"How common was counter battery canister fire?" Topic

… and for that matter how often did artillery get inside the range where they could have done so?
Now that I have a set-up for my 3mm figs that allows me to have enough depth (3km) to show the full range of artillery fire and then some, I'm wondering what exactly it was historically and how artillery duels and such played out. From what I've read artillery could fire at other artillery for long periods with little damage or short periods with devastating effect. But in general, did artillery ever get very close to other artillery pieces?

I've never come across mention of it – frankly it would seem insane for artillery to attempt to get that close, as the other guy would get first shot, with cannister….

I won't say it was NEVER done. I can only say I never heard of it, and I expect it was pretty darn rare. Unless there was a huge disparity in weight of metal, in order to set up the situation, you'd have to move within the other battery's canister range and then try to unlimber. I don't imagine the results would be happy for you. On the contrary hand, if I had, say, a battery of Austrian 3-pd guns and saw some French 12's unlimbering outside my canister range but within theirs, I'd try very hard not to be there by the time they were done.

How about a shotgun duel at 20 paces instead?

I see. That makes a lot of sense. I would like to avoid such a situation myself.

About what would be considered canister range in period? 300m or less?

There are a few accounts but not many. There is one (but not having it in front of me so details are sketchy ) of a French Light battery firing at a Allied battery. The allies return fire but that sparked up the ire of a French heavy battery so the Allied one stopped calming down the heavy one. But the light battery kept firing.

300's about right for the lightest pieces, 6-9 pounders more like 400, and 12 pounders maybe 500. Specifics varied by nationality and model obviously, but they're in the right ballpark at least.

link

Ok, I found this- prob should have googled it first! :)
Anyways, this chart indicates pretty clearly that if I want to accurately show artillery ranges in my games I'm going to have to know the exact weight of every battery in my army. Which means I'll need some kind of tag or chit to place nearby (or else mark the bottom of the bases).

A 12lbs French battery would have a 1' range at my scale (or 13" to be technical). A 3lbs Austrian battery would be about 6." Big, important disparity there!

Mark each battery with a "seed bead" at the rear. Cheap, small, and easy to see.

I can't recall many on a table-top either, I have a dim memory of a game where some French Horse Art that scooted around an Austrian flank behind some woods and villages to safely deploy in range of out-flanked infantry. The infantry were repulsed leaving some Austrian artillery exposed and in canister range.

I think they took one round of shooting before the game was decided elsewhere.

David F Brown

There are a few accounts but not many. There is one (but not having it in front of me so details are sketchy ) of a French Light battery firing at a Allied battery. The allies return fire but that sparked up the ire of a French heavy battery so the Allied one stopped calming down the heavy one. But the light battery kept firing.

What is the difference between a 'light battery' and a 'heavy battery?'

If we're talking about field artillery (foot artillery, horse artillery, and mountain artillery) they are all light batteries because they are light artillery. And that included up to 12-pounders.

I'm assuming you are talking about calibers of pieces, as heavy batteries or heavy artillery was siege artillery, whose calibers were also used as fortress or garrison artillery.

why shouldn't it happen, it would depend on the distance of the guns, counter battery fire was very common, about canister here aa example from the Waterloo Archive Volume V, 1st Horse Battery, KGL

"the crews also were taking losses; at Niemeyer's cannon five gunners had been killed or wounded. Niemeyer himself war struck by a canister ball in his lower leg (…)"

forwardmarch. I wouldn't place too much weight on those tables, as data like this reflect a range of different things, including tactical practice, and so one nation's figures don't necessarily compare to another's. The more you research it, the more bewildering it gets. It is very hard to get any kind of meaningful comparison between the artillery pieces of different nations.

Brechtel198, I thought in French usage (and therefore more widespread) "light" artillery referred to what the English called "horse artillery". I don't know about their usage for "heavy" though. For the Prussians heavy (schwer) referred to 12pdrs/10pdr howitzers.

Matthew

Agreed with matthew on the use of tables, and the delineation between "light" and "heavy" batteries in this context (Russians used it as well).

I don't recall reading about canister vs batteries, though this certainly doesn't mean that it didn't/couldn't happen or that I haven't forgotten.

