"Books on Napoleonic Artillery?" Topic

'Alas there is considerable amount of mud thrown by certain parties not in UK.'

Why is that statement necessary? It is also very inaccurate. Seems to me there is a considerable amount of 'mud' coming from the UK. If you haven't seen it then perhaps you aren't reading all of the postings?

It would be nice if the ad hominem attacks would stop, but apparently that isn't going to happen.

K

Steven, my computer interprets pretty quick German, French and Russian. But English is the international language (ask Alonso, Massa, or Vettel)

Dear Kevin
You seem to accuse me of slinging mud. I have not but your hands are not clean.
Stephen

Dear Kevin
The Swedish 4-pdr was NOT considered part of the Royal Artillery Regiment so was not under the charge of the Artillery. How was it used in America by the French Army? It was with the infantry. Why were there still Swedish 4-pdrs available as it was not adopted by Gribeauval to be used in the Revolutionary wars. According to D'Urtubie there were 4-pdrs drawn by three horses with the infantry. Why has this gun been ignored? We have discussed this before at length.

There are no Gribeauval Field Guns present at Yorktown. You have given me calibres. Nothing more. There are no Gribeauval field guns on display and the only ones are the Siege Guns and M1757 4-pdr Swedish guns. Where is the pictorial, returns etc… to prove that?

It is interesting that a war in Europe that France just eluded is of no importance.

Alas Rene Chartrand does not give any indication where he obtained his facts.

We disagree and it may well need to be left there. I have attempted to remove the mystery that is about ordnance. To give a language that can be understood that is consistent.

Stephen

I am always amuse dby kevin's need to quote third handworks praising Gribeauval as if that proved anything.

Okay, Adye is 1800, not that you would know this from Kevin's book as the only Adye in the bibliography (the one including several German and Russian books, whose contenst do not appear in the text) is the 1813 version. The actual quote on p.68 is unfootnoted , but lies between fns related to the Intro to de Scheel (written by Don Graves, referencing Rosen) and The Red Rocket's Glare (author Donald Graves). It is ironic, given Kevin's many secondary claims that Graves himself has openly conceded that many of his opinions from the time of these books have been shown by later researchj to be utterly wrong and he has duly recanted. What of Lauerma – the source of Kevin's quote in first Empire that G was in command of the Austrian artilelry and technical services (an utter load of nonsense invented by Coudray and perpetuated by Thiers). And what of Rosen? Did he read up on Lichtenstein – No. So, what are his comparative opinions worth – erm, nothing really.

So, to return to Adye, what does he say? The "French system" – yes, I am still wondering when the first reference to Gribeauval system actually appeared and let us not forget that this "French system" was that of the 1792 Table, which includes all kinds of things G had nothing to don with. Adye had no experience of it and all he does actually praise it for is standardisation, which was good, but not original to the French artillery.

I am still fascinated, given this emphasis on the 1760s to hear Kevin's explanation of his version of the report – now he quotes from Hennebert, yet mysteriously, we hear nothiong of the 1762 report in the back.

The Austrians were doing modifications to their guns – at no point did they copy anythiong from G, least of all the Cavalry weapons as G failed to introduce horse artilelry. That was an effort to combat Prussian mobile guns of the 1778-9 war – in fact.

Austrian guns were certainly standardised under the 1716 System and there was an emphasis on standardisation round to 1722, due to the recovery of the Kingdom of Hungary. This was some 18 years before the Succession War and 31 years before the L system.

That reminds me – Maclennan helpfully lists all the Austrian tests and where you still find them, alongside the L project details. Given that the 1762 report does not form, any blueprint, where is the plan for the G system? Where indeed is the educational concept claimed by Rosen and mentioned by MacLennan, yet unfootnoted?

Seems rather too many third hand claims have been presented as fact, doesn't it?

And about that elevation – could you explain that flat trajectory, given that the sine of 1 deg is 0.0175?

Stephen,

I have not accused you of anything. All I said was that you're 'assessment' of the situation regarding 'mud-slinging' was incorrect.

Regarding the Gribeauval field pieces at Yorktown, they don't have to be on display today in order to have been present in 1781. You can also check the two journals from French officers that were there in 1781, one of them an artilleryman, to see indicators that the Gribeauval System was brought and employed in the United States in 1781.

K

'It is interesting that a war in Europe that France just eluded is of no importance.'

Could you then explain the importance of the War of the Bavarian Succession as well as including the important battles, sieges, etc?

'Alas Rene Chartrand does not give any indication where he obtained his facts.'

You could always check his bibliography, which is annotated, and is in Volume II of his two artillery books.

K

Dear Kevin
Yes I have looked at his and I have read all that is in his references and have come to a number of different conclusions. He does not recognise the work of Rostaing and Manson dealing with coastal and garrison artillery that were not at that time under the charge of Gribeauval.

