"Combat in napoleonic battles: Use of Artillery" Topic

I am at the point to optimize my (homemade) napoleonic rules. And even if i know something i am not sure about some specials cases in napoleonic battles.

Question:
I am still not really sure, how artillery worked in napoleonic battles. It was obviously the big killer, but at what phase in the battle?
A) Napoleonic armies used artillery to soften up enemy positions to attack. That seems clear.
B) Could artillery defend itself against attacks. Was it possible to attack frontally against an artillery position? (Why could the british cavalry at Waterloo attack the Grand Battery?)
C) If no, how could an attacker overcome the enmy artillery?

it wasn't that big killer, musketry it was, artillery is overrated in most rules, softening up did not work that much, artillery had to be protected by either infantry or cavalry to prevent to be taken, in case they are not protected they should be taken, see Reißwitz – Kriegsspiel on this.
Of course artillery could be taken frontally, otherwise there wouldn't be a need to get protection units – or that gunners would retreat to friendly infantry units to save themselves.
Check out the threat about Reißwitz and the changes made in the 1828 edition where artillery efficiency was reduced, in case you need the links for Reißwitz – let me know.

I think it was said repeatedly 70% of battlefield casualties were due to artillery, so there must be some truth behind it.

I believe Napoleon said 4,000 men could not advance against 16 well placed guns.

These are just off-hand recollections, but that is how I remember it.

As for B and C. One tactic was to form open order or a heavy skirmish line to attack and silence a battery frontally. Obviously pinning and flanking was a potent cavalry(probably infantry too) tactic.

There is no truth that 70 % battle casualties were due to artillery, on what is this claimed?
An invention of wargamers or of artillery experts to give this branch of arms too much credit?
Check Reißwitz – he did take part in the Napoleonic Wars and then he did play his rules with veterans of the Napoleonic wars who changed them after "play testing" – I would go for their conclusion.
4000 infantry, displaying the right tactics could take 16 guns any time, guns without support could and were taken.

I agree with von Winterfeldt – artillery would usually withdraw if not supported. Try looking at a map of Leipzig. Both side have wall to wall guns in the preparatory phase. ut the infantry attacks meet up with the enemy infantry when attacking – why? Because the guns withdraw to safety when the enemy approaches. Most wargame rules makes the guns extremely strong in the defense.

It does depend on the context. At Wagram second day Bernadotte's command was routed almost entirely because of pressure from artillery. Also Oudinot's corps very high casualties seemed to be the result of artillery. Both corps suffered from being en potence and fired at from two different angles in terrain that was near perfect for artillery (which was clearly lethal at well beyond normal effective range).

Also at Wagram, Napoleon's grand battery seems to have stopped the Austrian advance without being supported – though that may have been because of confusion by the Austrian commanders as to whether they were meant to be pressing an attack or not.

Still, the conventional wisdom was that unsupported artillery was vulnerable.

My view on artillery in larger scale wargames can be summarised as follows. There are three main types of artillery involvement that must be modelled:

1. Long range bombardment. Undertaken with shot and shell at ranges of up to 1km, being the usual mode of combat for heavy (12pdr) artillery. This was usually preparatory bombardment, that might well provoke a response, mainly counterbattery, from the other side. It would typically last for an hour or more. Casualties would not necessarily be that high, but no doubt some kind of psychological advantage accrues – it creates a sense of mounting tension. This quite hard for wargames rules to deal with – but it was a commonly used tactic.
2. Intermediate fire. Shot or long range canister (shell at cover), when the troops were closer. This was typically defensive as the enemy advanced, and could be neutralised to some extend by skirmish fire, and counterbattery was also much used. Infantry and cavalry would not endure such fire for long in the open without being forced into some countermeasure. It could stop attacks if not neutralised, and dense enough – though actual losses are variable. This is typically conducted by batteries of field artillery deployed in front of the main lines.
3. Close support. Artillery units (of battery size or smaller) working closely with infantry or cavalry units usually with an element of joint command, delivering short bursts of canister from within intervals between units. Typical horse artillery role, also regimental artillery if deployed in sufficient scale. This is highly interactive with the movements of friend and foe.

This is a great abstraction from my reading of the history, and von Reisswitz. One point brought out by the latter (and the 1828 revision) is the extent to which opposing artillery units neutralised each other in all three levels of combat (though that particular abstraction is my own).In wargames artillery units often shoots past each other at juicier infantry or cavalry targets nearby.

The morale factor of being under effective artillery fire has to taken into account.
Peter Hofschröer wrote about a Prussian regiment being hit by one cannon ball which killed two men and wounded 8 more.
Not being able to respond to this kind of fire can be quite demoralizing.

