"Napoleonic Artillery - Howitzers" Topic

Did Napoleonic howitzers require anything different re equipment (other than exploding shells) and personnel from other artillery, ie cannons?

Cheers

I'm sure they would have muddled through and improvised what was necessery- get creative, children and adults are laking creative teaching.

Priceless. Thanks Einstein.

Gribreuval and year XI both had similar carriage designs, but the howitzers did require some special equipment. Look here:

PDF link

That is for British guns.

PDF link

Austrian guns.

They required specially trained crews. Refer to swords around a throne chapter on the artillery.

Thank you for that. Very useful. :)

Dear Snowcat
The most difficult part of operating a howitzer and a mortar was cutting the fuse to the correct length. This required considerable amount of skill. If too short it would prematurely explode and too long would either not explode, give the recipients time to extinquish it or explode "harmlessly" burried in the ground.

I would refer you to
Adye (1813 rp2010) Bombardier and Pocket Gunner, Ken Trotman Ltd.
DDS (2007) Napoleonic Artillery, Crowood Press.

Stephen

Thanks Stephen.
I'm busy researching the Russian Artillery for 1796/7-1801. I have Viskovatov's volumes 7-9 (translated) for this, along with the corresponding uniform plates. I have a bunch of other pictures on uniforms and a Russian document printed in 1851 (untranslated and largely unreadable by ABBYY Finereader) concerning the early artillery reforms of Tsar Paul I.
I believe you have a book on this very subject coming out shortly…?
Would it be possible to chat with you off-air about this?
Cheers
Paul

Dear Paul
I have been working on this book for many years. Please contact me offline. It is finding the time to pull it all together.
Stephen

Dear Paul
To answer the other part of the question.

1. Howitzers were chambered so the charge was often separate from the shell.
2. C18th a ladle was used to load the powder. This was changed for the field howitzers to charges.
3. Range of a howitzer was altered by either elevation or the charge used.
4. Howitzers also fired carcass (for setting building alite) and illumination shells. A few rounds.
5. Howitzers in the Napoleonic period fire at no more than 12 degress. Any more elevation would likely break the carriages. The force needs to go down the cheeks.
6. The bombadier who were the specialists in firing mortars and howitzers often wore gauntlets to protect the uniform. Less of an issue with the long howitzers.

Unicorns
The Russians introduced in the 1750s the Unicorn (note the correct English spelling where Licorne is the French and Edinorog/Edinog is the transliteration of the Russian.) These were long barrelled howitzers and could be in modern terms referred to as gun-howitzers

These were about 10 calibres long and fired at low tragectory. The 10-pdr unicorn did fire 12-pdr solid shot with reduced charge if required. Useful in rearguard giving the impression that the enemy faced a position battery.

Also notice the organisation of the Russian Batteries. They operated often in half batteries or three 4 gun sections. Normally of the same type. In advance and retiring they would operate in mutual support.

The main difference between the M1796 and M1805 organisation was the use of the 4 wheeled caisson in the former based upon the Prussian/Gribeauval design. In 1805 this was replaced by the two wheeled cart which was more suited to the poor roads in Russia.

Note that Tsar Paul introduced the green gun carriages and the pigment was verdigris which was a true green. French Artillery Green is khaki green at best.

Stephen

Marvellous insight. I was just wondering what the difference between bombardiers and cannoneers was too…so that's one to cross off the list I sent you. :)

Thanks Stephen.
Cheers

Russian licornes being a type of early gun-howitzer could not fire at the same elevations as a howitzer.

A Russian artillery unit during the wars armed with licornes spotted a French artillery emplacement in a small ravine and the French were firing howitzers from it.

Only the top of the French gunners' heads were visible. The licornes could not bring fire upon them as the licornes could not be sufficiently elevated.

Is there a source for the use of gauntlets by mortar and howitzer bombardiers?

Is there a source that period howitzers could not be fired above 12 degrees elevation?

Gribeauval designed his gun carriages, both guns and howitzers to recoil both to the rear and downward-see Alder's Engineering the Revolution.

French firing tables and firing tests with howitzers had them firing above 12 degrees elevation.

Howsitzers usually used separate loading ammunition because of the size of the round and because of the different size of the chamber. It made loading the piece easier.

Powder cartridges were first developed by Gustave Adolph in the 17th century. General Brocard introduced the cartridge affixed to the round about 1740. Ladles were still carried during the Napoleonic period for use if necessary.

Sincerely,
K

I will guess that @10th Marines is looking at this ….

