"Russian Heavy Position Companies 1812-14" Topic

In the Osprey Men at Arms Series (96) Artillery Equipments of the Napoleonic Wars it stated that the Heavy Position company consisted of 4 12Ibs, 4 6Ibs, and 4 20Ibs Licornes. But in George Nafziger's Napoleon's Invasion of Russia he sites 4 'Long' 12Ibs, 4 'short' 12Ibs, and 4 20Ibs Licornes. In all other sources I have including all editions of Empire and R&E it says 8 12Lbs and 4 20Ibs Licornes? Can someone clarify? I've never been sold on Russian Artillery being Class III especially in 1812-14 period. Poor Powder would limit range not killing power at effective ranges. The only problem was the leadership but powder and leadership didn't stop the Russians grand battery at Eylau almost destroying a French Corps even though in the rules might have effected the sighting of the target but the hard ground would have been to the Russian advantage. Never sold on reducing Heavy Position Companies to Medium Heavy save maybe on last two range tables? Comments please.
In 1814 lack of powder and even balls reduced the effectivness of French Artillery but there is no mention of that in the rules just maybe limited supply in two three day battles. Can you name such a battle in 1814? Comments Please

Just my opinion. Most site powder issues, training issues, etc. as to why they rate Russian artillery lower. In my opinion, it is because when they go up against Russian artillery that is NOT rated downward, it obliterates French and their allies. It is the only thing that makes the Russians comparable to the French in rules I have played and gives them a chance to win. Russian infantry is not a match, as battalions are smaller and fire is not equivalent. I think French players just have an issue with that. Now most will site this book and that book, but honestly, who wrote most of the books, Russians? Of course not, most are from French, English, US, etc. Look at the differences in views of Waterloo, as sources other than English and French have come along.

I read almost everywhere 4x 20pd licornes, 4x heavy 12pdr, 4 light x12pdrs so that is what I try to show.
Empire III rules do put all these Russian guns on a III tier firing level, which helps tone down the massive batteries.
At Borodino the 1st Western Army had 438 guns, some batteries never were used I take it but still the amount of guns is a formidable force.
I have last game tried limiting ammunition (historic recreation ) and gave my Prussians ( wouldn't matter who really) limited fire opportunities, 10 tactical fires, or if bombardment took 2 away, still gave 2 emergency but close range only for canister. Worked well
Certainly had to weigh if that fire was going to be worth it, some batteries did run out.

The napoleonic redux thread has a lot of useful info.

In short: the earlier t&oe had the 12/6 lber mix, after arakcheev reforms (1805) the 12/12 mix.

The empire class iii nonsense is b.s. and based on mis-understanding of rooskie tactical practices.

Earlier position batteries would engage enemy with most appropriate guns at particular ranges, drawing/withdrawing pieces from the park as appropriate.

Later times operate in half-batteries of 6 pieces.

Note that the light batteries were deployed as pairs of 6lbers on flanks of infantry brigades with the licornes held back as giant shotguns. 6 pieces in first brigade, other 6 with second brigade.

These practices mean that you never have all the rooskie pieces deployed at the same time.

NB. the franchies also held their obusiers back for close-range protection; so engagement between six franchie 12/8 lbers versus four rooskie 12lb is possibility

1. >>at Eylau almost destroying a French Corps even though in the rules might have effected the sighting of the target but the hard ground…

Read the history, not scenarios etc. There was [perhaps] up to 3' of snow blanketing the ground, plus what fell then. Yermelev tells us they fired cannister all day, as shot was useless for effect. [And he commanded 1 1/2 horse batteries 18g- yes but he remarks on the Russian position guns too].

2. Companies once exhausted, or nearly so from either ability or shot, were rotated OUT regularly and did so at B. AFAIK/ read. Thus fresh gunners came to bat.

3. I can't remember when we played EIII over 20 years ago, but rule systems that imply 'continuous' adherence to organically variable situations, and organisations, are just plain wrong.

As stoppage points out, we clearly did not understand the special tactics of 'unicorns' and how they are applied. So 12 guns in a battery wont be shooting at distant targets, but will let fly lethal cannister.

If you choose to confront one, better make sure it's been damaged first! Otherwise, you wont last as a general…
cheers dave

I'll add some more to this:

The tactical combat part of Empire III is great for post 1804 and the Franchie victories up until 1812.

Poor things:

Artillery classes – I call B.S. (but we now know a lot more than in the 1980s)

Cavalry combat by regiment – would be better if squadrons were modelled instead.

Nasty total victory table – why can my landwehr lancers not best Franchie cuirassiers EVER?

The command and control tables could have been generalised into:

1. Linear Armies
2. Divisional Armies
3. Corps and Reserve Armies

rather than hobbling allies into 1. or 2. and giving Franchies #3 all the time with +3 on everything too.

Incidentally – The franchies in the revolutionary period also operated position/divisional batteries with a mix of artillery pieces.

Also incidentally – the move away from linear armies – those with in-lined regimental guns and separate position batteries – to divisional systems with divisional batteries situated on flanks – resulted in a simplification of equipment.

Using the Rooskies (pls note cannot type their correct name at moment) as example – they moved from a linear system of 6lbers as regt guns with long 12/short 12 – to a divisonal system of artillery-operated 6lb brigade supports as described with medium 12s as divisional/corps artillery.

