"Rating Performance of Nap. Artillery" Topic

Peter Gilder's Salamanca and Waterloo scenarios rate the British foot artillery as Elite. This gives them a slight advantage in his In The Grand Manner rules.

I am wondering why this is so – what is it about the British artillery that would make them so much better than their French counterparts in Spain and at Waterloo. I might be willing to give a nod to the RHA based on their performance at Fuentes d'Orno, but aside from that, I can find little evidence to suggest that the British artillery arm was any better than those in other European armies during the Napoleonic wars. One might make an equally persuasive argument that the French artillery was as well served based on its performance during the 1805-1809 period. Is this an example of "national characteristics" or "national bias" or is there some substance to the argument favoring British artillery over that of France, Austria, Prussia, Russia, Spain, etc. What does the group think?

I might be off here, but most British artillery was lighter calibre than other nationalities as well. Wasn't the 8lber considered the "field" piece limit for the British rather than the 12lber?

Not sure, just adding to the general question here.

Jay

Scenario balance?

Peter Gilder being Peter Gilder.

The British did ocassionally use 12-pdrs in the field, but not in Spain (the French ones were mostly parked in depot there, too) because of the weight factor. Thus most of the British artillery had 9 or 6-pdrs. There was one battery in the Peninsula with heavy 3-pdrs that served as counterbattery specialists.

One big advantage the RA/RHA had was better ammo. British gunpowder was much higher quality (and much more consistent quality) than French. Throw in timed case (shrapnel), better vehicular performance (the Congreve block trail carriage and its associated limber were a spectacular advance over the Gribeuval system), and better training (including frequent live firing). While ITGM may have exagerated the edge, it did exist.

I cannot imagine why they would be considered any better than the artillerists of most of the other nationalities at that time. The French, Germans and Russians all had excellent artillerists. The Portugese had been trained quite a bit under Schuamburg-Lippe, and there is no reason to believe that the Spanish did not also have excellent gunners, when they were available. As far as material goes, I see no reason to see the British cannon as superior to the others at this time either.

As far as accuracy in fire, there is little to support the notion that the British were supperior. As far as materiel, as rmaker observed, the Brits did have an edge for mobility (esp. the 9 pdr over the 8 pdr) and ammunition. The availability of Shrapnel for use in long guns was a great advantage. The French often were unable to respond, except from the howizers and with solid shot.

British naval gunfounding was superior to French throughout the 18th century so I'd imagine that the same was true for land guns. Add greater predictability of the charge strength, a wider variety of ammunition types and even with equal training it should make their performance superior on the battlefield.

How much superior is the debatable point. Would it be enough to 'up' them a class above their opponents ?

Napoleon's artillery were very well trained, possibly better than the British, and also used to acting in concert to concentrate fire from a number of batteries.

Personally, I'd say they were about on a par with the British edge being maneouvrability and shrapnel and the French better control in larger numbers.

Just my take on it, I don't think that there is much in the records of battlefield performance that would allow a definite answer to the question.

Tony H

Living environment, transport trouble or shot quality, I would guess.

Rest time:
The British were served by a comissariat that supplied food and fodder and their ammunition was generally well supplied. Which meant during rest periods thay could rest and have fun. And maintain their guns. And have enough shot.

Supply
The French supply routes, of course, went back all the way to France and were constantly under attack from the Spanish. Not only were their ammunition supplies more errattic, but the men had to tire their horses to forage for food while their British counterparts were resting. Must have had an effect on horse artillery, which were possibly the most useful type in Portugal.

Damage to guns
French guns were larger and not designed for the tracks of western Spain. Moreover, the French forage and looting tactics alienated the rural population, which meant that they got no help in updating out of date maps. So the French often lost or damaged guns and horses simply because they used unsuitable tracks, as Soult did after Opporto.

Powder quality
French used poorer powder which affected range and safety. Although by how much, is difficult to say. Could have been a factor if they needed more of it and supply was poor.

