Help support TMP


"How common was counter battery canister fire?" Topic


191 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.

Please remember not to make new product announcements on the forum. Our advertisers pay for the privilege of making such announcements.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Napoleonic Discussion Message Board


Areas of Interest

Napoleonic

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Link


Top-Rated Ruleset

La Grande Armee


Rating: gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star 


Featured Showcase Article

1:700 Black Seas British Brigs

Personal logo Editor in Chief Bill The Editor of TMP Fezian paints brigs for the British fleet.


Featured Profile Article

The Simtac Tour

The Editor is invited to tour the factory of Simtac, a U.S. manufacturer of figures in nearly all periods, scales, and genres.


Current Poll


9,414 hits since 25 Apr 2016
©1994-2025 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Pages: 1 2 3 4 

McLaddie02 May 2016 1:09 p.m. PST

Have you not read them? Do you have them on hand? Measurements in DeScheel is also in inches, as previously stated.


? Uh, yeah.

Brechtel19802 May 2016 5:01 p.m. PST

Then why don't you use them?

You have a very bad habit of either overlooking what has been posted or repeatedly erring in your 'assessment' of artillery of the period. (Witness your erroneous favorable comparison of Senarmont's artillery attack against the Russian center at Friedland and the British artillery supporting their infantry repel a French assault at Talavery).

McLaddie02 May 2016 5:55 p.m. PST

Kevin:

I haven't overlooked anything. I simply don't know why you keep repeating what we both identified as the size of the shot. As for the question about whether that 1.5 inch was the French or British inch. Neither Ayde or Tousard make that distinction. Does DeScheel? He was writing a generation before our period, 1785 to 1815.

Repeating 'inches' and asking us to read treatises we have already quoted doesn't do it.

You have a very bad habit of either overlooking what has been posted or repeatedly erring in your 'assessment' of artillery of the period.

So, in quoting Tousard, where he clearly states that old grape shot was improved by placing the same size shot in the same numbers in a canister, and then innumerates the ranges at which "large" and "Small" canister are effective, I was erring in my 'assessment?

You have stated that 12 pound canister could reach out to 700-800 yards. Tousard says that is "large" canister, the same configuration as grape shot could reach out that far, but that small canister couldn't.

So, are you stating that the French did not have large and small canister? DesScheel 1785 is your source for that?

(Witness your erroneous favorable comparison of Senarmont's artillery attack against the Russian center at Friedland and the British artillery supporting their infantry repel a French assault at Talavery)

Yes, that was a classic. You insisted that because Hughes' assessment was that the British were on the defensive, the artillery advance was a defensive operation when Hughes didn't acknowledge [or apparently know] the event occurred. And on that assessment you refused to see any similarities between the two artillery advances…both of which were started as supporting infantry in a defensive mission [Dupont defensively filling gap left by Ney]

Discussions with you are very one dimensional, just so stories based on a very black/white interpretations that deals with very select issues of your choosing. You ignore things like the quotes I provided from Tousard. Then there are always the information dumps that go off on tangents to the actual questions.

And too often they end up with you telling others what their bad habits are or more. So now that we have shared those impressions.

…Back to the question at hand. From all I have read, there was grape shot [large canister] available. What indications do you have, Kevin, that there was no large canister provided French artillery, considering the ranges that Tousard provides and his descriptions of grape shot being improved by being in canisters?

LORDGHEE02 May 2016 7:06 p.m. PST

So large canister was the larger shot?

ahhhuggg

Where is a Frenchman when you need one. He could just go down to the archives and look at what they took.

von Winterfeldt02 May 2016 11:23 p.m. PST

Gareth Glover Waterloo Archives volume 1

Lieutenant Robert Lind was struck in the breast by a grape shot weighing 100z which was cut from his should three days later. position 5104 (foot note Nr. 348)


and threw grape into us like smoke opened the flanks of the square (…)position 3336

but their guns did great havoc with shells & grape, (…)position 3159

was wounded by a grape hot in the belly(..) position 2967

Many common shot and grape fell in my direction and perforated the walls in every part(…) position 2929

quotes are from my kindle fire so I cannot provide page numbers.

Tousard – not always a reliable soure – didn't he confuse how the Austrian gunners were mounted?

DeScheel of course doesn't say inches instead pouce etc, and a French "inch" is not identical to a British one.

McLaddie03 May 2016 7:08 a.m. PST

VW:

Tousard, like all sources, can be mistaken in some things. With the question of canister he was using Muller's tests and was quite specific about the ranges of the new canister for 12, 8 and 4 pound guns, both large and small canister.

So the question would be whether the French carried both large and small canister.

The assumption that infantry wouldn't know the kind of artillery shot and canister being thrown at them doesn't jive with even the quotes you gave above, particularly when Lind for instance talks about 'a grape shot' weighing [10 oz ?] Like WWI soldiers knowing the difference between 105 and 155 shells by their sound and explosions, soldiers would come to know the sizes of shot and grape vs small canister balls. There is a photo of the Balaclava 'Valley of Death' after the Light Brigade's charge. It is strewn with cannon balls. It is easy to tell that there were just two sizes.

Regardless, the question of the thread was whether canister was used in counter-battery fire. The only things I know for sure is that canister could reach out to 600-800 yards [Kevin gives 700 meters as the range for 12 pounders] and that there were instances where artillery came within that range to conduct counter-battery fire.

For instance, at Castiglione in 1796, Marmont brought up at least 12 guns under 600 yards of 18 Austrian guns in a redoubt and silenced them. [I believe he lost some guns in the approach.]

So he *could* have used large canister, but I haven't read anything to that effect.

So large canister was the larger shot?

ahhhuggg

Where is a Frenchman when you need one. He could just go down to the archives and look at what they took.

LORDGHEE:
Well, Tousard was a Frenchman, but yeah, it would be nice to have the French army archives or a Frenchman available when you need to search a particular carton.