I find it strange that he states that the plans in De Scheele are essentially the same as the Manson (1792) Table of Construction. This is incorrect when dealing with garrison and siege guns that this volume is supposed to be dealing with.

I am resident in UK and you have accused all those who live in the UK. Be careful with your words. I expected civility from you.

Stephen

'I am resident in UK and you have accused all those who live in the UK. Be careful with your words. I expected civility from you.'

Stephen,

I know where you live and I did not accuse 'all those who live in the UK' of anything. That is an incorrect statement. If you believe that is what I did, then please show me where. You made a sweeping, inaccurate statement about me that was incorrect. Do you call that civil? I certainly don't.

This is what you said to open that part of the discussion:

'Alas there is considerable amount of mud thrown by certain parties not in UK.'

Here is how I replied to it:

'Why is that statement necessary? It is also very inaccurate. Seems to me there is a considerable amount of 'mud' coming from the UK. If you haven't seen it then perhaps you aren't reading all of the postings? It would be nice if the ad hominem attacks would stop, but apparently that isn't going to happen.'

I have been civil to you and I accused you of nothing. You accused people of 'mud slinging' and that was uncalled for. I would also suggest to you that you be careful what you say to people. You're bringing this subject up was not needed at all and all it does when anyone does it is cause hard feelings when that is completely unnecessary.

I threw no 'mud' and you completely misinterpreted what I did say. That is really too bad as the discussion was quite good until you brought up 'mud slinging.' Again, why did you do that?

K

Askimg where you got your material from and to justify certain claims is not "ad hominem" attack. It is trying to assess whether you have actually read the material you claim to have in writing p[osts here or in your book.

Now,

1) Where does your version of the 1762 report come from and why does it bear npo relation to the 1762 report

2) Why does a ball projected at an angle with the sine 0.0175 fly flat?

Dear Kevin
It would be good if you could be a little more sensitive of other people's feelings.
Stephen

Stephen,

That is excellent advice and it applies to all of us, I should think. It was great that you posted it. I firmly agree with you. I do hope you have a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year and I look forward to many excellent discussions with you in the future.

And, if I hurt your feelings, I do apologize for it was not my intent. My head is both bloody and bowed.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Kewvin on the reviews of his artillery book on Amazon:

"The bibliography is a combination of primary sources and credible secondary sources and all were consulted in writing the text".

Okay, why did you not actually read a single book on the Austrian artilelry in German and copy all your claims from thiord-hand English works by people, who had never seen these guns. Why did you make claims for G originality and the way the Austrians built /operated their guns, which any German book would show otherwise?

In that same response, you claim "nothing was made up".

Will you explain why your claims about the 1762 report bear no resemblance to the actual; text (now available in English)?

You cannot run the "ad hominem" smokescreen as you have raised these issues.

I have to admit the discussion was going good between Stephen and yourself there Kevin but you did not throw out the mud 'unfortunately' Stephen through out the mud comment at you first and I totally viewed it as an insult upon yourself. Why else would he say that, as your the only 2 having a conversation or debate that I see. But your the bigger person here that I see and Apologized again but maybe Stephen should too. As for Dave all I can say is 'right on cue.'

Regards
James

Stephen wrote:

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

That was a cheap shot, and one I expected from Dave, not you Stephen.

You accuse Kev of slinging mud then when he responds you accuse him of hurting your feelings??? You are good at throwing accusations but you do not seem able to take it back. Is there an issue there? I cannot see in any way how Kev has done anything to hurt you at all. If you refrained from the original comments about mud your feelings would not have been hurt in the first place. geeez

All I see is how both Stephen and Dave are continuing to hurt their own reputations academically to all the rest of us listening in. Your not doing yourselves any favours here at all. Kev once again shows he is the bigger man than both of you put together. You two are so blinded by your dislike of Kev that you say things that make the rest of us dislike you in turn. Keep it up and what your book sales plummet while Kev's future works sky-rocket…

GB, you forgot about VW, he will be here soon, I can hear the door opening now. But I dare say I will have to suffer comments about the demise of smith and nvrsaynvr once again.

Shane, I'm afraid that it is the authors, who fail to answer the key questions, fabricate bibliographies and make unsubstantioated claims, who are soon found out. I see Kevin is speaking about French artillery "innovation" at CoRe next year – I wonder how he would stand up to simple questions about the 1762 report and these alleged (but actually non-French) innovations.

Would it not be better if Kevin were to answer any of the questions about his work raised on this thrad and the Historical Research thread. Roly said I should "disagree" with him to take the proces forward, but without answers, it is hard to do so.

It is a simple question about a key document and a simple question affecting perhaps your rule set that I have posed. Surely, if kevin has the expertise he claims, it should be very simple to answer.

