"Unlimbering & limbering" Topic

I have often wondered just what the exact procedure for unlimbering & limbering a battery of artillery was on the Napoleonic battlefield. I am especially interested in the French procedure but would also welcome any information anyone would care to divulge from other armies of the era. I have ideas about this but have never been able to verify them. If this subject has been discussed before please forgive my ignorance. I am a computer idiot! Thanks in advance for any remarks antyone would care to make. John Miller

The exact proceedure would be dictated by the type of battery and the terrain.
Research is the answer. Delve into it.

This has at times been one of the most explosive topics on this webpage. Just warning you….

Adkin or Dawson Dawson and Summerfield (Nap Artillery, still on shop bookshelves) great on this. First for the only battle that mattered, second for the the other minor conflicts and the nations that missed out on the Hundred Days campaign.

What lGQG means then is horse or foot? Grand Battery or an isolated unit ? Couple of quick rounds or here all day?

Essentially, the immediate crews must detach the gun from the limber and ensure a ready use supply of ammo. The limber must be cleared of the firing line by the drivers, but near enough for a move in a hurry. Ammo resupply must be behind, close enough for convenience, but, bearing in mind the cargo, safe distances and intervals too! Lots of helpers from infantry for ammo supply and especially repositioning guns after recoil.

The books tell you more about details of distances, timings, numbers involved etc……and the rammer/spongeman is always on the right of the gun, wherever the firer stands! No one gets that right every time (including me)………..Even if the poor devil was left handed

From reading Kiley, I'm led to believe the process was quite slick, terrain, casualties etc permitting.

Or watch the RHA at any royal parade on tv – they are quite good at unlimbering, firing etc

Good idea, Marc. You can get it on YouTube as well.

They are an elite, mind you. They are on a flat surface and no one is firing at them. They have ready use ammo only and not the supply problem of a whole day's fire……but they do impress! Not sure I would expect my Cossack sledge artillery or those Persians with the camel guns to emulate them…..

Everyones a critic

Valid points, so I guess the RHA guys will be the very best, and we can then dumb down to get the cossacks…

When a French gun company was moving into position the first thing done was to send out gun guides to mark the positions each piece was going to occupy. They would guide their pieces into position and then take their place in the gun crew.

As the pieces came on line in the new gun position, the gun crews would go to their assigned positions, and if it was a horse artillery company, the gunners would give their horses to the assigned horse holders and then man the piece to unlimber the piece.

If it was an 8- or a 12-pounder, the first thing done was to move the gun tube to the firing trunnions from the travelling trunnions. This was done quickly by using the piece's handspikes and it didn't take long, as long as it took to unlimber the piece. The gun tube would be lifted from the travelling trunnions and, with a handspike placed under the gun tube, ‘rolled' to the firing trunnion plates.
Once this was done, the piece would then be unlimbered.

The unlimbering ‘process' was as follows:

-one cannoneer unhooks the limber chain and four cannoneers lift the trail of the piece free of the pintle hook.

-The limber is then withdrawn free of the trail of the piece.

-The trail of the piece is grounded and the coffret, or ammunition chest, is taken from between the cheeks of the piece and placed on the limber.

-The prolonge is taken from its place on the end of the limber and then one end attached to the limber and the other to the trail of the piece.

-The cannoneers take and place the implements in their proper positions on and around the piece and remove the water bucket from beneath the axel of the piece.
The ready ammunition in the coffret is that which is used to load and fire the piece.

-The coffret is replenished from the assigned caisson. If there is prolonged firing in combat the caisson will be replaced when necessary with a fully loaded one from the parc. Ammunition was always pushed forward so that the gun company could remain in action.

When all was prepared and the piece and company were emplaced, the command to ‘load' would be given and firing commenced.

To make ready to displace on order, the opposite actions would be done. The prolonge would be detached and placed back on its stowed position on the limber. The coffret would be placed back on the gun carriage and the implements stowed in their proper positions. The limber would be brought forward and positioned for the piece to be lifted by the gun crew and placed on the pintle. The chains would be replaced, and if the piece was an 8- or a 12-pounder, the gun tube would be placed back in the travelling trunnions for movement. This was always done after the piece was limbered up.

If necessary the piece could be moved either forward or to the rear by ptolonge, which is why it was always attached, especially in the horse artillery, for movement.

Crew drill was similar for all the belligerents, if not identical, with the exception of the Royal Artillery which fired the piece from the opposite side of everyone else.

Although the period French artillery manuals state that additional help for the movement of the guns would be provided by detailed infantrymen, I have not found that to be a common practice in the French artillery arm of 1792-1815. The strength of the gun company was enough to man, maneuver, and fire their assigned pieces.

Infantry would be used, however, if artillery losses were heavy, as they were at Essling and Wagram in 1809. Coignet in his memoirs tells the story of the Old Guard infantry that were sent forward to reinforce and man the French artillery that incurred heavy losses.

@ Brechtel

The key aspect was clearly choosing the site for the battery. At what level of command was this determined?

The responsibility for emplacing artillery usually would rest with the unit (division, corps, army) commander. That being said, the artillery commander at each level would be the 'instrument' used by the unit commander to do that.

Sometimes, the gun company commander would be responsible especially in a fluid fight where the situation changed frequently and maneuver/movement was needed.

The best comment that I have found on that subject from the French perspective was by Louis de Tousard in his American Artillerist's Companion:

'It is easy to conceive that the General of the army and the Commandant of artillery should act in concert.'

