"Realistic Artillery Ranges" Topic

I find both Kevin and Cacadores contributions to be interesting, I for one have certainly learnt alot about a subject I knew little about and continue to do so.
I have no doubts that both are "knowledgeable" about their subject and I appreciate the time and effort they give to informing the less knowledgeable of us.
Having said that however I sense Cacadore is more interested in baiting Kevin than acknowledging they are both looking at the same scene from different perspectives.
The instructive effort I find valuable, the personal attempts at professional assisination I find more than a little annoying and rather than adding to the posters mana (honor) they detract from it.
Regards
Barry

>"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.'"<

I wouldn't really argue with that (although, in WWII most nation's infantry divisions included both "light" and "medium" pieces).

However, as Luke Mulder pointed out above, there is/has been more than one meaning of the term "light". If I might cite an example from the ACW (sorry, but it's the period I know best): the so-called "Napoleon" was more officially known as the "light 12-pounder", it being both shorter and lighter than the previous, 1840 model, 12-pounder (which was originally intended to be a field piece but by the time of the ACW was considered a bit too heavy to be practical). So my point is that both types of 12-pounder were nominally field artillery, yet only one of them was called "light."

Anyway, considering that most (land) wargames involve only field armies, and thus only field artillery, and given that it would be handy to have some way of designating the various sizes thereof, would it really hurt anything if we had a (for wargaming purposes only) set of unofficial designations, such as "light, medium, and heavy"?

Don,

I tried to point out about the differences in light and heavy artillery during the period. It was a caliber problem and actually had to do with gun tube weight.

Even in the Civil War artillery technology had progressed to the point that very large calibers existed and were in service.

And you really can't compare the designations of light, medium, and heavy between 1800 and today because World War I was a definite change in artillery and doing away with the horse later was another large change. Horse and Foot artillery persisted through the Civil War, but World War I was a great change not only in gunnery, but what artillery had become-if nothing else the large differences in calibers, which really didn't exist in 1800 between light and heavy artillery.

Sincerely,
K

Baztay,

I agree with your posting and sentiment. And I am trying my best to be civil. I do hope I am succeeding, at least so that the attempt is noticeable.

Sincerley,
K

Of all the arms in the 18th Century and early 19th century, artillery does seem to inspire some of the most passionate opinions! Of course , it was the most technical of the arms, so is in some ways the most readily analysed from our much latter times.

From a purely War Gamers perspective the terms, "Light", "Medium" and "Heavy" have been introduced superficially because it is the only way to denote or "categorize" Artillery for certain aspects of the rules systems we use.

I categorize Field Artillery as:

V. Light 2-4 pndrs
Light 6pndrs
Medium 8-9 pndrs
Heavy 12pndrs
V. Heavy 16pndr+

The reasons for this are twofold, the Gun (piece) has to be classed in the systems for both Movement and Manoeuvre rates as well as overall Fire Power.

With regards to gun weights I have classed the guns according to their overall Tube/carriage weights into classifications for movement purposes. There were many guns that might be say heavy for fire power but were light enough to move as maybe a Medium gun. This part of the system I am still defining and Kevin's book is very valuable, "amongst others" in this area.

The terms and classifications might not be historically correct but for war games purposes this has to be done for the systems we all use if for no other reason.

Regards,
Shane

Shane,

I can't argue with the logic, and I do understand the issue, but wouldn't be simpler if field artillery was classed for wargame purposes as horse, foot, and mountain artillery? Seems to me that would tend to cover the material.

The problem I'm having with the classification is that it bleeds over into what are supposed to be 'historical' studies and it isn't applicable-it is merely incorrect and it paints a false picture. Denoting something as a 'heavy' piece of artillery isn't applied to throw weight, but to mobility.

