"Allied Artillery at Yorktown 1781" Topic

It was brought up on this forum that the French contributed a siege train that contributed to the Yorktown success. That is absolutely true.

It is also true that the Continental Army had its own siege train, which apparently was larger than the French equivalent.

The American siege train consisted of 45 pieces:

-27 18-pounders
-3 24-pounders
-10 10-inch mortars
-2 8-inch mortars
-3 8-inch howitzers

The French siege train consisted of 28 pieces:

-12 24-pounders
-8 16-pounders
-4 12-inch mortars
-4 8-inch mortars

The total allied artillery was 73 pieces.

Source: The Guns of Independence by Jerome Greene, page 198

That's interesting, Kevin. I wonder how much of the American artillery was "provided" by the British?
There was certainly a siege train captured at Ticonderoga and famously hauled to Boston through the snow by Knox.

The whole French garrison in Quebec in 1759 obviously lost their artillery. They were put in storage, and the tubes went to Saratoga with Burgoyne's expedition. At least some did, but they might have not been siege guns.
However, Burgoyne definitely took guns far too heavy for the wilderness that were captured.
I wonder how many of them ended up in the American siege train at Yorktown?

This is one reason why if someone asks me what color to paint American artillery, my answer is "Yes".

Much of the US artillery arm in the Revolution was captured British ordnance.

Some was old French Valliere pieces sent from France as the new Gribeauval System was being used by the French and the new pieces and ancillary equipment equipped the French artillery in Rochambeau's expeditionary force.

At Quebec, the artillery that was captured was put in storage. What else were the British to do with them. But since wooden carriages would rot, only the tubes were stored. There were plenty of carpenters on hand to make new carriages.
So, when needed around 1775, the British had their carpenters make carriages for the old Valliere tubes.
Ever since I learned this, I have wondered what pattern the British used for the carriages. Did they copy the old Valliere pattern, or did they copper British patterns, adopted for these tubes. I can not think that they were painted in anything but standard British gray.
This makes an interesting decision for the gamer. Does he buy, in effect, two artillery pieces per actual gun, putting a French barrel on a British carriage? And would anyone besides the modeler even notice?
I kind of think that only the gamer who did it would know.
Unless he's the type to point it out every time he brings out the army. I'm that type, but I'm also rather tight with my money.
Back when I collected and painted both armies to do the Plains of Abraham, I bought actual Valliere artillery, but darned if I remember who made them. Those armies are long gone.

Not to change the topic, but I believe the Hessians at Trenton used Swedish 4 pdr guns. Knox was so impressed with their sturdiness he had them bored out to take normal 6 pdr balls. That right there is somewhat indicative of American manufacturing prowess.
Again, I wish I knew if anyone made Swedish 4pdr guns. They could absolutely serve as American 6 pdr guns with no modification at all. Again, it would be something that only the guy presenting the game would know.

I once asked here facetiously if we knew so much about the provenance of these turncoat guns because of serial numbers. A few switched sides at least 5 times before the dust cleared. To my surprise, I was told that was the case.

John;
I suppose when we are talking about "Swedish" pieces, we're talking about the French version.

I'd recommend the Minden French "Swedish" 4pdr carried by DAF from Fife and Drum Miniatures.

I would think those would fit the bill nicely.

Eric

"French" versions of "Swedish" guns!
Ah. Even more obscurity. I love it.

The Swedish pieces are mentioned in various period artillery treatises. There are diagrams of them in Fave's works.

They were discarded when the Gribeauval System was adopted. The French used them with the older Valliere System which was not a field artillery system in order to give the artillery, specifically the battalion guns, a light model that was maneuverable.

You know John, if I but French barrels on British carriages I would point it out every time I used them too.

I suspect most of the US siege artillery at Yorktown was provided by the French, since the guns captured at Ticonderoga would have been lost in New York and the retreat across the Jerseys. (Also, Knox only took 1 24-pd gun and 12 18 pd guns. The rest had to come from elsewhere.) But that's supposition. If anyone has direct information on captures in by the British 1776 or us at Saratoga, or French shipments of heavy artillery, I'll be interested.

