"Artillerie sights" Topic

This comment of @Kevin F Kiley is incorrect and reflects a lack of knowledge of the design and use of the Russian sights. It is also not accounting correctly the weakenesses of the Gribeauval sight. Also it gives a wrong impression of when the qualitie of an artillerie sight did and did not matter in a bataille.

Here is how @Keven F Kiley did write:
"when comparing French optics to Russian optics (sights) during the Napoleonic period. The French movable sight is simple in design and easy to use. It also can remain mounted on the gun tube during firing. The Russian diopeter sight is very inaccurate on uneven ground as the trunnions were not then level. The later sight was also difficult to use as neither it (nor the previous one) could be left on the breech when fired, thus slowing down the service of the piece."

This question has been discussed back to the time when Gribeauval did propose his hausse sight. It has been discussed most in French, second in German, third in Russian. My German is too poor to follow the analysis. Few colleagues here have Russian, and (as I do note below) it appears that it is not to be belived if a Russian does write some thing, even about his own Army.
Thus I can try to give the colleagues better and more detailes in this question in French. I hope some will be able and willing to read these infos.

The whole question of "which sight" is a little less important, when one considers that very often the shots at short range were just made by the line of metal, as is dicussed here :

Problème de l'efficacité du tir
Bernard Bru
Université René-Descartes (Paris)
« D'Urtubie … reconnaissait dans son Manuel d'artillerie, contemporain du Traité de Lombard :
"Le degré de hauteur, la véritable charge à donner sont des choses difficiles à trouver. Des causes sans nombre répandent de l'incertitude sur ce service : la résistance de l'air, toujours hétérogène ; la quantité et la qualité de la poudre, jamais bien proportionnées ; les bombes toutes à la rigueur défectueuses en poids, en figures, en dimensions ; la construction du mortier, celle de l'affût, celle de la plate-forme inévitablement dérangée au premier coup ; l'impossibilité de placer la bombe avec précision, de façon que son axe et celui du mortier ne fassent qu'un et que tous les deux soient confondus avec l'alignement du but, une seule de ces deux causes produit des variations
étonnantes".
Quant à Puget, qui s'était opposé fermement à Gribeauval, lors de la "querelle de la hausse", il affirmait en 1771 :
"Promettre des certitudes sur la projection des corps mus par une force considérable, c'est de la charlatanerie ou un manque de connaissance des effets de la nature, et particulièrement de la poudre de guerre et des mobiles que nous avons à projeter".
Ces incertitudes multipliées avait conduit les artilleurs de la fin du XVIIIème siècle, pour le tir de campagne tout au moins, à se limiter au tir dit "de but en blanc", c'est-à-dire au tir à charge fixe sur un but aligné avec la génératrice supérieure du canon (ce qui correspond à une inclinaison d'environ un degré et demi). La distance moyenne de combat pour les canons de campagne était ainsi réduite à moins de cinq cents mètres, et ne nécessitait pas de procédures
de réglage de tir particulières autres que celles résultant simplement du coup d'œil, du bon sens et du sang-froid du canonnier.
Certes Gribeauval avait introduit la hausse, c'est-à-dire la possibilité de tirer sous des angles supérieurs convenablement choisis selon la distance du but, mais la hausse se limitait à trois degrés, la portée des canons de campagne atteignant alors 800 à 1000 mètres. Encore ces tirs à hausse variable étaient-ils utilisés avec une certaine prudence, leur justesse étant problématique. ….
Toutes les expériences conduites au début du XIXème siècle dans toutes les artilleries européennes démontraient ainsi que la justesse des tirs au-delà du but en blanc était illusoire même dans les conditions idéales des polygones de tir. »
msh.revues.org/document2724.html

The following is very long, he is in French and very technical. He reviews the good and bad points of each of the major type of artillerie sight (French, Russian, Suedish, Nassauer, Hessois, Saxonne, etc.). In summary, the French sight was a good design of the era of the life Gribeauval, it had major inherent geometry problems, including those at elevation of more than 3 degrees, and many nations strove to fix this. The Russian solution was good, but needed to be (i) either removed from the gun when firing (Karbanov sight) OR (ii) did not account for the pièce not being level horizontally except by estimation against a series of marks (Markevich). The strenghts and weakness of these and other approaches are given great detail. The point about shooting a short range without using the sights at all in many batailes is made here also.

