"giving more range to arty by putting them on elevation?" Topic

I'm reading the GDB rules. and they say nothing about givig more range to arty by placing them on a hill.

but would it be realistic to do that.

like 1cm more range for every cm the gun is elevated?

Would any of our more knowledgeable artillery buffs care to tell us how firing downhill affects ballistic performance, bouncing etc.?

"like 1cm more range for every cm the gun is elevated?" Depends on how your model hill height relates to the horizontal ground scale.

Quite the contrary, I would think. If you're firing "down" at something, then you're going to drastically curtail the bounce-through of the ball, which is the real killing-power of the gun.

The greater the difference in elevation between target and firer, I'd say the *lower* the effectiveness of the fire. (Excepting howitzers, and canister, of course.)

As far as I know the benefits of being on elevated ground are about being able to fire over things not further

Think it through…a shell fired at a certain elevation will drop to the earth at a certain distance. Elevate the tube now and the shell fired at a certain elevation will drop to the earth farther away. Extra distance is dependant on how "high" the tube now is from the lower level.

You've basically extended the downside of the falling shell from it's high point. Not a lot, but some. More likely "guns" get more range than "howitzers" due to their inability to fire at high elevations.

Dan

[Think it through…a shell fired at a certain elevation will drop to the earth at a certain distance. Elevate the tube now and the shell fired at a certain elevation will drop to the earth farther away. Extra distance is dependant on how "high" the tube now is from the lower level.]

But it will drop at a steeper angle, and thus bounce a lot less.

Most of the killing isn't done by where the ball lands. It's done by how far the ball bounces.

I'd say that the major advantage of being on high ground is to see more!

>"Most of the killing isn't done by where the ball lands. It's done by how far the ball bounces."<

True of solid shot, but not of shell; cannister, maybe, maybe not.

Well i wouldnt have thought you would have needed to extend the range of cannister-although I suppose an elevated firing position may allow the lower section of cone of fire to hit targets as distinct from burying itself in the ground but the upper sections must then fly over the target.
Again the additional angle of descent of a roundshot fired from an elevated position must have reduced the effective "grazing" that they liked to achieve

So on a hill, more range but less effect (at the new long range)?

OK, I will try to say how I see it without equations !

First, the arc of the flight of the ball is not a perfect parabola. If the pièce is elevated, the flight of the round is less steep leaving the gun and more steep falling to earth.

Because of this, if one makes the fires from an elevation of some metres high, there will be rather little gain in range for a given elevation of the pièce and less and less increase in range as the falling of the round becomes more and more steep.

It will become at some point so steep that there is no ricochet and the useful range of the firing of a ball (including the bounces) is actually reduced.

Mext is the question of the aiming, and the sights. These will not allow you to aim the fires if you have some combinations of height and distance, depending on the sights of each nation and the limits of elevation and depression for the carraiges.

Firing of guns, licornes and howitsers was by line of sight, not by fire and correction, as in an indirect fire, as there were no observers or communications and even to see the fall of shot was not too sure.

A height will be good to occupy to shoot with poor aim, with a case shot or incendiary rounds, and with a mortar. Here the target is an area more than a point. Also, the height will allow one to clear a wall or some such, and some times to gain a line of sight over a little hill in between.

A good thing for the height is for defense, if the slope is such that one can still firing down it OK. The uphill will be a problem for the attackers to tire up on if they come by foot or horse, and will slow them , to give you more fires in defense. Also, at some combinations of disance and height, some ennemi artillerie may be not able to fire up the hill at you. Even if the guns of the ennemi will bear, it will be harder to get a good ricochet at you. Also, your caissons, horses, etc. and your supports can be placed en defilade.

- un ami

Dan Cyr
''Elevate the tube now and the shell fired at a certain elevation will drop to the earth farther away. Extra distance is dependant on how "high" the tube now is from the lower level''.

