"Deployed artillery distances" Topic

I know that guns deployed in battery 10 to 12 yards apart. How far back behind each gun was the limber to be? And the caisson behind that?

Allow 5 yds for the gun and crew,space 6 yds to the lead team of the limber, allow 11 yds for the limber and team, space of 11 yds to lead team of caisson, allow 14 yds for the caisson-limber-team. Total depth 45 yds..…under ideal conditions.
Allowing 2 yds frontage for a single gun, the battery frontage would be 82 yards…under ideal conditions.

Guns were to be 14 yards apart.

This is an excellent topic and something that most sets of game rules tend to ignore. A full battery of artillery with all the limbers, caissons and horses takes up a LOT of room. Many sets of rules don't require limber models and many more allow the limbers to magically vanish off the table when the battery unlimbers. I've always felt that the models should stay on the table.

Indeed. The guns have to have sufficient room for the limber to pass between them after unlimbering, and in order to limber.
The guns in this image are far too close together, but it does give you an idea of the footprint of a battery. Notice how deep it goes, with the limbers behind the guns, in their proper position facing forward, as well as the caissons behind them, and also facing forward.

Depends a bit on the tactical situation, 5 to 10 yards appears to be a norm, but could be more if the risk to the horses is too great.

It appears that one should allow about the depth of the element in front as space behind (per Man of Few Words), remembering that there should be two caissons per gun, so about 70 yards minimum.

The problem with limber models is that they don't represent the spaces in the battery's impedimenta very well.

Cheers
David

Don Lowry is correct re: spacing between guns.

I checked it with _An American Artillerist's Companion_
and it stated the 14 yard interval.

I pulled out my reprinted copy of the U.S. War Department's "Instruction for Field Artillery" circa 1861 and confirmed the spacing is 14 yards hub-to-hub between guns (even when limbered in line). You can take a look at this book (or portions of it) at
link

The various plates well illustrate why so much space had to be left between guns. Limbers didn't exactly turn on a dime and the axles did not have differential gearing like modern cars.

Frontage of a six gun battery was supposed to be 84 yards.

Its always interested me that ACW Battery's appear to take up less overall space than their Napoleonic counter parts. (Where six gun batteries were used. I know some nations used eight)

I've never been quite sure if ACW limbers and Caissons were left closer to the guns than in Napoleonic times, or if it was just that there were less Caissons.

I've tended to regard six ACW guns as roughly an 80 x 50 yard footprint for game purposes. Not the exact measurement as laid down but some how I don't see a battery commander taking a tape to things when trying to bring tons of equipment and horses into action.

Infantry can just touch elbows to help Dress the line. I'm thinking that could get difficult in the artillery!

The fact that ACW artillery only had one caisson whereas Napoleonic artillery had between 3 – 5 caisson's depending on the gun size could be one reason why they take up less space.

I haven't the Artillerist's Manual or the Ordnance manual to hand, but a rule of thumb is that a limber with gun attached, and a caisson each take up 12 yards from front to back. Figure 12 yards between the gun and limber, when deployed, and a further 12 yards between the limber and caisson. Further depth would include any battery wagons, a traveling forge, spare mounts, etc brought up with the unit.

Thus a basic rule of thumb for a 6-gun battery's footprint would be 80X50 yards. There would be 6 guns at 2 yards each for 12 yards, plus 14 yards interval between guns (5X14+70 yards) 84 yards by the book, but the vagaries of terrain, etc, would push that up or down, so 80 yards is a good working number.

Prudence would also dictate a minimum depth of 50 yards safety zone in front of each battery to account for the sabots, strapping, etc, flying downrange with each shot.

All things considered, a battery takes up a fair amount of space.

The fact that ACW artillery only had one caisson whereas Napoleonic artillery had between 3 – 5 caisson's depending on the gun size could be one reason why they take up less space

Yeah, that's kind of what I was driving at.

Which also raises the question of why all that extra ammo?

Different tactics there maybe but there are still only a certain number of rounds possible per minute!

