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

The problem with academics and people assuming themselves to be slightly academic is that they often allow their ego's to trip up what can be an interesting subject.
The personal arguements in this thread are longer than the original subject.
I am sure there are many of us on this forum who are grateful for the knowledge of "experts" on various subjects.
The problems usually always start when one starts referencing material used as a basis, that I would have assumed to have been obvious to many of these learned authors. Yet they continously keep banging their heads up against the same wall, usually their opponents ego.
My advice to all is that accept that we the readers find your theories interesting and in the most part valid in so far as we know. Most of us will I am sure measure your arguements with our own knowledge as limited as our knowledge may be. In other words we will make our own judgements by what we read and already know.
I am not the slightest influenced by someone who said they "Read this book or some other". Far better for the authors to reference materials and leave at that.
Those of us who care then can read them if we have a mind too, but to be continously bored by ego's that argue from one thread to another is a the least tiresome.

I think the original question in this thread was a valid one, the early answers were interesting, then the ego's arrive and the thread is hijacked.
Please if you cant keep your ego's at home, dont let them loose here.

Regards to all

If rounds go over the target, then its a sighting or pointing (using the term of the period) problem. It has nothing to do with the round 'rising' after leaving the tube.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Baztanz,

Thank you for interjecting sanity into the thread. I enjoyed, and agree with, your posting.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Dear Mr Hollins, Sorry I forgot how Anal Retentive you are about spelling.

This is like the pot calling the kettle black.

What is strange is on many posting I see numerous spelling errors on your part. Most are simply (in my opinion) that you were in a hurry to post the message and you did not reread it or use a spell check program.

Checking your previous posts I'm sure you will find a few errors on your part. Or perhaps not. After all you are perfect and you make no mistakes. Or at least none that you will admit to.

Robert Henry
Historical Gamer since 1972.

How about you Dave?

Trajectories: I have never been a gunner, nor a mathematician or physicist, so I am somewhat confused.

It seems obvious to me that if a gun is pointed at a target, there are two lines to consider: the line of sight to the target (which is a straight line, due to gravity not effecting sight), and the line of the shot (which is a curved line due to gravity effecting the ball).

The line of sight for an artilleryman surely extends from the top of the rear of the tube to the top of the front of the tube and on to the target in a straight line.

Because most tubes I have seen appear to be wider at the back than at the front, for the line of sight as described above to happen, the tube must be ever so slightly elevated to make the top of the barrel a straight line to the target.

Because now the hole in the tube is pointing slightly upwards when the shot is fired, the ball comes out of the tube at a slight upward angle, and thus rises above the line of sight. It reaches the top of it's parabola, then descends and again crosses the line of sight. I believe this point is what is known as "point blank".

If the hole in the tube is exactly horizontal, say because the target lies slightly below the cannon, then I think it would be physically impossible for the ball to rise, as there would be no force causing it to do so, surely? … unless aerodynamics comes into this equation somewhere?

If my theory is correct, then maybe both of you are correct about the ball rising or not after leaving the barrel? Beacuse on flat ground the hole in the tube is pointing slightly upwards, the ball DOES rise, but only because it is fired in a slightly upwards trajectory in the first place. But in purely physical terms it DOES NOT rise from the barrel if the hole is not pointing upwards first.

What you are forgetting are two things. One is the Bernouli effect, which causes a spinning spherical object to deviate from the straight line. Secondly, there are the Napoleonic ballistics – obviously the laws of ballistics do not change, but we are talking about different "Napoleonic" effects since the weapons, propellants and projectiles were different, thus creating different effects. Much of this actually has to do with the gun itself – on firing, it will jump backwards at least 4 feet to take the recoil. You are right on the dispart (angle between the highest point at the rear and the forward sight) – L's guns were better as they had a dispart of 1/2 deg whereas the G guns were about 1 deg. However, over a short distance, this would not account for a rise of much and there would of course be gravity effects, causing the ball to drop at 9.8 m/s. Smola tells us that experience had taught the Austrian gunners that French guns lost accuracy as you closed the range below 700 paces and the Fahnrich from IR42 says that at short range, the French balls flew over them (bear in mind Nosworthy's claim that at Lodi, the Austrians should have fired ball at short range). If the ball flies flat, you can deal with the second case by firing flat and Smola would have to be wrong, since a ball could not be less accurate at shorter range. However, these were men who stood in the field and faced cannonballs. This all becomes critical because the side getting the accurate shots in are likely to win – and thus they must be the ones "dictating the range". By using heavier calibres and bigger charges, the French were going for the long range advantage – but this locks them into having to advance to dictate the range. Once the French are on the defensive, they are in deep trouble – and hence you can see a reason why they lost in the end, which has nothing to do with commanders or troop quality.

Baztanz – all very interesting, but you seem to expect some people to go to do research and then declare that you will judge which is correct. Apparently, there must be no argument – and misspellers aside – the questions are related to aspects of the topic. Like many wargamers, you seem to think that these questions are not going to be contested – and yet, you seem to want to know about the subject. Twenty years ago, the view of the Nap wars was very different from what it is today – it was a wonder that the continentral allies bothered to turn up. Now, you seem to be saying that you will decide on what is said here and I suspect that this almost invariably comes to the "must be right on both sides" conclusion, but that is almost invartiably the wrong analysis. You ask for citations, but how do you know whether they are any good? Has the poster actually read the material? Is it taken out of context? Is the material a claim oft repeated – you will find many books telling you that Gribeauval invented the bricole, but he didn't – or is it a single citation or perhaps it is the poster's conclusion having read 20 sources? You seem to treat them all as the same. twenty years ago, you would have thought that the French were the only ones, who skirmished and the allies reacted in 1807 – that you do not think this way is not down to anyone's ego or your judgement. Some people have been out and done the research. This will often lead to conflicts with supporters of the "ruling theory" – if you wish to call it egos, then you are perhaps failing to understand how RT works and how some people repeat the RT simply to blot out new work.

Arteis,

You gave a pretty good description of the flight path of the round. The round will follow the line of the gun tube and not the line of sight. One of the reasons there was a muzzle swell (also called the 'tulip') at the bore, to make the line of sight closer to the line of the bore.

Bottom line on the flight path of the projectile at any elevation is that it doesn't rise from the line of the bore in its path and immediately starts to drop as soon as it is fired. That is quite evident on the diagrams that demonstrate how to calculate point blank.

Another interesting facet of period gunnery was that there could come a point where the gun tube was elevated to a point where the intended target could no longer be seen by the pointer sighting along the bore. Then, a false aiming point to the flank had to be used that the pointer could see. That struck me when I read it as the beginnings of modern indirect fire procedures, where a false aiming point is always used today (except for direct fire) in the shape of aiming posts or a collimator.

Using the manuals of the period is facsinating and gives a wealth of information on gunnery, ballistics, gun crew drill (which hasn't changed a whole lot in 200 years) and other aspects of the arm. It is what drew me to the subject in the first place.

Sincerely,
Kevin

So, can you explain Smola's comments about the range and what happened with IR42 at Wagram? It is important because at Wagram, we seem to have French gunners, who cannot hit a couple of battalions masses.

Dave,

I already posted one possible reason above. It was most probably an error in pointing which is entirely possible in combat especially when you're getting shot at.

The other was noticed by Russian General Sievers in 1807. He stated that the French liked to fire at long range and wee usually inaccurate. I can't explain why the French liked to do that, as I have found no explanation for it. It was a waste of ammunition.

The explanation of the round 'rising' above the line of firing/line of the tube is an incorrect assumption.

The reason I suggested to you that we 'bury the hatchet' is that it is getting both old and is ridiculous on both of our parts. I did this, if you recall, in March of last year on Max Sewell's old forum. You rejected the offer and that was that. It had nothing to do with my book being in print. That is an assumption on your part that is incorrect. I again offer to have peace between us and to discuss historical differences in, if not a friendly manner, then an amicable one with no insult or personal comments. I'm tired of it, it is ridiculous, and it does no one any good. I offer the same to Sam Mustafa if he's reading here.

I do think that if 'peace' is established, more can get done, more information discussed, and it will be a much better forum. It will also encourage others to post here that might be put off by continuous circular arguments.

It should also be noted that I emailed one of the moderators of Bob Burnham's Napoleon Series (and I was not the only one) to have Dave reinstated there after being banned (for what reason I have no idea as I didn't see the exchange). He is reinstated there as far as I know. I don't believe in either banning or stifling, as it doesn't lead to open discourse. However, as has been stated, it is better if the discourse is polite and without rancor, name calling, and personal insult. I'm as guilty as the next person and as we're supposed to be adults, I think it should cease. I apologize to the forum as a whole and will do my best in the future not to engage in arguments that degenerate to name-calling and insult, even on the CA board (now that ought to be interesting ;-)

Just my nickels worth. See how it goes.

Sincerely,
Kevin

As it was suggested that the Royal Artillery be 'approached', I had a chat with a colleague who is a serving officer in the Royal Regiment of Artillery, currently in a staff post. As I anticipated he knew little about smoothbore Napoleonic artillery per se, however he was quite helpful nevertheless.

