"Books on Napoleonic Artillery?" Topic

Thanks, Stephen.

More out of interest than any intent to modify any rules can anyone shed some light on the following.

When deploying a gun how did the crew ensure that the piece was properly level. I imagine the elevating mechanism could be used but did the gunners have some form of spirit level to use for reference. When moving the piece back into position following the recoil from firing how was the original alignment and angle checked.

If the target was not at the same height as the gun how could this be determined and would the angle be adjusted in accordance using tables, experience or ranging shots?

Stephen

Still waiting for the info on French 16pdrs – please??? But not to worry if you were mistaken.

Seems to be a lot of confusing and contradictory evidence for and against the path of a cannon ball. Would those making the arguments please tell me if they feel the illustration of the flight of a 9pdr cannon ball, shown on page 65, in Haythornthwaite's Weapons and Equipment of the Napoleonic Wars, is correct or not?
The first illustration shows a 9pdr firing a cannon ball, at zero elevation, flying straight until around 200-300 yards, when it then begins to dip before hitting the ground at 400 yards for the first bounce. Basically, it flies in a straight line for some time.
The second illustration shows the same gun firing at 1 degree elevation. In this case the flight is an arch, which rises to its maximum height around 300-500 yards, and then starts dipping until it hits the ground at 700 yards before the first bounce.
I've always thought these perfectly acceptable descriptions, which match other artillery descriptions. But are they correct? I'm talking in terms of flight of the cannon ball here, nothing else. Because if the cannon ball flies in an arch, it suggests that all the accounts of ranks of men being bowled over when hit by a cannon ball, are incorrect, as the ball would surely have gone over their heads?
And please, just a simple yes it is correct or no it isn't. No lengthy technical jargon filled replies.

Mike. theres better experts here than me but I have seen reenactments and how to's on TV that use exactly that. other than that until we get to loading bombs on modern fighter jets I'll keep quiet.

I am curious about these 16pndrs also Stephen. I have not read about their deployment before. In defense of France these older guns may have been pulled out, dusted off and used so can you enlighten me also about this?

Gazzola

Do you have an axe to grind with Dave Hollins??
Seeing all your responses in other threads as well??

As for the canon ball – it would depend on the angle of the arch – also you can read accounts, when cannon balls were just rolling around – at the end of their flight – I assume – when soldiers folishly tried to stop them with the butt of the musket with disastrous consequences – there the kinetic energy was still high.

Dear Defiant
In the Revolutionary Wars, there are examples of 16-pdrs attached to the field army. These acted as in the 7YW as position pieces often in field fortifications. These were used by the Army of Germany and the Army of the Rhine.

On 7 June 1794, the Army of the Rhine had 10x 16-pdrs, 27x 12-pdrs, 19x 8-pdrs. 10x 4-pdrs, 14x howitzers, 4x long 12-pdrs and 4x long 8-pdrs

Lespinasse (1800) stated that it was well know that the 16-pdr was placed in temporary field fortifications in the Austrian manner.

There are accounts of the 16-pdr being placed in field fortifications due to the lack of 12-pdrs in the defence of France in late 1813 and early 1814. Five redoudts around Dresden were constructed. Soult used a number of heavy guns in his defensive operations against Wellington in late 1813-14.

The Austrians had two 18-pdr batteries in the field in 1813 as they had done pre-1805.

There are scraps of information in the accounts but it has been a good many years that I have looked as I have been looking at 18th Century Artillery before switching back to the Russian Ordnance.

Stephen

vW – Just press the Stifle button. It is much easier.

Stephen is right – NV72 shows an 18pdr Austrian gun on the move in 1813. At both ends of the wars, 18pdrs and 10pdr howitzers were pressed into field service.

Mike, Illustrations of instruments show a variety of kit for measuring angles and manuals like Die Artillerie Lehre are just packed with geometry. Aside from British guns, the barrel on the main gun systems was not attached to its elevating mechanism, so the elevating mechanism would be the main determinant.

Dear von Winterfeldt

Have you an axe to grind with me for daring at ask some questions?

Being a wargamer and also interested in the artillery side, I was very interested in the idea of the French having 16pdrs in the field. I've never read or heard of that before. And perhaps most wargamers have not heard of it. But it appears Mr. Summerfield was referring to guns in fortifications, NOT in the field, which suggests perhaps he should not have made the statement in the first place? But we all make mistakes.

And surely, knowledge of 16pdrs in the field would have opened up a new area for wargmaers, don't you think? So it was well worth trying to find out his source, which, going by his latest post, sadly did not exist.

As for the Austrian 18pdrs in the field. I've only heard of howitzers of this calibre being used, and I'm sure I've heard of heavier howitzers than 18pdrs. And if the reply postings were referring to howitzers, that would suggest the guns would not be that much heavier because of the shorter barrels. My original posting was to do with the weight factor and why bigger guns in the field only seemed to be 12pdrs.

So please believe I do not have an axe to grind with Mr. Hollins, (or anyone else for that matter), who, in the past was very helpful to me when I was researching the 1796-97 campaigns. However, I am disappointed in the way he seems to pick on one particular author all the time, rather than just accept another author's point of view, as most of us do. I would much prefer Dave to stick to Austrian topics, which would benefit us all. But that's just my opinion based on the postings made on a great website.

