"Rating Performance of Nap. Artillery" Topic

Don

There is also powder quality to consider too, and French powder was not considered that good, and the amount of smoke and general obscurity of a Napoleonic battlefield that would create even more practical limits. Although you may look at small percentages in accuracy tbh you really are looking at very small percentage increments. I know one set of computer moderated rules did have very detailed factors for weapon efficiency but in terms of general representation on the battlefield it hardly makes a great deal of difference.

K

Don,

I would agree with you. And it seems to me that French gunpowder was efficient enough. They did enough damage with it. And the maximum effective range for roundshot was about 1000 yards, double if you could get a good ricochet.

Sincerely,
Kevin

I forgot to add "all other things being equal."

Khevenhuller was asking what make were the guns were used by Frances allies.

According to Nafziger, From 1800 – 1815 Wurttemberg guns were almost entirly Austrian construction with a few Prussian and French pieces as well. The guns used included Hvy & Lt 12pdrs, 8pdrs, 6pdrs & 3pdr; Howitzers were 12pdr, 10pdr, 8pdr & 7pdr and also 8pdr & 32pdr Mortars.

In 1812 Wurttemberg adopted the French use of 12pdrs, 6pdrs & 7pdr Howizers.

Hope this helps

John Mc

I am not so sure about that – the Wurttemburgers did use a gun design, which included a short Wurst seat on the trail, but that does not make them Austrian guns. In contrast, I suspect the 1812 weapons are Austrian since the French did not have enough Yr XI pieces to kit out their troops let alone anyone else's and they would have used a 5.5in designation for the howitzer, not the Austrian 7pdr.

On ammunition,. Nafziger's Imperial Bayonets mentions on p. 261 that the new caissons "continued to receive much criticism for having theor axles too low and for being too heavy for 4 horses to draw. The caisson was not suspended on a spring carriage and the constant shaking caused the ammunition they carrioed to deteriorate. There was also insufficient protection against humidity".

I use my onw set of rules for NAP. This has been a very good thread.

Very interesting discussion and full of good points. I do like to class all units and have the French and British good, with the Austrians and Russians being average and the Prussians the poor relation. Some units are better or worse due to battlefield accolades in my campaign.

Thanks Craig

Bit of an inbuilt and inaccurate bias then? After all, French gunners apparently could not hit Masses at short range at Aderklaa.

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

er are we all missing the point here? The British are obviously superior because they run away less often than the French!

british author = british superiority and bias
french author = french superiority and bias
american author = american superiority and bias
german author = german superiority and bias

and then there is Peter Hofschrorer…

Its just a matter of perspective

Dear Shane
I would add that American Author then a French bias.

Being serious, the considerations of the best manner of using artillery is rather complex.

The Austrians and Russians were very competant in battery terms but lack co-ordination. The Russians improved considerably.

The Prussians in 1813-15 were hampered by a ramshackle set of guns and equipment after being seriously looted by the Russians (7 Years War) and the French (1806-12). Their guns were rather heavy and less than mobile. The Prussian Foot Artillery could be considered as vehicle mounted as their gunners could ride the off horse and on the limber. This gave mobility to these batteries.

Remember that the guns were a much of a muchness and how they were served. Mobility of the guns were more reliant upon horses than the cavalry. To think that a battery would require about 80-120 horse (Foot Artillery) and over 200 for horse artillery.

The manner the artillery was served with ammunition was important. The Gribeauval System as the French started the war in 1792 was based upon static war of the Seven Years War. It was not until they adopted Austrian practice of mules and for a short period ammunition limbers did this improve. The Gribeauval Caisson was a great weakness with too small front wheel, high centre of gravity liable to tip over and unable to move through mud etc….

The French did very well after they used a huge amount of captured material that had a better ammunition supply system. This matched with the elan of the French Artillery made them very effective.

Many of these ideas will be found in my new book

Dawson, Dawson and Summerfield (Dec 2007) Napoleonic Artillery, Crowood Press.

This is a starting point but as ever the ideas and concepts develop as it has taken a year from us finishing the writing to getting printed.

Stephen

Stephen

It is difficult to determine the performance of each nations' artillery if we don't have some sort of criteria.
Mobility and ability to hit the enemy are certainly two,but there are others, such as speed of fire, morale and organization, both physical and mental.