Ballistics is a science, that is to say it is governed by nature, not human creativity. It is about the motion of projectiles – any projectiles regardless of origin. So it applies equally to small arms and artillery ammuntion, even arrows and stones fired from slings and catapults. The forces that affect projectiles are the same today as they always were, but today we know rather more about ballistics that they did in the early 19th Century.

Modern guns are also weapons of precision, they are largely rifled (some tank guns are smoothbore but their round have spin imparted in a different way, so we won't go there), and their projectiles are designed for aerodynamic efficieny. The Napoleonic smoothbore gun was not precise and the roundshot was less aerodynamic. Furthermore, although even modern artillery projectiles exhibit drift, usually to the right, and air pressure causes a cushioning effect under the projectile producing lift, the amount of bias is predictable.

Once this bias is known, it can be taken into account. Similarly the modern gunner can take environmental conditions into account, all of which have the potential to affect the behaviour of a projectile in flight, and compensate for them too.

The Napoleonic gunner had no means of knowing or measuring any of this. Furthermore, even if he did it would have been no help because the performance of smoothbore guns was erratic and there was no way of predicting how a roundshot would behave precisely on each firing.

Ballistics in the context of artillery and small arms comprises interior ballistics which are concerned with the behaviour of the projectile while in the tube, transitional ballistics which are the motion of the round after it leaves the tube and before exterior ballistics start to affect it, exterior ballistics which are about the round's behaviour throughout its flight after transitional ballistics have ceased to affect it and, finally, terminal ballistics which are about impact.

Now, with any Napoleonic smoothbore weapon, because the round did not fit the bore tightly, it 'carromed' as it passed along the bore, that is to say it bounced off the interior of the bore. How many times it did this was not predictable, but it meant that the attitude of the round as it left the muzzle was also not predictable.

It is, apparently, only in an environment of no air and no gravity that the round will describe a straight line from the point when it leaves the muzzle. Where there is only gravity and no air, it describes a perfect parabola where the angle of attack is the same as the angle of elevation. In the real world the round still describes a parabola but it is not longer perfect, and the angle of attack is greater than elevation.

Other factors in addition to air and gravity that the modern gunners can accurately compensate for are air density, humidity, temperature and wind, and, in addition, the precise aerodynamic perfomance of the modern projectile is known to the modern gunner, including how turbulence and drag act on it. None of this was know to the Napoleonic gunner, except heuristically.

So, I suppose, that with a weapon:

1. Which was intrinsically innacurate.
2. The reasons for the perfomance of which were not completely understood by the men who served them.
3. The performance of which was not even precisely measurable.
4. Even if it had been measurable, there were no means of compensating for bias, becuase it was not constant.

the only way that it was effective was to either wait until the enemy came to the weapon, or to take the weapon to the enemy. The latter examples being Seanrmont, Smola et al. This was clearly a viable tactic when cannister outranged muskets.

As an aside, I note that dispart has been mentioned, and that smoothbore guns were wider at the breech that the muzzle. This is because more metal was needed round the chamber, but the dispart was compensated for by dispart sights and the muzzle swell often performed this function so that the line of sight was different from the line of metal.

JC

Dave

So when did Smola say this about the French and exactly what did he say, did he suggest why this might be, could yuo please give a bit more detail, and where is it to be found?

The same for the IR42 quote?

So why would this affect the French and not the Austrians?, The French would be using An XI guns yes?

I must say that I have often read other accounts by British & French soldiers about the balls going overhead, are you maybe reading more into this, you can also read about balls bouncing towards the line and also ploughing into it, basically the three places the ball will go over/under/on target, maybe 10% on target, 45% over and 45% under would be ball park accuracy? :¬)

Would be nice if you could just expand your theory a bit, can you quote the two paragraphs?

Wargame rule 67 – French artillery, firing ball, range <700 paces, hit probability – 0

we have been here before, but as don't think you ever expanded on it

Mark

I will add a few more points to the above discussion. It is much easier to find information about the "theoretical" capabilities of weapons such as cannon. However, what happened on the firing range and what happened on the field of battle are two different things.

I presented at an historical conference (American Civil War) and a participant referenced an episode of "Mail Call" [History Channel show where people email questions to a former U.S. Marine]. Two Civil War reenactors were demonstrating how to load and fire various types of muskets. The "accuracy" of the weapons was "demonstrated."

My reply was that in order to have an accurate demonstration of accuracy that we would have to change the conditions of the test. The two participants should have been marched on foot for at least two days, had little to eat (stale hardtack), and a couple of other participants should have been firing back at them.

You can read all day about weapons, but you must account for the human factor. I was able several years ago to convince the commander of an army national guard unit (with the help of local reenactors) to help with some "historical research." We had the soldiers fire smoothbore and rifled muskets at targets at about 50 and 100 yards. Then the soldiers spent a day field marching and eating some cooked up hardtack (per a Civil War reenactment recipe). It was hot, they were tired, and then we had them fire the weapons. It was a hot humid day. Not surprising, the results were poorer. Of course no enemy soldiers were firing back. I also took pictures of the amount of smoke produced by the weapons and carefully recorded the results.

When people are tired, hungry, afraid, affected by the elements, and many other factors—the results, compared to the firing range—will be quite different.

My point is that you can quote works of military authors and field tests all you want but your conclusions will not be valid if you interpolate those findings into what happened on the field of battle. Understanding the behavior of human beings is more important than understand the weapons systems. Studying weapons systems is more "scientific" and reducible to "numbers" and is preferred by many military historians over the much harder task of understanding what actually occurred on the battlefield. Many of the original sources only supply us with a few nuggets of information.

Wilhelm Balck (father of Hermann Balck) noted in his study of tactics that "tactics is psychology." He was no dilletante. To ignore the human side of the equation under field conditions is highly fallacious.

You cannot understand weaponry of the time by merely reading a batch of books. Military experience helps, but also is not sufficient. I have fired replicas of Napoleonic muskets have observed several reenactments (of course no live ammo nor return fire), among other research, to learn more about how the weapons were used in reality. I still consider myself a novice in the field.

The next time some of the "experts" start quoting books, just remember that "there is more in heaven and earth than is dreamt of in your philosophy" [if I may borrow from the English bard].

Regards,

Frank

Frank,

An incident of this type happened at Antietam in the fall of 1862. The brigade artillery battery for the Iron Brigade was firing in support of the brigade and were firing too high. Their old battery commander, General Gibbon, who was now the Iron Brigade's commander, rode by, dismounted, went to one of the battery's pieces, depressed the tube with a turn or two on the elevating screw, said something to the gunners, remounted and rode off.

It was the elevation of the pieces that was causing the problem, not the round 'rising' for some reason after leaving the gun tube.

There are myriad reasons why an artillery unit is not hitting the target. The round rising above the line of metal/line of firing is not one of them.

Sincerely,
Kevin

This is a very interesting discussion.

Dave mentioned two things which contribute towards the rise of the ball from the line of firing:

The recoil of the gun … yes, I can see the jump of the gun might cause a ball to go astray (just as it does if you do not hold a pistol securely), but that would not be because of the ball rising from the line of firing. Rather, it would be because the actual angle of the tube changes as the gun recoils, actually changing the line of firing.

The intriguing one for me was Dave's mention of the Bertouli effect. I did add the rider "unless aerodynamics comes into this equation somewhere?" in my original message above. From what Dave says, it seems it does through this Bertouli effect (which I believe is the same effect that helps an airfoil wing to fly). The puzzle for me, though, is that a ball is not shaped like an airfoil, so the airflow does not have a longer way to travel over the top like a wing … so why does this happen?

All in all, as pointed out by Lest We Forget, I imagine the human factor was probably more important than any of these technical factors.

Oh, to clarify what I said above … neither of the conclusions I came to should be taken as fact. I am not an expert on artillery (in fact, anything but).

I am just taking the total novice's perspective of what seems to be obvious … and I fully expect to find I have jumped to the wrong conclusions though ignorance of basic ballisty.

But I am interested, nevertheless …

>The fallacy I referred to was the 'absurd fallacy.' If you don't know what that is,………<

Yes I do know what it is and no, you only mentioned the Straw Man fallacy The Absurd fallacy (reductio ad absurdum) is different. It requires the conclusion to ridicule, but like any other there has to be an argument with premises and conclusions.

I offered no argument, no premises, merely statements. You can recognise an argument by key words such as 'therefore', 'because' and similar.

JC

Whatever you say, John.

Sincerely,
K

'The Napoleonic gunner had no means of knowing or measuring any of this. Furthermore, even if he did it would have been no help because the performance of smoothbore guns was erratic and there was no way of predicting how a roundshot would behave precisely on each firing.'

This is correct up to a point. Every gun has its own idiosyncracies, and that was definitely known to the artillerymen of the Napoleonic period. Further, no two guns shoot alike, and that is as true today as it was 200 years ago. Further, once a gun crew 'knew' the piece they served, their fire could be repeatedly very accurate.