All things considered, a battery takes up a fair amount of space

Try telling that to your local gamer! :o)

Somebody's math is worse than mine.
6 guns at 2 yds ea = 12 yds
5 intervals at 14 yds ea = 70 yds
Total = 82 yds
As I said at the begining, these are ideal/text book (Hunt) figures and, other than at the School of Practice, you should not expect them to be found.
Thank you Don and Scott for your valid comments.

On the ammo/battery depth point.

I note that a Union 12pdr battery would carry 182 rounds per gun, whereas a French Napoleonic 12pdr would have around 310, or 510 if it were in the Guard.

That is a lot of iron!

I know that the ACW armies usually had an ammunition train at the army level – was this the case with Napoleonic French guns? There was probably a less standardization of calibre during the Napoleonic wars, so perhaps it was better to keep all ammunition with the gun firing it, rather than get the 12-lb shot to the gun and find out it was too big? I imagine in the ACW that a 12-lb ball would fit into any 12-lb Napoleon since manufacturing standards had improved.

Note that there will need to be an interval between batteries too. For gaming purposes an assumption of 100 yards per 6 gun battery is probably reasonable.

Also note that deployments were typically not in straight lines to avoid creating a dangerous possible enfilade. Actual battery depth may be slightly greater.

Keep in mind, too, that a 100 yard frontage is about the same as a 300-man regiment of infantry would occupy. So a deployed artillery battery could take up as much room as a brigade of infantry in a column of regiments.

Man of Few Words said:

Somebody's math is worse than mine.

And where is my error? I don't understand your criticism. Did you miss my caveat of

…….by the book, but the vagaries of terrain, etc, would push that up or down, so 80 yards is a good working number.

firstvarty1979,

Napoleonic French had an ammo train too.

As for standardization, that was a major issue in the Civil War, more so than the Napoleonic period.

Don't forget war in Europe was an on going pastime, they had a lot of guns available and large standing armies, which is more than can be said at the start of the Civil War when it was just down to what was hanging around from the Mexican War, a small regular army, pre-war local volunteer batteries and what was tucked away in the local arsenal.

OK, by Gettysburg, things had pretty much settled to 12pdrs Napoleons, 3inch Rifles and 10pdr Parrotts but if you look at the individual batteries, all but one of the Union had a single type where the Confederates only had 19 out of 66 with some of the remainder having three different pieces of ordinance in the same battery. It gave them a supply nightmare.

While a mix occurred in the Napoleonic period it tended to be through choice, where a couple of howitzers were formed as part of the gun battery. Although shortages did occur from time to time, of course.

I don't think I've read of lack of standardization of caliber being an issue within the same Napoleonic army except where they were using captured equipment. The windage on guns was enough to make up for variation in casting of shot and everyone had caliper gauges or rings to check the issue to a battery.

A little too small was OK, a little too large was embarrassing! :o)

Trajanus,

Part of the logistics problem was solved for small arms ammunition by reducing the caliber of the round so as to serve several different weapons.

For example, both Federal & Confederate Ordnance Departments manufactured .57 ammunition, so as to service the Springfield and Enfield weapons.

Many CS units were able, early on, to standardize the caliber, if not the type, of the arms within each regiment. This was done within the brigades by looking at the arms inspection returns and adjusting them from one regiment to another. Those units still with a mixed allocation, such as (for example) a regiment with both .58 and .54 calibre weapons would normally concentrate all the .54 into one or more companies, etc.

Tim,

Yes I've read this too. Makes a lot of sense.

Not so easy with a battery though. Its kind of tough if you have used up all the 3 inch Rifle and they deliver 12pdr roundshot! :o)

I believe that the M1863 10-pounder Parrott was overboard from the original to match the ammo size of the 3 inch Ordnance to help supply problems, so some form of rationalization appears to have gone on through out the war.

However,,,, a 80 yard wide and 50 yard deep footprint for a battery of 6 guns doesn't take up that much room on the table top. A typical (rally round the flag) tactical ACW game uses 1"=50 yards scale so 1.5" wide and 1" deep is about right. I'vejust painted & mounted cassion, limber drawn by 4 horse in 15mm and the entitiy is 1" x 5" (50yards wide by 250yards deep). (rally around the flag game is a scale where a regiment is 3-6 1" wide stands)

I don't think games make batteries too small- if anything too big.

