"Gun Battery Frontages" Topic

Does anyone know if the French, or anyone else, had a "standard" frontage for the various size batteries when in action? A set of rules that I am currently using allows 15-20 yards per gun, which seems quite a lot.

FWIW, Adkin's 'Waterloo Companion' suggests that British batteries had a distance of 10 metres between each gun (p278). Personally I'd suggest that it was 30-36 feet, the British army wouldn't have used those damned foreign measurements :)

During my reseqarch of this in the 1970s, several factors were clear. The depth of the battery and all its support material was of greater deployment concern than width of coverage. Their depth of 300 to 450 yards caused havoc on the march and when the troops in reserve were trying to shift.

In regards to frontage, it was ironic but all batteries from Russian 10 gun to British 6 gun tended to deploy with a 150 yard frontage coverage. The distance between guns was the variant and determinant factor. Russian batteries tended to be placed in a very tight deployment area. The British had the greatest area between guns.

French horse and allied 6 gun batteries covered the least amount of frontage.

I was looking at this a little while ago… and this is what I noted:

Artillery intervals (various sources):
Zhmodikov, Hollins and others…

British:
10 yards.
Frontage of 6-gun battery: 50 + 12 yards for the guns. (Up to 62 yards)

Russian:
15 paces Kutaisov
Frontage of 12-gun battery: 150 paces (x30") = 125 yards + 24 yards for the guns. (149 yards)
Regulations:
1800: 9 paces. 99 paces (x30") =82.5 yards + 24 yards for the guns (106.5 yards)
1800 (Guard): 20 paces. (95.33 yards)
1806: 3 paces if filling intervals between formed units.
33 paces +12 yards = 51 paces (34 yards)

Prussian: 1812: 20 paces.
Frontage of 6-gun battery: 100 paces (x30") = 83.33 yards +12 yards for the guns. (95.33 yards)

Spanish: 10 paces.
Frontage of 6-gun battery: 50 paces (x30") = 41.66 yards +12 yards for the guns. (53.66 yards)

French: 20 yards. Between batteries: 36 metres. Massed batteries: smaller intervals.
Frontage of 6-gun battery: 100 yards +16 yards for the guns. (Up to 116 yards.)

Austrian: 21 feet (7 yards).
Frontage of 6-gun battery: 105 feet +12 yards for the guns. 141 feet (47 yards.)

Austrian: 47 yards.
French: Up to 116 yards
Spanish: 53.66 yards
Prussian: 95.33 yards
Russian Kutaisov: 149 yards (6 guns 74.5 yards)
Russian Regs: 106.5 yards (6 guns 53.25 yards)
British: (Up to 62 yards)

Average frontage for all armies for 6 guns:
47 + 53.25 + 53.6 + 62 + 74.5 + 95.3 + 116 = 501.65/7 = average of 71.66 yards.

French and Prussian battereis were 8 guns which is what I worked with.

Using your numbers which sounds close withoput my resource material.
Ferench 8 guns = 140 yards plus 16 yds = 156 yards
Prussian 8 guns = 140 paces/ 118 yards + 18 yds = 136 yards

I just wonder about the 20 yard interval maybe being too big; as the control of each pair of guns "a section" was under one officer.
Did smaller intervals make the guns in a section more manageable – maybe someone, with some experience in handling and commanding guns like this (a re-enactor perhaps?), let us know whether they think a 20 yard interval was practical.

Doh!
But yes, I was forgetting to include the howitzers… or i was partly thinking about horse artillery batteries … but i don`t know which Rudy…!

Not a reenactor, but an Artilleryman for 21 years. I have controled the fire of six guns by voice when they where spread over perhaps as much as 100 yards. That is a guess, as we didnt measure it.

Everybody needs to pay attention, and you need a good carrying voice. I dont see that two guns 20 yards apart would be unreasonable.

Do not prussians Horse arty have 8 guns as well? Most HAs seem to be 6 guns.

Yes, your numbers for the 6 guns batteries allied and horse guns are very close to what I had.

Thanks very much chaps! I must say that the figures surprise me; I rather expected the guns to have been positioned rather closer together in order to maintain command and control and to provide the level of firepower required. I wonder if the distance was determined by the width of the canister dispersal zone?

I think one problem is that we get impressions from movies or reenactments. Both have a tendancy to get the guns too close together. I'd say my experience as an artilleryamn is that we get may 6 – 8 yads per gun. The only exception is at some of the 'live fire' events I've done when we do get something around 15 yards per gun.

I wonder if the distance was determined by the width of the canister dispersal zone?

It was probably determined by the need to work around and manoeuvre the weapon, and to lessen the chances of unfortunate explosions killing more than the members of one gun crew.

I'm not an artilleryman – not even an amateur one – so that's conjecture

The muzzleblast from one of those beasts is horrendous. And a reenactment may not give the full effect, as they use much smaller charges, and there is much less preassure build up without a projectile on top of the mess.

I have seen people stunned into stupidity from being to closs to the muzzle. I certainly would not want to try to work a gunline that was hub to hub. Particularly as part of the drill involves going in front of the gun line. I suspect that if that happened at the wrong moment, it could well be fatal. Certainly you could drasticly decrew your guns if you where not careful.

