"Realistic Artillery Ranges" Topic

Mithmee.
''Yes an artillery unit would most likely not be firing at extreme ranges since they know that their fire would not as effective''

I don't see why they wouldn't fire, just because they were killing less men! And how do you decide what 'extreme range' is?

''But once they get into this set of ranges the overall effectiveness will be greatly reduced.''

Yes. But still enough to be worth firing.

''They could still cause casualities but they would be far less than if firing in the effective range area.''

We know that. So what do you mean by ''effective''? What is your 'effective range area'' based on? Otherwise I'm not sure why you asked us, if you're just making it up at random!:-) Even Shako rules has short/effective/long ranges for 3 types of guns, and they're based on kill ratios. And I'm not sure why anyone would need anything simpler than Shako.

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

Luke Mulder 08 Apr 2007 6:18 p.m. PST
''Even a heavy 3pndr could have made 1000 yards with good accuracy I would think''.

Probably a bit further, in fact. Even a 3 pder can reach 1,345 yards on just it's 3rd strike. But why limit it to 0 degrees when real gunners didn't? At even 10 degrees, you can kill substantial numbers of men. And you can see for miles with a telescope.

Actually, even with cannister, with 7 and a half oz balls, with powder to shot ratio of 1/3 to 1/2, 1000 yards was considered 'effective'.

Jean Luc
But best is to follow the following rule :
KEEP THINGS SIMPLE !

If you calculate the maximumn range that gets you the effect you want, then that's not only simple, it's also realistic!

Luke Mulder
''Kevin Kiley's estimate of 1000 yards as effective range for the period is actually pretty good for most natures of cannon,''

A 12 pder at just under 2000 yards, is getting one shot per battery on target, and thus killing substantial numbers.

What was normal (according to the Hannover Museum – am Hohen ufer)a defending army, with a range of pieces, was to unlimber and start shooting when the advancing army was at:

2,000 yards in flat country
1,500 yards in broken country and,
1,200 in all cases (where 30% of shots are hitting the target).
At 900 paces 50% of shots are getting on target.

In attack, what was normal, was for the guns to advance with the infantry and start firing at 1,200 yards, then advance and fire again etc until 400 yards from the enemy line.

And no one's even mentioned howitzers! The British could fire battlefield howitzers to 1,900 yards, the French to 1,600 yards. A typical shell from one of these might explode into 20 pieces flung 150 yards. Imagine one of these in your vitals!

Cacadore,

Do you know what type of range finder they were using on Napoleonic battlefields, and how accurate it was?
Can you calculate the trajectory of a cannon ball so that you know what final yardage of its flight to first graze at 1200 yards would be below 1.6 meters?
Do you know or are able to work out what 5% difference in muzzle velocity or 1/2 degree in muzzle elevation would do to the first graze?
Do you thus have any idea of how likely it would be to actually hit what you were firing at over 1000 yards away?

And lastly have you ever really thought about the practicality of using a telescope 'miles away' to spot the strike of said ball which may hit anywhere within say a 100 yard square and know which gun fired the shot?

Somehow I think not.

Visibility and acquisition of a target is not a simple and easy task. Identification is also a major factor, being able to fire up to 3-4000 yards is great but practicality says that Target determination of the day was much much shorter.

Visibility ranges come into play depending of the terrain, weather conditions, smoke and even uniform colour will play such an important part that trying to fire on a target over 1,000 yards is more often than not worth the time, effort and ammunition expenditure to do so.

At the beginning of Borodino Napoleon had to waste precious time to advance his entire gun line closer to the Russian positions simply because it was found the French gun positions were too far from the Russian lines to make bombardment practical. Rather than shoot the enemy at the longer range Napoleon ordered the gun positions advanced into effective range of the Russians.

Basically, a mistake was made, Napoleon rectified it by ordering the gun line forward and the bombardment recommenced. If firing at long range was practical why would Napoleon bother to Limber up all those guns, advance them towards the Russians and unlimber them once more to fire ? Effectiveness of the fire might have a lot to do with it…

Regards,
Shane

A good definition of maximum effective range can be found here:

link

Here's the NATO definition:

link

And another. I do hope this helps as the question was asked.

link

Ah, this old chestnut!

The most important factor (other than limiting terrain) in effective range was the degree of tube elevation. The ideal situation was to leave the tube at rest and fire at 0 degrees elevation, as then the entire path of the shot until strike was at man-height. This not only produced an effectively 100% killing zone, but it made line-of-sight firing very easy. In addition, it also made "bounce-through" fire (often cited in wargames but not so often properly understood) possible – at higher degrees of elevation bounce-through fire was more limited, as the shot tended to stick in the earth, having struck at a higher angle.

First strike at 0 degrees was on average about 500 yards, somewhat less (400 yards) for very light shot (3lb and possibly 4lb), and perhaps a bit more for heavier shot (12lb). Coincidentally, this was also the effective range of cannister, although it peaked at 300 yards and could be extended a bit farther by heavier guns using heavier cannister.

