"Books on Napoleonic Artillery?" Topic

I just acquired a copy of the Osprey Vanguard series title "Austrian Napoleonic Artillery, 1792-1815" by David Hollins. It's an excellent resource with fine illustrations.

Are there are any books that cover all Napoleonic armies of the period with a somewhat equivalent level of detail? I am looking for a single volume.

There is this, which is handy but maybe less detail?

link

I like it.

Try these

My First Choice

link

Also good

link

And of course the classic Firepower that covers more than the Napoleonic Wars

link

Would certainly agree with you on the first choice, Dawson et al, which actually fits well with my NV72 Osprey and is the reference work on the subject. Don't really have to tell you my views on the second, do I?!

There are two Ospreys each on the British and French, although I gather they go over pretty familiar ground.

I agree – Dawson at al – will give you a good start.

The Osprey on British artillery I found very disappointing – very little of actual use to somebody wanting to understand combat capabilities. French Osprey much better to my inexpert view, though I think it has been criticised.

I enjoyed Dawson et al, but it's a bit patchy.

Haven't read the Kiley.

Artillery is an anorak infested zone though…lots of people gathering detail without really getting to the point, while being very argumentative.

It is the latest sacred cow to be slaughtered, so you can expect resistance from the Keepers of the True Flame, which is why it does get down into detail and obscure sources. It is however instructive to see how much received wisdom is utter nonsense.

Dear Matthew
Being one of the co-authors of DDS (2007) Napoleonic Artillery, I agree that the book was rather patchy and suffered severely at the hands of a less than sympathetic editor. A great deal has been learnt from that experience. The scope was too large for only one volme. Artillery is not just the field guns but mountain guns, siege guns, garrison guns, caissons, limbers and other vehicles. You then need to consider the ammunition and characteristics of gunpowder.

Even little things like what colour were the carriages are still a real problem. Although I have resolved recently the colour for the Austrians, French, British, Prussians, Westphalians, Spanish, Portuguese etc.. but reference to the constuents in the paint that they were using. It is fun being a chemist as you can play with these things.

As any book that is written by three authors who took on different chapters then that is what you get. Much has been learned since writing the book and has opened up archives that have not been seen for 200 years.

From this I have written the Saxon Artillery 1733-1827 which being that there was the space to expand upon the themes in the DDS (2007) and correct many of mistakes made from not having the information.

The co-authored (2008) French Artillery to 1824 really supplants what was written in DDS (2007) as the story of the development is clearer. The next issue of Smoothbore Ordnance Journal with a number of translations will expand upon the themes that were covered in 2007-2008.

The publication of the Dupin's Contemporary Drawing has certainly clarified the design of the block trail which has a number of differences to those I drew in DDS (2007) based upon 1830s drawings and those in Franklin (2007) based upon the Aide Memoire drawings of 1844.

This has been expanded upon by my introduction to the Swabey Diaries last year.

My two volumes on the 7YW Austrian Army is now with the publishers and should be out Spring next year. This after studying the extent cannon in Vienna it is clear that the Austrian M1753 and M1780 systems are different. They should be treated as such which has been missed by most authors and commented upon In Dave Hollin's Osprey but as it was Austrian Napoleonic Artillery, the differences were not expanded upon. The use of poles to move the guns was invented by the Swedes in the 17th Century.

There are at least a dozen papers for the NGA Archive that have been written giving 1:60 and 1:24 scales plans of various artillery systems.

Artillery is not about revolution by evolution.
- It took 150 years for the Richtmaschine to travel from Warsaw (Poland) to Saxony to Prussia to Austrian to Russia. – The Russians were using the vertical elevating screw in 1757 that was not adopted until the 1820 by Britain.
- The Blocktrail dates back to almost the earliest guns. It was first used by the British in 1778 and designed by General Desaguliers. Modifications were made by Congreve Senior. This design spread to France in 1827 (Valee) and 1840s to USA.
- Side elevating screw was first used by the Saxons in 1766 and adopted by the Austrians in 1780 for their Cavalry Guns. This system was later used on a number of mid 19th century carriages of Austria, Britain, and Russia.

Now I am not in the school of who invented what. These are some of the links that I have been able to comprehend over the last three years. It is remarkable that man can invent the same thing independently to solve the same problem.

I that answers some of the doubts over the work that has been carried out. No doubt in a decade, I may be in a position to give an overview of Napoleonic Artillery.

Stephen

the conundrum of research & knowledge; the more one knows, the more one realizes how little one "knows".

if you want to be an expert, only read ONE book on the subject.

Stephen, I look forward to the fruits of your efforts…I have the Saxon artillery book as well as the two on Prussian Infantry and of course the Napoleonic Artillery title.