Even with horse artillery though, I would imagine the battery you're deploying near would have something to say about it before you had pieces brought to bear. Would not be pretty.

I would guess that Friedland might have offered an opportunity for closer-in CB fire….

Hi all,
Thanks for the input and expertise! Artillery is definitely one of the most complex aspects of the period.

I was wondering what exactly they meany by "effective" and "maximum" on that chart. I have an idea from my own military experience but the modern sense of those terms and effects might be very different from in-period (or on the chart, which is probably of modern origin).

In my last post I should have differentiated that in the scale I'm using a French 12 pound battery would have a canister range of 1' and an extreme roundshot range (according to that chart) of 3' (give or take). This is exactly half the board depth on display. At any rate, that means that the opposed artillery batteries in my recent pictures are too close to each other. Which I sort of figured because they even look like they're too close.

DeepFried- I'll definitely need to add a bunch of beads and such into the mix. If I ever want to do a full-tactical game I'll need them to track ammo, casualties, morale, etc. A series of beads might work as well as chits.

Just finished reading up on Talavera. Victor managed to get his 8lb batteries to within 800 yds of the British batteries on the opposing hill. Not much mention of cannister fire there vs British batteries, nor by Sebastiani's batteries that might have reached the edge of the olive groves within 600 yds of the British batteries. Hill's forces did take some punishment from artillery fire but I expect most of it was outside cannister rnge

I remember reading that The British hated French heavy cse. as it out ranged the regular case.

Effective range has a good probability of hitting the target. The French doctrinal range was 1050 yards, according to Jean Duteil in his Usage.

Maximum range is how far the round can actually travel after being fired.

Ricochet could actually double the range of roundshot.

The French did have two different canister rounds and the effective range was different.

800 yards range of French 8-pounders was not considered 'close' range, but a usual operating range for artillery.

Close range is what Senarmont accomplished at Friedland in 1807 and Drouot accomplished at Lutzen and what some French artillery did at Waterloo before the Guard attack. French artillery was targeting allied squares at 100-150 yard range. That was close.

1000 yards= 2'. Nice and easy! Sometimes you get lucky.
"Good probability of hitting target."
What does that mean exactly?

Artillery effect could have a quite varied effect due to conditions, range and many other factors. One thing I've gathered reading debates over it on here (mostly keeping to sidelines, since my knowledge of the topic is limited, being more a modeler/gamer)is that the data set tends to be mostly a collection of anecdotes with a few rather rudimentary period studies.

I think it would be really useful if someone were to compile all of the reports of artillery effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) they can get their hands from the period, then put it into a spread sheet along with ratings on accuracy, range, effect on target, weather, shot weight, etc. We might then be able to get a better idea of what exactly we're talking about when we talk about artillery effect.

My purpose is that I'd like to be able to determine the range of casualties one might expect from firing X number of guns at X target.

While I'm on this, does anyone know of an English translation of the Prussian kriegspiel? The American one is alright but it's out of period and some very important charts are missing.

Too Fat Lardies produce an English version of the original 1824 Prussian von Reisswitz Kriegspiel.
I think it is available as a pdf for about £10.00 GBP

Mollinary

mollinary- Thanks! I'll be picking that up I think…
I'd love to game-ify kriegspiel.

You can expect that it will be about three times what an infantry battalion could do if you include long range fire. Read somewhere that certain generals gave that sort of weight as a rule of thumb. Actual tables are going to be impossible to get anything but hypothesis. Pick a number.

Brechtel198, I thought in French usage (and therefore more widespread) "light" artillery referred to what the English called "horse artillery". I don't know about their usage for "heavy" though. For the Prussians heavy (schwer) referred to 12pdrs/10pdr howitzers.

Tousard, in his Armerican Artillerist's Companion specifically states that 12-pounders were suitable for horse artillery. And the favorite French horse artillery piece was the Gribeauval 8-pounder. They weren't too happy about it being eventually replaced by the AN XI 6-pounder.

As the 4-, 6-, 8-, and 12-pounders were all field artillery pieces, they were then, by definition, light artillery. There were two categories or types of artillery during the period-light and heavy. Light artillery was foot, horse, and mountain artillery; that which could be used on the battlefield and was maneuverable. Heavy artillery was siege artillery, and those gun tubes, on different carriages, were also used in coastal defense (along with naval artillery pieces) and as fortress artillery, or artillerie du place.