Sincerely,
K

Luke,

Agree. And artillery is usually considered merely a supporting arm and much of its organization and employment during the period is inknown. Further, there isn't much on it in English, which is a shame.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Hi Kevin,

Oddly enough I do differentiate between Foot, Horse, Cavalry and Mountain guns (batteries) I have very detailed movement matrices for all of the above which is cross referenced with the gun calibre to determine manoeuvre speeds in Limbered, Manhandled movement rates. This is then further broken down between what is the quality of the crews which is rated due to training etc. This rate is called, Rapid, Mediocre and Slow.

Also, another reason artillery in War games is classified into Weight categories is as stated earlier for Calibre which in my system determines the tubes rate of fire. For instance lighter 6pndrs (rated as Light) have a faster RoF than the Medium guns (8-9pndrs) which in turn have a faster RoF than a 12pndr and so on. When firing I created a Fire Matrix which calculates the number of rounds which hit the target from a number of guns which is modified by such things as Calibre Weight, Crew Quality, Ground undulations, Weather and Ground conditions, Target size and distances and so on. This all sounds very complicated but is actually one single modified Dice roll. Many player who use is swear by it now.

Kevin, I do understand your concerns regarding authenticity and historical terms, but believe me, most of us already know the correct terms but from a purely gamers point of view the gun calibres and weights have to be addressed and classified for rules purposes to gain some kind of regularity to allow the guns to be catorigized and meshed into the systems we all use.

In my rules a Company (battery) of Heavy 12pndrs is still classed as Foot or (Field Artillery) just as a Light 6pndr Company (Battery) is classed as either Foot, Horse, Cavalry, Regimental etc…The terms we use such as Heavy, Light or Very Light etc…are as you say mostly used to classify Artillery into groups for manoeuvre purposes but as the gun weights increase so does the Calibre generally, with some notable exceptions which I am in the middle of determining for my system right now.

Regards,
Shane

p.s. Kevin, I will be hammering you with many more questions for weight classifications in the near future, so brace yourself for a flurry of annoying emails ;-p

I desire my system to be as authentic as I can make them.

Shane

Shane
Do you differentiate between say an Austrian and French gun of the same calibre, if so how does that translate into casualty differentials.

Regards
Barry

hi Baztay,

Yes we do, the Ranges are what creates the differences in casualty rates. As is known the Austrian guns were of a smaller calibre than declared the overall ranges are shorter. This we integrated into the rules system mechanics where an Austrian 12pndr might be at effective range up to say 700yds it will be firing at long range at 900yds while a French 12pndr for instance at 900yds will still have the accuracy of Effective range at 900yds…other calibres tell similar stories across the arsenal of guns of all nations and calibre.

We have had many situations where an Austrian battery has been caught at Long range shooting counter battery fire at a French battery who might still be in Effective range firing back. Also with gun calibres firing we have modifiers for increased rates of fire for the smaller weapons. A 12pndr battery might have the advantage of longer Effective ranges but if the range is short enough that an enemy battery of say 6pndrs or even 3pndrs are also in effective range firing against the 12pndr battery you suddenly get a situation where (if the gun numbers are even) the smaller calibre battery gains the advantage of several more hits then the 12pndrs can achieve. The only problem is actually getting that close ;p

Regards,
Shane

Thanks Shane, makes sense.

Obviously your rules are very detailed, in a average game how many turns would you get through.

The average for most rules seems to be around 7 in 3 hours.

Regards
Barry

Shane,

You may fire when ready, Gridley. ;-)

I look forward to your emails as I always do. They are as enjoyable as your postings and as informative.

Sincerley,
K

Sadly Baztay, as our rules "are" complicated or rather, "detailed" we do have slower turns than you might think. But then that really depends on the size of the battle also. My rules are scaled to individual Units (Btlns) etc so as you flow thru the turns you will manoeuvre each individual unit. Many people don't like that and would rather play as stated earlier, battles at Brigade or Divisional level. It is really a case of what you prefer as a group. No system scale is right or wrong, it is just a matter of taste.

As for our battles we usually average up to 20 turns (4 turns per game hour) in our battles before a victor is found. Coupled with our "Routs" system you don't have to fight til the last breathe of the last man in the last figure to gain a decision.