And I feel members should be able to ask questions, based on the postings of others. Perhaps some members prefer to accept everything some members write and don't like questions that challenge or disagree with them. But please feel assured that I am not attacking anyone. I am only interested in finding out about a statement that mentioned bigger guns in the field, which has now been proven incorrect, apart from howitzers. So, in short, I'm quite happy with the responses and see no reason to request any further information on the matter. 12pdrs were the biggest canons in the field. A shame really, in wargaming terms.

Pressing the stifle button, as Mr. Hollins suggests, could be seen as suggesting that the member is afraid to admit that they do not know the answer or that their statement is incorrect. Perhaps they feel that their reputations as 'experts' might be affected. But no one is a font of all knowledge and I think those brave enough to reply, makes them more honest, especially if they admit to mistakes and their reputations would be improved, not reduced. Interestingly, Mr. Hollins has replied to me in other posts, so it does seem odd that he has suggested the stifle button to others? And surely, we all want to improve and progress the period, so questions will always be asked. I certainly respect the knowledge that many of the members hold.

Dear John
Yes you can have cause to use 16- and 18-pdrs upon the battlefield. These would be used on defensive or upon forcing a river crossing. The batteries of Libau in 1809 are an example of this and the crossing of the Rhine by the Austrians.

As you are aware, it was common to use field fortifications upon a battlefield and there are numerous examples. These are field pieces and not garrison pieces.

These fortification would be constructed over a few hours. These heavy pieces were vulnerable due to their slow rate of fire.

It is interesting to note that what was commonplace in the 18th century and into the French Revolutionary Wars was carried on to a lesser extent in the Napoleonic Wars. If you read Adye (1813), Gassendi (1809 & 1819), Muller (1811) etc… there are many pages devoted to the subject of emplacing field pieces. Of which the 16-pdr and 18-pdr are the largest examples used. It was normally a 12-pdr.

Most have heard of the Russian field fortifications at Borodino, Austerlitz etc… Their experience with fighting against the Turks were to dig in wherever possible.

There was discussion of using the British Iron 18-pdrs at Waterloo in a defensive role. Wellington felt that he did not want to loose these.

None of the posts were referring to howitzers.
The French M1775 16-pdr was 3.11m and weighed 1996kg
The Austrian M1753 Short 18-pdr was 2.72m and 2020kg
The British Iron M1796 18-pdr was 2.74m and 2030kg
The British bronze M1788 18-pdr was 1.75m and 916kg
The Prussian M1754 24-pdr 2.3m and 1764kg

See
DDS (2007) Napoleonic Artillery, Crowood Press.
Dave Hollins (2003) Austrian Napoleonic Artillery 1792-1815, Osprey
Adye (1813 rp2010) Bombardier and Pocket Gunner, Ken Trotman Ltd.
Dollachek (1880) Geschuchte Osterreicheichen Artillerie
etc…

There is common confusion over iron weight and stone weight. Iron weight was used for guns and some countries used this for their howitzers. The most notable was the AnXI 24-pdr Howitzer of 150mm calibre and the Russian M1805 20-pdr Unicorn of 152mm. The Prussians and Austrians would define this as a 7-pdr Howitzer.

If you have further questions then please ask in a suitable manner to the editor of the Smoothbore Ordnance Journal.

I hope that gives you a better insight into the complex and often confusing language used in Artillery. Confusion often occurs upon the translations from the French, German, Russian etc… Hence some of the discussion we have had here.

Stephen

Dear Stephen

Thank you so much for not using the stifle button as suggested and offering a reply. Yes, I can well understand why confusion exits. But I have never heard of the French employing,in the field, 16 and 18 pdr field guns. I am not aware, although I may be wrong here, of any wargaming rules or OOB's that include them.

However, from your description, and since I do not have an OOB or a description of the action at Libau, I get the impression (and I could be wrong) that the guns employed were not really field guns but guns normally employed in fortifications and moved to the fortifications created in certain areas. So my questions is, where these guns moved from battlefield to battlefield, like most field guns (up to 12pdr) or where they indeed fortification guns moved from one fortification to another?

And again, many thanks for your helpful reply. Much appreciated.

Dear John
OK Libau is a special case where most were from the Vienna Arsenal. The answer is yes. Historical OOBs are often very vague over the guns. I have only bits of the story as nobody has researched this area as far as I am aware.

As you may gather I am an academic and you asked a question that did not have a straight forward answer. There is still much to discover.

Stephen
Stephen

Dear Stephen

Brilliant posting. Thank you so much. Yes, sadly, the artillery side does seem to be the least explored historically and the least described in memoirs.

I also think it is a case of the more we discover, the more we become aware of how little we do know and how much more there is too explore.

Much appreciated.

@Gazzola

There I quite enjoyed our discussion about the Westphalian Chevaulegers – I see no reason to add you on my long stiffle list.

Otherwise – thank you for your answer – to set the records straight – I seemingly was wrong assuming that for you everything 10th Marines is stating was spot on and that Dave Hollin's contributions were off topic.

I believe de Broglie had some 8 & 12 pounders re-bored to 16pdrs, but this was 1759? or was it 57? so not quite napoleonic and not sure what he did with them, quite possibly in the field, plenty of heavy stuff in the SYW.

sorry no source, just memory.

Sorry Stephen you already said that, just read earlier posts, doh!