Dear RM
Thank you for your kind comments. Alas it takes time to produce books and pull them together. I am in a fortunate position that I can now control the layout and the editing that is required.

The next issue of the Smoothbore Ordnance Journal I think will be interesting to many. It is just finishing off and chacing some of the contributors.

Stephen

stephen, does this mean we can look forward to a second edition in a half dozen or so years time?

if so, I'd love to see the tactics covered in greater detail as well – although I appreciate its a complicated area.

as it stands, yours is still a valuable asset to any shelf.

Dear Mark
A volume that covers the artillery of the Napoleonic Wars is contemplated at some point. It just would be nice to research better the different systems for individual books then an overview could be made.

I do not know it depends upon what the publishers want.

Artillery tactics in the period are ill defined and most contemporaries are very poor with their details. Much can be said about what to look for in siting the batteries. The interaction as an all arms part of war was hinted upon by the Prussian 1812 Reglement of All Arms.

Being a scientist I am happier talking upon the facts rather than the conjecture that tactical discussion bring.

Yes DDS (2007) stands up quite well. Some parts of it frustrate me as not being precise enough and the meeting of minds between an acheologist and a scientist. A different standard of proof there alas.

In the meantime, I have written a considerable amount upon the artillery systems that need to come together at some stage. Now that I have drawn the plans of most of the artillery systems the development of ordnance is a little clearer.

Stephen

Dear Stephen

Thanks for your response. I may whinge a bit from time to time but I really appreciate the effort that you and others put into researching and publishing material (I have both your books on the Prussians too). It certainly contributes to our better understanding of the period.

Of course what people like me really want to know is the relative battlefield performance of the various weapon systems and the tactics really used (rather than what people recommended, etc). This is probably unobtainable – but if it emerges from anywhere it will be from a lot of careful analysis of the battles, of the type that few researchers seem to have the time (or skills, I suspect) to produce. I have seen a small number of excellent battle analyses (Muir's Salamanca; Gill's books on 1809) – but none has focused on artillery usage and effectiveness.

<whinge alert>
Meanwhile the fastest way getting a thread to explode on TMP or other forums is to make a comment along the lines of "Russian artillery was as good as the French" or "The British 9pdr was a better weapon than the French 12 pdr" etc., etc. Vast reams of usually irrelevant evidence is then summoned to "prove" one or other unprovable hypothesis.

As a scientist, I'm sure you stand well clear of that kind of thing!
<end of whinge>

Matthew

Dear Matthew
Certainly there are some interesting comments there. Now I can talk at great length upon the material of the different armies and can compare those.

It is much more difficult at the distance that we are upon the human element. As you say I cannot prove one way or another about the handling of the guns. The evidence is not good enough if it actually existed.

The Russian M1805 ordnance was excellent and well thought through and was in placed ahead of its time especially their Unicorns that were introduced in 1757. The longer the barrel, the more accurate the shell but the high trajectory nature is lost. By 1800, the use of howitzers as a form of mortar had been in most cases eleminated in the designs of the carriages that made elevations of more than 20 degrees possible. Most restricted it to only 12 degrees even the excellent AnXI 24-pdr howitzer was in the category.

Now which gun is better than another can be discussed but you need to understand what the criteria there is. The 9-pdr uses less powder and more rounds can be carried than a 12-pdr. It is also lighter and so more mobile. The 12-pdr is better against fortified positions than the 9-pdr. The range differential is very similar between them. Take your choice.

It is interesting to note that at close range a 6-pdr is more effective than a 12-pdr as it can be fired faster. Remember that each time a gun fires it needs to be relaid due to the lack of a recoil dampening system. That had to wait another 60-70 years.

My writing does not have the passion and the novelistic tones of others. It has been developed through conveying facts and ideas. Hopefully I have also given the reader a language that he can use to interpret the information.

As you say proper analysis of the effectiveness of artillery is lacking in the literature with few exceptions. The work of BP Hughes certainly gives some insight in the use of the RHA as a tactical reserve at Waterloo. Wellington removed the RHA from the cavalry. They were moved quickly to where they were required and where possible returned to be available again.

All I can do is comment upon what I have seen and understand at the time. This improves with time of course except that you get older and forget.

If you have any specific querries then please contact me.
Stephen

Matthew,

I suspect your expectations might be a bit too high. While a few artillery leaders like Smola do talk about tactics from their own experience, it is very hard for them to quantify it with the hard scientific data scientists would like. Indeed, sometimes that hard data comes from the other side such as the Fahnrich in IR42 at Aderklaa during Wagram, who says that the French guns were drawn up too close and so the shot was going over the unit to hit the mounted officers behind. It would be hard for someone writing on artillery to find that – and of course, there are some, who would deny that it happened!

always jump to the last paragraph or sentence to find out just what the writer wants to really make his point about…

Shane,

I believe that sometimes that's called projecting. ;-)

Sincerely,
K

I think this is called "making things up":

PDF link

compared with an interesting version of it at p.55 of "Artillery of the Napoleonic Wars 1792-1815" by Kevin Kiley.