In this article – link – it states, "When Burgoyne surrendered at Saratoga in 1777, the colonials got a windfall of nearly 50 pieces. But the Americans frequently lost their own guns in the same manner—in retreat or defeat. When Forts Washington and Lee were lost in the battles for New York and New Jersey in 1776–1777, the patriots left behind almost 150 cannons."

The article also talks about various colonial foundries, though there are no production numbers available.

The Guns of Independence looks like a very good book.

An excellent source for military shipments from France to the United States for the use of the Continental Army can be found in Beaumarchais and the American Revolution by Brian Morton and Donald Spinelli.

In both text and tables can be found shipments of French 4-pounder long guns as well as siege mortars, ammunition and artillery implements and gun powder. Siege guns were also sent to the United States. The French 'field' artillery sent was of the old and now obsolete Valliere System which was heavy for field use and it is mentioned that at least some of the received 4-pounders were recast as 6-pounders.

Muskets with bayonets were also sent in large numbers, so much so that the issue musket of the Continental Army became the French regulation musket, known in the United States as the Charleville. This musket, which was excellent and in many ways superior to the British Brown Bess, would be copied by the Americans and produced by the Springfield Arsenal as the model 1795 and would be used in the War of 1812.

The French did not export any of the new, much lighter and accurate, artillery of the Gribeauval System.

This volume is packed full of information, is very well sourced, and is highly recommended.

It should be noted that French siege guns, heavy artillery, consisted of two calibers: 16-pounders and 24-pounders. They did not use or manufacture 18-pounders. So the 18-pounders the US had at Yorktown were not French long guns. As the US fielded 27 18-pounder long guns and only 3 24-pounders at Yorktown, 'most' of the American siege train was not manufactured by the French.

"French" versions of "Swedish" guns!
Ah. Even more obscurity. I love it."

"You know John, if I put French barrels on British carriages I would point it out every time I used them too."

Brilliant!

It isn't 'obscure' if you actually take the time to research the topic. Then you could actually comment on the subject from a more learned and knowledgeable point of view.

The French 4-pounder field piece, 'a la Suedoise', were initially proposed by Marshal Saxe in 1739-1740 on a recommendation of French general Brocard, a Lieutenant General of French artillery, who was familiar with the Swedish artillery arm.

I am far less interested in the fact that the American artillery park was larger than the French at Yorktown. What I think is more interesting is where the Americans had kept that artillery prior to Yorktown and how they transported it to Virginia.

Kevin. I'm an average Wargamer of limited means.
I have whittled my areas of interest down to the American Revolution and WWII.
One of the reasons I come to this site and a few others is to increase my knowledge of the period. Unlike some people >cough cough< I don't have acres of reference material.
I have learned many things on the American Revolution Board, and that's one of the reasons I submitted the original Poll Suggestion for Dear Editor Bill to set it up.
For instance, here is where I learned that it would be "incorrect" to provide Colours for British Light Infantry, Grenadiers or Guards.
That's just one of the many things I learned here. Things that are practical for a Wargamer of the AWI to know.
I learned in a book, by an eminent author, that a certain Lt Adair of the Marines led the march on to Lexington Green. I was assured on another site by a person with vast knowledge of the area, period and battle that this was not true, and he tried to argue Fischer out of it. He failed. So, when I get enough figures painted to do that campaign, there will be no Lt Adair leading the column into Lexington without orders.

To a casual gamer, the fact that the Hessian guns at Trenton, which I have gamed, were actually Swedish, and that a Minden SYW French gun would be perfect, is indeed an "obscure" fact. I do not possess a library measured in acres. I do not possess many treatises on French artillery. But I did do extensive research on Trenton for the battle. I possess 5 books on it. They did mention that each Hessian regiment had 2 "battalion guns". They certainly did not mention that 10 years in the future a brand new company would make the perfect model. So I used small Prussian guns that seemed appropriate. The Minden guns will be on my shopping list the next time I order from Jim. Hmmm. I do need lancers for Pulaski's Legion. I hope he has enough Continental Dragoon guidon bearers.

