"why is it that Senarmont's tactics didn't become universal ?" Topic

If Senarmont's artillery tactics were so effective at Friedland (1807), why is it that they did not become universal ?

I've always wondered why, as he moved his guns closer & closer to the enemy lines, that cavalry didn't nip out from one side or the other & slaughter his gun crews. I'm sure this would happen on most wargames tables.

No doubt many reasons (as so often), but how about this preliminary thought: in addition to necessity of providing artillery with some infantry support against, say, flank attack by cavalry "sabring the gunners there", the fact that an advance (whether by "prolonge", man-handling or by limbering-and-unlimbering) would be comparatively slow would allow counter-measures readily to be taken; say a massed battery arranged to shower the deploying artillery with shot, shell and canister? But – again as so often – don't particular circumstances, terrain, troop-quality, condition which tactics are employed? Good question though.

Notice the effect of simultaneous action! I was writing the above whilst Paul B was moving in on the flank!!!

Something else to note: artillery normally has much lighter casualties than the other arms during battle. Senarmont's crews were said to have lost heavily at Friedland.

Most people are not as brave as our tin soldiers.

About cavalry: I recall some Russians tried this and were shot down. The bend of the river covered Senarmont's flank to a degree, so it was a frontal charge.

I think the real question is how did he get away with it? What were the conditions in terms of ground, support and enemy inaction that permitted it to happen?

Well for a start it was mid June so the ground should have been good. Then the attack took place up a neck of land with the Muhlen Fluss on one side and the River Alle on the other. This must have helped give some security to the flanks.

He was supported to the rear by four dragoon regiments which would have made Russian infantry a bit wary and there was a lot of smoke around, which his batteries would have added to as they advanced. Thus causing confusion and uncertainty in the Russian command and limiting any skirmish effect against the artillery. Particularly if the wind (if there was any) was coming from behind Senarmont's advance.

On top of this, his fire overwhelmed the supporting artillery and the smoke was so thick that the Russian guns that could have enfiladed him from across the river could not see properly. Finally, when the Russians put in a cavalry assault it arrived just as the infantry had broken so the charge was disrupted and duly blasted away.

So all in all everything worked in his favour.

I guess the point is that few were prepared risk it all coming together on a regular basis particularly given the potential loss in men, horses and guns if it went wrong. At Wagram the Guard massed artillery did its job in stopping Kollowrath but the horse gunners lost 15 pieces before it even got into action.

Trained gunners and associated material were a valuable asset, to be risked only when conditions were favourable or desperate.

Any fool can be an infantry man it takes brains to be a gunner!

Senarmont did the same thing at Ocana in Spain with his artillery. There, however, it was an economy of force measure and not the main attack as it was at Friedland.

Other battles where this tactic, or a variation of it, were used was Wagram, Landshut, Lutzen, Raab, Hanau, and Ligny, so it wasn't a one-time event.

It should be noted that at Friedland the infantry supported Senarmont's large battery, which was a reversal in roles. Further, the Russian Guard cavalry attempted a flank attack against Senarmont's artillery. The gunners shifted trails and gave the Russians two canister vollies. They were literally blown off the battlefield.

At Hanau allied cavalry actually reached Drouot's large battery, where the gunners fought them with musket and bayonet, rammer and handspike until the Grenadiers a Cheval arrived to defeat the allied remnants on the gun line.

There is an excellent book Grand Artilleurs by Girod de l'Ain which covers Eble, Senarmont, and Drouot. It has a very large amount of letters and after action reports in it and is very useful. Senarmont's gives his losses and his ammunition expenditure at Friedland.

Sincerely,
Kevin

>"Most people are not as brave as our tin soldiers."<

Are they really brave, or is it just that they are glued to their stands and thus can't run away? (And where would they run to? Off the edge of the table?)

(And where would they run to? Off the edge of the table?)

That's where mine end up…the good news is that my miniatures are mostly returned to their transport boxes when the game ends

Most interesting material, Trajanus contributing specific details showing how circumstances contributed to the success (albeit costly) of the manouevre, Gandalf as ever providing a wealth of supporting information, and the rest of us chipping in with some scattered observations. And vtsaogames reminds me that, for all the interest of the period (generally) and all the romance of les beaux sabreurs &c, there's only one direction I would be moving in during a battle.

Incidentally, there's a painting by Vernet in the National Gallery, London, England, showing the incident at Hanau referred to by Kevin/Gandalf; as far as I recall, the allied cavalry are Austrian, but it's the Chasseurs a Cheval of the Garde that are shown (can't recall if the Grenadiers are shown too, but I'm sure someone could find the image in some online Catalogue). Salut!

The question is a valid one, but unfortunately based ona delusion, which has grown out of the reading of just one source (namely Senarmont's own claims). It is unfortunate that this failure to do a bit of basic reading has disfigured much of the Napoleonic subject.

The use of artillery to knock holes in things is about as old as artillery really, but the big change was the lightening of field guns by Lichtenstein with his mobile 6pdr and the double carriage position of the 12pdr. which made it possible to use them as field guns, although their overall weight affected their mobility. Frederick copied these weapons and began his own experiments with horse artillery. The overall effect is thus more mobile guns in the 7YW making a real impact on battles instead of being emplaced and left pretty much to get on with it. There is a difference with the French, who stuck with the idea of big heavy guns with what they hoped was more "punch" – their guns however would thereby be limited by weight until the Yr XI 6pdr and 5.5in howitzers camne into service. Although there is a French manual from about 1800, which sets out Senarmont's tactics, it was only the introduction of these lighter guns (copied from Austrian pieces captured by Allix in Turin in 1800), that the manual tactic became feasible for the French. The idea that Senarmont was doing something novel thus only applies if you read French sources – or secondary American material.

