"Marmont's Year XI artillery reforms" Topic

Hi all,

How significant was Marmont's streamlining of the Gribeauval system? i.e., did the official abolition of the 4 and 8 lb calibre guns and their replacement with 6 lb guns occur *in reality* (likewise the reduction of the field howitzer from 6.4 inches to 5.5 inches)?

Thanks for any assistance!
REDCOAT

Oh dear!! All hands, brace for impact!!

"Calling Dr.Summerfield… Dr. Summerfield to Casualty please. Total train wreck arriving for Dr. Summerfield."

Dear Redcoat
By 1809, there were no Gribeauval Ordnance in use apart from Peninsular due to Spanish Gribeauval and the 12-pdrs in the Imperial Guard. The 4- and 8-pdr had been completely abolished. In 1812, 4-pdrs were used as Bn guns for the Young Guard. It should be noted that the Gribeauval 6 pouce howizters was obsolete by the about 1800 being replaced by the Prussian 10-pdr and the French copy 6-pouce Longue Porte.

This has been extensively written about in the SOJ Journal. I can put up the relevant papers if required.
Stephen

Thanks so much, Dr Summerfield – that's exactly what I wanted to know.

I wonder, if I can trouble you further, are the new pieces generally viewed as having been a success?

Gribeauval ordnance, including 4- and 8-pounders, and 6-inch howitzers, were still in the field and in use in central Europe during the campaign of 1809 against Austria. Davout's large command was equipped with them (see Saski, Campagne de 1809 en Allemagne et en Austriche, Paris 1899). The tables in that volume are primary source material.

The Young Guard was still using the Gribeauval 4-pounder as late as 1811. Interestingly, the Gribeauval 8-pounder was the favorite field piece of the French horse artillery arm and they preferred it to the new 6-pounder.

The Systeme AN XI which was intended to replace the Gribeauval System never did. It did, however, augment it with the new 6-pounder gradually replacing the 4- and 8-pounders with the Grande Armee but still being used in Spain throughout the period. The only field pieces of AN XI that were ever produced in any numbers were the 5.5-inch howitzer (also known as the 24-pounder howitzer) and the 6-pounder gun. The planned new vehicles were never put into production on a large scale and the Gribeauval vehicles were still used throughout the period.

A newer 6-inch howitzer was designed and produced in 1810 for the Imperial Guard and was definitely used both in 1813 and 1815.

It should be noted, and it is a fact that is generally overlooked, is that an artillery system was much more than just the guns and howitzers. It was also the vehicles, the education and schools, doctrine, command and control, the organization and personnel. That is why the Gribeauval System was still in effect in France through 1815 and why General Ruty pushed the readoption of the 4- and 8-pounder guns in late 1814 and recommended that the AN XI 6-pounder be abolished.

It should also be noted that French artillery doctrine was codified in 1779 by du Teil's Usage which was the basic doctrinal publication for the French artillery arm for the period and the only one in Europe that went above the company/battery level. It should also be noted that the French artillery schools taught infantry/artillery cooperation which put the artillery of France far above that of the other nations in doctrine and employment as well as command and control.

As a footnote, while all guns among the powers were designated by the weight of the round that was thrown, with the exception of some howitzers, which were known by the diameter of their bores, all pounds were not equal. For example the French pound was heavier than the English and Austrian pounds, so that a French 6-pounder threw a ball weighing almost seven English pounds and an 8-pounder was almost nine English pounds with the Austrian 'equivalents' being less, for example an Austrian 6-pounder was closer to five English pounds, etc.

B

Wow, thanks v. much Brechtel – that's very comprehensive. May I ask: if divisional foot artillery batteries gradually rearmed with the new 6 lb guns, but horse artillery batteries did not and instead continued to employ the heavier 8lb pieces, I wonder whether the infantry's switch to 6 lbs is perceived as having been a success?

All of the gun companies, horse and foot, were rearmed with the new 6-pounder-the horse artillery companies apparently just weren't happy about it. The Gribeauval 8-pounder was greatly admired by the horse artillery arm-but when ordered to rearm, you rearm.

The artillery committee that Marmont headed, and who approved the adoption of the Systeme AN XI, was not universal in the approval. General Gassendi for one was against it and in 1814 General Ruty wrote a common sense memorandum for the readoption of the 4- and 8-pounders in preference to the 6-pounder. Interestingly, when the new Valee artillery system was introduced and adopted in ca 1829, the two cannon calibers used would be the 8- and 12-pounders: the 6-pounder was beginning to be too light as was the 4-pounder.