You're talking about adding a few yards to maximum range. But the effect of guns at absolute maximun range, is too innacurate to make it worth measuring on a gaming table anyway. Especially as the extra distance means greater innacuracy.

eedeldeedelddiF Two Regnifs 22 Feb 2008 12:53 p.m.
''If you're firing "down" at something, then you're going to drastically curtail the bounce-through of the ball, which is the real killing-power of the gun.''

What's more, it's nearly impossible to 'fire down' at anything. The shot will just roll out the barrel!

Of course, you actually have to fire either horisontally or up. And then means, that at most mid-ranges, your shot's having to travel further to get to the same target as a piece on the ground. And is thus more innacurate.

un ami
''if the slope is such that one can still firing down it OK.''

This firing 'down' again! Lots of stories of soldiers advancing under guns that couldn't depress.

@Cacadores

I meant as opposed to a cliff – that is a height so not high as to not not make firing a cannister of no use.

You excuse me then for a clumsey way of expressing it in English ?

Although Russian licornes (which did fire normally a case shot or a cannister) did depress 3 degrees, with the friction of the prepared round + charge enoght to hold in place.

- un ami

Un ami et al,

As a raw newbie in terms of artillery and arcs, how did the gunners fire downhill without the blasted ball falling out? I understand that cannister (grape and case) and shell could be "wadded" in by its non-spherical design, but is roundshot a different story? It's probably really obvious, but no one has told me before.

And if they couldn't fire downhill, i.e. at a depressed arc, then was there a minimum range at which the arc of the ball wouldn't hit anything because it was too close and too low?

kevin in albuquerque

Well, I'd guess that if one gains a few hundred feet (or yards) firing from a height, and an enemy battery firing back loses a few hundred feet (or yards) firing up hill at you, then you are the winner (smile).

As for firing "down" at a target, one would still be firing either level, or up just to get the shot a certain distance. If the target was so close that one had to aim the cannon "down", I'd suggest that the terrain would be hiding the target anyway.

Dan

>>>>This firing 'down' again! Lots of stories of soldiers advancing under guns that couldn't depress.<<<<

Excellent point cacadore, in the set of rules I developed we show this. The hill itself if high enough (2 contours or more) creates a "Dead" ground distance from the gun barrels out to a distance calculated via a simple formula we have. So if an enemy figures this out he can try to march his men, "under the guns" and into a relatively safe zone against roundshot at least. Enemy canister fire will still have an effect but is reduced due again to the inability of the guns to depress under a certain range.

Good topic, to bring up.

Regards,
Shane

@Kevin in Albuquerque

OK, first a focus : we will talk about the line of the bore (which may angled in the pièce, and the pièce or carriage may make the mount not level, and the ground might not be level). Let the line of the bore be level to the earth for our focus.

Here are nice pictures of the rounds:
link

You will see that they are made up with the ball or case chot or cannister plus the charge and some other itmes. If you can read Russian language, all the better, as you will see the weight of the various parts.

If we have the line of the nore depressed vs. the earth a little, the friction of the parts of the made up round will stop it from falling out, or even moving. If we continue to depress the pièce, even before he falls out he will move so as not to be seated in the base of the bore, in the firing chamber, which will be enough bad.

Despite some wild ideas, usually taken from looking at the line of the pièce or some such instead of the actual line of the bore, I will assure you up on my honour that if the line of the bore is level to the ground, then a ball or case shot will begin to fall below the mouth of the pièce as soon as it clears the mouth. Even if there is an elevation of the line of the bore relative to the ground, the ball or case shot will still fall, relative to the centerline drawn out from the bore. Here one will see a gravity.

The guns were not too tall, the mouth for field pièces less than an height of a man. If the bore is level with the ground, and the ground itself level, you will always have it then not being too high to hit a man.

- votre ami

Artillery also has to think about where it is situated as a target. This may even be the most important thing to consider.

