"Books on Napoleonic Artillery?" Topic

I agree that the learning curve of 10th Marine is sort of non existent – he warms up all his old out-dated arguments, citing obsolete statements – as Duffy first edition – instead of Duffy's second.

As for Austrian guns tested – I did not come across any source stating that Gribeauval tested them, what he did though, was to bring back plans and a wooden model of a Prussian ?3? pdr battalion gun before the 7YW.

From Steven Smith on napoleon-series org

From Nardin Gribeauval: lieutenant général des armées du roi (1715-1789) (1981):
"… nomme Griboval (sic) et est capitaine des mineurs." p 44, 2nd paragraph.
"… me remettre elle-même un modèle en bois d'une pièce de canon de campagne avec le dessein (sic) et tout ce qui appartient au service de ladite pièce.." p 42, last paragraph.
Et dans une lettre chiffrée à Rouillé, ministre des affaires étrangèères, il donne des détails sur la remise du modèle: «Le roi de Prusse a effectivement touché cette corde mais ce n'a été qu'après m'avoir remis lui-même un modèle en bois de la pièce de canon de campagne avec tout ce qui est relatif à son service …." p. 43, 1st paragraph.
"… Gribeauval …, arrive le 20 mai [1755] à Berlin …." p 43, last paragraph.
"Le 9 juin, après un séjour de trois semaines (SHS sic) à Potsdam et à Berlin, Gribeauval prend le chemin du retour en convoyant le modèle et les plans du canon prussien et de ses attiralls." p 46, first full paragraph.

I am hoping that Paul Dawson will publish his work about the development of French ordonannce from the days of Gribeauval to an 11 and beyond.
He seems to be much more impartial and more competent than 10th Marines.

Dear 14Bore
The reference to heavy 6-pdrs of 26 calibres is probably to M1768 Heavy 6-pdrs that were defined as position pieces and not the lighter 6-pdrs of 17.4 calibres. This seems likely due to their formation. I think I wrote about this in one of my books on the Prussian Army.

Stephen

Steven, thanks. I will hunt for your books when I can. P.S. I'm out of this thread, its way over my head

Dear von Winterfeldt
I am amazed that someone who has stated in print that he overstated his case against the Frederick still has this placed against him. He wrote this back in 1977. He has done much to deepen his and our understanding since.

The Austrian Field Artillery outperformed the Prussian Artillery from the start of the Seven Years War. Much to the surprise of Frederick. He discounted the number of ordnance reported to him by a certain General von Winterfeldt. Now that sounds familiar.

Artillery Systems evolve and improve. The arguments state that Gribeauval created a perfect system at the first attempt in 1765. Now shall we actually look at the evidence.

1. The M1749 Designed Gribeauval Garrison Carriage using a large rear truck wheel and wedges was abandomed in 1775 to the Austrian version with the Richtsmachine.

2. The carriage for the 6 pouce howitzer was changed a few times. The initial M1765 version had a Richtsmachine.

3. Up to 1767, there was considerable trouble with the quality of the Iron to produce the axles see the correspondance of Maritz II.

4. The limber for the Howitzer was the Valliere single draft limber until the late 1780s.

5. The double draft A Frame limber was derived from the Austrian M1753 Limber. In 1774, the Austrians introduced the M1774 Ammunition Limber which was derived from the Prussian pre 7YW limber.

6. Gribeauval Field Ordnance was untried in battle until the Revolutionary Wars. It was not present in America. Not even "Rammers" supports that claim. The French supplied the US with M1756 4-pdr Swedish Guns and some M1775 Siege Guns. The latter were accepted into use when Gribeauval was not in power.

I am lost over the old ground that we are covering here.

Stephen

Matthew, Hopefully you can keep up! The origional quote from the Fahnrich says the range was too short, which is why the balls flew over. There is no bounce involved. Yes, Austrian guns were tested in the interwar years. The PB for any weapon is the second point at which the ball crossed the line projected over the barrel – consequently, you can have it for any angle, but it was usually a reference to the ZE of the barrel as that can be repeatedly tested.

A pace was roughly two feet (depends on whose feet you are using!). However, Adye's ranges are a mess. His Austrian ones are okay, but apparently a French 4pdr with a 1.5lb charge could only throw a ball 475 paces, when an Austrian 3pdr with 0.75lb charge could throw it 500 paces. An Austrian charge was actually 3/4 the size of a French one. It would be better to go to French sources than this kind of secondary material.

I was looking at the much fabled Coudray and on p.13, I found the claim that G commanded the Austrian artillery in many battles – what a lot of nonsense (but apologies to Thiers for accusing him of making that one up!). I searched in vain on the Napoleon Series for Kevin's "quote from Coudray" about the alleged testing opf Austro-Prussian weapons. as It is on Google, perhaps we could have the page. Otherwise we are left with Kevin's regular citation of the mistranslation of de Scheel!

This brought me to something else. Coudray and others (Kevin p.35) claim that the Strassburg tests of 1765 proved the efficacy of Gribeauval's designs. Trouble is, as Paul Dawson pointed out on the NSF, the barrel was changed to 18 calibres under a Royal Order of 1761 (while G was reforming the Austrian engineers). Suddenly, that strange bit in Kevin's book makes sense. Quoting a translation of the Strassburg report, it says: (p.259) Pt3: That if the old pieces had any advantage over the new ….. They generally used for both one and the other , balls which left about a twelth of an inch windage … Gribeauval, when he proposed light pieces, proposed also to reduce windage to one-twelth of an inch." Contrary to the claims of many, these "new" French barrels were nothing to do with Gribeauval.

I agree that the learning curve of 10th Marine is sort of non existent

Whereas you and your mob are veritable paragons when it comes to learning, tolerance and accuracy. At least that is what you presumably tell each other when you aren't scurrying away to stifle people who scare you.

Old Bear

Well said. The impression given is that, sadly, there are people attending this site who may have axes to grind with Mr. Kiley, rather than any interest in progressing the period or really debating the topic. And the way Kevin remains calm and offers polite and informative replies, shows who is the true gentleman here. If only people could stop picking sides and drop past grudges and dislikes, for the sake of the period and wargaming in general.

Much of this discussion seems to have focused on Smola's comments on the relative effective ranges of French and Austrian guns.

There are two definitions of point blank range:

1. The "British" definition.
Zero elevation is relative to the bore. The barrel is considered to be at zero elevation if the BORE is parallel to the ground. Point blank range is the distance at which the ball strikes the ground after being fired from this level bore (which was considered to be at its normal height from the ground, eg a musket would be considered to be four feet six inches above the ground, as if presented by an infantryman in battle) .

2. The "French" definition.
Zero elevation is relative to the TOP OUTER SURFACE OF THE BARREL. The barrel is considered to be at zero elevation if the top surface of the barrel is parallel to the ground. If the top of the barrel is parallel to the ground, the bore will be INCLINED UPWARDS, because all weapons of this period were externally wider at the breech and thinner at the muzzle. Because the bore is inclined upwards, the ball's trajectory will rise above the level of the top of the barrel. Point blank range in this case is the distance at which the ball's trajectory falls back below the level of the top of the barrel, therefore it will strike the ground at a greater distance than the point blank.

