monongahela | 03 May 2020 6:22 p.m. PST |
I am looking for advice / wondering if there are any articles on the use of cannons on the wargame table. I seldom wargame in the musket period, and when I have, I found cannons to be mostly useless. Surely this is somewhat a failure of my tactical use or understanding of them. But perhaps some rules don't model them well? Some of the issues identified; 1. The short range these weapons have, as portrayed, in the rules. Seems the infantry can quickly move out past supporting range, and the enemy to avoid their fire. 2. Not being able to use them close to your own infantry. End up with a very wide corridor through my own lines or, 3. Stuck way out on a flank where #1 comes back into play and the guns end up just sitting there. 4. Low movement allowance. Guns end up out of action for the game because they just can't be moved quickly enough to get into the fight. Especially where a poor initial deployment is the cause. Any rules that do a better job than some others of modeling the use of cannons? |
GROSSMAN | 03 May 2020 9:23 p.m. PST |
Cannons are far from useless, they are just hard to position to take advantage of their strength. You are not alone, a good 1/3 of gamers are at a loss to employ them correctly. |
Bunkermeister | 03 May 2020 10:29 p.m. PST |
People over estimate the length of time it takes for a horse drawn artillery battery to move into position and open fire. In this video, over 100 years old, British artillery move into position and are ready to fire in about 70 seconds. Then move the horses back and move away in another 50 seconds or so. YouTube link Mike Bunkermeister Creek Bunker Talk blog |
C M DODSON | 03 May 2020 11:42 p.m. PST |
That film is fantastic. It also shows how much space the units took up. Something generally ignored in war games in my opinion. Best wishes, Chris |
Major Function | 04 May 2020 2:11 a.m. PST |
Mono,I agree with you, artillery firing distances are to short. If you read the article in the link it says according to Gassendi's artillery manual the effective range for 8pdr cannon it is 800m. You have to factor in the ground scale that your rule set uses, for example 1mm equals 1m so a medium artillery battery would be able to hit something at 800mm or 31 inches. But the maximum range for the same scale would be 54 inches. How many rules reflect this? link
|
AussieAndy | 04 May 2020 2:18 a.m. PST |
That is amazing footage. Thank you very much for sharing it. |
Nine pound round | 04 May 2020 5:17 a.m. PST |
Surprised this thread hasn't gone ballistic yet…….what rules do you use? |
Garde de Paris | 04 May 2020 5:25 a.m. PST |
In games I have attended, the firing range for infantry is far too great. I prefer (1) the Peninsular War; and (2) the 7 Years War, where effective musket range would be 100 yards. A "typical" 1:20 battalion of these eras would occupy 100 yards in line. My 28mm Napoleonic French, deployed 3 deep in individual stands occupy 8 inches of frontage (about 100 yards). My 8 pdr 8-gun batteries are mounted as one gun figure with two men on a two inch base, and also occupy 100 yards, or 8 inches. 8 pdrs had an effective range of 400 yards for grape/cannister – 32 inches. We never game that way. We also give the infantry far too great a range. Also, we allow two or more battalions to fire in line on one enemy battalion, which would have been impossible unless it was just two attacking battalions catching an independent defending battalion totally alone. Otherwise, the attackers must face the defender, exposing their flanks to other defending units. Infantry in more than one line deep should be required to fire straight ahead. Otherwise, they would have the 2nd and third actual soldiers banging the heads of those ahead of them. We game. We do not simulate reality GdeP |
Big Red | 04 May 2020 5:43 a.m. PST |
If I may ask, what rules have you been using? Artillery must have been worth something if Napoleon said that God fights on the side with the best artillery. Artillery was particularly effective on defense – a little canister in the face was often enough to make a unit stop and wonder if this was such a good idea. In the ACW artillery could decide the battle, for example: Malvern Hill, Fredericksburg and the repulse of Pickett's Charge were more or less decided by the guns. For offensive actions it was often required to proceed attacks with a bombardment – sometimes a long bombardment with lots of guns. In wargames, most players want to get right into the action and a preliminary bombardment over an extended period time is not always taken into account. Some rules, especially for games with a large scope, do allow for a pre-game bombardment phase that covers the results of an extended barrage without taking a large amount of game time. In Napoleonic battles, Horse Artillery could accompany Cavalry to give them some firepower but also to accompany infantry advances to provide a nice blast when required. The link provided by Major Function is a good guide to Napoleonic artillery. |