The British horse artillery was the first artillery organization to place the drivers and gunners in the same command/unit. They did this in 1793. This may seem unimportant, but for all the artillery units during the Napoleonic wars, the drivers were not part of the artillery company. They had their own organization, uniforms and officers. Their responsibility was to get the guns to a position and the gunners to fire the guns.

The Royal Horse artillery also developed cassions, carriages and ammo wagons unique to their troops around 1793. The use of the single trail gun carriage is only one of the innovations used.

This split in command responsibilities between gunners and drivers created a whole raft of organizational and performance issues for British, French and Allied nations' artillery--many were different because of the variety of ways in which the division of responibilities was handled and the professionalism of the two organizations, drivers and gunners.

The transition from private contractors providing the drivers and the drivers being enlisted into the army was handled in different ways at different times. The British Corps of Drivers wasn't created until 1794 by the Ordinance Department, and the procedures for their deployment took much longer to make work.

In the British Royal artillery, The corps of drivers was divided up into Troops of five hundred. A single artillery brigade could have drivers from multiple Troops, each under a separate NCO or officer.

Captain Larson of the Royal Artillery decided to usurp the command of the drivers, saying that he was following the "Horse Artillery practice" and took command of the drivers in his brigade while fighting in the Peninsula. [Just a note. The term battery was not used for a unit of field artillery except for some German armies--and the Portuguese army which was trained by the Germans in the 1700s.]

The benefits of having the drivers working in tandum with the gunners as a single unit can be seen in Ross's performance at the Neve. His brigades were able to outpace the entire British advance across very rough ground.

In the 1818 maneuvers in France demonstrated the Royal Horse artillery's ability to such a degree that the French promptly adopted the Horse Artillery's organization and equipment.

The Royal Horse artillery was also produced the first British artillery manual during this time.

In fact, the Royal Horse artillery was enough of a success that by 1812, the Royal artillery was providing 'rides' for all gunners, either mounted or riding on the wagons and cassions--which makes them a bit different from a pure 'foot' artillery.

This is just a little sample of the issues behind the resultant performance of a nation's artillery.

Craig,

I would agree with you that the two best artillery arms of the period were the French and British. Austria and Russia would definitely be next with Prussia a poor last. I would also give Russia the nod as the most improved.

When evaluating a nation's artillery arm you not only have to take into consideration the guns and vehicles, but also the organization, doctrine, training, education, leadership, and command and control. How they fought is the most important, and here the French definitely had the edge, even in 1813 when their artillery arm had to be almost entirely rebuilt before it took the field that April.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Stephen,

I do believe that the French ammunition supply system has been explained here before and it was quite efficient. If you have any questions I would be more than happy to answer them, but your characterization of it, as well as the Gribeauval System and what it was designed for, are both incorrect.

The Gribeauval System of field artillery was designed for a war of movement and maneuver. That is clearly stated in French publications and was the reason Gribeauval completely revamped the system. The only areas he did not address were horse artillery and the militarization of the artillery train.

Sincerely,
Kevin

I'm with you sheepie. I think the debate on French ability and equipment vs British is all a bit pointless, I think the reason Peter Gilder Made British superior in his rules is that he didn't think they should fail a moral test!I'm afraid we cant dig him up and ask him, just fond memories of him will tell you, that is exactly what he was thinking! I love playing with the French army and so did Peter, but the sad fact is in the napoleonic wars the British 'seemed' to get the better of the French no matter who the commander was or how experience or raw the troops and equipment were.

For my part I really dont think the French would have any less elan than thier British counterpart.

"The Gribeauval System of field artillery was designed for a war of movement and maneuver. That is clearly stated in French publications and was the reason Gribeauval completely revamped the system. The only areas he did not address were horse artillery and the militarization of the artillery train."

Given the bloke did not address the most obviously mobile bit and used guns and carriages too heavy for field use (lacking a field howitzer), not least as he had no practical field experience, that argument does not stand up. The claim is based on a single intro paragraph of the 1762 report, which has not been read in full by most of those pronouncing on it (yourself included).

Dave, please look at the last message on the previous page of this thread.

Kevin:

I wasn't saying the British were better, worse or equal to the French. I was pointing out some of the things that make for unique condition within each army. How did the French handle the separation of their Train personnel and artillery gunners? How did the Austrians or Russians take care of it. And why would the Prussians be the worst, and at what?

