"[Allies 1805] Austrian KK- Bridging Train" Topic

Any references or illustrations of what a pre-Napoleonic to 1805/09 Bridging Train may consist of/ look like.

I know the SME has left the building, so I may have to go fish…

I've a Russian caison of long tenure who should become an 'Austrian' of either general transport supply or 'alterntive' bridging train, with suitable add-ons.
Thanks,
dave

Did the Austrians actually possess bridging trains?

My understanding is that most small alpine bridges were dismantled over the winter and re-built after the snow-melt had passed.

The Italian campaign was fought using existing (larger) permanent bridges.

Might filling the caisson with ropes and wood-working tools be more appropriate? (c/w Serf ostler)

Or sneak it into your floating-mill diorama as the miller's mulcture-waggon. Boat mill Model

>>Did the Austrians actually possess bridging trains?

Yes according to Gingrich, my OB for Austerlitz, he shows:-

Kienmayers Avant-Garde
Pioneer Corps
3 coy's- with two mobile bridges.

I can see the logic they employed to march them in the Avant-Garde in case of need to throw them at points other than the defiles of each village, yet no mention is made anywhere of their position or use.

Not a high priority but interesting optional unit.
Hmmm, amusing, but no… ta
d

No idea, but whatever you come up with, presumably the woodwork, pontoons etc would be painted ochre?

The French painted their bridgey type stuff artillery green, the British painted all artillery equipment in Humbrol 106 Ocean Grey, and hence I presume the Austrians followed suit?

I'm guessing so, but in my mind I seem to recall a single incident of a 'grey' bridge somewhere, but that may be just false memories on my part.
My 'Pioneer Corps' company's are repesented by these handsome chaps (scroll down to 16 Jan 2021): TMP link

cheers

This has an image of an Austrian Dinghy-Pontoon:

Nap Series – French Danube Bridging

Apparently there was an Austrian pontoon bridge at the Battle of Ratisbon/Regensburg. And Alvinczi thought about one at the Battle of Arcole.

TMP discussion:

TMP – Pontoon bridge/bridge of boats

This has dimensions of pontoon equipment – especially Austrian, Open, Wooden, 1799:

Wiki Source – Enc Brit #9 – Pontoon

A Gribeauval one is listed. It'd be interesting to know if The Austrian pontoon waggons used the Liechtenstein standard wheel sizes.

Oh pish-posh and I even replied on one!
My search-ability seems flawed… not least for 36 hours of reconstructing computer and file systems archive etc. for safety.
Ok ta, theres evidence I need to consume… ;-)

During the 1796 the Austrians place pontoons near Busolengo and South of Dolce. Probably the same pontoon set.

This is from the Heeresgeschichtliches Museum and shows a print by Johann Nepomuk Hoechle. Although it is undated Hoechle painted scenes from 1809 onwards and judging by the uniforms I would speculate it is likely that it shows a train from 1809 or shortly thereafter.

postimg.cc/qt4YCsbp

@1809 – superb illustration.

Observed details (in case piccie 404s):

Equipage:
- Pontoon carriage: yellow ochre, black fixings, smaller front wheels, larger rear wheels
- Dinghy-pontoon: greyish hull, metal chains and fixings
- Bridge saddle: grey (*) (supporting dinghy)
- Anchor: black (resting on spars)
- Bridge spars: yellow ochre
- Bridge deck planks: yellow ochre

Costumes:
- Team: black harness
- Drivers: yellow collar and cuffs white tunics and breeches, black scabbard and cross belt, black knee boots
- Workers: dark blue tunics and breeches, red collars, cuffs, and turnbacks, top hat with cocked-side-brim, black-over-yellow tufts, black knee boots.
- Officer: per workers with bicorne-fore-aft

Remarks:
- (*) Apparently Austrian and French pontoon bridges used "saddles" to raise the deck above the boats;
- British practice was to rest deck on the gunwhales (top-edge of hull)
- Suggests that British pontoon bridges necessitated entry and exit ramps.

As I've the regimental history (Geschichte des k.k. Pionnier-Regiments in Verbindung mit einer Geschichte des Kriegs-Brückenwesens in Oesterreich, 4 volumes, Wien 1878) I found some descriptions which I quote here in German (perhaps google may help).

