"This Might Also Be Helpful...Or Not" Topic

Tauentzien wouldn't take it, too many strings.

The Prussian staff history has a lot of the figures including

Austrian
Killed 32 officers, 1,249 men
Wounded 53 officers, 2,223 men
= 85 off, 3,472 men

Prussian
Killed 25 officers, 1,084 men
Wounded 61 officers, 1,845 men
= 86 off, 2,929 men

Also have from a colleague

Oberstlieutenant der Ingenieur-Corps Freiherr Nikolaus von Steinmetz (1723-1798)

commander of the artillery ….
Major Artillerie-Corps Joseph von Frirenberger (~1725-1773)

P.163 on the Hirtenfeld link shows that these two won their MTOs for Schweidnitz.

I suspect all this talk about Gribeauval from the Prussians may be more to do with the Lefebvre/G relationship.

Well, that sorts that one out anyway – seems Gribeauval was a siege engineer, esp at Schweidenitz.

There was no such thing as a siege engineer. Again, he was a school-trained artillery officer, a graduate of La Fere. French artillery officers were also trained in siege techniques as part of their education. Further, the miner companies were part of the artillery and artillery officers were assigned to command them.

K

Okay, he was a miner and sapper then, but siege engineer will do as he would have had some siege artillery training. That is what he did in the unit and in Austria.

Well, unless you can produce some evidence otherwise? We are still waiting on quite a lot – 4 years in command of Austrain artillery? Built and tested Allied guns? 1762 blueprint for the French artillery? Inventor of the bricole and hausse sight? Any evidence?

Why not call him what he actually was-an artilleryman. How much do you know about the French engineering arm?

Vauban divided the French military engineers (as compared to civil engineers) into two types-ingenieurs des tranchees and ingenieus des places (trench and fortress engineers, respectively). Vauban valued the latter more than the former and it took more training to make an ingenieur de place.

The French engineer arm was only designated the Royal Corps of Engineers in 1758, and was an organization of officers only. To be in the corps, one had to graduate from the Ecole de Mezieres (the engineering school established in 1749). Until 1793 at Carnot's urging, the miner companies were finally taken from the artillery and assigned permanently to the engineers.

K

To be fair he was the senior of two GFWM serving under Guasco looking after the Sappers, miners, artillery and anything else to do with the defence of Schweidnitz, I'm happy his role in this is fairly clear, his sapping & mining skills are obvious, but not really so much with the artillery, of course there were plenty of junior officers who played their part.

so where can we look next for Gribeauval commanding Austrian artillery, preferably on the field.
Another siege, roles reversed, Glatz 1760? as a junior officer at Dettingen?, or all those other sieges?

If anyone wants more on Schweidnitz, read the General staff history vol 6 part 1 a day by day account, or Guasco's 46 page account (which Duffy used a lot)if you can find it.

next on agenda
the 'devil' business, 666 or very clever?
the testing of Austrian guns, when, where, how?
or the 1792 plans, did he or didn't he?

I think the 1762 report, bricole and hausse sight are done.

I may have missed it somewhere but did he have to give back the MTO when he returned to French service?

Kevin is playing with words to try to prove a claim. To call Gribeauval an artilleryman, just because he was in an artillery regiment, is the same as calling Kevin a Marine just because he was in the USMC. To the average person, this conjures up a seaborne infantryman complete with handheld weaponry and a large backpack, all set to jump out of a landing craft and run up a beach. That is not an unreasonable idea, but of course in Kevin's case is wrong as he actually tells us that he was an artilleryman in the USMC, something most people would not immediately associate with the Marines.

This is one aspect of how Ruling Theory works, in that definitions are loose and interpreted to suit the claim. If you call g an artilleryman, then what follows are quite logical ideas such as the one proposed by Kevin above that, being an artilleryman GFWM at Schweidnitz, he must have been in charge of the artillery and that was his whole reason for being in Austria anyway. What we can find is that he was in the mining unit, which is not something most people would associate with artillery. He would have done some basic artillery training – much as Kevin presumably did basic infantry training with the USMC. Not just that, but artillery undergoes a fundamental change in the mid-18th century from a force dealing with sieges and heavy guns to one making an impact on the battlefield with lighter, but more effective weapons. When we say artillery, most of us think of the latter, not heavy siege gunnery.