Tolerances in the manufacturing of artillery pieces grew tighter as artillery progressed. Gribeauval stressed very small tolerances in the production of his new pieces and the ammunition. Windage, the space between the round and the inside walls of the gun tube, was very small in the Gribeauval pieces, tighter than any other European pieces with the possible exception of the British. For the 'three calibers' of French field pieces of the Gribeauval System, it was .13 inches (as an adjunct, the tolerances allowed in the construction of gun carriages and ancillary vehicles was 1/50th of an inch).

While the artillery pieces of the period can seem crude when compared with modern pieces, there still was great sophistication in both the manufacture and employment of artillery, as well as with gunnery and the knowledge of ballistics.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Dave :

You are incorrect , I do regret to say.
As to the Bernoulli (2 L's) effect, actually better termed the Magnus effect (or precisely the Robbins effect for a sphere), it is insufficient.
As to the effect of carooming down the barrel, this MAY impart lift, if you catch the perfect set of carooms combined with optimal spin, and provide enough change in the direction to have the ball briefly rise. The briefly part is meaured in a few feet going downrange. The amount of rise is measured in a few inches. I doubt you could see it with the naked eye. This will be a rare occurance – one shot in a hundred or less, possibly far less.
As to the recoil and tipping up : the first action is directly opposite to the line fo flight of the ball, and acts upon a mass over two orders of magnitude greater than the ball. It is only after the force in direct opposition to the line of flight hits resisitance (such as the earth that the carriage rests upon) that you get the bounce of the gun. By the time this is all happening the ball is out of the tube.

I AM a mathematician, or at least was one once.

The calculations are below, if anyone cares. If they are wrong, please do correct them – or provide some other alternative set of calculations (your own or a source's) that demonstrate the contrary. If the calculations below not contrdicted, then you might consider backing off your insistance on the subject of floating cannonballs.

- Evan

One must not, in error, think of the line of sight for an observer, nor even of the line of metal (the top line of the gun tube) in such case as the bore is not centered (either accidentally or intentionally) in the tube.
Then thinking only of the true line-of-fire ….

If one wanted to see the "miracle" of overcoming gravity , and seeing the ball rising above the line-of-fire, then there must be lift. The ease with which spherical spinnning or flying masses may be lifted is indexed by the "Mass Ratio" : the mass of the object divided by the mass of an equivalent volume of air. So, a beachball has a low mass ratio and a cannonball a high one. Hence we see in the textbooks the cannonball used over and over as the limiting case where their is no such lift.

The parabala is not, senso stricto, the form of the cannonball's trajectory. This is merely an approximation. The correct shape is really a arc or segment of an ellipse, with the center of the earth as one of the foci. This is because the gravity (downward vector) is exerted through the center of the mass a body. I do not think the difference between the parabalic estimate and the elliptical path is even 1/100 of the width of the cannonball at up to 1000 yards, but I wanted to be precise.

In any case, cannonballs do really fall to earth, and this really does start as soon as they are fired, with no rising in it at all. Even the most modern kinetic-kill electro-magnetic rail-gun that fires an un-powered projectile that has no airfoil shaped structures sees its round immediately fall from the line-of-fire. That gravity thing is a real design constant.

For a cannon ball to rise above its line of fire, let us first look at the lift required :

The Magnus force results from the asymmetric distortion of the boundary layer displacement thickness caused by the combined spinning and flow past the spherer. In the case of a sphere(or cylinder), the so-called whirlpool, or more accurately the circulation, does not consist of air set into rotation by friction with a spinning object. Actually an object such as a sphere or a cylinder can impart a spinning motion to only a very thin layer next to the surface. The motion imparted to this layer affects the manner in which the flow separates from the surface in the rear. Boundary layer separation is delayed on the side of the spinning object that is moving in the same direction as the free stream flow, while the separation occurs prematurely on the side moving against the free stream flow. The wake then shifts toward the side moving against the free stream flow. As a result, flow past the object is deflected, and the resulting change in momentum flux causes a force in the opposite direction.

The lift, L, imparted by the Magnus effect , properly the Robins effect for a sphere, can be given by :

L = C times p times D cubed times f times V
where
p is is the density of the fluid = 1.2 kg/m3 for air
V is velocity = 450 m/s muzzle velocity (see abbove in the thread)
f is rotations per second
D is the radius of the sphere = .11 m for a 12 lber
C is a constant , approximately equal to .5 for middle Reynolds numbers examples such as a cannonball

For the lift to raise the cannon ball, it must be greater than its weight (mass times acceleration due to gravity), or :
m times g = 54 N
where
m is the mass of the cannon ball = 5.5 kg for a 12 lber.
g is the gravity = 9.8 m per sec. per sec.

So …..

.5 x 1.2 x .11 x .11 x .11 x f x 450 > 54
f > 150 revolutions/sec
or, f > approx 1000 radians/sec

This simple model is based on the Bernoulli effect. The Magnus phenomenon is influenced by the conditions in the thin layer next to the body, known as the boundary layer, and there may arise certain anomalies in the force if the spin of the body introduces anomalies in the layer, such as making the flow turbulent on one side and not the other. One such is the reverse Magnus effect which may occur for smooth spheres. Rough balls such as cricket balls, baseballs, golf balls and tennis balls, do not show this anomalous effect.

We have made quite a "low limit estimate" for f :
> it is the estimate of just enough lift to counteract gravity at the instant the round leaves the bore, not to actually raise the cannonball above the line of firing or hold it there long enough to be observed
> it assumes the initial muzzle velocity is not reduced by air resistance
> it assume that the rate of spinning is constant, not diminishing.
> it is assuminng that the ball is sufficiently dimpled /worn /rough textured /etc. to have an appropraite Reynolds number
Thus, empiracally one might expect to see values for f in the range up to 1500 revolutions/sec required to actually see the cannon ball float (or about 10,000 radians/sec).

Looking at the " low limit " ….
The moment of inertia, I, for our 12 lb cannon ball , 2/5 times mass times radius squared, is about .0067 kg meters x meters. The kinetic energy required to generate the spin = 1/2 times I times f times f = 3350 J
At the high limit estimate for f, the kinetic energy required to generate the spin = 1/2 times I times f times f = 335,000 J

The greatest amount of energy that could be applied to create the spin would be from the following scenario :
The ball, resting at the bottom of the bore is bounced once to the top of the bore at the middle of the length of the tube and then carooms at the mouth of the gun at the bottom of the bore. Let us assume our 12lber has 3% windage and 18 caliber's bore. The angle of the ball's impact at each caroom is simply calculated to be about 0.058 radians or about 3.3 degrees.

Noting that the original kinetic energy of the round is given by 1/2 times m times V times V, or about 557,000 J, we can decompose the 3.3 degree angle of arrival into a horizontal component and a vertical one, the vertical one notionally capable of imparting spin and the horizontal one sending the cannon ball down range toward its target.
The vertical component would be sine of .058 radian times the total 557,000 J or about 32,000 J which would be dissapated in the impact at the middle of the bore (lets assume no spin is put on the ball this time, since we would have to counter-act any such spin to get our lift-off at the second carrom).
Some 525,000 J remain as we head to the second caroom , where (by the same calculation) we lose another 30,000 J. Some of these 30,000 J will be lost in impact as heat and some may impart spin to the cannon ball.

The round has slowed from the two impacts to 300 m/sec. At 300 m/sec, our new lower limit estimate for f is now about 1500 rad/sec. and the kenetic energy required to spin the ball fast enough to generate lift is thus some 7500 J

So, if all the planets are aligned and everything clicks just right, and we assume that the round does in fact bounce down the tube , as opposed to riding in a torus of compressed air, then it is arithmetically possible that the round will rise above the line of fire. If any of the factors and assumptions listed above are other than perfectly favorable to the imparting of spin in the desired direction, then there is arithmetically not possible to generate enough lift to see a "floater".

Whether this perfect conjunction of conditions occurs and endures long enough for anyone to notice it seems doubtful to me. If so, it would be "once in a blue moon". But "floaters" from atmospheric and wind conditions might be quite common

You will also note that the scenario of clanking down the barrel carooming loses quite a bit of kinetic energy (and/or velocity) at each clank. The amount lost per clank, if the number of clanks were greater than two, would increase because the angle of incidence at each clank would be greater. I dont think they would like the result , in terms of range, of a or 4 or 5 clank shot. By 8 clanks or so, I am not sure the round is still moving at all. In any case, I feel this consideration supports the notion of the round generally riding on compressed air down the bore.

Please do not hesitate to correct my calculations, if you think it appropriate.

Dave :

I think I will second Mark's request for some more detail.

You have wriiten in this thread :
"Smola tells us that experience had taught the Austrian gunners that French guns lost accuracy as you closed the range below 700 paces"
"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"

Now, how could he say the "guns" as opposed to the "gunners" or "both the guns as used by the gunners" based on his combat experience ? Is that really how he expressed it , just the "guns" themselves ? If so, how could he tell ?

