"Success with 1806 Prussians" Topic

Some examples I found :

Battalion guns were also used to re – enforce other artillery batteries, or when no other artillery was at hand, were placed to defend special points – like bridges (at Halle 1806) – or indeed did form ad hoc batteries.

I cite some examples from volume 3 of Malinowskyi and Bonin, which studies the conduct of artillery in a lot of battles

Examples :
Battle of Pirmasens 14.9.1793

"Der Herzog von Braunschweig führte 2 Piecen von der Batterie v. Pototzki auf dem rothalber Wege durch den Wald, stellte sie zur Flankierung des Feindes hinter dem Steinbache und 2 Bataillonsstücke noch weiter rechts zu gleichem Zwekce auf."

(so here two battalion guns re – in force "regular" artillery.)

Malinowsky & Bonin, p. 670, volume 3

"Bei dieser Gelegenheit ließ der Capit. Decker die Artilleristen auf die Protzen und Handpferde aufsitzen, rückte dem Feinde im Trabe in die Flanke und hatte so eine außerordentliche Wirkung (…)

Malinowsky, page 672

(So capitain Decker mounted his gunners on limbers and train horses and pursued the enemy at canter at his flank and achieved an extraordinary result – highly flexible use of foot artillery, creating an ad hoc driving battery)

"Die Preußische Artillerie spielte in der Schlacht eine wichtige Rolle; sie wurde in Masse gebraucht und zeigte eine große Manövrierfähigkeit so wie eine außerordentliche Wirkung."
Malinowsky, page 672

Now to the clash at Schleitz, 9.10.1806

"Auf dem rechten Flügel standen 2 Batterien Bataillonsgeschütze, eine aus preußischen 6 Pfündern, die andere aus sächsischen 4 pfündern bestehend"
(Foot note : the battalion guns were formed in 2 batteries, which usually were however again disbanded after the action, so again an ad hoc formation)

Malinowsky, page 678

Clash at Halle, 17.10.1806

Der Übergang der Saale wurde durch 2 Bataillonskanonen vertheidigt, zu welchen später die reitenden Batterie Nr. 3 hinzukam.

(the way across the river Saale was defended by 2 battalion guns, to which later the horse battery nr. 3 was added)

Malinowsky page 683

Source : Malinowsky & Bonin : Geschichte der brandenburgisch – preußischen Artillerie, Dritter Theil, 1842, re – print, Wiesbaden 1982

This information I gathered at a short glance looking into this source, I am sure that a lot more interesting information can be found by an in depth study of this work.

So for the rule writer, difficult, on one hand you have battalion guns, on the other, in case of need or tactical decision making, they could be taken away form the infantry and form independent batteries, re – enforce other artillery.

They could well use especially those guns who are with the infantry in the second line.
This was one of the main critisism of the battalion guns, there usually only those in the front line came into action and a lot of guns where not used.

On the other hand it seems not realistic that this was the usual way of all battalion guns, there much more independent artillery otherwise could have been created.
Maybe one could give the Prussian commander a certain percentage of battalion guns for free disposal?

At Pirmasens the Prussian artillery was used in mass, also Prussian artillery officers independently used foot artillery as driving artillery.

So all in all a very flexible use of artillery and battalion guns.

von Winterfeldt,
Thanks, for the info, it's pretty much how we play them. I was waiting for you or Dr, Summerfield to pipe in with some German source material on this.

John

With the DBN rules the 1806 Prussians have restricted musket fire range, can not use 'Attack Columns' but the infantry Close Combat as if 'Elite'. They have a high proportion of heavy cavalry, Poor Command & Control and very few Light Infantry. It seems to work well, and battles can be won with this army if the commander keeps it simple.

Regarding superb Prussian fire discipline:

From other poster, McLaddie, in other topic:

"Here is a description from the report of colonel of Infantry Regiment No. 32 at Jena, at the end of the battle on open ground:

"However, the enemy now undertook an attack with force on the Grenadier Battalions von Sack and von Hahn to our right and at the same time on our right flank with a vanguard of a very impressive number of light troops supported by a strong infantry column behind them. I attempted to beat off this attack with several battalion volleys and we held off the enemy for a reasonable time and certainly caused him appreciable losses."

From P. Hofschröer's book on Prussian tactics:

"Hohenlohe then resumed his advance on Vierzehnheiligen. Marshal Lannes, commanding the French V Corps, noted in his report that the volley fire of the Prussians was intense and terrible, and that this was "the most critical [moment] of the day". Suchet's division of V Corps suffered 24 per cent losses that day, largely due to Prussian small-arms fire."

I think that a good set of rules must include this Prussian advantage in volley fire (of course, in line formation).

the problem is however the Prussians did not volley fire, but did a fire at will.

Maybe the problem is the word "volley".
I am talking about the very effective fire of the Prussian linear formations in 1806, whatever methods they used.

About the battalion guns – I would rate them much lower in quality of performance compared to the regular artillery.

When mobilized in 1805 – this created an uproar in the Prussian Army – ammuniton was sold and replaced with sand, or due to bad care of no use any longer, or exploded, till 1806 a lot of debates (typical for the Prussian Army of this time) were conducted with some very good suggestions but nothing of this was realized when the war of 1806 started.

About the superior musketry fire about the Prussian infantry, I have my serious doubts, it couldn't have been better than that of the French, or Austrian, or Russian.