Once you establish what he was doing, the other pieces will fall into place. I wondered what his "experiments" were – as I said, you cannot experiment with a gun all on your own. However, Belidor, who had invented these Quetschmine (gaseous charges) was a near contemporary – he was professor of mathematics at the new artillery school at La Fère, where G was trained. His key 1725 work for the instruction of cadets is called "Nouveau cours de mathématique à l'usage de l'artillerie et deu génie", which is interesting to note! G would have used this book and been aware of Belidor's ideas. Add this in with his only known appointment as a commander of miners plus what he actually did in Austria and the imporession you get is a man, who like Kevin, did join up in the main organisation, but soon specialised in an important support type of work. You can sit on your own with small piles of the constituents of gunpowder to see what different mixes and powder granuile sizes do.

If you look at an Austrian OB from the Nap wars, you will find small groups of miners, sappers and pioneers hanging about with the staff and commanded by the Director of Technical Services. Giannini is the CoS at Schweidnitz, who was distinguished for his leadership of infantry raids there. G was the equivalent of the Directors of Technical Services and Artillery – he would have had administrative responsibilty for the artillery, but there is an artillery commander and G is only reported as being involved in these countermining operations with his Chicanen aller Art.

G was at Dettingen – much like there were miners at Marengo! To the extent that he was actually at sieges, then there is no evidence of his commanding guns and it would make more sense for him to be involved in the support activity.

This is the problem you can face with loose use of language. Consequently, to describe him as an artilleryman gives entirely the wrong impression of what he did – just as calling Kevin a Marine would. However, we need to sum up what he was doing – he knew about artillery, but he was a specialist in what later became an engineering specialisation while forming up another. Siege engineer would be as close as we could get in a few words.

In terms of battles, as above, loose language is a problem. In 1760, Gribeauval was forming up the sapper corps – they are created in late April (Duffy) and go to Dresden to be trained and work on the fortification works there. In late July, they are with Laudon at Glatz, taking part in the storm. Whether G was even present is unlikely as it is a sapper Hauptman Engels, who wins the MTO for that. Then 24 of these sappers are at Schweidnitz, where we know G was. His only involvement with Austrian artillery was the report of March 1762, before he went to Schweidnitz, which was itself in need of fortification.

No, he didn't test any Austrian guns – it is a distortion of a comment by du Coudray. The 1792 drawings appear to be the committee attempting to ensure standardisation of production, hence all the detail on the parts – it was a nice political gesture to dedicate it to G, but he was dead! These are just yet more examples of the distortion of the record in the way that Gribeauval has been presented to us, just as he did not invenet several things and the 1762 report is a Q&A on the Austrian artillery. The 1762 report and 1792 drawings are especially important as they are the two key pillars of the G myth – neither ios what they are represented as being, just as Gribeauval was not an artilleryman as would be popularly understood. A devil or a genius? Well, either is possible, but FtG used the expression, so did anyone else actually do so or has his comment been transposed on to them?

"To call Gribeauval an artilleryman, just because he was in an artillery regiment, is the same as calling Kevin a Marine just because he was in the USMC. To the average person, this conjures up a seaborne infantryman complete with handheld weaponry and a large backpack, all set to jump out of a landing craft and run up a beach. That is not an unreasonable idea, but of course in Kevin's case is wrong as he actually tells us that he was an artilleryman in the USMC, something most people would not immediately associate with the Marines".

Mr. Hollins… It is obvious you don't know s--t about Marines so perhaps using your lack of understanding of that very well known branch of the military as a guide some question of your knowledge of other things military appear to be in order.

All Marines, including clerks, pilots, artillerymen, cooks, mechanics, etc., etc… are fully trained and qualified riflemen that are capable of doing whatever it takes when they're needed, …including assaulting any beach anywhere in the world. Every man who has been given the title of Marine deserves it… That's why you don't hear them refer to being part of a specific unit, …they are just Marines, unlike members of the Army who refer to their branch or unit within the Army first, …not that they are Soldiers.

