Help support TMP

"British Artillery?" Topic

42 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.

Back to the 18th Century Discussion Message Board

Back to the 18th Century Battle Reports Message Board

Back to the Napoleonic Discussion Message Board

Areas of Interest

18th Century

2,928 hits since 18 Mar 2005
©1994-2019 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

11th ACR18 Mar 2005 4:42 p.m. PST

Here is the ?

What year did the British Artillery transition from double to single trail field pieces?

I know that in the AWI they were using double trail guns.

Then during the Napoleonic Wars they had transitioned to single trail guns.

Im sure it did not happen over night, so what was the start date and what was the transition completed date?


Robert Henry

astronomican Inactive Member18 Mar 2005 5:47 p.m. PST

My Osprey Napoleonic Artillery book states that the single trail (designed by Lt-Gen Sir William Congreve - father of the Congreve who developed the erratic rockets) was introduced in 1792 for 6pdrs, and later adopted for 9pdrs when the 9pdr was brought back into service in 1808.

Personal logo Dye4minis Supporting Member of TMP18 Mar 2005 6:11 p.m. PST

British Howitzers still used the double trail carriage.

Tom Dye

Kevin F Kiley Inactive Member18 Mar 2005 6:17 p.m. PST


Congreve introduced the block trail in 1792. By 1808 the 6- and 9-pounders sent to Portugal and Spain were all equipped with it.

There were also block trails for the 3- and 12-pounders.

The 5 1/2-inch howitzer still used the bracket trail during the period and didn't have a block trail until after the wars.

If you can find a copy of British Smooth-Bore Artillery by BP Hughes it is most helpful for the British artillery of the period.

11th ACR18 Mar 2005 6:29 p.m. PST

The next part of this is what were they using in Egypt in 1801?

I know from personal experience that some times the troops on the outer perimeter receive the last changes.

Being that a lot of the troops that deployed there came from the outer reaches of the British Empire.

Robert Henry

steveD Inactive Member19 Mar 2005 4:56 p.m. PST

I thought most of the troops for the egyptian campaign were "home based" but there were some supply problems so I suspect they took what was available.

aecurtis Fezian Inactive Member18 Mar 2010 3:50 p.m. PST

A bit of thread resurrection: just a day short of five years!

Is this all still valid, in light of recent work?

As Dr. Summerfield has written:

"Bracket Carriages (1760-1813)
The older Congreve bracket carriages and rolling stock that were used during the Seven Years War (1756-63), American War of Independence (1775-83) and by the Foot Batteries of the Royal Artillery until they were replaced by the Desaguliers system by late 1813 are shown in Muller (1780) and Rudyerd (1793)."


"Desaguliers Block-Trail System (1793-1820)
Dupin (1820) published in his Atlas Force Militaire that are reproduced in Dupin's British Napoleonic Ordnance shows the equipment used by the Royal Horse Artillery from 1793 before the introduction of steam-driven machinery and refinements to the Royal Carriage Department that started in the 1820s. This gradually replaced the older M1778/1788 Congreve bracket carriages and vehicles with the introduction of the M1805 Blomefield 9-pdr to the Foot Artillery that was only complete just before Waterloo in 1815."


There's also Dawson's article which has been around for a few years:



- Who gets credit for the block-trail carriage?

- How quickly was it introduced?

- What pieces were actually in Spain, and when?

- And how about that pesky block-trail howitzer carriage: who had it, and when?

I suppose we could add:

- Is the "Osprey on British Napoleonic Artillery (1): Field Artillery" at all useful then? It might not be politic to ask how the Head of Collections at the Museum of the Royal Artillery could miss so much.


Major Snort18 Mar 2010 4:20 p.m. PST

Sir Alexander Dickson, who was in a good position to judge, thought that the block trail had been used by the field artillery throughout the whole of the Peninsular War:


aecurtis Fezian Inactive Member18 Mar 2010 5:27 p.m. PST

Hmmmm… a contemporary letter, or reminiscing eight years after the war?