Where bounce-through fire was possible – given proper terrain *and* an ideally stationary target – the effective killing zone could be increased by several hundred yards (an estimate ranges from 100 yards to 200 for heavier shot).

Now, an increase in elevation of 1 degree could range shot out to 7-800 yards, however it negated the full-flight killing path and reduced bounce-through. Since this was essentially the same range as bounce-through fire could achieve, it was probably only used when such fire was not possible. Because of the more difficult sighting, fire must have been slower, and firing at moving targets would have been difficult.

An increase to 2 degrees of elevation was considered the maximum practical. It could range shot out to 9-1200 yards, but the firing effects were of course even more marked then for 1 degree firing.

These effects meant that there was a significant difference between the effect of artillery fire in the "point-blank killing zone" and the longer "bombardment" ranges. Fire at longer ranges would have been increasingly difficult (and thus slower) if either the battery or the target were moving.

To simplify things for tabletop, a good estimate is something like the following:

All Guns: Maximum effective cannister to 300 yards.

Light Guns: effective fire to 400 yards, little effective bounce-through, possibley to 500 yards, slow fire to 1000 yards.

Medium Guns: effective fire to 500 yards, possible bounce-through to 600 yards, slow fire to 1100 yards.

Heavy Guns: effective fire to 600 yards, possible bounce-through to 800 yards, slow fire to 1200 yards.

I hope that makes sense … The real variable here is the bounce-through zone. An interesting variable to add to your games is good/bad terrain that effectively increases/decreases the killing zone of your artillery. Watch your players concentrate guns on good ground and seek bad ground for the attack!

Cheers,

Christopher

The original question seeed to me to be based around realistic artillery ranges, now I am left wondering is realistic the same as effective.
Using the last reference Kevin gave us

"The maximum distance at which a weapon may be expected to be accurate and achieve the desired result."

Surely the desired result may exclude effective, I am aware that Napoleon used his artillery as psyhological weapon just as well as an innstrument to cause death and destruction.
Therefore would it not be likely that artillery could be used beyond effective range as long as your "desired result" was psychological.
Even accuracy wouldnt have been neccesarily a requirement, merely to have those balls whizzing around, over and occassionaly through may have been enough to disrupt psychologically any unsteady troops.

Against steady troops obviously noise alone wouldnt be enough, then effectiveness does become an issue.

To me it seems less about what range a gun does to its target as opposed to what the gun does in relationship to what YOU want it to do.
If you are merely holding the enemies attention, blasting away is an effective way of doing that. If you are hoping to unsteady them, again not a bad way to do that.
If you want to cause casualties and I mean effective casualties surely that bu definition means you must set up "inside" the capable range of a weapon.

So how far it shoots and kills isnt all that much of an issue in conjunction of the question asked about realistic application of artillery.
For example if in your rules you had a clause in your morale rules about

"unit under artillery fire" then your battery is effective

however if you are basing your rules on
"x figures killed this turn" then effectiveness and realism dictate that your guns need to be closer.

Regards

Barry

ok, not a lot of proof reading going on in that post.

Barry,

I've really never seen anything definitive that stated that Napoleon used artillery for psychological reasons, except to stiffen his own conscripts, which was one of the purposes of reintroducing regimental artillery in 1809.

What the French expected the artillery to do was cause casualties, hopefully quite a few.

Sincerely,
Kevin

One must not forget that a game represents a :
combination of factors done in abstract space and time.

nothing can be realistic you can aim to get close to realism and complicated, i would see A LOT of circumstances that one would need to take account of while writing some rules.

i would again i repeat myself keep things simple.

use fatigue and amunition.

Ranges should should reflect weather, fog of war, incompetence, elevation etc.etc…

Christopher,

Could you please define what you mean by 'light,' 'medium,' and 'heavy' guns? If you're trying to subdivide field artillery pieces, then I submit you're using the wrong terms, which is important. Heavy guns were siege, or battering, pieces and garrison artillery. Light artillery encompassed field artillery which was foot, horse, and mountain artillery. That's from period manuals.

There should be little or no limiting factor for mobility for field artillery except as by which system, or nation's artillery, you're talking about. The French preferred the 8-pounder as a horse artillery piece until replaced by the new 6-pounder, and thought their 12-pounder was light enough for the same service. The Austrians had no horse artillery per se, their cavalry batteries were limited in mobility and had to be supported by cavalry, not the other way round as in true horse artillery. The Russian gun teams were larger than other nations, and even the British in the Waterloo campaign beefed up their horse teams in the horse artillery troops.

Nomenclature is important, including the correct terms for the guns sidearms, etc. It's a common language and it is confusing when the wrong terms are used to describe something inaccurately. It is still being done in books and is amazing to me as the correct material has been published and is easy to access.

Regarding ranges, you might want to get hold of du Teil's Usage in English if you're not comfortable in French. It's available from George Nafziger. It's the only doctrinal document of the period that covers subjects above the battery/comapny/brigade/troop level for artillery.

