"Which way should the cassions of an artillery battery face?" Topic

Which way should the cassions etc of a deployed artillery battery face?

I always thought the cassions etc of a deployed artillery battery faced to the rear, but this picture shows the cassions etc facing forward.

I believe it is easier to move forward and turn to limber up than to back up to the guns to limber, so they pointed forward, same direction as the deployed guns. I believe that was ACW practice at any rate. Rob.

They ALWAYS faced the limbers and cassions forwards. Limbers pulled the guns and the cassions carried the extra ammo. Limbers had only one chest and was directly behind the gun and cassions had two chests and a spare wheel just as shown.

That looks like a staged photo to me – the guns seem too close together and the teams too close to the guns.

I understand that horses walk backwards with difficulty. The drill for limbering required the team and limber pull just ahead of the gun. Then the gun-crew would swing the cannon's carriage around to attach the gun-trail to the limber. This procedure required space between the guns when they were "in battery."
Of course protection from sparks was another reason for the spacing.

So to limber-up the guns the limbers were driven forward, through the gun line, turned around, driven back through the gun line, and the guns were then limbered up?

That must have been a site to see! It must have looked like organized chaos in front of the gun line when the limbers turned around and the battery limbered up.

Where would 4 to 6 limbers made up of 4 or 6 horses each find the room to turn around!?!

Anyone have video (either hollywood or re-enactors) performing this?

How long did it take an experienced battery to limber-up in an orderly fashion under fire?

At what distance from advancing enemy infantry (or cav for that matter!) would a battery commander have to decide he was going to hold his position and attempt to drive the advancing enemy off or pull out?

Any links to artillery regulations would be much appreciated.

The limber was driven forward, the trail of the cannon was turned around and the gun limbered up, then the limber and cannon would go off in whatever direction they wanted to go. Obviously, in some cases terrain would make this impossible to do, so I imagine the guns were simply manhandled into an appropriate position or the limber simply tuned around at the rear of the cannon.

How many times have you read about a battery getting in trouble and all their horses were killed before they could limber up and move away? Now you know, at least in part, why the horse casualties were so high. Most of the time, depending on terrain, they had to move in front of the gun line to limber the battery. This exposed them even more and produced higher casualties.

Although a staged image, the positions for this battery are correct. There was approximately 12 yards between each gun, depending upon the terrain, so that the limbers could gallop forward, hook up the gun, and then they could all advance, or wheel around in order to retire.

TK – I doubt very much if those guns are anything like 12yds apart, 5 or 6yds more likely with only about 3yds space. I can't see this being a picture of a battery in its true positions, far more likely staged for the photograph.

I think it's somewhere in between both of you…looks to be about 8 yds between cannons…so needs another 4 yrds or so.

As an ACW reenactor, when a 6 horse team is limbered to a caisson and towing a full-sized, 12 pound Napoleon is coming at you at a high rate of speed, you tend to get out of the way quickly. It makes a distictive sound and quite a racket as it is going by. It is quite impressive to see (and feel) a complete team like that as it rumbles past.

David G.

Where would 4 to 6 limbers made up of 4 or 6 horses each find the room to turn around!?!

Anyone have video (either hollywood or re-enactors) performing this?

The last 30 secs or so of this video (warning: horrible music!) shows horse artillery limbering up. Looks like they rotate the guns and hitch up rather than try and turn the horse teams. Interesting that they keep the horse teams and limbers well out of the way in a nice shady spot (…although ceremonial duties in a park might bear little resemblance to battlefield action):

YouTube link

Not sure about the spacing, but it would make sense to face them forward so that when the chest is opened to get ammunition an enemy shell burst won't send sparks directly into the chest. Anyway, that's my interpretation. I would also gather that if they could they would get the horses out of the way if possible. Couldn't they detach the chests from the limbers ?

TK – I doubt very much if those guns are anything like 12yds apart, 5 or 6yds more likely with only about 3yds space. I can't see this being a picture

Poor grammar on my part. I wasn't saying that this showed the 12 yard spacing, but that the battery was deployed in a proper manner though a staged scene. Most batteries when deployed had a frontage of around 100 yards. This image simply shows the manner in which the guns, limbers, caissons, etc would deploy.