I read somewhere that French regulations called for 6 yards spacing. I always assumed these spacings were ON CENTER, not between guns.

badger,

Read Mercer's account of the Waterloo campaign. At Waterloo, one of his spongemen slipped in the mud as the gun was being fired and had both arms blown off. Mercer, to his regret, could do nothing for the poor man, being otherwise busy.

The armless spongeman walked back toward Brussels, but was found dead by the side of the road, having bled to death.

In the ACW, the approved distance was 14 yards between guns (not on center). However, I doubt if anyone actually got out a tape measure. They just eye-balled it. Also, if in restricted terrain (such as on top of Little Round Top at Gettysburg), they had to put the guns wherever they could find a good spot.

Don, we still have to do that. When the wall was still up, finding a good spot in the german countryside to place a battery could be a real bear. And we had motorized vehicles to do it with. Doing it with horses and men only took real skill.

From what I read, an average of around 10yds per gun is about right. I have a base scale of 1mm = 1yd so a base of four guns is 40yds (40mm) wide. 3 guns = 30yds (30mm) and so on.

I read some interesting information about Artillery canister fire that stated that the cone of fire of each gun would join for a maximum saturation range of around 250-300yds, depending on the gun, the best killing field range for maximum damage. Anything less would miss sections of the enemy line while anything more (in range) dropped the effectiveness of the canister. This was all based on a gun line spread on around 10yds.

I think the Artillery experts amongst us might know exactly what I am talking about.

Shane

p.s. Another thing I did for massed guns where the distance between each gun is reduced is to put one gun model in three behind the line to show the closer intervals. The up side of this is the gun mass on frontage but the down side is that the gun line becomes a closer packed target for incoming enemy fire or any and every kind.

There are some arguments in favour of large spacing between guns (up to 20 yards perhaps).

First – it reduces the density of the battery as a target for enemy artillery. This reduces the chance of a damaging hit to the crew, gun or limber. Also consider the effect of an exploding caisson if the battery is not well spaced.

Second – it allows the gun teams with their limbers to manoeuvre in order to be in position to limber up their guns. A 6 horse team, limber and gun takes up some 20 yards depth.

Consider this – The battery approaches the position in column of route perpendicular to the firing direction. Each team and gun takes 20 yards plus some interval. The first team gains the position, slows and stops. The remaining teams slow down, close intervals and stop. Guns are unlimbered and manhandled into position. The teams then wheel to the rear and take up a safe distance. This method will naturally leave an interval of 20 yards between the guns.

To limber up and move to another position then the teams approach from the rear, wheel to form a column of route behind the guns, limber up and move off. If the guns were closed-up then it would take longer to have the battery ready to move off to a new position.

Even where artillery were to move forwards as a line abreast of guns it would still be necessary for the teams to have space to wheel having unlimbered their guns.

There is a video of King's Troop RHA on youtube showing the teams in column of route passing in front of the gun line then wheeling, limbering up and then moving off into column of route (it is towards the end of the video).

link

This one shows the approach behind the gun line again in column of route, limbering and moving off. (the editing sequence is not ideal)

link

I think this is all good evidence for the gap of 20 yards. It allows limbering up with the ability to move in any direction. With small gaps then the options for limbering up are reduced (with the risk that you might not be able to pull the battery out of position if under attack).

Some months ago there was quite an involved discussion on Horse Artillery (specifically) coming into action at:

TMP link

In one of my posts on that thread I included a link to a video if the King's Troop coming into action in line abreast, whereas the first of the above links shows them coming out of action, it seems, by half-battery.

Incidentally, did anyone take note of the detachment horses being led by the swing drivers and spare gun-numbers?

Mike and Badger

Good points.

The US artillery manual from the Civil War gives the depth of a battery as 55 yards (50m) Assuming gun, limber and cassion in line.

You have to let a gun recoil too, here are some shots from the shoots I particpated in at Grayling MI, although our gun is missing from the shots:

link
link

Note the recoils!

This is us firing the Paulson's brothes 20pdr:

link

Here's some footage with horses:

link

Note the turning circles.

Before offering an opinion.. have you every been near one of these things when it goes off with a full charge? (Not a pop of 4 ounzes of powder.. a full charge). The ground shakes, you chest takes a wallop from the shock wave, the gun springs back 6-8 feet and rolls back a little more. If you were standing behind the wheel when it went off, you would have most of your rib bones crushed ……………..a practical matter is that unless the battery was firing volleys, you would not want to be close to the next gun when it went off……Another matter is that if calvary or foot soldiers got close to you and kept moving towards you despite your best efforts, and or if your infantry supports all suddenly decided to check if the supply horses had enough water… you would really really really want to have room to deploy in your horses and limbers to get the hell out of there (a.k.a.sauve qui peut!)as quickly as possible.

Common sense says that deployment distance for the limbers is required. Drive the horses up, twist the wheels on the gun, and "feet do your thing".

138 Sqrn, the diagram of the French battery in deployment order was 300 yards deep. They were deployed in depth and not in the line as you stated for ACW.

The diagram consisted of not only the eight guns and limbers but the main and reserve caissons plus the support wagons (forge, baggage and forage).