ochoin | 22 May 2015 3:03 p.m. PST |
The lack of 12 pound field artillery pieces in the British army of the period strikes me as a glaring omission. Given the wealth & industrial capacity of Britain, I can't understand why these valuable guns weren't developed & included. Given the French, Prussians, Austrian, Russians etc all had them, why not Britain? |
Big Red | 22 May 2015 3:27 p.m. PST |
Interesting article from the Napoleon series on British 12 pound artillery: link |
Doms Decals | 22 May 2015 3:30 p.m. PST |
We had them, they just didn't get out much. In the Peninsula horseflesh was at a serious premium and lighter pieces preferred, and by Waterloo I think it was mainly force of habit. |
ochoin | 22 May 2015 3:31 p.m. PST |
Thanks for that BR. I was vaguely aware they had one "on the books" but was surprised to read in your article it was used in most major operations. I've never seen an OOB that mentioned British 12 pounders. In which Peninsular battles were they deployed? And in the 100 Days campaign? |
ochoin | 22 May 2015 3:43 p.m. PST |
@ Dom Thanks. I take the point about transport in the Peninsular & obviously the French in Spain had the same problem. If they were in the artillery park for some battles though, were they used or not? |
Doms Decals | 22 May 2015 4:48 p.m. PST |
Not that I know of – the only battle accounts I can recall mentioning them are from North America, although I suspect they were also used in Flanders. While they were knocking around in Spain, I haven't come across a field action where they were actually deployed – ditto for the 100 Days, even though that would seem like rather a good time to actually get them into action. |
Maxshadow | 22 May 2015 5:28 p.m. PST |
Good thread Ochoin. I always wondered why they didn't use them too. |
enfant perdus | 22 May 2015 6:00 p.m. PST |
They were used quite a bit in India during the period. The fact that all foot artillery was bullock drawn (barring an experimental unit) meant that weight was not really an issue. Interestingly, they sometimes formed part of the equipage of Horse Artillery troops of the Presidency armies. |
Unlucky General | 22 May 2015 7:09 p.m. PST |
Very informative article – thanks for the link. In the end, for field work and anti-personnel effect, was there really an effective difference between a battery of 9pdrs or even 6pdrs and 12pdrs over the course of a battle? It seems to me that the British superior linear approach and relience upon frontages and combined infantry firepower more than compensated for any larger calibre or massed artillery approach. |
ochoin | 23 May 2015 12:04 a.m. PST |
@ Unlucky General. I certainly won't quibble over the ultimate British success in the Napoleonic Wars but that doesn't necessarily mean the right choices were always made in Horse Guards (or Woolwich) or on the battlefield. I think there was a perceptible inherent conservatism in the British military that sometimes paid dividends(linear tactics)but perhaps not always. The introduction of lancers, armoured cavalry & maybe 12 pounder artillery might have proven useful. I might add the RA seems not as hide bound as perhaps other areas of British military thinking. |
Sparta | 23 May 2015 3:09 a.m. PST |
|
olicana | 23 May 2015 6:47 a.m. PST |
I was reading somewhere that the French didn't use 12 pounders in Spain either. They were put into garrisons and replaced with 8 pounders because of horse shortages and the dreadful roads. Seems reasonable to me. No point trying to campaign with something you can't get from A to B. |
Brechtel198 | 23 May 2015 7:05 a.m. PST |
Excellent thread Ochoin-very well done. It is both perceptive and informative |
vtsaogames | 23 May 2015 10:57 a.m. PST |
British 12 lb guns were used at New Orleans but were hampered by the long supply line. Every round had to be rowed 60 miles across Lake Borne. |
matthewgreen | 23 May 2015 11:27 a.m. PST |
The French did use 12pdrs in the field Spain – though usually in only two per battery, alongside lighter pieces (if you look at the Nafziger OBs). Similarly with their 8pdrs. The most widespread piece in use in Spain was the 4pdr, so far as I can tell. At Vitoria the French has quite a few 12pdrs in the Park – but they don't seem to have deployed many of them – though I haven't seen any definitive information on this. There's an argument to be had whether the military value of the 12pdr justifies the extra costs – particularly when you have a mobile 9pdr available. I wouldn't regard the British position as an obvious error. |
