"Artillery toe to toe" Topic

Hi Nappy Chappys.

A battalion in line firing 2 rounds a minuite would possibly score about 4-5 hits from their 1400 total rounds at a skirmish target in the open at 200 yards? In that sort of ball park area?

So thats most of a gun team serving a gun.Probably more since they may not be in formed ranks, but theyre clustered about a fixed target. So thats say 11% losses to a battery of artillery. Which would probably be enough to rout the battery, and if they diddnt rout in the first minuite they would in the second.

I know that Artillery would statistically stop a battalion on its approach march well before it came to Mufket range,and at typical mufket range cannister was pretty freaking harsh.

But say it began WITHIN range, say it emerged from smoke or round a corner. Who would win in a toe to toe shootout.The Battalion or the Battery?
Why? And finally any historical support to your conclusions?

It would be wrong to first look to the arithmetic. Elan and courage would decide any such encounter before gunpowder did.

[I know that Artillery would statistically stop a battalion on its approach march well before it came to Mufket range,and at typical mufket range cannister was pretty freaking harsh.]

Yef, but that depends upon the Muftketeers….

A prudent commander stationed line infantry in support of batteries so annoying enemy skirmishers could be brushed away.

I agree its a morale factor. Mathmatically its my beleif that the artillery would break before the infantry and that, although the infantry would take more casulties, perhaps 50 or 60 to cannister fire, the Artillery would be rendered hors de combat before the battalion broke.

The Horse Artillery trained to fire one salvo of cannister and then scoot. If artillery could stand toe to toe, then surely their training would be, "fire salvo's untill the enemy break".
I agree with Raducci's assertion of line infantry screening the arty from skirmishers and that skirmishers are the most obvious silver bullet against artillery. But here I talk of a formed battalion in line firing by company or rank at a battery of unlimbered artillery say 100-150 yards.

Its fairly logical that skirmishers would suffer few casulties even against light cannister, but Line troops?

<<So thats most of a gun team serving a gun.Probably more since they may not be in formed ranks, but theyre clustered about a fixed target. So thats say 11% losses to a battery of artillery. Which would probably be enough to rout the battery, and if they diddnt rout in the first minuite they would in the second.>>

Whoa there! You start out describing a battery and now the whole of the fire is against just one gun?…..and this is supposed to rout the rest of the battery? Those are some might big assumptions there, Tommiatkins!

Let's see, I think your calculations for hits is very close, so if the battery suffered 4-5 hits at 200 yards, distributed over just 6 guns in the battery…..they most likely would not have had much notice that they were even shot at! (let alone seeing them rout when the target remains at 200 yards out! THEIR fire will be more "effective" than the popguns were! />)

What I mean by "effective" is NOT in casualties produced, but rather, on the infantry's ability to cover those 200 yards, under orders, without bolting! The boom of the blast of 6 guns DOES have an impact upon one's chest as you get closer!

The best I think those "skirmishers" (?) could hope for is to distract the gunners from firing at a more lucrative target, buying that target time to cover more distance with fewer losses than it otherwise could. It also serves to help fatigue the battery. they are no longer "fresh" as they have been engaged! (stress applied, guns no longer clean, physical exertion to replace the expended ammo, etc.)

Best
Tom Dye
GFI

Three other considerations in this scenario:

1> Are the limbers for the artillery near? If so, then the whole of the support and transport arm is also taking fire from the fusiliers. You've got horses being shot to add to the chaos. More importantly, the proximity of the limbers will greatly affect the morale of the battery. Is limbering up an option? If flight is an option then the artillery may be more inclined to take that option. If there are no limbers, dare they stay at the guns knowing that they have no hope of extricating them if things go wrong?

2> Rate of fire. Firing by platoons, the infantry can maintain a near constant rolling volley. The battery, or at least each gun and gunners, has to make a morale check after every shot. Do they stand and attempt another reload or do they now look at withdrawing?

3> Artillery is less used to taking casualties. They are more disrupted by losses. When a couple fusiliers are hit, the performance of the company hardly misses a beat. Everytime a gunner is hit, the other gunners need to make decisions about how to take up the downed man's duties. Sure, they can do it but it will disorder them faster than the infantry.

Good points Dye and Malcom.

I was assuming that the casulties were spread of course. No way could massed muskets be directed at one tube,LOL.

The constant volley fire would be a powerful persuading factor for the artillery to scoot off, especially as you say as they are less adept at attrition fights than the robotic line infantry.

The 33rd(?) Massive-chew-sets battery in the ACW stood toe to toe against rifle fire and flanking skirmishers. Long's Horse Arty vs the Boers at Magersfontain was wiped out rapidly by magazine fed volleys.

I'm not familiar with Crimean or Napoleonic equivilents where isolated batterys fought infantry unsupported.

FYI the reason why I'm asking BTW is I wheeled round a low hill with a battalion of Old Gaurd in line and had a 16% chance of dispersing an isolated battery of RHA 6lbrs in the open. They had a roughly equivilent chance of causing significant casulties, but only a 9% chance of beating me back. It was a point of debate, and i'm trying to improve the rules!

In advise for the Austrian army in 1807 skirmishers should pick individual guns and watch them – when they see they are firing they should throw themselves to the ground.

Also it was advised that skirmishers and not close order troops would attack.