A good example is the 1792-3 period. The French lack cavalry and are encumbered with heavy guns. Off they go to Belgium. In the normal way, they mass these guns and advance with the infantry – basically knocking a big hole in a rather weak Austrian centre and winning Jemappes with a Meusnil Durand heavy column marching through and on to Brussels. This was a big psychological moment for the French – they believed now that as long as they kept advancing, they would win. With heavier calibres, they could dictate the range of artillery exchanges and smash holes in lines – you can see this happening throughout the period, but the obvious top examples are Lannes at Aspern, McDonald at Wagram and d'Erlon at Waterloo. Of course, much of this was possible due to large supplies of manpower – as is mentioned above – as you have to take heavy casualties and ultimately, you must win too. Other nationalities had limited supplies, but more mobile guns and so, used more refined tactics. Unlike Senarmont, who was supported by infantry in the usual way (conveniently overlooked by his report and his supporters), Smola for example trotted off with an Austrian Cavalry battery and cavalry escort (to protect against counterattack) and ripped up Miranda's column at Neerwinden in 1793. It was he also as artillery director, who tore up Lannes at Aspern too. As he noted, it is the side dictating the range, who will get the most hits – he says the Austrians gunners could see that French guns were most effective at about 700 paces, but if the Austrians got into 500 paces, they were more effective as the French guns lost accuracy (of course, Tousard, who never saw war in Europe reckons that balls fly flat, but then you should believe everything you read in a secondary sources). So, what it comes down to is that you have to advance with protection to a point, where your weapons are most effective. the standard artillery tactic was to fire across enemy lines from the flanks to increase the depth of the target.

Hence Senarmont was really just doing the standard tactics, once he was in possession of lighter guns, rather than the overheavy Gribeauval pieces. Getting up close is all very interesting and brave, but you start taking heavy casualties among the men, whom it is hardest to replace and we can of course see the same thing at Wagram – eyewitness accounts from the following days talk about musketball holes in the carriages.

The Austrian Lichtenstein System was developed to counter the Prussian light field artillery that took the field in the War of the Austrian Succession. Lichtenstein copied the elevating system, and the gun carriages are very similar. The Austrian artillery in the War of the Austrian Succession was still a guild, and was outmaneuvered and outshot by the Prussians. Lichtenstein was also incluenced by the standardization of gun tubes in the French Valliere System. You can find this information, among other places, in the artillery section of Duffy's Instrument of War.

There is no evidence that I can find where the Gribeauval gun tubes or gun carriages were considered overweight. They certainly were better gun tubes, cast to higher standards and tighter tolerances, and didn't use excess metal to cast them as the Austrians did.

An artillery round's trajectory follows the line of shot or the line of the bore. If it is fired at 0 degrees elevation, it follows a trajectory parallel to the ground until the round begins to fall. All of the diagrams of the period clearly demonstrate this, and if gunnery is studied that is what happens. Technically, the ball starts to fall immediately after leaving the bore.

There are at least two primary sources for Senarmont's action at Friedland. One is his after action report, which is in Grand Artilleurs by Girod de l'Ain, and there is a copy of the other, which is the I Corps after action report, in the older La Sabretache. They are clearly done by different people.

Senarmont was indeed supported by infantry, which is a role reversal. Usually, artillery supported the infantry and cavalry, not the other way round.

Finally, you certainly can find the impetus or suggestion of Senarmont's new artillery tactics first used at Friedland in 1807. He took it one step further, using artillery to seize the tactical initiative and become a maneuver element which actually held ground. It would be repeated on other fields, such as Raab, Ocana, Ligby, Hanau, and Lutzen.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Some information on Austrian artillery:

'In comparison the Prussian pieces in the two Silesian Wars were wonders of mobility and effectiveness, and Lichtenstein's first attempt to compete-the thirteen and a half caliber long 3-pounder he developed in 1743-proved a failure. The first demonstrations had gone deceptively well, and it was decided to take a number of the pieces campaignin on the Rhine in 1744. However, the swell at the muzzle (by which the gunners took their aim) was too small, and gave an excessively high elevation; moreover the heavy charges of that period overheated these comparatively light pieces, and soon put them out of action.'
Duffy, Instrument of War, page 283.

'Bronze was the almost universal material of gun casting in continental Europe, and the standard Austrian mix comprised one hundred parts copper to ten of tin (though the use of scrap metal would have altered the proportions).'
Duffy, Instrument of War, page 285.

'Combat capabilities of the [mounted] arm were further lessened by the fact that although the regulations contained a section on the use of horse artillery, the Kavallerie Batterien were only partially mounted and in any case not trained to support cavalry charges.'
Rothenberg, Napoleon's Great Adversary, pages 147-148.

'During the Prussian Wars the Hapsburg artillery repeatedly had swung the military balance in favor of Austria. It continued as a powerful instrument, though its material had not changed and it always suffered from a shortage of trained gunners and auxiliary personnel, the absence of permanent tactical formations and control over its own transport. Charles managed to make some needed reforms in artillery organization in 1808, though these fell short of making Austrian artillery as effective as that of the French.'
-Rothenberg, Napoleon's Great Adversary, page 148.

'Smoothbore artillery's effectiveness was much influenced by proper siting and ability to target and few senior Austrian field commanders appreciated its potential and limitations even though in early 1809 a senior gunner was appointed as chief of artillery to assist corps commanders. Moreover, there developed a real gap between the 'scientific' artillery specialists and field generals which tended to interfere with efficiency. Finally, the individual battery commanders, described by Charles as 'often old and frail, and having been slowly advanced up the ladder,' still tended to regard the individual piece as a discreet fire element, while generals often lacked the feeling for the proper use of artillery. As a result the archduke's instructions that artillery should always act as part of a combined arms tean as often were neglected.'
Rothenberg, Napoleon's Great Adversary, page 150.

'No specific rules governed artillery in combat. Line guns were used as single pieces and during an advance were pused or dragged slightly ahead of the line, about 15 paces, and fired after the infantry had vollied…Though well-trained and efficient, the Austrian artillery was handicapped by pieces with projectiles, weight for weight, intrinsically inferior to that of the French, and diluted its fire by distributing most of its guns in penny-packages.'
Rothenberg, Napoleon's Great Adversary, page 37.