I'd bet most military historians, with a true understanding of military culture, would know that… Will

I do agree with Will, that is a bad example, Dave, most likely due to an unfamiliarity with the Marine Corps…

The fact that my own Marine Corps job involved fixing airborne electronic countermeasures equipment doesn't mean I wasn't a Marine. EVERY Marine is a rifleman first.

For that matter, just like bandsmen in the Napoleonic period, you can't even assume that the job title means they don't have a combat role as well – like my friend the cook (whose secondary role was to fire the .50 cal) or my buddy in the Ground Support Equipment shop (who was also a door gunner).

Cpt Arexu
(formerly a Sgt in VMAQ-2 -- that is to say, "Marine Tactical Electronic Warfare Squadron Two")

"Every marine a rifleman" is also a good piece of propaganda for the recruiters. Every marine is trained for combat, to a certain degree. But I would not have wanted to lead my intelligence section in a nighttime raid on a suspected Al Qaida compound in Iraq. Also, within the marines the combat arms and especially the infantry are their own separate worlds with their own values and standards. The cultural difference is pretty stark. For instance my section in Iraq had a few gay members who everyone knew were gay, and we didn't care because they were geniuses with computers as they'd gone to college for them for a bit before joining. One even won a cash prize for creating a program to track information that saved the Marines a ton of money. But beyond that we just didn't care, because the intelligence community in the Marines have an over-representative degree of slackers and college drop-outs. So we were cool with that. But in an infantry unit if people thought you were gay you'd be in some serious . I was in the Marines but I wasn't in the infantry, and that's a big difference, especially to those guys.

But, going back to the comment that brought this in, I think if you told an artilleryman who was on Guadalcanal that he wasn't really a Marine because he was in the artillery he'd… well, I dunno what he'd do now because he'd be 90 years old, but he would disagree at any rate.

Also, keep in mind that a marine regiment has artillery attached to it (or is it integral? I forget…), not unlike some regiments in the Napoleonic era, and a regiment is definitely a line combat unit in modern warfare- as it was then.

Also, don't the 10th Marines have a quote from Napoleon as their motto? Their HQ was down the road from my barracks, but I can't remember.

No, Will has actually made my point. What is a Marine? To most people, a Marine is a "fully trained and qualified riflemen … capable of doing whatever it takes when they're needed, …including assaulting any beach anywhere in the world." So, if it said on Kevin's artillery book that he was a Marine, it would make no impact for that reason. What it actually says is: "Kevin Kiley … served for many years as an artillery officer". Even his publisher notes his specialisation, not that he was "a Marine".

It is precisely the same with Gribeauval – calling him an artilleryman is not creating the right impression of what he did and it is the latter, which mattered. Now you could call him an artilleryman, much as you can call Kevin a Marine, but beyond basic training, it does not tell you what he did. The popular impression of an artilleryman in the Nap period is a bloke working one or other end of a field gun, like Smola or Senarmont.

In fact, Gribeauval did his basic training with books like Belidor's at La Frere and then went on to the technical support side, because the artillery regts included miners. Anyone, who read NV72 could have written the 1762 report aside from some refs to the de Valliere guns – so with his basic training in artillery, G was quite capable of writing it.

However, loose language is used to suugest that G was a standard artilleryman with all the logic trails, which follow from that. In fact, he was a technician in siege warfare with basic artillery training.

It is worth mentioning that the Austrian miners were part of the Artillery until 1772, when they came under the engineers.

Dave,

Your analogy is a bad one in my view. It is also a poor choice because it now enables Mr Kiley to come back with a rant, probably quite justified in this case, which will divert the discussion and allow him to avoid answering the key questions you have raised. A mistake I think.

Bill

Duffy is quite interesting: p.140: The young Lt Waldhutter earned the Freiherr suffix 'von Minenburg' through his desperate sortie against the Prussian mine craters at Schweidnitz.

Would this not suggest that it was a nickname and not
an official title.

Regards
James

As far I am aware of when I was in the Army, and even now, only those in the Artillery or units of combined arms, like the Marines, would do any form of artillery training?