42flanker04 May 2016 4:04 a.m. PST

Quoting British sources that cite the word 'grape' probably won't help us specify French munitions, since, as we have noted, the term was frequently used by British to refer to canister or case as opposed to what we might regard as 'true' grapeshot.

The '10 oz' shot recovered from Robert Lind's shoulder is intriguing. 41 of those- or 36 under the old dispensation- would add up to quite a hefty round, would they not? Indeed, I am in any case amazed that there was much of Lieutenant Lind's shoulder left, after over half a pound of hot metal had slammed into it.

By the way, I imagine that in Lind's case it helped having the projectile to hand when it came to assessing its weight or calibre. Apart, perhaps, from 'big', 'middling' or 'small', I imagine the size or origin of a ball whizzing by was not as important as the fact that it had indeed gone by. As far as Waterloo was concerned, a fair number of British soldiers had not been shot at before (Obviously that was not the case with Lind's regiment, the 71st).

I have been having an interesting time trying to make sense of the Von Scheel Memoires. In the Second part (p.114), there is an interesting reference to "grappe de raisin boulets d'une demi-livre" ('Boulets' you'll notice, not 'balles' – ranking the old 'grapeshot' projectiles in the same class as round shot rather than with the smaller sub-munitions normally classed as 'mitrailles'. It has to be said that this appears to be the only place in the book that such a large projectile is indicated.

Nonetheless, shot of that size- Half a pound (Francais)- would seem to be roughly the same size as the shot that reportedly lodged itself in Robert Lind's shoulder (10 oz) and indeed would have mashed Lord Uxbridge's knee with little difficulty. What seems odd is that, as far as I can make out, such munitions had been rendered obsolete with the introduction in 1765 of the two-tier system of case shot- boites de fer blanc: grosse cartouches (41 balles) and petits cartouches (112 or 63 balles); calibrated to fit French piéces de 12, 8 & 4 respectively.

Would there really have been some old grappe de raisin rounds hanging around fifty years later? I suppose that might explain Vivian's alleged reference to a rusty grapeshot as reported by Curling in 1847.

I'm not going to dip my foot into the clearly controversial question of effective range of French case shot. I got so far in the Von Scheel and my head began to swim.

I was interested to see the word mitraille, only appeared twice in the Memoires.

von Winterfeldt04 May 2016 4:29 a.m. PST

"Quoting British sources that cite the word 'grape' probably won't help us specify French munitions, since, as we have noted, the term was frequently used by British to refer to canister or case as opposed to what we might regard as 'true' grapeshot. "

But we shouldn't ignore them either – they were on the receiving end.

42flanker04 May 2016 5:30 a.m. PST

It's not question of ignoring but being aware of the context. A first-hand witness is not always an accurate witness.

Nowadays, virtually every aimed shot received is described as 'sniper fire'…

von Winterfeldt04 May 2016 6:10 a.m. PST

@42flanker

I am not disagreeing about context – but too often first hand witnesses are ignored and they are providing a lot of very interesting observations (I didn't know that the Hannovarians wee experimenting with blankets and muskets to make tents for example )- sure they are not always accurate but deserve to be exploited as sources.

42flanker04 May 2016 11:20 a.m. PST

Fair enough. However, in this instance, I don't believe anyone is suggesting any source be ignored but none stand alone, and references to 'grape shot' by English-speaking sources do need to be taken in the context that this more often than not meant case shot or canister rather than "a bunch of grapes"-shot from which the term derives, with the larger projectiles that that implies, albeit that the French used both 'big shot' and 'little shot' in their canister rounds.

McLaddie05 May 2016 8:17 a.m. PST

Fair enough. However, in this instance, I don't believe anyone is suggesting any source be ignored but none stand alone, and references to 'grape shot' by English-speaking sources do need to be taken in the context that this more often than not meant case shot or canister rather than "a bunch of grapes"-shot from which the term derives, with the larger projectiles that that implies, albeit that the French used both 'big shot' and 'little shot' in their canister rounds.

42flanker:

Well, how do you know that English-speaking sources "more often than not" were speaking of smaller shot canister rather than grape shot/larger canister?

Won't you have to discover that the same way we are in looking at grape shot? All those quotes speaking of grape shot… you would have to know the size of the actual canister shot to determine that, wouldn't you? The same kind of observation that Lind makes above.

von Winterfeldt05 May 2016 10:02 a.m. PST

I wonder why the Brits used consistenly the term grape shot – instead of canister?

Brechtel19805 May 2016 10:25 a.m. PST

I wonder why the Brits used consistenly the term grape shot – instead of canister?

Usually, people do what they know. And in the case of calling anti-personnel munitions 'grape' they didn't know much. The British artillery usually called canister case shot. Further, the term 'grape' or 'grapeshot' was familiar to all ranks while canister or case shot was not.

And, again, you cannot tell what type of round fired the iron balls contained in canister or grapeshot on the reveiving end-all you know is that it was an anti-personnel round and the fall back term from the period was 'grape.'

'Grape' was still being used by the Americans in the Mexican War in the 1840s when the round being used was canister. General Tyler at the battle of Buena Vista allegedly directed one battery commander to give them more 'grape' when the rounds being fired were canister.

From Firepower by BP Hughes, 34-35:

‘Case or canister shot: The last type of projectile fired by guns and howitzers was case shot, which consisted of a tin case containing a number of loose bullets and of a size to fit the bore. The case merely held the bullets together during their passage up the bore. When it emerged at the muzzle, the bullets were released to continue their deadly passage over the immediate frontage of the gun position. The lethal range of the bullets was limited, however, to a maximum of 500 yards. Case shot was therefore purely a close-range projectile and was intended primarily for use in repelling the last stages of an assault. It was sometimes used offensively too, but the small quantity of case shot held (28 rounds per gun for the British 6-pounder and 16 per gun for the 9-pounder) naturally limited its employment for that purpose.'