Dear Mark
That is fine. It is such a long thread. I did not remember either.
Stephen

Thanks for the info on that gun Stephen. I never knew about this gun.

16- and 18-pounders were not field pieces. They were siege or 'battering' pieces. The largest field piece used was a 12-pounder.

In certain circumstances, such as emplacing the heavy artillery in field fortifications and in the extraordinary case of Lobau Island for Napoleon's Danube crossing in July 1809, heavy artillery would be employed. But they were not field artillery and were not used as such. They were heavy, and were not easily moved and the vehicles used to move them were not the same as those used for field artillery (foot, horse, and mountain artillery).

Further, the heavy (siege) artillery pieces would either be assigned to a siege train or to the army-level artillery parcs.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Dear Kevin
That is a matter of definition. In the 7YW there was no distinction. The French commonly had 16-pdrs in their battle lines. The Austrians used their Short 18-pdrs in the field and on occassion the French.

I have given examples of their use in the field when they were not employed in garrison or siege work.

Stephen

And the definition for the period is 12-pounders and below. It is in the artillery manuals.

The French had no field artillery arm in the Seven Years' War. The Valliere System was used both in the field and for sieges from 1732-1763. De Broglie had some of the Valliere gun tubes rebored because of the mobility problem in order to lighten certain pieces for the field. That really didn't work either.

That was the reason that Gribeauval was assigned the mission of revamping the French artillery arm-his main purpose was to give France a field artillery arm. There is a definite distinction between field and siege artillery.

Further, artillery organization and employment differed very greatly from the Seven Years' War to the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars.

And the times that siege guns were used in the field from 1792-1815 they were not employed as field artillery. They were used in fixed emplacements and were not able to be moved as has been previously stated-they were too heavy and the vehicles used to move them were slow and cumbersome. There is a definite division between field and siege artillery and it was more than by 'definition.'

K

Yet a 16 or 18pdr had a greater "throw weight" than these smaller guns – that makes your claims about the bigger G calibres rather nonsensical, does it not?

There is no division as such. As the notes on the Strassbourg tests (where there were no non-French guns, contrary to another of your claims) rightly say, 12pdrs are adequate for most field tasks and so, heavier calibres were left in reserve to avoid the consumption of resources and delaying the march due to their weight. That is a question of practicality, not a calibre cut-off point, which does alos raise issue again of all of G's guns being to heavy.

I presume you deleted that, Arteis, as you realised that Kevin was picking an argument with Stephen, not me (perhaps easier than answering the key questions above).

The question of practicality mentioned in the Strassbourg tests flags up weight and effectiveness issues – contrary to Kevin's claims that the former is not an issue on G guns and the latter was entirely dependent on "throw weight". These tests noted that a 12pdr would be effective for pretty much everything innterms of field work, so the extra weight/resources on a 16pdr outweighed the few occasions when the 16pdr was required. Kevin produces table in his own book showing that a 24pdr would only cause about 10% more casualties than a 12pdr. The logic was the same for the L/yrXI 6pdr compared with the G 8pdr.

Whilst it was a rule of thumb for these reasons for practicality that 12pdr was the heaviest gun implied by references to "field" artillery, no-one drew a line at that calibre. Austrian field artillery regs cover the 18pdr and 10 pdr howitzer, while there were 12pdr siege guns. Hence why some of these weapons are in field service at the ends of the period.

Of course, we now get into the usual unsubstantiated extrapolations and contradictions. "The French had no field artillery arm in the Seven Years' War."

Really? No. They were using overheavy guns and incidentally, the 1740 french carriage design is the same shape as G's suppsoedly "new" carriage design. if france had no field artillery, presumably that makes G a siege gunner!

"De Broglie had some of the Valliere gun tubes rebored because of the mobility problem in order to lighten certain pieces for the field. That really didn't work either." Interesting – weight again!

"That was the reason that Gribeauval was assigned the mission of revamping the French artillery arm-his main purpose was to give France a field artillery arm."

no, it wasn't. He was sent to write reports on Prussian and Austrian guns. When he came back, he reduced the barrel sizes as the gains were outweighed by the disadvantages. then he shaved down the carriages in L style with metal strapping. However, his guns were just light siege weapons as their weight and the encastrement on the 8pdr meant that N went for the YrXI. Apparently, the extra "throw weight" from an 8pdr didn't matter.

Come on Dave – this topic is far more complex – as you realy should know.

The 8 pdr Gribeauval gun was preferred by the Artillerie à Cheval – in contrast to their brothers in arms, the artillerie à pied who preferred the an XI – 6 pdr gun.

For a detailed discussion one must read all those endless papers, essays etc. – most of them on google.

Seemingly the main reason to retain a 12 pdr gun (for field artillery)- was that in case you had to demolish field works, houses and other fortifcations – you needed a gun like this.

No, Dave, I wrote my comment specifically based on your response to Kevin, and it had nothing to do with Stephen. I was trying to point out that Kevin's and your arguments about 16-pounders being field artillery were not mutually exclusive. I then deleted the post because I felt it was a waste of time trying to smooth the waters between you two.

I was merely flagging up the fact that the statement was incorrect and the contradiction between one claim he made and another in his book on which he lays some emphasis.

Not my fault if he hasn't read the works in his bibliography or that he contradicts himself. I am however interested in the explanation(s) for that contradiction – much like the other points raised above (or by others in the Historical Inaccuracies thread). We never quite seem to get an answer – just a dismissal of Smola as "uninformed".

