"French artillery establishment" Topic

So I am trying to create French artillery units that have the correct number of horse and crew figures, and ideally the correct amount of clutter.

For the RHA this is comparatively easy – I know from eg Mercer that his battery had 166 men and 226 horses. This is remarkably convenient because at the 1:33 I am using that's 7 horses and 5 men. That unpacks neatly into 6 horses drawing the limber, a mounted officer, and four further crewmen – three riding limber horses and one on the limber. This also depicts the limbered troop / battery pretty accurately.

For the French it's remarkably hard to find the same information. I have various published sources that give artillery numbers but the problem is that they tend to contradict each other. I.e. if you look at an orbat for any given battle the numbers of artillerymen rarely reconcile, and are probably anyway different between horse and foot. Also, the gunners and the train tend to be split out, so when I read of a foot battery having 90 gunners, I tend to think that's crew only and omits the drivers. A Waterloo orbat I have seen indicates about 90 gunners but also 95 drivers attached per foot battery, for example, but elsewhere it says one horse artillery battery had 75 men and doesn't mention any attached train unit – which pace Mercer's 166 men seems far too low.

Does anyone therefore know what the correct establishment was supposed to be for French horse and foot batteries (IYSWIM), Guard and line, in respect of the number of

- gun crew
- drivers of train
- horses
- other vehicles, eg caissons?

and whether it differed materially between calibres and carriage types?

I'm mainly interested in Gribeauval but it could be quite fun to have differently-composed An XI and Gribeauval 12-pounders alongside each other. I am pretty sure all 12-pounders had 6 horses but were the 6- and 8-pounders also drawn by 6 or was it fewer?

Afaik the French artillery divided the gunners into the artillery regiment and the drivers into the train crew, which was organized separately. So it would make sense to have them recorded separately.

cut and pasting from napolun:

In 1807 company of foot artillery (8 pieces) consisted of:
2 captains
2 lieutenants
1 sergeant-major
4 sergeants
4 corporals
1 furrier
2 drummers
24 gunners of 1st Class
45 gunners of 2nd Class
Each company had fanion.

In 1815 company of foot artillery (8 pieces) consisted of:
2 captains
2 lieutenants
1 sergeant-major
4 sergeants
4 corporals
1 furrier
2 drummers
20 gunners of 1st Class
48 gunners of 2nd Class
Additionally each company had 4 metal workers, 4 ouvriers, 13 woodworkers and artificiers.

In 1815 company of horse artillery (6 pieces) consisted of:
2 captains
2 lieutenants
1 sergeant-major
4 sergeants
4 corporals
1 furrier
2 trumpeters
24 gunners of 1st Class
35 gunners of 2nd Class.
There were also 4 metal workers and 4 ouvriers.

In 1805-1807 artillery train company had:
2 officers
7-10 NCOs
2 trumpeters
84 privates
There were also 2 blacksmiths and 2 harness makers.

In 1815 artillery train company consisted of:
1 sergeant major
4 sergeants
1 furier
4 corporal
2 trumpeters
24 drivers of 1st Class
60 drivers of 2nd Class
There were also 2 blacksmiths and 2 harness makers.

Cuirassier, the one problem with artillery is that if you portray the correct number of figures for the unit, it does not correspond with the frontage. The number of models you have elaborated looks like only one gun model will be on the field for each battery. I cannot imagine a frontage of more than 45 – 50 mm for its base. However, the distance between the guns would be 15 – 20 yards giving a total, 'real' frontage of 75 – 100 yards for a six gun battery and 105 – 140 yards for an eight gun battery.

So, bear with me…

My figure ratio is 1:20 but for artillery units I go by the frontage. So for a six gun RA company using the British spacing of 15 yards between each gun you have a frontage of 75 yards. Add on the 'sixth' 15 yards to give an equal frontage to each gun you arrive at 90 yards. My ground scale is 1.5 mm = 1 yard. Frontage on the table is therefore 135 mm. Now if you adopt the convention that one model and its four figure detachment represents two real ones you can divide the frontage by three to have three bases of 45 mm frontage each.

