"Comments on Artillery Mobility" Topic

Dear Kevin
As requested, I have started another thread as we have wondered off subject.

Thank you for the recommendations. As I have said to you before alas my copy of Du Teil both the translation and the original French is with Paul. We are discussing a person's opinion here.

He was an eminent French Artilleryman supporting the Gribeauval System. Would not an American say that his Sherman was better than a Panther? Certainly a Frenchman would say his Leclerc was better than the Leopard II, Abrams or Challenger II? Certainly friends of mine in the British Army would discuss the merits of all and would not state that the Challenger II is the best tank ever. There are differences in national characteristics that most wargammers would agree.

I have not found reference to the testing of Austrian and Prussian equipment other than in Alder but it is early days. If anybody can assist with this then I would appreciate that.

Interesting that Gribeauval carriages were not used by the US until after 1805 when their acquired them from taking over Louisana. Now that makes considerable sence to me. (according to Don Graves).

It depends upon criteria set. The Valliere guns especially produced by the horizontal boring machine from 1734 were excellent barrels. They were long, accurate but very heavy. The Gribeauval guns produced by Maritz II were shorter and had less range. Accuracy was no one of the premises of the tests it seems. It was just range that the guns were compared with.

As you have stated that we need to try out the mobility issues of all the contending systems. Gribeauval admired the mobility of the Austrian and Prussian guns but considered that it was too radical a step to reduce to 15 or 16 calibres.

I do not know of a comparative study whether contemporary or recent. We are down to hypothesis that are based upon weight as postulated by Paul Dawson. This is flawed for many reasons. The Austrians, Russians and Prussians had wooden axles whereas the British (block trail and M1797 Butler) and French had iron axles. The latter are heavier so heavier carriages.

The drafting question is another area that has not been fully explored and too simplistic. The angle that the pull is, size of wheels, axle type, quality of horses, tack used, etc… that effects this.

Stephen

We also need to define "mobile/mobility". Did du teil simply refer to the ability of 6-8 pdrs to move around the field as they had not done with Valliere etc. in which case it is obviously true that G guins were "as mobile" or did he mean that they could move at the same speed (given the 40% weight disparity this seems unlikely).

Du Teil had not fought alongside the Austrian guns and would only have seen the Prussian 7YW guns. How good is his opinion, given that he only had limited knowledge?

Dear Dave
It was fair comment. Also I do not have the French with me to look at the translation into English. Yet the Gribeauval guns were more mobile than valliere being much lighter.

Stephen

Du teil is available for download from Gallica:

link

Steve

Great, at least us poor Europeans can download it easily and don't have to be frustrated with google.

A step apart – Dave, why should Du Teil not have served along with some Austrian guns? France and Austria were Allies in the 7YW?

Someone will probably correct me now, but Rossbach aside, the two armies did not find together. At Rossbach, the armies were together, but not operationally mixed. Du teil was only 25 when the 7YW ended (plus France had plenty of troops deployed in the colonies) was and was only a colonel in 1784, such that he would have been a rather junior officer during the 7YW. We don't seem to have a career history for this guy, but given the claims about Gribeauval's time in Austria and the truth about it, the chances of du T having any operational experience of Austrian guns are very small to nil.

Du Teil was Major when he wrote his treatise, as to be young, it did not matter, you could be an officer with 16 or even younger at those times.
In case he was at Rossbach he could have enjoyed the operational experience of the Austrian guns – till they had to advance to the rear to escape the Prussians.

Dear von Winterfeldt
Du Theil may have seen them from afar. The Austrian and French armies operated as two armies and not in allied form.

Stephen

The german army at Roßbach was the Reichsarmee and not the Austrian army.

@Capt Iglo

But in my J. Mollo I found at least a couple of Austrian cavalry regiments and some bats. of Kroaten listed in the OOB for Rossbach. So not a Austran-free battle :-))

Ulenspiegel

The Austrian army was the heart of the Reichsarmee until 1796 when the minor prices made peace with the advancing French. However, du Teil was instructing by the time he was a colonel and his previous career seems to have passsed without note.

The military constitution of the holy roman empire is indeed quite confusing.
As far as I undestand it the standing army of the Habsburgs was not part of the Reichsarmee.
The Reichsdepartments under Habsburg rule were the Austrian and burgundian departments without Bohemia and Hungary which were formally not part of the Reich.
For these departments Austria did have to send contingency troops in case of need, they were usually taken from the standing army, department troops did, unlike in smaller territories not exist.
The "Reichsexecutionsarmee" in 1757 did as far as I see it have no significant Austrian contingents, after all Maria Theresia could point on her standing army already doing Reichsexecution in Bohemia and Saxonia.
The king of England as elector of Hannover and Fritz himself for natural reasons didn´t send contingents either.