Do you think that making things up and copying unsubstantiated claims from tertiary authorts marks an author out as a credible writer?

Defiant –

Let the others say what they will but the proof is in the pudding.

I was enjoying the debate up until the insult and of course
Mr. right on cue showing up and putting in his spin as per
usual. It was definitely good stuff that was being discussed.

Regards
James

Dear Kevin
I am pleased you understood that I did not wish to fight but discuss the points.

The manner was drifting towards a war of words where sides are taken rather than discovering the facts. I feared we would both descend into entrenched positions that others had prepared.

We have discussed a great deal over the last 5 years. It was that others were misunderstanding our manner of discussion.

Stephen

Of course you are correct James. Throwing mud around like they are is ruining their own credibility, why should I even think to stop that…

Kev has such a huge height advantage in moral ground now I doubt they can even see him from down in the mud and mire where they are right now.

Defiant

Sadly, some people will always throw mud and others will always repeat themselves like parrots. Worse, they really seem incapable of seeing how low their reputations have sunk. It makes you feel like crossing off the titles of certain authors from future purchases, since sometimes, children need disciplining rather than rewarding. And I doubt I am the only one feeling that way. But the Merry and Goodwill to all Season is almost upon us, so perhaps some of the magic will rub off? I certainly hope so.

amen

I supopose it was ineviatable that the Idiot Tendency would show up, but I wonder why they think that the source of any material does not matter? Are we to assume that Shane simply makes his rules up then, if they are not based on historical material. That would be a shame.

However, here, Shane and the IT, is Kevin again putting sources at issue:

"As Herbert Knotel was carefully trained by his father, Richard Knotel, as both an historian and a uniformologist (and being an excellent artist in his own right), and who worked mainly from primary source material (he improved on his father's work and corrected many of his errors), in my opinion his 'version' will have to stand over the material presented here until more definitive evidence comes to hand."

Now, if we chack these drawings, we can see that they are copied from Ottenfeld and one is the 1830s unit of the same name compared with drawings from the 1795 Schematis and a 1798 paionting by Kobell. So, from this we can deduce that like Elting, Kevin does not know anything about Austrian uniforms. His "opinion" is not worth anything.

Comparing various sources is a perfectly valid methodology, but the Nap subject has been plagued by authors making things up or more often copying some secondary French claim as fact. Kevin gives the example above saying that Hennebert says G had considerable influence on the Austrian artillery in the field. Did Hennebert research this – as is clear from his sources, no he didn't. He copied the claims of Coudray and Thiers as many others have done – doesn't make the claim true, does it?

To blindly copy such claims just shows a failure to research the period material. However, making things up is a rather more serious issue.

So, Shane, why not ask Kevin what the provenance of his claims about the key 1762 report are? You might find the answer interesting. If your artillery rules alow for a knockdown of everything in the flight path, that element of them certainly belongs in the realms of fantasy, which is unfortunate, given your many requests for period info. I presume PH has not answered your request – ever wondered why?

So, Kevin, do please answer the question as it will not go away (not least as it is rather fundamental): Why is your account of the 1762 report at complete variance from the reality? Why indeed do you not answer this simple question?

Secondly, given that you teach maths, why does something with the sine of 0.0175 fly flat? Shane needs to know the answer to get his rules right.

here ya go again, accusing me of playing "fantasy" rules once again.

For your information hollins, I designed my system about 10 years previous to joining this forum long before I ever met either you or Kevin. I based my research on many different sources, yours included!!! So does that mean your work is false, made up or untrue also ?????????

Your are really just a riot aren't you?

you make me sick to my stomach with your nasty little snide remarks, insulting manner and verbal abuse.

Guess my artillery rules for my Austrians is basically all full of fallacy and untruths then? I might have to turn now to Kevin to rectify all of the mistakes and fantasy your data in your book has provided me seeing you think my system is based on lies…

p.s. as for PH, I never expected an answer in the first place and could not care less lol

However, here, Shane and the IT, is Kevin again putting sources at issue:

"As Herbert Knotel was carefully trained by his father, Richard Knotel, as both an historian and a uniformologist (and being an excellent artist in his own right), and who worked mainly from primary source material (he improved on his father's work and corrected many of his errors), in my opinion his 'version' will have to stand over the material presented here until more definitive evidence comes to hand."

Now, if we chack these drawings, we can see that they are copied from Ottenfeld and one is the 1830s unit of the same name compared with drawings from the 1795 Schematis and a 1798 paionting by Kobell. So, from this we can deduce that like Elting, Kevin does not know anything about Austrian uniforms. His "opinion" is not worth anything.

