"Barrage" Topic

I believe it would be fair enough to say many/most Napoleonic battles began with an extended artillery barrage.

As a tactic, it is not one we regularly (nearly ever) use. Why? Time. Using 6,7,8 etc game turns with little or no action apart from artillery volleys will not allow you to finish a game in a timely manner. Needs must.

Do any of you do this "right"? We will be staging Ligny 1815 in a show here in August, over two days. This gives us the luxury of time (though you still use a lot up speaking to the hoi polloi as they stop & look).

How many turns of artillery fire from a Grande Battery would be appropriate do you think?

In properly balanced game it is gamers decision.
Do you want suppress enemy units before charge or not.

Our wargames last a maximum of 12 moves.

The first four are usually approach march and deploy, normally out of artillery range.

The two armies are now four moves apart.

The attackers normally fire for up to three moves. They aim to inflict casualties at the critical point of attack.

As they advance the artillery continue to fire, but are usually screened by the attack columns after move eight or nine.

The defenders continue to fire on the attacking infantry columns until they are too close to friendly positions.

We use our own rules, which rely heavily on luck of the dice. For artillery two D6 are thrown for each battery firing. They need 8 or more at long range, and 6 or more at short range.

The attacker has to chose the time to start his attack columns carefully. He will want his artillery to fire as long as possible, but must leave sufficient time for the short range musket and column attack

I find it quite possible using GM rules… after all, usually nothing else is happening on the battlefield and that should not be a problem using other rules either.

If we were fighting a set-piece action (boooooring), we would "compress" the bombardment, allowing for arcs of fire, saving rolls (if part of the rules), etc. We'd then apportion the hits in relation to each battery's position, and get on with the game.

I much prefer meeting engagements, and thoroughly enjoy sitting on my blessed assurance, bombarding away for a bit. Many folks don't.

In classic Piquet games, for example, I'd blow through my deck as quickly as possible, seeking only "artillery reload," "infantry move" and "deployment" cards. Games went quickly, and I got all the bombardment I wanted. Beautiful design.

I think this is a genuine problem, and I've given quite a lot of thought to how it might be rectified – though I haven't yet got a working set of rules that cracks it.

The problem is that artillery bombardments are slow and not very lethal – their effect as much psychological as anything; they set the fatigue clock ticking. Most rules don't handle slow attrition very well. You either have a small number of periods (one hour each say) when the casualties are very hit and miss (hit on a 6 etc), or lots of shorter ones which are very boring. There's a not dissimilar problem with skirmishing.

The long time period approach (30min turns at least) works best if you want to bring in slow burn tactics. You also need some way of accumulating casualties/fatigue without blowing away whole units on a lucky throw. I am devising a system of fatigue points which only resolve into actual hits once a certain number have been accumulated.

Another thing worth looking at is command and control rules. Using artillery should have a low command cost (easy to activate) compared to other moves. After all it is very easy for a commander to know whether his orders are being followed, and to send over an aide if they aren't. Better still if the time used bombarding can be used to prepare for an attack in other ways (accumulate command points, etc) then there's an extra incentive. In other words bombarding is a way to fill dead time taken communicating orders, pulling together attack formations, etc.

Hi Mathew,
So you would have points accumulate before order/morale states took effect – this seems reasonable, but involves markers, dials or some form of record keeping.

I had something similar when I was re-writing my rules and looking at effectiveness in terms of casualties, but I dropped a "hit points system" where hits equate to actual casualties and I went back again to determining the morale effect in the artillery firing stage anyhow.

There were different types of artillery fire, but either way, they could be relatively fast and dangerous; the Austrian artillery at Aspern-Essling was deadly as well as annoying and tiresome to the French.
I therefore thought that it was better to treat all artillery fire as the same – as long as the conditions are accounted for in firing/target modifiers that would be OK.

In Muskets & Shakos an attacking player may start a game with up to six bombardment turns, a non player attacker will use 1 to 6 turns. As guns have a chance of becoming exhausted each time they fire, deciding when firing is really worth it is part of play.

Bob

I believe it would be fair enough to say many/most Napoleonic battles began with an extended artillery barrage.

Actually, I think that is more of a SYW style beginning for a battle when the cannon weren't as manueverable. .

