"Artillery" Topic

okie, thx dave, that makes it clear then why Maude is very vague and brushes over many things.

@Davw Hollins

"Ami – where did this charging off with the cavalry happen then? It is "like marching to guns" – it is a tale that has grown out of the actual aim of moving guns to critical positions quickly."

I am not understanding why an aim "of moving guns to critical positions quickly" is a support to your prior comment that an horse artillerie could not "keep up with" cavalerie in the advance.

But, if you are then saying that you will like me to provide example of an horse artillerie staying with the rapid advance and then charge of cavalerie, but that I must find exempels where the deployment of the artillerie was not to a "critical position", at first I will name the movement of the guns with the light horse of Ataman Platov on the Russian right at Borodino battle.

Again with charge of light horse and cossaks on the far left of the Russian deployment outside the village of Malojaroslavets, nearing the end of the battle of that name.

Again at Kranoï, with cossaks, the artillerie some on sledges.

The horse batteries did also advance and deploy behind the charge of the 2nd Cuirassier Division on the Russian left at the Borodino battle, but this might be too much of a "critical position".

Cavalerie advances at the trot, and for heavy cavalry often charges no faster. Horse artillerie does the same. I do not see why this should seem a problem to you.

@summerfield

"statement of 700-800metres as maintained by some authors cannot be by looking at the maps"
If you refer to my statements about Lützen, dear colleague, I insure to you that the range did come from the map, and did provide the link so that all might look for them selves. This is why I did question @Shane about the "cannister range", since the French Batterie did not come so close to their targets.

- votre ami

Dear Un Ami
I was not referring to Lutzen. It was concerning the horse artillery cavalry charge referred to in Maude

Stephen

Stephen,

Could you give a citation for that please?

Sincerely,
Kevin

'You clearly show your ignorance on that subject, read the books I did recommend and refine your opinion, Malinowsky & Bonin would be quite helpfull for a start.'

Thank you for the help.

As you undoubtedly have the volumes to hand, perhaps you would be so kind as to give a few citations to back up your assertions and theories?

Sincerely,
Kevin

'The manuals that he refers to are those produced in the 1780s for Gribeauval equipment although reprinted in English as translations no doubt.'

Actually, I have quite a few period manuals, and not just 'those produced in the 1780s.' If you have Artillery to hand you can check the bibliography. If not, I would be more than happy to list what I have in my library for the period, including Prussian, Austrian, British, and Spanish artillery manuals.

So, again, please, could you cite in a French manual where that drill was listed so I can reference it and find it? If you can't, please say so. It was mentioned in Napoleonic Artillery, but was not referenced.

Sincerely,
Kevin

'It is a prototype of WW1, but there is no mobility or finesse in it.'

That is a terribly incorrect assumption and is not supported by anything I have read or studied. Perhaps you could give a reference or two? Or, is that just your interpretation?

Sincerely,
Kevin

'The introduction of guns of larger calibre than the opponents for the abject use of captured ammunition increases the windage and so the accuracy.'

Stephen,

How can increasing the windage increase accuracy? Increasing the windage (the space between the round and the bore) actually would decrease accuracy.

Sincerely,
Kevin

'The co-ordination attained in 1813-15 by the Russians and Prussians seemed to have been ignored. The Russians and Prussians used their artillery in large gun concentrations as well as in support of the infantry and cavalry.'

And that level of coordination was? Russian and Prussian artillery was employed to support the infantry and cavalry. French tactical employment, such as at Lutzen, was to act as a decisive force on the battlefield for offensive operations. That was not so for the Prussians or the Russians-or for the Austrians for that matter.

Regarding the Russian Artilery System of 1805 being superior to that of the French, that is incorrect, at least from the viewpoint of Russian General Sievers. He considered the artillery of both nations to be about equal, but what gave the French the decisive edge was how they employed their artillery and coordinated its employment with the other arms, especially the infantry. Once again, the use of a complete system, which you seem to ignore.

Sincerely,
Kevin

"A prototype of WW1…."
This statement shows an alarming lack of understanding of the use (& misuse) of artillery in The Great War as well.
donald

KFK writes

As you undoubtedly have the volumes to hand, perhaps you would be so kind as to give a few citations to back up your assertions and theories?

What is about you backing up your sweeping statements about the Prussian atrillery, any German source at hand, from where do you derive your conclusions.

Just as an side note, at Groß Görschen Blücher pre-pared his attack with a concentration of 108 guns, read

Osten-Sacken, Freiherr von der : Militärisch-politische Geschichte des Befreiungskrieges im Jahre 1813, Band IIa, Der Frühjahrsfeldzug. Groß-Görschen, Berlin 1904

Also read what he has to say about the obsolete material of the French artillery.

