Mike the Analyst | 25 Apr 2014 3:35 p.m. PST |
I could do with some help about limbers used by French Horse artillery. These will be for 6mm limbered artillery so I only want to get the basic limber type as correct as is possible. I know there are some real experts on this site so apologies for any errors in the following . The start is the Gribeauval system with the ‘A' frame. I understand that at formation in 1791 the Horse Artillery had an ammunition carrier box with seat and handles for two crewmen. This limber could either be used to pull a cannon or a horse artillery caisson with a Wurst type seat. The next event I have is the Year XI (1803) redesign. The question at this point is did this Horse Artillery limber remain as an approved design at this point or was it removed? Given that the focus of the Year XI redesign was to replace the 8 and 4 lbr guns with 6lbrs and redesign the 12lbr then presumably the manufacturing effort went into casting new 6lbr barrels and building carriages and limbers for these and for the 12 lbrs. all with new style limbers. I would also assume that a standard caisson would have been designed to work with the newer A-frame and the old style horse artillery caisson would be rendered obsolete by this. Now that may have been the plan we have Napoleon ordering cessation of constructing guns to the new system in November 1805 so production was only for 18-24 months. Dawson (in Napoleon Series)also mentions that the 6lbr seems not to have been used much in the Peninsula, rather the 4 and 8lbrs were retained which makes me think that the horse artillery would have retained the old-style limbers in this theatre. These 6lbrs do appear to have been used in the 1807 campaign (along with captured equipment from previous campaigns) but half the ordnance was still 4 and 8lbrs. Again Dawson on the NS The Grande Armee in 1807 had 85 x 8 pounders and 19 x 4 pounders compared to 166 x 6 pounders (presumably a mix of captured equipment and year XI new equipment). The 6 pounder was replacing the older system and was acting as a universal gun for foot and horse batteries. The committee under Songis et al came up with a revision which is typically referred to as the M1810 system with a lighter 6lbr barrel on a slightly revised 4lbr carriage. I believe at this point the ammunition box was removed from the A-frame and the coffret used again on the trail of the carriage. So we have a case of change and change again, 4 and 8 lbrs in the Peninsula so 4lb Horse Artillery using the old style limbers throughout perhaps. Any new or re-equipped horse batteries I will assume will come with new style A-frame limbers and related caissons but in some cases I imagine new (M1810) guns replacing 4lbrs on old-style limbers. Pure speculation, any evidence or suggestions? Where Allies of the French (e.g. Saxons) established horse artillery in the build up to 1812 I assume M1810 guns and limbers, no ammo box on the A-frame. Thanks in advance. |
le Grande Quartier General | 25 Apr 2014 10:08 p.m. PST |
Well Mike, here it is. As a 6mm enthusiast, I can only hope you are pulling our legs. I would hate to think this was some grand put-on. Nice try though if it were. Answer: Glue the coffret on the limber for the horse, or the foot,and use tweezers to move the ones you don't glue. After that,win your battles. |
Mike the Analyst | 26 Apr 2014 2:12 a.m. PST |
GQC, no it is for real. I can find limbers with or without the ammo box (which is large than the coffret)so no need for glue or surgery to make any modifications. A British limber with the outer spar removed will pass for the early model horse artillery limber and there are some wagons that I have found that I can fit to the British limber to make up the early style caisson. I suppose the real question is to what date was the early style horse artillery equipment still in use. |
summerfield | 27 Apr 2014 2:48 p.m. PST |
Dear Mike You have confused me as to what you are asking. I must agree that Paul Dawson has confused the situation. There are three extent carriages and barrels at Lisbon Army Museum of the AnXI 6-pdr and 24-pdr howitzer. Much of the 4- and 8-pdrs used by the French in the Peninsular were Spanish Gribeuval. Consider the situation in Spain as unique. Practically all AnXI guns and carriages were lost in Russia in 1812. So in 1813, AnXI gun tubes were mounted on wheels, axles and metalwork from scraped 8-pdrs with the woodwork from the AnXI. The 8-pdr Gribeauval Limber was the universal limber from 1813. This is all documented in the Smoothbore Ordnance Journal. Stephen |
LeonAdler | 28 Apr 2014 1:21 p.m. PST |
