"Same limbers for cannons and howitzers?" Topic

Sorry if this has been covered but I couldn't find it anywhere but I'm trying to find out if French artillery batteries used the same limber design for cannons and howitzers or was there a difference between the two?

TIA,
Charles

For the Gribeauval System, there were two sizes of limbers: one for the 4-pounder, and a larger one for the howitzer and the 8- and 12-pounders.

See DeScheel's Treatise of Artillery:

link

All manfrs only ever make one per nation… no brainer really…

Prussian and Russian have heavy and light limbers

The design of the limbers was the same for the French. For heavy (siege) artillery, the limbers were of a different design, being the older Valliere-style limbers with horses in single draft.

Im getting the feeling that these questions are from 'fakes'… just risible padding…

Gaslighting on a miniatures forum?

Thanks for the input everybody! But I must admit, I may have used incorrect terminology in my question. Rather than "limbers" I think I should have written "carriages". (The carriages are the wheeled wooden structures beneath the iron/brass cannons/howitzers, correct?)

So to rephrase: (sorry!) Did the French use the same carriages for cannons as howitzers?

That is a horse of a different color, not much different in Prussian or Russian if similar size

>>Did the French use the same carriages for cannons as howitzers?

Yes Hookey that is different. Certainly structurally designed for different physical forces.

Go to the 'Redux' thread a read all you can about srtillery:-
TMP link

It is an index/ compendium of MANY of the most useful historical AND/OR MODELLING threads (there are many useless ones otherwise…) I put together to correspond with other indices on this site.

cheers dave

Gun carriages for long guns and howitzers were different in the French service, and again, taking a look at the illustrations in DeScheel gives excellent and accurate information for the Gribeauval System.

The howitzer carriage was different from the gun carriages for long guns.

The gun carriage for the 4-pounder was smaller than that of the 8- and 12-pounder and it was different from the aspect of the double trunnion plates for the 8- and 12-pounders. The 4-pounder had no need for double trunnion plates so it had only single trunnion plates.

And the Gribeauval gun carriage design was both different, and more modern, that those of Austria, Russia, and Prussia.

When the Systeme AN XI was approved, it was later found that the new gun carriages were not as robust as those of the Gribeauval System, so the latter were used with the 6-pounder and 12-pounder of the new system.

For Russians ….

carriages : 4 different : 6-lber guns // 12-lber standard & short guns // 1/4-pud unicorns // 1/2-pud unicorns

carriage wheels, axles & elevating systems : 2 different : 6-lber guns & 1/4-pud unicorns // 12-lber standard & short guns & 1/2-pud unicorns

limbers : 2 different : 6-lber guns & 1/4-pud unicorns // 12-lber standard & short guns & 1/2-pud unicorns

limber wheels & axles : 1 design for all

caissons : 1 design for all (except for internal sub-divisions holding the rounds)

caisson wheels & axles : same design as for limbers

There was additional commonality in the various smaller components, harnesses for horses, tools, etc.

The 6-lber guns & 1/4-pud unicorns were in "light" and "horse" artillery companies. The 12-lber standard & short guns & 1/2-pud unicorns were in "battery" artillery companies.

A unicorn was a sort of "gun howitzer" : shorter barrel than a gun, longer than a howitzer, typically firing shells or cannister instead of roundshot. 1/4-pud unicorns had bores about the same as 12-lber guns and are sometimes listed as "12-lber unicorns". 1/2-pud unicorns had bores about the same as 24-lber guns.

See (in Russian) : link

ooops ….

I should have added : the wheels & axles for the limbers and caissons were the same as those for the carriages for 6-lber guns & 1/4-pud unicorns. Thus a Russian "light" or "horse" artillery company had only one design of wheels & axles for all of their carriages, limbers and caissons.

Additionally, some of the wheel & axle sets used for instrument wagons, medical/pharmacy supply wagons, ambulance wagons, provision wagons, rear-area ammunition wagons and field forges were of the same designs as used for the carriages, limbers and caissons.

