"Austrian Horse Artillery - wurst seats" Topic

I'd always assumed that the wurst seat was a dismountable limber box – is this correct or was it fixed in place whilst firing?
7lb howitzer in austrian horse batteries also have the same fixed/dismouted wurst seat?

Just read that the horse batteries have not handlangers (spell) so should my newly varnished but sparse blue collars also be be red painted for the trail spike and other brushes?

Dismountable, at least my old Minifig boxes were seperate pieces. It is just an ammo chest with a seat for a lid.

I think the issue of Austrian wursts (the limber seats, not the sausages) has been debated here recently. Can't recall exactly what the issue is, or who is winning, though.

Custor,

The Osprey on Austrian Napoleonic Artillery indicates that it was NOT removable. The book discusses the need for a new aiming devise, since the normal one could not be accommodated because of the seat. The same book indicates that the howitzers used the same seat.

Mark

I couln't think of anything wurst.

'The book discusses the need for a new aiming devise, since the normal one could not be accommodated because of the seat'

Don't you mean a different elevating device?

The trails of the cavalry battery field pieces were elongated to accomodate the seats for the gun crew.

It should be noted that the Austrian cavalry batteries were not horse artillery. They were mobile artillery, but required cavalry to support them because they couldn't keep up with the cavalry, which is the opposite of what true horse artillery was supposed to do.

Sincerely,
K

Dear Custor
The Wurst seat could be dismounted if required. This is unlikely in practice. There is reference to the battery given to the Bavarians having them removed in 1809.

The elevating system was likely to have been adapted from that of the M1741 Saxon elevating plate as descibed in my book on the Saxon Artillery. It had a handle on the left hand side. It used the usual aiming device.

The Austrian Wurst artillery was an economical manner to create mobile artillery that many countries followed especially in the mid 19th century mounting their gunners on the limbers and caissons.

Stephen

"'The book discusses the need for a new aiming devise, since the normal one could not be accommodated because of the seat'

Don't you mean a different elevating device?"

Here is the quote from the book, "Hard up behind the barrel end, the seat made it impossible to use the usual aiming device or to have a counter-weight on the end of the barrel."

Mark

"The Austrian Wurst artillery was an economical manner to create mobile artillery that many countries followed".

So I believe. But were any C19th mobile artillery guns crazy enough to stick a non-removable seat on the trail?

Might they have been bolted into place for security such that they were too much trouble to take off normally? It would have been an extra hassle if the box under the seat was laden down with ammunition and tools, which I expect it was designed to do for efficiency sake.

OK so ill add the wurst to the gun rather the having it on the ground as I would the limber box.

Just the blue question of blue collars on 'horse' batteries?

Austrian 6 lb 'cavallerie-geschutz' tube from the Borodino Panorama collection (Moscow):

link

link

Kevin,

Why couldn't cavalry batteries keep up with cavalry? Was it because seating the entire crew on the limbers and gun trails overburdened the gun teams?

Good question 4th Cuirassier.
I do wonder how fast you could go, perched on a trail and hanging on for dear life.

Dear Raducci
The answer is yes. The Wurtemberg and Hessen Kassel Horse Artillery had such seats. Certainly I would be even less happy siting on the gun axle as was later done for the East India Company and some British guns of the mid to late 19th century.

It was much better to seat them on the limber and the caisson.

I always find it interesting the concept of the speed of cavalry. Horses do nopt survive long if they gallop everywhere. There is as ever a different use in the different forms of Horse Artillery whether vehicle mounted, semi-vehicle mounted or horse mounted crews. These being modern terms to explain the differences.

It has been discussed previously of the comparative all up weights of the Austrian Wurst and the Gribeauval 8-pdr. The former was lighter even with gunners on the trails.

Stephen

I'm slightly puzzled by this whole cavalry movement speed malarkey too.

A horse's walking pace is about the same as a man's. OK, allow for either a slow pace to maintain a line or halts to re-straighten it, and a man would manouevre more slowly than a horse walking; but you presumably had to do all that with cavalry too. So while I can see that cavalry unit could close with or charge faster, was there really that much difference in normal manoeuvre? Or did cavalry trot everywhere?

"Certainly I would be even less happy siting on the gun axle as was later done for the East India Company and some British guns of the mid to late 19th century."

I would not care to be siting on the axle, either. I wouldn't expect to hit much.

As for *sitting* on the axle, axle seats were common on not only British/EIC ordnance, but also Prussian/German/Confederation, and thus by extension Russian, Turkish, Egyptian, Swedish, Danish, Austrian, Italian, Afghan, Persian, Boer… right up through the Second World War.