Essai sur les principles de la Hausse – 2e parte
Capitaine L. Delobel *
Revue Militaire Belge – T. III
Liége, 1845
* puis colonel d;artillerie, directeur de l'Ecole de pyrotechnie de Liège
« Ainsi donc nous le répétons: la hausee Gribeaval, bonne pour de pièces aur plates-formes, est un mauvais instrument pour ;'artillerie de campagne, non-seulement parce que, dans la pluparte de cas qui se présentent à la guerre, elle donne au pointeur une ligne de mire fausee, ainsi qu;une longeur de tige en désaccord avec les données de tables, mais parce qu'il n'exisite réellement pas de moyens pratiques pour corriger avec une approximation suffisante les inexactitudes de ses indications; car , au point de vue pratique, on ne peut admettre pour tels ces régles qui prescrivent de viser à autnat de pieds à droite, à gauche, au dessus ou en deça du but …
C'est l'artillerie russe … qui imagina la primière de graduer la vis de pointage de manière à compter sur l'elévation de la pièce. »
link

I will not be so foolish as to offer any thing written by Russians, as this appears to be use less. I do not know why we should look at topics about the Russian Army "no matter what the Russians themselves say or think." I do think that a Russian may occasionally be able to think or write or even design some thing. Not often, since he is usally too drunk or busy flogging serfs. But may be once in while ?
In any case, I will not bother the colleagues with the "what the Russians themselves say or think."
Will it however be OK to just show the pictures of the Russian sights as discussed in the article of the Belgian capitaine ?

Here is the Markevich (it is 1802 year). This is the one that did not remove the inaccuracy of the horizontal leveling of the pièce except by estimation through a set of marks. He did screw in and did not be removed while firing.
picture

Here is the sight of Karbanov (it is 1808 year). This one did correct the horizontal leveling, but did have a probleme at very strange high angles of aiming (counting the ground plus the elevation of the pièce). This probleme was not fixed until the campagne in the Caucasus, after 1817, did reveal the probleme more. The hanging part did need to be removed form the gun for firing.
picture

It should be noted that the Russian pièces, after 1808, were sent in to the campagnes with 2 sights, one of each type, so that the choice of which probleme to have could be made each day.

- un ami

un ami,

You are obviously very passionate about your data, you like to present your finding and we all learn from it. Everyone here enjoys seeing your links, reading your text and taking in all the data you provide. No one is disputing this, however, you do seem to buck up lately if others do not answer your question promptly and back up their words with facts and their own evidence or data. Even when they do you right away counter them with your own and convincing make people believe you are correct and they are not. That is great but your impatience and demands for "infos" as you call it and prompt replies you demand are starting to grate with me.

We all want the truth and we all want to learn and gain the correct information and not be, "led down the garden path", as we say. My advice to you is two fold.

1st – Drop the demands and impatient behaviour towards others to reply to your posts. If someone tells you they wish to leave or drop a subject then drop it, no one has the right to demand anything of anyone here nor should they. This is a War gaming forum for gods sake, not a lecture room or court of law. If someone wishes to drop a subject of debate because they have reached an impasse with you then respect their wishes and move on.

2nd – If you are as learned as you show us please by all means write a book on the Russian Napoleonic army. I for one would buy it and you know many others here would also. You have allot to give and allot to gain by doing so, trust me. Focus on this instead of hunting another person here on TMP simply because you don't like what they say or believe. With an attitude like that where you demand answers you invoke a side to you I see and don't think I like. There is another here like that and he is not very liked at all as you might see.

I implore you to write a book, do not waist your time hunting down another who has asked you politely to drop the subject because he does not agree with you.

I mean this sincerely Un ami, no agenda here.
Regards,
Shane

Un Ami:

I read the information that you post and thank you for your contributions, especially the Russian information. Your info about the Russian Guard Jaegers of 1806-07, in response to my request of over a month ago, was invaluable.

I read the "artillery" thread, but did not comment. I visit TMP primarily as a wargamer and for enjoyment and tend to stay out of the "historical" arguments as there is nothing to be gained from engaging in the egotistical "tug of wars" and "turf wars" that crop up. Many of the posts by some self-proclaimed "experts" are full of mere assertions and opinion and I simply ignore them. You are always polite and provide information that many of us would not have access to were it not for your desire to share what you know.