'The situation was aggravated by the faulty organization of artillery. Except for the puny regimental guns, ordnance was massed into an artillery reserve and generally kept too far back to do much good. Proper handling, such as the provisional battery formed by Lieutenant Smola at Neerwinden, positioned forward to support the line with canister, were exceptional and caused much comment.'
-Rothenberg, Napoleon's Great Adversary, page 50.

Sincerely,
Kevin

It looks as though we are about to recieve a revision of the perhaps contentious but always interesting discussion on the Lichtenstein Vs Gribeauval systems.
I thank our two experts in advance & for those who haven't yet entered this arena 2 printed works of interest.
dave has an Osprey booklet out on the Austrian artillery. Typical Osprey with good illustrations & diagrams.
Kevin has his book titled "Artillery of the Napoleonic Wars 1792-1815".Superb overview of the artillery of the period with a slight emphasis on the French.
I would endorse both for anyone wanting to know more on this topic.

Trouble is Donald, Kevin has copied a lot of inaccurate secondary material. I need not say anything more than the claim made quite clearly at least 4 times that Gribeauval invented the bricole – two books (incluidng mine) which Kevin reviewed, clearly show this is not the case. You should not confuse quality with quantity. I also did not list books, which I have not been near, nor did I use secondary Us material to comemnt on Germanic artillery developments. However, I have actually bothered to read about Gribeauval's time in Austria and I have looked at the Table du constructions. "A slight emphasis" would be an understatement – not least the agenda which ends with the claim that Gribeauval overhauled artilelry – trouble is, that ahd Kevin looked at the pic of the 1747 artillery carriage in my Osprey, he would see the G carriage (the design is an exoisting French one). Had he also done his reasearch, he would have found that Austrian cavalry gunners rode on the guns and that Allix capturted a whole load of Austrian guns in Turin in 1800, from which was copied the Yr XIs. The claims about them falling to bits are wrong anbd we have yet to hear how they meet the L dimensions with "an improvement in metallurgy". Therein lies the difference – I read the key works on my subject. Kevin's claims are in many cases as well substantiate as his claims about the 14e legere in the French vets thread on the Nap books section. Granted Kevin does put up a lot of tabulated data – most of it is good, but there are too many faults to quote it.

here we foind above "I can see no evidence" – well try reading the weights and consider whay Marmont and Nap (gunners themselves) brought in the Yr XI system. Some people cannot read what is in front of them – viz. the bricole again.

here we are again with the Tousard flat trajectory. Amazing this one – here we have a man in the US, who never saw a battle in Europe and then, we have Smola, a man who fought in many such battles. He notes that if the Austrians can reduce the range from about 700 to 500 paces, then the Austrians get the advantage because experience has shown the Austrians that french guns are less accurate at that range. Now, how can a flat trajectory be less accurate at shorter range? Secondly, we have the account from Wagram from IR42, where the authro says the French guns were drawn up at quit close range, yet managed to throw the projectiles over the infantry Masses (18 men deep). Stiil, why do some research when some people think you know your material when you copy from Tousard? Oh, apparently, the ball starts to fall when exiting the barrel – perhaps the Kevin can tell us why he defines point blank (correctly) as the point at which the ball crosses the flat line for the second time. As ex hypothesi, it must be falling and point blank must be just before first bounce, then where has this ball been before that?

Ah yes, all very fascinating that Kevin quotes Duffy and Roithenberg – yet he lists a large number of German sources in his book, but fails to quote from them nor even get his facts right, when such material (such as the casting process) is clearly laid out in them. I wonder why he keeps getting his facts wrong?

And for anyone who has already read any part of the Bricole Wars in 17 Volumes the time to tune out is right about now.

For anyone who does not have access to the originals a brief summary is offered below -:

You have nt read the primary material, you keep quoting secondary stuff.
Yes I have, you dont understand artillery
No you havent, yes I do
Yes I have , no you dont
No you havent, yes I do
Yes I have , no you dont
No you havent, yes I do
Yes I have , no you dont
No you havent, yes I do
Yes I have , no you dont
No you havent, yes I do
Yes I have , no you dont
No you havent, yes I do
Yes I have , no you dont
No you havent, yes I do
Yes I have , no you dont
No you havent, yes I do
Yes I have , no you dont
No you havent, yes I do
Yes I have , no you dont
No you havent, yes I do
Yes I have , no you dont

I can't see any sense in making that sort of fun (as JeffsaysHi does) when an expert is giving us informations. We should be grateful even when something is repeated.
Sorry for the unusual sharp reply – but I just can't stand the attitude of making fun of everything.

'I also did not list books, which I have not been near'

I sincerely hope that isn't an insinuation that I have listed books in the bibliography of Artillery that I haven't used or seen. If it is, then it is incorrect. Every book, in whole or in part, that is listed in the bibliography of Artillery is in my personal library and was there before publication. There are a few listed of which I only have part of the volume, and that is the only part that I used in researching the book. There is no need to make a comment of that nature and I hope that my interpretation of the remark is in error.

Further, I have included original drawings, including Austrian material, in Artillery, and just by taking a look and comparing the design drawings, one can notice the difference in the Gribeauval and Lichtenstein gun carriages. Further, the difference with the new Gribeauval gun carriages is gone into detail in Ken Alder's excellent Engineering the Revolution. I would recommend that volume highly for anyone interested.

Regarding the determination of 'point blank' the reason the line of shot crossed the line of sight twice is that the line of shot and the line of sight are not parallel. All you have to do is take a look at the diagrams. There is one on page 82 of Artillery and there is a detailed description of its use and calculation in the text starting on page 48.