Without some specific criteria, and we're talking about your point regarding training, organization, elan, experience, leadership, we can't make and comparisons. And without some cause and effect examples, we can't build the data to make those comparisons. So far, we have been comparing hardware. If the technical aspects of equipment made the difference, the French would have won all their tank battles in 1940.

The British had scrapnel too, and while I can find antedotal commentaries on it's effectiveness, even from Wellington, actual battlefield results compared to solid shot etc. aren't to be found…

So, What criteria. For instance, if the British organization of their Horse Artillery was superior, then what advantage did it produce compared to the French and other nations. What where their organizations?

It's the same with the Wurst method of transporting crew on mounted/flying/horse artillery. I keep reading conclusions on how bad it was, and yet the Austrians and others kept the system until after 1850. Why? They certainly changed other aspects of their artillery system.

I can't claim to know artillery to any great depth, but so far it isn't clear at all in the discussion: what made one artillery arm superior to another, or what that meant in the way of performance on the battlefield.

Just my .02…

Couldn't agree with you more, dave. When . ripped off all his ideas from the Austrians, he should have chosen a better source than those hide-bound, slow-moving old reactionaries.
donald the ironical

@TheScotsman
"for all the artillery units during the Napoleonic wars, the drivers were not part of the artillery company. They had their own organization, uniforms and officers."
From the beginning of the reign of the TSAR Paul, the Russian artillerie did include the train in the compagnies of artillerie. I have never thoght to look earlier, but since over 200 en-listed ("other ranks") were in each companie during the reign of the Great Catherine, one may suppose that this was also to conduct the train. One could look in greater detail if you wished.
The idea of "private contractors" as in France would be unlikely in Russia, where the infra-structure for the Army was owned by the State.

@Kevin F Kiley
"When evaluating a nation's artillery arm you not only have to take into consideration the guns and vehicles, but also the organization, doctrine, training, education, leadership, and command and control."
Also, if one will win a war or a battle, the quantity may be considered. Here the notable are the French and especially the Russians. One perfect batterie may be is not so good as the 5 batteries of less perfection.

- un ami

Scotsman – True, there are many assertions, themselves often based in French assertions fom the time, which are made to "explain" why the French won – except in the end they didn't (hence the assertion that everyone else copied them!). Ami is right – the French have about 100 more guns and 40,000 troops moe at Wagram, so they should have won.

The Wurst was partly a cost saving measure, but it was also more suited to the type of terrain in which the Austrians expected to be fighting – mountains, the Danube valley and northern Italy, where the ground is pretty soft and broken up by vegetation. I can see the superficial idea that it is slower, but I am not so sure now. The French 8pdr weighed almost as much as a 6pdr Wurst gun with the crew sat on, so taking account of the advantage for the Austrian gunners in being able to hop on or off and get 1-2 rounds away before the French were set up, there is nothing in it, certainly over shorter distances. The advantage for the French came from 1800 onwards, when they were using captured ordinary Austrian 6pdrs as horse artillery and then it became the Yr XI, then obvious, there is a marked weight diference, although the Austrians retained the advantage in getting set up.

Arteis – I can't as it is stifled. If it is saying that Gribeauval should not be invoked in every artillery discussion, then I'm afraid that is unavoidable. It has beena key assertion in any ref to French artillery that from 1762, the French always planned to have a mobile field artillery as an independent arm and this was key to N winning battles. The claim is based on one intro paragraph in the 1762 report, which says the Valliere and Lichtenstein systems could be combined into a battle winning artillery. Nothing in this or the following report actually discuysses field artillery or its mobility, but the problem has been that I seem to have been the first person, who has actually read the report since Hennebert published it in 1911.Many discussions on here have theor origins in more recent assertion and on examination, the supposed supporting evidence does not actually exist. If the claim is made here that the French had some advanatge due to greater mobility etc., then let us hear the evidence to support it (and as Ami notes, look at all the evidence including sheer numbers).

Seems like you're blowing a bit of smoke dave.
Why would the Austrians limit themselves to organising such an important arm of service to very specific parameters?
I would also like to hear where this information comes from if it is not an educated guess.
They still had heavier field guns in their repitoire so this seems to negate the proported advantage of a "lighter" system.
If you desire to compare the weight of the French 8 pounder & the Austrian 6llber could you also mention the advantages of the heavier piece in terms of its battlefield performance?
Finally, let us look at the campaign of 1805 where slow Austrian march rates compare poorly with the rapid march of the French. I think both sides took artillery with them.
It was symptomatic of Napoleon's method of war to travel speedily. I see no evidence his G. artillery was an impedimenta.
donald

Dear Ochoin
Please look at the 1805 campaign where Bernadotte left his artillery behind and had to press into service the Hanoverian Artillery. How many examples would you like? You just need to look at various orders of battle.