One of the things du Teil remarks upon is that the effectiveness of artillery starts at 1050 yards and less, not more. He states that they should never open fire at a distance greater than 1050 yards.

This 'table' might help:

Mawimum effective range of a 12-pounder is 1,000 yards for solid shot and 650 for canister; for a 6- or 8-pounder gun 900 and 600 respectively; a 4-pounder 800 and 450; and for a 6-inch howitzer 1300 (shell) and 550.

This information is for French field pieces and it should be noted that the term 'pound' is a different weight for different countries. For example, a French 8-pounder is almost the equivalent of the English 9-pounder, and the pound used by the Austrians was less than that of the French pound.

Lastly, the French mathematician Belidor was the person who figured out that powder charges could be less for guns than previously thought. That was one of the elements that allowed gun tubes to be lightened and that made artillery more mobile. Further, in Gribeauval's tests at Strasbourg in 1764, his new guns had the same range and hitting power as the old Valliere gun tubes which were much heavier and longer. He also built copies of Austrian and Prussian guns from plans he had procured from them and tested them in France. It was one of the reasons his new tubes were still heavier and sturdier than the Austrian and Prussian guns.
And his new pieces were as mobile as the older Prussian and Russian guns. There is no evidence that I have seen that the Gribeauval pieces were too heavy.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Kevin,

No, I certainly will not define what I mean by light, medium, and heavy guns!

You are surely the only person in this thread who doesn't know what I mean by light/medium/heavy guns – or, more to the point, the only person who consistently *pretends* not to understand these terms as commonly used so that he can engage in some self-gratifying jargon. I'm sure it pleases you – but like most such things you would be better advised to keep it to yourself and polish your jargon in private.

To be clear, as you seem liable to wander off-target: I'm very well aware of the higher level distinctions in terminology, and I am using lower level distinctions suitable to the topic. Please accept this earth-shattering methodological dissonance and move on – it will prevent me from mocking you more thoroughly and derailing the thread.

As for your lengthy references to mobility – I have no idea to what you are referring, as the topic never came up in my post!

Christopher,

Then you are incorrect in your artillery terminology and if you're attempting to state that their was 'heavy' field artillery, then you're wrong.

And thanks for your prompt response.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Kevin F. Kiley wrote: >"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…"<

So far as I know, the ACW guns were "better" in that the tubes and carriages were lighter, allowing 12-pdr "Napoleons" to be substituted for the old 6-pdrs guns and 12-pdr howizters. It had little if anything to do with better optics (they still fired over open sights). Ammunition might have been somewhat better, but that has more to do with consistency/reliability than range as such. And, of course, the Napoleon, being a gun-howitzer was capable of using shell and shrapnel as well as shot, but this, again, does not change the range at which a gunner can see and hit a worthwhile target. Same goes for substituting friction primers for portfires/linstocks. Rifling is a whole "nother" subject.

Incidentally, I found, in Round Shot and Rammers by Harold R. Peterson, a reproduction of the equivalent ammo-box-lid chart (as mention above for the 12-pdr Napoleon) for the 6-pdr gun (presumably Model 1840). It also includes the identical statement: "Use SHOT at masses of troops, and to batter, from 600 up to 2,000 yards."

BTW, the longest range shown for shot with a 6-pdr is 1523 yards (5 degrees elevation), while the longest shown for the 12-pdr is 1680 yards (same elevation). While both are significantly less than 2,000 yards, they are also significantly more than 1,000.

The same book also shows the muzzle velocity of the 6-pdr gun as 1,449 ft. per sec., and of the 12-pdr "Napoleon" as 1,440 fps. (The old 12-pdr gun of 1840 was 1,486 fps.)

In skimming the relevant chapters, I could not find any indication of "effective ranges" in either Coggins or Peterson.

Don,

The metallurgy had progressed to the point where less metal per pound of round could be used to cast the gun tubes so they were lighter. Further, such things as dolphins and the outer reinforces were done away with.

If you compare the sights used in the Civil War and the Napoleonic period (the best of that time probably being the rear adjustable sight that Gribeauval came up with), you'll see the improvement.

There are three Civil War period artillery manuals that you might find useful. I have them and they are a wealth of information.

-The Artillerist's Manual by John Gibbon
-Ordnance and Gunnery by James Benton
-Field Artillery Tactics by William French, William Barry, and Henry J. Hunt

There is more than anyone ever needed to know about Civil War period artillery in these three books. They are indispensable.

There was also a 'sight' referred to as a 'French glass' which allowed targets to be registered and numbered so that the gun crews could refer back to them and fire on them if necessary. One of the Union batteries on Cemetery Hill actually did this at Gettysburg with great success. It was accurate and it helped in repeling a Confederate attack on the position. So, yes, the optics were much better.

Sincerely,
Kevin

JeffsaysHi,

1) ''Do you know what type of range finder they were using on Napoleonic battlefields, and how accurate it was?''
What's the relavance how it was done, if it was done?