>>>>Also read what he has to say about the obsolete material of the French artillery.<<<<

As 1500 guns (or whatever the number was)were lost in the wastelands of Russia I would dare to say the French war machine did surprisingly well to re-build their Artillery arm for 1813. They still managed to form grand batteries and match the allies with their gun lines. If they used obsolete equipment this probably stems from having to suck the life out of the arsenals to re-build the artillery so any thing capable of firing was probably used, but the skill and ability of the gunners, their officers and their deployment had not been lost.

Regards,
Shane

'What is about you backing up your sweeping statements about the Prussian atrillery, any German source at hand, from where do you derive your conclusions.'

You can check Artillery of the Napoleonic Wars if you wish.

Why won't you quote from the sources you mention? It would be very helpful.

Sincerely,
Kevin

KFK

"Why won't you quote from the sources you mention? It would be very helpful"

Well, lead by example then. In your sweeping attacks against the person of Dr. Summerfield you just voiced your opinions, also see above your mentioning the work of Griod de l'Ain, which you deem as usefull and suggest as a read (good idead I will do that and find out more), no quotes nothing, idem re – read your discussion about Gribeauval, etc. etc.

Dear Shane
Yes it was amazing the ability of France to replace their guns with M1803 gun tubes upon M1808 carriages. These used the metal work, axles and wheels from the 8-pdr carriages left in the arsenals or upon M1765 carriages. This was an instruction in 1814.

The number of gun tubes cast must have been upwards of 1000 in the 1812-14 period. Windage increases so there is a reduction in the accuracy. (typo earlier)

I was talking about the superiority of the M1805 Russian equipment over the M1765 Gribeauval whereas it was on a par with the M1803/M1808 equipment with more advanced designs. I would be interested in reading the Russian General's report. We have already gone through the weights. You can then investigate the plans of both systems and see the ergonomic improvements such as better place for lifting for limbering, ammunition to hand, no need to lift off the coffret and points for pulling the guns by Schlepseil. It is looking at the designs and going through Gassendi 1819 and various other sources. Now if you have specific questions then please ask Paul Dawson.

As far as I am aware there are only two 8-pdrs of Gribeauval design extent. There were various decrees to melt them down in 1803-05. The last 8-pdrs used by the French seem to be by their horse artillery in 1809. Then a few and only a few were used in 1813 after the huge losses in 1812.

When I talk about an artillery system I am meaning the equipment and not the whole package as Kevin keeps talking about. There are many examples where superior ordnance lost against superior use of lesser equipment. The classic examples are in ACW (Condeferates vs US), WWI (French vs German) and WWII (American vs German, German vs Russian). Again there are force multipliers.

Stephen

"You can check Artillery of the Napoleonic Wars if you wish."

Well, no doubt you can tell us about the german sources you actually used – as opposed to your attempts to mislead people into thinking you haave read them. We could start with a whole chapter on Smola without a single footnoted source – perhaps follwoed by all that material in Smola's own book, which never made it into your book replaced by things you drew from Duffy and Rothenberg, combined with Tousard and quopting Graves as though he was some kind of authority on European artilelry. Who knows, you mioght even get your facts right on Gribeauval – instead of making things up?

'In your sweeping attacks against the person of Dr. Summerfield…'

Where have I attacked Stephen personally? I have disagreed with him, informed him when I believed him to be incorrect, and told him he was wrong. Those are not personal attacks. Personally I believe Stephen to be a very nice person. That has nothing to do with historical discussion.
Telling someone you don't agree with them or that they are incorrect is not a personal attack.

I would suggest before you accuse someone of something that they didn't do you might want to be a little more introspective. Of course, you are entitled to your opinions, just don't expect agreement at all times. And that is not a personal attack.

By the way, do you have your references to hand? If you don't, that's fine, but it would be nice to see you reference something in the discussion. I have given references and many times used quotations. I have also offered to list bibliographical material. You might want to think of offering something from your end. If not, however, that is fine and I understand.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Stephen,

You're making the statements about the French equipment and then not supporting them with documentation at all. I believe you to be in error, and I have already commented on the errors Paul has made in his articles, which didn't change much from there to the book. Further, you keep referencing 'your' book and then ask me to talk to one of the other authors? That is very confusing. You're the one that keeps bringing the material up.

Perhaps you should have asked these questions before publication because there are so many errors in the book on the French side of the equation, as I have pointed out to you and in the review I wrote, that you cannot rely on the book as a reference, which is a real shame and unfortunate.

It would be helpful if you're going to keep insisting that what you've said about the French employment of the Schleseil and other matters if there is a citation to back it up.

