Help support TMP


"Why howitzer had larger crew than cannon ?" Topic


60 Posts

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

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Napoleonic Discussion Message Board



1,856 hits since 31 Jul 2017
©1994-2017 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Pages: 1 2 

Osage201701 Aug 2017 12:13 p.m. PST

Why howitzer had larger crew than cannon ?
For example Prussian
6pdr cannon – 9 men
7pdr howitzer – 12 men

Why the extra 3 men for the howitzer ?

skipper John Supporting Member of TMP01 Aug 2017 1:06 p.m. PST

To help pick up the others after it fired.

Oliver Schmidt01 Aug 2017 1:20 p.m. PST

Interesting question :-)

From the Prussian 1812 regulation for artillery (pp. 100 f., 121):

For serving a 6pounder gun, 1 NCO is needed, plus 8 men who are receiving numbers:

No 1 is wiping the barrel
No 2 is putting the charge into the barrel
No 3 fires, and helps aiming
No 4 puts in the ignition charge and aims
No 5 oversees the prolongue and helps taking ammunition from the limber
No 6 carries ammunition from the limber
Nos 7 and 8 reserve men

For serving a 7pounder howitzer, 1 NCO is needed, plus 11 men who are receiving numbers:

Nos 1 to 8 as with the 6pounder gun
No 9 conducts the ammunition wagon
No 10 brings grenades
Nos 11 reserve at the ammunition wagon

So the difference is that due to the higher weight and bigger volume, the ammunition by the Prussian howitzer needed for an ordinary fire fight had also to be stored in the ammunition waggon (one special Granatwagen – grenade waggon – per howitzer) whose conductor was regarded as part of the howitzer crew.

The howitzer ammunition being much heavier, two men were used to carry it from the limber, instead of the one man with the 6pounder gun.

From memory: when a limber was empty, it drove back to the ammuniton waggons to be replenished there.

On 19 November 1812, the ammunition to be carried in the Prussian limbers was set to:

6pounder gun limber: 45 round shots, 25 canister shots
7pounder howitzer limber: 14 grenades, 6 canister shots

I don't know what was the system in other artilleries ?

rmaker01 Aug 2017 1:31 p.m. PST

Partly the size difference. A 6-pdr has a bore of about 3.6 inches (90mm), while a 7-pdr howitzer has a 5.9 inch (150mm) bore. The German nomenclature for shell firing pieces (howitzers and mortars) indicates the weight of a stone ball that would fit the bore. The actual shell is heavier than that. And the gun fired fixed ammo (ball/case, sabot, and charge in one package) while the howitzer did not. Thus extra ammunition carriers were needed. Also two NCO's trained to properly cut fuzes were provided in the howitzer crew.

Nine pound round01 Aug 2017 2:44 p.m. PST

My off-the-cuff guess is, to cut the fuzes.

Extrabio1947 Supporting Member of TMP01 Aug 2017 3:42 p.m. PST

+1 Nine Pound Round. That and inserting the fuzes into the round itself. In other words, the round required additional preparation that cannon ammunition did not.

advocate02 Aug 2017 12:53 a.m. PST

Umm, I think Oliver has answered this, at least for the Prussians.

Oliver Schmidt02 Aug 2017 1:23 a.m. PST

Serving the Prussian 7pounder howitzer, the fuze was "opened" by No 5. In the field artillery (at least in the Prussian one, but in others as well, I bet), fuzes were not cut to ensure the explosion at a given distance, but the standard (maximum) length of the fuze was used.

On the contrary, in siege warfare, when there was more time to correctly estimate the distances, and targets didn't move, fuzes were cut to the appropiate length of course.

As for the NCOs present, for the 6pounder gun, a simple Unterofffizier (equivalent to a sergeant) was present, for the 7pounder howitzer, the NCO was a Feuerwerker (roughly: a sergeant-major). No 4 cannoneer should be, if possible, a Bombardier (something like a private first class).

Casting iron was not very exact at that time, and the weight of shots differed even when casting in the same mould. The weight of a 6pounder roundshot was allowed to vary between 5,5 and 6,5 Prussian pounds, that of a 7pounder grenade between 13,5 and 15,75 Prussian pounds.

A roundshot made from stone with the diameter of the Prussian 7pounder grenade would have weighted just 7 Prussian pounds, hence the denomination. However, even though the calibers were named in weight, they were actually measured exactly by the diameter of the bore or shot.