Some of the posters that claim to be presenting history will not admit that they are wrong and no information or argument will change their minds. Those of us that welcome new information and ideas ignore those posters and make up our own minds. The information that you so kindly share and your perspective on Russian matters are appreciated. There is much information yet-to-be accessed in the German and Russian archives.

I thank you for your gentlemanly conduct and your contributions to our knowledge. If some of the replies frustrate you please remember that many of us welcome the information that you share.

@un ami

you wrote

"I will not be so foolish as to offer any thing written by Russians, as this appears to be use less. I do not know why we should look at topics about the Russian Army "no matter what the Russians themselves say or think." "

I think a lot of readers would be very interested what the Russians would say and think about their own army, how else can we learn more about it? Don't be intimitaded to provide Russian sources and material.

Thank you so far for all the wonderfull information you provided so far on different threads.

@Shane

"you do seem to buck up lately if others do not answer your question promptly"
Only if they post on the same threead without answering an opened question, or saying that they are lookign at it, etc.

Let us take the specific case in point, for I think that there is but one.

We had the assertions made by a colleague.
I did ask about it.
He did answer other colleagues posts.
I did ask again.
He did ignore my question and did ask of me questions.
I did answer his questions and did pose mine again.
I did offer to not seek an answer if one was not to be forth coming.
He did offer vague references to support his assertions.
@Steven H Smith and I did find the actual references (one not even being from the named person)
These references did not speak to the topic, or did not speak to the same time period, or in one case might possibly or not have applied to the topic.
I did offer detailed counter-information, after first asking if it was OK to offer in Russian langauage.
I did receive no acknowledgement of the proposal of an alternate view of the issue in the light of the fore going, but instead an offer "to agree to disagree" wrapped inside venomous and hostile national-based rhetoric about what "the Russians themselves say or think" (repeated twice), combined with irrelelvant and negative comments about the modern era and an accusation that that despite my extensive repsonses that I was "ignoring" the points made by the other colleague.
Then I did drop the matter.

What more could you ask of me in the way of politeness of a discourse ?

If my style of writing is gratting up on you, I do apologize. I will never write this language correctly. Clearly I can not write a book in English or French and I do know nothing more than copy/paste of things that every Russian writer did already know.

- un ami

Shane Devries, who appointed you row monitor? Kev wants to end discussion, indeed!

I find your so called ‘advice' offensive in the extreme. You embarrass yourself.

Mon ami, thank you very much for providing the information in this new topic. I would be quite happy to see a new thread on Russian artillery of the period. Perhaps it would be OK with Shane if you posted it on the Napoleonic History board rather than on this board. <;^}

Steve

@Lest We Forget & @von Winterfeldt

I do thank you "au fond de mon coeur" for your kind comments.

It is frustrating some times that we are all not born before the fall of the tower of Babel. It is even more sad to see strings of national- or ethnoc-based rhetoric. I see it so often in Russia, and it does break my heart.

We are all children of our fathers and our times. The lessons of a life time are un-learned only slowly, one supposes.

I did mostly live in the campagnes against the extremists Musslemens. The few times my compagnie did train for a mission against NATO, it seemed to me to be of the madness incarnate.

I do see Russia and the West as allies now as we were in the war against the fascistes. If the same in no other way, at least faced with the same ennemi.

I do have myself every admiration for the many fine points of the history and culture and technology and peoples of the West, even if I am myself only a half-wild savage raised by wolves in an happily forgotten remote province, as "ma femme" will remind me.

Still, there is a pride in one's nation. This can not be over played by even a half-civilised man, or to go beyond the bounds of reason and accuracy. But when there is repeated errors made, and when these are wrapped in a hostile national-based rhetoric, I do not think it over steps of the bound of a politeness to at least respond with more accurate infos.

Again, please do accept my thanks for your kindness,

- votre ami

@Steven H Smith

Did I not post in the correct category ?

It is not a surprise. I do not really understand why they are different and the "Cross-post" is just an additional confusion.

I do apologize. I do try to avoid a "New Topic". It is only that if a discussion of so complexte a topic as the sights did have his time, I did not think it best to mix all these many many detailes in some other discussion.

- votre ami

Un ami,

Please understand, I have no fight with you nor do I wish to, I do respect greatly the data and links you present to us nearly everyday. I have learned a great deal from you and hope to continue that, I in no way wish to discourage you.