I take the time if necessary to go through the artillery references I have and if the Schlepseil was being used by the French, then they would have codified it and had it as a drill, which was their practice. It just isn't there. And I do understand that Gassendi is 1200 pages long? So what? So is Tousard. The other artillery references I have in various languages also have to be gone through carefully, but your use of unsupported ideas isn't very helpful and to my mind are only confusing the issue.

I do hope you understand I'm asking a question on material that you've brought up, and this isn't a personal attack. I'd just like some clarfication. If you don't wish to do it here, you have my email. Russian General Sievers is quoted in the Zhmodikovs' book on Russian tactics which is a gold mine of information.

And I don't agree with you that the Russian 1805 equipment is superior to Gribeaval's. The design of the gun carriages is akin to the older Prussian and Austrian designs and the screw quoin, that both the Prussian and Austrian field pieces used. The 1805 System was an improvement on what the Russians had prior to 1796, but it wasn't the best or most modern in Europe.

Sincerely,
Kevin

@Shane

"lost in the wastelands of Russia"

Actually, it was more greater Lithunaia (or the Baltic States and Belarus) and "European" Russian west of Moscow and south west of Ct-Petersburg.

So, not exactly the wastelands part but the (by Russian standards) settled and developed part.

I think if the Frenches ever see the wastelands parts, they would just hang them selves. In effect, also many of the "European" Russians.

:-)

------------------------------------

@Kevin F Kiley

"Russian General Sievers. He considered the artillery of both nations to be about equal, but what gave the French the decisive edge was how they employed their artillery"

OK, I think you are meaning this one :

Генерал-майор Сиверс Иван Христианович (1775-1843)
link
(to say "comte" or "граф" is purely courtesy, or may be error, as his elder relatives did have the grants of the titre)

He was a very young "reformer" of artillerie, and protegé of the great Suvarov (and his own very powerful family). But when he did write, it was in 1806 or 1807, and he had not seen the French in battle since 1799. He did serve after that against the Turks until 1812 year. He did also serve on the board of the advisory of artillery from 1800 to 1810. He was advocating for greater training of officiers, an expansion of the artillerie schooling to match the expansion of the numbers of guns and the use of the new equipments designs called of 1805 year. And this position was accepted.
I do not think his comments have much to say directly about Frenches vs. Russians after the campagne of 1799 or may be 1805, and did not apply at all to the campagnes of 1812-1814, which did lay several years in the future.

- votre ami

@Kevin F Kiley

"The 1805 System was an improvement on what the Russians had prior to 1796, but it wasn't the best or most modern in Europe."

In your opinion, which nation's group of equipments (only to speak of equipments) was best in 1810-1815 years ?

Thank you,

- votre ami

Votre, I do think you do take words of others a little to literal sometimes. :-)

Un Ami,

The British. The block trail carriage and the caisson and limber were excellent. The French admired them greatly and that is what Valee went to in 1827. The US followed shortly thereafter.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Un Ami,

The Major General Sievers I am referring to was the commander of an artillery brigade and he wrote after the 1806-1807 campaign. You can find the information on page 71 of the Zhmodikov's Tactics of the Russian Army of the Napoleonic Wars, Volume I. The authors paraphrase the writing of Sievers stating that

'[Sievers] wrote that French artillery equipment was not better than the Russians, but French commanders used thier artillery more skillfully; they chose better positions for artillery batteries, and the actions of their whole army helped their artillery to be more effective. This was because they usually outflanked the Russian Army, so that their artillery fire was concentrated at the Russian lines, and the Russian reserves were under a crossfire (though at the same time, Sievers noticed that the French liked to fire at a long range, elevated the barrels of their pieces too high in order to do that, and so their fire was not very effective). Comparing the ways of selecting artillery positions, Sievers wrote that the Russians usually placed their artillery on every hill in their position, so that the enemy could count almost all Russian guns. In contrast, the French placed their batteries of howitzers in depressions or behind hillocks, so that their artillery peices could not be observed by the Russians. He also wrote that Russian artillerymen often fired at enemy batteries, and that senior commanders were partly responsible for that, because some of them liked to give orders to 'silence the enemy battery'. In order to perform this counterbattery fire, the Russian artillery expended too much ammunition and time.'

Sincerely,
Kevin

dave,
I agree: references are so very important.
Could you finally give us those for your Osprey booklet, which of course has none?
You'll appreciate I find some of your conclusions there to be dubious but would love to be able to find some, any, support for them.
donald

@Kevin F Kiley

"The Major General Sievers I am referring to was the commander of an artillery brigade and he wrote after the 1806-1807 campaign."

Do you not know which member of the family this will be that you do quote ?