Brechtel19802 Aug 2017 2:47 a.m. PST

The French and the Austrians had a qualified bombardier as part of the gun crew.

The ammunition was separate loading (powder and shell were separate, not one cartridge as in the long guns) and the chamber was of a different diameter (smaller) that the rest of the gun tube and the powder had to be inserted into the chamber before the round.

The rounds were also heavier and care had to be taken in loading, cutting the fuses, etc.

Oliver Schmidt02 Aug 2017 3:10 a.m. PST

For those reading German, here an instructive discussion we had a dozen years ago about the differences in firing howitzers and guns:

link

Unfortunately, due to a change of provider, all special letters are replaced with an �, so even a German native speaker needs some patience to read it. But is worth the effort.

von Winterfeldt02 Aug 2017 4:40 a.m. PST

thanks for the link, great discussion then and there

Personal logo deadhead Supporting Member of TMP02 Aug 2017 5:20 a.m. PST

Well the things you do learn here. I had no idea! Many thanks indeed, as von W said, great topic

Personal logo ColCampbell Supporting Member of TMP02 Aug 2017 11:20 a.m. PST

Great discussion! This is why I like TMP even with all the extraneous "stuff" that goes on from time to time.

Jim

goragrad02 Aug 2017 12:21 p.m. PST

Interesting.

Markconz02 Aug 2017 3:13 p.m. PST

Interesting thanks!

1968billsfan Supporting Member of TMP03 Aug 2017 3:10 a.m. PST

I find it interesting that although ~ 1/3 of the tubes were howitzers, very few (maybe none) wargame rules consider the special properties of howitzers in combat.

Le Breton03 Aug 2017 3:20 a.m. PST

Russian unicorn teams were the same as the others in their company.
The 1/4-pud (calibre of a 12 pounder) unicorn had the same crew as a 6-lb gun.
The 1/2-pud (calibre of a 24 pounder) unicorn had the same crew as a 12-lb gun.
In general, Russian gun teams seem a bit larger than other nations' gun teams.

For Russian artillery ….

2x identical pieces form a Взводъ (Vzvod, Platoon) under the command of an officer : captain, lieutenant or sub-lieutenant, with :
--- Гандлангеръ (Gandlanger, Artilleryman) and Фурлейтъ (Furleyt, Driver) with artillery cart for tools and equipment
--- Гандлангеръ (Gandlanger, Artilleryman) and Фурлейтъ (Furleyt, Driver) with provisions cart
--- 1x or 2x Денщикъ (Denshchik, Batman) officer's personal servant (2 for a captain, 1 for a lieutenant or sub-lieutenant)

6-lber gun and 1/4-pud unicorn Экипаж (Ekipazh, Team) for foot artillery
--- Фейерверкеръ (Feyerverker, Gunnery Sergeant) [Фельдфебель (Fel'dfebel', Sergent Major) for the 1st piece in the artillery company]
(commanded and aimed the piece)
No. 1 Канониръ (Kanonir, Gunnery Lance Corporal) with rammer
No. 2 Гандлангеръ (Gandlanger, Artilleryman) with munitions bag
No. 3 Бомбардиръ (Bombardir, Gunnery Corporal) with match
No. 4 Бомбардиръ (Bombardir, Gunnery Corporal) with pricker and primer cartouche
No. 5 Канониръ (Kanonir, Gunnery Lance Corporal) with spare match
No. 6 Канониръ (Kanonir, Gunnery Lance Corporal) with spare primer cartoche
No. 7 Бомбардиръ (Bombardir, Gunnery Corporal) with handspike
No. 8 Гандлангеръ (Gandlanger, Artilleryman) with munitions bag
(the crew stood on either side of the piece from front to rear, with the odd numbers on the right and the even on the left – No. 8 stepping up to repace No. 2 after each shot)
--- Юнкеръ (Yunker, Officer Aspirant NCO)
(commanded movement/transport and ammunition supply)
No. 9 Гандлангеръ (Gandlanger, Artilleryman) with limber at front
No. 10 Гандлангеръ (Gandlanger, Artilleryman) with limber at axle
No. 11 Гандлангеръ (Gandlanger, Artilleryman) with 1st caisson
No. 12 Гандлангеръ (Gandlanger, Artilleryman) with 2nd caisson

