"short and long barrel cannons" Topic

Some miniature manufacturers provide both a short barrel and long barrel version of a gun in the same package. These are usually too long to be howitzers so I am wondering when would each type be used.

When should the long barrel version be used as opposed to the short barrel, or doesn't it make any difference? I am having a hard time finding any info about this. I am mainly looking at British and French Napoleonic artillery.

I hope that I am explaining this well enough. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

Maybe a smaller bore using the same carriage?

In Spain, early British 6 pdrs were 'light' and had shorter barrels. The later model had a 'normal' 6 pdr with the longer barrel.

Would it be worth being more specific about some of the manufacturers and which codes the models carry?

"British Napoleonic Field Artillery" gives a bewildering range of various lengths for same bore of artillery…..correctly of course!

Should be much easier then to work out what is intended. Presumably this is not just barrels of howitzers and true cannon, not if on the same carriage anyway?

In many cases the carriage is the same for all guns so you are getting, say, a 12lb barrel and a 6lb barrel in the same pack.

I do have a couple of packs where it is obvious that there are two different sized guns using the same carriage so it would be my choice as to which one to build.

But, for instance, I have a Hinchliffe British Napoleonic 18lb cannon that has two different barrels that are only about 3/8" different, very noticeable but not smaller enough to be a howitzer I don't think. If they are two different sizes they might be 18lb. and 16lb. but as far as I know they are just supposed to be 18lb.

So could there be two different sized British 18lb. guns? A longer version and a shorter version? Sounds like that is what d88mm1940 is saying up above.

As deadhead notes, the British had a bewildering array of light, medium, and heavy patterns in each caliber (and often several separate pattern in a given category – I seem to remember there were three light 6-pdrs). And the Prussians were worse, since they first started to standardize their artillery patterns in 1809, but were too short on guns to discard the older pieces immediately.

The French, of course, switched patterns in mid-war, going from the 4-8-12 sequence to 6-12, again with older pieces soldiering on in secondary theaters. While the new system had detail carriage improvements, these wouldn't be very visible at wargaming scales, and the new 6-pdr used a carriage quite similar to that of the old 8-pdr.

The Russians had two patterns of 12-pdrs, which they mixed in position batteries (4 long 12-pdrs, 4 short 12-pdrs, and 4 half-pud unicorns). They also had two models of 6-pdr, one for field batteries and the other for horse batteries, though with somewhat different carriages. And the Cossack foot batteries evidently used the 6-pdr horse tube on the 6-pdr field carriage!

The Austrians had the 6-pdr field piece and the 6-pdr cavalry gun, but the wurstlaffette for the latter was very distinctive.

It is hard to generalize across all nations and throughout the period of the Napoleonic Wars. However, the patterns of a given bore with shorter barrels were obviously lighter, and therefore somewhat more mobile. For the smaller guns (say three to six pounders), the short models were often intended as battalion guns or for the use of horse artillery. Conversely, long pieces in the medium range (eight to twelve pounders) were often meant either for the artillery park (reserve) or the siege train. Note that the British even had a "light" 24-pounder which saw some limited use as a field piece--at least in Canada. If you want more detail on the various pieces in the British Ordnance inventory, go search the military section of the Napoleon Series website; there is definitely an article in there somewhere.

"British Napoleonic Field Artillery" gives a bewildering range of various lengths for same bore of artillery…..correctly of course!

Excellent book, highly recommended.

The French, of course, switched patterns in mid-war, going from the 4-8-12 sequence to 6-12, again with older pieces soldiering on in secondary theaters. While the new system had detail carriage improvements, these wouldn't be very visible at wargaming scales, and the new 6-pdr used a carriage quite similar to that of the old 8-pdr.

The French retained the older, heavier Valliere System gun tubes, the 8- and 12-pounders, as fortress and garrison pieces, so there would be a 'long' and a 'short' 8- and 12-pounder.