He can be also this one :
граф Сиверс Яков Карлович (1774-1810)
In 1805, he was lieutenant colonel. He did serve with distinction at the battle of Austerlitz, commanding a heavy battery, and was promoted colonel à la suite of the 5th Artillery regiment. He was again distinguished at the battle of Eylau, and promoted general-major in June.
I do not think he ever commanded a brigade, but may be he did have such a commande on the liste of the Army, or temporary or some such thing. I do not know of any active service after Eylau, nor that he was thought a noted expert in artillery policy, unlike his relative previously noted.

While one can likely agree with what is said to be the ideas of some one of these officiers, it would be well if we did know who was the author, and what was the experience and position, before we did judge them as more or less expertes.

Also, ot know the names makes it clear that we do not have the ideas of any of the other Sievers in the Russian Army, in draguns, in the ministere, in the senate but listed on the rolls of a régiment, in the pioneers, etc., etc.
It was a large and important family of great nobles.

- votre ami

"You're making the statements about the French equipment and then not supporting them with documentation at all. I believe you to be in error, and I have already commented on the errors Paul has made in his articles, which didn't change much from there to the book. Further, you keep referencing 'your' book and then ask me to talk to one of the other authors? That is very confusing. You're the one that keeps bringing the material up."

A bit rich coming from someone, who wrote: "Howitzers had been introduced into the French artillery in 1749However, it was a siege and not a field piece. G introduced the howitzer into French field artilelry, one of 6in. initially, it was modelled on the Austrian equivalent…

Unfortunately, as DD&S have done their research, they showed that the field howitzer was introduced while Gribeauval was out of power. The design of the 6in is not Austrian – just take a quick look at Chatrand's Osprey and you wills ee there that N's commanders found the 6in poor and begged for Austrian pieces – which were copie din the YrXI 5.5in.

Then there is "Windage … was reduced to half the tolerance of (Lichtenstein) – well, except it is the same, as the halving is relative to Valliere and indeed, the claim of a precise standard figure is nonsense, since a)you would not need the size rings and b)windage is proportionate to ball size and therefore will vary by calibre.

Perhaps you can even provide us with any evidenc eto back up your claim – copied solely from Ruty's claim – that the YrXi carriages were not strong enough and fell apart. Or is it just a claim?

Speaking fo which, "The other artillery references I have in various languages also have to be gone through carefully" and "I have also offered to list bibliographical material." – yet you have not read this material because your knowledge of French produced "resulted in his being created general de bataille et LE DONNA commandant de l'artilelrie".

The quotes above all come from your article in First Empire 81, published shortly after (although written before) my piece on Gribeauval in FE – in which you claimed I had made 30 errors, not that you have been able to state one with a ciotation (and copying recent claims will not do). To sugggest that "Perhaps you should have asked these questions before publication because there are so many errors in the book on the French side of the equation, as I have pointed out to you and in the review I wrote, that you cannot rely on the book as a reference, which is a real shame and unfortunate" – might just bring the perfectly reasonabl;e response that you are in position to make such pronouncements and have just engaged in a childish hatchet job.

Dear Kevin
Tousard is a translation of Gessendi (1801) so does not mention the improvements to artillery after the late 1790s. The plates are 1771 vintage. It is a good source for the Revolutionary Wars. The later versions of Gassendi are in effect further chapters added until you get to the 1819 edition which is double the size you quoted. The contradiction in there and problems over measures used by using three systems of measures should not have been missed by you. The problems of having two types of Toise and three definitions of Livre. Reports are quoted verbatum. The lack of accompanying plates is difficult. Artillery is a mathematical and visual discipline.

As you know well I did not write the sections on the French Artillery so if you have problems with them then go talk to the author and not the person who edited these chapters. Research goes on. I have now read most of the books and may have different inferences from those but as you say that is the fun of writing with other people. It has come to light from your writing and the reading that French artillery lurched from one crisis to another. There is still a great deal of number crunching to do to satisfy me the number of M1803 6-pdrs, 12-pdrs (600 cast between 1803-1805) and 24-pdrs (M1808) that were cast. Again the work has meant going through SHAT and the reports. None of which are available to you so the reference to these would not be helpful at this time.

The weights of shot given in Jonathan White (1800) come from Muller (1757) and do not tally with De Scheel (1777, 1795) and Choisell (1772). In 1753, 150:1 was used by the Austrian and after experiments with chambered pieces this was used by the Prussians in the M1758 / M1768 pieces. This was accepted as the weight of shot. The length 18 calibres was in common use by Prussia and most of the lesser German States. These are all in the numbers. It is also going through the extent equipment that has been suitably identified. The method used by the French to come to 18 calibres again was the same used by the British 50 years before of sawing a calibre at a time from the gun tube then measuring range.