Peter has the right idea, but here's a better look at the King's Troop in "action".

YouTube link

Although the limbers are retired way too far behind the gun line, this demonstrates the unlimbering/limbering process.

Tim is correct AND the limbers did NOT pass around the guns. The horses were turned to the left and faced about. It states EXACTLY in the drill manual this is how it is done.

As was stated already, in different terrain situations things changed but this was the way you did it.The guns were supposed to be spaced apart at 14 yard intervals. A six gun battery had a frontage of 82 yards. The space between the back of the gun carriage lunette (or the loop for the Prolonge) to the lead horses of the limber was 6 yards. From the back of the limber chest to the lead horses of the caisson was 11 yards. The 6 yards between the gun and the limber was all you needed to turn the limber around. They practiced it so it wasn't unusual doing it.

Don

actionfront.blogspot.com

"Who ever saw a dead cavalryman?"

That King's Troop video does NOT go by ACW regulations. The limber team unlimbered by turning around just as I described for the limbering process. The limbers did NOT pass in front of the line to unlimber and then sweep around and re-set themselves. The Instruction for Field Artillery manual written in 1861 even has diagrams showing this.

Don

I see no reason why the linbers WOULD pass in front of the line. Why would they? If they did, the gun would have to be turned around!
Pull up and turn behind the gun, while the gun is manhandled into place. Hook up and go.

I always thought the cassions etc of a deployed artillery battery faced to the rear, but this picture shows the cassions etc facing forward.

So thats why those Johnny Rebs lost the war!

I redfall reading, perhaps in Gibbon's "The Artillerist's Manual" this peculiarity about horses…

if they were facing away from the fire, they were unsteady and prone to running away.

But.
If they were facing towards the noise & chaos, they definitely would not run towards it.

Thus with the primary noise makers to their front…they were easier to control.

Here are some ACW reenactors doing it, though in no particular hurry (I suspect they don't get much practice doing it). They pull past the guns which are then turned around.
YouTube link

And here is a WW1 team demo. They do the loop turn behind the gun. They also back the team up.

YouTube link

Those ACW reenactors are doing it wrong but you might be right, they don't practice doing it the regulation way.

In case anyone is interested this website, The Gettysburg Daily, has an entire program about the artillery. The link below describes limbers and cassions.

gettysburgdaily.com/?p=5457

Flicking's ACW link is based on the Field Artillery Manual 1864 – "Instructions for Field Artillery" prepared by the Board of Artillery Officers.

The Confederates had a number of manuals, using the same drill, unfortunately someone walked off with my copy some years ago.

Oh Boys! Many, many facets to this one.

All those wishing for brain damage should acquire a copy of the 1864 US Field Artillery Tactics and lock themselves away for while.

Let me start by saying in answer to the original question as far as this book is concerned, no matter how they get there, all horses will be facing the gun line.

How they get there depends on the starting formation and if (for whatever reason) the caissons are in front at that point, or the guns are.

Do not assume that the guns are always in front when moving. Sometimes you need to change direction and there's no room to turn the whole thing round, so you turn each team individually and Hey Presto! The caissons are in the front! You then need a set of drill to cover this.

As always, you have to remember that these books were written on practical experience – bits may seem mad to us but there were real reasons for them, generally to get you out of, or avoid, a sticky situation.

Limbering and Unlimbering – more than one way, depending which direction you want to go/shoot afterwards.

As an example – Limbering to the front (Item 115) the gun is manually turned round, the team moves from behind to in front of the piece, the gunners roll it forward and hook up.

Limbering to the rear, the team drives round the piece until its behind the piece facing away and the gunners roll it backwards and hook up.

So more than one way of doing things, a number of different drills and permutations to try and cover as many situations and circumstances as possible, so you don't screw up in action. Just like infantry and cavalry drill.

You can look at a reenactment team or ceremonial unit and question what they do but sometimes they may be doing it buy the book, just not the part of it that's totally appropriate, or what you might expect to see!