Rather comfy, actually, apart from the jolting:

picture

Allen

Speaking in general terms, I think Horse artillery should be like a fine Italian sports car.

You drive sedately at the speed limit at all times…..till you need to overtake the three juggernauts on the autostrada.

Horse artillery top speed was for specific needs. Hence, Ramsay's RHA famous "charge".
( and I am not sure this isnot true for cavalry in general)

And Ramsay's RHA were partly mounted on limbers and caissons.

Mark,

I found the passage. What is being referred to is the elevating device, which was used in pointing (aiming) the piece, but was not an aiming device. An 'aiming device' is a sight, such as the adjustable rear sight the Gribeaval developed for his system. What is being described is the screw quoin, which was the elevating mechanism developed by the Prussians in the 1740s to replace the plain wooden quoin (a wedge shaped piece of wood placed under the breech) and later copied by the Austrians and Russians for their new artillery systems. The French and the British used the more efficient elevating screw, the French model being placed under an elevating plate upon which the breech of the gun tube rested, and the British attached directly to the cascabel knob.

What was used on the Austrian cavalry battery field pieces was a hand crank placed on the cheeks of the carriage to elevate or depress the gun tube. The 'counterweight' mentioned in the text is actually the cascabel knob.

When addressing artillery of the period it is very helpful and useful to use the common English artillery terms to describe the parts of the gun tube, gun carriage, and the ancillary equipment. I have found this to be helpful and some publications unfortunately don't do this. That practice does not contribute to our collective knowledge. Many items of artillery equipment are still called by the names from the 'old days' and proper terminology is important.

Sincerely,
K

'Why couldn't cavalry batteries keep up with cavalry? Was it because seating the entire crew on the limbers and gun trails overburdened the gun teams?'

The set-up of mounting the gunners on the gun trail was awkward and undoubtedly slowed the unit to a trot. Further, the ammunition was carried by pack animals, and that means led horses. That is compounding the problem of horse holders while in motion. The Osprey previously referred to definitely states that cavalry had to support the cavalry batteries, and not the other way round (page 7). The mission of horse artillery was to support cavalry, not cavalry supporting artillery.

Sincerely,
K

The most efficient, though not the most economical in terms of monetary cost as horses are expensive to buy and maintain, manner of organizing and employing horse artillery is to have the gunners individually mounted on horses of their own. Both the French and Americans experimented on having the gunners mounted on vehicles and opted to change to individual mounts.

The horse artillery units of this type could move faster, emplace and displace more rapidly, and less vehicles were required in the battery position. The Wurttemberg horse artillery definitely used this option in the Russian campaign of 1812 which is highlighted in Faber du Faur's paintings of the campaign.

It should be noted that the French horse artillery was considered to be the best and most efficient of the period. One of the reasons is that their gunners were individually mounted. More training is required, and that's one reason they were considered a corps d'elite.

As for speed and the ability to keep up with cavalry, the Prussian artilleryman LtGen Monhaupt stated that 'Its [horse artillery] powers consist of its speed and adroitness. Speed means that it is able to move quickly, over great distances, able to execute quick movements in the face and under fire of the enemy. Especially while executing the latter, it is not surpassed by the cavalry, because these have to ride in close formation in battle during all movement, and save energy and breath; therefore they can only move at the trot or gallop, except for the shock, speeds that always can be followed by the horse artillery.'

Louis de Tousard, author of the American Artillerist's Companion stated that '…horse artillery is the method of marching the common field artillery with a sufficient number of horses to enable the men and pieces to reach, much more speedily, such positions as the general may think necessary they should occupy.'

Tousard further stated that horse artillery 'can follow the cavalry almost everywhere, march and maneuever with them…' Lastly, the French conference on horse artillery in 1792, among other things, concluded that 'it is better that the artillerymen should be all on horseback, than if they even partly rode upon wursts…, because accidents are less frequent, movements more easy, retreat more certain, and horses more easily replaced.'

As for the calibers to be employed, the Conference also concluded that the 'most advantageous' field pieces to employ with horse artillery would be to 'make use of eight and twelve pounders, and six-inch howitzers.'

Sincerely,
K

As a further efficacy of the superiority of horse mounted gunners vice limber and caisson mounted gunners, the artillery employed in the American Civil War, especially by the US, again employed individually mounted gunners in the horse artillery as better able to keep up with the cavalry.

I submit that a gun team, and hence an artillery battery, can go faster without gunners mounted on vehicles and on their own mounts. There is also less danger in losing someone who has their own horse than someone hanging on to a careening limber with a field piece attached or a limber with a caisson attached.

