"British Artillery at Waterloo" Topic

Brechtel198

"Lastly, Lipscomb addresses briefly the alleged removal of artillery wheels described by Gomm, on page 379, but no reference is given:

'This is fairly conclusive evidence [referring to a quotation in the previous paragraph] that three allied artillery batteries quite the field at some stage during the cavalry charges. Wellington undoubtedly would have witnessed this. He would also have witnessed the French
cavalry in possession of many of the allied guns that had been left, as directed, on their platforms. Incredibly the French cavalry made little attempt to drag these guns back to their lines. Some of the guns had their near wheels removed to hinder such exploitation but more perplexing was that fact that none of the guns were spiked in situ. This has never been satisfactorily explained and the consequences of this failure seldom fully appreciated."

Why did you not also post what Lipscomb was remarking upon in the paragraph that you posted above?

From Schwertfilger (Geschichte der Koniglich Deutschen Legion, 1803-1816)
"During this time a strong heavy calabre battery deployed about 1,200 paces from our position and did fire because of Wellington's earlier order. Later that afternoon we realised that the enemy, some distance from us, was making a heavy attack on the left of our lines but we did not realise how successful this attack was because the progress was masked by the terrain; and afterwards, we realised that our lines were broken and that the enemy cavalry had got in behind unseen by us, and they fell unexpectedly on our left flank and forced us (the two batteries under Lieutenant Colonel Ayde) to retreat. After some distance I found some space where other artillery units had arrived along with personnel and carts and here it was possible to reorganise but this took some time. During this time, Lieutenant Colonel Adye arrived with the English battery which had been driven even further back and they now joined us at our position abd because that battery had not fired as much as us on the 16th, they had to give us some ammunition. After this, both batteries, under Lieutenant Colonel Adye, as well as all the other Artillery that had arrived in the same area, returned to their original position and re-entered the battle. When they arrived back at the to the battle line the battle had turned in our favour and the French were retreating.

4th Cuirassiers

"Er, 1,100 rounds fired from a six-gun field brigade is indeed an average of 183 per gun."

1098 To be precise where as the amount was over 1,100. What has to be taken into account is how many of the guns 'One being a howitzer' of that battery were in action or firing throughout the day. The average for all the British guns was (@10,400 rounds) 135. This is calculated at 67 minutes worth of constant firing in an 8 hour battle. But as in most battles, there were short bursts of action followed by longer periods of non-engagements, especially when the French cavalry were milling about.

What I would just love to know is, why the rest of the Army hasn't ever since used the so called 'RA running away at Waterloo' in which to poke fun at!

In fact, there is this myth of cowardice by the RA that has done the rounds for well over a century.

"Origins of The Lanyard & The classic "Sapper Leg-pull"
There has long been a tale-usually told by Sappers-about the Gunners wearing a white lanyard for cowardice, allegedly for deserting their guns. Of course, the story is nothing more than a piece of leg pulling. The tradition of ‘winding up' stems from the age-old rivalry between the two ‘sister' corps founded under the Board of Ordnance and trained together in Woolwich. However, I am still being asked by Gunners whether this story is true, so it is time it was put to rest.
Lanyards associated with dress came into use in the late 19th Century, when field guns, such as the 12 and 15 pounders, used ammunition which had fuses set with a fuse key. The key was a simple device, and every man had one, attached to a lanyard worn around the neck. The key itself was kept in the breast pocket until needed. The lanyard was a simple piece of strong cord, but it was gradually turned into something a bit more decorative, smartened up with ‘Blanco', and braided, taking its present form.
The gold stripe in the Gunner stable belt stems from the colours of the uniform at the time the stable belt was introduced. It was not a question, as the jokers would have it, of yellow stripes for cowardice! Equally ludicrous is the suggestion that the Gunners has seven ‘flames', as opposed to the sapper's nine, because we lost two guns at some point in history!
For those still plagued by jokers, the simplest answer to this kind of leg-pulling is to invite the joker to produce his evidence. No change to any of the Army's dress regulations can take place without a formal order, and-let us be realistic! it is ridiculous to suppose that the Army Board in its wisdom would countenance the idea of a ‘badge of shame' to be worn by any branch of the Service. It would guarantee that no one would ever join it! And since no such evidence exists, the joker's story falls flat on its face. One might even ask why other arms and corps wear the lanyard."