The speed of march was not hampered by the Artillery in 1805 and 1809 by the Austrians. It was the baggage train etc… Also it should be remembered that the Cavalry and Artillery rely upon horses who cannot force march beyond about 3 days.

It was often for Napoleon upon force marches to leave their artillery behind.

The Wurst (Semi-vehicle and vehicle mounted) Kavalerie Artillery was a fine system whose concept was copied throughout Europe. Manson produced wurst caissons for France in about 1780 and were rejected by conservative Gribeauval. They were later used by the French Legere Artillerie in the Revolutionary period with 8-pdr guns.

The manner of use and deployment is different and need to be appreciated as explained in Dawson, Dawson and Summerfield (Dec 2007) Napoleonic Artillery.

It is hard enough to mount a horse but in the French Army four of the gunners clambered on the horse with about 40 lbs (18.5 kg) in the ammunition satchel over the right shoulder. The Rammer had often to carry this. The porte fire etc was carried on the back of a horse. Gribeauval guns have nowhere to put all the bits and pieces needed to operate a gun.

Ammunition was better in the limber (as the rest of Europe) or on mules (as the Austrians).

It is again something that most have not understood. March rate is measured by the slowest member and this was the infantry and the baggage. Battlefield mobility was different.

The problem with the Gribeauval system was the Caisson which was a poor design. Too small front wheels, top heavy and liable to tip over and not fully waterproof. This was the reason for the late start of Waterloo. Durot could not get his ammunition to his guns. We have pulled a 12-pdr through knee deep mud but could not get the limber through let alone anything heavier due to the small wheels.

If on the criteria of efficiency then I would rate the Austrians, British, Russians and French as high. What let the allies down were their co-ordination. The Prussians suffered greatly with heavy outdated equipment etc… The Portuguese Artillery in the late peninsular were the equals of the British.

It should be noted that lack of horses limited the amount of artillery used by both sides. There were often more artillery companies without horses than with. It should also be noted that 12-pdrs were used by the RHA and RA in the earlier period. I find it strange that the 9-pdr was heavier than the Light 12-pdr.

RHA should not be considered in the terms of other nations as horse artillery as they were used as a mobile reserve. The foot artillery only abandomed single draft in 1807ish.

Stephen

Stephen

Stephen
Stephen
I was not claiming that the French artillery was not an impediment.
Just challenging dave's usual Austrian propaganda that it was exceptionally slow, poor, heavy, etc
So, which nations used the wurst during the Napoleonic period from 1805?
I believe there are other reasons offered for the 'late start' at Waterloo eg the ground to dry out to allow bounce through though I'm glad your re-enacting has given you some nsights.
Much of your post, whilst of some interest, seems to be offered for no particular reason.eg the single shaft of the RA limber.
I'm sure your book is a good one.
donald

I'm wary of arguments like 'If one system was worse than another, there's no reason for them to have continued using it. Surely it had to have recommendations or it would have changed'

Organizations, even (and perhaps especially) in militaries governed by absolute authorities, have their interior politics and motivations. When we look at the data of history we can easily forget the people of history.

It is wild speculation but the Austrians might have maintained their artillery system as it was throughout the wars simply because those making monies on the manufacture of them or those who made their reputation on the designs had too much political influence to allow it to be changed. Even the Corps system's implementation in Austria ended up being a political battle betwwen traditionalists and reformers.

People will sabotage change, even in wartime.

Agreed. And as dave tells us, the Austrians were skint & couldn't afford change no matter how merited.
donald

No, Austria used the Wurst for cost and "likely theatre" reasons, but its performance was not that diofferent from other horse artillery and did bestow certain advantages over shorter range.

"Even the Corps system's implementation in Austria ended up being a political battle betwwen traditionalists and reformers" Nonsense – the corps system was not changed acroos the period. There is too much focus on Mayer's planning device of March 1st 1809, without most people realising what it was.

Dear all
Please see my explanation upon Wurst and semi-vehicle horse artillery. There were a considerable number of advantages of both systems.

