"AWI Heavy guns" Topic

So other than the French siege train at Yorktown, and perhaps the useless train of artillery Burgoyne dragged around, can anyone say for sure that any of the heavy guns used (above 12 lbrs) were on two wheels versus the four wheeled naval carriages?

I am assuming that most (if not all) fort guns above that weight were on naval carriages.

Any evidence to the contrary would be welcome.

The only other example I can think of are the guns Knox took from Ticonderoga and Crown Point to end the siege of Boston. No idea which sort of carriages they would have been mounted on, though. Given they were taken overland in the depth of winter, possibly he only took the tubes and mounted them on sledges for transportation purposes only, and there were carriages waiting for them at Boston?

I agree with SM – It appears that Knox brought guns from 4lbs to 24 lbs from Ticonderoga alone that went to Dorchester Heights and other locations around Boston.

Later in 1778 Knox still included 12, 18 and 24 lbs in the Artillery train or in the queue for casting in Springfield.

My assumption is that at least a few of these would have had a 4 wheel carriage and include 2 in my forces – though just for use in the North.

Galvez had deployed six 24 pdr cannon for the siege of Pensacola by March 15, 1781 according to his letters sent to Calbo.

WHat about the 24 lbers. dug up in the jailyard in Concord?

My curiousity is the carriage type 24 lbs were on – field or naval carraige?

For Galvez, I would assume naval mounts. His diary is interesting, but lacks, unfortunately, some details. I don't see where he mentions the mounts, but as he had operational control of the navy, in theory, at Pensacola, they would have used the mounts they were already on, ship's carriges.

My two shillings.

Eric

These are from my notes on my book "the Spanish Army in the American Revolution. They were complied from "the Siege of Pensacola, 1781 by the Cokers.

The Third Division was the Corps of artillery. It states that it consisted of 80 Spanish Seamen; 108 French Seamen, 74 French 'land' forces and 209 Spanish 'land' forces.

There was no notes of cannon taken from active ships to serve on land. It does go into detail where the deployed seamen were from. San Luis11; San Nicolas 9; Guerrero 14, other combined ships 46 plus 4 Staff.

The French had 7 ships with 348 cannon.
The Spanish fleet was fluid. A large number of ships sailed into and out of the area going to Havanna, new Orleans or Mobile. One daily count, early in the siege had 33 armed ships and 7 more unarmed. the number of cannon ranged from 70 gun ships to a 1 gun frigate used as a transport (Corazonde jesus). One interesting group of ships were 11 galleys armed with small cannon 2-8 guns each.

On May 7th Galvez commented that his land battery of 24 pdrs only had a two day supply of ammunition left. If the guns had just been taken from ships in the harbor, why would there have been a shortage of rounds?

I'm wondering about some of the Hudson highland forts and the guns there, or the guns in the lines of NYC in 1776.

Historygamer;
I really don't know. I'll have to take a look and see if I can find anything relevant to the Hudson forts.

If I find anything, I'll let you know.

Eric

There were a lot of attacks on forts and works throughout the war, and it begs the question – what were the guns on both sides mounted on.

IIRC, the French brought a formal siege train to Yorktown, and I know Burgyone was dragging around a lot of guns as well – but what was everyone else using?

IIRC, Cornwallis' guns at Yorktown mainly came from the captive fleet, and most of the guns were manned by RN types put ashore.

Soooo, about Charleston? Savanah? The rebel lines at NYC? Others?

What sparked this was looking at the BG scenario book and shooting for (pun intended) doing the Brooklyn battle. Big guns in the works, but did they look like?

historygamer,
there's an option you haven't mentioned, which is the garrison or fortress carriage. I would imagine that many of the pieces in formal works such as Ticonderoga would have been mounted on these. Hence Knox dismounted the barrels and put them on sledges…
Of those pieces heavier than 12 pdr that were actually fired in anger, I think most would have been mounted on the two wheel type field carriages. The sketch of the Welch Fusilier with the heavy gun (24 pounder I think) in Boston from the battery that fired over towards Bunker Hill shows a two wheel carriage, Burgoyne's 'light' 24s on the Saratoga campaign were similarly mounted, and the 18 pounder battery used on Sullivan's lines on Rhode Island ditto.
You have to reckon on the naval carriage essentially being useless more than a few hundred feet from where the gun would have been unloaded. They also needed planking or hard standing for firing. Therefore in a situation like Knox's, bringing the Ticonderoga gun tubes to Boston, there would have been a strong preference for a field carriage type mount, in order to make them re-deployable.
I sense this may not be the answer you wanted, and that you may well just go and field those naval gun models for the hellof it ;-) !
EC

Honestly, I am curious, thus why I asked. I have both types, so no worries, and I'd like to get it right.