6-lber gun rounds :
--- 3 rounds in the box on the carriage (for "emergencies")
--- 18 rounds in the box on the limber
--- 61 rounds in each of 2 caissons
total : 143 rounds

1/4-pud unicorn rounds :
--- 2 rounds in the box on the carriage (for "emergencies")
--- 12 rounds in the box on the limber
--- 54 rounds in each of 2 caissons
total : 122 rounds

The unicorn Граната (Granata, Shell) and Картечь (Kartech', Cannister) rounds were pre-made, unitary rounds (on the right in the below images). Standard or regulation load out of rounds was 80 shell rounds, 32 cannister rounds (2/3 "larger" sub-munitions, 1/3 "smaller" submunitions) and 5 each illumination and incendiary rounds.

picture

picture

Osage201703 Aug 2017 2:18 p.m. PST

I am not sure if I understand it correctly.
The Feyerverkers commanded each of the 2nd-12th pieces in artillery company, while the Feldfebel commanded the 1st piece ? Right ?

Le Breton wrote:
6-lber gun and 1/4-pud unicorn Экипаж (Ekipazh, Team) for foot artillery
--- Фейерверкеръ (Feyerverker, Gunnery Sergeant) [Фельдфебель (Fel'dfebel', Sergent Major) for the 1st piece in the artillery company] (commanded and aimed the piece)

Le Breton03 Aug 2017 2:44 p.m. PST

You have it perfectly.
The Fel'dfebel' (Sergent Major) was also the senior NCO of the artillery company.

A Russian artillery company a rather large organization commmanded by field-grade officer – including 12 artillery pieces, the equivalent of a French "compagnie du train d'artillerie", a medical staff, a large crew of craftmen and substantial logistical assets – 255 total all ranks for the smallest sized company (a "light" foot artillery company).
So SNCO was a rather important billet.

Brechtel19803 Aug 2017 4:29 p.m. PST

A Russian artillery company a rather large organization commmanded by field-grade officer – including 12 artillery pieces, the equivalent of a French "compagnie du train d'artillerie"…

French artillery train companies had no artillery pieces. Train companies were 'brigaded' with an artillery company in order to provide the horses and drivers to pull the artillery's guns and vehicles.

SNCOs are always important people in a military organization. They are the ones who run the unit; the officers command it-there is a difference.

Le Breton03 Aug 2017 5:15 p.m. PST

"French artillery train companies had no artillery pieces."
Yes – I think that is rather plain based on the name itself.

I was trying to make the point that unlike the French who organized a "compagnie du train d'artillerie" which they then brigaded with a "compagnie d'artillerie", the Russians put both of these "functions" or "elements" into the artillery company.

von Winterfeldt04 Aug 2017 3:25 a.m. PST

a bricole was a rope with a hook – which was attached to a part of the cross belt -
the regulation for the artillery speaks about short and long bricoles, but obviously the artillery expert fails to take that into account

please read

link

also

link

link

about the use of the word bricole in 1741

link

bricole in the mediaval ages

BRICOLE
La bricole est une pièce d'artillerie médiévale apparue au XIIe siècle et constituée d'un balancier appelé "verge" au bout duquel est attachée une poche contenant des projectiles (boulets, cadavres d'animaux, parfois les hommes prisonniers renvoyés dans leur camp).

in case you are in for more

TMP link

fuzes in an ammunition pouch – really? cannons were fired usually not with fuzes in the Napoleonic time.
Otherwise any decent source on that??

Oliver Schmidt04 Aug 2017 3:44 a.m. PST

fuzes in an ammunition pouch – really?
You refer to the other discussion about gunners armed with muskets, I presume.

I didn't find the correct translation for the German word Schlagröhre (in French: étoupille). It is not just a fuse, but a small soldid tube made from iron or sometimes straw (?), filled with a fast burning substance, and put into the touchhole of the gun tube in order to ignite the charge.

Brechtel19804 Aug 2017 4:37 a.m. PST

…a bricole was a rope with a hook – which was attached to a part of the cross belt…

That is incorrect.

The bricole, as used and defined in the French artillery manuals, was a leather cross belt, to which was attached a ring, to which was attached a rope and to which was attached a hook at the running end of the rope.

The bricole is also defined as an 'artillery sortmen.'