I can give you a simple reason for overshooting at a given range.

If you are instructing people to measure distance by eye, you will use simple rules such as : You can see the face at xx meters.

Or the following, from the 1911 Encly. Brittanica :
General Percin of the French army in the early 1900's noted that a piece of wood or card cut to a known fraction of the distance between the eye and the end of the thumb, when the arm is fully extended, can be used to estimate distances. Thus it is easy to find a penny in good condition of which the thickness is 400-th part of the arm-length in a man of average height. Provided with such a coin an observer finds its rim to exactly cover a distant man 6 ft. (or 2 yds. high). The range therefore is 400X2 =8oo yds. Similarly, if the man's height appeared to be but half the thickness of the. coin the range would be 4 X400 =1600 yds.

The overshooting at 500 paces that Smola thought he saw, if indeed it was generally an artefact of French guns, may have come from a systemic overestimation of the distance.

I in no way insist that such occurred. But this mechanism is alot easier to believe than floating cannonballs.

So, how about a quote or two from Smola, so we have a little more context for your adducing his observation on this point ?

- Evan

It comes from his papers which were published in various editions by his sons in the 1820s. Part of this includes tactical advice probably used when he was teaching, which I mentioned quite extensively in NV72. All he says on this particular point is that (as I noted it) "in an exchange at 700 paces, close in to 500 paces against French artillery becauyse experience has shown us that they are less accurate at this distance". If you look at Kevin's book pp.38-9, you will see that 500 paces is about the range for first graze (bounce) at 0 degrees elevation for the 4pdr and 8pdr varying by about 30 paces either side for the calibres. 700 paces is slightly below the 4pdr first bounce at 1 degree of elevation(which also happens to be the dispart on the G guns). Kevin is right to say that the Austrian guns at zero elevation get to first bounce at around 500 paces – coirrectly, he says that the zero elevation is "point blank" for the 3pdr (and indeed, it is for other guns). Now, if a ball falls at point blank, then it must fall at 9.8m per second (gravity) and so, in no way would it reach 500 paces on first bounce (300m, implying that it travels that distance in about 1/6 second and so has an average velocity of 1800m per second).

It should be obvious that accuracy cannot wane and then improve if fired flat. So, what is happening – well, the anonymous Fahnrich in IR42 (quoted in War24 p.50) says: "The French halted and fired a salvo of ball at the Masses, which because of the short range mostly went over". At short range, when apparently, these balls fly flat, they cannot hit a Mass.

The balls fly in an approximate parabola – one of the commentators at the time said it wasstill a subject of debate at the time. So, the shape means that the rate of drop is greater than the rate of rise – due to gravity and the loss of whatever is pushing the ball up. Point blank – noted correctly by Kevin at around 500 paces – is the point where the ball crosses the line of sight for the second time. Ex hypothesi the ball must be above that line for the previous part of its flight.

It is not just Bernoulli that causes this rise – much has to do with the dynamics of the gun and here there are fundamental differences between the G and L/Yr XI guns. The G guns were significantly heavier – about 45% for a G 8pdr over an L 6pdr. The carriages are also different – the G carriages were the old 1740- design shaved down and wrapped L style in metal. They have a short 3 plane design, albeit with the L ski end (the 1740s guns have a flat trail end). The L/Yr XI guns had a long straight trail, which was lighter. The recoil has different effects, but still tries to push the trail end into the ground and at the very least, there is friction, and so, the gun will jump on launching the projectile. There is no equivalent downward movement on the gun. The recoil on an L gun was 7-8 feet and of course, the centre of gravity was different on an L gun. In addition, Gribeauval displayed his lack of ability in having a standard windage, instead of the correct L approach of having a windage that was proportionate to the size of the round. G's method made smaller balls too loose and bigger ones too tight. G's windage were however approaximately the same as L and contrary to the usual secondary suspects, it was not half of the L windage (the L windages are given in Smola).

>This will be a rare occurance – one shot in a hundred or less, possibly far less.<

How did you calculate this random effect with such accuracy?

JC

Hmmm, it seems like the ball/bullet rising argument is still one that is discussed by modern shooters:

link

Ansd if you scroll a bit on this page, you can actually fire a cannon at various angles and see what happens:

link

You've got me really intrigued with ballistics now – I didn't know something that looks so inherently simple is actually so complex!

John :

That's not accuracry, thats a minimum order of magnitutde estimate (1 in 10 to the 2 power)

To make the the thing happen, you would need
> a carrom path as described
> a "fortuitous" direction of spin

Now, there are infinite numbers of both of these. I thought I would be generous/conservative and say 1 of 10 in each category would serve (example : this defines the "bottom" of the mouth of the tube as + or – .314 radians or 18 degrees, which is a generous definiton of the "bottom". You can do the vector decomposition to confirm this, as in the example of a "dead bottom of the mouth of the tube" calculation.)

Atreis :

Here is some good info on ballistics and a few ballistic computers.

link

Be wary, the coefficients of drag pre-entered in many of these are for various modern bullet shapes.

The ball rising discussion link is interesting , with many of the same misperceptions one can see here :
> confusing the line of flight of the round with the line of sight of the shooter (in this case as determined by the sights mounted on the weapon)
> mis-conception about the "center of the earth" : this is just a precision, the bulet does in fact go along a segment of an ellipse with the center of the earth a one of two foci – regardless of its speeed. But, the flight of the bullet is such a short segment of this elllispe that a parabala is fine for describing its path.

Gravitationally yours,

- Evan

Dave :

"close in to 500 paces against French artillery becauyse experience has shown us that they are less accurate at this distance""
This time, your narrative English-language version of Smola's comment means that he is talking about the gunners ! Which is it, the guns, or the gunners, or the combination ? What did HE say , not you, please ?

"Ex hypothesi the ball must be above that line [ the line of sight ] for the previous part of its flight."
Sure, no issue. The line of sight and the path of flight are not the same (nor even are the "projections" of each on an x-y plane that you see if looking downrange from behind the gun) – unless ….. the line of sight is parallel to the the centerline of the bore of the gun. It will not be the same if …
> The gun is elevated from the horizontal
> the bore is not parallel to the external line of metal
> The sighting system is based on (two) points not distanced from the centerline of the bore identically (as on two different rings)
> the centerline of the bore of the gun is not a straignt line

"It is not just Bernoulli (sic – s/b Magnus or Robbins) that causes this rise "
It does not cause a rise. Dave, I jsut did the calc ! Why does it appear that I go to the trouble of calcualting the effect and then you neither accept the calc nor offer another contrary one, but just proceed as if you didnt read the post ? I know you are not closed to revising your ideas based on new information. So, can you either revise your idea here or offer an objection ? If the math is too detailed for your own tastes or interests, you can just copy/paste any ballistic analysis that you can find that supports your contention. I am doubting you will find this , but I am happy (just as are you) to revise my ideas if shown to be incorrect.

Any question of an effect of recoil is AFTER the round has flown. So trail designs ae not an issue is this discussion.
> approx 450m/sec muzzle velocity
> approx 2m barrel length for a our example 12-pounder of 18 calibers length
> time for the round to exit : .00444 secs travel time
Round to .01 – .02 seconds to account for the time for the detonation to develop (reckoning from when the round fist moves until it clears the tibe's mouth). For comaprison, with modern nitro-celluose powder, an M16 bullet exits the "tube" in .0011 seconds and a 30-06 Springfield in about .0013 seconds.
The round is long gone when the you see the carriage bouncing.
If you have calculations to the contrary, please do post them.

- Evan

Dave,

Sorry, but I'll have to respectfully disagree on a number of points:

'The G guns were significantly heavier – about 45% for a G 8pdr over an L 6pdr.'

Do you have the weights of the respective gun tubes and would you post them, please, so we can compare them? You have said the Gribeauval tubes were '10% heavier' in the past and now it has jumped to 45%.

Comparing the Gribeauval 8-pounder and the Lichtenstein 6-pounder is comparing apples and oranges. In English weight, the 8-pounder is nearly 9 pounds, and in French weight, the Austrian 6-pounder is less than 6-pounds. It might be more realistic to compare the Lichtenstein 6-pounder with the Gribeauval 4-pounder.

'The carriages are also different – the G carriages were the old 1740- design shaved down and wrapped L style in metal.'

The gun carriages were indeed different, but the Gribeauval carriages were not a redone 1740-carriage, but an entirely new design, as noted by Alder. It should be noted that gun carriages had iron fittings and reinforcements before Gribeaval and before Lichtenstein. If you take a look at LeBlond's 1745 artillery treatise, for example, you'll see the practice was already in place before Lichtenstein's system and Gribeauval's. The practice was in place as standard as early as 1600 and no doubt earlier.

Further, if only the ends of the trails of the Gribeauval and Lichtenstein pieces are compared, it is quite evident that the Gribeauval carriage is designed for the use of the prolonge. That isn't evident for the Austrian pieces. Looking in your booklet they still appear to be squared off at the end, and not in a sled-like shape as the French carriages are. It looks to me that if an Austrian piece is attached to its limber by prolonge it wouldn't make it across a ditch, which the prolonge was designed to allow it to do, and would either stick by the trail at an obstruction or overturn.