I would think they would want to avoid hilltops as it makes them easier to see and therefore target. Likewise, they'd seek to avoid low, flat ground because it would generate too much roll ground for incoming artillery shells.

Defensively, the best place would be to be halfway up a hill but then you'd have trouble finding flat ground.

At least on high ground you could take your ammunition, caissons, and horses back behind and potentially out of the target area.

Two equal batteries, one on high ground and one on low ground. Which would be the first to redeploy?

Everything I have read about artillery says artillery ideally situated itself on a gentle rise, some elevation but low enough to be able to use the "bounce" or skimming effect upon infantry, its best target.

As malcolmmccallum said, they do need to take defense into consideration, also. The top of a hill might be good, defensively and it would be able to see targets, but the "bounce" would be lost.

My opinion.
Flat trajectory weapons would gain some small advantage in range because of less arc on the tail end of the trajectory, although arc increases with range. The damage effect would be a little less for the reasons stated above.
Mortars would have almost no addtional range due to the steep terminal trajectory. The shell just falls from a greater height, it doesn't land farther away.
As for counter battery fire against artillery emplaced on a low hill, that is a huge advantage to the elevated battery. Under shots often don't bounce and if they do, they bounce over. Overs hit air and do no damage. If you don't make a direct hit on the gun, you do no collateral damage.
As for deploying on high hills and extreme gun depression, the ball would not roll out of the barrel, but there could be a problem because the recoil of the gun would be directed upward and the piece would hop.

Calling Hollins, Kiley and Smith!
Calling Hollins, Kiley and Smith!
Calling Hollins, Kiley and Smith!

Come in Please…………

No, thank you. At least not yet. I am enjoying this thread and perhaps it is best to leave it be.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Other than increasing vision, height has no positive effect on effective range of artillery fire.

Cannister effective range is not going to be noticably affected, because the operative factors are loss of velocity – after a certain distance, the balls aren't going fast enough to cause disabling wounds – and dispersion – after a certain distance, the balls are so spread out that you don't get many hits anyway and might as well fire ball.

Shell (and shrapnel) range is based on how long the fuse would burn. Most howitzers could alread throw a shell farther than the fuse allowed anyway.

And with ball, combat ranges were more limited by line of sight than by the maximum range of the piece. If you can't see 'em, you aren't likely to hit 'em. and you can't tell if you're hitting 'em or not!

Another factor to remember is that ranging error increases with range, while danger space decreases with range (due to the increasing impact angle). Experiments later in the 19th Century showed that the average person with good eyesight can, with some training, estimate ranges to within +- 20%. Meaning that if the target was at 500 yards, extimates would range from 400-600 yards.

There is a difference between the absolute crest of a hill and the military crest of a hill. The latter is the highest line from which you can still fire at anyone coming up the slope.

So …. as I see it now, a battery is elevated by a matter of meters, not tens of them, allowing the flatest trajectory possible while still being able to fire over friendly troops at the base of the rise they are on. I would guess that artillery troops (or officers?) sufficiently trained would know the respective vertical arcs of fire for effectiveness. Indeed, as an enemy approached, they would go through ball then cannister, the decision being made by the artillery officer as a result of training and experience in order to determine when to switch. That sort of experience would also supposedly give them the information as to where any dead zones (if any) would be, and what action to take at that point. My guess would be the battery would resite, if not defended by foot infantry at the base of the rise, when enemy troops entered the dead zone.

Is it possible, with a concrete example, to judge if a dead zone exists? For arguements sake, imagine a battery on a rise of 15m with the base of the slope 100m in front of the battery. Further imagine an infantry unit deployed wide (in line) at that point. Using the very common rule of thumb (twice the distance from battery to friendly, thence to enemy) the "shadow" of the friendly infantry goes out to +/- 200m, beyond which the enemy is a fair target. Now, taking the example, delete the friendly unit. Question: where, if at all, would a downhill dead zone be?

Thanks for your patience, as my curiosity has been aroused.