As for trajectory and what the round does when it is fired and leaves the gun tube, I would suggest that you get a good book on gunnery. Failing that, you might want to contact the US Army Artillery School at Fort Sill or the British equivalent. In short, the round starts to 'fall' immediately after it leaves the gun tube. That is one of the reasons that the trajectory of the round is not a perfect parabola if fired above 0 degrees elevation. As a trained artillery officer that is one of the things that was taught to us in the artillery course.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Thank you, Donald, that is very gracious of you to say that.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Actually, what Jeff says is pretty accurate and funny. Reminds me of the Bugs Bunny/Yosemite Sam arguments ('Oh, no you won't-Oh yes I will'). I'll take Bugs. ;-)

Grenadier, that was nice what you posted, but Jeff does have a point.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Oh, no, he doesn't……..

(so I left it blank)

Oh, yes he does… ;-)

Oh, I will say it again. You list the following Austrian books in your bibliography – Dolleczek, Krieg Vol.4, Smola. You make claims, which are entirely the opposite of what is written in these books – eg: Smola gives the entire manufacturing process, all the books plus Duffy and my own show the Austrian cavalry gunners riding on the gun. You have just the one substantive note on Germanic sources – where you say that you extracted the data from Rothenberg, who took it from Semek's work. Why did you not take the original data in Smola or Dolloczek. Oh and don't quote Krieg Vol. 4 at me as it covers Aspern, whereas the info on the guns and the artillery in general is in Vol.1 (as you would know, if you had actually read these). For the chapter on Smola, you do not note a single Austrian source – not even the man's own memoires published by his sons! Indeed, had you read an accessible source like Wurzbach, you would get Smola's whole career in a nutshell – along with what Gribeauval actually did in Austria! Then there is Duffy – quite a bit of info on what G got up to in Austria and a pic showing, oh, the bricole in use in the System Anno 1753. Interesting how Rothenberg qotes Dolleczek at n.52 to his Chap 1. As for your "original drawings", you do not include any German technical material at all – it comes from Tousard as you can see the parts idents are in English. Well, we tend to call thee things "Bowdenisms" these days after the notorious footnotes and sources claimed in Bowden's 1805 book. The unkind would say it was trying to make false claims about the origin of your material to try to give credibility to claims copied from secondary and tertiary works. I have Hungarian books in my possession – doesn't mean I can read them.

You claim MacLannan shows Gribeauval did not copy L – yet his article does not address design. I know the G carriage is the old 1740 existing French design – all G did was to shave it down and wrap it in metal strapping – erm, like L. he standardised the field guns, erm Like L. he bagged the ammo – like L. He didn't invent the bricole and indeed L had brought it into Austrian service 18 months before G arrived! So, yes, Gribeauval took the existing french guns (although contrary to another of your claims, he did not include a field howitzer) and copied the L designs as far as he could. he finished up a system that was so poor that one of Firxt Consul N's first peacetime acts was to order its replacement with the Year XI (which aside from the removal of the barrel rings and the elevating system was an exact copy of the L guns capturted by Allix in 1800.

Oh and perhaps we can have an approximate date for the Imperial patent making G CinC of the Austrian artillery? (Clue: There wasn't one).

'As for your "original drawings", you do not include any German technical material at all…'

So as not to be too repetitive, ad nauseum, I'll address only a few points:

The technical drawings on pages 50, 56, 59, 63, and 114 which illustrate Hanoverian and Austrian artillery material are from a German source, in the German language. If you had actually seen a copy of Tousard's plates you'd have known that.

Gribeauval, though influenced by Lichtenstein and Valliere, did not copy either in the designs of his field guns. And yes he did introduce the howitzer into the French field artillery. The French had used it as a siege weapon prior to Gribeauval's reforms, but not as field artillery. If you have proof that isn't so, then please provide it, with citations and works. Your repeated insistence that Gribeauval 'copied' Lichtenstein is completely without sourcing and, apparently, only opinion. Now, if you would like to talk about Lichtenstein copying the Prussians, you'd have a very good case for that presumption.

Bagged ammunition, or the powder cartridge, was developed in the 1740s by French General Brocard.

What was the gun caliber and the weight ration per pound of round for the guns Allix captured in 1800? Further, the guns could not have been 'exact copies' as the French and Austrian pound were of different weights. If you have schematics of the two gun tubes or have photographs of any survivors, please furnish them. I'd certainly like to see a side by side comparison.

For Smola's biographical data I used Werth's biography, in German. Further, you have been told this before. And, yes, I translated it myself.

Please provide the evidence and citation(s) that Lichtenstein brought the bricole into Austrian service as you state.

For the other repetitive criticisms, you've been told about them before. Why you keep bringing up old information is beyond me.

However, you are free to do as you like.

Sincerely,
Kevin

@ Kevin

As I am currently reading Ortenburgs "Heerwesen der Neuzeit – Waffe und Waffengebrauch im Zeitalter der Kabinettskriege" I was a little bit surprised when you wrote "Bagged ammunition, or the powder cartridge, was developed in the 1740s by French General Brocard".

Do you mean Brocard developed the powder cartridge for the French field artillery or do you mean, it was the first-time invention. How did the Prussians or the Austrians operate their regimental guns in the 1730s, with (loose?)powder and shovel?

@all
BTW What is the German word for bricole?

Ulenspiegel

My information is that Brocard invented/developed the bagged cartridge.

The ladle was used for powder during the early 18th century and the ladle was a standard artillery sidearm for quite some time afterward.

If you have a date earlier than the early 1740s for the development of the artillery cartridge, I'd be more than happy to see it.

Additionally, the Austrian artillery arm was more of a guild than a military organization before the advent of Lichtenstein in the 1740s.

Sincerely,
Kevin

My problem is: Ortenburg makes – without citing a specific reference – the statement, that the French field artillery was using "loses Pulver" (loose powder) and "Ladeschaufel" (ladle, lit. loading- shovel) much longer than German field artillery, which had switched to "Patronen/Kartuschen" (cartridges) much earlier.

This implies (at least for me) the introduction of cartridges for the field artillery of Austria/German states before 1740.

Ulenspiegel

PS I don't see your point regarding the guild like structure of the Austrian artillery in the 1740s.