'G's method made smaller balls too loose and bigger ones too tight.'

Do you have a citation for this? Alder, who is the present authority on the development, construction wise, for the Gribeauval System, has in detail stated how the rounds were constructed and tested, using a 'go-gauge' (which was used by every artillery system in Europe at the time). Gribeauval developed the 'no-go' gauge (Alder illustrates both on page 151 of his text) and states the following:

'European artillerists had long passed their cannonballs through a circular 'go' gauge (a lunette) to make sure the shell would fit into the barrel. This left the lower threshold for the size of the ball undefined, and hence dependent on the judgment-the 'eye'-of the cannoneer. At the prompting of Choiseul, the Gribeauvalists now introduced a 'no-go' gauge with a diameter of 9 points less than that of the lunette. Acceptable balls should not be able to pass through this gauge. Applied in tandem with the 'go' gauge, this defined a zone within which manufacturers had to operate.'
Alder, Engineering the Revolution, page 151.

Further, as illustrated in Tousard's Volume III (the plates) there was also a tube for cannon balls of the various calibers to be passed through to check for defects of casting on the outside of the rounds.

Tolerances and processes were very regulated and specifically spelled out. Rounds too large or too small were discarded by the quality control officers. The assumption that roundshot were either too loose or too tight is incorrect.

'G's windage were however approaximately the same as L and contrary to the usual secondary suspects, it was not half of the L windage (the L windages are given in Smola).'

Except for the Austrian 12-pounder, you are correct to state that the windage for the new Gribeauval pieces was not half. But it was significantly less which indicates particular attention paid to it by the French artillerymen and gun tube designers. The Lichtenstein 3-, 6-, and 12-pounders, as noted in your Austrian artillery booklet, had different windages for each gun tube, and that of the 12-pounder was twice what Gribeauval allowed. The Gribeauval windage was .13 inches, which is less than 3mm per tube. This care contributed to the Gribeauval pieces being inherently more accurate than the Lichtenstein pieces. "This reduction has that excellent advantage of preventing the danger and frequency of the balls' bouncing against the sides of the bore, by considerably lessening the angle of percussion.-Tousard, Volume I, page xxiii.

'The L/Yr XI guns had a long straight trail, which was lighter.'

I have schematics of the An XI 12-pounder gun carriage and they are not similar to the Lichtenstein trails, but akin to the Gribeauval trails. According to Rene Chartrand, the Gribeauval gn carriages were sturdier than the AN XI gun carriages.

'The recoil has different effects, but still tries to push the trail end into the ground and at the very least, there is friction, and so, the gun will jump on launching the projectile. There is no equivalent downward movement on the gun.'

Recoil is both downward and back when the piece is fired. The Gribeauval gun carriages were designed to absorb both, which made them shorter and less awkward than the older, and longer Lichtenstein gun carriages. The problem in doing this is not to shake the carriage to pieces when doing it. That is what happened to the An XI gun carriages and the older, more sturdy Gribeauval carriages were substituted. The Gribeaucalists reduced this recoil velocity by designing the sides of the carraige to slope more steeply, sending the recoil force into the earth. This, however, strained the structure of the carriage.'
-Alder, page 154.

'is the point where the ball crosses the line of sight for the second time. Ex hypothesi the ball must be above that line for the previous part of its flight.'

The round crossed the line of sight twice because the line of metal and line of sight are not parallel. It is not because the round rises from the line of metal (firing) after being fired.

'"The French halted and fired a salvo of ball at the Masses, which because of the short range mostly went over". At short range, when apparently, these balls fly flat, they cannot hit a Mass.'

One of the differences between a gun and a howitzer is how the round is designed to be delivered. Guns, and it is part of their definition, have a flat trajectory.

This partial quotation sounds like the French came into position hastily, unlimbered, and opened fire immediately. I am not surprised they missed on the first salvo. Today, that is called a hasty, vice a deliberate, occupation of a firing position.

'The balls fly in an approximate parabola…'

It was initially though to be a perfect parabola, but was found not to be. It is a lopsided parabolic curve that starts to drop sharply after the round hits its maximum ordinate. Therefore, it is not a parabolic curve.

The Gribeauval pieces were designed for mobility and accuracy. Both the 8- and 12-pounder was found to be suitable for horse artillery and could keep up with cavalry on the march and on the battlefield. They were also designed for longer service, hence their sturdier construction than the corresponding Prussian and Austrian pieces. The Gribeauval pieces were designed and constructed at 150 pounds of metal per pound of round, the Prussian and Austrian guns at 100 and 120 respectively.

Gribeauval had seen first hand the Austrian and Prussian field pieces in both peace and war, and had copies of each built and tested in France before fielding his system. The Austrian gun tubes were not robust and didn't have a long service life before they were worn out and had to be recast or replaced. Further, according to Duffy, the Austrians used casting scrap metal in the metal mix for casting, thus causing the resulting gun tubes to be less strong than originally designed. Further, Duffy states that at least the early Lichtenstein gun tubes were cast around a central core and had to be bored out after, which produced a less-accurate weapon than those, such as the Gribeauval gun tubes that were solid cast and then bored out by machine.

I do agree with you that Gribeauval was greatly influenced by the Austrian system. He was also influenced by Valliere, the Swedes, and the Prussians, just as Lichtenstein was influenced by Valliere and the Prussians. The Austrian and Prussian pieces and gun carriages look very similar and it is hard to tell them apart, since they both had long straight gun carriages, the same calibers for field pieces, and the same elevating device, which the Austrians copied from the Prussians (as the Russians would also do for their 1805 System). There is too much in new developments by Gribeauval's system for it to have been a copy of Lichtensteind in any sense, but a new system that was also highly praised by the British (there is a quote by Adye to this effect).

I do hope you take this posting in the spirit in which it is offered, and any contrary evidence you can supply will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Evan,

Well done on the calculations. You're giving me flashbacks to artillery school. Gunnery classes were run on the West Point model of math classes and were very efficient. We had an all-Marine gunnery class and I felt very sorry for the Army instructor-who was very good by the way.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Arteis,

It is very interesting and a lot of fun. I don't think it's that hard, but then I was an artilleryman for a long time.

What is really interesting is doing the math and classwork and then translating it into actual work in the field either as an artillery observer firing rounds or on the gun line or fire direction center working the guns or doing the calculations to send to the gun line.

Good luck in your studies!

Sincerely,
Kevin

Evan,

You are absolutely correct in your statement about the round having left the tube when recoil occurs.

Although this is a modern example (for which there will be disagreement, and that's fine), I do think it appropriate.

Having done much direct firing at 1000 meters or less with the M198 155mm towed howitzer which weighs approximately 8 tons, I have seen a round aimed at a target the gunners can see (and they use both sights, just as they do for indirect fire) and they fire maximum charge. This causes the howitzer to come off the ground and the trails, which are dug in, to move to the rear or the side. The round doesn't rise, and the target, unless the gunners and section chief aren't paying attention, is hit.

I've also had the gunners go to rapid fire in this mode for a minute, and depending on the crew, between 4 and 6 rounds go down range accurately, with the large amount of recoil and movement of the piece in position. The force of the explosion not only forces the gun tube to go to the rear, but the entire piece to come off the ground. We generally didn't miss.

A more dramatic example was putting a time fuze at 2.5 seconds on the high explosive round for muzzle action so that the round would explode as soon as it cleared the gun tube. The round went off before the gun came off the ground, or at least it appeared to be so. There were two explosions in rapid succession-the round being fired and it exploding about 25 meters down range.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Kevin, I'm afraid the fact that you rely on the likes of Alder (who knows nothing about L guns as his essay does not address them) and recent authors is the key reason why so many of your claims are wrong.

'The G guns were significantly heavier – about 45% for a G 8pdr over an L 6pdr.'
Do you have the weights of the respective gun tubes and would you post them, please, so we can compare them? You have said the Gribeauval tubes were '10% heavier' in the past and now it has jumped to 45%.

>You confuse barrel with gun weight. The L 6pdr barrel weighed 388 kg and the carriage 398kg. I can only assume that you do not have NV72 as the weights are given on p.45. The Yr XI 6pdr barrel (your book p.40) had a barrel weight of 390 kg – note the similarity with the L 6pdr but we have yet to hear what "metallurgy improvement" is supposed to have happened in France (perhaps you could tell us who make sthe claim at least?). The G barrel is 580kg, so 50% would be more accurate. Nafziger gives the total weight as 1060kg, which gives a carriage weight of 480kg.

Comparing the Gribeauval 8-pounder and the Lichtenstein 6-pounder is comparing apples and oranges. In English weight, the 8-pounder is nearly 9 pounds, and in French weight, the Austrian 6-pounder is less than 6-pounds. It might be more realistic to compare the Lichtenstein 6-pounder with the Gribeauval 4-pounder.