As I said, we can go for up to 20 turns or even more but many times the average would be maybe 12-16 turns overall. With each turn equal to around 15mins game time. This is mostly because our battles work much better for smaller conflicts, especially for the Peninsula. We do run great battles which may last 10 hours game time or an entire day or even into a second day but they are rare.

As for Real Time spent in a battle our battles last anywhere from one session of 2-4 hours up to several sessions spanning possibly 3-6 weeks. Many people don't like that and like to get a game over in one session, we are not fussed by that and prefer to have the battle set up and continued each week when we meet until victory is decided. I am lucky in that I have an entire large room devoted to War Gaming in my home where I can leave two battles at a time running with players at both running simultaneously sometimes lol.

But on average each Tuesday night we play maybe 3-6 turns a session depending on the size of the battle and how much we push ourselves. It is very easy to start talking period and forgetting you are playing a battle, all it takes is for one of us to start with something like, "If only I had done this" and before you know it everyone is discussing tactics which leads on to something else and before you know it you have run out of time while discussing the piping colour of the 3rd Wurttemberg Line infantry regiment and what shade really should it be?

Regards,
Shane

hi Kevin,

Thanks mate, I sent you those Artillery tables already, waiting in anticipation for your verdict on them. Makes me feel like I am handing in an assignment to a lecturer hoping he will not see through my poor attempt at authenticity lol

Kevin: I had heard of WWI, thanks anyway. I grant that you are civil, but you do tend to talk down to people sometimes. :)

While I understand your concern for sticking to historical terminology, do you understand the need of rules writers and gamers for more categories (of field artillery)? If you don't want them to call these categories "light, medium, and heavy" how about offering some alternative names? And no, "horse, foot, and mountain," won't do, because they only describe how the guns are transported, not their size or firepower. Would everyone be happy with "light field, medium field, and heavy field" artillery? These terms would seem to satisfy both camps, but, I admit, they are a bit long and unwieldy.

Wargamers generally only play Field game. in the last twenty years and over 100 battles and only 2 where sieges.

The gentlemnen that started wargaming in the 1950's where in general vets, and in WWII the military used the Light medium and heavy for everything.

tanks
bombers
artillery,

they are terms that Wargamers use and we use our terms just like Poressional Historians and Soldiers use thiers.

We do not have degrees or uniforms but our terms are just as valid more so as this is our arena.

I really like and appreacheate the fact that Kevin and Mr. Grey (Mr Grey is one of us) and dare I say the name of one gone (no) others that come into our arena and give us the value of thier knowledge.

Even tho they have trouble understanding our terminology. :)

So when Kevin explains to us that it is all Field, let it go. Maybe one day he will pick up some dice take on Napoleon and relize that all he has is medium guns to fight the heavy's. ;)

with Love

Lord Ghee

Don,

I apologize. It was not my intent to talk down to anyone, not did I think I had. I'll be more careful in the future.

As I said about the subject, and probably not very well, the terminology without explanation drifts into books and other publications that gives the wrong impression of what artillery is and was.

Sincerely,
Kevin

G,

I have wargamed in my time, my brother and I constructing our own set of very simple rules which encompassed horse and foot artillery very satisfactorily. We wargamed in 54mm however.

And as a footnote, when the French had to engage in counterbattery fire, they used 4-, 6-, or 8-pounder guns against whatever target they were firing at because of their higher rate of fire.

Sincerely,
K

Ahhh, this is good to know. I show increased RoF the smaller the piece is so in our rules I do see an increase in casualties with lower calibre guns against higher calibre in counter battery fire. Was never too sure I had it right but I feel slightly vindicated now for doing so.

Thx Kevin for the insite

Regards
Shane

Shane,

Check pages 138-139 in Artillery. It is covered there.