Better to get your facts right, I find.

your all about discrediting people aren't you Dave? Is that all that is important to you in your life?

Just can't help ourselves, can we?

Shane,

The book is better in hard copy. I've had one for years.

Sincerely,
K

My advice, if you haven't already got them, and if you can afford it, is to buy both Kevin and Paul's Artillery titles, plus any other artillery books you can get your hands on. They all contain something the other titles don't. Alternatively (authors and book shop owners look away now) you can obtain them via your local library. That way you get to see and sample the books before forking out those precious pennies. Both artillery titles (Kiley & Dawson)are great, by the way, as are the Osprey artillery publications. The more the merrier in my humble opinion.

No, Shane, "projecting" the right information is what is important. If authors bchoose to make something up, it is perhaps something which the wider hobby should be made aware of. The first example is precisely what makes the difference between a good representation of how artillery worked and the "nuclear artillery", which I gather has plagued Napoleonic gaming for many years. Charles Grant was absolutely right with his bounce sticks.

The latter has just been published on the Net. After reading Kevin's book (and to be fair, several others), I was expecting to see a report, which was at least a basic blueprint for the upcoming changes in the French artillery, something like the "completely integrated artillery system, to cover artillery from muzzle to trail, so to speak, incorporating excellent gun tubes, carraiges, limbers, and all ancilliary equipment necessary, as well as a reorganization (of) france's artillerymen into a modern corps that would be the best in Europe. French artillery would also have to have a howitzer for field use".

You can appreciate my surprise when I read the report in the back of Hennebert (which unlike the dozen or so Germand russian works listed, is not actually in Kevin's bibliography) to find it was a Q&A on the Austrian artillery – and now you can see it on the Net.

What should we make of this? It is a key document – the early bookend alongside the later 1792 Tables du construction apparently representing the "revolutionary" new system of Gribeauval. oh, except it seems, I was the only one, who had actually read it.

Ever wondered why there is so much nonsense being uncovered in this period. What I wonder do you base your rules on? After all, if you use this made-up stuff, your rules are just fantasy, aren't they?

So, I am interested to hear how the 1762 report and this blueprint for a new artillery system are related. I am genuinely interested – you see, a few proponents of these claims have suggested that I and DD&S haven't done our research "properly".

Indeed, what should we make of their own claims – if they are making up key bits of data. As you have said, we all
make mistakes – but making things up, when they claim to have the original work? What would you make of that?

Dear All
For those who do not read French. The reports have been translated by Digby Smith in the Smoothbore Ordnance Journal that also has the French transcription in Hennebert (1896) as linked above.

"The 18 Questions on Austrian Artillery that Gribeauval Answered in his Report Dated March 1762,"
Translated by Digby Smith, Smoothbore Ordnance Journal, Issue 2 (06)
PDF link

Stephen

Ever wondered why there is so much nonsense being uncovered in this period. What I wonder do you base your rules on? After all, if you use this made-up stuff, your rules are just fantasy, aren't they?

Dave, let me make it clear to you regarding wargaming. It is a game, it is "make believe". We pretend that our figures are fighting battles and we do so by game mechanics based on the period. However, every game mechanic we all design is in-fact, "made-up". Short of purchasing a real musket, a horse or two and a real cannon everything we do revolves around the fantasy of pretending to fight real battles. We use dice, cards and other tools to do this in place of real weapons of war.

Game designers are all different, we all focus on a particular aspect of gaming we prefer and hope that others enjoy and are aligned in the same way with what we do. This is what the hobby is all about. I personally focus on "time and motion" as the basis of my system. I feel that players must understand the relationship between the two to understand why formations in the period won one encounters but lost another. I also focus on morale and motivation. I believe that soldiers would only take so much punishment before they broke. I also feel strongly about individual organisational structure of the units in relation to each other and so on.

Hi Shane.

Well said. But it seems obvious that Mr. Hollins is not a wargamer. (My apologies in advance if he is one) A shame really, if he isn't one, since he doesn't know what he's missing. Perhaps he should take time off from researching and writing more books. (but not completely because we need more Austrian titles) But to me wargaming is a more complicated version of Chess. (And I do like playing Chess, as well) Yes, it is a game, but a game with rules that hopefully, as near as possible, reflect reality, such as marching rates, artillery and musket ranges, morale of troops, terrain factors etc. And a lot of wargamers have been interested in the Napoleonic period for a long time and often do quite a bit of research. And anyone doing any form of research knows that accounts and books on battles and artillery etc, often conflict with each other, so wargamers also have to take that into consideration before playing a game. There are those who say it is a form of 'second childhood', a fantasy or whatever, but so what if it is? If you enjoy it, enjoy it. There are a lot of great people out there wargaming, many of whom buy Dave's books (and other authors, of course). I think Dave should try it. He could play Aspern-Essling over and over again. What do you think?