Reading the manual is like reading most war game rules: after you have played the game, the rules make sense. My reenactment unit usually "limbers to the rear". Of course most of us act as the horses, some can even whinny quite well.

I did my basic training with the Royal Artillery, before I saw sense and became a Royal Engineer for the remaining 30 years of my army service.

We were using trucks pulling 25 pounders, but had two different drills for "Action Front" and "Action Rear".

Rod

Both forms of limbering up the guns (American WW1 and RHA vids) suggest different procedures for batteries withdrawing after firing, but I wonder if there may be different procedures when moving the guns forward or for withdrawing when the battery is under direct fire?

This links to the 1860 manual:

link

This manual has more detail than you'll probably ever want to know about how to do virtually anything with an ACW battery.

In the area of page 313 and higher there are a series of plates and descriptions showing the limbers and caissons facing forward behind the gun.

Page 119 it specifically details how to limber the gun. BTW, the limber pulls up ahead of the piece, to the right, and the crew turns the gun around. Given the description of how to limber, it makes sense that the limbers and caissons are facinng front.

Here's another link to US artillery manual from 1863. This has additional information on artillery overall, although it doesn't get into the details.

link

raylev,
The 1860 manual also covers limbering to the left, right and rear, not just to the front.

I wonder if there may be different procedures when moving the guns forward or for withdrawing when the battery is under direct fire?

Not as I understand it. The primary question was always which way you wanted to move, in what formation and when this was chosen, who would be in front (assuming you had the time and space to allow a choice).

Where you were moving to also effected these decisions and choice of formation, the proposed battery position would dictate the quickest mode and direction of approach. After that unlimbering was unlimbering.

It might be that you did it forward, to the right or left of your line of approach or even to the rear but the basics were the same, only the detail differed.

Getting out of action had the same considerations as to speed and direction, dictated by the enemy, where they were and the possible lines of retreat.

My understanding is that the French (at least) kept the prolong rope attached to the gun in battery. That would require the limber facing toward the rear.

I recall reading that it was good practice in the Napoleonic Wars for the French to have only one caisson up with the guns, the others under what protection could be found. The 6 guns and 2 howitzers "fed" from this single caisson (the long box with the tent-shaped top). A full caisson was brought forward as the empty one returned to Division (?) reserve to re-supply.

I am not sure about limbers. If the battery was in a fighting retreat, it made sense to have the horses and limber facing away from the enemy, with the rope running to the gun, so the horses could pull the gun rearward as required to a new firing position. When the guns were to advance toward the enemy, I believe it was done by the crew with "bricoles"(forgive me – I have sinned!) unless they were to limber and advance several hundred yards.

GdeP

Just to point out that the 1863 manual was an update of the 1860 one based on experience during the war, which was in turn itself updated in 1864.

A little late period wise but the last (I believe) Horse Artillery troop in the world. youtu.be/SGZUM5wm

French artillery companies were equipped with caissons based on the caliber of the guns the company was equipped with. 4-pounders rated two caissons per piece, 6- and 8-pounders three, 12-pounders and howitzers five. That is a very large number of vehicles to cart around in combat, so only one at any one time would be with what would be called the firing battery.

The others were in the rear with the parcs and would be shuttled forward to replace an empty caisson which would then be rotated back to the parcs to be refilled.
French artillery practice was to resupply forward to the gun companies, which was also the practice of the British and Austrians, and came to be for the Russians, at least by 1812.

So, on the gunline in action there would be one caisson per piece.

Caissons would either be positioned behind the gun line or on the flanks, whichever was better. About fifty yards separated the caissons from the gun line. Limbers and gun teams would stay by the guns ready for use.

When emplacing the coffret with the ready ammunition would be placed on the limber which would be to the rear of the piece. The ready ammunition in the coffret would be used to feed the piece, and would be replaced from the caisson assigned to the piece.

The prolonge would be attached between the trail of the piece and the limber so as to be ready to use when necessary. Subsequent movement on the battlefield would be by either limbering up and moving, moving by prolonge (either to the rear or forward, depending on the situation), or by ‘man team' using the bricole which the gunners would wear in action like a crossbelt.