More importantly, Robe was in command of Wellesley's artillery in Portugal from 1808 to 1809. Dickson arrived in 1809 as brigade-major with Howorth when the latter assumed command of the artillery. So perhaps Robe is a better eyewitness to the state of the artillery in 1808.


Supercilius Maximus Inactive Member18 Mar 2010 5:38 p.m. PST

Isn't that a bit like questioning whether he can be expected to accurately recall what car he was driving eight years ago?

I wonder if they used bricoles……

aecurtis Fezian Inactive Member18 Mar 2010 6:22 p.m. PST

I have a fairly precise recollection of what I was doing eight years ago--or eighteen.

Now if you were to interview me after the port had been passed a few times… the "facts" might change.

When you're dealing, as here, with one "truth" that miniature companies have based their products on for a good many years, and a different "truth" that might call for sourcing some rather different models (or doing conversions), it is not an insignificant issue.


summerfield Inactive Member19 Mar 2010 1:55 a.m. PST

Dear Robert
Certainly dome very interesting questions.

The block trail was invented by General Desaguliers in 1778 and Benjamin Thomson [later Count Rumford of Bavaria] used 4 3-pdr "cavalry" guns to support his Dragoon regiment in America during the AWI.

From this time there was a great interest by Townende [Master General of Ordnance] in Horse Artillery. He created his own private troop which the block trail was the winner.

Desaguliers died in 1780 and as Congreve Senior says in his notebooks he made minor improvements to the block trail. It was not until 1792/3 that the Royal warrant was given to the Horse Artillery. Hence the establishment of the RHA. Being that Desaguliers designed them, I have kept to calling them Desaguliers block trail and Congreve only performed small improvements to increase their robustness with heavier ordnance.

The RHA from its inception were equiped with block trail 3-pdrs, 6-pdrs, Light 12-pdrs and Light 5.5in Howitzer. Even in 1800 they received Medium 12-pdrs on block trails. The equipment was different to the Royal Artillery who were still using bracket carriages and until about 1806ish single drafting.

The change for the Royal Artillery was slow. Only with the introduction of the 9-pdr did the Foot Artillery start receiving block trails. By the end of the Peninsular Wars, it is likely that all the artillery were using a form of the Desaguliers System. Certainly at Waterloo the foot artillery equiped with 9-pdrs were block trail.

I have published the contempory plans which are distinct in detail to those people conceive as being period. In fact these dated from 1850s after powered machines were introduced at the Carriage Department.

Stephen Summerfield (2009) Dupin's British Artillery Ordnance, DP&G

My article upon RHA is found in the introduction to
Stephen Summerfield ed. (2009) The Campaign Diary of Lt William Swabey 1807-1815. DP&G. pgs 1-22, ISBN 987-1-906394-45-5


aecurtis Fezian Inactive Member19 Mar 2010 6:49 a.m. PST

"The RHA from its inception were equiped with block trail 3-pdrs, 6-pdrs, Light 12-pdrs and Light 5.5in Howitzer."

For those wishing to model it correctly, is the light 5.5" howitzer carriage significantly different from that of the 6pdr?

"The change for the Royal Artillery was slow. Only with the introduction of the 9-pdr did the Foot Artillery start receiving block trails."

Would you agree that Robe's reported state of the artillery on 1 November 1808:

Medium 12-pounders: 9 (New pattern)
Long 6-pounders: 5 (New pattern)
Light 6-pounders: 21 (New pattern)
Light 3-pounders: 4 (Old)
Heavy 5 inch Howitzers: 4 (New pattern)
Light 5 inch Howitzers: 9 (2 Old, remainder new)

…indicates that by that time, British artillery in the Peninsula had almost completely changed to block-trail carriages?

And again for modelling purposes, on what carriage would the heavy 5.5" howitzer be mounted (or the closest match)?



summerfield Inactive Member19 Mar 2010 9:22 a.m. PST

Dear Aecurtis
I have the plans in front of me and the others that I have drawn so it is advantageous.