Sho Boki | 04 May 2020 6:06 a.m. PST |
In my rules Batteries are part of Units and may fire if Unit stands at beginning of turn. But they may be separated from Units to form Grand Batteries. Also Batteries may be fixed as Position Batteries in Field Fortifications and have then extra ammo. If Unit have guns less than needed to form Battery, then these are Regimental Guns and support Unit together with skirmishers. |
tabletopwargamer | 04 May 2020 7:07 a.m. PST |
Are you talking about using real cannons? |
tabletopwargamer | 04 May 2020 7:09 a.m. PST |
1. You cannot model ranges for artillery and small arms realisitically in a tabletop wargame unless you make small arms ranges virtually non existent. 2. See 1. |
Gunfreak | 04 May 2020 7:54 a.m. PST |
It depends on what type of games you play. If you play the "standard " of a division of infantry, a brigade of cavalry and a battery. Then artillery isn't going to be super effective. Unless you can position it so it basically covers the entire table. It will only deal with what is just in front of it. It's basically a "super battalion " it has a longer range and when firing canister does lots of damage. But that's it. There is a reason batteries often could divided into either half batteries or even "divisions" of 2 guns. It's better to have 2 cannon in support where they are needed. Than 8 guns placed were they are of no need. If you're talking about doing full battles, then you have dozes or even 100s of batteries and they will be essential to the battle. Whether it's to anker a defence or bombard the enemy before infantry/cavalry attack. Also 800m for an 8pdr sounds very short. The British 6pdr had a effective range of about 1000m, the 9pdr(equal to French 8pdr) had a range of some 1300meter. 12pdr ranges are given as as low as 1400 and as high as 1800. For reference 1000m would take like 15 minutes to cover for infantry. That would would be 270 rounds from a 6 gun 6pdr battery. 5ish of those minutes under canister fire or 90 rounds of canister. There is a reason it was seen as impossible to attack a full battery head on with infantry and even with cavalry it was dodgy at best. |
Garde de Paris | 04 May 2020 8:54 a.m. PST |
"Effective range" may be taking into account that one cannot see much in the way of target over 800 yards on the battlefield, even before the fighting starts. GdeP |
Trajanus | 04 May 2020 8:56 a.m. PST |
Goes back to the basic problem of not using realistic frontages for miniatures and not having realistic ranges either. While then trying to cram everything on a table top that's affordable and can be accommodated outside of a basketball court. The difficulty is then trying to balance the effect of a battery, over its frontage, compared to an Infantry Regiment/Battalion. Its tough to write rules that meet all circumstances as result. Artillery either chews everyone up, or would be hard put to stop a Company of mules. Plenty of Civil War examples of artillery cutting units to ribbons but also many others of them not being able to stop determined charges, particularly if attacked from more than one angle. Have a read of an accurate and detailed account of Longstreet's attack at Gettysburg and see how quickly batteries could be over run, if the circumstances were right. |
Allan F Mountford | 04 May 2020 9:32 a.m. PST |
An instructive observation from Clausewitz: 'Artillery fire is much more effective than that of infantry. A battery of eight six-pounders takes up less than one-third of the front taken up by an infantry battalion; it has less than one-eighth the men of a battalion, and yet its fire is two to three times as effective. On the other hand, artillery has the disadvantage of being less mobile than infantry. This is true, on the whole, even of the lightest horse-artillery, for it cannot, like infantry, be used in any kind of terrain. It is necessary, therefore, to direct the artillery from the start against the most important points, since it cannot, like infantry, concentrate against these points as the battle progresses. A large battery of 20 to 30 pieces usually decides the battle for that section where it is placed.' |
Garde de Paris | 04 May 2020 10:05 a.m. PST |
