"Ottoman army artillery in the Crimean war?" Topic

Either my "Google-Fu is failing me, or, no one knows anything about the type of Ottoman army artillery pieces used in the Crimean war? I would prefer to think it is the former, and NOT the latter.

I am wondering if maybe they used French artillery (or guns modelled on the French system)? That is as, given the interest the French had displayed in the status (or fate) of the empire, even before (actually, rather long before) the ascension of Napoleon III. Not saying they necessarily BOUGHT French artillery pieces. Perhaps they were given plans (or bought the "rights"), and cast the guns themselves in the main foundry in Constantinople?

link

Chapter Ten covers Artillery

According to the Cox & Lenton booklet, batteries were a mix of muzzle loaders, breech loaders, smooth bores and rifled in a polyglot fashion. Flaherty's book on uniforms from Partizan Press indicates that artillery carriages were in a pile green or even torquoise livery color.

All smoothbores as far as I know and relatively light (4-6 pr) with a few larger pcs (8-9 pr & 18 pr).

Mentions of older types may refer to pieces found in fortifications which might be 'hailshot' breechloaders.

Thanks all. I actually do have the slimmer, one-volume, Flaherty book on uniforms (only). The one put out by Partizan Press. Was not aware of an expanded two-volume version -- good to know!!

Am inclined to view the "high-water mark" of the Ottomans as the second siege of Vienna, and the political and military decline starting from that point. Thus, I can well imagine for example, that fortress artillery (as "GildasFacit" is seemingly suggesting) could well be in many cases "museum pieces." Albeit, I would have thought that the Ottomans might at least exert themselves to supply more modern equipment on the more threatened Anatolian and Danube frontiers?? Also, Google-Books permitted a few pages of review of the two-volume Flaherty work. One image shown was of a so-called "three-pounder" bronze barreled gun, captured by the Russians, mounted on a single-trail British-style carriage. Curiously, the photo suggests the carriage is a colored sort of "rust brown," not green. Maybe the paint faded over the course of 150-plus years? Or, maybe the carriage was repainted to preserve it?

I think between the table that I was able to view on Google-Books showing various calibers, and that photo, as well as the several drawings in Flaherty's two books, that I have enough evidence to venture what to do now. I will go with a MIX of British & French artillery pieces for my batteries in this small "Turkish Contingent" I am starting to build to game this interesting conflict!

Here is an excerpt from a Russian article in the Military Crimea magazine about the Turkish army during the Crimean War (automatic translation).

Regular artillery

The artillery regiment (one per corps and another reserve in Pere) consisted of 12 six-gun batteries: three horse (two – 4-pounder guns, one – 12-pounder howitzers), eight infantry (two – 12-pounder guns, four – 8-pounder guns, two – 24- or 7-pounder howitzers of Prussian production); in wartime one mountain battery (12-pounder light howitzers) was added. A total of 72 guns. Battery: captain, three lieutenants, six non-commissioned officers and 109 gunners. Regiment: Major General and 16 staff officers, plus chief officers and 1336 lower ranks. Other sources determine the size of the artillery regiment in the state of 1500-1600 people. (actually up to 1400 people). In fact, in peacetime "several guns are assigned to each infantry or cavalry regiment, so that the artillery scattered in this way at different points is never assembled and even in camps there are rarely more than 4 guns." The batteries were "well harnessed and properly equipped; in general, the material part of the artillery is not bad. " "Boxes and carriages are painted green [206]; battery-operated 8, light guns 6 and charging boxes, of which one relies on the gun, 4 horses "[207]. During the war, they began to practice mixing howitzers and cannons in one battery, as well as equipping artillery with guns of different types and systems [208].

Contemporaries unanimously noted that the Turkish artillery, "arranged according to the Prussian model, with the help of the Prussian instructors, gained the most benefit from the new organization and, having outstripped the Turkish infantry and cavalry in this, is already somewhat approaching in technical improvement" to the European, enjoying a good reputation. "The artillery is what is best for them, the harness is strong, the guns are kept in order. The gunners maneuver as well as ours [French] "(Saint-Arno). "With the composure characteristic of Muslims, the gunners shoot without fussing and rightly; artillery moves quickly, but is not entirely accustomed to the combined action with other troops, from which, in peacetime, it is separated, making up special artillery regiments and therefore rarely has the opportunity to make movements and formations together with other weapons, unless by chance in those places where with her, the infantry or the cavalry also lodgings "[210]. During the war, Turkish artillery was distinguished by "accurate shooting and the ability to choose advantageous positions" [211]. In the West, it was argued that Nikolai Pavlovich named Turkish artillery in 1852 "among the best in Europe" [212]. The Tophane plant produced about 300 guns annually [213].

At the same time, on the example of the 5th corps, one can see the shortcomings of artillery: since all the material came only from Constantinople, there were no funds for repairing the guns on the spot. Meanwhile, "carriages are too bad and insufficient … As far as I can judge by the type of carriages, it is unlikely that one of the 72 guns of the Arabian corps will withstand the first evolution of artillery doctrine, even without firing." "Horses with artillery are never included, and they are not ridden, old and incapable [214]. Three- and five-pound guns … for lack of roads are loaded onto mules … The artillery officer of the Prussian service, Hoffmann, is attached to the corps for practical training in artillery, but there is no military school here either for officers or for soldiers "[215]. In the capital, things were not much better: "The cannons were all copper, and few of the carriages were badly made; but neither the cannons nor the gun carriages were kept clean. The harness was badly cut and disgustingly dirty. The horses were all white or very light gray. We were told that they were raised in their homeland, in Rumelia … These Turkish artillery horses, in our opinion, were too small for this service; but they were dense and sturdy … and the artillery sleds handled them well … The instructor officer was German … Several young Turkish junior officers looked active and intelligent; but the headquarters officers sat on stools, silently observing and smoking the shanks. They all seemed too fat for walking "[216].

When applied to tactics, the Turks imagined that their artillery compensated for the weakness of the cavalry [217]. But there was no real interaction between the combat arms. The infantry did not receive assistance from the cavalry, and the artillery, being in danger, did not count on support from either the infantry or the cavalry. In general, the Turks had unlimited confidence in their artillery. If she could not stop the enemy with her fire, then panic spread among the infantry and cavalry, and flight began [218]. But the artillerymen, as under Bashkadyklar and Kyuryuk-Dara, stood to the last on their batteries, selflessly ("beyond all praise") defending them, despite the lack of cover, "continued to shoot and died on their guns, gun carriages and bodies of almost all repulsed guns doused with the blood of their brave servants "[219].

The effectiveness of the artillery fire was also relative. If under Chetati and Kyuryuk-Dara the shooting was carried out quite accurately [220], then when repelling the assault on Kars, according to the remarks of "an eyewitness to the artillery of staff captain Ch.", "It cannot be said that the artillery fire of the Turks was valid; most of their grenades, ordinary and buckshot, burst high above our heads, without causing us any harm "[221]. In the Chingil battle, they also "threw grenades, very unsuccessfully, because some vomited in the air, while others flew over battalions without doing us any harm" [222].

The full article can be read here:
link

Candan Badem, in "The Ottoman Crimean War (1853-1856), says:

"some of its units, such as the artillery or the chasseurs had the most modern weapons of the time"
link

Unfortunately I don't think he goes into any more specifics. (Can't check as my copy is packed away temporarily.)

@cuprum2
Great link!
Never heard of Brill, but downloaded the entire "book".
Thanks!