The AN XI gun carriages had some problems, so they would be replaced by the more reliable Gribeauval gun carriages. And it should be remembered that the Systeme AN XI was only partially employed and supplemented, rather than replaced, the Gribeauval System.

I have zero knowledge of the technicalities, but was there a sort of arms race in terms of weight of shot from SYW to the Napoleonic era?

My reading of the SYW indicates (and remember, this is very general, don't expect me to defend anything I write here!) that field artillery was roughly 3 / 6 / 12 pounders.

Then, as I understand it, the French moved to 4 / 8 / 12 pounders, presumably giving them a slight edge in the lighter guns.

As the Napoleonic wars evolved and 3 / 4 pounders largely fell out of favor, 6 / 9 / 12 became the new generic scheme.

This is simply a random observation from afar, and clearly doesn't take into consideration things like whether a 'French 4 pdr' actually threw an equal weight of shot to an Austrian 3pdr, they were just using different measures.

But it is something I wonder about occasionally, and since the thread seems to be drifting in this direction I thought I would see if anyone can enlighten me (please note: confirming that I'm delusional does count as enlightenment in this case ;)

The Prussians and Austrians generally favored 3-, 6-, and 12-pounders while the French had standardized 4-, 8-, and 12-pounders with the Valliere System in 1732. However, the French had no field artillery, Valliere using these heavy, weight-wise, as for both field and siege, along with the heavier calibers for siege service. They also had no howitzers until 1749 and it was also too heavy for field service.

The British also employed 3-, 6-, 9-, and 12-pounders, the 9-pounder becoming the preferred piece for both foot and horse artillery during the period. The French horse artillery preferred the 8-pounder and were not too happy when it was gradually replaced by the new 6-pounder.

Gribeauval's sweeping reforms beginning in 1763-1765 emphasized field artillery.

Regarding weights and measures, Louis de Tousard's American Artillerist's Companion has a very useful and comprehensive chapter, number XIII in Volume I, on the subject from pages 116-128.

Basically, a French pound was heavier than both the Austrian and English pound (the Austrians actually having two, but used only one of them for artillery measure). For example, a French 4-pounder was almost five English pounds, and a French 8-pounder was near the throw weight of an English 9-pounder. Comparing the throw weight of the French 6-pounder of the Systeme AN XI, it was heavier than both the English and Austrian 6-pounders, being close to seven English pounds.

The 3- and 4-pounders became obsolete because the throw weight was deemed to be too light except for battalion/regimental artillery which the French phased out by 1800. Napoleon would reactivate regimental cannon companies in 1809 in order to give the larger 1808 infantry regiments their own artillery component. Most of those guns were lost in Russia in 1812 and were not reorganized.

I would think there would be an appreciable difference in the throw weight of any 6-pounder versus any 8-pounder, because AFAIK, there are no instances of anyone's pound being a third heavier than anyone else's so that their 6-pounder round weighed 8 of somebody's else's pounds.

It is the case though that the French pound was 1.1 English (and US) pounds, so that a French 8-pounder fired a round weighing 8.8 English pounds (assuming it really was 8 French pounds and that this was not a nominal weight different to what it actually fired; AIUI some howitzer weights were based on the weight of a notional stone projectile that they did not fire).

The basis of the metric system was simply a decision to standardise on existing French measurements. You can still buy stuff today in pounds in German and Austrian shops, but what you'll get is half a kilo, i.e. 500g, i.e. 1.1 English / US pounds.

In the same way, a metre is in effect just three French feet, which were about 10% bigger than British / US feet. This is why a metre is just about 1.1 yards, and also why Napoleon, at 5'2" in French feet and inches, was in fact 5'8" in English feet and inches, so the tall side of the then average height, not short as depicted by (eg) Time Bandits.