My memory was way off in my comments above. 12 infantry figures occupied 8 inches, probably 24 inches for an actual soldier. 240 men in line would cover 160 yards, not 100. I spent over 35 years working "on the road," away from home, and never was able to complete my version of a French Corp in Spain, nor an allied force, pulled together from various sources to stop them. My French 12-battalion divisions were to have one 8-gun battery of 8 pdrs; and a horse gun battery of 6 guns. They could be deployed with a 4-battalion brigade. left to right, 2-gun section able to turn and fire 45 Degrees right to 45 degrees left (2 actual guns would have occupied about 40 yards of ground, which allowed pass through if another unit came up on its left to extend the line. Next was a battalion in line occupying 160 yards – 8 inches. Then another 2-gun section, then another battalion, another 2-guns section, a third battalion and the last 2-gun section. A fourth battalion was available as a brigade reserve. 8 more battalions in each of 2 brigades, the horse battery, and an attached 4 squadrons of light cavalry were the rest of the Division. Musket range would have been 5 inches (100 yards) or 6 (120 yards). Firing only straight ahead unless the unit wheeled to face an enemy. Artillery free to turn and fire a total 90 degree arc. A single actual cannon would be in its own 20 yard wide space. Maximum effective canister/grape range would be 20 inches (400 yards), as much as 4 times as far as musket range. These 8 guns and 3 battalions would have occupied 32 inches in line, 28mm figures, Napoleonic. The group I gamed with once has a 25 foot board by 6 or 7 feet! Lot of room for 3 divisions with wide open flanks to protect. GdeP |
Dan Cyr | 04 May 2020 10:10 a.m. PST |
Just read of the struggles that both sides had at Gettysburg to find locations where artillery could deploy (both in LOS requirements and space). |
robert piepenbrink | 04 May 2020 11:09 a.m. PST |
The use of cannons on the wargame table is going to depend a lot on the rules, the precise period, and your ground scale. Try to fit Friedland, Wagram or Borodino on a 4x6 table, and your infantry firing range ought to shrink almost to zero--and since your turns will probably be half an hour of real time or more, you'll quickly march out of effective range. But artillery can be very hard to take by assault, and with the right command structure--and the right commander--can attack without much support. Stick to the period but fight Bladensburg or Talavera, and properly positioned guns can sweep the table, but you'll be commanding sections or at most batteries. Switch to ACW, and the increased infantry firing range means Senarmont tactics are out. Guns have to be supported, and are most formidable on the defensive or softening up a position for an assault. Sound advise for Napoleon's Battles just isn't much help if you're fighting Fire & Fury Regimental. |
grecian1959 | 04 May 2020 9:35 p.m. PST |
I have found all too often that unless there is a bombardment phase then units move on advance and block cannon fire from their own side . Unit foot prints can be hard to maintain so as to keep artillery lanes of fire open . I game now 28mm on a 9x5 table but this happened using 15mm too |
Trajanus | 05 May 2020 1:29 a.m. PST |
Just read of the struggles that both sides had at Gettysburg to find locations where artillery could deploy (both in LOS requirements and space). The Confederates were hard hit, they had over 30 Howitzers they couldn't use due to lack of fire positions and their short range. Some of these were supposed to support Pickett's Charge but Alexander refused to send them forward knowing the Union guns would shoot them to pieces before they came into action. |
Keef44 | 07 May 2020 3:09 p.m. PST |
Two great links there. Thanks Bunkermeister and Major Function. One thing I would say is that setting up a battery in a battle situation would be more difficult and time-consuming than a demo for the cameras. Finding the right piece of ground to get a good shot at the target (if you can actually find the target you've been assigned of course), assessing range, getting rounds on target, etc. You all know what I'm getting at. I'm working on some Napoleonic rules myself at the moment so this has been a very useful thread. For what it's worth my rules have field arty range 5 times infantry musket range. They also stipulate that a 6-8 gun battery should have at least half the frontage of an infantry battalion in line. |
AICUSV | 07 May 2020 10:06 p.m. PST |
Besides ranges other factors that should be considered is movement vs. effect rates. So you need to balance ground scales with time scales. If an infantry battalion is advancing against a battery, how long will the infantry be exposed to fire? During that time how many rounds can the guns get off? If the movement rate of the infantry is 12" per turn and the ground scale (using GdP's ratios) 1"=20 yards. An infantry unit would cross that distance in about 2 minutes (quick time) and a gun could get off 2 rounds during that time. Therefore a single game shot should reflect 2 actual shots. The last set of home rules I came up with handled this by not worrying about it. Nobody dies in these, combat (fire or melee) works on the units combat effectiveness. At a point when the unit's CE becomes too low it is with drawn. |