The 1st volume has a description of the used bridges ("Laufbrücken") for the period of the revolutionary wars between 1792 and 1801 (page 366-367):

Die während der vergangenen Feldzüge in Verwendung gestandene Laufbrücke zeigte folgende Details der Konstruktion und der Ausrüstung: 5 Bruckbalken, 31 Fuss (9,79m) lang, 5 ¼ zöllig (0,14m); 2 Schliessbalken, 31 Fuss (9,79m) lang, 4 zöllig (0,10m), beschlagen und mit Ringen versehen; 32 Tannenpfosten, 14 Fuss (4,42m) lang, 11 5/8 Zoll (0,30m) breit, 1 ¼ Zoll (0,03m) dick; 4 Schliesspflöcke, beschlagen mit Querbolzen, 3 Fuss (0,94m) lang, 3 ½ zöllig (0,09m); 1 vierkantiger Sturzpflock, 2 Fuss, 3 Zoll (0,71m) lang, 5 Zoll (0,13m) breit, 3 Zoll (0,08m) dick; 2 Schlägel; 2 10 Fuss (3,16m) lange Stangen mit Gabeln; 2 Faschinen; 8 Faschinenpflöcke; 2 14 Fuss (4,42m) lange Latten; 4 Radelprügel; 4 Radelseile 20 Fuss (6,32m) lang; 2 Drittelseile mit Haken, 9 Klafter (17m) lang; 2 Krampen, 2 Schaufeln.
Das Materiale war auf einem achtspännigen Wagen verladen. Das grosse Gewicht (bei 50 Zentner, 2800 kg), sowie die bedeutende Spannung dieses Wagens, machten denselben zu einem der schwerfälligsten Armeefuhrwerke, für dessen Fortbringung auf schlechten Strassen und Engwegen sich viele Schwierigkeiten ergaben. Nun hatte dieses Materiale jedoch die eigentliche Bestimmung, den Avantgarden der Heerestheile zu folgen und es ist natürlich, dass bei der Schwerfälligkeit der Konstruktion dieser Zweck nur unvollkommen zu erreichen war. Man war demnach bei den Armeen bemüht, diesen Nachtheilen abzuhelfen.
In der Ausrüstung der Armee in den Niederlanden erscheint bereits 1793 eine leichter Form unter dem Namen kleine Laufbrücke aufgenommen. Über die Konstruktion dieses Materiales ist Nichts aufzufinden; auch lässt sich nicht nachweisen auf wessen Vorschlag dasselbe zur Einführung gelangte.
Von Seite des Ober-Schiffamtes, welches die Laufbrücken in Erzeugung und Aufbewahrung hatte, ist jedoch dieser Vorschlag nachweisbar nicht ausgegangen; es wurden auch aus den Depots nur grosse Laufbrücken zu den Armeen entsendet.
Die ersten Vorschläge zur Veränderung des Materiales finden sich von dem Kommando der italienischen Armee. In einem diesbezüglichen Berichte vom 1. Jänner 1797 aus dem Hauptquartier Trient wird angeführt, dass die bei der Armee befindlichen Laufbrücken in den engen Thalwegen des Gebirges ihrer Schwere und Länge wegen nicht zu verwenden seien und es wird um Einführung einer leichteren Form ersucht.
Fast gleichzeitig wurden vom Kommandanten des italienischen Pionnierkorps Vorschläge gemacht, die vorhandenen Laufbrücken in eine leichtere Form umzugestalten. Die Balken sollten auf 20 Fuss (6,63m) verkürzt und Balken und Pfosten getrennt auf zwei vierspännigen Wagen verladen werden.
Diese Vorschläge erhielten die Genehmigung und es wurde auch sofort mit der Umgestaltung des Materiales begonnen. Es war angeordnet, für die italienische Armee 20 Laufbrücken neuerer Konstruktion zu erbauen; die wider ausbrechenden Feindseligkeiten verhinderten nun zwar vorläufig die Ausführung dieser Befehle, die angegebene Form der kleineren Laufbrücke blieb jedoch in der Zukunft beibehalten.
Mit den angeführten Umänderungen des Materiales war die Laufbrücke älterer Konstruktion keineswegs beseitigt. Dieses Materiale verblieb mit sehr unwesentlichen Veränderungen noch bis zum Jahre 1817 unter der Benennung "grosse Laufbrücke" normiert.

On page 368 is stated, that the whole Austrian army had 258 pontoons for use in wartime at the end of 1798.

I know it is a bit hard stuff, but perhaps of use … if you're interested in more "technical descriptions" like the quote I may add information for 1805 and later.

Greetings from Berlin
Markus Stein

In the 2nd volume I found on pages 22-23 a summary of the material used by the Austrian army during the campaign of 1809.

Each mobilized pioneer division had the material for two large and two small "Laufbrücken" (foot bridges).
The army had 300 Austrian wooden pontoons and the following captured pontoons:
- 11 saxon pontoons
- 18 French metal pontoons
- 25 French wooden pontoons
54 more pontoons were built during the campaign.
Additionally the army had a "mobile Ship bridge" on the Danube.