There is no magic at work here, and this theory applied equally to both muskets and cannons.

Regarding artillery, if the gunners were in the habit of sighting along the top of the barrel and had no means of determining when the bore was level, then perhaps there was some sort of advantage gained by closing the distance if your piece had a shorter "French defined" point blank range.

On the other hand, having become accustomed to shooting several period muskets and rifles to which the same theory applies, (for example the Baker rifle is zeroed at 200 yards and shoots very high at shorter distances) I cannot believe that experienced French gunners would not be equally familiar with their pieces and adjust the elevation accordingly.

'I am amazed that someone who has stated in print that he overstated his case against the Frederick still has this placed against him. He wrote this back in 1977. He has done much to deepen his and our understanding since.'

Nothing is being 'placed against' Christopher Duffy. The seond edition of the work on the Prussian army came out in 1996. Could you point out in the artillery section of the second edition where he 'stated in print that he overstated his case against Frederick' specifically in reference to the Prussian artillery arm?

And have you found the citation in Dollesczek that I asked you for? It would be very helpful.

K

Well said. The impression given is that, sadly, there are people attending this site who may have axes to grind with Mr. Kiley, rather than any interest in progressing the period or really debating the topic. And the way Kevin remains calm and offers polite and informative replies, shows who is the true gentleman here. If only people could stop picking sides and drop past grudges and dislikes, for the sake of the period and wargaming in general.

Gaz. I could not agree with you more…

l sided with Kevin and for the past 4 years have been attacked and insulted for my troubles. These guys cannot debate the period without ending their posts with personal slurs on his person. No one can take them as serious students of history with attitudes like that. But what is more funny is that they are so blinded by their need to do so they cannot see what harm it is doing for them in the eyes of people like you and me.

Shane, I think "siding" with anyone in this is a problem. The chances are that both "sides" have some things right and some things wrong, maybe some more than others. But other than the few differences we see disputed here time and time again, I'm sure there is a HUGE amount of other knowledge they all have that they do not disagree on – we just don't see that.

Though I must admit trying not to take sides is hard sometimes when a few unpleasant personality characteristics come into play. As said before, I only wish that when they disagree with each other, they could be more cooperative in sorting things out. If these guys were kids in a class, I'd be knocking a few heads together by now!

And, in the end, remember this is all about something that happened over two hundred years ago and is only of interest to a very small group of rather anoraky people as a pastime (for example, us!), so does it really matter anyway?

Roly,

I agree with you, Shane, and John specifically and in general. I'm not arguing here and have no personal grudge against anyone. I usually reply on a forum for two reasons: I have a question or I disagree with something someone has said. And no one has to get personal with any comment and it is very unfortunate when that happens. Perhaps someday that will stop-I hope so but I'm not holding my breath in anticipation of it.

I'll meet anyone halfway, and in the past I have offered to discuss and not argue and to 'bury the hatchet' so to speak. Unfortunately it didn't work out. I felt bad about that (it was a few years ago on Max Sewell's old site) but at least I tried. Generally speaking, I don't answer directly to some people on forums any longer as it leads to nothing but derogatory personal comments coming my way, which I will not return in kind any longer. That's just a waste of time and it is both boring and nonproductive.

Anyways, my two cents on the subject. Maybe one day topics can be discussed without rancor.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Kevin, you are one of the kids whose heads would be knocked together!

I agree that in general you don't engage in personal attacks anymore (though there is one thing you said on this thread that could be construed as one).

But you do seem to display a rather closed mind to your conclusions, and don't seem to be prepared to weigh up and consider new evidence if it affects previous conclusions you've made.

However, in some ways I don't blame you for that, as the sarcastic and snide manner in which the new evidence is presented would be ebough to back anyone into a corner. It certainly always raises my hackles, and I'm trying diligently to stay impartial!

Arteis, I do agree with you. I wish I could stand in the middle and listen to the amicable conversations of two points of view here but it ain't gonna happen. Dave and his crew consistently personally attack anyone that they do not agree with or accept a hypothesis from. They cannot seem to discuss things in a rational manner befitting an academic who should portray themselves open to debate and argument. Instead we have temper tantrums, wild accusations of dishonesty and threats of liable from the typical same old crowd. Personally, because of this situation I respect Kevin's arguments because I trust his knowledge. The Reason I do not like Dave or some of his "friends" is because they continually insult and lower themselves to levels I cannot tolerate or accept. Simple as that.

I changed my TMP name to Defiant simply because I refuse to give in to this kind of attitude they continually display. I stand defiant.

But I do think Dave and crew's information is generally pretty good, Shane. Well, the straight historical info anyway – for example that G did or didn't do this or that. From my layman's perspective, in many cases it certainly seems to fit together. They have been able to break through the language barriers, as well as turning up new information that was either not available earlier or that had not really been noticed by previous authors. And that is the way history happens … nothing wrong with that.

It is a shame that Kevin seems to immediately put up the shutters on much of Dave et al's historical information and becomes very defensive about his findings. Whereas in a cooperative setting they would all be working together and getting excited about any new info, never minding if it happens to overturn any of their previous conclusions (in fact, that would make it all the more exciting).

And it is a shame that Dave's crew engage in such a sarcastic personality-based haranging against Kevin, which really makes it impossible for him to back down even if he wanted to. Again, being more cooperative and amiable would encourage re-looking at previous conclusions. After all, both sides are equally enthusiastic about the same somewhat esoteric subject matter, and that should be a bond rather than a wedge between them.

A sad side-effect of this running sore is that people who are somewhat interested, but not to the extent they need to buy every book on the subject, get to know the not-so-nice side of these authors and as a result make conscious choices never, ever to buy any of their books – I know I have, for one.

Dear Arteis

Good posting. However, I think everyone here must remember that any side taking is based on what is said in the postings. It is not based on 'knowing' the people behind them. Most of us have never met Kevin, Dave etc, and sadly, maybe never will. As for agreeing and disagreeing with each other, I disagree with some members views on several things, such as Napoleon, who I admire. But I'm not going to put down anyone or dislike them because they might dislike him. That's their freedom of choice. But, concerning the 'two sides' debates here, although I've seen Mr. Kiley offering to shake hands and agree to disagree, which is the adult and sensible thing to do, that same offering has not appeared to come from those who disagree with him. I'm sure Kevin has broad shoulders and can brush off all the snide and CHILDISH remarks thrown at him, and long may we benefit from his knowledge. But I do hope those who disagree with him, his views and his knowledge, try shaking hands for a change and move on. And I also hope we can continue to benefit from their knowledge. And thankfully, I'm sure most people that post here, do so to seek and share knowledge, rather than use their postings for personal attacks, which, in my opinion, do not belong on such a great site. With a new year approaching, perhaps a new start for everyone? Fingers crossed.

Roly,

If I disagree, it is because the information is incorrect. I take my material from the artillery manuals and credible secondary works from authors who have done their homework.

For example, I can't agree with someone who states or has stated that canister leaves the gun tube intact and then 'bursts' on impact with the ground. That just isn't correct. An idea that Gribeauval merely 'copied' Lichtenstein is also incorrect. Just seeing the gun tubes and the gun carriages and comparing them nullifies that idea. Further the calibers themselves are not alike nor the weights of the round in similar calibers. And some of the gunnery 'conclusions' are just plain wrong. Those are some of the material that I cannot agree with because it is incorrect.