tsofian | 08 May 2020 1:05 p.m. PST |
I'm not sure I understand. If you use a cannon against your game table there won't be anything left but splinters! |
Bill N | 08 May 2020 2:32 p.m. PST |
The problem wargame rule designers face is how do you deal with artillery in a game where everything a player is setting up on one side of the table is in range of his opponents guns on the other side of the table, and where a typical single turn encompasses enough time to cover an entire attack. Do the designers allow the guns to slowly chew up the opponents who are not able because of the confines of the table to get out of range, or do they artificially restrict the range? Do they allow gun effectiveness to be determined by the distance between gun and opponent on the move at the end of the turn or do they determine effectiveness at some other arbitrary point in the turn? Do they assume the gunners are going to stay put and fire point blank or do they assume the gunners will bug out at some arbitrary point, with our without their guns? How will those decisions affect the enjoyability of the game? |
14Bore | 09 May 2020 4:01 p.m. PST |
Been happy with the way Empire runs artillery, and getting to my final plans of getting enough limbers for the artillery on the game board to help take up that space of a battery. |
Marc the plastics fan | 10 May 2020 1:22 a.m. PST |
Do you model terrain realistically as well? |
Rudysnelson | 11 May 2020 2:48 p.m. PST |
More for scenarios than rules. One issue that plagues convention games and even game days is the delay for marching on the board and deploying in front of the enemy. By the time the players have reached engagement distance, the time frame for the game has almost elapsed. A solution is to deploy at the desired engagement range. The range is determined by the scenario manager or an effective musket/rifle firing range. The key is to determine the effectiveness of long range artillery fire. Determine how many turns it will take for the enemy targets to get to the jump off positions, then determine how many turns they would have been in artillery range. Then roll the number of attempts per unit. This is a faster way to get a game started. Based on hits roll for morale effects and retreat or rout the unit if applicable. Counter-battery can be done the same way. |
wtjcom | 18 Jun 2020 1:34 a.m. PST |
As a general rule, period artillery could be expected to keep their frontage clear under normal circumstances. That is considering the real life deployments which were fairly dense, so the typical battery could expect "intimate" support on its flanks. So it is fair for you to expect artillery to be useful, although I don't know all the details of your past experiences. If you like grand tactical rules, we are currently working on the next release of Republique and I have spent quite a bit of time on this topic. If you ever try it out, feel free to email me directly for comments/questions (the rules are free). link Jim |
Blutarski | 18 Jun 2020 7:56 a.m. PST |
Phil Barker (Armour-Infantry 1925-1950) dealt with indirect artillery fire missions in a uniquely Barkeresque way. When a fire mission was called, the firing player rolled once upon the casualty table which was rigged to represent one-half hour worth of fire effect. Nothing on the table was permitted to move or fire tactically during that "artillery bound". B |
1968billsfan | 18 Jun 2020 7:27 p.m. PST |
Well, I think that almost everyone posting here has ignored a great deal of reality. The reality that I am talking about is that artillery is most highly constrained by terrain and blocked fields of fire. A flat tabletop does allow you to fire from edge to edge. Not realistic. A flat tabletop means that cannonballs have the absolute best killing zone. They kill from the muzzle and head height, on the first bounce on the second bounce and until they stop rolling. They never stick in a 5' high mound (sic)or go overhead where there is a 50'wide and 10' deep swale (you might not even notice it if you were walking the ground). They never are blocked from firing at an approaching enemy because there is a 20' high hedge of mullberry bushes hiding them. … … One thing that always AMAZES me is the following. Most Napoleonic batteries were 1/3 howitzers. Howitzers fired a big shell at low velocity and unlike modern howitzers and mortars did not use a high angle of firing. (look at their maximum angle- 30degrees was a lot). The trajetory of the shells