Londongamer | 23 May 2015 11:37 a.m. PST |
To go back to the OP's question, I would ask what it was was about the 12pdr that made it so valuable when compared to, for example, the excellent British 9pdr. |
Whirlwind | 23 May 2015 11:51 a.m. PST |
I think there was a perceptible inherent conservatism in the British military that sometimes paid dividends(linear tactics)but perhaps not always.The introduction of lancers, armoured cavalry & maybe 12 pounder artillery might have proven useful. @ Ochoin, One way to investigate this problem might be to see which changes the British instituted after the end of the Napoleonic Wars. They seemed to institute lancers and cuirassiers quite quickly. I think there was a perceptible inherent conservatism in the British military that sometimes paid dividends(linear tactics)but perhaps not always. I think there is inherent military conservatism in most circumstances except those of defeat and/or obvious failure, which provides the impetus to institute widespread change. The British perhaps felt that they had to make few changes to their infantry and artillery, in comparison to their cavalry and their support elements. After all, the prime British failings during the period 1792 – 1815 seem to have been at what would now be called the operational level. |
ochoin | 23 May 2015 12:35 p.m. PST |
what it was was about the 12pdr that made it so valuable That's the question (though I'd probably lose the qualifier "so"). I'm claiming no expertise but to start the ball rolling (pun intended), greater range & accuracy & noise. The range, per se, would probably be unnecessary in most/all battles but the accuracy might. And I think we all understand the implications of damage to morale? Noisier guns might prove a boon in that direction. And I realise this is backwards arguing but everyone else saw the benefits of adding 12 pounders to their artillery assets. |
ochoin | 23 May 2015 12:40 p.m. PST |
@ Whirlwind. Yes, inertia is not just a property for physicists. Yet innovation wasn't unheard of: the French fairly constantly tweaking their military machine & even the British introducing rifles & rockets, despite some entrenched opposition. |
Londongamer | 23 May 2015 1:31 p.m. PST |
Ochoin, By 1813, it seems that everyone else had seen the benefits of fighting in column, so I am not sure that adoption of something by the majority is always an argument for it being valuable. If we ignore the impact of greater range, we are seemingly left with possibly noise (and hence morale) and accuracy. In a battle, with all of the noise and chaos, can we be sure that the additional noise generated by a 12pdr battery as opposed to a 9pdr battery would have been significant? I have never seen any evidence to show that the 12pdr was more accurate than the 9pdr; surely accuracy would depend on a number of factors including the wear of the barrel, the windage, the quality of the shot etc? Particularly with regard to the British, would any advantages gained by using 12pdrs have been greater than the potential problems caused by employing them in Spain. |
pushing tin | 23 May 2015 1:34 p.m. PST |
Just a thought, would the British provision of shrapnel make heavier 12 pdrs less necessary? ie they could get just as effective results firing shrapnel with 9pdrs as other nations firing 12pdr roundshot? Just speculation on my part… |
vtsaogames | 23 May 2015 2:57 p.m. PST |
On weight of shot: There is the tale of Mercer violating the Duke's orders at Waterloo and firing at a pesky 4 lb battery. Once he did this a heavier French battery he had not seen opened on him. He ceased fire, as did the heavier battery. Mercer assumed he could silence the lighter French battery in short order. One hopes he had good reason to believe this. Further, I'm not aware of any 4 lb batteries at Waterloo. Perhaps Mercer was firing at a 6 lb battery. |
ochoin | 23 May 2015 3:07 p.m. PST |
@ Londongamer Re; greater accuracy. I'm definitely beyond my level of expertise but I would assume a ball, fired towards its maximum range, would be more subject to external physical forces eg gravity, wind etc. Thus, a ball thrown by a 12 pounder at a target in medium range would be more accurate than a ball thrown by a 6 pounder at maximum range. Feel free to laugh at what may be a ridiculous statement & is there a ballistics expert out there who'll comment? |
badger22 | 23 May 2015 4:07 p.m. PST |