It was not attached 'to a part of the crossbelt' but included as the major part of the bricole, its own crossbelt of leather.

It was a piece of artillery equipment which was worn by the cannoneers and used to move the piece by manpower alone without using the gun team horses.

From American Artillerist's Companion, Volume II, 110:

'A bricole is made with a leather strap, a trace rope, an iron ring, and a hook, and serves to pull the piece backward and forward. Bricoles cannot be called drag-ropes, which are used for a similar purpse in the English service; but to which they have not the least resemblancd; neither can they be called straps, nor traces, these being only component parts of the bricole…'

The bricole was worn from the right to the left opposite to the gunners' ammunition pouches.

Oliver Schmidt04 Aug 2017 5:02 a.m. PST

It seems the bricole in the US army was different from that used by the French artillery.

Here the description of the French porte-giberne en buffle, servant de bricole (cartridge pouch belt made from chamois-like leather, serving as a "bricole", from the decision of 4 brumaire an X:

link

I haven't found earlier or later descriptions.

Brechtel19804 Aug 2017 5:06 a.m. PST

The description I provided from Tousard, is not an 'American' bricole, but a French one. Tousard wrote his manual for the use of the US Army, and his references were either French or British, not American.

The US Army used the French bricole.

Oliver Schmidt04 Aug 2017 5:10 a.m. PST

Thanks, I didn't know Tousard is not describing the US system.

Then maybe it is a British bricole he describes. The French regulation (my link above) is clear that the bricole and the cartridge pouch belt are combined.

Oliver Schmidt04 Aug 2017 5:33 a.m. PST

However, Gassendi describes in his Aide mémoire a bricole of leather which is not combined with the cartridge pouch belt.

2nd (an VI = 1798) edition:

link

5th (1819) editon:

link

It seems Gassendi just copied forth the text from his earlier editions, not even updating the prices, and ignoring the change (?) of 26 October 1801. Maybe he judged the bricole to be too unimportant to pay much attention to it ?

If Tousard copied from Gassendi, this could be an explanation why he describes the old (?) bricole model.

Brechtel19804 Aug 2017 5:41 a.m. PST

Gassendi was one of Tousard's references, as were quite a few other French artillery manuals.

Gassendi was current as a French artillery manual after the wars. I believe the last edition was 1819. So, it's a good bet that he and his supporters kept current on French artillery developments and what was being used in the field.

He was also one of the members of the Artillery Committee that voted against the Systeme AN XI.

I would suggest that Gassendi was correct, and the October 1801 edition was wrong or it was merely an idea.

Oliver Schmidt04 Aug 2017 6:04 a.m. PST

The decision by the Minister of War of 26 October 1801 was published in the Journal Militaire (my link above), it was sent to the conseils d'administration of all units with the remark:

"You will take care to adhere exactly to this [decision] in your purchases and confections, as well as to the prototypes which you have already received or which will immediately be sent to you."

I doubt it was ignored.

Maybe some contemporary images of foot artillerymen can shed light on this.

von Winterfeldt04 Aug 2017 7:40 a.m. PST

Toussard is a weak source about European artillery – thanks Oliver Schmidt, great sources.
In case Brechtel 198 cannot come up with a better source than Toussard, he is again wrong – he should read French texts about French artillery and not second hand hearsay translations (not toussards mistakes about Austrian artillery)

Brechtel19804 Aug 2017 8:05 a.m. PST

Tousard is one of the best artillery manuals of the period and is a primary source for period, especially French, artillery.

Brechtel19804 Aug 2017 8:08 a.m. PST

"You will take care to adhere exactly to this [decision] in your purchases and confections, as well as to the prototypes which you have already received or which will immediately be sent to you."
I doubt it was ignored.

French regimental commanders routinely ignored 'proclamations' from the War Ministry, especially regarding uniforms and personal equipment.

And if the bricole being used was deemed sufficient and serviceable by the unit commanders, I doubt that they would be replaced by a new piece of equipment 'developed' by the War Ministry.

Further, there was a definite 'wear out' time for personal equipment such as crossbelts, etc. Regimental commanders in the French Army were famous for extending those wearout periods.

Le Breton04 Aug 2017 8:48 a.m. PST

"French regimental commanders routinely ignored 'proclamations' from the War Ministry"

Can we go a bit further on this assertion, please?