Several clarifications:

The 1st part, pages 1-204, of the 1777 Scheel edition (published both in Amsterdam and Copenhagen) is the work of Charles Tronson du Coudray, "L'Artillerie nouvelle ou Examen des changements faits dans l'artillerie française en 1765", originally published anonymously in Amsterdam in 1772. Pages 1-17 of this edition of Scheel is titled "Des Pieces de Bataille".

Du Teil, Joseph (1863-1918). Une famille militaire au XVIIIe siècle, documents inédits sur le régiment Royal-Artillerie, la bataille d'Hastenbeck, les campagnes des Indes, l'école d'artillerie d'Auxonne et le siège de Toulon. Paris: A. Picard et fils, 1896. viii, 571 p., portr.: in 8vo. Available for download:

link

Chapter X, starting on p 170, might be of interest to this discussion.

If anyone is having trouble downloading this work, e-mail me at write2 AATT wgn DDOOTT net. I will make a copy available to you by download.

Un ami did you see my post on the "Russian Cavalry 1799" thread?

Steve

so again google is letting aus down, merde.

OK so let me see if i have this right?

French chap called du Coudray writes book/treatise on artillery in 1770's, another chap called de Scheel writes another book/treatise on artillery including parts of the Coudray book, then another chap du Teil puts parts from both books and adds/edits the text into another book? this is then translated into English by a mr White in 1800, also mr Graves produces a annotated/edited? version of mr whites translated version?

am i correct so far?

No, forget du teil – he wrote about tactics in 1778 befoire horse artilelry really got going. His comments are however seized upon by the "RT merchants" as "proof" that the French foresaw mobile artillery as a battle-winning measure and so, won lots of battles. Don't tell htem, but from the very first real opportunity to put this into practice (Jemappes), it was a case of "I have mnore guns than you have and will blow you to bits" until a) I run out of crews (Wagram) or b) it gets wet (Waterloo).

Sarcasm aside, du Teil is separate. De Scheel has been presented to us all by Kevin as some kind of overarching assessment of European artillery in its last manifestation (ed. Graves) and to fair to Kevin, his own book is actually a pretty good summary of the received wisdom.

But what is it actually?
Charles Tronson du Coudray wrote: "L'Artillerie nouvelle ou Examen des changements faits dans l'artillerie française en 1765", originally published anonymously in Amsterdam in 1772.

De Scheel took Coudray in 1777 and added his own work to produce a book about artillery p[uiblished in Amsterdam and Copenhagen (du Teil's main book is 1778, which gives an idea of what is going on generally with military books).

In 1795, a second edition of de Scheel but without his input was published in Paris (incidentally, the summarising Tables du construction was published in 1792). Into this edition went some additional comments, including the one about his "experience" with Austrian and Prussian guns prompting him to go for 18 calibres – that is not actually true as it was a political compromise and has elements of my dog is bigger than your dog. By 1795, the French had won the France-Belgian phase of the First Coalition war with some big artillery victories, notably Valmy and (much celebrated by the Jacobins) Jemappes, which would have "justified" the Gribeauval system.

The Americans were getting going and this second edition was translated in 1800 by Mr. White to support their training system, which was led initially by a lot of French emigrants. It was this translation, which featured the move from "experience" to "testing at Strassbourg" to show that tests showed the French dog worked better. At the time, the US had a mix of kit and had not formalised its gun system.

The 1800 translation was reprinted in 1984 by Donald Graves with an introduction, in which Graves (who knows much about North American artillery, but very little about European artillery) declared the Gribeauval system to be the best etc.

Chinese whispers/Ruling theory at work.

Dear Graf Bretlach
You are not quite correct but almost.

1772 Du Coudray writes a book supporting Gribeauval which is the same year that the Gribeauval system is replaced with Valliere.

1776 Gribeauval System reinstated by decree

1777 De Scheel compiles a two volume book of writings on the Gribeauval system. The first 200 pages of volume one was taken from the Du Coudray (1772) book. This was printed in Amsterdam and Copenhagen. The second volume was a anthology of writing about the system in the red and blue debate.

1778 Du Teil (1778) produced his book and he was a great supporter of the Gribeauval system. Whether he used Du Coudray, he would have known him personally etc… The was an edition translated and checking the translation of some passages rather liberally.