Well said John,

For me, Kevin convinced me that for artillery fire, the 1,000yd mark was the extreme of effective round shot fire. Anything above that and you might as well be firing at the moon. In my own system I went on the premise that once the round shot hit the ground (first graze) from that point on its accuracy decreased dramatically, this is reflected in the design of my shot accuracy charts. First graze for all guns was less than 1,000 yards anyway so when Kevin explained this to me it vindicated what I felt was correct and had shown in my charts. As for the bricole argument and so many other petty arguments Dave has come out with, I could care less. They are not important enough to influence much that I have done anyway.

What I do not like is Dave's immediate assumption (without even seeing my rules) that all within is pure fantasy simply because I like and respect Kevin and trust in his knowledge on the subject, namely artillery. The difference is, that Kevin is never insulting or vindictive etc while Dave has constantly shown a panache for anger, revenge and vindictiveness on this forum. How can anyone really wish to take Dave's knowledge over Kevin's when his attitude is so relentlessly negative year after year after year here?

This is classic projection of one's disowned self or "shadow self" which simply means; he has a hatred of characteristics in another person (Kevin) that he himself hides, pushes down and disowns. Dave hates Kevin because he feels Kevin is a particular personality type he despises. He will constantly find any way he can to keep up the vendetta at all costs to paint Kevin in a bad light and bring the respect in the eyes of others for Kevin down. But the problem is, Dave has never met Kevin as far as I know. No matter what Kevin says on any topic Dave's dislike of Kevin will manifest itself immediately in conflict. The sad part is that we all get to see it.

Shane,

You misunderstand my rules point. I know you are not trying to simulate the period – there are too many elements of chance and a simulation would be dull. However, you are trying to represent the period in a way that players can show their generalship skills in an enjoyable way. So, you need to get the key features right. As I said, the idea that cannonballs flew essentially flat gave birth to the "nuclear artillery" so many of you (rightly) dislike. It also happens not to be true. That you can establish by a reasonable range of reading – albeit sometimes in places an author would not expect to look.

So, we come to a wider point – a decent representation of this period, otherwise you could either play another period or just make it up. You are quite free to do the latter, but maybe it would be better to say than to suggest that you are actually representing the period.

My point about the 1762 report is that (here we again) the received wisdom is a lot of nonsense. Kevin (and to be fair, many others) have simply made it up. Why? The information is there – Hennebert is over a century old. What is it that makes them either not read it or ignore it – and more importanhtly, make a version up.

Let's not have the smokescreens, eh? Look at it another way: if you are following the myth-making (and Kevin's claims have been reproduced in a more recent book), are your rules a work of fiction? Alternatively, the OP was very nice about my book – what would he think if he read Kevin's book, which makes a whole slew of (false) claims about Austrian artillery. What do I say to him, when he writes to me – and perhaps more importantly, would you prefer that I made thiongs up in NV72 or actually read the material.

I am not surprised by the smokescreen – but I am genuinely interested to hear how you and others think the fantasy version of the 1762 report (as I said, not just by Kevin) has come about.

Here is the link again:

The 18 Questions on Austrian Artillery that Gribeauval Answered in his Report Dated March 1762,"

Translated by Digby Smith

Smoothbore Ordnance Journal, Issue 2 (06)

PDF link

See Hennebert (1896) for the French version.

PDF link

I doubt Kevin and I will ever meet, so perhaps you would address the question of historical data, rather than faux psychology.

(Sorry, Internet problems)

You are free to ignore the historical data in favour of a piece of fantasy, but you will look a chump when someone else asks you about bounce ranges and how they work. They stand there with the accounts by Smola and the Fahnrich from IR42 at Wagram. What are you going to say?

So, Shane, do tell us, from your objective view, why do you think the Hennebert/Diby document, a keystone of the subject, has finished up in Kevin's version?

On the bricole, see fn17 on p.53 (which is also untrue). How about the claim that Gribeauval had plans of Prussian and Austrian guns, which he built copies of and tested, (which is also a complete fabrication) or maybe that Austrian gunners travelled on ammo wagons (a claim copied in the more recent book), which is an inventioin of Toussard. How about the claim that Austrian gunners didn't do much, except for Smola (copied from Rothenberg incidentally), when Dolleczek lists all the winners of the Maria Theresa Order in the artillery, mostly with examples of what they did. How about the long standing claim on the Historical Inaccuracies thread that the lighter Yr XI as the product of "improved metallurgy"? What was that (oh, apart from a smokescreen to cover the weight problems inherent in the G system?)?