The Howitzer and 6-pdr block trail have similar characteristics. The howitzer is stockier construction and deeper.

New pattern does not mean block trail as it was produced from 1778 with minor alterations. The Congreve M1788 and the later M1795 Butler cariage were referred to as new pattern. This had the iron axle and 5 foot wheel of the bloack trail and the ring so it could be limbered to a double draft limber. Remember this was the period that Regimental guns were abolished.

At the time of Robe's report in 1808, he was referring more to the drafting. New Pattern was double draft and Old Pattern was single draft.

The RHA always used the Desaguliers Block trail. The RA used block trail only with the introduction of the 9-pdrs. The early 9-pdrs were on Long 6-pdr block trails.
This does not support the theory that all were bracket trails. I have spent years looking at the pictorial evidence.

- Medium 12-pounders: 9 mounted on M1795 Butler bracket trails.
- Long 6-pounders: 5 block trail
- Light 6-pounders: 21 block trail for RHA otherwise M1795 Butler bracket carriages
- Light 3-pounders: 4 old pattern came from the Mediteranian and were Pattison "Mountain" guns. Bracket trail that could be carried on the shoulders.
- Heavy 5 inch Howitzers: 4 mounted on M1795 bracket trails
- Light 5 inch Howitzers: 9 (2 Old = M1788 Congreve bracket carriages with single draft) The new were block trail for the RHA (2 pieces) and the rest bracket trails.

Later the Heavy 5.5in Howitzer was mounted on the block trail but only in about 1813.

I hope that makes it clearer. You can see the changes in difference in ammunition provisions in Adye (1801), Adye (1806), Adye (1813) and Adye (1827). Adye (1813) has now been published by Ken Troyman with a new introduction be Dr Stephen Summerfield.


Major Snort19 Mar 2010 10:45 a.m. PST

Robe's letter dated 1st November 1808 can be found in Leslie's Services of the Royal Regiment of Artillery. It is interesting that he does not actually mention "New Pattern" carriages, but instead identifies a brigade that had arrived from Gibraltar as being different from the other pieces in respect of their carriages. The carriages of the other ordnance present are not commented on. I cannot find a readable online version so I have typed the relevant section below:

"Light 3 pdrs 4
"Light 5.5 inch howitzers 2
"In one brigade, received from Gibraltar. As the carriages of the light 3 pounders are of the old pattern, with single horse draft, they are totally inapplicable to the service of this country. I would therefore recommend them to be either returned to Gibraltar, or sent to England, to be replaced by guns more adequate to the service. The howitzers, although their carriages are not of the present form, may be put to use here, by forming a reserve brigade with the extra guns of the German Artillery."

This is far from clear. There is no statement to the effect that the 2 howitzers were single draft, which if they were, would surely have made them also "innapplicable to the service of this country", although it is not possible to determine exactly what is meant by the term "of the present form".

Dickson does not mention any transition period in the Peninsula between bracket and block trails, so I would have to assume that when he arrived in 1809 the artillery was already completely equiped with the block-trailed carriage. As many of the pieces mentioned by Robe were still present, this implies that the majority, if not all, of the artillery mentioned in his letter, apart from the brigade from Gibraltar, were also on block trails.

aecurtis Fezian Inactive Member19 Mar 2010 10:54 a.m. PST


6pdr and 5.5" howitzer block trail carriages are similar. Got it. In 15mm, I have enough choice of manufacturers to select a carriage that is "stockier and deeper" to mount the howitzer tubes for RHA troops.

New pattern does not equal block trail; new pattern equals M1795 Butler carriage. Got it. Will have to approximate using AWI bracket-trail carriages and new wheels. Thank heavens for Musket Miniatures!

So Dawson's conclusions about carriages are not so good; still, with his notes on RA brigade and RHA troop composition, it should be possible to construct 15mm units for 1808-09 with reasonable accuracy as to both composition and the correct ordnance.