Greetings
Markus Stein

Hi all, here is a Google translation of the post in German from Marcus.
The gangway in use during past campaigns showed the following details of construction and equipment: 5 bridge beams, 31 feet (9.79m) long, 5¼ inches (0.14m); 2 closing bars, 31 feet (9.79m) long, 4 inches (0.10m), studded and ringed; 32 pine poles, 14 feet (4.42m) long, 11 5/8 inches (0.30m) wide, 1¼ inches (0.03m) thick; 4 locking pegs, shod with cross bolts, 3 feet (0.94m) long, 3 ½ inches (0.09m); 1 square lintel, 2 feet, 3 inches (0.71m) long, 5 inches (0.13m) wide, 3 inches (0.08m) thick; 2 beaters; 2 10-foot (3.16m) poles with forks; 2 fascines; 8 fascine pegs; 2 14 foot (4.42m) long slats; 4 wheel beaters; 4 bike ropes 20 feet (6.32m) long; 2 third ropes with hooks, 9 fathoms (17m) long; 2 staples, 2 shovels.
The material was loaded onto an eight-horse wagon. The great weight (at 50 hundredweight, 2800 kg), as well as the significant tension of this vehicle, made it one of the most cumbersome army vehicles, and many difficulties arose in moving it along bad roads and narrow paths. However, this material had the actual purpose of following the vanguard of the army units, and it is natural that this purpose could only be achieved imperfectly given the clumsiness of the construction. Accordingly, efforts were made in the armies to remedy these disadvantages.
As early as 1793, a lighter form was included in the equipment of the army in the Netherlands under the name of small footbridge. Nothing can be found about the construction of this material; nor can it be proven at whose suggestion the same thing was introduced.
However, this suggestion was demonstrably not made by the Ober-Schiffamt, which had the gangways in production and storage; only large catwalks were sent from the depots to the armies.
The first suggestions for changing the material come from the command of the Italian army. A related report from January 1, 1797 from Trento Headquarters states that the army's footbridges in the narrow valley paths of the mountains should not be used because of their weight and length, and that a lighter form should be introduced.
Almost simultaneously, proposals were made by the commander of the Italian Engineer Corps to redesign the existing catwalks into a lighter form. The beams were to be shortened to 20 feet (6.63m) and the beams and posts loaded separately onto two four-horse wagons.
These suggestions were approved and work on redesigning the material began immediately. It was ordered to build 20 catwalks of newer construction for the Italian army; the outbreak of hostilities now prevented the execution of these orders for the time being, but the specified form of the smaller footbridge was retained in the future.
With the mentioned changes in the material, the gangway of the older construction was by no means eliminated. This material remained standardized with very minor changes until 1817 under the name "large footbridge".

The illustration of 1809andallthat seems to be post Napoleonic of about 1820.

The Luafbrücken are technically no pontoon bridges, they were used in the battle of Marengo for the Austrian attack.

@vw

So perhaps this image shows the pontoon bridge and foot-bridge (foreground / background):

Wiki – Rhine bridges

From:

Wiki – Kehl 1796 – Siege

NB. The laufbruecken being a trestle-bridge

@vw

I'm curious as to why you think the illustration shows a scene from circa. 1820.

Given we know that Hoechle observed and painted Napoleonic scenes from 1809 through to 1813-14 isn't it more likely that this scene relates to 1809-1814 rather than a peacetime setting in 1820?

Putting it another way, before I contemplate building one of these is there anything to suggest that it is not a reasonably accurate illustration of an Austrian Napoleonic Pontoon Train (for which I haven't seen another picture)?

I continued. checking the regimental history and found that the pontoon material got some first minor changes in 1816 and a general restoration in 1818 – this latter material is described in detail and could be a help for the former wooden pontoons of the Austrian army – but as this description covers several pages I'd only scan it if it is of interest here.

Interesting details I read in several captions:
- the "Laufbrücken" (foot bridges) were criticized througout the whole period as they were too "short", so that the pontoniers must work in water => many reports show high rates of sick soldiers (due to this "water work")
- in nearly all campaigns there had been a lack of pontonier soldiers, so Tschaikisten-companies had to assist and work as pontoniers

A reglement for building up bridges had been started in 1811 and was finally published in 1830 – there are many chapters about the different bridge constructions; but until now I couldn't find this Pontonier-Reglement.

Greetings from Berlin
Markus Stein

I picked up at a used book store Manual for Engineer Troops By Capt J.C Dwayne 1862 to research this exact matter. It has drawings and description for the many ways a army could cross a river.

@1809andallthat

Thanks for the usefull links and images supplied, now what makes me think of Hoechle being post Napoleonic, it was the shako of the train, as far as I am aware of – at least up to 1815 the Corsehut was still in use.

