"Books on Napoleonic Artillery?" Topic

Thanks for that, guys.

Kevin, yes, I was paraphrasing what you said to check my understanding, and I can see I got it right.

If the ball does basically flies along the barrel's axis without rising above that line, then why could the French gunners not have pointed the axis directly at the Austrians so the ball did not go up at all (as Dave's witnesses said the balls were flying over their heads)? Was this a gunner's mistake, or was it because French guns could not fire horizontally along the barrel's axis?

Great posting and you haven't attacked another author or TMP member either.

Yes indeed, Kevin certainly has a lot more class than some authors who post here. Professional courtesy is unfortunately lacking in some quarters. Then again, when a fellow backs up and supports a chap who fraudulently slags off other authors in deceitful reviews it's a safe bet that his character is already in doubt.

Personally, I blame the Idiot Tendency…

Roly,

The line of sight along the top of the gun tube was not parallel with the line of the bore as the gun tube (as everyone knows) was thicker at the breech than at the muzzle. That was the reason for the adjustable rear sight and firing tables that the French had. For the situation described, it was a gunner's error and not something inherently wrong with the field piece.

The French had the annoying habit of wanting to fire at long range which was nothing but a waste of ammunition, even though their doctrine did not support that activity. Period gunnery principles are usually described in some detail in the artillery manuals of the period and basically it was a function of education and training to learn to fire a period piece, just as it is today. Gunnery was still developing though great strides in the study of gunnery and ballistics had taken place in the 18th century.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Hi John,

That would depend on what the company/battery commander wanted to do. He could fire directly into the target, the roundshot hitting it on the fly, or he could deliberately have his roundshot hit somewhere in front of the target in order to have ricochet fire and have the round hit the target on the bounce. The rear adjustable sight would be set to the range where the target was generally. Ranging shots would probably be fired and one over and one short would be the idea in order to figure out the range to target and then the battery would open fire on the target.

The use of ricochet fire would also depend on the condition of the ground. If it was soft or wet and muddy, the effect of ricochet fire would be greatly reduced.

By definition, cannon fire was a flat trajectory-the difference between a gun and a howitzer. It was still a curve, but one that was much flatter than that of a howitzer. And as you know the trajectory depended on the elevation of the piece when firing.

Thanks for the nice compliment by the way. It is much appreciated. I hope this answers your question. If not, let me know and I'll try it again.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Unfortunately, rather too many authors have follwoed Kevin's line:

Like I keep saying, always go directly to the last paragraph or sentence to catch the author's true agenda…/sigh I really want to respect him but he keeps disappointing me

p.s. Ian, I love your work man heheheheh

It is quite obvious from this that the mythology persists. Contrary to (yet another) claim in Kevin's book (eg:p.305 in the Glossary), the Hausse adjustable sight was in general use across Europe in the 7YW – the 1767 Okonomioe drawings show the item. It is an earlier French invention. All G did was to put the slot at the rear of the barrel – that has advantages and disadvantages, such that no other major nation adopted it.

What Smola and the Fahnrich experienced was not down to gunner error – French gunners were well trained after all and could judge the distances as well as their colleagues. It is (yet) another excuse for a failing in the G guns.

It is the easiest matter to discern when something is level – I think spirit levels go back to at least Ancient Egypt. So, it is easy to know when the top of the outer barrel is level. The dispart is known – G's over thick barrels were about 1 deg, L and YrXI were 0.5 deg. All your calculations revolve around that known value and range, given your charge and ball size. That is why it is known as "zero elevation" – even though the bore is actually elevated at the dispart angle. Anything else is relative to that point, but if you are trying for example to reduce the French first bounce, you are trying to measure 0.5 degree. That is why you lose accuracy – in reality, you could be anywhere between 0.75 and 0.25 degree, so your ranging is out and you are close to putting the bore to 0 degrees, at which point, the ball is essentially immediately falling under gravity. The Austrians had a comparable problem with raising the elevation to reach 700 paces.

To suggest that the balls flew essentially flat is quite obviously wrong with basic maths. The sine of 1 deg is 0.0175, so that (ignoring gravity), a ball would reach 1,75m above the muzzle height in 100m. With a muzzle velocity on French guns of about 1380 ft/sec or about 420m/s, it will travel that distance in about 0.25 sec and gravity's effect will be small. So, within 100 meters, adding in the muzzle height of about 1.1m, the ball is already well above man height and will only drop back to the barrel height until point blank at 700 paces (500m). Someone who can do calculus can tell you the point at which the ball will start to drop, but it must be around 380-400m, so you can see how the dispart and charge lock in an flight path.

All these gun designs have certain advantages and disadvantages. To assert (as Kevin does) that the ability to throw a bigger ball is an advantage can be shown to be nonsense by simple logic – why not have an 18 or 24pdr field gun if it were the only factor? Likewise, a bigger charge gives you greater range – and that is why the French usually opened a battle with a barrage, but your problem is the reality of the battlefield and the arc of flight. It is the same with barrel length – the longer the barrel, the more accurate the weapon, but it is at 16 calibres that the optimum point is reached. Beyond that (as was shown inter alia at Strassbourg), the accuracy gain is offset by other factors. De Valleiere's guns were about 50% longer and 60% heavier than Gribeauval's for no real gain in accuracy.

While the Swedes seem to have had the techncial advantages early in the 18th century, it was Lichtenstein, who built a system from scratch and lightened field guns, so that artillery became an effective field weapon and in particular, the 6pdr became the standard mobile weapon. Gribeauval actually advocated the 16 calibres, but was overruled as the French went for the "bigger dog" and hisn howitzer is built as a siege weapon. his carriages are just shaved down 1740 French designs and he barrels are too think – hence the rather bizarre (and still unsubstantiated ) claims of metallurgy improvements making the YrXi 6pdr (note the weight) a copy of the L 6pdr barrel, except for the Piedmontese improvemnt of removing the strengthening rings.

I don't think anyone is saying the ball flies flat if there is any degree of elevation (whether on purpose or merely from the axis line of the bore itself).

What I'm asking is if it IS potentially possible for a French ball to fly at man-injuring height at 500 yards if you've set the elevation (or lack of it!) right?

