"Suvorov's Piedmontese 2-pdr Mountain Guns" Topic

In 1799 Suvorov used Piedmontese cannons in the Alps against the French. Christopher Duffy in 'Eagles Over The Alps' specifically refers to them as 2-pdr mountain cannons, carried by mules over the difficult mountain terrain. I recently thought that these guns were Piedmontese 3-pdr Quick-Fire Cannons, but after speaking with Christian Rogge about this (especially the transported by mules aspect) we're left thinking that it may have been a different gun and a different carriage altogether.

Does anyone know what these Piedmontese 2-pdr mountain guns actually looked like? Is Duffy correct re calibre and means of transport? Or was it in fact the 3-pdr quick-fire mountain gun, such as the Torino Piedmontese 3-pdr mountain gun scale model (pictured here)?

Cheers

Was it the Jenner gun?
link

Or this one that's capable of being dismantled and reassembled too? (Although it's called a 4-pdr.)
link

(Note: looking at the "Original Size" option under "Actions" "View all sizes" for the 4-pdr gives the best-quality picture.)

Suvarov's guns are usually called "2-pounder" in Russian sources.
Paraphrasing from Russian …
40x 2-lber Piedmontese mountain guns were to be taken from Austria's Italian arsenals and delivered to the Russians at Airolo. Some Piedmontese gunners went also sent to aid in "type conversion training" for the Russian artillerists.
Since only only about 1/3 of the mules promised by the Austrians for transporting both the guns and provisions were delivered, only 25 guns were used. There was a total 5-day delay waiting for the Austrians, and Suvarov went utterly ballistic. The Cossacks were dismounted and packs were made up for their horses to carry provisions. The Russians moved out, not willing to wait any more, short on both guns and food.
link
adjudant.ru/suvorov/reding02.htm

That said, I think they were the Piedmontese 3-pounders.
This should be the Piedmontese 3-pdr, the carriage can be dismounted in three parts and carried, with its tools and equipment, by two mules.

The gun itself (Turin Museum of Artillery)
link
link

There was also a Piedmont 1-pdr mountain gun of 16 calibres length. I do not know of a (nominal) 2-pdr, but perhaps Dr. Summerfield will come in with more information.

Were they the mountain guns nicknamed 'mule's dick?'
There are French references to a mountain gun in service in the Alps called 'vit de mulet' (same meaning) but *of iron*:maybe the nickname was generic in the Alps for small guns?

Dear Seroga
This is a very confused area as to what was used and you may have clarified this.

Not the Piedmont Pound was smaller than the Imperial and Livre de Paris.

4-pdr (Piedmont) = 3.25-pdr (Imperial) = 3-pdr (Livre de Paris).
3-pdr (Piedmont)= 2.43-pdr (Imperial) = 2.25-pdr (Livre de Paris)

Hence we have the confusion of names.

The Piedmont used the 4-pdr Quick Fire Gun as Regimental Artillery. This was taken into service by Austria and France as the "Piedmont 3-pdr Mountain Gun." This was a copy of the Saxon 3-pdr Geschwindstuck. One extent barrel is at HGM in Vienna.

The 3-pdr Mountain Gun [called 2-pdr by the French and Russians] was as shown above of which I have drawn the plans of the French copy. Now from what you write this was also in service with the Austrian Army which I was not aware of.

Now I would need to sit down and do the calculations to determine the calibre of a 2.43lb ball.

We also may have the complication as to using lead shot rather than iron shot then determination of pounder is interesting due to the different density.

The two links are for a 24-pdr and not a 2/3-pdr.

It is wonderful to have confirmation that the Russians used the newer gun rather than the old gun as it was mounted on mules. Alas the only reference that I had was Duffy who upon artillery is vague indeed.

Any more information upon this would be greatly appreciated.
Stephen

Dear Jean
Iron (fer) refers to iron shot. This is often mistaken. Shot and calibres of ordnance was measure as Stone, Iron and Lead weights. Hence you have a 1-pdr (iron) and 2-pdr (lead). &-pdr (stone) and 24-pdr (iron).

Added to this all countries had different weights and measures. An Austrian 6-pdr = 5 1/2-pdr by the French.
Stephen

Seroga

Many thanks. I came across that very 1:17 scale gun model by Mantua yesterday, and wondered if it might be a contender. I must admit though that its appearance put me off, having become so used to the look of the Piedmont Quick-Fire 3-pdr with the wheel brakes.