I am not sure whether there was a material tactical benefit to an 8-pound versus a 6-pound round though. A caisson could clearly carry more rounds but on the other if you can fire the smaller round faster it would cancel that advantage while also offsetting the smaller weight of shot. A 6-pound canister round would presumably be less destructive than an 8-pound roudn but on the other hand a 6-pound round hitting a file of infantry at right angles is going to take out all three guys just like an 8-pound round would.

Does anyone know if 12-pound rounds bounced better, worse or the same as 6-pound rounds if the ground was soft? – or hard? – or other?

Edit: FWIW I have just worked out the relative physical size of a sphere of pure iron weighing 8.8 and 9 pounds. I make it the former would have had a diameter of 9.8997cm, while the latter would have had a diameter of 9.97cm. So, the 9-pounder round was as you'd expect wider, by 0.7mm. It seems to me that the British gun could have easily fired the French rounds albeit with extra windage; and that depending on the tolerances, the French gun might well have been able to fire the British round, as well. Anyone know?

I would think there would be an appreciable difference in the throw weight of any 6-pounder versus any 8-pounder, because AFAIK, there are no instances of anyone's pound being a third heavier than anyone else's so that their 6-pounder round weighed 8 of somebody's else's pounds.

Completely agree.

There was no difference between the sustained rate of fire between a French 6-pounder and a French 8-pounder. Both of them would fire two rounds per minute. The 12-pounder's sustained rate of fire was one round per minute.

Ricochet fire was best when the ground was dry and hard. Wet or soft ground retarded the ricochet effect. Iron canister balls also would ricochet, depending on the condition of the ground.

Thanks Kevin.

Just edited my post. Per that edit, do you reckon a French 8-pounder and British 9-pounder could have fired each other's ammunition?

I doubt it, but anything is possible. Without actually measuring it and trying it we probably can only guess, unless we find a primary source to support the idea. The French and British measured caliber differently. The British did by the diameter of the bore and the French by the diameter of the round.

Smaller rounds would fit into the bore in question, larger ones would not. And the last thing to think about would be the production standards of the rounds as well as the quality control in the foundries.

Thanks to all who have replied. Your insights and information are much appreciated. I know more now that I did before and it will help me to figure out what I have.

If the rate of fire of 6/8pdr guns was twice that of the 12pdr why was the latter used? Range? If so how much longer an effective range did it have?

Energy. There's very little difference in effective range between a 12pdr Gribeauval and the 8pdr Gribeauval. The 12pdr does have an 1800yd max range, compared to a 1500yd max range for the 8pdr.

At effective range of 800-900m, the 12pdr would go through 36 infantry, while the 8pdr would "only" go through 19.

The sustained rate of fire would be what would be kept up over a period of time.

In an emergency, the gunners would load and fire as quickly as possible, as fast as the rounds could be loaded, rammed, and primed. That is a function of crew training.

The 12-pounder was Napoleon's favorite and was an excellent field piece that could do more damage than either an 6- or 8-pounder. They could also be used by horse artillery if necessary.

The heavier pieces were more useful against structures (including wagons and gun carriages) than the lighter, but the advantage against personnel was nowhere near as pronounced.

Without worthwhile telescopic sights, the maximum ranges were effectively useless. Too many wargamers have evidently never looked at typical targets at those ranges. Even if the terrain is dead flat and clear of vegetation and other obstructions, what you can see of even a mass target at 1500 yards is a blur. And you'll rarely get an unblocked view at those distances.

Further, without a range-finder, it is unlikely you will hit the target anyway, since the accepted figure for ranging error by Mark I eyeball without special and extensive training is plus-or-minus 20% or range, and fall of shot is difficult to spot at such distances, making correction of fire essentially impossible.

@ rmaker

Good points and when you consider that a British square would have been 22 yards on a side, it makes you wonder how close to it you had to be with an 8-pounder to hit it often enough for it to be worth it.

I can't be bothered to the trigonometry, but if your aim at a 7-yard-wide target at 400 yards were off by 1 degree, I suspect you would clean miss it.