If Dave is right that zero elevation actually isn't zero because of the dispart, why didn't the gunners then just set a slight minus elevation to account for the dispart? And why would that be any different for a gun with 0.5 dispart from one with 1 degree of dispart, if the appropriately correct degree is taken into account?

Or could guns not be 'elevated' to minus degrees, and that is the problem?

Dear Roly
Guns could be elevated to about minus 2 degrees to take into account the dispart. This was also important when firing cannister.

The accuracy of the gun is related to the length of the gun and the quality of the gunpowder. The various tests show the following for what was considered optimum.

1730 22 calibres
1740 18 calibres
1753 16 calibres
1790 14 calibres

It is about the speed of the gunpowder to obtain terminal velocity.

Stephen

Thanks, Stephen.

I'm getting a bit lost now. If guns could be lowered to account for dispart, they should theoretically be capable of flying at man-injuring height at 500 yards if the settings were done right, should they not?

But the balls were still flying overhead in Dave's example.

So was the problem due to French guns being too long or being too short, or the French powder being of poorer quality? Or was it the gunners' skill (or lack of it) to do the correct settings and take into account the lie of the land etc?

Dear Roly
French guns of 18 calibres would have to decline their guns to be able to strike the ground at less than 700 yards or use less charge. The latter was not used since the introduction of bagged charges.

It is an interesting anacdote about the shot going over the heads when they were at 500 yards. This is a mistake upon the part of the gun crew. The difficulty is that the artillerymen may not have been able to see the fall of shot and so unable to correct. It could as you say show the inexperience of the French gunners with their guns. Or not realising how close the enemy were. It is surprisingly difficult to gauge ranges upon the battlefield. That takes a great deal of skill.

[WARGAMING: Just a point in that, when wargaming it was the convention that the player would declare charges, gun fire etc… before measuring. If he got it wrong then the charge would have to be carried out. The oponent had the option to countercharge or do so next round when the cavalry would pick up a disorder point. Doing this you got very use to gauging ranges.]

Using different quality gunpowder would change the ballistic calculation to an extent. This must have been a problem when British gunpowder that was about 20% more powerful than continental gunpowder was supplied to the coalition allies.

What was attempted to explain by my esteemed colleagues was that cannonballs fly though the air is a modified parabola rather than flat as most consider.

It is not as complex as some have made out. I hope that assists.

Stephen

Thanks … that is perfectly clear.

1) So it would appear in Dave's example it was gunners' error or inability for other reasons to gauge the range.

2) I would have thought most wargamers would be aware cannons don't fire in a perfectly flat line. If you think of the word trajectory, you automatically think of a very flattened parabola. I guess the bone of contention is exactly how flattened or unflattened that parabola is!

I am sorry to have confused things a bit.

Smola is talking about accuracy – it is the Fahnrich at Aderklaa, who talks about balls flying over at short range.

The actual quote from the Fahnrich is that "The French halted and fired a salvo of ball at the Masses, which because of the short range, mostly went high over, wounding or killing all the officers' horses behind". What this shows is that at short range, the ball trajectory is quite high – it has to get "high" over soldiers in helmets.

Smola simply says that experience had shown that French guns were accurate around 700 paces, but lost accuracy at 500 paces, where the Austrian guns were most accurate. That likewise shows that the trajectory at zero elevation must be quite high and not the straightish line proposed, since a straightish trajectory would be as accurate at 500 paces as 700 paces, if it didn't bounce until 700 paces. He with the bigger charge gets a simple range advantage in gaming terms, which is not what Smola shows. Some gamers don't understand the concept – because they go for the nuclear artilelry, knocking down everything in its path.

At 100m, a bsll at French zero elevation is going to be something like 2.6m in the air. That is what the Fahnrich experienced.

If you look at the tables, the elevation/depression is relative to the zero elevation of the top of the barrel, which you can see it through the Hausse sight. You cannot level the bore definitely unless you can take a line down it. You can only estimate a move of the elevating device from the known flat line across the top of the barrel. You cannot calibrate these weapons, so that is why they lose accuracy as you go +/- plus the effects of gravity as the bore levels. You can be pretty sure of planting a French round at 700 paces on zero elevation, but you could be 50 paces either way for a degree of elevation/depression. Fifty paces is the depth of a 50 man column.It is all very interesting what a 1 deg of elevation will do to the range – but how do you know you have measured 1 deg? It also does not tell you about the arc of the trajectory, since the ball must be below 2m to hit a man in a tall shako. Why if it were all so accurate are (depending on certain assumptions) a mere 5-10% of artillery rounds hitting anything?

If you like, Smola is talking about proper ranging, the Fahnrich is talking about the height of the trajectory.

I still can't see why a trajectory would be quite high if the gun were at true zero degrees? Where does the ball get its extra ooomph (highly technical term!) from to rise above the height of the barrel?

The answer must be that the barrel (or its bore, at least) was not truly at zero degrees at all, and, as you say, this might be because of the technical impossibility of accurately making the dispart adjustment.

So are you saying that the Austrian guns were better at 500 metre range because the 0.5 degree dispart was easier to adjust for, and provided less room for error than the French 1.0 degree dispart? And then vice versa at longer ranges? So it all falls on the difference in the dispart and the ability of gunners to accurately adjust for it?

By the way, I'm not sure "nuclear artillery" is a good description of what you are trying to say some wargames rules portray – I initially assumed you meant it had too large and round a burst. But from what you are saying here, "laser artillery" might be more apt.

I'm personally not after such granular detail in my wargames rules that at certain inches the effect is different, beyond easily-remembered factors for short (ie cannister), medium (most normal fire) and long (distant pot shots with much less chance). Yes, it is probably less accurate in the detail, but in the swings and roundabouts things will even out … and, if not, its only a game anyway!

Certainly – by nuclear I meant in its effect and likelihood. If you give a cannon the definite hit on everything up to a certain range, it causes heavy casualties, which (given that 5-10% chance of hitting anything) is not accurate. Charles Grant was on the right track with his bounce sticks.

The Austrian smaller dispart does mean that the difference between the bore and the top of the barrel is less and so, writers like KGL Muller felt it was better. However, what it does give is a smaller definite angle of inbuilt elevation. As a result of that and the smaller charge, an Austrian ball would travel less far to its best point of impact – known because it is the easiest to measure and see over time. If a Mass is only 6 men deep, a French round going say 15 paces too far will drop behind the formation. the elevation/depression is not much at all – likewise for the Austrians if they are levating for longer range. The problem for the French is that they have to depress to get below 700 paces to first bounce.

