deadhead | 09 Feb 2014 5:43 a.m. PST |
Now I hesitate to ask this, but with that new Westfalia 8pdr cannon sitting in front of me and five Perry Foot Guard Artillery, I want to marry them up
.but ideally for Waterloo! I knew for years that there were no 8pdrs at Waterloo but, in an idle moment at work (you know how it is when turnaround is an oxymoron) I searched on line and found evidence that there are still 8pdrs, in some British museum, seized at Waterloo. As is always the case of course, once home can I find it again? Was it on the Napoleon-series
.? Searching here I found; TMP link TMP link and there should be a topic called; "8lbers, there or not. (Waterloo question)" Blowed if I can find it. Now this did get heated but it was about 6 years ago that folk were corresponding on this. Is there any evidence for 8pdrs at waterloo? |
ratisbon | 09 Feb 2014 6:13 a.m. PST |
deadhead, French records are excellent. Show me the records, not some anecdote by a guy who was there and thought the French had 8s, though I wouldn't blame them. Till 1815 a British veteran would have no familiarity with French 6s as they were never used in the Peninsula. French 6s were far advanced in design and in performance were easily equal to 8s and 9s. Cheers, Bob Coggins |
deadhead | 09 Feb 2014 8:03 a.m. PST |
Thanks, Bob. I did accidentally post this onto the Gallery Board as well and was rewarded with "the missing link". Amidst all the abuse swapped, it is clear that identification of any French artillery piece is far from simple, provenance of anything in a museum must be questioned and what is said to be a French 8pdr is probably Austrian or some such
.is on a carriage designed for a different calibre and would be impossible to load with 8pdr ammo. Complex subject but convinces me
none at Waterloo. Now these Marines of Artillery, especially of Horse, what is that all about????????? No, forget it! |
Brechtel198 | 09 Feb 2014 8:42 a.m. PST |
'French 6s were far advanced in design and in performance were easily equal to 8s and 9s.' I've never seen that the French 6-pounders were 'far advanced in design and performance' compared to the older 8-pounders they replaced and they were not equal in performance, at the very least in throw weight, especially used in mass. The 6-pounders did use less metal in casting (130 pounds of metal per pound of round against 150 pounds of metal per pound of round for the 8-pounder), and the French horse artillerymen generally preferred the 8-pounder to the newer 6-pounder, and General Ruty wrote a study comparing the two, and also preferred the heavier 8-pounder. I would say that the design of the 6-pounder was more modern that the older field pieces, as there were not longer the usual reinforces on the gun tube, but the 6-pounder was phased out after the wars and the two calibers employed by the Valee System in 1827 were the 8- and 12-pounders. B |
11th ACR | 09 Feb 2014 9:40 a.m. PST |
Let's get this out of the way now: BRICOLE, BRICOLE, BRICOLE! |
Camcleod | 09 Feb 2014 11:14 a.m. PST |
In Vol. 10 page 547 of "Supplementary despatches and memoranda of Field Marshal Arthur, duke of Wellington, K. G." is a report of captured ordnance at Waterloo by Col. Wood, C-in-C of the Royal Artillery. link No 8 pdrs are listed. And in Bowdens Waterloo book he comments that documents at Vincennes also corroberates that info. Cliff |
deadhead | 09 Feb 2014 12:23 p.m. PST |
Camcleod, that is fascinating, not just for confirming what is generally accepted
but 20 Forges! I suppose it is obvious when you think about it, (there were more horses around then
) but I imagined these to be marvellous subjects for a 28mm model, yet very rarely seen in practice. Brechtel 198, yes you have to wonder about 6pdr being superior to 8pdr. Might be like argument that Shermans were better than Tigers
.totally counterintuitive except; much easier to build in large numbers engine less likely to break down on dodgy bridges might have the edge etc etc but we all know which any one individual would rather being sitting in. Was the 6pdr similarly just generally more "convenient", if actually inferior? Confess I have no idea whatsoever. I can imagine slightly greater range, but if hit in the midriff I cannot imagine my last thoughts would be "well, at least it was a 6 and not a 9 pdr" |
deadhead | 09 Feb 2014 3:54 p.m. PST |
I meant 8pdr
..9pdr is on our side! Not impossible mind you
|
dibble | 09 Feb 2014 8:47 p.m. PST |
What were the calibres of the 78 guns taken by the Prussians? Paul :) |
Archeopteryx | 09 Feb 2014 9:03 p.m. PST |
Didn't the horse artillery use the 4pdr before the 6pdr? The 8pdr was used by the field artillery as the carriage and gun was too heavy for HA teams. The 6pdr was thought a better weapon for the field artillery because it used a lightweight carriage and had greater mobility – although it proved fragile in practice (which is probably why the 8pdr was reintroduced post-war). As far as the horse artillery was concerned the 6 pdr would have been a much more suitable weapon than the 4pdr. The quality of individual weapons was of less importance in this period than the quality of men and training. The French artillery had adequate guns but superb gunners and leadership. |
LORDGHEE | 09 Feb 2014 9:56 p.m. PST |
I asked about 8 pdrs here TMP link got a definitive answer.