That may be so. I found the reference in either DeScheel or Tousard and it came at basically the same time that Belidor did his experiments in reducing the powder charges per round and that Brocard introduced the light Swedish pieces into the French service.

The guild comment was made as the Austrian artillery service prior to Lichtenstein was not as proficient as it later became and was only a quasi-military organization. In that respect, it might not have been easy to convince that new ideas might be better.

The implication might be correct. Just because a French general develops something it doesn't necessarily mean his own service might use if first.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Sincerely,
Kevin

loose powder vs pre mesured vs bagged, humm

from a wargaming point of view important in that this effects rate of fire, hence firepower.

The sweds use premesured for the musket as did the Germans in the 30 years war, in 1700 did not artillery go to pre mesured? was not the french inovation the felt bag that left the gun tube cleaner (less smouldering remants).

this sounds like an innovation leading to an evolutation.

like America putting rubber tires on artillery in the 1930, wheels had been on artillery for a long time. but this made the arm "High speed". this allowed for the Artillery battery at Kassirine pass to move 1000 miles in a few days and bring the lead penatation under artillery fire and end the threat. The germans just did not understand how moble the US forces where, (this mobility allowed the gaps to be plug during the battle of the bludge

Lord Ghee

@kevin
You wrot: "The guild comment was made as the Austrian artillery service prior to Lichtenstein was not as proficient as it later became and was only a quasi-military organization. In that respect, it might not have been easy to convince that new ideas might be better."

wheThis is very likely true, but does it have a real impact, as the organisation of the Prussian artillry for example was still quite civilian, too. The "militarisation" of the artillery took place much later.

Ulenspiegel

dave, re: your criticism of Kevin Kiley's book. I don't know. I've read some excellent reviews of it on Amazon.
Ullenspiegel, using civilian contractors is, of course, a hot topic even today.Iraq.
No matter how reasonable it may appear, it is essentially a money-saving idea & hence, not necessarily the most effective. I think the move towards militarizing *all* elements of the artillery arm at this time must, ipso facto, be considered an improvement.
regards, donald

The Prussian artillery had already been lightened and modernized and had outperformed the Austrian in the War of the Austrian Succession. That was the impetus for the Lichtenstein reforms of the 1740s and 1750s.

Gribeauval saw and tested both the Prussian and Austrian light pieces, and served with the Austrian artillery against the Prussians in the Seven Years' War. From those experiences he developed his new artillery system which was the most complete in Europe up to that time.

It's an interesting development, with probably the Swedes under Gustavus starting the push to develop light field artillery. The development of ancillary subjects went along with the gun development: the cartridge, smaller powder charges, ancillary equipment, and gunnery. It really is a fascinating period from about 1630-1770.

Sincerely,
Kevin

You aand others have written some reviews on Amazon – but having been on the receiving end of a malicious campaign there designed to discredit my work, I can tell you that opinions on there have all kinds of motivations/levels of knowledge and so, their existence does not prove anything. Indeed, this is the nub of thesubject – while the book is clearly useful in that it presents a lot of basic material, which while widely accessible in several soucres, is rarely put up together, that and the false claims about sourcing are designed to give a credibility to the claims by Kevin and the secondary authors he uses, which they do not deserve. This is the same thing as Bowden did in his 1805 book and we had exactly the same arguments with began with the assertion that Bowden had read the German and Russian material, when actually he had lifted it from Duffy and others, while adding in his own opinions near the footnotes. This practice should not be acceptable since it misleads the casual reader.

The bricole was a simple example – there was a simple yes or no answer to it. Bizarrely, Kevin still has not taken the lesson on board – if he looks at Duffy or my Osprey NV, he will see copies of the diagrams to the 1757 regs, which show the bricole in use (it comes originally from Prussia in the 1720s). It is quite simple – yet challenged to back his claims on the NSF, he told us that assorted French secondary authors said G had invented it and then made the claim 4 times in his book. Anyone, who had not read Duffy/me or seen the debate would now think G had invented it. It was a simple example, which goes to the heart of all this, but you can see the same thing happening on the French vets thread on the Nap Books page. There Kevin, based purely on a claim by Elting, says that the 14e legere were a crack unit – challenged by two people to back his claim while they produced the unit's history, he could not do so.

If you believe Kevin has read the books he claims, you would think that, while we all make mistakes, his claims were essntially based on the correct factual material. I asked him why he did not use the standard works by Smola and Dolleczek (I don't necessarily expect some of the obscure books in the KA library), but instead used Rothenberg and Tousard (books written in English), we hear no answer. He claims to have used Werth – it is three paragraphs, which could be run through a computer translator (indeed, it is worth noting that there is no reference to the rest of Smola's career, which is easily available).W ehave strange claims about the production procesd, yet it is laid out in Smola along with the tolerance specs – but we have this claim about honeycombing. In his FE article, Kevin claimed G was the CinC of Austrian artillery in the 7YW – yet his career is outlined in Duffy. Challenged to produce evidence to back the claim, he cited Lauerma's book on the French Rev Army from the 1960s. Mysteriously, no mention of the Imperial Patent (appointment document). So, he reality is that Kevin has used English language books, quoting the bits, which suit his original conclusion and of course, we finish up ina very Bowdenesque rant (remember his notorious coments about Chandler?) about how discussions on the Net had failed to show G had copied L – this from someone, who claims that G's carriage was original, when it is a 1740s French design (also copied in hte Austrian 1747 gun).

That brings us back to where Kevin is seriously misleading. I am sure you were very impressed by his claims on pp.54-55 about how G designed this whole mobile French system in his 1762 report. Trouble is, that is not what it says – it has been in print for a century, yet not even the much-quoted Alder and Graves have bothered to read it. Oh, they all quote a paragraph from the intro, where G says combining French and L guns would produce a battle-winninbg system (trouble is that Nap himself replaced the G guns with a decent gun). However, the report itself sets out hte basics of the L system and x-refs some features of the existing French gun system. The whole book is designed to "prove" that G devised some new battle-winning system – yet the author cannot even get the basic materials correct!