Gunners do not like doing that – there probably was a psychological effect in the top of the barrel pointing towards the ground, but accuracy goes, because gravity has a much greater effect as you get to "real zero". Put your arm out flat – now remember that your barrel is 1.5 to 2m long and try to judge 1 deg of drop.

So, you are really looking for the point of max accuracy – that is the first bounce at zero elevation, or point blank if you are looking for an initial good point of impact (note the Fahnrich says French balls mostly got the officers' horses, not the officers). Move away from that "sweet spot" forwards or backwards with any elevation or depression and you should lose significant accuracy. You would have to use Grant's bounce stocks with a modifier.

Kevin, does what Dave says in the post above confirm with your actual gunner's point of view? It certainly seems to make sense to me, and also tallies with your own description of trajectories in the top post on this page.

So in essence the most accurate lowest ranges are different for Austrian and French guns because of the different disparts? Nothing too controversial there, I would've thought.

Certainly – by nuclear I meant in its effect and likelihood. If you give a cannon the definite hit on everything up to a certain range, it causes heavy casualties, which (given that 5-10% chance of hitting anything) is not accurate. Charles Grant was on the right track with his bounce sticks.

And just so I can enlighten people here, who accuse me of designing "fantasy" wargame rules. I designed a round-shot matrix with the number of concentrated barrels along the top and a modified dice roll factor along the side. You roll a D100 which is modified by firing factors such as, inherent gunner accuracy (Fire Disciplines), speed of the target, width of the target, target movement, calibre of the barrels to include rapidity of fire, and if the turn is second and further.

The modified dice roll is then matrix-ed with the number of collective barrels to determine the number of barrels which strike the target dependant on if your firing at effective range or long range. The trick here is that at effective range even if you roll low you will still have a minimum number of barrels that will strike the target depending on the collective number in total. This stops the annoying occurrence when you roll low and fail to get a single hit. Of course, striking at long range is very difficult and with our artillery round expenditure rules in place players tend not to waste ammunition.

So in a nutshell, our games show roundshot as a weapon where your expenditure for gain is high. The place where artillery has its real affect in our system is through the "morale" rules. The bark is much worse than the bite is what we feel.

So in essence the most accurate lowest ranges are different for Austrian and French guns because of the different disparts? Nothing too controversial there, I would've thought.

Maybe that's the problem?

I'm afraid Kevin does dispute this, but modern guns perform very differently from Napoleonic guns. You have to read the sources to understand the period weapons.

Anyone who writes: "the Austrian artillery was significantly inferior in terms of throw weight per class of gun and this was more keenly felt as the calibers increased in size. This disparity would also be much more critical as artillery was massed" and that "The French sight was the excellent Gribeauval movable or adjustable Hausse sight" has not donme the research, let alone understood the issues.

I'm not asking about that other stuff (yet!).

I'm merely asking Kevin if he agrees with the fact that the most accurate lowest ranges are different for Austrian and French guns because of the different disparts? This, I think, is a matter of ballistics and mathematics, as much as original sources (and having dealt with many witnesses over the years, I know that original sources are not sacred, and can often be inadvertantly or purposely inaccurate!).

I would tend to agree with you that modern artillery is different (I say "tend" to agree, as I am neither a gunner nor a historian).

But I would think the scientific principles still remain the same. A gun (unless it is a laser) still fires in a modified parabola, and maybe there is still a dispart? Of course, the measuring of elevation is now probably more pinpoint accurate.

Whether Kevin thinks one or other gun was inferior is his opinion, which we can agree or disagree with.

Certainly – but I hope we will hear the evidence on which his (or anyone else's) opinion is based. The creation of much of the mythology surrounding the whole Napoleonic era has been the repetition of claim and opinion (often based on prejudice) when the actual facts are available, viz. the 1762 report.

Mr. Hollins wrote-'why not have an 18 or 24pdr field gun, if that were the only factor'

I should think anyone with sound knowledge of artillery or the Napoleonic period would already know the answer to this, what I would call 'technical' statement or expression. Field guns of that size would surely be far too heavy for field work and would take far too many horses to pull them. I should think guns of that size were only used for defending or attacking fortresses etc. So why did the poster make such a silly and obvious statement? Then again, I don't put myself forward as an expert on artillery, but even I know the answer to that question.

Interesting to consider the 1824 Kriegsspiel (Bill Leeson trans.) divides artillery into Small Canister (point blank and up to 400 paces for a 6lb cannon), Large Canister 400-800 paces (low elevation or line of metal firing), Elevation – effective range for elevation shot as 800-1200 paces, and random (ricochet) at 1200-1800 paces. 12lb cannon get 500 paces, 500-1000, 1000-1500 and 1500-2000 respectively.
Artillery effectiveness is also moderated by conditions giving artillery at good effect or bad effect. The main criteria for good effect for elevation shot is the ability to observe ground in front or behind the target.

There are of course no distinctions between artillery equipment of different nations, just Red and Blue both assumed (by me) to be using Prussian equipment.

The one thing that has not yet come up in this thread is the wargamer's desire to concentrate fire on the best or most pressing target. What historical evidence is there for allowing any coordination of battery fire. My preference is to expect a battery to fire directly to its front. A massed battery just gives a wider beaten zone.

Another excerpt from KS refers to the distribution of casualties by artillery fire. V. Reisswitz cites his personal observations plus Scharnhorst. Interestingly the 1828 revision reduces the losses cased by artillery fire and gives the both shot and cannister as options between 400 and 800 paces.

v. Reisswitz determined the 'best result' for a type of fire then distributed the losses using the 6 sides of the dice, one side gives the best result, two sides give two thirds of the best result, one side half and the two remaining sides one third of the best result.

One exception to this distribution is in the elevation fire where "the figure for one face is higher than the average of trials because in certail luck cases, when the range of a freestanding target has been correctly found and good effect can be assumed, the circumstances can arise that some shot or grenade can put many men out of action)".

I suggest here that the term grenade here is probably a translation of shell.

