"short and long barrel cannons" Topic

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?

Seems pretty clear to me:

You have "Field" artillery, and inside that classification you have "Foot", "Horse", and "Mountain" guns, from heaviest tubes to lightest. IIRC, the mountain guns would be on super-light carriages that could be broken down into mule pack-loads, in addition to being drawn by horse or mule teams.

"Heavy" artillery is the bigger siege pieces. l'artillerie de siège & de place

Outside the Army classifications, you have Naval guns, which basically considers the heavy Army siege guns as the lightest and goes up from there.

contemporaries used different terminology, but this is again a pet subject of brech, which he is beating to death, threads about this topic galore

There existed like in the Prussian Army – at least in the Aciene Regime Long barreled 6 pdr guns and shorter barreled ones, there the Long barreled was heavier – in case they feel it is important to distinguish they would term it in that way that even a Reader of today is able to distinguish between them

Seems pretty clear to me:

You have "Field" artillery, and inside that classification you have "Foot", "Horse", and "Mountain" guns, from heaviest tubes to lightest. IIRC, the mountain guns would be on super-light carriages that could be broken down into mule pack-loads, in addition to being drawn by horse or mule teams.

"Heavy" artillery is the bigger siege pieces. l'artillerie de siège & de place

Outside the Army classifications, you have Naval guns, which basically considers the heavy Army siege guns as the lightest and goes up from there.

Indeed. Fair enough. That's your assessment. Join the party.

'The heavier guns were- heavier.'

It remains the case, AFAICS,that in this period. the time guns do not appear to be have been classified, as either light or heavy, but by function. Your last point tends to illustrate that classification of guns by weight was relative

Turning back to Tony Adams first post: "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."

I do exactly this in my 1:200 scale. With one carriage I offer four barrels – heavy (8-12") for position batteries, standard or light (6") for foot and horse batteries, superlight (4") for regimental guns and howitzer for those, who build 1:1 batteries.
So these multibarrel carriages are for wargaming purposes, player may paint one carriage and use this according to game as heavy or light gun, simply by replacing the barrel.

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

But the question is quite simple. Was the piece field or siege artillery?

The answer to that is also quite simple: If the piece is light enough in overall weight (and that is gun tube and carriage) and able to be employed with the field army, then it is field artillery. And the caliber of the piece is not over a 12-pounder.

And it should be noted that the artillery parc was not the artillery reserve. The artillery reserve was an artillery formation that could be used by the army commander. The Prussian army, especially in 1813-1815, had no artillery reserve with the army in the field.

The artillery parc at the army level had the ammunition train, spare guns and carriages, and enough artificers to complete repairs in the field. In the Grande Armee there were also corps parcs.

Regarding 'long' and 'short' barreled versions of the same caliber, sometimes both could be suitable as field pieces, in some cases not.

For example, the French had both light and heavy 4-, 8-, and 12-pounders in the artillery inventory. The light were the Gribeauval pieces and designed and employed as field artillery. The heavy pieces of the same three calibers were the older Valliere pieces which were not field artillery and were used as garrison/fortress artillery because of their weight. They were still perfectly serviceable pieces but not for employment as field artillery.

but this is again a pet subject of brech, which he is beating to death, threads about this topic galore

I didn't bring the subject up in this thread. It is too bad that you have to make a negative personal comment, and in the third person, and have nothing constructive to contribute to the thread.

If you cannot address someone in the first person, or man-to-man if you prefer, then I would suggest that you keep your negative opinions and comments to yourself.

But the question is quite simple. Was the piece field or siege artillery?,

Precisely, Or indeed, "for defence of a fortified place." This is description in terms of function.

And it should be noted that the artillery parc was not the artillery reserve.

In what context? Adye, quoting Gribeauval cited in Durtubie, speaks in terms of ‘Battalion Guns' and the ‘Park or Reserve' (p.8-9)

And he goes on to state 'The artillery of the park is generally divided into tbrigades of 4- or 6 pieces, and a reserve, [which] must be composed of about 1/6 of the park…( p.24)

It is best not to make hard and fast statements without stating a context and carefully defining one's terms.
Each commentator of the time gives his own unique assessment We lack in this subject a contemporary system of Linnean. classification

Battalion guns were field artillery.