The Horse artillery tended to use the early style limbers with the larger ammo boxes ( that could provide seating for two crew) rather than the simple A frame types used for the field artillery. Ammo would be transfered from the limber to the guns coffet as needed. Horse artillery limbers tended to stay much closer to the guns in action than in the field artillery. Cassions would refill the limber as needed. The Cassions too would provide seating for the crew if the battery didnt have enough horses. Some of the limbers would have proper seating arrangements for those batteries with a shortage of horses to make the crews all riding and in those with enough horses to make this so the limber would be a little simpler without foot boards. Many of these limbers were 'captured' items fettled to suit or made up by the batteries themselves. ( quite a few French batteries used Austrian 6pdr guns) There was little uniformity in the artillery equipment in the broad sense but most batteries would try to keep things as simple as possible by having/adapting the same type of gear. Its all a matter of what worked and more importantly what was available rather than regulations and dates. It seems the Horse artillery attached to the Heavy Cavalry got priority for horses as their mobility was paramount ( and Cavalry Generals had more clout) and the Horse batteries assigned to the Infantry rather less priority. L |
von Winterfeldt | 28 Apr 2014 2:44 p.m. PST |
"The Horse artillery tended to use the early style limbers with the larger ammo boxes " I have to disagree on that, French horse artillery gunners did not have this luxury and complained bitterly that very often they had no ammunition due to the fact that the 4 wheeled ammunition waggon was slow and cumbersome. |
LeonAdler | 28 Apr 2014 11:53 p.m. PST |
von Winterfeldt, Artillery men ALWAYS complain the supply system leaves them short of ammo lol Well Im not sure why you say 'luxury' , the Horse artillery did get the pick of what they needed whenever possible as next to the Guard they are top dogs. The cassions used by the Horse art went through lots of versions but I think its a problem less of mobility problem per se then just the general difficulty of keeping a big team of horse close to the action. Its all very tricky trying to draw conclusions from the secondary sources and primary ones are sparse. L Im certainly no expert just distilling all the stuff I've read over the years. |
Mike the Analyst | 29 Apr 2014 4:43 p.m. PST |
Having found another thread on this in the Napoleon Series in late 2013 I see I am joining the party rather late. This is clearly an interesting area given the design committees of the French, captured equipment in different theatres and so on. As the ammunition box on the limber was short-lived I think I will leave these out except when representing captured equipment that would have had these boxes. Still not sure about the horse artillery with the box with seat on the limber. I will assume these had gone by the time the M1810 production was deployed to units in the field. Thanks for the information this far |
summerfield | 29 Apr 2014 5:14 p.m. PST |
Dear Leon 1. The French did not have ammunition limbers with seats. 2. Manson designed the Wurst Caisson in the late 1780s and this was only used in the 1790s for the 8-pdr Artillerie Legere. So called mobile artillery. 3. Yes captured Austrian guns were used. There is no evidence that the French used their superb Cavalry Guns. 4. The French suffered from having no ready ammunition as they did not have an ammunition limber. The only ammunition was in the coffret. 5. Even the AnXI Ammunition limber had a limited amount compared to the Prussians, British, Austrians, Saxons etc
Please read Smoothbore Ordnance Journal on the Napoleon Series. This may enlighten you. Stephen |
LeonAdler | 30 Apr 2014 1:43 p.m. PST |
Thank you Stephen, Not read it I'm afraid don't get the time to do much reading these days and can never manage to read off the web. Age thing I suspect still like a book lol. Easy to get left behind with new research stuff coming out as once the design work done and things in production its off to the research for the next thing to make. All I can say is Les Invalides has the horse art limbers with cases ( in the flesh and in the model gallery) and with the capture of so much Austrian equipment on a number of occasions seems unlikely to me that the French wouldn't use Austrian kit when it was highly regarded and I'm sure Ive read that they did in several places but I bow to your obviously superior knowledge. Thank you for the 'enlighten' tip even though it comes across as slightly