1. Quicker to clear for action. [Controversial today but not then.]
2. Less horses
3. The length of column reduced by half
4. Ammunition to hand in Wurst chests, mules and light ammunition wagons.
5. Finding artillerymen who could ride was hard. It was harder to train a cavalryman to be an artilleryman than vice versa,
6. This is where artillery evolved to in 19th and 20th century.
7. Fully mounted costed 2-3 times.

As noted each had a slightly different role.

The Austrians could not have been that poor as they fought the French throughout the Revolutionary period, 1805, 1809, 1813-15.

Stephen

>>>>The Austrians could not have been that poor as they fought the French throughout the Revolutionary period, 1805, 1809, 1813-15.<<<<

I am not totally disagreeing with you but that statement says it all. Austria fought the French more than anyone else, only to be beaten almost every time. By the last 10 or less years with so much already spent and vast tracks of land lost to France it is no wonder Austria became poor and needed Britain to keep her a float…

Shane

Dear Shane
I am not sure what you are disagreeing about. Yes the Austrians were poor but so was the rest of Europe. In the main caused by Napoleon's Continental System and the ravages of the various occupations.

I referring to the Austrians as soldiers and not financially.

Stephen

In many cases, it was the artillery and esp[ecially well-handled Cavalry guns, which saved the army from disaster following a defeat.

In many cases, it was the artillery and especially well-handled Cavalry guns, which saved the army from disaster following a defeat.

Dear summerfield,

Okie mate sorry, thought you were talking about their financial situation which was by 1809 onwards very poor indeed.

Shane

As for Cavalry batteries vs. Horse batteries I asked the question a while back as to which type of battery would move faster, unlimber and fire quicker and so on. On one side I had some say the Horse batteries would be faster while on the other some said the Cavalry batteries would be but no one answered my question adequately enough for me.

I tend to agree with Horse batteries moving quicker (depending on calibre obviously) but Cavalry batteries being able to unlimber more quickly….but I am still far from confident with this for my system.

Shane

Dear Shane
This discussion has become rather long and if you want to discuss horse artillery you may want to start another discussion or contact me off-line.

Just thinking upon the amount of equipment that is required to fire and operate the gun and have all the gunners mounted on horses just makes the problem very difficult.

You will see my notes under wurst and semi vehicle horse artillery posted a few days ago.

Stephen

I have done that before and it only ended in tears, thread got hijacked. Question was never answered to my satisfaction.

The heavier vs lighter argumentbymany non-researchers often donot take into effect the rate of fire. A lighter 9pdr can be fired faster than the 12pdr. For mid ranges and closer, the (projectile weight)into the kill zone is actually very close. The advantage of a 12pdr is a further range.

Quality of powder is an often ignored factor.

Dear Rudy
Thank you for that. The influence of better powder made the job of the gunner easier as it was more predictable burn rate. It is interesting to consider the number of Allied guns that must have been burst by British Cylinder powder. As I have explained before shorter barrels could be used less variation in range.

From various tests by Scharnhorst and the Russians, it was concluded that it was more cost effective to have 6-pdrs than 12-pdrs over battlefield ranges of about 1000 paces. Certainly that was the post 1815 view of Prussia. Remember about visability.

A 12-pdr was good for knocking walls and villages to pieces supported by howitzers.

The 9-pdr is a strange beast for the British to have. The Light 12-pdr was a lighter and more handier piece. Reason for adoption was likely to be that 9-pdr shot was readily available from the Board of Ordnance with the introduction of Caronades to the RN (not 8-pdr ammunition as many historians have transcribed) and that more ammunition could be transported. It was disliked by many within the RA as being too heavy. In 1816, the RHA reverted to 6-pdrs as they used in the Crimea.

Stephen

Shane,

Individually mounted horse artillery is undoubtedly the most proficient. That has been pointed out on the forums many times. Excellent references for horse artillery and the mobility of it are in Monhaupt, Tousard, and Koskiusko. Stephen, unfortunately, has made some thumping errors in his 'analysis' that a study of the subject contradict. It appears he is making the same errors in fact that he did in discussing canister and gunpowder. And I do think this ground has been covered before. No disrespect to Stephen is intended, but he is wrong on horse artillery.

Regarding the Austrian cavalry batteries, they had to be supported by cavalry, as is stated in the famous 'NV72' which is not the purpose of horse artillery. Horse artillery was designed to support and keep up with cavalry. And the cavalry batteries would have the same problem with horse holders that the French horse artillery would have as their ammunition was on led pack animals, and had to be looked after when the battery went into position.

