"Horse Artillery in Action" Topic

I have been working on a 20mm horse artillery battery. Just for fun, I decided to include a horse holder and three extra horses for him to hold.

Then I read an article – somewhere – indicating that, for all their speed, horse artillery takes longer than foot artillery to unlimber, since they have to take care that their horses are all in the care of the horse holders. I also read that horse artillery batteries were favored targets for counter battery fire, since all those horses in rear of the battery make excellent bounce-through targets.

Do any of the popular rule sets account for the longer limber/unlimber process of horse vs. foot artillery? And do horse batteries take more casualties than foot?

It seems to me that the horse batteries, while they may be easier to hit with counterbattery fire, would be losing more horses than men. So at some point they would, it seems to me, be more "foot" and less "horse."

Any thoughts?

A couple.

I never did agree, not did I see any logic in the argument that it took longer for a horse artillery company to unlimber in relation to a foot artillery company. Horse artillery did use horse holders as the gunners were individually mounted, and by the manuals of the period what was suggested was that the most efficient way to equip horse artillery was with enough horses to mount the entire company. That is the method that was employed by both sides in the American Civil War so it appears to me that was the most efficient.

As to whether they could unlimber faster than foot artillery would be a moot point anyways, as they could move faster than foot artillery, occupy a position earlier, and hence unlimbering times, longer or shorter, would be academic.

Any artillery company would be a large target, and I have seen no evidence that horse artillery was targeted because of its size vice a foot company. Further, counterbattery fire was not recommended by the French, British, Austrian, and eventually the Prussian and Russian artillery arms. It took a long time and a lot of ammunition to silence an artillerhy company. The only time it was recommended was if the enemy's artillery was hurting your own infantry more than you were hurting theirs or there were no more targets to shoot at.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Hi

In Mercer's recollection from Waterloo he describes being targeted by a light 4lbr battery. As he was standing idle he, against orders, ordered his 9lbr battery to return fire. His fire was then immediately returned by what he describs as being of superior calibre (I presume 12lbrs) which he had not spotted. He immediately ordered his battery to cease fire allowing the light 4lbr battery to continue as being.
The main point that interests me is his statement that he was disobeying orders. I believe that it was considered a waste of ammo to counter battery fire as French infantry and cavalry were a much more important target. Obviously British gun to men ratio would I presume be much lower than the French army and so couldnt spare units for this sort of action unlike the French. I would be interested to know more about other continental armies and whether this was a common order.

As for unlimbering I am not aware of any differences in time taken to unlimber. That said I would have thought there would have been little difference to effect a rule system. Horse batteries would have been drilled and the care of the horses would be taken into account. However in the heat of battle who knows?

As for horse losses Mercer again states that at the end of the battle he was ordered to move forward which he described as impossible as out of 200 horses 140 were either dead or severely wounded and barely two thirds of the men needed for his four guns remained but were exhausted and unfit for further action that day. Taking this into account I would say there is more need to include losses to horses and limbers in rule sets than there are unlimbering time.
I an no artillery expert so others here will be able to clarify your points better.
Regards

In my rules system I do have horse artillery batteries unlimbering and limbering faster but this is due mostly to the horse battery personal usually being of a higher calibre, or Elite. So for my mind they are much more experienced, drilled and trianed than foot batteries. Not always, but mostly but you would have to read up on every nations horse batteries to really get a better understanding and clearer picture. Also, horse batteries tended (not always) to be of lighter calibre thus easier to lay the guns, sight them and unload/load ammunition etc.

Also, I think the number of guns in the battery had a bearing on the time it took to limber/unlimber, I would think the company commander would await the readiness of every gun in the battery before commencing firing so the more guns the longer it would take to await the readiness of the last gun (the battery commander would be really annoyed if it was the same gun crew constantly also I dare to say).

Also, in my system once a Horse battery has lost half its number in personal it automatically becomes a "Foot" battery and moves as such for the remainder of the battle. We basically say that so many horses have been killed that no longer can it function properly as a horse battery. A foot batter which suffers 50%+ casualties can no longer move other than to prolong…

Regards,
Shane

Shane,

When you refer to "your" rule system, I always wonder if you are a solo wargamer or have minions who play your rule set. Which is it?