So, thank you, Eric (who seemed to have enjoyed the chili last night, even though his Viking raid was a failure) for pointing out to me that "obscure" fact. I will follow up on it.

As an aside here, weren't the French and British "pound" of different weights? So, wouldn't a British 12 pdr and a French 12 pdr actually be different calibers? Different enough so that the ammunition for one wouldn't fit the gun for the other?

At least one "good thing" came out of the French Revolution, the metric system. Not that it mattered for artillery. We still had in WWII 3" guns and 25 pdrs.
And 76.2mm artillery, which was simply 3" in metric.

I am far less interested in the fact that the American artillery park was larger than the French at Yorktown. What I think is more interesting is where the Americans had kept that artillery prior to Yorktown and how they transported it to Virginia.

It looks like you have some work to do. :-)

The respective artillery parks and the calibers present in each was in response to a previous comment on this forum regarding the origin of the pieces in the American artillery park.

Whether or not you are 'interested' personally is irrelevant.

As to how the American artillery got to Yorktown, there are plenty of references that have that information. Like I said, you have some work to do if you are actually interested in an answer.

As an aside here, weren't the French and British "pound" of different weights? So, wouldn't a British 12 pdr and a French 12 pdr actually be different calibers? Different enough so that the ammunition for one wouldn't fit the gun for the other?

The 'weight' of the pound used by different countries was different. The easiest way to use them is to use a standard weight to measure all of the others against. I use the English or imperial pound to measure when comparing calibers. For example, a French 8-pounder is almost the equivalent of an English 9-pounder.

A good definition of caliber can be found on page xviii of Louis de Tousard's American Artillerist's Companion, Volume I:

'Caliber in gunnery signifies the same as the bore or opening, and the diameter of the bore is called the diameter of the caliber. This expression regards all pieces of artillery.'

link

You can also find period weights and measures in the same volume in Chapter XIII beginning on page 116.

While the metric system is 'ruthlessly efficient' it was not in general use during the period of the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars.

At Quebec, the artillery that was captured was put in storage. […] But since wooden carriages would rot, only the tubes were stored. There were plenty of carpenters on hand to make new carriages.

This statement is very puzzling to me. Were gun carriages really that expendable? How often were they replaced under normal circumstances? How fast did they normally rot?

It's easy to imagine there was insufficient indoor storage space for a bunch of carriages (and probably associated limbers/wagons) at the time of capture, but it just seems that a growing frontier city with a good supply of wood, carpenters, and open land would be able to build a few barns or sheds on short notice to store wooden rolling stock. Gun carriages might not have been as hard to replace as gun tubes, but they did require some labor, time and expense to reproduce (especially the wheels), so they weren't valueless. Like any other wooden object, carriages work best when made from seasoned wood, and there's always a limited supply of that around, which could easily become a gating factor or a delay in an effort to replace discarded carriages. The city had a garrison, so there were idle soldiers around to do regular maintenance on a few barns full of rolling stock (or even complete guns). In the event of surprise attack, it's easy enough to set fire to a wooden building full of wooden objects to prevent capture and use by the invaders.

I feel like there has to be more to the story. Like: maybe the captured carriages were all too rough to be worth saving (after being dragged through a few hundred miles of wilderness in all weathers); or with insufficient garrison crews to man the captured guns, it was safer to disassemble them than risk recapture in another attack. Or both. Or something else.

- Ix

… I don't have acres of reference material…

And…?

One inexpensive way to increase a personal library is to use google books which has out of print references to down load. I've used it many times and have a 'virtual' library on my computer in addition to my personal library at home.

I spend my money on books and toy and model soldiers and the occasional print to frame. I've bought books since grammar school and have collected toy soldiers since I was five; model soldiers since 8th grade. Ebay is an excellent source for toy and model soldiers.