D'Urtubie and Gribeauval were speaking of the parc or reserve in earlier terms. D'Urtubie was considered out of date by the mid-1790s, replaced by Gassendi's Aide-Memoir. And the artillery reserve took on a new meaning under Napoleon and as used by the Grande Armee.

The Grande Armee's artillery reserve was a mass of artillery ready for action on the battlefield commanded by a senior artillery officer, always a general of brigade or division.

The artillery parc was as already described in a previous posting. It was also commanded by an artillery general officer.

And the British use of artillery was quite different from how the French employed theirs, and was much less numerous. The employment of the two arms was quite different. The understanding of the differences between field (light) and siege (heavy) artillery was not.

I would also suggest a reading of the Dickson Manuscripts for more background information.

I 'stated' the material in context and how it was used and classified.

This is description in terms of function.

That is correct. It is also a description of what types of artillery they were and how they were classified. All of those categories have to be considered.

And, again, it is a very simple system for classifying artillery.

Ainsi soit-il

My bugaboo has always been a few Prussian batteries that might have had heavy 6pdrs, all I can figure is they are siege guns. But anyway I have bigger 6pdrs for those units and make them move as 12pdrs. Its a quirky rule but something to throw in.

G'Day 42…

En 1805 pour l'utilisation de l'artillerie Du Canton De Vaud

Trois Catégories

1…Piece de bataille, les calibres de:
-de deux
-de quatre
-de six

2… Piece de douze campagne
-de douze

3…Pièce de siège ou de position, les calibres de:
-de quatre
-de six
-de douze

Et pourquoi s'appelait-il des pièces de bataille…parce que

Des pieces de bataille sorte de pieces de campagne qui sont plus mobiles, et different par la des pieces de position qui en sont la partie moins mobile et du plus fort calibre…

On peut dire des bouche a feu de bataille sont partie de l'ordre de bataille, tandis que les pieces position peuvent etre en dehors l'ordre de bataille…

Pour les Français en 1806 dans l'instruction sur le service d'artillerie, a l'usage des eleves de l'ecole speciale… ils ont aussi appelé les pièces…"bouche a feu de bataille" pour la même raison…mais pour le douze…ill n'a pas été considere comme un bouche a feu de batille…mais simplement appele un piece de douze.

A l'origine, le piece de 12 n'était pas d'accompagner les piece de bataille, a calibre 6 dans le nouveau système tactique…mais Gassendi convaincu Napoléon de garder le 12 (Lieutenant General Allix).

ET TRES IMPORTANT:

"Les pieces de campagne se distinguent autre-fois en piece lourdes et ligeres; cette complications sans utilite s'est effacee"

Best Regards
Art

Entendu. C'est drôle, ça/i>

мы должны сделать это на французском

Regarding the artillery park:

'Behind the combat troops the train d'artillerie also hauled the conglomeration of material that made up the artillery 'parks.' A corps park would have its artillery's spare caissons, field forges, and supply wagons, and spare cannon to replace those destroyed or disabled in action. (One ration mentioned was one spare to every ten guns in the companies.) An artillery officer with a small staff directed the park. Security was furnished by a squad of cannoneers detailed from each company. The army artillery park (Grand Parc) was normally divided into two parts: a 'mobile park,' which kept just at the rear of the army with a resupply of ammunition and spare parts in wagons, and, farther to the rear, the 'fixed park,' which set up temporary arsenals and maintenance shops in one or more fortified depots along the army's line of communications. Ammunition was shuttled forward through this system, with the object of keeping the artillery's caissons and the infantrymen's cartridge boxes continuously filled and refilled.'-John Elting, Swords Around A Throne, 255.

So would there have been an appreciable difference in the effectiveness of a Prussian heavy versus a light 6-pounder?

@14Bore: сыра едят обезьян капитуляции

brech – read and understand

"ET TRES IMPORTANT:

"Les pieces de campagne se distinguent autre-fois en piece lourdes et ligeres; cette complications sans utilite s'est effacee"

OK – yeah, for me no Need to discuss further.