Best,

Bill

PS – I like your artillery mobility rules.

"Also, I think the number of guns in the battery had a bearing on the time it took to limber/unlimber"

I don't see why this would be so. Assuming each tube had it's own team, they would limber or unlimber in concert with the other teams. Unless there was a shortage of manpower, all should finish the procedure at or near the same time.

Hi Widowson,

Sorry for the confusion, I designed a set of rules which has taken me a long time to get to he level they are at now and about 4 editions. It is still a work in progress when I have the time. I do have a group of 5 mates I play with every Tuesday night who really like them. some might say they are very detailed while others might say they border on too much complication, but once you master the system it becomes second nature to understand and play, it just takes time. I am one for historical accuracy over playability I have to admit so any and all historically correct and accurate data I feed on constantly to imporve the system. I am also working on a simplified or "Lite" version for those less inclined to read. One day I hope to ge them published.

Rob,

If you read about a gun battery coming into position they do so in a column with each gun advancing from column to line abreast one after the other. They wheel by turning 90 degrees either left or right and then turning around and unlimbering. If you see this happen you will see that while the first gun is already unlimbered and in a firing position the last gun might still be wheeling around etc. so to my understanding the company commander would await the last gun to be ready and in a firing position by signalling they are ready and thus firing would commence. I could be wrong with this but it is what I understand as the way it was done.

Shane

gunners from Horse artillery had to dismount, hand over their horses to the gunner holding them and then could unlimber – foot artillery would not have to do this.

Otherwise it is a great idea to include horse holders.

"If you read about a gun battery coming into position they do so in a column with each gun advancing from column to line abreast one after the other. They wheel by turning 90 degrees either left or right and then turning around and unlimbering. If you see this happen you will see that while the first gun is already unlimbered and in a firing position the last gun might still be wheeling around etc." Shane.

H'mm, I'm not so sure about this, mate. Yes, it certainly could happen that way in a rapid deployment from line of march, but based on personal observation of The King's Troop coming into action, and IF there was sufficient room for the manoeuvre, I would suggest that a column of route would left or right wheel, and then each gun turn to face the right direction. The troop then advances on a broad front – at the gallop – each team halts, the gunners dismount and unlimber the piece, traverse it through 180 deg while the limber swings round and retires 25 yards to the rear of its respective gun. Each gun, with the allowance of a second or two either way, should then be able to report 'ready' at the same time.

Yes, I know that The King's Troop is most definitely post-Napoleonic in dress and equipment, and while the technicalities of gunnery have changed, I really don't see how there can be that much difference in the method of coming into action.

So, yes, it may take a horse battery a few seconds longer to unlimber and deploy, once they have reached their gun position, the speed at which they reach the position more than cancels this out.

Just my 10 pence worth (inflation, you know)

The main difference between horse and foot artillery is their actual operational/deployment role, rather than at the point of contact (or if you like on the battlefield).
The difference between them is similar to the difference between light and line infantry.
The HA (LI) have greater mobility to arrive and retire from the point of contact – that is, they have the ability to get out of trouble, as quickly (hopefully) as they got into it in the first place.
Mostly, (and you can probably cite many alternative instances) HA function exactly the same as their pedestrian counterparts, once on the field. It's the getting there, the follow-up/pursuit, rearguard activity where the main difference is. Or to say, the 'Grand-Tactical' or higher operational level.
BUT, any rule system that allow the player's HA an in-built function to operate with a bit of flare and dash more than the foot guns are a big PLUS – it adds a dimension and depth to the rule system and also some of that 'flavour' (?) to the Napoleonic period.
B

'gunners from Horse artillery had to dismount, hand over their horses to the gunner holding them and then could unlimber – foot artillery would not have to do this.'

And that takes how long? That's not an argument, but an excuse, for whatever reason, against horse artillery which is absolutely useless to my mind.