Having a hundred guns I just always chalked it up to they give you a bit of a wide choice to hopefully fill your needs. Long barrels for cannon, medium length ship to your Russians for licornes, short for howitzers.

Hi Brechtel, thanks for the reference to the American Artillerists Companion, found a copy on Biblio and have ordered it.

There was also a morale advantage to use of the larger guns, particularly the 12-pounders (or larger, in the few cases when they were used in field battles). They not only made more noise and smoke from the propellant charge, but the sound of the shot passing through the air was noted as particularly terrifying, and even a near miss could temporarily sort of stun a man.

I will also mention that the artillery pieces of larger bore did have a significant range advantage, in spite of the fact that they could not be accurately aimed at anywhere near their maximum range. This lay in the fact that the distance to the point where a shot first struck the ground (first graze), when fired at zero degrees elevation, was also longer for each increase in shot weight.
The reason why this is significant is that, assuming fairly flat terrain, a shot from a gun fired at zero degrees elevation would never pass above the head height of a standing man. So, if the gun was laid correctly in the horizontal axis, it would hit any target out to first graze without the need for correctly estimating range in order to elevate the barrel. So it was this range to first graze that gave the bigger guns a considerable advantage in effectiveness of fire to counter-act their slower rates of fire.

The distance to first graze at 0 degrees elevation for the Gribeauval 8-pounder and 12-pounder field pieces was 540 paces and 575 paces respectively. The powder charges used were 3.0 and 4.5 English pounds, respectively. The 'extreme range' was 1,800 and 2,250 paces, respectively.

These ranges were fired under test conditions. The distance to first graze between the 8- and 12-pounder is 35 paces, which is insignificant statistically.

And it should be noted that the effective range for both pieces was between 900 and 1,000 yards.

I have learned the hard way that what superficially looks quite a straightforward subject turns out to be infinitely more complicated on further investigation. That certainly applies to trying to compare artillery pieces by weight of shot.

I find it helpful to compare weapon calibres, as these can be verified reliably from surviving pieces. The French 8pdr and the British 9pdr were virtually the same calibre (106mm) which lends support to the assertion that they were equivalent.

Calibre comparisons throw up another interesting fact: the Austrian and French 6pdrs are virtually identical (96mm), and both larger than the British (93mm), in spite of the difference in weight. The Austrian shot was smaller than the French (about the same as the British I think), having a smaller diameter than the charge.

But going back to the OP, one problem is that there are many inaccuracies in the miniatures, especially in my favoured 15/18mm. One of the favourite tricks is to give a standard carriage with different barrels to represent the different weights. (in one case 4pdr, 8pdr, 12pdr and howitzer all on the same carriage for the French!). In fact the carriages were almost always different, and often very noticeably. Modern 28mm seem to be much better researched.

The French 8pdr and the British 9pdr were virtually the same calibre (106mm) which lends support to the assertion that they were equivalent.

That is interesting. Above I calculated the diameter of an iron sphere to be respectively 99.0 or 99.7mm if of 8.8 or 9lbs' weight, so does that suggest a loose fit in a 106mm barrel, or perhaps just a typically not-very-round round?

One of the reasons for using the wooden sabot was to help reduce windage.

The Gribeauval System, and Gribeauval himself, were very particular as to the casting of round shot in order to reduce windage. The quality control in the foundries was exacting and was supervised by French artillery officers, inspectors, of which there were over 100. There were 'go' and 'no go' gauges used to certify the diameter of the rounds and the windage allowance was the same for the 'three calibers' of field pieces. There were also tubes constructed to certify the diameter of the roundshot.

An excellent book on the system is Enginering the Revolution by Ken Adler. I have found it more than useful, along with Howard Rosen's PHD Thesis, the Systeme Gribeauval.

Forgive me, as I know very little about artillery of the era. I can paint an 8pdr a 6pdr or a 12 pdr, I have a couple of RHA guns and two Prussian guns…all sitting on shelf and never fired a shot in anger.

