"Rating Performance of Nap. Artillery" Topic

Luke, I think dave's search for the truth is a wonderful objective. I support him in this.
But that doesn't give him the right to shout down opposition & insult them. Such lawyer's tricks win him no credit. He would do himself an immense favour if he behaved more circumspectly.
Check out the Fantasy wargamers' thread here where the boys are just having some robust fun. dave's response is petulant, humourless & ignores the spark he provided.
donald

Speaking as an ex-Gunner (20 years in the Royal Artillery and Royal Horse Artillery), of course Peter Gilder was right. We were and still are, an elite force! ;-)

Seriously, though and setting tribalism aside, let's remember that in the British Army of the day, the only truly professional officers were the officers of Artillery and Engineers, products of the Woolwich Academy. Now, this may have made them better equipped for service than their Horse and Foot counterparts, but that doesn't necessarily make them better than the French.
H C B Rogers in his excellent book "Firepower" makes the point that the British Artillery in the Peninsula was for the most part deployed in penny packets because there were insufficient guns to allow it to deploy in massed batteries in the French manner.
From this argument I make two deductions; firstly that the French had more guns available than the British, and secondly that the concentration of guns allowed for better command and control.
Oh yes, the shortage of horses (and mules)played an important role. More than one Artillery Company or Horse Artillery troop were compelled to leave their howitzer in store due to the lack of draught animals.

Firepower is an excellent work- although its author isn't HCB Rogers but Major-General BP Hughes, a highly distinguished senior artillery officer.
One of the principal observations Hughes' makes in his account of British Napoleonic artillery is about the great care it took over the tactical siting of small numbers of guns, often half batteries or sections, to maximise the effectiveness of every piece.
My reading is that Hughes' point is actually that mass does not always necessarily give better command and control, but that small numbers of guns can have a critical effect on the battlefield, if they are carefully positioned and well commanded, as the RA and RHA undoubtedly were.
Knowing how intemperate these artillery questions can become, let me say there are of course examples of small numbers of well handled guns playing a critical role for other armies- Compans' regimental guns at Shevardino, and Kudashev's horse battery in the great cavalry battle on the afternoon of Borodino are two which immediately spring to mind. There will be Austrian, Prussian etc examples too I know.
The point seems to me, in the context of this discussion, is that circumstances led the British artillery, towards a common practise (if not a formal doctrine) not of penny packets but of tactical dispersal.
So which was the most effective instrument of war the British artillery or the French? Difficult. Overall I would say the French. But in terms of individual batteries I'd say the British did often have an advantage.
Back to wargaming, I don't think the relatively small bonus Peter Gilder's rules gave elite artillery is totally out of place here.

I would agree that the British artillery arm was an elite force on the battlefield. There wasn't enough of it on the battlefield of Portugal and Spain, and battery by battery it would be difficult to differentiate between the skill, dash, and elan of the British and French when comparing them.

The RHA did consider the French horse artillery to be excellent, and at least their equal if not their superior. The British also gave the American artillery on the Niagara frontier in 1814 the ultimate compliment among artillerymen of the period: 'We thought you were French.'

Among the horse artillery arms of different nations, Ney thought the Wurttemberg horse artillery attached to his corps in Russia to be the equal or better than the French horse artillery companies they fought alongside.

It's an interesting dynamic to talk about and attempt to compare and/or contrast. The bottom line is that the efficiency of any artillery company/battery is due to the way it is commanded, for it is the battery/company commander who is responsible and it is his skill that fights the battery in action.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Kevin wrote:
"The RHA did consider the French horse artillery to be excellent, and at least their equal if not their superior."

Kevin,

Presumably this statement is based on some anecdote from the period? I cannot believe that anyone in the RHA would have believed that they were inferior to the French. Could you please tell me where the source of this statement is to be found?

Cheers

Cptn Snort

Cpt S,

This is probably a lousy answer, but I found that anecdote during the research I did for Artillery four or five years ago and can't remember where I found it. I have Frazer's stuff, Dickson's Mercer's and other material. It could have been in any of those or somewhere else.

The other comment about the US artillery in the War of 1812 is from some of Don Graves' excellent material and the work that he did.

If I find the source of the anecdote, I'll let you know and post it. It was one of the many small things that stuck in my mind when writing the book.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Thanks Kevin,

I know how frustrating it can be looking for one sentence or paragraph when you can't remember exactly where you read it.

It would be interesting- I haven't come across any opinions like that from RHA officers, and I would be slightly surprised to see any suggesting the French were superior. But history is full of surprises.

Mercer comments on the poor counterbattery accuracy of the French especially at Genappe, and until almost the end of the day at Waterloo, when his battery was terrbly shot up by close range flank fire, all his guns were still in action, despite being receiving a good deal of counterbattery attention between French charges.

BTW Mercer said he was told by a Brunswick officer that the battery which shot him up was actually from the arriving Prussian army. That doesn't sound quite right and several modern works of varying merit simply call it a French battery without further discussion but I've never seen the original account actually disproved either. I may have missed something, as my knowledge of Waterloo, as many other subjects, is far from complete. Anyone help?

Any unsourced quote is just that an unconfirmed quoted and its value in any debate is accordingly.

Mr. Graves is very good at sourcing and endnotes and the source of his quote should not be at all difficult to find. Hopefully it is not a source quoting another author quoting another author and so on with no identified original source.

The one on French Horse Artillery is interesting as when would the British have seen the French in action? Were they deployed in Portugal and Spain? If it is only at Quatre Bras and Waterloo, then it narrows the field to perhaps Mercer, Frazer and the Waterloo Letters.

Since these quotes periodically show up, getting their original identified source would be a positive.

SHolmes

French horse artillery was deployed in the Peninsula.

Sincerely,
K

Aaaaargh!

"Firepower is an excellent work- although its author isn't HCB Rogers but Major-General BP Hughes, a highly distinguished senior artillery officer".

Of course it is Hughes! That's what comes of having your library packed away in boxes!

I'm not usually such an idiot, put it down to a senior moment… please.

I have plenty of them myself Byrhthelm…….

my problem is that my library is so large and I remeber so many quotes within the books that when asked to give evidence as to where I got that bit of information from I cannot tell you half the time. I look at my library and say, "oh boy, where did I read that" ?

lately I have been placing postit notes in my books as I find interesting information as I re-read each book. Really helps re-call information.

Shane

You cold go one better Shane. Kevin has just written a hatchet job review of Stephen's book on Amazon UK, while claiming on the Books section thread that he has not read it yet!

I will give you a clue on the quote – it is from a book by Donald Graves, whom Kevin also cites in his book that G's system was the best. This would be the same Donald Graves, who edited the 1984 reprint of the US version of the second edition of de Scheel – in which we have found an "interpretation" of a claim based on a mistranslation, which prompted Kevin to claim that Gribeauval tested the L guns (when there is no evidence from the time to that effect).