"Shouldn't canister fire outrange musketry?" Topic

Muzzle energy has to be much the same whether fired by a musket or by a cannon, if anything a musket should be a bit higher.

Range is therefore likely to be similar as the resistance is identical once they leave the barrel.

This assumes that by 'cannister' you mean a can of musket balls and not 'heavy' cannister (a bunch of larger balls).

Heavy cannister would carry further due to its higher muzzle energy (which increases as the cube of diameter) even though its resistance is also higher (but only increases with the square of diameter).

It seems likely that it is the latter being described.

Somewhat surprised that musketry has such a long range. Most set effective fire at no more than half that and decisive at half again.

I'm missing something. Who or what set of rules has given them the same range? Nothing I've played.

GildasFacit
"Muzzle energy has to be much the same whether fired by a musket or by a cannon, if anything a musket should be a bit higher"

Sure? Gunners could vary the type of cannister depending on the target. So, for example, Prussian 12 lbers fired either:
a) 41-ball cannisters of 6 oz each
b) 170-ball cannisters of 1 1/2 each
both with a 4 lb charge.

Whereas British medium 12 lbers always fired 42 balls of 6 lb each with a 3 1/2 lb charge.
Denmark used 100 x 2 lb balls with a 5 lb charge.

So on a wargame table, what you're doing is trying to get a fixed dice modifier for what is a variable weapon; varying in spread, range, likelihood of a hit and effectiveness of a hit. If you want figures for other nations or calibres, let me know.

Just taking the example of the battalion volley at 100yds.

Would that then be a larger number of musket balls covering a wider area than the dispersion from a battery of 12 pounders and how many musket balls are in the canister round?

At longer ranges would the aiming ability of the individual with musket mean that the fire is less effective than artillery as range increases?
Maybe the modifiers are taking that into account and not simply a measure of muzzle velocity and kinetic energy?

Yes.

Did any Prussian actually test this, with charts, sheets hanging on a line, etc?
There's your scientific evidence.

Bless you dogtail, I've never seen or heard tell of a set anywhere in horse & musket in which canister wasn't effective outside of smoothbore musketery range. Two hedges. (1) A number of rules don't specify artillery ammo type. They just say "artillery fire" getting more deadly as the range closes, but always having serious effect outside of musketry range unless the infantry are rifle-armed. (2) Once the infantry maneuver unit is a brigade--sometimes represented by a single stand--the brigade's fire is assumed to include battalion guns and skirmishers (who may be rifle-armed.) Artillery units still have greater range, but the ?canister/smoothbore musketry distinction is lost.

Just continuing with GildasFacit for a moment:
A musket used 1/3 oz gunpowder to fire a 1 oz ball.
A Prussian 12-lber could use 64 ounces of charge to fire 41 x 6 oz cannister balls, ie 1/3 oz of charge per 1.3 oz of ball.

So, based upon that, cannister should fire less far than a musket. On the other hand, being more concentrated, it'll be more devastating at range.

The other factor, is that while a musketman could theoretically fire four shots a minute, a cannon will manage two shots every three minutes, ie 1.5 shots per minute, making the musket's standing rate of fire 2 2/3 quicker.

Kiltboy,
Using results of one test, at 100 paces, half of large cannister balls hit an infantry target as opposed to 40.3 – 53.4% of musket shots, depending on whether the infantry is aiming carefully or not.

This compares at 400 paces with 11% of cannister balls finding a target compared with 6.6-13% of musket-shots finding their target.

So, taking account of the rate of fire, musketry effectiveness seems similar to canister at these ranges. But once you get into the 400 – 600-pace range, cannister can still claim hits with 7-8% of balls.

IMHO the key influencing factor is the level of play for the rules. A different consideration for a skirmish of 1:10 troop ratio compared to a 1:40-60 set of rules.
The higher ratio has the change from ball to canister as part of the calculation charts, the smaller ratio has more player choice for a switch involved.
The IS Army did do tests on the 6-par between the Revolution and war of 1812.