So given your answer, what were the differences in garrision carriage vs naval carriages? I am aware of several instances were guns were taken off of ships to supply an impromtu siege train, thus why I asked.

I was just teasing bud :-) !
I wonder how many cases we really have of naval guns being taken off ships to position in field works ? I think you may be right on Savannah, but the French 24 pounders at Yorktown were part of a siege train brought for such purposes. As I recall the Brits answered them with 12 pounders generally, and were badly out gunned – see for example the accounts of how they were overwhelmed by French fire in the Fusiliers' Redoubt. I would need to do more research on what were the heavier British pieces at Yorktown and where they came from.
The garrison cariages were sometimes made of iron and sometimes wooden. There are different patterns. Some look very similar to naval carriages. The more elaborate designs placed the guns on platforms with rear wheels that were at right angles to the front ones, allowing for easier panning of the guns in their embrasures. They are also usually made to allow greater depression than possible with field carriages.
EC

During the War of 1812, The Americans (Georgia) took artillery on naval carriages into the wilderness during campaigns against the Upper Creek tribes. In route these were carried on wagons and unloaded as needed.
So I do not see why the same could not be done in the AMRev.

EC:

No worries. ;-)

I exempted Yorktown from the discuss at the beginning cause… I knew all that. :-)

I was wondering about your scenarios for NYC and the Hudson Highland forts. It got me to thinking (dangerous that) about what kind of guns were being used by both sides.

I just read Ewald's journal regarding Charleston, and according to him, the British guns were having minimal impact on the American works. Clinton ordered a cease fire for hot shot, as burning down the town was not his intention (hearts and minds).

I also exempted Burgoyn's train, as I am guessing he was dragging around a formal siege train – apparently just for the heck of it.

Lots of battles revolved around works and forts. Fort Mifflin comes to mind, both inside and against. Just pulling a thread that may not have an easy answer.

IIRC, didn't Braddock's siege train end up at Fort Niagara? I think some of it was used against Oswego in '56 and Fort William Henry in '57. Nice of him to bring it for the French. But, I digress. :-)

hg,
I did some looking into the British Yorktown set up yesterday. Their heaviest pieces were 18 pounders in the great horn work, and apparently they were taken from ships.
Rudy – interesting and I don't doubt you're right. But I wonder what size those pieces were ? Have you seen a 24 or even 32 pounder naval gun up close ? The idea of manhandling such a thing into a wagon, with 18th Century technology seems daunting. I know though that under certain circs, naval parties did put ships' guns into works: they were lifted off by crane and then dragged into place using ropes, wooden plank ways and often capstans to 'wind them' up slopes.
hg – I think the ones put into forts during the mid-18th Century such as Ticonderoga or the Hudson forts – are those most likely to have been on garrison carriages. Even so, these fortresses were often regarded as storehouses for ordnance, having many more pieces than their walls required and it would have been prudent to keep some or many on field carriages for deployment elsewhere,
EC

The guns currently on display at Fort Ticonderoga are on what appear to be naval carriages, but I suspect that in the 18th Century – and certainly that far from a major arsenal – there would be little difference between those and the more common styles of carriage used in forts.

As luck would have it, there is a talk planned at the Fort on Knox's "Noble Train of Artillery" (although it's not until December).

link

The accompanying image suggests that the barrels were loaded onto wagons. In the case of very heavy pieces, this would actually be the more normal method of transportation on long journeys and would only be mounted on a field carriage once contact with the enemy was aniticpated (even smaller calibres might have a separate "travelling trunnion" – eg the Gribeauval 12-pdr) to prevent excessive strain on the carriages.

Eclaireur is right that major garrisons could have more pieces than needed to defend the walls, especially if (as in North America) they might be required to "kit out" a field formation using the fort as a staging post, with smaller calibre pieces. For example, all of the 3-, 4- and 6-pdr guns used by Pausch's Hesse Hanau company in Burgoyne's army, were issued, along with new carriages, from the Quebec arsenal.

EC:

I am skeptical that such big guns were on two wheeled carriages, because that raises the questions – where did they come from and who made them?

Americans had little artillery manufacturing capability of their own, especially for heavy guns. It took months for Maryland to produce 12lbs for its one ship – The Defense. The guns came from a forge in Antietam.

Naval guns, I think, were a lot more readily available early on in ports. NYC had a batter – which I think the rebels stole right out from under the British guards.