"At the same time, Russian artillery had a significant disadvantage: the unicorn was not well-adapted to plunging fire, because its barrel could not be elevated at such a high angle as the barrel of the howitzer, and Russian artillerymen were not well-trained in plunging fire. Ermelov wrote that, at Borodino, the enemy placed eighty howitzers into the ravines of the Kolotcha River and Semenovskii Brook, so that only the heads of the enemy artillerists were seen, and Russian artillery was unable to silence or dislodge them."
Alexander and Yurii Zhmodikov
Tactics of the Russian Army in the Napoleonic Wars
West Chester, Ohio: Nafziger Press, 2003
Volume 2, page 73

I can't find where "Ermelov wrote" this. It is not in his memiors or in his report to Barclay after the battle.
Memoirs for 1812 link
Borodino after-action report dlib.rsl.ru/01003787994
I am especially curious about "eighty howitzers". At two howitzers per company, that is a combined battery taking the howitzers from 40 companies of artillery. Were there even that many French artillery companies at Borodino? Would "eighty howitzers" even fit along the ravine?

Well, let's assume the quote was accurate ….

I think the issue was that the Russians were not getting the range estimated and the fuses cut just right to get the round to blow at the ravine. I do not think the issue was the differing ability to elevate the pieces.

Maximum elevation of French howitzers was indeed 45 degrees, and 29 degrees for Russian unicorns. But with standard charges, these elevations would have launched the shells over 2km! No-one was trying to shoot that far!
And if you really needed the extra inclination, and had a little time, you could just grade the ground under the piece to add 16 degrees.

The firing table with the greatest elevation I have seen for the French howitzers was in the de Morla Tables : 46 lignes de hausse, with a range to first bound of 672 meters. Note that this was in "lignes de hausse", not degrees of elevation – it was about 3 degrees of elevation. I would be interested in tables showing French howitzers firing at greater angles of elevation. I have seen 6 degrees quoted (1168 meters to first bound), but not in a firing table.

If you shot at over 30 degrees of elevation, there was essentially no ricochet. So, what the French could do (and the Russians could not do so easily) was to elevate the howitzers over 30 degrees and then manage the range by varying the size of the charge. The round would land, and not continue via ricochet.
But exactly why they would do this I don't know. Usually, one just cut the fuze so the round would blow at the first bound.

Anyway, I don't see any "significant disadvantage" with the Russian equipment.

Fun little ballistic simulator link

Dear Seroga
I was talking about Russian ordnance. The Gribeauval Howitzer was obsolete by the end of the Revolutionary Wars. It had been replaced by the excellent AnXI 24-pdr howitzer which almost twice as long in calibres. The elevation was nowhere near 45 degrees.

I am not with my books at present but will look up the elevations. A good place to start is Adye (1813) that has a table of ranges and elevations taken from Muller (1811). The elevations are not more than 20 degree.

To get richochet you need to fire at no more than 3 degrees otherwise depending upon the ground, it just plugs.

Also consider the French inability to fire over Hougoumont at the ridge and setting the Chateau alite as a result.

This 80 howitzers collected together has often been quoted but I have not seen it anywhere else. That is howitzers from 40 batteries. I know of a few howitzers gathered together but never more than a dozen even in sieges.

Stephen

If you can't elevate sufficiently for 'plunging' fire, the round will not achieve the maximum ordinate sufficient to place it in a particular target, in this case a ravine with French artillery. The round won't follow a path after firing with a high enough arc to put it in the depression.

The French prized captured licornes and put them with the artillery reserve or in the parcs.

If the licorne could be elevated to the correct elevation they could have hit the French pieces in the ravine. Obviously, in this situation, the Russians could not bring fire on the French howitzers, whereas the French could obviously hit them if they had so wished. To me that would be a 'significant disadvantage' for the Russians. The French howitzer battery could not be suppressed.

Napoleon did at times mass howitzers. They did it at Borodino and Waterloo. As to whether or not there were 80 in the position, I have no idea.

Sincerely,
K

'They required specially trained crews. Refer to swords around a throne chapter on the artillery.'

Do you have a page citation?

Sincerely,
K

Not on me Kevin, not near my books. I distinctly remember reading about that in swords though.

-Michael

Dear "K",

"If you can't elevate sufficiently for 'plunging' fire, the round will not achieve the maximum ordinate sufficient to place it in a particular target, in this case a ravine with French artillery. The round won't follow a path after firing with a high enough arc to put it in the depression."

I think you know the geometry of ballistic trajectories much better than that.

Even firing with the rather lower muzzle velocities of the era, the maximum ordinate for a cannon firing at 29 degrees elevation will be well over 200 meters.
If you shoot at an elevation of 29 degrees, the angle of impact will be 29 degrees (no air resistance) or more (in real life).
Thus, for a vertical barrier at the target 1.5 meters tall from the height of the bore of the firing piece, the maximum amount of dead ground behind the barrier is given by : 1.5 / tan (29 degrees) = ~2.7 meters.
In fact, since there will be air resistance, and since the target was below the height of the barrel of the firing piece, the dead ground would be smaller – perhaps about 2 meters.
But we are given a ravine, with sloping sides, not a vertical barrier, so it is unlikely that the French were actually within 2 meters of the edge of the ravine.
And, in any case, the dead ground would not have been more than the blast radius of the shells being fired.
So, really, the inability to elevate above 29 degrees could not be the real problem …. if something like the stated example ever even happened.