However, with Kevin you are beginning to push too much, Kevin has already stated he does not agree with you and will not change his mind, accept that and respect that. Be a bigger man than hollins could be and agree to disagree with Kevin. You don't need this bickering here and neither do we all, if you do push him your stifle counter will start to go up, believe me…As much as we all say the stifle counter does not worry us, I am not surprised how often it is brought up and talked about. Try to avoid this as much as you can.

I know for you being Russian you might perceive that western Europeans and Americans might see your history and military technology as poorer or at a lower level or not at the same level as the rest of the modern world. Don't worry about it, the Russians accounted for themselves very well in every war I have ever seen them in and read about. Well, we can leave out Tsushima Straits of course but you know what I mean. If the perception out there is that Russia is technically inferior or behind and you don't believe it and want to chance this perception then state your facts and evidence and even write a book to explain it more fully, mate you really need to do this for not just yourself but for all of us also so we can learn and make our own minds up.

Trying to force an issue with Kevin is not the way to go, it will only make you enemies and you will lose some popularity and a few stifles along with it. Write a book, do it now and publish it with every piece of information and data you can find on the Russian army, the rest of the world is screaming for a book such as this to be written, trust me.

Arguing on TMP will not get you anywhere as to be honest it does not mean a darn thing outside of this forum in the long run. You need to get yourself published and earn the respect you so deserve, but drop the impatient demands for Kevin to answer you, he does not agree with you and that is it, leave it alone. We don't need another argument here on TMP, its a constant war atm and needs to stop.

Regards,
Shane

Mon ami,

You did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING wrong.

Shane is way off base with his comments.

Within the next few days I will again have access to some of my period Russian artillery materials. I will start posting again on this topic.

Steve

>>>>I find your so called ‘advice' offensive in the extreme. You embarrass yourself.<<<<

Steve, do us all a favour mate, talk a long walk of a short peer…

who made you thread moderator? typical of one such as you, you embarrass yourself constantly with your nastiness constantly. If I wish to voice my opinions I will it is up to Votre if he heeds it or not.

Shane

take*

off*

LOL!!!!!

pier*

LOL!!!!

hijack the thread steve, you are doing an awesome job mate.

Keep fanning, Shane, keep fanning! Faster! Faster!

LOL!!!!!

@Shane

"the Russians accounted for themselves very well in every war I have ever seen them in and read about"
The campagnes in the Afghan lands were really not too well done, I may assure you. Really, not good at all.

I will be care full not to ask @Kevin F Kiley to either support his assertions with actual infos nor offer to him counter-infos, for I do see that this is not really going to make too much of a good result, no matter how much politeness and detail and accuracy I do try to use.

There are many colleagues who will write with questions, and it is most rewarding to try to give of a good answer in any case.

I thank you for your ideas.

- votre ami

Steve, you really are a waste of time, you might wanna get out and sniff some fresh air mate, you seem to be going a little weird.

Votre,

Well said, you will do much better this way, I am sorry to have hijacked the thread with my sudden and totally uncalled for dispute with Steve, I have no fight with you whatsoever. Steve obviously has no idea and is impulsive and volatile to say the least.

Write that book Votre, it will be the best thing you ever did.

Regards,
Shane

Shane,

I think 'un ami' was giving you the Mick, mate!

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Steve

lol,

steve you read things that are not there into everything, you sure you don't have some problem you need to share with us or a doctor?

and whats with all the, LOL!!!!!

you are looking really silly, sad really.

It seems a sensible course to take, unless the sensation of punching blancmange actually appeals.

@Shane Devries

Please Sir, try to understand which crucial problems (hint: methodology or lack of) Un Ami addreses in his posts and get a feeling how ridiculous statements like "Trying to force an issue with Kevin is not the way to go, it will only make you enemies and you will lose some popularity and a few stifles along with it." are.

Best Regards

Ulenspiegel

Symbiotic Relationship,

The band or the dessert?

How is "Once there were Teutons" coming along?

Sincerely,

Steve

I don't believe pushing fellow posters impatiently for answers is polite, or the way to behave here. I merely pointed this out to Votre, he did not take offense at it and neither should you. I was trying to be constructive, that is it, plain and simple.