Did any French Revolution battles begin with an extended barrage? [Actually it was called a cannonade. Barrage wasn't a term then, and bombardment was artillery fire against fortifications.] Only a few in Germany, very set-piece affairs and none in Italy. None of the 1799 and 1800 battles did.

Austerlitz didn't as well as the earlier campaign encounters
Jena didn't
Auerstadt didn't as well as the earlier campaign encounters.

Eylau and Friedland didn't.

The 1809 battles in Germany and Italy didn't except for Wagram.

Only Smolinsk and Borodino during the Russian Campaign IIRC.

The 1813 battles did…in some parts of the battlefield, but not as a general rule.

The long pre-battle cannonade was a late Napoleonic Wars phenomenon of large, conjested battlefields like Wagram, Borodino, Dresden and Waterloo.

That's not to say games should necessarily ignore the possibility, but such 'grand batteries' cannonading before the first encounter wasn't that typical.

OP states "Ligny", McL.

That might have been a clue as to what time period I was referring to.

"How many turns of artillery fire from a Grande Battery would be appropriate do you think?"

That is the question that each battlefield commander had to determine/guess for himself and also to schedule the main assault that was to follow.

Re. 1815:

Assuming the topography will not allow overhead fire at any point, it would make sense to order this for one hour (which would be similar time to that of the action at Waterloo), after which time the advancing corps might begin to move through a massed battery.

A obvious restriction on the cannonade would be the availablity of ammunition.
A French 12 Pdr caisson would carry 48 roundshot, the small trail chest would have an additional 9 Roundshot.
If you consider one round per minute that quantity of ammunition represents about an hour of fire.
There were additional caissons available, a total of five for a 12 Pdr, but these were not necessarily with the company in position, but in the rear with the artillery park. So there might be one or two on the line and three in the park. As caissons emptied in the line they would return to the park to be replaced or refilled.
The other determining factor would be the physical fatigue of running back the cannon following each round of fire. The heavier the ground and cannon the more fatiguing.

So the cannonade could last up to an hour before a combination of fatigue and the need for ammunition re supply would take effect. How many game turns that represents will be dependent on the time scale of your ruleset.

ochoin,
drop me a line at contact@grandmanoeuvre.co.uk
and I can send my artillery fatigue and re-supply rules they might be useful or adaptable?
Best Regards,
Mike.

I agree that it is not true that most Napoleonic battles did start with an extended artillery barage, this happened only at well defined circumstances, as when you know the position of your enemy, that is, the full enemy army was arraned in battle order already at the evening before the battle in front of you.
And even then, big mistakes could happen, like Napoleon placed a lot of his heavy guns at Borodino initially out of place (read Mikaberidze's Borodino about that).
The French "grand" battery at Belle Alliance had not to soften up "targets" but to reduce the morale of the enemy, Art Pendragon explained this well, it was unaimed harasment fire – to fire as fast as possbile without aiming.
It was a double edged weapon, Karl observed that in the campaign of 1809 Austrain great batteries opened up to earlier and hand no ammunition or were exhausted when needed, hence the rotation of batteries as for the Russian Army.
At least half of a wargamers artillery should be kept for that reason as reserve and would need to be brought to that point where and when needed.
Forbid anything than direct fire – only slight angles, and one would have to think twice where to place ones guns on the wargaming table.

Hi Michael

In my system (which has not endured rigorous play testing yet – so the jury is still out on it), targets acquire fatigue points under bombardment. This is not subject to dice throws, etc – they are just planted on the target, to save time (but you do need markers or record keeping). When three or four are accumulated (different version of the rule) these are resolved in a process that involved a chance element and converted into actual damage (other things can trigger this resolution with lesser numbers). I am currently working on an idea that means that FPs are resolved at division level at the end of each turn (i.e. aggregate FPs on all units and translate into damage). Something analogous works on firing units to wear down the firers. I may yet drop all this and focus on morale instead, like your rules do – though this too may involve record keeping if I want to track a more gradual, cumulative process. This rule writing is painful!

As to lethality, I think a lot of this boiled down to range. Often (Waterloo for example) the cannonade range was very long. I expect the Austrian at Aspern-Essling were delivering fire at much shorter ranges – as was the French grand battery at Wagram and the Austrian counter-fire.