It's akin to the problem of encastrement for French 8- and 12-pounder field pieces, the 8-pounder being the favorite for horse artillerymen. One manual of the period states that it took no longer to change the gun tube from one set of trunnion plates to another as it did to unlimber, which didn't take very long.

It's another strawman argument. Again, by the time the foot artillery caught up the horse artillery company would be in action. That's one of the reasons that Napoleon assigned horse artillery not only to cavalry units, but to infantry divisions as well.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Shane,

You're correct on emplacement. It would take a six-gun company longer to emplace than a four-gun company because of the length of the column. Just as it is quicker to emplace one field piece than two.

Sincerely,
Kevin

I appreciate the need to hand over the reins to horse holders, but in a trained unit would that really take so much longer? And wouldn't the two gunners riding on the limber (eg in British RHA) be doing something rather than stand waiting for their mates?

As for the method of lining up, I seem to recall line abreast was used as well as column, originally at least to make the troop look like cavalry.

yes, line abreast would have been used but as the battery was coming forward to then wheel right or left to turn 180 degrees the longer the column the longer the column would have to advance (move foward) to allow for the last gun to be in position to begin its own 180 degree turn around…

For example, if a battery of 6 guns took up say 100ft each complete with horses, limber and gun then this would be 600ft all up at least for the total battery. So the lead gun would have to travel 600ft before it could begin its own 180 degree turn around in line with the last gun to be in position at the same time.

So if the battery was only 4 guns then the distance travelled by the lead gun would be only 400ft so a shortened distance of 200ft would equate to "X" amount of seconds saved in positioning every gun, unlimbering and every crew reporting they are ready to fire.

Shane

p.s. as the average width between each gun was roughly 10yds (30ft) the gun line would have to then angle in on one end or the center to align each gun at the 10yd intervals I would imagine. Kevin being ex Artillery as a battery commander would probably be best to explain this proceedure.

Shane

RH,

"Also, I think the number of guns in the battery had a bearing on the time it took to limber/unlimber"

"I don't see why this would be so. Assuming each tube had it's own team, they would limber or unlimber in concert with the other teams. Unless there was a shortage of manpower, all should finish the procedure at or near the same time."

I don't really think so Rob, afterall if we follow your logic then 1 gun would unlimber and deploy at the same speed as 100 guns – and we know that ain't the case!

The larger any command becomes the longer it takes to move and deploy even at quite low levels.

DB

"…yes, line abreast would have been used but as the battery was coming forward to then wheel right or left to turn 180 degrees the longer the column the longer the column would have to advance (move foward) to allow for the last gun to be in position to begin its own 180 degree turn around…" (Shane)

Shane, I really believe one of us is missing the point the other is trying to make. My position (as clearly as I can state it) is: If the battery is in line (all guns abreast) at deployment intervals, then as the battery, as a whole, moves (abreast) up to its selected Gun Position. The order, "Halt! Action Front!" is given. The Gunners dismount and hand their reins to the horse holders, guns are unlimbered (muzzles still to the rear)and while the guns are being traversed so that the muzzles face front, each limber, independently then wheels through 180 deg to its left (IIRC)through the interval between guns and retires 25 yards so that each limber is behind its own gun and detachment. In this event, the length of the battery column on the march is totally irrelevant. The manouvre from column of route to the battery in line abreast is rather akin to a battalion in open column, when each division forms (wheels) to its right (or left) simultaneously into line.

See link

It's not very well lit, and a great deal of footage is taken up with Musical Drive practice, but at about 3 minutes into the video, you can see all six guns come into action together (admittedly in slow time and you can't really see what the limber teams are doing after the guns are unlimbered – it appears as if they split into two groups of three and wheel outwards to retire past the flanks of the battery)(?).

And allowing a (generous) thirteen feet of depth for each horse (including separation of wheelers from swing and swing from lead horses), plus a (generous) 20 feet for limber and gun, it appears that the length of each sub-section in draft is about 60 feet.