This has been nagging for over twenty years now. A couple of us who were interested in wargaming the Peninsula visited Sandhurst and encountered copies of the cadet drawings from Woolwich. I don't have my notes from that trip, so am not sure which cadet(s)'s they were; now I'm not even sure who showed them to us. It wasn't David Chandler, so it must have been either Paddy Griffith or Christopher Duffy. Too much port…

But that started us looking in the NAM, and Woolwich, during a subsequent trip or two; but frankly, it's never been a particularly clear picture until now. There was enough fragmentary evidence back then to question the idea of block trails in exclusive use throughout the Peninsula (thus, all these Musket Miniatures AWI 6pdrs and 12pdrs hanging around for twenty years!). But without the time to go back and do more research, the details never solidified. So thanks for *your* years of investigation!


Steven H Smith Inactive Member19 Mar 2010 11:39 a.m. PST



Big Al

Major Snort19 Mar 2010 11:45 a.m. PST

Thanks Big Al,

Unfortunately it's in "snippet view" for me, although I do have a copy.

For those who can read it in full, the letter in question is on pages 74 and 75.

summerfield Inactive Member19 Mar 2010 12:50 p.m. PST

Dear Allen
Remember that Anthony Dawson's writings date back to 2005 before he had spent weeks in the RA Library researching. His view are better expressed in Dawson, Dawson and Summerfield (2007) Napoleonic Artillery, Crowood Press.

That is as ever the problems with research. I have taken this further recently.

Yes AWI 6-pdr carriage with the 5 foot wheel and 6-pdr gun tube from the block trail would be an excellent approximation. The carriages in fact were shortened by about a foot but in 15mm that is fine.

The guns from 3-pdrs Gibraltar date from the mid 1770s. These were probably the M1760 Light Common 3-pdr of 7YW/AWI vintage. These can be seen in Muller (1780) and Rudyard (1793).

I hope that has been of some assistance. You realise this has taken a considerable amount of digging to get this far.


Major Snort19 Mar 2010 2:42 p.m. PST


I do not wish to be disrepectful and I am genuinly interested in getting to the bottom of this confusing issue, but regarding your list above based on Robe's letter, detailing the carriages actually used by the British artillery in the Peninsula in 1808, please could you tell us whether this is your opinion, or whether it is actual proven fact. Hopefully you can show otherwise, but I assume it is your opinion because firstly you provide no sources and secondly you seem to assume that a battery of horse artillery was present, which is not the case.

I presume that you still dismiss Dickson's statements?

With particular regard to the light 6 pounders, it is perhaps best not to assume that they were all on bracket trails in 1808. Certainly in Egypt in 1801, there had been a mix of block and bracket-trailed light 6 pounders, (all Royal Artillery, with no Horse Artillery troops present). The artillery commander specifically notes how much better the block trailed carriages performed and some were converted into a provisional horse artillery using local horses.

Details of this can be found in Duncan's History of the Royal Regiment of Artillery, quoting Lawson's Memorandum of Artillery Arrangements and Alteration made in Carriages, Harness and Ammunition.

There is also an interesting description of the light 3 pounders used in Egypt (very remininscent of Robe's comments) and how they were converted to double draft, making it clear that it was the limber and not the gun carriage that was at fault.

summerfield Inactive Member19 Mar 2010 2:48 p.m. PST

Dear Sir
Yes, I am aware of this. I have been through the evidence as you outline. Duncan is very unclear upon his statements on ordnance. These are the conclusion that I have come to and these have been published. It is very difficult to be certain. At some point I will revisit this and try to make it clearer.

Alas I do not have Dickson to hand as Anthony has not returned this to me. The editor of his papers removed any of the useful returns etc… "As nobody would be interested in them." Access to the RA library is very limited and too expensive at present.

