"AWI heavy artillery limbers" Topic

It seems that everybody knows the 6-pdr limbers in British and Patriot armies. Fife & drum miniatures provided us with excellent examples.
link
But how did the limbers of 12pdr guns looked like ?
And how about French ? I think they used different system.

Any help ?

The French used a y-shaped limber for their artillery ( you can see an example on the Yorktown NPS website, but the pix are copy protected) of a design that was fairly common in European armies.

I'm going to guess and say that the British used the same limber for the 6 and the light 12 pounders.

Check out the Fort Ligonier web site for pictures of British artillery equipment .

BHR

Very interesting photos from the fort.
It seems that light 12-pounder carriage wasn't much bigger that 6-pounder.

There are two types of artillery for the period-field and siege. The first was considered light artillery, though there was no horse artillery in the British, French, or Continental armies during this period. The second was considered heavy artillery. Generally speaking, the largest caliber for field artillery was the 12-pounder.

For limbers the same model was generally used for field artillery, and a larger, heavier one for siege artillery.

The French readopted the Gribeauval System ca 1776 and it is certain now that Rochambeau's Expeditionary Force brought both field and siege artillery of that system to North America. French units in the Caribbean probably were not yet equipped with the new system, but that isn't certain.

The field artillery of the Gribeauval System (the new 4-, 8-, and 12-pounders had two limbers of the same design. One was used for the 4-pounder, the other for the 8- and 12-pounders. For the heavy (siege) artillery the French used the older Valliere limber, but now constructed to the tight, uniform specifications of the Gribeauval System.

B

This brings up a question I have about limbers/wagons and civilian drivers. Now from what I've read and understand the civilian drivers delivered the cannons onto the battle field then fell back to safer area.

So did the civilian drivers leave the limbers with the guns or take them with them when they went to safer location?

I keep picturing in my head, the civilian drivers pulling the wagon/limbers with the guns onto the battle field. Then the civilian drivers just hop down and leave it all there for the crews to deploy them. Once the battle is over, they walk around until they find the canon, wagon/limber they were assigned to drive for. During the battle the crew used mattrosses to haul the gun and limber around when they needed to move?

During the battle the crew used mattrosses to haul the gun and limber around when they needed to move?

Since "matross" is a soldier of artillery who ranks next below a gunner, they would be considered part of the crew. They assisted the gunners in loading, firing and sponging the guns.

Larger guns (12 lbers) really didn't move much during this war, so that answers some of your questions.

I understood, that the horses and harness were the property of the civilian drivers. The military would hire them or contract them for the period of hostilities.

So the idea that the drivers would leave their horses in danger doesn't make sense.

They might leave the limber, which would have been property of the military, perhaps with an ammunition box on the trail, but everything else would be removed out of harms way.

Heavier pieces were then left 'in battery', whilst light pieces could, perhaps, be manhandled around.

'Where a goat can go, a man can go; where a man can go he can drag a gun.'-General Phillips, British artilleryman.

B

Ammo boxes were carried on the site of the guns, and additional ammo would be carried in a cart, not the limber or anything associated with the limber.

Remember what happened to the heavy guns on the field at Saratoga.

General Phillips was referring to posting guns in a siege position/hill overlooking a fort, not on a battlefield. His gun crews were shot to pieces at Saratoga, especially when they couldn't move the guns.

Major B – Specifically, very true but I've read diary of AWI soldiers. In the diary men were selected from the infantry regiments and assigned to the "guns" as matrosses. The diary went on to explain their duties were using drag ropes to haul the canon around the battle and to assist the gunners.

Historygamer – Your posts make me wonder if limbers were something used with heavy guns of 12 lbs and up when positioned in battery?? Since they were not moved around like smaller Battalion guns.

Ligniere – That does makes more sense, the horses going with the drivers. Which again makes me think limbers were left with the heavier guns once they were placed in position? I know from reading diaries of soldiers, the lighter battalion guns were hauled all around the battle by the crew and infantry platoon assigned to the guns as matrosses.

Remember what happened to the heavy guns on the field at Saratoga.

General Phillips was referring to posting guns in a siege position/hill overlooking a fort, not on a battlefield. His gun crews were shot to pieces at Saratoga, especially when they couldn't move the guns.

Phillips comment was indeed concerning taking artillery to what was thought by others to be inaccessible to artillery in the first place, overlooking Fort Ticonderoga on Lake Champlain.

However, it also applies to artillery as a whole as a maxim or axiom, which was the purpose in using the quote. Good artillery have a habit of being able to 'make bricks without straw' and for overcoming supposedly insurmountable obstacles.

Regarding the battles of Saratoga, there was no 'field' at Saratoga except for the surrender. The two battles fought near what is known as Saratoga were at Freeman's Farm and Bemis Heights.

That being the case, at the Battle of Freeman's Farm one British and one German artillery company were engaged, both being equipped with 6-pounders, which are not 'heavy' guns.

Captain Jones' Royal Artillery Company was literally shot to pieces, losing 36 of 48 gunners and Jones being mortally wounded. His second in command, Lt Hadden was wounded. The German artillery company, under Captain Pausch, manhandled their pieces into action.