As I like to have the same bases for all nations, I have adopted that as the average. This gives an eight gun battery a frontage of 180 mm which is still less than a battalion by quite a mark and quite realistic.

Each gun base is 80 mm deep to represent the first line of caissons etc and the gunners running backwards and forwards with ammo (I know, 'Do not run with live ammo on the gun position!') Then behind each gun is parked its limber and four horse team on a 30 x 100 mm base. This not only means that the guns can be represented as limbered up and taking up a realistic length of road, but their in action presence represents all the rear area gubbins with which a battery would be encumbered. (Under my rules this counts as 'Rough Terrain' with penalties for moving through it.) It is an approximation but it works quite well.

Getting back to the original point, this means that a British battery has 12 gunners, 6 drivers and 12 horses. To scale this is 240 gunners, 120 drivers and 240 horses. A tad over-manned perhaps. Therefore, I go for a willing suspension of disbelief so that the presence of artillery on the table looks right. The fire effect can be managed as individual models or the whole unit as one. Either way it works and I can field an impressive gun line. But I would do that, wouldn't I …

@ setsuko

Many thanks, that's what I need re the men. It looks like about 180 men to man and move the battery / troop / etc.

@ Artilleryman

I hear you and I'm coming from much the same place. I want to model all that clutter, with a limber and maybe a caisson per gun model, because the space behind a gun battery in action is basically pretty fully occupied and no other units should be manoeuvring through it.

I am using ten yards per gun, but thinking about it, maybe I should be including the width of the gun itself plus 15 yards between wheel hubs on top. That implies twice the frontage I had assumed, so maybe two gun models side by side instead of one, each on a similar base.

Guns look better with a bigger crew, but how I handle that is that the actual crew who matter for casualties purposes etc are positioned on the base. Those who are there just as eye candy aren't, and are ignored. So an RHA troop might have five crew figures on the base (or bases) and five more standing around looking helpful.

I'm with you on standard base sizes. All mine are the same depth per figure and as far as possible the same frontage (although my British infantry bases are wider than French because 2-deep). It imparts a general air of neatness. Until I've acquired a few more guns, caissons and limbers, I won't know what size to standardise on for those.

Just to offer a different point of view, I represent a battery with one gun model, and as many figures as there are REAL guns. That generally means six figures, which looks pretty good. The basis for this is the Russians, who have 12 gun batteries, represented by two gun models and 12 figures.

@OP I thought Almark, Osprey/ Vanguard. H&C etc. had all this very well detailled, so I'll not inject my own data.
Bear in mind that much hyperthetical data is just so far from the actual that was performed in the field!
And OB frequently are incorrect in specie or detail.
Goetz has plainly made an error in his book when he cited the 17th and 18th Cies / 5 Regt d'Art a Pied with guns- they were 'spare crew' and used to fill losses/ replacements- they had no ordnance (Situation 1805…).

@Widowson agree in principal. Using 'models per #pieces' yes- one base- hell no!

One base is meaningless- battalion guns even more so. I use 2x gun and 1x howitzer base for my Divisional French artillery and 'reserve batteries'. That means 3x3x2 gunners/ figures per bases, plus a 4 horse limber (no spare space to carry guns).

I think they look good, realistic to some extent and occupy 'space' that deprives other troops occupancy and movement. While not 'conforming' to the 'rules' of many, I prefer and maintain the standard.
Just for economies sake, instead of creating 'complete establishment' horse batteries (supporting existing Cav divisions) my next few will, in contradiction be single base with 3 or 4 gunners depending upon battle conditions. Still have to make bloody limbers tho!

‌IMG_4547.
More at DaveW, on Flickr.

I have a bigger problem with the 'Allied' side. The WF and Hinchliffe figures are bigger, longer guns models for Russians etc. so I have to adjust base sizes accordingly. For the latter I'll use the 3 bases, but with 4 gunners every base as a 'standard'.

In contrast to the OP point though, limbers and more particularly caissons were not at 'arms length' of the deployed guns. Technically, the latter wouldn't even be 'on table' either if a static battle were being played.

Contrast that

Do not run with live ammo on the gun position!

