"moving guns in the AWI" Topic

My question relates to the AWI but could apply to more periods, I understand that the guns were towed into position by the civilian teams but once the action started how keen were the teams to come back and move them ? Does anyone factor this into their games ? If the teams were reluctant to come back this would mean the guns were immobile for the duration of the battle ?

Thanks.

A thread on limbers form a few years ago:

TMP link

I have played games in which limbers wereb from play once the artillery was dropped, so you need to choose your position/s wisely.

Light artillery, 3 lbers and 6 lbers, could be pushed some distance by their crews, at roughly marching speed. Heavier pieces, not so much. Limber crews were civilians who owned their own horse teams, and were not keen at all to come under fire.

I have crewed on a AWI 4lb gun a few times and can say that with 4-6 guys on the ropes our gun was pretty nimble. Unless you try going over very rough ground or a fence you can make movements over short distances with relative ease, so I don't know where this "drop and leave" doctrine comes from. Maybe as a limitation in a battle plan by the commander, but otherwise I would use a 1/4 movement or half movement of regular troops. Although I can't say I can speak to a 12 pound gun.
Here is a link to the units Facebook page
link

I suppose when one is not being fired at, and does not need energy to work the gun after moving it, one can move the gun about. But how long/far can a crew keep up with marching pace? Note that they would also need to move ammunition and their tools too.
Most importantly, are there first hand accounts of 18th century gun crews significantly moving their guns once battle is joined? Of guns being moved along with an infantry attack?

It was completely typical for the light artillery such as we are describing to advance along with the infantry they supported. That's what they were for. There might be sections of guns attached to each battalion, or a battery assigned to the brigade.

I've helped prolong a reproduction 3 lber. The things are *light*, six of us could easily have picked it up and carried it. Squads of infantry were detailed to the attached light artillery, to provide plenty of human draft for guns and ammunition.

Now, these were not Napoleonic horse artillery, who could limber up and gallop across a battlefield to distant points as opportunity or need demanded. They advanced at a walking pace, in direct support of the infantry formation they were assigned to.

Light guns, like battalion guns, were expected to keep up with their accompanying infantry. However, they usually pinched a few of the infantry to help move things IIRC. I suspect anything much bigger was going to be pretty hard to move any distance without limbers once you factor all the extra tools and ammo the crew had to shift without the benefit of being properly attached to an infantry unit to get "volunteers" from.
From my reenacting days I can recall us doing just about anything to avoid giving the gunners a hand to push. Although, walking about with a length of burning match didn't make you the obvious choice to be near all their powder!

Interesting. It would appear that many rulesets dealing with the 18th century may have it wrong. Do any of you modify the short distances allowed under them?

All the 18th century rules I play allow reasonable prolong movement of unlimbered guns. I'm a bit old school, I tend to play KoenigKrieg, Moccasins, Woodland Warfare, Volley & Bayonet, This Very Ground, or whatever you're hosting. It seems to me that most 18th century rules allow reasonable prolong movement.

Usually something like: Infantry moves 4" *or* fires, Artillery prolongs 1" *and* fires, so the guns fall behind a bit during a fast infantry advance, but can continue support fire due to their relatively long range, then the guns catch up with the infantry once the infantry falls into a firefight. The guns will get left behind if the infantry falls back in a hurry.

Not all infantry has attached light artillery. The guns don't always go forward with the infantry. Heavier batteries tend to take a position where they have good line-of-sight and stay there for the duration, may even set up and dig in before the battle starts. Seems about right to me.

Zippy-
I agree, and the sets I've played are similar. But the posters here assert that prolonged artillery could and did keep up with the infantry at the same pace. So, 4", not 1"
per turn.

Light artillery, 3 lbers and 6 lbers, could be pushed some distance by their crews, at roughly marching speed.

I don't think I said what you think I said. Actually, KoenigKrieg allows the artillery to prolong 2" if they don't fire. Close enough for me.

My point was that 18th century light guns were fairly mobile even after they had unlimbered.

We all seem to have convinced ourselves that civilian driverss were "unreliable" but I wonder if this isn't just another "wargamerism" (like squares were only used against cavalry) where rule-writers have extrapolated a few incidents involving men who had been impressed against their will (especially if it was by a foreign army), rather than volunteering in some way? It was standard practice to have the limber some way to the rear of the gun line, usually to keep out of the way and to protect the horses (as well as the obvious safety issues with the ammo), and I can't help thinking that this rearward movement is often interpreted as something it wasn't.

I am wrestling with how to handle this issue in my rules right now. Unfortunately the historical record is very sparse on details. My current concentration is on the AWI late-war campaign in the South. On the one hand, the fact is that I find no cases in which the guns actually were re-deployed during the battle. On the other hand the historical record does not address whether this was because with the hired crews, it was not possible, or whether it was not necessary. There are a couple of occasions, though, when one would hypothesize that the guns would have been moved if it were possible.

The comments from the re-enactors are, as often, very interesting. Gentlemen, I ask you, how far / long do you think those light guns can realistically be moved?

I found this a very enlightening thread. So much so that I have adopted the idea fr my new AWI Battalion rules "Lght Bobs". Since the artillery at this level are going to be light and eve amusettes such as used by the jaegers that I'm letting them move at full line infantry rate unlimbered. Thanks all.

Chris P.

Rawdon, I believe the royal artillery pieces at Guilford CH were redeployed as they were used against the rebel first line and later against the second line. This would suggest they were pushed up the road going through the woods and that this didn't take an inordinate amount of time.

Didn't Cornwallis bring his guns all the way to Green's third line where he allegedly fired into a melee.

@ Pan Marek;

It's not a case of the guns keeping up with the infantry, but the other way 'round! Remember infantry would march at a regular pace of 75 paces/minute. Equivalent to today's slow march. The guns on the other hand would move at whatever pace the terrain allowed.

As an re-enactor I have often seen the guns pass us by whilst manhandled.

Then you must have been a doodle, as we (Brits) don't usually march like that anymore. :-)

The guns would move as fast as terrain and crew permitted. In close proximity to enemy, you lose gunners, therefore you lose mobility. The terrain plays a factor in that as well as the weight of the gun and carriage type.

I've seen gun crews lift lighter guns over swampy ground, or haul them up some pretty steep hills. Not sure how long they could do that though, and in combat is something else too. Remember guns carried a limited number of rounds with them (that also added to overall weight), so could not sustain in combat for long just using their own ammo boxes.

I think one of the myths re-enactors often create is the length of fire fights. They weren't that long as back then one side or the other would seem to give after a short exchange. Of course, there are exceptions to that.

Greenknight – the myth about Cornwallis firing on his own troops was exposed in the book on Guilford. It is just that, a myth evidently first told by someone who wasn't even at the area of the battle.

The Cornwallis myth comes from Henry Lee's memoirs. Lee spent the battle way over on the rebel left flank engaged with von Bose and wrote his memoirs many years after the event. There's no way he could have witnessed the alleged event and it is not supported by other contemporary accounts.

Lee was in a closer position than I, so I will take his word for it. lol