Cacadoress, your maths was wrong. Two artillery shots in three minutes is one shot in 1.5 minutest and a musket fires 6x quicker.

Dagwood
"Cacadoress, your maths was wrong. Two artillery shots in three minutes is one shot in 1.5 minutest and a musket fires 6x quicker."

Details, details!
It's what happens when you have a little monkey reminding you, you promised to take him on a bike-ride. Okay, artillery fires 0.66r times a minute, so yes, muskets fire six times faster. So that pushes infantry into definately being more devastating than cannister under 400 metres. Especially as a French battalion at Waterloo, for example, could fire about 550 balls on average per discharge at Waterloo (not that they often got the chance to deploy in line) but about a hundred less at Borodino. British battalions at Waterloo, on the other hand could bring on average 630 muskets to bear.

Musketry range seems to drift from 100 paces to 400 paces to 400 meters at varying points in this discussion, and that's critical. Up to 100 yards/200 paces a smoothbore vollery could be deadly, but the falling-off in effect beyond that seems to be very rapid.

Looking through the comments here my first thought is that the usual bug had mixed up 5 or 6 different threads. If the OP had been clearer in what it was that seemed incongruous we might have made a better start but this is just chaos.

You might find this illuminating regarding the use of canister.

Although it's an ACW piece the principles are the same.

Best wishes,

Chris

Canister fires much further than musketry in the Napoleonic era; one of the big differences in the ACW is that rifle muskets have the same range as canister. If a Napoleonic set has musketry the same as canister range, it is not a good reflection of reality.

Agreed, the Springfield/ Enfield was a potentially longer range weapon as opposed to the musket of the Napoleonic or even the Civil War ones employed in the opening years of the conflict.

However, I would respectfully suggest that talk of ranges should represent effective range.

No self respecting artillery or Infantry Colonel is going to blaze away at an inefficient range unless they wish to expend their ammunition as a pretext for pulling out of the line.

Best wishes,

Chris

Apologies,

The link failed to copy.

YouTube link

Senile decay is creeping in.

Chris

Best video for impact of canister is the extract from the Russian series about the Decembrists – see "Decembrists on Senate Square" at link

Will post later results of canister tests in Summerfield, Dawson & Dawson book on Napoleonic Artillery.

As promised results for canister tests from Dawson, Dawson & Summerfield book on Napoleonic Artillery:

Russian Tests oif light canister (fired at pinewood panel 1m wide by 2.2m high by 20mm thick)Figures given are number of hits on target at ranges of 200m, 250m, 300m, 350m, 400m, 450m & 500m

12pdr Heavy (151 balls)
blank, 40 (26%), 22 (15%), 14 (10%), 10 (7%) 6 (4%), 2 (1%)
12pdr Light (132 balls)
46 (35%), 34 (26%), 19 (14%), 12 (9%), 8 (6%), 4 (3%) -
6pdr (99 balls)
32 (32%), 24 (24%), 16 (16%), 8 (8%), 5 (5%), 1 (1%), -
1/2 pud Unicorn (151 balls)
53 (35%), 40 (26%), 22 (15%), 15 (10%), 9 (6%), 5 (3%), 2 (1%)
1/4 pud Unicorn (151 balls)
44 (29%), 26 (24%), 17 (11%), 10 (7%), 7 (5%), 3 (2%), -
1/4 pud Unicorn HA (132 balls)
40 (30%), 22 (17%), 14 (11%), 9 (7%), 7 (5%), 3 (2%), -
3pdr Unicorn (38 balls)
10 (26%), 4 (11%), 2 (5%), -, -, -, -

Hits registered by six gun batteries of 6pdr and 12 pdr guns (Note: The target measured 61.5m by 5.5m. Six guns of each calibre fired roundshot for 30 minutes; each 12 pdr fired an average of 45 rounds and each 6pdr an average of 60. With cannister, each battery fired for one minute.)
Figures are given for 400m, 500m, 600m, 700m, 800m and 900m