On bagged ammunition, Brocard did the first experiments with it and it was sued on some French siege guns. However, it was L, who turned it into a standard practice and who produced greased cartridges. The French only ever had a simple felt bag, which still required that the barrel was sponged every two or three rounds. While the Austrians also did this, it was not with a sponge, but a wire brush. Early exp[eriments had resulted in problems with a congealed rubber mixture forming in the barrel at Kolin, but this was sorted out soon after and in theory, the barrel did not need any sponging for a hundred rounds. At Wagram, the French complain about Austrian captured ammo, but the problem is that they were introducing large amounts of water into the mix and so creatinga similar congealing. Of course, the standard approach is to blame the Austrians!

I notice Kevin does not address the key points I put to him about sourcing and indeed, what the men, who saw these rounds coming in experienced. Instead of tables he claims to have in front of hi, he prefers to use a US author, who never saw action in Europe. even now, we have false claims – the field howitzer was brought into French service when G was out of favour – the mistake many have made is to look at the Table du constructions of 1790 and to think that everything in it was Gribeauval, when in fact, it was simply drawings of everything in French service at the time (not that Kevin refers to this key French work).

Still "in denial" Kevin asks what guns Allix captured in 1800 in Turin – they were a mix of Austrian pieces ranging from the 3pdr and 6pdr guns through the 7pdr howitzers to heavier garrison guns. Suddenly in 1803, up turns a 6pdr and 7pdr howitzer (called a 5.5in) which have the same shaped trail and the same gun shape (aside from the barrel rings – of course many US sources say that the US Civil War guns were the first to do without them!) that weigh about the same, allowing for the slightly heavier French pound and the varying calibres used (starting with 16, going through 17 to 18).

So, there we are Donald – you may agree with Donald Graves that "Kevin shows that G did not copy L", but Graves has not domne any reading on European artillery either.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree with Evan that you don't support much of what you say with any references. If it's opinion, that's fine, and you should state as such. Your lack of artillery knowledge, especially in gunnery, is appalling to me, as you say things that just aren't correct or logical to my mind. If you're going to write or argue in that discipline, you should know the basics of the arm at least. You have consistently proven that you don't unless I've missed something. I started studying artillery forty years ago and became a qualified artilleryman and have commanded artillery units and was in combat as an artilleryman. I still have a lot to learn and keep ties with my old regiment and have assembled a pretty good artillery library. If you don't agree with what I say or have said, that's fine, but you need to back it up, unless it is opinion, and you haven't done that.

'that and the false claims about sourcing are designed to give a credibility to the claims by Kevin and the secondary authors he uses, which they do not deserve'

I have made no 'false claims' about sourcing. You have no right to say anything of the kind.

'Early experiments had resulted in problems with a congealed rubber mixture forming in the barrel at Kolin, but this was sorted out soon after and in theory, the barrel did not need any sponging for a hundred rounds.'

Evidence please? I know of no artillery tube, of any era, that could go 100 rounds without swabbing the gun tube. There is always residue left in the gun tube after firing, and that includes modern weapons systems and ammunition. They've been trying to find a propellant for decades that would completely disintegrate in the gun tube and that was viable for active service. So far as I know it hasn't been found yet, and it certainly wasn't available in the 18th and 19th centuries.

'I am sure you were very impressed by his claims on pp.54-55 about how G designed this whole mobile French system in his 1762 report.'

I didn't say that, nor is that the intent, and that isn't what the introduction to the chapter was meant to say. You might want to read it again.

'it has been in print for a century, yet not even the much-quoted Alder and Graves have bothered to read it.'

How would you know that? Have you talked to either Ken Alder or Don Graves? Could you give evidence or a source please?

'trouble is that Nap himself replaced the G guns with a decent gun).'

Then please explain why the Gribeauval pieces stayed in service for the entire period and weren't replaced until 1827? Further, the 6-pounder was taken out of service after the wars because some of the artillery generals, such as Ruty and Gassendi, didn't care for it. Why was that? The only Systeme AN XI gun tubes that were produced in any quantity were the 6-pounder and the 5.5-inch howitzer. The Gribeauval 12-pounder remained in service with all of the field armies, and the 4- and 8-pounders remained in service in Spain and in other theaters.

'The whole book is designed to "prove" that G devised some new battle-winning system – yet the author cannot even get the basic materials correct!'

That is incorrect. Have you even read it or just read parts of it? Did you read what I stated about the British gun carriages and caissons and limbers?

'On bagged ammunition, Brocard did the first experiments with it and it was sued on some French siege guns. However, it was L, who turned it into a standard practice and who produced greased cartridges. The French only ever had a simple felt bag, which still required that the barrel was sponged every two or three rounds. While the Austrians also did this, it was not with a sponge, but a wire brush'

Every gun tube has to be swabbed, preferably after every round, to prevent a premature detonation of the next round as hot remnants of the powder and bag are usually left in the gun tube after firing. We don't have clean burning powder and bag, even today. Do you have a source for this incorrect assumption on your part?

'Instead of tables he claims to have in front of hi, he prefers to use a US author, who never saw action in Europe. even now, we have false claims – the field howitzer was brought into French service when G was out of favour'

Which tables are you referring to? I have made no false claims but have based the statements regarding the new French howitzer on DeScheel, which was Gribeauval's work. You might want to take a look. And as Gassendi is one of Tousard's references, it's also in there. If you have contrary evidence please provide it.

'Still "in denial" Kevin asks what guns Allix captured in 1800 in Turin – they were a mix of Austrian pieces ranging from the 3pdr and 6pdr guns through the 7pdr howitzers to heavier garrison guns. Suddenly in 1803, up turns a 6pdr and 7pdr howitzer (called a 5.5in)'

Nice try. You still haven't produced any documentation or evidence for this. Could you please? Further, the round for the 5.5-inch howitzer weighed 24 pounds. Hence, it was also called the 24-pounder howitzer. So, please provide evidence, please?

'but Graves has not domne any reading on European artillery either.'