1789 Gribeauval dies.

1792 Manson (1792) published his Tables of Construction in France on the fully developed Gribeauval system

1795 A revised edition was produced by Magimel of Paris with the addition of some plates from Diderot.

1800 Jonathan Williams translated volume 1 (or part of??) but not volume 2. New plates were drawn for the US addition. These were copies of those that were compiled for the De Scheel (1777) edition. Unlikely that De Scheel had anything to do with the Paris addition. Pages 1-17 were written by Coudray.

1984 Don Graves wrote a new introduction to the Canadian Park Service reprint of most (all?) the Jonathan Williams translation. Pages 1-9 in the 1984 edition were from Du Coudray.

This is a summation of the discussion. I hope this assists.

Stephen

I believe that the discussion about the 18 versus 16 versus 14 calibres has nothing to do with testing Austrian versus Prussian versus the new system, dit Gribeauval, but that it is just a refexion of why those calibres were used and chosen.
The Prussian and Austrian system was well prooved in the 7YW and stood the hardships of campaigning – that are the assertions of Coudray / de Scheel, more or less echoed by Du Teil.
In my view, the Gribeauval system was a very good system and prooved itself in the French Revolutionary Wars, but was it without flaws and such superior to other systems?
I think – no.

I think our learned colleague @summerfield intended :

1795 A revised edition of the De Scheel was produced by Magimel of Paris with the addition of some plates from Diderot.

One may also note that there remains an open question regarding the following in the De Scheel for anglo-phones :

"After the experiment which Gribeauval had made on Austrian field pieces of 16 calibres and on Prussian of 14, he did not hesitate to reduce ours to 18 calibres."
page 6 (1984)
page 15 (1800)

This has been taken to say that tests of Austrian and Prussian pièces were conducted by the French, presumably during the 4 months of testing at Strasbourg in 1764.

But for this (i) the contexte or location of the "experiment" is not purely clear even in the English and (ii) there is real translation potential risk, since the French word was may be EXPÉRIMENTER (v.a.) or EXPÉRIMENTÉ, ÉE (participe) which poses as a "faux ami" in some contextes ("experiment" vs. "experience" for anglo-phones).

It would be well to see the Tronçon du Coudray (of 1772) to see what was originally written in French. Yet, I do not have him, and if our other learned colleague @Steve H Smith has not him also, I will try to have him found, one assumes in France.

- votre vrai ami

@von Winterfeldt

"I believe that the discussion about the 18 versus 16 versus 14 calibres has nothing to do with testing Austrian versus Prussian versus the new system, dit Gribeauval, but that it is just a refexion of why those calibres were used and chosen."

Yes, this will another way to take the implication of the texte.

The hope is that to look at more of the texte, and in its original language, that we will learn more of what was tested (or not) and how the process to make the decision for the new pièces of Gribeauval did evolve.

- votre ami

The Strassbourg tests must be seen in more than one text – there is no reference to foreign guns in the actual report narrative (according to App1 of Kevin's book, which reproduces that report) nor is there any comparative data. It is as Ami suggests something that has been distorted over time.

Stephen's book goes into all this, but I gather G was quite keen on 16 (it is the most efficient point in the weight/range trade-off), but the French wanted a bigger dog. It never was a system as such – that error has come from the 1792 Table du constructions showing the whole French artillery and a deliberate misreading of the title to make it sound like G had decided on it all from the start.

Dear von Winterfeldt
This is a technical note upon calibres of Prussian guns which you should appreciate. These are the only

The Dieskau M1754 12-pdr was 14 calibres (with conical bore)
The Dieskau M1758 Light 12-pdr was 14 calibres
The Dieskau M1758 2-pdr was 14 calibes.

All other Prussian ordnance was 16-18 calibres, 20, 22 and 24 calibres.

It was never stated that the tests at Strasbourg of 1764 were comparing gun tubes other than those of Maritz II (ascribed to Gribeauval) with those of Valliere. Maritz II have been ordered by King Louise to produce guns of 18 calibres in December 1761. This was before Gribeauval returned from France.

In Summer 1755, Gribeauval went to Prussia and brought back plans of a new light cannon that was cast in Douai. [This was certainly the Dieskau M1754 Light 12-pdr with conical chamber.] This was demonstrated to the King. In his report, he stated that he admired the maneuvreability but it lacked power [Alder p38: Nardin 38-47].

Nobody has claimed that Gribeauval tested Austrian guns. He was in Austria and participated in the siege of Schweidnitz (1761-62). He became conversant with Austrian Equipment. Mainly siege equipment of M1753 24pdrs of 22 calibres and M1753 18pdrs short of 18 calibres though probably not exclusively.