Can you provide any first hand example of this?, such as :
--- a colonel who received a note saying "you are ignoring circular No. XXX"
--- a colonel who, in his memoirs, states, "we were ordered by the War Ministry to do XXX, but we ignored this order because I did not like it"
--- a colonel who ignored such an instruction and this was known at the time without negative consequences, such as from a higher officer writing "colonel N_____ ignored order No. XXX, and there should be no negative consequence"
--- or anything similar.

An assertion from a secondary source re-stating your assertion is *not* what I am looking for here.

I am asking because in the Russian army this was *not* the case – division commanders would inquire about the exact application of insturctions for painting drumsticks, colonels would hide men not uniformed per regulation *due to campaign necessity* when visited by other officers, army level commanders and regional military general-governors wrote to ask questions about the exact method of application of the wear out term for headgear, and so on.

Brechtel19804 Aug 2017 10:15 a.m. PST

The Grande Armee was not the Russian Army.

Regulations are for the guidance of the commander, unless, like too many Russian commanders, they were pedantic and went by the regulations to the nth degree.

First, the first time there were uniform regulations for the entire French Army, was the Bardin regulations of 1812. And these were not put into effect probably until 1813.

Second, French regimental commanders routinely ignored the uniform regulations as to various parts of the uniform-plumes, epaulets for non-elite companies, bearskins, facing colors, the uniforms for heads of column, etc. For example, even after bearskins for line grenadiers and light infantry carabiniers were abolished, the 46th Ligne kept theirs through 1814. There are also primary source paintings showing voltigeur officers in colpacks in 1813, after they were proscribed. The original collar color for voltigeurs was 'buff' which later mutated into bright yellow.

Third, What the troops were supposed to wear, and what they actually did wear, were two entirely different things. And the farther they were from the Emperor, the more the regultions were ignored.

If you want first-hand comments on the subject, I suggest that you look them up of you don't agree with what I have posted. The traditions of the Grande Armee were developed from the old Royal Army and from the wars of the Revolution. The Grande Armee's commanders were independent-minded soldiers and regulations were often ignored completely.

Davout is recorded, for example (in Coignet's memoir) of 'suggesting' to Coignet because he did not meet the height requirement for the Guard, to put cards in his shoes to make him taller when measured. He made the cut.

Napoleon insisted on the new regulations in 1812 because the regimental commanders were getting out of hand with their regimants' uniforms, especially the heads of column.

It's an interesting topic, but it is fact and is brought up in both primary and secondary source material. In point of fact, it is nothing new.

von Winterfeldt04 Aug 2017 10:39 a.m. PST

why should a colonel ignore an instruction about an item of equipment, in case of an innocent bricole? again a smoke screen and last ditch effort (as usual).

von Winterfeldt04 Aug 2017 10:42 a.m. PST

Actually the re-enactment group did a very good research, they had to be congratulated – and proove our artillery expert wrong in all cases, well done.

Brechtel19804 Aug 2017 1:26 p.m. PST

Thank you very much for the compliment, but I have never claimed to be an expert.

A regimental, or for artillery a company or battery commander might or would ignore a new 'order' for a new piece of equipment because he might find it not to be as useful or utilitarian as the older piece.

So, again, I'll stick with the artillery references that I have used often, such as Tousard and Gassendi as well as others, unless something definitive comes along.

Le Breton04 Aug 2017 2:57 p.m. PST

"French regimental commanders routinely ignored 'proclamations' from the War Ministry"
"Regulations are for the guidance of the commander"
Repetitive.You just re-stated your own assertion. I think we understnad what your are asserting. My question was about the historical basis for your assertion.

==================

"the first time there were uniform regulations for the entire French Army, was the Bardin regulations of 1812."
Untrue. I assume you not considering the ancien régime. But still, for examples, there were, to cite some highlights ….
--- Loi du 26 fruct. VII : Establissement des masses d'habilement et d'entrtien des troupes des toutes armes
--- Arrêté du 9 therm. VIII : Création et fonctions du directoire d'habillement (in the Ministry of War Administration)
--- Arrêté du 23 fruct. VIII : Novelle fixation de la masse d'entretien laquelle a dû être payée au complet des corps
--- Arrêté du 4 brum. X : Fixation définitive du prix, des formes et dimentions de tous les effets de grand et petits équipement, ainsi que du harnachement, des troupes de toutes armes
--- Arrêté du 17 frim. XI : Masse générale et durée de chaque fourniture
--- The 1806 regulations were actually much longer, larger and more detailed than the 1812 ones, something like 90 pages long.