And I can't see someone during the Napoleonic period being trained up as an artilleryman, had they not already been considered a 'gunner', even for a short length of time. The effort to train someone up, the time it took and the costs, would surely prevent this?

When Gribeauval graduated from La Fere and was first commissioned, he was an officier pointeur, an officer gunner.

The French artillery curriculum for officers under the Valliere System was both a mathematics and scientific curriculum as well as a practical one.

The first curriculum, the ecole de theorie, covered instruction in algebra, geometry, trigonometry, mechanics, and planimetry. Stereotomy, which is the art of using geometric drawings to plan constructions, was also taught by a full-time drawing master.

The second curriculum, the ecole de pratique, covered such military subjects as gunnery, maneuvers, and siege-craft (which was an artillery as well as an engineering function)

The Ordnance of 1720 was quite specific as to the training of artillery officers in both the ecole de pratique and the ecole de theorie:

'There are officers who devote themselves entirely to mechanical details; others regard such details as beneath their notice. Both types are deficient. The latter must be made to realize that…mechanics is an absolute necessity; the officer should know the language of the wlrkman so as to make the workman understand, and on occasion to instruct him. On the other hand, those absorbed only in mechanical details must know that a knowledge of them alone, without a wider view, does not raise them above the level of a cannon founder, a powder maker or a workman…The artillery officer who knows his profession must not be ignorant of details, but he must know them, as an architect must know more than a mere stone mason.'

Gribeauval was from his first commissioning an artilleryman and had practical knowledge of his profession which he used skillfully in the War of the Austrian Succession, in Austrian service during the Seven Years War, and in creating the field artillery system that bears his name. It was state of the art in 1789 and Gribeauval had once again put the French artillery arm as the best in Europe and prepared them for the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars. He is the starting point for the ascendency of the French artillery to battlefield domination for the period, especially after 1807.

It should also be noted that the French artillery schools predated the Austrian equivalent, and that the Austrian artillery school at Budweis was modeled on the French schools, as were all of the technical schools in Europe. Gribeauval graduated from the famous artillery school at La Fere before Budweis was in existence and the Austrian artillery arm was still a guild, and not a military organization (see Duffy).

As for the ludicrous and disingenuous analogy regarding the Marine Corps and artillery, that just needs to be chalked up to both ignorance on a grand scale as well as not understanding the armed forces, then or now.

K

"As for the ludicrous and disingenuous analogy regarding the Marine Corps and artillery, that just needs to be chalked up to both ignorance on a grand scale as well as not understanding the armed forces, then or now."

Can you elaborate? I'm not sure how ignorance of USMC doctrine relates to ones knowledge "on a grand scale". Can I say you are likewise ignorant and untrustworthy on the subject of Napoleonic warfare if you get something wrong about Etruscan warfare for example?

When something like that can be looked up quite easily in English and the US Marine Corps has a website, that is ignorance on a grand scale, as well as what I consider a calculated insult.

Further, it merely highlights to me general ignorance on things military and a failure to do research which is a hallmark of the 'work' that he does.

K

Oh brother. You are both hopeless.

Kevin

Sadly, I get the feeling Mr. Hollins said it deliberately because you were countering his arguments. I can't believe he is that ignorant of the Marine Corps. And Twiningham should know that Mr. Hollins shouldn't really comment about the Marines or any other military arm, if he really doesn't know anything about them. To do so is plain stupid and an insult. I just hope Mr. Hollins doesn't live near any beaches!

Your analogy is a bad one in my view. It is also a poor choice because it now enables Mr Kiley to come back with a rant, probably quite justified in this case, which will divert the discussion and allow him to avoid answering the key questions you have raised. A mistake I think.

Quite right, Bill. Unquestionably a well calculated insult, very much like I did to him by suggesting he only served in the Catering Corps. Whatever the situation, I just wish it would stop, which is why I suggested a controlled area in the first place. I know it won't go away but if even the likes of me is sick of it then lord knows what it's like for the others, yet for some reason any number of the good and the great here have poo-poo'd my idea. Presumably this ongoing carnage is better? Of course the issue of big threads keping the bandwidth high isn't one I'm ignorant of, but I think the Dear Editor plays a dangerous game heading off down that route.