But I am amused at the thought of enemy artillery firing their enemy's roundshot at each other. If you are that desperate, I would think the last think you would do is hunt around in the mud for a cannonball with enemy markings on it. You would be getting out or at least seeking resupply.

If it did fit your gun…..if…..how do you fire it? I thought most ammunition was much more modern that we perhaps imagine now. Fixed ammo. A ball, the propellant charge, the sabot all "ready use"…immediately to hand for instant use. No assembly required.

Or is the idea that one side captured the caissons of the other side and tried to stuff the rounds down their guns…instead of the enemy guns that surely would also be captured? Hardly…..

Deadhead all the artillerists willbe along but there were gauges to check caliber. There are examples in many books I have.
But also I take it everyone is looking and fighting over the trees but the original post is about the forest or at least why figure manufacturers givd you multiple barrels for the carrages. I understated my figures gun collection by a lot.

Oh I see what you mean. Those odd curved things, like giant bent scissors. OK, so one side might capture a mass of thousands of cannon balls, let's say in a magazine of a fortress and wonder if they could use them…..

Also I am afraid you are right. Personally, it is why I do so enjoy these threads. It is like a conversation with friends in a pub…after an hour someone asks "How did we get onto this topic?"

@ deadhead

Yes, I was thinking of gunners' using wholesale ammunition captures, rather than scavenging fired rounds up from the battlefield. As you say they'd still need powder, wadding etc and if they had that then presumably they would also have their own roundshot, or the enemy's guns to use as well.

I am sure I read somewhere that one of the reasons behind France's standardising on the 6-pounder was because they had captured so much 6-pounder ammunition and so many 6-pounder tubes that it was worth doing so. I.e. if they stayed with 4 and 8 they'd need to manufacture more of both whereas if they used what they had taken they would not need to manufacture anything else for a long time. I doubt that now from what I've read here – it seems clear that there were several different 6-pound rounds and 6-pound tubes.

It is an interesting area though. It is also interesting that a French 12-pounder actually fired a round of around 13.2 pounds which is pretty big compared say to a British 6-pounder, i.e. much more than nominally twice as large.

Edit: I've just realised that a hundredweight, which bafflingly is not 100lbs but 112, is just about 100 French lbs. Coincidence?

Those odd curved things, like giant bent scissors…

Gunner's calipers? Those were used in the field, not in the production of ammunition.

From The Artillerist's Manual by John Gibbon, 294-295:

'Gunner's Callipers…are made of sheet brass, with steel points. The two branches are connected by a brass pivot, fastened on the upper side by a washer and screw. To prevent the screw from working loose, the upper end of the pivot and the hole in the washer are made square. Besides the graduations marked in the drawing, other useful data may be engraved on the reverse side.'

'The scale of inches and parts on the edge…is used for measuring the lengths of fuzes, etc. The calipers are also used to measure the diameter of the shot and the caliber of guns. For measuring shot, the points are placed at the opposite extremities of a diameter, when the size of the shot is shown by the figures placed on the small are on the circular part of the arm near the joint, the inner edge of the other arm, or a mark on it, coming is succession opposite the different points which mark the sizes. To measure the caliber of a gun, the position of the points is reversed: they are pressed against the sides of the bore at the extremities of a diameter, and the caliber is read off from the line, on the scale marked 'guns,' with which the back of the other branch coincides. The graduations on the scale next below the one marked 'guns,' will give the diameters in inches. Those on the outside of the arm designate degrees and parts of degrees.'

The gauges that I referred to were circular in construction with a handle and the round was put through them to ensure that the round was the right size. One gauge the round would go through and the other the round could not.

Then there was the metal tube the round would be put through to check for size. The two 'go' and 'no go' gauges are illustrated in Ken Adler's Engineering the Revolution and the tube is in one of the plates in Tousard's American Artillerist's companion.