Shot quality
Less clear. The French used smaller canister balls but it's hard to asertain from that differences in killing ability. Otherwise the British at times had a greater variety of types of shot they could fire from battleries as the occiasion demanded: shrapnel, howitzers and even rockets (used by Hope to good effect in the invasion of France).

I reckon!

<shameless plug>

In Napoleonic Quick March the British and French batteries are equal, yet some other nations are downgraded. Our reasoning was that consistently both the British and French concentrated firepower locally without preplanned redoubts (russians) and mobility difficulties (Austrains). However, this is for the base game, and we do mess with capabilities in our upcoming scenario booklet based on historical difficulties such as roads, limited ammo, etc.

<end plug and resume tie-in>

Perhaps he is focusing on one or two historical areas and not on overall effect per say. :)

Jay

As to the guns themselves, the French Guns were generally if not always superior to the British ordinance. British guns tended to be older, and greater windage was an issue. French technology at this time was "state of the art".

That being said, the record of the RHA and RFA is exceptional. How they managed to pull this off with "inferior equipment" is something I can only speculate about.

You see, I have to wonder if "accuracy" was all that important. It may have been that if you can get the shot close, that was good enough to do a lot of damage.

Also, and I know I may sound like a broken record here, it isn't how good the artillery or crew are, it is how they were utilized that matters. Does superior leadership or superior tactics make a battery a "superior battery"???? Or is it that a well placed, well used "competent battery" produces superior results?

Well use your own best prejudices to answer those questions.

mjc

The French used smaller canister balls

Semi-true. French light canister used smaller balls than the British. But the French had both light and heavy canister for each caliber (the latter for longer ranged work), and the heavy balls were larger than their British counterparts.

what is the basis for the statement on powder quality?

what are the criteria for judging powder, and if there were differences, in quality of manufacture, not to mention formulation, what is the data that says the differences reulted in statistically significant differrences on the battlefield?

seems a lot of arbitrary statements being made….but I do like the one about French "balls" being smaller….

Just a few general thoughts. The quality of powder is one of degree. The English powder was cleaner but the difference in performance was not significant.

The French did not use 12lb guns in the Peninsula. They mostly used 8s and 4s. The English used their 6lb guns both long and short and later the 9lb gun which approximated the performance of the French 8. The English short was light enough but due to a short barrel its performance was comparatively poor.

I am not an expert on barrel technology but French technology was generally acknowledged as state of the art, with French barrels being lighter and longer with a narrower windage than allied barrels including all but the English long 6lbr, which was very heavy for it caliber.

Longer barrels with narrower windage is generally thought to result in greater muzzle velocity which contributes to accuracy.

Having met Peter I would bet he rated the English gunners better because he was English – in him an endearing trait – God rest his soul. In the event there was little to choose from.

Good Gaming.

Bob Coggins

French powder was poorer because of a shortage of salpetre led to them having to get it from anywhere it could be had. This led to inconsistency and unreliability and so gunners could be less certain about the power of a particular charge.

I bow to superior knowledge of the quality of land artillery – I was extrapolating from the naval armaments, obviously incorrectly.

"Longer barrels with narrower windage is generally thought to result in greater muzzle velocity which contributes to accuracy. "

True to a point but British naval practice was to allow greater windage on purpose – to allow shot to be manufactured cheaply with a higher tolerance. Using the correct wadding reduced the problem of lost power to some extent but range wasn't really a factor in British naval gunnery. It is likely that the better fit created less 'bounce' within the barrel and that, rather than greater MV, would make for better accuracy.

Tony H

according to a British artillery Cpt memoirs he felt that the French out shot the British 5 to 6.

that is 5 French guns where worth 6 British

Armies of Wellington if I remember.

Lord Ghee

Can anyone amplify the difference in results obtained from the British short 6-pdr and their long 6-pdr? I'm assuming that the short version was used by the horse artillery and the long by the foot, correct? Was there only one length of 9-pdr?

rmcaras
''what is the basis for the statement on powder quality?
what are the criteria for judging powder…….seems a lot of arbitrary statements being made..''