"Also, Knox only took 1 24-pd gun and 12 18 pd guns. The rest had to come from elsewhere."

That's what he took to Boston. He could have returned later for the rest. I too wonder when and if the rest of the stored guns were removed.

@Yellow Admiral
The carriages were made from wood. The tubes are heavy. You can store them in the armoury of the fortress whole, or disassembled.

The guns were captured in 1759. Maybe they were used the next spring at St Foy. Maybe, maybe not.
But, they're too valuable to melt down for souvenirs.

Would you like to haul 18 year old wooden carriages from Quebec to Saratoga over those roads?
Wood is cheap, and carpenters are plentiful.
Did you ever wonder why so many model artillery caissons come with spare wheels?

The artillery that Knox brought to Boston from Ticonderoga consisted of 'eight brass mortars, six iron mortars, one howitzer, thirteen brass cannon, thirty iron cannon, a barrel of flints, and a quantity of lead. The heaviest of the artillery were brass 18- and 24 pounders, and iron 12- and 18-pounders.'-page 40 of Noah Brooks biography of Henry Knox.

A total of 58 artillery pieces were brought to the besiegers in Boston.

Gun carriages and ancillary vehicles in the artillery, such as limbers and the vehicles that transported siege artillery, such as devil carriages and sling carts, had to be maintained and as they were constructed of wood, should be painted or at the very least treated against the weather. Wood does deteriorate over time and you would also have combat damage to repair. That is why an army would have artificers to maintain the equipment.

The Regiment of Artillery Artificers in the Continental Army, which was commanded by Colonel Benjamin Flower, was formed for just this purpose-the repair, maintenance, and construction of artillery vehicles and gun carriages. The regiment was formed in January 1777 and consisted of four companies, later expanded to five companies.

The Quartermaster Artificer Regiment, also known as Baldwin's Artificer Corps, was formed in July 1778 and was initially made up of eleven companies, later reorganized in November 1779 to have ten companies.

The two units were consolidated in January 1781 to become the Artificer Regiment.

Would you like to haul 18 year old wooden carriages from Quebec to Saratoga over those roads?

I believe that Burgoyne relied on water transportation at least as far as Ticonderoga and some of his artillery train was left there.

He left Canada with 138 guns, howitzers, and mortars, and that artillery train was organized by Generals Phillips and Carleton, Phillips being a distinguished artillery officer, 'who had an international reputation' as such.

The heavier pieces, such as the mortars, were intended for the reduction of Ticonderoga and all but 48 were left there when the army continued south.

Burgoyne's artillery train consisted of 16 heavy 24-pounders, 2 light 24-pounders; 19 12-pounders: 10 heavy, 8 medium, and 1 light; 26 light 6-pounders; 17 light 3-pounders; 6 8-inch howitzers; 6 5.5-inch howitzers; 2 13-inch mortars; 2 10-inch mortars; 6 8-inch mortars; 12 5.5-inch mortars; 24 4.4-inch Coehorn mortars.

Most of the heavy artillery were sent back to Canada after Ticonderoga was taken or added to the fort's defenses. The following was left at Fort George: 4 medium 12-pounders, 2 6-pounders, 2 8-inch howitzers, and two 5.5-inch howitzers.

This information can be found in Appendix III of John Elting's The Battles of Saratoga.

This statement is very puzzling to me. Were gun carriages really that expendable? How often were they replaced under normal circumstances? How fast did they normally rot?

I believe the implication is that the carriages rotted during the period of inactivity between the FIW and the AWI, rather than they rotted from one campaign season to the next. As Kevin has said gun carriages and ancillary vehicles had to be maintained. It was an ongoing process and it cost money When your anticipated enemies are no longer European style armies that had fortifications and you were looking to save money, cutting out gun carriage maintenance made some sense.

It never makes any sense to stop doing maintenance with artillery or anything else. And it is a command responsibility.