Agree with you about having cannonades last about an hour. after this the laws of physics/diminishing returns start to set in I think. At Quatre Bras it was much shorter though.

Also important to remember that batteries can't fire all day. Armies often kept reserves to replace fatigued batteries – an important part of the Prussian method, at least, I think, as well as Russians, already mentioned.

McL

Methinks you protest too much. Valmy consisted of a cannonade and not much else.

Also I thought Eylau started with quite a significant mutual cannonade. Even if this wasn't at the precise start of the battle (I'm sketchy) it formed a significant part of proceedings.

I think we can allow that "many" battles of the era started with a cannonade, even if it isn't "most" – which all the OP was suggesting.

vW,
Thanks… That`s a good point regarding rotation… and one I think I have overlooked.
Yes, Art`s right, but what else could the French artillery do given the Duke`s dispositions, but hope to hit something on a reverse slope – again I incorporated reverse slope targets into my artillery rules and the fire is less effective.

matthew,
Interesting stuff. Maybe units of varying class could react differently to this annoying fire maybe that could be diced for too?
Some units may become disheartened, some may, for various reasons, become maddened or resolute against the material effects?

Like ochoin you`re welcome to take a look at my fatigue and re-supply rules… just drop me a line at Grand Manoeuvre.

Mike.

Thanks Mike I will email. An interesting topic that usually not done justice to.

I love the idea of bringing a stronger psychological aspects into rules. We tend to use a rather stilted and mechanistic model of psychology. Usually simple deterioration and collapse, with the occasional inspiring leader to cheer things up. Actually people are much more complex, and that complexity (intuited rather than made explicit) was something that did concern commanders. Think of the pent-up energy of a unit that has been sitting back for half the battle waiting for the order to go forward! And if cannonades are largely a psychological weapon…

Still developing a good system for that is a bit beyond me right now. I'm hoping a brainwave will strike. It doesn't help that I haven't read much on the psychology of war. Not just psychology but the dynamics of adrenaline, etc., if that's a distinct discipline.

Matthew

That might have been a clue as to what time period I was referring to.

Yes, but I was running with your opening comment:

I believe it would be fair enough to say many/most Napoleonic battles began with an extended artillery barrage.

Methinks you protest too much. Valmy consisted of a cannonade and not much else.

Well, I've been accused of that more than once….

Also I thought Eylau started with quite a significant mutual cannonade. Even if this wasn't at the precise start of the battle (I'm sketchy) it formed a significant part of proceedings.

From what I remember, there were significant cannonades during the battle, but not at the beginning.

Personally, I'm not sure what constitutes 'many'. It was done from time to time.

I think Mike has it right. An opening cannonade was a tactical decision based on a number of factors including terrain and enemy dispositions.

The cannonade was meant to weaken the enemy. Whether that created casualties, lower morale or disorder, may be simply breaking out different aspects of an effect that resulted in a 'weakened' enemy.

I am not sure that cannonades should be considered as separated events. Certainly at Waterloo the French great battery opened a cannonade -mostly blind and at long range, as others have commented- but only on one section of the battlefield. It went for some time before D'Erlon started his advance, but it didn't stop at that moment either. It simply switched the bombardment zone. Also, even before the grand battery opened fire (which it did at around 11.45 am) the French had already started to attack Houguemont (around 11.30 or, even earlier if we follow Wellington's dispatches).

Maybe I am wrong, but I am not certain that the idea of cannonades as opening moves in Napoleonic battles is completely accurate. I see them as organic parts of a whole; sometimes marked the start of the action (Borodino?)or even the whole action (Valmy); at other moments were spur of the moment events, as with the French grand battery at Wagram.

At least half of a wargamers artillery should be kept for that reason as reserve and would need to be brought to that point where and when needed.

Now that's worthy of consideration.

At least half of a wargamers artillery should be kept for that reason as reserve and would need to be brought to that point where and when needed.

It is worthy of consideration, but I think 1/2 is a bit much.

Artillery units had about 2 hours of firing in them before they had to rearm and rest. Seramont at Friedland with his famous 'artillery charge' had 36 guns and held six in reserve. What gamer would do that? Unlimber five stands, but leave one limbered? Fresh troops, whether infantry, cavalry or artillery were very valuable.