> No, the 6pdr was the decisive change because it combined mobility with punch. The 8pdr was too heavy to be mobile and had the problem of the double carriage position. The effective combination was of course noticed in the Systeme Yr XI.

'The carriages are also different – the G carriages were the old 1740- design shaved down and wrapped L style in metal.'
The gun carriages were indeed different, but the Gribeauval carriages were not a redone 1740-carriage, but an entirely new design, as noted by Alder. It should be noted that gun carriages had iron fittings and reinforcements before Gribeaval and before Lichtenstein. If you take a look at LeBlond's 1745 artillery treatise, for example, you'll see the practice was already in place before Lichtenstein's system and Gribeauval's. The practice was in place as standard as early as 1600 and no doubt earlier.

> I think this point illustrates just why such a lot of nonsense is written about G and his guns – no checking on what existed, just a blind copying of claims made before (like hte bricole, the double carriage position, G being hea dof the Austrian artillery etc.). If you look in NV72, you will see a 1747 Austrian 3pdr, copied from the existing French de V design. You will see the 3 angle carriage – indeed, did not G write in his 1762 report that a combination of de V and L would produce a "battle winning system". You should look closely at the 1740s French and Austrian guns. That 1747 gun does have metal reinorcement, but L made the key move to complete strapping, which reduced the size of the carriage walls and thus the carriage weight. Gribeauval likewise failed to notice that a narrower barrel could still accommodate larger charges – the French only noticed this with the Yr XI, but it also proves that contrary to your claims, G did not test Austrian barrels at Strassbourg.

Further, if only the ends of the trails of the Gribeauval and Lichtenstein pieces are compared, it is quite evident that the Gribeauval carriage is designed for the use of the prolonge. That isn't evident for the Austrian pieces. Looking in your booklet they still appear to be squared off at the end, and not in a sled-like shape as the French carriages are. It looks to me that if an Austrian piece is attached to its limber by prolonge it wouldn't make it across a ditch, which the prolonge was designed to allow it to do, and would either stick by the trail at an obstruction or overturn.
> Well, I suggest you put your specs on and compare the L gun trails with the 7pdr Cavalry howitzer, which came in at the same time as the prolongue. The L trails all have the sledge shape and are less splayed than the G trails as their longer straighter length allowed them to take the forces more evenly. While the prolongue was only introduced into Austrian service in the 1780s, it had been universal practice prior to that time to use a simple drag rope witha horse to pull guns back – indeed the same German word is used for both – Schleppseil (drag rope).

'G's method made smaller balls too loose and bigger ones too tight.'
Do you have a citation for this? Alder, who is the present authority on the development, construction wise, for the Gribeauval System, has in detail stated how the rounds were constructed and tested, using a 'go-gauge' (which was used by every artillery system in Europe at the time). Gribeauval developed the 'no-go' gauge (Alder illustrates both on page 151 of his text) and states the following:

'European artillerists had long passed their cannonballs through a circular 'go' gauge (a lunette) to make sure the shell would fit into the barrel. This left the lower threshold for the size of the ball undefined, and hence dependent on the judgment-the 'eye'-of the cannoneer. At the prompting of Choiseul, the Gribeauvalists now introduced a 'no-go' gauge with a diameter of 9 points less than that of the lunette. Acceptable balls should not be able to pass through this gauge. Applied in tandem with the 'go' gauge, this defined a zone within which manufacturers had to operate.'
Alder, Engineering the Revolution, page 151.

> I often wonder why you keep quoting recent authors instead of looking at contemporary works. This failure has led to your frequent copying of claims without checking the original. The windage point is quite simple – Austrian guns took a windage proportionate to the size of the ball, hence the fit is the same for each calibre. If you have a single windage measurement, then the relative fit must vary with the ball size.

As for the go/no go rings, this ius yet anoyther failure of the G system. Were you to read W. Muller (of the KGL), who is frequently cited in BP Hughes Firepower, which you mention several times, you would know that the Austrians produced their rounds in graphite moulds, which made for an exactness of production that rendered the rings redundant – the ones in Graz are labelled as late 17th century. The only reason you need such rings is if your production is defective. By reducing the calibres length and using horizontal boring, L achieved precision in the barrel boring that even the editors at Osprey were surprised at!

Further, as illustrated in Tousard's Volume III (the plates) there was also a tube for cannon balls of the various calibers to be passed through to check for defects of casting on the outside of the rounds.
> Yes, if your production process is no good.

Tolerances and processes were very regulated and specifically spelled out. Rounds too large or too small were discarded by the quality control officers. The assumption that roundshot were either too loose or too tight is incorrect.
> No, it is to do with the design windages.

'G's windage were however approaximately the same as L and contrary to the usual secondary suspects, it was not half of the L windage (the L windages are given in Smola).'

Except for the Austrian 12-pounder, you are correct to state that the windage for the new Gribeauval pieces was not half. But it was significantly less which indicates particular attention paid to it by the French artillerymen and gun tube designers. The Lichtenstein 3-, 6-, and 12-pounders, as noted in your Austrian artillery booklet, had different windages for each gun tube, and that of the 12-pounder was twice what Gribeauval allowed. The Gribeauval windage was .13 inches, which is less than 3mm per tube. This care contributed to the Gribeauval pieces being inherently more accurate than the Lichtenstein pieces. "This reduction has that excellent advantage of preventing the danger and frequency of the balls' bouncing against the sides of the bore, by considerably lessening the angle of percussion.-Tousard, Volume I, page xxiii.

>In fact, the Austrian 3pdr windage is the same. More importantly, if the French were using go/no go rings, then you cannot state the ball size and not the windage either – Smola gives some tolerances on it too, (the figures are the ideal central value). The important thing about windage with these weapons was the proportionality of the windage to ball size – the tightness of fit if achieved (which clearly the French could not do) would make the ball too tight in hte barrel and increase friction on firing. Otherwise the logic of your argument would be that zero windage was ideal, in which case the ball would be jammed in.

'The L/Yr XI guns had a long straight trail, which was lighter.'

I have schematics of the An XI 12-pounder gun carriage and they are not similar to the Lichtenstein trails, but akin to the Gribeauval trails. According to Rene Chartrand, the Gribeauval gn carriages were sturdier than the AN XI gun carriages.
> Well, I recommend that, as you did not publish a Yr XI – and one has to ask why when it was the key French mobile gun (the G guns going to the depots) – you look at Chartrand's Osprey or perhaps the Yr XI howitzer on p.361 of Chandler's Campaigns of N. According to Nafziger, Imp Bayonets p.246, "the new guns were reputedly stronger and more powerful than the old ones". Indeed, at he top of he text, he notes that the Yr XI came in undera decree dated 2nd March 1803, which demonstrates that the first "Yr XI" 6pdr guns and 5.5in howitzers had once belonged to someone else.

'The recoil has different effects, but still tries to push the trail end into the ground and at the very least, there is friction, and so, the gun will jump on launching the projectile. There is no equivalent downward movement on the gun.'

Recoil is both downward and back when the piece is fired. The Gribeauval gun carriages were designed to absorb both, which made them shorter and less awkward than the older, and longer Lichtenstein gun carriages. The problem in doing this is not to shake the carriage to pieces when doing it. That is what happened to the An XI gun carriages and the older, more sturdy Gribeauval carriages were substituted. The Gribeaucalists reduced this recoil velocity by designing the sides of the carraige to slope more steeply, sending the recoil force into the earth. This, however, strained the structure of the carriage.'
-Alder, page 154.
> Well, that proves Alder has not done his research – look at the 1747 Austrian gun and tell us which carriage style it is (p.6 of NV72). How can L be older when the 1747 is the G 3 angle style? Typical of course, you have just proven my comment about Alder and others just not knowing their artillery and reproducing the same old claims. Note that there is no evidence produced that there was a roblem with Yr Xi carriages (or indeed L carriages) – it is simply a claim made by hte Gribeauvalists.

'is the point where the ball crosses the line of sight for the second time. Ex hypothesi the ball must be above that line for the previous part of its flight.'
The round crossed the line of sight twice because the line of metal and line of sight are not parallel. It is not because the round rises from the line of metal (firing) after being fired.
> Well, let us look at this again. To produce a "point blank"/zero elevation first bounce at 300m requires an average velocity of 1800m/s because of the drop caused by gravity. As Evan rightly says, muzzle velocity was just over 400 m/s, so how come it did not hit the ground at about 75m?

'"The French halted and fired a salvo of ball at the Masses, which because of the short range mostly went over". At short range, when apparently, these balls fly flat, they cannot hit a Mass.'
One of the differences between a gun and a howitzer is how the round is designed to be delivered. Guns, and it is part of their definition, have a flat trajectory.
> How did they miss then at short range?
This partial quotation sounds like the French came into position hastily, unlimbered, and opened fire immediately. I am not surprised they missed on the first salvo. Today, that is called a hasty, vice a deliberate, occupation of a firing position.
> No, he says it happened because of the short range. Even if it were hasty, if the ball flies flat, why would even a hasty round go over?