Kevin in Albuquerque

With my system we have optional rules for siting guns by the battery commanders or higher.

As it would be obvious to realise ground is seldom ever totally flat, ground has natural undulations, or ripples due to typical earth forming via previous earthquakes and so on. Ground moves and forms rolling hills, slopes, ridge-lines, mountains and all manor of ground formations. When siting guns on the battery commander has to take into account line of sight and the lay of the land not only where the battery is to be placed but also throughout the line of sight to the proposed enemy anywhere up to and including the 1,000yds in front of the battery. It takes great skill to do this and if a poor spot is chosen the battery's fire can become less than effective let alone decisive.

So, as an optional rule I added a simple table for Battery commanders to roll once a potential spot is found to unlimber, the battery commander rolls as they come to the spot before the guns are placed. If successful the battery commander has chosen a perfect place to unlimber and begin firing (no negatives to battery performance). If however he fails the worse he fails by the worse the spot is. A quick look at the table will give an indication just how bad or poor the spot is and he must make a decision to unlimber anyway or not. The worse the spot the higher the negatives to his battery fire for the actual spot and the intervening ground towards any potential targets to the front of the battery.

To relocate and try again he must move on to another spot and roll once more at least 50yds in any other direction. He rolls again and so on…

The whole idea of this is to show the systematic problems caused by poor locations for siting and fire effectiveness due to unseen undulations in the ground that might be as little as just a few feet tall. These small ripples in the ground cannot be shown by terrain pieces on the table top but instead shown by a simple roll based on the spot chosen.

Not all people would enjoy the detail of this but it is very realistic and makes one very consious of setting up his batteries. The exact same formula is done for entire Grand Batteries as well.

Regards,
Shane

@Kevin in Albuquerque

OK, first, you will have a "unit" of infanterie ennemi – the smallest usual unit of infanterie will be a compagnie, near 100 men. Unless it is a large batterie, I am not sure it would stand all a lone and keep firing if a compagnie of ennemi did assault it, except if so ordered. If the ennemi did come fast and spread out en tirailleurs, I do not think too many will be hit by the fires (for how long will it take to run 200m, even up a hill ? 1 minute ?), so the artilleurs will need to defend the pièces at the end. If the batterie is small and of small calibre, these will be rather fewer men, and they might think it better to leave and seek a supported position.
Now, to your probleme:
The height from the chests of the men of the ennemi in the plain to the centerline of the bore is about 15m. This is (i) less than the radius of concussion of a case shot and (ii) less than the spread of little balls from a cannister round at 200m.
It is possible that a some point near to the gun the artilleurs can not cut the fuze of the case shot any shorter. I do not know where this will be. There were quick matches that Russians did have that did burn qucker than fuzes, but I do not know if there was some extra-extra close range where even these could not be used.
The radius of the spread of the little balls of a cannister is less as one nears the gun, but the ennemi will be mounting the hill by then. So I do not think that there is a point where they are safe, except may be by crawling or some such just in front of the gun (less than 15m). By then the artilleurs will be using the rammers and their briquets and muskets in any case.
At 300m, one would not shoot ball at infanterie, especially if in ligne or en tirailleurs. but you will may be want to ask about the ball in any case ?
Out at about 350m,, the target lies at -2.5 degrees elevation to the guns. Russian gund and licornes coul ddepress this much. I do not know about other nations from memoire.
At 200m, the target lies at a -4.3 degrees elevation to the guns. Russian licornes did depress this much, juste, but not the guns. I do not know if others nations could do this.
At the base of the hill, and thereafter as the target mounts the hill, the target lies a at -8.6 degrees elevation to the guns. As the target moved from 200m to the base of the hill at 100m from the guns, the elevation would change from -4.3 to -8.6 degrees.
If one supposes that the strange situation was that the batterie was ordered to stand, and did not have case shot or cannister, they might try putting a rock under the trail for one more shot. But really, they are likely to go to their muskets.

