"Comparative Effectiveness of 6 & 12# Guns vs Others?" Topic
81 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please do not post offers to buy and sell on the main forum.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Napoleonic Discussion Message Board
Areas of InterestNapoleonic
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Workbench ArticleAfter many years of resisting the urge to start a Napoleonic collection, Monkey Hanger takes the plunge!
Featured Profile ArticleFor the time being, the last in our series of articles on the gates of Old Jerusalem.
Featured Book Review
|
Pages: 1 2
Bandit | 07 Apr 2014 7:15 p.m. PST |
I've often heard how a 6# gun was as effective as a 12# gun due to a higher rate of fire offsetting the smaller ordnance. I'm looking for recommendations on where I can dig further into this. Who has published useful research and comparison data, to whatever degree it exists? Conclusions and reasoning are welcome too. Cheers, The Bandit |
Sparker | 07 Apr 2014 7:27 p.m. PST |
Firepower by BP Hughes is probably your first port of call. Physically the main difference was an increase in range for the solid shot, and volume and beaten zone for canister/grape. I suspect the morale effect, either positive in support or negative if being fired at you, from 12 Pounders over 6 Pounders justified the additional logistic burden, |
corporalpat | 07 Apr 2014 7:28 p.m. PST |
Here is something I found recently. Good basic source. PDF link And for the 19th century
PDF link Hope this helps. Remember, Google is your friend! |
McLaddie | 07 Apr 2014 8:57 p.m. PST |
I've often heard how a 6# gun was as effective as a 12# gun due to a higher rate of fire offsetting the smaller ordnance. I've heard the same thing, but 1. No one ever really gets down to what constitutes 'effectiveness' means 2. If 6# and 12# were equal in effectiveness, they would have jetisoned the 12# and kept the #6: Less weigth, less powder and metal, more ammo storage. But they didn't, 3. Because they had different technical capabilities However, what that means, if anything, in considering battlefield 'effectiveness', hasn't really been addressed well
12# Advantages: longer range, more accurate at longer ranges, heavier projectile, more inertia, and bigger boom. It isn't clear how the last three traits provide advantages unless you are battering down walls. 6# Advantages: More maneuverable, faster rate of fire by one-third, less smoke, more ammo can be carried. The questions aren't new ones. Here is a discussion of the weight question from a German author in 1821 [Next Post] |
McLaddie | 07 Apr 2014 9:05 p.m. PST |
ABOUT THE EFFECT OF HEAVY GUNS ("Ueber den Effekt des großen Geschützes") Translated by Geert van Uythoven Source: - 'B
.': " Ueber den Effekt des großen Geschützes ", in ‘Militair-Wochenblatt' 6. Jahrgang (Berlin 1821) pp.1912-1914 "The decisive factor of artillery lays in all cases especially in the effect its projectiles have, and were they will land. Therefore, it is dependent of the size, weight, and the velocity of the projectile; the density of the object fired at, etc. The effect will be greater when the projectile is bigger and heavier, the greater its velocity is during its movement, and the less the targeted object will be able to withstand penetration.Because of the fact that at the distances on which firing usually will take place, clearly all kinds of artillery projectiles will have the effect of killing, wounding, or damaging humans, animals, and objects. It is commonly known that a roundshot is able to lay down complete infantry files. Therefore, it has only a comparably minor effect (called by the Austrians ‘ertrag', ‘yield') against a thin line when fired at from the front. Therefore, when firing at such targets canister is generally used, when an enfilade shot is not possible. From this derives that one roundshot is able to kill more then three men. If one would fire however on an infantry column of considerable depth, a roundshot would be able to hit so many men until its kinetic energy has been used. Therefore, the loss in men by a single roundshot can be considerable. How many men a roundshot will be able to harm is however not clearly known: the calibre; the distance; the troop formation; the angle at which the roundshot will hit the target; the terrain, on which the grazes are made, diminishing the kinetic energy of the roundshot more or less, etc., all influence the ability of a roundshot to penetrate. So a general rule cannot be given, although it is surprising that such an important issue has not been researched since the introduction of field artillery into military service took place already a long time ago; and because of its extensive deployment, especially during the revolutionary wars. We are still much in the dark about the effect, and one can judge only superficial about it. In the meanwhile the artillery itself is not to blame for this, as they are not able to mark the effect of their shots from close by. To receive more information about this issue, earlier costly experiments have been held by the Sardinian artillery, during which was fired at old horses, counting a horse for two men each. However, the results of these experiments are based on too many fixed conditions to serve as a general rule, especially because of the fact that the bodies of humans and horses have a different anatomy and resistance, which stand to each other in a still unknown proportion. According to these experiments, when using a field charge, the following mortal effects would be achieved: Roundshot The number of men that would be mortally hit at the following ranges: 400 paces 800 paces 12-pdr 48 36 6-pdr 39 28 3-pdr 30 19 From this one can easily conclude that the effect of the guns is very exaggerated, and that one should put not much trust in these numbers. So with these experiments nothing positive has been achieved for science. Therefore, it is preferred to put more trust in specific experiences made during campaigns, when these are reported by trustworthy individuals. However, because of the fact that the various artilleries differ from each other in powder charges, guns, and calibres, and because not much effort has been put in gathering such information, again nothing has been gained this way. In the Prussian artillery, when treating the effect of guns, commonly an example of the Polish 1794 campaign is being used as an example, were a 6-pdr roundshot at a range of about 1,000 paces killed three horses, wounding a fourth one. An effect which is fixed on six men (see §.557 of the Leitfadens zum Unterricht in der Artillerie). In the meanwhile there are enough cases which sufficiently give proof of the outstanding effect of roundshot and grenades.[shell] Only these cases will for a part not come to the publicity, or they are achieved under too much doubtful conditions to be reliable. However, during the latter campaigns there should have been numerous instances; because of the many ways the war was fought on level and also mountainous terrain; and with the frequent use of columns and masses, sufficiently having taken place that when these would become public, would illustrate this issue more then enough to fill this omission in artillery science. When treating this issue, the author of this piece is convinced that it should be very easy present-day, to clarify this issue. Not only because of the fact that the individuals that took part in the latter wars are mostly still alive, but also because the nature of the artillery is not as secret to the army anymore as it was previously, besides that artillery science is given at all our military schools; maybe not in all its aspects, but at least its basics. As such enabling one, when accounts about this issue are brought forward, to review them according to all relevant circumstances under which the event took place, in order to remove all doubt. Later on this will become more difficult, as many facts will fade from memory. (