In a number of Napoleonic rules, reserves of any sort aren't all that valuable. The same with artillery. Bring all of it forward for maximum fire/combat power.

BTW: The Prussians advanced into the French artillery cannonade at Valmy rather than a pre-battle event.

It is worthy of consideration, but I think 1/2 is a bit much.

I agree. In an 1815 context the French held back their Guard batteries at Waterloo. They may also not have started the Grand battery with all the units eventually assigned to it. Wellington held back his horse artillery. In both cases these were brought up later, and in neither as much as 50%.

My knowledge doesn't stretch to Ligny. But one commentator (was it Clausewitz?) remarked that the Prussians were forced to hold back a lot of artillery in reserve because they didn't consume ammunition prudently. Contrasted this to the French who managed their fire better.

Which leads to a rules point. If you bring fatigue into artillery rules, better quality units will fatigue more slowly. It may be the only point at which you need to factor in unit quality.

G'Day Bill et al,

I wager that if the gamer used a game design that was not quasi-Napoleonic, and knew the general principles, general rules, and system used for artillery, that they might indeed use a reserve…at least I do…with that said…I shall even go one step further and explain that pieces were held in reserve within the battery or mass battery…and just not in the artillery park.

According to the general principles and the system for artillery:

There is always a reserve for a complete battery of two pieces or a section. How the battery commander positioned his battery was up to the particular circumstances involved.

Normally it was the howitzers that were keep in reserve, but this was dictated according to particular circumstances. Nevertheless it was possible for two cannons to be in reserve instead of the howitzer section.

First priorities of fire, and the primary threat were always considered when forming a battery or massed battery.

The number one priority of fire was against a body of troops charging the battery.

The primary threat to a battery was the enemy skirmisher.

When protection of the battery was involved; the French considered that the howitzer was best used against a body of troops charging the battery, cavalry, and skirmishers, instead of ball. The howitzer was to be kept in reserve as in accordance to the mission previously stated. This of course doesn't mean that the main portion of the battery won't help in firing at a body of troops charging the battery or skirmishers.

As an example in my game design a French battery of eight or six guns must keep a section in reserve unless the battery is being assaulted.

For a massed battery the center division is often the reserve division or formed to the rear and centered behind the other two divisions. Of course this order of battle can change due to particular circumstance. The massed batteries at Friedland, Hanau, and Waterloo are perfect illustrations of this.

Unless a particular circumstance arose, the reserve did not fire. In a massed battery quite often each division was given its own mission. Each division had its own commander, and a massed battery commander orchestrated over the entire massed battery.

The French executed fire by salve for three reasons, of which there are two types of fire; aimed and non-aimed, and the execution of salvo fire is non-aimed fire.

Fire by salvo is used for three principle reasons:

1) Against a charge on the battery by cavalry at 400 to 700 meters

2) When battering a wall; the concept was, when all the balls struck the wall at once, it would increase the chances of the wall collapsing.

3) In an attempt to demoralize an enemy position at the "pied ferme" (massed battery at Waterloo) or while the enemy is retreating (Friedland).

(Bombardment could also be executed as an attempt to demoralize and cause destruction / fire within a city or fortress &c.)

It has been asked whether the general principles in attempting to demoralize an enemy position, should it is appropriate for a mass battery to execute a preliminary cannonade prior to the battle, or be considered a cannonade as an "organic part of the whole".

It actually depended up the general circumstances and nature of the battle. A cannonade which was an attempt to demoralize the enemy by batterie (batteries) directe (execution of a cannonade to the front) was prior to an assault, whether prior to the battle or during the battle. A cannonade which was an attempt to demoralize the enemy by batterie a dos / revers (execution of a cannonade to the rear of the enemy) was normally used to fire upon the rear of a retiring enemy body of troops.

At the Battle of Friedland there are two examples of cannonades used to demoralize the enemy (one by means of batterie directe prior to the assault and the other by batterie a dos) and two examples of bombardments used to demoralize / destruction of the enemy (Friedland and Heinrichsdorf).