Dave,

You see, it has happened though I don't claim second sight and one doesn't need to be Nostradamus to predict it. Why don't you stick to what you know. You have now lost the intellectual high ground and we have Mr Kiley diverting the thread and questioning your competence, though I doubt very much that he has actually done any research outside of published material. Now has joined in with predictably gratuitous comments and . Brilliant!

Bill

A Twiningham,

If you didn't want an answer, why did you ask the question?

K

Old Bear,

I am confused. I actually agree with you in part. Gratuitous calculated insults were not useful in this circumstance and have only served to render what was actually a potentially useful debate probably being trashed. Mr Hollins could have found a better analogy and was was way ahead on points in my view simply becausde Mr Kiley had not yet answered the key questions put to him.

As for the USMC it is bigger than the armed forces of most countries and not at all like the Royal Marines who are purely amphibious infantry. Perhaps that is where the confusion lies.

Bill

Bill,

I diverted nothing. A comment was made about my service (the Marine Corps) and I'm not the only one that replied.

K

Bill,

As to 'key questions' I've answered what had to be answered, ad nauseum. Most of it was gratuitous nonsense and insult-I won't answer those. And again, in much of what Hollins writes about artillery he is wrong and I've shown that time and again for far too long. He needs to move on and so do you.

K

Bill

Are you referring to the siege engineer question. All I
have found is that he was a lieutenant General of Artillery
and have been reviewing many passages on this, I can't find
anything that states he was a Siege Engineer and if your
qualifying one entry as evidence it won't fly.

Regards
James

'…and was was way ahead on points in my view simply becausde Mr Kiley had not yet answered the key questions put to him.'

I wasn't aware that we were scoring 'points' or that there was a point system here. Facts, conclusions, and history itself is not a democratic system and who gets the most 'votes' doesn't necessarily 'win.' If you don't agree with what I've posted I don't care. Who are you anyways? Merely another poster, though one who has been accusing, rude, and has not produced anything or contributing anything that I can see. In my opinion, you need to grow up because you certainly have not learned to play nice with others.

Now, you may once again hit the stifle button and this time please stay there.

K

XV Brigada

You are either very naive or plain dumb! That was a deliberate diversion by Hollins because he knew the effect it would have. That suggests that Mr. Hollins was way BEHIND in the stupid points remark you made. One day you will see him for what he really is and not what you want him to be.

James,

One of the 'issues' appears to be the 1792 Tables of Construction. While they were published in 1792, three years after Gribeauval's death, Gribeauval was given credit for them because they were his and of his system.

The material in the tables was in use and print years before the tables (which were treated as a secret government document and only 104 copies were produced) themselves were published in that form. Some of the drawings were in DeScheel and the material which eventually was published in the tables was begun in 1764 and all of the drawings then and forward from that date became part of the final published material in 1792. As a matter of fact, the drawings that were finally published in the Tables in 1792 were finished and complete by 1767. They were sent to the arsenals to be used in the construction of the new gun carriages and caissons and by 1770 there were 3300 new gun carriages and caissons. The Tables are an excellent document, but you don't have to see an original to understand or know what the new designs were like as the drawings and material are in other publications and there is enough on the internet from the Musee de l'Armee to see what was done and the thoroughness with which it was done, down to the specifications of the bolts, tools, and final products.

K

wow, I have come back after a few days to see nothing has changed.

XV Brigada, I thought more of you until you recent remarks. I know you enjoy backing up your hero (hollins) but stooping to his level of vitriol is outrageous. Also, calling others on this forum "idiots" it way over the line. Heads up, I did hit the complaint button over that one not that Bill will do anything about it anyway.

I really hope you see what we see soon enough, it appears you do from the last few posts you have put here. You are beginning to realise your hero is nasty and says things that are disgusting, rude, vindictive and not worthy of a historian on a public forum.

….and gang warfare breaks out again!

You're one of the contributors to it-I would say that you're the main cause of it. Do you enjoy being nothing but an agent provacateur?