)" And of course, this doesn't deal with the number of shot that could be thrown out. Even though the numbers are probably overblown, if a 6# could fire 3 rounds in the time it took a 12# crew to fire 2 rounds, then accordingly, at 400 paces the 12# would hit 96 men in the time it took the 6# gun to hit 117 men. And so the debate goes
|
TMPWargamerabbit | 07 Apr 2014 11:36 p.m. PST |
Mass or weight of shot mankind has always found wanting to increase in size. 6lb roundshot will bounce about on the battlefield. 12lb roundshot plows through most objects and keeps on going for distance on the battlefield. Picking up an actual 12lb or a 6lb RS in my collection tells a story. Which would I notice more as it sailed through the ranks of my battalion. Another point of thought. An artillery piece of any weight (of shot) firing at high rates of fire quickly and totally wears out the artillery crew. Loading and firing is easy, especially for the lighter shot cannon
it is the bringing the cannon back into battery position where the serious effort is. Try pushing a small car up a driveway (10 feet) every 20 seconds for 3/rounds per minute rate and compare with the 1 shot per minute or worse 12lb. Granted the 12lb cannon is heavier but the rate of firing is slower and steady. In the end the rate of firing comes out to be the same except in short range, and very short duration of time (in minutes), final closing engagements. My 6lb shot thought
.or half a 12lb
.. |
patrick766 | 08 Apr 2014 5:39 a.m. PST |
If the rate of fire of a 6lb gun is 1/3 more, then at 400 paces, a 12lb would cause 144 casualties in the time it took a 6lb to cause 156 casualties. Which is still better. Patrick |
McLaddie | 08 Apr 2014 6:52 a.m. PST |
Picking up an actual 12lb or a 6lb RS in my collection tells a story. Which would I notice more as it sailed through the ranks of my battalion. I don't know, would you? Just to be the devil's advocate here. The actual difference in diameter for British cannon is: 4# 3.09 inches 6# 3.49 12# 4.40 So, if a six pound shot came through the ranks and a 12 pound shot did too, would anyone notice a difference? Would they care at that point about an inch difference in diameter? Both shot are going to cut through the ranks in pretty much the same fashion
Or would they? Just FYI: From MISCELLANEOUS TECHNICAL ARTICLES BY Dr A R COLLINS: It is apparent that many of the Borgard set of round shot weights had diameters very close to whole numbers of inches. This leads to the assumption that the diameter of the cannonballs used in the earlier part of the 17th century were chosen to have a 'nice' numbers of inches dfiameter, 3", 3½", 4", 4½", 5" etc. and the resulting round shot weights happened to be close to the values 4, 6, 9, 12, 18 lb. Borgard just rounded the weights to the nearest pound, meaning the shot diameters varied somewhat from their original 'nice' values. |
McLaddie | 08 Apr 2014 7:00 a.m. PST |
If the rate of fire of a 6lb gun is 1/3 more, then at 400 paces, a 12lb would cause 144 casualties in the time it took a 6lb to cause 156 casualties. Which is still better. Patrick: I was figuring on 2 X 48 for the 12# 3 X 39 for the 6# In other words, in any time frame, you have 3 shots from the 6# for evey 2 from a 12#. Assuming the listed damage is consistant for any number of shots, that's what I came up with
You had a ratio of 3:4 Correct? But as you said, the 6# comes out ahead in either case. |
Lion in the Stars | 08 Apr 2014 10:37 a.m. PST |
How heavy was that Mythbusters cannonball? We know it flew for well over a mile and laid waste to everything in it's path. Pure dumb luck that nobody was hurt when the cannonball skipped off the Bomb Squad's range. |
McLaddie | 08 Apr 2014 12:41 p.m. PST |
Lion: I *think* that the test of a stone cannon ball the cannon sent it flying over the target berm and into a house. I don't remember it traveling for a mile, but it certainly could have on the bounce. |
Rudi the german | 08 Apr 2014 2:09 p.m. PST |
|
McLaddie | 08 Apr 2014 3:06 p.m. PST |
Rudi: Thanks for that link! Really fun to watch, though the ordanince history is a bit, shall we say, *off*. In any case, I guess the question would be whether the men [barrels] would be any less a casualty with a 6# than a 12# shot. But the range and accuracy advantage of the 12# is given. |
Sparker | 08 Apr 2014 8:09 p.m. PST |
Outstanding clip there Gunny! |
matthewgreen | 09 Apr 2014 4:06 a.m. PST |
Another point of thought. An artillery piece of any weight (of shot) firing at high rates of fire quickly and totally wears out the artillery crew. Loading and firing is easy, especially for the lighter shot cannon
it is the bringing the cannon back into battery position where the serious effort is. Try pushing a small car up a driveway (10 feet) every 20 seconds for 3/rounds per minute rate and compare with the 1 shot per minute or worse 12lb. Granted the 12lb cannon is heavier but the rate of firing is slower and steady. In the end the rate of firing comes out to be the same except in short range, and very short duration of time (in minutes), final closing engagements. Interesting thought. We mostly picture artillery fire being at a maximum rate on a target that is closing rapidly. Actually I suspect most ammunition was expended in much slower and more prolonged preparatory bombardments, and counterbattery fire at longer ranges, carefully observing fall of shot. These would have been a lot less frantic, and it isn't clear that the smaller weapons would be fired at a much faster rate. Remember also that the heavier pieces had bigger crews. Unfortunately this one those questions that will never be resolved. Most people at the time thought that 12pdrs were worth having – though otherwise the 6pdr was the best compromise. Wargames rules should give 12 pdrs some advantages, but not overdo it. |
McLaddie | 09 Apr 2014 7:14 a.m. PST |
Wargames rules should give 12 pdrs some advantages, but not overdo it. Agreed. The question is what advantages? I think range is one obvious one. The actual damage and morale effects are the 'how much' issues that shouldn't be 'overdone.' |
matthewgreen | 09 Apr 2014 8:14 a.m. PST |
Extra range – including greater secondary effects on units beyond the primary target. More damage to targets in cover. That's probably all you need strictly. In my army level rules I have one "unit" of artillery for every 8 heavies or 12 of everything else, plus a range advantage, and a small advantage against cover. That may be overdoing it. |
Mserafin | 09 Apr 2014 9:10 a.m. PST |
heavier projectile, more inertia, and bigger boom. It isn't clear how the last three traits provide advantages unless you are battering down walls. The "bigger boom" is going to have a significant morale effect on the enemy. Just think about the morale effects of the sound of the German MG-42 on those being fired at. |
Lion in the Stars | 09 Apr 2014 9:54 a.m. PST |
Wargames rules should give 12 pdrs some advantages, but not overdo it. Agreed. The question is what advantages? I think range is one obvious one. The actual damage and morale effects are the 'how much' issues that shouldn't be 'overdone.'