Was there a difference in artillery effect on target due to the different weights of shot? It would seem that the difference between being hit by a 3 lbs cannon ball v. a 12 pound cannonball would be mostly academic.

Anyone have an idea on the trajectory of a cannonball? I've never seen a tactical ruleset that accounted for fire's effect on units behind the targeted one.

Ok, I found this- prob should have googled it first! :)
Anyways, this chart indicates pretty clearly that if I want to accurately show artillery ranges in my games I'm going to have to know the exact weight of every battery in my army. Which means I'll need some kind of tag or chit to place nearby (or else mark the bottom of the bases).

forward:

Not really. visibility was only about 1700 yards according to such officers as Scharnhorst, meaning regardless how far a shot could carry, that is the maximum where they could see the target at all.

At Borodino, the first French grand battery set up at 1600 yards and quickly stopped and moved up to 1200 yards because they couldn't see their targets or the effects of their shots.
The Russian artillery commander for the army stated in 1809 that @1000 yards was the limit of effective range.

During the ACW, the Union artillery stated that 1500 yards was the limits of effective range for rifled cannon. [Each limber had such instructions pasted to the inside of the lid.
Modern firearms can range up to 2000 yards and more, but nobody has a firefight at those ranges. 100 to 300 yards is the typical ranges for a modern firefight.

The technical capabilities of a weapon may have little to do with how they are used or what is considered "Effective Range."

As for counter-battery canister fire, don't forget grape or case shot. A twelve pounder would fire 12 to 15 in a case. It was carried by most armies in some quantity. Uxbridge, at Waterloo, lost his leg to one such ball. [about 1" to 2" across] This would have been fired by 6 to 12 lbers at ranges of 300-700 yards, depending on weight. As there were always few canister or grape shot rounds in a limber, they were generally held for defensive, close-in purposes. There are examples of artillery getting within 600 yards of enemy cannon to silence them, but I have never read what was used, ball or canister etc.

Grapeshot was generally outmoded by the period with canister being the preferred anti-personnel round as it was more efficient.

The French artillery arm had two types of canister for each of the ‘three calibers' (4-, 8-, and 12-pounders). The small canister round had 41 iron balls for each caliber. The large canister round had 63 iron balls for the 4-pounder, and 112 shot for the 8- and 12-pounders.

French grapeshot as of 1764 was composed of 36 iron balls. The diameter of the balls per caliber (4-, 8-, and 12-pounders) was .16, 1.31, and 1.5 inches respectively.
Canister and case shot are two names for the same round.

For the technical data see DeScheel's Treatise on Artillery, produced in 1777 on the Gribeauval System which includes narrative and data on the artillery rounds of the period as used by the French, including dimensions, weights, and description.

As the range described by DuTeil in his doctrinal treatise of 1778, I doubt that any French artillery commander of the period would emplace a battery for firing at 1600 yards. DuTeil specifically stated 1050 yards as the most effective for effect on target.

The French grand battery at Borodino was emplaced initially too far from the intended target and had to displace forward, but probably at around 1200 yards initially, displacing to between 800 and 1000.

If they couldn't see their target, why would they emplace and commence firing to begin with? The reason they displaced forward was that they were out of effective range.

And it should be noted that there are many factors which affect artillery firing, atmospheric conditions (weather, humidity, heat, etc.) being a major one.

For effective counterfire, roundshot was undoubtedly the best round to use as it could cause the most damage to artillery, guns, vehicles, and personnel.

If you assume that the men of the time knew their jobs then when the grand battery set up at Borodino, they must have expected that they could see the target and that the fire would be effective.

so why move forward.

Well the general rule is the closer you are the more effective your fire will be, and so will the enemies.

I think that when the French open up so did the Russian and what do you know there is only 1/3 to 1/2 the guns firing back. With enemy fire ineffective you move up.

The French firing on fortification where in a seige operation. Artillery is at it best firing on a point target like the gun openings on the Flecths and the Redout.

I just for a minute got on google maps and drove around on street view, hats off how did anyone see anything?