‘Most artillerists used a heavy and a light version of case shot-the light case of the British 6-pounder gun holding 85 1.5 ounce bullets and the heavy case holding 41 of 3.25 ounces, other calibers being in proportion. The large bullets of heavy case ranged further than the light ones, and there are instances in war-and records of trials in peace-of fire being delivered with heavy case at ranges of up to 600 yards. The extreme range of light case bullets was normally taken to be 250 yards, and it was the British practice to limit the range of all case shot to about 350 yards. But the French artillery seems to have used it at rather longer ranges, particularly in attack.'

‘Grape shot: Many contemporary writers refer to the use of grape shot in the field. It consisted of nine very large bullets wired together, and could be regarded as an extreme form of heavy case. Although it was certainly used by light iron guns against ships' boats, for the holing of which it was very effective, its heavy bullets would not have been as destructive as lighter ones at normal fighting ranges in the field. No record of grape shot appears in the published scales of ammunition carried by field artillery in the British service, but there are several references to the undesirability if firing it from brass guns owing to the damage that it would cause to their bores. It is possible that it was used by the artilleries of other powers, but it seems likely that the word ‘grape' was used loosely and incorrectly when referring to case shot and may have been used to indicate heavy case as opposed to light case.'

So, unless anyone can definitively demonstrate two things: that Lord Uxbridge was wounded by grapeshot and that grapeshot was used by the French or anyone else at Waterloo or anywhere else between 1792-1815 with field artillery units, then the only thing that is factual is that canister was used as the premier anti-personnel round until, for the British, spherical case shot was employed.

42flanker05 May 2016 12:30 p.m. PST

Well, how do you know that English-speaking sources "more often than not" were speaking of smaller shot canister rather than grape shot/larger canister?

McLaddie, I don't know that. I do know that the term 'grapeshot' was regularly used when evidence indicates the munition being fired was case shot/canister.

I believe you are making a false distinction when you speak of "grape shot/larger canister."

As the quotation cited by Brechtel explains rather well, the usage of the term grapeshot' falls into two categories: either 'true' 'grapeshot, the 'bunch of grapes' round using substantially larger projectiles and, used with increasing rarity (choosing my words carefully) on land; or 'grape'- used as a general term for the sub-munition in caseshot/ canister, which was originally made up up standard musket balls then later made up of iron shot in a range of diameters depending on whether it was 'large' or 'small' canister (to use your terms) and on the size of piece it intended to serve.

However, it seems to me that projectiles in canister/case rounds at the larger end of the spectrum, when associated with a specific wound (Uxbridge/Lind), might well have been been described individually as 'a grapeshot.'

The surgeon Hume's description of Lord Uxbridge's wound "after a grapeshot had struck him on the right knee," indicates fairly clearly that this was a highly destructive penetrating wound from front to back rather than a pulverising impact.

This suggests to me that it may have been a large canister projectile rather than an old-fashioned, 'true' grape shot. As for the 10oz shot dug out of Robert Lind's shoulder, I'm not well enough informed regarding the weight of individual projectiles to comment but that seems pretty big to me. There must be a table or chart somewhere.

McLaddie05 May 2016 10:39 p.m. PST

McLaddie, I don't know that. I do know that the term 'grapeshot' was regularly used when evidence indicates the munition being fired was case shot/canister.

I believe you are making a false distinction when you speak of "grape shot/larger canister."

As the quotation cited by Brechtel explains rather well, the usage of the term grapeshot' falls into two categories:

42flanker:

Read the section on canister and grape shot by Tousard. That is where I got the idea about the similarities between 'old grape shot' and the 'new large canister' developed after Muller's ordinance tests.

In reading through all of the posts, here is what I gleened, which is supported by all sources given:

1. The size of what is termed grapeshot used for field artillery is listed for all armies in Tousard, Ayde, Muller's tests, Scharnhorst's tests, etc. etc. Kevin gave the sizes too.

2. From Tousard's narrative of the improvement of canister and grape that I gave, the result was two sizes of shot, both in canisters, as noted by Hughes: Large and Small.

3.The size of 'grape shot' listed by the above named sources is the SAME SIZE as the large canister… the same number of balls of the same sizes for the different calibers. To insist that the term grape shot HAS to apply to only the old style configurations without a canister is to ignore the similarities of size and numbers. let alone the obvious overlapping of terms and Tousard's description of the improvements. So,

4. The terms case, canister and grape shot were all used during this period as well as the French terms with a good deal of overlap… and it wouldn't be all that surprising if Tousard's description of the improvement of grape and canister evolving into large and small canister is accepted.

Hughes describes the same problems concerning what Tousard refers to as 'Old grape shot':

No record of grape shot appears in the published scales of ammunition carried by field artillery in the British service, but there are several references to the undesirability if firing it from brass guns owing to the damage that it would cause to their bores.

Large canister was the solution. It threw out the same size and numbers of shot as old grape shot. Why wouldn't some military men still call it grapeshot, or canister, or case?

The notion that non-artillerymen would be uniformly ignorant of what type of artillery ordinance was being fired at them doesn't match what I have read. Veteran Infantrymen of all the wars I have read about became very familiar with the sound, ranges and types of ammo being thrown at them. The sound and sizes of cannon balls were regularly identified. Whether particular sources made accurate identification can be argued, but overall, to claim a general ignorance doesn't hold up.

I am sure that Kevin could provide more information about the size and weight of projectiles for different sizes of large and small canister. 10 ozs is too big to be small canister, which were iron balls about the size of a musket ball. Even a 3 lb cannon ball would weigh far more than 10 oz. Tousard and Ayde give such size and weight information.