I have just been rereading MacLennan's essay – the interesting thing about him is that almost his entire PhD essay is based on Rosen and Alder.

There are some interesting features – feeling that they cannot ignore the fact that L was in there first, suddenly G's changes are within the conmtext of societal change and the pre-Revolutionary ideas, making gthem better than L. Up comes – unsourced – the claim that G overhauled and directed the education of French officers. yet mysteriously, there is no manual, no order or statement of philosophy.

He admits that "the reform programmes were very similar technologically", but apparently G was part of the remoulding of French government and society. His source for this (fn2): "as Ken Alder has recently shown, the military and technological programme represented by the Gribeauval reforms became part of a much larger intellectual project". We then read (after an accurate assessment of the 1762 report) that G had a plan "founded upon a particular vision of war and artilelry's role in it". Much like Kevin's entertaining version of the 1762 report, no citation is produced for this "proposed system" nor its underlying philosophy – except claims by Rosen and Alder. The L reforms, we are told "left gaps in hazy areas in their articulation of and their adaptation to the artillery's changing mission". Strange really, given that it was a complete system of field and siege guns, including howitzers, designed to achieve lightness and mobility with new wagons, regs, uniforms.

The problem with all this is that the Ruling Theory is actually built on the sand of unsubstantiated claims and when cornered, suddenly the "interpretation" changes.

It makes it a bit rich to find period citations dismissed as "uninformed" and reviews on Amazon stating that G is misrepresented and that L was "the last of the old designs". This kind of unsubstantiated nonsense needs to be challenged – of course, it will be painted as some kind of personal war etc. to avoid the issues, but look for the answers to the questions and you will see what is happeneing.

Make your point – it was a fair one, but do focus on the answers coming back.

Not my fault if he hasn't read the works in his bibliography…

Got the evidence to back that up or will you leave it to one of your chums using a fake name on another web site?

Make your point – it was a fair one, but do focus on the answers coming back.

Unlike yourself who focuses on the person…

Actually, I think Kevin was saying it was ME who had an uninformed opinion, Dave .. he was not talking about Smola, but about my question asking if he agreed with "the fact that the most accurate lowest ranges are different for Austrian and French guns because of the different disparts?"

He replied that he did not agree that it was a fact, and that it was merely an opinion and quite possibly an uninformed one.

And he is quite right. Compared to the majority of you here on this board, I am indeed uninformed about artillery, and I acknowledge that. I respect you guys for your knowledge and experience, but just wish you would get along in a spirit of cooperation rather than antagonism!

Roly,

I didn't intend for you to think that I believed you to have an uninformed opinion. I don't believe that at all. I have enjoyed very much our discussion here and you have asked some interesting and thought-provoking questions. Those questions have sent me to my books to answer them. Keep up the good work and don't sell yourself short.

Sincerely,
Kevin

I think Kevin has confirmed that his comments were aimed at my citation of Smola.

Hopefully, we can now wait for the "evidence" otherwise and indeed the answers to the other questions.

As Kevin has Maclennan in his bibliography and actually cites both Rosen and Alder, maybe he can illuminate us on the origin of the Gribeauval "project". I had thought it was a claim based on the pillars of the false representations of the 1762 report and 1792 Table, but maybe there is some other explanation.

While who invented what or had what plan may not appear to have any direct impact on any game, these stories do arise in the same way as many applicable stories of French "superiority" in the "+" factors, ie: they are actually an unsubstantiated claim often repeated, but went subjected to examination, they collapse instantly.

What is this "we" you speak of? It seems only "you" care enough to make this into the drama it has become.

‘Seems to be a lot of confusing and contradictory evidence for and against the path of a cannon ball. Would those making the arguments please tell me if they feel the illustration of the flight of a 9pdr cannon ball, shown on page 65, in Haythornthwaite's Weapons and Equipment of the Napoleonic Wars, is correct or not?
The first illustration shows a 9pdr firing a cannon ball, at zero elevation, flying straight until around 200-300 yards, when it then begins to dip before hitting the ground at 400 yards for the first bounce. Basically, it flies in a straight line for some time.
The second illustration shows the same gun firing at 1 degree elevation. In this case the flight is an arch, which rises to its maximum height around 300-500 yards, and then starts dipping until it hits the ground at 700 yards before the first bounce.
I've always thought these perfectly acceptable descriptions, which match other artillery descriptions. But are they correct? I'm talking in terms of flight of the cannon ball here, nothing else. Because if the cannon ball flies in an arch, it suggests that all the accounts of ranks of men being bowled over when hit by a cannon ball, are incorrect, as the ball would surely have gone over their heads?
And please, just a simple yes it is correct or no it isn't. No lengthy technical jargon filled replies.'

John,

Sorry that I didn't answer this one earlier. The low, flat trajectory for the 9-pounder is correct. Guns, in comparison to howitzers, fire in a low, flat trajectory. That is one of the definitions of a gun. The trajectory is a low, parabola-like path for the projectile, and the range depends on the elevation of the piece as well as the powder charge.

The information that I have on British field pieces is that a 9-pounder firing at 0 degrees elevation will have first graze (when the round finally hits the ground) at 300 yards. At one degree elevation, first graze will take place at 700 yards. It should be noted that the only ‘known' range artillery fired at was point blank at which the elevation was 0 degrees.