So, there is no extra distance for F Sub-section to travel, it travels exactly (well, more or less) the same distance as A Subsection. All guns arrive on the position at the same time, all take (again, more or less) the same length of time to come into action, so there really shouldn't be any appreciable difference in the time it takes a four, six or even eight gun battery to be ready to fire. However… if we start talking about co-ordinating the deployment of more than one battery, then yes, I will agree it will take longer.

All the above, depends of course on there being sufficient room to complete the manouevre.

Shane, If I have misunderstood you (entirely possible!), please try and hammer through my skull what it is your saying.

Best

B

Great stuff and thanks for showing it. Did anyone notice the gun guides? They were also used in the Napoleonic period and are still used today with both towed and self-propelled artillery.

Sincerely,
Kevin

>"As to whether they could unlimber faster than foot artillery would be a moot point anyways, as they could move faster than foot artillery, occupy a position earlier, and hence unlimbering times, longer or shorter, would be academic."<

As Battes pointed out, this would be more true of the march TO the battlefield than of movement ON the battlefield. Both kinds of battery can move fast for a few minutes, but over the course of several hours, HA would be faster than FA. (Over the course of several days, the FA might march down the horses, tho, if the latter run out of short fodder.)

I can't see that the second or two it might take to hand the reins to horse-holders would make much difference.

I think Shane is correct that a 6-piece battery could take position somewhat faster than an 8-piece battery (but only a matter of a few seconds, probably). By the Napoleonic era, I'm pretty sure batteries maneuvered on the battlefield in 2-gun sections, so that an 8-gun battery in column would be 2 teams wide and 4 deep; a 6-gun battery 2 wide and 3 deep.

Thx don,

That is my point, the length of the line (column) will determin the time it takes to unlimber and be ready to fire if only by a few seconds. Time is important in battle and a few seconds can mean the difference between suffering a salvo or delivering a salvo. But at the same time a few seconds in a 10 hour battle does not mean much in the scheme of things.

B,

I have not looked at the link as yet (at work atm) but will take a look at it tonight. Thanks for the heads up. My point as I said was regarding the length of the column of guns and that the more guns in the battery the longer it will take until the last (and slowest) gun has reported itself ready to fire. I am no artillery expert but logic tells me that the more guns, the longer it will take even if that time factor is only a minor one.

Shane

I just reckon Shane is right. Would like to be able to put it into practice on a table and have a look at the result. Gut feeling is all.

(There was and must have been a difference between the FA and HA, otherwise there could only have been an A! Like it was only 50-odd years before the so-called 'Napoleonic' period. The actual problem is how to simulate this).
B

Shane. Yes – IF deploying from column. But this is not a desirable option. Far better to left or right wheel into line, advance, halt and deploy as above.

From my contacts in the King's Troop it appears that deployment from column is only undertaken if there is no other option. So, according to my contacts, the Battery in column of sections (2 guns abreast) advancing (let's say to the South, for argument's sake) is given the order "Right wheel", the battery, still in column of section, wheels to its right 90 deg, so now facing West. The next order is "By sections, left into line, wheel." Each section, independently, left wheels, (facing South again)bringing the battery into line abreast. From here, the Battery advances in line to the selected gun position, where "Halt! Action front!" is ordered, the Battery then deploys as shown in the link.

Given that much attention is paid to, and much effort is put into drill, (aided by a healthy dollop of inter-detachment rivalry) then all guns in a battery should be unlimbered and ready at (more or less) the same time.

I summarise from the 1872 Baring translation of the v. Tschischwitz "Rules for the conduct of the War-Game" (1862)

Space occupied by columns on the march – A battery or horse artillery in column of route – 500 paces with a note that intervals would be expected to stretch when on the march and the umpire should allow one third of the length of the column as the minimum amount of extension.