2) ''Can you calculate the trajectory of a cannon ball so that you know what final yardage of its flight to first graze at 1200 yards would be below 1.6 meters?''
You forgot to state the elevation! LOL! Come on, you can do better than that. I would hope!

3)''Do you know or are able to work out what 5% difference in muzzle velocity or 1/2 degree in muzzle elevation would do to the first graze?''
Again, you neglected to state the initial elevation. Oh, or the shot weight. Doh!

4)''Do you thus have any idea of how likely it would be to actually hit what you were firing at over 1000 yards away?''
Yes. I've stated specific figures already.

5)''And lastly have you ever really thought about the practicality of using a telescope 'miles away' to spot the strike of said ball which may hit anywhere within say a 100 yard square and know which gun fired the shot?''
You would advocate range-by-fire after the barrage had already started? This would be artillery doctrine in… what, the Grand Duchy of Jeffworld?

''I think not'' and ''At sub 1000 yards there was little difference in accuracy and little difference in plain killing power.''

Jeffsayshi, if you don't know anything about the subject, then why not try to learn something from those who do, instead of being unpleasant? What a divvy means of communication.

>"There is more than anyone ever needed to know about Civil War period artillery in these three books."<

Which probably explains why I don't have copies. :) Do they happen to say anything about "effective" ranges?

CATenWolde,
We appear to be coming at this from different directions and our conclusions are fairly different. But that's OK. I'm quoting field tests for statistical kill 'effectiveness' made primarily by the Prussian and Hannovor armies – Artillerie Feldversuche, Comparitive Versuche der Artillerie-Strecken documents in the am Hohen Ufer, Hannover, or the Wherhistorisches, Rastatt, or the Heeresgeschichtliches, Vienna. There's also a lot of information on the effects of shot/charge ratios in RA manuals in Chelsea. I think it's interesting to know that at over 2000 yards to first strike, all gun types can still kill infantry to a depth of 14 yards, or that at over 1,500 yards, all types can kill cavalry to a depth of 50 yards: that's no insignificant amount, and triangulation gives gunners pretty accurate ranges (and accuracy is again measurable). In contrast, you are making very reasonable estimates for calibre ranges for practical gaming (especially with battalion units) and the only thing we both lack, is to know what number of 'kills' per shot mithmee's game wants to register! After all, if his game 'registers' one dead man, then we should be talking about 3,800 yards! If it only wakes up at a 50-75 man strike (like most games), then, your ranges fit fine.

A zero-degree elevated 12 pder, reaches 950 yards (allowing for accuracy) to first strike (and kills for a horrible and bloody 135 yards). But if you want an average practical 'range' based on all terrain types and high 'kill' registers, then something over 500 yards in a battalion game would fit.

What I can't fathom, is why, when some of us have some useful knowledge, and others are making resonable gaming suggestions, there are others off on planet Zog discussing Russain horses and NATO!

Kevin F Kiley,
''Most of your information on artillery, ranges, and gunnery are also incorrect.''
Yeeeeees. Yet you won't tell me which. Suspicious?

Re: Kevin's References

''I have at least twenty period references on artillery''
Yet your concrete references appear to be from a different era of warfare: the ACW!

or:

''maximum effective range: The maximum distance at which a weapon may be expected to be accurate and achieve the desired result.''

Which is from…. er NATO, post WW2!

And tells us nothing!

Chandler :
ranges up to
12Lb
canister : 600m
ball efetive : 900m
max range :1800

trailchest and caisson :
ammunition : 57 balls / 20 canister
rof : 1/min

8 LB
canister : 500m
ball efetive : 800m
max range : 1500m

trailchest and caisson :
ammunition : 77 balls / 20 canister
rof : 2/min

4Lb
canister : 400m
ball efecive : 700m
max range : 1200m

trailchest and caisson :
ammunition : 118 balls / 50 canister
rof : 2 to 3/min

6 inch how
canister : 200m
shell ranges : 700m
max shell range : 1200m

trailchest and caisson :
ammunition : 53 shells / 11 canister
rof : 1/min

quote :
at the opening of an action, the corps and divisional artillery would often ride out in front of the infantry and unlimbering at less than 500 yards range from the enemy line, commence fire with canister shot with no more ado…….

as napoleon saw it, the artillery was expected to fulfill 3 roles.
1- at the opening of the action the divisional and corps art. had the task of supporting the infantry and at the same time battering away at the ennemy's points d'apuis (strong points.
2- as the precursor of the main attack -….-the greater part of the art. reserve would be rushed to the front -…- to lay down an intensive bombardement, assisted by every aviable corps and divisional gun, in order to batter a breach…
3- in the pursuit (or withdrawl) phase, the horse art. was ordered to accompany and support the light cav., filling gaps in the line when necessary.

oddly if we play games and if 1 turn is 30 min the 12 LB shoot for 2 turns with balls and 1 turn of canister

after that ammo is depleted…

hmmm makes me think a lot

now i have a head ache !

rate of fire x time = effect

I read somewhere that Napoleon thought that,

a 12 pounder round was worth 3 causities as an average.

so is a 6 pounder was worth half so 1.5 for an average.