I am interested to know why these claims arise and why some people defend them, oftn by not addressing the issue.

(Sorry, Internet problems)

You are free to ignore the historical data in favour of a piece of fantasy, but you will look a chump when someone else asks you about bounce ranges and how they work. They stand there with the accounts by Smola and the Fahnrich from IR42 at Wagram. What are you going to say?

So, Shane, do tell us, from your objective view, why do you think the Hennebert/Digby document, a keystone of the subject, has finished up in Kevin's version?

On the bricole, see fn17 on p.53 (which is also untrue). How about the claim that Gribeauval had plans of Prussian and Austrian guns, which he built copies of and tested, (which is also a complete fabrication) or maybe that Austrian gunners travelled on ammo wagons (a claim copied in the more recent book), which is an inventioin of Toussard. How about the claim that Austrian gunners didn't do much, except for Smola (copied from Rothenberg incidentally), when Dolleczek lists all the winners of the Maria Theresa Order in the artillery, mostly with examples of what they did. How about the long standing claim on the Historical Inaccuracies thread that the lighter Yr XI as the product of "improved metallurgy"? What was that (oh, apart from a smokescreen to cover the weight problems inherent in the G system?)?

I am interested to know why these claims arise and why some people defend them, oftn by not addressing the issue.

The OP was kind enough to ask where he could find "with a somewhat equivalent level of detail" – should I have bothered to do the work, when it seems you would rather I made it up?

So, Shane, do tell us, from your objective view, why do you think the Hennebert/Digby document, a keystone of the subject, has finished up in Kevin's version?

Dave, you are asking me to answer a question to which I have no information on thus cannot comment objectively…and to be honest, I don't really care about. At your level of academia your argument is with Kevin, most of us down here in the trenches do not really care less who is right and who is wrong to be honest. I am trying to actually be sincere here. Your issue with Kevin is an issue most of us try to ignore.

Both sides must try to put up accurate information that is presented to the masses who make up their minds on a debated subject. That is all you can expect and should expect. The constant argument and vendetta against Kevin only makes people want to ignore you or walk away from the problem. That is all I am saying.

Shane

I back up fully

You are free to ignore the historical data in favour of a piece of fantasy

lol, I am amazed that you guys assume that I am using a piece of fantasy? I would like to know where you get that idea?

You don't know what I ing use so don't make assumptions on things you know nothing about ehh

Hi Shane

Well said mate. Most wargmers I know DO NOT ignore histoical data. And they don't just accept historical data thrown at them by experts who may be wrong, but try to convince us that everyone else is. Just because they readily accept a piece of information doesn't necessary mean they are right and everyone else should accept it. And usually, someone else comes up with 'new' research later on anyway. I think where Mr. Hollin's is coming from, is not where most wargamers are coming from, which is perhaps why he continues with the same arguments. Most of the rules about artillery fire, troop movements etc, come from a vast array of good books and sources on the subject, which perhaps Mr.Hollins and others do not like. But some of them are from people who were actually there who commanded and fired the guns etc. And I doubt those who were there, plus the many sources available, are all wrong (well, until they are definitely proven to be wrong). But basically, we need to know that Ball-Roundshot is generally used for long distance and canister for short distance. (not counting shrapnel) One bounces the other spreads. That's all we need to know really, and possibly all a real commander would need to know, to a certain degree. The complications with artillery are probably why the gunners, or at least their officers, may have had to study and perhaps train more than cavalry or infantry officers.
There is usually always two sides to every argument, artillery wise especially, and perhaps this is not the place to voice it or for private disagreements, whatever the reason. To keep pulling someone down and making claims they have not read certain material is a bit depressing. I should imagine ALL authors have missed out reading something along the way. And if true, it doesn't mean all their work is incorrect. Most works available are highly informative and enjoyable to read. We need to progress the period, not get tied down bickering with each other over personal disagreements. Those moaning about each others work should shake hands, accept the others point of view and move on. It is one of the reasons some of us admire Napoleon and other don't. It is a fact a life. What a dull world if we all had the same views and agreed with each other over everything. It would certainly be a waste of time wargming.

Okay, Shane, let's try something you may feel is directly relevant. In NV72, I put in a lengthy quote from Smola on p.8 followed by a summary of his comments about the French having a range advantage, but that at 500 paces, (pt of first bounce for an Austrian gun at zero elevation) the French guns were less accurate (about 700 paces being the pt of their first bounce). This does of course create an interesting tactical consideration for an Austrian player against a French player – the latter favouring a longer range, the former trying to close it (or maybe waiting for the French to close, perhaps as clsoe as at Aderklaa for the Fahnrich in IR42). That does of course show how right Charles Grant was back in the 70s.