I am currently busy looking at Russian Ordnance which at least is a little clearer upon the definition of the carriages etc…


Steven H Smith Inactive Member19 Mar 2010 3:26 p.m. PST

Lawson, Robert. "Memorandums of Artillery Arrangements and Alterations made in Carriage, Harness and Ammunition, &c., on the Expedition to Egypt, 1801." Proceedings of the Royal Artillery Institute. vol. XII no. 4 Woolwich; 1884. Pp 207- 220:


"Some notes on the Royal Artillery in the Peninsula 1808" by Anthony Leslie Dawson:




"Wellington's Big Bang: the British 12-pounders" by Anthony Leslie Dawson:


Major Snort19 Mar 2010 3:44 p.m. PST

I cannot find a readable online copy of Duncan's book, but here is Lawson's work (quoted in Duncan), complete with a diagram of the 3 pounder limber modified for double draft.


PS Big Al has already found it!

Steven H Smith Inactive Member19 Mar 2010 4:03 p.m. PST

Duncan. "History of the Royal Regiment of Artillery" 3rd edition. 1879-:

Vol 1 (to 1783):

Vol 2 (to 1815):

aecurtis Fezian Inactive Member20 Mar 2010 10:11 a.m. PST

Thanks for posting the links to Duncan and Lawson's extract.

Years ago, when this was initially of interest, we had pored over Duncan, with little result (apart from noting the block-trial 6pdrs in Egypt, which is the only mention of specific carriages).

But it's good to know where these are in electronic format, since trips to the UK have become less frequent. By the way, why is access to the RA Library limited and expensive? Back in the '80s and '90s, there was no problem securing access to any MoD historical collections--apart from some material on India which was reported to be stored, but not catalogued, in basements at Sanfhurst.

Anyway--what do you suppose led Duncan to add his notes (new and old pattern) to Robe's list? On what is that based? And again, in practical terms of modelling, what carriages were actually in use on that list? If Stephen's conclusions are not correct, then why?



summerfield Inactive Member20 Mar 2010 4:23 p.m. PST

Dear Allen
Duncan like most serving officers seem not really interested in the ordnance that they used. An example of this that the Royal Engineers asked the RA to write the sections in Aide Memoire to the Military sciences on Ordnance but they declined as they did not have anybody qualified to write on the subject and it was not important. This is according to notes from the RE library.


10th Marines Inactive Member20 Mar 2010 4:35 p.m. PST

'The block trail was invented by General Desaguliers in 1778 and Benjamin Thomson [later Count Rumford of Bavaria] used 4 3-pdr "cavalry" guns to support his Dragoon regiment in America during the AWI.'


What did the block trail look like in 1778?

I wasn't aware that the British had 'cavalry' guns in the War of the Revolution. Do you mean the galloper guns? That is an entirely different type of field piece. What dragoon regiment did Thomson command in North America?

'Desaguliers died in 1780 and as Congreve Senior says in his notebooks he made minor improvements to the block trail. It was not until 1792/3 that the Royal warrant was given to the Horse Artillery. Hence the establishment of the RHA. Being that Desaguliers designed them, I have kept to calling them Desaguliers block trail and Congreve only performed small improvements to increase their robustness with heavier ordnance.'

Wasn't it Congreve that had the block trail carriage introduced in 1792/1793? If so, and he had made changes/improvements to it, then it could be said to be the Congreve gun carriage, could it not?

As an aside, the block trail wasn't 'new' in 1780 or 1792 as there had been others prior to it. It was the best of the period for a number of reasons, however.


aecurtis Fezian Inactive Member20 Mar 2010 4:57 p.m. PST

"Anyway--what do you suppose led Duncan to add his notes (new and old pattern) to Robe's list? On what is that based?"

Sorry: that should be Dawson, not Duncan!

"What dragoon regiment did Thomson command in North America?"

The Loyalist regiment, the King's American Dragoons. See his mention of packing the guns:



10th Marines Inactive Member20 Mar 2010 5:52 p.m. PST


Thanks for the link and information. I noticed the remark about packing the guns which leads me to believe that they were not 'cavalry' guns in the sense of being a type of horse artillery.