Only seemingly! The ideal mixture, based on field trials and centuaries of development, was a Saltpetre/charcoal/sulphur ratio of: 76:15:9.

The French theoretically used a 75:12.5:12.5 mixture,
The British standard was:..75:15:10.

In practice, weaker powders were used so that innacuracies inevitable in measurement wouldn't cause damage to the crew or gun. But premature ignition was still possible, so that powder was placed in parchment or coated sack cartridges of various types – at least that's true of British, Saxon and Austrian artilley. The Russians used tin.

To fire 6 oz balls in a 12 pder canister round, the French required a 4.5lb charge, the British a 3.5lb charge; perhaps pointing to better efficiency of powder use with British guns, hence faster loading.

So… it's possible, that the more advanced stage of industrialisation in Britian simply enabled more consistant and uniform types of powder, cartridge and fuse to be mass produced. That would make artillery easier to use, safer and easier to guage range.

A last detail: French ordinance, in general, was slightly lighter to pull.

didonlowry
Can anyone amplify the difference in results obtained from the British short 6-pdr and their long 6-pdr?

In what respect? E.g. The heavier 6 pder had a 200-yard advantage when canister fireing because it could take a larger charge to shot ratio (1:3 as opposed to 1:4)

It has to do with range and accuracy. The short was easily outshot by the 8 and almost by the 4, keeping in mind that a French pound was 1.1 English pounds, the 8 shot a ball that was 2.8lbs heavier.

As a rule, all other things being equal, shorter barrels are capable of larger charges. This is because the gasses don't have the ability to build up as much and in the case of the English guns, greater windage also slightly dissipates the gas build up.

As I posted, I am not and expert in artillery. That said, the excessive weight of the long 6 made for a stronger barrel which could accept a larger charge thus a greater muzzle velocity and therefore greater accuracy.

The problem with the long 6 is it is almost as heavy as the 9 which obviously had greater hitting power. While it had a longer barrel, it also weighed about 500lbs more than a French 8 which fired an 8.8 English pound ball with much greater hitting power.

The ammo distribution of 75% ball to 25% cannister does not indicate the artillerymen had as much faith in or used cannister to the extent that many think. I suspect that heavy and light cannister was mostly reserved for 2/300 yards or less depending on the piece. At longer cannister ranges ball, which was in plentiful supply, could do just as much damage. So why use cannister at long range, which was not plentiful?

To the best of my understanding English naval guns were cast in iron rather than brass. Iron even English iron had a nasty habit of blowing up on occasion. Brass sagged but did not explode. Without any absolute knowledge, could the greater windage of the naval guns help reduce the chance of the barrel exploding by slightly dissipating the gasses in the chamber?

We need a ballistics expert here. I am conjecturing blind and based on knowledge that doesn't necessarily apply.

Good gaming.

Bob Coggins

Russian General Sievers commented after the 1807 campaign that there wasn't much difference in material between the Russian and French artillery systems. What made the French better was their employment of their artillery on the battlefield. And that difference, which was decisivie, was a product of the French artillery schools which taught infantry/artillery cooperation and to employ their artillery in mass at the decisive point.

French artillery was employed aggressively on the battlefield. They were the only army that had a doctrinal publication, which they used and studied, above the company/battery level. This was part and parcel of the Gribeauval reforms of the 1760s-1770s. Artillery is more than guns, crews, horses, equipment, etc. It's organization, training, command and control, and employment. That is where the French had the decisive edge during the period.

The British artillery arm, though excellent, was small. The RHA thought the French horse artillery arm superior to theirs, and I would have to agree. The French horse artillery was an elite service, and the Guard artillery was superb. They did practice and had live fire contests at least annually at La Fere. In the War of 1812 the British on the Niagara frontier, where Chippawa, Lundy's Lane, and Fort Erie were fought, gave the American artillery attached to Jacob Brown's Left Division the ultimate compliment: 'We thought you were French.'