There are Hessian guns at West Point but only through finding the plans I was able to identify it as Hesse Cassel M1770. We were informed that it was Hesse Darmstadt. The Petrov catalog identifies Westphalian ordnance as Kingdom of Naples. These were Hesse Cassel pattern guns. The designs of the lesser German states and Piedmont lead Europe in ordnance in the 1770-1790s. It is to look at the designs and ease of production with a better understanding of ballistics. These were the basis of the AnXI system which was a rational approach rather than a codification approach as was the tradition of France. This again has been references with the Ordinances and Decrees.

My observations have been from spending two years drawing and photographing the ordnance. Looking at the technical aspects and applying scientific logic to various parts. I assumed you were referring to Z and Z (2003) two volumes. The praise was upon the French tactics which you subsume into being the System. This ignores the components that made it up. He was writing to justify the changes he wanted to make and it has been quoted outside the context.

Certainly interesting that you have given reference that states that French Ordnance was not superior to Russian. The superiority of the French tactical use of the Artillery was not disputed (1805-07). There is also the point there was a step change from the 1805 to 1807 and then again to 1812 which has not been acknowledged in the development of Russian Artillery. The change from Regimental to Division assets were profound.

The demand for references is fine when we are submitting a paper or a book. We are discussing and challenging ideas and concepts here. I have referred you to various books as you have me.

If you are interested in British Artillery then I would get a copy of Franklin's (2008) book on British Field Artillery. Alas this is based mostly on Boxer (1853) drawings and the omission of the Blomfield Light 12-pdr (5') astounds me as there is one photographed in my book at Fort Nelson. This was used by the RHA. Alas there is not pictures of models or extent equipment. The Desaguliers Long 6-pdr is not correctly drawn as it has the wrong proportions. It is better than McConnel in many respects with a convergence with the work by Anthony Dawson.

Stephen

blaa blaa blaa

p.s. the blaa's were aimed at dave – fyi no one else

Well, take good note, Shane. This is the standard of the book and its author, who is so keen to rubbish anyone else's work. I still haven't heard a single answer, which suggests someone so keen to "hand it out" is being a bit slippery. After all, if he cannot tell the truth about his sourcing or get basic info right, then by this standard, his own work is "unreliable". As it is in your collection, that might be worth thinking about.

Better still, pose those questions to Kevin yourself.

'Jonathan White (1800)'

'Tousard is a translation of Gessendi (1801)'

Stephen,

It's Jonathan Williams, if you're referring to the American army officer who translated DeScheel for US use. If not, then who is 'Jonathan White?'

You are incorrect on Tousard and Gassendi. The following references were used by Tousard to compile his American Artillerist's Companion:

French:

Andreossy
DeScheel
Du Puget (sometimes referred to as Dupuget)
De Mouy
Encyclopedie ou Dictionnaire Raisonne des Sciences, des arts et des metiers
Gassendi
Gribeauval
Lamartillerie
Manuscript Volumes of Artillery (probably the greatest source that Tousard used to write the treatise)
d'Urtubie

English Language Sources:
Adye (Bombardier and Pocket Gunner)
D'Antoni
Glenie
James
Muller (however, not the most up-to-date edition, 1757 vice 1780)
Robins
Stevens

All of this material is contained in an excellent article by Don Graves 'Louis de Tousard and his 'Artillerists Companion': An Invetigation of Source Material for Napoleonic Period Ordnance.' If you 'd like a copy of the article, let me know and I'll scan it and send it to you.

Remember, though, that you are the one who brought up the points of contention on artillery that are mentioned or are incorrect in Napoleonic Artillery. I didn't. I merely commented and attempted to correct you on your errors. You might want to mention them to Paul Dawson, as he is your colleague.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Shane,

And there I was thinking I had answered the questions posed more than once on more than one forum. Guess not, but there you are. Still, perhaps there will be a truce in the future-one never knows. ;-)

Sincerely,
Kevin

I deleted my post because I just don't care to be honest. I hope one day you two could mend your fences regardless of the previous problems. It would be awesome to see a joint collaboration between the two of you and I really think the both of you need to meet personally and sit down together over a few beers and talk.

I could say that about cacy and I but he already mended that fence for the both of us. Hopefully you guys could do the same.

Dave, just stifle Kevin if you don't like him, he is a blunt person but tells it like it is. You need to understand him and figure this out, I did long ago. If you get offended by him that is your problem not his. I have never seen Kevin stoop to the levels others have (including me) with name calling and child like behaviour.

Agree to disagree and you will have peace, pride is a nasty beast to hold on to.

Shane

Dear Kevin
You may want to add the dates to the references upon what you list there and most are pre-French revolution. Sorry it is 2am in England and I should be to bed and my typing has been poor. Yes it should be Jonathan William (1800). I do not know why I always refer to him as White. You know how I mean.