'The balls fly in an approximate parabola…'

It was initially though to be a perfect parabola, but was found not to be. It is a lopsided parabolic curve that starts to drop sharply after the round hits its maximum ordinate. Therefore, it is not a parabolic curve.
> See "approximate".

The Gribeauval pieces were designed for mobility and accuracy.
> Not true. The man was a siege engineer with no grasp of field warfare. He worked simply on the basis of "my dog is bigger than your dog" in calibre and charge. He failed to grasp that guns must be effective over the key ranges, not just try to fire further and his barrles are far too thick (well, unless we can hear about the mysterious "metallurgy improvement" in the Yr XI, which give them L dimensions) You cannot design for mobility with pieces that are far heavier than their counterparts – the 8pdr failed and was replaced by the Yr XI pieces (an L gun and howitzer).

Both the 8- and 12-pounder was found to be suitable for horse artillery and could keep up with cavalry on the march and on the battlefield.
> No, they were too heavy.

They were also designed for longer service, hence their sturdier construction than the corresponding Prussian and Austrian pieces.
> Evidence for that claim?

The Gribeauval pieces were designed and constructed at 150 pounds of metal per pound of round, the Prussian and Austrian guns at 100 and 120 respectively.
> True – but the Yr XI copied L and Gribeauval was no good as a gun designer.

Gribeauval had seen first hand the Austrian and Prussian field pieces in both peace and war, and had copies of each built and tested in France before fielding his system.
> Untrue and another claim, which is unsubstantiated – unless you have evidence to he contrary. he did not serve with the Austrian field artillery and his repoprt (had you red it) could have bene written by anyone who had read NV72.

The Austrian gun tubes were not robust and didn't have a long service life before they were worn out and had to be recast or replaced.
> Not true – the wear is on the inside and will be the same for any gun cast of bronze.

Further, according to Duffy, the Austrians used casting scrap metal in the metal mix for casting, thus causing the resulting gun tubes to be less strong than originally designed. Further, Duffy states that at least the early Lichtenstein gun tubes were cast around a central core and had to be bored out after, which produced a less-accurate weapon than those, such as the Gribeauval gun tubes that were solid cast and then bored out by machine.
> You really should learn to read primary material if you are going to claim that a) you used German material and b) can read it. Horizontal boring began in Austria in 1739.

I do agree with you that Gribeauval was greatly influenced by the Austrian system. He was also influenced by Valliere, the Swedes, and the Prussians, just as Lichtenstein was influenced by Valliere and the Prussians. The Austrian and Prussian pieces and gun carriages look very similar and it is hard to tell them apart, since they both had long straight gun carriages, the same calibers for field pieces, and the same elevating device, which the Austrians copied from the Prussians (as the Russians would also do for their 1805 System). There is too much in new developments by Gribeauval's system for it to have been a copy of Lichtensteind in any sense, but a new system that was also highly praised by the British (there is a quote by Adye to this effect).
> In fact, Gribeauval was an incompetent – not surprisng as he was a siege engineer. His guns were de V strapped down and shortened in L style with a bit of "my dog is bigger than your dog" – the result was that Napoleon and Marmont, who knew a thing or two about guns had htem replaced. You have made made spurious claims about G's innovations – several are simply untrue, had you checked your facts, while others are irrelevant. the man is only held up as havinga system because of the 1790 Table (which is simply a collection of all the bits in French service). That he is lionised is simply due to he lazy copying of claims over time and a failure to read what exists in French.

How about the British contribution to gunnery?

From JFC Fuller, Decisive Battles of The Western World vol III.
"….the father of modern gunery was an Englishman, Benjamin Robins, who in his Principles of Gunery (1742) advocated the breech-loading rifled gun and placed gunery on a scientific footing…"

"Two notable inventions….both English..Merciers operative gun shall, a 5.5 in mortar shell fired from a 24 pounder gun, first used at the siege of Gibraltar….and Henry Sharpnael's spherical caseinvented in 1784, but not adopted by the British army until 1803."

cheers

Edward

Edward,

Not only that which you have mentioned but the development of the rocket for service on both land and sea. While the land rocket had some problems, the sea borne system was quite good and could be used to devastating effect.

Spherical case (shrapnel) was truly the secret weapon of the period. The French tried to copy it and had no success with the innovation.

Of importance to field artillery, the British block carriages for field guns and the accompanying limbers and caissons were the best of any belligerent of the period. The British version of the elevating screw was also excellent, and I would consider it superior to the French version, which was the best of the continental powers, it being much more efficient than the screw quoin which was invented by the Prussians and copied by the Austrians and Russians.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Dave,

A very interesting posting, but could you back up your opinions with citations?

You usually state that recent publications are not the best to use, but the only ones you quoted from in your posting were recent ones, such as Nafziger and Chartrand? Why is that?

If you could post something more than conjecture and opinion, which is fine as far that they go, to back up your assertions it would be most helpful.

Further, regarding Gribeauval, he was an artilleryman, not a 'siege engineer' and that has been pointed out in great detail in the article I wrote on him last year in First Empire. He was a graduate of one of the French artillery schools, was commissioned into the artillery, and served as an artilleryman (who were also taught how to conduct sieges as the French engineer arm was small and composed of only officers at this period).

You might also want to check DeScheel to find out that Gribeauval had constructed and tested both Prussian and Austrian artillery as he had brought back plans for both from his time in both countries, one on an inspection trip and the other in combat.

Could you provide evidence that the French 8- and 12-pounders were too heavy for field service? The French seem to have done quite well with them during the period.

You are in error apparently on your understanding of what windage is, unless I have misinterpreted you. It is the distance between the inside bore of the gun tube and the round being placed in it. You have listed the three windages used in the Austrian 3-, 6-, and 12-pounders in your Austrian artillery booklet. Each is larger than the standard Gribeauval windage used in the 4-, 8-, and 12-pounders, that of the Austrian 12-pounder being about twice as large as the Gribeauval 12-pounder. Could you please explain how the larger windage was more efficient? The Gribeauval tolerances were much more strict, thus giving the round a higher muzzle velocity.

We'll stop here for now and we can assess how far we are when you have graciously furnished primary source material for the answers you gave as opinion in your posting. After that, we can continue. Many thanks for your efforts.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Edward,

Regarding Robins, his New Principles of Gunnery challenged the current understanding of ballistics and was an outstanding work. His work with the ballistics pendulum on musket rounds to measure muzzle velocity. He didn't work with artillery. That wasn't done until 1775 by another Englishman, Charles Hutton, who used 6-pounders in his experiments.

The German mathematical physicist, Leonard Euler translated Robins' text into German and also further developed the mathematical analysis of trajectory of a ball that would be traveling through air. Robins and Euler actually share the credit, as Euler continued what Robins had begun, and corrected some of his theoretical errors.

There is a long line of mathematicians and physicists that developed different facets of gunnery and ballistics, such as Belidor's work on the amount of powder that actually had to be used to obtain the desired range of the different calibers.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Dave :

Were you chasing skirts instead of studying your arithemetic as a young man ??
:-)

I just noticed something from my prior calculation :
f > 150 revolutions/sec — absolute low limit for enough spin to impart lift to the example 12 lber ball.
or f > 9000 revolutions/minute
I think that that an iron ball of radius .11 m might deform or even fail if spun that fast, so another problem for the statistically extremely rare case of the "floater".

=============================================

"To produce a "point blank"/zero elevation first bounce at 300m requires an average velocity of 1800m/s because of the drop caused by gravity."

Oh dear, I sense a little error or two, with my apologies for noting them to you.
OK …. neglecting air resistance and then , parenthetically, including air resistance with standard conditions and a coefficient of drag of .4) ….

> at 400 m/s initial velocity and a muzzle height of 1 m and zero elevation, the round hits the ground 181 (170) m down range.
> at 450 m/s initial velocity and a muzzle height of 1.5 m and zero elevation, the round hits the ground 249 (230) m down range.
This is zero elevation for the centeline of the bore – it is assumed to be parallel to a flat piece of ground.
It has nothing to do with the line of sight.

> at 400 m/s initial velocity and a muzzle height of 1 m and 1 degree elevation, the round hits the ground 570 (450) m down range.
> at 450 m/s initial velocity and a muzzle height of 1.5 m and 1 degree elevation, the round hits the ground 722 (560) m down range.
This would correspond to a 1 degree variation in the line of sight vs. the centerline of the bore, causing the centerline of the bore to be tipped up 1 degree vs. the flat piece of ground (effects of sighting mechanism, centerline of the bore not parallel to the line of metal, etc.) where our gun sits and upon which our taget has also so very conveniently placed itself.

Now, one should also note that the round rises above the line sight when the centeline of the bore is tipped up relative to the flat piece of ground.
For the last of the examples (450 m/sec muzzle velocity, 1.5 m height of the mouth of the gun, 1 degree elevation) the maximum height of the round is a tad over 4 m above the flat piece of ground (or a tad more than 2.5 m about the mouth of the gun).

