"Gribeauval and Alder (1997)" Topic
50 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please do not use bad language on the forums.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Napoleonic Media Message Board Back to the Napoleonic Discussion Message Board
Areas of InterestNapoleonic
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Workbench ArticleAfter many years of resisting the urge to start a Napoleonic collection, Monkey Hanger takes the plunge!
Featured Book Review
|
summerfield | 02 Dec 2007 4:48 a.m. PST |
Kevin, Thank you for directing me to this book. It is certainly interesting especially where there is a confusion over Maritz's (four were gunfounders) and Berenger's (three were gunfounders). The numbers of guns you gave came from a PhD thesis and a report made in 1788 (SHAT). The date should be 1780's something. Also it does not indicate whether it was Gribeauval guns. The other statement that a third of available Gribeauval field pieces were at Valmy showed that France did not have many guns and lost most of these in 1793. [Alder p123] Also interesting, Douai were still making artillery pieces by Valliere designs up to 1774 while Strasbourg were producing Gribeauval prototypes. Maritz I introduced the horizontal boring machine for Valliere guns in 1732 and not just for the Gribeauval guns. Alder seems to be obscure on this as on page 40 he goes through the explanation. Yet the illustration seems to suggest that Valliere guns were still using the Vertical boring machine. Maritz I invented horizontal boring machine at Bern in about 1715. The British (1770) and the Russians (1786) were the last to adopt this. I am also confused as to whether Gribeauval guns actually got to America for the American Revolution. According to Peterson p54 doubts even at Yorktown he doubts they were there. So why were there not Gribeauval guns available in 1781 to America? It is difficult from the sources to discover precisely the make of gun. Certainly there were 4-pdr (mainly), 8-pdrs, 12-pdrs and 16-pdrs present. The 4-pdrs could have been the Swedish guns. I can find no reference to this in Alder (I may have missed it). It should have been important as practical war experience with a weapon is so important as you know well. Again thank you for your advice and encouragement. I have learned a great deal and there is much to learn. Stephen |
Kevin F Kiley | 02 Dec 2007 7:35 a.m. PST |
Stephen, You're welcome. I have found it most useful and it gives many details of the system that Gribeauval developed along with the tooling required to get his exact specifications on his vehicles and ammunition as well. A few things, though. The quotation on page 123 merely states the 'available' field pieces. That doesn't necessarily mean one-third of those in the inventory. Making that leap would be somewhat dangerous from a research and publication viewpoint. I don't think that is what the author means. Excess Valliere pieces were sent to the US during the Revolution by the Beaumarchais organization. Chartrand believes that Rochambeau's artillery train was made up of Gribeauval System pieces and equipment and I tend to share that view. Peterson is not absolute on his opinion on the matter. 1774 was the year that Gribeauval finally won out over Valliere, so it shouldn't be a surprise that Valliere guns were still being produced by that date. His guns were also initially retained by Gribeaval as battering pieces until new siege guns were designed and produced. Gribeauval's first priority was field guns. The quotation on the numbers of guns and vehicles definitely states 'new field cannon' which is Gribeauval material and specifically states they were cheaper to produce because they were much lighter than the older models. Another key is 'field cannon' since the Valliere guns were definitely not field artillery, as that system did not designate between field, siege, or garrison pieces. The footnote reference is to the budget, not to the number of guns and vehicles produced. That's why it is dated 1788. The text specifically states the year 1770 for the numbers produced. Sincerely, Kevin |
summerfield | 02 Dec 2007 8:12 a.m. PST |
Dear Kevin It is the word available. Alder is often less than clear upon what he is saying. What that is supposed to imply, I was not sure. Is it saying only a third of the batteries were engaged in the battle or a third of the field pieces etc.. It seems strange that he has given those numbers yet no-where to check them. The assumption was that he had taken it from the SHAT report. Otherwise it is from the PhD Thesis. It still does not quite add for me the dates. I do not understand that it was not until 1771 that the drawings were first published. This was when France reverted to the Valliere system. Yet Alder says it was not until 1792 with Manson that all the arsenals were working from the same book. Interesting. I am still trying to pull the bits together as he is out to prove his thesis rather than tell a story of devolopment. Stephen |
Kevin F Kiley | 02 Dec 2007 10:39 a.m. PST |
Stephen, The Valliere system was reestablished in France from 1772-1774. Gribeauval field pieces were being produced as early as 1764. I don't see anything to doubt Alder's 1770 numbers unless someone finds something. Whether or not it was a PHD thesis is irrelevant. I do believe Alder has covered the material quite well. As I mentioned before, if you want production numbers by year and how much was in the inventory by 1792, you'll probably have to go to France to find it. The Tables of Construction were classified upon publication and there were only 104 copies. DeScheel publised much of the system in drawings and text in 1777. I have found DeScheel a good place to start. Sincerely, Kevin |
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | 03 Dec 2007 7:33 a.m. PST |
The Tables du construction were only published in 1790 after Gribeauval's demise. The problem with them is that they refer in the title to G and so, it has wrongly been assumed that everything in them was down to him. Whatever the status of Alder, it must always be borne in mind that he was addressing his subject and side remarks such as comparisons with Germanic artillery are not much use as he did not profess to do any research on them. |
summerfield | 03 Dec 2007 8:03 a.m. PST |
Dear Dave It is interesting to read Alder to realise that the drawing and building of Gribeauval carriages was under the charge of Manson who was the commandant of Strasbourg. He supervised the drawings. It was by rotating the artisans with the other arsenals that there were some form of uniformity. Technical drawings and patterns were essential for this. He later took that organisation to Bavaria. This is primarily my current interest. The 1777 of De Scheel are different to the 1792 drawings as I have both. No doubt this was born out of experience in using the equipment. Prototypes were produced in 1767 of the Gribeauval guns and the tests. Alder is rather obscure upon the chronology that contradicts later. Although excellent upon the organisation. Strangely, he does not indicate when the changes occurred. It is through chasing through the technology that we may get closer to what occurred rather than what was supposed to. 1200 guns is a huge number to produce in a couple of years. although this is 8-12 guns per week. Now at this time there was not a multiple boring machine as in the Vienna Arsenal. It would take about 3 days to bore a gun tube on average. So that is about 2 per week. I am still trying to sort out the resources of France and what was possible. Stephen |
Kevin F Kiley | 04 Dec 2007 3:58 a.m. PST |
Stephen, The Strasbourg firing tests for the new field pieces were done in 1764, so they were already constructed and ready for testing a year after the Seven Years War was over. Therefore, there were six years of production available to get to the number quoted in Alder. I don't see that as unreasonable. By your estimation that is over four hundred per year at eight per week, using your low number in the estimate. I don't see a problem here. Sincerely, Kevin |
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | 04 Dec 2007 5:21 p.m. PST |
I am not sure that what was tested at Strassbourg (based on the report in App 1 of Kevin's book) and what has subsequently been claimed to have been tested at Strassbourg (possibly by the likes of Alder) are the same thing. The claim has been regularly made that Austrian pieces were tested at Strassbourg – yet there is no evidence in that report in App 1 of any data about Austrian guns and Gribeauval himself had no practical experience of handling them (his 1762 report is in terms, which anyone reading NV72 quickly could write). Likewise, there is no evidence of testing Prussian guns there. The report itself says that the key objective was to have artillery as light and manoeuvrable as other European guns, but that was not what was tested at Strassbourg. The report lays great emphasis on Gribeauval wanting to reduce the existing French windage by half and to reduce the calibre to improve accuracy in particular. Now, you could do that simply taking a Valliere gun as cast, cutting part of it off and boring it more accurately. The report itself does not provide any evidence that the G design was ready, merely that the underlying principles were demonstrated. |
summerfield | 04 Dec 2007 5:51 p.m. PST |