1968billsfan,

I am struggling with a similar opinion. So, rules I know and play…

American Civil War

Johnny Reb 2 – 1" = 40 yards, frontage of a gun section is 7/8" by 1", thus a section is 35 yards wide and 80 yards deep, with 3 sections in a battery you get a battery footprint of:

105 yards wide by 80 yards deep

Regimental Fire & Fury – 1" = 25 yards, frontage of a gun section is 1" by 1.5", thus a section is 25 yards wide and 75 yards deep, with 3 sections in a battery you get a battery footprint of:

75 yards wide and 75 yards deep

Fire & Fury (Brigade) – 1" = either 45 or 60 yards (depending on if you are playing 1 stand = 150 or 200 men), a battery is 1" by 1.5" giving a battery footprint of:

45 yards wide by 67.5 yards deep (representing 6 guns)
60 yards wide by 90 yards deep (representing 8 guns)

Napoleonic Wars

Various 1:60 games – these all use the same ground scale of about 1" = 50 meters, frontage of a battery is 1.25" square so you have a battery footprint of:

62.5 meters wide by 62.5 meters deep
68 yards wide by 68 yards deep (representing 6-8 guns)

So it seems to break both ways, for the ACW regimental games they take up the appropriate space or more. For ACW brigade or 1:60 Napoleonic games they are a little bit small but not too far short.

I've always wondering if the depth was accurate.

Cheers,

The Bandit

The problem is really that the gamers aren't using 1/300 figures and groundscale. If I did, I'd be all over having the full artillery battery modeled. I'd also never get my painting done!

But when you compress figures, having all the other impedimentia modeled makes the battery take up too much space.

What also is screwed up is that solid roundshot was a "straight-line, bowl'em over" weapon. For Napoleonic and ACW, they basically leveled the barrel, (which meant that the bore was slighlty elevated) and fired away. The shot went "up" slightly to scarcely above head height, then stayed within the height of a man, then bounced and hopefully didn't stick in the ground or bounce too high, and then continued to plow along thu any interviening human flesh.

WHAT COULD GO WRONG?
If the gun was level but the ground sloped slightly downward, then the shot would go overhead for a lot of its travel.

If there was a dip in the ground, the shot would go overhead.

If there was an upslope, the shot would bury itself, or bounce high.

Shell would explode (unevenly) and the fragments would land somewhere, but had the problem of guessing the fuze length. Worked better in ACW than Napoleonic, due to technical advances.

Why Am I Talking about this?

Rules that we play, ignore the effect of these problems. Maybe a lower density of artillery on the tabletop (due to scaling problems of the stands being too big) replicates these problems. ??

Don't forget that 15mm/28mm is a vertical scale.

The fact that a 15mm gun team is 5 inches long is just because you cant make the models smaller! If you think that's big, you need to see how much space a Perry's six horse team takes up in 28mm!

Its no different to the fact that a 15mm two rank line should only be 2-3mm deep in ground scale.

Deployed batteries are not so bad as you can use the real space the models take up to represent where the limbers would have been. Its only limbered guns that are too long.

So, at 1" = 50 yards ground scale:

Six-gun battery = 82 yards = 1.5 inches = 40mm (rounded down)
Four-gun battery = 50 yards = 1 inch = 25mm

Depth would appear to be around the 1.5" mark as well.

From a gaming point of view, that means if you have your guns on 20mm frontage bases (like I do for my 10mm figures), you would have to use 2 for a six-gun battery and only 1 for a four-gun battery. Might be better to simply make bigger and smaller bases with crew mounted, and swap guns. Hmmm …

My nifty four-horse limbers also make the gun+limber depth 80mm, or about twice what the depth should be. Hmmm …

I don't think there is much to do about the increased depth (would hate to go down to two-horse limbers), and I'm willing to live with making life more difficult to position the batteries. Now I have to ponder rebasing to 25mm/40mm bases for the batteries themselves, dangit!