If I'm disagreed with, that's fine. I don't really care too much. However, some on this forum cannot abide being disagreed with and immediately begin ad hominem attacks which is also wrong. I'm not engaging in them because it is useless which is also why I won't directly engage some folks in conversation-it's useless.

I have a decent artillery library and have quite a bit of experience as an artilleryman. When material is posted that is wrong, it goes against the grain. Perhaps you've also experienced that in your line of work. I have as a teacher also. And I understand you're frustration. That's one of the reasons I've tried to be helpful with your questions and the discussion was great. With some folks, unfortunately, that's not going to happen because I believe they thrive on the type of argument they engage in. Personally, I don't like it, and I don't have a dog in that kind of 'fighting.'

Sincerely,
Kevin

John,

Great idea and posting, and again I agree with all three of you. Maybe the New Year will bring new attitudes and new and better behavior.

I do believe one thing that is true and we don't actually look at it like that-in that all we are doing is skimming the surface of the period historically and there is much we don't know and probably won't. The study of military history is like an iceberg, most of it is invisible to us on the surface because we haven't seen it yet.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Dear Kevin
Please look at Dollazchek (1880) p153 this shows that as far back as 1668 the Austrians were using 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, 24, 36 and 48-pdrs. This was the date that they decided not to follow the Duodecimal System of Emperor Charles V of Spain.

This was among the earliest attempts to rationalise the confusion of calibres. It was not until the early 18th century that poundage rather than allegorical names were used.

Stephen

Well said guys, I personally wish both sides could take the moral high ground and stop this petty stuff but it has been obvious for a long time that this will not happen. I don't think Dave is actually capable of it.

It is too easy to brush it off with axe to grind.

This has nothing to do with it, also I can fortunatly do my own research and form my own opinion.

It is like Valliere and Gribeauval, entrenched views – not moving on – and others continuing research.
So 10th Marine the reds and Dave Hollins the blues.
In case anybody bothers to read the core sources (and not Toussard, Alder etc.) he will come to the same conclusions.
than Dave Hollins, Stephen Summerfield or others.
It is opinion based history versus factual based history.

My views are based on the sources I did read and what I concluded from them.
Fortunatly – a lot is available on google and anybody who is interested in facts – just has to read them.

Roly, You will note that we don't actually get answer to anything. Kevin – and to be fair, many others – have simply not done the research nor have they followed the logic trail through. Instead, we get the "poor little me" and accusations of "ad hominem" attacks as a cover for facing up to the reality. "You have not done your research" is not an ad hoiminem attack, but all we get is the same old nonsense repeated again and again.

This is not like a debate over who is the best current Forumula 1 driver. It can be resolved by examination of the source material and a debate over what it says. Stephen and I disagree over whether there is a M.1780 Lichtenstein system, but we can have a civilised discussion about it. I suspect it would be necessary to look at some of the original correspondence to resolve it, but one day, that will happen. I have discussed pre-98 Jaeger mostly with von Winterfeldt to help Eureka produce a new line. Each of us has been right and wrong on occasion, but we have got there in the end and Eureka can produce a good set of figures.

What have I had from Kevin? Apparently, I am wrong on various Freikorps units, because his "secondary source who has done his homework" says otherwise. The implication is that I haven't done my research – yet this "better source" actually copied errors in Ottenfeld and copied one figure from the 1830s! Same with Marengo and NV72 – this from someone, who made up his version of a key report, quotes from secondary material written pre-Wars and does not even mention the key non-English sources.

Why not answer the questions? They are important. instead, here is Kevin's latest offering link

Once again, all the mythology is trotted out again. Where are the answers to the questions however? The other problem is this "interpretation" of earlier material – we can see here that Coudray has been copied unquestioned and that the claims made by Alder have been magnified by Maclennan and then change again in Kevin's book (MacLennan as good as admits G copied L by saying that technologically there was not much difference). The problem now is that a lot of the Gribeauval claims and nonsense about Austrian gunnery has been copied by a Jeff Kincaid, who wrote a recent book on the history of artilelry generally. Okay, it is 200 years old and may not matter per se, but don't forget that all these things do still retain an influence and should lead us to question what else we are told. The other key point of course is that if secondary opinion is all that readers want, why should anyone do any research?

Anyway, I can see what Major Snort is saying. I am not sure that what I presume is Adye in Table 4 (Uk ranges) of Kevin's book are correct, but they do put ZE range on a UK 6pdr as 200 yards (about 280 paces). No-one is saying the French could not fire short of the PB at barrel ZE – what Smola is saying is that the French fire is less accurate, just as the Austrians are at their PB. That can only happen if the ball flies in an arc – if it flew flat, Smola must be wrong. As I said, the ZE range is known and that is easy to set. once you move awasy from that point, you bring in problems with measurement. Also, the flare of the muzzle and any foresight will obscure the target if you raise the barrel, which also makes seeing the fall of shot harder. If you lower it, you are removing the upward force and may even drop past level to fire the ball into the ground or at least the bounce is early and you can lose direction.

All these factors make your fire less accurate. If you consider the Fahnrich, the French were perhaps only 10-15 paces too far to miss him over a range of 5-700 paces. It is only a small error, but the French have missed their target completely. This is what Smola is talking about – the Fahnrich merely shows that the ball cannot fly flat.

The only problem I have with the British measurement is how you measure it. If it is a relative – we know the dispart is 0.5deg and so, the bore is level at Minus 0.5 degrees, then they are actually still reading it over the barrel. That may explain why the 0 deg ranges seem excessive? However, perhaps the British did check the ranges on ZE of the bore?

Dear Dave
There was a significant modification in 1780 by Rouvroy upon the Liechtenstein Artillery System. Now when does a modification become a different system. I do not know.

1. Gun Tubes were now produced with the horizontal boring system rather than cast around a core.

2. Dolphins became no longer ornate.

3. The position of the vent was changed from the base plate to the breech so it permitted the rebouching of the gun tube.

4. The vent change meant that the gunpowder was ignited in the centre rather than the rear of the charge.

5. The ammunition limber was introduced in 1774.

6. The 6-pdr and 7-pdr Howitzer Cavalry Guns were Introduced.

So yes it was a modification. I would for short hand call this the M1780 Liechtenstein System for want of a better name. I have not proposed that it should be called the Rouvroy system. The important part was that the Austrian Artillery had evolved and improved rather as some authors have put that it did not change from 1753 until 1850.

This realisation came from studying your pictures in your book and looking at the extent ordnance in Vienna.
Stephen

Sadly, it looks like fingers uncrossed!

Bang, bang! That is not the sound of artillery, but of two kids' heads being knocked together by the teacher (pre-PC days, of course!).

Yep, Gazzola, sadly, both parties have continued exactly in the same vein.

Kevin, close-minded as ever: "If I disagree, it is because the information is incorrect." Kevin, no, you BELIEVE the information to be incorrect. In some cases (not all), evidence offered by Dave et al clearly counteracts some of your closed statements, or at least appears enough to do so that it should challenge you to reconsider the evidence, including any new evidence they offer.