Thanks for all comments. What's difference between a long and short 12Ib cannon are they different types/designs or is it about what orders/training they were habitually given; to fire short range or long?
Thanks as always.

The difference between a long/medium/short 12 lber probably isn't noticeable in an Empire wargame.

The real difference is probably in the thickness of metal – the longer would be thinner and you'd have to watch for over-heating and sagging firing round-shot; the shorter would be thicker and withstand high-intensity firing – perhaps banging-out case-shot.

The long 6-lber would probably offer an effective range between the long-12lber and short 12lber.

Be aware that the grenade-throwers have a particular trajectory – they'll start off with a low rise and then – as velocity bleeds-off they'll drop sharply at the end. Rather useful for trenches and dead-ground – possibly why grenadier battalions _might_ have been armed with them.

Another thing about the Rooskies – their equipment reflected the theatres they were expected to operate in – take a look at an atlas and see the varied terrains.

Lugging a short-12lber over a caucasian mountain or through mud might be easier than pulling a long-12lber along a dry, maintained, road.

I make no difference obviously by rules for different weight of Russian guns. And if rules change (come on 7) I will too, but my Russians pack all their guns along so opponents watch out. Should look up difference in calibers of long and short 12pdrs.

I had no idea that the Russians split their light batteries to protect the brigade's flanks, or that the licornes were split up as well.

Never heard that either.

Am I the only one who feels most(not all) rules are overrated towards the French? They treat the French as if they are always prior to 1809. After 1809, the French were not the same. The Austrians gave them a run in 1809. The Russians gave them a run in 1812. Of course after that, if the Emperor was not with them, they were very defeatable. One could say the same for Spain.

Lastly the Russian Army, was the artillery, without its strength, they do not have the staying power of any major army.

The light battery pieces would operate as pairs: one pair 6lb on each flank; the pair of 10lb licornes held as reserve or deployed to most threatened flank. This, of course, is 1812 usage with infantry division deployed in successive brigades (yeger up front, heavy infantry in columns).

Prior to 1805 the light battery guns would be distributed to the infantry regiments, interlined between the battalions and crewed by infantry; Post 1805 crewed by artillerists.

I do not know how the guns were deployed with the column-line-column regimental formation.

@35th, they do seem to be written by Francophiles or Anglophiles, at least back in the day. I haven't looked at a new set in decades.

The first I ever used Napoleonenettes was Anglophile. You could not beat the Brits.

That might be Napoleonic or a name like that. Duke Siegfried

Since to help with original question got ,me wondering too.
From Napoleonic Artillery from Dawson, Dawson and Summerfield
1805 M1805 gun carriages
12pdr medium 283cm (9.28 feet) 672KG (1,382.3 pounds)
12pdr light 262cm (8.59 feet) 500kg (1,102.32 pounds)
20pdr (1/2 pud) 310cm (10.17 feet) 688kg (1,516.78 pounds

Think about it- those [infantry] who had the 'comfort' of artillery blasting away from the flanks against enemy probably supported their morale. A half company could fit in the tighter inter-battalion confines, and deliver required sauce upon the enemy. being independant of the infantry command (they were placed by Divisional commanders) made their support more effective.

Yermelev was quite adamant that his horse battery's of 12 (or 22-24 if he commanded a 'brigade' of them} were never to be separated. But he did use the 'sections' to commit both attacks and retreats where ground allowed it.

14Bore- the calibres and hence ranges are equally important to the figures. I hav'nt looked up the exact data, and the book is away right now on loan, but the heavy 12pdr had something like a 10-20% longer effective range; which when broken down [to tactical matters] might only amount to an extra salvo anyway. Were they in fixed [field] position, then perhaps heavy meant better.

cheers
d

Follow up:-

From The Redux #163- Suvorov's 1799 Campaign in Italy [Novi OOB and sources]
TMP link

we read (just to clarify what base tactics might have been and added links):-

jeffreyw3 08 Aug 2018 11:31 a.m.

Zhmodikovs' "Tactics of the Russian Army… v.1" notes that each Grenadier or Musketeer regiment had four 6# guns and one 1/4 pud (12#) unicorn (licorne). The latter was detached with the grenadier companies to form grenadier battalions, so musketeer battalions had two 6# each, and grenadier battalions, two 1/4 pud unicorns).

In battle, the guns went to the right flank of each battalion.
- -

cheers
dave

My 17th Position Battery with 2 20pdr, 2 different 12 pdrs
30th Position Battery with 1 20pdr, 2 of 1 12pdr, 1 of other. Seems my longer 12prs are smaller models, it was a array of different models I had to make into all my batteries to get 4 guns in each. Easier to break into 1/2 batteries

I am building a couple of the 1806-07 divisions. For the artillery they only list 2 heavy, 2 or 3 light and 1 horse batteries. Is there anything out there that may indicate the battery numbers or the brigade, so I know which facing color to use?

RxE states that Russian Line Artillery is Class II but that 12Ibs Position Companies fire as Medium-Heavy. Reasoning that mix of poor powder and the Russian Ibs is lighter that the French Ibs. So its swings and roundabouts.

Class II between 1811 and 1814.