At the Battle of Jena, the mass battery was formed after the avante-garde belonging to Claparede took Krippendorf. Napoleon then forms a new ligne and a mass battery from the 5e Corps, the Garde, and later Desjardins artillery. During the latter stage of the battle, the mass battery executes a cannonade which was an attempt to increase the disorder of the enemy and demoralize the enemy by batterie a dos / revers.

Just as the term of bombardment is commonly used incorrectly, so is grande batterie. Quite a few players and historians believe that a grande batterie is a military term. It is merely an adjective to express a large battery. The correct military term is mass battery.

Best Regards
Art

@matthewgreen. I use something similar to the fatigue points from bombardement but these are only resolved when the units on the receiving end of the fire need to be tested for something such as being attacked or changing position. This way neither the attacker or defender can have any certain knowledge of the effect of the bombardment.

G'Day Mike,

Cannonade with an attempt to demoralize an enemy position at the "pied ferme" should only have a short term effect.

In my game design a player may fire cannonade with the intent (salvo) to demoralize an enemy. There are no casualties just a short term effect on their morale / cohesion. It lasts only one game turn of 20 minutes and it ranges from 0 to -2 cohesion reduction.

Directly after the cannonade, if an assault it made, an additional dice (six sided dice) is rolled with the normal assault reaction dice.

Best Regards
Art

So, assuming that set of salvo effects, would a 40 minute salvo be cumalative, or have effects just for that 20 minute turn?

Thanks Art,

You anticipated one of my questions ;-)

However, I`m still sceptical that you can demoralise a force without inflicting any injuries at all though… or is it that the numbers of casualties don`t quite make it to the level of one figure to be removed from play ?

Regards,

Mike.

G'Day Mike,

Yes you are correct…casualties were taken of course…but not enough to take away an entire figure. But remember this type of fire is not about inflicting casualties…especially when it was batterie a dos.

Best Regards
Art

I'm sure that Art's right in suggesting that the main idea was to achieve a temporary loss of cohesion, and that casualties would not register at the level that most large scale wargames are played.

In addition I suspect that cannonades achieved a longer term fatigue effect that would not assist an immediate attack much, but would help if the battle became prolonged. It gets the adrenaline flowing. I remember something about British witnesses at Waterloo saying that the cavalry charges were a relief from the artillery fire.

At some point in a battle men seem feel that they have done enough and stop. A cannonade may hasten that process.

Of course in the right circumstances artillery could cause significant losses over time, even at relatively long ranges. I'm thinking of the second day of Wagram in particular.

Speculation, of course. I can't point to firm evidence.

Mattewgreen:

I was simply curious as to how Art's 'temporary' effects of a salvo/cannonade mechanic worked in his game.

I think there are a number of ways to describe the results of a sustained 'barrage' as well as a number of possible, discrete effects.

Thanks Art,

I thinking about this and how, or if I can actually make practical use of it. You`ll appreciate what I mean of course, when I say that my rules are concerned largely with order and morale effects.

It`s probably still quite possible to accommodate this, as I have an optional rules for a temporary "battle maddened" state which is not a million miles away from the demoralisation effects that you mention.

Regards,

Mike.

I find you can't make rules for every nuance of a Napoleonic battle. That way lies cumbersome, dull & unplayable games.

I will say the ELAN rules we use are mostly quite sparse with artillery. The lists suggest most crews are Class 3 (average/good) & they just fire with only a few rules as to targets eg must fire at the nearest enemy etc.

It may be worthwhile to add a few rules that have been brought out by the above discussion:

1. artillery reserve
2. limiting the effects of barrage (OK 'cannonade') to morale hits
3. ammunition rules for sustained fire

Clearly there's more you could add but see my first paragraph.

G'Day Matthew,

I think that perhaps you are confusing non-aimed fire with aimed fire at an enemy position at the "pied ferme".

Where as the best result for a moving object was batterie en flanc (at an angle of 20 degrees or less) or batterie oblique, batterie d'echarpe (to the front), batterie revers (oblique fire to the rear) using slow fire instead of tir rapide (quick fire / rapid fire – rapid fire was when an officers did a slow count to 15 between each piece before giving the order to fire).

