"Mount and dismount a battery." Topic

If you please, how many time did a piece of cannon take to be put ready to fire?

I'm asking if there were some information about how much REAL time took a piece to be ready for fire once it arrived to his position and how much REAL time tooks it to be retired from the field if it was neccesary.

Also, about a wargame, what time wargamers took to made those movements on the table?.

Thanks in advance for your information.
Amicalement
Armand

The horse artillery of the civil war until the end of horse drawn artillery could pull up, stop, unhitch, and begin firing in seconds. A couple minutes at most. It is very quick. Youtube probably has video of real ones or re-inactors getting guns into action. Motorized, towed artillery is also very fast.

Mike "Bunkermeister" Creek
bunkermeister.blogspot.com

There has been a great deal of debate previously on TMP regarding the speed or rapidity of battery deployment and limbering speeds between both foot, mounted and horse batteries in the past. I have my personal views on the subject but I am no expert, I am sure those in the know will enlighten you very quickly on this question.

Shane

YouTube link

You can watch one ride up, dismount and fire in only a very short period of time.

Mike "Bunkermeister" Creek
bunkermeister.blogspot.com

Of course that is elite horse artillery. I'm sure plain vanilla foot artillery would take quite a bit longer.

Not really. It is all about drill. Practice, practice, practice. It's your job. It is what you do. And do over, and over and over. Not being melodramatic, but you do it as if your life depended on it. It should also be noted that a lot of practice went into limbering and moving out of a bad spot. Been doing this (not under fire) and seldom with a team of horses for about 20 years.

Excellent and thanks for posting it. Good, solid and well-trained artillery, foot or horse, of the Napoleonic period could come into position, dismount, unlimber and be ready to fire is quite literally seconds as has already been stated.

One of the noteworthy things in the video was the employment of horse holders which is quite simple to do and doesn't take long. And, as has already been said ad nauseum, it's a lot quicker than having the horse artillery gunners mounted on wagons/wursts/caissons.

I've seen a period film of US artillery ca1920 gallop into position at top speed, stop, unlimber, and fire quicker than this film showed because the horses were going faster and it was a competition between artillery batteries.

Years ago, the National Park Service had a demonstration team of Confederate horse artillery, only a half section (one piece) which galloped up, stopped, unlimbered, loaded, and opened fire in about 90 seconds. It is impressive.

And CWBuff is exactly correct, it is a function of training and professionalism. We still do the same thing now, only with trucks and larger field pieces, but the principles are the same, along with the use of gun guides which is also shown in the RHA film.

Sincerely,
K

1) One YouTube commentator makes the point that this unit it coming into action at the canter, not the gallop; and of course this is ceremonial, not action.

2) A lot of King's Troop personnel nowadays are females, who are going to be a bit slower manhandling the guns.

3) Worth noting the space needed to turn the teams around once the guns are unlimbered; also that this masks the fire of the guns until completed.

You can also turn before you unlimber and then the gun teams can go immediately to the rear and the battery's fire is not masked.

Sincerely,
K

" And, as has already been said ad nauseum, it's a lot quicker than having the horse artillery gunners mounted on wagons/wursts/caissons."

Well, 'ad nauseum' is certainly true. The rest is, of course, hooey. <:^{

Sincerely,

B

As stated it doesn't take long in theory, but i expect the reality was a bit different.
1. being part of a groups of 6-8 other guns will add delays
2. your horses and men may not be in excellent condition, lack of food/sleep etc
3. setting up on some unprepared, rough, muddy bit of land is very different to horseguards parade
4. wait for the target selection/aim the gun etc
5. wait for the others or wait for the command to fire
6. has the bataillon near to you just sent a cloud of smoke in your direction?

so as C. Grant would say, take the theory and double/treble it.

There should be a penalty moving your battery on the wargames table otherwise they can just flit about all over the place, which they didn't do in reality, maybe only moving 2 or 3 times in a whole (real)days battle.

Spot on, Big G! <;^}

So, as Mr. Big G had explained, those were the facts that produced the lost of a cannon in the hand of the enemy?

Because if you can pick up your piece in seconds and the enemy cavalry or infantry are comming direct to you, it would be impossible to capture the cannon. You ran at full speed and fought another day.

Maybe, the responsable to loosing some cannons were the chief of the battery who didn't give the order to retired on time?.