In summary, the additional covered or dead ground conferred on an enemy by decreasing the elevation of the firing piece from 45 degrees to 29 degrees is effectively nil. There might be a few scattered events (such as lobing shells over a high wall from a long distance, trying ot hit a magazine just behind the wall) where the extra elevation would help. But, on a battelfield, there was no effective difference. I invite you to offer actual ballistic calculations to the contrary if you disagree. If I am guessing correctly, I think I know you as a USMC artillery officer – so you can do the calculations easily.

I think such high-angle firing was exceptionally rare in the era. Again, I ask where we might see firing tables for the French indicating such high-elevation firing was common enough to even be included.

And lastly, I have not actually seen any evidence that a An XI obusier de 5 pouces, 7½ lignes could even fire at such high elevations. Were these not what most (all?) of the French batteries were using at Borodino? Can you please provide some evidence that these later designs could be elevated as much as the earlier Gribeauval designs? I fear we are making an assumption about the possible elevation of the French howitzers that should be checked.

And yet again, I would love to find where "Ermelov wrote" about such a thing. We are hanging alot of our judgement about a "significant disadvantage" on a modern historian's comment about a translated text. It would be well to at least look at the original in its full context.

Dear Dr. Summerfield,

From the de Morla Tables ….

French Gribeauval obusier de 6-pouces
- diameter of the bore (calibre) : 6.1250 puces = 165.8 mm
- length of the bore without the chamber : 3.000 calibres
- length of the chamber : 1.143 calibres
- length of the piece without the cascabel : 4.632 calibres

French An XI obusier de 5 pouces, 7½ lignes ("24-livre")
- diameter of the bore (calibre) : 5.5972 pouces = 151.5 mm
- length of the bore without the chamber : 4.959 calibres
- length of the chamber : 1.250 calibres
- length of the piece without the cascabel : 6.714 calibres

I agree that I cannot find firing tables showing high elevation firing for French howitzers. Indeed, the largest I have found so far is for ~3 degrees. I do fear that these have been interpreted wrongly – substituting "degrees of elevation" for "lignes de hausee".
However, I have seen isolated quotes for the range of Gribeauval obusiers de 6-pouces for 6 degrees and even 45 degrees. I have not seen anything similar for the An XI obusier de 5 pouces, 7½ lignes. So, I really have not seen any evidence that an An XI obusier de 5 pouces, 7½ lignes could even fire at such elevations, and hence may question above to our colleague.

It may interest you to note that the weight of the carriages was proportionately quite similar for the two French howitzers : the ratio of the weight of the carriage to the weight of the piece was ~1.88 for both. So if the carraige for the earlier piece was "beefy" enough to accomodate the high-angle firing, then the later design seems equally "beefy".
And they were quite heavy in general.
For comparision, the same ratio for the Russian 24-lber unicorn was 0.86, less than half the ratio for the French designs.
The Dutch had a 24-pounder howitzer, and the British had two different 5½-inch howitzers, but I do not know how much their carriages weighed. Do you?

Dear Seroga
I am alas 300 miles from most of my books. Yes I think you have hit upon the reason for the insistance of 45 degrees for the Gribeauval Howitzer.

The AnXI carriage was much longer than the Gribeauval carriage. I had not consider the gun tube to carriage ratio. That is an interesting way of describing the design. It should be remembered that the French AnXI 24-pdr howitzers had a iron axle. The Gribeauval 6-pouce did not. Also the Russian used pine rather than oak and ash for their carriages. Hence they were larger looking than the French.

The Russian Uniform was 1 pud (40-pdr), 1/2 Pud (20-pdr) and 1/4 Pud (10-pdr). It may be that you are not using the artillery pound which was based upon the English Pound.

I may have the weights at home, it is just getting there and finding them.

I have not read anywhere of the large collection of howitzers together at a battlefield. We have Bull's Troop of Howitzers at Waterloo and the Prussian howitzer batteries 1813-15. The adhoc combining seemed to be from a couple of batteries. I could not contemplate 80 howitzers in one grand battery. This duel was not mentioned in Mikaberidze excellent book on Borodino.

I have no tables for firing howitzer shells beyond 12 degrees and barely more than 6 degrees. 45 degrees is what was used for mortars in the 18th century.
Stephen

Dear Dr. Summerfield,

The Russian артиллерийский фунт (artillery pound) = 0.4914 kg = 1.0812 English lbs.
A ½-пуд (20-фунтов) unicorn would be, senso strictu, rated at 21.624 English lbs.
However, rating the piece by "пуд" or "фунтов" was, for unicorns, actually based on a theorectical stone projectile of lesser specific density than cast iron. This is an inheriatance of rating mortars by stone size (and these did fire mostly stones in the earliest days).

The diameter of the projectile was 150.54 mm for the larger field unicorn.

Using a rating based on a more typical cast-iron projectile, of specific density 7000 kg/m-cubed, would give a rating of 23.88 English pounds – hence a "24-lber".
Indeed, the Russians rated their cannons based on such a theorectical cast-iron projectile.
A ½-пуд (20-фунтов) unicorn could fire the ball made for 24-lber cannon and a ¼-пуд (10-фунтов) unicorn could fire the ball made for 12-lber cannon.