Well, more of an expert on modern Artillery, 21 year, US Army in cannon fire direction, so not so much on front loaders. But, in general the higher the velocity, which I believe the longer tube gave the 12lbers, and the greater weight of shot the better the longer ranged accuracy. but the tube itself probably plays a much greater role. meaning a new 6 lber will probasbly be better than a shot out 12lber. On a battlefield range estoimation is also going to be more important thnt that, so that comes down to crew training. Where the bigger bore comes in is payload. The walls of a shell, or carrier body has to be thick enough to withstand fireing shock. But a bigger bore does not have to be thicker so a larger percentage of the interior is available for soemthing else. makes no difference for round shot, make a big difference in canister. and would have made a difference in shrapnel. And lastly, for the moment at least, there is the possible effect of secondary missles. A lot is made of the grazing shot, the shrapnel like effect of rocks and such being kicked up by the strike on the ground. I am not sure if this is just an effect that gamers have aplified, or if it was a real and regular thing. I also dont know if there is enough data from the period to make a sure answer. but, the 12lber will have a lot more energy in the ball to produce this effect than a lightrer round will. In the end it doesnt matter what you throw, if you miss you do nothing. But if you do hit, in artillery circles, the heavier the throw weight the better effect you get. |
zippyfusenet | 23 May 2015 7:37 p.m. PST |
Another thought. Round shot fired from a smooth-bore gun was expected to first hit ground relatively close to the gun, then skip out to its maximum range, repeatedly striking and bouncing, remaining fairly close to the ground and potentially plowing through several enemy troop formations, inflicting casualties on all the units it bounced through. Rifled artillery of a later era usually fired to strike just one target. It was observed during the ACW that rounds fired from the newer rifled cannon didn't bounce, but tended to bury themselves in the ground at their point of first impact. For best effect, rifled guns needed to fire explosive shell, rather than solid shot. Given the mechanics of bouncing solid shot, a heavier smooth bore gun with a greater range, such as a 12lber versus a 9lber, had the advantage that the heavier gun could potentially inflict casualties by bounce-through along the entire, greater, range of each round it fired. |
olicana | 24 May 2015 2:53 a.m. PST |
Rather than range or accuracy, I always thought the value of the 12 pounder over other pieces were: 1. The noise and morale effect. 2. The weight and number of projectiles in a canister round. 3. The value, gained by weight of round shot, versus hard cover. I've always been led to believe that: On range. Big balls don't always go further. This has more to do with the combination of weight of shot AND muzzle velocity. Big cannon balls going slowly go further than small ones going slowly, but small ones going faster might go further. Velocity is achieved in two ways: Size of charge in relation to weight of shot, and barrel length in calibres (shot width to tube length) to channel the power generated by the charge. I don't know the maths for this but a longer tube is generally better – but, the longer the tube and the heavier the charge the heavier the gun has to be so everything is a compromise. On accuracy: I've always thought that smooth bores of any description are not that accurate. I am under the impression that gunnery was, until the advent of rifled artillery and ballistics were better understood, a matter of experience and guesswork. If this is true, the accuracy of one piece of artillery in the field over another, is something of a mute point. This might be one reason why the British didn't 'up gun'; because the crews would be unfamiliar with their guns and they might be very inaccurate with them for quite some time. Just my penneth, of course. |
badger22 | 24 May 2015 5:32 a.m. PST |
The french had a mathmatician in thre battery to help with the calculations to get the gbattery on target. They also had a couple of different machines they used to measure muzzle velocity. So yes they where not really accurate, but they where generaly more accurate than modern people give them credit for. The heavier ball is less affected by atmospheric factors than the lighter ball. So if you fired in a vacuum, they should be the same accuracy all things else being equal. As you dont, it does affect what you will hit. But again range miss estimation and human error will make a bigger difference than anything else. Owen |