As to Long or heavy 6 pdr, I wouldn't class it as a 12 pdr, more like a 6 pdr perhaps with longer range capabilities.

"Les pieces de campagne se distinguent autre-fois en piece lourdes et ligeres; cette complications sans utilite s'est effacee"

Source and full citation, please?

G'Day Kevin

So I must produce source and full citation…indeed…but what happened to the ones I asked for earlier…never mind I do not need them…

Nevertheless the source and full citation was sent…but for those who wanted it…emailed to two individuals already who wanted information and not for want of validation that I was just making it up.

You see…when I was in Afghanistan in 2014…you had asked me for sources…but I was out on a mission at the time…and since you did not get them…right then and there…all that you could do was insult me on this forum…

And if truth be told…I really do not need your validation…

Sorry…but you have changed and not for the best…

Best Regards Still…
Art

Really?

I posted sources here on this subject.

And when did I insult you and how?

It would help if you posted your source and citation, but if you won't, then that is fine also.

I really do regret not learning Russian during or after high school.
It would have been so useful to me.

…not for want of validation that I was just making it up.

That was neither said nor intimated. Where did you come up with that one?

There is nothing wrong with questioning another poster. It's called a discussion. If you don't wish to be questioned, that's fine, but it is also unrealistic.

I really do regret not learning Russian during or after high school. It would have been so useful to me.

Agree.

I was very lucky in that I had two years of it in high school and two more in college. The Cyrillic alphabet tends to stay with you, which is fortunate.

all that you could do was insult me on this forum…

Perhaps you could point out where the 'insult' occurred? This site has an excellent search feature.

there was even a tactical distinction between average and heavy guns, from an essay of most likley one of the best experts on French artillery Paul Dawson – to be found amongst others on napoleon-series.org

"

By Paul Dawson

The committee, however, did not vote to totally abolish the new system, and retained the 6 pounder, hardly surprising given Napoleon's view on this matter:
"The 4 pounders and the 8 pounders have been rightly suppressed. Gribeauval simplified and experience has proved the necessity of further simplification. We have progressed in that direction. The 8 pounders and the 4 pounders were often employed in the wrong place: the ammunition of 8 pounders was expended where that of 4 pounders would have sufficed. It was a very considerable loss if transport is considered, it was 2 rounds instead of 1. Often there were only 4 pounders when 8 pounders were required. There is no line officer, nor even artillery officer, who can well grasp the opportune moment and determine if 8 or 4 pounders should be employed, and even if he could, he is obliged to utilize what he has at hand. A single calibre is therefore sufficient for field work, then there can be no uncertainty. The 12 pounder in either system remains in reserve to be employed with premeditation by general officers, either of the line or of the guard artillery."
"

The 'three calibers' were not 'average' or 'heavy' guns. All three were field pieces, and designed as such by Gribeauval. The 6-pounder of Systeme AN XI was also a field piece.

The quoted paragraph is discussing field pieces, not heavy artillery.

I don't differ between the heavy and light 6pdrs thinking the heavy ones used may have been older well worn pieces.

That would depend on what they were used for. If they were both field artillery pieces, then there is no reason to differ between them.

DeScheel's Treatise of Artillery, ca 1777, based on the Gribeauval reforms, definitely differentiates between field artillery (the term used in the US translation of 1800 by Jonathan Williams), and siege and garrison artillery, the former being termed 'battering' pieces.

Siege and fortress/garrison artillery is termed 'artillery…for the attack and defense of places'.

Heavy, or siege/garrison artillery is also termed besieging artillery.

There is definitely a difference between the two, they heavy pieces being of a larger caliber (16- and 24-pounders) being able to reduce fortifications as well as defend them, and field artillery, of the 'three calibers' being used with the field armies on campaign and in combat.

Outside the Army classifications, you have Naval guns, which basically considers the heavy Army siege guns as the lightest and goes up from there.

Naval guns were usually cast from iron, being on board ship or in fortresses the firing platforms could withstand the weight of the guns (even though iron was a lighter metal than bronze, it had the bad habit of either cracking or exploding when fired; therefore more iron went into constructing iron guns and why bronze was the preferred metal for land guns).

