"Rating Performance of Nap. Artillery" Topic

Thank you Kevin :

>>>>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.<<<<

This is the evidence I have been looking for with regards to limbering and unlimbering time factors.

Shane

Dear colleagues,

May be the infos for the Russian artillerie will give some exampes as to the decisions that face an Army when it will decide how to make a mobile artillerie.

Heavy Foot Artillerie
4 x -- long 12-pounder gun (8 horses) + 3 caissons (9 horses) + 16 artilleurs to work the pièce
4 x -- short 12-pounder gun (6 horses) + 3 caissons (9 horses) + 16 artilleurs to work the pièce
4 x -- 20-pounder licorne (8 horses) + 3 caissons (9 horses) + 16 artilleurs to work the pièce
note : some times + 2 horses per pièce depending on condtions
note : the artillerie is meant to move at a walk when pulled by the horses
note : typically the total 196 horses for the 12 pièces and their caissons

Light Foot Artillerie
8 x -- 6-pounder gum (4 horses) + 2 caissons (6 horses) + 14 artilleurs to work the pièce
4 x -- 10-pounder licorne (4 horses) + 2 caissons (6 horses) + 14 artilleurs to work the pièce
note : the artillerie is meant to move at a walk when pulled by the horses
note : the burden per horse for each pièce is 810 pounds
note : typically the total 120 horses for the 12 pièces and their caissons

Horse Artillerie
6 x -- 6-pounder (6 horses) + 2 caissons (6 horses) + 14 artilleurs (14 horses) to work the pièce
6 x -- 10-pounder licorne (6 horses) + 2 caissons (6 horses) + 14 artilleurs (14 horses) to work the pièce
note : it was possible to operate the compagnie with 4 horses per 10-pounder licorne, but this will kill the horses quickly
note : it is a special light 10-pounder licorne (shorter, thinner wall to the barral, special carraige, special limber), weighing about 440 pounds less than the 10-pounder licorne + carraige + limber for foot artillerie
note : the burden per horse for the 10-pounder licorne is 700 pounds if there are 4 horses and 467 pounds per horse if there are 6 horses
note : the burden per horse for the 6-pounder is 540 pounds per horse (6 horses)
note : typically the total 312 horses for the 12 pièces, their caissons and their artilleurs

So, it is clear that the Russians used an idea similar to the French to make an horse artillerie (it was created in 1794, after some testing 1788-1792 – but the specific details given here are for 1807 and later).

It was deemed best to have a special lighter 10-pounder licorne for easier movement of the pièces. To burden the horses above 600 or (at most) 700 pounds per horse was considered likely to reduce the mobility of pièces, in that they will not move at a trot. The times of moving at a trot are when special fast dis-place-ment is needed or when moving with cavalry at a trot (either on the battle field or moving to a battle field). If you will have the artilleurs sitting on the pièces, then you have less of the burden of hosrss available to allocate to the pièce. So, the size of the pièce must be smaller. In the Russian artillerie, this would mean some pièce smaller than a 6-pounder gun (and required a special lighter 10-pounder licorne). To avoid this, it was clear that the artilleurs must be on an horse, not sitting on the pièces.

In times when moving at a trot are not important, then there is no benefit in having an horse artillerie, either with the artileurs on an horse or sitting on the pièces.

But, the expense of this method is very very great – the special equipment, the training of men and, of course, many extran horses. Even if the Austrians would have wanted this capability, one will wonder if the British would have paid so much for it. So, if they were to have an horse artillerie (an artillerie which will move at a trot), and they could not put the artilleurs on an horse, then they must use a smaller pièce.

In any case, how ever it is arranged, the burden for an horse must be less than 700 pounds to enable the operaton at a trot, or so was the opinion of the Russian artillerie.

I did not find any discussion of a difference in time between the arrival at a place and the start of firing for an horse artillerie (how ever may be riding the artilleurs) viz-a-viz a foot artillerie. I am not surprised, as it does not take much time to get off an horse or off the back of a pièce !