The artillery in Quebec were removed from their carriages and stored on straw when it became apparent that the British wouldn't need them for a while. After all, didn't they now own almost the entire North American continent east of the Mississippi?
Maintenance would be more expensive than building new carriages. Wood is cheap. Carpenters are plentiful.
Remove the tubes, remove the fittings, store them in a nice place. If they're iron or steel, coat them in grease.

Wood rots. No amount of maintenance will prevent that.

Yeah. I read that in a book somewhere.

Deferred maintenance may not make sense, but it makes cents. Whether private industry or public, whether civilian or military deferring maintenance has been a time honored way for entities to save money. Artillery maintenance was just one of a number of things that Britain cut spending on in the aftermath of the AWI. If you list the reasons why Ticonderoga fell quickly to Ethan Allen the failure to maintain guns stored there ranks behind the condition of the fort, the size of the garrison and the fact the garrison was not on proper lookout when the attack occurred.

Illustrated coffee table books show Knox hauling the guns on sledges through snow. The artillery is disassembled, tubes on the bottom of the sledge, carriages and wheels lashed down on top.
Again, I would not want to lug assembled cannon across the existing roads in a New England winter.
I will not vouch for the accuracy or provenance of those illustrations, but those books inspired me as an impressionable yoot.
Nor do I know the condition of the wood in the carriages at Ticonderoga. But hauling them in a disassembled state on sledges may also be indicative of their condition. By all reports, everything at Ticonderoga was in deplorable condition.
One saving grace was that as soon as the British saw the guns assembled on the Heights, they skedaddled. Washington didn't need mobile horse artillery. He needed to intimidate the British. One can almost think that Quaker guns would have done the trick. Best not, though. Word would have gotten out. Both sides in Boston leaked like a sieve.

The only country that had formed, organized, and employed actual horse artillery by the War of the Revolution was Prussia in the Seven Years War.

Artillery being pulled by horses does not make it horse artillery.

What wood was utilized for those carriages?

And besides the obvious coat of paint, what treatment was used to prepare the wood to prevent or at least delay rot?

Aboard ship, red lead was used as well as white lead.

Eric

I believe the implication is that the carriages rotted during the period of inactivity between the FIW and the AWI, rather than they rotted from one campaign season to the next.

That's what I would have assumed, but the OFM seemed to imply that the carriages were just discarded right away (perhaps unintentionally), so I was asking for clarification. I think this was it:

The artillery in Quebec were removed from their carriages and stored on straw when it became apparent that the British wouldn't need them for a while.

That makes sense. So maybe 1762 or 1763, or even after?

I wouldn't expect a gun carriage to last 18 years in that era, even in careful storage, so I would be surprised to find Burgoyne's French guns (if he brought any) still on French carriages at Saratoga. However, I would also consider it a bit rash to discard the original carriages soon after capture. The British and French were still at war until 1763, and even with Canada and upper Louisiana safely emptied of French troops there was still a (increasingly remote) possibility of a French invasion until the peace treaty was signed.

- Ix

The artillery is disassembled, tubes on the bottom of the sledge, carriages and wheels lashed down on top.

But hauling them in a disassembled state on sledges may also be indicative of their condition.

Heavy artillery was usually disassembled for long distance transport and there were special vehicles used for that purpose in good weather and acceptable roads.

In North America, water transport over long distances was the preferred method for transporting heavy artillery.

And heavy artillery was siege artillery-long guns, mortars, and howitzers. Light or field artillery employed up to and including 12-pounders for long guns. Mortars were always siege artillery, and howitzers, depending on the caliber, were used in both modes.

Wood rots. No amount of maintenance will prevent that.

Yes, it does. However, careful maintenance of gun carriages and ancillary artillery vehicles can lengthen the life of wooden vehicles.

Regarding the wood used for the construction of artillery carriages of all types and for other artillery vehicles, I have seen oak named in artillery manuals and if I recall correctly, ash is also a named hardwood for construction.

