"Artillery" Topic

Dear Kevin
You have not answered the question again. I am referring to the ordnances and plans of 1771, 1792 and 1805. I think this would be considered these primary source information.

You challenged the statement about the wagons in the next post as that is what I was referring to when you brought up Alder. I was discussing the wide age in the designs in the Gribeauval system.

Can you please cite a date for when it was referred to as the Gribeauval system. I do not think it is referred to as such in De Scheel (1795: trans 1800) or in any other source before the early 1800s.

So what is the answer upon the Howitzer. When did the Rechsmachine get replaced? It is difficult to make sure that we are talking upon the same chronology. You seem to be intermixing 50 years.

Stephen

@Kevin F Kiley

"the case today,"

IT is not of the era of the TMP Pages. But I will offer some ideas as if we did have the chance to have out selves in a conversation.

The case today is that artillerie is irrelevant at best and a hazard to success in a campagne at worst. True of Russians. True of US Army.

If you must have a large fires, it is quicker, cheaper and more accurate to deploy aircraft, which can have all your men removed to a safe place away from the ennemi. But even this is likely more harm than good.

I did watch in horror as the Russian artillerie did break most of Grozy. He did thus cause the greatest detriment to our affaries there.

The record of collateral damage done by the artillerie is may be better with the USA Army and US Marine Corps, as you do try to guide the rounds more accurately. But over all, there is nothing in south west Asia that I do see today that will merit the publicity and motivation to the ennemi given when, for example, you do break a wedding reception.

You may shoot more accurately, but the propaganda of the ennemi has increased in skill and persuasion more quickly than has your accuracy.

For every ennemi killed by the great fires, one does more or less also kill a non-ennemi. The death of the non-ennemi does cause 10 new ennemis. The campagne does thus suffer greatly.

Ok, so just the opinion of one man, with no sense of an impolite here either.

I think I should go now and drink heavily and flog some serfs.

:-)

- un ami

Stephen,

You stated 'Gribeauval Designs' and did not mention artillery vehicles. As we had usually, if not exclusively, spoken about gun tubes and gun carriages, that was a natural assumption on my part. If I erred in that assumption, I do apologize. But you need to be specific if you want something specific. Perhaps you should consult your references more often?

Gribeauval caissons were his own design, first in 1754 and then improved ones in the 1760s. The pontoons and the hacquets were also of a new design eventually, but not immediately because the emphasis was on field artillery, hence new gun tubes and new gun carriages. Since there were no field gun carriages in the 1740s (but there had been earlier in the 1720s) Gribeauval designed new ones.

Now there are questions that I have asked you but I won't press you for the answer as you don't have to answer them if you don't choose to. I would advise you, however, to look in the usual references, as I have been and find the material you seek, or are you merely, once again, creating a strawman argument as you have in the past? I would like to know, though, where the errors in Persy are for clarification. If you don't have it to hand I do understand. I notice that the one listed in your bibliography is the translated version. Do you have the original? If not, how do you know it's incorrect?

And regarding French artillery systems, there were only four in existence between 1732 to 1829: Valliere's, Gribeauval's, AN XI, and Valee's.

I don't know for sure when the screw quoin was replaced in the French howitzer, but I have seen technical drawings of the howitzer with the same elevating mechanism that the guns had. As to the other questions you have asked, I didn't raise them. I merely talked about the introduction of the howitzer into French service (you might want to also take a look at LeBlond from 1746) and the 6-inch howitzer introduced with the Gribeauval System. The other questions you have are somewhat mystifying, hence the strawman suggestion. Perhaps you could clarify? Your posting got just a little confusing.

And please, don't post something you think I said when I haven't. Read the postings more carefully before you accuse me of something that isn't accurate. All you're doing here is repeating errors that are in your book and to my mind that doesn't do anything but cause confusion.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Dear Kevin
As I have said before, the strawman comment is offensive with pagan overtones as you should realise who might have a passing knowledge Celtic history and keep using it.

I have not accused you as you have me of being wrong or inaccurate. I am trying to discuss ideas and concepts. All you have quoted has been English references and not the French or the page numbers that you have referred to. I have given reference to the ordinances and plans.

Kevin as ever research moves on and a wider availability. The French chapter was written two years ago now. As you know these are the views of Paul Dawson and there are aspects that we do not agree with.