30 minutes at 1 round a minute = 90 causities from a 12 pounder.

Lord Ghee

Gentlemen
One important factor governing long range artillery fire between the SYW and the ACW was the quality and affordability of optical aids. In the SYW we may presume that general officers had telescopes (they had been around since the early 17th century)but I doubt whether many/any battery commanders had. By the Napoleonic period telescopes were better and cheaper and the first primitive range-finders were available. Barr and Stroud advertised a 'calibrated telescope' in the 1780s and Scharnhorst refers to such a device in The Military Field Pocket book (my copy is the English translation of 1811). Coignet gives an account of long-range artillery 'sniping' in 1813. Napoleon was observing enemy movements with his 'small glass' (pocket telescope)"Suddenly … he shouted, 'There is Moreau. That is he with a green coat on, at the head of a column with the emperors. Gunners, to your pieces! Marksmen, look through the large glass! Be quick! When they are half-way up the hill they will be within range." Napoleon then observed Moreau's fall with his small telescope. This may be an exaggerated account since Coignet was getting on when he wrote his memoirs but it suggests that individuals could be distinguished at long range with a telescope. Was the 'large glass' (a telescope on a tripod) calibrated? Napoleon's order suggests that it was. By the time of the ACW field-glasses (which are are easier to use in action than telescopes) were widely used. Ada Lightsey (quoted by Brent Nosworthy) records an instance of a Confederate sniper being shot from a tree at Petersburg at the range of a mile by a rifled gun. The fall of shot was observed through field glasses.

CATenWolde's use of light , medium and heavy is quite common among gamers of Napoleonic and those of other eras who are not concerned with highly detailed debates. I am surprised that such terms needed specific pundage listed.

When I have used the terms 3 and 4 pounders are regarded as Light, 6 and 8 pounders tend to be Medium, heavy guns are 12 pounders and 10" howitzers. Some gamers also include sightly higher poundage. A fourth term which is common is the phrase Siege guns which refers to 18 pounder guns and heavier.

Cacadore,
Your sweeping statements that appear inaccurate are accompanied by a refusal to answer quite simple questions for someone of any knowledge of ballistics which is essential to understanding why 1000 yards range comes up as a practical maximum.

Quite simply what is the answer (ignoring drag) to
1) Time taken for a cannon ball with a muzzle velocity of 1200 feet per second to travel 1000 yards?
2) Assuming the muzzle is 4 feet from the ground at what distance from the muzzle would the ball strike the ground if there was 0 degrees angle between the line of the bore and flat level ground at 1200 fps muzzle velocity?
3) At what angle would the bore have to be in relation to flat level ground to strike at 1000 yards with 1200 fps muzzle velocity
4) Approximately what is the maximum height reached by the ball when fired to strike at 1000 yards with 1200fps muzzle velocity?
5) The approximate part of its flight it would have been below 1.6m?

I can answer these simple questions along with the mathematical formulae to derive them.
How many can you show us the answer to?

If you answer all of them I will issue a truly grovelling apology (but then be utterly unable to understand your inability to comprehend the 1000 yard practicality)

I also use in my rules ranges such as Point Blank, Effective and Long Range. These terms I have taken from many sources to get the right feel to my system. I even break down the differing ranges not only by calibre but also by design or national characteristics of the guns.

Basically a 12pndr has an Effective Range of between 800-1000 yards and a Long Range of around 1900-2400 yards depending on the design etc… each other calibre is matrix-ed in to realistic ranges after taking the information from the many sources which give this information. I suggest Kevin's book Artillery is given a good look over as he devotes an entire section to this area with great tables to gain the information from.

I strongly advocate a good set of rules taking on board National Characteristics of each nations guns as stated in the books. you would be surprised at the differences alone between say an Austrian 12pndr and a French 12pndr etc…not to mention all the other calibres.

Regards,
Shane

JeffsaysHi,

''Quite simply what is the answer (ignoring drag) to
1) Time taken for a cannon ball..to travel 1000 yards?……….(etc) I can answer these simple questions along with the mathematical formulae to derive them.''

Good for you. So why don't you then?

One source of confusion between light and heavy is that the terms are used for two different things to describe 18th/early 19th century cannon, both now, and even back then. One use of the terms is to denote caliber of the cannon, but the other is to denote thickness of the barrel and length, both together best measured in terms of ball wieghts of the barrel. For example, "this barrel weighed 280 times more than the ball which it fired." As far as I can tell, this confusing use of the terms light and heavy has been going on since at least the 18th century. Origanlly, light and heavy were used to denote the amount of bareel thickness for a given caliber, but by the 1700s the words were also being haphhazardly used to describe calibers.

dear Jeffsays Hi,

1000yds or less might be "effective" but if this is the only range or less that can be fought at the you can not refight waterloo.

this happen with us as Napoleon I surrender when the rules where pass out at a waterloo game my group did for you could only fire at effective.

clearly artillery fought at greater ranges for they did.