Even Surgeon Hume would have known the difference between a wound caused by small canister balls and "a grapeshot', a single ball.

von Winterfeldt05 May 2016 11:00 p.m. PST

I took the trouble to look into the real DeScheel, he gives

cartouche à balles – for what we would term canister
and
grappes de raisin – for what we would term grape shot

The French "canister" had two sizes of iron balles and numbers

12 pdr – 41 balls with diameter of 1 pouce 5 lignes
– 112 balls with diameter of 1 pouce

8 pdr – 41 balls with diameter of 1 pouce 2 lignes 9 points

– 112 balls with a diamenter of 10 lignes 6 points

4 pdr – 41 balls with diameter of 11 lignes 10 points
– 63 balls with a diameter of 10 lignes 9 points

for more see page 112 – volume I

now for the grappes de raisin (seemingly not any longer used, what we would term grape shot)

36 petits boulets de fer (36 small iron balls)

12 pdr – diameter of balls 1 pouce 5 lignes
8 pdr – diameter of balls 1 pouce 2 lignes 9 points
4 pdr – diameter of balls 1 (sic) ligne 10 points
I assume 1 is a printing error and should be 11

for more see DeScheels page 148, volume I

Now you don't have to be a brain surgeon to realize that the iron balls of "big canister" and that of grape shot are of identical diameter.

This would perhaps explain that the British term those of big diameter as grape shot balls (which they originally were)

In case both kinds of grape and big canister were used – the balls were identical and for those unfortunates being hit – the effect would be more or less the same and they couldn't identify wether the original shot would have been grape shot or "big" canister.

Brechtel19806 May 2016 3:17 a.m. PST

Now you don't have to be a brain surgeon to realize that the iron balls of "big canister" and that of grape shot are of identical diameter.

You're late to the game. That information has already been posted.

And the information that you've posted here is also available from the American translation of DeScheel done by Jonathan Williams in 1800.

Both volumes are the 'real' DeScheel.

And DeScheel in French is available on Google Books.

42flanker06 May 2016 5:40 a.m. PST

I don't think there is any major disagreement as to the more or less standardised nature of the canister rounds used by French artillery in June 1815 (although perhaps not buckshee naval munitions).

The fog is created by the anachronistic use of 'grape' for canister projectiles. It is not unlike the modern use of the word 'shrapnel' to refer to shell fragments.

We might view the situation in terms of the French firing case shot (cartouches des balles) which then arrived amongst the British on the receiving end as ‘grapeshot'- effectively anything smaller than round shot and larger than a musket ball, and presumably made of iron rather than lead.

Understandably, ‘grapeshot' was a convenient, familiar term to use for that category of enemy fire. I should be interested to know, though, how many British gunners regularly described case shot projectiles as ‘grape'- whether their own or the enemy's. Were gunners inclined to be more specific, more accurate in the terms they used? I'm sure somebody will know.

I don't think Von Scheel in the Memoires has helped create the clearest picture of the previous disposition (pre-1765?). In Volume I, p.107 he describes 'grappe au raisin' as 36-ball rounds for piéces de 12 and 16, accompanied by a form of canister, using standard musket balls, intended mainly for piéces de 8 & 4. He adds that of the two the latter was the round most commonly used to play upon the enemy line.

Meanwhile on p.148 he presents the scale of uniform rounds, referred to by Von W., which was composed of 36 cast-iron balls, sized according to calibre, and designed to serve the full range of field guns, piéces de 16,12, 8 & 4. Unless there is something I have failed to understand, those two passages seems to me to be describing two different states of affairs.

We also have the curious remark in the commentaries in Vol. II p.114, that "One can not deny that the grapeshot with balls (boulets) of half a pound for large pieces and a handful for small, may not be much use, and that some of their projectiles don't go much further than balls of 18 to the pound.." i.e. a round of mitraille composed of musket balls loaded in a cloth sack (I think this is part of a debate as to whether for anything but close range work, round shot will always be more effective than mitraille). Would each of the 36 boulets in a grappe de raisin as described in Vol. I, weigh half a pound (French) apiece?

I shall leave the artillery buffs to unravel that one.

McLaddie06 May 2016 8:00 p.m. PST

The fog is created by the anachronistic use of 'grape' for canister projectiles. It is not unlike the modern use of the word 'shrapnel' to refer to shell fragments.

42flanker:

I think that might be missing something in the fog. The projectiles were the same size as the older 'grape' and cased in the same numbers for large canister. In other words, the very same projectiles, unlike the physical and purpose differences between 'shrapnel' and just shell fragments.

Down at the receiving end, all the soldiers see are the projectiles, unchanged from the older grape shot. Why not call it grape to distinguish it from the smaller iron canister balls? No more awkward or less technical than calling it large canister. One thing the Muller tests showed which Tousard describes is lead balls in the old canister tended to melt and clump together, reducing their range and spread.

I think von Scheel is describing the same problems with grape that Tousard describes from the Muller tests… and as you point out, von Scheel was an earlier treatise…before the improvements that Tousard describes.

As to what the average trooper or infantryman would know about artillery projectiles, I just read an interesting discussion on: He does give warning:

link

In part:

Warning! The following is based purely on personal experience and speculation, and should not be considered a researched historical paper!

A couple of weeks ago, I had the pleasure of interviewing a WWII tank crewman for a Wargaming project; the first of the results just got released yesterday (The "War Has No Nation video). But one of the responses to a question I posed to him led me to thinking. As you could imagine, we got to the topic of 'meeting enemy tanks.'

Understandably, he said that he was always concerned about meeting up with a Panzer IV or Panther because they had long 7.5cm guns that could destroy his Sherman. What I found interesting, however, was that he didn't seem to differentiate between the two vehicles in terms of how difficult they were to kill. What was important to him was whether or not they could kill him. And the reason he said he loved the Sherman was that it kept him safe from all the various nasties flying around in battle, namely bullets and artillery fragments. Nothing about the reliability, the speed or firepower -- just that he saw a lot of folks outside his tank killed by things from which he was protected.

That 'What was important to him was whether or not they could kill him.'

A veteran soldier would be very aware at what ranges shot, large and small canister would be used on them… Which would also lead them to know what such projectiles looked like. Not universal knowledge, but certainly being aware of what could kill them was important…hence the quotes previously given.

42flanker07 May 2016 2:34 a.m. PST

The projectiles were the same size as the older 'grape' and cased in the same numbers for large canister.

Well, not entirely. FWIW, the old grappe a raisin round contained only 36 boulets according to Von Scheel. And then, there were those half-pound boulets.