The point I am seeking to make here is the suggestion that a good strike can be damaging but these good strikes do not happen all the time.

Dear Sir
The French did use the 16-pdr in the field in 1814 as they did in 1760 when the Valliere 12-pdrs were rebored to 16pdr on the instruction of De Broglie. The AnXI Short 12-pdr was lighter than the Gribeauval 16-pdr. The French whether Gribeauval or AnXI 12-pdr was a very rare beast as it required so many horses to haul it and the ammunition.

The Short Austrian 24-pdr could be used in the field but was rarely used after the revolutionary wars. The Prussians in the 7YW also used 24-pdrs in the field.

The Kreigspeil rules certainly give a better model of the use of artillery than many rules that consider artillery to be too effective. There was very little difference between the nations. It is a smoothbore and accuracy was a relative rather than absolute matter.

Design of a artillery piece is a compromise between mobility and weight. The heavier the gun and carriage the less recoil in simple terms. We need to consider the size of the wheels and the type of axle. So having a heavy gun like a Gribeauval 12-pdr is fine for hitting the target and if you did not wish to move it often. However the Russian M1805 Light 12-pdr or the 10-pdr Unicorn which was half the weight could throw the same weight upon a target yet weigh about the same as the AnXI 6-pdr.

We also come to the interesting discussion upon 2 12-pdr batteries being out shot by 3 6-pdr batteries according to Mohaupt who was a Prussian Artilleryman writing in the 1820s. Wargames rules always seem to bias towards the heavier shot. You always go for 12-pdrs rather than the ubiquitous 6-pdr. It should also be noted that 3 6-pdr batteries was cheaper than 2 12-pdr batteries. You could almost get 4 batteries in terms of horses.

It is also important to mention that the British Long 6-pdr had the same range as the 9-pdr which was comparable to the Spanish and French 8-pdrs that was used in Spain. They were gradually removed as being obsolete from 1806 and this was completed by end of 1809 outside Spain.

There were small differences in Ordnance. A 12-pdr is 120mm and a 6-pdr is 95mm. Both would do the same damage to a human being. The differences are upon firing on building and field fortifications. Yes the 12-pdr has more penetration but that was less of an issue. The 12-pdr could fire at about one round per minute and the 6-pdr at two rounds per minute. This is rarely factored with wargames rules. Let alone the issues of supply.

Stephen

Then there is also the morale effect (bearing in mind that many wargames rules wrap up the casualty and morale effect of gunnery into one function).

Was there any morale difference to a unit being closely missed by light artillery than by heavier artillery? If it was me, I would be just as scared of being hit by a 6 pound ball as a 12 pound ball! But then I'm not a trained soldier, and would be more akin to a newly-conscripted militiaman!

I note, as as contrast, that naval artillery appears to be often described by the weight of projectiles a broadside would deliver. Was this balanced according to how many shots could be delivered by a lighter gun vs a heavier gun in a certain time?

Dear Roly
It is the noise, being able to see the flight of the ball as it came towards you if the smoke did not obscure it, the earth shaking. The morale effect was so important. To be able to stand there and be unable to take cover.

Yes it does not matter whether you are hit by a 3-pdr or 12-pdr ball. They kill or mame you just the same. There are occurences when a ball at 2 miles still had enough force to take someone foot off. This was at Waterloo.

The weight of shot was essential upon Naval Battles as a 9-pdr would not be able to penetrate the sides of a 1st-3rd Rate. You would need a 18-pdr, 24-pdr or 32-pdr.

Stephen

Dear Summerfield

So basically, the 16pdrs you say were used, were actually 12pdrs, in terms of weight? If so, that supports my statement, since, if they were bored out, they would not weigh any more (and possibly less) and could still be pulled by the same number of horses. And we're not talking about the 7YW, or at least I'm not, so do not see the relevance here. But thanks for the information anyway, since it obviously supported my post.

Stephen

The reason why wargamers favour heavier artillery in destructive effect is that the logical argument that the 12pdrs must have been dragged along for a reason. Better performance against cover doesn't seem quite strong enough…and neither does superior range (range tending to be limited by visibility). But it's a bit of a puzzle – since we know the rate of fire was slower.

Maybe the 12pdr becomes relatively more effective for longer grand battery type bombardments? Aiming was less of an issue than throwing metal in quantity – and 12pdr balls would go deeper, penetrate light cover better, etc. Also over longer periods maybe the lighter pieces would not sustain such a rapid rate of fire. Just speculation, of course.

Also I'm sure that heavier shot was more lethal, especially in ricochet. Napoleon was said to have been wounded by a spent 3pdr shot at Regensburg. One can't feeling he'd have come off rather worse if he'd had the same experience with a spent 12 pdr shot!

Matthew

Mike

I have found the KS very helpful in understanding artillery – though the modified version is clearly more realistic. I'm trying to incorporate into my rules as when they get to that level of granularity.

Interestingly in the context of DH's quotation from Smola – at 500 paces French 8pdrs would likely be switching to heavy canister/"grape".

Matthew

"It is the noise, being able to see the flight of the ball as it came towards you if the smoke did not obscure it, the earth shaking. The morale effect was so important. To be able to stand there and be unable to take cover."

My point here is that in wargames rules (as apart from history books) where the game combines the effects of casualties and morale, the size and accuracy of a gun are just technical details.

It is the overall result that is important to non-granular gamers – and that would be ascertained from some sort of basic equation of casualty/morale effect of the gun versus the steadiness/situation of the target.

So-called 'nuclear' artillery will be accounting for much more than straight casualties. And with swings and roundabouts, the ignoring of fine details such as possible differences in combined casualty/morale effect at 500 and 700 yards, when collated into the whole game results, will not make a huge amount of difference to the game-play in the end.

One other question – is the canister range different for the size of guns?

'I'm merely asking Kevin if he agrees with the fact that the most accurate lowest ranges are different for Austrian and French guns because of the different disparts? This, I think, is a matter of ballistics and mathematics, as much as original sources (and having dealt with many witnesses over the years, I know that original sources are not sacred, and can often be inadvertantly or purposely inaccurate!).'

Roly,

No, and I don't agree that it's a fact either (because it hasn't been established as one yet) but it is merely an opinion and quite possible an uninformed one.