Alternatively, if the ball flies essentially flat, then the gun with the greater range has a simple advantage, being equally effective at the shorter range of an enemy weapon. The longer range gun simply blows away everything in its path and overwhelms the shorterange gun. No great question of tactics there then – just nuclear artillery and actually unsupported by any period writings.

So, what do I say to the OP when he asks me which is right?

You may feel the 1762 Report is of no relevanmce, but bear in mind that the fantasy version is a key support to much of the subsequent mythology about how G's guns were both innovative and better. So, it is actually quite important. Anyway, have a read of it and then, as an objective reader, tell us how you think it became Kevin's version. I hope it might make you think in your rule writing about how you may be representing myth rather than approximating what happened.

Dave,
But the OP didn't ask which one was right. He only asked if there were similar books with the same level of detail.

True, but I am contractually bound to answer any question, which relates to the book and can be answered in a reasonable length of time. So, waht do I say when the Op writes to me: "Dave, I have read x, running entirely contrary to what you say". The OP (or anyone else) has bought my book and is thus entitled to an answer.

There is another answer – I went on several trips to Vienna, asked several favours, did original research etc. to produce that book that the OP is kind enough to mention.

There has been some criticism of its French and British counterparts for not adding to the sum of popular knowledge. A few people on here would apparently been quite happy if I had stayed in UK, recycled some secondary material and made some up.

I have a vested interest of course in knowing what the reading public would like.

I think Mr.Hollins last question is mythical, if not outright silly, for a start! It is obvious to anyone, or so I thought, that the reading public is a very varied lot. And so may they stay that way. The different questions and topics on this website would surely support this? In terms of reading, it will depend on why they are reading at whatever time, which again, varies. Some will want utter detail, the exact button, the weight of the gun carriage, the width and weight of a cannon ball, etc, etc. Perhaps this could be classed as academic facts. Others will want to know how certain battles were fought, who fought them, who won and why, and hopefully, written in a enjoyable and informative way. This could be considered as Historical facts. And I was under the impression that most authors seem to identify their reading public well in advance, so perhaps Mr. Hollins has not yet sorted out who he wants to write for? Academic readers or historical readers? But I think I would be right in saying that we would all love more books (historical facts) on the Austrians, if that helps?

Agreed, every historical reader will read books for a particular reason and gravitate towards particular authors that they prefer because of their style.

For example I prefer Nafziger on many topics because he goes into micro level detail in battles. I don't know how he does it but it is that level of detail I enjoy. Others can't stand his writing style but for me it is perfect for what I want in a book.

OK, I'm not taking one side or the other in this debate. I just want to know what difference does it make?

So, why is it important that one nation preferred to bounce artillery at 500 paces and the other at 700 paces, or whatever the issue is? Just what is the issue, by the way?

The question is how is that difference important? Or does it matter?

In other words, the fact that the French bounced at 700 paces as opposed to the Austrians bounce at 500 paces (and was this consistent through every single battle and every single shot between the French and Austrians? and was it exactly 700 paces as opposed to 651 or 723?), did this in any way cause the French to ultimately lose the war?

Did the Austrians lose in 1805 and 1809 because they leveled their artillery differently than the French?
And if so, then would you say the degree of artillery bounce counted more than national leadership, army morale, logistics or finances?

Are you saying that technical aspects out weigh everything else on the battlefield? That because the French out "bounced" the Austrians they were able to beat them thus defeating them in battle, thus winning the campaign, thus winning the war.

I have read somewhere that after "first graze" the rounds' accuracy diminished dramatically and for each graze after the first this inaccuracy worsened.

So if this is correct it probably has an important bearing on the discussion of the quality of artillery.

the more accademic and the more historical the better – but in that I might be a tiny minority.

@Grenadier Books

Does it matter? I don't know – but I find it interesting that there a different scales of bouncing – different readers – different interest.

Also – most interesting that a lof of Austrian guns were used in the French army – like in Soult's corps – before that an 11 – 6 pdr gun was introduced.

It does matter in that it determines some tactics, but it also matters for gamners in particular, because there is a myth in vogue that balls flew flat to the point of first bounce – hence the "nuclear artillery". That gives the French a direct advantage, which was not aftually there. Take the historical fact and the Austrian player might win, using the advice of Smola.

Whereever you look in this subject, there is mythology everywhere – and much of it is imply invention. It has distorted our view of the period, such that until about 15 years ago, it was nice of the Continental Allies to turn up.

Perhaps more interesting is that when received wisdom is challenged, either by asking for its basis or how it explains period material, there is a strange silence and/or an attempt to shout you down. You wonder why these people behave in this way as it does not enhance the research and consequently, what their agenda is?

vW and I had a lengthy and civilised debate over pre-98 Jaeger for Eureka, in which I think we have untangled what they need for First Coalition figures.