Tommi…Need to be careful comparing ACW to Napoleonic wars when it comes to Arty vs musket/rifle range. For example, in the Napoleonic wars (and Mex/American war for that matter) horse batteries could ride up, unlimber and fire effectively out of range of the infantry. By the time of the ACW, and change from muskets to rifles, artillery lost some of their standoff range. They still outranged the infantry, but they had to stand farther off, with reduced effect.

Dear Tom
Leaving an unsupported battery was not normal practice as it was vulnerable. There are many occassions when they were successfully attacked and overun. Normally by cavalry but also infantry usually in skirmish order.

Yes a battery has the ability to stop through its firepower an attack if it sees it. The problem is that the battlefield was shrouded in smoke and there are terrain considerations.

A battery if well supplied with ammunition and behind a ditch, stream or other obstacle is pretty safe from flanking as the opponent would have to spend time to move around or over these. Ammunition supply and the correct type was always a problem especially for those countries without ammuition caissons and still used the 18th century man-handling of each charge from the caisson. The French were among the last to change in the 1820s.

Cannister was not guatenteed to work and depended upon the ground, charge used, elevation and training of the crew. Many commentators at the time state that shot should always be used against close order targets. The Austrians learnt this from the attack over the river at Lodi. They state that the French lead by Napoeleon would have been stopped with shot and they were not as it was cannister used.

Alas in Napoleonic Wargaming, the artillery is far more effective that it was and little concept of ammunition supply is considered. You could have 50 guns but only two rounds of firing costing the same as 12 guns with full compliment of ammunition. These could cost the same.

Stephen

One comment regarding skirmishers and canister in the Civil Civil War was that firing canister at skirmishers is akin to chasing a swarm of bees with a club-it didn't work well.

Using round shot at close range against formed infantry was not as efficient as using canister, especially double shotted canister. Canister is the anti-personnel round of choice for artillery as it gave the piece the effect of a large shotgun as the canister cone formed at the muzzle of the piece when fired, as noted in the artillery field manuals of both the Napoleonic and Civil War periods, as well as those in the years between.

Sincerely,
K

One thing to remember about artillery is it was likely the loudest thing anyone on the field had ever heard. Considerable "shock and awe". I have fired reenactment artillery with just a powder charge and it is loud enough that SOP is to cover your ears and open your mouth to equalize the pressure. You can definitely feel the shock of firing through your whole body.

A solid line of infantry giving fire would likely have the same effect on the artilery crews.

Give those men a LOT of credit simply for holding position and following orders.

My guess (and it is only a guess) is that the men of an unsupported artillery battery if faced with the situation you describe, that is suddenly faced with the appearence of a battalion in good order within musket range, would fire of the load in the tubes and then scram. If the artillery were supported they would likely stand and the infantry would scoot. If the artilery were aware of the approach of the infantry it is much more likely that they would stand to their guns. Surprise and support are the ain factors here. Of course if the approaching infantry were unaware of the battery they might break first. In a game I would probably call for morale checks on both sides after the first exchange of fire.

If they don't break and run on the first punch they will likely hang on until they would norally break.

I hope that makes sense. An extra morale check at first contact for mutual surprise, then combat as normal until the fight is resolved.

The artillery's guns served the same purpose and were held in the same esteem as infantry and cavalry flags and standards, at least in the French service. It was a disgrace to lose a gun. Artillerymen would defend them with their weapons or with rammers and handspikes if necessary. Drouot's large battery is one good example of this. One Guard foot battery at Waterloo's ending was out of ammunition and went through the motions of loading and preparing to fire at pursuing British cavalry coming off the ridge, gaining a few minutes to let their comrades withdraw. Just because the odds may be overwhelming or an artillery company/battery is perhaps being overrun is not necessarily the time the gunners would leave. Guns would be fought to the last. If the gunners did leave, rammers, handspikes, and other tools would generally be taken with them to render the guns unusable.

Sincerely,
K

I reckon a roll of "6" will suffice.

Guns would be fought to the last

Gun commanders would encourage their men to fight to the last. That doesn't mean that gunners would invariably die beside their guns. They were no more courageous than the infantry.

It would depend on how well-trained and commanded they were, but there is enough evidence available to determine that more often than not the French gunners did what they were supposed to do. That would generally apply to the gunners of other nations as well.

Sincerely,
K

There are several good examples of batteries being overwhelmed by infantry in the ACW, but I totally agree with Raylev that you need to compare Nappy Wars with ACW with caution – in the examples I am most familiar with, like Kelly's Ford, the infantry advanced on a wide front, firing weapons with three or four times the range of a Napoleanic musket – in contrast, a formed infantry battalion in the Napoleanic Wars would not have the same fire-power and would be a much better target

I agree you do have to be careful comparing the Napoleonic period and the American Civil War.

You can find examples in both, though, of artillery ruining infantry assaults and literally taking them to pieces-two that stand out are Malvern Hill and Pickett's Charge.

Sincerely,
K

I think ACW and Nap's shouldnt be compared at all. Rifling and breach loading,reliable cannister and shrapnel shells,all make for a totally differnt result. Thats why I was looking for Crimean or Nap based examples.

There dosnt seem to be anything massivly famous, so i suppose its a case of re-reading all my books again and trying to pick out examples :)