Sincerely,
K

Shane

it is not the fact that small bore guns caused more causities, it is the fact that with a higher rate of fire the the smaller gun had the potenial to.

the armies of the time generally found thier blance in the 6lber range to get rate and range.

but in reading the 12lber is consider twice as effective as a 6lber.

why,

rereading Muir, he makes the point that around 80% of the ammo carried is ball, so that this is the range the guns expected to fight, as you carry enough to fight and have a little left so not to be ammo out.

thoughts
Lord Ghee

Lordghee,

that is my point entirely, that is why I said putting a higher RoF into my rules for lower calibre guns creates more hits. I'm not sure how you thought I meant otherwise or did not understand ?

Regards,
Shane

Kevin: >"I apologize. It was not my intent to talk down to anyone, not did I think I had. I'll be more careful in the future."<

Accepted. I didn't think it was intentional. Just keep in mind that, even if we're not all experts on artillery, some of us are reasonably well educated/informed on various aspects of military history. If I too ever wax a bit pedantic feel free to nudge me under the table.

Kevin F Kiley .
''I apologize. It was not my intent to talk down to anyone''

Yet, to me you wrote (and linked it to artillery):

''Historians' Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought by David Hackett Fischer. I highly recommend it. It is a most useful volume and helps one to avoid the pitfalls you keep encountering.''

Seems pretty snarky to me!

Anyway, I'd define 'original research' in this case as looking at the original field trails, as opposed to believing what someone else choses to write about them.

Would you be kind enough to define what you consider to be the actual minimum 'effect' of a gun firing within an 'effective range'? Thank you.

Shane Devries
''This we integrated into the rules system mechanics where an Austrian 12pndr might be at effective range up to say 700yds it will be firing at long range at 900yds''

May I ask you what you mean by 'effective' in this gaming, case i.e. how many men you are supposing are being hit by a sucessful strike?

Otherwise, (since you mentioned powder) although the powder mixtures of different nations affected gun ranges, it's difficult to conclude ranges from this data alone.

Firstly, it comes back to what ''effective range'' means. Quality of mixture, charge, shot weight, rate of fire and elevation all effect range.

But how one can discover this without using field data is beyond me.

E.g. Mixtures: The most effective mixture is 76% saltpetre, 15% charcoal and 9% sulphur. This left little room for innacuracy in measurement, so many nations used weaker powders, or else stuck the shot and powder together in pre-packed charge cases. So, a nation's artillery effectiveness appears to be, in addition, affected firstly by the fineness of the powder, and secondly by it's ability to deal with the problem of old cases ignighting new shot prematurely. Austria's chemical treatment solution meant that they could get good ranges, but would have to pause to clear out fouling periodically. Saxony's dropped barrel loading helped keep up their rate of fire. The British appear to have got the best solution early with spark-resistant case. So they could keep up good powder mixtures, range, and rate of fire.

So already you have tons of variables that can only be resolved by looking at…… (and it's back to) field trials.

E.g. Charge
Different nations used different charges and weight of shot. For one 12 pounder cannister I get the following:
Nation. /No. Of balls/weight in oz/charge in lbs
Prussia./41./6. /4
Prussia./170/1.5/4
Saxony./40./4. /5
Austria/12./16./3.5
Austria/28./6. /3.5
Russia./36./6. /3
Britain/42./6. /3.5
France/41./6. /4.5
France/41./6. /4.5.

Theoretically, you could extrapolate from this to get range tables. But it's nonsense. Again, there are so many variables, including fineness of the powder and safety measures affecting rates of fire. All you can do is look at field trials. So in a comparison of field data with comparable gun calibres., the British could achieve longer ranges than the French. The field trials are there.

And looking at gunnery manuals is simply misleading: these are mainly advisory tables, and illustrate varying conceptions of 'effectiveness'. For example, British guns in general fired a lighter cannonball than the French. According to manuals, a British 12 pder gunner was advised that at at 3 deg.s his normal range was 1,063 yards (with a 17% accuracy), but according to Woolwich tables, British guns, with better powder could actually fire them further. Moreover, Hanovarian trials report 1460 yards, while Prussians: 1,770.

