"Realistic Artillery Ranges" Topic

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 manoeuvres, 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

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.

Oh what a good example, boridino

what was the range that the french started at and move up to anyone got a map.

and to expaned

effect = rate of fire x Range (% to hit) x time x posture of target

posture is advancing, retreating, in cover, in fortress, in woods (troops hated arillery fire in woods or buildings as splintering made it worse), in line, column, in open or skermish order.

one of the desisions I made came from Hughes book firepower, a line you hit all the time a column you miss but when you hit you do more damage. This make it the same target which players dislike as they like the usaul bonus to hit in column.

Lord Ghee

>>>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.)<<<

yeah, I did state that but…you have to get the round to strike the target first. That in itself is the hard part unless fired at Effective range.

Also you explained that hitting a Line is much easier than hitting a Column. At Effective range I would say hitting a line would be very easy while the chance of firing left or right against a Column may play a part in missing it. However, once you go beyond this into Long Range or after First Graze you are going to have problems. A round which strikes the ground can ricochet upwards and over a Line (or column) missing them by sometimes good many feet. It is commonly recorded by soldiers of the time in the ranks ducking as rounds flew up to a hundred feet above them.

After First Graze I would suggest trying to hit a Line is in fact just as hard as trying to hit a deeper Column formation due to this problem of parabolic trajectory, the deeper the arch the more of a ricochet you are going to get providing the round did not plough into the earth first.

Regards,
Shane

Hitting a column would be easier than hitting a line because range is harder to get right (correct) than left/right is. You can overshoot the first few ranks of a column and still cause casualties, but if you overshoot the first few ranks of a line, you have missed the whole thing! And if you do hit it, the greater depth of the column means more ranks for the shot to pass thru, and thus more casualties.

don,

I agree with you totally, but do you not agree hitting a Line before First Graze at "0" degrees would actually infact be easier to hit than a Column ? At zero degrees before First graze the ball is travelling at man height or lower, the acuracy would be much greater thus allowing a far greater chance to hit a Line. After First Graze or when the Gun is elevated above "0" degrees would thus make the Column then to be the easier target to strike…

Regards,
Shane

Shane

Have you looked at the Reisswitz kriegspiel rules, he was a contemporary (and I think served in 1815)his casualty figures are based on the Scharnhorst trials reduced by 50% for battlefield conditions, his max range for artillery was 2,000 paces (not sure what the Prussian pace was 24-36")might be worth analysing some of his tables & good/bad effects to compare with your rules.

>"I agree with you totally, but do you not agree hitting a Line before First Graze at "0" degrees would actually infact be easier to hit than a Column ?"<

Oh sure! but first graze at 0 degrees would be within cannister range anyway. According to the table pasted to the inside of the lid of every ammo box for the U.S. 6-pdr (1840 model): the range with shot at 0 degrees elevation was only 318 yards. (Roundshot and Rammers by Harold L. Peterson p. 89)

LORDGHEE
a line you hit all the time a column you miss but when you hit you do more damage. This make it the same target which players dislike as they like the usaul bonus to hit in column.

It's a good point to look at.

Top-end figures for the number of men killed at 800-odd yards in column, are 167 men with a 3 pounder.

More conservative figures for infantry casualties, in column, per roundshot hit from defence, field trails.

Calibre : at 400 yards : 800 yards
12 pder : 48 men : 36 men
6. pder : 39 men : 28 men
3. pder : 30 men : 19 men

At these ranges, you're looking at probabiity of hit at the target range of around:

- Half shots on target verses infantry
- Three quarters of shots on target verses cavalry.

Casualties to cavalry approximate to half those above.

So at these ranges, firing at columns is going to get you much more than 10 times as many casualties as fireing at lines. Take the probabilty of missing into account, and
fireing at column will get you about 5-6 times more casualties.

At long range (the pattern produced by the table is more to be relied upon than the precise figures), you're looking at the following probabilities of hitting a target at the correct range:

Calibre: 1000yds : 1500yds : 2000yds : 2500yds : 3000yards
12 pder : 1/2 : 1/5 : 3/16 : 1/11 : 1/17
6. pder : 1/2 : 1/5 : 1/10 : 1/19 : ----
3. pder : 1/4 : 1/8 : 1/20 : ---- : ----

Interesting, huh? Seems like cannon start going major league squiffy (i.e. a even a whole battery is not guarenteed to hit the target) at predictable ranges

12 pder : 2000 – 2500 yds
6. pder : 1700 – 2000 yds
3. pder : 1500 yds

Now, at these (above) ranges, column hits are still far more deadly than line hits, and will remain so because the death of, at most, 3 men in line is insignificant unless you're close enough to be getting about half your shots in. Above the above ranges, a 4-6 ft thick line is surely a far more difficult target than a deep column, unless it's something like a 3 man-wide road column.

Shane Devries
''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….''

Hardly. Kevin said that that data was all 'incorrect'! Is he saying his own book is incorrect? Surely not.

''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 ?''

Er… yes. Because Kevin said so. The flaw in the data Kevin posted here (by his own account – let's forget the book)is that it's unfortunately based upon a concept: ''effective'', which means all things to all people.

Graf where can we find the krieg tables?

Ghee