This came from a long conversation with the curator of the Royal Armouries today over the problems behind the basing upon a history written to ignore the 30 years without a monarchy.

I have stated that the Rechsmachine are in the DeScheel drawings of the 1795 edition (trans 1800) but it had already been replaced by the Gribeauval elevating platform in the Manson (1792) Tables of Construction. The plans from the De Scheel (1795) are the same as the 1777 version and derive from those of Du Coudray. Therefore De Scheel is as you point out a poor approximation of Gribeauval at the start of the French Revolution. You should also look at the Garrison and Siege guns. These had changed in their elevating system and the wheels used.

The impression of what you have written in your fine book has been the Gribeauval System was fully born in full adulthood in 1765 and unchanged by the re-adoption in 1776. As I have said concepts and ideas move on.

I find it strange that you refer to Le Blond who was a reactionary Vallierist but not to Fave, Napoleon or Gassendi. It is here that I am testing out the ideas as I have not had satisfactory answers from any I have discussed with.

Stephen

Stephen,

As has been explained to you before, a 'strawman' has nothing to do with pagan Celts. You might want to look it up to put your mind at ease.

Here it is from the Merriam-Webster dictionary on line; it is a noun dating in use from 1886:

'a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted.

Nothing about pagan Celts, though I do know what you're referring to as I have studied the ancient Celts a little. No burnings here, so you can put your mind at ease. I have found that strawmen are used frequently on the forums and sometimes in historical argument. If you're using them, I would suggest it isn't a very good idea, if you're not, then I'm wrong and I apologize.

I would also suggest that earlier artillery references can be just as helpful as ones done later even if they're after the period such as Fave and Persy.

And if you got the idea of the Gribeauval System being fully ready to go in 1765 from Artillery, perhaps you should read it again.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Dear Kevin
Websters is an American dictionary. Strawman is a term that has religious connotations of burning martyrs. I was referring to the Celtic Nations and not the ancient Celts. You consistently use the term as I perceive of abuse. Now this is different from a man of straw. Now that is a term that has been used this side of the Atlantic yet that is considered to be abusive certainly in the written word. It is not in common use in UK and again you show how insensitive you are to other nationals including Un Ami.

You fine book is gushing with praise for the Genius of Gribeauval. There is no criticism of the system as you keep stating that it was the finest artillery system. It was replaced and the heavy criticism of Napoleon is not as far as I remember even commented about.

Gribeauval was an organiser and must have been of significant political skill from humble background. This was a great feat. Upon looking at whether Gribeauval was an Engineer (as Alder insists) or an Artilleryman (as you clearly state) is divisive. I am not convinced that it really means very much looking as I have at the education of the Engineers and Artillery. The Artillery Schools in France seem to produce more Engineers than the Engineering Schools.

Now looking at his service record and the differences between sources is interesting certainly those written over the centuries and in different languages. It is difficult to sort out the bias. I have now read Biographies produced in 1820, 1840, 1889, 1920 etc.. There is differences in a number of dates but it is the slant that is given. I have not read any French sources that call Gribeauval a Genius. Yet almost all American writers have given him this accolade. That should be very hard won and I do not think he deserve that when put with Leonardo, Wren, Michaelangelo, Brunel, Armstrong etc…

Now that is where we differ yet whatever is said that differs from you is WRONG, in ERROR etc… Yet you say you are not the expert.

Stephen

Stephen,

You are overreacting and definitely taking things, such as the term 'strawman' out of context (by the way, some of your countrymen have used the term on the forums so it must also be a term used in the UK). I would suggest you calm down before you bust a gut. That would indeed be bad as well as very sad. You really shouldn't shout.

And if I believe someone to be in error, I'll say as much. If that isn't acceptable, then I am sorry. But if we are trying to figure out what has happened historically, then that is going to happen. All of us make mistakes so get used to being called on them. If you write books, it's going to happen. And if you make some really large errors, as you have artillery-wise, someone is going to say something.

As always, it is great to discuss things with you. Until next time.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Sincerely,
Kevin

Dear Kevin
What context are we talking about. It is the written word. We have an international audience and the English usage is different. You need to understand that.

Stephen

I came to the study of Napoleonics late in life and on this subject, confess to being an empty vessel waiting to be filled – my reason for logging on to every appropriate forum I can find and to seek the knowledge and opinions of experts.
Today however I have come to the conclusion that when I see 'Artillery' mentioned on TMP, I will NOT follow the thread.
In my humble opinion, this has gone beyond the pale and I honestly believe that the main protagonists in the squabble should urgently seek treatment.
If you cannot debate like adults then for God's sake, agree to drop the whole thing.