Really? At El Alamein 1942 the NZ Divsional artillery were 'dispersed' at 10 yards per gun, each gun pit surrounded by opened crates of 25 pounder HE- 500 rounds each, and yes there were misfires after the barrels became overheated or breeches exploded open, and a few injuries and deaths caused because of it. They fired from these position for 19 hours. (That's a wompum heap of HE for just our 72 guns).
cheers d *grapefruit*

Shat 1984:
why are : battalion guns even more so meaningless, these are just a representation that certain battalions had these in a certain timeperiod. Imho this is the same as a 3 or 2 gun wargames battery instead of a full battery

The French artillery arm (not including the Guard units) consisted of foot and horse artillery, pontonniers, artificers, and armorers. The organizations associated with the artillery were the artillery train, cannoniers garde-cotes (coast defense artillery); cannoniers veterans, and local artillery units, the cannoniers sedentaires.

In 1805 there were eight foot artillery regiments, six horse artillery regiments, eight artillery train battalions, two pontonnier battalions, and a company of armorers.

In 1812 there were nine foot artillery regiments, six artillery regiments, twenty-seven train battalions, nineteen companies of artificers and five companies of armorers.

In 1810-1811 the Dutch horse artillery formed the 7th Regiment of Artillerie a Cheval.

From Louis Tousard's American Artillerist's Companion, Volume II, page 75 regarding the French artillery arm:

'The French imperial corps of artillery, at this time, is composed of eight regiments of foot artillery, and six regiments of horse artillery. The full compliment of the first is 2,582 men, including the officers, and the total of the foot artillery is 20,656. The full compliment of a regiment of horse artillery is 524 men, and the total is 3,229.'

'Fifteen companies of artificers, 92 men including four officers, 1,380. Eight battalions of the train, the great complement of which is 477 men, and the total, including officers, 3,816.'

'When the battalions of the train are put on the war establishment, they are increased to the same number of battalions, of six companies, each of 99 men, 60 of whom are conscripts.'

'There are also two battalions of pontonneers of 610 men; officers, soldiers, and artificers, total 1220.'

'Fourteen companies of veteran cannoniers, 50 men each, 700 men, and 128 garde-cote companies of 121 men each, which give a complement of 15,488 men.'

'The whole of the French artillery is thus 46,489 men, including the officers…'

<><>why are : battalion guns even more so meaningless, these are just a representation that certain battalions had these…

What I meant was a single base on a tabletop array can't reasonably represent a single or pair of battalion guns AND a complete [full size/ normal] battery. The physical size is unnaturally small, the fire was to augment a battalions fire and was supposedly equivalent to a platoon/ company fire in my understanding, adding defensive fire capability to the infantry, or that in assault on enemy, replenished and allowed the infantry to make adjustments as well.

A single base is neither physically imposing as I explained above, nor given 'emphasis' in firing usually. This become even more perverse in the micro scales now seen- why when such 'masses' of formed troops can be created at ultra-cheap cost should art'y still be represented this way? It is as ridiculous as the often seen single general figure as a commander.

These paradigms are unnecessary IMHO and rigid adherence to belief that a lot of wargamers have that rules 'systems' produce 'realistic battles' are often sadly delusional.
As I'm no great believer (any more) in 'points' or 'lists' and the 'must win at any cost' competition mentality should be left behind for those who crave it.

I'm constantly reminded of the 'competition player' whose army consisted [mostly] of a Russian Guard artillery battalion, a Grenadier brigade and a river/stream to hide behind. Deprived of the latter in the last of 4 games he was hostile, aggressive and very nearly violent to his opponent in real life. Wasn't a scene that I'd say enhanced the hobby.
d

Going back to the original question

- drivers of train
- horses
- other vehicles, eg caissons

By intention, there were never enough horses to cover every need and, during a battle, most equipment would be kept in an "artillery park" away from the action, so should not appear on tabletops, unless your tabletop covers several miles … So it makes sense for the artillery trains to be organized separately from the artillery pieces and gun crew.