Dear Dave I would be interested in reading this report. I am currently writing down a potted history of the Commissaire des Fontes (Gunfounders) in France. Certainly interesting the Austrian and Swiss connection. The Poitevans were gunfounders at the Vienna Arsenal that worked initially on the M1753 Liechtenstein before going to Strasbourg where most o the Gribeauval Guns were cast 1781-88. I would like to know more about these. I am not convinced that the system was ready before Gribeauval lost power but I do not have the proof. It takes a considerable time to produce a new system of artillery. The drawings were finished in 1767 (correct me if I am wrong) but not published until 1770 when Gribeauval lost power and was replaced by Valliere Junior. It may be that the Spanish had Gribeauval guns before the French as Maritz II and Maritz III went to Spain to set up their Foundries at Seville and Barcelona. The chronology that has been put forward by most writers does not work when you look at the technology. The length of the barrel and the 150 lb per lb of shot was still too heavy. Gribeauval system was a compromise as is clearly stated in Alder. The tests carried out were just about distance rather than dealing with muzzle velocity that I was trying to elude to and lost most of you. This is a very poor manner to compare and the French should have used the Ballistic Pendulum. In terms of tests and experimental bias there was little to choose between them. Both parties produced experiments with a known outcome and so were of little use to the rational man. French Artillery was in chaos after the seven years war with all the foundries producing different ordinance. The uniformity that Valliere had tried to impose was lost with te Maritz guns, Broglie re-bore of Valliere guns, Swedish 4-pdr, Rostaing guns etc
Gribeauval was striving for order out of chaos rather than perfecting the best artillery system as Liechtenstein set himself and Prussia failed (in the main due to loosing most of it in the Seven Years War and not having the money to replace it). Gribeauval kept the coastal and siege guns as they had been and the rolling stock. He introduced the Caisson, 2 and 4 wheeled forge plus gun carriage design based heavily upon Austrian designs only replacing in essence the axel with one taken from the Rostaing guns. It is also interesting that all this revolved around Strasbourg. The commandant was Manson and the gunfounders were the Darteins. This is where the Gribeauval System was until 1774 when Gribeauval came back to power. Douai and Lyon (now almost redundant)were Valliere strongholds. The accurate boring is one thing but the ammunition is another that is essential. Gribeauval introduced the pass and no pass shot gauges. Whether they were around before I am unclear. There is still much to work upon as I would like to sort out the mess as the myth does not work when laid against the technology. Stephen |
summerfield | 05 Dec 2007 3:44 a.m. PST |
Dear Dave Some interesting thoughts upon reading Alder (1997). NEW IRON AXLES Proposals for new axle box were circulated in March 1765 via Gribeauval from Maritz (unclear as to Maritz II or III) to Charles Robin Chateaufer (Carriage Designer) to Manson (in charge of carriage building at Strasbourg). Prototypes were tested in Strasbourg in 1765 [Alder 154-55: Gribeauval to Manson (7 March 1765) SHAT 9a11: Jean Du Teil (1778), L'usage, pp13-15 and Du Coudray (1773), L'artillerie nouvelle, pp86-87] In 1765 both Maritz II and III left for Spain and returned in 1768. The Gribeauval carriages had not been finalised and suffered from breaking under the stresses of increased recoil in 1765. It was in 1765 that the 8-pdr and 12-pdr carriages were tested as hinted by [Alder p155] It was not until 1774 that production was centralised at Strasbourg by Colonel Claude-Marie Valennubet Le Duc. He also added a special room to the Regimental Artillery School where artisans could trace out the patters (18 May 1778) [Alder p158: Le Duc (18 May 1778) SHAT 9a3]. This gives the date to after 1774 when the Gribeauval system was re-instated rather than the tests in 1765 in my mind. It takes a considerable time to develop a weapon. Grebeauval sent corrections to the Table of contruction in September 1767. So when were they distributed to be used?. Gribeauval explains the need for secrecy in a letter of 29 Dec 1775 [Alder p386] This pushed back the limited publication to October/November 1767. Coudray published his Nouvelle Artillery in 1773 during the height of the disputes. This would leave only 2 years to produce artillery pieces to the new designs but they were kept secret so could not be used. Confused. Stephen |
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | 05 Dec 2007 5:54 a.m. PST |
"The Gribeauval carriages had not been finalised and suffered from breaking under the stresses of increased recoil in 1765." Interesting that this later resurfaces as a claim that this was a problem with the L carriages. Kevin's App 2 is the order by Choiseul of 31/3/1766 with production drawings, which suggests the actual designs are post-Strassbourg. The draweings themselves seem to have gone through various changes, but have led to a situation where the 1792 published edition has been (wrongly) assumed to be the same as the designs of the late 1760s. I notice 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". |
summerfield | 05 Dec 2007 7:19 a.m. PST |
Dear Dave Here is the chronology that I have so far. I am still struggling in places. 1761 Louis XV charge Maritz II to redesign the gun barrels and lighten them. Royal Ordinance of December 1761 ordered that the barels should be 18 calibres 1764 Maritz II underwent tests upon on his new shorter barrels. (not 1763) 1765 Discussion over the design of the iron axel between March 1765 via Gribeauval from Maritz II to Charles Robin Chateaufer (Carriage Designer) to Manson (in charge of carriage building at Strasbourg). [March] 1765-68/9 Maritz II and III left to set up foundries in Spain. 1766 Choisel ordered that drawings would be produced. 1767 Gribeauval was still sending corrections to the technical drawinsg. 1770 Choisel lost his ministerial post 1771 Valliere tests run by Berenger on comparing Valliere guns and Gribeauval guns. The latter only lasted 10 shots. Douai cast Valliere guns and Strasbourg Gribeauval guns. 1771 Muy and Gribeauval Treatise (Erroneously referred to as the Gribeauval Treatise of 1765) 1772 Valliere Junior became Master General of Artillery 1774 Production facilities finally centralised in Strasbourg by Du Duc 1775 Louis XV died 1776 Valliere junior died and replaced by Gribeauval as Master General of Artillery 1777 De Scheel "upon the improvements of artillery SINCE 1765." 1778 Plan room for tracing the plans set up at Strasbourg 1781-88 Poitevan Brothers from Vienna Arsenal became Commissaire de Fonts at Strassbourg. 1781 Gribeauval guns at Yorktown (July) probably. Still uncertain. 1789 Gribeauval died 1792 Manson Treatise that codified the "Gribeauval" System 1795 2nd edition of De Scheel but no changes in plates from the 1777 edition. REFERENCES Müy and Gribeauval (1771), Collection Complete de la Nouvelle Artillerie Construite dans les Arceneaux Metz et Strasbourg, Paris. Scheel, Otto de (1777), Mémoires d'Artillerie; contenant L'Artiullerie Nouvelle ou les Changemens Faits Dans L'Artillerie Francoise en 1765, Chez Magimal, Paris Manson, J. (1792), Tables de Construction de Principal attirails de l'Artillerie propose au approvees depuis 1764 jusque en 1789 par M. de Gribeauval, Paris: Scheel, Otto de (1795), Mémoires d'Artillerie; contenant L'Artiullerie Nouvelle ou les Changemens Faits Dans L'Artillerie Francoise en 1765, 2nd edn, Chez Magimal, Paris |
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | 05 Dec 2007 12:29 p.m. PST |
The interesting point being here that every order about "new" guns is supposed to be related to Gribeauval! |
summerfield | 05 Dec 2007 12:59 p.m. PST |
Dear Dave Certainly. The more I read the more I realise that Gribeauval was the "Managing Director" and politician rather than the inspired designer. That is not to belittle his achievements. He was akin to Leichtenstein in this though greatly hampered by the politics of the time. It only trying to piece together a chronology that we can start realising what is possible. The bureaucracy moved very slowly. The reforms as they were only extended to the Field Artillery, the coastal, siege and garrison were unchanged. Stephen |
Kevin F Kiley | 05 Dec 2007 6:40 p.m. PST |