Austrian artillery was also an excellent arm, but was not employed as aggressively as the French and they really didn't have horse artillery. Their cavalry batteries were supported by their cavalry in combat, not the other way around. Also, they were not as mobile as French, British, Russian, or Wurttemberg horse artillery.

The Russian artillery arm continually improved throughout the period. Their weakness was an unskilled officer corps whose professional education lagged behind those of Britain, France, Austria, and some of the smaller German states. The Prussians had the worst artillery arm of the period for the larger nations. They didn't have an artillery school until 1791. Austrian artillery schools, modeled on the French, were also excellent, as was the British school at Woolwich.

Looking at field tests for artillery and the individual nations field pieces and ancillary equipment is important and interesting, but it only tells the surface story of any of the nations' artillery arms. The French employed captured artillery from Austria, Russia, and undoubtedly Prussia with the Grande Armee in the field. Whatever pieces they used, they still excelled in the employment of their artillery arm in combat. The French artillery grew into a battle winner after 1807. None of the other nations can claim that. And that was because of training and doctrine, and especially command and control.

Kevin,

Coincidentally as I recall one of the battery commanders in the American army was Captain Towson. The county seat in Baltimore County is named for his family.

Neither did any other nation's artillery have so many senior officers with such authority as the French.

Good gaming.

Bob Coggins

Excellent summation Kevin. The artillery arm was decisive because of mobility in employment, not because of calibre, range, or relative humidity within the powder. :)

Bob,

That was the command and control part that I was referring to.

The overwhelming majority of the corps artillery chiefs in the Grande Armee were artillery generals, not senior field grade officers. Generals can talk to other generals, even one senior to them, a lot differently than a field grade officer will or can. The Prussians had that problem.

Also, having a large army artillery reserve (and each corps having an artillery reserve) wa a force that could be decisively employed when necessary.

Sincerely,
Kevin

FMG,

Thanks very much. That was very nice of you. I do hope I can both help and contribute.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Kevin F Kiley
''Whatever pieces they used, they still excelled in the employment of their artillery arm in combat. The French artillery grew into a battle winner after 1807. None of the other nations can claim that''

Can you really think of a Franco-British battle (land or sea) where that was true? Any one would do.

Flaming Monkey Games,
''Excellent summation Kevin. The artillery arm was decisive because of mobility in employment''

Can you think of any Franco-British battle where that was true. I mean any at all?

>"In what respect? E.g. The heavier 6 pder had a 200-yard advantage when canister fireing because it could take a larger charge to shot ratio (1:3 as opposed to 1:4)"<

What about with shot?

Sure, Waterloo.

After the French cavalry charges failed the fighting in the allied center was against French infantry fighting in skirmisher swarms supported by artillery that was demolishing allied squares at 100-250 yard range. Cuirassiers closely supported this operation and if the French right flank hadn't caved in because of the Prussians, the allied center was literally dying in place. What this tactic demonstrated was how French artillery was employed throughout the wars and what they could do if coordinated with infantry and cavalry. If that tactic had been adopted earlier, and Ney hadn't wasted the French cavalry, I submit that Wellington would have been driven off his ridge, Prussians or no Prussians.

And as a footnote, you can check the following references if you have them for the above information:

Henry Houssaye, Napoleon and the Campaign of 1815, page 216

John C. Ropes, The Campaign of Waterloo, A Military History, page 310

William Siborne, History of the Waterloo Campaign, pages 314, 327, 331-332

You can also check Chesney's Waterloo Letters on page 216.

Further, if you're interested in the French cavalry breaking and/or overrunning allied infantry squares during Ney's cavalry charges, check Houssaye on page 212 and 424, as well as the Letters of Brigadier Pilloy of the 9th Cuirassiers in Carnets de la Sabretache, Volume 14, 1906, pages 505 and 558. You can also check Jean Regnault, Les Aigles Imperiale et la Drapeau Tricolore 1804-1815.