From Engineering the Revolution by Ken Alder, 150-151:

'European artillerists had long passed their cannonballs through a circular 'go' gauge (a lunette) to make sure the shell would fit into the barrel. This left the lower threshold for the size of the ball undefined, hence dependent on the judgment-the 'eye' of the cannoneer. At the prompting of Choiseul, the Gribeauvalists now introduced a 'no-go' gauge with a diameter 9 points less than that of the lunette. Acceptabole balls should not be able to pass through this gauge. Applied in tandem with the 'go' gauge, this definied a zone within which manufactuerer had to operate.'

A good illustration of a gunner's calipers is here:

link

In the case of captured artillery ammunition it could be used with the captured artillery, which the French had collected in abundance, especially when they captured the well-stocked Vienna arsenal in 1805 and 1809 which the Austrians failed to destroy before departing.

The French weren't bashful about using captured field and siege pieces. They did prize the Russian licorne's that they captured and kept them with the artillery parc when they took them.

There is an excellent story by Boulart about his having to temporarily use a captured Austrian field piece in his unit after Essling until one of his own pieces was repaired at the Vienna arsenal.

…long pieces in the medium range (eight to twelve pounders) were often meant either for the artillery park (reserve) or the siege train.

There were two types of artillery employed on land during the period: field, or light artillery and heavy, or siege artillery, which was also used as garrison/fortress artillery.

Field artillery consisted of 3-, 4-, 6, 8, 9, and 12-pounders, plus the various howitzers classed as field artillery. Field artillery was subdivided into foot, horse, and mountain artillery.

There was no designation of 'medium' artillery during the period. Artillery was either field or heavy.

When the Gribeauval artillery reforms took place, the main effort was the create a field artillery arm, which they did. They retained, with some modifications, the Valliere pieces as heavy artillery which included the 'long' 4-, 8-, and 12-pounders. The latter two were used as fortress and garrison guns, the heavier 16- and 24-pounders were siege pieces and also used in garrisons and fortresses.

Naval artillery was the other artillery category and was also used ashore in the fortifications that protected harbors manned at the elite artillerie de la Marine.

A lot of great research gone into this thread……… thanks to Tony Adams for raising it.

didn't you used to play for Boro…….?

To add in this figure artillery problem Russian batteries are the toughest. Foot and horse are made up of 2 types but heavy position batteries have 3. So by rights one needs 3 different guns usually, I am up gunning to 4. A position battery needs 1 20pound licorne, 1 long 12pdr and short 12 pdr. It has taken me over 35 years to get all my Prussian batteries evened out to 3 gun models, with odd guns for the heavy 6pdrs whatever they were.

There were two types of artillery employed on land during the period: field, or light artillery and heavy, or siege artillery, which was also used as garrison/fortress artillery.

Within a loose classification of 'Field Artillery' (subivided into field artillery proper and what is described variously as 'light', 'horse' or 'light horse' artillery) the British in this period certainly classified individual models of gun or howitzer as heavy, medium and light (as well as long and short).

The bottom line is that there were two types of artillery, field (or light artillery) and heavy, or siege artillery.

That's a basic definition of the artillery of the period.

Field artillery was further divided into three types-foot, horse, and mountain artillery.

And the term's 'light' and 'field' artillery are for all practical purposes, interchangeable.

I would refer you to two references that would be of help:

-The Bombardier and Pocket Gunner by Ralph Willett Adye.

-The American Artillerist's Companion by Louis de Tousard.

Both are excellent references for the artillery of the period.

And 'loose' classification or not, no matter what the field pieces are called or referred to, they are still field pieces by definition, and a field piece was field, or light, artillery.

G'Day Gents

If I may…both the Bombardier and The American Artillerist's Companion are excellent sources.