The AN XI 6-pounder was by all accounts an excellent field piece and did throw a heavier round than the Austrian 6-pounder did. What is interesting, though, was the British had the 9-pounder for foot artillery and 6-pounder for horse artillery, but some of the horse artillery troops in 1815 were rearmed with the 9-pounder because of the throw weight.

There has been some discussion that the Gribeauval 8-pounder was either 'too heavy' or 'obsolete' and that is why it was replaced. I have seen no evidence that it was actually the case and that the French horse artillery arm was perfectly happy with it. Interestingly, in Tousard's ca 1809 American Artillerist's Companion, which outlined the adoption of the Gribeauval System for the US artillery arm, he mentions that if necessary the Gribeauval 12-pounder is perfectly acceptable for horse artillery.

B

That's fascinating and very useful indeed – thanks so very much Brechtel for going to the trouble to enlighten me in this way.

You're very welcome. If you have any other period artillery questions, especially regarding the French, please don't hesitate to ask.

My home email is Boulart198@yahoo.com

Sincerely,
M

Napoléon the greatest gunner of all, wished the reform there the Gribeauval system was out dated and hampered his highly mobile warfare, he regarded the 4 pdr und 8 pdr not suitable for the task on the battle – field and advocated the 6 pdr gun for that as well as a complete re – haul of the Gribeauval system.
There is a good article where Napoléon himself judged the use of different guns.
Otherwise one has to read the SOJ – where on can read articles based on facts instead of highly opinioted opinions. ;-)).

I would suggest that if you disagree with something posted, support your position with actual material or at least name a source. Suggesting to someone to read a publication is not support for a particular point of view.

Whether or not Napoleon was 'the greatest gunner of all' is also opinion. He certainly was a skilled artilleryman, but so were his senior artillery subordinates, some of them being senior to him as an artilleryman and they worked in artillery far longer than Napoleon did.

There is no proof-merely opinion-that the Gribeauval System was outdated and that the 8-pounder was 'not suitable for the task on the battlefield.' The proof is in the pudding, so to speak, and your sweeping statements notwithstanding, this has not been either demonstrated or proven.

And it is also fact that the Gribeauval System was not completely overhauled for various reasons and remained the French artillery system of choice until finally replaced by Valee's system in 1829. It appears that you don't understand what an artillery system actually is, though it has been clearly demonstrated in this thread. For a thorough definition of an artillery system, see Howard Rosen's 'La Systeme Gribeauval.'

B

Here's a thought! Why don't you make your arguments the way you like to make them and why doesn't von Winterfeldt make his arguments the way he likes to, and the both of you let the rest of us decide?

Hew Johns just made a great suggestion. I actually greatly appreciate both views and find them both enjoyable and enlightening, but would like to skip the personal and method attacks.
The rule could be positive argumentation only, like in other relationships :-)

Hell no, half the fun is watching the sparring over subjects like the hopeless value of lancers, the very limited Prussian contribution to 1815 or General Buonaparte's obvious incompetence (all hot topics here!)

This has proved fascinating to a novice. Never occured to me that one man's pound was different from another's back then! I honestly thought all my 1815 French artillery carrying upside down buckets and those funny little ammo boxes were using Gribeauval kit. Indeed I have called him Gibreauval for 30 years……….despite many visits to Musee de L'Armee.

All material posted, merely opinion or opinion backed up by crediboe source material, is valuable because in a discussion something good is bound to come out.

I have noticed that personal attacks have dropped dramatically and that is a good thing. 'Method attacks' which is a new one to me, is understandable because all information is not accurate, as in this thread.

Regarding Gribeauval equipment in 1815 it was still being used (prolonge, the inverted appearing buckets, artillery sidearms, limbers, caissons, etc.) and that was an indicator that Systeme AN XI was not fully fielded and did not replace, merely supplement, the Gribeauval System.

B

Brechtel, did the "Système An XI" change the limber?

The reason I ask is the that Old Glory 10mm do two versions of the limber, one the Gribeauvel as in this link:

link

Their AN XI has an ammunition box and looks like a low slung version of the ACW limber, the wheels being about the size of the Gribeauvel rather than the gun carriage wheels.

(sorry I've no link to and illustration and I'm not in a position to get a photo done for a few days)

Is this correct?

The Dawson, Dawson and Summerfield book states that there was a change in the limber, but that the Gribeauval limber was then re-introduced (presumably from 1808 onwards).

It also shows the numbers and types of French artillery pieces captured by the Russians in the 1812 campaign: it states there were no 8lbers amongst them and the the 4lbers were regimental artillery, so presumably in that campaign no 4lb or 8lb French batteries; but they would have been used in all the other campaigns I guess.