-votre ami

@@Kevin in Albuquerque

I did leave your guns on the top of the hill. Because you did put them there.

If you had not left orders to the contrary, one might have at least backed them off the top in to a defilade position, which will lower them by about 1m.

One might also try to do some thing with the caissons and horses and other équipments to distract the ennemi, since your artilleurs have been ordered to die with their guns and will not be needing these too much in the future.

:-)

- votre ami

@Kevin in Albuquerque

Lastly, I notice that we first had infanterie on front and then did not. So we have been here on your hill of death for some time.

I think the first thing we would be doing is preparing firing position with 4 degrees countre-elevation for licornes and 6 degrees countre-elevation for guns, if we were Russians.

We would do this because of your reputation of heart-less-ness in ordering your artilleurs to stand without support, having seen an other compagnie in our brigade die at their pièces in this way.

Since we are Russians, we do quickly go to dig and make a field work for the pièces in any case. And cut trees or break buildings as may be needed to perfect a ligne of firing.

We might also ask if a Priest could be sent, to see to our Souls.

:-)

- votre ami

'Firing of guns, licornes and howitsers was by line of sight, not by fire and correction, as in an indirect fire, as there were no observers or communications and even to see the fall of shot was not too sure.'

Un Ami,

That is not exactly correct. The French when firing initially from a new battery position, usually attempted to have one round over, one round short, and the next on target. That is quite similar to the modern method of indirect fire registration and adjusting observed fires.

All artillery weapons of the Napoleonic period were direct fire weapons, no matter the elevation being used at the time. Fire had to be observed from the battery position.

There was a rudimentary form of using an aiming point and not the sights if the elevation was too high. If the piece is elevated to the point where the target cannot be seen from behind the breech when the piece is 'pointed' (aimed), then a false aiming point to the flank of the piece is used. That is quite similar to what is now employed (either aiming posts or a collimator), though in a very primitive stage during the period.

And although this is not relevant to the period, there was an interesting sight employed by the Federal artillery during the American Civil War, termed a 'French glass' which allowed the gun crews and battery commander to register targets for the battery before the battery was engaged. It allows targets to be registered within the battery and then in an emergency the piece would be turned to whatever registered target is necessary. Quite modern in concept, though it was time-consuming. It was used with great success on Cemetery Hill at the Battle of Gettysburg by a Federal battery.

Sincerely,
Kevin

@Kevin F Kiley

Thank you very much for giving the idea in better English. It was just as this that you did write, that I was trying to explain.

- un ami

Un Ami,

You're very welcome.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Un Ami,

I've been doing some looking here and there and found some information on French artillery schools during the period that you might find useful.

The French artillery curriculum for artillery officers was changed by Gribeauval to be more practical, though with the same emphasis on mathematics of various disciplines, drafting/mechanical drawing and so forth. Gribeauval also established formal schools for French artillery NCOs.

Each artillery regiment was also an artillery school so the number of officers that were produced was somewhat higher than you may have believed. During the Empire there were 11 artillery schools, designated as such in AN XI, by 1807 another had been added. Nine of the original were commanded by generals of brigade and two by colonels. La Fere was the Guard artillery school, famous for its annual artillery competition, and the other eleven were for the line artillery. Each school had 70 students. The quality of instruction was just as high as before the revolution as was the quality of the instructors.

As stated before, there were also enlisted men who were commissioned who had learned their trade in the ranks and were qualified to be artillery officers. I had already mentioned there had been a minor argument in the Guard about officers commissioned in this manner and Napoleon made the decision not only to allow them to keep their commissions, but to remain in the Guard artillery.

I have looked some more into the Russian artillery school in St. Petersburg, and I have found no evidence that it was in existence before 1821.

So, with that in mind, where did the Russian artillery officers, especially from 1801-1806 (or 1808) receive their formal artillery schooling? As a school-trained artillery officer myself, it really is a necessity, though I have served with excellent senior artillery SNCOs who were much more skilled than any artillery officer I ever knew.