41 ball Heavy Canister
12pdr (9 rounds fired)
No data collected, No data collected, 45 (12%), No data collected, 36 (10%), blank
6pdr (12 rounds fired)
No data collected, No data collected, 48 (10%), No data collected, 0 (0%), blank
112 ball Light Canister
12pdr (9 rounds fired)
180 (18%), 162 (16%), 108 (11%), 72 (9%), No data collected, blank
6pdr (12 rounds fired)
240 (18%), 204 (15%), 96 (7%), 60 (5%), No data collected, blank
Roundshot
12pdr (270 rounds fired)
blank, 107 (40%), blank, 97 (36%), blank, 54 (20%)
6pdr (360 rounds fired)
blank, 135 (27.5%), blank, 90 (25%), blank, 0 (0%)

Read quite a bit on the Decembrests, ( see my 200th game ss well) the battery was very shocking damn close, the Guards were well within musket range as well.
That square is not all that big.
But the Union of Salvation besides a very good historical movie it has to be the gold standard to show what cannister would do to infanty.
I really can't see a smoothbore musket out shooting heavy cannister in range.

THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY
Or: How Wargaming Inverts Einstein.

dogtail
"My thesis: canister fire is able to inflict casualties on a greater range than musketry fire"

Gotcha. But that's not all your thesis, is it. You're claiming canister casualties at range, in competition with infantry, should show up in a game turn, are you not? So what could a based-12 lber do in a game turn compared to infantry firing six times faster? So let's see, assuming every hit registers a separate man (which is quite an ask).

So, take a typical battalion-based game with a baseline of 700 muskets giving 700 shots in your typical Prussian battalion at Ligny. They fire four shots a minute, ie 2,800 balls. Hanoverian experiments against a target representing a line of infantry showed 1/3rd would hit at 300 paces, others less than 1/4. By 400 paces it could be down to 1/15th, but still giving you 187 hits.

An 12-lber artillery base in such games usually represents a battery of, say, seven guns. The heavier the canister-balls, the further they travel but the less of them you have. You'll need 1 1/2 oz balls to reach 4-500 paces but no further. Prussians do them in 170-ball cartridges. At 400 paces with such small balls 1/12th of them on average are going to hit an infantry battalion, ie 14 strikes. (The heavier canister only gives you 4.5 hits). They can fire a round every 0.66 minutes but there's seven guns. That's 14 x 7 guns x 0.66 shots = 64.68 strikes a minute – almost three times less effective than infantry.

For five hundred paces, muskets are seldom used and you're going to need the heavier shot which the Prussians had in cartridges with forty-one, 6 oz balls. 1/12 hit in tests against a mock-infantry battalion target. Therefore, with one round you're getting 3.4 hits. That's 3.4 x 7 x 0.66 = 15.7 hits.

At 600 paces this drops to 1/14 on target, giving 3 hits x 7 x 0.66 = 13.86 hits per minute.

I conclude that, yes, canister can inflict casualties at greater range than infantry. But are they enough to register as a gaming-hit? See below:

CHRIS DODSON
"However, I would respectfully suggest that talk of ranges should represent effective range"

Be careful. "Effective range" for one gun is different from the "effective range" of seven guns on one battery-base firing canister at the same target. One hit by the former might not be worth counting. The latter might be. If it takes, say, four "hits" to destroy an average battalion in your game, with, say, a tolerance level of up to 1/5th casualties (140 men), then one gaming-hit represents 35 casualties. So what could canister do in one minute?

With cartridge, a 12 lber battery with seven guns…..
At 400 paces gets 64.68 hits per minute.
At 500 paces gets 15.7 hits.
At 600 paces gets 13.86.
This is into a cloth target, mind you. In a battle, though, the front rank will stop a lot meant for those behind, and men get hit by more than one ball.