I'm not speaking about those cannons hitted by the enemy, with their crew cut to pieces, with no horses or with the transport blow up by the enemy artillery fire.
I'm making a question about how so many pieces of artillery were lost at Napoleon Era if they can run in seconds?.
And I answer myself that because of the bad management of the officers at charge (??).

Amicalement
Armand

It would take a 4-gun or 6-gun battery (complete with caisson, forge, etc.) a bit longer to limber/unlimber than a single gun would take. They have to deploy out of column into line first (or vice versa) and not run over each other, deploy at the proper distance, etc.

As for why batteries were overrun, loss of horses often had a lot to do with it. Also loss of crewmen. But, yes, poor timing could be part of it -- waiting too long to start, or being determined to hold their position regardless of what the enemy did.

Mercer describes his troop relocating from the reserve line to the front line at the gallop with each gun already loaded with powder but not shot. Each the opened fire as soon as it was unlimbered with the other guns joining in as they unlimbered on station alongside. If you had the space and the weapon was already loaded it seems to have taken moments.

Again, I suspect not all batteries were up to Mercer's level of professionalism.

Mercers one of the first Nappy memories I ever read, excellent details on life in the British artillery and he gets quoted quite a lot by authors of Waterloo campaign.
maybe time for a re-read.

As a reenactor in the artillery I'd concur with Kevin, 9 seconds to 2 minutes does not seem unreasonable. You can load an fire a 12pdr smoothbore in in about 30 seconds including aiming. Rifles take a little longer because you normally have to worm the tube in addition to swabbing.

I have seen re-enactors from the ACW get cannon into action in seconds. I have seen those US Army videos from the Interwar and horse artillery WWII era and they are in action in seconds. I also found a video of Cossacks with a horse towed Pak 75 ATG ride up, unlimber and snap off a few rounds in only seconds.

American Horse Artillery was very good at it, in the Mexican / American war and later in the ACW. Ride up, fire a few volleys and move on if needed.

Units get overrun because they wait to long to withdraw, the horses or men are killed or wounded and can't withdraw, or the troops panic and run away, leaving the guns, or the weather, mud especially, makes them too slow. Remember a team pulling heavy artillery is much slower than horse cavalry.

Consider that deploying the artillery piece is the easy part, what takes time is selecting the position for deployment and manoevering the battery to be in position to make the deployment.

In the Waterloo letters there are many quotes "we were ordered into position".

Mercer (letter 89) "it must have been about half past noon when the Adjudant of the Horse Artillery came to conduct us to the position"

Later in the day Sir Augustus Fraser came to conduct Mercer's battery to its position.

The design of gun carraige and limber apparently had a large influence on the time needed to limber and unlimber. Sir Alexander Dickson was asked how the British artillery carraiges in the Peninsula, which were block-trailed, had compared to the French Gribeauval carraiges. This is part of his answer:

"This I know – that the French carraiges are heavy in limbering, and of inconvenient movement, they are difficult to limber and unlimber, so much so as in action to occasion great use of the prolonge, which I am sure was the cause of their losing many guns: whereas ours, when pressed, could limber up and be off in an instant."

From memory, I seem to recall that the British block trail allowed a gun to be aimed by one man, whereas the bracket type of trail needed two guys (one each side) on the handling levers and one more behind the trail to go "left a bit, right a bit…."

Someone will be able to give more detail, but didn't the heavier guns among the French (the 12lb, maybe even the 8lb) require the barrel to be lifted into one position on the trail for the gun to be moved and another for it to be fired?

According to Tousard's manual, which gives the complete process for changing the trunnion plates (moving the gun tube from the travelind to the firing plates and vice versa), the process took no longer than limbering or unlimbering the piece.

Sincerely,
K

At what distance did the horses wait while the cannons open fire?

Very nearly or they put them on safe at a long distance? (more than 100 mts.).

Thanks for the info in advance.

Amicalement
Armand

Armand,

That would depend on the terrain and the situation the artillery found itself to be in. Generally speaking, the battery's caissons (one per gun with the firing battery) would be posted either to the rear of the gun line or off on the flanks. That would place them about fifty yards away. Gun teams with the limber would be near the gun line and the guns would be attached to the prolonge while in action.

Sincerely,
K

Dear Kevin, many thanks for your explanation.

I had to confess that I'm atonished for the agression and insults you had received recently.
I cannot understand why some people show themselves with so bad manners in a serius forum as TMP is.
I concurr with you that many "brave" agressive man show themselves like that because they are behind a desk so far from the person they atack.
I'm quite sure that, face to face those persons would never show that kind of actitude.
Patiente et courage mon ami.