Sincerely,
Kevin

@Kevin F Kiley

Do one did ever doubt that the Frenches officiers were well-trained in artllerie. The qustion was how was it done for so many new officiers needed.

"Each artillery regiment was also an artillery school so the number of officers that were produced was somewhat higher than you may have believed. During the Empire there were 11 artillery schools,"

Do you mean to say that in each régiment they did teach officier aspirants ? Or do you mean to say that there were 11 artillerie scholls in addition to the teaching in régiments ?

"I have looked some more into the Russian artillery school in St. Petersburg, and I have found no evidence that it was in existence before 1821."

Under the name Mikhailosky Artillerie University, yes 18120 or 1821. Upon prior names, as I did provide the links before. You may repeat errors many many times. Do you want me to act like a photocpyy machine and repeat corrections many many times ? Or so you think Russians are incapable of remembering your errors from one discussion to another, for brain damage due to heavy drinking may be ?

I do not think that politeness will a;low us to continue this beyond the "agree to dsiagree" that you did offer and I did accept.

- un ami

'Or so you think Russians are incapable of remembering your errors from one discussion to another, for brain damage due to heavy drinking may be ?'

Why would you say something so pejorative as that? That was a terrible thing to say and I have not treated you with anything but respect, though I do not agree with you in many areas regarding artillery. There is absolutely no reason to say something as that in a posting to anyone.

As to your question, the French artillery schools were co-l;cated with the regiments so as to be one and the same. In other words, they were in the same garrison as the artillery regiments were located.

I do think you should cool off some and remember that we're talking about history and nothing regarding nationalism or slighting anyone's country. If you believe that, then you're the only one in this discussion that is.

Sincerely,
Kevin

@Kevin F Kiley

You have NOT shown the politeness and respect for other peoples and nations one would expect of an officier of your nation, or any nation.

- You have on two occasions repeated that you do not care what "the Russians themselves say or think". This is an injurious and national-based negative rhetoric that one finds disgusting in the XXI century.
- You have on two occasions taken the "opportunity" of a discussion of the Napoléon era to introduce modern comparisons unfavorable to the Russian Army. This is a gratuity of ill-will, again will a negative national-based view.
- When shown, with links to fully available on-line source of good merit and careful sitations, the complete activity of the 2nd Cadet Corps and other institutions as an Artiilery Scholl (the curriculum, the graduates, the instructors, the years of foundation and activity, etc., etc.), you repeat, now twice, to have found "no evidence" of artillerie scholl for Russian officiers before 1821. This is a specific stain up on your honour, as you among few here can read the infos in Russian at the given links, and then you do report your "not finding" in English.
- You have twice mistaken the meaning of the texte in English of the Zhmodikov, with a negative view of the Russian Army thus resulting. The first time, on the suject of training, one should assume the best and that you were simply in error. When you did the same again on the sujct of optiks, then it is clearly will full, and thus again you dishonour yourself.
- You have, I am nearly sure, written in a condescending and ego-aggrandising tone to instruct others up on what would be good for them to do, to read this or that, and similar. I am glad my English is so poor that I can not be sure if you have dis-honoured your self with uncivil writings in this ilk.
- You have offered, and it was accepted, to leave a topic in a "we agree to disagree", and re-opened the same topic which a re-newed disagreement.

If you were in the régiment of my father or in my compagnie, I do not think the others officiers would allow you to dine with them.

- un ami

Calm down Un ami – Kevin is not attacking you at all. You however, do not like him not agreeing with you when you present evidence; you seem to think that because you provide your evidence, everyone must agree with you and the evidence. History shows this is not such a closed book and historians should not careful of any evidence and claims.