Bill…sorry about not responding…I sort of missed your posting…

I agree there are a number of ways to describe the results of a sustained cannonade…but from my research I find this comment very true:

"Pour inspirer la crainte il faut une force physique plus ou moins grande suivant le courage de ceux qu'on veut intimider; il faut des morts; il faut des blesses. Mais des que la peur s'est empare d'eux, le moindre bruit, un rien suffit pour la maintenir. Or le boulet se fait entendre de plus loin que les balles; il agit donc dans une plus grande etendue, et la sphere de sa puissance morale est plus grande. Que le lendemain d'un combat on se mele a une troupe rompue par l'artillerie: chaque soldat aura courru les plus grands dangers. L'un a senti le vent du boulet; l'autre a manqué a'avoir son arme emportee, celuice son sac; celui la son chapeau: et souvent ce terrible boulet a passé a vingt pieds au dessus d'eux…"

Sorry but you have to use the Google translator…

As for:

"I find you can't make rules for every nuance of a Napoleonic battle. That way lies cumbersome, dull & unplayable games."

No one is asking anyone to create a rule for each "nuance" on the field of battle…but at least try to understand the general principles…general rules…and their military system…so as to know your options…

Best Regards
Art

Art:

Don't worry about the translator…I don't use Google and only use a translator for a jumpstart.

Great quote. Who are you quoting? "Pour inspirer la crainte il faut une force physique plus ou moins grande suivant le courage de ceux qu'on veut intimider;…"

I was asking about the cannonade's short effect you described for your rules. Does the effect last one 20 minute turn after the cannonade, or the same 20 minute turn… and are there are any accumalative effects over longer cannonades, say 40 minutes/two turns?

Best, Bill

Art,

The next question which comes to mind is…

In what circumstances would un-aimed fire actually produce a significant effect in terms of casualty and so reduce morale levels permanently ?

Mike.

Thanks Art. I'll sure try.

Good Day Bill,

It is from the commandant l'artillerie chef d'escadron Christophe Clement.

I have an accumulative hourly effect (three turns) on a body of troops and their cohesion while engaged.

Movement is simultaneous for both sides. Directly after the cannonade, (the turn after – infantry move 37 inches every turn (without any particular circumstances) in my game design / 32 yards = an inch) if an assault is made, an additional dice (six sided dice) is rolled with the normal assault reaction dice.

With an additional twenty minutes of cannonade a roll of three becomes a -1, and an hour of cannonade the two on the dice becomes a -1.

Dice:
1 = 0
2 = 0
3 = 0
4 = -1 modifier on the assault chart
5 = -1 modifier on the assault chart
6 = -2 modifier on the assault chart

If a body of troops were exposed to an hour of cannonade, and there was no immediate assault, then the hour of cannonade is considered an additional hour of being engaged.

What we want to achieve is an effect to a body of troops cohesion during the course of the battle, which are found in most game designs.

With that said: during the period of the cannonade, there may be bodies of troops that were never affected due to their higher morale / cohesion, no balls landing near them, while others troops may have been affected due to the proximity of the balls landing next to them, or due to their lower morale / cohesion &c.

Generally, there is a temporary increase in concern of cohesion and morale effect during the cannonade due to intensity and duration. It is at the end of the cannonade that an immediate assault was intended, so as to strike the enemy before they could regain their composure.

Morale and cohesion during the battle is like the grids of an EKG paper printout, with a cannonade representing a heavy workout and the assault troops arriving being before the recovery time of the gymnast, thus putting the gymnast to another workout….Bill I hope I have explained it with a good example for you…

Mike – If you are referring to non-aimed fire at ranges outside of tirer a mitraille, at a body of troops moving, that has a higher probability to produce causalities.

Then it would be batterie directe (or batterie a dos) where the object advances directly against the battery and no horizontal alignment is requited. But everything depended upon the experience of the Artillerist with the adjustment fire, size of bracket, and most of all luck.

Of course having batteries already positioned en batterie oblique / batterie d'echarpe and executing aimed fire at an enemy position at the "pied ferme" was most advantageous than any other fire.

Best Regards
Art

Morale and cohesion during the battle is like the grids of an EKG paper printout, with a cannonade representing a heavy workout and the assault troops arriving being before the recovery time of the gymnast, thus putting the gymnast to another workout….Bill I hope I have explained it with a good example for you…

Art:
Yes, that's what I wanted to know, how you created that dynamic with the mechanics. Thank you.

Best Regards, Bill