The overall unit commanders might make a decision regarding artillery employment, such as Victor giving Senarmont permission to do what he wanted with the corps artillery, but it would be an artillery officer who would employ the artillery itself.

With Napoleon being an artilleryman, that made it easy at the army level.

All that being said, the gun company commanders would undoubtedly have the 'last say' on where their pieces went on the ground, as they had to fight them and give optimum performance of their companies.

Thanks for this comprehensive answer.

At least with the French, it seems quite a flexible system, where overall direction is in the hands of the High Command yet the lower echelons where given a voice as needs be.

At borodino, where the tradition is that the Russian artillery commander's (Kutaisaov) death paralysed the deployment of the artillery reserve : is this a fair estimation of the event? Does this imply less flexibility?

donald "et al",

These might be interesting – only one gun, unfortunately, but indicative of what was involved:-

YouTube link

YouTube link

(Fast forward to 2:30 on the second film. Anyone else automatically think "Essex" when they see the horses?)

Here's the King's Troop, RHA, doing it "en masse":-

YouTube link

(FF to 1:15 for the troop coming into action; then FF again to 4:20 to see the teams and horse-holders come back to collect.)

If you follow the teams as they withdraw, you can see how much the guns and limbers bounce over what is well-kept parkland – imagine "normal" battlefield terrain. Note how the officers "bob" their heads when giving or acknowledging orders; I'm told that the consequent movement of the white plume is a deliberate visual cue. A modern problem for the King's Troop is that almost 1/3 of the personnel are women, and if there are 2 or more females in a gun crew it makes wheeling the gun into position a lot harder.

Ochoin,

I really don't understand why Kutaisov did what he did at Borodino. He didn't affect the outcome of the battle and left his artillery without a commander. One of his problems might have been that he was too young. He was a competent artilleryman, as his service at Eylau proved, and he understood what artillery was supposed to do.

The Russians had problems with their artillery arm, one of the most important being the general lack of education of the artillery officer corps. Employment through 1807 was poor, but they learned and the Russian artillery arm was greatly improved after Tilsit. Barclay de Tolly and Yermelov, among others, understood about artillery employment in combat and they all had learned from the French.

Kutusov was a problem artillery-wise, as he just didn't get it and the Russians really didn't get rid of battalion guns until after Kutusov died in early 1813.

The Russians understood that massing artillery was the way to fight, but they never used their artillery as an offensive weapon as the French did, even though they usually had more artillery than anyone else. Their artillery system of 1805 was a great improvement for them, but it brought the guns and equipment up to the standard of the Austrian and Prussian guns and equipment. The French and British guns and ancillary vehicles were still the best in Europe through the period, the British block trail gun carriages, limbers and caissons being superior to everyone elses.

That being said, the Russian artillery arm was probably the most improved during the period, especially regarding doctrine, training, organization and employment, but they were not close to the best in Europe.

SuperMax,

Excellent material. Thanks for posting it.

Love these calm discussions where we all learn something.

Thanks guys, profoundly interesting.

+1nsolomon99

All Hands: In checking The sources that are available to me I have been unable find aspects of the limbering and unlimbering process that I was wondering about so I submitted the question here. Certainly could have missed them, however. A big thank you to everyone one who submitted their insights.

Super Max & Brechtel198: Thanks for the videos of the RHA and for the detailed information you were gracious enough to submit. Between them they have answered my questions.

Deadhead: I do not have the Dawson & Summerfield book but I plan to correct that oversight as soon as possible.

forwardmarchstudios: I was not aware of that, thanks for the heads up.

Thanks again to all, John Miller

The best reference in English for crew drill, et al, is the American Artillerist's Companion, Volume II and I believe that you can find it on Google Books.

It includes the drill for limbering and unlimbering, changing the trunnions, use of the prolonge, and manning and firing the piece.

The manual, written by a French artillery officer for the American service, is excellent and is one of the best artillery manuals of the period.

@ Brechtel,

Which do you think was the better way of organising a horse battery/troop – all/most gunners mounted (France, Britain), or all/most riding on the vehicles (Austria, Bavaria)?

The best and most efficient way of organizing horse artillery was to have the gunners individually mounted. The French and Prussians, as well as the experiments the US Army did in ca 1809 confirm this.

It could not have been a lot of fun riding on a limber or caisson at anything faster than a walk.

The French began with wurst caissons in their horse artillery arm in 1792 and by 1800 they had come to the conclusion that individually mounted was more efficient.

I wouldn't count the Austrian method, mounting gun crews on an extended gun trail, as horse artillery. It was more of a mobile field artillery. And they had to be supported by cavalry in the Austrian service, not the other way round.

I do think the definitive argument for individually mounted gunners was proven/demonstrated in the American Civil War where horse artillery gunners were individually mounted and the foot artillery rode on the limbers and caissons.

Tousard covers this subject quite well in volume II of his artillery manual.

In the third video Supercilious posted, where the RHA cannons fire individually under command of the officer, would that have been the standard method during a battle, or would fire have been general? It occurs to me that having one person send the order to fire would make it possible to control the ROF of the battery and therefore the ammo supply. I assumed they did something like that but it's interesting to see how it was actually done. Also interesting to see how little time it took to put that many troops into action- albeit under perfect conditions.

I noticed a comment above about how everything was done very quickly and cleanly here because they were in good terrain and not under fire. While this is generally true I've seen the opposite hold true in real wars as well. Sometimes being shot at makes you do things faster!