Stephen, A few things: -Louis XV died in 1774, not 1775. -Gribeauval was never Master General of Artillery and neither was Valliere pils. That office had been abolished by that time and the last Master General of Artillery was Louis Charles de Bourbon, comte d'Eu in 1755. Both Valliere fils and Gribeauval were Inspectors General of Artillery, sometimes referred to as First Inspector General of Artillery. -The French spelling is Mouy. -Gribeuaval did promulgate the artillery regulation of 1765. -DeScheel is the amalgamation of Gribeauval's material in one treatise. -Gribeauval also brought plans of Prussian artillery back from his visit to Prussia and had pieces constructed and tested and he found them to not be too robust. He did the same with Austrian field pieces, coming to the same conclusion. The reference to this is in DeScheel. -Gribeauval and Lichtenstein were neither the same type of soldier, nor were their roles similar in their respective artillery systems. Gribeauval was a school-trained artilleryman and had service as such in two wars. LIchtenstein was not-he was a cavalryman. Gribeauval had also established a reputation for innovation and artillery construction prior to his trip to Prussia in 1755. It was one of the reasons that he was sent. He was seconded to Austria in the Seven Years War because Austria was short of qualified senior artillerymen. He probably started work on his new artillery system while in Austria before he returned to France. Being a qualified artilleryman, he was capable of making his own technical drawings and designs. You might want to refer to the Nardin biography listed below. -Gribeauval was much more than a 'managing director.' Gribeauval had assistants, everyone does and you cannot do everything yourself. But he was the approving authority up to 1789 and his insistence on new, tighter tolerances as well as developing new tools was the heart of the new artillery system. His insistence on new tactical doctrine as well as education reform was also his. You might want to reference the few publications I have listed below. They give an excellent picture not only of Gribeauval and his system, but what led up to it and how much was available at the beginning of the Revolution. -There were three cannon foundries before 1789 (Lyons, Strasbourg, and Douai) which were reduced to two in 1789 (Strasbourg and Douai). -At the end of 1791 the French had 10,846 pieces of ordnance: 7,746 fortress pieces including 2,000 mortars and howitzers; 1,800 pieces of coastal artillery; 1,300 field pieces. There were 160 artillery companies organized in 8 regiments of twenty companies each. At eight guns per company if all of the companies were assigned to the field armies, that would make a total of 1280 field pieces. All of the companies would not be with the field armies and I don't have the breakdown by caliber of the available field pieces (all of the 'new design' but it appears there were plenty of field pieces for the field armies. And the number of foundries were increased during the Revolution which means that production went up. New foundries were established at Metz, Valence, Toulouse, Rennes, Le Havre, and Paris. -The reforms for the French artillery started with the field artillery, since technically the French army had little or none at the end of the Seven Years War. However, it is not correct to state that these were not extended to garrison, siege, and coastal artillery. They were, it just took a little longer. You might find the following useful: -L'Artillerie Francaise (1665-1765) Naissance D'Une Arme by Frederic Naulet. -Gribeauval Lieutenant General des armess du Roi (1715-1789) by Pierre Nardin. -Histoire de L'Artillerie Francaise by Michel de Lombares. -L'Artillerie au debut Des Guerres de la Revolution by G. Roquerol. -L'Artillerie de Campagne Francaise Pendant les Guerres de la Revolution: Evolution de l'Organization et de la Tactique by Matti Lauerma. Sincerely, Kevin |
summerfield | 06 Dec 2007 3:18 a.m. PST |
Dear Kevin Alder pg45 gave the date as 1775 (I should have checked other sources so what other dates has he got wrong). Now this fits better with the change in ministers in 1774. Don Graves (De Scheel) gives the following Choiseul's fall from grace as 1772 (Alder as 1770). Strasbourg tests as 1764 (Alder as 1763) Now I hope you are understanding my problem as the dates are different. In addition, the tests of 1764 (or 1763) were of the shorter gun barrels that Maritz had been ordered to produce by Louis XV in 1761. The carriages to Manson and Chateaufer designs were not finalised until 1771 when the plans were published. Certainly Gribeauval was still sending corrections in 1767. How can you have an acceptance of the system in 1765 when the gun carriages were not finalised. Gribeauval as you clearly acknowledge was a siege engineer. He knew a great deal about attacking and defending. His criteria in looking at the Prussian and Austria guns was that they would able to sustain a bombardment rather than mobility. This is shown by his comment upon the Prussian guns as admiring their mobility but lacking in hitting power. This requirement is for attacking fortifications and not upon the battlefield. He did not disparage their accuracy. A longer barrel would have a longer range and higher muzzle velocity hence hitting power. [Alder p38 quotes Nardin] Alder does not indicate and nowhere else have I seen that Gribeauval undertook tests upon Austrian equipment. His report much vaunted was made on March 1762 upon his return. Yet Alder states that this was requested in 1762-3 by Dubois of the War office. Gribeauval guns were over engineered as shown by Manson in Bavaria who rebored the 4-pdr design to 6-pdr. The 150 lb to 1 lb shot was still too high. The improvement in gunpowder made the barrels longer than they needed to be. De Scheel is a good expression of the system as it was in 1770s but it had evolved as shown in the Manson 1792 Treatise. It is also interesting to look at the transcription errors in the dimensions in the American translation. As you can see the dates given are inconsistent. Thank you for the list of books. Where did the list of ordnance come from. It is close to that I estimated and realised that the French had lost over a fifth of their field guns by 1793 (over 300). Production of guns only started in 1793 through the chaos that was the revolution. Most of the foundries that you state were casting iron guns. Stephen |
Kevin F Kiley | 06 Dec 2007 3:30 a.m. PST |
Stephen, It took me a couple of hours using the references I gave you to find most of the information I gave you. Gribeauval was not a 'siege engineer.' There is no such term in the French service. And I certainly didn't 'acknowledge' that term. He was an artilleryman as has been noted before and if you're actually researching him, you'll notice that is what he was. Part of an artilleryman's military education was how to conduct a siege. You need to reread DeScheel carefully for both the Strasbourg tests and the construction of Austrian field pieces by Gribeauval upon his return to France. The material on the foundries producing bronze field guns is in Roquerol in the Appendices. The list is correct. It seems to me that you're using single sources for material and you need to cross check. Perhaps the bibliography in Artillery might help you. Gribeauval wanted his new field guns to be mobile for maneuver with the new tactical doctrine that was being developed post-1763 and with enough strength and hitting power to be able to outshoot both the Austrian and Prussian field pieces, which he considered too light with not enough endurance for more than a few campaigns before they wore out and had to be recast. The life of a Gribeauval gun tube was longer than those of the Austrians and Prussians. The term 'over-engineered' is ludicrous and doesn't apply here. Sincerely, Kevin |
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | 06 Dec 2007 5:42 a.m. PST |
Long on claims and rather short on facts. There is nothing in App1 of your own book covering the Strassbourg tests that mentions Austrian guns. So, can you give us the reference from De Scheel – and please do not refer us to Graves' introduction as his claims are unsubstatiated. Where is the data on the relative performance of Austrian (compared with French barrels) from those tests? Gribeauval joined the French artillery at a time when artilelry was primarily a siege weapon (hence the attachment of mining troops). It was only Lichtenmctein's 6pdr of 1753 that made that calibre mobile enough to be an effective field weapon – prior to that only 3/4pdrs were used for that role and artillery was thus an infantry support weapon in the field. All we really know about Gribeauval's early dayts was that he commanded a miner company. When he goes to Austria, it is as siege warfare adviser (engineer/technician if you like). Contrary to the much-repeated Thiers' claim, he did not command the Austrian artillery – indeed, he never saw field service, but (and for ease of reference see Duffy), set up the Sappers in Austria and then led them at Schweidnitz. That is not an "artilleryman" in the Napoleonic sense, but ocen again we have claims bandied about, which on closer examination do not stand up. The 1762 report was written at Paris' request – it came as a series of pretty simple questions, like "what calibres do the Austrians use" – it is something that anyone reading NV72 could answer. Nowhere (contrary to your own flowery depiction) in that report does Gribeauval set out any blueprint for mobile artillery. "the new tactical doctrine that was being developed post-1763" – where is the evidence for that? Your key citation on p.73 comes from Guibert (published 1772), which says: "Artillery must be mobile and able to change positions when necessary duringh the course of a battle, either to maintain its prolongations or to concentrate its fire on some decisive point. It needs to seek accuracy above all else, especially at long range
Artilelry should never be used in counterbattery action except where there are no troops to fire upon. The true targets of the artillery are the enemy's troops and the works which cover them. Its purpose is not merely to cancel out the enemy's artillery but to cooperate with the troops in winning decisive success". A sensible assessment, but hardly radical. Du Teil is also cited on p.72: "The proper execution of the artillery is based on the art of emplacement [NOT MANOEUVRE THEN?] and the directing of the fire to cause the greatest possible harm and to give the greatest protection to the troops that it supports [STILL A SUPPORT WEAPON THEN?] Before the infantry and artillery can protect each other it is indispensible for the artillery to copordinate its tactics with those of the infantry or at lkeast with the results of their principal manoeuvresand the greater or lesser effect it will produce on such or such a manoeuvre and to judge their importance, and the need to increase the rate of fire or to change position". Certainly, we can see the start of the barrage tactics employed from Jemappes onwards, but "combined arms"??? |