Look, I can see no reason why a soldier of the period with accumulated battle experience might not learn to distinguish, in the cacophony of battle, between the different sounds made respectively by various bits of hardware sent his way. Not that it would be of much use to him, since by the time he had identified it the the round would have missed him – although not perhaps the man behind him or along the line. There would, of course, also be spent rounds lying about the place indicating what was being fired. Either way, the soldier would have to stand, or keep marching, and wait for the next salvo or volley, so the knowledge was of limited value.

Similarly, it might also be possible to identify the size of a round by the injuries it inflicted. Again the knowledge was unlikely to help increase a man's life expectancy (At least with the HE shells of WWI, with their different shape and increasing size, identifying the incoming by the sound it made gave you a chance to assess where it might hit and what the killing range of the explosion might be, even if the only option open to you, realistically, was to duck- "Hush! Here comes a whizzbang..").

All of this knowledge, of course, might also be information imparted to a novice by men at his side with more experience. Not that a great many in 1815 would have had a perspective reaching back to 1765.

However, "Being aware of what could kill them" was of limited value when it could all kill them and they could do bngger all about it. Still it might have provided something to talk about until the next cavalry charge."Quiet in the ranks!"

Nonetheless, anecdotal evidence from 1775 onwards- i.e. my reading- indicates that for many British soldiers in the firing line if it wasn't round shot and it wasn't musket fire, it was all 'grape.' (Let's leave shells to one side for the moment).

There may be record of somebody noting that "The enemy played grape along our ranks, and there was the devil to pay, but it was nothing compared to the havoc wrought by the canister…" or such like, in which case, fair enough, but I still think in most cases the generalisation prevailed.

This deviation from the original question started McLaddie made reference to Uxbridge's wounding by a grapeshot and Brechtel commented that grapeshot wasn't in use by 1815.

Technically, in terms of vocabulary, the objection was not incorrect, if perhaps somewhat argumentative, your honour. However, I think we have established that, in the eyes of the British, they were receiving grapeshot. Certainly, in one instance, at least. That is to say, the round that hit Uxbridge was described by eye-witnesses or by contemporary commentators as 'grapeshot' and if in their usage it was "grapeshot", then grapeshot it was; not round shot; not musket balls- "Grapeshot."

And who are we to correct them (although we might comment in a footnote)?

McLaddie07 May 2016 8:56 a.m. PST

This deviation from the original question started McLaddie made reference to Uxbridge's wounding by a grapeshot and Brechtel commented that grapeshot wasn't in use by 1815.

42flanker:

No, it was when I mentioned that grape could go further than canister in discussing whether it was used in counter battery fire. Kevin stated that grape wasn't used by the French, so I gave Uxbridge as an example.

The actual number of balls in grape shot and in large canister was variable depending on the nation, but the numbers for the French were fairly consistent between the two as Kevin pointed out.

42flanker07 May 2016 9:41 a.m. PST

the numbers for the French were fairly consistent between the two as Kevin pointed out.

All's fair in love and war


McLaddie
As for counter-battery canister fire, don't forget grape or case shot. A twelve pounder would fire 12 to 15 in a case. [ 41/112] 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

Brechtel198
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

McLaddie
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]

Gazzola08 May 2016 4:26 a.m. PST

42flanker

That was a very good point about people accepting a term used in a British memoir. Just because they are being shot at does not necessarily mean the soldiers writing the memoirs knew exactly what was being shot at them or the correct terminology. And many writing their memoirs would be aware they would be read by the general public who would probably not know what canister is but would more than likely be aware of the term grapeshot.

Whenever I have read the term grapeshot used in a British memoir (and indeed others) unless it was at sea, I have always considered they meant canister. For anyone to just accept it was grapeshot because someone used it in a memoir is just silly and unrealistic.

janner08 May 2016 10:27 a.m. PST

You're certainly not the first on this thread to make that point, Gaz, but the merry-go-round keeps on a turning wink

Brechtel19808 May 2016 12:41 p.m. PST

There is also the 'forum phenomena' of some disagreeing with others just because they don't 'like' them no matter if the material is accurate or not.

And that tends to obfuscate factual material that can be useful to the greater majority of posters.

McLaddie08 May 2016 7:29 p.m. PST

Yes, it can be a merry go round.

he 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.

note I quoted Tousard describing the development of the two sizes of canister… hardly obfuscating. However, the numbers are what Ayde and Tousard describe. Of course, I think Kevin got the two mixed up:

large canister can have 63 iron balls for a 4 pounder, but only 41 iron balls for small canister? OR 112 balls for large canister for 12 pounders?

Tousard on page 249 has the number of balls for 8 and 12 pounders the same: small canister 112 and 41 for large.

Kevin wrote:

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.

On page 251, Tousard gives the diameter of the *new* large canister:

12lb 41 shot of 1.51 in diameter
8lb 41 shot of 1.31 in diameter
4 lb 41 of 1.05 diameter

Apart from the new, improved canister construction and the increase of 5 shot in a load because of it, grape shot and large canister are the same size shot from 1764 to 1815--which I will say again: It is hardly surprising that the term 'grape shot' would continue to be used when describing large canister when the ball size remained the same and it seems increased for 4 pounders.

Clear enough factual material?

Brechtel19809 May 2016 7:37 p.m. PST

Apart from the new, improved canister construction and the increase of 5 shot in a load because of it, grape shot and large canister are the same size shot from 1764 to 1815--which I will say again: It is hardly surprising that the term 'grape shot' would continue to be used when describing large canister when the ball size remained the same and it seems increased for 4 pounders.

Clear enough factual material?

No, it isn't. Because you are mixing the terms for the different types of rounds. Grapeshot is one type of round and canister another because of how they were constructed and how many iron balls they contained. Their similarity is that they were both anti-personnel rounds.

This is why when you post on artillery you are either incorrect or confusing because it seems to me that although you attempt to understand the arm, you miss too much and because of that post incorrect or confusing information.