Lord Ghee

Shane Devries
'' I even break down the differing ranges not only by calibre but also by design or national characteristics of the guns.''

That's a good point: the maximum charges (which is what gets you the range) for the various nations' guns varies -but seemingly only for the smaller guns:

Nation
Gun calibre: charge in lbs, expressed in decimals. Two figures represent two gun types (plus charge as a fraction of projectile weight)

Austria
12 pder: 3 (1/4)
6 pder: 1.5 (1/4)
3 pder: 0.84 (7/24)
Prussia
12 pder: 4 (1/3)
6 lber: 2.5(3/8)
Britian
12 pder: 4(1/3)
6 pder: 2/1.5(1/3 or 1/4)
Russia
12 pder: 4(1/3)
6 pder: 2(1/3)
France
12 pder: 4(1/3)
8 pder: 2.5(5/16)
4 pder: 1.5(3/8)

So: range of 12 pders don't vary at all (except perhaps Austria).

''I suggest Kevin's book Artillery is given a good look over as he devotes an entire section to this area with great tables to gain the information from''

I'm beginning to doubt Kevin's figures. His book plug says he got the figures from ''research into regulations of the period, eyewitness accounts of artillerymen and material culled from official reports – this is a definitive account''. But his examples here are (very oddly) from the ACW: 50 years later.

The figures I quote are actual Napoleonic-era field trials. You can judge which are the most useful, I guess.

e.g.
Elevation./First ground-strike for 3, 6, 12 pder calibre guns/killing depth infantry, killing depth cavalry.

1. deg/ 750,900,950….yards / 135,200 yards
2. deg/ 1080,1300,1390 yards / 67, 100 yards
3. deg/ 1350,1630,1770 yards / 45, 66. yards
4. deg/ 1570,1900,2100 yards / 34, 50. yards
5. deg/ 1750,2120,2380 yards / 27, 40. yards
10.deg/ 2280,2680,3680 yards / 14, 20. yards

And of course, at one man every two foot, you can work out the casualties. These figures (for hard ground) are collated to allow for inaccuracies.

But look at these figures for potential casualties in infantry standing 2 ft apart (18 calibres long, half charge to shot):

Cannon. / at 400 yards/at 800 yards
12 pder / 48 men….. /36 men
6. pder / 39 men….. /28 men
3. pder / 30 men….. /19 men.

It's interesting that potential casualties for a strike remain comparable at double the range. Hope this helps.

To this you also have to take into account the quality of the powder used, for each nation had their own powder manufactured to varying degrees of coarseness. The Russian guns calibre for calibre could not throw a round the same distance as say a French or British round and so on. Also the year could play a part in this aswell. I read once that the Russian powder increased in quality late in the war while that of the French decreased.

I will ask you if you have Kevin's book ? the data for the guns is definitely not from the acw period. The range statistics are per gun, per nation, per calibre for each of the belligerents involved. I quoted his book as a plug simply because it is the most informative one around today.

Regards,
Shane

I would have to agree with Shane about Kevins book, it is a must for wargamers, Napoleonic buffs and for budding rule writers.
But the information you have provided Cacadore is extremely informative as well. Can I ask you where you got the info from, not because I doubt you but because I would love to expand my knowledge in this area, which I confess is woefully lacking.

Regards
Barry

Cacadore,

The only examples on the Civil War I have given were in answer to a posting on the Civil War, not on the Napoleonic period.

Here are some of the French references for the period I used in Artillery:

-Anon., Petit Manual de Canonier, 1810.
-Anon., Titre Troiseme Ecole Artillerie, nd.
-Boudou, Pierre, 'France et Allies Artillerie, nd.
-'Gribeauval, lieutenant general, premier inspecteur d'artillerie, La Sabretache, Volume 10, Paris 1911.
-du Teil, Jean, The New Use of Artillery in Field Wars: Necessary Knowledge, George Nafziger 2003.
-d'Urturbie, Theodore, Manuel d'Artillerie, Paris 1794.
-Graves, Don, 'Louis de Tousard and his Artillerists Companion: An Investigation of Source Material for Napoleonic Period Ordnance,' Ottawa 1983.
-Graves, Don, ed, DeScheel's Treatise of Artillery, Ottawa 1984.
-Hulot, M., Instruction sur le Service de l'Artillerie, Paris 1813.
-Lauerma, Matti, L'Artillerie de Campagne Francaise Pendant les Guerres de la Revolution: Evolution de l'Organization et de la Tactique, Helsinki 1956.
-LeBlond, Guillaume, Treatise of Artillery, Ottawa 1970.
-Litre, Emile Francois, Les Regiments d'Artillerie a Pied de la Garde, Paris 1895.
-MacLannan, Ken, 'Lichtenstein and Gribeauval: 'Artillery Revolution' in Political and Cultural Context' War and History, Volume 10 July 2003.
-Naulet, Frederic, L'Artillerie Francaise (1665-1765): Naissance d'une Arm, Paris 2002.
-Persy, N., Elementary Treatise on the Forms of Cannon and Various Systems of Artillery, Metz 1832.
-Roquerol, G., L'Artillerie au Debut des Guerres de la Revolution, Paris 1898.
-Ruty, Charles, 'Observations on the Part of the System An XI', Paris 1814.
-Tousard, Louis de, American Artillerists Companion, 3 volumes (one of plates), Philadelphia 1809.