Do you know what actions the regiment fought in?


aecurtis Fezian Inactive Member20 Mar 2010 6:56 p.m. PST

No significant actions; see Katcher, p.29:


They were very short-lived, established in 1781; they never numbered more than 332; see Siebert, pp. 11-13:


They were evacuated from New York to New Brunswick in the summer of 1783, settled along the St. John river in what are now the parishes of Prince William and Dumfries, and disbanded there in October.


10th Marines Inactive Member20 Mar 2010 7:08 p.m. PST


Thanks very much.


aecurtis Fezian Inactive Member20 Mar 2010 7:30 p.m. PST

You're very welcome.

Now will somebody *please* tell me what to make out of these bits and pieces of Battle Honours 15mm artillery that have been gathering dust for nearly two decades?!? grin

In practical terms, it doesn't really matter. I probably have enough models to do the entire 1808 "state" (at one model per pair of tubes) in *both* block trails and frames carriages. I can even do variations on RHA troops. But for one snapshot in time, I'd just like to be "right"--but it may not be possible.


summerfield Inactive Member21 Mar 2010 2:49 a.m. PST

Dear Allen
The RHA had block trail for both their 6-pdrs and howitzers. Most of the RA Foot Batteries had bracket carriages with 5 foot wheels of the same design as the block trails. In other words did not have the metal reinforcing as in the 7YW or AWI wheels. The barrels should be Blomfields as in those from the block trails and not the earlier light common.

It should be noted that there are no drawings of the block trail in Rudyard (1793).

You will see scale plans of these drawn by me in Dawson Dawson and Summerfield (2007) Napoleonic Artillery, Crowood Press. The articles by Anthony Dawson back in 2005 should be considered as superceded by further research.


aecurtis Fezian Inactive Member21 Mar 2010 1:04 p.m. PST

I see that Amazon would like to bundle that with Franklin's "British Napoleonic Field Artillery". Is that a useful complementary volume?


summerfield Inactive Member21 Mar 2010 1:36 p.m. PST

Dear Allen
This is an honest appraisal of the book from another author. It is much better than the Osprey on British Field Ordnance especially the quality of the CAD drawings to scale.

Franklin pleasingly had come to the same conclusions over the existance of RA bracket trail artillery late into 1813. The plans of his reconstructions are not correct but he did not have access to the plans in my collection. I do not understand his attitude to correct plans that were made at the time and ignore non-British texts. The curator of artillery at the Royal Armouries and I had discussed this at great length. His references to Adye (1813) are a bit spurious. This is nit-picking.

The plans of the block trail like other books are from Aide Memoire (1853) or Carriage drawings 1868 and not contemporary as he ignored looking at French sources. I have contemporary scale plans drawn by French officers.

The absence of any contempory pictures, plans or photographs mean that other books would need to be consulted to get a feel for the ordnance.

Please contact me offline if you want to discuss this further.

Various extracts and papers by me

aecurtis Fezian Inactive Member21 Mar 2010 2:25 p.m. PST

Thanks, Stephen.

I'm just trying to discover where there may be other drawings of the M1788 Congreve and M1795? (M1797 in your book) Butler carriages. You provide a side elevation of a M1788 Congreve carriage. I'm looking for a plan (from above) drawing of the Congreve and both for the Butler. I realize that apart from the Butler having the standardized 60" wheels, the differences may be minor, but I'd still like to see for myself.

Ideally, I'd like to find drawings (of either design) approrpriate for the light 12pdr. You mention that it was originally on a bracket carriage (p.117). It's unfortunate that the Royal Armouries mounted theirs on a later pattern block trail carriage.

Frankly, the light 12pdr is a little confusing. It's labeled as an M1794 in the photo caption on p.116. You say that it was trialled in 1792 on a block-trail carriage (p.115); it was intended for use by the horse artillery, but it was actually used in Flanders by field batteries in 1794-5 (p.104), so presumably there on the aforementioned bracket carriage? Yet it was not introduced until 1798-99 for the RHA (earlier on p.104; noted as so ordered by the Duke of York on p.115).