These differences don't mean the data can't be used easily in gaming. On the contrary, if you put them up on a graph they can be very usable – especially as you begin to see the reason why they're different. Or you collate them with killing depth, fire rate and accuracy data.

Certainly a '1000' yard limit is nonsense: that would be a common limit for British shrapnel (French fuses were more unreliable). All field trials I've seen pitch max. range for first bounce with commonly constituted round-shot at around 2000 yards at only 4 degrees. And that will take out 34 yards-worth of infantry and skip on for another mile or so. Is that 'effective'? It all comes down to what your game considers an 'effective' hit: and in most games it should be, easily.

Regards

"I find more than a little annoying and rather than adding to the posters mana (honor)"

Now this is puzzling. American spelling of honor, and a Maori word (mana). Are you a Kiwi living in the States Baz? Of course, Baz sounds more Aussie.

Good discussion from all btw.

Hi Whatisitgood4atwork

Nope still living in New Zealand, I just pick up incorrect spelling habits here. Definetly not an Aussie I have enough problems without adding that one too.
:-))
Barry

At first graze at an angle of "0" degrees it is very clear in many books the point where the "First Graze" will be. The accuracy of guns to first graze are much higher than after because the round is travelling at roughly man height or chest height would you not agree ? Firing from Point Blank up to First Graze (or Effective Range) at "0" degrees elevation you are assured of a hit more often than not because you are firing directly at the target in a straight line. If you miss it is going to be more because you fired to far left or too far right more than anything else.

Ok, now if the gun tube is elevated above "0" degrees you increase the angle of trajectory and the problematic calculations of trying to get the round to drop in its parabolic trajectory back downward at the right angle at the right range to slam into its target. This accuracy is much harder to obtain over "0" degrees because you have to take other variables into account like you already stated.

Instead of having to worry whether the round goes left or right of target you now also have to worry if the round will drop short and bounce over or land over and behind the target itself. This problem itself creates more problems for the crew because if they cannot detect the fall of shot they cannot re-align the gun accurately enough to gain a better chance of accuracy for the next shot etc…

To compound this problem the higher in elevation you go the less accurate the probability will be of obtaining a direct hit the longer the range is. Man's eyesight and even telescopes were not that great and Range Finders were unheard of as we know them. It took great skill to load, aim and then fire an artillery piece with any accuracy over "0" degrees and years of practice were needed to obtain the accuracy which was achieved on the field. Not to mention the smoke that hindered constantly any chance of even seeing a target after the first shot or two.

As for my calculations for my system for casualties, my system like any other created by other rules designers comes from reading the information found in numerous books on accuracy accounts and estimates along with observing what other rules designers have done previously. I based my own accuracy totals on many various book which state Short Ranges, Effective Ranges (First Graze) and overall Long Range. As for casualties caused by hits I based my calculations on the effect of hitting a three rank deep line as a start. The Gun regardless of calibre would in most situations either kill 1 – 2 – or 3 men depending mostly on luck. I left room for extra casualties to be created from exploding men and splintering metal and bone causing shrapnel hits around them which may cause say a forth or 5th casualty as a result.

Now, with Columns it is a different matter, a Column as we all know is nothing more than a series of Lines one behind the other. Depending on the column whether it is a Closed Column, Attack column or Open column will create differing amounts of casualties depending on a few factors. Distance between the Lines, Range of the column when it strikes home and the undulations in the ground or even the ground softness etc. On top of all this is factored in the Calibre of the round and the quality of the crew to get the hit in the first place.

so if you are firing say a 12pndr which hits before First Graze (Effective Range) on a line you are going to cause 1-5 casualties with an average of "3" Calibre of gun will not be a factor. Once you start hitting a Column things change dramatically as stated above. you would be expected to hit 1-5 men per hit which is then increased by the successive 3 ranks of the column. So if the Column is a French Attack Column of say 1809 onwards you would expect to hit 1-5 men per three ranks with three company Lines being hit in succession so 1-5 x 3 = 3 to 15 with an average of say 9-10 men casualties. This is then modified by the calibre of the weapon upward for successive ranks of figures the more are hit. Obviously the larger the calibre of the weapon the more depth of penetration will be achieved which itself is subject to Range (Kinetic energy available) and so on.