Sincerely,
K

Thanks Kevin, that is a very lucid exposition.

Can I hit you with another one?

The elderly Osprey on Artillery of the Napoleonic Wars (the T Wise job) indicates that a British 9-pounder gun, limber and team occupied 61 feet of road space.

I have looked into this using Airfix RHA figures – which are about 22mm tall and thus 1/76 scale. The guns and limbers are about 10% underscale for 1/76, but this is a matter of millimetres in this scale.

61 feet in 1/76 is 24cm. the only way one can stretch out a 1/76 gun, limber and 6-horse team to occupy 24cm is if the horse pairs themselves are very spaced out, but this is not how they are drawn in the book's illustrations, where the horses appear nose to tail (although the front pair are perhaps a bit further ahead of the middle pair than the middle pair are ahead of the wheelers).

Was this in fact what happened? Was there a gap of a length and a half or so between pairs? Or does the 61 feet include agoodly amount of stopping distance?

"It should be noted that the Austrian cavalry batteries were not horse artillery."

Hey, Kev, great segue into one of your favorite 'rants'! You were then able to post four 'rants' in a row thereafter. Wow!

But the topic is about the seat, eh? Anything to add about the 'seat'?

Oh, you kid!

<;^}

Steven and I thought you had moved on from personal comment.
Never mind, if it makes you happy.

But back to the topic. I think it was a famous if illiterate Confederate who said something about the importance of a force arriving quickly and in strength.
I thought this was the raison d'etre of the admittedly expensive horse artillery.
So, ipso facto, the fastest horse artillery was the best?
With the Austrian Empire's money problems, it must have been a difficult decision between mounting gunners and saving money. Is there any evidence of debate over this matter?

Yeah – a favourite rant, I wonder why the Prussian Army of 1806 hadn't appeared so far.
also to be noted that the French had a smiliar system in the French Revolution where they placed gunners on the Wurst – here ammunition waggon.
Also I cannot understand the fuss about mounted gunners, when they would have to wait for the slow moving cumbersome French Gribeauval ammunition waggons.

The Austrian 'Un-Real' Horse Artillery was created to serve as a mobil army artillery reserve which could be moved more quickly to needed points of the battlefield. Its main purpose was not to move with cavalry.

It would be interesting to somehow calculate how often 'Real' horse artillery moved with cavalry on the battlefield vs serving other purposes on the battlefield. It looks to me as there were periods where most of the horse artillery was NOT assigned to cavalry formations.

Is the 'Real' horse artillery moving with cavalry and providing support to the cavalry as its MAIN PURPOSE just another red herring?

Steven, what do you mean by "unreal"?
You often confuse me with obscure japes.

We both know that horse artillery batteries were assigned to infantry formations at times. Just as we know that they were also assigned to cavalry formations. I have yet to see a cavalry division or corps having a foot artillery unit as an integral part. Do you know of any examples?

If not, then the mobility of the artillery is a factor. Cavalry did not gallop everywhere and neither was artillery expected to. But on occasion, the artillery needed to keep up to be any use.

Therefore, the "maximum speed" of the artillery is a factor.
You mentioned that the Austrian model was copied in the later C19th. maybe so but it does not seem to be copied in the Napoleonic period (except maybe by the equally cash strapped Swedes).

Now if this thread is going to just be another one of your useless jousts with Kevin, please tell me so i will not waste my digital words,There are other posters, even on this thread, who seem obsessed with refighting the Napoleonic Wars. i can not tell you how tedious they are.

It might be helpful to recall that "Horse Artillery" was a fairly new invention by Napoleonic times, and to some extent still finding its place. Once reflection set in after the end of hostilities, being able to keep up with cavalry was defined as the benchmark, and a lot of 19th C. treatises may have been coloured by this perspective.

Leaving aside Peter the Great's dragoon guns, it seems to me the mid-18th C. notion was more of an artillery unit that could be moved rapidly to support infantry assaults and plug gaps, at a time when "position" artillery was extremely slow and subject to the vagaries of hired teamsters. Even in the 1815 campaign, we find a lot of horse batteries – on all sides – still being used in that role.

It might all make more sense if we forget about galloping and walking but think canter. A cantering horse would quickly out strip the most determined artillery man on foot.
Horses can also keep a canter up for some time without getting blown. Though I don't know how towing a 6 pndr might change this. Also I'd imagine galloping would bring with the risk of flipping the gun over should you hit a rut or bump.
Max

Swedish horse artillery is a different matter altogether – at the Stockholm arsenal I learned that they not only mounted most of the gunners on horses, but actually drilled them to ride in line abreast, so as to present the appearance of a cavalry unit and only "unmask" their firepower at the last moment.