If we are in agreement that this is the Piedmont 2-pdr (3-pdr) mountain gun used by Suvorov in 1799 in the Alps, I will use it as the basis of the Piedmontese mountain gun for Suvorov's forces in the Wars of the French Revolution range for Eureka Miniatures. Purchasing one of the models may also be extremely useful.

Thanks also to Stephen and andygamer and abdul666lw. :)

A different (older?) packaging lists the piece as "La Valette" Piedmontese Gun XVIII Cent. The text description for the box adds the date: 1760.

Cheers

And if Christian notices this thread, he needs to empty his mailbox so the latest updates can be received. "Hi Christian." ;)

Dear Dr. Summerfield,

The links I gave were the best descriptions that I could quickly find for Suvarov's artillery. They are also called "Sardinian" sometimes in place of "Piedmonese". The Austrians took the guns from arsenals. They needed to get specifically Piedmontese gunners to act as trainers. It is not clear that the guns were in use with the Austrians, and could have been from the forces of Carlo Emanuele IV.

Sorry about the wrong links to the images of the barrel. I should not post when 1/2 asleep!

I did not want to bore everyone with the Russian idea of an artillery pound. But you are correct. For Russians, 2.43 English pounds, for example, would have been "2 фунтов 65 золотников" or a nominal 2-pdr.
The ball round of their nominal 12-pdr actually was supposed to weigh 14 фунтов 29 золотников, if the iron was of the speficied density. The reason for this difference lay in early use of stone rounds, of lower specific density than iron – so that for a given caliber the Russians' nominal rating in pounds was lower than than the actual measured weight of the iron rounds. Similary, their nominal 6-pounder had a ball round specified at 7 фунтов 15 золотников, and so on.

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

Dear Paul,

I think that Sensei Smith on the Napoleon-Series will be better to give more infos. If you will make a bet on him, there is no need to hedge that bet. He has forgotten more about Napoleonic era history, especially artillery, than I will ever know.
:-)

Paul,

Thank you for this information. Mailbox has been emptied.

Cheers,
Christian

And we can ignore Suvorov's 'mountain guns' in this diorama/painting then . . .

:)

Cheers

Seroga

You get around. ;)

Do you know what the gunnery equipment would look like for this cannon? I ask because Eureka will be making Russian crew with authentic Russian equipment (sponge-rammers, worm-scrapers, etc), but may need to make specifically Piedmontese equipment for this mountain gun?

Cheers

As said, I'm no expert on the Revolution Wars period, but if Piedmontese gunners were really used for introducing Russian gunners to operating the "mountain guns", I would believe those guns must have been of the Saxon "Quick-Firer" type. The other example shown here is simply a very common but somewhat modified garisson or standing carriage found in any fortress across Europe. Everyone knew them. I cannot imagine Russians were in need for specialist advise to serve these pieces.

Just my thoughts, for whatever it's worth.

Cheers,
Christian

I have no idea what the equipment and tools would look like, nor even if the Austrians supplied the guns fully-equipped.
Also, Russian artillery companies could make up alot of "stuff" in 5 days' waiting.
From the "shtat" or authorized establishment of 1803, each light foot artillery company would have:
- master gun carriage maker
- master carpenter
- master joiner
- 2 master wheelwrights
- master machinist lathe operator
- 2 master ironsmith repairmen
- 2 apprentice ironsmith repairmen
- blacksmith farrier
- wagon for masters' tools
- 4 wagons for spare parts and materials
- field forge
The prior establishment would have been similar.

Christian,

Maybe. But I think the "new" part of the mountain guns for the Russians (and maybe the Austrians) would be the dis-assembly and especially the mule-loading, and perhaps making up the fuses for shell and incendiary rounds, if such were supplied. I would think these were the reason for calling on Piedmontese gunners.
Also, the Austrians might have trying to placate an increasingly agitated Suvarov.

All,

Was this 5 day delay due to logistics (supply & demand), or to the well known different calendars which were operated on at the time by different nations? Cheers,

Chris

I'm inclined to agree with Seroga here.

From Turin in late May/early June 1799 Chasteler wrote to Vienna that "…if he were given the money to obtain mules he could also mobilise the sixty-one pieces of mountain artillery he had found in the Arsenal." These were the 2-pdrs that Suvorov later used in the Alps. Nothing is said of any quick-fire mechanism, only that they can be mobilised by mules. Note that at this time, the Austrians and Russians were not fighting in the mountains at all, which to me strongly suggests that these were the carriages with tiny solid wheels not designed for conventional transportation.