summerfield | 06 Dec 2007 5:47 a.m. PST |
Dear Kevin I was stating that his understanding of warfare was siege and his comments upon the superior field artillery were from that viewpoint. The French were using too much powder and so needed heavier guns etc
Gribeauval guns were heavier than they needed to be. They were heavier than any other nation in the Napoleonic Wars. AnXI and M1808 were lighter. The theory of ballistics that they were based upon had been proved false. The thick breach and cone was shown to be lighter and just as strong as shown by the Piedmont Artillery. The Gribeauval guns were as ever guns of a previous war and used in the Napoleonic wars. Yes I need to cross check but my research for the last decade has been into non-French Artillery as I thought that area was understood. Obviously it is not expressed in English sources and those in French I have read have a significant bias (Fave, Napoleon III Gessendi (1801) etc..). Stephen |
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | 06 Dec 2007 5:53 a.m. PST |
It was not only the barrels, but the G carriages are the existing 1740s French design (bizarrely touted as new by G's fans), when everyone else was moving to longer straighter carriages. The claim that G barrels were longer lifed is also manifestly incorrect – since barrels wear from the inside to a point where is too much windage. The thickness of the barrel (though thought necessary at the time to take bigger charges) doesn't affect this as the YrXI showed. Indeed, had the Strassbourg tests actually included Austrian guns, that would have been established much earlier, but it wasn't
. |
summerfield | 06 Dec 2007 6:03 a.m. PST |
Dear Kevin The tests upon Austrian and Prussian guns are imprecisely stated in de Scheel pg6 (p15) but does not state where when or whether they were actual tests. Also states that 100 (Prussian), 120 (Austrian) was fine to 2-3 campaigns. Now I know where tat comes from. The 150:1 can as a compromise as Gribeauval realised he would not be able to reduce it further. This was the same case for 18 calibres rather than 14 (Prussian) or 16 (Austrian). The date of trying the guns and carriages is not set and it has been erroneously to be assumed as 1764. In fact Gribeauval guns and carriages were developed in Strasbourg. The date of the Bricole tests is unclear and again the assumption is 1764. The iron axels were still being discussed in 1765. Carriage designs was even later. They broke in the 1771-2 tests and in response strapping was used. Gribeauval guns were a compromise by a person who was more confortable with siege and static warfare. Just look at the crazy ammunition supply. Napoleon was forced to adopt Austrian practice with mules and ammunition caissons (M1803 and M1814). Stephen Stephen |
summerfield | 06 Dec 2007 6:12 a.m. PST |
Dear Dave Barrel wear is independent of the weight of the piece. The problem is normally the vent. Yes a heavier barrel can be fire more often than a lighter one. It is all about latent heat. The weight of the charge has a great influence upon the heat produced. The design of the 4-pdr was that of the Swedish Gun. The concept of the bent dogleg trail was evident in the Valliere pieces. Gribeauval carriages were heavier than any other country I have the data for. Much has been made of the advantage of the drafting system of the Lichtenstein/Gribeauval over that of the Desaguliers system but the latter was more efficient. It is again reading and understanding the French defense of their system. The criteria of the tests at Strasbourg (1764,1770-73) and Douai (1771-2) was about range. This is not relevant upon a battlefield. The French as I had stated did not understand that it was about muzzle velocity. Alder is quite specific upon the point. Stephen Stephen |
Kevin F Kiley | 06 Dec 2007 7:17 p.m. PST |
Stephen, The tests at Strasbourg were definitely about range. It was to see if the new Gribeauval gun tubes had the same range as the older Valliere pieces. That is what the tests concluded. The issue was not muzzle velocity, about which the argument was continuing at the time. Muzzle velocity is different for every gun tube, not just type of gun tube. Every piece shoots differently, even today with the technology we have. In the 1760s and 1770s it was not only very expensive to measure muzzle velocity, it was in many ways impractical, especially if there is only one expensive machine to use. And to be effective, muzzle velocity has to be measured not only once, but periodically over time to be of use. The issue, therefore, was not about muzzle velocity but a more easily measurable variable and one that everyone at the tests could see-range. If you compare the Valliere and Gribeauval gun carriages, they are quite different and that point was also brought out in Alder. Barrel wear is measured or 'accomplished' by the number of rounds that are fired by the piece. That is still done today. Each gun tube has a barrel life, and during the period in question, it was not measured by the vent. The vent could be repaired or replaced and the gun tube still be serviceable. Gribeauval developed the screw-in vent to make vent replacement easier. Could you elaborate on the M1808 artillery 'system?' 'Gribeauval guns were a compromise by a person who was more confortable with siege and static warfare.' I'm sorry but that is an incorrect statement. They were developed by an artilleryman who saw the need for field pieces strong enough to last more than two or three campaigns and to be able to maneuver with the army on the battlefield. And that is what was produced. To what 'crazy' ammunition supply are you referring? What is 'M1803' and 'M1814?' Gribeauval considered that the Prussian and Austrian pieces were not sturdy enough, which is in DeScheel (which is a compilation of Gribeauval's material). He designed his field pieces to be heavier in order to last longer. In that, they were much sturdier than those they would oppose in 1792-1815. The Gribeauval 4-pounder was a new field piece, and was not the same design as the 'Swedish gun.' They didn't even look similar. Imprecisely stated or not, Gribeauval did bring back plans for Prussian and Austrian field pieces, had them constructed and tested. That fact is documented. Sincerely, Kevin |
Kevin F Kiley | 06 Dec 2007 7:24 p.m. PST |
I was stating that his understanding of warfare was siege and his comments upon the superior field artillery were from that viewpoint. The French were using too much powder and so needed heavier guns etc
Stephen, 'Gribeauval guns were heavier than they needed to be.' That assumption has not been demonstrated. 'AnXI and M1808 were lighter.' AN XI pieces certainly were because lessons had been learned and metallurgy had improved. However, as only the 6-pounder and 5.5-inch howitzer were produced in any numbers, Gribeauval 12-pounders stayed in service for the duration of the period and 4- and 8-pounders were still employed. The Systeme AN XI was never fully implemented, and there was opposition to it, from Ruty and Gassendi in particular, and the Gribeauval System was fully reimplemented after Waterloo. 'The theory of ballistics that they were based upon had been proved false.' How? 'The Gribeauval guns were as ever guns of a previous war and used in the Napoleonic wars.' Except for the excellent British pieces that were fielded in the 1790s, the Gribeauval field pieces were the newest in Europe. The Prussian models predated the Lichtenstein guns, and they were from the 1750s. The Russian guns were also older. And French artillerymen were at home with the Gribeauval pieces and generally were not happy with the new 6-pounder and preferred the older and heavier 8-pounder. Could you also explain and give a reference to the 'M1808?' Sincerely, Kevin |
summerfield | 07 Dec 2007 3:22 a.m. PST |