Range to first graze at 0 degrees elevation for the Austrian and French field pieces is as follows:

France:
4-pounder-475 paces
8-pounder-540 paces
12-pounder-575 paces

Austria:
3-pounder-500 paces
6-pounder-500 paces
12-pounder-500 paces

Canister Range for the British is as follows for a 6- and a 9-pounder:

6-pounder-400 yards
9-pounder-450 yards

For the French Gribeauval field pieces, the canister range (taken from French firing tables) is as follow. It should be noted that the French had two canister rounds for each caliber, all of them containing the same number of iron balls (112 for the small canister and 41 for the large-the designation is for the size of the canister balls). Note that the ranges for canister for the ‘three calibers' is different, just as it is for the British 6- and 9-pounders.

Caliber Large Canister Small Canister
4-pounder 427 yards 640 yards
8-pounder 534 yards 748 yards
12-pounder 641 yards 855 yards

The known ranges for the French field artillery pieces, Point Blank, is as follows and all are different.

4-pounder-270 yards
8-pounder-290 yards
12-pounder-300 yards

The following is the ending paragraphs on French canister rounds from Tousard. Some reference has been made to it, but I believe taken out of context:

‘In order to form a correct idea of the range and effect of these canister shots, would it not be proper to place the object upon an eminence, and the battery opposite upon another? The experiments might not be so showy, but the result of the good shots would be nearly the same in all cases. Should the ground be more unfavorable it would add to the result, and, instead of falling short in the calculation, the advantages would certainly be multiplied.'
‘The uncertainty of the estimation, joined with the irregularities of the ground, will always render the small shot less injurious to an enemy than caliber shot.'
‘At middling distances a half pound shot will only kill a man; a five ounce ball will kill him likewise.'
‘Nearer, two and a half or two ounces will not do much more harm than a ball of one ounce and a half.'

Artillery did not have to fire at targets, such as large bodies of troops, with only ricochet fire. Roundshot hit targets ‘on the fly' while the round was still in the air. That is an aimed shot. Ricochet fire could not be controlled after the ‘graze' when the round hit the ground, so that could be erratic. The advantage of ricochet fire was that it doubled the range of the piece and it could be seen bounding along the ground by the intended target. Good troops, such as the Guard infantry at Essling, would stand and take it. Troops who were not veterans might have problems with it as some of those in Lannes' II Corps, also at Essling, had.

As I have said before, artillery fire past ‘point blank' had to be adjusted. The French tried to have the third round hit the target. Because of the smoke, French artillery companies would usually fire ‘by piece,' that is firing would be done from one of the flank pieces first, and then down the gun line, one at a time. A good example of that which is on film today is the artillery preparation in the movie ‘Gettysburg' before Pickett's charge. Artillery volleys wouldn't be used because of control and the smoke. However, I do believe that the emphasis on smoke as a problem is somewhat overblown. It could be a problem, but problems in combat can be overcome.

As the subject came up, all of the artillery systems during the period had influences on them from previous systems. The Prussians came up with the screw quoin and this was copied by the Austrians and the Russians, and Gribeauval's first 6-inch howitzer used it until replaced with an elevating screw. The two mechanisms were not the same thing. The Austrians were influenced by the Swedes, Prussians, and French (Valliere) and the French in turn under Gribeauval were influenced by the Swedes, Prussians, Austrians, and Valliere. The Russians in many respects copied what the Prussians and Austrians had done, and Lichtenstein definitely copied what the Prussians had as to standard calibers and the screw quoin. The Prussians were retarded in their artillery development by Frederick, who knew little of artillery and treated his artillerymen terribly.

The British and the Austrians definitely copied the French artillery school system. The French established their first artillery school in 1679 (in contrast the Prussians didn't have one until 1791 over 100 years later). Gribeauval revamped and updated the French artillery school system starting in 1765 (for French technical education, see Frederick Artz, The Development of Technical Education in France).

A few comments on Gribeauval, since he keeps popping up from time to time, mostly with incorrect information. Gribeauval was not an engineer-he was a school-trained artilleryman and a graduate of the artillery school at La Fere. French artillerymen could conduct sieges in conjunction with their engineer brethren, and the French corps of engineers at this time was an officer-only organization. The miner companies were a part of the artillery and were commanded by artillery officers, Gribeauval being one of them. He was not, as he has been described in more than one place by more than one author, a ‘siege engineer.' In fact, there was no billet or organization of ‘siege engineers.' That term is a misnomer and is incorrect. There were engineers and artillerymen and both worked together conducting a siege.