Volume of shot. At Borodino wasn't it 7 rounds a second or something like that?

Brechtel, I think we're talking at cross-purposes about the meaning of "light" artillery.

When Bernadotte complained to Napoleon in 1809 that his Saxon Corps lacked light artillery, I don't think he meant that he only had seige guns available. He clearly meant that he lacked horse artillery. As with many things in the era terms ca mean different things in different contexts, and there is no single right answer. I'm sure I could find other examples.

The French grand battery at Borodino was emplaced initially too far from the intended target and had to displace forward, but probably at around 1200 yards initially, displacing to between 800 and 1000.

The Battle of Borodino: Napoleon Against Kutuzov (Campaign Chronicles)Jun 13, 2011 by Alexander Mikaberidze

pp 90-92

Around 6am the batteries of Sorbier, Pernetty and Foucher welcomed the dawn with a salvo, and the RUssians returned fire, "thick clouds of smoke curled from the batteries into the sky and darkened the sun, which seemed to veil itself in a blood-red shroud…"

It was soon noticed that the French cannon shots were falling short of their targets on the Russian left flank; some scholars have argued that peculiar atmospheric conditions [i.e. morning fog] affected the French fire but the truth is more prosaic. As noted above, the terrain was reconnoitred incorrectly and batteries were set up beyond their effective range. So the cannon had to be quickly moved forward. According to Bogdanovich, the French had to advance some batteries [Sorbier and Foucher] up to '1,600 steps' before the cannonade resumed with greater fury. [steps=28-30 inches or 1244 to 1330 yards.]

Grapeshot was generally outmoded by the period with canister being the preferred anti-personnel round as it was more efficient.

It was used at longer ranges, past canister range, bith by the navy and army, hence Uxbridge's wound. It was too large for canister [and he was out of range] and too small for even a 4 lber. The hole it made can be seen in his uniform, about 2 inches across. 4 lber shot is 3 inches across.

Grapeshot was indeed used by the navy, but not by the army as it was not an efficient round, at least not as efficient as canister.

The basic load for French artillery did not include grapeshot, but did include canister, usually for battery defense.

And French artillery was within 150 yards of the British line at least before the last attack of the Imperial Guard, so Uxbridge could definitely have been in range to be hit by canister, the large French canister had a range of at least 500 yards.

The diameter of French grapeshot has already been given. The diameter of French canister shot was:

Small canister (41 iron balls per canister): 4-, 8-, and 12-pounders: 1.05 in, 1.309 in, 1.509 in, respectively.

Large canister: 4-pounder: 63 iron balls per canister, .954 in; 8-pounder: 112 iron balls per canister, .932 in; 12-pounder: 112 iron balls, 1.509 in.

French grapeshot had 36 iron balls per round.

The largest iron ball used in grapeshot was 1.5 inches; in canister it was 1.509 inches. There were no iron balls in either canister or grapeshot at two inches or larger.

Regarding the French grand battery at Borodino, the movement forward of the guns because they were out of effective range is not in contention.

However, as the maximum range of the artillery pieces in question was in excess of 1500 yards (and roundshot could double in range if ricochet fire was employed) I tend to take with a large grain of salt Russian comments on an opponents artillery, though the Russians had greatly improved their artillery between 1807 and 1812.

I think we're talking at cross-purposes about the meaning of "light" artillery.

When Bernadotte complained to Napoleon in 1809 that his Saxon Corps lacked light artillery, I don't think he meant that he only had seige guns available. He clearly meant that he lacked horse artillery. As with many things in the era terms ca mean different things in different contexts, and there is no single right answer. I'm sure I could find other examples.

Undoubtedly.

But the point is that all field artillery was light artillery and that includes foot artillery

Bernadotte did begin the campaign with only four gun companies of foot artillery and there was horse artillery attached to his corps by Wagram.

4 lber shot is 3 inches across.

What are you referring to here? Roundshot, grapeshot, or canister?

And it should be noted that the French had no 4-pounders at Waterloo, no matter what Mercer wrote.

Wow I always figure large ment the size of the shot not the amount.