Dear Kevin The statements here amaze me. The age of the design of the guns were amongst the oldest. Assuming M1765 for Gribeauval M1753 Liechtenstein M1758 Prussia M1765 Gribeauval M1768 Dieskau (Prussia) M1775 Congreve / Townsend (Mostly obsolete) M1777 New limbers and improvements to Liechtenstein System M1780 Austrian Cavalry Wurst guns M1786 Piedmont (tube design then taken by AnXI M1790 Blomefield M1792 Rumford (Bavaria) M1795 Hanover M1801 Manson (Bavaria) M1803 Using the gun tube concept from Piedmont M1805 Arakcheev (Russian) M1808 French (rationalised with adoption of the 6-pdr as the main field piece based upon the M1803 design but 120:1) M1811 Saxon M1812 Wurtemberg M1812 Prussia (codified as the M1816 System) BASED on VALLIERE M1766 Denmark (based on Valliere) M1766-68 Saxon M1780 Hanover (based on Valliere) BASED on GRIBEAUVAL M1783 Gribeauval system throughout Spain implemented So the French with their Gribeauval System was going around with almost the oldest system. This is a very rough and ready chart as I would have to explore with you the technical background and the advantages. The restoration with the ordinance of 30 January 1815 reinstated the the Gribeauval System but was not enacted until 1824. Three years later replaced as is known well by the Valee system that was then taken to America. The 6-pdr (AnXI/M1808) went out of service in 1825. The reforms of 1814 stated that the 8-pdr carriage would become the unversal carriage for howitzers (24-pdr and 7-pdr) and guns (6-, 12-pdr). This is an area that is very confusing. The French removed from their inventry non-French equipment during 1816-1818. This is a very complex area much simplified by just reading what was intended rather than what happened and the returns. The Gribeauval System of 1815 was nothing like that of the 1765 or 1777. I was referring to the design of the Gribeauval guns were a compromise to fight the Seven Years War again and not the new wars of movement devised by Guibert, Du Teil and Napoleon. Interesting your comments upon being more robust. So you are saying that Gribeauval used 150:1 as a measure of ecconomy rather then ease of use upon the battlefield. It was unusual for a gun to explend its allowance in a campaign except in a siege. The allowance was 200 rounds. This has come from De Scheel and he was writing of a siege minded battlefield of 1777. Yes the bushing the vent etc.. developed was essential. Interestingly the better method of firing a cannon was the flint-lock. There was far less wear on the vent. It was a little less reliable than the tube. This was used by the Piedmontese and the Hanoverians. Later adopted by the British after the war. It was even better when the percussion cap came into use. The M1808 system is explained in my book but there was much more information than could be put in the pages. I am learning about the French Artillery. Two years ago I thought as you that the French used the Gribeauval system and that was about it especially after reading your fine book. Stephen |
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | 07 Dec 2007 7:54 a.m. PST |
I am still seeing quite a bit of assertion by Kevin here: "The tests at Strasbourg were definitely about range. It was to see if the new Gribeauval gun tubes had the same range as the older Valliere pieces. That is what the tests concluded." I would refer you to App 1 of your own book. It actually says that the tests were designed to find to what calibres length the barrles could be reduced so as to be light enough to be manoeuvrable, but also to have the same punch as the old guns. The only issue about range was what was really necessary and what was really superfluous range, which was only consuming powder/barrel length and weight. It looks like a series of tests on barrels of "the new calibre" presumably with varying quantities of power charge too. Gribeauval is only mentioned twice, both times in relation to windage for the purposes of improved accuracy and one of those times included his proposal for "light pieces". There is no testing of complete guns and nothing to say the barrels were built to G's design, merely experiemntal length barrels. Again, where is bthe evidence that G constructed Austrian guns? Surely we would expect to see a report discussing their relative performance, but none is quoted. "Gribeauval considered that the Prussian and Austrian pieces were not sturdy enough" – coming from someone, who never fought in the field, this is simply a rather useless opinion. Given that his garrison carriage was such a bad design that Austrian carpenters had to rebuild it at Schweidnitz, I don't think his opinion on carriages was worth much. "Barrel wear is measured or 'accomplished' by the number of rounds that are fired by the piece" – true, so what does the thickness of the barrel matter, espcially as the YrXI barrels were built to the L design and poundage, minus the rings in Piedmontese style? It was a common error (repeated by KGL Muller in 1811 to think that a larger charge needed a thicker barrel, but that does not make it true. "They were developed by an artilleryman who saw the need for field pieces strong enough to last more than two or three campaigns and to be able to maneuver with the army on the battlefield. And that is what was produced." Can you provide the evidence for that – as G never saw field service, only siege work? "Imprecisely stated or not, Gribeauval did bring back plans for Prussian and Austrian field pieces, had them constructed and tested. That fact is documented." Where? "AN XI pieces certainly were because lessons had been learned and metallurgy had improved" – Please provide the evidence and nature of these "improvements" as ou have made the assertions enough times, but never provided the data. "the Gribeauval System was fully reimplemented after Waterloo." Ever thought about the lack of cash in France from 1807 onwards, especially with paying reparations after 1815? As a recent example, even the rich USA had to bring old battleships out of retirement in the 1980s to face the Russian cruisers. |
summerfield | 07 Dec 2007 9:44 a.m. PST |
Dear Dave There was no appreciable improvement in metallurgy over the period. The understanding from ballistics showing that you needed a strong breach and a cone shape to the muzzle. The 1764 tests were upon Maritz II guns that had been ordered by the King in Dec 1761 to be produced to 18 calibres. Has Kevin or yourself looked at an AnXI piece. It looks like the Piedmontese M1786 system and that produced in 1800 at the Turin Arsenal for the Army of Italy. The barrels have beautiful clean lines. [Sorry Dave you confused me over speech marks]. The analogy is quite apt about old arms being put into use. In 1793, old Swedish 4-pdrs were rebored to 6-pdrs. Valliere guns were used in the defence of Paris in 1814-15. Even old 16-pdrs were employed in field works. There is no evidence that Gribeauval was anything more than a person who know about sieges. That was his training and so called acclaim. I have not seen any account of him being congratulated by Frederick the Great and that as you know is a particular area of interest, the Prussian Army. Stephen |
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | 07 Dec 2007 10:44 a.m. PST |
The claim about Frederick does appear in Wurzbach's note on him, but Wurzbach himself cites French sources, not Prussian ones. Frederick wanted him to do what he had dopne in Austria – namely siege work and sapping. I haven't looked at a real YrXI, just drawings – which is partly why I was so surprised that Kevin did not include this key design in his book. However, I have seen the Piedmontese barrels outside the HGM in Vienna. It seems quite obvious to me that the YR XI is the same spec as L without the rings – but in another case of Ruling Theory, where a claim has to be made to cover an inconvenient fact, the story ahs been put about that metallurgy changed (I have asked Kevin about this before, but never received an answer). |
summerfield | 07 Dec 2007 11:04 a.m. PST |
Dear Dave Thank you for clearing that French fueled myth. As I can say it surprises me with Frederick's attitude to artillerymen. Upon metallurgy and alloys is an area that I can talk with assurance. Bronze has been used by man back to the bronze age. The casting of it had changed little. It is an art casting rather than a science. The important parts are the temperatures and changes in the furnaces but these had not changed for a hundred years. I cannot see that you would get an answer. Beranger said. "What do artillerymen know of casting gun barrels?" [Berenger 1764] when being asked to give comment upon the accusations against Verbruggen when he was the gunfounder at the Hague. Stephen |
Steven H Smith | 08 Dec 2007 12:25 a.m. PST |
Re: Muy/Müy/Mouy/Moüy: "Collection Complète De La Nouvelle Artillerie Construite Dans Les Arcéneaux De Metz et Strasbourg Par Messieurs De Müy Et De Gribeauval", réalisé entre 1764 et 1771. See: picture Steve Actually, its Kutuzov! |
un ami | 08 Dec 2007 2:28 a.m. PST |
@Dave Hollins "It was only Lichtenmctein's 6pdr of 1753 that made that calibre mobile enough to be an effective field weapon – prior to that only 3/4pdrs were used for that role and artillery was thus an infantry support weapon in the field." At the beginning of the reign of the Great Catherine, in 1763, the Russian artillerie was composed into a siège artillerie, a régimental artillerie, and a field artillerie. The field artillerie was composed of 50 companies. The pièces were, in Russian puonds :
50 12-pound guns 25 40-pound licornes 25 20-pound licornes 25 8-pound guns 25 6-pound guns 50 10-pound licornes
There was also a pontonnier companie and a detachement of 12 pieces of 80-pound mortars. While this is not nearly so simple as the later systemes, the compagnie is thus similar in compostion : an average of 4 pièces, a heavy style based on the 12-pounder and a light style based on the 8-pounder or the 6-pounder, a tranche of howitzers, the train included in the companie. The artillerie system is that of General Graf Shuvalov, and dates for the mid 1750's. But the use of the 6-pound and the 12-pound guns and the 20-lb howitzers in the field artillerie date to the reign of the Great Peter. One should never say "ah, this was all invented by Russians". But I do not think that "only the Lichtenmctein's 6pdr of 1753 that made that calibre mobile enough to be an effective field weapon" is purely correct. - un ami |
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | 08 Dec 2007 3:36 a.m. PST |