Just one point, Ami, which may well be simply linguistic:
"This question has been discussed back to the time when Gribeauval did propose his hausse sight." The Hausse sight existed long before Gribeauval and is shown in the Austrian 1767 Okonomie drawings. It is another false claim by Kiley to say G "invented" it and something that brief research would have sorted out.

Steve is right and I am afraiud, Shane, fopr all his "moderation" is wrong – you cannot allow people to get away with an ssertion. Of course, no-one expects an instant answer as it can take a while to track down the source or indeed realise that you may have made an error. Kiley however will make an assertion REPEATEDLY and then run away (often to Amazon to trash well-researched work), while demanding that we "agree to disagree". It is a nonsense as we don't get to the truth as there are not two versions of any fact – but then, up pops Kiley making the same claims again. I suggest Shane, that the only "big men" are the ones, who will either justify what they say or admit they are wrong – the little men tend to be those, who make things up and claim to use original material, when copying third hand claims.

Just one point, Ami, which may well be simply linguistic:
"This question has been discussed back to the time when Gribeauval did propose his hausse sight." The Hausse sight existed long before Gribeauval and is shown in the Austrian 1767 Okonomie drawings. It is another false claim by Kiley to say G "invented" it and something that brief research would have sorted out.

Steve is right and I am afraid, Shane, fopr all his "moderation" is wrong – you cannot allow people to get away with an ssertion. Of course, no-one expects an instant answer as it can take a while to track down the source or indeed realise that you may have made an error. Kiley however will make an assertion REPEATEDLY and then run away (often to Amazon to trash well-researched work), while demanding that we "agree to disagree". It is a nonsense as we don't get to the truth as there are not two versions of any fact – but then, up pops Kiley making the same claims again. I suggest Shane, that the only "big men" are the ones, who will either justify what they say or admit they are wrong – the little men tend to be those, who make things up and claim to use original material, when copying third hand claims.

I am still – four years later – waiting to hear why Kevin has listed a whole series of German works about the Austrian artillery, when he has not been near any of them, and has made up he contents of Gribeauval's report, when the text ahs been in print for 100 years. As my own works have had the Kiley hatchet job claiming that I have not used the proper sources and am thus "unreliable/to be used with care", I think we might hear an answer.

un ami

in case you want to concentrate to communicate with those who are interested in your opinion and don't want to read the messages of people who do just personal attacks or flaming, you can stifle them, I did – and my mind is at ease.
Otherwise you get detracted into a fruitless war of attrition which will absorb a lot of your precious time and prevent you to provide more of the wonderfull information you already did.

Dear Un Ami
Again thank you for the insights into the Russian Army and Artillery. It has been instructional. Also it has closed the loop. There are many little bits that now make a great deal of sense. Talk to those with an open mind and not those who state and by repeating the mantra convince themselves it is true.

Stephen

Un Ami,

A very simple question: Could the Russian sights be kept on the gun tube when the piece was fired? The information in the Zhmodikov's book state that they could not.

French sights, which were much more simple and sturdy, could. That one fact makes them superior. French sights were not affected by (1) uneven ground or (2) the wind. All three problems affected one or both of the Russian sights during the period. Again, that makes the simple French adjustable sight more practical and easier to use.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Dear Un Ami
The problems given about would also affect the Hausse site as it works upon the same principle. It is all about triangulation the upon the point of the muzzle to determine the elevation. Upon level ground this could be taken from the position of the Rechsmachine under the barrel. I was under the impression that the M1802 Markevich site was fixed rather than removed. The M1811 (Un Ami has it as 1808) Kabanov site had correction for uneven ground that neither the M1802 Markevich or Gribeauval Hausse site had.

The M1802 Markevich and the cruder Hausse site are like the sites on most bold action rifles.

They were certainly more accurate than the quarter sites upon British Guns.

If the trail was uphill then the angle to the ground would be the same but that to the horizontal would of course be less. The latter is the most important for range of course.

Wind when firing subsonic shot of course has a great influence. This is true today with the complex corrections required to know wind speed and directions.

Stephen

@summerfield

I do hesitate to write. I hope that I do cause no offense.