The word experiment in English has a number of meanings. You can go through a "thought" experiment, observational experiment or a "scientific" experiment where you actually test them. The first two are what you would define being I assume a native German speaker to experience and the last to experiment. In addition, Un Ami has given the French and two translations as Experiment and Experience.

In Summary
1754
Dieskau produces the new Light 12-pdr with conical chamber weighing only 358kg (Bummer 12-pdr 1437kg, Dieskau M1758 1358kg, Dieskau M1768 838kg, Austrian M1753 12-pdr 952kg, Gribeauval 12-pdr 985kg). It was remarkably light because it had a conical chamber and reduced powder charge. Ahead of its time but not robust and all were lost in the early 7 Years War to really tell.

1755
Gribeauval tested the Dieskau Light 12-pdr with conical chamber

1758
Frederick the Great abandoned the Conical chamber guns for conventional type.

1761
December Maritz II was ordered by the King to produce French guns of 18 calibres.

1762
Gribeauval returned to France

1764
Preseent at the tests in Strassbourg on the new M1761 Maritz II gun tubes vs M1732 Valliere

1765
M1761 Maritz II gun tubes incorporated into the M1765 Gribeauval system

1772
Du Coudray wrote his book being a great supported of Gribeauval. Valliere System replaced the Gribeauval System

1774
The Report of the Four Marshals recommended the Gribeauval System over the Valliere System.

1776
Valliere Junior died. Gribeauval System reinstated.

1777
De Scheel compiled his two volumes. Volume one was Du Coudray book. Du Coudray drowning in America. Volume 2 was the anthology of the reds (Valliere) and blues (Gribeauval) struggle.

1789
Gribeauval died.

1792
Manson published the drawings of the System in the Tables of Construction.

1795
Magimel of Paris produced another edition of the De Scheel with additional plates.

1800
Jonathan White translated volume 1 of De Scheel which was originally written by Du Coudray in 1772 with new plates produced in US. Thus what is shown is the system before Gribeauval System was reinstated in 1776 and without the modifications that are shown in Manson (1792) Tables of COnstruction.

That is what we have so far. I am trying to clarify the chronology.

Stephen

Stephen Summerfield wrote: "The word experiment in English has a number of meanings. You can go through a "thought" experiment, observational experiment or a "scientific" experiment where you actually test them. The first two are what you would define being I assume a native German speaker to experience and the last to experiment.

thought experiment = Gedankenexperiment (I have found this German expression in some scientific papers written in English)

scientific experiment = wissenschaftliches Experiment OR wissenschaftlicher Versuch

observational experiment = wissenschaftliche Beobachtung ("scientific observation")

The difference between the latter two is only, that an observational experiment do not require a experimental set- up (this is delivered by nature), while an scientific experiment requires both, set-up and observation. The processing of the observed data is identical.

I would NOT equal one of the former three to Erfahrung (experience), because Erfahrung is the sum of ALL observations, impressions etc., i.e. include data we acquiry without a systematic/scientific approach and which, therefore, are not relevant to a scientific discussion.

Ulenspiegel

Dear Ulenspeigel
Thank you for that. Alas in English we are not as precise. Chemistry is a German Science afteral. You had to be conversant in German to take Chemistry in UK at university until the 1970s. It was trying to explain the subtlety of language. It was a translation from the French into English.

I agree with your definition as that is what I would consider as well but we are not talking about a person who has been trained under the Philosophy of Science but a Artilleryman translating in 1800. Words have changed over the years and no doubt there are a number of experts who can explain this. It is what was meant at the time and then using words that are understood now.

Thank you for the clarification.

Stephen

Dear colleagues,

The Koningin Beatrix has the De Scheel

Koninklijke Bibliotheek
Titel : Mémoires d'artillerie : contenant L'artillerie nouvelle, ou les changemens faits dans l'artillerie françoise en 1765; avec l'exposé et l'analyse des obiections qui ont été faites à ces changemens / recueillis par M. de Scheel
Auteur : Heinrich Otto [de] Scheel
Medewerker : Charles Tronson du Coudray
Jaar : 1777
Uitgever : Copenhague : C. Philibert
Annotatie : Based on L'artillerie nouvelle, a work by C. Tronson du Coudray, published anonymously in Amsterdam in 1772. The main part (ch. 1-4) is included, in quotation marks, in the present work.
Omvang : xvi, 440 p. : 29 plates (28 fold.), 26 cm
Aanvraagnummer : 3087 A 23

I do not have a experience of requesting that the good Queen to have made copies of her books, so before one begins a long process, may be one will see if an other colleague will have the texte more easily ?

- votre ami

Dear Un Ami
Thank you for this. I assume that you are referring to the British Library. It would be good to exchange some documents offline.