Horse artillery did exist already in the 7YW, in case I remember correctly the Prussians had them and the Russian as well.

Back to topic instead getting deviated by smoke screens,maybe this helps.

picture

'also to be noted that the French had a smiliar system in the French Revolution where they placed gunners on the Wurst – here ammunition waggon.'

Yes, they did which has already been noted. The French got rid of the wursts ca 1800 and opted for the horse mounted gunners as it was more efficient.

'Also I cannot understand the fuss about mounted gunners, when they would have to wait for the slow moving cumbersome French Gribeauval ammunition waggons.'

Do you have a source for this idea? The French didn't seem to mind and I have seen nothing in all of the primary artillery texts that I have that mention a problem with the caissons keeping up.

Sincerely,
K

Stephen,

‘The Wurst seat could be dismounted if required. This is unlikely in practice. There is reference to the battery given to the Bavarians having them removed in 1809.'

Doesn't that mean or at least infer that the Bavarians weren't going to use the seat and the gunners would be elsewhere when the battery/company was displacing?

‘The elevating system was likely to have been adapted from that of the M1741 Saxon elevating plate as descibed in my book on the Saxon Artillery. It had a handle on the left hand side. It used the usual aiming device.'

What ‘aiming device' are you referring to? Do you mean a sight, or the elevating device used to ‘point' the field piece?

‘The Austrian Wurst artillery was an economical manner to create mobile artillery that many countries followed especially in the mid 19th century mounting their gunners on the limbers and caissons.'

Mounting gunners on limbers and caissons is a very far cry from mounting them on the gun trail. And as has already been said, the United States had its horse artillery gunners individually mounted and the field, or foot, artillery would be on the limbers and caissons. As has been eloquently stated, the horse artillery is analogous to a finely-tuned sports car-the foot artillery to a van or SUV.

‘It was much better to seat them on the limber and the caisson.'

For foot artillery you are absolutely correct-for horse artillery, no.

‘I always find it interesting the concept of the speed of cavalry. Horses do nopt survive long if they gallop everywhere. There is as ever a different use in the different forms of Horse Artillery whether vehicle mounted, semi-vehicle mounted or horse mounted crews. These being modern terms to explain the differences.'

I don't know of any good commander of cavalry, horse or foot artillery, artillery train or supply train, that had their horses always at the gallop. I don't see your point here-it is more common sense, or horse sense, than anything else. De Brack's memoir would be very useful here. How do you mean ‘modern terms' and by whom?

‘It has been discussed previously of the comparative all up weights of the Austrian Wurst and the Gribeauval 8-pdr. The former was lighter even with gunners on the trails.'

The Gribeauval 8-pounder threw a round almost three English pounds heavier than the Austrian 6-pounder. That's a very large discrepancy, especially the more guns that are being employed in mass. It should also be noted that the Gribeauval field guns had a great mechanical advantage in the use of the iron axel and brass wheel housings that negated the disadvantage in overall weight. Further, the lessening of the piece's powder charge, as found by Belidor, along with the new gun carriage design that distributed the field piece's recoil, reduced recoil to the extent that Gribeauval didn't worry about it (see Rosen and Alder).

Sincerely,
K

Artillerie Autrichienne. Lithographie von Moltzheim aus: "Collection des uniformes actuels de l'artillerie européenne dessinés par un officier de l'armée française", bei Dupuy ca. 1830:

picture

That's a really useful picture. I was puzzling last night as to how the gunners could be accomodated on the wurst. A crew of a 6 pdr is 6, and the howitzer 7, yet the wurst is nearly always depicted as carrying 4. So, where would the extra gunners go? The senior NCO was likely to be mounted, but not an odd ordinary gunner. This illustration shows 5 on the wurst, leaving the senior NCO mounted. How about the howitzer, which I've been lead to understand had a smaller, shorter, wurst, yet a bigger crew?

The howitzer 'wurst' appears to be of the same size as that of the 6lber. More later.

"Cannon cross":

picture

picture

The recent Osprey book on Austrian Artillery, written by one of our members, states that it is smaller.

By the way – for those who are interested in history and not mystifcation based on nothing but myths ;-)) – a very good discussion about the development of the French mounted artillery – the use of the Wurst and so on – can be found in :

Coutanceau : La Campagne de 1794 a l'Armée du Nord, Paris 1905, tome second p. 116 onwards.