Scunnered (a good old Scots word which you can look up in your extensive libraries and resources)

Gerry McGinty

Dear Ewert
Yes and that is what I wanted to do but alas a certain other party poisons the interesting debate.

Stephen

KFK writes

"Have you read the Zhmodikov's book? If you haven't, I would highly suggest that you do. I have found it helpful in understanding the problems the Russians had technically and tactically"

I have Zhmodikov, and to cite correctly, you should call it :

Zhmodikov, Alexander & Zhmodikov, Yurii : Tactics of the Russian Army in the Napoleonic Wars, 2 volumes, Nafziger Press, West Chester OH, 2003

I see that un ami is discussing all these details much deeper than in the above work, which is very usefull but is just providing a basic and much needed information about the Russian Army – but just scratching the surface.

So, we should embrace all furhter information instead of stifling it as you intend to do, move on – yes you should move on, in case you are not interested to learn more than what is already published in English about the Russian Army.

I see this thread got a bit messy along the way, but I can help clarify a couple of things:

Regarding the issue of training, the Zhmodikovs state (v2, p. 63) that from 1800-1806 there was no school that provided "special artillery education, except a class at the Guard Artillery" but goes on to note that after receiving the more generalized education of the 2nd cadet corps, the artillery companies provided additional practical training for artillerists. Again, this does not conflict with the information provided by Un Ami, but is rather in agreement (although again obviously much briefer). On the conversion of the artillery school to the 2nd cadet corps, Mikaberidze does not mention any change in curriculum and notes this as a simple change in name (with, presumably, administrative consolidation of the two separate schools). The Zhmodikovs imply that the artillery-specific education was watered down a bit in the process.

To help Kevin out regarding the identity of the Major General Sievers quoted by the Zhmodikovs, he is identified as a commander of an artillery brigade in the 1806-7 campaign in Poland, which makes it possible to identify him explicitly as Yakov Karlovich graf Sievers (polkovnik in 1806-7, promoted to GM June 1807). From the citations, they seem to be taking Sievers' views from "Public lectures given to Guard Artillery by Colonel Ratch", in Artilleriskii Zhurnal, 1861, no. 1, part 3, which includes the full text of Siever's 1807 report on artillery tactics and equipment on pages 79-85.

Regarding what the Zhmodikovs say about the topic, I definitely come away with a very different understanding than what Kevin has presented from the same source. My impression on re-reading the chapters on artillery is that tactics were evolving, there was considerable discussion and debate in Russian military circles and that the performance issues involved ongoing evolution of tactics, not the quality of the educational system. With the French leading the way in the advancement of artillery tactics, this should not be surprising. But drawing the conclusion that the Russian system of education is deficient doesn't follow. Implicit in the discussion by the Zhmodikovs is that the officers coming out of the academies are junior officers and subject to the orders of the senior officers who lack the benefit of the lastest training. So there will be a lag between the education of young officers and the point where that education will have significant effect on performance in the field, the lag being the time required for the younger officers to rise in rank and authority. Only the French had the peculiar situation where the senior officers were almost entirely swept away at a stroke and the more junior officers were allowed to transform the army immediately by applying what they had learned.

Or so it seems to me.

Carnot93,

Correcto mundo, as usual! I cannot understand how so many materials can be read incorrectly by one person. Myopic tunnel vision, as it were.

I note Viskovatov, using the Mark Conrad translation – volume 7a, states:

"10 March 1800 – The Army Cadet Corps was ordered to be called the 1st Cadet Corps [1-i Kadetskii Korpus], and the Artillery and Engineers Cadet Corps—the 2nd Cadet Corps [2-i Kadetskii Korpus] (128). [Footnote 128: HIGHEST Orders.]"

link

The changes during the reign of Alexander I are covered in Vol 10a of Mark's translation:

link

Robert le Diable,

"I've always found "un ami" to be among the most informed, informative, and courteous of contributors." Absolutely!

Steve

Keep the Internet free of ‘Milk Dud' posts!

@Carnot93

Thank you ever so much, dear colleague.