From another source (prussian officer late 1800's)relating to artillery (horse and foot)

"the order in line is used over short distances"
"the gallop is irrelevant for normal use but good for training and evading"
"the route column – artillery uses roads for as long as is possible. It uses route column with suitable intervals. Artillery can form double column by bringing caissons alongside the guns"
"movement to the rear by a route column – it may be necessary to unlimber and turn carriage and limbers separately. In narrow roads the teams may have to be split or detached".
"in route column artillery may readily unlimber to a flank"
"artillery is more affected by terrain than cavalry. Artillery positions are reconnoitred before they are taken up"

There are also some comments about reconnaissance of the enemy and suitable firing positions plus the use of artillery officer patrols regarding firing positions and clearing the roads of troops.

There is mention in one of the Waterloo Letters of an artillery officer being sent from Mt St Jean back to Brussels on the morning of the 18th June to note the condition of the roads – he had breakfast in Brussels before returning to Waterloo before the start of the action.

It looks like artillery would keep to the roads and in single file even if the road was wide enough to double up in order to allow for turning about and to allow staff officers etc. to use the other side of the road to make quick passage.

500 paces (lets say 400 metres) minimum then for 6 guns and teams, mounted gunners, ammunition caissons, artillery baggage, spare carriages, field forges etc. is not excessive. To get a battery in its firing position from being in a road column is not therefore the time it takes to get the first gun deployed but rather longer.

As compared with Kings Troop RHA, they just have 6 guns and their teams and can move in pairs on wide modern city roads and operate in perfect parkland or parade grounds. It is not battle conditions!!

"As compared with Kings Troop RHA, they just have 6 guns and their teams and can move in pairs on wide modern city roads and operate in perfect parkland or parade grounds. It is not battle conditions!!"

Absolutely! But they do represent the firing battery at a 1:1 scale The remainder of the impedimenta, forges, spare carriages, second line ammunition, etc. would have been some distance to the rear of the firing battery,and would not have affected the deployment of the guns, which as you so rightly quote, would have had their gun positions recce'd prior to deployment.

Changing tack slightly… some 30-odd years ago, I put together a full model (1:1)of a Napoleonic RHA Battery for our Battery history room. It covered a huge expanse of in scale terrain! How many gamers, though, actually bother (expense. time, more urgent demands on both) to re-create a full battery? I'm pretty sure that most of us just collect the firing battery, and some, I know, I don't bother with limbers and teams.

Changing tack completly…when I was in ruleset acquisition mode 6 months ago, I read through heaps of stuff and found artillery was always either over-complicated or over-simplified. I also went and had an incognito eyeball of a few games. Some rules had individual crewmen of quantity X according to gun calibre, with limbers and again X quantity of horse teams to draw the gun and minimum X number of crew models to move or re-lay the piece. Then other systems just say base size xyz by abc with whatever crew figs = gun, crew, limbers, caissons etc etc.
The simplest representation didn't work the best at all because the field piece seemed to acquire the mobility of an MG-42 team of another era. (and the firepower too).

The more complex representation turned you from a 'have a few beers and fire the cannon dice!' wargamer, into a battery adjutant loaded down with paperwork and working out where to put the limbers, how to place the individual crew and realising "no, sorry you cant turn that gun because you only got 4 crew figures and you need 5". Argh.

I wouldn't mind buying limbers for my guns, but I bought Front Rank stuff and they dont have any, as far as I could find. And also, they dont rate much of a mention in GdeB except in an emergency limbering situation – so I decided Lord Muck will just have to avoid getting his guns into an emergency situation in the first place!

B

I have an entire Artillery system I developed which I would gladly send to anyone who desires it. It is not too complicated but not simple either, it is on a nationalistic base and very detailed for realism.

sdev2749@bigpond.net.au

I still think the "follow the lead" column is the most likely formation for movement of artillery for most of the time.

Consider the following :-

Scenario 1
Horse artillery held in reserve then moved to a point under threat (eg Waterloo). The rear echelon is well out of the way. The firing battery will be ordered up to a position selected by the senior officers and will more likely use roads and tracks to arrive at the selected position. It can be imagined that the roads will be kept clear to allow the movement of artillery and staff officers. When passing through the infantry line then only one company (or even only one section) needs to wheel to open a gap to allow the battery to pass through. If the guns are operating in sections this would also work but to pass a troop in line abreast through a battalion this would be more problematic.
Arriving the the point of deployment (for this example the column is lead by the right hand gun of the battery) then the column halts and guns are unlimbered. The guns are wheeled 90 degrees so as to face the enemy and the teams wheel 90 degrees in the other direction and move away from the gun line. This results in the battery deployed with intervals between the guns corresponding to the length of the teams (plus a small interval for wheeling).