Regards

An entire system of field and siege guns as well as ancillary vehicles were planned and designed for Systeme AN XI. However, the only parts of the system that were produced in any numbers were the 5.5-inch howitzer and the 6-pounder field gun.

The vehicles were never put into full production and the Gribeauval material was still being used throughout the period, with the 4- and 8-pounders still being used in Spain.

It should also be noted that when in firing position, the coffret, the ammunition box that was placed between the trails during movement was removed and placed on the limber. Pictures of that can easily be mistaken for a limber that was constructed that way of a modified design.

The last campaign outside of Spain where the 8-pounder was employed was 1809 in Austria, largely by Davout's command. There were no 8-pounders in Russia nor in the campaigns of 1813, 1814, or 1815. At least the orders of battle list none. 4-pounders were found in the infantry regimental cannon companies in 1812 and any that survived into 1813.

Sincerely,
M

Were any 6lbers used in Spain at all by the French/Imperial forces?

Regards

In case the Gribeauval system was so brilliant – then why did Napoleon want to get it reformed, it was not only about guns but about much more.

A lot of French artillery officers shared the shortcomings of the Gribeauval system, amongst else Napoléon and for example, Allix.

Dr. Summerfield is doing an excellent job as editor of the SOJ – one can read a lot about all those above discussed topics.

Go to napoleon-series.org – there a lot of those issues are on – line

NOTES
ON
ARTILLERY DICTATED BY NAPOLEON AT ST.
HELENA TO BARON GOURGAUD.
BY
F. E. B. L.
THESE notes, here given in their original form, have been communicated to the Revue
d'Artillerie by Viscount de Grouchy who has drawn them from among his family papers.
It would be superfluous to insist on their historical interest.
Taken from dictation with a view to ultimate editing and publication, which
however never came to pass, the notes are free from the adornments of style which
usually characterize a work meant for the public, and indeed their extreme conciseness
detracts somewhat from their clearness. Notwithstanding this the Director of the Revue
has respectfully preserved the original form, for fear of altering the sense.
The unit of artillery is the division (battery): for horse artillery 6
guns; for field 8. The officers, N.C.O.'s and gunners of a company are
sufficient for its service.
It would be better, were it not determined otherwise by the details
of artillery, to form a unit of 4 guns, because a battery of 8 guns is
already too numerous not to be often divided; but what forces the
adoption of the larger unit is on account of artificers, spare stores,
forges, &c. In taking a unit of 4 guns all that would be doubled; the
extra expense involved would not be compensated by the advantage
attaching to the 4-gun unit.
* * * * *
The 4 prs. and the 8 pro. have been rightly suppressed. Gribeauval
simplified and experience has proved the necessity of further simplification.
We have progressed in that direction. The 8 prs. and the 4 prs.
were often employed in the wrong place: the ammunition of 8 prs. was
expended where that of 4 prs. would have sufficed. It was a very
considerable loss if transport is considered, it was 2 rounds instead of
1. Often there were only 4 prs. when 8 prs. were required. There is no
line officer, nor even artillery officer, who can well grasp the
578 NOTES ON ARTILLERY.
opportune moment and determine if 8 or 4 prs. should be employed,
and even if he could, he is obliged to utilize what he has at hand. A
single calibre is therefore sufficient for field work, then there can be no
uncertainty.
The 12 pr. in either system remains in reserve to be employed with
premeditation by general officers, either of the line or of the artillery.
The 6-in. howitzer is too wasteful: it consumes as much as a 24 pr.
shot. They have rightly replaced it by a howitzer of 5 inches 6 lines; this
slight difference of 6 lines gives a great advantage. The waggon holds 75
rounds, whilst that of the 6-in. only holds 50, and in supposing that the
5½ -in. shell be inferior to the 6-in. the question comes to this: which
would you rather have, one 6-in. howitzer or two 5½-in. ones. But the
5½-in. shell is already preferable to the 6-in. one. Gribeanval's carriage
was altogether faulty. It has been altered, and rightly so, for there has
been a gain of 100 per cent. in transport, and lightness given to both the
carriage and the howitzer. But the latter still requires improvement: it
should have a greater range, which might be obtained by lengthening it.
There should be two sorts of howitzers, one to combine with the 6
prs., the other with the 12 prs. The latter must have the inconvenience
of greater weight, so as to obtain the greatest possible range from the
form of the chamber, length, thickness of metal, &c. All these drawbacks
are amply compensated in a reserve howitzer by the range being
increased to the utmost. The field howitzers of the Boulogne Camp had
that advantage.
It is equally necessary that the existing 12 prs. should have an increased
range, not that changes in the gun are necessary, but in the
carriage, which should admit of greater elevation being given to the gun.
Parks should also have 12 pr. grenades (see note C) which would
weigh . . . . to be used with the 12 prs. Every waggon should contain
some of these grenades in place of common shell.
This is contrary to Gribeanval's principle, which however is false.
There are a thousand circumstances in war where it is requisite to open
fire at a very long range, whether from one bank to the other of a wide
river, or to hinder the enemy from encamping and occupying a position
which can only be attacked from a distance. Finally it is a real
disadvantage not to reply to an enemy's fire. We look however to
artillery officers not to fire uselessly, for we pretend in no way to attack
the fundamental principle that to open fire at a long range under
ordinary circumstances is to burn ammunition and to destroy its effect.
Guns of higher calibre than 12 prs. are very useless. We have acted
wisely in suppressing the 16 pr. which the Prussians and Austrians still
drag about.
* * * * *
Artillery officers have differed in opinion as to whether the 8 guns
with their limbers should march past, the wagons following behind the
8th gun, or whether each waggon should follow its gun