So what's a 600-pace canister target even doing in a game? Okay, so you say, "hang on, a game turn represents more than a minute in time. So, be practical. To make the 35 casualties necessary to inflict a gaming "hit", you need one turn to represent at least two minutes.

But that also means you're dealing with an infantry volley at 100 yards, getting 3/4 of their shots on target. 5,600 balls in two minutes against another battalion in line will get 4,200 on target. Even if 3/4 of them strike belt-buckles and musket stocks, that's still an insane number of casualties that would wipe out any enemy in one turn.

There are compromises over compromises here. You have to start somewhere that's not mad, like how many casualties one gaming hit represents. But I think you're going to find most games compromise time at both ends by inverting the Theory of Relativity: shortening relative time as perceptual focus stills movement and grips the wargamer during the nitty-gritty of close-encounters, while simultaneously lengthening time at the less-discernible ranges of distant travel, away from the main action.

E=m√c

@Cacadoress,

I think you are over thinking this as one heavy canister ball will take out several men – whether they are killed or wounded so it isn't a simple calculation.

I would expect light canister to have a similar if lesser impact.

Ian

Kriegspiel 1824 is the Bible. They were there, you did not.

Then n unknown artilleryman, by the name of Buonaparte told in his maxims of war for covering the passage of a river:
"…if the river is more than 600 yards in breadth, because the distance being out of the range of grape, it is easy for the troops whch defend the passage to line the bank and get under cover". Then later: "… advantages from the protection of your artillery that, however small the angle may be, it is impossible for the enemy to prevent the establishment of a bridge."
so 400-500m

@dogtail

I believe the results in the book are averaged out per gun for that particular type of ammunition e.g Heavy Canister etc..

You need to bear in mind that a number of men would have been hit by multiple canister balls so the number of potential hits would need to be adjusted downwards.

The suggestion from experts at the time was not to engage until effective range circa 600 metres with ball being more effective, reserving canister for close range. Canister could be seen as more a psychological weapon.

It was suggested that at Lodi the Austrians should have used roundshot rather than canister due to its penetration power on the French column.

Ian

dogtail
"My thesis never mentioned the damage that infantry fire can produce. I am only asking for the impact of artillery fire at a range where musketry is not possible"

But you're not only asking for that. You're asking if artillery canister fire could make an impact within one game-turn. Game-turns are defined by one infantry "round".
"My thesis: canister fire is able to inflict casualties on a greater range than musketry fire." Of course. But are those casualties enough to register as a "hit" in a game?

Infantry can fire four rounds a minute. Canon fire only 0.67 times a minute. So, you have to reduce historical canon hit rates by 0.67 at least and multiply them by the number of guns in your battery, to harmonise with the infantry's four-hit "kills" within the same timeframe.

major-General B. P. Hughes in "Firepower Weapons Effectiveness on the Battlefield 1630-1850" has an interesting illustration on use of projectiles which shows:

British:
Light case up to 250 yards
Heavy case from 250 to 300 yards
Guns roundshot above 300 yards
Howitzers common shell 3501 to 600 yards
Howitzers shrapnel above 600 yards

Other nations:
Light case upto 250 yards
Heavy case 250 to 500 yards
Guns Roundshot above 500 yards
Howitzers common shell above 500 yards

I agree with dogtail about whether results obtained on the range can be used to indicate actual effectiveness on the battlefield.

When it comes to wargame rules there is more involved than a simple question of weapon effectiveness. Wargame turns seldom reflect 1-2 minute real time intervals. They are more likely to reflect a longer time period. A period in which a number of things might happen, or very little.