In case one is liking to discuss on factual based evidence (Dave Hollins) or opinion based claims (10th Marines)

one has to concur with the facts – Davide Hollins
or opinion based on nothing – 10th Marines

Anybody who did study Richard Knötel and Herbert Knötel, has to realize that Richard Knötel was the superior artist and that Herbert Knötel did not improve the work by Richard Knötel – but made it worse – see for example the light blue of the Bavarians or other senseless repitition of uniform errors (including French Army)

Also I would like to know on what evidence there is the claim that Richard Knötel did carefully train his son?

To form your own evidence – read:

Mitteilungen zur Geschichte der militärischen Tracht
Als Beilage zur "Uniformkunde"
Nr. 3 Band XVIII 1919 what Herbert Knötel has to say on this.

Defiant

Best thing is to ignore any unwelcome remarks and possibly any future postings by those who make them. People who insult others often can't stand being ignored, which is probably why they turn to insults anyway. They have to get attention somehow! And of course, everyone else is wrong, they are always right and no one does good research except them. It makes you wonder who is the one really living in a fantasy world?! Sad, very, very sad. Just ignore them and enjoy the other postings. That's what I'll be doing.

John and Shane,

If all the energy that was put into insulting other people, making fun of them, or ridiculing what they are attempting historically, was put into positive and helpful postings, think of all of the positive work and help that could be done on the forums. Or knowledge of the period would increase phenomenally I think. Wouldn't that be great?

As an analogy, I read some time ago that one of the reasons that Germany lost War II was all the time, energy, and resources they applied to a policy of hate. It is something to ponder. If you hate, you just don't win, and that's what I tell my students when they do something stupid against someone else-hate and venom gets you nothing.

Anyways, maybe the nonsense will stop over Christmas and then stick. We can hope.

Sincerely,
Kevin

These are two very straightforward questions. Why not answer them and we can indeed move on? You have put your own veracity at issue after all. After all, if you are going to address a meeting about French artilelry innovations, should we not be sure that you have the key facts right?

After all, Gribeauval did not invent the bricole or the Hausse sight or shorten French barrels or use a new carriage design. There is no evidence to support the claim that Gribeauval rationalised French artilelry education any more than that he had anything at all to do with Austrian guns in the 7YW, let alone commanding them, or that his 1762 report set out a light mobile artillery system. There is no evidence of any metallurgy change to make the YRXI guns lighter any more than Senarmont moved his gun line up unsupported or than cannonballs fly essentially flat.

You see, if you fail to address these key issues, what are we to make of your other claims? You were quick enough to write revioews of other people's work, taking issue about various things.

What do I tell the OP when he writes to me about the differences between NV72 and your book? i would first point out that you have failed to address them!

'Herbert Knotel was the mid-twentieth century's acknowledged master painter of military costume.'

'His father, the celebrated Richard Knotel…was both a successful military artist and the world's greatest authority on military dress and equipment, being the first to carry through a scientific study of the entire history of that subject. His working library contained over 9,000 books and endless files of methodically screened and arranged reference material. Trained as his successor, young Herbert Knotel assisted him in preparation of his famous Grosse Uniformkunde, a series of 1060 colored plates with accompanying texts, covering the armies of most of the civilized world from teh seventeenth century until 1914.'

'Through the years between the two world wars he carried forward and expanded his father's work, updating and enlarging his 1896 Handbuch der Uniformdunde, extending the Grosse Uniformkunde series, producing the well=known Keutsche Uniformen cigarette card books, and taking an important part in the management of the Berlin Zeughaus Museum.'

'Knotel worked almost exclusively from manuscript pictorial collections assembled by actual eyewitnesses during or shortly after the Napoleonic era, having an unequaled knowledge of such sources. Occasionally he might borrow from another expert 'uniformologist-artist or paint a figure-always at my request…based on uniform regulations alone…'

Colonel John R. Elting, 1993.

K

The main thing I am drawing from this debate is that artillery is clearly a technical subject and that good gunners need to serve for some time to gain the experience to take account of the factors that effect the ability to hit the target. These factors seem to include the ability to judge range, to determine the angle of fire to achieve the range, possibly some method of judging the slope of the ground that the guns are deployed on etc.

Whatever the background to the development of the guns, systems etc. the gunners had to work with the kit that was available to them. I imagine that the manufacture and maintenance of artillery was aided by a more systematic approach (tactics and logistics!!)

By use of the guns (in battle and during training) the gunners would come to understand how best to use their equipment. The later period (1813) perhaps deserves downrating artillery for inexperienced units. These should be fine when in defense firing cannister at point blank but it should be a different matter when assessing the effectiveness of a battery firing at a target at "effective" range for roundshot and shell.

Mike,

That's an excellent summary, your remarks on 1813 are noteworthy.

Your point that the gunners had to work with their available weapons and equipment is also something to take note of, always.