I'd give the 12pdr an advantage in counterbattery work, since we've pretty well established that the 6pdr seems to be better for anti-infantry work. The heavier projectile is more likely to put the targeted guns out of action, after all, with fewer rounds fired. |
JeffsaysHi | 10 Apr 2014 8:41 a.m. PST |
All the evidence does indeed seem to suggest that #6 would go through entrails just as easily as a #12. Which rather begs the question why everyone bothered with all the extra men and horses and logistics that the bigger guns needed. Penetration of light earthworks and walls was, however, significantly different with the bigger guns. A bit of light spadework might hold off a #6 but was wasted effort against a #12, and as for hiding behind a dry stone wall, probably best not. So a mix of guns for best blasting away entrails and earthworks, is possibly the answer. |
Last Hussar | 10 Apr 2014 11:30 a.m. PST |
As McLaddie points out – diameter of ball isn't much different – you don't do more damage based on the width. Its the physics of 2 objects of different weights at the same speed. The heavier object will lose speed due to air friction slower. From Haythornthwaits Napoleonic Source book Range of Brass Guns to first graze at 3' elevation (Selected) Medium 12lb (4lb charge) 1189 yds Light 12lb (3lb charge) 1063 yds Medium 6lb (2lb charge) No I don't get that either |
Brechtel198 | 12 Apr 2014 6:37 a.m. PST |
The sustained rate of fire for a French 6- or 8-pounder was two rounds per minute. The sustained rate of fire for a French 12-pounder was one round per minute So, in one minute of sustained fire a 6-pounder company of six guns would fire twelve rounds, for 72 pounds of shot. A 12-pounder gun company of six guns would fire six rounds, for 72 pounds of shot. An 8-pounder company of six guns would fire twelve rounds in a minute would have a throw-weight of 96 pounds of shot. In an emergency, gun crews would load and fire as fast as they could and that could be kept up for a short period of time, perhaps as much as 4-6 rounds a minute. The efficiency and training of the gun crews was key to the delivery of quick, accurate fire. For counterbattery fire, smaller calibers were recommended to be used, as the sustained rate of fire was higher. To do that, companies and batteries would mass their fire at one piece at a time in order to knock out that piece, and then shift fires to the next piece. Counterbattery fire was time consuming and took an inordinate amount of ammunition, and so was generally discouraged. It was a last resort type of artillery mission, employed if the enemy artillery was hurting your infantry more than you were hurting his, or there were no other targets in range. French artillery doctrine stated not to fire against targets over 1050 yards. In general, the maximum effective range of a 12-pounder was 1,000 yards, that of a 6- or an 8-pounder being 900 yards. What also has to be taken into consideration was the difference in weight among the different nations. For example, the French pound was heavier than the English pound, which was then heavier than the Austrian pound. Therefore, a French 8-pounder fires a round that is nearly the equivalent in weight to a British 9-pounder, and an Austrian 6-pounder throws a round that weighs less than the British and French 6-pounders. The weight differences would become significant in combat when artillery is massed and more rounds are fired. B |
xxxxxxx | 12 Apr 2014 8:20 a.m. PST |
Another "Oh, dear"
. "Therefore, a French 8-pounder fires a round that is nearly the equivalent in weight to a British 9-pounder, and an Austrian 6-pounder throws a round that weighs less than the British and French 6-pounders." You are not correct. The Austrian 6-lber ball was not lighter than the British. Such inaccuracy is not too surprising, since you are proffering data here without any source whatsoever. Intended or "as-designed" weight of (nominal) 6-lber roundshot (using 7000 kg/m-cubed as the density of cast iron): France : 3.01 kg Russia : 2.88 kg Prussia and Austria : 2.72 kg Britain : 2.58 kg The greatest difference, France vs. Britain, was 0.42 kg., or about 14% of the weight of the French round. All of these weights are included in the range 2.795 kg +/- 7.5% It has not been shown that the size vs. specification and, even more so, the density of the iron used to make these rounds was consistent to a degree such as to make the weights above actually different in practice. For example, a 10% variance in iron density would subsume the "as-designed" differences in weight. Absent a full understanding of the actual variation in the density of the iron used, it is impossible to say that there was a statistically different weight in the real or "as-used" rounds. Intended or "as-designed" weight of roundshot (using 7000 kg/m-cubed as the density of cast iron): British (nominal) 9-lber : 4.45 kg French (nominal) 8-lber : 4.00 kg The difference was 0.45 kg., or about 10% of the weight of the British round. These two weights are included in the range 4.225 +/- 5.5%. Same comment about the difference between "as-designed" or intended weights vs. "as-used" or real weights. "The weight differences would become significant in combat when artillery is massed and more rounds are fired." Do you have source for this? Or is this just your own personal opinion? Whether or not there was any statistically significant difference in the real or "as-used" rounds, one will note that it cannot be simultaneously true that the greater weight of the French 6-lber round conferred an advantage for the French compared to others' 6-lbers, but that the a greater weight for the British 9-lber round did not confer a similar advantage vs. the French 8-lber. Source : link The first table compares the units of measure used by the different nations. The second table gives the dimensions of the ball rounds. Kevin, perhaps you need to establish your points better, using contemporary sources instead of un-sourced summarized opinions. - Sasha |
xxxxxxx | 12 Apr 2014 9:06 a.m. PST |
On the density of cast iron, from a very quick google books search in English only
. From the "London Encyclopaedia of Science" (Vol 18) in 1834 : "The balls used in military service are of cast iron, or of lead, whose specific gravities are 7.207 and 11.37 nearly, water being 1. There is considerable variety in cast iron and this density is about the medium." See : link From "The Engineer's and Mechanics Hanbook" (1836), a discussion of the substntail variation in iron ores in Britian vs. various parts of Europe and the reuslting impacts on making cast iron and steels: link From the "Arcana of Science and Art
." (1829), discussion of the diferent methods of working iron and the resulting differences in grain and their substantial effect on finished density : link From the "Mechanics' Magazine and Journal of Science, Arts, and Manufactures" Vol 33, 1840), discussion on the variation in corrosion or oxidation resistance on cast iron arising from different temperatures when cast : link Note, ball rounds sitting out in the elements did indeed rust and that this would further change the resulting "as-used" weight of the rounds. By about 1870, the controll of the variablity of cast iron was being described in some detail. See, for example Osborn's "Metallurgy of Iron and Steel" of 1869 : link So, I think my lack of confidence in the "as-used" or real ball rounds of 1800-1815 preserving the intended or "as-designed" differences in weight is perhaps well-founded. - Sasha |