.funny thing the web, things that in speech dont get noticed somehow can come across other than as intended on the web. L |
summerfield | 01 May 2014 3:47 a.m. PST |
Dear Leon I think those models in the Les Invalides are for Bavarian Ammunition Limbers. Certainly one is mislabelled in the Osprey on Napoleonic Artillery. Artillery and what was used is a nightmaire of contradictions. Models were made but were they then produced. Plans made and never implimented. John Muller for the British is a classic example. Stephen |
von Winterfeldt | 01 May 2014 3:58 a.m. PST |
Also the model section in Les Invalides show the to be introduced artillery limber of an XI – which was never realized. The French horse artillery officer espcially complained that at several accasions they could not exploit tactical advantages due to the fact that they didn't have limbers with ammuntion cases as other nations did. This wasn't a general complaint about lack of ammunition but a problem that was very specific about French artillery. |
xxxxxxx | 01 May 2014 6:39 a.m. PST |
For comparison, Russian obr. 1805 artillery ammunition loading
. 3-lber unicorn – 30 rounds on the limber + 90 rounds on the caisson (typically 1 used per piece) 6-lber cannon – 3 rounds on the carriage + 20 rounds on the limber + 51 rounds per caisson (typically 2 used per piece *** ) 1/4-pud (12-lber calibre) unicorn – 3 rounds on the carriage * + 12 rounds on the limber + 54 rounds per caisson (typically 2 used per piece *** ) 12-lber cannon – 3 rounds on the carriage ** + 4 rounds on the limber + 40 rounds per caisson (typically 3 used per piece) 1/2-pud (24-lber calibre) unicorn – 4 rounds on the limber + 40 rounds percaisson (typically 3 used per piece) * originally authorized for horse artillery, but seems to have been generally employed ** originally authorized for short 12-lbers, but seems to have been generally employed *** 3rd caisson added during wartime, if needed The above shows the caissons which were organic to the artillery companies. Additional transport (caisssons and/or artilery wagons depending on the terrain and roads available) were used to re-supply the companies from the army (or separate corps) artillery park. See : link These, in turn, were re-supplied from artillery depots (usually located in cities' fortified places) by artillery wagons. These, perhaps interestingly, were manned by a selection of
. - pontoon companies without pontoons, artiillery garrison companies and laboratory detachments (from the artillery arm of service) - military engineering garrison detachments and pioneer companies (from the military engineering arm of service) - lines-of-communication engineering detachments and labor companies (from the lines-of-communication engineering arm of service – "корпус инженеров путей сообщения" / "korpus inzhenerov putey soobshcheniya"). Comment : The peacetime rôle of the lines-of-communication engineers was not dissimilar to the French "service des ponts et chaussées" / "bridges and roads service". In the Russian case the service passed to War Ministry control in wartime and was mobilized with conscripted labor to provide communications from the army (or separate corps) level of command back to supply sources. The French lack of such a function was a marked difference in the 1812 campaign (examples : lack of riverine transport from the 10th corps area to the main army, no road improvements at steep grades, lack of bridging at the Wop and, until the last minute, the Berezina, etc.). - Sasha |
Brechtel198 | 07 May 2014 7:22 a.m. PST |
The French gun limbers used for horse artillery were the same as those for foot artillery. A new limber was proposed with the Systeme AN XI in 1803 but it is doubtful if it was manufactured in any numbers, if at all. What may be a point of confusion, is that the coffret, the ammunition box carried during movement on the trail of the field piece, both with horse and foot artillery, was placed on the limber when in action, but this was not permanent, only used when the gun company was emplaced and opening fire. Ammunition was supplied to the piece from the coffret, and the coffret was refilled from the caisson assigned to the piece. B |
Mike the Analyst | 14 May 2014 9:28 a.m. PST |
Many thanks for the responses. I think I had been misled by the photos of the limber and caisson in the old OSPREY MAA 96. Makes more sense that these are Bavarian. Interesting that Italeri include this limber in their 1/72 plastics box. See also TMP link |
von Winterfeldt | 14 May 2014 10:56 a.m. PST |
|