I do not, if I may be so bold to offer of an opinion, think that there is any thing wrong in the way the Zhmodikov do describe the ideas as of 1805-1807 era. May be the idea "that the artillery-specific education was watered down a bit" is a little odd, as I think the idea was to add all the refinements of more like USA "liberal arts" scholling in addition to the prior focus up on technical training, to make the officiers of artillerie as of a good culture and social position as the other armes, even though fewer were of the great noble families and more amongst them foreign or of foreign families or from provinces. The link that I did supply above with the detailes of the Kadet Corps will allow each colleague to see more on this question, but in Russian language, I am sorry. Here he is again:
В. М. Крылов
Кадетские корпуса и российские кадеты
history.scps.ru/cadet/00.htm
I do see now that I have a scan that thisis the key source also for the comments of the noted Georgian experte Professor Mikaberidze, in the opening of his anglo-phone book on Russian generals.

"school that provided "special artillery education, except a class at the Guard Artillery"
Well, it may be a Russian to English language problem. The scholl was just called a special compagnie of the Guard Artillery – it was not a regular fighting compagnie, it was a scholl that did bear this nomenclature. But this was for the sous-officiers. For these the total scholling was usually :
15 years in the Garrsion Scholls
2-3 years sevice in the régiments
2 years in the scholl called special compagnie in the Guard (added second special compagnie to increase numbers later, then even a third soon after the Napoléon era).
optional: 1-2 years more training at special academies : Artillerie Mathematics and Artillerie Drawing (these more often for non-nobles who would be working in foundries, arsenaux, making the poudres, etc.)

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

If the Sivers is in the truth "an artillery brigade in the 1806-7 campaign in Poland", he is in effect this one:

Граф Сиверс Яков Карлович (1774-1810)
Here is what i did write of him above:
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.

Some more on his bios:
Entered on the rôle of the Guard in 1785. Then General-lieutenant Gerbel's separate field artillerie bataillon, promoted lieutenant colonel 1799, at Saint Peterburg. Not included in the formation of régiments from the separate bataillons in March 1800, posted lieutenant colonel or colonel à la suite to the ?? Artillery regiment in Septembre 1800, to the 3rd Artillery regiment in 1803. His later promotion to colonel after Austerlitz seems to have been made with retro-effect some years earlier. He does not appear to have actually seen active service before 1805 year, and may have been at Court, or with the Artillery Staff, or at his estates much of the time, as one expects of a great noble in those years.
Here is the citation of his award of the Saint-George Ordre 4th Class for Eylau:
link
(in Russian language)

полковник (генерал-майор 1860) Ратч Василий Федорович (1816-1870)
his bios:
link
(in Russian language)

The essai :
Артиллер ийский Журнал 1861 № 1 [С. 79-85]
"Публичные лекции при гвардейской артиллерии"
OK, I think we shall need to look at this in its origins, for I do still fear a problem. May be a problem of the then colonel Ratch, or the editors of Артилл ерийский Журнал, or of the Zhmodikov. It does not seem to me that this Граф Сиверс Яков Карлович is too likely to be giving of a report on artillery tactics and equipment. He seems to be a much favored and surely brave young officier, from the main parte of the great noble family Сиверс But he does not appear to much of an technical experte.
I fear it is really this one:

Сиверс Иван Христианович (1775-1843)
his bios:
link
(in Russian language)
(to say "comte" or "граф" for this one is purely courtesy, or may be error, as his relatives did have the grants of the titre)
He was a known "reformer" of artillerie, and protegé of the great Suvarov, and did command the artillerie in Switzerland. He is a colleague of the Graf Arakcheev, both who were in the Kadets Korpus. But when he did write, if it was in 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 the artillery from 1800 to 1810. He is exactly the type to be likely to be giving of a report on artillery tactics and equipment.

I wll try to find the original essai, to see who says exactly what, which is really always best, if I may again offer an opinion. May be @Steven H Smith will have him already.

Thank you again for your excellente infos !

- votre ami

Mon ami,

I only have the earlier issues of the Russian Artillery Jurnal – the first few years – plus one issue from the 1860s. I also have the first published index – 1850s? I will check next week to see which 1860s issue I have in my collection

Steve

Keep the Internet free of ‘Milk Dud' posts!