matthewgreen | 12 Apr 2014 11:32 a.m. PST |
I think Philip Haythornthwaite was originally responsible for this canard. In his Napoleonic Source Board he had a little essay explaining that because of the different weights and measures used by different nations, the artillery weights didn't mean the same thing. He then said that because the "Vienna pound" (from memory) was lighter than the others, Austrian artillery was lighter than the other major nations. I think he has an Austrian 12pdr being more like a 9pdr. However he did not think to cross check this idea with the artillery calibres quoted elsewhere in his own book, never mind other evidence. It was clear from this that Austrian artillery might have been lighter than French of the same poundage, but not the British. He was referencing the wrong Austrian pound, or simply got his facts wrong. Unfortunately the quality of scholarship in our area of interest is uneven at best. |
ratisbon | 12 Apr 2014 4:03 p.m. PST |
Guys, First, the ROF of all weights of guns, save, defense of battery, was acknowledged by senior artillerymen from the Napoleonic era to the ACW as one round per minute. As Hunt wrote a more rapid fire is wasteful; there's not time to properly re-lay and aim, the smoke from the prior round has not yet cleared so as to allow an unobstructed view of the enemy and high rates of fire result in accidents much less fatiguing the crew. Second, the French pound measure for its artillery was 1.1 British pounds. This meant a French 12lbr fired a ball equal to 13 British pounds and an 8lbr fired a 9lb ball. Third, French barrels tended to be longer, this led to an increase of gas in the barrel resulting in greater muzzle velocity and greater accuracy. Austrian 12s had much shorter barrels and thus a smaller muzzle velocity, less accuracy and a slightly range. Fourth, the French 6 was modern technology which made it much more efficient. Even though it had a longer barrel its combined weight of barrel and carriage was lighter than other 6s. The British as the Russians had 2 6s, for simplicity a light and heavy. The performance of the light compared unfavorably to existing 6s and certainly to the French 8s. The heavy 6 was an excellent gun but it was for its size heavy, almost as heavy as the 9 which was slowly replacing it. Finally, using ball effective range, 0 elevation, for all guns was somewhere between 500 and 900 yards, depending on the tube. Beyond, tubes would have to be elevated creating an arc which greatly reduced if not eliminated bounce through, reducing casualties. Not that artillery didn't regularly fire at long range. Indeed, given casualties per ammo expended, most rounds were fired beyond effective range. Cheers, Bob Coggins |
xxxxxxx | 12 Apr 2014 7:42 p.m. PST |
Bob, "Russians had 2 6s, for simplicity a light and heavy." Can you tell me what you are thinking of with regard to the Russians? The obr. 1797 6-lber "system" (in use through Tilsit) was really quite similar to the obr. 1805 (except with regard to the caissons), and that newer piece equipped all light and horse companies by 1812. I have no knowledge of the Russians fielding a "light" and "heavy" 6-lber. See : link and link Can we assume that the rest of this paragraph contains remarks about the British pieces, as your mention of the Russians seems to some extent parenthetical to your comments about the British and French? Is this correct? Or do these remarks apply , in your opinion, also to the Russians? "[T]he French 6 was modern technology which made it much more efficient. Even though it had a longer barrel its combined weight of barrel and carriage was lighter than other 6s." This is not, actually, true. The Austrian 6-lbers were indeed "short" compared to other nations', and the Prussians' older designs rather heavier than the French 6's but of similar barrel length, and the Danish 6's were actually rather longer (barrel lengths of 20 and 22 calibres). However, the Saxon and Russian 6's were of essentially the same barrel length (17.0-17.5 calibres) as the French 6-lber (17.3 calibres), but were lighter than the French 6-lber. Now, I do not see a very significant advantage in this for the Saxon or Russian guns, but your statement implied an advantage for the French which I do not see in the data for these pieces. Perhaps the Russian system had some modest advantage in terms of lower fatigue/exhaustion/wastage of the horse teams. In terms of "modernity", I believe that both the Saxon and Russian design slightly post-date the An XI. Combined weights of barrel+carraige+limber, expressed in French pounds, follow. Note that the French 6-lber "system", in addition to being heavier than the Austrian 6's with shorter barrels, was also 27% heavier than the Russian system and 8% heavier than the Saxon system, the latter of which even had a slightly longer barrel. Austrian 6-lber for horse artillery : 2160 livres (barrel length 15.3 calibres) Austrian 6-lber for foot artillery : 2320 livres (barrel length 15.3 calibres) Russian 6-lber : 2173 livres (barrel length 17.0 calibres) Saxon 6-lber : 2564 livres (barrel length 17.5 calibres) French 6-lber : 2759 livres (barrel length 17.3 calibres) Prussian 6-lber for horse artillery : 3669 livres (barrel length 17.2 calibres) Prussian 6-lber for foot artillery : 3759 livres (barrel length 17.2 calibres) Source : link See Table 25 - Sasha |
xxxxxxx | 12 Apr 2014 8:05 p.m. PST |
From the same source as noted above, following are the weights and barrel lengths for the various nations' 12-lbers. I think Bob was confusing the Russian 12's (which did come in two lengths) with their 6's (which did not). I have used his "light" and "heavy" identifiers. Combined weight of the barrel+carriage+limber: Russian "light" 12-lber : 2527 livres (barrel length 13.0 calibres) Austrian 12-lber : 3562 livres (barrel length 15.3 calibres) Russian "heavy" 12-lber : 3392 livres (barrel length 16.5 calibres) Saxon 12-lber : 3561 livres (barrel length 17.6 calibres) France 12-lber : 4038 livres (barrel length 17.4 calibres) Prussian 12-lber : 4671 livres (barrel length 17.2 calibres) Danish 12-lber : 4162 livres (barrel length 18.0 calibres The story is much the same as the for the 6's. The Austrians are lighter than the French, but have shorter barrels. The Prussians have similar barrel lengths but are heavier. The Danes have the longest barrel lengths. The Russian ("heavy") and Saxon 12's have barrel lengths similar to the French but with lighter systems : the French 12-lber system is 19% heavier than the Russian and 13% heavier than the Saxon, the latter nonethelesss having again a longer barrel. And again, except in the "wastage" of the horses, in my opinion there is not any particular advantage for Saxons or Russians over the French in these differences. Comment: With the French 6-lber "system" 27% heavier than the Russian 6-lber and the French 12-lber 19% heavier than the Russian "heavy" 12-lber (and much more compared to the shorter Russian "light" 12-lber), and with the distance and supply issues of the 1812-1814 campaigns, perhaps the lower burden on the horses did make a difference. Clearly the Russians managed to keep their pieces moving and in action better/longer than the French in these adverse conditions, and perhaps the design differences did play a part in this. Of course, there were also several other variables. - Sasha |