K

Not to be bested by Hollins in anything, Kiley takes another stab at the "making an ass out of myself" sweepstakes…

Stay tuned for our next exciting episode!

Another subject that keeps being brought up, ad nauseum, is that of the Gribeauval gun carriages.

Some of the comments made was that they were merely remakes of an earlier gun carriage, that they were too heavy, and that the use of the iron reinforcements to the carriages and wheels were copied from the Austrian Lichtenstein System.

All of these assumptions/statements are incorrect.

The gun carriages were a completely new design and differed from those of the Prussian and Austrian gun carriages in that the design of the flasks of the gun trails were designed to absord a good portion of the field pieces recoil, redirecting it downward instead of merely to the rear as in the Austrian and Prussian designs.

Gribeauval also kept his eye on the object of the exercise-to produce a field artillery system that was superior to the Prussian and Austrian designs and that the new field artillery system was being designed and built for a future war of maneuver. Gribeauval told Manson in March 1765 'not to lose from view our priniple, which is to lighten [the gun carriages] without doing harm to the necessary solidity.' As to uniformity of design Gribeauval also told Manson in 1770 that he should 'determine the new dimensions and to prepare the tables and drawings that would render the constructions perfectly uniform in all the different arsenals.'

As to iron work on the gun carriages, that practice was done since at least the middle of the seventeenth century and it was not new with the Lichtenstein System of artillery. The Valliere System certainly used it as did the Prussian field artillery developed in the 1740s.

At first glance, there might appear to be a weight issue with the gun carriages. However, the increased weight was at least partially due to the new iron axle, which was much more efficient that the old wooden ones (which the Prussians, Russians, and Austrians were still using in the 1760s) but heavier. Further, Gribeauval increased the size of the carriage wheels which added more weight. This was more than compensated for by the increased mechanical advantage of the larger wheels, the brass wheel boxes that reduced friction with the axel, and the iron axles themselves. Basically, the weight argument is a strawman and presenting it ignores the technological changes mentioned above.

K

I agree, sometimes other factors can counter [some of the]weight.
unfortunately how can we measure the effects now.

A possible example would be the block trail that distributed the weight further up and so would have made the gun seem lighter to move.

where can I read the letters of Gribeauval to Manson?

Did the 4,8 and 12pdr have the same size wheel, what were they? in comparison to the Prussian/Austrian?

Still working on Gribeaval's early career, will post when i'm sure of the facts.

'unfortunately how can we measure the effects now.'

Quite simple. With a basic knowledge of engineering fundamentals and mechanics, you can figure out of there is an actual mechanical advantage or not.

Missing that, you can look it up in documents relating to the Gribeauval System, such as the Dossiers on Gribeauval and Maritz and Manson's 'Elements d'artillerie' all available from the Depot de l'artillerie and that are referenced in Rosen's PHD thesis on the Gribeauval System. Further, you can obtain and read Alder's Engineering the Revolution for quotes and sources as well as excellent information on the Gribeauval System.

Failing that, you can, as I have done, assemble a moderate-sized artillery library from different publications, both primary and secondary, as well as the artillery manuals of the period of which I have over twenty.

It takes awhile to assemble and read them in order to glean the necessary material and understanding of the period and the artillery systems and how they were designed and implemented, but it is a worthwhile project if you have the time and interest. It is also expensive.

I spent over $5,000 assembling information for Artillery and I'm still obtaining more information as time goes on for future work.

K

Another 'point of contention' was in the advance in metallurgy during the period, as well as other technological advances.

Prior to the advent of the Maritz family who would end up running the artillery foundries in France, gun tube casting was done in a sand mold around a core, sometimes of clay. After the gun tube was cast, the incomplete bore would be reamed out with a boring machine which turned the gun tube.

The Maritz method was to cast the gun tubes solid and with the new horizontal boring machine which turned the drill and not the gun tube, the gun tube would be bored along the central axis which allowed greater accuracy in boring and then would allow gun tubes of the same caliber to be able to fire similarly (although never identical-you still can't find two gun tubes that fire exactly alike with all the advances in modern metallurgy and technology). This method also allowed for tighter tolerances in windage which also aided in range and accuracy, trapping more of the charge behind the round when fired instead of escaping around the sides of the round in the gun tube allowing some of the force to escape and lessening the effect of the round. It also saved wear and tear on the bore.