The navy was responsible for designing and casting their own cannon and actually used Maritz's horizontal boring machine before Gribeauval OKd it for army usage.

@14Bore

"I don't differ between the heavy and light 6pdrs thinking the heavy ones used may have been older well worn pieces."

I disagree – for example

Prussian 6pdr guns

Ordinary 6 pdr Linger 1759 – 16 D
barrel weight : 690 pound

Ordniärer schwerer Dieskau 1760 – 26 D (!!)
barrel weight about 1950 Prussian pounds

Ordniärer schwere Dieskau 1762 – 22 D
barrel weight 1540 Prussian pounds

Zylindrical light 12 pdr Holtzmann 1740 – 16 D

barrel weight 1260 Prussian pounds

Conical light 12 pounder 1744 – 16 D
Barrel weight 1040 pounds

Ordinary middle 12 pounder Austrain fashion 1759 – 18 D
Barrel weight 2040 Pounds

Ordinary heavy 12 Pounder "Brummer" 1735 – 26 D
Barrel weight 3800 pound

As you can see – different barrel weights and lenghts of barrely which make a distincition necessary between several 6 or 12 pdrs

source : Bleckwenn, H. : Die preußischen Feldgeschütze – Typen 1756 – 62 in Beziehung zur allgeminen Gefechtstaktik
Zeitschrift für Heeres- und Uniformkunde, 1957 Nr. 154, Nr. 155, Nr. 156

same as for year 1958 – Nr. 1958

The Saxon artillery made also in 1806 a distinction like between heavy 4 pdr gund and normal one – the difference is not just well worn guns but instead different modells – and different barrel length

However, if they are both considered field artillery pieces, then the only distinction is one of model and weight-not of function.

In my rules there are three weights of field artillery: heavy, medium and light. I used to put heavy 6pdrs in the medium category, alongside 8/9pdrs and light 6pdrs in light category, alongside 4pdrs.

My reasoning was based on something I read about British light 6pdrs using a much smaller charge than the heavier weapon (presumably as the barrel might break with too big a charge). In fact the charge for the light piece (1.5lb) was if anything smaller than that for the French 4pdr. And since the charge is the source of the energy, I reasoned that the performance would be comparable. The tactical usage (horse artillery) was also similar.

Since then I have learnt that this is much too simplistic and I lost confidence in this way of distinguishing weapons. I now classify most horse artillery 6pdrs as light and foot artillery ones as heavy as much on the basis of ammunition supply as hitting power of an individual shot. I exempt the French Guard horse artillery from this, as I understand that they had access to more ammunition, and were better resourced generally.

All the same if my source was right that a light 6pdr used 1.5lb charge and a heavy 6pdr 3lb (the same as 9pdr) then there would have been quite a difference in performance between the two weapons.

Matthew

from what I understand, the long barrels provided more range and accuracy than short barrels for the same weight/caliber gun.

Obviously, the short barreled tubes weighed less.

And it should be noted that the artillery parc was not the artillery reserve.

Yes and no, depending on the period and army--and how you define a 'army reserve'. The parc in the SYW was the artillery organization and moved as a unit, drivers, gunners and engineers/blacksmiths etc. Artillerists were divided up with guns on the battlefield--and as that is where the artillery was kept, it was an army reserve--certainly not on the Napoleonic French model--but where a commander would go for more guns.

There was a transition away from this practice as the Revolutionary/Napoleonic wars progressed in different ways, depending on the army to the point that the parc became simply the technical support/ammunition/spare parts operation for the artillery. Even so, as late as 1806-1807, different nations were still using the old parc system with some modifications.

from what I understand, the long barrels provided more range and accuracy than short barrels for the same weight/caliber gun.

Ah yes!. I think it increased muzzle velocity. A larger charge would presumably have the same effect. So if a heavier barrel allowed a larger charge to be used, or lengthened the barrel, then a heavier barrel would make for a more effective gun – other things equal (which they never are).

All this complexity means that using the throw weight as a measure of firepower is only the roughest of guides. One reason why it is not worth making a huge amount of effort to create detailed rules with lots of different categories.