So, it wasn't that the British guns were too heavy to move, there were not enough gunners left on their feet to move them and they were overrun in the close fighting. Both companies, however, gave excellent service.

B

The six was a heavy gun for field work at this time as 12s were not as common in such work due to their size.

Note too the guns made little difference in the fight, which was often the case for guns in this period.

Still, I would not want to be opposite one when it went off. :-)

I disagree. The 6-pounder was a light field piece and had been since at least the 1740s when the Prussians developed their field artillery arm. The Austrians followed in the 1750s with a field artillery system developed by Liechtenstein. Following the example of the Prussians and Austrians and motivated by the lack of a field artillery system in the Seven Years' War, the French followed in the 1760s, but they opted for an 8-pounder instead of a 6-pounder.

All of these were field or light artillery, not heavy artillery and were not difficult to move with a 'man team.'

The British 6-pounder of the War of the Revolution period was not a heavy field piece.

B

I'm trying to find the post, to make sure I remember correctly. But if I recall, Gen Knox would take a heavy 6-lbr and melt them down. He could make two lighter 6 pounders from the one. But I can't recall which country made the heavy 6 pounders Knox did this with?

An excellent reference is The Light 6-pounder Battalion Gun of 1776 by Adrian Caruana, Number 16 in the Historical Arms Series published by the Museum Restoration Service.

B

Ironwolf: Knox used French 4 pounders and either rebored them or melted them down for recasting. Recall that a French pound weighed more than a British pound, so French 4 pounders were sort of like 6 pounders.

The French 4-pounders sent to the Americans were undoubtedly of the older 1732 Ordnance, the Valliere System. They were heavy compared to the more modern pieces that were employed by the British and especially compared to the new French light artillery of the Gribeauval System.

B

From The Light 6-pounder Battalion Gun of 1776 by Adrian Caruana, 7:

'…The light 6-pounder and the light 3-pounder were the two standard Battalion guns of the British Army.'

'A Battalion gun was one of a number attached to a Battalion of Infantry; they were manned partly by artillerymen and partly by selected infantrymen known as additional gunners who were commanded by artillery officers.'

'The Battalion Guns were normally attached in pairs, each pair being commanded by a subaltern. If four were attached, the command was that of a Captain. These battalion guns, their equipment and complement, marched, fought and lived with the battalion, and provided close support, while the guns of the park of artillery engaged enemy artillery and provided support at a longer range.'

B

Have managed a 6 lbr for a museum for a couple of years, I can assure you there is nothing "light" about it. While it may rank as light compared to a 12, on the heavy field carriage it is not easily moved about even with a full compliment of men. It weighs a lot and is awkward to move.

I was part of a 'scratch' gun crew for a demonstration with a light 6-pounder at Yorktown last year and the piece isn't heavy. One man can lift the trail handspike to either maneuver or 'point' the piece. It just isn't a 'heavy' field piece.

The weight of the gun tube and gun carriage are given in Caruana's book. If anyone is interested, I'll post them.

B

It depends on the carriage of the gun. Some are indeed heavier than others. As part of a scratch crew, I sure hope you weren't given the ramming position. :-( That would be a huge safety no-no. But back to the discussion.

All carriages are not equal for weight, so you can't judge it by the gun you manned, and there is no guarantee that gun carriage was correct. Many repros are wrong, or 3/4 size, or the wrong carriage for the gun mounted on it. Just saying.

link

Here is a proper 6 lber. Can it be moved about? Sure. But try dragging that thing up hill and down, high grass, etc. Not easy at all, even with drag ropes and extra men. Some 6s were mounted on more mobile carriages too. I'll see if I can find a picture of one.

Here is a good one on a light carriage:

link

If I am reading their site correctly the barrel weighs over 700 pounds, not including the carriage.

Yes, and that's a light field piece that can be moved on the ground by its crew.

And that's the point of the exercise.

Sincerely,
M

Not saying it can't be moved, just not far by hand, or in any serious terrain.

Artillery would not be emplaced in 'serious terrain.' Referring back to the example used, Freeman's Farm, the British artillery company was emplaced in a large clearing along with the infantry it was supporting.

And it was lost because the gunners were shot down and the survivors forced to withdraw, not because the guns were too heavy to move.

By the way, have you read Caruana's booklet on the light 6-pounder? Weights for the gun tube, both types of gun carriages and the limbers are given as well as crew drill and different situations illustrated on how to move the piece.
It is an excellent reference.

B

Video of British gun crews in action! I doubt if the crews in the 1800's were like this. But I'm betting the men back then could haul their guns around the field a lot better than we think.

YouTube link

At the three minute mark is when they kick off.
YouTube link

At about the 2:10 mark the race starts.
YouTube link

Well, why looking up these videos above. I found out that the race is based off an historic event from the late 1800's. So crews were pretty skilled and able to move their guns over what I'd call rough terrain. lol

I doubt there were many AWI battles fought in a gymnasium.
Is any body aware of first hand accounts of British, Hessian, French or Continental artillery crews swiftly moving 6 pounders around battlefields for anything more than a few yards, or to change direction of fire?

Can we really say that guns were effectively man handled around the battlefields of the AWI? And if so, for how far, and how often?