Amicalement
Armand

Armand, you have hit the nail directly on the head my friend. I also find it a very cowardly act by some who would be gutless to try to speak like they do face to face!!

Over the course of the last century, the US Army has learned a whole lot about publishing instructional material to assist in training. The 1864 Field Artillery Tactics manual published by the US War Department requires you to wade through a bunch of 19th Century verbage (back when succinctness was not rewarded) says the following:

Line of guns in battery: Depth-47 yards Frontage-82 yards

Numbers reflect, I believe a six-gun battery.

A single gun (detachment) has an interval of 14 yards between itself and the gun next to it. There is six yards between the piece and the limber measured from the end of the hand-spike to the nose of the leading limber horse. There is 11 yards between the limber and the caison measured from the end of the limber to the nose of the lead horse in the caison.

The above is the school solution. Terrain and tactical requirements would of course alter that. See several examples of hub-to-hub deployment (Stones River, Shiloh).

Armand and Shane,

I've found the best thing to do is ignore people whose only apparent purpose is to bait and insult. It isn't always possible, but sometimes it works. I've also found that those who continually exhibit that behavior usually do it because they cannot present an adequate argument or are wrong and know it. Unfortunately, there are some of that ilk on every forum.

Sincerely,
K

I find it so coincidental that when ever this topic rises smith appears?????

It is almost as though he thrives on this stuff, ?

LOL

I don't think the travelling position was a big issue, there was normally plenty of time to move it before action, they could still move on the battlefield without putting it back in the travelling position.

Don't forget most of the French artillery got away from the Waterloo field instact despite being almost surrounded, only being abandoned when the way was blocked at Genappe.

"I find it so coincidental that when ever this topic rises smith appears?" Does ?

Always interested in artillery. Surprised you do not know that. You might not agree, but

Sincerely, of course,

B

"Stay thirsty my friends."

GB,

Do you know if there is a complete list by type of the artillery captured at Waterloo?

Sincerely,

B

B

Yes there is a list, just divides them into de 6, de 12, de 24, was written by a British artillery officier (forget his name)

but you knew that already!

Sincerely,

G

?? (no, no, don't tell me)

Thread started out really good, thanks Armand for the beginning. Shared a lot of information somewhere there in the middle.

Regretfully, but In solidarity with my colleagues ….

To Shane :
PERSONAL ATTACK: ""
and/or

To Steven H. Smith :
PERSONAL ATTACK: ""

OK, take me away, Mr. Editor.

Thanks,
Chuvak

Many thanks for your kindly words Mr. cwbuff!!

Sad that we, people with experience in life show this lamentable actitude which is so bad as example for the new generations.

I'm still confuse and cannot understand well what is the point to be so agressive, controvertial, bad educated and out of order with another member of these interesting forum.
I always think that it was a matter of teenagers, but recently I had to lern that it was not the case.
There are not age for nonseless.

Hope you continue writing and reading!.

Amicalement
Armand

Armand,

A very well-thought out posting, as all of yours are. It is too bad that there is contention on the forums. However, I can commiserate and agree with Shane's frustration. He has my support as always.

I used to answer in kind, but found it to be futile. It accomplishes little or nothing and no opinions are changed (generally speaking some people's opinions will never change no matter what the situation or the amount of evidence presented). I probably just committed an error of judgment on another thread by answering an oddly phrased and pressed question from a member who generally resorts to insult, but I'll see how that goes.

Thankfully, Shane won't be gone long, and the other two received 'stiffer sentences' which to my mind they richly deserved.

Sincerely,
K

Mr. Kelly:

I understand perfectly the actitude of Shane.
He made the mistake to "press the trapp" and that move is something that any man with blood in his veins can do.

I hope he would be with us as soon as possible.

I still respect Mr. Smith, a man with an atonished register of books and documents of Napoleon and another Eras too.
Helpfully to any who want to know more about history.
A great contributor to Napoleon Series too.(were, by the way, he didn't show this kind of "personality").
A real "master" of knowledge.

So, I called to reflection to any visitor or member of this forum which intention is to offend or atack considering that these is "funny" or "a macho way" to show their point of view.

There are not.

ALL people usually visit a forum to lern, understand, conected with the people of the world or show their hobby.
Sad to those which only pourpose is to made trouble or agression.

Hope we can continue with our lives here as usually.

Amicalement
Armand

Armand,

The rules for behavior on the Napoleon Series are the tightest/strongest in the internet. There is little of what we just saw on that site and the moderators are very watchful.