These two volumes may be of help on the subject:

link

link

Getting back to the main topic of this threa…
You can blame me for the mini-hijacking, but where did the American siege guns come from?
Saratoga seems to have been shot down.
Was Ticonderoga?

I'll let you know if possible when and if I find it. Some were British as already stated and three of them were French as already posted. We'll see about the rest.

I don't believe the thread was 'hijacked.' I don't consider subjects being changed or modified a problem.

Back to the wood used for the construction of artillery vehicles, The Book of the Continental Soldier by Harold Peterson, on page 126 states that oak was preferred, but 'walnut and chestnut were used on occasion. Elm and beech were recommended for the wheels, but hickory also sometimes appeared. In emergencies almost any hard and tough wood was pressed into service.

Peterson's reference was Muller's Treatise of Artillery, pages 107-108.

For painting of the wooden parts of artillery carriages and vehicles, on page 126 it states that 'Both wood and iron needed paint for preservation.' The iron 'mountings' were either painted black or with a coat or red lead. The colors of gun carriages and other vehicles were 'light lead gray' that the British used. Other colors were red brown and blue, both because of the French influence.

When the French shipped artillery to the United States, they probably only shipped the gun tubes and the Americans constructed the gun carriages and other vehicles.

This has been very interesting read. Besides Ft. Ty – there were other post in America that had heavy guns. I know that there was a battery on the Delaware River (Lewes Delaware) to protect Philadelphia that built in the 17th century. What was in the "Battery" in NYC? I know that gun tubs were cast at Hopewell Furnace PA. They have found abandoned tubs there.

I always thought that therm "Swedish Guns" was a reference to the method of deployment and not the actual construction of the gun. A light caliber field gun assigned as a support weapon to a non-artillery unit.

I have read accounts of gun carriages having to be replace after only a few weeks of service in the field. Think about it. The carriages have no suspension and a 900 pound piece of metal sitting on top. Take a little kids wagon, place a full 5 gallon bucket of ware in it. Then run across a field with it and see what happens.

The replacement of gun carriages depended on the design and construction of the gun carriages themselves. If they were poorly designed or carelessly constructed, they would fall apart on active service.

Howitzer carriages had to be especially well-designed and constructed as the firing of the howitzer itself had the bad habit of hurting the gun carriage and affecting its service life.

Which brings me back to my expensive desire to mount French tubes on British carriages. Would that be counter-productive?
A good carpenter, when making replacement carriages, can copy the French design as well as a British, or generic one.
And if an impatient Captain kept popping into the workshop "Aren't they ready yet?"
We haven't heard of any issues on campaign, so maybe the carpenters did a decent job.

Wouldn't the availability of the iron fittings have some effect on what carriage he made?

Iron was common in the United States and had to be forged for the pieces needed for the artillery, such as the iron tires for the artillery wheels.

Anyone who has ever painted a battery of 28mm artillery is aware of how much iron fittings there are. "Oh, wait. I missed that one." I'm sure they all have nice technical names, but they all require some black paint.

I've been thinking about what Kevin has been saying. It seems likely that new carriages should be in the French design, at the very least for proper balance. But they don't have to be painted in a French colors.

Anyone who has ever painted a battery of 28mm artillery is aware of how much iron fittings there are. "Oh, wait. I missed that one."

Hear, hear!

It gets worst right around the hubs, where miniatures sculptors and photos/diagrams start to disagree, sometimes drastically. "Is that an iron collar, or just a piece of wood sticking out…?"

I'm also never sure if I should be painting "dirt" on my iron tires. In real life they would be coated with dirt/dust, but in miniature that just makes the wheels look half-painted. I have managed to make it look nice with a very light dusting sometimes.

- Ix

"Where a goat can go, a man can go, where a man can go, he can drag a gun"

link

Anyone who has ever painted a battery of 28mm artillery is aware of how much iron fittings there are. "Oh, wait. I missed that one." I'm sure they all have nice technical names, but they all require some black paint.

It isn't easy in 54mm either…