Hmmmmmmm, thinking this through

Essentially, one needs to beware, as ever, of making generalisations.

With regard to this conplex topic, the context, in term of the year and which army is under discussion, is all important. "The Devil is in the details." (Cliché alert)

Well, obviously the two different barrel lengths did make a difference, or they wouldn't have put any effort into creating both.

From what I understand, for the most part, the actual size of a cannon ball on the battlefield made little difference in the damaged caused [as opposed to a siege or battering emplacements]. Again, any enertia gained by the heavier ball [ the diameter differences between 6, 8, 9 and 12 pound balls weren't significant] would increase the range of the shot in case there were obstacles in the way… like horses, men and cannons.

The effective range of field artillery pieces was for all intents and purposes 1,000 yards. The French doctrinally discouraged any firing beyond 1,050 yards according to Duteil.

Ricochet fire effectively doubled the range of roundshot depending on the condition of the ground.

There was a difference between the different pound shot against troops in formation: generally speaking, the larger the round the more troops it could 'go through' to kill and wound.

Coignet graphically discusses the effects of Austrian roundshot at Essling in his memoir. He was one of the Guardsmen on the receiving end on the second day of the action.

Yes and no, depending on the period and army--and how you define a 'army reserve'. The parc in the SYW was the artillery organization and moved as a unit, drivers, gunners and engineers/blacksmiths etc. Artillerists were divided up with guns on the battlefield--and as that is where the artillery was kept, it was an army reserve--certainly not on the Napoleonic French model--but where a commander would go for more guns.
There was a transition away from this practice as the Revolutionary/Napoleonic wars progressed in different ways, depending on the army to the point that the parc became simply the technical support/ammunition/spare parts operation for the artillery. Even so, as late as 1806-1807, different nations were still using the old parc system with some modifications.

We're not discussing the Seven Years' War.

The Prussian light/field artillery came into being in the 1740s; the Austrian in the early 1750s. The French didn't catch up until ca 1765.

The development of artillery and the practices that evolved during the Wars of the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars certainly differed between armies.

For example, the Prussians in 1813-1815 did not have an army artillery reserve and were still getting over the neglect of Frederick of the Prussian artillery arm (they didn't have an artillery school until 1791) during the period. Their artillery commanders would definitely learn from the experience and finally had a valid artillery system as of 1816 and developed from there.

If you would like to post the differences between the artillery arms of Russia, Prussia, Austria, Great Britain and France regarding their respective practices using artillery parcs and an artillery reserve, it might be a good discussion topic.

I've partially covered French practice, so we could begin there if you like.

Interesting point about Prussian artillery use. Wellington is criticised for not understanding artillery properly and simply distributing guns all along his line to provide local fire support. Now I come to think of it, the orbats I have read for Prussian units would lead to the same result. The artillery was apportioned among the constituent corps. Very handy for a bathtub type of army of course :-)

So was it just the French who organised to have a central reserve? I ask because I think it is a good principle in games not to adopt tactics or practices in violation of the doctrine or organisation of the times. It sounds like no Prussian army should be allowed to concentrate its artillery above a certain level. Eg Zieten's corps had four batteries, three foot and one horse. On a battlefield adjoining another similarly-equipped corps, presumably nobody could have ordered the six foot batteries of two such corps to form a grand battery, because to do so would require an order from above Corps commander level. Would that be right?

I am sure I have read of massed allied artillery formations in 1813-14 but maybe they weren't truly massed, just deployed in proximity.

I would submit that massed artillery would qualify from two batteries/companies firing together on up.

The Russians certainly massed their artillery at Eylau in three large batteries and that ruined a French corps. But the Russians did not employ their artillery offensively, as the French did. They certainly took to heart (and to the pen) about the lessons they learned from the French after 1807, and did employ an artillery reserve. Their main problem was command and control and too many senior infantry officers trying to command/employ artillery.

Napoleon began massing his artillery at Lodi in 1796, but that was French doctrine since at least 1778 and the publication of Duteil's Usage.