So let's assume for the sake of argument that musketry's maximum range and canister's maximum range were about the same, and each was equally effective. If you command a battalion of infantry deployed in line and your opponent moves troops into long musket range and stops, are you likely to have your troops blaze away at maximum firing rates when you are likely to inflict few casualties? Doubtful. If you do open fire it may be a single volley or volleys at very slow rates. If your troops are trained as skirmishers you might push some out to wear your opponent down with pot shots. Or do nothing until he comes in closer. Artillery OTOH may have been targeting that opponent with solid shot. They may or may not switch over to canister when the opponent hits maximum canister range, probably dependent on what is in their chests. Plus with a battery of artillery (or a screen of skirmishers) presenting a less dense target than a battalion of infantry in line, the opponent's return musketry at long distance is less of a factor.

Wargame rules should reflect not only realistic results but also the kind of behavior that would lead to those results. In that vein, even if cannister and muskets have the same maximum range it makes sense to give artillery a longer range to reflect that they would be more likely to engage in that range. Another option would be to give both the same range but give the infantry such a low rate of possible hits per volley as to discourage them from expending much ammo on the target.

dogtail
"@cacadoress: the results of your infantry fire calculations seems to be off, as the number of hits would destroy any battalion way faster than descriptions of fire fights during the napoleonic era suggest."

Thank you. They're not "off". They're a like-for-like comparison for hits through a cotton-sheet target.
So yes, battalion "kills" are a lot less as men hit by multiple balls will screen those behind. AND the same for canister! Think 8 volleys is still too much for a game-turn? Okay, divide by 1/4 of the time. But do it for canister too and it disappears from the game!

Can you see now?

I'm not trying to tell you how we fix it. I'm simply showing you the problem. In fact I'd love to know how we fix it. You'll find that most wargame rules do it by assuming artillery fires more often at range – almost like they're stuffing the time it takes to bring units close up, into a lesser number of turns and upping long-range artillery effects.

dogtail
"If you get shot at, you don't have time to count your casualties. Your normal reaction is fight or flight"

So we should downgrade the sheet-target results for musketry but not for canister. Riiiight. 🙄

Bill N
"I agree with dogtail about whether results obtained on the range can be used to indicate actual effectiveness on the battlefield"

You have some other data? I'm only arguing for comparison. The point being resisted by dogtail is that if you downgrade musketry test results then you should downgrade canister test results too.

The other point being resisted by everyone (for some unaccountable reason that I can barely fathom), artillery fires up to 0.67 times less often than musketry. What's your argument that it should be able to fire in a game as often as musketry? I'd love to hear it.

Theory is fine. But what do actual battlefield results say?
Don't idealize anything.

I meant of course, canon fire 0.67 times a minute.

dogtail
" I do not use a comparison between the number of hits of musket and cannon fire. "

Come, come now, dogtail. You have made that comparison multiple times in this thread.

" . A battalion firing within 100 paces should be even deadlier than a battery of 12 pounders….
"there is a range (between 400 and 800 paces) where 6 pounder guns are more effective…And line infantry cannot match this (except for getting their skirmisher out)".

"Clausewitz, that said that artillery is two to three times more effective than musketry"

"should canister fire outside the range of musketry be more than a nuisance?"

"My thesis: canister fire is able to inflict casualties on a greater range than musketry fire."

Hard to say. Prussian tests showed muskets can fire to up to 3,090 ft, while no has one bothered testing canister at that range.

Musketry tests produced the following figures giving aimed through to unaimed shots at a cavalry target:

Prussian (aimed – unaimed)
Paces verses % hits.
100: 53.4-40.3
200: 31.8-18.3
300: 23.4-14.9
400: 13-6.5

Hanoverian (aimed)
100: 83.3
200: 50
300: 37.5

Whatever rate and accuracy achieved in a battle, the usefulness of these tests is to show the dwindling in effectiveness after 300 paces.