Sometimes you will see in the Russian liturature (written after the era), the field unicorns referred to in this way as "12-фунтов" and "24-фунтов". Following this example, I thought it was easier to adopt this more typical rating based a cast-iron projectile., instead of explaining about the пуд, the артиллерийский фунт and the stone projectiles of the earliest mortars.

But you probably are right to point out the issue, and I thank you for the opportunity to provide the greater detail.

I just realized that the "Yermolov quotation", which has been discussed before, has nothing much to do with the relative abilities of the two sides to use plunging fire, but rather the fact that one side was in a ravine and the other not. So one side has to use plunging fire, whilst the other can richocet so long as they can clear the crest. Switch the positions and you switch the problem.

Dear Seroga
Thank you for the clarification and correcting my misunderstanding. Russian weights have caused a problem.

Dear Hew Johns
Thank you for clearly seeing the obvious that was overlooked

Stephen

'I think you know the geometry of ballistic trajectories much better than that.'

OK, I'll explain it in lay terms: the Russian licornes did not have the ability to put the round in the ravine (or the bullet in the hole, if you prefer) because they could not elevate the gun tubes sufficiently. If they pulled back to do it, they would be out of range.

For references, did you take a look at the Zhmodikov's notes? The references to take a look at (and I believe that the Zhmodikov's are Russian-speakers), are Ratch, Artillery Journal, 1861, Number 11, part 3, page 849; and the Memoirs of IS Zhirkevich, pages 422-423. The notes are on page 109. The second reference states that French howitzers outranged Russian licornes.

As for eighty howitzers being massed, I believe that is a little too many for one battery in a ravine, but the French had sufficient artillery companies at Borodino to supply the requisite pieces. The Grande Armee had 587 field pieces on the field, which is much more than 40 artillery companies, using 8 pieces per company as a guide, even though horse companies had only six per company.

Sincerely,
Kevin

"OK, I'll explain it in lay terms"
Well, if I may say it …. I would prefer a more sophisticated explanation of your ideas.
Without wishing to cause offense, it seems you have just re-asserted the same thing, offering no additional analysis or proof of your contention that a unicorn with the ability to elevate to 29 degrees could not put a round into such a ravine due to an insufficient ability to elevate. I provided above a calculation that showed the maximum posible covered or dead ground was ~2 meters. The ravine was much wider. The target, and even the blast radius of the rounds, was much bigger.
I am eager to be shown any error in my calculations or my understanding. Please do not hesitate to enlighten me/us with technical knowledge. This does include asking you to do more than asserting the same thing again (and perhaps yet again).

================================================

The materials identified as "Ratch, Artillery Journal, 1861, Number 11" are the General Ratch's "Сведения об Алексее Петровиче Ермолове" ("Information about Aleksey Petrovich Ermolov"). This work was essentially based on a series of oral interviews conducted with General Ermolov shortly before his death. It was an essentially biographic piece (not a tactical or technical study). General Ermolov was at that time about 85 years and it had been about 45 years since Borodino. It was not something that "Ermolov wrote". It was at best something that the elderly Gereneral said, that was reported in a secondary source almost half a century after the fact, that our modern authors listed in an endnote (perhaps not specifically for the issue at hand), and that you have re-told here as establishing some sort of general conclusion that you have drawn.

Some might find that a rather tenuous set of connections, and a move on your part away from value-free analysis toward your sharing of your own personal opinions.

Here is a discussion of the creation of the General Ratch's biographic article:
link

================================================

The "Memoirs of IS Zhirkevich, pages 422-423" actually discuss a completely different situation : at Bautzen, French 24-lber howitzers placed up atop a hill were said to have slightly greater range the much smaller Russian 1/4-pud unicorns. This is an apple and oranges comparison all by itself, and in no way did the original author imply any general problem with the range of his unicorns. This is also not germane to the question raised about Borodino and the alleged "significant disadvantage" for the Russians by an alleged greater ability to elevate the French howitzers.

Here is the original source:
Записки Ивана Степановича Жиркевича (1789-1848)
M: Кучково поле, 2009.
link
These were originally published in serial form in the journal «Русская Cтарина» in the years 1874-1878.
The period including for Bautzen can be found here link
The relevant section begins on page 411.

Before we make a broad and sweeping generalization "that French howitzers outranged Russian licornes", it might be well to look a little more broadly than a single end-note in a modern English-language secondary source.

================================================

Here is a recently reserached order of battle for the French at Borodino link

Let us count the artillery companies using French equipment that were present that day : total 55 or about 110 howitzers:
- With the French and Italian Guard units : 14 companies
- With the French, Italian, Polish and Westphalian Army units : 41 companies

So, if they collected nearly all these howitzers, a battery of 80 was possible – but not too likely. Can you provide any other source which mentions such as grand battery of howitzers?