Gribeauval was seconded to the Austrians at the beginning of the Seven Years' War because the Austrian artillery arm was short of qualified senior officers (Gribeauval was a lieutenant colonel of infantry at the time) and their engineer arm was a mess-inefficient, insufficiently trained, and not well-organized. As Gribeauval was the only French artillery officer with an intimate knowledge of both the Prussian and Austrian artillery arms (he had constructed and tested examples of both, see DeScheel page 6: ‘After the experiment which Gribeauval had made on Austrian field pieces of sixteen calibers, and on Prussian of fourteen…'), he was selected to revamp the outdated French artillery arm after the war was over. His main mission was to give the French army a field artillery arm, which had not been in existence since 1720 when Freziliere's light artillery system was abandoned. The Valliere system was outdated, the pieces used were for both siege and field, and they were unsuitable for the latter.
Gribeauval kept the standard calibers from Valliere, but designed new gun tubes for the new field artillery arm along with new gun carriages and ancillary vehicles. He introduced the iron axle, the screw-in vent, the prolonge, reintroduced the front sight and developed an adjustable rear sight, the elevator sight, which greatly increased the accuracy of the guns. Windage of the three new field calibers was reduced to a uniform .13 inches, new canister rounds were tested and introduced, along with new tooling. The ‘go-gauge' which had been used for years in measuring roundshot was supplemented with a ‘no-go-gauge' which set tolerances (maximum and minimum) for all rounds being cast, and with his partner Maritz, introduced solid casting of gun tubes which were then bored out which increased accuracy. The gun carriages (iron reinforcement of the gun carriages was not new in either 1753 or 1765-the Valliere system certainly used it as did artillery before that time) were newly designed and were intended to absorb recoil through two axis-vertical and horizontal-the older-type of design (the Prussian, Russian, and Austrian of the Lichtenstein system, as would the later gun carriages of the Russian 1805 system) were only designed to absorb recoil to the rear). Ken Alder's excellent Engineering the Revolution goes into detail on the new design for the French gun carriages, as well as the ‘no-go-gauge.'
One other new tool (a photograph of a surviving example being in Michel de Lombares' Histoire de l'Artillerie Francaise, page 24), a completely new design of the ‘etoile mobile' was very modern in design and construction and was used to check the bore for casting faults and was apparently a very efficient and reliable tool. The science of metallurgy had also improved greatly by the 1760s, and Howard Rosen's ‘Systeme Gribeauval' covers that competently, as well as the purpose of the development of the Gribeauval Systeme, and the difference in field artillery and siege artillery. The emphasis on the development of Gribeauval's field artillery system was for a modern war of maneuver, a role which the system performed excellently. Interestingly, Napoleon remarked on the Systeme AN XI that it was designed to supplement the Gribeauval System.

It should also be remembered that an artillery system of the period was not just guns and vehicles, but also education, tactics, doctrine, organization and command and control. Gribeauval and his supporters, such as Tronson du Coudray and the du Teil brothers, did just that-designed an artillery system for the next war, not the last one.

A period definition that might be useful in determining which guns belonged where and what they were supposed to be used for, from Tousard Volume II, page 1:

‘Under the name of light artillery are comprehended field, horse and mountain artillery; the guns with their ammunition and appendages; horses for drawing them; drivers for taking care of the horses; and, finally, the regiments of foot and horse artillery, and battalions of the train…field artillery is entirely different from besieging pieces.'

Additionally, here is a definition of horse artillery from the same volume, pages 30-31:

‘Flying or horse artillery is the method of marching the common field artillery with a sufficient number of horses to enable the men and pieces to reach, much more speedily, such positions as the general may think it necessary they should occupy.'

Lastly, there has been comment from time to time on the weight of the Gribeauval field pieces, they supposedly being ‘too heavy.' The gun carriages were heavier than their counterparts in other armies, this being generally because of the new iron axel. However, this, and the brass wheel housings where the axel would fit into the wheel hub, created less friction and therefore gave the new gun carriages a mechanical advantage over the gun carriages of other nations. The only gun carriages that were superior to those developed by Gribeauval were the new block carriages developed by the British.

Sincerely,
Kevin

I think i'm understanding most of this. One question that has bothered me for 20 some years. Peter Hofschroer in Prussian Landwehr and Landsurm has btrys 8, 10, 19, 21 as "heavy 6pdr's". Carrage, barrel, or both? I list my btrys mentioned as moving heavy, but firing light. Is this tecnically correct?

There were heavy and light models of the same caliber in different armies.

Adye, for example, in his artillery manual(s) (The Bombardier and Pocket Gunner) lists the French as having both heavy and light 8- and 12-pounders, the Austrians as having a heavy and light 12-pounder, the Saxons as having a heavy 8-pounder, and a heavy and light12-pounder.

The French had a heavy and light 8- and 12-pounder, for example. The heavy versions were fortress pieces, basically the older Valliere gun tubes. The light 8- and 12-pounders were the new light artillery models of the Gribeauval System. There is a table of the comparative heavy and light pieces of the French army after Gribeauval's thorough reforms in Roquerol (L'Artillerie au Debut des Guerres de la Revolution). There is also information in that volume on the other European artillery systems that is most informative.

Sincerely,
K

Skip,

The heavier pieces (that would be the gun tube) would be mounted on either a siege or a garrison carriage. The garrison carriage would not be used in the field, though it could be in a field fortification as it would be very awkward to move and would undoubtedly be moved, if at all, after having been disassembled.

Siege guns and carriages would be heavy to move, take an inordinate amount of horses, and had special vehicles to move them. Some of the 'special devices' to be used for moving siege (heavy) artillery would be sling carts, gyns, and devil carriages. If the Grande Armee organized a siege train during or before a campaign, water transportation would be employed as often as possible to move the heavy, awkward pieces. They were not field artillery.

I was somewhat taken aback in previous postings about employing siege artillery in the 'field.' Once emplaced, usually in a fortificaton of some kine, they would not be moved. Two occasions when they were used was in the fortress island of Lobau in the Danube during Napoleon's second Danube crossing in July 1809 after the failure of the first one in May. Reynier commanded on Lobau during the battle and the guns on Lobau supported the French left when they got in trouble. Klenau's Austrians were stopped by them.