Dave, sarcastic as ever. It is great that you say that Stephen and you can disagree over whether there is a M.1780 Lichtenstein system, but that you can have a civilised discussion about it. However, I don't see you being scathingly sarcastic to Stephen, or stating that his counter-view is "nonsense". Well, why don't you try to treat Kevin with the same respect, and maybe some civilised debate can come out of it.

Ah well, I guess many others have tried before me over the years of this festering debate, so why should I be arrogant enough to think I can get both sides to self-evaluate and discover why they are each blocking cooperative learning.

I am surprised that after the crusade waged against my work, not because of better sourcing, but because he didn't want it to be heard by the wider public, that I should be expected to do anything other than point out the failings in his own output – sarcasm is perhaps better than outright rudeness. I would not mind if we had a rational debate, but our Amazon reviewer has been rather too keen to make an allegation and then not answer. Respect in this sphere is something you earn by adding to the sum of the wider public knowledge – trashing a rival work on Amazon (DD&S) without mentioning your interest is not.

You cannot engage in constructive learning if one side will not listen, but makes constant refererence to his "sacred works", the briefest examinstion of which showing their failings. Much of the nonsense (by which I mean things which are not true and can easily be shown to be) has arisen out of bad translations, repetition of opinion and the like. While anyone is quite entitled to raise queries (that is what forums exist for), just trashing work you don't like does not bring anything to the party and this constant repetition of the same old nonsense just blurs the ongoing work.

All it is designed to do is to sow doubt – and perhaps promote this (apparently) rational (but actually nonsensical) idea that we should somehow "meet in the middle". The primary evidence is there – I can discuss it with Stephen – but it is hard to discuss anything with someone, who simply will not address the issues and uses this undermining tactic. What do I say to the OP when he asks me why I differ from Kevin's book or what my response is to the trashing comments/reviews? Do I say that although I spend digging in Germanic works held in London and Vienna with help from many kind people, somehow I have to concede anything to someone, who has not even read one of those books, despite listing them in his bibliography?

Anyway, I respect people, who do the research, even if we differ. I take the view that a new Mark would be the result of a prepared plan in which the changes would at least exist in outline, (such as the Unterberger Commission), but they just seem to be driven by various things – the horizontal boring was an external technological improvement, the Cavalry guns a response to Frederick's mobile guns, the decoration just a matter of practicality. The howitzer barrels were rebored in 1807 and there are changes to the carriages both post-1815 and in the mid-1820s. However, I can see where Stephen is coming from and his argument is rational, based on recorded material. That is why I think the answer would lie in the correspondence of the period.

"You cannot engage in constructive learning if one side will not listen, but makes constant refererence to his 'sacred works', the briefest examinstion of which showing their failings."

… and you also cannot engage in constructive learning if one side is continually sarcastic and demeaning.

You don't have to "meet in the middle", Dave. You just have to stop calling other people's work you disagree with "nonsense" or accusing people of "making things up", or other such disparaging remarks. Just say what you disagree with, and why. If Kevin then keeps on sticking to his guns (excuse the pun!) without reconsidering new evidence, then that is his problem. But while you are making such disparaging remarks, nobody is going to back down, least of all a Marine gunner!

Oh, and I agree with you about Amazon trashing. Again, disagreement is fine, or even giving a bad review if that is what you think (it is a free world, after all). But I agree that it is wise to say where you are coming from if you have some interest in the matter (as Peter Hofschroer has also found out to his discredit in another similar case).

It is important to differentiate between the types of contentious issues. It could be down to a simple difference of interpretation, a question of the availability of sourcing, etc.

But how do you explain the difference between Kevin's version of the 1762 report at p. 55 compared with what it is, (now helpfully in English at link If as he claims, Kevin has Hennebert, then that compounds this. You might say that he has reproduced one paragraph from the report, but that is the only piece from the report quoted by Alder. It is not a question of interpretation or translation of old words or comparison of sources, but simply an account of a single document. Given the disparity between the two, the only explanation is that Kevin's version is made up.

On nonsense, what do you say when we have a claim of go/no go rings, yet a supposed fixed windage – especially when windage is actually a proportion, not a specific value. It makes no sense. What about these claims of Gribeauval commanding Austrian field guns – do we meekly say it is a matter of "interpretation" so that the same claim can be made again and again when it is false? Or Austrian Cavalry guns crews riding into action on ammo wagons – not least as the guns were supported by packhorses? Allow that to be repeated – oh, hang on, it has been by Kincaid!! How about G being Austrian director of artillery – you might think Prince Lichtenstein might have felt a little aggrieved. Unless you speak up clearly, this nonsense is just repeated – if you let it go, any reader might quite reasonably think it is true simply because he readsit in several places.

Dear Dave
That is certainly an interesting and important comment upon a new Mark. I am talking of changes that were made in about 1780. Now it is interesting that you infer that these were not conscience and planned changes therefore it is not a new Mark. I had not considered that view. I have not been able to study the paperwork associated just the artifacts that have drawn me to what I have proposed.

The changes are evolutionary and as you suggest are not radical for a new system. I do not think that I suggest that it is a new system just a modified and improved one.

Stephen

"But how do you explain the difference between Kevin's version of the 1762 report at p. 55 compared with what it is, (now helpfully in English at link If as he claims, Kevin has Hennebert, then that compounds this. You might say that he has reproduced one paragraph from the report, but that is the only piece from the report quoted by Alder. It is not a question of interpretation or translation of old words or comparison of sources, but simply an account of a single document. Given the disparity between the two, the only explanation is that Kevin's version is made up."

Is that really the "only explanation" for any disparity? Or is it a conclusion you have jumped to? How about saying that you disagree with this …. without conjecturing how this disparity has arisen from Kevin's side. Maybe that might make Kevin more inclined to reveal his source, or to reconsider what and how he had previously come up with this, or to get excited about new evidence even if it is counter to his original findings.

"On nonsense, what do you say when we have a claim of go/no go rings, yet a supposed fixed windage – especially when windage is actually a proportion, not a specific value. It makes no sense. What about these claims of Gribeauval commanding Austrian field guns – do we meekly say it is a matter of "interpretation" so that the same claim can be made again and again when it is false? Or Austrian Cavalry guns crews riding into action on ammo wagons – not least as the guns were supported by packhorses? Allow that to be repeated – oh, hang on, it has been by Kincaid!! How about G being Austrian director of artillery – you might think Prince Lichtenstein might have felt a little aggrieved. Unless you speak up clearly, this nonsense is just repeated – if you let it go, any reader might quite reasonably think it is true simply because he readsit in several places."

Just say you disagree with it, and why. Simple as that. Just leave out the sarcasm (even the above para carries a bit).

Sadly, Dave has I feel, a deep rooted emotional issue with Kevin. With such a bee in his bonnet how do you expect him to give it a rest?

I have tried also but he is incessant, he will never give up and just say, "yes, but I do not agree with you". He has no idea of the concept so trying to teach someone humility and self-regulation over the net is impossible.

This google link can help to improve ones relationships with people: link

I disagree that Gribeauval was director of the Austrian artillery whoever states that clearly hasn't done his homework.

I agree that Austrian horse artillery gunners rode on the gun carriage and not the ammunition waggon, whoever states that the Austrian gunners did ride on the ammunition waggons and continues to do so – is unable to learn.

