"Russo-German Legion Artillery Questions" Topic

Also relative to my building Wallmoden's Korps – does anyone have any information on the artillery used by the Russo-German Legion? I am specifically looking for what guns, i.e. Russian, Prussian, etc. they were, caliber, and color of the carriages. I am suspecting at this point that as they were equipped by the Russians they probably had Russian guns, of small caliber, and with apple green carriages. Hopefully some one can help me here with something more than my assumptions.

Thanks,

Terry

Here is a possible answer:

The Russo-German Legion was formed in 1812 mostly from Prussian prisoners of war and led by Prussian expatriate officers
(including Carl von Clausewitz). Originally intended to be the nucleus of an army of liberation for Germany, the Legion grew from
one battalion of infantry, one Hussar regiment, and a horse artillery battery and by 1813 consisted of seven battalions of infantry, a
Jaeger company, two Hussar regiments, two horse artillery batteries, and a foot battery of English 9-Pounders. The Legion fought
with the Allied armies in 1813 and was transferred to Prussian service in 1814, the infantry battalions becoming the core of Infantry
Regiments 31 and 32 of the Prussian Army, and the Hussars forming the Prussian 8th Hussars. The Russo-German Legion was
equipped with Russian uniforms and ordinance, but the infantry battalions were organized along Prussian rather than Russian lines.
The former members of the Russo-German Legion still wore their Russian uniforms when they fought as part of the Prussian army at
Waterloo!

link:http://www.glorynapoleonics.com/Files/Russo-GermanLegion.pdf

Other links:
link
link

I had once skimmed through a book on the Russo-German Legion that was published in German. I recall that it had tables of its artillery equipment over time.

Somewhere, I may still have a copy of that page, but it would take a while to find it.

Suffice to say that the information is out there, and published, but I cannot remember the publication details.

according to Quistorp : Die Kaiserich Russich Deutsche Legion, Berlin 1860

The foot battery had old used up English guns, 8 pieces – englich iron 9 pdr guns along with English ammunition carriages, the horses from russia , p. 35

The two horse batteries was equipped each with 6 – 6pdr Russian guns and 2 – 4.66 inches unicorns, 16 ammunition waggons drawn by 3 horses, 2 wheels (Seemingly Russian as well) 2 bagage waggons and 1 field smithy of best quality

For artillery colours I would keep those of origin.

Also have a look here:

TMP link

and (article in German, pp. 18 ff.):

PDF link

About the Russian Artillery colour – light green, at least in 1806 according to eye witness reports, as to later, I cannot say – but dark green?? I doubt it.

The PDF link is excellent and one is seeing the change of the arillery of the RDL during the years

Front Rank has some figures for the RGL Horse artillery:

link

John

dear von Winterfeldt,

about green paint…

might this have been a mixture of black and yellow -
in which case the yellow might have been "fugitive" and the paint darkening with time?

Mike.

I can't say about the mix, I can only report what the eye witnesses saw in 1806 and they describe it as light green.

Russian artillery paint was discussed previously here, and i found it at:

TMP link

Mike.

A usefull link:

nvrsaynvr – who was quite adamant for dark green had to say this :

Perhaps the French guns were primed only? Anyway the bottom line appears that Russian guns were as bright as French were dull. I must concede that "apple green" may be a likely English description of the color, even though I do not believe it was ever used by the Russians…

NSN

There were good photos provided in this link as well.
Of course one has to speclate how bright this light green was (compared to our days – one has to see only how dark the bavarian light blue was or the classic blue celeste foncee)

I would go for one of the colours from the artillery pieces suppled in the photos.

In the end one must make ones own decission

Did the horse artillery wear the coal-scuttle shako, or the cavalry-style helmet?

Haythornthwaite in 'Uniforms of the Retreat from Moscow' has an illustration of a Russo-German Legion horse artillery gunner wearing cavalry overalls and a foot artillery kiwer or 'coal scuttle' shako. However, the identification, which is based on an illustration in the Elberfield Manuscript of 1814, is tentative and he says that the man may have actually been a member of the train or a driver for a foot battery.

look at the pdf link of Oliver Schmidt, even the text is in German, there are some usefull illustrations as well, it should provide most answers, all illustrations show the shako

Dear von Winterfeldt
The green used by the Russians was Ferrous Acetate which starts out as a light green then darkens considerably over a month. Hence the variation of the reports upon the colour. It is a true green unlike the French which could be describe as Khaki Green at best.

According to my researches, I know it is 5 years since writing my book that was published in 2007 called the Brazen Cross years ago.It is very doubtful that British iron 9-pdr were used on anything other than naval carriages. The Blomfield 9-pdr used by the Royal Navy was normally 8 foot or 9 foot long and weighed over 1200kg. This is about twice that of a M1805 Bronze 9-pdr 687kg. The confusion over iron and bronze can be due to translation from the French.

The Russian Horse Artillery in 1813 started to where the Kiwi shako rather than the Dragoon Helmet.

The following is quoted from this book.
link

Russo-German Legion Artillery
Each horse artillery battery received six 6-pdr cannons and two 10 pdr Unicornes from the St.Petersburg Arsenal. Each battery had sixteen two-wheeled caissons pulled by three horses, two supply-wagons and a field-forge. Each gun had 150 rounds immediately available for each gun in firing position and a further 150 in the caissons. OberstLt Monhaupt commanded the artillery.

1st Horse Artillery
(Lieutenant von Scheele, from 11 October 1813 Lieutenant Ramaer)
Formation started at Reval in August 1812 and was completed at Pavlosk in January 1813. It consisted mainly of former Prussian infantry with a few cavalrymen. In March 1815, this became the Prussian 18th Horse Battery.