If you add to this the rest of the battery (if 6 guns for example) you can expect to multiply this amount by x2 to x6 depending on if the other guns accurately hit the target.

So many variables come into play that you cannot accurately determine the exact amount of casualties you are going to cause every time. And to be more to the point the same battery firing at the same target a second times might score more or less casualties all things considered. All you can do is base your system on what you read and understand and factor in all the variables to come to some kind of casualty determination that at least comes close.

I spent over two years of research and play testing to arrive at my conclusions in my system which was adjusted and adjusted again time and time again to get the right (or probable right) casualty and accuracy determinations. I am proud of what I designed which was approved by many friends who use them and feel they are as close as you can get to actual casualty rates.

The one glaring thing we in our group do notice in our system is that to obtain actual hits on an enemy target one must expend a huge amount of ammunition. As the hours flow by and the Artillerists become Tired, then Fatigued then finally Exhausted the RoF of the battery reduces as does accuracy etc…Battery commanders eventually begin to try to preserve ammunition and retire Exhausted batteries to the rear to replace them with fresh ones able to keep up the weight of shot on the enemy etc. But we only really notice this in Grand Battles which last 6-10 hours etc.

The weight of total shot fired by a battery might exceed the actual hits by 3-4 to one, especially at longer ranges. So Battery commanders usually wait for the enemy to advance to more Effective ranges before opening up to assure a higher accuracy for the expenditure consumed by the battery.

regards
Shane

oohh Baztay !! you nasty kiwi !! 10 bucks says the aussies defeat the kiwis in the Anzac test !!! wanna take that bet ?

Yep Shane Im on for that one.

Barry

Shane Devries wrote: "Ok, now if the gun tube is elevated above "0" degrees you increase the angle of trajectory and the problematic calculations of trying to get the round to drop in its parabolic trajectory back downward at the right angle at the right range to slam into its target. This accuracy is much harder to obtain over "0" degrees because you have to take other variables into account like you already stated."

This would be true if the gun tube was at head height, but, on a level battlefield, it's not; it's at waist height, more or less. So the ball can rise a few feet without ever going over the heads of the enemy, (what angle of elevation would send it beyond head-height depends on the muzzle velocity and other things). If the gun is on higher ground (or lower) that also has to be factored in.

Also, if the ball descends at a steep enough angle and/or the ground is soft enough, the shot might not ricochet at all, just plow into the ground.

Thus, for these two reasons at least, putting guns on high ground is not necessarily doing them a favor!

BTW, I just ran across an interesting situation at Gettysburg: A Union battery, fighting a rearguard action, was on lower ground and knew that Confederate infantry was approaching just beyond a low rise to its front, out of its line of sight. The battery commander had his guns (12-pdr "Napoleon" smoothbores) aim so as to have their solid shot just graze the rise and ricochet on over into the unseen approaching infantry. (As soon as he could see them he switched to cannister.) Incidentally, that battery commander calculated that his 6 guns fired off about 3 tons of ammunition that afternoon!

Shane D.: I do not mean to denigrate your interesting post, as you explained the problems quite well. Thanks.

Oh, and I might also point out that artillery doesn't necessarily have to cause any casualties to have an effect on the enemy, as the effect can be moral.

no problem at all don, thx for that actually. Good incite there. See, we can all get along very nicely if we try hard enough ;p

Funny you mention that about casualties, in our system you only have to be fired at to create a negative effect to Morale. Also if your own Infantry have supporting fire to their flanks close by then this creates a slight positive to their morale while 12pndrs increase this again…