To me, the garrison carriage is more of a 19th century thing. There were few forts in N. America (the colonies anyway) that mounted heavy guns. The largest fort – Fort Pitt – all the guns had to be dragged over the mountains, then I guess back when the fort was decomissioned. I suspect it held the remanants of Forbe's train of artillery. Fort Ti had guns left over from the French, and British in '58 and '59. Niagara too. I suspect many of Quebec's guns were as old.

I am also not sure how long a carriage lasts either – naval or field. Rebuild would be needed at some point, as wood rots and wheels break.

Cornwallis did not have a siege train. All his heavy guns came from the ships, many of which were sunk. He was outgunned by the French siege train – which really determined the land portion of the battle. But – I have repeatedly tried to discount the Cornwallis/Burgoyne trains. So quit bringing them up. :-)

I'm more concerned about the guns in your scenario books for the NY battles. This may be a question for the Revlist. :-)

Any wheelright or wagon maker and blacksmith could put together a carriage for an artillery piece. The hard part is the tube.

SM: According to Pausch's letters, all his Hessian guns were left in Canada. His company used British 6pounders on the campaign.

When he got exchanged and returned to canada, he had an artillery 'brigade' of two English six pounders manned by Hessians from the Alt-Lossberg regiment, 4 Hesse-Hanau 3 pounders, manned by his company, and 2 'light' 3 pounders manned by men from the Anhalt-Zerbst contingent.

hg,
now I've started doing some proper research on the issue of what was in the Brooklyn lines it's begging more questions than it answers !
Roberts "New Yorks Forts in the Revolution" is excellent on the works themselves but doesn't give much away on the artillery. He does however say that Ft Stirling, one of those ones in the Brooklyn chain, had four 32 pdrs and two 18 pdrs.
I would imagine that the 32s were naval guns, unless they dated back to the early 18th Century. Other forts in the lines appear to have had 24s, 18s, 12s and even 6s.
Where did these guns come from ? And even more interestingly to me, did Washington really manage to evacuate all this heavy ordnance with the remainder of his troops and stores after the battle of Long Island ? I imagine the Brooklyn quays had cranes capable of managing heavy freight but it still seems pretty remarkable.
EC

Oh good, I've peeked your interest. :-) Yes, those were the kinds of questions keeping me up at night. The 32lbs is a huge gun. Kind of hard to load I would imagine. The others seem right for ship of the line guns – but…. did they really come from there? I am not aware of any great gun making ability here in the colonies. Yes, they had some, but could they cast the big guns? How big were the ones that disappeared from NY? I forget what book I read that in now. :-( Had to be hard to steal guns on naval carriages. I don't think there were many garrison carriages in N. American.

Just for fun, I am going to look up the artillery in Fort Pitt.

HG – There were several foundries in the Colonies that made smaller calibre field pieces, and re-boring of old French barrels was also done. However, I've not come across any place making bigger pieces. Quite possibly the amount of metal involved was considered better used to make more of the much more useful – and manageable – smaller stuff.

SM and HG, well funnily enough I was looking into this business of casting in America. Some 18 pounders were made in Pennsylvania, copies of a mid-18th Century British design, and intended for fortress rather than field use – but mounted on field-type carriages,
EC

Interesting.

I know there was a forge in Antietam (MD) that made naval guns for the state. I think they were 9s or 12s. Have to check.

Those 32lbs are a head scratcher.

hg,
bumping this up, because I've done some more research on this question. As you intended, your query picqued my interest ! The main headlines are these…

- whereas before we were considering fortresses such as Ticonderoga as the main sources of heavy ordnance for the revolution they were not, or rather it was the defence batteries of America's great ports that were, as the committees or militias seized weapons across the country in 1775. In Manhattan for example: there was Ft George with four 12 pdr and four 32 pdr; Grand Battery with fourteen 32 pdrs as well as many mortars; Whitehall Battery with two 32 pdrs; and Oyster Battery with two 32 pdrs and three 12 pdrs (source Roberts).
- the origin of these weapons was diverse. The heavy guns in Charlestown SC's defences (32pdrs, or by some accounts 36pdrs) had been taken from a French prize of 1758, the Foudroyant. Some others had come from Royal Navy ships condemned for further service.
- these coastal defences yielded far more guns than Knox's Noble Train. But as with so many aspects of the revolution, why spoil a good legend ?
- The losses of materiel in Fts Lee and Washington in 1776 included about 150 artillery pieces, including apparently most of those guns brought down from Ticonderoga by Knox.
- naval carriages were not suitable for land service. Just reading David K. Wilson's excellent 'The Southern Strategy' on the siege of Savannah at the moment. He points out that D'Estaing had to use naval guns in his breaching batteries and it was a disaster. Firstly it was extremely hard to move them up to the right spot because of the small wheels – so he ended up having to offer a 100 livres reward to each gun crew to haul them up ! Even so his heaviest pieces were 18 pounders – far from the biggest ordnance in his fleet but presumably the largest practicable for this operation. It was only when the first two 18 pounders opened up and were almost immediately dismounted by British counter-battery fire that they realised the real disadvantage of using these tubes on naval mountings. The gun is too close to the ground when compared to a normal military field mount, so they had to be elevated on platforms or 'en barbette' so they could fire them over the field works they had built – but this meant the crews were far too exposed to work the guns safely, and the battery commander was soon killed.
- we come back to the fortress or garrison mount which I think you have assumed was more a feature of artillery design in the 19th Century. They certainly had them in the 18th Century and their main similarity to naval trucks was in having small wheels, often of cast iron. However the fortress guns you can see in the Tower of London or Edinburgh Castle are mounted higher than naval tubes were on their carriages. They were therefore better able to fire through embrasures while their crew remained safe, and there were other advantages too, like having greater depression available than was the norm with naval mountings.