Supercilius Maximus | 24 May 2015 5:44 a.m. PST |
The one thing that doesn't seem to have been explored so far is that Wellington's tactical requirements called for guns that could be moved quickly, both in a strategic advance or retreat, and actually in battle. His philosophy, at least in the early years in Spain, was primarily defensive, with the occasional lightning counter-strike. He was also often outnumbered, and that in combination with unreliable allies and an enemy that often seemed to be able to just plain march faster, required him to be reactive on the battlefield. These two factors, in addition to the terrain and shortage of draught animals (and fodder for them), all point towards the use of lightER (note emphasis) artillery. The British did use 12-pdrs in Flanders and The Netherlands in 1794-6 and 1799; there was at least one "heavy" brigade amongst the artillery landed on Walcheren (although this might refer to siege guns, and so the other 15 brigades could well have included more than one using 12-pdrs); North America has already been mentioned, but I can't see the US/Canadian border in that era being conducive to heavier guns (Burgoyne's limited use of his many 12-pdrs during the Saratoga campaign also illustrates this); and there was an 18-pdr battery available during the 100 Days campaign (left at Hal or back in Brussels, I forget which). That apart, most British land engagements from the Egyptian campaign onwards (I'm not sure if Abercromby had any 12-pdrs with him), were amphibious operations – and often small ones at that. Consequently only light guns were taken along, with any need for heavier metal being met by the Royal Navy. I have to say that I found Carl Franklin's book on British field artillery during the Revolutionary/Napoleonic wars quite an eye-opener (not least the fact that the woodwork was light grey and not blueish). |
olicana | 24 May 2015 6:39 a.m. PST |
The french had a mathmatician in thre battery to help with the calculations to get the gbattery on target. I understand that Napoleon was an accomplished student. Even so, I still think, in the heat of battle, with constantly changing target situation, battery moves and such like, in practice it was probably a little more "left hand down a bit". In the fixed positions of a siege things were probably better worked out. I remember someone telling me that ballistics is such a complicated science that post WW2 this was the first thing the US government turned its new computers to. I don't know if that is true. |
Cerdic | 24 May 2015 7:31 a.m. PST |
With regard to training, Royal Artillery officers unlike those in the Infantry and Cavalry, had to pass a technical course in gunnery before they did anything else. By all accounts their technical competence was high. Having read a book called (I think) "With The Guns In The Peninsular", based on the daily journal of a Royal Artillery officer, I believe the answer lies in logistics. The constant headache that occupied about 95 percent of his time was logistics. How to feed the horses? How to move the guns along with all the other vehicles? Even how to choose which road to use as many of them seemed OK only to become impassable after a few miles! Bigger guns would mean an even bigger headache! Twelve pounders won't help win a battle if they are stuck several miles away… |
Londongamer | 24 May 2015 7:39 a.m. PST |
Cerdic, Indeed; that was the basis of my musing on the subject. It is better to have a slightly less effective weapon that can be got to where it is needed than a more effective one that cannot. Wargamers tend to ignore logistics, along with several other aspects of war; generals do so at their peril. |
138SquadronRAF | 24 May 2015 12:21 p.m. PST |
Having read a book called (I think) "With The Guns In The Peninsular", based on the daily journal of a Royal Artillery officer, I believe the answer lies in logistics. My understanding from the same source. |
Gunfreak | 24 May 2015 1:06 p.m. PST |
Logistics and horses are fine excuses for Spain but not Belgium, Fine the army was an ocupation force, so in the start no need to bring in the heavy guns. But still, Anglo allies had light guns and few of them. Its pure luck Napoleon only had 280 cannon, and not like 400 that he would have preferdbfor an army that sized. Wellington wasn't that into guns ( or horses) While he could at times see the need for guns (like finding just were to put them) he didn't think bigger is better or the more the merrier. |