Sparker | 12 Apr 2014 10:12 p.m. PST |
However he did not think to cross check this idea with the artillery calibres quoted elsewhere in his own book, never mind other evidence. It was clear from this that Austrian artillery might have been lighter than French of the same poundage, but not the British. He was referencing the wrong Austrian pound, or simply got his facts wrong.Unfortunately the quality of scholarship in our area of interest is uneven at best. Not clear to me I'm afraid. I'm assuming you are referring to this statement: What also has to be taken into consideration was the difference in weight among the different nations. For example, the French pound was heavier than the English pound, which was then heavier than the Austrian pound. Could you please provide some more evidence of Haythornthwaites' 'uneven' scholarship in this matter? How many Austrian pounds were there at the time, for example, and which did he confuse? Or which facts did he get wrong
Not saying you're wrong, but I would like to hear more please! |
xxxxxxx | 13 Apr 2014 6:53 a.m. PST |
Sparker, I have no idea what Mr. Haythornthwaite has written. However, I think I can clarify a little the terminology used for Austrian artillery. Austrian artillery designers generally used one of two "pounds": -- Nürnberger Artillerie-Pfund, of 466.7 grams (not to be confused with the Nürnberger Handels-Pfund = 509.5 grams) -- Wiener Pfund, most often taken as 561.3 grams (with some small variation in the local usage in various parts of the Austrian Empire) The Nürnberger Artillerie-Pfund was based on the weight of the earliest stone projectiles – the lower desity of stome vs. cast iron leading to the lower weight. There were many other "pounds" in use in the Austrian Empire, but for other purposes. For examples, see : link By 1800, the Vienna pound was generally used for artillery design. From 1800, there was general movement to fix the Wiener Pfund = 560.0 grams In the material I linked above, the reported data for the Austrian equipment was taken from contemporary measurements of the pieces, not design information. the source reports in both French livres and Austrian pounds (Wiener Pfund = 560.0 grams). In my posts above, I did report the data for all the nations' pieces either in modern metric measure or French livres. - Sasha |
xxxxxxx | 13 Apr 2014 7:24 a.m. PST |
Comment: I think we make a mistake if we think of the artillery nomenclature of the era as designating the masses/weights of the projectiles. This is only indirectly true for solid ball rounds and not at all true for other rounds. Really, the identification of these pieces by the "poundage" of a ball round was more of an index or label than a measure. What was used as design variables were the diameter of the ball round and/or the diameter of the bore (the difference between these being the windage). The rest of the piece's design was then laid out as multiples of one of these measurements. An exception here were some general notions about the weight of the barrel being expressed as a multiple of the weight of the ball round. However, these again were (i) rather generalized or rounded-off estimates and (ii) subject to some substantial variation in the "as-cast" barrels, as seen surviving examples and (iii) did not change the fact that the actual casting of the piece was done to a pattern or design laid out in multiples of the calibre. I suppose that the only rather pure exception to the concept of "design by size" was that charges of powder were specified by weight. The label then attached to a resulting system, such a "6-lber", was based very approximately on what a ball, in some cases iron and in other cases stone, might weigh in local measure if it had a diameter equal to the calibre of the piece. This reliance on size in place of weight was, I think, necessarily the case, as having predictable specific gravity (or density) for a stone or even a cast iron ball was essentially beyond the manufacturing methods of the era. So designing for a carefully specified "weight" of the ball was not possible, and instead the design was based on the size of the ball. Thus we see the French use of oversize and undersize rings for quality control in the manufacture of rounds, and the Russian use of a kind of feeler gauge. I do not know of any nation using a weight test to pass balls or other rounds or even barrels as "in spec.", even though a simple mass balance would have been an easier and quicker test than trying to manipulate a set of rings or a gauge. And this leads back to my point made above to Kevin. I do not think we are really being historical to look at the the following calculated data (even though I posted the data): Intended or "as-designed" weight of (nominal) 6-lber roundshot (using 7000 kg/m-cubed as the density of cast iron): France : 3.01 kg Russia : 2.88 kg Prussia and Austria : 2.72 kg Britain : 2.58 kg All of these weights are included in the range 2.795 kg +/- 7.5% I am more and more under the impression that variability in the "as-built" weight of these rounds was as great or even greater than the "as-designed" national differences listed above. Further, variation in weight would not have been noticed or tested as an out-of-spec condition in the manufacture of the rounds, as long as they passed spec as to size. And so Kevin was making an ahistorical and incorrect series of comments about an alleged advantage arising from such "as-designed" differences between nationalities in weight for rounds in the same or nearly the same "class" or "index" or "label" . And lastly that it would be a great challenge for him to provide a period source discussing any such advantage arising from "as-designed" differences in weight, to offer us in support of what he first advanced without any source references at all. - Sasha |
Sparta | 13 Apr 2014 9:03 a.m. PST |
"Counterbattery fire was time consuming and took an inordinate amount of ammunition, and so was generally discouraged. It was a last resort type of artillery mission, employed if the enemy artillery was hurting your infantry more than you were hurting his, or there were no other targets in range." Why does this myth die so hard?? Reading detailed battle accounts (try Nafziger 1813) artillery in continental europe spend the majority of their time suppressing enemy artillery! |
matthewgreen | 13 Apr 2014 9:37 a.m. PST |
On p391 under Artillery tables Haythornthwaite says this after a table of different calibres and weights of different nations from 1802 study by Adye