Firing tables had been developed by this time (I have some French ones from the period manuals) and they were used to put the proper elevation on the field piece in order to hit the target. Rounds over or short were adjusted to the target, and the French standard was two 'ranging' or adjustment rounds and then fire on the target.

One thing that is usually overlooked is that every gun tube, no matter how exacting the manufacturing specifications, shot differently. The modern equivalents are exactly the same-all of them shoot differently.

Manufacture and maintenance were most important, maintenance especially after a fight. Field pieces had to be cleaned and repaired (if necessary) and that was a hard process. Also the guns themselves were actually fragile things that could be damaged easily if the gun crew didn't pay attention.

Elevating the piece was made more exact with the elevating screw, and pointing (aiming) the piece was greatly enhanced by a fixed front sight and an adjustable rear sight. That combined with more exacting manufacturing standards, improvements in metallurgy, and solid casting of the gun tubes and then boring out, along with decrease in windage, all supported the desire for more accurate fire.

Again, well done in your summation. That posting is well-worth keeping.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Kevin – Good posting. We can but hope.

Mike. An important posting, especially since some postings here seem to indicate that some people may actually believe that those with their heads in books, would know all about and how to fire and handle guns better than those who manned them in the actual war period they were used.

Peace and goodwill to all.

c,mon Dave,

You think what I have done is based on fantasy even though the work I put into it included a great deal of information from you. Please either apologise or agree that your work is pure fallacy and lies…..I would like an answer please

If anyone is interested, there are two books (which can be procured inexpensively) that can be of much help in understanding artillery development in Europe from 1679-1815.

The first is The Development of Technical Education in France by Frederick Artz which clearly demonstrates that the French were the leaders in technical education, including the military side of it, from the founding of the first artillery school at Douai in 1679 and maintained that lead until the conclusion of the Napoleonic Wars. All European technical education, especially military technical education, came from the French model including the establishment of the British artillery school at Woolwich and the Austrian artillery school at Budweis.

The second volume is Western Civilizaton Since the Renaissance by John Nef which follows the practical side of technical development and explains the establishment of iron foundries, etc., and the technical progress of constructing weapons and how the processes improved over time, including the development of improvements in metallurgy which allowed for better cast field pieces as the alloys became purer and less likely to fracture under the stress of firing.

K

Since this question keeps rearing its head from time to time in the ubiquitous artillery threads on the forum, here is a simple definition of the three different types of trajectories fired by the three main groups of artillery weapons, or cannons: the gun, the howitzer, and the mortar. These definitions are taken from Artillery Through the Ages by Albert Manucy, page 31:

'In artillery, where trajectory is equally important, there are three main types of cannon: (1) the flat trajectory gun, throwing shot at the target in relatively level flight; (2) the high trajectory mortar, where shell will clear high obstacles and descend upon the target from above; and (3) the howitzer, an in-between piece of medium-high trajectory, combining the mobility of the field piece with the large calbier of the mortar.'

I do hope that helps in some way in understanding artillery trajectories.

K

Not really Kevin.

Dave is quoting some decent contemporary sources, and your counter argument is the last two posts!

I think Dave would be more impressed reading a cornflakes packet.

There must be some French memoires describing fall of shot or balls flying over the heads of French troops, what do the Napoleonic French artillery manuals say about aiming & elevation of the barrel? what did they learn in the artillery schools? how did a French gunner know when he was at zero elevation? (true or barrel zero)

I'm sure you must have some good contemporary sources tucked away somewhere?

Mark,

It isn't a counterargument. It is what artillery does and what it is. And the material I've quoted in the past from Tousard is from contemporary French artillery manuals.

If you disagree, that's fine, but I've given the proper information, always have. If you doubt it, which is your right, all you have to do is find out yourself and then post it. I've already done that.

K

Kevin

The problem is that it appears your answers don't agree with some people's views, so they don't see it as an answer. Sadly, some people are like that. And they are often quick enough saying to others, you should read this or that, but ask them to look at something – oh no! They don't have to.
In short, I'd just ignore them and move on, like most people have.

John,

You are correct and that is sage advice. Unfortunately, there are too many who cast someone's answers as incorrect only because they disagree with them. And you're also correct that some people don't want to take a look for themselves. I guess reading takes too long. It is easier to criticize.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Kevin

I was rather hoping you could produce some evidence to counter Dave's claim on the inaccuracies of French artillery, but to also detail how they would aim using the sights and elevation (and firing table?)you have the artillery manuals, what do they say? I was hoping for some actual quotes of Napoleonic gunners, did they mark the zero elevation in some way, did they note the position of some dangling chain to know the level? was it all just guesswork?

if the French 6pdr (or other)was at true zero, when did the ball first hit the ground? would the ball rise above barrel height?

I don't know the answers, thats why I ask.