The dispart has more than one definition in artillery but basically it is the distance between the breech ring and the muzzle swell. In naval gunnery it would be important and 'to dispart' meant to 'set a mark on the muzzle ring.'

In Tousard's American Artillerist's Companion on page 374 in Volume II this is explained succinctly: 'The gunner will see that the guns are well disparted, that is to say, that a mark is set on the muzzle ring or thereabouts; so that a sight-line taken from the top of the base ring, against the touch-hole, by the mark set on or near the muzzle, may be parallel to the axis of the bore: he must instruct the captains of guns in the use of this mark, to follow the motion of the ship, and how they ought to take aim according to the distance, and the respective way of the ships.' (naval gunnery is different in many respects to gunnery on land as the gun platform, the ship, moves through all axes).

For field artillery (and all guns of the period) the line of metal was different to the line of the bore (the axis of the piece); in short, they would intersect in front of the gun tube. What was done in the French service was to set a line of sight for the gun pointer (the gunner that aimed the piece-it was called 'pointing' during the period) that was parallel to the line of the bore. A groove was 'formed' in the top of the plateband of the breech (called a visiere) and a front sight was added to the muzzle swell (called a sight button or guidon). This would add to the accuracy of the pointing of the piece up to at least the point blank of the field piece, which was a known distance for each caliber of field piece. The addition of the elevator sight by Gribeauval greatly increased the accuracy of his new field pieces of the 'three calibers' and it did not have to be removed during firing.

Any distance beyond the known point blank would have to be estimated by the gunners and in the field ranging shots would have to be fired before getting effect on target. French gunners were expected to hit their targets on the second or third shot, the first one fired would be expected to go over the target.

The elevating screw developed by Gribeauval also helped in the accuracy of firing as the Gribeauval manufacturing tolerances were very tight and uniform.

So, the idea that the dispart of the field pieces led to inaccuracy at a certain range is incorrect. The combination of the front sight, the adjustable, graduated rear sight, the elevating screw, and the training of the gunners would allow the French field pieces to hit any target they could see accurately up to 1,050 meters. If they didn't it was a function of elevating the piece properly along with battlefield conditions.

This information is very clearly explained in Tousard, Volume II, from page 199-232. Mathematics is involved as is gunnery and ballistics, but this short outline is the gist of the issue. Beyond the field pieces' point blank artillery fire had to be adjusted to hit the target.

'I would tend to agree with you that modern artillery is different (I say "tend" to agree, as I am neither a gunner nor a historian).'

Modern artillery is different in that it is more advanced than that of ca 1800. However, the principles of gunnery, ballistics, and firing are basically the same. For example, crew drill is little different than in the Napoleonic period. The main difference is that the round is placed in the other end of the gun tube and a lanyard is used to 'pull the trigger' with a firing mechanism instead of a portfire. However, the round still has to be loaded and rammed, a primer is still used to ignite the powder train, and the gun tube still has to be swabbed after firing. I could put a Marine gun crew on a Gribeavual 12-pounder and in 15 minutes of instruction have them loading and firing the piece quite well.

'But I would think the scientific principles still remain the same. A gun (unless it is a laser) still fires in a modified parabola, and maybe there is still a dispart? Of course, the measuring of elevation is now probably more pinpoint accurate.'

Agree. The sights are no longer along the gun tube (though a modern field piece can be 'laid' and 'pointed' along the center of the bore and get a first round hit at 1,000 meters on direct fire (I've done it)). You still have to level the trunnions, lay the piece, and sometimes relay it because of recoil. Some principles don't change so much.

Sincerely,
Kevin

'The French did use the 16-pdr in the field in 1814…'

Where and by whom?

It should be noted that anything above a 12-pounder was not classed as field artillery during the period.

Further, when comparing/contrasting the different 'pound' designators between the combatants it is important to note that the weight of the 'pound' was not equal. For example, a French 8-pounder was almost a British 9-pounder in throw weight.

And throw weight is important, especially as artillery was massed in larger numbers. Smola's large battery at Essling overpowered the outnumbered French guns and then started on the infantry, most of which (especially the Guard) stood and took it. Heavier caliber guns, such as the 12-pounder, could and did inflict heavier casualties because of the weight and size of the round and by the fact that it had more kinetic energy.

'…having a heavy gun like a Gribeauval 12-pdr is fine for hitting the target and if you did not wish to move it often.'

As the Gribeauval 12-pounder was designed for a war of movement, and that was maneuverable and light enough to be used by horse artillery, that statement is inaccurate (see Tousard, Volume II, page 47: 'Though the 8-pounder be the most preferable caliber for the general service of the horse artillery, still the 12-pounder may be employed very advantageously; for it is equally susceptible of celerity in its motions…more than sufficient to execute, in conjunction with the cavalry or chasseurs, the most prompt and decisive maneuvers.')

The 12-pounder was generally pulled by a 6-horse gun team, as was the horse artillery, and monetary economy is not the foremost idea when attempting to field an army or win a war-the most efficient system is.

Lastly, the sustained rate of fire for a 12-pounder was one round per minute (that for the smaller calibers was two rounds per minute). However, in an emergency the gun crews would fire as fast as they could load and multiple rounds per minute would then be the norm. There was a very good reason why Napoleon referred to the 12-pounders as his 'pretty girls.'

K

Confusingly, as with what Dave said, that all makes sense, too, Kevin!

Your quote from Tousard makes it clear the sight line (for naval guns, anyway) was supposed to be the "axis of the bore", not the line of metal.

So did or didn't the different disparts of Austrian and French guns (apparently 0.5 degree for Austria and 1 degree for France) result in different "best points of impact"?

I *think* Dave was making the point that even with the hausse sights, the adjustments had to be very precise and even the slightest error would result in large errors in where the ball hit/bounced; and because of the different Austrian and French disparts, the least affected areas for such imprecision (or, stated conversely, the "best points of impact") were different (not 'better' or 'worse', merely 'different').

Whatever, this is a very interesting discussion and I appreciate you both, and Mr Summerfield too, trying to explain your points of view (which to me do not seem incompatible).

Roly,

Any 'miss' would be adjusted by the gunner using the elevating screw and the elevator (adjustable tangent sight or adjustable hausse).