See (in Russian) : link

The unicorn was indeed a gun-howitzer in modern terminology in that the piece had the characteristics of both.

However, it could not fire at the elevations that a howitzer could and that could be a distinct disadvantage in certain situations, such as trying to his targets in defilade.

The French prized captured unicorns and they were placed in the army parc after capture.

"The unicorn was indeed a gun-howitzer in modern terminology"
Thank you. I was a little concerned I did not know the correct modern Army terminology, and hence used quotes around the term.

The French could use their own rounds in captured unicorns ….

The French An XI 24-livre howitzer shell or cannister rounds would fit the 1/2-pud unicorn with 1.9 mm additional windage (measured as the diameter of the bore less the diameter of the round).

Although not really intended for firing round shot, it was possible to do so from a unicorn. The French 12-lb round shot would fit the 1/4-pud unicorn with only 0.5 mm additional windage. The French 24-lb round shot would fit the 1/2-pud unicorn with only 0.4 mm less windage.

The French would have to load the powder charges by hand, as the unicorns hand conical chambers and the French pre-made charges were, of course, cylindrical.

--- 1/4-pud unicorn : 118.6 mm dia. of the round */ 4.4 mm windage / 123.0 mm dia. of the bore
--- 1/2-pud unicorn : 150.6 mm dia. of the round * / 4.4 mm windage / 155.0 mm dia. of the bore
* shell or cannister

SO much sidebar material- however Ermelov clearly details several times over several campaigns that the licornes often fired cannister.

It seems on that basis they were a medium range self-defence mechanism, 1/3rd of a battery!

I've never once read of any Russian guns of any type ever being deployed and used in formal battle. Overrunning and turning them yes, organised and structured no. Any proof available rather than anecdotal?
d

What do you consider 'medium range' for artillery? Maximum effective range was about 1,000 yards, and the French artillery doctrine was that anything over 1050 yards was a waste of good ammunition.

All field pieces, including howitzers, could successfully fire canister.

Then we have General Foy's rule of thumb for artillery employment-'Get up close and shoot fast.'

For Russian artillery employment, a good start is The Tactics of the Russian Army in the Napoleonic Wars, 2 Volumes, by Alexander Zhmodikov and Yurii Zhmodikov.

A very well-known successful large Russian artillery employment was at Eylau in three large batteries which defeated Augereau's main attack on the Russian center, effectively destroying Augereau's VII Corps which was deactivated after the battle because of very heavy losses to the Russian artillery.

I've never once read of any Russian guns of any type ever being deployed and used in formal battle. Overrunning and turning them yes, organised and structured no. Any proof available rather than anecdotal?

Eylau, Borodino, and Friedland for starters.

I think Dave is referring to a lack of evidence that captured Russian ordnance was used by the French.

The French had so much captured ordnance that they could use it. Col Elting in Swords does mention the captured unicorns and that it was put in the parcs and travelled with the army.

Thanks for the clarification Allan-well done.

If the French didn't use captured Russian ordnance, that doesn't say much for the quality of the material.

January 1812 :
--- 8 "obusiers à grand portée ou licornes" in the reserve of the corps d'observation de l'Elbe, and 8 with other corps and 8 with the guards
--- 4 "licornes ou obusiers prussiens de 6 pouces 4 lignes" with the army artillery park
--- total 28 Prussian and Russian pieces
link
link
link

The preference was for the Prussian howitzers, because they had greater range and there were more rounds available. It seems only 2 of the Russian pieces were retained in the army parc, and perhaps 10 available (mobile with carriages & limbers) overall.
link

The corps d'observation de l'Elbe became the I Corps (Davout) and II Corps (Oudinot) for the 1812 campage. I have no idea if these corps, the guard corps or the army park ever used the Prussian or Russian pieces in their reserves. If the Russians or Prussians (re-)captured any, they would not likely be treated as trophies, but put back into use.