. You cannot have a set of rule mechanics that can be challenged due to a single historical event. Mechanics must be based upon the average of all of the relative data.

National modifications yes, weather and other such factors yes.

Fair enough,
But for the gamer, you want the options that are realistically available at the time: and if you can fire to nearly 4000 yards, then why not? I mean, you might as well, if you've got the shot available.

What does 'effective' mean?

We need to know what Mithmee thinks 'effective' means. I hope he doesn't simply want what gunners at the time thought 'effective' means because that's just a complete minefield. 'Effective' is just a word. Different nations applied it differently (as Lion of the Forest shows). In some, it indicated maximum distance recommended for an opening barrage, to others it's on a scale of long, effective and short. For cannister, you're indicating the point of recommended change over from ball.

Yet we know how many men you could kill at different distances with different charge and different shot: there's no mystery. But if you call up a fog, you'll get a fog.

Mind you, moves of 30 minutes? You could gallop from one side of the battlefield to the other in that time

Kevin F Kiley
''Id be most happy to see your references''.

There's a lot of them. But tell me a particular fact, and I'll look it up, by all means

Effective fire can be determined in any number of ways. Battlefield visibility is one. Random fire, verses lign-of sight fire is another. At long ranges, the cannon were having a destructive potential equal to the point of impact, due to the elevation of the piece. At lower elvations, the destructive potential was along an entire line, which was the flight of the ball. The greater the elevation over 2 degrees, the less amounts of grazes the ball had, in addition to more of the balls path or flight being over 6 feet in heigth.

If I misremembered weight I take it back. Were they Year XIs or were they captured and if they were captured whose manufacture were they?

The basics of my position however is the the concept of mobile grand batteries is based on a few spectacular events, not what was generally possible.

I always considered effective range, 0 degree elevation. At this elevation the ball will theoretically skip across the battlefield always below the height of a man, sorta like bowling. Long range is any distance at which the tube must be elevated to reach it. Think of effective range as bowling and long range as horseshoes, you either hit the stake or you do not but what you do not hit is the groung between the stakes – well hopefully.

To my understanding 1000 yds is considered the maximum distance a 12lb French ball would reach at 0 degree elevation.

Good Gaming.

Bob Coggins

Nay Rudy Nay,

if a rule mechanic can not allow for that one historical example then it is flawed.

of course since we are not shooting cannon at each other then all rules will be flawed in some ways

:)

Lord Ghee

got to go to work

More on effective range and real range rules debate.

Jack Coggins' fine book Arms and Equipment of the Civil War, reproduces a table that was supposed to be pasted to the inside of ever ammo chest for the (Union) light 12-pdr gun-howitzer (aka the "Napoleon"). It shows ranges for various types of ammunition at various elevations. The very first of several notes at the bottom says "Use shot at masses of troops, and to batter, from 600 to 2,000 yards." So obviously the U.S. army did not consider it to be a waste of ammunition to fire beyond 1,000 yards. Note also that the Napoleon was a gun-howitzer, whose tube was only 66" long -- some 12" shorter than the 12-pdr gun it replaced.

Another book that needs to be checked out Artillery Through the Ages: Short illustrated history of the cannon emphasizing types used in America'by Albert Manucy, 1949 by the USA National park Service. If this has already been mentioned I apologize for listing it again.

Don,

The artillery pieces of the Civil War, even though smoothbores, were 'better' gun tubes than those of the Napoleonic period. The artillery arm had advanced somewhat with better casting methods, better gunnery, better optics (sights), and better, more reliable ammunition. It's comparing apples and oranges. And then we get to rifling…

Sincerely,
Kevin

Rudy,

Agree-it's a handy little book and is the one that started me on artillery a long time ago…