:-)

- un ami

N.B. – 1 Russian pound = 0,4095 kg

Dear colleagues,

Some more Russian examples, may be a good contexte for comparisons, etc.

long 12-pounder gun
- weight of barral 1960 or 2000 pounds
- weight of ball 14,3 pounds
- ratio of weights 137:1 or 140:1
- calibres of the bore 15,75
- calibres of the pièce without the cascabel 16,5
- calibres of the pièce total 17,73

short 12-pounder gun
- weight of barral 1120 or 1140 pounds
- weight of ball 14,3 pounds
- ratio of weights 78:1 or 80:1
- calibres of the bore 12,25
- calibres of the pièce without the cascabel 13
- calibres of the pièce total 14,23

6-pounder gun
- weight of barral 880 pounds
- weight of ball 7,15 pounds
- ratio of weights 123:1
- calibres of the bore 16,25
- calibres of the pièce without the cascabel 17
- calibres of the pièce total 18,52

20-pounder licorne
- weight of barral 1640 pounds
- weight of granata 21,1 pounds
- ratio of weights 78:1
- calibres of the bore (with the chamber) 10,19
- calibres of the pièce without the cascabel 10,5
- calibres of the pièce total 11,88

10-pounder licorne for foot artillerie
- weight of barral 860 or 880 pounds
- weight of granata 10,5 pounds
- ratio of weights 82:1 or 84:1
- calibres of the bore (with the chamber) 10,69
- calibres of the pièce without the cascabel 11
- calibres of the pièce total 12,38

10-pounder licorne for horse artillerie
- weight of barral 760 or 770 pounds
- weight of granata 10,5 pounds
- ratio of weights 72:1 or 73:1
- calibres of the bore (with the chamber) 9,69
- calibres of the pièce without the cascabel 10
- calibres of the pièce total 11,38

- un ami

N.B. – 1 Russian pound = 0,4095 kg

Hang on a second Shane – ask Kevin for his source on this claim, given the fact that French gunners were actually partly riding on artillery caissons in the earlier part of the period.

Come along Kevin, running away is not goingn to enhance your credibility. Your answers to these two assertions (for they are nothing more) is

1) de Scheel, whow as not French and was not at the tests makes this claim on p.6 of his book written about 25 years after the event. Indeed, the report from the tests makes no reference to anything but new and old claibre French tubes.

2) You made this up or copied someone else who made it up.

I think that attacking other on sourcing would be a big mistake for you. It seems to me that you only write an assertion when it suit your existing view of the world. I hope Shane bears that in mind.

@Dave Hollins

Will you please say to us what was the weight of both the Austrian 6-pounder gun and 7-pounder howitzer for their cavalerie artillerie, including the pièce, the carriage, the front (a limber), any amuunition boxes attached, the harnesses and the artilleurs who will ride upon the pièce and all other attached equipment ?
These did use four horses, isn't?

Please give also to us a conversion to metric, if the infos are in pounds of some sorte.

Thank you in advance,

- votre ami

Shane,

You're welcome. Just as sidenote, DeScheel was published in 1777 and was from Gribeauval's own material. All of the material I have posted is from period manuals, Alder, and other relevant publications as I noted before. Anyone who wants to see the complete list of what I have in my library and what I have used can use the bibliography in Artillery for a quick reference.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Okay, p.6 of de Scheel – I assume you mean the text rather than Graves' Foreword? What does it say? is it a) I claim this or b) here is the comparison data? A test should show the latter, houldn't it?

And about this metallurgy – what was the "improvement" or have you made it up/copied a made up claim?

On weights in kg:
6pdr 7pdr how G 8pdr
Barrel 386 274 580
Carriage 435 482 573
Seat 69 72 --
Limber 183 183
Ammo 60 88
Men 364 291

The Austrian Cavalry pieces were pulled by 6-horse teams.

Stephen has rightly emphasised the point that the French limiter is actually the caisson – as the Austrians used packhorses. A French 8pdr caisson weighed 1200 Fr pounds (548kg) according to Kevin and 1700kg according to Nafziger (presumably unloaded/loaded) with four horses I think.

Un Ami,

thanks for your wonderful posts,

a math question.

you state a Russian pound is .4095 of a modern kilogram.

this means .4095 x 2.205 pounds (US) = .9009lbs so a 12pdr russian cannon is 12 X .9009 = 10.8108 lbs US. not the 14.3 lbs you show what gives please.