2nd Horse Artillery
Commanded by 1st Lieutenant von Tiedemann II. Formed: April-May 1813 at Königsberg.
Equipped with Russian guns but had inferior training. In March 1815, this became the Prussian 19th Horse Battery.

Foot Battery
Commanded by Captain von Maghino. Formed August-
October 1813 at Barth/Stralsund consisting of former
infantrymen when it received eight old and rather worn
British Bronze 9-pdr cannons. It was disbanded in August 1814.

I hope that assists.
Stephen

Stephen, can you tell me the source for the foot battery having bronze instead of iron guns ?

Quistorp in his history of the legion is definite that they were of iron (p. 39). However, concerning the legion's artillery, Quistorp sometimes is in contradiction to other sources, so he may be wrong.

However, a Prussian inspection report of 22 July 1814 mentions six iron 6pounder (!) guns, and two howitzers for the foot battery.

Dear Oliver
The British did not produce iron field pieces as I have stated they are too heavy to be useful upon the field. Only Caronades or siege guns (18-pdrs and 24-pdr) were produced on travelling rather than garrison or naval carriages. So from this logic they cannot be either Blomfield Iron 6-pdr or 9-pdr guns from Britain. The comment upon worn would probably have not been made as Bronze cannon quickly show wear with the use of Iron shot and the softer bronze let alone the corrosive nature of the deflagration products of gunpowder that corrode the tin and to the lesser extent the copper in the bronze.

There is great confusion over the matter. I do not have a copy of Quisthorp to check the translation. It is a common error made in the translation to translate gun metal as iron whether from the German and the French. Care needs to be made.

At this time the Swedes produced iron field guns so that opens up another posibility.

Identification of ordnance is very difficult. Transcription errors are common.

Stephen

The protocol of 19 July 1814, when the legion was factually taken over in Prussian service, states (signed by General lieutenant von Thielmann and colonel Goltz):

Die Fußbatterie hat 6 Stück englische 6pfündige eiserne Kanons und 2 Haubitzen.

(The foot battery has got 6 pieces English 6pounder iron guns and 2 howitzers)

In a letter of 22 July 1814 to general Kleist (soon to become count von Nollendorf), Thielmann proposed to suppress the foot battery, also because its "iron guns" (mentioned twice) were unbrauchbar (unusuable or useless) for service in the field.

In German texts of the period, bronze guns are frequently refered to as metallen (literally: "of metal"). Probably, this was derived from the word Glockenmetall ("bell metal"), which meant bronze. But in case of the foot artillery guns, the original German text states clearly: eisern = "of iron".

Of course, there is always the possibility of some errors in the transcription of handwritten documents.

So what was the source for the foot battery having bronze instead of iron guns ?

Iron is lighter than bronze. Iron is also much more brittle than bronze and iron field pieces would be heavier in corresponding calibers because more iron would have to be used to cast gun tubes in order to make them safe to fire.

The British used iron guns from at least 1740 as did the Spanish. Iron was best for siege, garrison, and naval artillery as weight was not as important as it was in field pieces.

The United States began to cast iron field pieces as early as 1801 by order of the Secretary of War Henry Dearborn because the United States had plenty of iron as a natural resource and had to import bronze and iron was cheaper overall than bronze. These field pieces apparently served well enough in the War of 1812.

Iron had a tendency, if it failed in firing, to be much more spectacular than a bronze field piece. Whereas a bronze field piece that failed would usually crack, the iron field piece would explode, showering the area with fragmentation.

So, the bottom line is the Spanish, British, and Americans all used iron field pieces, or had them available, during the period.

K

Superlicus,

By 1812, Russian HA no longer wore the helmets. They wore the standard kiver shako.

To all,

This has been a great response to my question and I am very grateful to all of you for contributing. Believe I will be going with a Russian 6 pounder, making the Horse Battery, and paint the carriage per the pictures posted in the museum links in the TMP link that Mike provided.

Terry

Dear Terry
That sounds very sensible. It would be nice to have a model of the 10-pdr Unicorn. This is a very interesting piece being a gun howitzer. It fire cannister with a bore of 125mm which was the same as the 12-pdr. It did on occassion fire 12-pdr shot although at a lower velocity.

Like most howitzers of the period it fire at an elevation of no more than 12 degrees so had a flatter trajectory than most writers have considered as they are looking at the Gribeauval Howitzer which was very short and could be elevated beyond 30 degrees so was able to produce the plunging fire akin to a mortar.

Stephen

Unicorns could not fire at the same elevation that a usual howitzer could. The unicorn was what would now be called a gun-howitzer because it had the characteristics of both a cannon and a howitzer.

There is a documented incident by the Russians that they could not fire at a French howitzer position which was in defilade with only the gunners heads showing because the unicorn could not be elevated enough. The French howitzers were firing from their concealed position.

K

griebeauval's "siege mentality" is clearly shown by that
howitzer, which would merely smash its carriage (hence the French commanders' demands for Austrian pieces) and lob a shell in – something you only need in a siege situation as a field piece only needs to be sure of getting a round about cavalryman height.

Carefull we might be back to the old Gribeauval et al discussions sooner or later.

Anything to contribute on the artillery of the German Russion Legion?

Otherwise it would be good to open up another thread.

By 1812, Russian HA no longer wore the helmets. They wore the standard kiver shako.

Sorry Bill, but the order for Russian Line Horse Artillery to switch from helmets to shakos was issued in June 1814, according to Viskovatov.