The large French formations made soley of howitzers were of the sizes of 8 or 16 pieces. Here is a short summary of the French artillery deployments from the "Revue d'Artillerie" link

Clearly a large deployment of guns of all types "au-dessus du ravine" is implied. But not just howitzers.

================================================

If I may offer an opinion, just an opinion : if the Russians had a problem hitting a target in a ravine, it was nothing to do with an insufficient degree of elevation. The problem, for the French of the Russians, in plunging fire was not the degree of elevation. At elevations of 29 (or 45) degrees using normal charges, the rounds would travel in excess of 2km. The "trick" lay in reducing the charge (i.e. not using the pre-made charges) to get the desired shorter distance. It is possible that the Russians did not do this well in some instance(s). I imagine the same might be true of the French sometimes (someone mentioned Hugomont above).
An extra 16 degrees of elevation, if it existed at all French An XI howitzers, would make no practical difference.

================================================

Is there any place where we can see any indication that a French An IX howitzer of 5 pounces, 7½ lignes could actually fire at an elevaion greater than the 29 degrees possible with a Russian unicorn? I have looked and not found such.

I think it is reasonable, since you have claimed that there was an advantage for the French arising from a greater ability to elevate the pieces, to first establish that such a difference even existed.

================================================

Well, that was probably too long. I apologize.

Snowcat,

You stated'

"I'm busy researching the Russian Artillery for 1796/7-1801"

I'd be interested in any information that you may have discovered if available? Thanks,

Chris

I'm focusing on the uniforms of the foot and horse artillery, and artillery train at the moment. Specifically, I'm identifying areas in the Viskovatov text that are missing information, and tying up some contradictions. In the next couple of weeks I'll be producing uniform guides, and this information will be made available. :)

@Snowcat

If you know the language ….

This is a little like an Osprey on steroids – it is the Volume 1 (1698-1801) of Ilya Ulyanov's series on Russian infantry PDF link
(Quite a bit of the uniforms/accessories for the artillery was decreed "as per infantry".)

This is the 1799 "Хроника" or "Chronicle" of the Army dlib.rsl.ru/01003340625
It is pretty cool for unit-by-unit organizational history, but it is especially cool for the fabric/color samples pasted into the inside covers. Their condition is quite good, and the digitization by the archivists at the Russian State Library is exemplary.

You can look at the actual "штат" or "state" in force for a given time – the Artillery Department was really good at keeping these accurate/updated/filed/archived.
For the states for land forces during the reign of Pavel I, they are online here link
For the reign of Empress Catherine, go here link
This will give you the "state" in force in the prior period – "states" stayed applicable until replaced.
Be careful of the notes following the tables, as these will reference amendments made after a "state" was decreed.
If you go to the lists of things allowed for purchase, you can see every button, piece of cloth, accessory, etc.

Many thanks Seroga.

The Ulyanov pdf will be very handy (I have OCR and translation software). It doesn't appear to show artillery for the period, but I will be researching other components of the Russian army shortly, so the more the merrier. :)

I'm currently wading through the various anomalies re the artillery uniform. It's quite a challenge.

Thanks again.

Just a few comments on the French howitzers, along with a question or two:

'The Gribeauval Howitzer was obsolete by the end of the Revolutionary Wars. It had been replaced by the excellent AnXI 24-pdr howitzer which almost twice as long in calibres.'

Please define 'artillery obsolescence' in 1800.

The 5.5-inch/24-pounder howitzer was an excellent field piece and much better than the older 6-inch howitzer. Apparently, there was also a new 6-inch howitzer developed during the period and was employed by the Imperial Guard artillery.

‘The elevation was nowhere near 45 degrees.'

Source?

‘The elevations are not more than 20 degree.'

Source?

French firing tables list 45 degrees as the maximum elevation for howitzers.

‘To get richochet you need to fire at no more than 3 degrees otherwise depending upon the ground, it just plugs.'

Source?

French firing tables have ricochet firing at 6, 10, and 15 degress of elevation.

‘Also consider the French inability to fire over Hougoumont at the ridge and setting the Chateau alite as a result.'

The French were not attempting to fire at/behind the ridge, they were firing at Hougoumont which was Napoleon's intent. Even though howitzers could fire over a target or into a target, the target itself still had to be seen to get effective fire on it. The howitzer, as were all period artillery pieces, was a direct fire weapon. Indirect fire had not yet been developed.

Definitions: direct fire is at a target seen from the gunline. Indirect fire is shooting at a target not being seen from the gunline.

‘I know of a few howitzers gathered together but never more than a dozen even in sieges.'

You can check Swords Around A Throne for starters, as the French massed their howitzers at both Borodino and Waterloo.

‘A good place to start is Adye (1813) that has a table of ranges and elevations taken from Muller (1811). The elevations are not more than 20 degree.'

Do you have copies of the French firing tables?

‘This 80 howitzers collected together has often been quoted but I have not seen it anywhere else. That is howitzers from 40 batteries.'

As the French fielded over 500 field pieces at Borodino, it is entirely possible.