I agree that Gribeauval did not command Austrian field guns but gained his merits and acclamation in conducting sieges or defending fortresses.

I agree that the reviews by 10th marines about the work of Dave Hollins – are uninformed and malicious – the only intend is to discredit rival authors – and here Dave Hollins is not alone – see DDS as well – just read them.

I could go on for a while – and what is wrong with carcasm?

for a serious discussion you have look into the information the other sides bring up – sometimes you have to change then your own view – like in my case I did not believe that Gribeauval did bring to France a Prussian gun model and plans. I was tought otherwise and had to change my view on that.

Sadly, I think it is a waste of time trying to get Mr. Hollins to 'cool' down, as it were. He has great info and knowledge, which he often shares and helps people out with. But he seems incapable of moving on, even though Kevin and others have. Why, I just don't know? Perhaps he could take his dislike of Kevin somewhere else, rather than use this site to wage his one man war against another author. If only he could just discuss and debate things like a gentleman for a change. How enjoyable that would be. He is starting to sound like the Roman (Cato?) who used to end each speech with 'Carthage must be destroyed'. In this case he appears to have replaced Carthage with Kevin. A shame for someone, once respected for his Austrian Osprey titles, but is now only becoming known for his war against another author. Really, really sad.

Roly, I can appreciate that like most readers, you feel you are trying to be "fair" in suggesting that differences between authors are simply matters of interpretation – as some are. Unfortunately, you are unintentionally being unfair to those, who do the research, while allowing others to get away with not doing it, copying myth or even making things up.

Kevin has had ample opportunity to tell us where his comments on the 1762 report come from and why they are so far from the original, but we have heard nothing. As I said, nonsensical claims he has made have already been repeated. The result? There is still plenty of rubbish doing the rounds out there.

The whole mythology surrounding Gribeauval is built on two things – the 1762 report being a blueprint of the G system and the 1792 Table being the System at its point of completion, just in time for the Revolutionary Wars. Taken overall, they are said to represent a system, which forms a step change in artillery from siege pieces & field pop guns to a serious mobile field arm, which helped to create industrial warfare.

The opening research (and you can imagine my surprise when I read the 1762 report) showed that the 1762 report is a Q&A on Austrian guns and the 1792 Table is just a snapshot of the French artillery at a point in time. The claims about G in Austria are inventions by Coudray and Thiers. The French are already looking at shorter barels in 1761 and it seems to be these, not any G design, which are tested in Strassbourg. There is no G plan or design – indeed I now wonder when the expression "Gribeauval System" first arose. On top of all this come claims aboout G's plan for artillery education and tactics, followed by nonsensical claims about the kit, (well, the bits G might have actually been involved with!). How do you describe all this, given that there is no evidecne to back it up?

Much of it has been made up and copied by those, who want to believe in something, when the evidence says something they do not want to hear or indeed, they have not bothered to check it. If another author says simply that they disagree, then (aside from the Amazon campaigns), most people quite reasonably will think each has equal value and so the process goes on. As I said, what do I say to the OP, when he asks me about the differences between NV72 and Kevin's book? Oh, it is just a matter of interpretation – Kevin's done his own research, you can just draw some idea somewhere in the middle etc.? He is not really going to thank me and may even begrudge what he paid Osprey.

You have to grade differences – ad extremis, Hamilton-Williams was chased out of town by those, who spoke up and said he was lying. Plenty of people at that time backed the "difference of interpretation" approach – some of his material continues to infect the subject of Waterloo. It would do so in greater quantity of we had all stuck to the "interpretation" approach. Bowden would still be held up as some kind of authority on the 1805 Allies, if the misleaing claims had not been rather forcefully pointe dout there.

It is only when the question is posed "What is the evidence for this claim?" that a debate will happen, which gets close to the truth. We have seen it with this alleged "testing of Austrian and Prussian rebuilt guns". In the end, it turns out to be a wooden Prussian model.

Hennebert has been in print for a century, yet we still get the same old nonsense about the 1762 report. It is hard to be anything but a bit blunt or sarcastic about those, who tout themselves as experts and researchers, yet are neither, especially when they refuse to produce any supporting evidence. This tale of the education plan is something made up by Maclennan to support his differentiation of G from L. Kevin has repeated it anmd so, it has gained currency.

I am looking forward to the explanation for the fantasy version of the 1762 report. I am quite prespared to be shown that it wasn't made up, so let's hear it. I am now also looking forward to the G plans and proposals – esp as the 1762 report is not one of them.

If Dave obsessed on writing books as much as he does about
Kevin, we would have a world full of Austrian Nap.info.

James

Bye bye, children.

General Brock

If only. If only. We can but dream.

'I am hoping that Paul Dawson will publish his work about the development of French ordonannce from the days of Gribeauval to an 11 and beyond. He seems to be much more impartial and more competent than 10th Marines.'

I couldn't agree with your statement more if I had written it. What cemented that opinion was the tale of the bouncing canister round and the diagram that went with it. That in itself clearly demonstrates an in-depth knowledge of period artillery and the ammunition that went with it.

Well done.

K

I have not been able to answer some of the questions in this thread because of work commitments lately, so please pardon my late entry.

Stephen,

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

How can you ‘elevate' to ‘minus 2 degrees' unless the gun is depressed further than that? It would be very helpful if you clarified what you actually meant.

‘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.'

That is a correct assessment.

‘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.'

That assessment is also correct-very well said.

‘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.'

Yes, but when fired by a gun, vice a howitzer, by definition that modified parabola is a flat one, not one with a high trajectory. That is the basic distinction
between a gun and a howitzer.

‘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.'

But the 16-pounder was not a field piece as is being alluded to-it was a siege or a garrison gun, depending on the gun carriage, and commonly called a ‘battering piece' in the artillery-speak of the period. Of course the AN XI 12-pounder was lighter than the Gribeauval 16-pounder-so was the Gribeauval 12-pounder.

The French 12-pounders had 6-horse artillery teams, as did one of the caissons belonging to the gun company. The other 12-pounder caissons used 4-horse teams. And I disagree with you that the French 12-pounder ‘was a very rare beast.' It was Napoleon's favorite field piece and was usually found in the army artillery reserve, though there were also 12-pounders in the corps artillery.

‘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.'

And the British used carronades in the field in North America during the war of 1812. That does not make them a field piece.

‘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.'

That isn't unusual. 12-pounders usually had a sustained rate of fire of one round per minute, while the smaller calibers were rated at two rounds per minute. When the French did resort to counterbattery fire, they usually did it with the smaller calibers for that reason.

‘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 French had a front sight on their gun tubes and used it in conjunction with the elevator sight on the breech. This would make the line of sight at point blank parallel with the axis of the piece (line of the bore) for better accuracy.

‘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. …They were old by the time of the wars.'

Define ‘old.' If you mean ‘outdated' then I would disagree with you. If that were the case, then the Austrian system would have been woefully outdated and obsolete and it wasn't.

‘The arguments state that Gribeauval created a perfect system at the first attempt in 1765.'

Whose arguments? I haven't seen that one. However, du Teil did say something along those lines but I don't recall any modern author doing it. Adye was also very complimentary of the Gribeauval System.