What the endless repetition of unsubstantiated claims (or in the case of Gribeauval, big lumps of fantasy) does for the study and playing of the period I do not know.

I've not heard of that myth? From all the artillery books I've read, they always seem to suggest that the cannon ball's line of flight is curved somewhat. Isn't it one of the reasons, besides the width of destructive power, that gunners change to canister at closer range? They might fly straight for a short period but they rise to continue their flight in a curved trajectory.
I think the term 'academic' is getting mixed up with 'technical', Most wargamers read academic work. To imply otherwise is an insult. It is not just the reading matter of a select few, although some of them may think that way. Mr. Hollins is not talking academic material, he is talking technical. And I'm not too sure we require books becoming more technical, in wargaming terms. Yes, I think all wargamers would like more details about how soldiers fought, manoeuvred, won or lost battles, and especially more memoirs from the nations taking part. As a wargamer, in terms of artillery, I want to know what calibre guns I can employ, the range of my guns and when to change to canister. As Grenadier Books so rightly pointed out in his posting, there will be all sorts of differences in reality, due to weather conditions, state of powder, quality of troops etc, and who was using what guns, when and where. I don't think the technical side would solve that, in that facts on paper very rarely match facts in reality. eg: The number of guns in a battery on paper is usually very different in reality, due to lack of means of pulling them or crews to man them. And the number of troops in a battalion on paper is very rarely the same as the number of troops actually in the field. However, that does not mean that the technical side should be totally ignored. Obviously, there are those who seem more interested in that side. But whether it aids wargaming is another matter. In my opinion, most of it does not, but just creates constant and endless debates that are never solved and often, sadly, personal bickering between those holding opposing views.

John,

Excellent post. Grenadier Books also made excellent points in his posting. There is a difference in an 'academic' work and a 'technical' work. Artillery manuals by definition are technical works. Academic works on artillery, for example, are exemplified by Ken Alder's Engineering the Revolution and Howard Rosen's PHD thesis on the Gribeauval System. Both of these excellent reference works rely very heavily on primary source material, a lot of it archival material. I didn't get the Rosen work until about a year ago and it was interesting to me in that it verified material that I had found in other sources and that my assumptions on the Gribeauval system were correct.

I agree with both of you that you don't need a large amount of technical artillery material in order to conduct war games with figures. Generally speaking ranges would be important as well as movement rates for horse and foot artillery as well as rates of fire. I would think that the KISS rule (Keep It Simple Stupid) would be in effect. Artillery ranges for example are quite simple for the period-approximately 1,000 yards for roundshot, somewhat less for the two types of canister (large and small)-500-600 yards for the larger, and 350-400 for the smaller, and less back to the gun position for both-and that ricochet fire doubles the range of roundshot and is accurate enough to hit formed bodies of troops, infantry or cavalry, especially if they are not maneuvering.

Regarding gunnery and the path of the round, since it was brought up, is that originally in the 16th century, the trajectory of roundshot was thought to be a parabola. Experience and training, as well as experimentation and improvements in gunnery and the study of mathematics, later developed that the trajectory was not a true parabola in that the trajectory was not symmetrical from the maximum ordinate the round would reach and that the downward path of the round from the maximum ordinate would be much steeper than the path of the round to the maximum ordinate (max height the round would reach in its trajectory).

It should be remembered, though, that all of the artillery weapons of this period were direct fire weapons, in that the gunners had to see their target. While howitzers and mortars could fire at a higher trajectory than cannon, indirect fire had not yet been developed (though the use of a false aiming point had been developed based on the elevation of the piece when the gunner could no longer see his target using direct fire sights).

Additionally, based on the principles of gunnery and ballistics and on the diagrams in every artillery manual I've seen and every book on the artillery of the period that I have read and used, the round never rose above the line of the bore when fired. For example, if a field piece was firing round shot at 0 degress elevation, the round would never rise above 0 degress because that is the line of the bore and the trajectory of the round when it exited the gun tube. Every diagram clearly demonstrates this.

Lastly, if artillery overshoots a target, it isn't the 'fault' of the field piece, unless the piece itself is faulty, it is the fault of the gun crew and all that needs to be remedied is the elevation on the piece has to be adjusted, usually a quick turn on the elevating device. The idea that if a field piece overshoots it is inherent in the design of the piece is faulty logic and basically an inaccurate assumption. It might be a function of the construction of the piece, as not two field pieces constructed exactly the same ever perform identically, even today, but not a design flaw on tested field pieces. If a period field piece could fire at a maximum effective range of 1,000 meters, it could be elevated or depressed to hit targets between 0 (muzzle action) and the maximum effictive range. The French maximum range that was taught in their artillery schools was 1,050 and they were cautioned not to attempt to fire beyond that range as accuracy would fall off accordingly. Being able to hit a target also had to do with where the batteries would be emplaced as all ground is neither level nor ideal. A height advantage was desirable, but not too high as short range targets might be in defilade but not able to be engaged. Again, that isn't the fault of the field piece, but of how the battery is emplaced.