My deduction would be that those 24 and 32 pounders in the Brooklyn lines were former coastal defence guns seized at the outbreak of the revolution, quite likely from those batteries around New York. They would most probably have been mounted on garrison carriages or field ones (in the case of the 24 pounders).
yours
EC

some interesting examples of the earlier types of fortress carriage here
link

The first one, with the platform, is more the type of 'barbette' mounting that one imagines left the crew quite exposed. The British 24 pounder on the cast iron truck at Ft York is more like what I think they could have had in some of those American batteries. If you look at the way the place the gun is mounted in the bastion slopes upwards as you move away from the embrasure, you see both how this was used to absorb recoil and allow for greater depression of the gun. Viewed from the front, you can see how little the crew are exposed.
Proper siege guns, by contrast would usually be mounted on field carriages, allowing easy re-deployment and not requiring the building of platforms.
EC

But it begs the question, who in the colony would build such a carriage? That is my skepticism for a garrision carraige being used. The huge guns had to come from sort of ship (and were probably pretty old at that).

I have no doubt it was the best carriage to use, I just question if they had them. :-)

I think it was quite within the capability of American carpenters or artificers to build carriages for large guns. The history of Springfield arsenal, established by Knox indicates that they are known to have built carriages there during the revolution. Think also of the burgeoning ship building industry in the 13 colonies at the time, and the outfitting of so many privateers. And if the guns taken from places like Manhattan's grand battery were already on garrison or field carriages, why would you need to build them ?
yours
EC

I'll look into it further, but I know the struggle some of the state navies had in getting guns and fittings for their ships.

Do you know for sure the guns in the Mahattan battery were on garrison carriages? Also, are you are aware of any drawings or paintings referencing such guns? I'll look again in Ewald's Diary to see what is there, along with some other documents I have on colonial forts, especially the one in my own area of the Bay.

HG;
I think the issue isn't whether or not craftsmen were capable. That was quite possible given the number of privateers fitted out.

I think the question is there any hard documentation.

In this case, there is a reasonable assumption that made be made with regard to the ability of suitable mounting for guns.

Eric

I do not doubt capable craftsmen. I do question where they had the plans and experienced workmen to make garrison carriages. Having capable craftsmen and men who actually know how to make something are two different things. Perhaps I am overestimating how hard it is to make a garrison carriage.

I looked up the artillery on hand in Fort Pitt, the largest English fortification built in North America – built to protect the hard fought ground of the Ohio Valley. The fort's gun inventory in 1764:

six 12 pounders
ten 6 pounders
two 8 inch howitzers
two 5.5 inch howitzers
one 8 inch mortar
two Royal mortars
twelve coehorn mortars
three Pattereroes
two iron swivels

All the guns and mortars were brass.

Now Fort Pitt did not have to face any large ships, so the need for heavier guns – and the ability to transport them over the mountains precluded them from being there. According to Protz, none of the period drawings showed any embrasures for the guns, but he assumed they would be there when he helped recreate parts of the fort.

The fort raised in Annapolis, MD mounted 15 guns. According to Larry Mickel (Sentinel of the Severn The Fort at Horn Point Annapolis), the guns were made by the Antietam foundry. The first batch of seven 9 pounders were found unfit, and one worker was killed when one blew up during proofing. The foundry also cast some 18 pounders that proved more successful, but the foundry had additional priorities than just supplying the needs of the forts around Annapolis. Mickel says that the cannon employed in the Annapolis defenses were mounted on naval carriages. He suggested the guns were fired out of earthen embrasures cut in the walls of the fort, the same that Protz theorized were used at Fort Pitt.

Sorry, I find the type of guns being used in period forts fascinating. :-)