Yes, the geometric errors of the Gribeauval sight are discussed in some detail in the essai of the capitaine Delobel.
Gis introdcutory comments (in the 1ère parte of the same essai, at the same link, but page 202) include the endorsement of another writer's verdict that the French under Napoléon could shoot well by long experience, and that they really did not use the sight Gribeauval at all, for if they did in most cases they would just miss their targets. There is also discussion along the same linges attributed to a French Artillerie Commmission of 1835.

The correct dates are Markevich : designed 1799, fully provisioned to the compagnies 1802
Karbanov : designed 1808, fully provisioned to the compagnies 1811, modified for ultra-high angle (ground+pièce) Kavkaz mountain use 1818

The Markevich (whole) and the base of the Karabanov did stay on the pièce, geld by three screws (it is in the pictures at the links I did provide). I think it is clear even in the picture that no part of the Markevich did come away without removing the screws and it did thus stay up on the pièce in the firing. The hanging part of the Karbanov would be pulled before firing. With all the other motions and actions to load, aim and fire a pièce, it seems not a complete tragedy to pull the hanging part of the Karbanov after the gun is aimed.
As both were available for each pièce, one could change them with the 3 screws, depending on the situation of the day.

The degree to which these were better than than Gribeauval and the remaining imperfections are described in detail at the link I did provide. It is no surprise that the exemples of the Gribeauval sight were in the hands of these designers, and they did make of an improvement. It is not such as the Gribeauval sight was some secret unknown in Russia at the time.

These are questions of some detailes and complextity. It is likely a poor choice to rely up on some modern general survey of "all the Russian Army" or some such for these questions, if they are to be addressed with the best accuracy. The probleme for anglo-phone is that much or all of the better materials are not in your language, both for Frenches and Russians and especially for Russians before the Crimea era.

Again, I do hope most sincerely that I have not some how managed to make of an offense. If I have offended any one of the colleagues by offering these simple infos, I do apologize in advance.

- votre ami

Dear Votre Ami
Clarifications are always welcome. The design dates and the fully in service dates are important and I will have to revise my notes upon this for my next book. As you realise I am very interested in the Russian Artillery. I have access to the M1805 plans now. It would be interesting to look at the M1799 (Tsar Paul) and the M1756 plans to see changes.

Certainly you have given me much thought to go back to a project that I left about a decade ago. Very little good information is available upon the Russian Army in the west. This has been caused by the distrust, different script and lack of bilingual historians. The prejudice alas you have suffered upon the boards here.

I am very interested in you comments and corrections. I do not take offence at you polite and considerate manner. If someone can explain why I may be mistaken then that is great prized. Those that keep saying I am wrong and in error without giving me an idea of where they are getting the data from are frustrating. Wilson is extremely opinionated. People should use his words with a thought upon the audience.

Stephen

The frustrating data might be like this: "That one fact makes them superior. French sights were not affected by (1) uneven ground" – erm, except that if the axle is not level, then the fixed sight will not be either! (This claim comes from the same supporter of the idea that G invented both the Hausse sight and the fixed slot. Oh dear!

Dear Dave
This is what I had clumsily put in a previous post. Whether one was better than another would need to be tested out using the various devices rather than just quoting partizan essays saying that one countries version was better. Certainly the Markevich sight was more intricate and would suggest to be more accurate than the Hausse sight. Then does it have to be.

If you are wanting to correct for the lay of the ground you would use the trusty Artillery tangent.

Stephen

Dear Un Ami,
Russian sources should be as valuable, respected, and pertinent as any other country's. Especially, when Russians are writing about their own history. There is unfortunately an arrogance or close-minded attitude by certain people that if it is not written "in my native tongue" then it is suspect. I will now quote a story that best exemplifies this attitude…"In the 1920-30s (I don't remember the exact date) some academics wanted to introduce foreign languages to children in Texas Public schools. The governor, "Ma Ferguson", vetoed the idea and made this comment…"If English was good enough for Jesus Christ, then it is good enough for the school kids of Texas!" I am sure that some will debate the accuracy of the quote, but the sentiment is what is pertinent. That is.. "If I can't speak it then its value is diminished".

The information and knowledge you have provided and I hope you continue to provide has been invaluable…. don't despair, and carry on knowing that you are supported.

Signed:
A Texan (that at least studied foreign languages in school)

Miriam Amanda Wallace Ferguson, the second female govenor in the United States, got her nickname "Ma" partly because "M.A." were her initials. Miriam Ferguson, along with a few other people, have been attributed with this quote. She was an educated woman and fairly well-read, so it is somewhat unlikely that she actually ever uttered those words. There are also variations of these words going back to 1881, that were often used to ridicule the backwardness of various unnamed Christians, which strengthens the argument that the attribution to "Ma" Ferguson is incorrect.