You're overlooking the fact that this was written on St. Helena after the wars were over.

That being said much of what is written here is solid information. It also has to be measured against what the other artillery general officers wrote and the improvements that went into the Valee System ca 1829.

This is much more skillfully written that Leutnant Smola's diagtribe on horse artillery, however.

Posting material such as this is very helpful, but with it must, to my mind, go analysis and an understanding of artillery, gunnery, and ballistics. You cannot study artillery of any period in a vacuum.

And the opinions and experience of lower ranking artillery officers, and enlisted men as well, should also be considered.

B

Dear Kevin
Gassendi's comments on the AnXI system were made in the 1819 edition. The changes he proposed in 1808 were due to financial concerns. Gassendi was out of favour with the King and write his 1819 edition to carry favour.

Ruty (December 1814) was made to the new King and could be an attempt to carry favour.

Again the context is important.
Stephen

Do you have any evidence that both of the general officers were merely attempting to 'curry favor' with Louis XVIII?

I have seen nothing of the kind anywhere.

Ruty's argument is quite evident and makes excellent points. The 8-pounder was a favorite with its crews, especially the horse artillerymen and its reinstatement after the wars, along with the adoption (or continuation) of an 8-pounder in the new Valee system is an indicator of this.

Gassendi and other senior artillery officers, either on the artillery committee with Marmont or not, did not agree with the adoption of the Systeme AN XI in 1803 and that was definitely not to curry favor with the king, since he was not in power, and was in disagreement with Napoleon.

Context is important, but that is not an issue here.

What were the 'financial concerns' in 1808? I have seen nothing supporting that contention either.

B

Were any 6lbers used in Spain at all by the French/Imperial forces?

If so, they were rare. Here's a link to a list of French guns captured at Vitoria, and none of them were 6lbers:

link

Perusing the Nafziger lists, those that list French artillery equipment in Spain also fail to show any 6lbers. I recall reading somewhere that Soult's corps was almost entirely armed with captured Austrian pieces. (which would mostly be 6lbers), but I can't find any verfication of this.

Thanks Mserafin, that is really interesting, it seems we have perhaps a situation where the new AnXI equipment was simply never adopted in the whole Peninsular theatre. I wonder what the situation was in Italy for the 1809 and 1813-14 fighting, which model was adopted?

Thanks again for your help

Regards

There are AnXI 6-pdrs and 24-pdr howitzers in the Lisbon Artillery Museum.
Stephen

Any indication where it was taken from?

Regards

I too am a little confused by Dr Summerfield's response.

Kevin, what I would be interested in your thoughts on why the Ain IX system was thought necessary, and then it's only partial implementation.

Napoleon wanted to simplify the Gribeauval System and modernize it somewhat. There was argument on the artillery committee on adopting the new system as there was plenty of Gribeauval field artillery ordnance and rounds already available and serviceable as well. Further, as has already been noted, the 8-pounder was a gunner's favorite and there was nothing wrong with the 12-pounder. The 4-pounder, as with other light ordnance of the smaller calibers, was becoming obsolete as it threw too light a round.

The 6-inch howitzer was probably not good enough for what the French wanted, but it remained in service at least through 1809 as did the 4- and 8-pounder.