Supercilius Maximus | 24 May 2015 3:24 p.m. PST |
Once it was available to both foot and horse units, did the British 9-pdr not provide a sufficiently close match to the Gribeauval 12-pdr as to negate the need for anything larger? |
Gunfreak | 25 May 2015 2:40 a.m. PST |
As i understand it, only 12pdrs were effective against well made earthworks and sturdy stone walls. And close range canister from 12pdrs was the nastiest thing in 1812 besides the pox. |
badger22 | 25 May 2015 3:05 a.m. PST |
Olicana balistivcs is still not fully worked out. There are a number of things we just dont know what goes on. Soldiers tend to be conservative in thier gear. Combat vets even more so. the 100 days could be as simple as those where the weapons everybody was used to and knew what they would do. The 20th and 21st centurys have been the time of gee whiz stuff that often does not work out in the field the way the lab guys claim it will. I wonder if there was also an element of that in the british artillery? The 9s did the job that needed doing. So why change? Owen |
Sparta | 25 May 2015 4:40 a.m. PST |
If 12 pdr´s were not more effective than 9 pdr.s, why would 9 pdr.s be more effective than 6 or 3 pdr.s for that sake ?????? I believe after – extensive detail of battle descriptions – that silencing the enemy artillery was a major job for the artillery, once the enemys artillery was supressed you could prey on his formations unhindered. In spite of theorizing about ballistics, the tactical accounts of battles continually describe often that artillery was supressed by higher calibre guns. Go study Nafzigers detailed 1812-14 accounts or Gills 1809. |
Brechtel198 | 25 May 2015 4:43 a.m. PST |
The British medium 12-pounder was mounted on both a bracket (split trail) and block gun carriage. The RHA initially employed the 12-pounder, but abandoned it in favor of the 6-pounder, and later the 9-pounder. The 12-pounder was difficult to move, especially in Spain and Portugal, and it was relegated to the foot artillery which apparently didn't use it too much either. It was used as a reserve piece or as siege artillery and in November 1808 there was one brigage of 12-pounders in the Peninsula. The next year the only ones mentioned were with the 'German artillery' which probably means the KGL. Interestingly, Wellington did request 12-pounders for the campaign in Belgium, but they never arrived and Wellington apparently did not give his reasons for the request. Both the bracket and block carriages for the 12-pounder had two sets of trunnion holes, one for traveling and one for firing, the same as both the Austrian and French 12-pounder gun carriages. One thing that should be noted is that there were different weights by nation for the 'pound.' For example, the French pound was heavier than the British pound, which would mean that the French 8-pounder was almost a British 9-pounder, and that the French 12-pound round was heavier than both the British and Austrian 'pound.' |
Brechtel198 | 25 May 2015 4:49 a.m. PST |
I believe after – extensive detail of battle descriptions – that silencing the enemy artillery was a major job for the artillery, once the enemys artillery was supressed you could prey on his formations unhindered. In spite of theorizing about ballistics, the tactical accounts of battles continually describe often that artillery was supressed by higher calibre guns. Go study Nafzigers detailed 1812-14 accounts or Gills 1809. Artillery doctrine for both the British and French during the period discouraged counterbattery fire. It took too long and also took an inordinate amount of ammunition. The main target of the artillery was the enemy's infantry, not their artillery. The rule of thumb applied was that if their artillery was hurting your infantry more than you were hurting theirs, then counterbattery fire could be conducted. Generally speaking, the smaller caliber pieces were better suited to counterbattery fire than the larger, 12-pounder, pieces. The sustained rate of fire was higher (two rounds per minute for 3-, 4-, 6-, 8-, and 9-pounders against one round per minute for 12-pounders). When the French, for example, did conduct counterbattery fire, the unit engaging the enemy artillery would concentrate on one piece at a time, disable it to put it out of action, and then move on to the next target. That was much more efficient and quicker than firing on the enemy battery as a whole. And it should be noted that the French usually did not fire by salvo, but by piece. Jean du Teil's Usage is very helpful in this and other matters of artillery doctrine. |