Kevin

Two issues here…

"Austrian artillery was also an excellent arm, but was not employed as aggressively as the French and they really didn't have horse artillery. Their cavalry batteries were supported by their cavalry in combat, not the other way around. Also, they were not as mobile as French, British, Russian, or Wurttemberg horse artillery.

The Russian artillery arm continually improved throughout the period. Their weakness was an unskilled officer corps whose professional education lagged behind those of Britain, France, Austria, and some of the smaller German states. The Prussians had the worst artillery arm of the period for the larger nations. They didn't have an artillery school until 1791. Austrian artillery schools, modeled on the French, were also excellent, as was the British school at Woolwich."

To your first instance I would agree until it comes to actual deployment when Austrian and Bavarian Cavalry batteries seem to have been able to get into action quicker. Also, just in terms of equipment, Liechtenstein's designs are still being adopted by the Prussians as late as 1803 (the 12lb) and that French 6lb of course…

As for your second paragraph, well, I can hear a Russian friend of mine saying "quantity has a quality all of it's own"…

K

K,

In all the research I have seen I have seen nothing which states that the Austrian and Bavarian cavalry batteries could get into action faster than French horse artillery. In fact, French manuals recommend that cannoneers be individually mounted as it was quicker to both displace and emplace. The Austrian system was awkward, the gun trails were too long, and they had to have cavalry support them. Sorry, but it doens't make sense that they could move faster than the French. Not to mention that it had to be somewhat dangerous and awkward for the gun teams to move any faster than a sharp trot with the crew on the gun trails.

That the Prussians adopted an obsolete design is not news. There are reasons that they had the worst artillery arm of the period among the main belligerents.

The French 6-pounder had nothing to do with the Lichtenstein system. I've seen that referred to from time to time and it is an incorrect assumption. The gun tube is heavier, it is a much more modern design, and of course the round is heavier.

Interesting comment on the Russians, and I've heard it before. The reasons the Russians had to rely on quantity is that their artillery officers weren't that skilled. They were actually poor shots and had to use mass to hit anything.

Sincerely,
Kevin

As far as casting better cannon of bronze, I wonder what advantage the French might have had? There are certain things one is looking for in a gunmetal cannon of this period. Low porosity in the barrel is a huge factor. Lower porosity (less bubbles, or where there is no gunmetal) is only achieved through the experience of master gun casters. Did the French really have an advantage here? Another factor, and this is after casting, is the trueness of the bore of the cannon, or the "soul" of the cannon in some of the old German texts. Is the bore diameter consistent, and is the bore parallel to the axis of the barrel, or is it slightly off? Again, how do we know if the French were superior in this area. The British certainly had the experience of some master founders, such as the Verbruggiens, but their cannon were not without some complaints about porosity. We should ask ourselves, did the master French Founders, who inherited the tried and true traditions of Strausburg and Doubai, excell the English in the Founding of cannon? It would seem a reasonable claim to make, but perhaps needs some more information in order to back up the claim.

As we were discussing Salamanca in another thread, could I point out the British artillery there successively took out three French commanders; a factor that may have one them the battle.
The French artillery didn't quite live up to this level & its performance could be described as disappointing.
donald

I think another aspect that really does not get covered very well is the fact that differing nationalities used differing amounts of Howitzers within each battery or in some cases none at all. This I feel impacts on some aspects of battle for better or worse.

Russian batteries were noted for being 12 guns strong and having 4 howitzers while French foot batteries only had 2 and British batteries had just a single howitzer. Austrian batteries in many cases had zero howitzers.

For overall resulting casualties caused on an enemy would you say having less or more howitzers was a benefit or detriment to a battery? I know Howitzers were used in separate ways to cannons but I often wondered why one country predominated their gun lines with howitzers while another really ignored them.