One thing I've found very helpful is to get American Civil War period artillery manuals and compare them with what is said and done in the Napoleonic or earlier ones. Artillerymen have a common language and that has helped me in the past and I get hold of any artillery manual of the period that I can.

Sincerely,
Kevin

I think that Roly can judge the value of Kevin's opinions now – what extraordinary arrogance to state: "No, and I don't agree that it's a fact either (because it hasn't been established as one yet) but it is merely an opinion and quite possible an uninformed one." It only comes from the tactical advice of one of the best gunners of the period – in a book listed in Kevin's bibliography, but apparently not read!

What do we get? The work of a man, who never saw action in the Revolutionary and Napoleonioc Wars – about 2/3 lifted as a translation from a work predating most of that period by a Danish officer, who likewise, would have seen little real action. It is because of this that we get nonsense about Austrian Cavalry gun crews travelling on ammunition carts.

And what have we heard? The first section is about naval gunnery! Then an interesting (and not for the first time) backtrack on Gribeauval's "innovations" – The rear sight is a Hausse, which was in general use across Europe in the mid-18th century, so now he "developed" it. Well, yes, G put it in a slot at the rear, but there are advantages and disadvantages, such that no other major European nation copied this. It does not affect accuracy, but just keeps the sight in position. The sight does not determine "accuracy" at all – it measures the range and thus shows the theoretical angle, which the barrel must be set to. Likewise, the elevation screw on G guns was not adopted by anyone else and is described as awkward by KGL Muller. It was no better or worse than the Holtzmann screw or the cog system used inter alia on Austrian cavalry guns, not least as none of them were calibrated in the first place. The source for the claim that the G screw was better is the Introduction to de Scheel, written by Don Graves (who has recently recanted his opinions on G!).

Point blank is simply a known range, given that the ball falls back through the horizontal line at that point and so is effective – being just over 1m above the ground. Given that dispart imparts a built-in angle and point blank is the far point at which the ball drops back through the horizontal over-the-barrel line, ex hypothesi, the ball must be above it during flight at zero elevation launch. How much – well the sine of 1 deg is 0.0175. The approximate maths is quite simple – although you need to adjust for gravity and wind resistance.

So, does Kevin address the question? No. We get a strange definition of dispart, being a distance apparently, which has no meaning at all. It does not appear in Kevin's glossary, yet as KGL Muller states, it is a key feature, measured in degrees, of how guns perform. There must be a dispart angle and consequently, an inbuilt elevation. Of course, to admit would be another piece of evidence that G's guns were not built for efficient field use. They allow Austrian weapons dominate in a range between French domination and canister.

Then we get this repeated nonsense about G and his "constant windage" making for more accurate firing. There are two obvious flaws in this argument: 1)G "developed the no go gauge, which measured the low end of tolerance" – 17th century rings like this hang on the walls of the Graz Zeughaus, but if you have a definite windage, why do you need a pair of rings to reflect the ball size tolerance? Austria had done away with this because of precision casting in graphite moulds. 2) a constant windage – 0.13in apparently – means that 12pdr balls are too tight and 4pdr too loose, as windage is a % measure. The table shown on p.271 of Kevin's book gives definite sizes down to 1/100in of both bore and round – erm, so why are the rings needed?

"French gunners were expected to hit their targets on the second or third shot, the first one fired would be expected to go over the target." – Really, for a weapon shown to hit at 5-10% of the time? What is the evidence to back that claim?

In short, trotting out quotes from a few English language works and the opinions of recent authors, especially where they contradict themselves and/or the period data, is not a good basis for any opinion on the period. I can understand that the average reader thinks all books are written to a similar research standard and so, arguments are just about interpretation. Unfortunately, they are not and the debates should come down to period documents.

Anyway, the French might well be turning to canister at 500 paces, but that is getting out to the extreme range, where few canister balls will travel. Likewise, gamers will favour the hitting power of a 12pdr, but no game is going to reflect the long-term resources demands of 12pdrs, especially in terms of horses and powder. The volume of a sphere (IIRC) is Pi x radius cubed, so a 12pdr ball is not much greater in radius. It will travel further, but you have to see your target and it can go anywhere after first bounce. It is probably a folk memoory in rules of G's siege gun mentality.

I don't think seeing action or not seeing action comes into what we're talking about (and if it did, then I suspect K might have it over Dave!).

It seems to be (as a total non-gunner) obvious that sighting should be by the line of the bore if you're ever going to hit the target, so I see no reason that Toussard (a gunner) would not have stated that correctly.

And it also seems obviosu that if sighting is by the line of theb ore (which it is impossible to get into to sight along) you would need some artificall way of calculating the difference (ie soem sort of sight).

What I would still like to see K answer is if there were differences between the Austrian and French "best points of impact", which to me seems to be the nub of this what I suspect is a non-argument.

Rats … lots of errors in the above post! I had to quickly submit it without proof-reading, because a visitor came in for a meeting. Sorry about that, guys – hope it is still readable.

Dear Roly
I think you misread what is being stated here. It is criptically put. I think you should read some of the papers on the Smoothbore Ordnance Journal to understand the context.

The passages quoted came from Tousard (1809) which derived out of the English translation made in 1800 for the American Artillery of De Scheel (1777 reissued in 1795) that was a compilation from Du Coudray's defence of the Gribeauval System written in 1772. I may have lost you there. The text was already 30 years old by the start of the Napoleonic War. There are a number of translation errors as has been explored in another place.

The idea of the Journal is to present the facts and the data so remove the bias and distortion. I hope you all find this useful.