Lord Ghee

@Dave Hollins

Thank you , dear coleague.

I think the Austrians did pick the smaller men to ride up on the pièces !

:-)

OK, the total is thus

6-pounder Austrian gun
- ball 4,91 Wiener Pfund or 2,75 kg
- total weight 1497 kg
- burden for each of 6 horses : 250 kg
- for comparison, with a ball of 2,93 kg (7% heavier), the burden on a Russian horse is 221 kg (8% lighter)

7-pounder Austrian howitzer
- shell ??
- total weight 1390 kg
- burden for each of 6 horses : 232 kg
- for comparison, with granat of rating 10-pounds (weight 4,3 kg – 40% heavier ?), the burden on a Russian horse is 191 kg (18% lighter)

So, not too much different, and one thinks that they will trot for some time before the Austrian horses are dead. One supposes that the benefits for the French or Russian method is the that a larger howitzer (15 pounder for French) or licorne (10-pounder for Russian) could be used. Also that the endurance of the companie woud be better, it could trot longer, lose an horse or two, etc. and not be at once reduced to the operations as foot artillerie.

It was a great price to pay for these advantages. But if the British would not pay for it, the Austrians may be did have no choice in any case.

I did find a picture of these Austrian cavalerie artillerie :

picture

Can you tell to us, please, what was the idea of the pack horses ? Was there not caissons ?

Thank you again,

- votre ami

@LORDGHEE

The gun was given a rating of "12-pounder", but the ball for him is larger.
I did show 14,3 Russian pounds for the ball, so he is 5,86 kg and 12,9 anglo-phone pounds.

1 Russian pound = 0.4095 kg = 0,901 anglo-phone pounds

One assumes this all had some sorte of 10% tax or corruption at some time, to make the the Russian pound smaller than most otehr nations.

:-)

- votre ami

Dear colleagues,

For a more comparison, there is also the measure of quantity. For comparison, for 1812 year, the Russian field artillerie did have :

In the Line :
49 heavy foot companies
54 light foot companies
22 horse artillerie companies + 2 cossak horse artillerie companies

In the Guard:
2 guard heavy foot companies
2 guard light foot companies
1 détachment of guard marine artillerie and 2 "brigades" of guard horse artillerie (equivalent 1,5 companies)

So, a total about 133 companies.
With the remembering that a companie was 12 pièces, it was may be a good quantity, near 1600 pièces.

- votre ami

The packhorses replaced the old pre-L two-wheeled cart (shown in Duffy), which had been kept for the Cavalry artillery. It proved too slow, so the Wurst carried the canister and kit, while the packhorses carried the solid rounds. As Stepehen says, the French caught up later as the key "anchor" to any team is the ammo supply.

@Dave Hollins

"while the packhorses carried the solid rounds. "

There were no caissons ???

How many packhorses did a companie have ?

Thank you again,

- votre ami

Time you bought NV72! Each piece had a 6-packhorse team with it plus the howitzers had a small two-wheeled wagon with their extra kit. Further back were the usual supplies in the wagons, but each horse could carry 20 rounds or 10 shells.

@Dave Hollins

It is thus a light loading compared to the Russian loading with 2 caissons (also 6 horses), especially for the howitzer vs. licorne :

6-pounder Russian gun : 140 ball + 20 heavy cannister + 10 light cannister
6-pounder Austrian gun : 120 ball + 20? cannister on the front (limber)

10-pounder Russian licorne : 80 granat + 20 heavy cannister + 10 light cannister + 10 incendiary + 10 luminous (star-shell)
7-pounder Austrian howitzer : 60 shells + 20? cannister on the front (limber)

One supposes again that Austrian systeme would serve well enough most times, but the Russian (and French) method was of some greater utility.

Also, one will need to constantly remove and re-load the packhorses, while a caisson needs never give up his burden to rest.

Thank you again, dear colleague,

- votre ami

un ami I have an excel spread sheet I would love to send to you via email so you could fill it out for me with data you have. You never cease to amaze me with what you come up with and its depth. I simply give up sometimes for lack of data.