Kevin Kiley also writes:
"You may also be interested in this, which is in The American Artillerists Companion by Louis de Tousard, The West Point Military Library, Greenwood Press, New York, 1969, which is a reprint of the 1809 edition, two volumes of text. There is also a volume of plates, which I don't have yet.
Mountain artillery is covered in Chapter VI of Volume II. The Piedmontese 3-pounder was used from 1792 on with two types of carriages. One was a small wheeled type, which was the Piedmontese carriage, the other a chevrette, that was a gin-type of carriage. The French considered the Piedmontese wheeled carriage superior to the chevrette.
The French also had a mountain 4-pounder and a mountain howitzer. They used a sledge-type carriage as well as a chevrette. Interestingly, in the weapon accoutrements, there was a folding handspike.
The number of mules needed for the 4-pounder was 13-15. Four (or six) for the gun, the remainder for accoutrements and ammunition. Five carried ammunition, two chests per mule.
There was also a portable forge, which was made entirely of iron, except for the bellows.
The carriage and equipment for the 4-pounder weighed 250 pounds, that for the howitzer 400 pounds. The howitzer also required more mules for its ammunition, as the rounds were larger than that of the 4-pounder. The howitzer was of 6-inch caliber.
The Piedmontese 3-pounder weighed 160 pounds and was one foot shorter than the light 4-pounder.
Sincerely,
Kevin"

So there again is the Piedmontese 2/3-pdr mountain gun on small wheels. I don't think you would distinguish it in this way if it used conventional carriage wheels.

In 'Eagles Over The Alps' by Duffy, nothing is said re any quick-firing of the mountain guns. Only that when deployed against conventional French artillery, they were 'greatly outgunned'.

So I am inclined to agree that the 2-pdrs in question are the 'Piedmontese mountain guns' on the small solid wheels and carriage designed for disassembly and reassembly.

Cheers

Chris,

No, the calendar differed by 11 days in that year. Also, the Russians knew about the problem and tended to date any communication with foreigners with both dates, indicating the different calendars.

It is reported in Russia sources as just "slow Austrians". Suvarov could accuse anyone of being slow, with or without just cause. He had his own idea of "time". So his complaints should be seen in context. Then, after Austerlitz, the Russians' take on the the Austrians was rather shaded to the unfavorable.

Seroga

Would it be possible to communicate with you directly on the subject of Russian artillery? We're striving for authenticity in this period of Tsar Paul I – perhaps this would interest you? If 'yes', could you please send your email address to either me: snowcat9@gmail.com or Nic Robson: nicr@eurekamin.com.au

Thanks for your help with this particular Piedmontese issue. :)

Cheers
Paul

Dear Paul,

I am honored and flattered beyond words by your kind words!

But, I am really a member of the "3rd string" when it comes to knowing this material. I would be glad to help, but not counting lots of Russians, really there are 2 much much much better candidates who I know to have the English language : Dr. Stephen Summerfield who posts here and on Napoleon-Series.org and Mr. Steven H. "Sensei" Smith, who posts only on the latter. I can honestly say that these two are the real "experts", and that I am not.

Again, many many thanks for such wonderful praise to even consider me as being of possible assistance.

Seroga

Consider yourself well and truly invited. :)

Stephen Summerfield is already assisting us (invaluably). I will ask Steve Smith if he knows more on this Piedmontese subject. And we have Christian helping us with the Quick-Fire guns (he will be pleased to know our efforts on this will result in the production of gun and crew in split firing phases for the Saxon gun for the SYW Saxon range). We also have a colleague helping us in Russia (equally invaluable). So please, do not hesitate to send me or Nic your email – the more of us involved on this, the more we can solve!

Cheers
Paul

Dear Seroga
I would not consider you to be third string. The more you delve into artillery and ordnance the more you realise is not certain. You comment upon mule portable and the Russians referred to it as a 2-pdr showed that the Russians were using the Piedmont 2-pdr Chevrette Mountain Gun.

It is a puzzle that I am attempting to put together. Comments and corrections are important. Certainly when I have put my manuscript into order then I would invite comments and corrections.

Stephen

Yes, Seroga, please join us. :)

I suspect the original Piedmont 2-pdr mountain gun did not have trail brackets (unlike the French An XI version which did).

And for 'andygamer' who posted the link to Bertola's 4-pdr that could be dismantled and reassembled, Steve Smith has found this link to photos and text of a scale model: link
You have to scroll right down to the bottom of the article where the photos appear. (Thanks Steve.)

Cheers

Thank you for the article about Bertola's 4-pdr, Snowcat. (And now I know what the alpine terrain should look like for any Piedmontese frontier wargaming I setup.)