Individually mounted horse artillery could move faster, displace and emplace much quicker, and would be getting rounds down range when the Austrian cavalry batteries would be waddling into position.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Very interesting thread, and, to bring us kicking and screaming back to the topic, I have it on very good authority, and, I almost hate to say this, the reason those Gilderguns were Elite is because Peter, (god rest his soul) hadn't enough of the British batteries painted up yet, no more, no less!!!!!

Love 'n' a million D6

John

This really is getting tiresome on Cavalry guns – they were designed to get to key points quickly, which is actually the role of any mobile artillery. They ahd cavalry escorts because infantry could not keep up as they could with other guns. Indeed, accepting the cavalry escort makes the guns the primary weapons and puts the Austrians way ahead of Senarmont in 1807 (who advanced at foot pace anyway). Horse artilelry did not "support" cavalry because it could not keep up and indeed, it would be a bit silly to set upa gun, only to find the cavalry had disappeared as you would be vulnerable to counterattack.

The weights are telling – an Austrian 6pdr Wurst gun was only marginbally heavier with crew on board than a G 8 pdr ona horse artillery team. Ergo, they would have moved at about the same speed. Consequently, the Austrians would be firing while the French were still sorting themselves out – until they copied the ordinary L 6pdr as the YrXI 6pdr, giving them a weight 9and thus speed) advantage to compensate.

'Horse artilelry did not "support" cavalry because it could not keep up…'

Really? Not according to Monhaupt. You might want to take a look and it is on Geert's excellent site. If horse artillery could 'not keep up' with cavalry, why was it assigned to French cavalry divisions and cavalry corps? You are incorrect in your assumption here and if you actually looked at the material, as you so often urge others to do, you'd see this. Apparently you have no idea how artillery was employed, unfortunately. And, by your own admission, you don't know much about French tactics. I wonder what Ramsay would say as he fought his way out of French cavalry at Fuentes d'Onoro with his horse artillery section. Seems to me that he 'kept up' quite nicely.

Sincerely,
Kevin

I suggest you consider the weight per horse. Austrian Cavalry guns were also assigned to cavalry reserves. What is the point of charging off with cavalry – cavalry cannot stand in position for long and so, must be the escort.

Dear Kevin
You are over stepping the mark in the manner that you put your case. Over what am I wrong about?

I am pointing out that the M1765 caisson was probably slower or the same speed as the Austrian Wurst. You cannot operate artillery without ammunition.

The Gribeauval System was not designed to have horse artillery. Gribeauval wrote a report saying that Manson's suggestions for horse artillery were too expensive.

I am pointing out other ways of looking at the discussion that can be thought through rather than quoting endlessly the same source.

Also precisely what version of French horse artillery are you talking about as it changed.

Yours in hope of a civil responce.
Stephen

…because Peter, (god rest his soul) hadn't enough of the British batteries painted up yet, no more, no less!!!!!

Please see entry #3, 25 June.

Thanks,

Bill.

'You are over stepping the mark in the manner that you put your case.'

I don't believe so. I did include the statement in the posting that 'No disrespect to Stephen is intended…' Perhaps you consider what I have said blunt, but it was straightforward with no word-smithing and right to the point. Again, there was no disrespect intended.

'Over what am I wrong about?'

Ammunition, specifically canister and gunpowder; horse artillery in general and the French horse artillery arm in particular; Gribeauval as an artilleryman and innovator should do for a start.

Specifically regarding horse artillery you stated that 'the Gribeauval System was not designed for horse artillery.' That is incorrect. It has been shown that the artillery system was designed for a war of maneuver and was not based on the Seven Years War. This was the period of French military reform and field artillery in particular was one of the target elements for reform because the Valliere System was obsolete and had failed in the Seven Years War.

When asked why he didn't include horse artillery in his reform of the French artillery arm by de Vregilles, another French artillery officer, Gribeauval replied 'You witness the difficulties and enemies which my endeavors to destroy ancient prejudices have raised against me; at a future period we may execute your plan, digest and improve upon it; for the present it would be asking too much.' Gribeauval was undoubtedly planning to implement that action at a later date.

And it should be noted that de Vregilles had organized an improvised horse artillery detachment near Wolfenbutel in 1762 and employed it on an operation. Incidentally, he individually mounted all of his gunners.