Regards
shane

@Shane Devries

I am sorry, but I do not have the ability to receive an personal email too easily, as my affaires do not permit the giving of a personal information on the internet.

If you will put the file some place where he can be found (on some server), I will have him retrieved.

However, if you will just post the request for infos, I will answer it and may be other colleagues will either find the answers of an interest or give better answers.

- votre ami

okie mate I totally understand. I am looking for total gun and carraige weights in modern kg for EVERY Gun, Licorne and Howitzer used in the Napoleonic era and also the calibre lengths of all as well. Yes I know this is a tall order but I have yet to find this info in one place and accurate enough to use.

If you do feel like attaining it for not only me but anyone else who wishes to use it I would most appreciative. If you do it could you post it all on a new thread by nation as in do a post for the French, then another for the Russians and so on? Please also could yourself or anyone else also come up with a list of arsenals of the time, their names and where they were. I want to asertain who made the guns, where and so on…

Regards
Shane

@Shane Devries

I will only know to make a good reference for the Russian artillerie, so it is best to have the question for all colleagues.

You did to specify some more what you will want :
-- weight of the pièce + carriage : one total, not the weight of each
-- what about the weight of the front/limber, the load of ammunition typically on the limber or the trail ?
- calibres of the bore + chamber ? calibres of the constant bore (without chamber) ? calibres of the pièce without the cascabel : calibres of the pièce total ?
- will you want bataillon/régiment pièces ?
- will you want siège pièces ?
- will you want pièces designed and made in the Napoleonic era or used then (which will go back may be 50-75 years)
- will you want the common pièces or every pièce, even if only a few were made ?
- what years are for you the Napoleonic era ?
- what will you have us report for pièces not on a carraige (in stead on a sled or a mountain gun moved around in his parts by men or packhorses) ?
- may be you will also want the dia. and weight of the round for the pièce, especially if you will have your length in calibre ?

One supposes that there may be are other questions.

- votre ami

Ami, the ammo load in the Wurst seats was actually less, but the wagons carried plenty. It is a case of how much you need in one position, so the French and Russians are overengineered in carrying weights they do not need.

Excellent discussion and very useful information as well, can it get better?

I like to differentiate between units and at the level I am playing I think it has to be done at the lowest level possible. I don't doubt that any advantage the British or French may have had was at the organisational or strategic level, but when you may only have 3 batteries on the table per side I feel it better to show something at that level.

Just my thoughts.

Craig

hi un ami,

The questions I have are as follows :

weight of carraige+barrel together in modern kg
calibre length of each gun i.e. 6pndr 16 calibres long
info on any gun used from 1992 – 1815 as above

Regards,
Shane

@Dave Hollins

"are overengineered in carrying weights they do not need"

I am sure that the existence of some more rounds in some wagons some place was a great comfort to the Austrian artilleurs, but to have the rounds with the pièce might be preferred. Especially for the cannister, since these might be needed all the more quickly.

:-)

But to say it is "over-engineered" is hard to understand.

The Russian (and French) systeme did offer more ready ammunition and much larger howitzers or licornes at less of a burden per an horse. So the "carry weight" was in effect lower than in the case of the Austrians. It will give better endurance in the movement of the pièce, both on the battle field and in the campagne.

In the case of the Russian, it was even allowed of keeping the companie in action as an horse artillerie with 2 of 6 horses not present for a pièce, but it was thought this would destroy the poor horses rather too quickly.

While the Austrian method would seem to be all well enough, I am sure that the much greater expense of the Russian and French systeme did give a better result. The simple measures of the sizes of the pièces, the number of rounds and the burden per an hourse do give the result clearly.

Was this extra expense worthie of the cost ?

One supposes that the Austrians did not have the choice, unless the British would pay for the improvement.

For the Russians, the cost had none meaning, as the nobles and the people both could be called upon for any sacrifice, at least at the levels of sacrifice possible before industrialization at the end of the XIX century.
I cannot imagine a situation where a better idea for the Army would be refused because of its cost in the reign of the TSAR Aleksandr. When the need to spend quickly was great in 1812, the nobles did just send in their money and silver services and the jewels of their femmes and their horses and the products of their fields. When the French did arrive, they did just burn their homes. They did send themselves and their serfs into the oplochenie and the partizans. their was no complaint of sacrifice that I have known of. (Not to say that a complaint would have been heard by any one, as the events of 100 years later did prove.)