was a slight upwards path and then a steep drop due to the wind resistance slowing the shell and the long time of flight to reach each range. (work out the relationship of the distance drop due to the acceleration of gravity with the distance traveled). There were used to get behind and at things that were low (and shielded from direct fire) or behind things, like all the bushes, trees, hills, valleys, walls and villiages. … Why did they need so many if cannon could sweep all that was within 700 yards? .. The comments about howitzers is mean to give a clue that there were serious limitations on what cannon could hit. In our wargames, cannon can be sited almost anywhere and shoot to maximum range. Opps- can't use the real maximum range so the ranges are limited to make the game playable. It is too much trouble to put all these limitations onto the wargame table. |
1968billsfan | 18 Jun 2020 7:29 p.m. PST |
Can anybody show me a rule set which distinguishes cannon from howitzers? Which justifies having about 1/3 howitzers instead of 3/3 cannons? |
Bill N | 19 Jun 2020 5:26 a.m. PST |
Rule sets I have used in the past do distinguish between cannons and howitzers. A howitzer causes casualties where the shot lands. A cannon can cause casualties along its flight path. The mechanisms for doing this are a bit unsophisticated. They probably don't reflect the full potential a cannonball has to inflict casualties, but they also probably result in a greater number of "shots" causing some casualties than was the case in reality, especially when dealing with longer range shot. On average it probably balances out (a statement which hides a number of sins). Plus unless you are playing a skirmish game that single cannon actually represents 4, 6 or 8 guns which fired multiple times in what we call a turn. |
Mike the Analyst | 19 Jun 2020 5:36 a.m. PST |
The 1824 Kriegsspiel differentiates artillery firing with good effect and bad effect depending on the nature of the ground and steepness of slope etc. I understood that howitzers loaded with cannisters were used to provide defensive support for the battery as well as to act offensively. It is interesting to consider the low number of howitzers used by the British. |
1968billsfan | 19 Jun 2020 9:27 a.m. PST |
Notice in the ACW in the overland campaign, Grant left perhaps half of his cannon behind because there was not room or enough gdod places to use them. |
historygamer | 19 Jun 2020 7:49 p.m. PST |
Never saw a response from the OP. What period are you gaming, as I saw a wide range of responses covering a lot of periods, just not 18th century per se. What rules are you using? Glad to share what I know, but only if it is relevant to the period you are gaming. |
Blutarski | 19 Jun 2020 8:52 p.m. PST |
A house rule we applied to F&F scenarios was that any artillery battery situated on the base contour had its maximum direct fire range limited to 500 yards or a crest line, whichever came first. If atop a crest line, range went out to 1,000 yards over lower ground, but would be blocked by another crest line or any higher elevation contour. If atop one full contour elevation, maximum range would be 2,000 yards to any target on a lower contour and any crest line within 1,000 yards could be seen over If atop two contour levels, maximum artillery engagement range was considered to be the max of the gun. The one complicating factor here was visibility shadows cast by elevated contour of lesser height – whick sometimes involved some friendly negotiation. Woods were considered equal to one contour elevation level in addition to the contour level upon which they were situated when interference to visisibility. This worked fairly well with reasonably realistic terrain upon the tabletop and created some interesting choices when positioning artillery. FWIW. B |
1968billsfan | 20 Jun 2020 5:33 a.m. PST |
|
KimRYoung | 20 Jun 2020 6:57 a.m. PST |
Artillery positions at Gettysburg, 3rd day: link link This should give you a good idea of how artillery should/could be placed. I've re-fought Gettysburg (all 3 days) multiple times and our gun positions on the table top ended up pretty close to actual positions. Kim |
1968billsfan | 21 Jun 2020 5:39 a.m. PST |
"….Artillery cannon were line-of-sight direct fireweapons. The lack of sophisticated fire control systems allowed gunners to engage effectivehe ly only those targets theycould see. The extended range of the rifled gun was acapability that was difficult to exploit. The difficulty in observing the round impacting at maximum range prevented using the rifled gun's full range capability. …" One factor that modern people have little idea of is the following. At the time of the ACW and up to the early 1900's most of settled eastern America was mainly in grass. Horses were the motive power, any land that was not used for crops was put into hayfields and used to feed horses and cattle. This could even be quite rocky and uneven ground because hay could be harvested by hand tools. |