McLaddie09 May 2016 9:44 p.m. PST

No, it isn't. Because you are mixing the terms for the different types of rounds. Grapeshot is one type of round and canister another because of how they were constructed and how many iron balls they contained. Their similarity is that they were both anti-personnel rounds.

Kevin:

The similarity also includes size of the shot as well as the purpose of the round. You also noted the same sizes for grape and large canister. However, I get it. There is a technical difference [in construction] between the old grape shot and large canister. I never disputed that. I wasn't that concerned because Napoleonic soldiers, including Tousard, mixed the terms. I was more interested the similarities still in shot size and purpose, particularly purpose.

So is the important distinction the container or the shot thrown at the enemy? OR is the important thing just the term used to describe it, depending on who is describing it?

You seem to see that technical term as the only way to view anything said by Napoleonic soldiers or artillerists for that matter. If they call it grape shot or a' mitrailles as Tousard does, then we don't understand or they are wrong and don't know anything because they aren't artillerists.

The original question was whether canister was used in counter-battery fire. I said that grape shot had a longer range. The question devolved to that technical distinction… It didn't keep Napoleonic military men from using the term 'grape shot' when referring to large canister. I think the reasons are obvious: Same sized balls used for the same purpose…long distance shot. Which means that Uxbridge was probably hit by French large canister right? [Something you never bothered to suggest] .

As far as I can see, there are only one thing I wrote that was incorrect:

The number of balls for grape I gave, which was supposed to be 14 to 51 used depending on the nation. [not 15, kind of like you reversing the large and small canister numbers]

The only confusion was between what you were insisting on: that grape shot was not canister--and technically, it isn't. The grape shot was now in a canister--we both agreed on that, and I quoted Tousard's description of that change.

However, I was pointing that at the receiving end, there was no difference, which was why so many soldiers continued to call it grape shot including Vivian and Uxbridge's doctor. All the quotes given about 'grape shot', including sizes and weight was probably technically, large canister, right? That idea seemed to be unacceptable to you.

We were talking past each other--and it certainly isn't the first time. And I accept half of the blame.

I was more interested in perception and use, particularly when terms seemed to vary concerning case, canister grape, mitrailles etc. You focused on the technical distinctions and only two terms: case and canister. You never said whether the French carried both large and small canister.

So, do you think that large canister was used in counter-battery fire?

Brechtel19810 May 2016 6:47 a.m. PST

You have not shown that grapeshot was part of the basic artillery ammunition load for the French from 1792-1815 (your term was 'ratio' which was completely confusing).

It appears that you have no idea of what 'efficient' means regarding improvements in ammunition.

You brought up the subject of the French using naval ammunition for field use but have not supported it in any way.

You certainly don't understand the artillery employment by the British at Talavera in comparison to the French artillery employment at Friedland. Your refusal to see the significant difference is to my mind quite amazing. And it isn't just the comment Hughes made regarding the difference between the defensive use of artillery by the British at Talavera and Senarmont's offensive use of the arm at Friedland. The British employment was very similar to that of Smola's employment of a reinforced cavalry battery at Neerwinden in 1793. Both were used to stop a French attack, while Senarmont's attack became the main French effort and destroyed the Russian center after Ney's first attack on the Russian left failed.

You apparently only used Adye's brief description of the British artillery employment at Talavera, while a detailed look at Senarmont using Becke, the Esposito/Atlas, the I Corps after action report, Senarmont's after action report, and Senarmont's letter to his brother on 15 June, the day after the action, definitely demonstrate the difference of his action compared with Talavera. More than one source is usually a better idea.

And you have placed Dupont, a I Corps division, filling where Ney failed, when Dupont and the I Corps were the French center which is where Dupont advanced, first supported by Senarmont and then Senarmont taking the initiative attacking with Dupont supporting him. That is the essence of the new artillery tactics.

I don't believe that we 'are talking past each other' but that you are ignoring evidence either by accident and design and by that ignorance are obfuscating the different subjects that you post about. And that goes back further to the discussions on the Holy Roman Empire that ended in 1806.

Brechtel19810 May 2016 6:48 a.m. PST

So large canister was the larger shot?

Yes, LG, large canister was the larger iron shot, not the canister with the most rounds. My error, and I apologize for the confusion.

Allan F Mountford10 May 2016 8:20 a.m. PST

I had a look in volume 1 of de Vernon's 1805 work 'A treatise on the science of war and fortifications' (English translation, 1817). This was the two volume text studied by French military students and approved by Napoleon.

Interestingly, he includes a 'Table of Canister Shot' showing details for 12, 8 and 4 pounder cannon and 6" howitzers listing three types of round:
. Nr 1, or heavy grape shot
. Nr 2, or small grape
. Nr 3, or smallest grape

12 and 8 pounders have all three rounds.
4 pounders and 6" howitzers only have Nr 1 and Nr 2 rounds.

No two rounds have the same ball dimensions except 12 pounder and 6" howitzer Nr 1 rounds.

'Large canister' is described as comprising 41 Nr 1 balls for 12, 8 and 4 pounders and 60 Nr 1 balls for the 6" howitzer.

Then it becomes interesting (at least for me).

'Small canister' is described as comprising the following:
. 80 Nr 2 and 32 Nr 3 balls combined for 12 and 8 pounders.
. 4 Nr 1 and 59 Nr 2 balls combined for the 4 pounder.
. Nothing is listed for 6" howitzers.

I apologise if this has already been posted, but I had never realised that canister rounds could have more than one size of ball in a single round.

Also, I do think it is interesting that the term 'grape' and 'canister' are used in the same table.

I will check in Gassendi to see if the data is identical.

Allan

42flanker10 May 2016 9:03 a.m. PST

Also, I do think it is interesting that the term 'grape' and 'canister' are used in the same table.

Allan, thanks for digging that out. Interesting note regarding the mixed size of shot.

Is the distinction being made there between the projectile-'grapeshot' and the artillery round- 'canister' ?

Of course, we also have to allow that this is the English translation; English usage being the source of much of the confusion in this thread. It would be interesting to see what the original French says.