Absolutely, V-Dubya!

link

There is also a very good definition and discussion of horse artillery in Louis de Tousard, American Artillerist's Companion, Volume II, pages 30-84. This includes the conclusions of the French conference on horse artillery which occurred in 1792-pages 41-44 as well as a short 'historical sketch' of the introduction of horse artillery to European armies on pages 38-40.

Sincerely,
K

Yes, a good definition. See Vol 2, p 59:

"Of the organization of Regiments or Companies of Horse Artillery, either mounted or on foot.

From the above statement we may conclude that there are two kinds of horse artillery, or rather that this arm may be served two ways; one by regiments or companies of light horse, which follow the movements of their pieces at full speed: (see plate 25.) the other by regiments or companies of foot artillery, the cannoniers of which follow the movements of their pieces mounted on wursts made for the purpose, (see pl. 26.) and the officers and serjeants mounted on horseback. …."

American artillerist's companion. Vol 2 (1809):

link

Please note: The plates, which are in a separate volume, are not yet available for download.

This work has many difficulties. Much contradictory information is provided without resolution. An example:

On p 39 of Vol 2, 1st para we are told, "The Austrians were … conveyed upon caissons, or stuffed waggons …."; but, in the 2nd para, we are told, "the Austrian ride on the carriages of the guns". If fact, the Austrians rode on the gun carriages. Only in the Austrian 'rocket artillery', at the end of the Nap era, were the men mounted on 'wurst' ammunition wagons.

Perhaps cut and past, as well as a lack of editororial input, caused this and other similar inconsistencies.

Sadly, one can pick and choose material from this work to reach a desired conclusion. <:^{

For the cut and past nature of this work see:

link

Look familiar? This work was published in 1801 and quotes an
earlier [English?] work.

If you read the manual carefully, it states on page 39, and after, that the Austrians were using the wurst caissons/wagons in 1783 and then changed to using the wurst gun carriages.

With few exceptions the manual is complete and excellent, and is as good as the French artillery manuals of the period, many of which were used in the writing of Tousard's work.

In short, you are wrong in your conclusions once again. I would highly recommend that you read artillery manuals in general very carefully as it is quite easy to make mistakes especially if you aren't conversant in artillery technical terms, vocabulary, and the generalities and particulars of the arm.

Sincerely,
K

Further, as to wurst mounted vice individually mounted gunners for horse artillery, Tousard is very specific upon which was the more effective, and it is the latter, specifically, on page 41:

'That for the effective employment of this horse artillery, and for the regulaton of its service, training, &c. it is necessary to provide it with better horses than field artillery usually has, so that it may be transported with the greatest swiftness to whatever place it may be required at; and that the artillerists may be able to follow their pieces, and to begin to fire as they are placed.'

'That, to accomplish this object, it is better that the artillerymen should be all on horseback, than if they even partly rode upon wursts or stuffed caissons, because accidents are less frequent, movements more easy, retreat more certain, and horses more easily replaced.'

Further, in Section VIII on page 56 it specifically states that 'Experience, during this long war, has demonstrated the advantage of mounted cannoneers, and of confining the wursts only to carry ammunition, and such men as may happen to be dismounted; horsemen may always arrive in time with their piece, and need only to remount horses, when the guns have begun their movement for changing position, and join them afterwards with equal rapidity; on the contrary, the wursts filing off quickly as soon as a maneuver is determined upon, it is difficult for the cannoneer to keep up with them; or, if the wursts be obliged to wait until all the men are mounted on them, the delay which would be thus occasioned might prove injurious to the maneuver itself, and entirely defeat its object, independent of the difficulties of the ground to be traced, and the accidents that may happen in case the wurst should overset.'

Sincerely,
K

Yes, I wonder where the author has the clue about the light carriages of the French Horse artillery, also the cavalier remark that most of the French horse artillery are mounted whilst other ride on the wurst, out of the 9 orignal companies – 6 were mounted on the Wurst (this time a waggon) and only 3 with horses.
Coutnaceau is discussing the whole subject with much more auhtority.

"In short, you are wrong in your conclusions once again. I would highly recommend that you read artillery manuals in general very carefully as it is quite easy to make mistakes especially if you aren't conversant in artillery technical terms, vocabulary, and the generalities and particulars of the arm." LOL, 'ad hominem' Kev!

Like I said,"Sadly, one can pick and choose material from this work to reach a desired conclusion. <:^{ " You have proved my point.

"Tousard is very specific …." You do not have a clue as to what Tousard wrote! Whole sections are cribed from others, as I have shown in my previous post. It would appear that the English translation of that text originated in an 1799 issue of "The British Military Library".

Yours in firm research,

With the greatest of Sincerity,

B

Kevin, you often mention Toussard.
Is a copy readily available and not too expensive?