But there was a change in the French Artillery system it would seem…Bardin states the Artillery system as follows:

The Artillerie system is divided into 4 categories:

1…D'armement ou materiel has 3 subcategories
a…De Campagne has 2 subcategories
----------De Montagnes
----------De Parc
b…De Cotes
c…De Siege has 2 subcategories
----------Defensif
----------Offensif

2…De Marine

3…Idioplique Ou Composee d'hommes et de cheaux has 4
a…A cheval (MOUNTS)
b…A pied has 2 subcategories
------------De Regiment Franco-Suisse
------------D'Infanterie Francaise (Regimentaire)
c…De Garde has 2 subcategories
------------A Cheval
------------A Pied
d…De ligne has 2 subcategories
-----------A Cheval
-----------A pied

4…Stratopedique ou consideree comme science

Best Regards
Art

That does not change the fact that there were two categories of artillery-field, or light, and heavy, or siege.

The Artillery of the Imperial Guard was field artillery. The line artillery was field artillery. And field artillery was still of three types-foot, horse, and mountain artillery.

And the regimental cannon companies that were introduced in both 1809 and 1811 were still field artillery.

It is actually very simple, and, as Napoleon once stated, in war as in other things, 'the simplest ways are the best.'

I see what you are trying to say…but the terms light and field are not interchangeable…unless you are using them in correct context (in French)…piece de petite caliber ou piece de gros calibre.

L'artillerie actuelle peut être divisée en trois parties:

l'artillerie de campagne, l'artillerie de siège & de place, & l'artillene de montagne

Best Regards
Art

I disagree.

From Tousard, Volume II, 1:

The chapter title is: Of Light Artillery.

'Under the name of light artillery are comprehended field, horse and mountain artillery; the guns with their ammunition and appendages; horses for drawing them; drivers for taking care of the horses; and, finally, the regiments of foot and horse artillery, and battalions of the train. As the field artillery is entirely different from besieging pieces, it will not be altogether foreign to my subject, nor uninteresting to the reader, to introduce a short sketch of the improvements which have taken place in that important branch of the military art.'

And it should be noted that while Tousard wrote his 3-volume manual for the US artillery arm, he was a school-trained French artillery officer. And his manual was published in the US in 1809.

Again, there were two general designations for artillery during the period: field, or light artillery, and heavy artillery.

Just for clarification:

l'artillerie de campagne is field or light artillery and includes artillerie a pied, artillerie a cheval, and artillerie de montagne.

l'artillerie de siege et de place is siege and fortress/garrison artillery which is heavy artillery.

And field and light artillery are synonymous-and the term light artillery was also applied to horse artillery.

You can disagree all you want…

As I mentioned earlier…I do not disagree with how Americans have set up their artillery system…but if you feel the French military system is the same…show me in a French manual in accordance to their military system…

But I already have shown you with Bardin…and even in the Bombardier…it is mentioned that the British and Americans do not have the same artillery system…

But I am not going to drag this out like the other postings such as grape…or how compagnie and peloton are one and the same…

I have shown how a school-trained French artillery officer classed artillery during the period.

Which Bardin are you referring to? Is it the officer who authored the French uniform regulations? Etienne-Alexandre Bardin? If so, wasn't he an infantry officer?

It is irrelevant if armies have the 'same' artillery system or not. The designation of the types of artillery are the same as is their general employment.

If the Bardin you have referenced was an artillery officer, then please post his full name and the document you are referencing. What artillery treatise or regulation did he author?

Again, the French term 'artillerie de champagne' translates into English as field artillery and the 'classes' of artillery that I have posted is correct for the Grande Armee and the Gribeauval System as well as the Systeme AN XI.

Anyone can wordsmith the subject to death, but that doesn't change the information or the designations, no matter how much anyone may wish to. I've given you the material from Tousard which is one of the best artillery manuals of the period. And that material is taken from the French artillery manuals of the period and translated.

If you would like a list of Tousard's references I would be more than happy to list them.

I think it may be truer to say that during the period in question classifications of artillery was not made on the basis of light and heavy, or indeed of medium, but as Art has indicated, in terms of function or as it was termed by Adye, their 'nature. Moreover the terms used within any category were not rigidly systematic.