Part of the difference results from the differing weights of "pound" thoughout Europe; for example an Austrian 12pdr calculated on the "Vienna pound" (0.83 of a British pound) had a very much lighter shot than a French 12pdr calculated on the "Paris pound" (1.08 of a British pound), the respective weights expressed in British measure 9.96lb: 12.96lb, hence the superiority of ordnance using the heavier "pound" against guns of the same "nature" but calculated on a lighter pound. In fact data clearly shows that Austrian calibres were much the same as British ones, even if both were less than the French (and calibre is surely the critical stat here). Further research shows, as Sasha points out, that the Austrian military were using a pretty similar measure of a pound to the British (about 450g). Haythornthwaite's Vienna pound is either referring to a measure used in other contexts (the most likely explanation) or is downright wrong. Where my memory seems to have let me down was that I could compare Austrian and British calibres from data in Haythorthwaite's own book. Austrian artillery is not in Adye's table, and I can't see it anywhere else. So I owe him an apology on that. I must have got my Austrian data from elsewhere. But I still think that quote is sloppy stuff. It is speculation, which should have been reasonably easy to cross check – or leave out. Haythorthwaite is a better scholar than many, but I still find general standards of scholarship weak in much Napoleonic literature. It's not a big or important enough field I'm afraid. |
Brechtel198 | 13 Apr 2014 9:56 a.m. PST |
Counterbattery fire, and how it was used or not used, is not a 'myth.' French and British doctrine, at the very least, discouraged counterbattery fire within the parameters listed. The Russians didn't discourage it until after 1807 with their improvements and reforms after facing the French artillery arm from 1805-1807. French doctrinal information on artillery employment is contained in Jean du Teil's Usage, which is available in English if you cannot use the French original from the Nafziger Collection. The main mission of period artillery was to fire against enemy infantry, as that was the mast numerous part of every army. Sincerely, M |
Lion in the Stars | 13 Apr 2014 11:18 a.m. PST |
Color me surprised with the preference for lighter cannons for counter-battery! I suppose it makes sense, considering the (lack of) accuracy inherent in a smoothbore firing round shot. You'd need to fire more shots just to get one to land where you want it (on the cannon) I know the modern preference has been using heavier, longer-ranged guns for counterbattery fire, ideally using guns that are out of range of return fire at all to suppress/destroy the opponent's artillery. |
xxxxxxx | 13 Apr 2014 12:37 p.m. PST |
And another "oh dear"
. Kevin writes, "French and British doctrine, at the very least, discouraged counterbattery fire within the parameters listed.
. French doctrinal information on artillery employment is contained in Jean du Teil's Usage" Jean, chevalier du Teil de Beaumont (1738-1820) Usage de l'artillerie nouvelle dans la guerre de campagne ; connaissance nécessaire aux officiers destinés à commander toutes les armes Metz: Marchal 1778. link Kevin, are we to understand that a pamphlet introducing the Gribeauval pieces published in 1778 was the last word on French artillery doctrine for the period 1800-1815 as pertains to counterbattery fire? That seems really unlikley. Do you have anything a little more detailed and contemporary to the era to support your comment? From page 50 of the chevaliers's pamphlet, talking about how to choose locations for batteries
. "La reconnoissance de la position des batteries, doit avoir pour objet primitif, les Troupes de l'Ennemi & non son Artillerie. Il ne faut avoir égard à elle, qu'autant qu'on ne peut remplir le premier de ces objets, ou que quand ses effets inquietant beaucoup le Troupes que l'on protege. Il s'ensuit de ce principe, qu'il ne faut jamais engager de combats d'Artillerie à Artillerie, qu'autant que cela est indispensible, pour soutenir & protéger les Toupes : mais, au contraire, ainsi qu'il vient d'être dit, de tirer sur celles de l'Ennemi, lorsqu'on peut les détruire, ou renverserles obstacles qui les couvrent. Ne s'attacher qu'à étiendre le feu de l'Artillerie, c'est consommer inutilement des munitions & chercher en vain la destruction de la batterie. En supposant même qu'on pût y réussir, ce seriot n'avoir rien fait, ou fait fort peu, puisqu'il y auroit toujours des Troupes à vancre." Kevin, thats 142 words written in a pamphlet of 1778 – is that all you can offer for sources about French artillery doctrine on counter-battery fire for the era 1800-1815? Do these 142 words written a generation earlier tell a complete story? In English
. "The siting of the position of a batteriy should have for its first objective the troops of the enemy & not his artillery. One must not give regard to it [the enemy artillery], except to the extent that one cannot fulfill this first object, or when its [the enemy artillery's] effects greatly disturb the troops that one should protect. It follows from this principle that you should never engage in a combat of artillery vs. artillery, unless it is indispensible to support & protect one's troops when, on the contrary, as has been said, one can be firing on the troops of the enemy, when they can be destroyed or obstacles which cover them can be overturned. Do not be only concerned with silencing the fire of the [enemy] artillery : this is to consume ammunition unnecessarily & to seek in vain for the destruction of the battery. Even assuming that one could succeed, it would do nothing or very little, since there would still be the [enemy] troops to defeat." The context has to do with the siting of the positions for batteries. I am not sure the chevalier is really "discouraging" counterbattery fire as much as he is saying don't place your pieces uniquely for this kind of combat when you have the chance to choose positions from which you might destroy enemy troops. Now Kevin, you have stated that this was also the doctrine of the Brtish and the Russians after 1807. So, can you please show us other, different doctrine(s) about counterbattery fire from other nations (or the Russians before 1807)? I do not mean give us more your opinion or the conclusions of some modern secondary source, but instead can you offer any contempoary source(s) that specify a different doctine for counterbattery fire? I ask because I think the passage is what every nation would think of as about the right idea of when to employ counter-battery fires, not somethig special for the British and the French. - Sasha |
xxxxxxx | 13 Apr 2014 12:46 p.m. PST |
Lion, I think the usual game was not to sharpshoot a ball round to hit the enemy piece, but instead to fire shell rounds to concuss the heck out of the gun teams
. often the enemy would have improved his position or chosen ground that would put his piece behind an earthen barrier. Long range in general did not happen too much, as there were no artillery spotters downrange to correct fires by radio. The carriages' elevation mechanisms and the firing tables didn't even include much more than a few degrees of elevation, and nothing near the 45 degree elevation which would have given maximum range (with fall of shot out in the 2+ km distance, which no one would be likely to be able to see). The modern idea of "precision-quided" and "stand-off" has relied on indirect fire corrected by forward observation or designation (on the ground, in the air or from space). The newer idea is AI in the rounds that can designate the target by reference to preset algorithms