Do I have that right? It seems a bit hard to follow.

Anyway, I was hoping for more drawings. If Franklin's are not correct, then that's not an option.



summerfield Inactive Member21 Mar 2010 5:19 p.m. PST

Dear Allen
The Light 12-pdr is correct for being on a block trail. This was used by the RHA to about 1800. An excellent piece.

Anthony wrote the section you point to and yes it is difficult to comprehend. The returns were difficult to sort out. Contact me offline and I can send you the introduction to Swabey that I wrote that may be easier to comprehend. It is much easier to discuss over a set of plans.

Alas we only have a drawing of the axle for the Butler carriage and a letter by Congreve complaining. There were no plans that could be found at the RA Library. Alas we did not have £1,000.00 GBP to look at the Desaguliers drawings that the librarian wanted to charge. Each photo that we took cost £10.00 GBP each etc…

The plans that I have edited by Dupin are of some assistance but not with the bracket trail question.

You realise that British Ordnance is still research in progress that I may return to in the next few years. The situation over the RA library is not resolved.


aecurtis Fezian Inactive Member31 Mar 2010 9:51 a.m. PST

"The Light 12-pdr is correct for being on a block trail."

OK, thanks. But given the statement (again, p.117):

"The Light 12-pdr, Long 6-pdr and both howitzers were on bracket carriages…"

…up until what point in time was the Light 12pdr on a bracket carriage?

Thanks again,


summerfield Inactive Member31 Mar 2010 1:48 p.m. PST

Dear Allen
You are quoting DDS (2007) Napoleonic Artillery. Alas that is an editor's error. The editor failed to send us the proof before publication. That should read block trail.

"The Light 12-pdr, Long 6-pdr and both howitzers were on block trails."

I hope that makes it a little clearer.


aecurtis Fezian Inactive Member31 Mar 2010 4:02 p.m. PST

Thank you. But, well, no; unfortunately, it doesn't.

That's just the first part of the sentence; it seems to have been written to contrast with the second part, which says that "the Long 3-pdr and the 12-pdr of Desaguliers were on the block-trail and the Light Infantry 3-pdr on the Townshend carriage in 1780 and 1792." But if all of the first four were actually on the block-trail carriage, then the contrasting sentence construction doesn't make much sense.

Also, this section is discussing the 1780s and 1790s. As you have stated above, both howitzers could have been on either block-trail or bracket carriages, depending on the timeframe. You point out specifically that the heavy 5.5" howitzer was not mounted on the block-trail carriage until 1813.

So it would seem that if that portion were meant to read, "The Light 12-pdr, Long 6-pdr and both howitzers were on block trails," it doesn't actually fit in the context of the period being discussed.

Sorry if I appear to be terribly dense, but the pieces just don't seem to fit.


summerfield Inactive Member01 Apr 2010 7:45 a.m. PST

Dear Allen
I am sorry without re-writing this I can be of little more help. Hopefully in a future publication such as Dupin (1820) I can attempt to clear this up.

Research has gone on and cleared up much of the mystery. Yes this part is confused as Anthony could not be certain. I have found more evidence and much of this from Dupin, Adye (1800-27 editions), Spearman etc… that we did not have before.


bkim417521 Dec 2018 8:15 p.m. PST

A question for Stephen Summerfield- I am building Moore's 1808 Army in 15mm. If there had been enough horses to drag the 12pdrs around, what would be the best model or mixture to use for the RA model of the gun? I had thought to use an ACW 12# Napoleon or Crimean era gun, but as you discuss above the RA Medium gun had a bracket trail and not a block trail.
Also, if the 12pdr had been used which Companies would have been issued them? Also, I have seen that there were 4 more with the KGL Foot. Had all 13 been used how would companies been organized?


Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.