After translating sections from Gassendi 1801, it is a translation with Gassendi using the list of Authors that you have given rather than Tousard but that is splitting hairs.

Sorry you again loose me with the point you are making. The book is written and selling very well. You have made it clear that you disagree with various points on the French Artillery. As I have said I did not write that so can we please move on from that. Again you use the word error. It is a difference of emphasis or viewpoint. That is not an error. You may have a different definition as in many areas that we differ. I have mentioned your concerns and many will be addressed in subsequent books and when we have a chance to produce a second edition of the book. You yourself stated that you have written a book with Digby Smith that you rarely agreed upon.

Can we please move on and look at improving the understanding of the subject.

Stephen

KFK wrote

"By the way, do you have your references to hand? If you don't, that's fine, but it would be nice to see you reference something in the discussion. I have given references and many times used quotations. I have also offered to list bibliographical material. You might want to think of offering something from your end. If not, however, that is fine and I understand"

Ah – I understand you stifled my post, so you cannot read it – otherwise you might have read this:

What is about you backing up your sweeping statements about the Prussian atrillery, any German source at hand, from where do you derive your conclusions.

Just as an side note, at Groß Görschen Blücher pre-pared his attack with a concentration of 108 guns, read

Osten-Sacken, Freiherr von der : Militärisch-politische Geschichte des Befreiungskrieges im Jahre 1813, Band IIa, Der Frühjahrsfeldzug. Groß-Görschen, Berlin 1904

Also read what he has to say about the obsolete material of the French artillery.

I did mention other works as well, so unstifle my postings and re – read them.

Dear Hans
It is strange that most writer have taken statements from French sources and not looked at the numbers there. The collection of 108 guns for a pre-pared attack at Gross Gorschen (Lutzen) was a feet that has not been credited. This was about a fifth of their total guns available. This was most of the Army of Silesia. It was also early in the evolution of the Prussian Army being May 1813. These were formed of Russian and Prussian guns.

I would be interested in comment of other artillery systems of those who fought against them. Often you find most out of this without the politics of two opposing sides as prevalent in the French Army for centuries.

Stephen

'Ah – I understand you stifled my post, so you cannot read it – otherwise you might have read this:'

I don't stifle anyone's postings.

Where are your remarks, supporting by any documentation, to refute what I posted about the Prussian artillery?

Sincerely,
Kevin

'The collection of 108 guns for a pre-pared attack at Gross Gorschen (Lutzen) was a feet that has not been credited.'

Competent generals had massed their artillery for years before the Napoleonic period. Merely massing artillery is only half of the problem solved-the other half is how it is employed. Smola massed 200 guns at Essling which did nothing but add to the casualty lists. Nothing was done to take advantage of the artillery there-the French were allowed to withdraw.

What advantage was gained by the Prussians and Russians at Lutzen merely by massing over 100 guns? Were they used in the manner Drouot employed his 80 gun battery? I don't think so. Drouot blew the center out of the allied line, destroying infantry regiments where they stood. Then the Guard attacked and the Russians and Prussian were defeated. There is the difference in artillery employment, doctrine, training, skill, and leadership.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Dear Kevin
You have the references to this. Again you will need to read more upon the battle. Also as already indicated that the rank and responsibility does not go together in the German and British Armies. There is Brevet rank. There were considerably less Generals than the French Army. That is because the OberstLt was doing the GbB if not GdD job. This you seem to miss when you say that there were no ranking German Generals of Artillery. Yes they were Major, OberstLt and Oberst.

The statement that there was no doctrine for the Prussian employment is wide of the mark. The Reglement of 1812 was not a full manual upon artillery and employment but a guide for the Brigade commender.

Just because Napoleon fought his later battles in 1813-15 in that manner does not mean that it was the best. Most of the battles were the Gande battery was formed were not successful. Only when he went back to manouevre and to enterprise was it succesful. Look at the 1814. Often the artillery from the Grand batterie produces the killing zones that were not followed up. Again a full analysis of this would be more interesting.

Stephen

Stephen,

The Prussian artillery commanders were not given the rank needed to properly advise a corps commander and be listened to. The French learned from long experience that a general is more apt to listen to another general than he is to a senior field grade officer. The Prussian artillery and engineer arms were still not thought of and treated on a par with the cavalry and artillery arms and that is a leftover from the days of Frederick the Great.

The Prussian artillery arm, and their doctrine, was still behind that of France, Austria, and Russia, and that of Great Britain (and even the small United States Army) in 1815. They Prussian Army didn't have an artillery school in which to teach doctrine, tactics, and the technical aspects of artillery until 1791 which was over one hundred years after the French first established their artillery school at Douai in 1679 (and upon which the Austrians would later pattern their artillery school in the 1740s). The best trained artillery officers were the French, British, and Austrian. The least trained were the Russian and Prussian.