As for the difference between grosse cartouches and petits, I did have the impression from Von Scheel that grosse comprised larger but fewer balles (41)while petit, was loaded with smaller projectiles but more of them (112/63. Is that correct?

Brechtel19810 May 2016 9:45 a.m. PST

As for the difference between grosse cartouches and petits, I did have the impression from Von Scheel that grosse comprised larger but fewer balles (41)while petit, was loaded with smaller projectiles but more of them (112/63. Is that correct?

I would think so. Well done.

von Winterfeldt10 May 2016 10:04 a.m. PST

It is pretty clear for the French – the balls for the grappes de raisin and large canister were identical in size – see deScheel.

Of course the construction of a grappe de raisin and a cartouche à balles was different.

But for those on the receiving end, this would be an academical question and seemingly the large canister had a similar profile for use than the old grape, so it is very understandable that when being hit by a big ball from canister to refer to it as grape shot.

For Austrian artillery I would recommend David Hollins : Austrian Napoleonic Artillery 1792 – 1815, especially pages 34 – 39

Allan F Mountford10 May 2016 10:05 a.m. PST

Of course, we also have to allow that this is the English translation; English usage being the source of much of the confusion in this thread. It would be interesting to see what the original French says.

Gassendi (in French) has the same data, but includes information on wider range of pieces.

There is no mention of the term 'grape' when describing the sizes of the three types of balls (this was presumably introduced by the translator, but I don't see why).

The terms used by Gassendi for the artillery round are:
. 'grand cartouche' (translated in my previous post as 'large canister')
. 'petite cartouche' (ditto 'small canister')

Allan

Brechtel19810 May 2016 11:52 a.m. PST

For Austrian artillery I would recommend David Hollins : Austrian Napoleonic Artillery 1792 – 1815, especially pages 34 – 39

And there is no mention of grapeshot use by the Austrians either…

Brechtel19810 May 2016 11:53 a.m. PST

It is pretty clear for the French – the balls for the grappes de raisin and large canister were identical in size – see deScheel.

And that question has already been addressed…I should think that horse is quite dead.

McLaddie10 May 2016 10:11 p.m. PST

You have not shown that grapeshot was part of the basic artillery ammunition load for the French from 1792-1815.

Kevin:
Well, I never thought to demonstrate that, other than the same shot sizes I and you have noted before. It was enough that the shot sizes were the same and the French continued to give the requirements for grape shot as field artillery ammunition.

your term was 'ratio' which was completely confusing.

Sorry to be confusing. I was referring to this:

The caisson loads for the following calibers of the Gribeauval System might be useful. There is no mention of grapeshot:

4-pounder: 100 roundshot, 50 canister.
8-pounder: 62 roundshot, 20 canister.
12-pounder: 48 roundshot, 20 canister.
6-inch howitzer: 49 common shell, 11 canister.

Does it say how many are large and small canister?

It appears that you have no idea of what 'efficient' means regarding improvements in ammunition.

Not surprising. I never mentioned 'efficiency' of ammunition other than quoting Tousard. Maybe he got it wrong.

You certainly don't understand the artillery employment by the British at Talavera in comparison to the French artillery employment at Friedland. Your refusal to see the significant difference is to my mind quite amazing.

You are still not over that? Kevin, I stated what I saw as the differences at the time as well as the similarities, including agreeing with you on more than one point. You never acknowledged those.

You apparently only used Adye's brief description of the British artillery employment at Talavera, while a detailed look at Senarmont using Becke, the Esposito/Atlas, the I Corps after action report, Senarmont's after action report, and Senarmont's letter to his brother on 15 June, the day after the action, definitely demonstrate the difference of his action compared with Talavera. More than one source is usually a better idea.

I read all those, and did give more than one source for Eliot's description and diagram of the Talavera action. [eyewitnesses, comments from British commanders, the Royal Artillery history and the history of the "Talavera" battery…] [It can be found on the Napoleon Series forum]

And you have placed Dupont, a I Corps division, filling where Ney failed, when Dupont and the I Corps were the French center which is where Dupont advanced, first supported by Senarmont and then Senarmont taking the initiative attacking with Dupont supporting him. That is the essence of the new artillery tactics.

Yes, that was misleading. Dupont was simply ‘covering' Ney's retreat on Ney's left. It was a rather large gap, but Dupont wasn't filling the entire space Ney vacated.

Dupont was advanced because of Ney's debacle. The I Corps AAR has Dupont ordered to support Ney's left. That support is implied by even you in your own description of the action:

As Ney's attack fell part, one of Victor's infantry divisions, Dupont's, advanced 'smartly' on the Russian center without orders. [I thought the I Corps AAR said he was ordered.] Senarmont, Victor's chief of artillery, supported this advance with twelve guns and immediately requested permission to advance with the remaining 24 that belonged to the corps."
[italics mine]

At Talavera, the British advanced 18 guns out several hundred yards beyond the British front lines to take on a French advance in flank—in support—of the British infantry [actually one battalion]. The action contains a number of similarities to the above, even to the British willingness to move forward further against the French columns as the French approached the British line. That is one reason the "Talavera Battery" got its name.
You were unwilling to see ANY similarities, while using Hughes to support your position when his account of Talavera doesn't even mention the action.

McLaddie10 May 2016 10:15 p.m. PST

I don't believe that we 'are talking past each other' but that you are ignoring evidence either by accident and design and by that ignorance are obfuscating the different subjects that you post about. and that goes back further to the discussions on the Holy Roman Empire that ended in 1806.

Kevin:
Really, you are still bringing up that TMP discussion regarding the German Empire?

When you took exception to my comment about grape shot, you asked for evidence. I provided Uxbridge's wound at Waterloo, and the size of the wound.

You knew the shot for French large canister and grape shot were the exact same size AND the development described by Tousard. You could have clarified everything very easily. You instead questioned how such a wound could be measured, even when described by Vivian. Then when Vivian and others called it Grape Shot, you dismissed them as ignorant because they weren't artillerists.