Stephen

@summerfield

Oh no, dear colleague, it is the Dutch or Netherlandish Queen who does seem to have the book, but one assumes the Queen of the British may also have a oopy.

It is easiest for me to make inquiry and get copies in Europe in more or less franco-phone locations, and the staff of the Dutch Queen's library I am told do speak in French when asked.

- votre ami

Dear Un Ami
Fine. I wish you well.

Stephen

The 1777 edition is in the British Library. I will have a look next time I go – presumably I would be looking around p.15?

Dear Dave
It is page 15 in the Jonathan White (1800) Translation. Du Coudray wrote Chapters 1-4 (about 200 pages). Jonathan White was only 150 pages or so. I would be very interested in this. Also whether there are plates.

Thanks
Stephen.

Thank you Stephen for the clear chronological explanations, that helps a lot.

Dave the book Steve provided gives a good (complicated)family history of the du Teils and relatives.

Du Teil, Joseph (1863-1918). Une famille militaire au XVIIIe siècle, documents inédits sur le régiment Royal-Artillerie, la bataille d'Hastenbeck, les campagnes des Indes, l'école d'artillerie d'Auxonne et le siège de Toulon. Paris: A. Picard et fils, 1896. viii, 571 p., portr.: in 8vo. Available for download:

I assume Jean-Pierre, baron du Teil, lieutenant-général des armées du roi 1722-1794 is one of our characters in this discussion.
link

Dear Graf Bretlach
I have been trying to do that for years. It just did not stack up and then comments from Un Ami and Steve H Smith with others got me there. It was that it was an anthology had been missed by me in the introduction of Don Graves (1984) De Scheel reprint and the part that was translated by Jonathan White was written by Du Coudray in 1772. It just made sense. I have the Manson (1792) Tables of Constructions and there are differences.

Now hwo wrote Du Teil is in doubt but it is likely to be Jean-Pierre de Teil as you state. His brother was commander of Artillery at Toulon. If you have further questions then please ask me we can reason them out together.

Stephen
Stephen

I'm working on something else at the moment, but just noticed that at least 2 Austrian infanterie regiments were with the main French armée in the Hastenbeck camapign of 1757 and also our M. du Teil was also.

will post with more info

Gentlemen,

The author of Usaage was Jean du Teil. His eldest brother, Jean-Pierre du Teil, sometimes referred to as Joseph, who was a lieutenant general in the old Royal Army and was the commander of the School of Auxonne. He was the eldest of four brothers. Their father was Captain Francois du Teil, and the two middle brothers were named Alexis and Jerome. Jean-Pierre was guillotined during the Terror, but Jean rose to General of Division rank and retired in 1813. It was he who was at Toulon in 1793. Both of these artillerymen were instrumental in Napoleon's upbringing in the artillery, one the commander of the artillery school Napoleon attended and the other was his commanding officer. Because of his authorship of Usage, Jean du Teil is one of the French reformers as important to the development of French tactical doctrine as Guibert, Gribeauval, de Broglie and others that contributed to the effort.

There is an excellent section on du Teil in Robert Quimby's The Background of Napoleonic Warfare which emphasizes not only what was written in the book, but the place du Teil takes as one of the reformers.

The translator of DeScheel into English is American Colonel Jonathan Williams. He was commissioned by American Secretary of War James McHenry to translate the work and special plates were made for the translated work and were originally published in a volume separate from the translated text.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Thanks Kevin, that sorts things out a bit more, bit confusing having a Jean & a Jean-Pierre, I have not had time to read the book SHS posted, I expect its all in there.
Don't know where Mr White came from, I was just copying others!

This is his biographie from Six (Jean du Teil that is)