So, I do not understand to say "overengineered". The methode of the French and Russians was just a better systeme and very great increase in cost.

@Shane Devries

"calibre length of each gun"

One might note that it can be found with several places to measure this, as I did list. You will want to specify which of the places you will be asking of, or the data will not be the same.

"any gun used from 1992 – 1815 as above"

It will be not 1992, one thinks.
If it is "any" pièce, you will not get all of them. For example, I am sure that some Swedish pièces of the Great Northern War and Turko pièces for the throwing of a stone (may be 400 years old) did exist some place in Russia in 1815. There will be no data for these.
May be to ask for the ones being made new is a preferred idea ?

- votre ami

un ami,

don't worry about it too much, I guess I can hunt the info down myself.

"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?"

Ref British vrs French Artillery in Spain.

I think it was Wellington talking about cavalry; One British Sqn was superior to one French Sqn. However three French Sqns will bet three British Sqns every time.

I know this is an artillery thread but here is my point. Could it be the same when it comes to batteries. That Battery to Battery the British artillery was better (in Spain) but when it comes to 'mass/Grand battery' command and control (as Kevin would say) the French were better.

cheers
Edward

I wouldn't see any indication that on a battery to battery scale the British were any better than the French. On the battery level, it would depend on the battery/company commander, no matter what the nationality.

The one thing that sticks to my mind is what the British said of the American artillery after savage fighting on the Niagara frontier in 1814-'We thought you were French.'

Sincerely,
Kevin

I put this to you Kevin

Lets look at Spain. After N left Spain that theater often got what I would consider lower grade troops due to other concerns going on in the Empire – Austria 1809, Russia 1812, etc.

The Army that Britain had in Spain was it's best (and really its only field force). So I would say that the French overall had the best artillery with the exception of Spain were the British had better forces at the time.

cheers
Edward

Edward,

When Napoleon left Spain because of trouble in Austria the veteran troops he left there were mostly the ones that had won in central Europe from 1805-1807. Davout had been left in Germany with his corps and the heavy cavalry in 1808, but most of the others went into Spain with the heavy cavalry, and this included artillery commanders such as Senarmont and Eble.

From about 1811 on troops were withdrawn from Spain first for Russia, and then for 1813 and 1814. I still don't see a decline in the professional abilities of the French artillery in Spain during this period, but if you have some specific examples that would be great. It should also be remembered that the British artillery arm was small. In 1809 there were only five brigades/troops; 1810 there were six. 1811-9; 1812-11. In 1813 there were were 28, but all were not with Wellington. Four were in eastern Spain, three in Cadiz, and two in Lisbon. In 1810 there were 11 additional units not with the field army, in 1811 there were 10, and in 1812 there were twelve. You can find this information in the Battery Records of the Royal Artillery 1716-1859 by Laws.

Therefore, there were relatively few British artillery brigades or troops with Wellington's field army, but you also have to count the King's German Artillery as well as the excellent Portuguese artillery with the British total. So, making a battery-by-battery comparison between the British and the French in the Peninsula can be somewhat difficult.

As a footnote, it might instructive to note that the British artillery present at New Orleans in 1815 was quite literally blown off the field, and the British artillery commander at New Orleans was Dickson, who also had become Wellington's artillery chief in Spain, and an excellent officer and artilleryman.

So, while it is entirely possible that by late 1813/early 1814 the allied artillery in Spain was better than its French counterpart, I do think that may be hard to establish.

Sincerely,
Kevin

un ami

The Austrain did not use Wiener Pfund for their ball shot weight but used Nuernberger Pfund, Dave Hollins did this explain well in his excellent book.

He is also corret that in the beginning of the Revolutionary Wars the artillerie leger used also "Wurst" waggons to transport the gunners.

As for the Austrian Kavallerie batteries, I thought that not only baggage horses but also a small number of ammuniton carriages was used.