Stephen Summerfield (Editor of the Smoothbore Ordnance Journal)

Issue 1
link

I would recommend for this discussion
"Notes on Adye (1801-27) Bombardier and Pocket Gunner,"
Stephen Summerfield, (Aug 2010) Smoothbore Ordnance Journal, 1 (11)
PDF link
link

"Louis de Tousard and his ‘Artillerists Companion': An Investigation of Source Materials for Napoleonic Ordnance,"
Don Graves (May 1983) Canadian Journal of Arms Collecting, 23 (2), 51-60
PDF link

"The Austrian Cavalry Gun in Comparison to the Horse Artillery of Other States by Smola in 1827"
Translated by Digby Smith, (Aug 2010) Smoothbore Ordnance Journal, 1 (01)
PDF link

Issue 2
link

The following are relevant to the discussion
Issue 2: December 2010
Section 1: Gribeauval's Early Work

"Part 1: Summary of Gribeauval's Life,"
Dr Stephen Summerfield
Smoothbore Ordnance Journal, Issue 2 (01)

"Part 2: Gribeauval in France before the Seven Years War (1715-56),"
Dr Stephen Summerfield
Smoothbore Ordnance Journal, Issue 2 (02),

"Part 3: Gribeauval in Austrian Service (1758-62),"
Dr Stephen Summerfield
Smoothbore Ordnance Journal, Issue 2 (03),

"Chapter V: Siege of Schweidnitz: Seventh Campaign Ends"
Carlyle, Thomas (1865),
History of Friedrich II of Prussia, Chapman and Hall, Volume VI, pp300-321

"Précis sur M. de Gribeauval, Premier Inspecteur de L'Artillerie de France,"
Passac, Chevalier de (1816)
In (May 1889), Revue D'Artillerie, pp96-120.

"Gribeauval: premier inspecteur général du corps de l'artillerie. Quelques pages inedites relatives a son se jour en autriche,"
Hennebert (1896)
Revue d'Artillerie, 47, pp598-623.

Section 2: Gribeauval and French Ordnance

"Part 4: Gribeauval Garrison Carriage,"
Dr Stephen Summerfield

With Supporting Material in Appendix

Muller (1811) The Elements of the Science of War, Volume I: pp110-112
Dollezcek (1887) Geschichte der Östereichischen Artillerie, pp333-338
Tousard (1809) American Artillerist's Companion, Volume I: pp312-15
Fave (1863) Etudes sur le Passe et l'Avenir de l'Artillerie, Paris, Volume IV, pp144-145
Smoothbore Ordnance Journal, Issue 2 (04)

"Gribeauval's Objection toward Regimental Artillery,"
Translation by Digby Smith
Extract from Susane (1875) Histoire de l'Artillerie, pp179-180
Smoothbore Ordnance Journal, Issue 2 (05)

Section 3: Gribeauval on Austrian Artillery

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

See Hennebert (1896) for the French version.
Smoothbore Ordnance Journal, Issue 2 (06)

Dear Roly
It is important to realise that adjustments can be made only if you can see the fall of shot. When you fire a blackpowder weapon you rarely if ever have that opportunity.

The discussion has been upon elevating the gun tube and realising that there is a difference between zero degrees according to the bore and siting down the tube. This gives a natural positive bias as the breach is thicker than the chase. In the 1850s British Ordnance had a foresight moulded on so it gave a true zero degrees.

The differences between the French and Austrian Ordnance is in part the difference in Dispart and that the French had longer pieces. Alas only the 12-pdrs were comparable in calibre when comparing the same approximate poundage as the Austrians used 3-, 6- and 12-pdr compared to Gribeauval who used 4-, 8- and 12-pdr. The weight of shot has some effect upon how far a ball will travel but the main one is with systems of fixed calibre length such as the French (Gribeauval and AnXI) of 18 calibre the larger the calibre the longer the range for a particular elevation.

If you are able to fire up to 2 degrees elevation then this is optimum to get effect from richochet (bounce). Any more than that there is a higher probability to not bounce as far. This can be seen in the various tables such as Adye (1813). There are variations to this but that is more to do with the dispart and we are not measuring the elevation according to the bore.

The differences discussed are upon zero degrees elevation. Accuracy again is a relative thing and all countries used different tests and careful study is required over their methodology. Many of the French tests were to prove one system of guns were better than another so are very suspect and biased. Such occurred upon the Comparison of Valiere and Gribeauval then again with Gribeauval and AnXI.

A heavy garrison piece has the advantage for range and accuracy over a lighter field piece.
- Longer Barrel
- Normally uses a higher charge
- Less recoil as it is so much heavier
- The garrison guns fire at known ranges that have been measured.

If the Gribeauval pieces were using the same quality of gunpowder as the British then there is an advantage. However, it is likely that at a third of the weight of the shot there would have been damage caused to them as they were now over-charged due to the significant superiority of cylinder gunpowder.

Failure of a gun tube was invariably at the touch hole that widens over successive firings. This is caused by the corrosive nature of the deflagration gasses and heat. This was cure by rebouching. The comments upon muzzle droop etc. is a problem caused by excessive temperature from repeated firings. This was a problem with siege guns and less so with field guns. Remember that 100 rounds for a field gun was consider a large expenditure. Look at the Waterloo rounds fired. Then calculate that this was over 10 hours.

There are many areas that are not touched upon in wargames rules.
- No ammunition supply rules. Guns fire all day
- No misfires [OK Warhammer Fantasy Battle has this rule]
- No accidents with ammunition or caissons exploding [OK Warhammer Fantasy Battle has this rule]
- No deterioration in fire caused by fouling
- Little is taken into account of the problems of hitting a target that moves across rather than towards the guns. Remember that the ball is fired at a relatively low velocity and you need great skill to fire offset.
- Visibility is a real problem on the battlefield and this often limited the shooting.

All these I have played with in modifying and writing rules over the last 25 years of Wargamming.

Stephen

There are many areas that are not touched upon in wargames rules.

Not exactly true Stephen…

- No ammunition supply rules. Guns fire all day

I do have ammunition rules in my own design. We do not use them often but they are there.

- No misfires [OK Warhammer Fantasy Battle has this rule]

Actually, I do have a misfire rule. It is part of my howitzer rules for firing shell. Rolling low is considered a "misfire"

- No accidents with ammunition or caissons exploding [OK Warhammer Fantasy Battle has this rule]

Actually, I do have this also. It is not really an accident rules but if the enemy rolls a natural "100" on the percentile this is considered a shot that has hit enemy ammunition caissons etc. The effect doubles the casulaties for that turn and reduces ammunition supply. I also had a rule for this that included the confusion it would cause and that it could halt firing of the battery for the next turn but left it out.

- No deterioration in fire caused by fouling

I do not have anything for this yet but the thought has crossed my mind and it will be something as simple as a negative for firing factors due to length of time in action. Not sure if this negative should accumulative increase with extended firing yet?

