"Russian Artillery - improvements in aiming?" Topic

at ranges up to about 600 meters, you just aimed by the "line of metal" (the top line of the barrel). And that was the vast majority of firing.

It should be noted that the line of metal and the line of the bore were not parallel which was why sights were developed.

Brechtel198 wrote:

And, no, the Arakcheev System did not include all the aspects of the French artillery arm. Education, tactics, organization, command and control were deficient as has been shown on this thread and before.

What was wrong with education? Most Russian artillery company commanders, who fought in 1805-1814, graduated from either the Artillery Cadet Corps or the Land Cadet Corps in 1780s-1790s. How many French artillery company commanders had got any special military education?

The Russians didn't abolish regimental artillery until 1813.

There were regimental artillery in many French line infantry regiments in 1811-1812 (four 4prs per regiment). The Russians abolished regimental artillery after the 1807 campaign, it was reintroduced by Kutuzov in the Tarutino camp (after Borodino, four 6pdrs to each infantry or grenadier regiment) in his army only (there were no regimental artillery in other Russian armies), and abolished again in the beginning of the 1813 campaign.

That diluted the number of guns that could be massed against the French. The Russians also did not have a howitzer-the licorne certainly was not a howitzer and that has been shown also.

The howitzer also had its disadvantages comparing to the unicorn. The cannister fire was effective at short ranges only because of short barrel and small powder charge. The unicorn was much more effective in firing cannister at ranges more than 300 meters, almost as effective as the cannon from the same company. To fire shells at long ranges, the French elevated their howitzers at a high angle, and some Russian officers noted that many French shells harmlessly exploded high in the air. The unicorn could fire a shell at a long range with only a slight elevation, almost by the same trajectory as the cannon fire a ball.

The bottom line here is that the French, Austrian, and British artillery systems were more advanced than that of the Russians and that was clearly demonstrated in combat.

The Austrian artillery system was better than the Russian one? The barrels were even shorter than those in the Russian artillery, but in the same time they were heavier, the shot of the same "caliber" was lighter, while the windage was larger. Where did the Austrian artillery demonstrated its superiority in combat?

Thank you for your patience in explaining things to me.

at ranges up to about 600 meters, you just aimed by the "line of metal" (the top line of the barrel). And that was the vast majority of firing.

It should be noted that the line of metal and the line of the bore were not parallel which was why sights were developed.

You don't *want* your line of sight to be parallel to the bore, you won't hit anything.

Granted, it's not a big difference in modern firearms, but it IS a difference.

Story time: my old Romanian PSL, which is basically an AK but chambered for Moisin-Nagant ammo instead of the lighter AK round, was very accurate with the issue scope and iron sights. But when I tried to mount a different scope on a quick-detach mount (like what the issue scope used), I was hugely off. I'm talking hitting 20+" low at 100yards, with the scope out of adjustment to bring the point of impact up. I bought a second QD mount, it was also off! The mounting rail must be different compared to the spec the mounts were built to!

I groaned, then sat down to do some math to see how much I needed to shim the scope mount. Came out to a 0.032" shim under the rear screw (3" behind the front screw) to correct for the off-target and get my scope back close to the center of it's adjustment range.

With round ball projectiles, you're looking at much bigger 'rainbow' trajectories, where you'd need to point the bore well above the target to hit it.

@Lion

As a matter of interest – at what range was the battle sight set?

The gun tubes were in the shape of a truncated cone, and with no sights or adjustments during firing, called ranging rounds, you're not going to hit the target either. The line of sight down the line of metal of the gun tube crosses at some point (from which the point blank of the piece can be determined) but the gun tube cannot line up correctly on the target unless there is a fixed front sight and an adjustable sight on the breech. That was the point of the exercise-to make firing more accurate.

The licorne was not a howitzer as it was too long. It could not be elevated to the same level as a howitzer. In today's artillery 'parlance' the licorne was a gun-howitzer.