@von Winterfeldt

6-pounder Austrian gun
- ball 4,91 Wiener Pfund or 2,75 kg or 6,05 Anglish Pound or 5,39 Nürnberger Pfund

The measure of guns was, one supposes, originally that of Nürnberg, and so it is closer to "6". But the weight as given above in Weiner Pfund and kg is, one hopes, not incorrect. One also hopes that if M. Hollins will make an editing now, then he would say also that the round was +/- 2,75 kg.

"I thought that not only baggage horses but also a small number of ammuniton carriages was used."
I did not know how it was arranged among Austrians, and so did ask.

- votre ami

In my reading it seems to me that the French concept of "massed" batteries was originally very modest and referred simply to, a small number of, guns grouped in an independent command rather than as regimental weapons. The early French battles were characterized by relatively few guns distributed in various emplacments (ex. Austerlitz). The first real grand battery was at Eylau, by the Russians, and not until after the defeat at Aspern-Esseling did Napoleaon start to use huge batteries. After that, battle seemed to change, with infantry defending gun lines, rather than vice versa. And French doctrine did not immediately exploit this idea. At Borodino, it was not until late in the day that a second grand battery was arranged to bombard the withdrawn Russian lines.

NSN

Artillery doesn't have to be in the same position to be massed. Competent commanders had massed artillery for years before, but it came to prominence in this period because everyone had light, mobile artillery that could maneuver on the battlefield.

That being said, the novel French tactic was artillery as an offensive weapon, sometimes even being the main effort. French artillery tactics that evolved were very aggressive and French artillery commanders would risk losing pieces to gain a tactical advantage. Senarmont in 1807 was the first to do that, but the harbinger was in the earlier campaigns as artillery tactics were being refined. You'll find French artillery doctrine in du Teil's Usage, and that is above the battery level.

Sincerely,
Kevin

"Senarmont in 1807 was the first to do that, but the harbinger was in the earlier campaigns as artillery tactics were being refined. You'll find French artillery doctrine in du Teil's Usage, and that is above the battery level."

Given that Usage was written in 1778, are you suggesting that the French artillerymen sat on their hands for nearly 30 years?

"So I would say that the French overall had the best artillery with the exception of Spain were the British had better forces at the time." On what basis? We apparently have a battery or so of French guns at Wagram, which could not hit a Mass at close range! Those making the claim have shown that they do not understand ball trajectories and consequently, I would be wary of any other claims they make – viz. the above!

Ami, I have an Austrian 6pdr ball at 2.74kg in NV72.

Dave Hollins

I am not an professional historian rather a history buff ( and proud of it) that enjoys reading and learn about the Napoleonic period.

The first post on this thread was ref why in some rules British Artillery is listed as being elite. Most people on this thread try to answer as gamers which is find seeing that the question is about British artillery ON THE TABLE TOP.

So my conversation with Kevin is about British Artillery vrs French Artillery in SPAIN and why in some WARGAME RULES it is better. You can give examples all day to you are blue in the face. We are talking about generalities.

@Kevin
Ref American Artillery – I believe that the USA artty at the time of 1812 had very good leadership. The artillery officers that came from West Point were usually the ones that finished high in their Class. The best ones usually went to the Engieers and the Artillery.

cheers
Edward

Edward,

I don't think that West Point graduates had an impact in the War of 1812 as the Academy was only ten years old when war broke out.

For the US artillery arm in the War of 1812, I believe the traditions from the Continental Army, whose artillery, at least after 1778 was deemed an excellent arm, as well as artillery being maintained in the US Army soon after the war ended and a new artillery arm was established, were the reasons for US artillery competence in the War of 1812.

West Point was founded as an artillery and engineer school originally, and has maintained that reputation over the years. It has also turned out excellent officers in other arms.

Sincerely,
Kevin

>"I don't think that West Point graduates had an impact in the War of 1812 as the Academy was only ten years old when war broke out."<

Well, battery officers were only captains and lieutenants, so many of them might have been West Point grads by 1812-15.

Certainly Artillery units were considered elite, compared to infantry, in the pre-Civil War U.S. Army, even when they actually performed as infantry. West Point grads got their pick of assignments in order of their class standing, and the top grads almost always chose the engineers (with that on your resume you could get a good job as a civil engineer); second choice was usually the artillery, then the mounted regiments, and infantry last (but with the most billets).