French practice with ammunition was to have a double issue for every field piece in the army. The gun companies and the division parcs would have 170 rounds per piece. A further 85 rounds per piece would be in the corps parcs and the mobile section of the army parc.

Lastly, the army's forward depot would have a further 250 rounds per piece ready to be moved forward to the parcs. That would give every field piece in the army 590 rounds, of which 340 would be ‘on wheels' or in caissons ready to move forward to replace expenditures.

Every gun company with an infantry division would be assigned a further 4 ammunition caissons with approximately 15,000 infantry cartridges to replace expenditures. It was noted that when the shooting died down at Eylau, Davout's infantry caissons were forward resupplying the infantry with cartridges.

Sincerely,
K

"Every gun company with an infantry division would be assigned a further 4 ammunition caissons with approximately 15,000 infantry cartridges to replace expenditures"

-- 1. Is that 15,000 rounds per caisson, or 15,000 rounds for the group of 4 caissons?
-- 2. Does "every gun company" mean both foot and horse companies?
-- 3. Does this mean that the amount of ammuntion available to an infantry battalion depended on the ratio of artillery companies to infantry battalions in the division? For example, following are the first 22 numbered infantry divisions of 1812. Are you saying that there was less ammunition re-supply per battalion in the 5e division compared to 4e division or the 16e through 20e divisions?

	1er division : 2 light artillery companies (1 horse), 17 battalions
	2e division : 2 light artillery companies (1 horse), 17 battalions
	3e division : 2 light artillery companies (1 horse), 18 battalions
	4e division : 2 light artillery companies (1 horse), 16 battalions
	5e division : 2 light artillery companies (1 horse), 22 battalions
	6e division : 2 light artillery companies (1 horse), 16 battalions
	7e division (polonais) : 2 light artillery companies (1 horse), 16 battalions
	8e division : 2 light artillery companies (1 horse), 16 battalions
	9e division : 2 light artillery companies (1 horse), 16 battalions
	10e division : 2 light artillery companies (1 horse), 16 battalions
	11e division : 2 light artillery companies (1 horse), 18 battalions
	12e division : 2 light artillery companies, 14 battalions
	13e division : 2 light artillery companies (1 horse), 16 battalions
	14e division : 2 light artillery companies (1 horse), 16 battalions
	15e division (italien) : 2 light artillery companies (1 horse), 16 battalions
	16e division (polonais) : 2 light artillery companies, 12 battalions
	17e division (polonais) : 2 light artillery companies, 15 battalions
	18e division (polonais) : 2 light artillery companies, 9 battalions
	19e division (bavarois) : 3 light artillery companies plus a howitzer company, 12 battalions
	20e division (bavarois) : 3 light artillery companies plus a 12-lber company, 15 battalions
	21e division (saxon) : 1 light artillery company, 9 battalions
	22e division (saxon) : 1 light artillery company, 9 battalions

-- 4. In what work and on which page(s) might one find the information you are providing?

Apparently every artillery company in the infantry divisions would be assigned the infantry ammunition caissons.

Each caisson held 15,000 rounds of ammunition.

The caissons when emptied would return to the parcs to be refilled so a continuous supply of ammunition would be available.

You can find the information in Swords Around A Throne by John Elting and in The Anatomy of Glory by Henry Lachouque and Anne Brown (Chapters XII and XXIV in Swords and Appendix D in Lachouque).

All field artillery companies are light artillery.

The regimental trains of the infantry regiments also had one infantry ammunition caisson per battalion. That also has to be entered into the equation. So, for example, if the 1st Division had two artillery companies and 17 infantry battalions, it should have 25 infantry ammunition caissons in the division. At 15,000 rounds apiece, that's a lot of bullets for the crunchies, at least 375,000 rounds. The regimental artillery company was in charge of the regiment's trains, and hence its ammunition.

Sincerely,
K

So strange, that the amount of ammuntion you could expect varied from division to division.

For your example, that's 22,000 rounds per battalion, or (for battalions of 600 men), less than 37 rounds per man, so not so many really.