@Stoppage: Iron sight set to 200m printed on-target at the 20m battle-sight target. Crappy grouping due to the loose nut behind the buttplate ( ), but on target.

Was a very good rifle, using the issue scope I printed a 10-shot group that was one ragged hole with two called fliers at 100yards.

My SVT-40 isn't as good, but I suck shooting iron sights and need to get a good scope for her.

==========
If you look at the ladder or volley sights on the old black-powder rifles (like a Trapdoor Springfield or a Martini-Henry), you can see how much you need to elevate your bore to get hits at long range. It's pretty impressive. Those old-timers were extremely good range estimators.

Brechtel198 wrote:

The licorne was not a howitzer as it was too long. It could not be elevated to the same level as a howitzer. In today's artillery 'parlance' the licorne was a gun-howitzer.

Napoleon said:

The howitzer is very useful for setting a village on fire, to bomb a redoubt, but its shots are uncertain; in an ordinary case it is not only worth two 6pdr guns, not worth even one.

Under the «ordinary case» Napoleon obviously meant firing at the enemy in the open terrain.

Napoléon "Dix-huit notes sur l'ouvrage intitulé: Considérations sur l'art de la guerre." // Correspondance de Napoléon Ier. Paris, t. 31, 1869, p. 392.

The unicorn was more effective than the howitzer in the «ordinary case», was as effective in either setting villages on fire or in demolishing field fortifications, and was less effective only in firing shells at a high trajectory, that is in throwing shells into field fortifications, and in firing at the enemy troops positioned behind high obstactes or in deep ravines.
After the Napoleonic wars some French officers proposed to adopt a gun-howitzer in addition to the howitzer.

The unicorn was more effective than the howitzer in the «ordinary case», was as effective in either setting villages on fire or in demolishing field fortifications, and was less effective only in firing shells at a high trajectory, that is in throwing shells into field fortifications, and in firing at the enemy troops positioned behind high obstactes or in deep ravines.
After the Napoleonic wars some French officers proposed to adopt a gun-howitzer in addition to the howitzer.

You can see the evolution of that in today's military, where you have infantry mortars for that really high-angle fire, 155mm guns, and the occasional 203mm howitzer still in service.

Granted, pretty major shift in tactics from Napoleon's time.

@Lion – 200m iron-sights. I didn't realise this was a sniper rifle, usually, fitted with a scope. The Moisin-Nagant 7.62x54mm – totally interesting – machine-gun round. The Wiki page shows some versatile applications.

Thx – learned a lot new today!

Meanwhile – back to Napoleonics.

Is a direct comparison between a French obusier/howitzer and the Russian licorne/gun-howitzer really necessary?

Both are used for different purposes. The French for fighting in Yurp – rolling terrain complete with walled cities and Vauban-traced fortifications. The Russian whose main fighting terrain is generally open with the odd timber building.

I would like to know which was better at chucking-out canister. I've always imagined that the obusier -with very short barrel and reduced chamber diameter – would be very quick to load in urgent situations.

The mortar is an infantry weapon and the 155mm towed howitzer as well as the self-propelled 15mm howitzer are both capable of high-angle fire as they are gun-howitzers. The US no longer uses the 8-inch.

le Grande Quartier General wrote:

I would like to know which was better at chucking-out canister. I've always imagined that the obusier -with very short barrel and reduced chamber diameter – would be very quick to load in urgent situations.

The loading of the French howitzer, as that of any other howitzer, required two steps: first, it was necessary to put the powder charge into the chamber, it was done by the artilleryman's arm protected by a special glove, and only then to put the projectile into the barrel. The loading of the Russian unicorn required only one step, since there were ready rounds of ammunition containing the powder charge and the projectile.

The howitzer's cannister fire was effective at short ranges only because of relatively short barrel and small powder charge. Russian 1807 cannister test results show that the unicorn was much more effective in firing cannister at ranges more than 300 meters, almost as effective as the cannon from the same company, that is, the 1/2 pud unicorn was almost as effective as the medium 12pdr gun, the 1/4 pud unicorn – as the 6pdr gun).