A good thread regardless! ;)

Cheers,

Christopher

Cripes! I didn't realize I was engaging in some serious thread necromancy here!

One of the surprising things I found was why there was a 14 yard distance between hubs: The caisson and team had to pass through the space. Notice in the picture above that all the teams are facing forward. To hitch up a gun, the team and caisson would drive between one set of guns, wheel and move back between another, stopping next to the gun trail to hitch up the gun. A fairly orhestrated operation because the teams couldn't turn very sharply, so they might pass between guns #1&2 to hitch up gun #5. It is described in both Napoleonic and ACW treatises.

Kinda awkward if the battery is taking fire fron the front.

Christopher,

FWIW, I never really worried about base widths, depths, etc. To my mind, it simply isn't worth the heartache. Unless you are using pipe cleaners for infantry lines, etc, no minis and/or bases will ever match ground scale.

I pick what I think looks best for the game, and use that. Of course, I paint both sides anyway, but I'm interested in a fun game with nicely painted armies and cool terrain. If I wanted closer historical accuracy, per se, I'd be playing on topo maps with cardboard counters.

Cripes! I didn't realize I was engaging in some serious thread necromancy here!

It's a known issue around here, don't worry about it.

I'm starting to run into serious impedimentia collecting for the Northwest Frontier, and it's been eye-opening to say the least.

FWIW, I never really worried about base widths, depths, etc. To my mind, it simply isn't worth the heartache. Unless you are using pipe cleaners for infantry lines, etc, no minis and/or bases will ever match ground scale.

Not necessarily. It all depends on the scale and what is being represented. For instance, three stands, 1" X 1/2" at 50 yards to the inch, one behind the other can represent a column in quarter or half distance, and a much smaller wideth than the normal open distance for columns. Separate lines of troops would be no closer than twenty-five yards from those in front. The only time it would be a problem would be closed columns 9-12 yards deep with a base width of 75 yards.

It all depends on what's being represented.

The same is true of cavalry and artillery.

Well, there is much to be said for basing for aesthetics and practicality on the table, of course, but I like to keep an eye out for how to keep it all as close to historical deployment distances as possible. If it's a difference between 20mm and 25mm it's probably not worth it to rebase (but would have been nice to know up front), but a difference between 20mm and 30-40mm is pretty hefty. For the ACW, it's probably more important because of the differences in typical battery size: I would think you would want the CSA to be able to fit 3x 4-gun batteries in the same space as the USA can fit 2x 6-gun batteries, for instance.

On the other hand, the deployment distances for guns don't really appear set in stone. For instance:

At 1" = 50 yards ground scale:
2 yards per gun, 14 yards regulation spacing:
Six-gun battery = 82 yards = 1.5 inches = 40mm
Four-gun battery = 50 yards = 1 inch = 25mm

10 yards spacing:
Six-gun battery: 62 yards = 30mm
Four-gun battery: 38 yards = 20mm

5 yards minimum spacing:
Six-gun battery: 37 yards = 20mm
Four-gun battery: 23 yards = 15mm

So, using 2x 20mm (six-gun) or 15mm (four-gun) bases per battery, one could model both regulation and minimum deployment spaces … bit would it be easier and not much less accurate to simply model the battery with one gun at the "middle" 10 yards distance between guns and leave it at that?

The method of limbering was also a surprise to me. I somehow imagined the limbers pulling up behind the guns, not scooting between them to hitch up from the front. I'm not sure what implications that has for a battery retreating from close range fire or a charge, for instance!

Cheers,

Christopher

Christopher:

I think it has to do with how difficult it was to get a limber to 'back up' any distance. Having six horses in reverse pushing against what, a few chains linked to the tongue? The entire harness system is designed for pulling.

I've seen the RH desmonstration in Hyde Park and they do the same thing. It does make you wonder about any retreat. How fast and 'safe' would it be. It explains why some artillery would exit stage left 'early' in any attack…