Steve

Cher un ami

you wrote:

Yes, the geometric errors of the Gribeauval sight are discussed in some detail in the essai of the capitaine Delobel.
Gis introdcutory comments (in the 1ère parte of the same essai, at the same link, but page 202) include the endorsement of another writer's verdict that the French under Napoléon could shoot well by long experience, and that they really did not use the sight Gribeauval at all, for if they did in most cases they would just miss their targets. There is also discussion along the same linges attributed to a French Artillerie Commmission of 1835."

Thanks again for providing all this information and more thought provoking information.

Un Ami,

PLEASE! Continue to provide us with the excellent info you have. If others want to stick their heads in the sand and ignore, let them! After all, much of what we know about the French was written by the French, so keep it coming! I am especially interested in artillery so what you have provided so far is superb.

Steve – when you post your artillery manuals, would you please copy them to the Drill Manuals Thread as well if you can? I can't read Russian, but I have a bright friend (for an Aggie) who can translate for the price of lunch and some painted figures.

@summerfield

"Whether one was better than another would need to be tested out using the various devices rather than just quoting partizan essays saying that one countries version was better"

Yes, I think it this is true. Also, as is pointed out in great detail in the essai by Bru (at the first link I did give), there are two forms of investigation of the question:
arithmetic analysis and live-firing tests.

The second essai, for example, does calculate the inherent error of the Gribeauval sight for various topologies of elevation, ground slope (2 vectors) and range.

But then in the first essai, we read that the French marine artillerie scholl did many live-fire tests (after the Napoléon era) and did find that all the errors in aiming not due to the sight caused a variation of greater size than the difference between all the sights tested.

In any case, it is clear : under most conditions of normal range in a battle, the sights were neither needed nor used. So, a difference in sights, although of some interest, should not be too much in a war game.

For the field artillerie of the TSAR Paul era, I will confess to have less infos. I do play Frenches and my "minis" are for the the later 6 compagnie organisation.

I will then say a few impressions, but while only in the contexte of waiting for other colleagues to share better infos.

The pièces :
These are really much the same as for the systeme of 1805 year. However, the variation between the arsenaux and from one pièce to an other was greater. Vent boring slightly different. Gribeauval type sights, and others imported from germano-phones
The compagnies :
The same number of guns and types
The équipments of the train:
Some carriages heavier. The carriages and all of the items more diverse, fewer common parts, more variation vs. the standard designs. The error of the the attempt to replace the Petrine troika caisson with a 4 horse / 4 wheel model
The quantity:
Very high compared to other nations
Mobility:
Rather good : good horses, sufficient supply of these, loadings not too heavy per an horse
The training :
Good structures or concepts for training, but with less than perfectly careful implementation. Likely effected the less than average officiers , but not those who did more striving for a good performance of their duties
The organisation :
The error of having the 6-pounder compagnies in the régiments of infanterie. The lack of more or less permanent brigades and the more or less permanent assignments of brigades to more or less permanent divisions. The orgiansation likely the greatest weakness (also of the infanterie and cavalerie)
The doctrine and command structure :
I do not have much of an impression. May be about the same as other nations. Practise of "saving the pièces" very common. Emphasis on prepared positions and field works (true later also).

The probleme of the TSAR Paul era is all the initiatives at changes, some very good and some not too good, and that the reign was short and many changes not completed. One thing will be that the compliance of plans/ordres vs. actions, accuracy, use-fullness and regular-ness in reports, and lowering of petit small scale corruption was already in a path of improvements, but such changes in the culture of an Army do not occur at once.

- votre ami

Dear Un Ami
I need to go back to the essays. I had skipped them. You comments upon the Tsar Paul Artillery is useful. I will sit down later in the week to think about this.

Stephen

Dear Mr. Smith,
Whether "Ma Ferguson" uttered the quote or not is probably of little consequence…. my father told that story for 60+ years and I loved him so I never questioned (but did suspect). I only used it for the humor while trying to convince Un Ami that his input is valued and important to many of us. Especially, those of us that do not have the skills to effectively scan Russian (or other non-English) websites. That is where you also provide an excellent service that is appreciated! Just as an afterthought do you know why "Ma" got to be governor twice? Because her husband took bribes and was barred from public office. Also, her campaign slogan was "Two for the price of one"….hmmmm….sounds familiar.