Regards,
Shane

Shane said
"I am lucky in that I have an entire large room devoted to War Gaming in my home where I can leave two battles at a time running with players at both running simultaneously sometimes lol."
Right that does it. I'm moving to QLD. What scale figures do you use? I'm guessing 25mm. Are long white socks still compulsery uniform in QLD? :0P
Cacadore
You mentioning about the possiblity of exstensive cannon ball skips reminded me of a discription I've read about Baggovuts II Corps' march south to Utisa during the Battle of Borodino. It mentions them constantly taking casualties during the march from, what seemed to me, to mean random cannon balls. I have no idea of their (II Corps) actual path, but I assumed that, because it was a redeployment,they weren't directly behind the front lines.
Perhaps there's another member with a better knowledge of the battle that might know how close they might have been?
Max

""Are long white socks still compulsery uniform in QLD? :0P""

lol, I got no idea on that one ;-p I haven't worn long white sock since I was best man at my mate's Scottish Wedding, incidentily I did not know how to wear a kilt properly and so the women were trying to take photos up my kilt, was a very good night…..so I was told hehehe

Shane,
Fair enough.

I'd only say that probability of hit tables (and kill tables) also exist (from field trials), some of which I've quoted, so we can get a bit more exactness than just trying to resolve loads of theoretical variables.

Kevin F Kiley
Still kinda waiting to know what you think 'effective' means and why your book contains no original research.

Cheers

Cacadore,

The definition of effective has been given to you. Further, it has also been shown to you that French doctrine stated not to fire over 1050 yards. That would seem to me to indicate excellent parameters for 'effective.'

If you haven't read Artillery, how do you know what it contains or not?

Sincerely,
Kevin

Cacadore wrote :

>>>Still kinda waiting to know what you think 'effective' means and why your book contains no original research.<<<

Look cacadore, I am not trying to be rude or create an argument but you admit you don't have Kevin's book so how can you even try to suggest it does not have any original research. This book so far for what I have read of it has so much information in it which is indeed original research that you would be shocked.

It is not very good to criticize something you have never seen b4…how can someone do that ? I just don't understand your logic cacadore, you cite Tolstoy (a novelist) as great historical truth but yet you voice an opinion and criticize a book about such an indepth topic you have never seen before?

I am in no way trying to provoke you, I just wish to understand your angle for attacking Kevin's book ? I am reading it atm and am about 1/3 thru it, it is really hard going because Kevin's attention to detail is so indepth, yet this information I have "never", and I can say this truthfully, ever seen in any other book. It is such an invaluable reference for any historian, enthusiast and gamer. In my opinion it is a "must" for my book shelf. I don't say this because Kevin and I get on, I say it because it is true!

Regards,
Shane

Sorry Shane, I should explain my clumsy "white socks" jibe.
Its probably ancient history now but the Sth Qld coast was, at one stage, famous for attracting hords of retirees from the southern states. The Males of this invading Horde were also famous for wearing long shorts with long white wollen socks. They became known as the "white socks brigade". Certianly still plentifull last time I visited. 1990.
Sorry everyone for the off topic.
Will now return you to the long range Cannonade!

/sigh not my post above.

ahhh,

now I know what you mean, yes Queensland is what Florida is for the USA. A retiree's heaven. But Queensland is also very tropical the further north you go with hundreds of miles of white sandy beaches, surf and bikini's !! I can't help myself, I go to the beach every chance I get, work permitting.

Brisbane is a very vibrant multi-cultural city now, not the quiet country town it once was 20-30 years ago. More and more southerners arrive here every year, the estimates are approx. 1200-1300 people from the southern states migrate here each year. I have really seen massive changes to Brisbane since 1990. The Gold Coast, my favourite haunt of late is such a tourist attraction these days the "white socks brigade" have been pushed outwards from the central Gold coast. You still get many oldies there but the influx of tourists from all over the world over the last 20 years and the Grand Prix (or Indi ? can never remember which) has changed the city for ever.

sorry guys, rant off now ;p

Regards,
Shane

Shane

''It is not very good to criticize something you have never seen b4…how can someone do that ? I just don't understand your logic cacadore,''

Fair question :-) As you know, I innocently posted original field data on gun ranges, but got the following from:

Kevin F Keily, (who followed me onto another thread!):

''Most of your information on artillery, ranges, and gunnery are also incorrect…….I could look it up and help you. If you don't have any, then you are merely guessing and making incorrect assumptions''.