Compare that with canister, the percentage of balls hitting the target is:
Paces: large balls – small balls
100: 68.75 – 50
200: 33 – 25
300: 25 – 20
400: 20 – 12.5
500: 12.5 – 11
600: 11 – 9

But before you make a direct comparison to infantry, bear in mind first that a Prussian 12-lber used either 41 x 6 oz balls or 170 x 1 1/2 oz balls in a cartridge with a 4 lb charge. Other nations used 9 oz and 7 1/2 oz balls. The heavier balls could go further and the spread was less, but there were less of them.

What they found was, that the 170 x 1 1/2 oz balls were good for up to 350 paces, while the 41 x 6 oz balls were effective up to 900 paces. So what you're contending with is fact that after about 350 paces, the number of balls in a canister is rapidly reduced by a quarter, while the chances of a hit for each one declines steadily.

And note too, that the longer the range, the more time it takes to aim. So while a 12-lber typically managed 1 1/2 shots a minute at close range (350-paces), it could manage only 0.6 shots at long range.

If Kriegspiel rules assume a rate of three canister rounds per game-turn then one can assume a turn represents two minutes. Time constraints would then demand long-range canister was two and a quarter times less effective to begin with, before penalties for distance were factored in.

However, now you're looking at (presumably), an infantry battalion being able to get off eight volleys a go!

John the OFM
"Theory is fine. But what do actual battlefield results say?
Don't idealize anything"

Please tell us. We try to use all the information we can get, don't we? I fear, however, that too many are forgetting muskets can fire about 2.7 times faster than artillery.

@ Cacadoress That line needs to be read in the context of the overall post. Except for skirmish games wargame rules for land combat should not be about what is theoretically possible. They should be about what troops could actually do in battle when acting as they normally did, and within the constraints of wargame mechanics.

Bill N,
"rules for land combat should not be about what is theoretically possible. They should be about what troops could actually do in battle"

So results in battle are going to BETTER than in tests? I think you're on your own there, Bill.

dogtail,
So information forces us to agree. The truth will set us free!

Of course, these figures (which aren't mine, although my neighbour has a small canon he has used over the field opposite to shock the village when the police aren't around) are best used to show trends and comparisons. If musketry is dominant up to 100 paces and useful up to 300, then canister can have an effect after 350 paces up to 600, even though there's this dramatic drop off in the number of balls it fires. So perhaps it's the shock value of canister below 200 paces that keeps it in contention.

The factor mitigating AGAINST using canister at long range, which we didn't mention, is roundshot. A 12-pder in tests can hit 36 formed infantrymen at 800 paces with round shot, increasing to 48 men at 400 paces – twice as much as canister in tests, when gun depression is a greater problem for round shot. Then why would any army have regulations dictating less effective canister for over 400?

Now, the only possible window of opportunity for canister at range is that round shot results (hitting files) drop by half for cavalry. Still, even half the hits at range is better than canister. Bear in mind the number of balls in a Prussian canister drops by a quarter after 400 paces. This suggests that the only time it's worth using canister not roundshot at range is against cavalry in the ambiguous 350-450-pace range, when crews of some nations are switching canister charges. ie cavalry is getting closer and they switch to canister early, or retreating and they switch late.

So… what do think about that?

Remember the good old days here, arguing about those ropes used to drag cannons around?
Oh, dear me. That was so important that I forget what they were called!
Any help here? This is really a test of elderly gamers' memories.

Trunions? No. That's not it. But close…

Bricoles! Yes! That's it!
Now, please forgive the mini-hijack and return to the original arguments.

Dogtail wrote:
"the results of your infantry fire calculations seems to be off, as the number of hits would destroy any battalion way faster than descriptions of fire fights during the napoleonic era suggest."

I think the explanation for this is that under battlefield conditions, where you are at risk of immanent death, you don't shoot as well. And also, as that article I reposted somewhere here recently suggested, soldiers tend not to aim to hit, but to look like they're doing their job. Incidentally, that may be less true for artillery, where a team is shooting under direction of an officer who is observing the results. Also, they are less likely to be under direct fire than an infantry unit. And their target is likely to be further away, so maybe less humanised?

Cheers,
John