Russians, for comparison, used 1 caisson of 10,000 rounds organic to each company (67 rounds per man – a refill for the cartridge box), plus 1 large wagon per battalion shuttling from the army supply to re-stock the caissons.

In the French system, the order to re-supply and infantry battalion had to go up to the regimetn, the brigade and then the division, as the artillery company and the infantry shared common command only at this level. I think having your own organic method and vehicles to get ammunition would be of some comfort to Russian infantry battalion commanders.

I have never heard of the French infantry running out of ammunition when needed, but I wonder if they needed to conserve fire from time to time, esepcially as the communicaion with the re-supply points might be under partizan or Cossack interference.

Interesting. Thanks!

Do cassions have turrents?

Some interesting differences being shown in Napoleonic and ACW practice by the later postings on this thread.

I confess I find "cross posting" irritating a lot of the time when it refers to matters of detail (only because of the changes across 60 years of history) but for those who are conversant with period practice they show up the massive difference in artillery ammunition supply (and amount of equipment needed to shift it) between the two wars.

This has been noted on a previous thread but worth showing again.

'In the French system, the order to re-supply and infantry battalion had to go up to the regimetn, the brigade and then the division, as the artillery company and the infantry shared common command only at this level. I think having your own organic method and vehicles to get ammunition would be of some comfort to Russian infantry battalion commanders.'

Why? The infantry regimental commander had his own trains as shown, and they were under the control of the regimental cannon company-a regimental asset. And you're overlooking the way the French ammunition resupply system worked, which has already been explained.

The Russian ammunition resupply system was changed to the French system at least by 1812 after problems with artillery employment in 1805-1807-artillery battery commanders withdrawing when they ran out of ammunition. I don't see the issue of running low on ammunition by the French-unless a study on expenditure is done and for that the archives would have to be consulted.

There is more than one way to run a system so that it is efficient, and no evidence has been offered that the French system of ammunition resupply was inefficient. As a matter of fact it was very efficient and the French never ran out of ammunition, and only came close once, and that was artillery ammunition at Leipzig in 1813 because their trains had been cut off north of Leipzig. I've never read anything about the French either running out of or having to conserve infantry ammunition for any period of time.

Regarding cartridge boxes, are you saying that the Russian infantry cartridge box could hold 67 rounds? The French cartridge box could hold 37 rounds-having one twice as large would be somewhat awkward would it not?

Sincerely,
K

Russian catridge boxes held 60 rounds, same as British. I doubt that this was considered too "awkward" by the troops, who might have enjoyed the extra ammunition on occasion.

I do not know why you you writing about artillery re-supply. I was asking about infantry re-supply. I also noted that the French did not routinely use up their ammuntion and then have none. The question had to do what was the amount available, and could this have an effect on operations.

To review ….

The French infantry battalions carried 37 rounds on each soldier in the cartidge box. They could get re-supply from 1 regimental caisson with 15,000 rounds shared with other battalions of the regiment. Alternatively, they could re-supply from typically 8 artillery caissons shared with all the other battalions of the divison. For a typical division, these two sources might supply supply ~37 rounds/man, i.e. 1 refill of the cartridge box. This ratio of re-supply varied : less in larger regiments/divisions, more in smaller regiments/divisions.

The Russian infantry battalions carried 60 rounds on each soldier in the cartidge box. They could get re-supply from 4 battalion caissons with 40,000 rounds, 1 organic to each company. The battalion further had a large wagon to replenish the caissons from the army supply points. This method supplied ~67 rounds/man, i.e. 1 refill of the cartridge box. Additionally, the Russians also had the craftsmen (2 gunsmiths and 4 metalsmiths per battalion) and tools to make up cartridges locally.

I wonder how the British arranged infantry ammunition re-supply.

As you note, "[t]here is more than one way to run a system". And I am sure that for the French system, "[a]s a matter of fact it was very efficient". I was not trying to say the French were less than great, really "very efficient". I was just trying to see the comparison to other armies.

The ammunition resupply system was run by the artillery and included both artillery and small arms ammunition and the small arms ammunition was carried in modified artillery caissons.

Sincerely,
K