Are you trying to create a strawman argument on this subject?

‘Gribeauval Field Ordnance was untried in battle until the Revolutionary Wars. It was not present in America. Not even "Rammers" supports that claim. The French supplied the US with M1756 4-pdr Swedish Guns and some M1775 Siege Guns. The latter were accepted into use when Gribeauval was not in power.'

I disagree and it is not correct about not being used in combat. Rochambeau brought Gribeauval ordnance with his expeditionary force in 1780. This is clearly stated by Rene Chartrand in his books on Napoleonic artillery. On page 14 he states that the Gribeauval System was firmly in place by 1770 with 1200 brass field pieces of the ‘three calibers' having been cast along with over 3300 artillery vehicles of the new system. And as the political infighting was finally over by 1774 and the Gribeauval System finally approved, there would be no reason for Rochambeau not to take the new system with him to North America. On page 16 of Napoleon's Guns I Chartrand states that for field artillery Rochambeau had eight 12-pounders, sixteen 4-pounders, and six 6-inch howitzers of the Gribeauval System. Harold Parker in Roundshot and Rammers is generally undecided on the question, and if you read the journals of Clermont-Crevecoeur and Verger, while they are not specific, the clear division between siege and field pieces in the journals supports Chartrand.
You are correct in that the ordnance sent to the Americans was of the older, heavier Valliere system, but there is no reason that the French would send the Americans anything from the new system. They sent what was basically artillery surplus.

Interestingly, Chartrand also describes the Swedish 4-pounder of 1757 as 'useless' along with the Rostaing field piece.

‘Please look at Dollazchek (1880) p153 this shows that as far back as 1668 the Austrians were using 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, 24, 36 and 48-pdrs. This was the date that they decided not to follow the Duodecimal System of Emperor Charles V of Spain.'

Yes, and? The point is what? That the caliber of artillery of that period was as indicated? That does not prove that the Austrians didn't copy the Prussian standard calibers in the Lichtenstein System. What it does show is that the guns went by names in 1668 and not by calibers. And it should be remembered that up until Lichtenstein's reforms, the Austrian artillery was still a guild, not a combat arm.

‘There was a significant modification in 1780 by Rouvroy upon the Liechtenstein Artillery System. Now when does a modification become a different system. I do not know.'

Then why are you assigning nomenclature to artillery systems that did not exist at the time? All that does is confuse the issue and is incorrect historically. We should be trying to clear things up, not further cloud the issue. Enough folks are doing that already. I would think you would support the simplest method and be for clarification, not obfuscation.

‘The changes are evolutionary and as you suggest are not radical for a new system. I do not think that I suggest that it is a new system just a modified and improved one.'

Then you should be very clear in that. Using modern ‘Mark' designations when none exist isn't helpful.

K

Roly and everyone else,

You will note (once again) that Kevin has failed to answer the most fundamental question related to the standard of his research – why does his version of the key 1762 report bear no resemblance to the actual text? Why should anyone not think Kevin has made it up?

Elsewhere,

1)‘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.' That is a correct assessment.

Stephen confused what Smola was saying with the anecdote from the Fahnrich. The Fahnrich notes that the French guns were at short range and the balls flew over him and his comrades. If the ball flies flat, why is the sine of the dispart of even a YrXI gun enough to take the ball to nearly 2m within 100m of the muzzle at Zero elevation (given the limited effect of gravity until about 250m)? If the bore is at ZE, then the ball must drop continuously from that point and will (at best it seeems) reach 180m before bouncing?

In fact, the built-in elevation (enough to take a ball to 2.7m+ at 100m) is the problem with any gun. Looking at Smola, how can a gun be less accurate at 500 paces than 700 paces if the ball flies flat? That is clearly impossible.

2) "Yes, but when fired by a gun, vice a howitzer, by definition that modified parabola is a flat one, not one with a high trajectory. That is the basic distinction
between a gun and a howitzer."

Please explain then, not only Smola and the Fahnrich, but also how the dispart of 1 deg on a G gun would raise a ball to 3.5m above the muzzle (ignoring any gravity effects) about 200m/300paces out? In what way is that flat? Alternatively, if you rely on the British ZE, how can a ball falling under gravity to bounce be flat? This is simple maths after all.

3) "The French had a front sight on their gun tubes and used it in conjunction with the elevator sight on the breech. This would make the line of sight at point blank parallel with the axis of the piece (line of the bore) for better accuracy"

That is just nonsense. The Hausse sight checked the range. The elevating mechanism was then adjusted to elevate/depress for the requisite angle RELATIVE to Zero Elevation – which was measured over the barrel. The foresight merely helped with the line of fire, but its downside was that it obscured the target. You cannot check a Napoleonic gun for line down the bore – it can only be measured relative to over the barrel. If French guns are so accurate, how come their hit rate at Wagram was 5% and certainly no more than 10%?

4) The arguments state that Gribeauval created a perfect system at the first attempt in 1765.'
KK: Whose arguments? I haven't seen that one. However, du Teil did say something along those lines but I don't recall any modern author doing it. Adye was also very complimentary of the Gribeauval System.

If you actually read Aye, he merely says that the standardisation of parts was of merit, which it is, but that was not unique to the "French system of artillery", which is what he actually calls it. He was writing at a time when most French field guns were YrXIs or captured Allied pieces.

The argument with Gribeauval is that he produced a blueprint in 1762, which was implemented in 1765. We now know this to be complete fantasy as a) the 1762 report is not as you present it and b) the guns tested at Strassbourg were ordered in 1761. Du Teil is thus wrong.

So, we caom back to the 1762 report – why did you make up the contents of this key document?

/yawn

Why do Austrian Infantry generally have poor ratings in rules?
Answer 1 Because they all are all wrong biased , rubbish and havent done the research.

Answer 2. Because from simple research, on a per unit basis, they had half as much command as French or British units.
Thus they were not as effective.
QED but that never stopped a tirade against the suggestion Austrian infantry werent so good.

'The French system of artillery was established as far back as the year 1765, and has been rigidly adhered to through a convulsion in the country which overturned everything like order, and which even the government itself has not been able to withstand. We should, therefore, conclude that it has merit, and, though in an enemy, ought to avail ourselves of its advantages. At the formation of this system, they saw the necessity of the most exact correspondence in the most minute particulars, and so rigidly have they adhered to this principle that, though they have several arsenals, where carriages and other military machines are constructed, the different parts of a carriage may be collected from these several arsenals, in the opposite extremities of the country, and will as well unite and form a carriage as if they were all made and fitted in the same workshop. As long as every man who fancies he has made an improvement is permitted to introduce it into our service, this cannot be the case with us.'

-Ralph Willet Adye, on the Gribeauval System, ca 1800.

Dear Kevin
1. Austrian Artillery Changes c1780
Do you accept that there were changes to the Austrian Ordnance in 1780?
- Change in position of the vent,
- ammunition limber,
- cavalry guns,
- introduction of the horizontal boring maching causing a simplification of the dolphins and removal of raised decoration.

