"Moving the guns" Topic

I've written my own set of SYW rules: A Glorious War.
They aren't anything special but I like them.

I'm still tweaking* them & I'm wanting to allow field artillery to move but make it difficult: as this is one of the differences I see between the SYW & Napoleonic warfare.

Penalties for limbering & slower movement are obvious means but I'm thinking of adding another restriction.
To wit: guns are only allowed to move if in the command radius of the general in charge.

Any comments are welcome.

* NB 'tweaking' , definitely not 'twerking'

In 7YW there was considerable use of battalion guns. These were normally manhandled.

There was great difference in moving the M1757 Swedish 4-pdr or the beautiful M1757 Rostaing 1-pdr and the M1732 Valliere 4-pdr. The former could easily keep pace with the infantry.

The Swedish and the Austrian had travelling poles etc. You will find more details in the Smoothbore Ordnance Journal on the Napoleon Series Website.

Stephen

I mean field artillery.

Ochoin,

Excellent idea. Are you taking into consideration moving by prolonge, manhandling, etc.?

You could also have a requirement of an artillery commander and use that as your command radius?

And are you going to differentiate between horse and foot artillery for mobility?

Just ideas, mind…

While I like the idea should not this be slow, variable speed, and somewhat risky if the infantry being supported gets pushed back?

Wasn't one of the breakthroughs by Gribeauval making artillery more mobile?

link

link

In terms of command, will you be considering the "status" of artillery within each army? In field actions (as opposed to siege warfare) was a particular army's artillery arm merely considered "separate", or was it also "subordinate" to the infantry and cavalry when it came to reacting to enemy threats/supporting friendly moves.

How common were artillery "characters" in this period? My first thought here is the British gunner, William Phillips, who first came to prominence at Minden, and by bringing large calibre ordnance into action at the gallop at Warburg (not to mention forming the RA's first ever band), but who was also sufficiently well-regarded by "mainstream" colleagues to be given command of infantry formations during the AWI (officially forbidden).

Ochoin, do you (or others) have anecdotes about SYW era artillery, other than battalion guns, moving in the course of a major battle?

I can't think of any, but I'm not always fully informed. My impression is that an army's batteries usually deployed when the army formed its initial line of battle, and rarely moved from their first positions, except for battalion guns of course.

While I like the idea should not this be slow, variable speed, and somewhat risky if the infantry being supported gets pushed back? Wasn't one of the breakthroughs by Gribeauval making artillery more mobile?

The French were actually playing catch-up with the Prussians and Austrians regarding field artillery mobility on the battlefield.

The Prussians began it in the 1740s, and the Austrians followed suit after being surprised and outclassed by the Prussian artillery in the War of the Austrian Succession.

Gribeauval had experience with both the Prussian and Austrian artillery arms and was picked by the Duc de Choiseul to revamp and modernize the French artillery arm, which he did. It was a complete overhaul and the new French field artillery arm was designed for a war of movement and maneuver. This is handily outlined in Jean du Teil's excellent doctrinal publication, De l'Usage de l'Artillerie Nouvelle dans la Guerre de Campagne.

The only elements that Gribeauval did not cover were horse artillery and militarizing the artillery train. Minister of War Duportail implemented the first in 1792; Napoleon the second in 1800.

Zippy, I'm fairly certain that Prussian battery guns (and howitzers) were moved forward during the attack at Leuthen, to keep the Austrian line under fire. It's mentioned in Prussia's Glory by Duffy, but I don't have my copy here at the mo'.

Cheers.

Dal.

Ochoin, do you (or others) have anecdotes about SYW era artillery, other than battalion guns, moving in the course of a major battle? I can't think of any, but I'm not always fully informed. My impression is that an army's batteries usually deployed when the army formed its initial line of battle, and rarely moved from their first positions, except for battalion guns of course.

Phillips' action has already been mentioned and can be found in the volume Where A Man Can Go by Robert Davis and information on the Prussian and Austrian field artillery arms can be found in Christopher Duffy's excellent books on those two armies of the period. All are still in print, I think.

I don't see the point in adding a further restriction unless all of your other infantry and cavalry are under the rules mechanism.

DAF, obviously, in my SYW rules, all infantry & cavalry have their own respective commanders, with all the necessary restrictions to independent movement.

My understanding of SYW battles was that the field artillery (not battalion guns) would be placed by the Commander of the army or a senior proxy & that this was the norm in most/all armies. Further movement of the guns during the battle happened but not as readily or easily as in Napoleonic warfare. That is why I am inquiring of the Learned Membership if only a designated artillery commander (eg the C-I-C) could be responsible for moving the penny-packets of artillery pieces might not be a suitable mechanism.

If considering a mechanism in game terms, then I support the concept of limited field artillery movement as directed by officers, commander in charge, etc. You could develop a range of outcomes, with odds greater for C-I-C.

Consider the battlefield environment effect on movement. If within a certain range of enemy horse, or infantry, there could be the threat of an opportunity charge since the guns are vulnerable during the limber phase. The odds for movement could be greater if shielded from enemy action by terrain or formed troops.