Don,

Some of them could very well have been. But I do think the first US war in which West Point grads had any impact on the outcome was the Mexican War, and Winfield Scott made a comment to that effect.

Scott, by the way, was an artillery officer initially in the War of 1812 and he came to the army straight from civilian life. Might make an interesting study, don't you think?

Sincerely,
Kevin

>"Might make an interesting study, don't you think?"<

If there were world enough, and time.

Don,

As the units were relatively small, it might not be too bad to do. Further, there is a Register of Graduates of the USMA printed every year. And it goes back to graduate Number 1. That would be a good place to start.

Sincerely,
Kevin

the first post on this thread was ref why in some rules British artillery was listed as being elite. Most people on this thread try to answer as gamers which is find seeing that the question is about British artillery ON THE TABLE TOP.

Really? looking back through the thread I think you,ll be hard put to spot the wargamer input, most threads on the Napoleonic boards very soon morph into an acedemic big penis competition, which is probably why the Nap.boards have such a high entertainment content. Merry Xmas. Ivan.

Interesting take on the thread, Ivan. Crude, but interesting.

Merry Christmas to you, too.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Kevin: But I'm already writing three books!

Btw: I notice that the Brits had 2 types of 6-pdrs, 1 for the foot artillery and a shorter 1 for the RHA. Was there a significant difference in their performance (range, etc.)?

RNF – You are making my point precisely (I would hope IVan might acrtually appreciate that quite a few bits of info are being discussed, which may help him – but perhaps he does not need those spam emails!).

"Most people on this thread try to answer as gamers which is find seeing that the question is about British artillery ON THE TABLE TOP." Correct, so why say:

"So I would say that the French overall had the best artillery with the exception of Spain, where the British had better forces at the time." I took this to mean that you took the view that the French were best when fighting everyone, except UK in Spain. That being the 30-yr old Quarrie approach, I wondered why you thought that and indeed, I take it that the rules, which you use, make the same differentiation as you go on to say that "SPAIN and why in some WARGAME RULES it is better. You can give examples all day to you are blue in the face. We are talking about generalities."

I know it can get boring as I bang on about it, but a pop culture of French better than everyone except the Brits then seeps into this being the general view of the period taken by gamers, precisely because theor rules say this. So, to put it another way, do you say the French are best except in Spain because you have some historical info to back this or because your rules say this? If it is the latter, then, okay, perhaps we should ask the rulesmith why he makes that assessment (perhaps I know the answer already!).

To hear therefore that gamers are not interested in the historical background strikes me as peculiar because that should be what shapes the rules they use. If it doesn't, then the gamer might as well play fantasy wargames.

Funny, the way DH gets on you would think that the French defeated the British in Spain and that the Austrians were never defeated by Napoleon.

Some of us may play fantasy wargames but I believe Dave makes up fantasy history.

"If it doesn't, then the gamer might as well play fantasy wargames."

Aren't all wargames a fantasy? I mean, you can argue that there is a difference between Historicals and "Tolkienesque" fantasy, and I'd agree, but if we, as wargamers, truly wanted to play an absolute historical wargame, would that not involve moving battalions to their exact places, and having them break at the right times, and become essentially a re-enactment?

The moment you diverge from the true history, you're introducing elements of fantasy. We take our historical fantasies, and cast them against a pseudohistorical backdrop that takes in the flavour of the period without getting hung up on details.

I will put my Old Guard Griffon 12pndrs up against your British Royal Dragon 9pndrs any day of the week!!

Seriously, dave.
Could you drop your refrain of 'fantasy wargames'?
It is truly insulting, does not advance your case & is, in essence, a cop-out.
If you stopped taking all opposition as personal & alienating people, you might even find a publisher.
donald

I think that people are misunderstanding what Dave is trying to say here. I do not take it that he is trying to insult all wargamers, but rather trying to bring up some points of view, though unpopular becuase they defy the standard wisdom, are well worth considering.

P.S. While we are at it, the British and French could have the unique opportunity, during a game, of rolling to see if their cannon balls rebound, both right and left, to and fro, in defiance of all the laws of physique, but in compliance with the majestic and undefinable superiority of their elàn filled and morale overflowing canoniers.