- Little is taken into account of the problems of hitting a target that moves across rather than towards the guns. Remember that the ball is fired at a relatively low velocity and you need great skill to fire offset.

I do have a rule for this also, when firing if the target is moving laterally at a certain speed there is a reduction to accuracy which can reduce the number of barrels in my matrix that strike the target.

- Visibility is a real problem on the battlefield and this often limited the shooting.

Again, this is in my system and is one of the MOST important facets of the system. I take into account visibility, ground undulations, ground consistency (soft, hard etc), smoke, haze, mist, fog, different levels of precipitation…etc

This is why my system is complex and therefore a system that would be overlooked if commercially available. I spent a huge amount of effort researching all of this and I will say even if complex everyone who plays it enjoys the realism regardless.

I also have been playing and researching the period since about 1980 beginning with Bruce Quarrie. His style gave the the foundation in which enabled my to make the decision to play complex systems over simple ones. I would say my own system is actually less complex than BQ's come to think of it. However, I went into greater depth, especially with Artillery so far that I have incorporated separate characteristics of not just each gun calibre but separate characteristics for each gun calibre of each state. It is not perfect but its bloody close.

p.s. Stephen, I have some details of my system I could share with you if your interested. I would also be interested in seeing what you have done. Anyway, my email is: sdev2749@gmail.com if your curious.

Dear Defiant
I was talking upon commercial published rules that I have seen. I am pleased that others have looked at this.

Stephen

Yep, and I would add that several other wargames rules systems I know of include at least some of those factors, too.

Thanks for the links, Stephen. As you say, possibly a bit more than I want to handle right now! But you have explained it well in your subsequent posting.

It seems that although ballistry seems quite simple at first glance, there are an awful lot of other factors you have to take into account before you can make any conclusions (eg the motives for testing that you mentioned).

I might leave it at that. I still can't decide who is right – the gunner or the historian (probably both in different areas!). Thanks anyway for the mainly reasoned discussion which I have enjoyed very much, and learned a lot from.

Roly,

Not to be obtuse (me not you) what do you mean by 'best points of impact'?

Sincerely,
Kevin

Dear Stephen Summerfield

Kevin asked you when and where the French used 16pdr cannons in the field in 1814, which you mentioned in a reply to one of my posts, in which you also said they were rebored 12pdrs. I think we would all be very interested in knowing this. It could open a new area of artillery available to wargamers.

Sorry, Kevin, I was copying Dave's term. I think it came from here:

Dave Hollins 6 Dec 4.40: "… As a result of that and the smaller charge, an Austrian ball would travel less far to its best point of impact – known because it is the easiest to measure and see over time."

I think from the preceding conversations he meant the point at which slight imperfections in setting elevation had the least effect on where the ball first touched ground … is that right, Dave?

Roly, Have I made a silly mistake over the last 20 years? Apparently, having been an RN reservist for several years makes me more expert than many noted (but lacking in naval experience) authors on the major navies and their commanders? It is an absurd argument, produced by those, who have not actually read the sources.

We only have period materials (regs, memoires, etc.) and things we can work out (eg: how far a unit might move in a day) to tell us – the claims of authors writing 200 years, who may or may not have worked in the modern equivalent of the subject must still be backed by period material and tested to see what comes of it. That is why it is important to read this material.

None of us fought in the wars, any more than Tousard or de Scheel did. However, Smola did as did "KGL Muller" (the Muller Stephen refers to) and the Fahnrich at Aderklaa.

The canister range did vary – mostly due to ball size and the charge size. The cannon calibre didn't make any discernable difference.

This question of how a ball flew is fundamental – it determines the way each piece performed and the necessary tactics to utilise or counter it. The question of which sources we use is likewise fundamental to understanding what really happened.

I am likewise interested to hear why Smola is wrong, how French gunners hit a target at the third attempt (when no more than 10% at most hit anything) or indeed what this change in metallurgy to create the L-copy Yr XI gun was.

The best point of impact is the point which you can hit most accurately – ie: zero elevation – and it is a short distance beyond point blank. This is what Smola is talking about, when he talks about what experience has taught the Austrians about the accuracy of fire from French guns compared with tests/opportunities for Austrian guns.

When these guns were constructed, the makers could put an appropriate marker at zero elevation, because they could measure it with a simple spirit level. All the elevations and depressions are measured from that point, hence that is where the inaccuracies kick in. Tests had shown how far these guns could fire at zero elevation and you can reproduce that in the field.

I am also fascinated to hear the explanation on the windage/rings point. I gather a general author on artillery (probably the ABC-CLIO author) has also claimed that French barrels could be drilled with a tolerance of 1/1000th inch.

Oh and here is one apposite to the debate on throw weights: "nearer, 2 1/2 or 2 oz will not do much more harm than a ball of 1 1/2 oz". (Strassbourg tests) from Kevin's book, p.280!

"Roly, Have I made a silly mistake over the last 20 years? Apparently, having been an RN reservist for several years makes me more expert than many noted (but lacking in naval experience) authors on the major navies and their commanders? It is an absurd argument, produced by those, who have not actually read the sources."

Sorry, I was just commenting on your argument, Dave, concerning the merits (or otherwise) of sources that had not seen action, and then somewhat light-heartedly comparing that to yourself and Kevin's respective backgrounds! … "The work of a man, who never saw action in the Revolutionary and Napoleonioc Wars – about 2/3 lifted as a translation from a work predating most of that period by a Danish officer, who likewise, would have seen little real action."

And thanks for explaining the term "best point of impact" for Kevin more succinctly than I did. I presume I got it right in a slightly more cack-handed way?

Anyway, unless there are any more direct questions or comments for me, as I said before, I'm going to leave it at that. I already feel guilty at having caused Stephen to find and type out and then explain a lengthy lists of sources which I will probably never read, being only 'somewhat' rather than 'intensely' interested in all this!

Dear Rolly
Dave was referring to Otto de Scheel who was a Danish ARtillery Officer who collected in 1777 the papers and the writing of Du Coudray (1772). This was of course 20 years before the Revolutionary Wars and almost 30 for the Napoleonic Wars.

The translations were as I explained and if you look at the papers in the Smoothbore Ordnance Journal. They were old by the time of the wars.

I was making you aware of the literature that is being compiled so people can make informed decisions.

Stephen