TEIL (Jean du Teil de Beaumont, chevalier du), général d'artillerie, frère cadet de Jean-Pierre du Teil, naquit à la Côte-Saint-André (Isère) le 1er mars 1738, mort à Ancy-sur-Moselle (Moselle) le 25 avril 1820. Surnuméraire d'artillerie au bataillon de Fontenoy, 11 octobre 1747; cadet, 9 novembre 1747; sous-lieutenant de canonniers au bataillon de Soucy, 14 avril 1748; lieutenant en 2e de bombardiers, 20 février 1756; de canonniers, 1er janvier 1757; lieutenant en premier, 25 novembre 1761; sous-aide-major de la brigade d'Invillers, 11 juin 1762; avec rang de capitaine, 15 août 1763; aide-major au régiment d'artillerie de Grenoble, 15 octobre 1765; capitaine de sapeurs au régiment d'artillerie de Strasbourg, 26 février 1769; capitaine de bombardiers, 1er février 1772; chevalier de Saint-Louis, 15 décembre 1772; capitaine de canonniers, 28 juin 1775; major au régiment d'artillerie de Toul, 14 septembre 1776; détaché comme aide-major de l'équipage d'artillerie de l'armée rassemblée sur les côtes de Normandie et de Bretagne, 1er août 1779; lieutenant-colonel au régiment d'artillerie de Metz, 4 juillet 1784; passé au régiment d'Auxonne, 4 octobre 1788; colonel général de la garde nationale de Metz, 14 mars 1790; colonel directeur d'artillerie à Mézières, 1er avril 1791; démissionnaire, 11 août 1791; à la retraite, 9 octobre 1791; nommé adjudant général colonel, 8 février 1792; nommé maréchal de camp inspecteur d'artillerie commandant l'artillerie de l'armée du Rhin, 25 août 1792 ; puis de l'armée des Alpes et d'Italie, janvier 1793; des Alpes seule, juillet 1793; nommé général de division provisoire par les représentants du peuple près l'armée d'Italie, 8 juillet 1793; confirmé dans son grade par le conseil provisoire exécutif, 11 août 1793; remplacé en septembre 1793; commandant en chef l'artillerie devant Toulon, 31 octobre 1793; autorisé à se rendre dans ses foyers pour se soigner par arrêté des représentants du peuple Ricord et Saliceti, 24 décembre 1793; suspendu provisoirement de ses fonctions comme noble, 19 janvier 1794; autorisé à prendre sa retraite, 4 avril; obtint une pension de retraite, 16 novembre 1794; admis au traitement de réforme, 24 août 1798; inspecteur général, chargé de l'organisation des bataillons auxiliaires de la 3e division militaire, 2 août 1799; commandant la place de Lille, 12 mars 1800; commandant d'armes à Metz, 23 septembre 1800; à la retraite, 23 décembre 1813; commandant de la Légion d'honneur, 14 juin 1814.

Do you have the original de Scheel or just the translation?

Mark

Mark,

I have the translation that was edited by Don Graves (who by the way is another former artilleryman and an excellent military historian-he has done more artillery work than anyone else that I know of) and was published in 1984.

I also have Six and thanks for printing the excerpt.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Mark,

As a footnote, it looks like, young as he was, that young Jean saw service in the War of the Austrian Succession. ;-)

Sincerely,
Kevin

Kevin, I guessed you would have Six, I posted it for the benefit of others not so fortunate. :¬)

I almost didn't have a copy, but that's another story…

To return, if I may, to the subject of artillery mobility it is my understanding that length of barrel,mass of carriage and weight of ammunition were important limiting factors on mobility. It seems that the maximum weight a six horse gun-team could pull (and carry drivers) for a prolonged period was three tons. (If you can, you might want to check this with The King's Troop RHA – my library is all boxed up in preparation for yet another move so I can't give you chapter and verse).
For our period then the biggest field gun in use in the British army was the nine pounder in Field Companies where speed of movement was not important, and the light six pounder in Horse Troops where speed was vital.
Yes, I know that during the Waterloo campaign the majority of Horse Troops were re-equipped with nine pounder guns, but from memory, my reading of Mercer's journal is that at this stage the teams consisted of eight horses each.
Someone remarked in one of these artillery threads that post 1815 the RHA reverted to six pounders. This is so, but I have a strong suspicion that this step was motivated by economy (or cheese-paring), after all the reduction in establishment per Troop of twelve horses is bound to yield savings (it may have been thirty-six horses, Mercer isn't clear whether or not the caisson teams were also increased to eight horses).
Incidentally, and again for reasons of economy most Troops RHA were reduced to a cadre with two guns per troop almost immediately after the end of the Napoleonic wars.

If the French Gribeauval guns were so heavy, why then were the regulation gun teams all of four horses except for the 12-pounders and the horse artillery? And if others were then more mobile than the French guns, why were Russian gun teams generally larger than the French ones and why did the RHA equipped with 9-pounders in 1815 have eight horse teams?

Sincerely,
Kevin

Let us start with the 12-pounder, then go to the others.