Sincerely,
Kevin

@Kevin F Kiley

"The best trained artillery officers were the French"

L'école d'artillerie et du génie de Metz had places for 66 student of artillerie, thus graduating 33 each year after a 2 years study. The annual need for new officiers of artillerie, counting only the field compagnies, is nearly 10x that number (see below).

How did the French maintain this great excellence in the training of the officiers of their artillerie ?
From whence did come all the other officiers d'artllerie, and how did these get their "best trained" ?

- un ami

Excluding the artillerie staffs, pontonniers, œuvriers, vétérans, canonniers gardes côtes, canonniers sedéntaires, école, artisans, parcs, l'artillerie des places, l'artillerie de la marine, and the artillerie sent to the colonies, and any additional artillerie ever assigned to infanterie unites :

In 1805 year:
8 régiments d'artillerie à pied : each of 20 compagnies : 720 officiers
6 régiments d'artillerie à cheval : each of 6 compagnies : 204 officiers
10 batallions du train d'artillerie (temps de paix) : each of 5 compagnies : 80 officiers
artillerie de la garde : 21 officiers
total : 1025

1813 & later:
9 régiments d'artillerie à pied : each of 28 compagnies : 1098 officiers
6 régiments d'artillerie à cheval : each of 8 compagnies : 252 officiers
14 batallions du train d'artillerie : each of 6 compagnies : 126 officiers
14 batallions bis du train d'artillerie : each of 6 compagnies : 126 officiers
6 compagnies de la Vieille garde à pied : 35 officiers
6 compagnies de la Vieille garde à cheval : 35 officiers
14 compagnies de la Jeune garde : 66 officiers
2 régiments du train d'artillerie de la garde : 16 compagnies : 37 officiers
total : 1775

New officiers needed by increase in the organisation : 750
Officiers killed and blessé mortellement : 413
1/3 of officiers wounded : 291 (allowance both for temporary and permanent absents)
Officiers en retraite after full service, congé, sick hôpitals, dead by other causes, prisonniers, etc. 150/year or 10% : approx. 1500 or may be more ??

Total new officiers required : approx. 3000 or approx. 300/year

@Kevin F Kiley

"The least trained were the Russian"

Trained may not be the same as skilled. But you did say "trained".

Please say how the training of Russian officiers of artillerie was "less" than French or British or Austrian, as after 1805 year, every one of these Russians did have a university degree (typically of low level) or graduated from a military cadet school, 2 years training in a special scholl for artillerie and 2 years with the régiment as a junker or officier-in-training. These were the requirements added to the new systeme of artillerie equipments and the expansion in the number of compagnies under the reforms of the Graf Arakcheev.

What was the greater training given to offciers d'artillerie in France, Britain and Austria ?

Thank you.

- un ami

@ un ami

The arguments you find in literature are:

1) France had a large population with (in absolute numbers) many educated men, so you could assume, that it was easier to supply the army with educated men.

2) For the Kadettenkorps of the old Prussian army the argument was, the small number (40 per year) of officers from this institution was amplified by their uniform, good education and their impact was much larger than we would expect from the numbers (hard to prove :-))), so I would in priciple assume the same for the French, good officers in important slots increase the overall quality.

3) During the revolution and during the Napoleonic times it was easier to promote officers by merit than in traditional armies with an emphasis on seniority.

Maybe 3) is the most important factor?

Ulenspiegel

@Ulenspiegel

May be of these ideas have some of their merit – but all point to the question of "best skilled".
That was not what was said of the French, it was said "best trained".
I will ask again:
-- other than 33 per year from the école, how did all the others Frenches (approx 2700 new officiers) get "best trained" ?
-- If Russians with university/cadet scholl + 2 years artillerie scholl + 2 years as yunkers training in the compagnies were "less trained" than French officiers, how was this better done for Frenches ?

It may be that these were not typical of education for Russians, where all serfs received none at all, but all of the officiers of the Russian artillerie were so trained.

I do not think it is true that French were "best trained" and Russians "least trained", since I see no evidence of this. But, I am eager for new infos to correct my understanding.

- votre ami

PS – Promotion in Russian artilerie after 1805 was all by merit, but only among nobles/officiers and those created noble after very very long service (not too many of these).
But, there were very very many nobles, of low status and wealth. Most nobles in the Army, and especially in the artillerie, did not (for example) own serfs.
Entrance to scholl for artillerie was by merit also (examiniations), and also graduation (more examinations).
Also, there was a way to get into artillery scholl for a not-noble who was not a serf nor of a ethnoc that did give service (such as of a cossack or of a bashkir or of a Baptised kalmyk) – but these were very few, mostly foreigners or of a Protestant confession from former foreigner families – and I do not know the details of how this was done.