According to need, the artillery park could supply limbers or caissons with enough horses for rapid movement (usually 6). On the march, the horses would pull the wagons with the heavy supplies and each limber/gun/caisson might only have 2 or 4 horses. Battles tended to kill a lot of horses through stray shots and so on – yet another reason to keep horses and equipment out of the way unless needed

From the tabletop point of view, it could be fun to have a couple of artillery pieces pulled by limbers to represent limbered up battery, but it's not really a requirement.

John

By intention, there were never enough horses to cover every need and, during a battle, most equipment would be kept in an "artillery park" away from the action, so should not appear on tabletops, unless your tabletop covers several miles … So it makes sense for the artillery trains to be organized separately from the artillery pieces and gun crew.

According to need, the artillery park could supply limbers or caissons with enough horses for rapid movement (usually 6). On the march, the horses would pull the wagons with the heavy supplies and each limber/gun/caisson might only have 2 or 4 horses. Battles tended to kill a lot of horses through stray shots and so on – yet another reason to keep horses and equipment out of the way unless needed

Where did you find this 'information'? It is mostly incorrect and inaccurate.

The French artillery parcs consisted of the Grand Parc, which was the army-level artillery park which was divided into two parts. The first was the mobile park which was stationed at the immediate rear of the army with resupply ammunition and spare parts carried in wagons. The second, the fixed park established the temporary arsenals and maintenance shops which were located in one or more fortified depots along the army's line of communications.

Each army corps (corps d'armee) had its own artillery park which contained spare vehicles (caissons, field forges, and supply wagons) and also had extra field pieces (one for every ten in the gun companies). The park was commanded/directed by a senior artillery officer with a small staff along with a squad of artillerymen detailed one from each gun company in the corps.

These two parcs were not the repository of the army's or corps' artillery.

The artillery gun companies were assigned to either the corps or to the artillery reserve under army control. They were commanded by the corps or army artillery chiefs, nearly always an artillery general officer. The corps gun companies were further assigned to the infantry divisions with some kept as a corps artillery reserve.

The train d'artillerie was an organization founded and organized by Napoleon in 1800 in time for the Marengo campaign. Its mission was to haul the artillery vehicles whether in the parcs, army, or corps. The artillery train battalions with the army were under the supervision of a general of brigade with the title 'Inspector General of the Artillery Train.' These were train troops, not artillerymen.

Each train company assigned to a gun company to haul its equipment was usually semi-permanently assigned to that gun company, and that brigaded unit acted as one unit. The train company commander was a lieutenant, which subordinated him to the gun company commander, who commanded the entire unit. the guns and vehicles belonged to the gun company, the horses to the train company. The entire organization was efficient and worked excellently together.

Each caliber of field piece had a different number of caissons assigned to it to haul its ammunition. 4-pounders were assigned two, 6- and 8-pounders three, 12-pounders five, and howitzers usually between three and five. Horse artillery vehicles were all pulled by six horses as were 12-pounders and at least one caisson is a 12-pounder gun company. Everything else was pulled by four horses. The only time horse teams were reduced was by casualties.

Ammunition resupply was handled by a shuttle service between the parcs and the gun companies. Only one caisson per piece was with the gun company, the others being assigned to the parcs for resupply. An empty one coming to the rear for replenishment would be replaced by another in the same company on the firing line. Additionally, each foot artillery company assigned to an infantry divisions would have four ammunition caissons which contained infantry ammunition to keep the troops resupplied.

When emplacing, the coffrets carrying ready-use ammunition was taken from the piece and placed on the limbers and that was refilled from the caissons assigned to each piece.

The bottom line in regard to the gun companies and the artillery train companies is that they were not separate entities even though they belonged to different organizations. They were integrated so that they functioned together on campaign and in combat.

Setsuko's figures are useful:

Royal Horse Artillery batteries always seem to have double the gunners than the French.

However, add the French train troops and they are near to equal.

However, however, you will have to create markers for dead gunners, markers for dead train troops, and markers for lines of dead draught animals.

Plus account for hits on any/some/all of the above.

You could have an interesting situation where the remaining gun line has to withdraw because there aren't enough draught and/or train to get the remainder to safety.

Royal Horse Artillery troops had permanently assigned drivers that were assigned to the troops which would, I think, cover the total strength of the units.