I thought the shako officially came in earlier than that. I think I've seen paintings showing it and the Corsehut from about 1813.

The reference to Tschaikisten being drafted in is interesting. Makes for an interesting way to model a pontoon bridging team.

Cheers,
John

I have to find the source which stated that the shako was only in reality introduced after 1815, Klein shows the Artillerie Fuhrwesen in 1815 with Korsehut.

Haythornethwaite's Osprey (Austrian Auxiliary Troops of the Napoleonic Wars) states that "though the shako appears to have been introduced about the same time as it was adopted by the infantry its use was no universal …"

He then goes on to refer to Klein's depiction of "many variations on the standard uniform" and notes that he painted Fuhrwesen c1814 still wearing he Corsehut.

Haythornthwaite was not bad in those years but research has moved on.
According to Karger the Korsehut was introduced in 1808 to replace the "round" hat, – other than that a "division" received for trial a shako which seemingly did not last and for that reason, at least the Korsehut should have been predominant, that was my line of argument for dating the plate.

David Hollins dates Hoechle in his Austrian Napoleonic artillery 1792 – 1815 at about 1820.

So by 'round hat', would they mean the one with the turned up brim at the back, or a top hat with no turned up brim? And if the change to Korsehut was 1808, would some of those round hats still be in service in 1809?

Cheers,
John

One has to check Karger on this, seemingly the train also did carry on for a while to wear a more conventional hat, in case the Korsehut officially was introduced in 1808 I wouldn't be surprised that the old headgear still would be seen in 1809.

@vw

Thanks for clarifying. 1820 does sound more probable based on the drivers' headgear. So we are back to the question as to whether the pontoon train itself is a fair representation of a Napoleonic train or whether the design altered significantly immediately after the Napoleonic Wars. I have found another illustration in the HGM which is dated to around 1820 which shows a pontoon train in the background and what appears to be a different design

postimg.cc/NKJ2JkjY

Any thoughts?

Hi,

the last HGM illustration seems also to show later Pontonier troops … as vW cited the very valuable work of Karger (who worked in the military archive of Vienna) I'll provide the whole text (in German) for the 1798-1809 period for the Pontoniers which were organized in several companies.

Im Jahre 1798 wurde statt des Kasketts ein runder Hut aus schwarzem Filz eingeführt, dessen 16cm hohen Kopfteil ein 4cm breiter Messingstreifen umfasste. Hinter der breiten, etwas nach aufwärts gebogenen und geschweiften Krempe steckte linkerseits ein 26,5cm hoher schwarzgelber Federbusch.

Von 1801 an ersetzte den runden Hut ein Korsehut, von gleicher Form wie für Mineure. Dieser hatte auf der linkerseits aufgestellten Krempe einen 7,9cm langen, messingenen Anker, vorne eine gelbschwarze Rose und einen Federbusch. Der Rand es Hutes war mit Leder eingefasst.

Die Farbe des Rocktuches blieb kornblumenblau, wurde jedoch über hofkriegsrätlichen Vorschlag vom 5. Jänner 1805 wegen geringem Bedarf an Tuch von dieser Nuance durch die lichtblaue ersetzt. Die Aufschläge waren ponceaurot, der Schnitt wie für Infanterie.

Die Hose war von gleicher Farbe wie der Rock und im Schnitt für die Kavallerie erzeugt.

Nebst der blauen Hose hatten die Portioniere auch zwilchene Matrosenhosen.

Hiezu kamen noch Leibel, Rockelor und Zwilchkittel.

Die Fussbekleidung hatte bis zur definitiven Entscheidung einige Erprobungen zu bestehen.
Statt der
1794 eingeführten kurzen Stiefel wurden
1801 neuartige Stiefel für deutsche Kavallerie,
1802 Tschismen ohne Schnüre, endlich
1803 Artilleriestiefel und
1804 ausser diesen noch ungarische Schuhe vorgeschrieben.

Rüstung und Bewaffnung bildeten:

Tornister, Kartusche und Flinte samt dazugehörigem Riemen (wie bei der deutschen Infanterie), dann Säbel mit Sägeklinge, ledernem Griff und Handriemen. Der Säbel wurde an einem Ueberschwungriemen getragen.

Eine gedruckte Verordnung von 1808 führte folgende Sorten für Portioniere an:

Korsehut mit Leder eingefasst samt Bindriemen, Federbausch und messeingenem Anker.

Hellrot egalisierter Rock aus lichtblauem Tuch, Leibel ebenfalls lichtblau; Matrosenhose aus Zwilch.

Dann Tschaikistensäbel mit Sägenklinge und Schanzzeug; Trag- samt Binderiemen wie für die Pioniere.

Greetings from sunny Berlin
Markus Stein