Russian 12-pounder short barral
dia of the bore 120,9 mm, length overall 13 calibres
weight of the ball 5,78 kg, of the charge 1,03 kg, of the round 6,81 kg
total weight of the pièce, the front/limber and 12 carried rounds 1486 kg, per each of 6 horse 248 kg
total weight of the usual 3 caissons and 120 carried rounds 2477 kg, per each of 9 horse 275 kg

Russian 12-pounder long barral
dia of the bore 120,9 mm, length overall 16 calibres
weight of the ball 5,78 kg, of the charge 1,65 kg, of the round 7,43 kg
total weight of the pièce, the front/limber and 12 carried rounds 1849 kg, per each of 6 horse 308 kg
total weight of the usual 3 caissons and 120 carried rounds 2539 kg, per each of 9 horse 282 kg

French 12-pounder
dia of the bore 121,3 mm, length overall 18 calibres
weight of the ball 6,07 kg, of the charge 1,86 kg, of the round 9,23 kg
total weight of the pièce, the front/limber and 9 carried rounds 1981 kg, per each of 6 horse 330 kg
total weight of the 2 caissons and 144 carried rounds 2411 kg, per each of 8 horse 301 kg

Some of my ideas:
1. There is one more Russian horse (15 vice 14), but he is with the systeme of caissons, not the pièce.
2. As @Kevin F Kiley will say, 1 caisson was often empty (going to and from the parc). If so, Russians have 92 rounds with the pièce and French have 81.
3. Russians did think that 250 to 275 kg = max. load for sustained trotting of an horse, and 300 to 325 kg = max. possible trotting, but wil kill an horse if sustained (in a day, or some times over many days). This was a good reason for the 12-pounder short barral. Russian will say that one cannot really trot the French 12-pounder pièce, other than to kill the horses very soon.
4. In comparing to Russian 12-pounder short barral, the horses on the pièce for the Russian 12-pounder long barral are 24% more loaded and the horses on the pièce for the French 12-pounder are 33% more loaded.
4. In comparing to Russian 12-pounder short barral, the horses on the caisson for the Russian 12-pounder long barral are 3% more loaded and the horses on the caisson for the French 12-pounder are 10% more loaded.

From these ideas, one may conclude that Russian systeme was more mobil on the battlefield and did have better endurance and mobility over a campagne, especially for the 12-pounder short barral. Russian systeme requires 7% more horses, but these may last longer and the total horses needed in a campagne might there by be the same or fewer.

- un ami

Dear Un Ami
Thank you for this. I had some of the data. The Russians had as you point out M1805 Ammunition Limbers. The M1805 caisson was far superior to those overloaded Gribeauval limbers that were so encumbered in eastern Europe and Russia. The lighter 2 wheeled caissons were faster and more flexible than the larger 4 wheeled limber. The ability to hitch three horses across permitted more efficient drafting or translation of power.

As has been stated before, the Gribeauval System was designed for a different style of war. War had moved on from 1754 when the Gribeauval Limber was originally designed.

Stephen

Stephen,

Would you please offer evidence that the Gribeauval System was 'designed for a different style of war?' You've stated this many times, but offer nothing to substantiate the claim.

And the 1754 caisson was not the caissons employed later by the Gribeauval System.

And if the Russian system was so proficient, why were so many pieces abandoned in Poland in 1806 and 1807 because of mobility problems in the bad weather?

Sincerely,
Kevin

Un Ami,

The usual number of caissons that accompanied a French 12-pounder was five. However, only one would be with the artillery company at any one time. The other four would either be shuttling ammuntion forward to the gun company or would be with the parc.

Sincerely,
Kevin

@Kevin F Kiley

"so many pieces abandoned in Poland in 1806 and 1807 because of mobility problems in the bad weather"
how many ?
of what calibres and of what systeme ?
You will be thinking of the Eylau campagne, if the question is of the bad weather, isn't ?
I do not know of many filed pièces being abandoned from the side of the Russians, may be this was a claim of the Frenches for an explanation of a difficult and painful campagne ?

=================================

"The usual number of caissons that accompanied a French 12-pounder was five"

The poor resources that I have do say that 2 per pièce were in the strength of the compagnie du train d'artillerie attached to compagnie d'artillerie, and others attached to the parcs.
To match this for Russians would the number per pièce in each compagnie d'artillerie (which did also have the train soldats inside him).

In any case, one can add as many caissons, as owned by what ever organisation, to make the analaysis comparison.

I did try to follow your advice and have one with rounds with the pièce for Frenches, and then make the comparison of rounds available near the pièce assuming one Russian caisson also going to and from the parcs.

But I do not see where the owning of caissons much effects mobility. The French systeme did load the caissons more. The Russian systeme did load them less, under all comparisons.

The most noted diiference lies in moving the 12-pounder short barral pièce. One might say that this was hoped for, as the greatening of mobility did guide the design.