Regards,
Shane

Shane,

The Russian licorne was actually what would be termed today a 'gun-howitzer,' being a long-tubed piece that had the capability of some high-angle fire. The Russians made note that when the French emplaced their howitzers in a defile, they couldn't reach them with their licornes because they couldn't be elevated to the proper angle to hit in the defile. They said all you could see were the tops of the French gun crews heads.

On the other hand, the French did prize captured licornes. They were in the French artillery parcs in the Russian campaign.

Napoleon massed his howitzers at both Borodino and Waterloo for special missions against the Great Redoubt and Hougoumont respectively.

Sincerely,
Kevin

>>>Napoleon massed his howitzers at both Borodino<<<

Thanks for that Kevin, I knew about Waterloo but doing the same at Borodino is totally new information for me. Now this in itself impacts on another thread I put up on TMP regarding gun affects on Redoubts. To know Napoleon massed his howitzers for action against redoubts helps me with honing my system for damage inflicted by various means including howitzers.

Thanks for the insite K

Shane

The French at Neerlinden in 1793 used their Howitzers this way against the Austrins who where really annoyed by this such that they wrote about it and how unfair it was.

Lord Ghee

thx Lordghee,

It's great when you can come here to TMP and learn something new every day. You have now incited in me also an interest in Neerlinden to find out more about it.

"The French at Neerlinden in 1793 used their Howitzers this way against the Austrins who where really annoyed by this such that they wrote about it and how unfair it was."

Nothing really new here. Freederick the Great advised the use of specific howitzer batteries for use against fixed emplacements and, interestigly, reversed slope troops. Both the Prussians and the Saxons fielded Howitzer-only batteries throughout the wars.

And, yes, the Austrians in their Brigade batteries did not have Howitzers at all, they were usually to be found in the Position batteries of Divisional or Corps reserve. Interestingly a small battery of 2 howitzers was attached to Von Gasser's small force that was the Austrian third of Streifkorps von Thielmann.

Kevin,

Not sure about adopting an obsolete design or rather one far better than they currently had. After all they did not copy the Gribeauval barrel did they, which was also possible….

ok, only teasing…

But, given their exposure to shrapnel, and continued grumbles about it's effectiveness, I am always a little suprised that the French did not adopt a similar munition. It was not beyond the wit of man to copy it, after copying an Austrian barrel it would have been child's play.

K

K,

The French experimented with a shrapnel-type round and couldn't get it to work correctly.

Which Austrian gun tube was copied by the way?

Sincerely,
Kevin

>"For overall resulting casualties caused on an enemy would you say having less or more howitzers was a benefit or detriment to a battery?"<

It depends.

"The French experimented with a shrapnel-type round and couldn't get it to work correctly."

This is quite interesting, can you expand on this?

K

The French carried out experiments in 1806 using common shell filled with musket balls. I haven't found much on it, but found it in passing. Apparently the production of this round was 'limited' and nothing much came of it in the end, unfortunately.

It is interesting to me that Napoleon stifled such innovations and like shrapnel, rifles and the infamous submarine exercise. It is a pity such things were not taken on board and developed more deeply.

I believe it was a matter of priorities. Rockets were experimented with and they weren't successful either. Shell firing naval guns were, though, as well as naval guns mounted on pivot carriages which was somewhat innovative.

Rifles weren't popular with the rank and file; they preferred the musket. That was probably because the rifle took too long to load. The French had an excellent rifled carbine, model of AN XII, that was 40 inches long which weighed 8 pounds and had excellent sights. It fired a 28 to the pound forced ball and was supposed to be issued to officers, sergeants, and fourriers of voltigeur companies. It wasn't popular and didn't have a bayonet. Many people had rifled pistols that were made in Ratisbon by an armorer named Kuchenrenter. Again, it fired a 'forced' ball.