The difference is between having a gun calibre in the field and it being mobile enough to have an effect. 12pdrs were always in the Napoleonic field, but were dug in and didn't move far – this was the case with the heavy 6pdrs of the earlier 18th century. L reduced the barrel size by a third and lightened the carriage significantly, so the 6pdr could move about easily. That is the difference and that is why there was a great rush to copy the concept – the French tests at Strassbourg in 1764 are all about the set-off between range and weight. |
summerfield | 08 Dec 2007 6:23 a.m. PST |
Thanks Steve Alas certain people do not realise that Muy (sorry cannot put umlaut on) and Mouy were different people. Interesting that it was published in 1771 at the time when Gribeauval lost power so were any carriages in volume created before 1771 as you can only make something when you have the plans and patterns. Frederick the Great deployed 6-pdrs with his infantry in 1740. This is what was the incentive of Liechtenstein to improve Austrian Artillery. Later the Prussians deployed 7-pdr howitzers. The Russian system was greatly improved in 1755-1757 and the secret howitzers were very interesting. These were a great advance in lightness. Interesting that under Peter the Great, Russia lead the world. Stephen |
un ami | 08 Dec 2007 7:00 a.m. PST |
@aummerfield "Interesting that under Peter the Great, Russia lead the world." Or, one can say, they did lead the world in hiring experts from everywhere. May be a little like the USA today ? :-) The reforms of the General Graf Shuvalov are indeed interesting. I will, sadly, be forced to admit that I have not studied them in the sufficient detail – one of the many many topics were my poor education is so easily revealed. I will recall, perhaps in error, that it was he who did have the pièces first mounted on a hard pine (or "fir"?), to save of a great weight in the carraiges and to ease the making of them. - votre ami |
summerfield | 08 Dec 2007 7:41 a.m. PST |
Dear Un Ami The carriages were made out of pine so where thicker than those of most other countries for the equivalent strength. Interestingly the Russian carriages despite being larger were considerably light than those of Gribeauval. Yes it was Peter the Great importing experts like Euler, Baron Munnich etc
Euler then moved to Prussia where the M1740 pieces were much lighter than before as he realised that you needed much less powder than conventional wisdom required (i.e. French). You could say it was importing Werner von Braun for the space race. The innate conservatism of the French Army especially the artillery really payed against them. Stephen |
Kevin F Kiley | 08 Dec 2007 9:03 a.m. PST |
'Alas certain people do not realise that Muy (sorry cannot put umlaut on) and Mouy were different people.' Stephen, Then who is the French artillery General de Mouy? Sincerely, Kevin |
Steven H Smith | 08 Dec 2007 9:12 a.m. PST |
Pierre-François Ansard de Mouy, 3.iii.1700 – 1.xii.1771, maréchal de camp 20.ii.1761, an inspecteur général de artillerie 7.iii.1761, lieutenant général 19.vii.1765. Bio: link The family name is 'Ansard (sometines sp. Ansart) de Mouy', but called 'de Mouy'. I believe other members of the family also served in the artillerie as well as other arms. |
Steven H Smith | 08 Dec 2007 9:20 a.m. PST |
Two items of possible interest: Hartmann, L. "DÉVELOPPEMENT DU SYSTÈME MÉTRIQUE DANS L'ARTILLERIE FRANÇAISE", Revue d'artillerie, vol 47, p. 96ff: link
and Une famille militaire au XVIIIe siècle: documents inédits sur le Régiment
by Joseph Du Teil. 1896: link |
Kevin F Kiley | 08 Dec 2007 9:20 a.m. PST |
Thank you. Now who is de Muy? Sincerely, Kevin |
Steven H Smith | 08 Dec 2007 10:02 a.m. PST |
Louis-Nicolas-Victor-Félix d'Orlières, chevalier [later comte] de Muy (1711 (Marsailles) – 10.x.1775 (Paris)). D'origine piémontaise ou d'Avignon. Membre de l'Ordre du Saint-Esprit en 2.ii.1764; Marshal of France 24/30.iii.1775; 9.vi.1775: conseiller de etat and ministre de la guerre. "Quatre mois après son arrivée au Ministère, le général du Muy lit signer l'ordonnance du 3 octobre 1774 qui remit en vigueur les dispositions de celles du 5 novembre 1758 et du 13 août 1765." "Le comte de Muy, ministre de la guerre, malade de la pierre depuis longtemps, s'était confié le 9 octobre aux soins de frère Côme, qui avait essayé sur lui l'opération de la taille, et le 10 il était mort." Bios: from the Nouvelle biographie universelle, vol 37, columns 79-81: link also: link Bust:
picture |
Steven H Smith | 08 Dec 2007 6:13 p.m. PST |
"Sale of National Treasures", Potter's American Monthly, Vol 2, 1873, pp 331-332 link
|
Kevin F Kiley | 10 Dec 2007 6:43 p.m. PST |
Stephen, A few remarks on some of your more interesting statements: 'Prototypes were produced in 1767 of the Gribeauval guns and the tests' As the first tests were conducted at Strasbourg in 1764, that would mean that the prototypes were built earlier. 'I would be interested in reading this report.' Would you like me to send you a copy? If you do, then email me at home and I'll scan it and send it to you. It's in Hennebert's book on Gribeauval. 'I am not convinced that the system was ready before Gribeauval lost power' As the system included education, uniforms, organization, tactics, et al, as well as guns and vehicles, you're probably correct. However, I do believe you're missing the forest for the trees. Further, I don't believe you actually understand artillery systems in general, and Gribeauval's in particular. You've made some pretty basic errors on ammunition (the canister comments) and you're statements on horse artillery are incorrect. 'until 1770 when Gribeauval lost power and was replaced by Valliere Junior.' Gribeauval was out of favor from 1772-1774. It's in Hennebert as well as Nardin. 'The length of the barrel and the 150 lb per lb of shot was still too heavy.' Still too heavy for what? I have yet to see French artillerymen complain about being able to employ the guns and vehicles. Seems like you're searching for the 'perfect artillery system' and you're not going to find it. Each has advantages and disadvantages, and the better ones had more of the former than the latter. 'Gribeauval was striving for order out of chaos rather than perfecting the best artillery system as Liechtenstein set himself and Prussia failed' That's incorrect. Gribeauval was determined to give France as complete an artillery system as possible with field guns able to maneuver in the field and support the infantry. That's what he developed. 'He introduced the Caisson, 2 and 4 wheeled forge plus gun carriage design based heavily upon Austrian designs only replacing in essence the axel with one taken from the Rostaing guns.' Again, both incorrect and an oversimplification. Gribeauval's first caisson design was in 1754. The ones later adopted in the 1760s were improvements in that design, and the design was much better than the Austrian caisson. Austrian designs relied very much on the Prussian field artillery from the 1740s, and they were respected by Gribeauval, but his gun carriages, according to both DeScheel and Alder, were new designs. 'I was stating that his understanding of warfare was siege and his comments upon the superior field artillery were from that viewpoint. The French were using too much powder and so needed heavier guns etc
' The person that figured out that powder charges could be reduced with no reduction in range was Belidor, one of Gribeauval's instructors and that knowledge was applied to Gribeauval's gun tubes. So, the French were not using too much powder. Gribeauval's 'viewpoint' on field artillery was from experience as an artilleryman, not merely from sieges. He had field experience in the War of the Austrian Succession and had observed first hand both the Prussian and Austrian field artillery. So, again, you are mistaken. 'Gribeauval guns were heavier than they needed to be.' Says who? The gun carriages were heavier because Gribeauval used more iron in their construction, the axle was iron, and the wheel housings were now brass. The wheels were larger, and while overall they were heavier, they were easier to maneuver because of these improvements. You cannot judge field guns merely on the issue of weight. There are other factors involved, such as making it easier to move the guns in the field, which was a reality with the Gribeauval gun carriages. 'The theory of ballistics that they were based upon had been proved false.' And which theory was this? 'Gribeauval guns were a compromise by a person who was more confortable with siege and static warfare.' As shown above with Gribeauval's experience level, you are incorrect here. 'Just look at the crazy ammunition supply. Napoleon was forced to adopt Austrian practice with mules and ammunition caissons (M1803 and M1814).' You have yet to explain this one. 'The design of the 4-pdr was that of the Swedish Gun.' No, it was not. 'The concept of the bent dogleg trail was evident in the Valliere pieces.' Comparing the two sets of gun carriages, that is incorrect. 'There is no evidence that Gribeauval was anything more than a person who know about sieges. That was his training and so called acclaim.' I would suggest, then, that you read Nardin's biography of him. Your impression is incorrect. 'Upon metallurgy and alloys is an area that I can talk with assurance. Bronze has been used by man back to the bronze age. The casting of it had changed little. It is an art casting rather than a science. The important parts are the temperatures and changes in the furnaces but these had not changed for a hundred years.' There was a definite increasing science about bronze in particular and metals in general. Most of what I have seen deals with the purity of the alloys and these improved steadily throughout the period 1700-1800. Casting field pieces as a solid mass and then boring it out was a huge innovation which improved both casting methods and the accuracy of the field piece. 'Interesting that it was published in 1771 at the time when Gribeauval lost power so were any carriages in volume created before 1771 as you can only make something when you have the plans and patterns.' Again, Gribeauval was out of favor from 1772-1774. 'The Russian system was greatly improved in 1755-1757 and the secret howitzers were very interesting. These were a great advance in lightness. Interesting that under Peter the Great, Russia lead the world.' Russia led the world in what? Sincerely, Kevin |