Because it took some time to retool to the new calibers but because the French were in the middle of a war and there was also quite a bit of captured ordnance the system was never fully implemented. There was apparently also a problem, with the new AN XI gun carriages.

The new 6-pounder was an excellent gun tube. It was very smooth and modern in appearance and the pound per round weight was reduced to 130 pounds of metal per pound of round compared to 150 pounds of metal per pound of round, but after the wars the 6-pounder disappeared and was not part of the ca 1829 Valee System. The 6-pounder had only one set of trunnion plates, though the design for the new 12-pounder still retained them.

Napoleon wanted the Gribeauval system updated and Marmont agreed. However, as an artillery system, AN XI was not successful and ended up merely supplementing the Gribeauval System.

Again, and I know I'm repeating myself, an artillery system is not just the guns and howitzers, but the ancillary vehicles, gun carriages, the education and training establishment, the tactics, doctrine and command and control and overall organization of the artillery arm. That remained Gribeauval reforms, though doctrine was updated as artillery tactics and doctrine were tried in the field. The basic doctrine of infantry/artillery cooperation however remained the French mode of operation and institutionalized in the Grande Armee.

I do hope that this answered your question. The bottom line is that Napoleon wanted it and it was at least approved by the artillery committee with a split vote among the artillery general officers on the committee.

B

WW,

The best place I've found to find out what the artillery units were equipped with ordnance-wise would be an accurate order of battle.

I'd find George Nafziger's on the subject and you might find the information there.

B

You are quite right, this one seems to show a real mix of stuff:

PDF link

Regards

The Kingdom of Italy adopted the AnXI system by 1805. The problems with the French was logistic and a lack of finance. All this has been written about and fully documented.

The AnXI system was in effect lost in 1812 in Russia. The new artillery was put together with whatever the French could get hold of. There are a number of examples of AnXI carriages and guns in Lisbon, Musee de l'Armee and Stockholm. Interesting there are very few extent carriages of the hybrid system (M1808).

Alas army lists only give at best the calibre and not the type used. It is obvious looking at the lists that there was a step change in 1810 and the disappearance of Gribeauval 4-pdr, 8-pdr and 6-pouce howitzer outside the Peninsular. Alas English language readers are fixated upon the Peninsular. It should be noted that the Spanish had the Gribeauval guns back in 1767 when they were impelemented by Maritz III. The huge stockpiled of equipment and munitions let alone the huge transport problems.

We must also state that often cast iron and bronze guns are not distinguished let alone nationality. The answer is not a simple one.

In the example above the 16-pdrs, 12-pdrs, 8-pdrs and 4-pdrs could be Long garrison guns and not the short field guns.

Stephen

'The problems with the French was logistic and a lack of finance. All this has been written about and fully documented.'

And which 'financial problems' were those and where are they documented?

A quick look at Louis Bergeron's France Under Napoleon will certainly highlight a stable France financially, especially compared to Russia, Prussia, and Austria.

And it should be noted that the French franc was the most stable currency in Europe during the period, even superior than the British pound.

The French only had three artillery systems from 1732-1815: the Valliere System, the Gribeauval System, and the Systeme AN XI. There were no 'hybrid' systems, at least none that are documented and the French certainly did not designate artillery systems by year prefixed with an 'M.' That is historically incorrect as well as being a current addition to French artillery nomenclature.

It should also be noted, once again, that the Systeme AN XI was never fully implemented and merely supplemented the Gribeauval System.

The French had 1300 serviceable field guns by August 1813 after losing most of their artillery in Russia. The orders of battle generally name 6-pounders, 12-pounders, 6-inch howitzers, and 5.5-inch howitzers for their field pieces.

B

Dear Kevin
Yes you list only AnXI guns and a 6-pouce howitzer which was NOT a Gribeauval design. It was the French copy of the Prussian 10-pdr howitzer. Please give me details of newer 6-pouce howitzers of the Gribeauval design. Where are they in the captured ordnance in Russia.

The other parts have been discussed at length where France to survive had to implement the continental system and destroy the other economies in Europe. The wholesale pilaging of resources is well documented in German sources. The strain on the Russian ecomony caused the Tsar to become hostile as his supporters were financially ruined.

The hybrid system is where the AnXI gun Tubes were mounted on AnXI Carriages but recycled ironwork, axles and wheels from scraped 8-pdrs. There are a couple of examples at Musee de L'Armee and I have plans of them drawn in 1819 at Metz.

The nomenclature has been imposed to give order to the disorder that was French Ordnance.