‘The AnXI carriage was much longer than the Gribeauval carriage. I had not consider the gun tube to carriage ratio.'

What are the comparative lengths, then? The Gribeauval howitzer carriage was a little over eight feet in length.

‘It should be remembered that the French AnXI 24-pdr howitzers had a iron axle. The Gribeauval 6-pouce did not.'

What the Gribeauval 6-inch howitzer did have was an 'ironed axel' which was wooden encased in iron. That is in the French artillery manuals under construction of the howitzer carriage.

I have found no reference to 'gauntlets' for howitzer and mortar crews. What I did find was a reference for 'half-sleeves' for mortar crews. Is that what you're referring to?

The main use of the ladle during the 1792-1815 period was to scrape residue from inside the gun tube.

Sincerely,
K

Dear K,

"French firing tables list 45 degrees as the maximum elevation for howitzers."

I have not seen this for the later French An XI obusier de 5-pouce 7½-ligne ("24-livre"). It is this later piece which was typical in French artillery companies at Borodino.

Can you please provide any contemproary indication (a table, a memoir, a test, anything) showing an elevation for the French An XI 5-pouce 7½-ligne ("24-livre") howitzer more than the 29 degrees for Russian unicorns?

I think this is a fair question to put to you, since you have described a supposed "signifigant disadvantage" for the Russians in the area of elevation. The problem is, I can't see any information at all showing that the later French howitzer (An XI, not the earlier Gribeauval) actually elevated more than the Russian unicorns.

Surely, you must have such information, or how could you posssibly allude to a supposed "signifigant disadvantage" due to a difference in elevation. It would be so much appreciated if you shared this information with us.

==============================

Dr Summerfield : "I know of a few howitzers gathered together but never more than a dozen even in sieges."
K: "You can check Swords Around A Throne for starters, as the French massed their howitzers at both Borodino and Waterloo"

I take it from you response that "12" is less than "massed" in your estimation.

I linked the article in the "Revue d'Artillerie" describing French batteries of 8 and 16 howitzers at Borodino. Colonel Elting in "Swords …." writes only that "at Borodino [Napoléon] formed two batteries to shell major Russian entrenchments and held the Guard's howitzers ready to support them." This is perfectly consistent with the article that I linked.
Would you consider 16 howitzers an example where they have been "massed", but "12" not to amount to "massing"?
Or, perhaps more likely, you have more specific information about where many more howitzers were indeed massed. Can you please provide us with this information and its source(s)?

==============================

According to the de Morla Tables, the flasques ("brackets" in English, yes ?) of the carriage for the An XI obusier were 22 cm longer than for the Gribeauval obusier.

G'Day everyone,

Seroga…it is good to see you on this thread as well…

If I may add my two cents worth…in French military terminology when two batteries are formed together, or any amount of howitzers are combined together it is called a "masse"…

Therefore technically speaking when three howitzers are brought together, it is considered a masse…such as when gathered on the ligne d'approache.

Very Respectfully
Art

Dear Mr. Pendragon,

I could not agree more. I would call 3 or 4 such grouped howitzers "massed" in English (I think, ….. it is so much easier to not translate and leave it a "masse", or "obusiers massées" or similar).

My comment was only that our colleague "K" seemed to think 12 such pieces was well under the number actually grouped at Borodino. And of this, as noted, I found mention only groups of 8 and 16 – much the same as "12".

So, I had hoped he would share with us the basis for his response to Dr. Summerfield.

P.S. – "flasques" are "brackets" in English, right? They are станины in Russian, which would be like "frames" in English. But I think it is "brackets".

The American artillerist Companion (Luis Tusard 1809 link p235, 240 suggests that richocette fire be done at angles certainly less than 10 degrees. I have seen elsewhere (it escapes me at the moment), that 3 degrees was the preferred angle for bouncing shot without it either getting buried or bouncing over head high for most of its path.

I think the viewpoints expressed above are that the method to hit the French in a ravine involved elevating the barrell and shooting high into the air, so as to come down as vertical as possible.

I think that the ricochet firing method is what should have been and/or was used. Rather than diging in the tailpice and shooting up into the air, the method would be to use a very small powder change and flater elevation fo the barrell. The objective is to "roll" the cannonball or shell into the ravine, or over a fortress wall. The idea is to just graze the lip of the obstruction and have the ball bounce into the enemy. (This method is well documented as the way to wear down fortified areas- with enfalade- even better). Here is a physical fact, which explains why this method worked. (For most people it is counter-intuative, so bear with me). Gravity accelerates the ball downward (allowing it to get behind obstructions). IT is a continuous acceleration and the downward speed of the cannonball depends only upon how long the gravational force has been acting on it. "g" is 32 feet/sec*sec. After one second of flight, the cannonball is traveling at a downwards velocity of 32 feet/second. After 2 seconds of flight, the cannonball is traveling downward at a friggin 128 feet per second. So if you shoot with a low powder charge & low muzzle velocity, adjust your elevation so that your first graze (e.g. where the cannnonball first hits the ground), then it will sink down into a ravine to a large extent and you will damange the target. Some period artillery manuals even mention trying to hit the target with the second graze, which would further increase the time to target and downward motion of the cannonball.