In reading the preceding 5 pages, it strikes me that a thing that is not discussed and implicitly skews some thought processes is that the nature of the bad things that happen to the targets downrange is not being considered. Napoleonic cannons effects are different from modern artillery in a signficiant way.

Let me generalize. The primary means that modern artillery acts by having a high explosive within the shell explode and kill people by blast ( high pressure ) and sharp splinters of metal. A shell hits the ground, plows a furrel and is fused to explode on contact with the ground. The kinetic energy of the shell is not important and the kill zone is a circle around the point of explosion. People can lie down and avoid some of this. Another sophistication is to have the shell explode in the air by hitting a tree, or having a correctly timed fuse or having a radar transmitter/receiver onboard to sense the ground. An earlier different type is shapnel, where a small charge burst the shell well before it hits the ground and explodes out a lot of small balls, which land like hail over an area. The main kinetice energy of the balls is the original shell velocity and the bursting explosion adds some as well. ( there's lots of others, sub-munitions etc, but the idea is that the explosion does the damage ) .

In Napoleonic times, the long range munition was either early black powder shells ( fired by howizters ) or cannon balls. The blackpowder shells were pretty unreliable because of low bursting power and inaccurate blackpowder fuses. Cannonballs were the real long range munition.

A cannon ball kills by plowing through as many things as it can intersect. It will easily go through a horse or a man. The kill zone is not a 10 or 40 foot diameter circle but a long path which might be a hundred yards long and 4.4" wide for a 12 pound cannonball. Let me say that again. The killing zone is only 4.4" wide… but long. The artillerist mission was different. He was not trying to put down a lot of point impacts in the area where a formed enemy unit was, he was trying to find a long narrow alley where he and his mates could bowl as many balls as they could below a man's height to topple over the enemy. He wants to create a reactanular killing zone which is below head height to where the enemy is. There are two consequences of this that I would like to further discuss. First, is what this has to do with the "point blank & first graze distance" and secondly, how ( in my opinion ) we might consider reflecting the limitation of bouncing cannonballs in our wargame practices.

First.
Our Napoleonic cannons are high velocity, fairly flat trajectory weapons. They have high muzzle velocities ( ( >1200fps ) and are fired almost parallel to the ground. The simpliest method of firing is to look down the barrel ( the "line of metal" ) and point it right at the target. Since the barrel is thicker at the base ring ( backend ) then the muzzle, this means that the bore pointed up by a degree or so. The cannon ball ( which always is sinking due to gravity relative to the line of the bore ) seems to climb up a bit and then sink downwards. Where it crosses that original line of metal aiming point is the "1st primiative point blank range". Where it hits the ground is called the "first graze". What you want to do is have the cannon ball traveling below head height when it hits the target so it hits and kills people. You don't want it going over their heads and punching holes in the air. It might be okay if it bounces in front of them and hits them on the upbounce. Here is some info from: link page 210.

cannon……point blank …"height"….time of flight( sec )
12 pounder….427 yards….5foot 0.72"…..1.7
8 pounder….384 yards…..4foot 9.53"…..1.5
4 pounder….342 yards…..4 foot 3.14"….1.1

( I think this refers to new cannons in 1809, but it doesn't matter for the point that I am trying to make. ) The bore of the cannon is pointed up about 1 degree from the horizontal. The practice was to get the cannonballs to hit a the feet of the target, so targets at those ranges would be dead meat just by putting the sights on them. There are instructions in the manual ( CF ) as to how to adjust the sights for enemy at closer ranges or further ranges or at different elevations by aiming with offsets or adjusting actual sights on the cannon. ( cf pg 230 ) {{So some of the arguments in this TMP thread about which nationality would be deadilier, based upon the publised differences in blankpoint ranges are silly. People would adjust their sites and blast away ) . ( Note that is example is the shortest range "point blank" with no barell elevation ) . The "height" in the table above is how high the cannonball would be about halfway down to the point blank range. A lot of short enemy soldiers would be missed by these if the aim wasn't adjusted! At the shorter ranges, they would change over to cannister/grapeshot ( see pg 231 ) .Note that with cannister/grape it gets dicey to hit people at longer range because the light shot has a lot of "wind resistance" and sinks to the ground quickly. You have to get the elevation of the barrell very accurate beyond 400 yards.