Sparta | 25 May 2015 6:44 a.m. PST |
Brechtel – I honestly believe your research should take you beyond the manuals. I have read your book and the posts on the forum, and they do not seem to have any resemblance to the eyewitness descriptions of the battles of the period. As an example Noel the french artillery officer does not describe any battles wothout counterbattery fire from the batteries in his command. The doctrines seems to have had very little impact on the actual conduct. Every battle from 1809 forward is begun by counterbattery fire whenever there is enemy artillery on the field. |
Brechtel198 | 25 May 2015 9:21 a.m. PST |
I honestly believe your research should take you beyond the manuals. I have read your book and the posts on the forum, and they do not seem to have any resemblance to the eyewitness descriptions of the battles of the period. As an example Noel the french artillery officer does not describe any battles wothout counterbattery fire from the batteries in his command. The doctrines seems to have had very little impact on the actual conduct. Every battle from 1809 forward is begun by counterbattery fire whenever there is enemy artillery on the field. Sweeping statements such as 'every battle…' usually, if not always, are not correct. Perhaps you can point out where 'every battle' was opened with counterbattery fire? I didn't say that counterbattery fire wasn't used. What I did say is that counterbattery fire was not the principle method of artillery employment. In the British and French service especially, the main target was the enemy infantry, pure and simple. I have Noel, Boulart, and the letters of Drouot, Eble, and Senarmont along with other material. Have you read du Teil? If you have and then compare it to how the French artillery fought, then it is quite easy to see how the doctrine in that manual was used as a guide. You don't win battles during that period by knocking out or suppressing the enemy's artillery. You win it by targeting the enemy infantry and other maneuver elements and causing destructive fire against those units. Senarmont, Drouot, and other French artillery commanders understood that and clearly followed that maxim. Three examples 1809 and later where the French artillery doctrine of targeting the enemy infantry was successfully employed were at Wagram by Lauriston in 1809, at Lutzen by Drouot in 1813, and at Ligny in 1815. Then you have the example of Senarmont at Friedland in 1807 where he ignorned Russian counterfire and attacked with his corps artillery. Other French artillery units at the same time did engage in counterbattery fire to knock out the Russian batteries on the east bank of the Alle. That was done to keep them from Senarmont as well as the French infantry. If you have actually read Artillery of the Napoleonic Wars, then you might want to take a look at the second half of the book where artillery actions are highlighted. One of them of note, New Orleans in 1815, clearly demonstrates that the American artillery was the big killer, targeting the assaulting British infantry on 8 January. |
badger22 | 25 May 2015 4:30 p.m. PST |
In the end battles where won or lost by the Infantry. Counter-battery was usefull only if it supported this. If you can kill more troops with the artillery than they can kill yours, you are winning. if not then go to counter-battery. Pretty much what french doctrine was I believe. Artillery exists to help win the battle, not just to shoot it out with the other artillery. The weapons are just not accurate enough to reliably hit something as small as an individual gun. Killing horses and gunners may reduce the effectiveness of the battery but will not put it out of action. Opening with counter-battery would seem to be used when it was thought that defensive fire would be strong enough stop your attack so you needed to reduce that. The guns only had so much ammo, and even if they had an unlimited supply, once they got hot you could only fire so fast. So you needed to put the fire where it did the mosyt good. Gamers, facing neither of these restrictions just start blazing away at what ever targets are on the board. in real life there where more targets than you could ever deal with so you had to reserve fire for those that where critical. Owen |