For more

Jany, Curt : Die Gefechtsausbildung der Preußischen Infanterie von 1806.
Mit einer Auswahlt von Gefechtsberichten
Berlin 1903

An essential read as well as the counterpart about the cavalry, also available for free on google books.

"About the battalion guns – I would rate them much lower in quality of performance compared to the regular artillery."

We rate them as line 2nd class, in our GdB games.

This has been a fantastic exchange of information. Many thanks to VonBlucher, von Winterfeldt, and Ruchel for presenting some excellent primary source information.

But the Prussians relied exclusively on musketry fire in linear formation, and they were intensively trained for it. It was their main battle tactic, both offensive and defensive. Due to this reason, and to the reports quoted, I think that Prussian musketry was sometimes superior, depending on circumstances.
But I may be mistaken. It is just my opinion, and I am not an expert.
French or Russians were trained for several battle tactics, not just linear formations: columns, ordre mixte,… Musketry fire in line was not their exclusive battle tactic, and their training was much more varied.

18th Century Guy,
I agree with you. This is a very interesting topic. Many thanks to you, and thanks to VonBlucher and von Winterfeldt. They show great knowledge on Prussian matters.

I defer everything to von Winterfeldt as he has German source material, I've allot of secondary soure material in English though.

My pessimistic view about musketry is due to the fact that a linear formation, closed ranks, elbow to elbow did not enhance the potentional hitting power of the smoothbore musket.
Granted, due to the self priming pan as well as the cylindrical ramrod – the Prussian infantry could fire much faster than the French. But did they hit better?
In my view – no.

According to observations of the Prussian King in 1805 the Russian infantry was better trained in shooting – due to the allowance of sharp ammunition practise.
French infantry – contrary to legend, were again and again trained in life ammunition shooting, they did mock up battles which sometimes even caused the death of a participant by an accidently shot ramrod.

Only the Prussian fusiliers and Jäger seemed to be trained to shoot on targets.

I agree that the Prussian army of 1806 was victimized in a lot of publications, on the other hand one cannot deny a lot of short comings as well.

It was in the middle of a transition.

For me a fascinating and very colourfull army which suffered a lot by bad press.

Does anyone know what kind of uniform the Brunswick Infantry wore during the 1806 campaign? Did they have bicornes like their Prussian/Saxon allies, or was it a shako?

A bit off topic I know but I'll take advantage of having so many knowledgeable 'Prussians' on the thread.

I have found some information from an old book by O.von Pivka: Armies of the Napoleonic Era, p.104.

There were two infantry regiments in 1806: "Warmstedt" and "Griesheim", both dressed in prussian pattern uniforms and bicornes.
But I do not know if those regiments fought in 1806 or remained at home placed on garrison duty.

Ruchel

Please look at this link, here you have all Prussian musekteer regiments of 1806

link

Great and useful link!
Many Thanks

I like the idea of randomizing the battalion guns – either they are attached or they could be in a separate battery. Make the commanders roll for that.

Here's a link to my blog where I just posted some photos of work on my 1806 project. I'm starting with I.R. #1 just for fun. Thanks for stopping by –

link

von Winterfeldt

Could you kindly provide the source of "According to observations of the Prussian King in 1805 the Russian infantry was better trained in shooting – due to the allowance of sharp ammunition practise."

I found it was interesting.

Many Thanks

I am sure that any effectiveness from volley fire would come from the rate of fire rather than target practice. That is what the Prussians practiced. [and the colonel of the Hohenlohe regiment says battalion volleys in an after-action report, so would be technical]

The Prussian army was on a short leash economically, and often used clay balls in practice, but they were proud of how fast troops could load and fire.

Brigade commanders and higher had control over whether battalions guns were brigaded or not. At Jena they all were.

The officers of brigades seem to do well, both with cavalry and/or infantry. The Prussians went to divisional organizations weeks before the campaign at the insistance of Scharnhorst and they didn't have enough officers of divisional rank, let alone experience with that size command. Apart from the battalion guns, the artillery seemed to operate totally independent of cavalry and infantry formations, and in several instances paid for that lack of coordination.

In general, the higher commanders failed on the strategic level rather than the battlefield. Auerstadt might have been different if 1. the Prussians hadn't been surprised by the French presence and 2. If Brunswick hadn't been killed early in the battle. That isn't to say the Prussians would have enjoyed a significant victory against Davout, but it wouldn't necessarily have been the uncoordinated hast that it was.

Also, the Prussiand did handle their light infantry badly, but at Jena they did all right, both lights and line in skirmishing, everything being considered.

Of the Six villages and more than nine woods and groves on the battlefield, all were defended but one. At V-H, the first assault by the French was defeated before a lack of ammo Hohenlohe's orders called for the troops to retreat. At Issenstadt, the French captured and then were driven out of the village and deep into the surrounding woods during the battle.

The Prussian army was an organization in transition and what neither fish nor fowl in 1806, not Frederickian, but not the army of 1813 either.

Bill

source

Der Russische Soldat im Felde 1806, by Curt Jany
Das Kasket, Jahrgang 1925, a series of articles based on ovservations of Prussian officers and some remarks of the King when seeing the Russian Army passing through Prussia

working on 1806/07 Prussian corps with the Russians..in 20mm for GdB and they are a colorful lot..and did very well in the Eylau campaign. Using the Russian 8th division to go with them…should be fun..using French 5th corps as the opponents..