Have you read anything that Don Graves has written on artillery? If not, you cannot make an assumption of this nature. Have you read anything that Don Graves has done? Have you had a discussion with Don Graves and he told you that?

'but having been on the receiving end of a malicious campaign there designed to discredit my work'

There wasn't any 'malicious campaign' against your work. I reviewed your booklets on Marengo, Austrian infantry, Austrian artillery, Austrian auxiliary troops, and Austrian commanders of the Napoleonic Wars. I reviewed the Austrian infantry, auxiliary troops and artillery very favorably, stating that the artillery booklet was excellent. I thought the booklet on Austrian commanders was poor and said so, as it was too favorable to a group of commanders that was not an outstanding example of generalship. Marengo I thought was very poor, mainly because of your inaccuracies about the first action of the Consular Guard infantry there, which has proven to be correct, thanks to Evan Pawley's careful and exhaustive research. You have Marengo, the artillery booklet, and the commanders booklet reviews somehow taken off Amazon which is nothing but censorship and quite ridiculous. If you're going to write you take your lumps as well as accolades and learn from them.

The reason I reviewed all of those volumes is that you openly advertised them continuously on the forums all the time. I wanted to see what all of the hoopla was about. Three of them are excellent, two aren't. You're batting .600-that ent bad.

'There Kevin, based purely on a claim by Elting, says that the 14e legere were a crack unit – challenged by two people to back his claim while they produced the unit's history, he could not do so.'

Again inaccurate, as I referenced part of a memoir of an officer of the 14th Leger and it was I who posted part of the unit's record from Digby's Napoleon's Regiments. Another poster reminded me that the regiment's record had been published on the Napoleon Series by Tony Broughton, whcih I also looked up. Further, Charrie lists the regiment as having the battle honor 'Wagram.' Do I need to go into the chronology of the threads to demonstrate that to you? That entire exchange was based on a difference of opinion that two others took to a ridiculous extreme. It's only an opinion, and that was the question posed in the thread and how it was answered. Some folks need to lighten up.

As I have said before, I am quite tired of going over the same material repeatedly for nothing productive. If you want to discuss something politely and without rancor, I am all for it, but you cannot seem to be able to do that. You strike me as a very angry and unhappy person, and I feel sorry for you because of that. You've done some very good work on the Austrians, and you've also made some thumping errors. That's called the learning process. One day when you grow up perhaps that experience will be good for you. Sorry to say I haven't enjoyed the experience (again). Perhaps next time you can be polite and we can have an adult exchange, instead of the normal nonsense.

By the way, do you know who CG Charton is?

Sincerely,
Kevin

>Failing that, you might want to contact the US Army Artillery School at Fort Sill or the British equivalent.<

Larkhill and the Royal Artillery generally have not used black powder smoothbore cannon for 150 years.

JC

However, should the defence budget be cut again…

'Larkhill and the Royal Artillery generally have not used black powder smoothbore cannon for 150 years.';

Who said they had? I mentioned gunnery, not propellant.

An interesting example of the absurd analogy and an interesting attempt at creating a strawman.

Sincerely,
K

Well, Kevin, at least I do not list material that I have not read in a deliberate attempt to give credence to half-baked third hand claims. You havhe not read anything in German about gunnery as you would not have written the rubbish in your book. You have not read the 1762 report, otherwise you wold not have made up what it says. You clearly have no understanding of Napoleonic ballistics since you wold be able to tell us all about Smola's range point.

It is no good trying to brush people aside by puffing yuor own alleged knowledge – you claim ed the bricole was invented by gribeauval and yet, two books you reveiwed told you otherwise. You did not look at the 1790 Table and you have not bothered to read anything on Gribeauval's time in Austria. Indeed, you cannot even graps that the G carriage is the existing pre-1748 French design! You are in no position to start criticising others.

As for Graves, his opinions are not worth a row of beans since he knows as little about European artillery as you do. That he has to indulge in attacking me in reviewing your book suggests that you and he are cut from the same cloth. As for your malicious campaign, the most amusing part was that you said that the 1790s Austrian Auxiliary uniforms were wrong (based on Elting/Knotel) when the uniforms in question were illustrate din the book from the official Schematis, which rather suggests that you do not even read what was in front of you.

As for your soucres, I have every right to point out that you are listing soucres, whcih you ahve not read – as I have rad them and so know what they say (try starting with the manufacturing process in Smola – it is in English in NV72 to make it easy). This kind of thing is not accepatble as it makes the average reader think that your opinions are based on those documents.

On the swabbing out, it seems that englsih is once again beyond you. On p.289 (close to 286/7 where the bricole is shown in the 1753 system), he quotes Arnfeldt, who says "A piece could now be fired up to 100 times without the necessity of washing out with the mop". This is a book you reviewed and quote regularly. It sort of hangs quite well with your straneg rant about the Internet in your book – very brave to write where the targets cannot answer – as wella illustrating that your refusal to listen somehow means this material does not exist!

I am amused to see you change your tune on Gribeauval's report. You say: p.55) What G wanted was a completely integrated artillery system .. also have a howitzer for field use .. artillery employment in combat would have to change". If you actually read this report – it has been in print for a century, you will find it says nothing of the sort. Indeed, G did not introduce a field howitzer – it was done while he was out of favour.

At least Alder and Graves do not seek to list material, which they have not read – and from that, you will see neither has read the key works. Indeed, Alder would not need to address the subject, so his claims in that respect are as well researched as yours.

Easy on the G system – the Yr XI was largely lost on campaign and France was broke. The Yr XI had not been fully introduced – and if you like, the Austrians were still using L in 1848.

If you look at the guns being used by the Austrians in Piedmont in 1800, you will find thes eare the dominant calibres -bthe 7pdr was a ref to the Austrian howitzer. perhaps I could mention Chartrand on that, who says the so-called G howitzer was so bad that the French gunners begged for captured Austrian and Russian pieces. Of course, they were gunners at the time, but obviously like Smola, MArmont and N himself knew nothing.