The Prussian artillery commander Karl Frederick von Holtzendorf certainly understood artillery employment and the massing of artillery and performed very well in 1813 under Bulow. He was Blucher's artillery chief in 1815 and lost a hand at Ligny. But he had no artillery under his direct control. The corps artillery chiefs were not general officers and were probably not listened to by the corps commanders. French artillery chiefs at army and corps level were general officers and were listened to and also acted on their own initiative to properly employ their artillery.

The Austrians certainly understood the principle of mass, as Josef Smola clearly demonstrated on the second day of Essling in 1809. He massed 200 guns against the French, but any advantage he may have gained was not followed up by Charles. And the Austrian infantry was fought out by that time.

The excellent British artillery arm was too small on its own and always had to be supplemented by allied artillery, such as the Portuguese in Spain. The senior artillery commanders, Dickson and Fraser, were both excellent artillerymen, but it is quite evident that Wellington, an infantry officer, really didn't understand higher-level artillery employment.

French artillery organization and their command and control were certainly superior to anything they faced in the field, but it had to develop also. By 1807, however, the ideas and employment came to fruition beginning with Friedland.

The excellent French artillery schools (which were the model for both the British and Austrian equivalents) taught infantry/artillery cooperation besides the technical side of the arm, and that was the 'backbone' of the Grande Armee.

Thanks Kevin. Interesting.

Unrelatedly, do you know anywhere of a table of the first-graze points of typical artillery pieces of this era? My assumption is that out to this point, a gun would hit anything it was pointing at that was lower than the height of the muzzle. At greater ranges (or indeed when firing up or down slopes), the muzzle would need to be elevated (or depressed), and therefore there would be a good chance that the target would be missed altogether by the shot either falling long or falling short and bouncing over. I recall a discussion of this on here a few years ago a propos Wagram (or 1809 anyway).

The information that I posted earlier on first graze at 0 degrees elevation is in Adye. It has them for France, Russia, Prussia, Austria, and Saxony at least.

The 1802 edition of Adye's Bombardier and Pocket Gunner can be found on Google Books, here:

link

The 1827 edition can be found here:

link

The topics are arranged alphabetically, so look under 'Range.'

The French, and undoubtedly just about everyone else, fired ranging shots when they began their fire missions. They looked for one over and one short, and then adjusted accordingly.

Ricochet fire was an added bonus, and, as the rounds could be seen coming inbound to a formation while ricocheting, the experience could be quite unnerving, especially to new troops under artillery fire for the first time.

On the use of the Gribeauval 12-pounder for horse artillery:

From the American Artillerist's Companion by Louis de Tousard, Volume II, Chatper II, Section V, 47:

'Though the 8-pounder be the most preferable caliber for the general service of the horse artillery, still the 12-pounder may be employed very advantageously; for it is equally susceptible of celerity in its motions. Its weight is only 1800 pounds, consequently six or eight horses, if the ground be difficult, are more than sufficient to execute, in conjunction with the cavalry or chasseurs, the most prompt and decisive maneuvers. This caliber might be used more particularly when it is intended to attack an entrenched camp, to destroy palisades, abattis, magazines, or the walls of small enclosed towns; when it is necessary to reach and annoy, from a distance, troops who are marching in columns towards certain parts of their line in order to strengthen it, and the junction of which it may be of importance either to prevent or at least retard.'

Presumably though the issue with using 12-pounders as horse artillery was whether they actually had eight horses available per gun?

I don't think so by the way the paragraph is written. Six would undoubtedly work.

At Dresden in 1813 because of the condition of the ground because of the incessant rain, Napoleon did increase the horse teams for his horse artillery companies.

The British upgunned some of their horse artillery troops in Belgium in 1815 and increased their horse teams to eight instead of six.

"the 12-pounder…. might be used more particularly when it is intended to attack an entrenched camp, to destroy palisades, abattis, magazines, or the walls of small enclosed towns;

I though that passage was interesting. In that context, is the 12-pdr light or heavy?

It's a field piece, therefore it is light artillery.

In terms of function- attacking entrenchments, small solid structures and "the walls of small enclosed towns", might it not be classed as a siege- or 'battering'- gun?