Scenario 2
Horse artillery acting with a brigade of light cavalry as an advance guard. The battery is in column on the road with the rear echelon a small distance to the rear. The rear echelon will probably be left at one village then move onto the next one in the line of advance to maintain a reasonable distance, close enough to repair any damaged carriage or reshoe a team horse but far enough back to leave a line of retreat for the combat elements.

When the firing battery is required (to drive away an enemy unit)then a position is selected, egress from the road is facilitated by making a gap in a hedge or filling in a small portion of the roadside ditch (enough for one gun rather than for the whole troop) and the battery moves rapidly to the point of deployment. If the column is "left in front" and deployment is to the left of the road then the column is the correct way round to deploy by arriving at the position and wheeling the guns 90 degrees. If it is "right in front" in this example and needs to deploy to the left then the battery may well execute this by first moving the column to a position behing the selected position for deployment then wheeling 90 degrees, moving to the deployment line, wheeling 90 degrees again and moving along the position for the gun line and deploy in the normal manner.
An alternative would be for the rightmost gun to leave the road and take position directly behind its final position, the next team takes its place to the left and so on until all teams are behing the deployment position at which point the troop moves forward in line abreast until the deployment line is reached and the guns unlimbered and turned through 180 degrees with the teams countermaching to the rear.

The problem with the advance in line abreast is that it places the lead horses in the gun team 20 metres closer to the enemy and therefore at greater risk of being shot up by skirmishers. It also requires unhindered ground for the whole troop to advance and maintain their intervals.

I think line abreast would be used for advancing the troop when already deployed and following the retreating enemy when the move to the next position was across good ground. In some of the examples in earlier postings any movement in line abreast would appear to be only over short distances.

The fact that the interval between the deployed guns allows for the team to fit between the guns leads me to believe that this would be the normal way to bring the teams back to the guns and limber up allowing the troop to move off without then having to countermarch in the face of the enemy.

I may of course be mistaken so if anyone can point to a contemporary drill manual I would be happy to read it.

Mercer in Waterloo letters number 89 mentions moving from a deployed position Northeast of Hougoumont to the front line "limbering up to the left we moved of at a gallop in column of sub-divisions" (ie sections)
…the enemy cavalry "was advancing upon us at a rapid pace, so that there scarcely appeared time even to get into action, and, if caught in column, of course we were lost".
"However, the order was given to deploy, and each Gun as it came up immediately opened its fire;"

As for the A instead of HA or FA the advantage of the horse in horse artillery is that it can keep pace with the cavalry which matters on campaign, and kriegsspiel type detachment games but is unlikely to matter much on a deployed wargame battlefield packed with figures.

"I still think the "follow the lead" column is the most likely formation for movement of artillery for most of the time…

In some of the examples in earlier postings any movement in line abreast would appear to be only over short distances."

Yes, I agree. I have never, I hope, suggested that line abreast was used for long distance moves. If you read my earlier posts, I stipulate that the column would wheel in one direction, before the guns (whether individually or by section) wheeled in the other direction to come into line. Maybe I wasn't being too clear, but the whole point of my argument wasn't the move from Aix to Ghent, as it were, but the final deployment onto the gun position, for which I still believe (time, space and the enemy permitting)an advance on a battery front was preferred.

I am sure both approaches would have been used depending on circumstances. For me what is important is that the length of column imposes some constraint on the wargamer whether that be artillery or cavalry.

There is a note I have referring to the Prussians in 1866 or 1870 where the artillery took up half of the length of a division when marching on a road.

It's a useful and positive debate and I will keep an eye out for any snippets of memoirs etc. that might give some examples.