Don't forget that the drivers were civilian contractors, not military personnel and, in most cases, owned the horses and even the limbers. They tended to withdraw to a VERY safe distance after unlimbering the guns. Limbering up under fire or under threat of a charge was highly unlikely.

What makes Napoleonic artillery tactics possible is the militarization of the train. The only major power with militarized drivers during the SYW (other than the Prussian horse artillery) was the Ottoman Empire,

It should also be noted that during the War of the American Revolution at least one US state had artillery drivers that were artillerymen. This would become the normal practice when the US Army was formed after the war and the artillery arm continued the practice. The US Army had no separate artillery train.

Interestingly, it appears that the French horse artillery arm used civilian drivers up to the creation of the artillery train in 1800. It seems to have worked out fairly well…

Further to the above as I recall the only unit that had soldiers for the artillery drivers in the SYW was the single Prussian horse artillery battery

We don't allow field guns to move in our SYW games once they unlimber – they can begin the game limbered but once those drivers unlimber, off they scurry until the shootin' stops

@ Frederick: this was my first thought but I still think I'd like the *possibility* of movement, even if in the event they rarely move.

BTW thanks for everyone's thoughts. A free copy of the rules has been sent to all of you. 87))

Don't forget that the drivers were civilian contractors, not military personnel and, in most cases, owned the horses and even the limbers. They tended to withdraw to a VERY safe distance after unlimbering the guns. Limbering up under fire or under threat of a charge was highly unlikely…

But at times those civilian contractors did move guns during the battle, certainly into line in the first place, which meant they could be under fire. It might be a situation where guns could be moved, if the contractors were willing. [A die roll?] OR guns could be moved from one place to another as long as they weren't under fire or in harm's way.

Even when the trains were militarized, the drivers and train personnel were most times in separate units with different uniforms, which was the case even in the Napoleonic wars.

the whole idea of battalion guns are that they are with the battalion, regardless in the attack or defence, they could be man handled – or even drawn by a small train team.

the whole idea of battalion guns are that they are with the battalion, regardless in the attack or defence, they could be man handled – or even drawn by a small train team.

For the third time, I'm talking about field artillery NOT battalion guns.

The French had a very bad time overall with their artillery arm as they still had the Valliere system and there was no distinction between heavy and field artillery. For them, they were 'dual purpose' artillery and it just didn't work well.

They were at a distinct disadvantage against the Prussians who did have a field artillery arm, which included horse artillery, though not very much of it.

This is one area where it may be difficult to issue generic rules for the Seven Years War, since it is in a way a transition period during which practice and ability seem to have varied considerably between armies.

Prussian field guns and even the 12 pdr "Brummer" certainly did move forward by stages to support infantry attacks from Leuthen to Torgau, sometimes manhandled (with help from the neighbouring battalions), at others by limbering up again – but then their "civilian" drivers were drafted men ( unfit for cavalry duties), under military law, and supervised by cavalry NCOs.

The Austrians I believe had detailed drills for moving their guns by prolonge, so again their limbers and horses appear to have stayed within shouting distance of the gun line?

Things may well have been different in the western theatre, where I understand both British and French commanders were constricted by genuinely civilian teams.

PS Even if this comes late and may not be very helpful, I'd be interested in a copy of your rules.

Brechtel/Musketier:

So I may well be better to leave this to either/or specific scenarios or perhaps have different conditions for different armies?

Food for thought.

Musketier: PM me with an email address. The rules are only 14 pages & are easily attached.

I would suggest that the Prussians and Austrians have a definite advantage in artillery movement/maneuver over the French.

I think that it's great that you have created a set of rules for the period. Well done.

In our games we typically require heavier guns to be in a position battery that moves to a designated spot and unlimbers and then may only pivot thereafter. Lighter guns (and the Austrian Leichtenstein system 12 pounder) may be attached to brigades. Guns attached to brigades, once unlimbered may not limber up again and may be handpushed one move at the same speed as infantry in line.

Even during the Napoleonic wars the 'train' troops were seen as distinct from artillery crews. French General De Brack [Who fought in the Napoleonic Wars] in his work Light Cavalry Outposts has an informative question and answer format in discussing cavalry charges against artillery:

The best way of capturing guns, espeicially on undulating ground, is to threaten them with a false attack with half your troops, and cut them off with the other half.

Q. On reaching the guns, what is to be done?
A. Charges the supports [infantry] vigourously, then fall on the gunners and sabre them, protect the soldiers of the train, make them wheel the guns sharply around and over the retreat boldly and steadily. [taking them captive.]
Q. If the soldiers of the train show ill-will and slacken their pace, in the hope of being recaptured?
A. Hold your sword point to their bodies.
Q. IF they show no fear?
A. Throw them down; then make four cavalry soldiers take the two leaders and the two wheelers by the bridles; other horsemen will urge the horses on with the flat of their sabers, and thus the ground will be gained.

Obviously, unlike the gunners, the soldiers of the train [cassions and limbers] are not expected to put up any serious resistance or even 'ill-will'.

So, even when identified as soldiers, the train crews are viewed differently than the artillery crews… particularly because they can be 'persuaded' to drive the captured cassions and guns.

If this is during the Napoleonic wars, how more undiluted would this dynamic be during the SYW?