Luke,

When Gribeauval designed his gun tubes he had already constructed and tested Prussian and Austrian models from plans he had brought back from an prewar (Seven Years War) inspection trip to Prussia and from service with the Austrian artillery in the same war against the Prussians. he found that the construction of their gun tubes was too light and he made his more sturdy so that their service life would be longer (the Prussians cast their gun tubes at 100 pounds of metal for every pound of round, the Austrians 120; the Prussian guns were fourteen calibers in length, the Austrian sixteen). Therefore he decided that the new field pieces would be eighteen calibers in length and cast at 150 pounds for every pound or round. He was also strict in the parameters and tolerances for the new guns, the gun carriages, and the ancillary vehicles. Windage, the distance between the round and the bore, was greatly reduced, much more so than either the Prussian or Austrian pieces, and the metal alloy used was as pure as possible. The Austrians would use scrap left over from casting previous gun tubes, but Gribeauval wouldn't allow that. Further, while 'cats' or searchers had been in existence for years to check for casting flaws in the bore, he developed a new searcher which was very modern in both appearance and function (it is similar to the modern pullover gauge that serves the same purpose). In short, Gribeauval's tolerances and quality control, as well as casting methods for both gun tubes and roundshot, were superior to the other powers artillery systems.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Kevin

Did you manage to dig up any references to Confederation guns and equipment? Although I know the Spanish used Gribeauval (with some La Valliere stuff still knocking around) I have always felt that the French allies in Germany, plus the italians and Neapolitans, are overlooked. I could only say with certainty that the Poles were using captured Austrian and Prussian kit, but what about the rest? Who else, if anyone, adopted Gribeauval and why?

K

K,

The Poles also used French stuff. The Hanoverians had their own material and the other German states used a combination of Prussian and Austrian material as far as I can see. They undoubtedly used French material also. No one else adopted the Gribeauval system, just as no one else adopted the Lichtenstein system, and the Prussians had no artillery system until after the wars. Their Systeme of 1812 was not fully adopted until the shooting started. The Kingdom of Italy undoubtedly used French material.

There is material out there, and I have mentioned the artillery of the better German states (Bavaria, Wurttemberg, Baden, etc.) but I have not looked into detail into the material they used. I concentrated on their organization and size of the artillery arms of the various states. When the Systeme AN XI material (5.5-inch howitzer and 6-pounder) were introduced the odler 4- and 8-pounders went into the arsenals and were undoubtedly issued to any allies that needed them. Davout issued artillery to the Danes, for example, in 1813-1814 in Hamburg. 4- and 8-pounders were also used by the French in Spain instead of 12-pounders. The Belgians and Dutch undoubtedly had French material.

It is also noteworthy that the French weren't bashful about using captured guns. Bon Boulart has a delightful story about having to borrow a captured Austrian field piece after Essling while one of his was being repaired in the arsenal.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Kevin

I know that the French used Austrian guns, both at Wagram and as battalion pieces in 1812 (that little 3lb was very maneouverable after all) and I know baron Rumford, among his many other gifts, designed a 3lb for the Bavarians.

My interest is as a wargamer, when I get some German allies what gun models should I get and all that. I had anticipated that I could use the Prussian 1806 equipment I have for my planned Hessians or Wurttembergers for example. Most orbats mention 6lb gus and 7lb howitzers so I had assumed, with no evidence other than common sense, that they would be similar to Prussian models.

I did find at Ghorde the allies captured a howitzer cast in the Hague in the 1780's, but it does not say if this had been transferred to a Gribeauval carriage or retained its original Dutch one.

K

Kevin: longer barrels, in terms of multiples of the bore (usually expressed as L; e.g. the Gribeauval guns would be L18), leads directly to increased muzzle velocity, which means increased accuracy. The same applies to decreased windage. Therefor, French guns would have been more accurate than Austrian and Prussians guns (not counting the skills of the gunners). Not so?

How pleasant it is to read an artillery thread here that is so well-conducted (& how impossible this was a few months ago). Well done, all!
donald