==================

"after bearskins for line grenadiers and light infantry carabiniers were abolished, the 46th Ligne kept theirs through 1814"
Irrelevant. This does nothing to indicate a willful or disobedient colonel. I suppose a review the headgear regulations is appropriate ….

Décret de 25 fév. 1806 : was the first general order establishig the shako for line infantry, but did not address grenadiers or carabiniers : "Starting with new replacements [for out of term prior issues] in 1807, the shako will be the headgear for line infantry."

Circulaire du ministre-directeur de l'administration de la guerre du 27 mar. 1806 : gives the description of the schako, but does not mention grenadiers or carabiniers :

picture

Several manuals of administration of the era 1807 through 1810 continue to show the bearskin for grendiers and carabiniers. See for example "Etat actuel de la legislation sur l'administration des troupes" edition of 1808, page 253.

Shakos were first generally issued to grenadiers and carabiners among the "grenadiers d'Oudinot" in 1809 (Moniteur de l'armee, No. 9, 1868, page 9)

First mentions in regulations of shako's for grenadier and carabiniers :
--- Circulaire du ministre-directeur de l'administration de la guerre du 9 nov. 1810, art 3 "[houpettes] rouges pour les grenadiers et carabiniers"
--- Circulaire du ministre-directeur de l'administration de la guerre du 21 fev. 1811, art 5 "The grenadiers, the carabiniers and the canoneers of the company of regimental artillery will have like the foot artillery and the engineers, a grenade on the plaques of their shakos below the number"
However, there was no fixed date requiring change-over in purchasing. As a practical matter, the shako had 2/3 of the wear out term of the bearskin, and cost less than half as much.

Décret du 19 jan. 1812, art. 1, sec. 27 : "The form and the dimensions of shakos wil be as separately determined by our war minister. The grenadiers and carbiniers, in place of the bearskins that thet had until now, will wear shakos 15 mm taller than those of fusiliers, ornamented with a red aigrette."
These are the "Bardin" regulations meant to apply after wear out dates in 1813 and later.

So, a colonel following strictly to regulations would have authorized buying bearskins through 1810! And with 6 year wear out term, that would have covered to 1816! As a practical matter, and for cost savings, and following the lead of the "grenadiers réunis", most regiments started buying shakos for the grenadiers and carabiniers in 1809 and 1810, which lead to the circular noted above in late 1810, whose preamble declares it is being issued because the regiments are too-often buying non-uniform shakos because prior regulations were insufficienly detailed.

A very detailed overview (unit by unit, with an exceptional survey of period iconography and museum samples) of the French army headgear is found in
Aigles et Shakos du Prémier Empire
Christian Blondieau
Paris : Argout, 1980

==================

"If you want first-hand comments on the subject, I suggest that you look them up of you don't agree with what I have posted"
So, you have none. I asked if you had any first-hand information to back up your assertion. You suggest I look for it. I think we can conclude that you have nothing at all to offer as examples.

==================

"Napoleon insisted on the new regulations in 1812 because the regimental commanders were getting out of hand with their regimants' uniforms, especially the heads of column"
Same issue.Can you provide any contemporary source material indicating that this was his reasoning, such as a passage from the Correspondence? Or is this just again your own personal opinion and assertion?
The Décret du 9 jan. 1812 has no preamble or explanation. One could easily consider reduced cost, greater commonality of pieces of uniform between units and shorter production lead times as the motivating factors.

Le Breton04 Aug 2017 3:16 p.m. PST

By the way, the supposed example of Davout and Coignet's height is not "ignoring" regulations, it is at most gaming them, or working them to advantage.
If it ever happened at all.

If the story is true, even such an important officer as Davout understood that the details of the regulations could not be ignored, but since the measurments were with shoes, and height conferred by the shoe was not regulated, one could increase the "benefit" of the shoe.

Le Breton04 Aug 2017 3:25 p.m. PST

"Russian commanders, they were pedantic and went by the regulations to the nth degree"

Maybe. But they were also personally financially responsible for any errors in uniforms, equipment, payments, etc. As most were quite poor, especially in cash money, an error could easily lead to bankruptcy for the family and loss of noble status and family home, and internal exile at hard labor in the Urals or SIberia to pay off any remaining balance.