Now to the second point. At short ranges, there's little problem for cannons, you point the thing and shoot canister.
At longer ranges, difficulties come into play. Things like trees and walls get in the way. Differences in elevation make it hard to get the bowling balls bouncing right. Remember a lot of advise about putting cannons on top of hills. If the cannnonball hits the ground a much more than a 7 degree angle, it tends to stick in the ground and not bounce along. The killing zone becomes a 4.4" diameter circle 10 inches deep and not 150 yards long. Slopes that are away from you are fine. Slopes that are against you stop the cannonballs. Wet fields with furrels stop the cannonballs. ( remember a reason why Napoleon waited part of the morning to attack at Waterloo? ) Smart enemy commanders use terrain and movement to stay out of the beaten zones. In our wargame rules, all this is ignored and everything is an idea flat killing zone.

enough for now

If I am following along correctly there seams to be very many things which can go wrong. Besides the cannon sitting on uneven ground (which leveling devices can be used to correct) the target most certainly will not be level w/ the peice, so even point blank primitive is a gunnery range figure but maybe only ball park in the real world. Is this correct?

GooseGun: you bring up an interesting issue, and I think I know some answers but am not sure.

As to the question of "leveling", which I will consider to be trying to have the line of metal or the line of bore horizontal to the earth's surface. My short answer is I don't think it is excessively important for field artillery. In Napoleonic naval gunnery, an advanced thinking British guy (name and reference not at hand) did worry about having the gun horizontal when it was fired. He put a spirit level or a weight on a pivot on the side of the gun with a marker, so as the ship rocked back and forth with the waves, these markers would tell when the gun was level- and that is when to fire!. Better to have the shot go out level and go straight into the enemy ship than into the close by water or into the sky. A difference in the naval situation is you know the elevation of the enemy ship- its floating on the surface of the ocean!

Funny, but you don't see this as a standard practice with practical field artillery, except in test situations. My guess is that if both you and the target were on the same sort of gentle slope, leveling your gun with the terrain and being okay with getting the target lined up with your angle of elevation to get the point blank range (or first graze) adjusted to the target was sufficient. Any minor up or down slope was not much of a consequence as it didn't change the range very much. If you were on a flat plain and the target was up or down the side of a hill, the approach (see the the "teacher" Tousard in the reference above) was to try to figure out what additional height you would need to add to the point blank elevation at that range and then fire away. I'm guessing this would be done with experience and seat of the pants, and the usual (just like WWII dreadnoughts), first savo over, second short, split the difference and fire for effect.

If you have ever fired or seen one of these beasts fired WITH ACTUAL MILITARY LOADS you would see the following. There is a tremendous thunderclap that sets your ears to ringing and a shock wave that shakes the skin on your face. The gun jumps up and backwards 10 to 20 feet and would kill you if you were in its way. (movies show them fired with 2-3 oz of powder and no ball & wad to concentrate the pressure, rather than 2 to 8 pounds of powder!) If you roll this back into battery, it is not going to be pointing the same way. They would play with the gun or its elevation adjustements to get it aimed and fire away. At closer ranges, I expect they didn't even bother and just roughly levled the piece and let fly. Where the ball went was a function a a whole buch of variables such as the powder quality, how well it was rammed down,the differences in the cannonball itself, the change in the target position and where the gun was returned. They were trying to create a zone with a lot of cannonballs flying down it rather than hit a specific bullseye.

A clip for you to enjoy

YouTube link

Bill, Unfortunately, it is not silly to conclude that different guns have variable accuracy – they have different charges and different dispart angles, which means the PB must be different. Smola writes about thos at the bottom of p.184 into 185

link

Once you move from the ZE over the barrel, you introduce inaccuracy as the elevator has to measure the angle correctly for a start.

Many manuals do indeed recommend an angled crossfire to increase the hits in the channel and Smola from p.135 talks about the probabilities of hits in summery of the complex geometry in the annual Die Artillerielehre. You will see Smola talking about bouncing a ball or shell right in front of units for maximum effect.

There is quite clearly (yet another) problem with Toussard as saying "height" halfway down the flight means that he did not understand the true flight of a ball. Toussard is implying that the ball reaches max height halfway through flight – but balls do not fly in this way,a s you would know with any knowledge of maths. The ball slows down in flight due to air resistance and so the horizontal distance moved per unit of time reduces. Secondly, the effect of gravity increases over time (which is why it is 9.8m per second per second, meaning an acceleration). Roughly speaking the high point is 3/4 flight diatance and given the sine of 1 deg being 0.0175, these heights are about the muzzle height, so add 2ft 8in to them. You can see why the Fahnrich said what he did.

Dave Hollins: What does your "PB" mean? What does your "Once you move from the ZE over the barrel.." mean?

In my opinion, if the guns have slightly different muzzle velocites and primative point blank distances, and therefore slightly different tables for adjusting the range of the first graze, there really isn't much of an argument from a mechanical basis for one being more accurate than another. I can't see a whole hill of beans differences in fine details as to how manuals use different approaches to arranging the sights to account for the offsets of the line of metal at muzzle and back end versus the bore. Except for the first round or so, the artillery men were firing into a cloud of smoke and just slinging a lot of bowling balls into a beaten zone that the enemy was in. Any differences in mechanics were outweighted by the tactical capabilities of the different units, their ammuation supply and the eye for the land that the officers would apply to the siteing of the batteries and its coordination with the other arms. The important differences between nations are more the weight of the artillery piece, the condition and quality of the horses, how they are integrated into a division, the quality of the ammunition,,,,etc. The feeding of the horses and rations for the men probably had more effect than having different distances between the bottom of the sights and the barrel of the cannon.