. the cost of which will be not small, I am sure. - Sasha |
le Grande Quartier General | 13 Apr 2014 5:04 p.m. PST |
A Friend Writes: I have always been a believer in the principle that it's not necessarily how many men a 12# could potentially kill within the same period of time as a 6# – an individual cannon shot, from either cannon, would potentially hit the same number of ranks when fired at the same type of target, but the light caliber cannon would potentially fire more shot in the same time period, simply because of the time taken to recover the piece after each round of fire [the 6# producing 3 shots in the same time as 2 from the 12#]. What makes a difference, however, in my opinion, is the morale effect upon the target of taking fire from a 12#. Many eyewitnesses describe a distinct difference in the noise made by the shot whilst in the air, and although a solid shot hurtling through the air at great speed, whether 6 or 12#'s, would, in both instances, simply tear a body apart, there was a perception that the 12# shot would do this with far more violence and horror. You could be under artillery fire, and then you could be under 12# fire – there was a perceived difference, and [the weight was] more unnerving. [Our rules] handle this difference by not merely affecting a targets strength, but also, potentially, it's morale. It's possible therefore to suffer less casualties to the fire of a 12# battery, compared to that from a 6# battery, and yet still receive [ morale & fatigue effects ] sooner, because the target's morale is also being degraded. |
le Grande Quartier General | 13 Apr 2014 5:09 p.m. PST |
"Never disregard the terror of sound, of cries, of desperate wish for a mothers comfort when the body is torn; no General who is of worth remembers a battle without these." |
McLaddie | 13 Apr 2014 5:21 p.m. PST |
Counter-battery fire was a practice well documented in EVERY battle, so while it is true that it was discouraged most armies, it was carried out by every army. Marmont charged 20+ heavy Austrian guns behind partial earthworks with 18 lighter horse artillery pieces and silenced them at The Battle of Castiglione in 1796. This is true right through to Mercer's counter-battery fire and the French reply at Waterloo. Given a target and a need, or/and the direction of the commander-in-chief as at Castiloione, then it happened. And I'm sure there were perceived differences between 12#ers and lighter guns. They took both onto the battlefield. The the question is what difference, if any that made on the battlefield. Obviously, the military men saw a difference, so what did the say to justify the heavier weight and less ammo of the 12lber? I haven't seen anything but comments noting the sounds, or kind of gun, but not the relative effectiveness between weights. When there was a significant difference in the weight, like 12 and 24 lbers, sailors could tell the difference. Of course they were fighting behind oak planks, so the results were significant. However, even a 24lb ball in passing close to a man could maim or kill. More than one naval officer notes sailors being missed by a cannon ball, but dying straight away with awful bruised on their heads or torsos from the pressure of the shock wave as it passed by. |
Brechtel198 | 13 Apr 2014 5:53 p.m. PST |
Regarding counterbattery fire, what has to be realized is the priority of artillery targeting during the period: First, the enemy infantry. Second, the enemy artillery if your own infantry was being hurt more by them, than you were hurting theirs. Third, targets of opportunity. And, again, pieces of smaller caliber with a higher sustained rate of fire would be the best to be used against the enemy's artillery. And the enemy's artillery would be targeted one piece at a time by all of your guns to methodically knock out each piece in succession. And since common shell could not be fired by long guns and only howitzers, round shot was undoubtedly the best to use against enemy artillery to disable the enemy's guns. Common shell fired by howitzers might be effective, but roundshot was undoubtedly the best round to employ. Sincerely, M |
Hugh Johns | 13 Apr 2014 6:29 p.m. PST |
Why does it even matter? The active front at Borodino was a little over 2 miles. The Russians could put a gun every 10 meters – regardless of bog or copse or rock – and still have half their guns left over. Were the French firing at their guns or their troops? Yes. |
Bandit | 14 Apr 2014 6:58 a.m. PST |
Couple questions: 1) Returning to my original post – I'm seeking to determine if there is any truth to the 6# being equally "effective" compared to the 12# and what that means. 2) Kevin – What does M. stand for? Cheers, The Bandit |
von Winterfeldt | 14 Apr 2014 7:58 a.m. PST |
"Austrian artillery designers generally used one of two "pounds": -- Nürnberger Artillerie-Pfund, of 466.7 grams (not to be confused with the Nürnberger Handels-Pfund = 509.5 grams) -- Wiener Pfund, most often taken as 561.3 grams (with some small variation in the local usage in various parts of the Austrian Empire) The Nürnberger Artillerie-Pfund was based on the weight of the earliest stone projectiles – the lower desity of stome vs. cast iron leading to the lower weight. There were many other "pounds" in use in the Austrian Empire, but for other purposes. For examples, see : link By 1800, the Vienna pound was generally used for artillery design. From 1800, there was general movement to fix the Wiener Pfund = 560.0 grams" Only a slight disagreement here, the Nürnberger Pfund Silbergewicht was up to about 1811 - Nürnberg: (vor 1811) altes ~ 476,905 (auch 477,138); Handels~ 509,996. The Austrian artillery continued to use Nürnberger Pfund to calculate the weight of the gun ball shot (the Wiener Pfund was used for the carriages). In case one compares – to the upteen times and Brechtel should know this from earlier discussions – but seemingly he ignores it for dogmatical reasons to to lead readers into error : Nürnberger Pfund : about 477 gr Poid du Marc : about 489 gr So we have a difference of mega huge 12 gr. per pound. And in case – one only has to reflect a bit – the French did not hesitate to issue Austrian muskets or Austrian guns for their own use, one of the reasons, surprise – surprise – was that French ammunition did fit for muskets and guns as well. As to efficiancy ("Ueber zwölfpfündige und Haubitz-Batterien") A treatise of a Prussian artillery officer about the 12-pdr cannon and 10-pdr howitzer batteries in the artillery reserve Translated by Geert van Uythoven Source: - Anonymous: " Ueber zwölfpfündige und Haubitz-Batterien ", in ‘Militair-Wochenblatt' 5. Jahrgang (Berlin 1820) pp.1562-1564 One should first answer the following questions: "What should 6-pdr, and what 12-pdr batteries achieve? What should cannon, and what should howitzers achieve?" Having answered these questions, one will be able to make a correct judgement about the present-day composition of a 12-pdr battery. Because of their greater manoeuvrability, which even with foot batteries can be greatly improved by seating the crew on the vehicles when moving into battle, the 6-pdr batteries have a much more comprehensive use as the 12-pdr batteries. The horse artillery is usually able to follow the movement of cavalry, the foot artillery to follow the infantry. Therefore, both are perfectly suited to support both main arms. With these batteries, it is necessary to add two howitzers which have the same manoeuvrability. Partially, to engage an enemy behind cover or especially its masses already at long ranges; partially to prepare, or support, or defend against attacks on defiles, entrenchments and other defensible points with their grenade fire without any delay. The reserve artillery, in which the howitzer and heavy batteries are included, will often still be at a great distance when one will encounter such obstacles. Before these howitzers would arrive the important element of surprise will be lost. (