The other time they were definitely employed was from the captured Prussian fortresses in 1806-1807. Vandamme's operations in Silesia furnished plenty of captured artillery which was sent to the Grande Armee to supplement his fortifications in Poland against the Russians.

Sincerely,
K

'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.'

Depress the gun tube from what elevation? French gun tubes of the three field calibers (4-, 8-, and 12-pounders) have a point blank of 270, 290, and 300 yards, respectively. That's at 0 degrees and first graze would take place well before 700 yards (475, 540, and 575 paces, respectively). So, if the French gun crews were firing at, say, 2 degrees, then, yes, in order to obtain ricochet fire before the round reached 700 yards the gun tube would have to be depressed. But that isn't always correct. The approved solution depends on the range being fired at and the elevation of the gun tube-and use of the sights (optics) inherent to the field piece.

K

Heavy guns were siege and defence guns, many made of iron, which were pressed into field service in 1813-14.

To address the main question, the problem seems in some cases to lie in the definition of zero elevation. To take a simple example from Kevin's book, p.277, we have "Tables of angles of elevation of the field pieces", which shows for an elevation of 0 inches on the screw, the actual elevation on the French barrels is 0 deg 58 min (let's say 1 deg for simplicity). Ex hypothesi, if this is taking a round to 500m first bounce, then the earliest gravity is really going to have a major effect is at least 350m, as he drag slows the velocity across the ground and gravity accelerates (9.8m/s/s) the velocity of drop. As I mentioned before, some simple geometry – the sine of 1 deg – shows that the ball would (without gravity) reach a height 1.75m above the muzzle height after 100m. Given the limited effect of gravity over the upward angle imparted over this distance, it should be pretty obvious that the ball is already too high to hit anything.

I don't have Haythornthwaite, so I don't know if his elevations are of the bore or of the top of the barrel. However, his description of a ZE of the bore would be wrong. On emerging from the barrel (assuming the depression angle is correct), the ball would immediately begin to drop under gravity – because there is no upward angle imparted to it. Once it is dropping, it will hit the ground and bounce with all the vagaries that produces, probably at no more than 200 paces. Its post-pounce height will also be lower, so the most it is hitting is legs, when the target is the torso. That is why the best way to fire roundshot or shell was to bounce it just in front of the enemy – which would produce the "skittles" effect.

This is of course what the Fahnrich and Smola are reporting – if anyone disagrees, they must explain how the ball flew over him, but hit the horses behind (probably no more than 10 paces back) and how a ball can be less accurate at shorter range. If it flew flat, it would be more accurate and hit men in its path.

This does all perhaps illustrate the dangers of failing to read the original materials and work through what they are saying. Once again we have Kevin's long list of claims – yet nothing to substantiate them. here are some examples:

1) de Scheel is supposed to say that G built and tested Austrian and Prussian barrels. In fact, the original French text says that G "looked them over", which he did to answer his Q&As.

2) We have MacLennan claiming some G "project" and Kevin (based possibly on Alder) some educational scheme. Like thew alleged tests above, there are no documents to support this. It is strange as Maclennan lays out where the 1749-53 tests in Austria are recorded to gether with the creation ofbthe 1753 system and there is a report on the Strassburg tests.

3) Look at the Strassburg report and you will see something else rather odd. It is not very well worded, but says that the 1732 French windage was 1/6inch or 0.166666, while some of the reboring took it down to 1/12 as also advocated by Gribeauval, which is 0.085in. Yet mysteriously, we are told that G went for a 0.13in windage? Then we are told "Ken Alder's excellent Engineering the Revolution goes into detail on the new design for the French gun carriages, as well as the ‘no-go-gauge." Ah yes, this no go gauge – not used by anyone else, but why do you need such a gauge if the windage is set – and by implication so must be the ball size?

4) Ken Alder says the carriage design was new to take different forces – except it is the same as the 1740 design and G was the last to use it as every nation went for the straight L carriage (which is the only shape you can make a Uk block trail from. So, it seems Alder didn't think that one through. Indeed, the Strassburg tests only refer to barrels – nothing is said about carriages.

5) Gribeauval in Austria – it is unfortunate that despite having Duffy: instrument of War, Kevin has not read it. He and anyone else will look in vain for any evidence there or elsewhere that G did anything other than reform the siege engineering service in Austria and lead the sappers at Schweinitz. He took no part in any active operations with any Austrian guns – unless nyone can produce the evidence.

Now, if Kevin. Alder and others are incapable of reading the material and resort to claims, which do not stand up, why should they be right and period soldiers be wrong about how cannonballs flew? After all, the geometry doesn't help them either.

Given that drag is the only definite force acting on a
ball in its forward movement, it must travelling at 70-80% of its muzzle velocity at first bounce, as it will travel about 2.5 times that distance over all.

Consequently, the path of a ball from a ZE bore must be very similar to that of a ball after it has reached its maximum height on an arc, ie: it will drop very quickly, quickly enough to miss the Fahnrich, yet hit the horses behind.

Dear Kevin
You have repeated Duffy's line upon Frederick's view on Artillery which is stated in his first edition and softened considerably in the second edition. De Scheel was talking of experimental Prussian ordnance that he had been sent to inspect just before the start of the 7YW.