Agree to disagree and don't get hurt when another will not accept your evidence…

Shane,

I don't believe I've said anything against Un Ami or his country personally. If I believe modern Russian artillery equipment to be inefficient or subpar, that's a professional judgment from a qualified artilleryman, not an insult to the Russians. However, if Un Ami wishes to take it that way that is up to him. He is free to do as he chooses.

On the other hand, Un Ami has been quite insulting to me. First it was the demand to answer, and then believing that I had personally insulted him and his country. What he has said in this recent post is quite amazing. I had done neither, but perhaps he gets upset when he is disagreed with regarding Russia and its army. Completely understandable, but that isn't conducive to a constructive discussion.

Basically, it's merely a very large load of horse manure, to be blunt and remembering my days in the service.

Sincerely,
Kevin

@Kevin F Kiley

"If I believe modern Russian artillery equipment to be inefficient or subpar, that's a professional judgment from a qualified artilleryman"

- You now add twisting the comments of an other to your list of shames : you may have any opinion you wish of any thing , but to add a negative opinion that is not relevant to the topic under discussion (by a difference of 200 years) is indeed an insult, a sly and indirect insult, completely unworthy of an officier.

"he gets upset when he is disagreed with"
Perhaps you could refrain from answering a complaint not made ? You did teach me the meaning of "straw man". How you place him here. The complaint is not based on disagreeing, it is based on your hostile and dishonest conduct.

"Un Ami has been quite insulting to me"
An accurate appraisal of a dishonoured man can indeed be insulting to him. Your conduct has merited the insult.

@Shane Devries

Where have I even once made a complaint of disagreement or not accepting ?
Read what I did write, look again, please. What exactly did I list among the ways in which @Kevin F Kiley has written so as to earn of a complaint ?

"Agree to disagree"
Offered and accepted. Then here, in this discussion re-opened by @Kevin F Kiley. Such conduct is among my complaint.

Shane, dear colleague, I made 5 complaints specifically, plus one where my English does not permit me to be sure. I think the specific complaints are exempled and shown. I make no other complaint.

- un ami

@Kevin F Kiley

One might also add, since you do enjoy the modern comprisons it seems as much as you do:

Constantsie of government structure : USA 1787 -- Russia 1991 or 1998 or (not yet)
Constantsie of laws : USA ~1500 (English language common law) -- Russia (not yet)
Last major warfare on nation's soil : USA 1865 (plus later repression of indigènes) -- Russia 1944
Population : USA ~325 millions (with illegal residents) -- Russia ~140 million (a little more than 2/5 of USA)
GDP (PPP) : USA $13,9 trillion (21% of world) -- Russia $2,1 trillion (per USA CIA, about 1/7 of the USA)
Security Spending (2008) : USA ~ $1,000 USD billion (counting defense budget, war funding, intelligence agencies, defense pensions, etc. -- about 1/2 of Russian GDP and more than the whole rest of the world combined) -- Russia ?? ($32 billion is often quoted in the West, the actual amount for all security is not published, but is often estimated in the $100 USD billion range, or about 1/10 of USA)

If you can not make a better artillerie in the USA than in Russia, one would be quite surprised, especially in that you may co-operate in the development with the NATO Allies, the Isrealis, the ASEAN nations, etc.
Indeed, that there should be any comparison at all is to some degree flattering to a Russian. You would not, for instance, make much comment of the artillerie of the nation of Brazil, but they do stand near Russia in the ranking of GDP and population.

One supposes that making such comparison of USA vs. Russia or vs. Soviet Union (or NATO vs. Warsaw Pact) is for you a reflex, after the years of the Cold War. But that did end now long ago. It is as all most as much in the past as the era of Napoléon. There are Russians who also have the reflex to live in the past world. But not so much the younger people, silly as they may some times be. We must copy these young ones in this, if in nothing else, as to thus preserve the greatest respect and tolerance.

To confront the ennemi of both our nations in the current era, Russia and USA will need to learn new reflexes, one might think. And we both will likely continue to convert our artilleurs in infanterie légère and polices !