Advances in metallurgy allowed this advance in technology. casting was done with thinner gun tube walls because now the charge (thanks to Belidor's work) could be lessened (which also allowed for less wear and tear on the bore) and gun tube life would be extended. Metallurgy had advanced to the point where alloys were much more pure and that also strengthened the metal which in turn strengthened the bore.

It should be noted that the Austrians in the 1760s were still casting around a core and the Austrians would also use scrap metal, so that the bronze/brass was not an exact measurement and the alloy was flawed (see Duffy).

K

Err ok, cue Dave

the material which eventually was published in the tables was begun in 1764

As a matter of fact, the drawings that were finally published in the Tables in 1792 were finished and complete by 1767

As to uniformity of design Gribeauval also told Manson in 1770 that he should 'determine the new dimensions and to prepare the tables and drawings that would render the constructions perfectly uniform in all the different arsenals

I see what you did there…

Ya really! my thoughts exactly.

My quote from Alder, Engineering the Revolution, page 156.

Here the usefulness of technical drawing was apparent. Gribeauval enjoined Manson to determine the new dimensions and to prepare the tables and drawings that would render the constructions perfectly uniform in all the different arsenals. 69

[my italics]

End note, page 386.
69 S.H.A.T. 4c3/2 Gribeauval, "Memoire," 26 November 1781.

You have changed what Alder said and the date?

See link

Hew Johns

I think you'll find it is Mr. Hollins who can't take being bested in anything. He certainly can't take criticism either and instead attempts to convince us that people are 'gunning' for him. I mean, why else would anyone disgree with him or find fault with his work or postings? It can't be anything to do with him, can it? He is never wrong. He knows about everything, including the Marines. Ho hum!

'You have changed what Alder said and the date?'

I most certainly have not. I did make an error on the date, though, which is of no consequence to the bottom line of the subject, however. Don't judge or accuse others by your own low standards. Just because someone else might do what you're alluding to doesn't mean that all people would. Clean up your act, Mark. Mistakes are made-that doesn't mean that they are deliberate, as you are alluding to. Not only is that insulting, but it does not lead to ease of discussion. And just because you framed it in a question doesn't let you off the hook. You need to watch what you say.

K

Woah that is a very strong threatening reply, accusing me of low standards, insulting you, i'm alluding something and need to watch what I say!!

All I did was follow your advice (#7 in the KK process, see page 1, 03 Apr 2011 1:58 p.m. PST), I read Alder, and find you have written something different (although you say you did not, so must have been someone else)and not quoted fully with the original dated source, it doesn't give anyone a lot of confidence in what you write, and you say I should clean up my act! who is the one with the 'advanced' history degree here?

Another subject that keeps being brought up, ad nauseum, is that of the Gribeauval gun carriages.

Yes, by you, no one asked you to write all that stuff.

I didn't threaten you at all. You are developing a habit of accusing me of things I haven't done. That is very threatening and not accurate. So, be careful what you say and how you say it.

I quoted fully what Gribeauval said or wrote to Manson, which was the intent of the posting. If you can't understand that, I can't help you. I did get the date wrong (good catch on your part) but that doesn't change the intent of what Gribeauval said to Manson.

K

Mark,

I am afraid that what you are getting is Mr Kiley's invariable response to a challenge, of implied threat, bluster and indignation. It is a diversionary ploy meant to take attention away from the question and put the questioner on the defensive.

Bill

ok you did it again, but i will let it pass.

The problem is you were not quoting what Gribeauval said, you were quoting from Alders book about what Gribeauval said (a translation of)a big difference, and if you can't see that I can't help you.

It would have been really useful if Alder had printed the original letters in his book and not just odd out of context snippets here and there.

Bill

I am afraid you are right, we have both been on the receiving end of KK's outbursts and his band of merry followers, be prepared for more.