From someone who has not seen the original tables & done no original research, to someone who has, it is, to say the least, a bit of a cheek!

Kevin F Kiley
''The definition of effective has been given to you.''

Isn't using 20th centuary NATO definitions (''effective range is the range at which you get the desired result'') a highly idiosyncratic standard on which to base 19th Cent. artilery ranges? What is the 'desired result'? Ten dead? Fifty dead? It varies. Do you have probability of hit statistics?

''Further, it has also been shown to you that French doctrine stated not to fire over 1050 yards. That would seem to me to indicate excellent parameters for 'effective.'''

You really think that's a parameter? Sounds like, er, firing guidence to me. And since all nations gave differnt guidence, then using an undefined word like 'effective' as the basis of range comparisons is like asking how long a piece of string is, surely? 'Effective' is a variable term, not a fixed term.

''If you haven't read Artillery, how do you know what it contains or not?''

If you've done no original research yourself, then how can you call ranges from contemporary & original field trials 'incorrect'?

Isn't it the case, that we have perhaps, detected an interesting flaw in your work?

Regards

I am not sure where you are going with all this cacadore, Kevin's book actually does have all the data in it which you have posted earlier….I used it all to modify my own system tables, again, you can't seriously declare Kevin's book does not consist of primary (original) research if you have never laid eyes on it, can you ?

I doubt anyone here can seriously do a book report on a book which one has never seen, no one is going to take you seriously. Buy the book, read it, and then re-make your comments here.

Regards,
Shane

Shane,

Believe it or not, I've actually seen a book review on Amazon that stated the reviewer hadn't read the book and then he went on to pan it. Incredible, but true.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Shane,
you mentioned earlier that you have fatigue rules for your artillery. How do you keep record of it? Any chance of an example?
regards
Max

In 15, or in 25 millimetre. You Are A Decadent Swine Sir,

"I am lucky in that I have an entire large room devoted to War Gaming in my home where I can leave two battles at a time running with players at both running simultaneously sometimes lol."

We use fatigue caps.
color slected at start of battle.

LG

Shaun,

you state that a round will kill 1,2 or 3

humm, Muir in his book makes a point that in half a dozen battles that the total rounds expended where twice the total number of total causities. (wargram, austerlitz, waterloo, ect.)

like I said long range fire.

Lord Ghee

Yeah, it is true.

I have a table 12ft x 6ft and another 10ft x 6ft. I also have enough room left over to form another large table for campaign map movement etc.

Hi Max,

In my rules I have a Fatigue system where each class of soldier has a "Fatigue Rating" this rating is much higher for say A Class as compared with E Class while every other class is somewhere in between. There are also different levels of Fatigue. Fresh is Zero, then comes Fatigued followed by Tired and finally Exhausted.

As troops perform certain manourvres, Movement, Being Engaged, Firing, Close Action Melee, Charges, Pursuits, Routed, Under Fire or Forced Marches to the battlefield they gain Fatigue. As the troops gain these fatigue points and equal or pass each level they suffer Negatives which become worse with each level of Fatigue they gain.

For example a "B" Class French Veteran Artillery Company would become Fatigued on reaching 8 Fatigue points, Tired on reaching 16 Fatigue points and Exhausted on reaching 24 Fatigue points.

This would result in the following :

Fatigued : -10% on Fire Rolls / -1 Melee Factor
Tired : -20% on Fire Rolls / -2 Melee Factor / -10% Morale / +1/4 Formation Changes / -10yds Movement
Exhausted : -30% on Fire Rolls / -3 Melee Factor / -20% Morale / +1/4 Reaction times / +1/2 Formation Changes / -20yds Movement

It is very detailed and really only used in smaller battles about a Corps per side etc…we do use a simpler system for Grand Battles when needed.

Regards,
Shane