For example if we look at Adye, he speaks in terms of "Artillery necessary to accompany an army in the field, to lay siege to a fortified place, or to defend one…" and goes on to say-

"Field Artillery is divided into Battalion Guns, Artillery of the Park, and Horse Artillery..

"The battalion guns include all the light pieces attached to regiments of the line."

So in that case, 'light pieces' is clearly a subset within a subset of 'Field Artillery.'

(Later on, under the heading of 'Excercise of Artillery' Adye distinguishes between 'Light guns and howitzers' and 'Heavy Field guns and howitzers.'

He does at one point also refer to "Exercise of Heavy Ordnance in a battery- 32 or 42 pounders.')

The 'Artillery of the Park' is "composed of all natures of field ordnance," selected, according to task, from 'medium 12 pdrs' 'desaguliers 6 pdrs' and 'light 5.5" howitzers'.

Quite separate from 'Artillery for the Field, Adye identifies 'Artillery for a Siege', which consists only of 24 pdrs, plus a range of large and small mortars, and <i'heavy howitzers.'

However, artillery 'for the defence of a Fortified Place' according to Adye, consists predominantly of 18 pdrs and 12 pdrs plus lesser proportions of 24, 9 and 4 pdrs together with a range of Mortars and Howitzers.

At the very end of the book, discussing the manufacture of gun carriages, Adye distinguishes between 'Garrison' carriages and 'Field' carriages, the latter embracing 'Heavy 24 and 12 pdrs' and 'Light guns, from 3-12 pdrs.'

From the above it can be seen that classification was not expressed in rigidly defined terms and that, while there guns are referred to as light or heavy, the artillery was not divided specifically into 'Heavy' and 'Light' categories but in terms of their function, which could embrace a wide range of pieces as expressed by their weight.

While one can identify an individual model as being heavy or light in relation to other pieces, and clearly there were guns at either end of the range (eg, 32 pdrs and 3 pdrs), to judge by Adye's commentary, it would not be strictly true to say that in the Napoleonic period, guns were simply defined as either 'heavy, or siege', or 'field, or light'- (leaving aside questions of differing nomenclature between nations).

That would appear to be your personal observation, perhaps echoing Tousard.

Adye himself admired the French artillery system and contrasted it with what the British had on hand at the time, ca 1800:

'The French system of artillery was established as far back as the year 1765, and has been rigidly adhered to through a convulsion in the country which overturned everything like order, and which even the government itself has not been able to withstand. We should, therefore, conclude that it has merit, and, though in an enemy, ought to avail ourselves of its advantages. At the formation of their system, they saw the necessity of the most exact correspondence in the most minute particulars, and so rigidly have they adhered to this principle that, though they have several arsenals, where carriages and other military machines are constructed, the different parts of a carriage may be collected from these several arsenals, in the opposite extremities of the country, and will as well unite and form a carriage as if they were all made and fitted in the same workshop. As long as every man who fancies he has made an improvement is permitted to introduce it into our service, this cannot be the case with us.'

The basic premise is that pieces up to and including 12-pounders were field pieces and those of larger caliber were siege or garrison, or heavy pieces, that was the classification, no matter how it might be differently called by a particular army's artillery arm. And basically armies had either field (light) artillery and siege or garrison (heavy artillery).

In general, then, light pieces, up to and including 12-pounders, were field artillery and heavier pieces were siege or garrison artillery.

And it is not personal observation but studying the application and practice of the armies of the period. It is not Tousard's 'observation' but the result of his training and application as a French artillery officer and a graduate of their artillery school system.

that was the classification, no matter how it might be differently called by a particular army's artillery arm.

How would guns be classified, except by each 'particular army's artillery arm'?

- unless we consider individual authors- for instance, De Scheel, Tousard, Adye who, as has been seen on a number of threads, appear not to have used language systematically, nor used consistent terminology, either within their own works or in relation to each other.

'Basically', how?