But the point is that all field artillery was light artillery and that includes foot artillery

Brechtel, I am curious. Where is it codified that a 'light gun' or "light artillery' just means "not siege guns" and nothing else- or is this simply your personal assessment?

There is an obvious distinction to be made between field guns and siege guns/ field artillery and siege artillery, while at the lighter end of the field artillery spectrum we have light guns, where destructive power was balanced against mobility; an equation that was being revised regularly during the period. Isn't that what we mean by light artillery?

As for Uxbridge, I was under the impression he was wounded down in the valley after the general advance began, by shot from guns covering the retreat of the Guard. If so the range might well have been within that of effective canister fire. Given that musket ball alone could shatter a limb beyond saving, a canister projectile would have been quite capable of destroying Uxbridge's knee. Where did I read that the projectile in fact passed over the neck of Wellington's mount, Copenhagen, before hitting Uxbridge. Or is that folkore? I always wondered where the rest of the burst went.

The hole in Uxbridge's trousers would not necessarily reflect the diameter of the projectile; only if it struck precisely perpendicular to the limb. If it cut across his knee at an angle, it could well have torn a hole larger than the ball. Then again who knows what damage may have been done while Uxbridge was evacuated or the wound was being examined? Indeed, I am amazed the trouser leg was not simply ripped open (He seems to have had trouble keeping them on back home) §

What are you referring to here? Roundshot, grapeshot, or canister?

And it should be noted that the French had no 4-pounders at Waterloo, no matter what Mercer wrote.

I think you figured it out. And no, I wasn't saying the French had 4 pounders at Waterloo. I was saying that the size of Uxbridge's wound is evidence that it could not be from a small artillery piece or from canister.

Grapeshot was indeed used by the navy, but not by the army as it was not an efficient round, at least not as efficient as canister.

You're repeating yourself. The issue isn't whether it was 'efficient' or not. The issue is that
1. It had a longer range than canister and still threw out multiple projectiles and
2. It was used regardless, hence the example. There are a number of instances on the battlefield where the load fired is called 'grape' and not canister…or damage similar to Uxbridge's--in any language. I am sure you can find them if you want to.

I have seen no evidence in over ten years of studying the artillery of the period that the French used grapeshot with their field artillery.

And I'm sure you noticed, even the size of the French grapeshot rounds were not over an inch and a half. So they could not have made a two-inch hole.

However, if you're going by the measurement of the hole in Uxbridge's trousers, that is not the best way to measure the round. The wound itself would be better, but even then it isn't accurate.

And if you actually believe that grapeshot, which was an obsolete round for field artillery because it did less damage than canister, is of longer range than canister, please show it.

And people used the terms 'canister' and 'grape' interchangeably, especially those who didn't know better. I have seen nothing in primary source material that indicates that the French used grapeshot with their field artillery. They used canister.

And the issue of efficiency is an issue-that's why grapeshot was replaced by canister.

And you have not demonstrated that anything but canister caused Uxbridge's wound.

My understanding is that, over a long period,'grape' seems to have been used promiscuously in reference to canister or case shot, perhaps because men believed- as I used to- that the term referred to grape-sized projectiles rather than the resemblance of a round of grapeshot, balls larger than grapesize, bound by wire or canvas in a cluster around a central rod, resembled a bunch of grapes. Having enquire elsewhere, it does seem that it was a munition more commonly used at sea.

There was also grapeshot constructed on plates with holes in them for the iron rounds, and the plates then placed on top of each other. Three plates would make up the round.

I have seen no evidence in over ten years of studying the artillery of the period that the French used grapeshot with their field artillery.

So, I guess Uxbridge lost his leg to Prussian grape shot.

And I'm sure you noticed, even the size of the French grapeshot rounds were not over an inch and a half. So they could not have made a two-inch hole.

I did say 1-2 inches in my first post.

My understanding is that, over a long period,'grape' seems to have been used promiscuously in reference to canister or case shot, perhaps because men believed- as I used to- that the term referred to grape-sized projectiles rather than the resemblance of a round of grapeshot, balls larger than grapesize, bound by wire or canvas in a cluster around a central rod, resembled a bunch of grapes. Having enquire elsewhere, it does seem that it was a munition more commonly used at sea.

