"Artillery trains" Topic

During the AWI, were both sides still using civilian drivers for their guns. I know Rhode Island had an artillery train, but did that mean the drivers stayed with the guns during action?

I know that during the Napoleonic wars the Spanish still used civilians early on, so that once the guns were placed, they didn't move except by hand.

I haven't found anything on this in my, admittedly limited, searches. I'm curious if guns were redeployed other than by hand during the AWI.

Here's some useful info on the tactical limitations of AWI-era artillery once deployed (under the Tactical Considerations and Personnel sections) -

link

I'd be careful of that site…just a cursory review yields the following:

"Artillery could fire up to 4 times per minute moving and faster when stationary" Moving?…moving where and how. The artillery in most AWI actions was fairly stationary, unless they were 3lb or 4lb.

"a common tactic was to deploy the guns to the flanks of the intended battlefield"…well no not really that common…most guns tended to be deployed in the center of the lines…Monmouth would be an example of artillery deployed on the flanks but that was a rather unique situation.

'

I'd be careful of that site…just a cursory review yields the following:

"Artillery could fire up to 4 times per minute moving and faster when stationary" Moving?…moving where and how. The artillery in most AWI actions was fairly stationary, unless they were 3lb or 4lb.

"a common tactic was to deploy the guns to the flanks of the intended battlefield"…well no not really that common…most guns tended to be deployed in the center of the lines…Monmouth would be an example of artillery deployed on the flanks but that was a rather unique situation.

'AmericanRevolution.ORG'? He's having a laugh, surely

This is fun:

"In theory, when the shell struck the target, the powder inside would be thrown about sufficiently to generate friction against the inside of the shell, in turn generating heat and thereby igniting."

So there you have it. I always wondered…

I think the site gives useful information on the questions the poster inquired about anyway, so what.

There is not a lot of info to go on this. IIRC, the Second battalion Lights shot the horses that had been pulling their support artillery at Germantown so they would be immobile when captured by the Americans. Point being, the horses and handlers had to be close by.

I'd have to look what happened to the artillery/limbers at Saratga, or if there is even a mention of horses and contractors.

Thanks for the input. I'll have alook.

FlyX wire- the question is at what point does a site that writes such nonsense as quote above become reliable. That's what.

I could quote other examples of his ignorance but it may only irritate you further.

I believe it's up to each member's own judgement here to discern a website's validity, or some author's relevance.

As Dn Jackson has stated above, he'll give it alook -

So nothing irritating about that now is there.

So back to the original questions:

"…did that mean the drivers stayed with the guns during action?"

Based on the Germantown incident, one could assume they were close at hand, but not up on the ling. IIRC, only one horse was used for 3s and 6s – depending on the gun carriage. Point being, they would not move all that fast.

"I know that during the Napoleonic wars the Spanish still used civilians early on, so that once the guns were placed, they didn't move except by hand."

Most wargames model the fact pretty well that guns during this period were not very effective for the attacking force (think Brandywine – the Brit guns had little room to delploy and could not keep up, nor get clear lanes of fire). They also seemed more vulnerable to infantry fire (Saratoga and the Brit gun casualties). Counter battery fire was less than effective as well (Monmouth). Likely their greatest value was in defense.

"I haven't found anything on this in my, admittedly limited, searches. I'm curious if guns were redeployed other than by hand during the AWI."

See above period challenges. The guns were fairly immobile. Had limited range and accuracy.

You can see the civilian driver, mounted on horseback with a whip. The arrangement of horses pulling this (12lbs?) gun appear to be one horse directly in front of the limber and two teams of two in front.

Curtis says that "… field guns appearing at the Woolrich reivew (1798) were drawn by horses in single file and driven by ploughmen on foot wearing smock frocks and armed with long whips.

I know I just read that smaller guns were allotted fewer horses, but Curtis says that in Burgoyne's army 6's were drawn by four horses and 3's drawn by 3 horses.

A lot would depend on the type of carriage the gun was mounted on as well.

The South Carolina artillery used artillerymen as drivers during the war.

This practice would later be adopted by the United States Army before and during the War of 1812. This was the only army that used artillerymen as drivers during the period.

While the European armies had militarized their artillery drivers during the period, they were part of a different organization, the artillery train, and were not artillerymen.

The crown drivers were contractors to the contractors.

Historygamer, it appear to me that there are three pairs of horses on that gun, with two drivers on foot (each with a wip) and a mounted 'supervisor". The wip that appears to be with the mounted figure actually is over the shoulder of the wheel driver and then there is a lead driver with the first team.

I believe it's up to each member's own judgement here to discern a website's validity, or some author's relevance.

As Dn Jackson has stated above, he'll give it alook -

So nothing irritating about that now is there.

FlyXwire, Indeed. Members might make a judgement on a website- or any number of propositions. And then, you know, discuss. As on a forum.

Anyway, that's enough sarcasm for now. As the man said, back to the original question.

I believe you are absolutely correct, AICUSV. I was focusing more on the horse arrangements given the quote in Curtis as the painting doesn't support what Curtis said.

You can see the civilian driver, mounted on horseback with a whip. The arrangement of horses pulling this (12lbs?) gun appear to be one horse directly in front of the limber and two teams of two in front.

Curtis says that "… field guns appearing at the Woolrich reivew (1798) were drawn by horses in single file and driven by ploughmen on foot wearing smock frocks and armed with long whips."

Unfortunately I cannot see the image posted, but horse teams hauling in tandem or line ahead was standard British practice which, in some quarters, was still in use after 1800.

Google "Warley Camps"

I find it interesting Kevin that a regiment which was raised primarily to man the guns of forts defending SC's harbors, and that spent most of its time doing that, would have had its own drivers for those occasions when elements saw service as field artillery. Was there any particular reason why SC went that route when units actually raised to be used as field artillery did not?

I have no idea, I just found a source that stated that they did. I found it interesting along with the US Army being the only artillery arm of the Napoleonic period that used artillerymen instead of train troops as artillery drivers/conductors.

See Military Uniforms in America Volume I, produced by the
Company of Military Historians, edited by John Elting.

'Warley Camp: The Review'[1778] (Philip de Loutherbourg,1780 )

link