The innovations by Prussian Artillery.
1. Adoption of the Richtsmaschine elevating mechanism probably from the Swedes who saw it in service with the Saxons. This was used on the Gribeauval 6 pouce howitzer and the M1775 Gribeauval Garrison Carriage.

2. Ammunition limber was introduced in 1742 that was followed by the Austrians in 1774 and by most other nations except the French until 1803 in the AnXI system.

3. Introduction of Horse Artillery.

4. Concentration of firepower in Fredericks Instructions to Generals.

5. Prussian M1758 3-pdrs and 6-pdrs were 18 calibres long.

6. Frederick complained about the cost of artillery as he was in a arms race with the Austrians.

7. In 1760, Frederick went part the way towards militarising the train by assigning 4-5 Dragoons to make sure the train was steady.

8. Introduction of the 7-pdr howitzer in the field.

Stephen

Keven, The list I have 8th and 21st foot btry's are in 2nd Corp Art Res. 19th is in 3rd Corp Res. so I could see but somehow doubt these are siege guns. Btry # 10 is in 5th Brig so would seriosly doubt these would be siege guns but I again guess w/ the condition of raising army could be at first and would have been replaced as ASAP.
Dave, I in no way want in on this argument (I am trying to follow along) is this a case of range trials, and then what happens on feild? Every shot would be different in battle so most shots would stay at or below a mans waist, but could one shot fly over if deflected by rocks for instance?

'You have repeated Duffy's line upon Frederick's view on Artillery which is stated in his first edition and softened considerably in the second edition. De Scheel was talking of experimental Prussian ordnance that he had been sent to inspect just before the start of the 7YW.'

Duffy did not 'soften' his line on Frederick's mishandling of artillery in the second edition as far as I can see. I have both of them and have checked them against each other.

DeScheel takes his material from Tronson du Coudray, and that material was discussed at length on the Napoleon Series. Steve Smith posted the material and the bottom line is the quote I provided from DeScheel is correct. Steve posted the quote in French from du Coudray. You can also check Alder and Nardin also, as its in there. Alder used Nardin as a source.

The other material you posted is nice on the Prussians, but the fact remains that they were considerably behind by 1792 and much of that was Frederick's fault. The sad performance of the Prussian artillery in 1806 was the long-term result. That the Prussians didn't have an artillery school until 1791 is an indicator of Frederick's neglect.

However, that Lichtenstein copied the screw-quoin from the Prussians is without doubt as well as the standard Prussian calibers for field artillery.

K

Skip,

I agree with you, I doubt that they are siege guns. That's why I gave a specific French example. The ones you're referring to are probably both field artillery gun tubes, but different models. Do you have the weights of the gun tubes and the length as well?

Sincerely,
Kevin

Kevin

You quote French 4pdr range to first graze at 0 degrees as 475 paces (c400 yards?) but point blank range as 275 yards (and similarly for 8pdr and 12pdr). I'm confused because I thought 0 degrees and point blank were the same thing.

If zero inch elevation on the sight was nearly 1 degree as DH suggests, then perhaps the first set of ranges refers to this elevation? That seems consistent with the British figures quoted.

Matthew

Dear Kevin
Please read Dolachek. The Austrians did not follow the Prussians with the 3-, 6- and 12-pdr.

Du Coudray was writing in 1772 in his defence of the Gribeauval System. So why was there not any development in French Ordnance according to you.

We can go through this and have done at great length but Alder as criticised in a number of academic reviews for over reaching in his conclusions. Much was based upon Rosen PhD Thesis.

We differ in the reading of the evidence. I have recently talked with Duffy and has accepted that he would want to re-write the Artillery section after all the work he did in the Austrian Archives.

Stephen

Keven, these are mere footnotes on a OOB I've built a whole army around, but never seen anywhere else.

'Please read Dolachek. The Austrians did not follow the Prussians with the 3-, 6- and 12-pdr.'

What, then, were the standard calibers before Lichtenstein's reforms when the Austrian artillery arm was still in the guild phase? What is very clear is that the Austrian artillery was a mess in the War of the Austrian Succession and was outperformed by the Prussian artillery arm. Then Lichtenstein began his reforms and was basically ready, given the shortage of qualified senior artillery officers, by the time the next go round of European warfare broke out in 1756.

Do you have a page/chapter number for Dolleczek? I have the volume in my library.

'Du Coudray was writing in 1772 in his defence of the Gribeauval System. So why was there not any development in French Ordnance according to you.'

When did I say that?

'We can go through this and have done at great length but Alder as criticised in a number of academic reviews for over reaching in his conclusions. Much was based upon Rosen PhD Thesis.'

Not according to his references it wasn't. And the Rosen thesis was a great deal of archival work. Unless you can refute the archival work, then I don't agree with you.

'We differ in the reading of the evidence.'

Obviously. Still, the fact remains that Duffy is not complimentary of the Prussian artillery arm, and Frederick's involvement with it, in the revamped volume. That it appears is the evidence.

'I have recently talked with Duffy and has accepted that he would want to re-write the Artillery section after all the work he did in the Austrian Archives.'

That's very nice. When it comes out revamped then I'll take a look at it. He hasn't refuted it as far as I know, so, again, that will have to stand.

K