Yes, I have seen the term grapeshot used interchangeably with case shot. I have also read that the ammo for French naval vessels were used by the army… why waste good ammo if it fit 12 or smaller bores?

However, if you're going by the measurement of the hole in Uxbridge's trousers, that is not the best way to measure the round. The wound itself would be better, but even then it isn't accurate.

The hole is far too big to be canister and too small to be even a French 4 pound shot, which you say weren't at Waterloo.

According to the account of Sir Hussey Vivian recorded by Henry Curling in 1847:

Just after the Surgeon had taken off the Marquis of Anglesey's leg, Sir Hussey Vivian came into the cottage where the operation was performed. "Ah, Vivian!" said the wounded noble, "I want you to do me a favour. Some of my friends here seem to think I might have kept that leg on. Just go and cast your eye upon it, and tell me what you think." "I went, accordingly", said Sir Hussey, "and, taking up the lacerated limb, carefully examined it, and so far as I could tell, it was completely spoiled for work. A rusty grape-shot had gone through and shattered the bones all to pieces. I therefore returned to the Marquis and told him he could set his mind quite at rest, as his leg, in my opinion, was better off than on."

Now it was a single hole, single projectile. Vivian identifies it as grape-shot. So, if he was mistaken, what could have caused the hole?

Well – Vivian was on the spot and did know more about the injury than brech as usual

To be fair, VWs, I think Bechtel was merely stating the facts as currently available, i.e. the lack data to support French 4pdrs on the field and that damage to clothing is problematic in determining the size of the projectile.

Moreover, I think we all know the hazards of relying too heavily on a single eyewitness account

So a quick question to those who may have seen both types of ammunition fired (obviously as part of living history or a technical experiment) – would there have been a significant difference in fire effect between canister and grape to someone on the dangerous end?

I still think we have to start with the possibility that contemporary reference to 'grape shot' was not in fact describing the larger projectile that, technically, this ought to mean.

Bearing in mind that the quotation above is an author quoting Henry Curling's narration of an account, probably not verbatim, of what Vivian Hussey reported of his conversation with Uxbridge, from 30 years before. Did Hussey refer to the projectile as described by Uxbridge. Had the projectile been preserved and identified?How did he know it was 'grapeshot'? How did he know it was rusty?

All we can really be sure of is that Uxbridge's leg was so badly damaged that it had to be taken off, that Vivian spoke with Uxbridge after the operation and examined the shattered limb. No mention of trousers.

Now it was a single hole, single projectile. Vivian identifies it as grape-shot. So, if he was mistaken, what could have caused the hole?

You've been shown that French canister and grapeshot were the same size. And grapeshot was not used by the French for an anti-personnel round any longer. So, the answer is canister if he was hit by artillery fire.

Now, if you can show that the French used grapeshot as part of their basic load, then the possibility would exist for Uxbridge to be hit by grapeshot. That would be interesting, but as has been said already, it wasn't in use for field artillery because canister was a much better round against personnel.

And you also have not shown that grapeshot had a longer range than canister, especially as the French used two sizes of canister rounds that held different numbers of iron balls, both of which contained more iron balls than French grapeshot.

The available artillery manuals are on line if you care to look.

Vivian was on the spot and did know more about the injury than brech as usual

Vivian was also a cavalryman, and not an artilleryman. And if you don't agree, then I suggest that you demonstrate that the French used grapeshot with field artillery.

And just as an aside, I doubt that the Prussians didn't use grapeshot either, but canister just like everyone else, even though they were behind in artillery development compared with France, Great Britain, Austria, and Russia, during the period.

he mentioned a rusty grape shot, that is pretty evident for me, the rest is hair splitting

How would he know if it was a grapeshot or a canister round as it had been fired and then hit a target?

The only way he could know was if he had been in the battery position when the round was loaded and then fired.

On Vivian's part it was nothing more than an uneducated guess.

Maybe someone could care to explain to me what is the relevance of the French using grapeshot or canister. It looks like a storm in a cup of tea.

Anachronistic terms of phrase do have a habit of hanging on in the (military) vernacular. So I do wonder if grapeshot was used by non-gunners to also describe canister, especially when 'a whiff of grape' is too splendid a phrase to pass up