I also have Prussian, Austrian, Hanoverian, and British references for the Napoleonic period as well as Russian material.

Sincerely,
Kevin

I strongly suggest some people actually purchase the book before passing judgement on it. I find artillery jargon totally boring but necessary for a War Gamer. Kevin's book addresses Artillery of the period in such broad but at the same time deep analysis that I you could effectively use it as you main source for information on the arm.

My rules have already improved as a result of new and previously unknown data I did not have.

Regards,
shane

Shane Devries
''To this you also have to take into account the quality of the powder used''

That's funny: I thought about powder quality after I'd made the post, so you could be right. But by how much they affected range? I dunno. Aside from explosive power, mixtures affected safety and fouling which maybe, posssibly, affected rate of fire – I should have notes about powder mixtures somewhere if I can find them.

I haven't got Kevin's book. I'd be interested if he saw the original field trial data, since artillery troop manuals can be misleading: their purpose is different.

Baztay,
I'm quoting averages from copies I made of original field test reports made primarily by the Prussian and Hannovor armies – Artillerie Feldversuche, Comparitive Versuche der Artillerie-Strecken (apologies for my German). Tables were in the am Hohen Ufer, Hannover and the Wherhistorisches, Rastatt. There's also ordinance reports in Berlin and comparative information in some smaller museums in Germany. The Heeresgeschichtliches, Vienna has got some interesting reports too. There's also information on the effects of shot/charge ratios from Congreve's Woolich Laboratory and some literature at Chelsea (but you have to be a reading member).

Kevin F Kiley,
You've got a lot of literature there. Well done. But may I ask where, or how in Europe you did your original documentary research and which field trials you used? Maybe we met!

Cacadores
Thanks for that, looks like I will just have to make do with ordinary libraries way down here in New Zealand.
Life just isnt fair, but thanks for replying.

Regards
Barry

Cacadore,

I didn't go to Europe. The field trials I saw were Gribeauval's, Scharnorst's and Adye's listing in his Bombardier and Pocket Gunner. I also saw others the Prussians had done after the wars. Field trials are useful, but it must be remembered that they are merely firing rounds to see how far they will go at a certain powder charge and elevation. They are not combat tests, they have nothing to do with artillery employment, doctrine, or tactics, and are also useful for constructing firing tables.

The artillery manuals, which sometimes included firing tables, are much more useful and also include crew drill, manuevers, and plates. They also give tolerances for construction of gun tubes, carriages, and ancillary equipment and help give a whole picture of an artillery system. They also give at least a hint of artillery employment.

Looking only at firing tests is merely one element of the artillery of the period. It does not give a full picture of artillery or how it was employed-merely the maximum range of a gun tube, or the first graze, or whatever. Merely using field trials in order to study the artillery of the period is akin to going into a darkened room with only a flashlight for illumination. You have to turn on the lights of the room to get a complete picture, or as complete a picture as possible. It should be remembered that all any of us has done is scratched the surface.

Regarding research, I had to make a decision on the best way for me to conduct it. I could spend the available money I had to travel, eat, and have lodging along with research, or I could spend it on the relevant material that I needed for the book. I chose the latter and in that way I still have the material in my library. All of the bibliographical references that are in Artillery I own, in whole (the greater majority) or in part (a few).

Sincerely,
Kevin

Kevin F Kiley,

I see.

So you did no original research.

Well now, Kevin can be a bit snarky (vide supra), but as long as he obtained copies of the original documents then he did primary source research – it doesn't matter if the actual reading was done is Paris or Poughkipsie. My assumption would be that he paid for a lot of interlibrary loans, copy services, and such. This is standard practice.

On another note, Cacadore, those extended first strike and bounce-through data points are very nice! Much appreciated.

Thanks, CATenWolde. A spring garden calls so I'll see if I collected anything else useful.

Doubt Kevin has even data copies – he's been sniping at it for 3 days!

Cacadore,

Please define original research.

I have, in addition to the references I listed, 25 volumes of the older La Sabretache material, and it averages out to over 500 pages per volume. At least half of that is Napoleonic in the form of letters, after action reports, and the like. There is material from such Napoleonic scholars as Hollander and Vanson also. I would submit to you that is original research especially as the material was not in English before.

I spent over $5,000 on material for Artillery and was helped by good friends with original material, such as the Ruty report already listed among other things. I have at least 30 three-ring binders full of material, both primary and reliable secondary material.