14Bore | 21 Jun 2020 6:29 a.m. PST |
KimRYoung will save that as Gettysburg day 3 is one of my future games |
Handlebarbleep | 22 Jun 2020 4:20 a.m. PST |
For those who think guns are slow into action YouTube link Requisite part is about 11:39 minutes in. |
historygamer | 22 Jun 2020 9:13 a.m. PST |
Because the original poster never came back with a reply, I have seen people on this thread posting information covering roughly 100 years in time, which is not likely helpful – though perhaps the OP lost interest and wandered away. I saw this post on 18th Century discussion. You cannot compare 18th century artillery usage, movement, etc., to either the Nappy or ACW time periods. Because the OP asked and ditched, I have no idea what the best reply for him would be. And for 18th century, that YouTube link is not even remotely relevant. :-) |
Bill N | 22 Jun 2020 10:30 a.m. PST |
Good point HG. There was an evolution in what artillery was routinely capable of doing during this period. Routinely being the operative word. |
Handlebarbleep | 22 Jun 2020 6:12 p.m. PST |
@ historygamer It's one of the vagiaries of this site that posts can end up in several periods, and as the discussion moved on, I thought the link would be broadly enlightening thpugh as an existing working horsedrawn artillery unit that still exists. Lets examine what might have changed Horses haven't changed, neither would personnel much Guns certainly have changed, King's troop's QF 13 lb guns are 'only" 116 years old. There would therefore be a slightly longer pause to allow for muzzle loading before the first round. However, the manner of how they are limbered and drawn has not. No one has fitted them with brakes or hydrogas suspension. Frazer (who was responsible for upgrading the RHA to 9lb'ers before Waterloo) would certainly recognise the modus operandi. As a poster particularly commented on being slow to deploy, I thought is would be useful to see the action. We don't of course have any time travelled 18th century footage. King's troop represent 1904 technology, but the limbers and uniforms suggest at least Crimean direct relevance, and hark back to the rise of horse artillery. Don't think though that we will ever see a re-enactor unit with the resources to recreate anything other than a single gun, and then unlikely with a full team or the skills to deploy it. |
historygamer | 23 Jun 2020 4:42 a.m. PST |
Handlebarbleep: If I understand how TMP works, the OP decided to post this thread on three different boards (18th century, Nappy, and ACW). That was by his choice. Then he posted a rather vague query about artillery and games. Never came back to clarify or comment. Granted, some people on TMP aren't very knowledgeable about a particular period, let alone three. My knowledge is more in the 18th century period, though I can speak somewhat intelligently regarding the other two. That said, at least for the AWI/F&I period, the artillery and how it was moved was nothing like the later two periods. Yes, horses were used to move guns, but they moved by contractors, not members of the military. They were slow moving, and once placed not easily moved, unless the gun was so light it could be moved by hand. Then it was of limited value due to its lack of hitting power. Anyone that has gamed knows that guns are of limited value in the attack. Other than an opening barrage, they are soon masked by advancing infantry. Just finished Sears' book on Gettysburg. Same thing there too, though obviously the guns could move faster given the caissons and teams of horses used. Not relevant to the AWI/F&I period at all. I have seen a gun and limber moved the way it was done in the 18th century/AWI. One horse, light gun, moves slow. No such things as batteries during the AWI/F&I period. Guns were assigned, as needed. Batteries of guns were a slightly later formation. Other than that, I can't say what the OP was about, and apparently, neither can he. :-) |
Handlebarbleep | 23 Jun 2020 2:53 p.m. PST |
@ historygamer You are right, we are stumbling around in the dark somewhat, the spread he posted on was wide indeed. There are certainly Napoleonic examples of linbered artillery supporting attacks, indeed it could be argued that's what horse artillery was for. King's troop is a serving unit, and the closest I think we will get still in use. |
bgbboogie | 01 Jul 2020 6:42 a.m. PST |
I loved that, my dads dad was the lead driver, that meant he decided how to drop the piece near the mark, where to resupply ammunition from and where the water etc was. |