I concur with all that you have said. You are a great asset to this forum.

Sincerely,
K

A comment on hte initial topic, if that is still allowed….

I have recently seen this from an artillery re-enactor:

Please explain to them yet another deviation from the title and body that Horse Artillery is simply slower than legend has it? The most fantastic part of it is that FOOT ARTILLERY can unlimber and fire faster than horse artillery. The reason involves the horses. When the crew of a foot gun go with the piece they either ride the equipment or they run alongside it. Either way they are right there and immediately are able to unlimber the gun and begin to bring it into action.

A fully horsed gun requires that the crew dismount, link their horses together so that the few in the crew detached to hold the horses can actually hold as many as 5 horses in the midst of a battle with noise and incoming fire. All of that has to be accomplished securely before the crew can then run to the gun and begin to unlimber and come into action. When I have participated in the exercise I had decently trained cavalry reenactors. They were new to the artillery drill portions but were used to often dismounting, linking horses, and fighting on foot. I know that they were very familiar with the procedure and yet it seemed to take forever to me from my position mounted as the battery officer.

On limbering up there is a similar pause while the horses are sorted out to make sure everyone has his normal mount, they are unlinked without loss of control of the mount, and finally the crew is ready to move.

Two things:

First, horse artillery will arrive much sooner than foot artillery will, so the deployment time in the battery position is moot.

Second, and not to be disrespectful to anyone, reenacting is not soldiering and artillery reenactors are not artillerymen.

Sincerely,
K

I don't know much about artillery (other than normal wargamers' lore, which may or may not be right!).

But wouldn't the amount of time a gunner takes to dismount and hand over his horse, versus to get off the equipment or stop running, be immaterial if other parts of the *whole* operation take longer anyway (eg ordering where the gun is to go, bring it up, getting the ammo up etc).

It would be interesting to see a Gantt-type chart of the whole operation of a gun coming into action, showing not only how long each sub-task takes and who does it, but which sub-tasks can occur at the same time and which are dependant on previous ones being done.

Comparing such charts for foot and horse artillery would show which sub-tasks within that whole operation are achieved faster by horse artillery, and how in the end that makes them faster overall, despite (maybe) some of the sub-tasks taking longer.

You could also do the same comparison between horse artillery with mounted gunners versus horse artillery with gunners riding on the equipment.

OK, take me away, Mr. Editor.

Um, OK, if that's what you want…

Arteis says
But wouldn't the amount of time a gunner takes to dismount and hand over his horse, versus to get off the equipment or stop running, be immaterial if other parts of the *whole* operation take longer anyway (eg ordering where the gun is to go, bring it up, getting the ammo up etc).

Exactly, similar with rates of fire, ammunition was a finite resource.

If a battery was under direct attack, then they would fire as rapid as possible, also disengaging would be as fast a possible.

On the wargames table most of this is irrelevant, unless you are playing skirmish, in all other games there should be just enough of a penalty to setup/disengage a battery to make the player think before he does it, and maybe the following turns at reduced fire effect due to a new position.
All depends on scales of the game, but I wouldn't differentiate timings for foot/horse or Austrian batteries.

Gantt charts! huh just been doing those at college

En Avant

I hope he would be with us as soon as possible.

I am in the fortunate position that I see Shane nearly every Tuesday night for gaming and conversation. Nice bloke and very knowledgeable, so naturally others who have a lower character attack him.

Cheers,

Glynn

Many thanks for your support and kindly words Mr. Kelly.

Hope we can continue with "normal" activities here.

And by the way, I want to ask if a Horse or Foot unit had to be deployed in a battlecamp and the place choosen by the CC is sudenly under heavy artillery fire from the enemy, did the unit would tried to deploy even knowing that they would be decimated and lost all their pieces, or they had the chance to deploy on a place "nearly" where the enemy are sending their murderous fire?.

The question point to know how much "independence" had the command of a artillery unit instead of the orders received previously from their deploy in a battlefield on Napoleon or other Eras.

Thanks in advance for your comments.
Amicalement
Armand

PS: Mr Procopious, please send a big hug from my part to Mr. Shane!. I would wrote to him soon.

Glynn,

Tell Shane hi from me, please.

Sincerely,
Kevin

The set up time for artillery would vary greatly between eras, nationalities and size. Not to mention type such as Horse, foot, battlaion, other animal draft animals (elephants-oxen-camels).

Too many variables to make a single or statement.