Osage201704 Aug 2017 4:49 p.m. PST

dear Le Breton, would you please post such info on the Russian heavy companies (12pdrs) ? This is extremely detailed. I love it.

……………………………………………..
you wrote:

6-lber gun and 1/4-pud unicorn Экипаж (Ekipazh, Team) for foot artillery
--- Фейерверкеръ (Feyerverker, Gunnery Sergeant) [Фельдфебель (Fel'dfebel', Sergent Major) for the 1st piece in the artillery company]
(commanded and aimed the piece)
No. 1 Канониръ (Kanonir, Gunnery Lance Corporal) with rammer
No. 2 Гандлангеръ (Gandlanger, Artilleryman) with munitions bag
No. 3 Бомбардиръ (Bombardir, Gunnery Corporal) with match
No. 4 Бомбардиръ (Bombardir, Gunnery Corporal) with pricker and primer cartouche
No. 5 Канониръ (Kanonir, Gunnery Lance Corporal) with spare match
No. 6 Канониръ (Kanonir, Gunnery Lance Corporal) with spare primer cartoche
No. 7 Бомбардиръ (Bombardir, Gunnery Corporal) with handspike
No. 8 Гандлангеръ (Gandlanger, Artilleryman) with munitions bag
(the crew stood on either side of the piece from front to rear, with the odd numbers on the right and the even on the left – No. 8 stepping up to repace No. 2 after each shot)
--- Юнкеръ (Yunker, Officer Aspirant NCO)
(commanded movement/transport and ammunition supply)
No. 9 Гандлангеръ (Gandlanger, Artilleryman) with limber at front
No. 10 Гандлангеръ (Gandlanger, Artilleryman) with limber at axle
No. 11 Гандлангеръ (Gandlanger, Artilleryman) with 1st caisson
No. 12 Гандлангеръ (Gandlanger, Artilleryman) with 2nd caisson

Le Breton04 Aug 2017 6:46 p.m. PST

In Russian battery artillery companies (very similar to the light companies) ….

2x identical pieces form a Взводъ (Vzvod, Platoon) under the command of an officer : captain, lieutenant or sub-lieutenant, with :
--- Канониръ (Kanonir, Gunnery Lance Corporal)
--- Гандлангеръ (Gandlanger, Artilleryman) and Фурлейтъ (Furleyt, Driver) with artillery cart for tools and equipment
--- Гандлангеръ (Gandlanger, Artilleryman) and Фурлейтъ (Furleyt, Driver) with provisions cart
--- 6x Гандлангеръ (Gandlanger, Artilleryman) reserve, for construction of emplacements
--- 1x or 2x Денщикъ (Denshchik, Batman) officer's personal servant (2 for a captain, 1 for a lieutenant or sub-lieutenant)

12-lber gun and 1/2-pud unicorn Экипаж (Ekipazh, Team)
--- Фейерверкеръ (Feyerverker, Gunnery Sergeant) [Фельдфебель (Fel'dfebel', Sergent Major) for the 1st piece in the artillery company]
(commanded and aimed the piece)
No. 1 Канониръ (Kanonir, Gunnery Lance Corporal) with rammer
No. 2 Гандлангеръ (Gandlanger, Artilleryman) with munitions bag
No. 3 Бомбардиръ (Bombardir, Gunnery Corporal) with match
No. 4 Бомбардиръ (Bombardir, Gunnery Corporal) with pricker and primer cartouche
No. 5 Канониръ (Kanonir, Gunnery Lance Corporal) with spare match
No. 6 Канониръ (Kanonir, Gunnery Lance Corporal) with spare primer cartoche
No. 7 Бомбардиръ (Bombardir, Gunnery Corporal) with handspike
No. 8 Бомбардиръ (Bombardir, Gunnery Corporal) with handspike
No. 9 Гандлангеръ (Gandlanger, Artilleryman) with munitions bag
(the No. 1 through No. 8 stood on either side of the piece from front to rear, with the odd numbers on the right and the even on the left – No. 9 stepping up to repace No. 2 after each shot)
--- Юнкеръ (Yunker, Officer Aspirant NCO)
(commanded movement/transport and ammunition supply)
No. 10 Гандлангеръ (Gandlanger, Artilleryman) with limber at front
No. 11 Гандлангеръ (Gandlanger, Artilleryman) with limber at axle
No. 12 Гандлангеръ (Gandlanger, Artilleryman) with limber at axle
No. 13 Гандлангеръ (Gandlanger, Artilleryman) with 1st caisson
No. 14 Гандлангеръ (Gandlanger, Artilleryman) with 2nd caisson
No. 15 Гандлангеръ (Gandlanger, Artilleryman) with 3rd caisson