Kevin F Kiley | 10 Dec 2007 7:27 p.m. PST |
'The claim has been regularly made that Austrian pieces were tested at Strassbourg
Likewise, there is no evidence of testing Prussian guns there.' See DeScheel's Treatise of Artillery, pages 1-7. You should take note of the information contained there and should answer many of your questions. Of course, if you don't have the Treatise or you haven't read it before that might cause a few problems for you. 'Now, you could do that simply taking a Valliere gun as cast, cutting part of it off and boring it more accurately.' Something of that nature was actually tried by de Broglie in the last part of the Seven Years War and proved to be very unsatisfactory. A new artillery system was needed. 'The report itself does not provide any evidence that the G design was ready, merely that the underlying principles were demonstrated.' Correct, and I have never seen anyone make a statement like that. Strawman? 'The claim has been regularly made that Austrian pieces were tested at Strassbourg' See page 6 pg DeScheel. '
– yet there is no evidence in that report in App 1 of any data about Austrian guns and Gribeauval himself had no practical experience of handling them (his 1762 report is in terms, which anyone reading NV72 quickly could write).' Since 'NV 72' was not available in 1762, that might be a problem. And, yes, Gribeauval had practical experience with both Prussian and Austrian field pieces, as he had both constructed for him in France and had seen them in Prussia and Austria. 'Likewise, there is no evidence of testing Prussian guns there.' Again, see page 6 of DeScheel. 'The report itself does not provide any evidence that the G design was ready, merely that the underlying principles were demonstrated.' I believe that was my original point. 'The interesting point being here that every order about "new" guns is supposed to be related to Gribeauval!' It is in France post-1763 and prior to the Systeme AN XI. 'Interesting that this later resurfaces as a claim that this was a problem with the L carriages.' And where would that be? It was a comment on the gun tubes, not the gun carriages. 'Long on claims and rather short on facts.' If you would actually read the reference material that has been listed, you might find all of the references you need for what has been said. If that is too difficult, use the bibliography in Artillery. If you need some help, I would be very happy to scan and send you the material that you either don't agree with or that you don't understand. 'There is nothing in App1 of your own book covering the Strassbourg tests that mentions Austrian guns. So, can you give us the reference from De Scheel – and please do not refer us to Graves' introduction as his claims are unsubstatiated. Where is the data on the relative performance of Austrian (compared with French barrels) from those tests?' See DeScheel, page 6. 'Gribeauval joined the French artillery at a time when artilelry was primarily a siege weapon (hence the attachment of mining troops). It was only Lichtenmctein's 6pdr of 1753 that made that calibre mobile enough to be an effective field weapon – prior to that only 3/4pdrs were used for that role and artillery was thus an infantry support weapon in the field. All we really know about Gribeauval's early dayts was that he commanded a miner company. When he goes to Austria, it is as siege warfare adviser (engineer/technician if you like). Contrary to the much-repeated Thiers' claim, he did not command the Austrian artillery – indeed, he never saw field service, but (and for ease of reference see Duffy), set up the Sappers in Austria and then led them at Schweidnitz. That is not an "artilleryman" in the Napoleonic sense, but ocen again we have claims bandied about, which on closer examination do not stand up.' You really need to read Nardin's biography of Gribeauval, Alder's excellent book, both Roquerol and Lauerma, as well as Tousard, for a start. All that I have written in the past, and what is summarized in the long article on Gribeauval I did for First Empire a couple of years ago is supported in those publications. You might also want to take a look at du Teil's Usage for French artillery doctrine of the period which was written with Gribeauval's system in mind. Again, Gribeauval was a school-trained artilleryman and was seconded to Austria because they were short of qualified artillerymen and needed help. Gribeauval also served in the War of the Austrian Succession, and as the artillery officers were trained under the revised curriculum that he established in the French artillery schools, he most certainly was as competent an artillerymen as those who served in the Napoleonic period. Your information is incorrect, unfortunately. 'The 1762 report was written at Paris' request – it came as a series of pretty simple questions, like "what calibres do the Austrians use" – it is something that anyone reading NV72 could answer.' Was 'NV72' available in 1762? 'Nowhere (contrary to your own flowery depiction) in that report does Gribeauval set out any blueprint for mobile artillery.' Does he or does he not state what he wants to do? That is a 'blueprint.' You said so yourself a few paragraphs above here. 'Where is the data on the relative performance of Austrian (compared with French barrels) from those tests?' That I don't know. It sure would be interesting to find, if it was kept in the first place. 'Gribeauval joined the French artillery at a time when artilelry was primarily a siege weapon (hence the attachment of mining troops). It was only Lichtenmctein's 6pdr of 1753 that made that calibre mobile enough to be an effective field weapon – prior to that only 3/4pdrs were used for that role and artillery was thus an infantry support weapon in the field.' The engineers had been attached to the artillery for quite some time and only became an independent branch of the service in 1758. The engineer school at Mezieres wasn't established until 1749. Therefore, it was quite usual to have artillery officers commanding miner companies, as they were part of the artillery arm at that time. Mobile 6-pounders were part of the Prussian army in the 1740s, and the defeats suffered by Austria in 1740-48 was the catalyst for Lichtenstein. Much of what Lichtenstein used was Prussian-inspired. He also was influenced by Valliere. '"the new tactical doctrine that was being developed post-1763" – where is the evidence for that? Your key citation on p.73 comes from Guibert (published 1772), which says: "Artillery must be mobile and able to change positions when necessary duringh the course of a battle, either to maintain its prolongations or to concentrate its fire on some decisive point. It needs to seek accuracy above all else, especially at long range
Artilelry should never be used in counterbattery action except where there are no troops to fire upon. The true targets of the artillery are the enemy's troops and the works which cover them. Its purpose is not merely to cancel out the enemy's artillery but to cooperate with the troops in winning decisive success". A sensible assessment, but hardly radical.' The material comes from du Teil's Usage, DeScheel, Tousard, Roquerol, Lauerma, and the other material that is listed in the bibliography for Artillery. Unfortunately, I didn't write a tactical treatise or an artillery technical manual. If you want more detail for a certain topic, use the references, read them, and find the material. I've been listing the refereneces for you and others for years, and you tend not to read them, do you not, or dismiss them out of hand. 'Du Teil is also cited on p.72: "The proper execution of the artillery is based on the art of emplacement [NOT MANOEUVRE THEN?] and the directing of the fire to cause the greatest possible harm and to give the greatest protection to the troops that it supports [STILL A SUPPORT WEAPON THEN?] Before the infantry and artillery can protect each other it is indispensible for the artillery to copordinate its tactics with those of the infantry or at lkeast with the results of their principal manoeuvresand the greater or lesser effect it will produce on such or such a manoeuvre and to judge their importance, and the need to increase the rate of fire or to change position".' The art of emplacement is by maneuver. Artillery was a support weapon in 1778 when Usage was written. Only in 1807 did that role mature and change with Senarmont. If you read du Teil in whole you'll actually see the emphasis on maneuver. 'Certainly, we can see the start of the barrage tactics employed from Jemappes onwards, but "combined arms"???' What were 'barrage tactics?' Yes, combined arms. It is illustrated by what you quoted in the paragraph. 'Given that his garrison carriage was such a bad design that Austrian carpenters had to rebuild it at Schweidnitz, I don't think his opinion on carriages was worth much.' A reference for that, please? '