Sincerely,
Kevin

I always understood that a ball fired from a cannon would follow (but not rise above) the line and angle of the inner *tube* itself (not the outer line of sight along the barrel) to the upper point of its trajectory, then begin dropping down at a gradually steeper rate until it bounced.

Is my non-technical assumption correct that the difference between the distances of cannons' first bounces would rely on: 1) (for greater distance) the range of the gun as to how far (ie high) it could throw the ball along the line of the tube before it began dropping; and 2) (for hitting targets at lesser distances) on the skill of the gunners in setting the angle and lowering the amount/strength of powder so that the bounce would be closer?

With (2) above, is it possible for there to be a dead range in which the trajectory is so steep to achieve a close bounce that there is dead ground in which no-one will be hit? And am I right in assuming that this is what Dave says happened in Smola's text (that French cannons couldn't bounce as closely as Austrian ones could), and therefore the Austrians were more protected in the extended dead area, than French in a similar but reversed situation would be?

Yes, that is it in a nutshell. Smola notes that French guns are most accurate around 700 paces (first bounce at zero elevation), but less accurate at around 500 paces, which was the Austrian first bounce at zero elevation. The Fahnrich in IR42 must have initially been quaking in his boots when the French gun line drew up before Aderklaa and was no doubt greatly relieved to see the French balls flying over him.

The ball's trajectory is upwards, largely due to the dispart (the angle between the bore and the top of the outer barrel) and the Bernoulli effect. The point blank range is the point at which the ball passes the horizontal line from the muzzle for the second time as it drops towards first bounce. This is the start of the zone in which the killing is mostly done.

This also answers that nonsense in Nosworthy about the Austrians being wrong to use canister at Lodi. Using ball would have been utterly pointless.

The effect is to create differing tactical pressures on historic and gaming commanders – the French tend to be on the offensive, but close the range too quickly and they are at an disadvantage against Austrian guns. They need to get through the best Austrian range quickly to get into canister range, but that of course presents other problems. The Austrian commander, often on the defensive, needs to close the range to gain the advantage, but not into canister range, where things are pretty even and you risk losing crew.

The French went for the "big dog" as Gribeauval was a siege engineer, hence the larger charges, but this accuracy at varying ranges is the key isue (alongsiode weight). The charges were fixed for ball, so you can only influence range really by elevation, which then has effects on accuracy. It creates an area inside which the Austrians are not getting hit and are indeed finding their own guns are most accurate.

Unfortunately, rather too many authors have follwoed Kevin's line: " I didn't get the Rosen work until about a year ago and it was interesting to me in that it verified material that I had found in other sources and that my assumptions on the Gribeauval system were correct." The multiple copying of a single claim does not make it true. That is the point of so many claims about the "innovations" and the 1762 report – it is quite clear that manmy authors have simply copied and embellished what has gone before. The simple question: "What is the evidence for what you say?" is the most revealing – the fantasy version of the 1762 report being an excellent example of how many authors have not in fact done the proper research (however large theor bibliography), even where the material is easily accessible. Why? is perhaps a question book buyers might like to consioder.

Hi Kevin

Great posting and you haven't attacked another author or TMP member either. Shows how it can be done. Just a very rough example, but would I be right in saying that, for example, if a gun (8 or 9pdr) was firing roundshot at a target, say 500 yards away, the flight would be straight, but it would dip to the first bounce around 400 yards? And if it was firing at a target, say 800 yards away, the barrel would need to be elevated slightly to reach the target, and so create a curved trajectory to the first bounce, around 700 yards. I'm not looking for 100% accuracy here or an academic or technical answer. Just a rough idea.

'I always understood that a ball fired from a cannon would follow (but not rise above) the line and angle of the inner *tube* itself (not the outer line of sight along the barrel) to the upper point of its trajectory, then begin dropping down at a gradually steeper rate until it bounced.'

Roly,

That's what I wrote-that's the line of the bore and that is the trajectory along which the ball will travel until it reaches the max ordinate (the highest point of the curved trajectory) and then it begins to fall in a steeper curve until it hits its target or it hits the ground and begins to ricochet. This is illustrated in the artillery manuals and some of the more modern works on artillery of the period. The line of the bore is also called the axis of the piece. It is the center line of the gun tube's bore.

You can find a diagram illustrating this in this publication on Google Books:Instruction for field artillery By United States. War Dept, William Henry French, William Farquhar Barry, Henry Jackson Hunt.

Sincerely,
Kevin