Anyway, keep finding the online books and websites. You and Un Ami are appreciated.

All tangent sights (hausse being the French in this context)that were fixed rather than floating, only gave correct elevation when the trunnions were/axle was horizontal. Those on Gribeauval's pieces are no exception.

The Russian Kabanov sight was a pendulum hausse – apparently the first ever devised – which kept the sight vertical and was the solution to the problem. That was a real improvement. Ironically, the pendulum hausse was actually called the Russian hausse in the US service by the mid-19th century. (Gibbon – Artillerists' Manual 1860 p326).

So not only did G not invent the hausse sight, but it was outdated by the Nap period!

@Dave Hollins

"Those on Gribeauval's pieces are no exception."
No, of course not an exception. It is a simple geometry. The Markevich design tried to use the marks to make an approx. correction, but it is a basic geometry probleme.
But the other problems of the Gribeauval were more general, for in many cases its geomentry did give a false line of aiming. These could be corrected with an algebra (the essai in the second link above does describe these problems and give an example of the arithmetik correction). But no one did really do these calculations in the field unless an idiote savante. Also the problem of elevation limited.

But still, the Karbanov sight, the hanging part had to pulled from the pièce for the firing, which is not so great.
But then also, both sights Karbanov and Markevich were provisioned to the Russian artillerie.
But then also even more, the whole importance of sights was may be not too great any way -- but may be more important by 1860, when ranges were greater in battles ? (I do not know – 1860 is too modern for a past time for me, I do admit)

And but most of all, the Frenches did make their fires very very well – even if in a spite of the sights. They were great veterans by the era of Napoléon, from the wars of the révolution. And did not lose any practise under the Empire !

So for a war game, +1 to hit for veterans for Frenches may be OK for the Napoléon era, as even a few survivors of the campagne of 1812 year would be enough to provide the few men needed to aim the pièces. May be for Russians also by 1813 or 1814 years, as they did have a great practise by then also (and sure, one can also say sights that were also OK, if one did want to use them some times).

- votre ami

Came across this while looking for something else:

Tanski. Tableau statistique, politique et moral du système militaire de la Russie. 1833:

link

Looking at the source given for the continued disagreement over sights, it appears to me that it agrees with what Un Ami has posted.

Could the Russian sights be kept on the gun tube when the piece was fired? The information in the Zhmodikov's book state that they could not.

The Zhmodikovs' book described both the Markevich and Kabanov sights in brief on v2, p57. There is no statement that the Markevich sight needed to be removed, but it does discuss the need to supplement the sight with the use of a quadrant when a piece was placed on uneven ground – a statement that is essentially identical to what Un Ami has written. Regarding the Kabanov sight, the Zhmodikovs note that "it was difficult to use in a strong wind, and it had to be removed before each shot". Again, this is identical, if less specific, than what Un Ami has said. With the information Un Ami has provided, it is clear that the sight consisted of two parts, one that remained fixed to the gun and the dangling pendulum part that had to be removed before firing. The "IT" mentioned by the Zhmodikovs is plainly the pendulum.

The Zhmodikovs even include a story by an artillerist receiving training with his unit saying that he was told that at closer ranges the sights are irrelevant, that he should just sight down the barrel – something that also agrees with what Un Ami has posted.

So it seems that Un Ami's sources are in agreement with Kevin's sources on the issue of sights.

Thanks to Un Ami for providing additional details to expand upon the single paragraph in the Zhmodikovs' book regarding sights. The pictures are very helpful.

For what it's worth – and I'm aware this is a day or so too late – I've always found "un ami" to be among the most informed, informative, and courteous of contributors. With regard to Artillery (or "Artillerie"; I know the initial post would be from "un ami" even before opening it), all I know about it is, like Cavalry (Cavalerie!) it takes longer to paint than Infantry (Infanterie…) and I can never use it effectively in a game.

Carnot93,

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

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!

keep the internet free of arrogance and self righteousness !!

Shane,

I did not intend for you to leave the TMP Forum. If that is your decision, so be it.

Sincerely,

Steve