If cowardice was true about the RA Waterloo, then that crap above would be as nothing to the slating the RA would have gotten from the sloggers and trotters of His/Her Majesty's British Army and you could bet your bottom dollar that the RN and RAF wouldn't hold back either.

Paul :)

As I understand it, Wellingtons letter was never intended to be made public and it was not made public until found amongst his papers after his death. He wrote it to oppose the granting of a "special award" to the artillery, which they had applied for. A "special award" had been granted to the artillery present at the battle of Victoria. Wellington was very displeased by this and it clearly opened up the old sore of the artillery having a separate command structure. He appears therefore to have objected in principal to such an award being made to the artillery at Waterloo. The intention of this letter was explicitly to prevent that award being made. It was never intended that the letter would provide a balanced assesment of the performance of the artillery at the battle. It's content ought not to be taken out of this context.

"In fact, there is this myth of cowardice by the RA that has done the rounds for well over a century."

exactly – and it is interesting who jumps onto this band waggon, they should read instead the SO articles as mentioned before demolishing this myth.

Paul,

The subject being discussed was the British artillery leaving the field. Lipscomb's material seemed relevant to me, and his book is relatively new. I thought it quite good and balanced account.

B

The Royal Navy attacked the performance of the Royal Artillery at New Orleans in 1815, which was both inaccurate and unfair.

Sir Alexander Dickson was the commander of the British artillery in Packenham's expeditionary force and he wasn't given enough artillery and supplies to get the job done, and the terrain didn't support the artillery employed, making it difficult to deploy in the mud and mess at Chalmette.

Dickson's artillery was outclassed at New Orleans, and being at New Orleans prevented Dickson from being in command of the allied artillery in Belgium in 1815, which Wellington undoubtedly would have preferred for he respected Dickson as well as trusted him from his outstanding performance in the Peninsula.

B

Buongiorno Art

"Even the massed battery at Friedland had the 1er bataillon du 9e Leger en colonne d'attaque…ready to be deployed en colonne double to form a square when needed…for it was the appui mobile for the massed battery…which is in accordance to the French general principles within their military system. "

Not to forget a battalion of 32e de ligne which served as protection for Senarmont was well, so we have originally two batteries with two support infantry battalions.

Guns – this was understood were very vulnerable to attacks, and Drouot's as Hanau would have been taken by light cavalry and were already preparing to defend, but they were save by French cuirassiers.

The link to where more on this and related subjects can be found
as referenced by von Winterfeldt

link

Paul :)

Brechtel189

Paul,

The subject being discussed was the British artillery leaving the field. Lipscomb's material seemed relevant to me, and his book is relatively new. I thought it quite good and balanced account.
B

I think the same but if you are going to quote, it should be done in context. In your post where you posted an extract from Lipscomb, you left out the occurrence that he was alluding to, that's why I posted said omitted section.

Paul :)

The cavalry that rode to the rescue at Hanau was Guard cavalry, not the cuirassiers.

And there is no assurance that the allied cavalry would have taken Drouot's large battery at Hanau. Most of the cavalry were either casualties or repulsed by the time the remnants reached the gun line.

B

The cavalry that rode to the rescue at Hanau was Guard cavalry, not the cuirassiers.

And there is no assurance that the allied cavalry would have taken Drouot's large battery at Hanau. Most of the cavalry were either casualties or repulsed by the time the remnants reached the gun line.

B

Again, at Friedland Senarmont became the de facto main French attack as Ney's first attempt was a failure with most of the VI being routed.

Senarmont advanced on his own initiative, changing in that advance from the supporting unit for Dupont to the supported unit by Dupont. That is a major mission change.

And from the narratives of the action, and the after-action reports it appears to me that Senarmont didn't need to be 'protected.'

B

The actions of the 5 batteries FA and KGL foot and 2 Horse artillery companies. reserve.