When we play Shako 2, artillery is usually charged by cavalry. Preferably heavy cavalry as they have a better chance of winning the melee.
Infantry can assault but usually they take significant casualties which does not make it worthwhile.

There was a book released recently on Napoleonic Artillery. Get it and read it.

Dear Decebalus,

Artillery COULD BE dangerous at any time in a battle – and in no particular phase!
Perhaps "phase" is a game term used by writers to neatly and abstractly package a battle`s progression.
It`s true that many battles started with planned bombardments to soften positions, or enemy lines, but battles could be more complex and could develop less rigidly.

In general, frontal attacks against artillery were not a good idea, they were often costly in terms of casualties and not certain to succeed – we discussed this earlier here:

TMP link

in the thread the use of "supports" was discussed and cavalry tactics against artillery also.

Quite a few gamers seem to quote the British cavalry at Waterloo "charging" the grand battery as their justification for the wargame tactic of "charging the guns" whenever it is possible! But it should be pointed out that the grand battery was not the primary objective of the cavalry charge.

Also one has to take into account counter battery fire, despite all hearsay that it was inefficient, it was done again and again and again and not without any effect, one has just to read memoires of artillery officers, a very good one are that of Yermolov, you will immense detail about artillery did fight – in contrast to philsophically based research . like

"I was under such ferocious fire that I destroyed one ennemy battery using nothing but canister. The St. Petersburg Dragoons protecting my comapny held their ground under fire with incredible restraint."

p. 102

Yermolov : Memoires of the Napoleonic Wars – Russian Voices of the Napoleonic Wars Volume III, print on demand

So – artillery usually had to be protected, artillery did counter battery fire, artillery did also retreat to avoid being captured.

In a lot of wargame rules – artillery is used like tanks, one can order to shot at desiganted targets.
In reality artillery might not shoot at a infantry line but chose to counter battery firing.

So whenever there is a battery threat by enemy guns – one should role a dice for a percentage of repsonding to that fire despite other orders, that all will bring artillery to more realistic performence and stop artillery dominated wargame rules.

As pointed out earlier – wide range bombardements were nothing else than to inflict dammage on the morale rather than inflicting casualties, at beyond 1000 m – aiming had no consequence, therefore French artillery just didn't do that in this case – like the so called Grand Battery at Belle Alliance – Art Pendragon is the man to tell more about this.

There are plenty good articles around

"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 Amount of men that would be mortally hit at the following ranges:
calibre 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.

from an article by Geert van Uythove

Artillery has to be employed in mass (two companies/batteries or more) to be effective in combat. Napoleon and other competent general officers understood that and the French had been teaching that, along with infantry/artillery cooperation in their excellent artillery schools since about 1765, during their reform period.

That was one of the reasons that Napoleon and other commanders got rid of battalion guns around 1798. And it is also the reason that French command and control of artillery dictated that there were artillery commanders/chiefs who were general officers at the army and corps levels, with their own staffs.

This enabled the large artillery concentrations where artillery was used as an offensive weapon beginning with Friedland in 1807 and continued through Waterloo in 1815.

Reading Jean du Teil's Usage will clearly demonstrate the French artillery doctrine which was used in the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars and what put the French artillery arm in the forefront of European artillery employment during the period.

B

Matthewgreen and Winterfeldt share my sentiments exactly. It s wonderfull that the perception of artillery has changed so much. Years ago no one believed in counterbatery fire, despite of the evidence from memoires, and rules have reflected this – making it impossible with most commercial rulesets to plasy many historical battles.

Being mainly a American Civil War 'historian' where canister was used almost strictly as a defensive ammunition, one of the things that surprised me about the Napoleonic Wars was that canister was used offensively and far more than in the ACW. I'm guessing that this was due to the longer accurate range of the rifles that equipped most troops during the ACW.

I agree generally with Winterfeldt, but I think that artillery could cause a lot of casualties in the right situation.

According to Gill the French fired up to 100,000 rounds of artillery at Wagram. The Austrians suffered 37,000 killed and wounded. Now of course we don't know how many of those casualties came from musketry, bayonet or sabre. But I would guess that around one casualty was inflicted for every five rounds, and maybe more. That strikes me as being quite high, since many rounds would have loosed off at long range. I am used to reading of much lower hit-rates for most distance weapons, in all eras.

Of course Wagram was ideal conditions. Artillery shot was lethal for quite a long range, and my impression was that there were significant casualties from fire deep in the field, against targets that would not have been visible.