12-lber gun rounds :
--- 2 rounds in the box on the carriage (for "emergencies")
--- 4 rounds in the box on the limber
--- 40 rounds in each of 3 caissons
total : 126 rounds

1/2-pud unicorn rounds :
--- 2 rounds in the box on the limber
--- 40 rounds in each of 3 caissons
total : 122 rounds

42flanker04 Aug 2017 9:42 p.m. PST

Breton, merci beaucoup

Osage201705 Aug 2017 12:10 p.m. PST

Le Breton (and Oliver Schmidt) thank you for the detailed, fascinating info on the Russian and Prussian artillery.

Thanks !
Thanks !
Thanks !

Have a nice weekend.

Nine pound round05 Aug 2017 3:15 p.m. PST

Le Breton, curious about a very minor point of translation. I see that you have rendered the Russian "ekipaz" as "team." I am used to seeing it translated in the nautical context as "crew," and based on what little I know on the subject, I have always thought that the word was imported into Russian from the French "equipage," which could be used to describe either an individual ship's crew, or an administrative unit that provided the personnel for a set of ships- a system that was common to both countries. Virtually all French dictionaries translate "equipage" as crew, and "equipe" as "team." How does this work in Russian?

Very pedantic, I know, just curious-

Le Breton05 Aug 2017 6:11 p.m. PST

Well, "gun crew" is maybe better.
Please forgive my poor English. I was raised by wolves, and there were very few classes in English grammar, syntax and usage in the forest.

Russian экипаж was indeed a French "import".
Just about anything in Russian with an "э" in it is an import, from somewhere.

But what to use for "team" or "crew" really boils down to idiomatic usages.

Russian words for "team" : команда; бригада (рабочих); артель; группа; упряжка (лошадей, волов); запряжка; экипаж; боевой расчёт; коллектив; компания
800+ Military Terms with "team" in English translated to Russian:
link

Russian words for "crew" : команда; экипаж; бригада; бригада или артель (рабочих); компания; команда; прислуга; расчёт
300+ Military Terms with "crew" in English translated to Russian:
link

You will note that we now have :
артиллерийский расчёт = artillery crew
орудийный расчёт = gun crew
But these are modernisms – post revolution. The original meaning of "расчётъ" (with a "hard sign") was only "calculation", not "team" or "crew". Actually "расчётъ" for "calculation" is a kind of contracted compound noun something like "stock+count" that appeared only in the mid 1800's.
In the era Napoléon and Aleksandr, the word for a gun team or crew was "экипаж".

By the way, in French, "équipage" for crew (such as of a ship) dates to the beginning of modern French, and there is "ecupage" as far back as the early 1400's.

The case of "équipe" is odder. There is an isolate reference in 1469 : "equippe" : "groupe de personnes pratiquant un même sport", and then nothing (!) until 1864 when we have "équipe" : "groupe de personnes unies dans une tâche commune", and it only comes into general usage for sports team around 1900. The word seems to have not been used in the era of Napoléon and Aleksandr.

Le Breton05 Aug 2017 8:43 p.m. PST

I forgot to add : for "team" as in sports team as in French "équipe", the modern Russian would be "команда" / komanda / command. And "sports team" would be "спортивная команда" / sportivnaya komanda.

Hurrah Zenit Saint-Petersburg !!!

Winston Smith Supporting Member of TMP06 Aug 2017 6:22 a.m. PST

Bricoles are back!
And a DH from Napoleonic Discussion!
Ah, the Goode Olde Days are back.
Not that they ever left.
The usual suspects are as good at entrenched positions as ever.

Big Red Supporting Member of TMP06 Aug 2017 7:01 a.m. PST

Bricoles and the DH. Cozy and familiar ground.

Pages: 1 2