Yes, I am sure you are tired of hearing the same comments – seems we never get answers on hem, so we can at least move on to your other myriad errors. Of course, it is hard to discuss some since you claim to have read books, which you have not. The thread on the 14e was very interesting – the battle honour for Wagram is indeed an error by Charrie (we all make mistakes) – but rather than checking it or admitting you are wrong (I agree with Evan on the size of the Guard at Marengo roughly, but I did not have the benefit of the Soules citation at the time I wrote the book. I also believe now that the battalion of IR28 was one of the a/guard battalions. I do listen to what comes up after publication), you persist in quoting Charrie's error, which is as Charton says, easy to spot from the OBs. Now, if you do not want to look at the material, don't pretend you know anything about the subject.

Amazon agreed that your campaign was malicious and removed the reviews.

'Amazon agreed that your campaign was malicious and removed the reviews.'

Yes, I can see why an overall review of your artillery booklet of excellent was indeed malicious.

As for the rest of your specious posting, it clearly demonstrates the reasons why two of your booklets were given less that glowing marks when I reviewed them.

As a request, could you please give a detailed explanation of 'Napoleonic ballistics?'

Sincerely,
Kevin

?

Dave, did you get beat up a lot in school as a boy?

Because the way you talk to and the way you treat people on the Internet I could see it happening very easily.

Why are you never on the Napoleonic board's?

You hang out here with Wargamers, but you have stated many times you yourself are not a Wargamer.

Very sad.

Very, Very sad.

Black powder smoothbore cannon is a weapon type not a propellant and if you think gunnery has not changed in 200 years then I don't agree.

But as it was an observation, not an argument, it cannot be a strawman fallacy. An argument needs a premise and a conclusion.

JC

Oh, what a surprise Mr Henry turns up again with the usual rubbish, offering implied threats from behind his PC.

One day he will contribute something to a discussion but I'm not very optimistic.

Could you please point out where Robert Henry threatened anyone?

I guess I missed it, but I sure couldn't find it in his posting.

Another strawman, intended for nothing but picking a fight. To what purpose?

And you tell others that they post 'rubbish?'

You need to change your initials to SC vice JC, for 'Strawman.'

Sincerely,
Kevin

"Oh, what a surprise Mr Henry turns up again with the usual rubbish,'

No actually I am here about once a day. And if you were to look around you would find that I put my two cents of good info on the site.

"offering implied threats from behind his PC."

?

Offering implied threats would be:

"DAVE IF YOU EVER COME TO THE USA I WILL MEET YOU AT THE AIRPORT AND BEAT YOU UP WITH A LOUVILLE SLUGER!"

But if you will find in all of my post I do not threaten people. Its only the paranoid that think that.

"One day he will contribute something to a discussion but I'm not very optimistic."

Well, as I stated above "I put my two cents of good info on the site."

Its just that after so many post by certain people with no basis or reference I fill I should post somthing.

Then there lap dogs come in to defend them as normal.

This discussion and others will go on for ever. And some people will never be convinced that what is written in the history books (Consoler Guard casualty at Marengon, Kellerman at Marengo, Senarmont's artillery tactics at Friedland, Cavalry tactics at Wagram, and many others)

What it all comes down to is Dave and others, trying to re right history. Revisionist History as its called today. Just like the people that say "the US should not have dropped the bombs on the Japanese because they were ready to surrender." Even though all historical info shows they were far from throwing in the towel. Or the people that state "the Holocaust never happened" I have been to those camps, it happened!

And ultimately if you read your history books you see that the individual Allied powers (Austria, Prussia, Russia, Great Britain, Spain, Portugal, Sweden) could not defeat Napoleon. It took all of them at one time 1813-1814 campaigns to do it. Why they could not have done that in the beginning is do to politics between each. And as you see in 18125 they were arguing over there division of Europe after Napoleons defeat.

You can attempt to re right history all you want but have your facts straight when you do it and don't print supposed facts off of an opinion
you have of some of your references. Other wise people will question them.

Robert Henry
Historical Wargamer since 1972.

'Black powder smoothbore cannon is a weapon type not a propellant and if you think gunnery has not changed in 200 years then I don't agree.'

The subject being discussed that you are referencing was gunnery.

Gunnery has changed as it is much more accurate because much more is known. What hasn't changed, since you have obviously missed the point, is that the round still begins to drop immediately once it leaves the tube. That's as simple as I can explain it to you. If you cannot understand a simple concept such as this, then there is no point continuing the discussion, now is there. I might as well try to explain it to a rock.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Kevin,

You do not understand what a straw man fallacy is. There has to be an argument comprising one or more premises and a conclusion.

The post I made about Larkhill and blackpowder cannon was a statement of objective fact, not an argument.

You are supposed to be a teacher, tut tut.

You will, however, find some excellent examples of the straw man fallacy in Mr Henry's post.

JC

John,

You've missed the point. The fallacy I referred to was the 'absurd fallacy.' If you don't know what that is, then I suggest you get a copy of Historians' Fallacies by DH Fischer.

As to the other, I said you were were making an interesting attempt at creating a strawman, not that you had completed it or were successful.

You need to read more carefully. And, by experience, the greater majority of your postings are either argumentative or baiting, so you are in error again.

Sincerely,
Kevin

No doubt you might spend your teaching time instructing Mr Henry on how to spell. "re right" – mm, shows how valid his views are. He seems to think that those, who actually do a bit of research are worthy only of insults – perhaps he should stick to learning to spell.

Well, Kevin about this "dropping round". Can you please explain to us why Smola says that French artillery was less accurate at shorter range? And then why the junior officer in IR42 at Wagram tells us that at short range, French guns managed to fire projectiles over a battalion Mass? You are not contending that French gunners were no good are you?

In case you ajhd not noticed, Napoleonic balllistoics are different because the rounds were shaped differently, the tubes were smooth, the propellant was different from modern versions and the recoil cause dthe piece to behave differently. So, about this "dropping round"?