Stephen

I never said there was a 'newer' Gribeauval design of howitzer. There was, however, a new 6-inch howitzer from 1810 that was assigned to Guard gun companies. That's the howitzer that is in the orders of battle in both 1813 and 1815.

I would suggest that if you're going to make claims as to France's overall economic situation then you should document them. Have you read Bergeron?

The 'nomenclature imposed' is not accurate and does not 'give order' to the French artillery arm. It merely causes confusion as to what was present and what was not and to what was being fielded and what was not. Stating that it was a 'hybrid' system is to my mind nonsense.

Hohw could AN XI gun tubes mounted on AN XI gun carriages be a 'hybrid' system?

Rene Chartrand gives an excellent overall view and assesment of the French artillery arm in his two books on the subject.

And when were the 'scraped' 8-pounders actually scrapped? I'd like to see the material on that also. There are still Gribeauval 8-pounders at the Invalides in their collection and why would the French scrap artillery that they were still using in Spain? I submit that the field pieces were put into the arsenals unless they had reached the end of their service life (ie the gun tubes had worn out and needed to be recast).

Lastly, it appears that you don't quite understand what an artillery system is. Here is an excellent definition of one for you:

'A thorough synthesis of organization, technology, material and tactics. Every aspect of the system, from the harnessing of the horses to the selection and organization of the personnel, embodied a single functional concept. Utility was its principal, mobility was its goal.'
-Howard Rosen, The Systeme Gribeauval, 48.

The above definition was the definition of the French artillery arm during the period 1792-1815 whether it was using Gribeauval field pieces, captured ordnance, or integrating some of the field pieces of Systeme AN XI. An artillery system is much, much more than a mere collection of guns of different calibers and that appears to be something you have missed.

And it appears to me that you're attempting to made a subject that is relatively simple to understand and research into one that is just too difficult, and that isn't a good idea as well as making too many errors in fact in the process.

B

Great thread and post!

What is Bergeron first name and what did he write?

Lord Ghee

Dear Lord Ghee
Louise Bergeron (1981) France Under Napoleon, Princetown University Press translation from the French.
ISBN 978-0-69100-7892

Stephen

Great, now we can move on to the discussion of what "new" means, just like over at that other forum…
To recap the answers the OP's questions, yes the An XI change was for real, but the French artillery was particularly eclectic (or perhaps we just have better records); Gribeauval was outdated, but mostly because a single caliber – the 6 pder – simplified logistics. Guns being for the most part guns, you can find cantankerous retired gunners waxing nostalgic over the wonders of the 8 pder…

The idea that the Gribeauval System was outdated has not been shown to be an accurate assessment. The 8-pounder was an excellent field piece, and retiring the 4-pounder would have 'simplified logistics.'

The new 6-pounder was neither as robust as the 8-pounder and the throw weight was significantly less not only per piece, but per company/battery.

And two things are significant regarding the 6-pounder. The ammunition from the 6-pounders of the other nations was not exactly compatible, as the measurement of the pound was different for each nation and the French measured caliber, not by the diameter of the bore, but by the diameter of the round. And windage was a significant factor in accuracy and the French standard for windage was superior to that of Russia, Prussia, and Austria.

B

The French could of done a lot of things, but what they did was replace it. So of course it was "outdated", for whatever that's worth.

Yes the 8lber has bigger balls, if perhaps not huge ones. But a battery firing for an hour will not fire 4/3's as much iron, because reloading and resupply will be a little more taxing. And there's no reason to think an 8lber ball is significantly more effective simply because it is significantly heavier.

For that matter, it's difficult to determine how accuracy affects effectiveness.

The sustained firing rate for both a 6-pounder and an 8-pounder is two rounds per minute. So, for an hour that's 120 rounds per piece if you actually fire for an hour and you haven't 'lifted and shifted' to another target, etc.

That isn't terribly taxing for a gun crew. Interestingly, the sustained rate of fire for a modern 155mm gun crew using a 95-pound round is two rounds per minute.

And as the 8-pounder caisson usually carried 62 roundshot and 20 canister rounds, plus 15 in the coffret, and had three caissons assigned to each piece, which were rotated out to be replenished from the parc when needed.

So, I don't see the problem with firing at all with an 8-pounder.

B

Dear Kevin
There is a huge difference between a muzzle loader and a breech loader let alone one with an automatic loader.

1. Gunpowder vs modern smokeless propellant.
2. Manual handling assistance in loading.
3. A smoothbore muzzle loader required the charge to be pushed down a 1.5-2m barrel. The sabot making a tight fit.
4. The modern 155mm has an efficient recoil system and so does not need to be run up, re-aimed etc…
5. Accepted that the charge was 95lb rather than about 12lb (assuming 8-pdr).
6. Recoil from full charge would be 2-4m depending upon ground and elevation.