It has been demonstrated to you in previous threads about horse artillery. If you're interested, please check Tousard, Volume II on horse artillery, from pages 30-48. It not only states that both 8- and 12-pounders are easily employed as horse artillery pieces, but that the 8-pounder is the preferred caliber. Further, at a French conference on horse artillery in 1792 it was decided that the best way for horse artillery to be employed was to have the gunners individually mounted so they could displace and emplace more quickly, and that the artillery companies would be able to open fire 'as soon as they are placed.' The conference was called by the Minister of War, Narbonne, and consisted of both artillery and engineer senior officers.

It is also interesting that Tousard mentions a comparison between the French horse artillery and its Austrian semi-counterpart and finds the Austrians wanting in mobility. Like it or not, the French horse artillery of the period enjoyed a reputation second to none in Europe and was admired by their British counterparts.

I have seen nothing in all the research that I have done that the Gribeauval caisson could not keep up with a horse artillery company on the march or in combat. The use of 'probably' is a good tool, but it is not the overriding historical tool to use and you need to have evidence to back up your ideas. Playing out a scenario that you might wish to have happened is not the same thing as what actually did happen and how artillery was employed by the different belligerents during the period. In this I believe you to have erred significantly. I do hope not, but some of the rather sweeping statements you have made, plus the errors in fact with, for example, canister, makes me wonder how you came up with these ideas. I do hope it is not from reenacting, as that is a poor historical tool to my mind.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Oh come along Kevin, why not call the kettle black eh?

"Gribeauval as an artilleryman and innovator should do for a start."
Step forward the most recent author to claim that Gribeauval invente dthe bricole and the hausse sight, that he was in charge of the Austrian artillery, that he brought the field howitzer into the French inventory, that his field carrioage designs were new, that he tested Austrian guns at Strassbourg and to conveniently forget that his siege gun carriage was so poor that Austrian carpenetrs had to redo it while G was sapping at Schweidnitz, before your piece de resistance, a half-page fantasy about a report you clearly had not read!

"Specifically regarding horse artillery you stated that 'the Gribeauval System was not designed for horse artillery.' That is incorrect. It has been shown that the artillery system was designed for a war of maneuver and was not based on the Seven Years War."

Only in your mind – you claim that emplacement is absed on manoeuvre (??) and that Gribeauval went for a light gun (ha, ha). You are just repeating the claims of recent authors, not the evidence. Gribeauval had no conception of field warfare because he never took part in it – your own extract of the Strassbourg tests report shows that G was only mentioned in relation to reducing windage (copied ocne again from Lichtenstein). His guns were so ineffective that the YrXI came in and the French developed a mobility advantage from that point.

"This was the period of French military reform and field artillery in particular was one of the target elements for reform because the Valliere System was obsolete and had failed in the Seven Years War." true, but Gribeauival's guns are too heavy amnd mounted on 1740s style carriages – well unless you can tell us what this great metallurgy improvement was that meant that the YrXI was the same proportion as an L gun.

So, less opf the sweeping statements and please answer two key questions:

1) where is the evidence that Austrian guns were tested at Strassbourg (claims made 30 years later will not do)
2) what was the great metallurgy advance with the YrXI guns.

Or maybe you have made those up too?

"It is also interesting that Tousard mentions a comparison between the French horse artillery and its Austrian semi-counterpart and finds the Austrians wanting in mobility."

This would be the same Tousard, who never saw Austrian artillery and claims that Austrian gunners rode on the linen covered wagons, would it? I wouldn't rely on people like that if I were you.

'This would be the same Tousard… [who] claims that Austrian gunners rode on the linen covered wagons…'

Do you have Tousard? If you do could you please cite where he said this? I certainly cannot find it in my copy of the manual.

Sincerely,
Kevin

'1) where is the evidence that Austrian guns were tested at Strassbourg (claims made 30 years later will not do)
2) what was the great metallurgy advance with the YrXI guns.'

Both of those questions were answered in the Gribeauval/Alder thread. You could check back there if you are interested in the answers.

'Or maybe you have made those up too?'

I haven't made anything up, sorry if that disappoints you. All you have to do is check the references I have used either in footnotes or in a bibliography. Why don't you stop repeating the same things over and over and instead actually look up material where you have been guided?

If you're going to continue in this vein, I won't answer any longer. When you have read the references I have provided perhaps we can have a civil conversation. If not, then it has been interesting to talk to you again.

Sincerely,
Kevin