espcially as the YrXI barrels were built to the L design and poundage, minus the rings in Piedmontese style?' The AN XI gun tubes (6- and 12-pounders) do NOT look like the Lichtenstein gun tubes. And they were constructed to 130 pounds per round, not the 120 of the Austrian gun tubes. They were also much more modern and did away with the reinforces. 'Can you provide the evidence for that – as G never saw field service, only siege work?' Again, please see Nardin's biography. 'Please provide the evidence and nature of these "improvements" as ou have made the assertions enough times, but never provided the data.' See my response to Stephen's comments. 'even the rich USA had to bring old battleships out of retirement in the 1980s to face the Russian cruisers.' I have no idea why this is referenced. Do you have evidence of why the battleships were recommissioned? They did excellent service in the First Gulf War in 1991. '12pdrs were always in the Napoleonic field, but were dug in and didn't move far
' That may be true for the Austrian 12-pounders, but not for the French. The Gribeauval 12-pounders were quite mobile and could be used by horse artillery if necessary. Sincerely, Kevin |
Arteis | 10 Dec 2007 10:39 p.m. PST |
And now we just wait a few moments for Mr Hollins to step in and counter-claim every single one of Mr Kiley's points! This whole sorry saga goes on
and on
and on
and on
. ad infinitum. In the meantime tarring all Napoleonic wargamers as boring pedants. |
Arteis | 10 Dec 2007 10:44 p.m. PST |
By the way, it's not the argument itself I mind
it is just the unrelenting way it takes over nearly every interesting Napoleonic discussion sooner or later. And the ungentlemanly manner in which it is conducted (particularly from one of the parties, and several hangers on on either side – certainly none of them deserving the appellation "scholars and gentlemen"
|
Arteis | 11 Dec 2007 2:36 a.m. PST |
Darn
it is two hours later from when I wrote the two messages above. Now I want to delete them, but can't figure out how to do it!! They were written in frustration at coming across yet another thread turning into a continuation of the interminable DH vs KK 'Gribeauval was good'/'Gribeauval was bad' arguments. But on re-reading, I now think my responses were a bit over the top. And, in any case, this thread WAS specifically about Gribeaval anyway, so what was I expecting?! So please consider my two messages above deleted! And WHAT did happen to the delete button, anyway?! |
Arteis | 11 Dec 2007 2:37 a.m. PST |
Odd
there's a delete button on the message I just now posted, but not on my original two? Do they time-expire or something? |
Kevin F Kiley | 11 Dec 2007 3:21 a.m. PST |
Arteis, Don't worry about it. And I'm done with my responses. Sorry, but I couldn't resist this time. My apologies. And I understand the frustration-I feel the same way. Sincerely, Kevin |
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | 11 Dec 2007 3:31 a.m. PST |
Yes, this is an artillery thread and I hope you can see the central point to all this – are we looking at data or fantasy? If the latter, then you might as well make your rules up and play fantasy wargames. Kevin is once again long on claims and indeed, Gribeauval is perhaps the worst case of Ruling Theory related to he Nap period. the lazy copying of secondary claims has inded produced a subject, where those claims are now being contested ona regualr basis and being found wanting. Prior to the Nap period, I would think that the data is a bit thin on the ground and thereafter, widespread literacy etc. has made it possible to sort out the wheat from the chaff. Such is the power of Napoleonic propaganda and the laziness of many authors that claims hav been repeated as fact until someone says "hang on a minute, is this true?". It is a bit fundamental to the study of a subject and maybe if the average Nap enthusiast would stop covering their ears and shouting "nah, nah", we might get something sorted out. Let me just illustarted the key points of RT: 1) Repeated claims: Kevin claims in his FE article that Gribeauval was in comamnd of all the Austrian artillery during much of his stay. He cites (as above) Lauerma – truth is, this is a claim by Thiers and has no basis in fact. Likewise with the bricole – Kevin claims there is much chagrin at What Gribeauval brought to the table – trouble was, G did not invent the bricole. 2) Where is the information that Austrian and Prussian guns were tested at Strassbourg. It seems to be something on p.6 of de Scheel (who was not present at those tests or even French). Does it say "I claim this was done" or "Here is the data" – the first is an unsubstantiated claim, the second will provide some information, so what is it? 3) Inconvenient information: When presented with the Austrian 1757 plates shopwing the bricole in use, Kevin initially claimed they had been doctored, but they were a multiple set added to the regs and indeed, it turned out that the Prussians invented it in about 1722. When it is pointed out that the pound to shot ratio on a YrXI is the same as an L gun, while G is 30pounds more, the claim is made that "metallurgy must have improved", but no evidence of this is produced. 4) Post facto interpretation – ie: making the data fit the later claim. This 1762 report is very interestinng – seems I was the first person in about 50 years to actually read it, although it is so basic that anyone with NV72 could have written it as it is mostly about basic data on Austrian guns. In one intro paragraph, Gribeauval writes that by combining Valliere and Lichtemnstein, you can create a battle-winning artiolelry. he doesn't say any more – but this phrase is now interpreted as some blueprint (and a half-page of fantasy by Kevin) as the French later won many battles using artillery (the fact that it was mostly with YrXI is another inconvenient fact). There is nothing in the report about lighht guns and field manouvre – it has been added later by lazy authors. So, RT is alive and well and living in the Nap period – you can forget any disacussion about tactics, performance etc. if you do not simply ask the question "where is the data". I could refute everything Kevin says, but it would be rather pointless – I leave you to ask the key question before believing his claims. Anyway, back to the Strassbourg tests – you can see yet more RT in Kevin's comment that anything 1763-YrXI must be G. Why? Stephen has now shown that the barrels were Maritz designs on the 1761 order from the King. There is no evidence that G's designs were tested anymore than Austrian barrels. Indeed, as I said, the reportt on the tests only looks at ranges for varying calibres – that only requires a "sawn-off Valliere". |
summerfield | 11 Dec 2007 11:59 a.m. PST |
Dear Arteos I have written a book on Napoleonic Artillery in association with Anthony and Paul Dawson as my fellow colleagues have (Kevin Kiley and Dave Hollins). I have been trying to look at things that can be thought through rather than such and such said what. There has been much fitting of the data to the argument going on here that I have tried to clarify. The dates that I have used come from Alder (1997) and as I have pointed out earlier are suspect trying to find out what was the correct chronology. There is as ever a confusion in both parties. There is a severe problem with the chronology that has been put down. Most of the information in Alder upon the system comes from Rosen, an unpublished PhD thesis that I do not know how to get a copy of. No papers that I have found by Dr Rosen, I have found relating to the Gribeauval system. It is semantics over who did what. It is clear in the M1753 Leichtenstein System that Prince Liechtenstein was the money who sponsored a series of others in creating the system. This is unclear and obscured with Gribeauval as he is attributed to have designed everything. This was not the case. 1722 Bricole (Prussia) 1761 Maritz II (gun tubes) were 18 calibres long. 1763 Tests carried out by Gribeauval on cannon produced by Maritz II. 1765 Maritz II and Manson upon the axel that was modified from that on the Rostaing gun of 1740s. Still correspondance upon the carriages carried on between Maritz II, Choiseul, Gribeauval and Manson into 1766. 1767 Gribeauval still circulating changes etc
1771 Muy and Gribeauval Treatise published (these are the technical drawings required to make the carriages.) We may have gun tubes in 1762ish but not the carriages until 1771. Gribeauval lost power about this time. Now the 1770 came from Alder and was another area of concern over the dates that were used. The Gribeauval System was not designed for the new warefare of the Revolutionary period especially when dealing with horse artillery. It was designed to solve the problems of the previous war and that was the seven years war. De Scheel and Alder (1997) state that the 150 : 1 was a compromise as already stated. AnXI and M1808 gun tubes are different from what the French and Austrians had before. They followed those of Piedmont and the guns produced in 1800 on the orders of Napoleon in Turin. The ideas of Belidor were accepted by the Prussians but not the French until possibly Gribeauval. The charge weight for Valliere guns was too high. I hope that has cleared a few things up. All I was trying to do was to go through what I have been told and read. Realising that much of what is written in English is not correct. Stephen |
|