The main problem with the 8-pdr was one of ecconomy and the weight of the ammunition & gun.
1. 1.5 x 6-pdr caisson pulled by 4 horses could carry the same ammunition as 2 caissons of 8-pdr ammunition pulled by 6 horses.
2. 6-pdrs had 4 horse limbers and 8-pdrs had 6 horse limbers.
3. The 8-pdr charge was 1:3 ratio to shot and 6-pdr was 1:4 to shot.
4. Ability to fire captured 6-pdr ammunition in emergency. Austrian, Prussian and Russian had smaller shot diameter than the French. They could not fire French ammunition (possible exception were the Russians).
5. Reduced gun crew size.
6. 8-pdr battery (assuming 2 caissons) were 144 horses excluding field forge and other wagons. Assuming 3 caisson per gun would have 192 horses.
7. A 6-pdr battery with 1.5 caissons per gun had 80 horses.
8. The saving in horses for Foot Artillery was 64 to 112 horses. This was in effect another battery.
9. The accuracy for the 8-pdr and 6-pdr were comparable being the superior windage of the AnXI 6-pdr over 1000m. This was the operating ranges. Again I can discuss at length the use of richochet fire.
10. 8-pdr had a diameter of 104mm cf 6-pdr of 95mm.
11. The saving in powder was significant. 100 rounds of 8-pdr required 136kg of gunpowder. 100 rounds of 6-pdr required 91kg of powder. That is 50% reduction in powder.
12. There was approximately a 50%+ more bronze used to cast a 8-pdr than a AnXI 6-pdr.

So you get 1.5 to two 6-pdr batteries for the price of one 8-pdr battery. Depending upon which of the above factors taken. Now would you want two batteries or one battery of guns that over the ranges normally used of less than 1000m were comparable. These calculations were made by Napoleon and have been publishing the SOJ.

It is accepted that canister was more effective in the 8-pdr as the 6-pdr.

It is all about effectiveness, cost and logistics
Stephen

There are more similarities than differences between the muzzle-loading field pieces of ca 1800 and the modern breech-loading artillery.

In short, artillery is artillery and gunnery is gunnery, with the improvements over time. It may be much more sophisticated now than in ca 1800, but the basic principles are the same.

First, crew drill is little different. The only significant differences is that the round is rammed in the opposite end of the piece and a lanyard is now used to fire the round. It would be a very simple task to show a modern gun crew how to fire an old muzzleloader efficiently-between 15 and 30 minutes.

Second, modern US towed artillery either 105mm or 155mm, whcih is what I was describing and referring to, do not have an automatic loader. And the minimum safe crew number is 7-8 to be able to fire.

The round is placed on the loading tray, two artillerymen pick it up, one on either side of the tray, place it at the breech and the round is then rammed by two men, though one can accomplish the task. Then the breech is closed, the primer inserted in the firing mechanism, and the lanyard is attached to the firing mechanism (the trigger).

As already stated, the sustained firing rate is two rounds per minute, just as it was in the Napoleonic period, except for the 12-pounders, which was one round per minute. Of course, just as in the Napoleonic period in an emergency, as in firing a Final Protective Fire (FPF) the gunners load and fire as fast as they can which always exceeds the sustained rate.

Regarding the 8-pounder, it was as efficient a field piece as the 6-pounder was supposed to be. Each piece had three caissons assigned and the number of gun crew was the same. There was not a logistics problem employing the 8-pounder as the French ammunition logistics system was very efficient as has been stated in earlier threads.

The only 8-pounders that used a horse team of 6-horses was the horse artillery. French foot artillery companies manning 8-pounders had only four horses per gun team.
The French could use captured 6-pounder ammunition, but it would not be as accurate as the issue ammunition for the French 6-pounder.

So, the number of men per gun company, and the number of horses, would be identical as would be the number of vehicles in the unit. I believe that Napoleon was calculating after the wars and it was not what was taught in the artillery schools or on campaign.

When preparing for war or actually going to war the most efficient system is what matters, and economy is far down the list. For example, the most expensive horse artillery company is the one where all the gunners are individually mounted. The French chose that method as early as 1792 (though it was not fully implemented until 1800) because it was the most efficient.

And it should again be noted that the 6-pounder was gone for good in the Valee System of 1829 and the 8-pounder reinststated as it was a more effective field piece, as mobil as the 6-pounder and with more punch because of the increase in throw weight. The Gribeauval 8-pounder was not too heavy nor was it obsolete. If that was the case, it would not have been employed in Spain from 1808-1814.