And it is most likely that the best ally that for each of Russian and the USA to have in the repression of the radicials Islamistes will be, in effect, each other. The memoire of the victims of Beslan and Moscow Theatre, and of 911 and Beirut Barracks demand this of us.

My membership here at the TMP today expires, and so allow me to now depart with wishing you, as "one pig-headed and ego-confident major of marines to another", only all the best that one can for your self, your work as an academicien, your family, your military, and your nation.

May the Good God grant his Mercy upon us, and Victoire to our armes !

Aleksandr Ivanovich P……..
Kapitan 3rd class, naval infanterie (retired)
Military Maritime Fleet of the Russian Federation

- votre ami

Un Ami … you are not going, are you? You are, with only the exception of two people's opinions, the most respected person on the Napoleonic board.

I for one would not want to lose your gentlemanly and thoughtful comments on many an argument here, where you have a wonderful talent to bring a new perspective to our ways of thinking.

Also, you help to see things from the Russian point-of-view, making me realise how often we in TMP are too anglo-, franco- and german-centric.

But unfortunately the poisonous nature of the Napoleonic history discussions, inspired by the tone set by the dreadful decade-long Kiley/Hollins dispute, has once again reared its ugly head.

I respectfully hope that we will see a lot more of your posts here, and that you will ignore those who have difficulty distinguishing the difference between debating and insulting.

PS: I would also miss your wonderful references to the thoughts/comments of Mrs Ami!

Let me second what Arteis has said. If you go, mon ami, who will be able to advise me when it comes closer to the time to pick out a kavkaz?

Regarding artillery--and acknowledging that there is may not be a direct comparison to the Napoleonic era--I have spent a day or two studying the capabilities and concepts of Soviet and Russian fire support from the Great Patriotic War onwards, including reading artillery manuals and professional journals in Russian. Moreover, I have spent a day or two attempting to portray--in praktik--those capabilities and concepts realistically in military training, in training simulations, and in exercises and simulations used in the development and selection of US weapon systems.

If there is one single thing that has become very clear to me, it is that those trained in Western principles and techniques of fire support have a very difficult time recognizing (first) that the two systems are in fact different, and (second) that neither is innately superior to the other. It is a significant cultural difference to overcome.

A second thing that has become very clear is that the same cultural divide makes it very different for Westerners to conduct research in military-techical Russian, even in translation. I cannot say if the same thing holds true for material written two centturies past, but modern Soviet and Russian military literature uses a very precise, scientific form of language, with a very precise, scientific vocabulary. A reader who has not yet absorbed the conceptual differences is bound to misinterpet the scientific-technical terminology at almost every turn.

Mon ami, I would hope that you choose to stay around and stay active. Your perspectives and insights are most valuable to help educate the rest of us.

Allen

[- You have on two occasions taken the "opportunity" of a discussion of the Napoléon era to introduce modern comparisons unfavorable to the Russian Army. This is a gratuity of ill-will, again will a negative national-based view.]

Don't despair! Somebody will get him started on the Germans in a few minutes.

(Ten bucks for the first reference to, "…when they hear a drumbeat…"

Boy did this thread go sideways.

Artillery firing from an elevated position will gain some distance and whether this distance is significant is dependent on your scale. The increase in distance is not great.

Remember if you fire a cannon ball parallel to the ground and drop one from the same height simultaniously, they will hit the ground at the same time.

You cannot site Napoleonic artillery on a steep incline (shooting down hill). All kinds of problems develop.

If you have too much drop, the ball does not bounce and looses much of its destructive potential. Just look at all the French artillery in the Peninsula. You would think those batteries would sweep the Brits from the field. In fact they often did not play a significant role in the battle.

Placing Napoleonic Artillery on a slight rise is often best. Place it on top of a "hill" renders it relatively impotent. (I say "relatively" because there are specific situations where that artillery deployed in this fashion can be effective).

mjc