Prussian cannister test results show that the Prussian 10pdr howitzer was less effective in firing cannister than the Prussian 12pdr gun, the Prussian 7pdr howitzer – than the Prussian 6pdr gun.
The 1/2 pud unicorn was more effective in firing cannister than the Prussian 10pdr howitzer, the 1/4 pud unicorn – than the Prussian 7pdr howitzer.
The new French long 6-inch howitzer adopted in 1795 was similar to the Prussian 10pdr howitzer, the caliber of the new French 5.5-inch howitzer adopted in 1803 was almost the same as that of the Prussian 7dpr howitzer.

@Zed:

Thanks for the info – it changes my understanding.

The "obusier-barrelled" howitzers (ie short barrel) were found to project canister out to 300m. Their two-pieces ammunition could be slower to load than the one-piece cannon ammunition.

This could mean that they could engage the enemy at range with shell/grenades, then they could be withdrawn and retained as a reserve, and then used close-range defence (with canister) if necessary.

The licorn/unicorn/gun-howitzer had canister charactistics similar to those of the guns of equivalent size, could project ball rounds, and also fire shells/grenades.

Interesting to think which type you'd want when out on the steppes!

Stoppage wrote:

The licorn/unicorn/gun-howitzer had canister charactistics similar to those of the guns of equivalent size, could project ball rounds, and also fire shells/grenades.

While the unicorn could fire cannonballs, there were no cannonballs in the ammunition caissons attached to the unicorns, except those attached to the 3pdr unicorns, but this unicorn fell out of use after 1808. The 1/4 pud unicorn could fire 12pdr balls, but there were no 12pdr guns in the light and horse artillery companies, which consisted of 1/4 pud unicorns and 6pdr guns. The caliber of the 1/2 pud unicorn was much larger than that of the 1/4 pud unicorn, there were no suitable balls in the field artillery.

@Zed

So no round-shot for the unicorn – only canister and grenades sent out on low-arc – the latter would be like a light-weight solid-shot with bang! finish.

@Stoppage, more 'designated marksman' in use than a sniper rifle, though that's more a matter of operator training and doctrine than weapon capability. If you can find one, a PSL is pretty fun to shoot. A bit pricey, but considering you're basically getting a 4x IOR scope for free it's not unreasonable.

The mortar is an infantry weapon and the 155mm towed howitzer as well as the self-propelled 15mm howitzer are both capable of high-angle fire as they are gun-howitzers. The US no longer uses the 8-inch.

Depends on your nation. The French have 120mm mortars in their artillery units, in addition to 155s. And the 155s are built for high-angle fire to get longer range more than dropping shells near-vertically like mortars do.

A pretty significant number of nations still use a 203mm (either towed M115 or SP M110 for US-supplied, SP 2S7 Pion or towed B-4 for Soviet-supplied), though the US has stopped.

Anyway, back to the guns of Napoleon!

One aspect of artillery accuracy, and a critical one, seems to have been overlooked in this discussion:

WINDAGE

The French had the tightest windage on their guns among all Napoleonic warring nations. They also had the longest barrels on their guns. And of course windage is a measure of the diameter of the bore of the gun vs the size of shot coming out of it.

I don't care what kind of sight you put on a gun. If the windage is so great that the shot is rattling around in the barrel on its way to the muzzle, its flight will be quite unpredictable.

Russian guns had relatively shorter barrels and considerably greater windage, not to mention inconsistent and often crappy powder.

This is why French artillery dominated.

You are absolutely correct on windage.

And Gribeauval's design and production standards were such that the 'three calibers' (4-, 8-, 12-pounders) all had the same windage.

And the ammunition had the same standards and was tested for size and shape after being produced.

@widowson

Bold Claim!!

How do interior ballistics lead to total battlefield domination?

This claim neglects other factors – training, employment, tactics, strategic consumption, blah blah.

I call you out Sir!