Sincerely,
Kevin

Kevin Kiley's estimate of 1000 yards as effective range for the period is actually pretty good for most natures of cannon, except for light 3pndrs. Even a heavy 3pndr could have made 1000 yards with good accuracy I would think. 1000 yards is actually a range based on good battlefield visibility(I assume), so one should figure perhaps on different ranges depending on what stage the battle was in, for the increasing smoke would definately decrease visibilty. On the other hand, allowance should be made for long range fire, which could disrupt enemy morale at ranges longer than 1000 yards in the early stages of battle, and it could especially disrupt enemy camps, and make river crossing difficult, and make it hard for the enemy to deploy on high ground even before the battle started.
Also, canister range should be considered, for though the range of most the balls fired from the various calibers would be effecitve up to a thousand yards, the canister and grape ranges were highly variable, and all were within the range of good battlefield visibility. What is more, the ranges depended on more than just caliber, but also on the length of the cannon, and upon the strength of the service charge(that most commonly used), which aften manifested in the thickness of the cannon.

You all have good points.

But best is to follow the following rule :

KEEP THINGS SIMPLE !

Ranges will vary with fatigue, training, weather, type of terain, distance, caliber etc. …

And we can all argue about the damage a solid, grape or other shot would do.
Then you could say a canon ball is a canon ball and if it touches you whatever the caliber the effect will be the same you will loose a vital part of your body.

The way i would do it :
give same fire damage to all artillery.
Give different ranges from light (shortest) to 12 Lb ( furtherest).

Put in a few modifiers but not to many.

Just keep in mind that the artillery should not be too strong to make the game enjoyable.

Have a good Easter !!!

LordGlee,

Lets try that shoot out with someone shooting back at you. Trust me the results would have been quite different.

Also I was bringing up artillery in the Napoleonic era and not in the Civil War era. The artillery of the 1860's was far and above better than the artillery of the early 1800's

As Jean Luc as pointed out we do want to keep things simple but still give the appearance of realism. I do not think that anyone would enjoy rules if before you fired your artillery you would need to cross reference everything on 4 charts. May be one or two gamers might but the rest do not.

Yes an artillery unit would most likely not be firing at extreme ranges since they know that their fire would not as effective. But on the other hand they would not allow a unit to march up to them without firing on them.

Also a Grand Btry of 36 guns would be more effective than a single btry of 6 guns. But since this post was about realistic ranges the point of just now effective artillery is at the different ranges is a whole new subject.

Now what I came up with is the following all distence are in meters and with the distance in inches.

4 pdr – Canister range 200 4"
– Effective range 450 9"
– Max range 900 18"

6 pdr – Canister range 300 6"
– Effective range 600 12"
– Max range 1,200 24"

8 pdr uses the same ranges as 6 pdr's.

12 pdr – Canister range 450 9"
– Effective range 900 18"
– Max range 1,500 30"

The canister ranges mean that from zero inches to the stated amount an artillery unit could use canister rounds.

The effective ranges mean that from zero to the stated amount artillery units can only use round shot but they would be far more effective than firing at the max range.

The max ranges set the outer limit on just how far they can shoot. But once they get into this set of ranges the overall effectiveness will be greatly reduced. They could still cause casualities but they would be far less than if firing in the effective range area.

Kevin said: >"The artillery pieces of the Civil War, even though smoothbores, were 'better' gun tubes than those of the Napoleonic period. The artillery arm had advanced somewhat with better casting methods, better gunnery, better optics (sights), and better, more reliable ammunition. It's comparing apples and oranges. And then we get to rifling…"<

As far as I know, the main advances in artillery (not counting rifling -- a whole "nother" subject) between the N era and the ACW was in making both the tube and the carriage lighter, which allowed for the increased use of larger calibers (12-pdrs substantially replacing 6-pdrs, at least in the eastern theater) and gun-howitzers replacing the old long guns and short howitzers, at least in the Union's Army of the Potomac. I doubt that there was much improvement in the actual range/accuracy of any given caliber. Ammunition might have become more reliable, but I don't know that it did. As for "optics" they still fired over open sights.