Yet, I am sure you knew that not only did the British have case shot and tiered case, [simply grape shot construction with a container around it, rather than quilted], but continued to make ‘regular' grape shot for 9 pound artillery for the entire Napoleonic period [but not case shot according to Ayde] [Ayde/Eliot 1827pp. 333 and 335] which means the British were still using the term grape shot with their guns well after 1815.

I suggested Captured ammo and guns from the Allies or the use of French Naval stores could have provided that grape shot… which the Allies did use. You unhelpfully noted the obvious, that the French navy and army were two different organizations… even though you know that Napoleon used both naval personnel and equipment for his land wars when it suited him.

I also asked whether the French would fill out their cassion loads with captured ammo during a campaign. You responded by stating that numbers of enemy artillery were different calibers [of course] and that French ammo production quality was very uniform. Hardly on point, particularly when the French did use enemy cannon on campaign.

All that was certainly ignoring issues/evidence and obfuscating, whether by accident or design.
Kevin, you had as many opportunities to clarify and basically resolve the conflicting views as I did.

von Winterfeldt11 May 2016 4:51 a.m. PST

and we advanced under the most horrible fire of grape and canister, round shot and musketry that can be imagined. Our ranks were thinning fast but we went to quick to perceive it (…)

We had most of our officers wounded, by canon shot, i.e. grape canister, & c. Robbins was run through the body by a lancer and Beattie was struck by a musket ball;tell Walter that at the moment I was going to shake hand with Irving of the 13th he was knocked off his horse by a grape shot. Gregoire safe.

5th Brigade of Major General sir Colquhoun Grant
7th Hussars
No. 54 Lieutenant Srandish O'Grady

Gareth Glover : The Waterloo Archive – volume III British Sources – Kindle edition

Just to give an example that one hadn't to be a gunner to understand how losses were inflicted, neither an infantry soldier either.

@McLaddie

Yes indeed brechs refusal to provide clear information from the start is very revealing indeed. His accusations directed against you are in fact mirroring himself.

Allan F Mountford11 May 2016 6:16 a.m. PST

The caisson loads for the following calibers of the Gribeauval System might be useful. There is no mention of grapeshot:
4-pounder: 100 roundshot, 50 canister.
8-pounder: 62 roundshot, 20 canister.
12-pounder: 48 roundshot, 20 canister.
6-inch howitzer: 49 common shell, 11 canister.

Does it say how many are large and small canister?

From de Vernon again:

12 pounders, 9 ball in the limber box plus 3 caissons per piece, each holding:
. 48 ball
. 12 large canister
. 8 small canister

8 pounders, 15 ball in the limber box plus 2 caissons per piece, each holding:
. 62 ball
. 10 large canister
. 20 small canister

4 pounders, 18 ball in the limber box plus 1 caisson per piece, each holding:
. 100 ball
. 26 large canister
. 24 small canister

6" howitzer, 4 large canister in the limber box plus 3 caissons per piece, each holding:
. 49 shell
. 3 large canister

I would be confident this was taken from Gassendi.

Allan

42flanker11 May 2016 9:12 a.m. PST

I provided Uxbridge's wound at Waterloo, and the size of the wound.

To be fair, you referred to the size of the hole in Uxbridge's trousers. Not quite the same thing.

Is this a five-minute argument, or the full half-hour?

McLaddie11 May 2016 4:09 p.m. PST

Allan
Nice find. Love de Vernon. Which volume is that found it? Volume 1?

Bill

McLaddie11 May 2016 4:21 p.m. PST

To be fair, you referred to the size of the hole in Uxbridge's trousers. Not quite the same thing.

42flanker:
Quite true, particularly for Uxbridge.

Is this a five-minute argument, or the full half-hour?

Well it seems to be something going back quite aways from Kevin's additions to the discussion. For me, the debate's been resolved and I'll leave him with the final words on that.

I am still wondering if artillery did use canister [of whatever size or grape shot] in counter-battery fire. I gave one instance where artillery was certainly in range, but no comment on the rounds used.

Allan F Mountford12 May 2016 2:04 a.m. PST

Allan
Nice find. Love de Vernon. Which volume is that found it? Volume 1?

Bill

Volume 1 page 128.

Allan

McLaddie13 May 2016 7:53 a.m. PST

Allan:

Thanks. His work is so dense it is hard to find things in it.

Bill

McLaddie13 May 2016 8:02 a.m. PST

There is no mention of the term 'grape' when describing the sizes of the three types of balls (this was presumably introduced by the translator, but I don't see why).

Probably because of English use of the term grape shot, and the relationship between grape and the newer large canister…but that is a guess. There was obviously a lot of crossing of terms in regards to artillery rounds and transitions in types among the nations.

138SquadronRAF13 May 2016 9:06 a.m. PST

I know that this is a little later but here is an example of firing canister shot from a 12pdr from the Civil War.

YouTube link

The work was undertaken in conjunction with Bill Baehr of the University of Glasgow as part of his masters in battlefield archaeology. Sadly the paper is not available on the web.

This seems to sum up the discussion above rather well, it's title "A little less grape if you please! A long running misrepresentation":

link

McLaddie13 May 2016 1:13 p.m. PST

138 SquadronRAF:

Yep, but remember that 'summing up' is referring to 30+ years after our period. There is no doubt that grape for field artillery was being replaced:

As Gibbon says on your second link:

John Gibbon explains the Army's preference in his 1860 Artillerist's Manual:

The use of grape-shot for field pieces has been discontinued for a number of years, it being considered that for the ranges of that kind of artillery, the shot of which canisters are made, are large enough, and the canister possesses the advantages of striking a great many more points at one discharge than grape. There is an advantage, too, in not having so many different kinds of ammunition for a piece.

So, why would he feel the need to include that in an 1860 manual if grapeshot wasn't used during the Napoleonic Wars as obsolete and presumably the decades afterward?

Transition. It wasn't all one thing and then suddenly all another. Better technology doesn't become incorporated that way--the Civil War is a good example.

Pages: 1 2 3 4