I believe this is the method, (rather than a mortor shot) that should have been used to attack the French in the ravine. If the Russian artillerymen were just using full charges, then their shots would have largely passed overhead with no damage.

@1968billsfan

I generally agree with you.

I only described how to do it with the unicorns' 29 degrees of elevation because the inability to elevate to 45 degrees was held by another colleague to be a "significant disadvantage".

The whole comment of our colleague seemed off to me : the difference between 29 and 45 was unimportant, such high elevations were rarely (if ever) used in combat, using such high elevations requires using a non-standard charge to avoid over-shooting, and we have not seen any indication that the later French An XI howitzers could even manage the 45 degree elevation.

Actually, the target at Borodino was even easier than you describe. The Russian shell rounds had a 20 foot "blast radius". The ravine was not even deep to the height of a man. Get a fuze cut correctly, and you don't need to even get the round "into" the ravine – the bast will still reach to the ground inside the ravine. I am not surprised if a failure to take out such a target was deemed worth remembering – the ravine should not have been any problem for the Russian gunners.

I am really at pains to see any way this could possibly indicate a "signficant disadvantage" with the design of the Russian equipment.

…..and how much of the even 29 degree elevation was built into a howitzer or unicorn to handle situations where the gun was on level ground but firing up a slope at a target at higher elevation?

Dear All
Adye (1813 rp 2010) 304 where 1 pace = 30 inches = 76.2cm.

Gribeauval 6.4in howitzer
Degrees, FirstGraze, Extreme Range
1 degree , 200 paces, 1200 paces
5 degrees, 950 paces, 1700 paces
10 degrees,1500 paces, 1750 paces
30 degrees, 1850 paces, 1870 paces

This clearely shows that richochet fire over 5 degrees was of little use. Also the elevation to 30 degrees would give the maximum range but no bounce.

Stephen

‘To get richochet you need to fire at no more than 3 degrees otherwise depending upon the ground, it just plugs.'

So now that you've taken a look at Adye you agree that your first statement was incorrect?

And if you take a look at French firing tables, which differ from Adye somewhat, you'll see that effective ricochet fire can be done at 6, 10, and 15 degrees.

Sincerely,
K

Dear Kevin
I do not see the French tables so cannot comment. The statement upon 3 degrees comes from richochet fire for sieges and was not specific for howitzers. So I concede that above table shows that it was possible to 5 degrees.

Stephen

No, it was possible by the Adye table for at least 10 degrees.

I thought you had access to French artillery manuals?

Sincerely,
K

‘It had been replaced by the excellent AnXI 24-pdr howitzer which almost twice as long in calibres. The elevation was nowhere near 45 degrees.'

Measuring by caliber had generally been abandoned by the French with the advent of Gribeauval and his system in the mid-to-late 1760s (see Ken Alder, Engineering the Revolution). Measurement was done in inches (French) which is much more accurate. It can be seen in the French artillery manuals of the period.

Stating it in this manner can misrepresent the actual lengths of the howitzer and paints an inaccurate picture of the relative lengths of the two pieces.

Actual measurement of the two howitzers (6-inch and 5.5-inch or 24-pounder) shows that the two pieces were not much different in length. The 6-inch howitzer was 95 cm long, and the 5.5-inch or 24-pounder was either 101 or 120 cm in length (pages 72 and 62, respectively). These measurements can be found in Napoleonic Artillery, pages 65, by Dawson, Dawson, and Summerfeld.

Sincerely,
K

‘The AnXI carriage was much longer than the Gribeauval carriage.'

No, it was not (or define what is meant by ‘much'). Again, according to Napoleonic Artillery by Dawson, Dawson, and Summerfield the length of the Gribeauval gun carriage for the 6-inch howitzer was approximately 290 cm (page 65), and for the AN XI howitzer carriage 320 cm (page 73), a difference of only 30 cm-about 11%.

Sincerely,
K

‘I have not seen this for the later French An XI obusier de 5-pouce 7½-ligne ("24-livre"). It is this later piece which was typical in French artillery companies at Borodino. Can you please provide any contemproary indication (a table, a memoir, a test, anything) showing an elevation for the French An XI 5-pouce 7½-ligne ("24-livre") howitzer more than the 29 degrees for Russian unicorns?'

I haven't either. The quoted section citing both Ermelov and Zhirkevich:

‘At the same time, Russian artillery had a significant disadvantage: the unicorn was not well-adapted to plunging fire, because its barrel could not be elevated at such a high angle as the barrel of the howitzer, and Russian artillerymen were not well-trained in plunging fire. Ermelov wrote that, at Borodino, the enemy placed eighty howitzers into the ravines of the Kolotcha River and Semenovskii Brook, so that only the heads of the enemy artillerists were seen, and Russian artillery was unable to silence or dislodge them. The maximum range of French howitzers was longer than that of the Russian unicorns. IS Zhirkevich, an officer in the 2d Guard Light Artillery company, writes that, at Bautzen, French howitzers fired at his battery at such a range that he was unable to reply to them.' Zhmodikov and Zhmodikov, Tactics of the Russian Army in the Napoleonic Wars, Volume 2, page 74.