Toussard did not say that the the "height of the ball" was "halfway" down the range. I stuck in the "halfway" because I did not have access to his drawing. I am well aware of the nature of the acceleration of gravity and the rougly squared velocity relationship of air resistance to velocity. I am also aware that the ballistic coefficient is not a constant for different ranges of velocity and is terrible for a round projectile. I haven't seen a good program for calcualting even the simlplier differential equations for cannonball balistices. (note: I'm a retired PhD engineer). I am not interested in quivelling over meatball approximations about the ballistics right now. The point I was trying to discuss about the use of the cannonballs is that the trajectory is pretty flat. 1-2 yards high and 350-425 yards long. ~150 to 200 times longer then high. If you represent the path on a 3 yards long wargame table (1"=1yard) it would only be about 1-2 inches high. I think putting this out for rumination by fellow wargames is useful and friendly information and might develop understanding of how the weapons were used.

Alex,

Excellent postings and quite on the money to my mind. And you are correct, Tousard never said that about the trajectory.

Sincerely,
Kevin

The PB is the point at which the round crosses the muzzle horizontal axis on its downward leg of flight. The reason you need to know this is that it is the first point at which your shot can be certainly effective. Don't forget that the round sits on top of the lower part of the barrel, the carriage and the axle, so it is already getting towards mid-torso height. Once it gets above shoulder height, a ball has about a 1 in 3 chance of hitting the head and above headgear height, it will obviously hit nothing. From PB, it goes to first graze and then up, but at a indeterminant varation from straight ahead, but given a decent target, it will hit something until reaching about 4 1/2 feet.

The sine of 1 deg is 0.0175, so ignoring gravity, a ball would reach somewhere around 2.6m (about 8ft) above ground at 100m distance, so Toussard is probably understimating, but in any event, the ball is already well above man height. Zero elevation for everyone apart from the British apparently was over the barrel, so there is an in-built 1 deg for G guns and 1/2 deg for L guns. That makes the L gun more efficient as it fires at a lower trajectory at ZE. The ZE is a distinct point, which is standard on every weapon and the range is known with a given charge.

I think there may be a problem with the "flat" trajectory – it is not that great, but it has a material effect on what happens. Don't forget that the muzzle is about 32in up and the extra height is at least that and more. If the balls flew basically flat, the French enjoy a key advantage as they hit everything further out. We know that not to be true, simply because of the heights mentioned above. That is why Charles Grant's bounce sticks are right.

The argument against this is that you can lower the barrel. At ZE of the bore – the UK method I gather – the ball simply falls under gravity as no upward force is provided. Adye would suggest it hits the ground at 200yds (180m) or roughly half the range of a ZE Austrian round. That causes two problems: one is measuring the angle between ZE and the depression angle of -0.5 or -1 deg as you are using some kind of handle device, which moves relative to the known ZE point. Out by 6 paces and you will miss a line completely. Secondly, the ball will in most situations rise less after bounce than before, because of the loss of energy and its direction cannot be definite. You are talking about a margin of error of 6 paces over 3-500 paces, so you can see why at best, artillery hit something only 10% of the time and in truth, probably 5%.

The problem with wargaming "laser" artillery is that within the first bounce range, it will hit something, yet we know it didn't in most cases as the Fahnrich tells us.

Incidentally, while on the subject of ranges and thinsg, I see that not only (contra the mythology in Kevin's book), that G did not invent the Hausse sight, but the slot at the back of the French barel was devised by Prof Lombard. His 1789 design coincides with the year of G's death!

New page My feelings on this whole accuracy issue isn't what the piece (musket to 12 pdrs) can do but whats being done with it with people firing at you. I suspect its putting rounds downrange as fast as you can. Since firearms were invented to a gunbattle on any city street more rounds are fired than would be thought needed. Causualties I always thought in any battle should be much higher than they are

Yes, that is precisely the point about the arc of flight – the balls will kill lots of people if they flew flat, but they don't.

My belief for a long time that incorrect artillery as well as small arms fire is in the heat of battle is poor. A squadron of troopers charging, 500 men w/ bayonets, or even just the metal flying around could make you miss the proverbial broad side of a barn. Every time I've read some account of a charge or a line of inf. firing over someones head, or useless long range shots that is what I think could have happened. Thats why it takes a mans weight in metal to kill him.