Mon Ami,

Regarding Sievers, the context of the comments is as a report on artillery tactics and equipment based on experience in the field, so this would favor Yakov Karlovich over Ivan Kristianovich. In my notes, Y.K. Sievers was the formal commander of the artillery brigade attached to 5th Division, but I am not clear on where I derived this from. Possibly from a certain Steven Smith. But locating the original source material should clarify the matter.

@Carnot93

I do agree completely with your identification, based on the infos that you do have. It is clear, now from several instances and discussions, that your analysis of these infos is truely perfectly impressive.

I just do have a lingering fear of a much earlier probleme with the identification.

It is a little more based on stereo-types : the graf Sivers seems to have exactly the same kind of career of a great noble ( service only on the day of battle, great credit and rewards, while other lesser known officiers did much hard labour and service) that Wilson did complaint of !

On the other side, the Иван Христианович was a member of the clique of the Graf Arakcheev that were writing reports, serving on boards and so on.

You will know that Russian themselves, even great academiciens such as the General Ratch, could and did mangle one man for an other at some times, with the same name or in the same family.

For the comparison to the French, an author is not lacking some interest -- the one: had fought them very recently but had less experte status to make comments; the other: had fought the French 8 years earlier before even the beginnings of the reforms of the reign of the TSAR Aleksandr but was himself known as a technical experte.

"But locating the original source material should clarify the matter."
In effect yes, dear colleague, one will hope so.

I do have little idea about exactly what the formation of brigades of artillerie in the autumn of 1806 did really impact the Eylau campagne, or even to the extent it was implemented by that time – or if implemented, the degree to which the compagnies did serve in the campagne in groups by their brigade. I am very eager for better and more detailed infos if you or another colleague (including a certain Steven Smith) do have these.

To study the Russian Army in these years 1793-1814 or -1825 is like trying to read a book that is tied with cord to an hare … it does keep moving so much and some what quickly.

:-)

- votre ami

Hi Ami,

I've given the quotation you were asking about in Wilson a lot of thought this week. I think that, although the sentence is formally ambiguous, we must probably understand it as comparative to other European Armies, rather than between the different Russian arms of service.

You quote:

"The artillery-men are of the best description, and the non-commissioned offices equal, but the artillery officiers of inferior rank have not the same title to estimation as in other European services, for their education is not formed with the same care, and their service does not receive the same encouragement . To them is toil and responsibility, but the honour is by no means assured them.

By including the phrase 'in other European services', Wilson has drawn our attention to this pan-European comparison. In addition, if we omit this phrase we get:

"The artillery-men are of the best description, and the non-commissioned offices equal, but the artillery officiers of inferior rank have not the same title to estimation, for their education is not formed with the same care, and their service does not receive the same encouragement . To them is toil and responsibility, but the honour is by no means assured them."

This would cover the comparison between the Russian services without introducing the pan-European comparative element.

What do you think Ami?

Regards

As an aside, I wonder how Wilson came to this conclusion. Apart from the fact that it is such a sweeping statement – as every Napoleonic wargamer knows ;-) – the Russians seem to have lots of guns – one objective indication seeming to indicate that the Russians thought the arm very important indeed.

@Whirlwind

Thank you ever so much ! You are most kind to assist. (I "owe one to you" , so if you have a Russian or French texte, do not hesitate to ask.)

I do see completely your idea about including or excluding the words 'in other European services'. There must in effect be some comparison to other nations here.

The problem is that the contexte is most about "internal" elements that effect Russians only. As your re-write excluding the phrase does show most strongly.

So, then what is the comparison ?
The amount we should all esteem these these Russian officiers, comparing them to officiers of other nations ?
OR
The amount that the Russians of the era esteemed these officers compared to how they were thought of in other nations ?

In Frenches armée, these were greatly admired, the Empereur himself was one of them. "Sages de l'armée". "With artillerie does one make war". etc.

In Russian Army, the great nobles did like the Guard and the Cuirassiers (the "better" régiments) and the artillerie had more provincials, foreigners and those of foreign families (jägers too). Recall that "provinical" is about everybody outside of C-Pb and Moscow, then as now.
This part Wilson could see every day, and explains how he could decide on such a statement.

So the difference is rather great. Either Wilson does say that these are not such good officiers in comaprison to other services, or he does say that they are more or less quite good, but have been not had praised or honored or "esteemed" enough by their Army compared to other nations.
If one removes part of the contexte before and after the phrase, each of these readings looks better or worse (I follow your interesting methode).

Again with thanks,

= votre ami