) When more power is needed instead of manoeuvrability; or when it is necessary to fire at they enemy effectively at greater ranges (1,500 to 1,800 paces); to destroy strong, artificial obstacles that hamper our attack, one will need the 12-pdr batteries. Such deployment of power will need more time though; the 12-pdr batteries need more time, compared with the 6-pdrs to reach their position to engage the enemy. Power and calmness is their character. When nothing is able to endure the enemy batteries, the 12-pdr batteries will deploy calmly, engaging the enemy. And when these are not able to destroy them as well, at least they will attract the fire which is hampering our advance, and often pave the road to victory in this way. the same author, a Prussian about conter battery fire (which was a common practise of all gunners around the world) Or he will have to leave them behind when time lacks to do this. When it comes down to counter-battery fire, howitzers deployed in the open will never be able to stand a fight for long. because the still unreliable grenade shot will have only a minor effect on the spaced cannon of the battery, while the howitzers will suffer from the much better aimed roundshot of the enemy. The author speaks about this from his own experience. Because on 13 February 1814 he opposed with a 7-pdr howitzer battery of eight pieces, about as many cannon of the enemy, which within two hours decided the event at our disadvantage, forcing us to give up." The enemy = the French Napoléon himself has to say this : 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 There is brilliant stuff already on the net, amongst else the Smoothbore Ordonance Journal with topics as : Section 3: Napoleonic Ordnance Weight and Range Tables SOJ-07 (16) Comparison of Horse Artillery Weights Dr. Stephen Summerfield of Loughborough University |
xxxxxxx | 14 Apr 2014 8:42 a.m. PST |
Interesting post. Thank you, v. Winterfeld. It appears that Napoléon himself echoed my comments on range : lots more range, more than ever practically needed, could be have been achieved with higher angles of elevation. Looking at some of the other quotes, perhaps it was more of a Russian idea to use unicorn "gun-howitzers" firing shell for targeting enemy artillery in sheilded or improved positions. These weapons were rather large (two models – calibres like a 12-pounder and a 24-pounder) and longer compared to other nations' howitsers. I had thought it was more a general method for all nations. Kevin likes to trot out that this method didn't always work : once at Borodino when the French pieces were shielded in a ravine and once at Leipsig when the French were up on a steep hill "hull down" to the crest. I believe these were remarkable, especially to the French, precisely because the method was usually pretty good, one of the French Borodino witnesses expressing surprise/shock that all the French gunners had not been made casualties. Interesting "stuff" indeed! Again, many thanks. - Sasha |
Lion in the Stars | 14 Apr 2014 10:53 a.m. PST |
So, the period deep-diggers (Napoleonics is a new era and a side project for me) have found references to 12pdrs having a greater effect on morale than lighter guns, and we know that 12pdrs would have greater effect against earthworks. Personally, I hold that damage to morale is far more important than the number of casualties caused, but as I'm not familiar with a large number of Napoleonic rulesets I'd be willing to simplify and say that the 12pdrs simply cause more casualties than 6pdrs do for any rules that base the effect of fire on the number of casualties. If we're talking about a game that allows for special rules for different weapons, I'd give 12pdrs their 'proper' casualty potential (ie, lower than 6pdrs at danger-close range, equal at longer ranges) but add a rule that either forces a morale test just for coming under fire from the 12pdrs (or heavier guns) plus another morale test for any casualties suffered, or forces a morale test as if more casualties had been taken (that would be important for campaigns, less critical for individual battles). And then there's the increased range and greater effectiveness against fortifications. Range is pretty simple, and an easy simplification for 12pdrs versus fortifications would be to count them as one level lighter. Light fortifications like abattis would be ignored, Earthworks become light fortifications, etc. @Sasha: Thank you for all the heavy lifting in the research department! |
matthewgreen | 14 Apr 2014 11:21 a.m. PST |
Many thanks for that post vW. It is the type of contemporary analytical evidence that is all too rare. While just because these people say these things doesn't make them true (they are not based on scientific analysis, etc) – the fact that experts thought that way is compelling. It will certainly influence my rules! The essence is to capture the trade-offs. For 12pdrs they are less mobile, but have better range and can batter through obstacles better. There are circumstances when artillery did engage at quite long ranges 1,200m or more – and the heavier pieces are particularly useful here. |
Sho Boki | 14 Apr 2014 11:23 a.m. PST |
After researching I work up and use this charts for my 6" and 12" batteries. boki.ee/Wargame/EMPEROR/Sample/EMPEROR.htm 10D dice, BD (Basic Distance) = 200m, turn 10 min. Disorder and Shake are recoverable, Hit aren't. |
von Winterfeldt | 14 Apr 2014 3:09 p.m. PST |
"Personally, I hold that damage to morale is far more important than the number of casualties caused, but as I'm not familiar with a large number of Napoleonic rulesets I'd be willing to simplify and say that the 12pdrs simply cause more casualties than 6pdrs do for any rules that base the effect of fire on the number of casualties." While I am tending to agree that a 12 pdr gun would impress targeted enemmy units more, I wonder how they did recognize that they were under fire by 12 pdr guns, in a battle where there was continous noise and not always a direct line of sight, while standing in the second line?
So far I see no deep digging into 12 pdr causing more morale dammage than a 6 pdr, instead of modern projection of that idea onto a Napoleonic battle field. Are there specific contemporary comments on this?? |
le Grande Quartier General | 14 Apr 2014 4:32 p.m. PST |
VW, I thought my post of the 13th was somewhat to that question. |
Pages: 1 2
|