Those that cut corners based on economy generally don't win.

B

Dear Kevin
Ah you were referring not to a M109 sorry.

"Those that cut corners based on economy generally don't win."
Alas only too true with the foolish cuts in the British Army, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force.

You also have the issue that it took twice as long to produce an 8-pdr than a 6-pdr. The removal of the astragals and ability to use a finishing and boring lathe.

So the saving in horses would be 128 horses (8-pdr with 3 caissons) – 80 horses (6-pdr with 1.5 caissons) = 48 horses. So you get in effect 5 extra 6-pdrs according to your numbers.

Stephen

Thank you Kevin and Stephen.Your last few posts have really helped clarify the issue for me.

'You also have the issue that it took twice as long to produce an 8-pdr than a 6-pdr. The removal of the astragals and ability to use a finishing and boring lathe.'

'So the saving in horses would be 128 horses (8-pdr with 3 caissons) – 80 horses (6-pdr with 1.5 caissons) = 48 horses. So you get in effect 5 extra 6-pdrs according to your numbers.'

Do you have a source for gunfounding in this case?

You are wrong on the number of horses total for the gun companies concerned as well as the number of caissons for a 6-pounder company. And you have ignored the increased number of caissons and horses for 6- or 8-pounder foot artillery companies which supported an infantry division. Each 6- or 8-pounder would be supported by three ammunition caissons and the foot artillery companies, either 6- or 8-pounders would have four extra caissons for infantry ammunition each pulled by four horses. You have also left out the horses required to pull the company field forge and the three artillery supply wagons each company would have.

An 8- or 6-pounder foot artillery company would have at least 144 horses as the number of vehicles for each caliber would be the same, as would the strength of the company in manpower would be the same.

An 8- or 6-pounder horse artillery company would have at least 160 horses (two less field pieces per battery and every caisson and limber would be pulled by six horses instead of four in the foot companies) for the vehicles plus the individual mounts for the gunners.

A 12-pounder gun company would have each 12-pounder pulled by six horse gun teams and one of the caissons assigned to the guns would be pulled by six horses. And each 12-pounder would have five caissons allotted for ammunition. With the large number of caissons in the company, at least 240 horses would be assigned to the company.

In the field only one caisson would accompany the gun company into combat. The other caissons would be held in the artillery parcs and would shuttle ammunition forward as needed.

B

One thing that needs laying to rest is the differences between weight conventions between different nations (or more correctly, cities). There were a fair variety of different pounds on markets for agricultural produce, but it doesn't follow that this applies to ordnance.

According to Dawson, Dawson & Summerfield the Austrian and British 6 pound shot were both 2.75kg, while French and Prussian were 3kg. Russian was 2.8kg. For 12 pdrs the position is a bit muddier: Austria 5.0kg, Britain 5.4kg, Russian 5.7kg, Prussia 5.9kg and France 6.1kg.

I'm not sure how reliable this table is, as another table says the Austrian 12pdr shot weight was 5.5kg, which makes a bit more sense. Comparing calibres is complicated by differences in windage, but these are broadly consistent, and certainly don't show the Austrians as lightweights.

This is a confusing picture, but what is clear is that differences between the commercial convnetions of the different cities at the time don't flow into artillery. The British and Austrians used much the same measure, while the French and Prussians were heavier. I think this hare was set running by Philip Haythorthwaite in his data book, and it needs to be shot.

And as for whether weight of shot did or did not contribute to effectiveness it is entirely another matter.

Louis de Tousard's American Artillerist's Companion has tables for measurement among the different systems of measurement being used in Europe during the period in question.

It is in Chapter XIII, Volume I, pages 116-128.

The bottom line is that, for example, a French 8-pounder is nearly the equal in throw weight of an English 9-pounder, and an Austrian 6-pounder is less in throw weight to a French 6-pounder.

Regarding windage, the Gribeauval System had a uniform windage for 'the three calibers' (4-, 8-, and 12-pounders), was a uniform .13 inches.

For the English 3-, 4-, 6-, and 9-pounders it was .14, .15, .17, and .2 inches respectfully.

The windage I found for the Austrian 3-, 6-, and 12-pounders was 3.3mm, 4.6mm, and 5.38mm respectfully.

The Gribeauval System was very strict on production standards and began measuring not by caliber, as had been done for quite some time, but by inches. The production of ammunition was done by very strict standards which greatly increased accuracy and that added to throw weight is an advantage.

B