|
Brechtel198 | 10 Feb 2014 4:07 a.m. PST |
Didn't the horse artillery use the 4pdr before the 6pdr? 'The 8pdr was used by the field artillery as the carriage and gun was too heavy for HA teams. The 6pdr was thought a better weapon for the field artillery because it used a lightweight carriage and had greater mobility – although it proved fragile in practice (which is probably why the 8pdr was reintroduced post-war). As far as the horse artillery was concerned the 6 pdr would have been a much more suitable weapon than the 4pdr.' The French horse artillery preferred the 8-pounder and was reluctant to give them up for the new 6-pounder. The idea that the 8-pounder was 'too heavy' is just an incorrect assumption made by some modern authors with no justification or support. Tousard in the American Artillerist's Companion specificaooy states that the 8-pounder was suitable for horse artillery and that the 12-pounder could be used by the horse artillery if necessary. The 8-pounder was not phased out with the Grande Armee until after the 1809 campaign. Davout's III Corps certainly still employed them as did some other units in Germany against the Austrians in that campaign. Volume I of Saski's study of that campaign has archival material that lists the 8-pounder in the ordnance used in that campaign. B |
summerfield | 10 Feb 2014 4:44 a.m. PST |
There were no Gribeauval 8-pdrs at Waterloo. You could probably call them 12-pdrs as they were similar from a distance and they are models. Stephen |
Brechtel198 | 10 Feb 2014 7:51 a.m. PST |
The following may be helpful: Artillery in Davout's command in central Europe on 1 January 1809: 12-pounders:14 8-pounders:54 6-pounders:8 4-pounders:28 6-inch howitzers:22 5.5-inch (24-pounder) howitzers:4 Artillery assigned to the Armee de Allemagne in March 1809: 12-pounders:22 8-pounders:56 6-pounders:46 4-pounders:20 6-inch howitzers:20 5.5-inch (24-pounder) howitzers:16 Source: Campagne de 1809 en Allemage et en Autriche by Commandant Saski, Volume I. B |
Brechtel198 | 10 Feb 2014 7:54 a.m. PST |
From Louis de Tousard, American Artillerist's Companion, Volume I, page 47: 'Though the eight pounder be the most preferable caliber for the general service of the horse artillery, still the twelve pounder may be employed very advantageously; for it is equally susceptible of celerity of its motions.' B |
summerfield | 10 Feb 2014 8:39 a.m. PST |
Dear B The question was for Waterloo which as you know is 1815 so the information is interesting but not relevant. Stephen |
Brechtel198 | 10 Feb 2014 9:10 a.m. PST |
'Didn't the horse artillery use the 4pdr before the 6pdr? The 8pdr was used by the field artillery as the carriage and gun was too heavy for HA teams. The 6pdr was thought a better weapon for the field artillery because it used a lightweight carriage and had greater mobility – although it proved fragile in practice (which is probably why the 8pdr was reintroduced post-war). As far as the horse artillery was concerned the 6 pdr would have been a much more suitable weapon than the 4pdr.' The material is relevant because of the above posting in this thread. As far as I know, you're not either the moderator or the originator of this thread so I don't understand why it is now your perceived responsibility to say what is or is not relevant. B |
Arteis | 10 Feb 2014 9:46 a.m. PST |
|
LORDGHEE | 10 Feb 2014 2:02 p.m. PST |
French HA was first raised in 1793 and fought in the Neerwinden campaign and battle. It did such a good job that a 2nd unit a company was rasied. The first regiment was raise in 1704. The First 2 companies had 8 pdrs. I learned this about reading for a game re-fighting Neerwinden. what the equipment of the Horse artillery regiments had later I do not know. Looking at TOE for the battle of Friedlind it was clear that the French Cavalry Divisions were scrounging for guns. Many French Cavalry divisions in 1807 had captured guns. Example would be the many 3 pdrs in the list. this allowed French a scouting advantage until the allies caught up and gave their Cavalry divisions guns. this is just some stuff I learn in setting up our battles. The French deploying Divisions then Corps and the counter would be an interesting study. |
Archeopteryx | 14 Feb 2014 6:42 a.m. PST |
B, Thanks for clearing up that piece of absorbed mythology! James |