These observations come from studying the extent cannon at the Austrian Army Museum in Vienna. The changes are documented by Dave Hollins, Dollachek, DDS etc…

2. Quote from Adye (1804) American Edition.
Adye died in 1804 and was talking upon his understanding of the French Gribeauval System that came from Gassendi (1798) and D'Urtubie (1794). He had no practical knowledge of the Gribeauval System at the time that he wrote this in 1800 for the 1st edition. It was deleted for the 7th Edition as not being relevant.

You should read my introduction to RW Adye and WG Eliot (1813 rp2010) Bombardier and Pocket Gunner, 7th Edition, Ken Trotman Publishing to comprehend better the source of the information. You quote a passage as you know well is absent from the 1813 edition.
link

Why did you not state the edition of Adye that this comes from rather than approximately 1800? Which edition do you have? I assume that this is from Prated 1804 American Version of the (1802) 2nd edition.

I own a copy of the 1st, 5th, 7th and 8th Editions. Each are different in content. A great deal of care is required to date the material.

3. Depression is the same as a negative elevation. I accept the clumsy scientific expression.

4. I have measured and recorded the guns at the Austrian Army Museum. There were no changes in bore of the 3-, 6-, and 12-pdr Austrian Guns from the 1680s to 1860. I know this is an empirical observation. I suggest that you should visit the museum.

5. Where are the Gribeauval guns at Yorktown? All those French cannon on display are Valliere or Swedish 4-pdrs. Certainly it would be interesting to see some evidence. The guns recovered from a Frigate that was taking back part of the French Artillery were Swedish 4-pdrs that served at Yorktown.

6. What was wrong with the Swedish 4-pdr?

Stephen

More Gribeauval System information that might be useful for anyone interested:

-In 1803 the French artillery arm had on hand 2,700 field pieces of 4- and 8-pounders of the Gribeauval System along with approximately three million roundshot already cast and ready for use (Rene Chartrand, Napoleon's Guns I, 1792-1815, 24).

-'Judged by his work, taken as a whole, Gribeauval ws the greatest reformer, certainly in the material, probably in the personnel, the artillery world has ever seen.' (James Hicks, Notes on French Ordnance 1717-1936, 144).

-'…the systeme Gribeauval was as perfect a work as is humanly possible.' (Jean-Gabriel Roquerol, L'Artillerie au Debut des Guerres de la Revolution, 249).

''Gribeauval was more important than anyone else, including Jacques-Antoine Hippolyte, comte de Guibert, or Chevalier Jean Charles de Folard (Shelby McCloy, French Inventions of the Eighteenth Century, 137).

-Gribeauval…'rendered the artillery more scientific.' (Jean du Teil, De l'usage de l'artillerie nouvelle dans la guerre de campagne, i).

-In L'Armee Royale en 1789 Albert Drury remarked that only Vauban 'has left a work comparable to that of Gribeauval.' (158).

-According to the often-referred-to Hennebert, 'Gribeauval was able to exert considerable influence over the Austrian artillery' during his service in Austria in the Seven Years' War. (Eugene Hennebert, Gribeauval, lieutenant-general des armees du roy, premier inspector general du corps royale de l'artillerie (1715-1789), 27).

-Howard Rosen, in his thesis on the Systeme Gribeauval, commented on two significant aspects of the Gribeauval System, citing the Ordonnance of 13 August 1765 on the first, remarking on the Strasbourg tests in the summer of 1764, matching the new ordnance with the older, heavier Valliere ordnance: 'On the strength of these findings [the Strasbourg tests], the Ordonnance of 13 August 1765 was adopted, accepting the innovations in material proposed by Gribeauval.'

The second is a definition of an artillery system by Rosen which is quite succinct and complete:

'Often obscured by the large number of changes it introduced, was the fact that the systeme Gribeauval was a genuine system, a thoroughly integrated blend of organizational principles, tactical ideas, and technology. Gribeauval conceived of the artillery as a system in which each part was designed in functional relation to the whole. Men and material were viewed instrumentally, as elements of this system. From the details of equipment to its social organization, every aspect of the systeme Gribeauval was designed to achieve a specific purpose: to create an artillery force with sufficient mobility to participate actively in offensive field operations.' (Rosen, 30-31).
On pages 48-49 Rosen continues: 'The most significant innovation one sees in the systeme Gribeauval was that it was indeed a system: a thorough synthesis of organization, technology, material, and tactics. Every aspect of the system, from the harnessing of the horses to the selection and organization of personnel, embodied a single functional concept. Utility was its principle, mobility was its goal. Every element of the systeme Gribeauval was designed to function in a particular way, in a particular circumstance. Men and technology were considered functional elements in a total system. The date, 1776, of the final official acceptance of the systeme Gribeauval, marked an important stage in the development of modern artillery systems.'

-Matti Lauerma, in his L'Artillerie de campagne francais pendant les guerres de la Revolution (19) states that the new field pieces of the Gribeauval System were 'a killing machine, somber and efficient.'

-Jean Colin in Les campagnes de marechal de Saxe (6) states that 'Gribeauval gave France a truly offensive artillery…an essential arm in the Napoleonic victories.'

K

'Austrian Artillery Changes c1780
Do you accept that there were changes to the Austrian Ordnance in 1780?
- Change in position of the vent,
- ammunition limber,
- cavalry guns,
- introduction of the horizontal boring maching causing a simplification of the dolphins and removal of raised decoration.'

Sure-that's not the issue and never has been. The issue is you applying a new nomenclature to them which is, at best, confusing the issue at hand.

It also looks like the Austrians were trying to catch up to Gribeauval's new designs ca 1780, doesn't it? Further, weren't the two gun tubes for the cavalry guns the same gun tubes already being used, the 6-pounder merely having the cascabel neck and ball being hacked off because it didn't fit the new gun carriage properly?

'Quote from Adye (1804) American Edition.
Adye died in 1804 and was talking upon his understanding of the French Gribeauval System that came from Gassendi (1798) and D'Urtubie (1794). He had no practical knowledge of the Gribeauval System at the time that he wrote this in 1800 for the 1st edition. It was deleted for the 7th Edition as not being relevant.'

And? That doesn't make the quote either irrelevant or inaccurate. From the manuals you can certianly ascertain a complete artillery system along with the production tolerances, etc. I have two editions of Adye, one of them the 1813 edition. I am not surprised the British took out that quote in the later edition as it praised an enemy's aritllery system when the British artillery was still in a mess and handn't been sorted out yet.

I don't need to read another current author's opinions of an artillery manual that I can make my own conclusions on. Not to denigrate your work at all, but I have enough material upon which to base conclusions, based on facts from primary source material of the period. It doesn't matter if the original quote was taken out of the 1813 edition or not-it is still fact and quite relevant when comparing artillery systems. Or is it only irrelevant because it refers to the Gribeauval System?

And please pardon me, but I do have a problem with people advertising their own work on the forums. Nothing personal, and I don't mean to offend, but I just don't agree with it.

'Depression is the same as a negative elevation. I accept the clumsy scientific expression.'

The two terms are not the same in artillery, which is a science in itself. The proper term is 'depress' to lower the gun tube at any time. And the term 'negative elevation' is not an artillery term and can lead to confusion in discussion and explanation.

'I have measured and recorded the guns at the Austrian Army Museum. There were no changes in bore of the 3-, 6-, and 12-pdr Austrian Guns from the 1680s to 1860. I know this is an empirical observation. I suggest that you should visit the museum.'