Sincerely,
K

‘I think this is a fair question to put to you, since you have described a supposed "signifigant disadvantage" for the Russians in the area of elevation. The problem is, I can't see any information at all showing that the later French howitzer (An XI, not the earlier Gribeauval) actually elevated more than the Russian unicorns.'

‘Surely, you must have such information, or how could you posssibly allude to a supposed "signifigant disadvantage" due to a difference in elevation. It would be so much appreciated if you shared this information with us.'

The term ‘significant disadvantage is in the quotation. That tends to support the idea that the Russian unicorn could not be elevated enough to fire back at the emplaced French howitzers in the ravines. And, that the French were emplaced in the ravines is an indicator that they could elevate the piece at a higher elevation that could be achieved by the Russian unicorns.

I do agree with the term, significant disadvantage', however, as in this situation the French could hit the Russians who could not hit the French. That in itself is quite ‘significant.'

Sincerely,
K

‘I take it from you response that "12" is less than "massed" in your estimation.'

I don't believe that I said that or intimated it either.

The original issue appeared to be that the French could not have massed 80 howitzers at Borodino because that would take 40 artillery companies to furnish that many. As the French had 587 pieces on the field, that point is moot.
Whether or not the French actually had 80 howitzers in the ravines is a function of the accuracy of the Russian estimation, not a function of the definition of ‘massed.'

Sincerely,
K

‘My comment was only that our colleague "K" seemed to think 12 such pieces was well under the number actually grouped at Borodino. And of this, as noted, I found mention only groups of 8 and 16 – much the same as "12".'

From the subject quotation, the number of howitzers cited by the Russians was '80.'

Massing usually consists of two or more artillery batteries, or, for the French, two or more companies. I don't consider three or four field pieces massing artillery. I would consider 8, or 12, or 18 massing howitzers and didn't say that it wasn't in my posting.

Sincerely,
K

'…the flasques ("brackets" in English, yes ?)…'

They are properly in English called 'cheeks.' Brackets is a term that is also used.

Sincerely,
K

"the Russian estimation" "cited by the Russians was '80.'"

Actually, you provided this from an English-language book. The book was written by two Russians, but I don't know if they did the translation. In any case, we know how the number was sourced :

-- A 85 year old general told something orally in Russian about 45 years after the battle to General Ratch.
-- General Ratch wrote a set of notes for oral lectures in Russian at that time.
-- Someone transcribed the lectures in Russian and published the lectures
-- Our modern Russian authors read this published version and then re-used it in a modern English-language book which you have seen.

Since both "80 pieces" and even more "8 howitzers" agree well with other sources, such as the French reports previously linked, I think we can be quite sure that the "80 howitzers" was a typo or similar mistake.

I can assure you that "the Russians", taken as a group, do not hold this "80 howitzers" in thier minds. Indeed, most Russians would be unable to say who fought and won a war in 1812-1814.

Please do not take one work published in English, which you can read, and make the leap of faith that since its authors are Russian citizens, this book must somehow represent what "the Russians' think.

============================

"cheeks" !!

I knew that I was not getting the English perfectly with "brackets" and was quite sure that "frame(s)' was well off the mark.
Thank you so much!

============================

"'significant disadvantage', however, as in this situation the French could hit the Russians who could not hit the French."

How do you relate this to the equipment? Where does the inability to hit the French come to be attributed to the equipment?

Will you say it is implied by the modern English-language source that you can read? But is there not something more you need to draw a general conclusion about the design of the Russian equipment, than a implication drawn from one part of one sentence in a book which is conveniently accessable to you?

If someone (not me!) drew a similar general conclusion about an suppoed inferiority of French artillery equipment, standing upon such a slim platform of evidence, would you accept it?

'Please do not take one work published in English, which you can read, and make the leap of faith that since its authors are Russian citizens, this book must somehow represent what "the Russians' think.'

Ermelov was quoted in the work. He is a primary Russian source.

And if it is a typo, and 80 is actually 8, that doesn't change the fact that the French howitzers were in a ravine that couldn't be hit by Russian unicorns.

That is the issue.

Sincerely,
K

"Ermelov was quoted in the work"

No one was quoted."Ermelov wrote" no such thing. It was an oral interview shortly before General Ermelov's death.

Actually, it was Ratch speaking in Russian who was transcribed and later paraphrased in the modern English-language work.

Does that difference between "Ermelov wrote" and what really happened (interview with the aged source-->lecture -->transcribed-->published-->paraphrased-->translated) not strike you as a useful difference?

Am I being pedantic, or are you being careless and cherry-picking things you want to beleive due to bias?
Or both?
:-)