Your stated 'doubts' are out of line and somewhat pejorative and that has no place here. If you have any direct questions you may email me at home (Boulart198@hotmail.com). Other than that, your attempts at baiting and personal comments are not in line with what has been proposed by Shane and most of us are at least attempting to stay within those guidelines. It would be appreciated if you did.

And making comments about any written work without first reading it is just silly and holds no weight.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Christopher,

I would appreciate it if personal comments were not directed towards me. While 'snarky' is not in my vocabulary as I am not British, it isn't appreciated.

However, on the other hand and of more importance, I do appreciate what you said about research.

Sincerely,
Kevin

If you owned the book and have read it (reading it) like I have been over the last week or so you would not be saying or making the comments you have been. This book will, over the next 10 to 20 years become the Artillery Bible of our time, especially for War Gamers.

I have learnt so much and now understand many of the technical terms I previously did not understand nor took the time to understand. Kevin's book is well written, detailed beyond belief and goes right to the core of how the Artillery systems of the age came about, the reasons both political and personal between the designers and the backing or lack of backing they received by their respective governments to develop the systems that eventually came about. and all this in only the first part of the book so far.

I might get along with Kevin and visa versa but that has nothing to do with what I think of his book. I have been waiting for a book like this for over 20 odd years to come along, as I feel many of us have been. the amount of detail and depth of information is grand in scope. Most authors before this book only skimmed the surface (as Kevin says) but Kevin really delves into areas I knew absolutely nothing about. When you put all this together into the one book as Kevin has done you get to see the whole picture as to why, how and when things happened and for what reasons and so on. I cannot think of any other book on the market that can boast such detailed information in the one volume.

I for one am glad I own a copy and can strike it off my list of books to get.

Regards,
Shane

Kevin,

I'm not British either, but don't worry, I'm Confusingly Continental.

"Snarky" is a very mild pejorative, if it can even be classed as such. Think of it as more of an apt descriptor coalesced from "snooty" and … "remark" and … "arquebus" … yeah, that's it. At any rate, I called my beloved seven-year old daughter snarky the other day when she let go a zinger about the defining characteristics of her Polly Pocket collection, so I wouldn't take too great offense at it.

It doesn't rate as high as baldly stating that someone (who may or may not have three graduate degrees and a specialty in research methodology) is flatly wrong on a minor point of semantics just to illustrate your own point of view, for instance – though it does have a better ring to it.

Christopher,

I would submit to you that stating someone is wrong historically or technically has nothing at all to do with illustrating a point of view. It is done because the author is in error and might be open-minded enough to get accurate information and accept it.

Unfortunately, I have found on some of the forums that people don't like to be found in error and won't accept it no matter what the outcome. Too bad, because there is always someone that is more knowledgeable than you are (that is an impersonal 'you' and not pointed at any one person).

Sincerely,
Kevin

As the topic is left-handedly getting back to what light, heavy, etc., artillery is, it is very important to understand, I think, that field artillery is by definition 'light.'

For example, in the French service you had 8- and 12-pounder field pieces, and also 8- and 12-pounder battering (siege) and garrison pieces, the latter two being the same pieces generally and being much heavier than the field pieces of the same caliber.

And I haven't found in any manual of the period where there is a subdivision in field artillery between light, medium, and heavy field artillery. Some pieces may be more mobile than others and be assigned different missions, but they were interchangeable as to mission and use, whereas you couldn't use siege artillery for the same mission as it is too heavy.

It is the same as designating dragoons as 'medium' cavalry-the term wasn't used. They were a different branch of the cavalry arm, and the French actually designated them light cavalry, but they were neither.

Then we could go into a discussion of the use of the term 'converged…'

Ha! The French call Dargoons "Battle Cavalry" as referenced by (drat can not find it) a book on the French army written in the 1880' by that artist (will look it up. this was made a point to me on a other thread.)

Drat got to fine the book.

Lord Ghee

Kevin,

What you are stoically failing to understand is that the use of those terms as I and others have used them *is* both correct and meaningful in the context of a discussion of Napoleonic Wargaming Rules. In the current context, those terms are the accepted definitions, and provide the common currency for a shared frame of reference. What you are trying to do is impose another another frame of reference that is similar in form but only tangentially related to the actual purpose of the language as it is being used.

In other words, all jargon is relative. If you can accept that, you will die a much happier man, having wasted away many fewer precious hours tilting at semantic windmills.

Kevin,

What you are stoically failing to understand is that the use of those terms as I and others have used them *is* both correct and meaningful in the context of a discussion of Napoleonic Wargaming Rules. In the current context, those terms are the accepted definitions, and provide the common currency for a shared frame of reference. What you are trying to do is impose another another frame of reference that is similar in form but only tangentially related to the actual purpose of the language as it is being used.

In other words, all jargon is relative. If you can accept that, you will die a much happier man, having wasted away many fewer precious hours tilting at semantic windmills.

x

test