The Royal Foot Artillery

Maj Lloyd Leaves for ammo around Cav attacks

Maj Rogers starts on front line. Leaves do to I Corp attack and one gun spiked when order to me to west only 2 guns do do to loss of Horses.

Capt Sandham
With 1st Div limbered up but returned

Capt Bolton Starts battle in 2nd line mv to front 3pm
order by Wellington to fire on attacking French during Garde attack.

Capt Sinclar Moves up at 430?

The KGL

Maj Kuhlmann

With British 1st Div Limbers up to reammo but returned (late)
Maj Sympher
in Reserve when Kuhlmann retired moved into line as replacement.

Capt Cleves
among the squares until ammo out and left (admitted reammoed after battle)

At least 4 left for ammo apparently the ones who started on the line at the beginning.

2 we know of at the Garde attack Bolton and Sympher where there after 3 hours.

Wellington's letter clearly showed he was unhappy this must have been a localized viewpoint kind of thing.
Wellington was not the only one to be unhappy with the action of their artillery, Clausewitz complained that the artillery fired as fast a they could then ran off. Like the British the ammo was at the park I believe that do to the nature of the movement of the armies the park of the artillery never really got to set up like they would have like. The Prussians and British had to move far back to reammo which took them out of the battle. I believed they fired fast do to the fact they where in the hottest of the action and had targets.

out of Eight foot and KGL batteries in question.
4 left to reammo.

Out of 136 guns 102 are at the end. Gra

It looks like the artillery did what it was order until ammo out. This was standard practice and one of the many things that Napoleon was trying to get done. At Friedland Napoleon heard the Russian guns slack the rate of fire and then attacked. He understood the companies were ammo low or moving back to reammo.

I look like the 1st and 3rd Divisions artillery left and this is where Wellington was with the Squares so he was annoyed.

Oh no one claim that leaving was cowardice not now or then. If the Duke thought that he would have charged.

Interesting note The French HA from the Calvary Divisions had been peel off to fight the flanks do to ground conditions so was not with the Cav. during the charges.

Hope I got notes on the companies right. Please add information.

Dibble- my post was intended to be ironic, but maybe the irony missed the mark. 183 rounds per gun is of course a superb record, and nearly matched by several other British/KGL and a number of allied batteries.

For avoidance of doubt my position is rather similar to yours. Read, breathe, breathe again, type.

Many very informative well argued posts in this thread IMHO.

Just a comment re Brechtel198 : "Second, French cavalry were not equipped with ropes with which to make a 'lasso' and I really cannot see any French cavalrymen, in a desperate action which the charges were, attempting to move a field piece minus a wheel. It cannot be done."

I think it is in either Napoleons letters to his brother Joseph or in his memoires whilst on st helens. He records that the french cavalry did attempt to take the guns off the field using ropes. However , that the allies put up such a fusilade that they were unsuccesful in their attempts.

Having said this .. if we now historically have two records from two sides of the battle … wouldn't this imply , that the French actually attempted such an effort ?

Now that would be interesting to see. I'd certainly be interested in it. If accurate, I wonder where they got the ropes? Perhaps the drag ropes from the guns?

B

I deem Wellington's instructions for the gunners a good idea, he clearly envisaged the French cavalry attacks and how to deal with them – what a clever fellow.

If your are riding a horse you have rope.

If your are riding a horse you have rope. Rope to hobble the horse at night. Rope to manage the herd.

"The Waterloo battle is now at the point where 6 'English' squares (as many as 8 'English' regiments) were broken, the 'English' 95th, with the 'English' Artillery, ran away and the 'English' cavalry put to the sword."

I am not an expert in Waterloo, but nowhere I have read such a thing. Where did you read it?

basileus66

"The Waterloo battle is now at the point where 6 'English' squares (as many as 8 'English' regiments) were broken, the 'English' 95th, with the 'English' Artillery, ran away and the 'English' cavalry put to the sword."

I am not an expert in Waterloo, but nowhere I have read such a thing. Where did you read it?

You should peruse other sites. There are others on this site who know what I mean.

Paul :)