- votre ami

We continue with the smaller guns :

For a foot artillerie

Russian 6-pounder
dia of the bore 95,5 mm, length overall 17 calibres
weight of the ball 2,89 kg, of the charge 0,83 kg, of the round 3,72 kg
total weight of the pièce, the front/limber and 20 carried rounds 1156 kg, per each of 4 horse 289 kg
total weight of the usual 2 caissons and 154 carried rounds 1486 kg, per each of 6 horse 248 kg
total horses 10
rounds available with one caisson empty 97

French 6-pounder
dia of the bore 99,1 mm, length overall 18 calibres
weight of the ball 2,69 kg, of the charge 1,03 kg, of the round 3,72 kg
total weight of the pièce, the front/limber and 12 carried rounds 1486 kg, per each of 4 horse 372 kg
total weight of the 2 caissons and 280 carried rounds 2312 kg, per each of 8 horse 289 kg
total horses 12
rounds available with one caisson empty 152

French 8-pounder
dia of the bore 105,7 mm, length overall 18 calibres
weight of the ball 4,04 kg, of the charge 1,14 kg, of the round 5,18 kg
total weight of the pièce, the front/limber and 12 carried rounds 1817 kg, per each of 4 horse 454 kg
total weight of the 2 caissons and 184 carried rounds 2411 kg, per each of 8 horse 301 kg
total horses 12
rounds available with one caisson empty 104

For an horse artillerie

Russian 6-pounder
dia of the bore 95,5 mm, length overall 17 calibres
weight of the ball 2,89 kg, of the charge 0,83 kg, of the round 3,72 kg
total weight of the pièce, the front/limber and 20 carried rounds 1156 kg, per each of 6 horse 193 kg
total weight of the usual 2 caissons and 100 carried rounds 1288 kg, per each of 6 horse 215 kg
total horses 12
rounds available with one caisson empty 70

French 6-pounder
dia of the bore 99,1 mm, length overall 18 calibres
weight of the ball 2,69 kg, of the charge 1,03 kg, of the round 3,72 kg
total weight of the pièce, the front/limber and 12 carried rounds 1486 kg, per each of 6 horse 248 kg
total weight of the 2 caissons and 280 carried rounds 2312 kg, per each of 12 horse 193 kg
total horses 18
rounds available with one caisson empty 152

French 8-pounder
dia of the bore 105,7 mm, length overall 18 calibres
weight of the ball 4,04 kg, of the charge 1,14 kg, of the round 5,18 kg
total weight of the pièce, the front/limber and 12 carried rounds 1817 kg, per each of 6 horse 303 kg
total weight of the 2 caissons and 184 carried rounds 2411 kg, per each of 12 horse 201 kg
total horses 18
rounds available with one caisson empty 104

Some of my ideas:
1. It is in effect the situation that the French systeme uses more horses than the Russian systeme, 33% more in the case of an horse artillerie.
2. The French systeme will provide more rounds near to the pièce, many more in the case of an horse artillerie. This may be can create a better endurance and mobility in a campagne for the French pièces, especially for an horse artillerie.
3. The French 8-pounder pièce drawn by 6 horses for an horse artillerie would lie above the Russian ideal for an horse artillerie, but will likely be OK except in a very long campagne.
4. For the foot artillerie, the French 6-pounder weighs upon each horse 29% more than for the Russian 6-pounder, and in their caissons 17% more. The horses for the French 8-pounder are much more loaded than would be allowed under the Russian systeme, and they could only trot the pièce smaller distances. Still more horses are used (12 vice 10) for the French systeme for either gun, but the overall mobility advantage and advantage of endurance clearly lies with the Russian systeme for the foot artillerie.

- un ami

Shall we compare licornes and obusiers ? They are not really the same thing.

The main idea of the licorne was exactly greatly mobility, so a comparison wiht the Frenches under this vector will be very unfavorable.

The French howitsers were for a larger spherical round (9,9 kg and 6.2 kg vs. 8.3 kg and 3,9 kg). There were no more horses for the Russian systme, and the loading per an horse was lower.

But since the usage was different, I am not sure if a more detailed comparison is useful.

We return then to the original comment of @Kevin F Kiley ?
"why were Russian gun teams generally larger "
I do not see any place were this was true. What did lead you to make this comment, please ?

- votre ami

@Kevin F Kiley,

"Would you please offer evidence that the Gribeauval System was 'designed for a different style of war?'"

Was not the designs of Gribeauval from before the era of Napoléon ? Did not Napoléon make a new and different style of making war ? Then it could seem that the designs Gribeauval were for the pre-Napoléonic era, unless he did some how see the future and design guns for a style of war not yet invented and then convince the French that they should not have pièces designed for the style of war in 1765.

No ?

- votre ami