I wouldn't expect them to be different. That isn't the point. The question is when did they become standard for the Austrian artillery arm, and conversely, when for the Prussian artillery arm? Then we can see who followed whom. My bet is the Austrians followed the Prussians as they did after the War of the Austrian Succession in renovating and militarizing their artillery arm.

'Where are the Gribeauval guns at Yorktown? All those French cannon on display are Valliere or Swedish 4-pdrs. Certainly it would be interesting to see some evidence. The guns recovered from a Frigate that was taking back part of the French Artillery were Swedish 4-pdrs that served at Yorktown.'

You'd have to ask the US National Park Service. They certainly had the Gribeauval System siege pieces on display in the siege works in the 1970s and 1980s as I saw them when I was there. There are pictures of them in Rene Chartrand's Napoleon's Guns II. I accept Chartrand's research as valid as he is an excellent historian and researcher. I also have seen the pieces at Yorktown in the past.

I'll be going back next week to Yorktown so I can ask them where they went if you're really interested. I'll also check out the ordnance in the park and see what's there currently.

'What was wrong with the Swedish 4-pdr?'

In particulars, that would have to be researched. Chartrand makes that statement in his Napoleon's Guns I. I would suggest that it wasn't good enough to be used by Gribeauval and a new one was designed and produced. It should also be noted that the guns 'a la suedoise' were not of either one design or manufacture. And the design being used in the 1750s in France could very well have been French inspired by the Swedish model. The piece was cast in France and the model itself was brought back to France by French General Brocard and it was his idea to use an ammunition coffret. Tronson du Coudray also states that it was he that came up with the artillery cartridge, so that is also interesting.

K

SWEDISH 4-pdr
As you know very well the Swedish 4-pdr was an infantry gun and not part of the artillery so was not part of the Gribeauval System. They were still in use into late 1790s. Many were rebored to 6-pdrs.

The Swedish 4-pdr was introduced to fill the need for Regimental Artillery. It was twice as heavy as the Swedish equivalent. It had a less advanced carriage that was a cut down version of the Valliere Carriage or akin to the 1690 Swedish carriage. The M1725 carriage had a rounded trail end. Both the M1690 and M1725 carriages had points for drag ropes (Bricole in French). There are a number of well known drawings of their use. Travelling poles were also introduced by the Swedes in the late 17th Century that was copied by the Austrians.

It may well be that Brocard introduced the cartridge again to the French Artillery. It was Valliere who abolished it in 1732. The Cartridge dates back to Gustavas Adolphus at least. I would encourage a study of Dollachek.

AUSTRIANS FEAR THE PRUSSIANS
The Austrians were trying to keep pace with the Prussian Artillery who were their threat being that they had been at war in the Bavarian War of Succession. They were technical allies of the French.

ADYE
Had you realised that the statement was missing in the 1813 edition. This was written by Elliot and not Adye as you are correct that he died in 1804. I was supporting your statement that he was talking about the Gribeauval System BUT from a theoritical rather than actual knowledge of the system. He did not see it until his service in Egypt.

GRIBEAUVAL
Now we are upon definition as to whether Gribeauval guns were in use in America. No Gribeauval field guns were used by the French at Yorktown. Now there are a few M1775 Siege Guns were used. Now these are technically not part of the Gribeauval System and were not accepted into service when he was First Inspector of Artillery. The Gribeauval System was only the Field Artillery and it absorbed what went before.

NOMENCLATURE
The use of the nomenclature is to clarify the version that was in use. There were at least three different forms of Swedish 4-pdrs in use over the period as can be seen in the design of the cascabel, weights and dolphins.

I am surprised that in most things there is a requirement for precision.

Stephen

Try to keep awake kiddies, there will be a test afterward

Dear Skip
Alas we will have to ask as to which language. If it is German then alas we will loose some of the people being examined.

Academic discussions can often be rather heated affairs. Alas there is considerable amount of mud thrown by certain parties not in UK.

Stephen

SWEDISH 4-pdr
'As you know very well the Swedish 4-pdr was an infantry gun and not part of the artillery so was not part of the Gribeauval System. They were still in use into late 1790s. Many were rebored to 6-pdrs.'

It's still a field piece whether or not the infantry is using it. For example, the Rostaing field gun was also an infantry weapon, so to speak, but it was initially retained in the Gribeauval System.

'The Swedish 4-pdr was introduced to fill the need for Regimental Artillery.'

It was introduced to get a light field piece as the older Frezeliere field artillery system had been abandoned in 1720.

'Both the M1690 and M1725 carriages had points for drag ropes (Bricole in French).'

A bricole is not a drag rope. They are two entirely different pieces of equipment. One had a leather shoulder strap and one did not. There are enough illustrations available from original works to see the difference which is quite obvious. It is also easier to move a field piece with the bricole than with a drag rope.

'It may well be that Brocard introduced the cartridge again to the French Artillery. It was Valliere who abolished it in 1732. The Cartridge dates back to Gustavas Adolphus at least. I would encourage a study of Dollachek.'

As I said before, I have a copy of Dolleczek. The material is also in Dodge's Gustavus Adolphus and Manucy's Artillery Through the Ages. The issue might also be between the invention of the powder bag for artillery use and the artillery cartridge, which had the round attached to the powder bag with a sabot in between. Again, there is a difference. The French use of 'cartouche' also clouds the definition and development in order to trace it correctly.

'AUSTRIANS FEAR THE PRUSSIANS
The Austrians were trying to keep pace with the Prussian Artillery who were their threat being that they had been at war in the Bavarian War of Succession. They were technical allies of the French.'

The War of the Bavarian Succession wasn't much, so I don't believe it to be relevant.

'ADYE
Had you realised that the statement was missing in the 1813 edition. This was written by Elliot and not Adye as you are correct that he died in 1804. I was supporting your statement that he was talking about the Gribeauval System BUT from a theoritical rather than actual knowledge of the system. He did not see it until his service in Egypt.'

Thank you.

'GRIBEAUVAL
Now we are upon definition as to whether Gribeauval guns were in use in America. No Gribeauval field guns were used by the French at Yorktown. Now there are a few M1775 Siege Guns were used. Now these are technically not part of the Gribeauval System and were not accepted into service when he was First Inspector of Artillery. The Gribeauval System was only the Field Artillery and it absorbed what went before.'

As has already been demonstrated and shown to you, Gribeauval field pieces were taken to North America by Rochambeau. I gave you the numbers and calibers. They were also used in combat.

I agree with you that Gribeauval's main focus was field artillery development. However, he adopted and modified the existing siege pieces, so they were also a part of the Gribeauval System. To say otherwise is incorrect.

'NOMENCLATURE
The use of the nomenclature is to clarify the version that was in use. There were at least three different forms of Swedish 4-pdrs in use over the period as can be seen in the design of the cascabel, weights and dolphins.'

Developing your own artillery nomenclature for artillery systems is historically incorrect and merely clouds the issue at hand. In short, it's incorrect.

'I am surprised that in most things there is a requirement for precision.'

Why? If you're going to talk about artillery systems, there is a common vocabulary for it and if it is used, it is much easier to understand what you're trying to say. You don't have to, of course, but understanding the artillery arm is half the battle done.