Un Ami,

The Austrians, French, and British all had excellent artillery schools where artillery officers were trained. You can find the curriculum for the French schools in Ken Alder's Engineering the Revolution. Additionally, both the Austrians and French had schools for training artillery NCOs.

The Prussians did not have an artillery school established until 1791. The Prussian artillery and engineers had been neglected by Frederick the Great and both arms were treated as inferior to the infantry and cavalry.

The Russian officers had a reputation for being less well-trained and were less skilled. Wilson remarks on this in his book on 1807. Further, where were the Russian artillery schools? Troops were trained in their artillery units, but where were the artillery schools for Russian artillery officers and NCOs?

Sincerely,
Kevin

@Kevin F Kiley

I did not ask about the the curriculum of the French artillerie scholl. I did not question its excellence. You did not answer my question.

You did make assetions, I do quote you :
"The best trained artillery officers were the French"
"The least trained were the Russian"

My questions, I will repeat :
-- other than 33 per year from the école, how did all the others Frenches (approx 2700 new officiers) get "best trained" ?
-- If Russians with academic scholl + 2 years artillerie scholl + 2 years as yunkers training in the compagnies were "less trained" than French officiers, how was this better done for Frenches ?

Will you now please answer these questions ?

You make another assertion :
"The Russian officers had a reputation for being less well-trained"
You attribute only the comments of Wilson on this. This makes on ask these questions:
-- please quote Wilson commenting about the training of Russian artillerie officers
-- please indicate Wilson's training in artillerie and artillerie education, since you will think his opinion on this topic worthy
-- please indicate where the "reputation" you speak of was shared by more than this one man.

To answer your questions for Russians :

Prior to 1700, the Artillery (officiers) Training School was attached to the TSAR's personal artillerie squadorn. In 1701, the Great Peter organized the School for Mathematics and Navigation Sciences, to prepare cadets for entrance to the artillerie and othe technical services scholls. In 1717, the Artillery and Enginnering Schools were created as free-standing institutions, under the commande of the First Artillery Regiment. From 1758, this rôle was assigned to the Artillery and Engineers Noble Corps, with the scholls combined, under the patronage of Shulalov.

In addition, there was "Musketeer" compagnie in the Army Cadet Corps that served also as an Artillerie and Engineer officers scholl.

These several organisations were combined as the 2nd Cadet Corps in 1801, graduating about 200 officiers per year (somewhat more in 1810-1812, but may be the instruction was rushed).

The Page Corps and the Shklov Cadet Corps (later Grodno, then Smolensk) had a similar program from 1778, sending about 25 per year each to the artillerie.

Artillerie sous-officiers did almost always graduate from the Garrision Scholls (over 100 of these, in each garrsion location, 10,000 total students, 15 years study) prior to enlistement, and so could read, write and calculate. The top 10 students in each garrison scholl were permitted to choose special training for artillerie.

For service training of sous-offciers, this was done in the compagnies, as non-nobles these would enter as artilleurs, but with the hope of promotion in 2-3 years.

For advanced training of sous-officiers, there was set in 1806 year a special reserve company formed in the Life-Guards Artillerie Bataillion. A 2-year study with 150 graduates per year, the emphasis on technical services (foundry, ammunition, repair, etc.). This was doubled in 1812 year (and tripled in 1820 year).

For further this technical training, there were two more advanced schols in Ct-Petersburg : Artillerie Calculations and Artillerie Drawing.

- un ami

Shane, Take note from Ami:

"Will you now please answer these questions ?

You make another assertion"

according to KFK

"The best trained artillery officers were the French"
"The least trained were the Russian"

What a surprise, I thought the least trained were the Prussians, which are hated by KFK.

I cannot comment on the Russians, but on the Austrians, please KFK note, source Lauerma, which you claim to have, the Austrians are at least as well trained as the French.

Un Ami, et al.,

Great stuff! Is the information you are using available in either English or German? I am very interested in Russian artillery and in particular how it stacked up with other nation's.

'What a surprise, I thought the least trained were the Prussians, which are hated by KFK.'

Would you mind pointing out where I ever said I hate the Prussians?

'I cannot comment on the Russians, but on the Austrians, please KFK note, source Lauerma, which you claim to have, the Austrians are at least as well trained as the French.'

Yesterday I posted that the best trained artillery officers among the nations of Europe were the French, British, and Austrian, so what is your point?

Seems to me you're attempting to start yet another strawman argument.

And you still haven't supported your argument about the Prussian artillery arm and its proficiency except to direct me to 'refine my opinion.' Last time I checked you weren't in charge here, but carry on I do enjoy your postings.

Sincerely,
Kevin