Now, unless you were doing some careful testing, I can think of ALOT of ways to inadvertantly place the centerline of the bore of a cannon 1 degree tipped up vs. the piece of flat ground. 1 degree is quite small, but the geometry of the trajectory changes ALOT for only one degree. And ground is NOT FLAT. I think this would lead to bracketing the target before firing ofr effect, at any range beyond canister.

I should note that in the above calculation, I have used a linear air resistance model (the drag force proportional to the velocity magnitude), but it should give a good realtive comaprison between different cases, if not a fire control solution acceptable to an artillery officer (such as Kevin).

It is a curse ….
I study Napoleonics to get away from math, technology and weapons systems (my "career"), searching for stories of cavalry charges and fancy uniforms. Where do I end up ??? choosing air resistance models !!

aaaaarrrgggghhh!

- Evan

We've had this conversation before from memory, but I can't recall if it was here or another site.

It was mentioned above that an explanation of the 'rise' could be the recoil of a pistol for example raising the barrel, this effecting the round upward.

This is emphatically incorrect – certainly for 'modern' small arms, and (with reservation) I assume it is also incorrect for black powder weapons, even with their slower muzzle velocity and longer barrels.

Taking the 'modern' small arms, the round has left the barrel long before any movement of the weapon changes the point of aim. This of course is very different from saying a firer who cannot control weapon recoil is going to be accurate – but the inacuracy is more to do with anticipation of the recoil than the recoil itself, at least on the first round (of a burst for example).

I, and I assume many here, can give numerous rifle range examples that ilustrate this (usually hair raising), and many 'old hands' are aware of it even without being able to explain why.

The classic example is the holywood little old lady firing a huge pistol that sends her flying across the room – only to find the bad guy dead with a bullet in the forehead.

All the best

Daryl

Evan – It is a long time since I did A level maths and I found mechanics quite difficult, hence why I was trying to keep it simple, eg: not using drag. However, if a ball is to fall 9.8m in one second, then it will drop 1.5m in 1/6 second. If the muzzle velocity is just over 400m/s, then it can only travel about 65m in 1/6 second before hitting the ground and indeed, it will be less if we allow for drag. Even looking at your analysis, we are not anywhere near the 300m claimed, so something is keeping the ball up. Indeed, we are still left with these two conundra – why is a gun firing flat less accurate at shorter range and why at short range (if you can fire flat) does a ball go over a large target?

As far as the recoil goes, I think you are overlooking the fact that the ball is stationary and moves to 400 m/s in the length of the barrel at a steady acceleration (that is how black powder works). Certainly in a vacuum, the unmounted barrel would simply travel backwards – Newton's Second law I think. The gun starts to move on the explosion and encounters friction on the trail end and the wheel. There will be some effect, although granted most of the recoil is post muzzle launch.

As far as Daryl's point goes, my experience of firing the Belgian Browning 9mm pistol was as my instructor said, that it was only accurate at so short a range that it would be better to throw the weapon. When you fire it, you finish up with your rms almost vertical, such is the recoil on it. This is why all guns since Lichtenstein, except the incompetent Gribeauval, use a long straight-ish trail. It absorbs recoil more effectively – shorter trails, which have to be more splayed to take the forces, concentrate the forces in the recoil and produce a greater effect on the barrel and thus accuracy.

Oh, I forgot. The Smola quote is about the guns – he is saying they are less accurate at shorter range – if there was some personnel problem, I am sure the French would have sorted it out. I doubt Kevin's first bounce ranges for French guns simply because, although a same size projectile in lb would be slightly heavier in France, the charge was 1/3 larger. Irrespective of its line of flight, it must fly further before hitting the ground – well unless as is often claimed, Austrian powder was stronger?

Following this whole discussion is rather tricky, as much of it is so esoteric, and you would need to see the sources that both sides put forward to know whom to believe. I am surprised that there is so little agreement between both sides – it is almost like politics, where everything the other side says has got to be wrong per se, no matter what!

So, I can't really decide who is right about who invented the 'bricole' (well, in the course of human events, does that really, really matter???), whether G was actually acquainted with artillery (well, I would say even in the worst case scenario he was still far more acquainted with period artillery than any modern wargamer or historian), and so on.

But on a more basic fact, I'm coming to the conclusion that the case of "balls rising above the line of fire in flight" is being well and truly de-bunked here, both scientifically and mathematically. That is not to say that I mis-believe the quote about the French cannonballs flying over the heads of the massed troops – I only think the supposed reason for this happening is being stated incorrectly that it is because balls rise above the line of fire in flight … there are plenty of other more believeable reasons for this to happen.

Anyway, I have found this discussion entertaining, and am in awe of the vast amount of knowledge both parties have got.

Kevin, Now don't let's get started on your FE article – we would still have to hear why "le donna" (gave him) is in the title of an award (you copied the sentence from Lauerma without understanding it) and what the date of the Imperial patent making G head of the Austrian artillery was! We are of course also waiting to hear about the mysterious metallurgy improvement, which made a YrXI barrel the same weight as an L barrel.

Quoting Nafziger made a simple point – I can quote a secondary source just as easily as you can. However in the end, we need the original material, which is as lacking in your book as it was in your FE article. There is nothing beyond claims by Gribeauvalists in 1816 to support the claim that the YrXI carriages were defective – it would be the same as citing arguments between les bleus and les rouges in the mid-18th century.

Chartrand is someone you are keen to quote (like Duffy on the bricole!) – I just referred you to his Osprey, where hte YrXI is apparently copied from an illustration in a book by Mr. Graves. Why did you not put an illustration of a YrXI in your book? Graves was of course the version of de Scheel (a Dane as I recall) produced by Mr. Graves in 1984. You are often found quoting graves' intro rather than his text, but if de Scheel claims (about 40 years after the event) that G tested Austrian guns at Strassbourg, where are the results? There is no mention of Austrian guns in your piece on Strassbourg in your book. Indeed, had he tested the L barrels, he would have discovered (like the Yr XI testers did) that an L barrel would take a French charge.

The date of the 1803 decree will not chnage whether it is in Nafziger or the original record – these guns must have belonged to someone else once.

You are not qualified to pronounce on Gribeauval as you have not bothered to read either the 1890s biog (which contains the actual 1762 report, not your fantasy piece) or any of the Austrian documentation about what G did in Austria. Indeed, you will find quite a bit in Duffy, but you have chosen to ignore it! The man was a captain of miners and only produced a siege gun carriage, which required modification at Schweidnitz (while G was mining). Cpontrary to claims made by you, Graves and others, he was never in charge of Austrian guns, he did not invent the bricole, he did not use a new carriage (do look at that 1747 pic), his barrels are too thick (appropriately enough) as the Yr XI showed. He had no concept of mobility since he did not work in the field – when he was training, artillerymen were siege gunners because the 3pdr was only practical piece in the field (hence why L made such a leap with hte light 6pdr and two-position 12 pdr). He was then a captain of miners and went mining in Austria. His 1762 report – you really should read it – just gives basic details on Austrian guns and some comparison with de V. He failed to include a field howitzer in the inventory and was incapable of producing a greased round. he thought that you needed a thick barrel to reduce wear – but, erm, that happens on the inside! His guns were so poor that gunners Nap and Marmont had it replaced with L weapons in March 1803. These are matters of recorded fact in French sources, not my opinions. You have not even read the key french sources and certainly not the Germanic material you list, but rely on secondary sources, which suit your opinion – that is why you get it wrong.

The weight point is quite obvious from, erm, the weights really. The accuracy of production should be clear from go/no go rings no longer used by the Austrian artillery. If you have flexible sizes, you cannot have a stated windage, only a desirable mean. The Austrian 3pdr has 3mm windage and the windage is in proportion to the ball size – this allows for vagaries of production and barrel wear. G's production methods were poorer (hence the rings) and a narrow windage means simply that if he barrel is too small or the ball only slightly above the desired mean (as it could be with rings), then it will simply jam in the barrel. Of course, ideally, you want as tight as fit as possible, but G's production methods could not actually do what you claim.

I am not sure how I can do better on primary material, when the figures and guns are the primary material. You are relying on material produced at least 40 years after the event or the opinions of people like Graves, Alder and lauerma, none of whom have read the material either! You have not even read up on Gribeauval, let alone his supposed inventions.

Much to my surprise when I was doing my reasearch for our neerwinden refight (on the table) I discovered that it was here that the first horse battery was used by the french (8lber) to much success (it was the only one at that battle) and caused a secound to be rasied. being a horse battery was a matter of horses not gun size as by the 1850 all american batteries where considerd horse guns (everyone road.)

Lord Ghee

Can I perhaps quote you from your own book, p.271: "it is necessary that the windage should be increased in ratio of their calibres" – that is the L method, not a standard 0.13in under G, which you then list. Which is it?

Lord Ghee – you illstrate another of Kevin's fallacies here, which is the claim about 8pdrs and even 12pdrs being used as horse guns. Why? Not because they are "good" horse guns – they are 50% heavier than an L 6pdr, but what the alternative for THE FRENCH? Answer: just a 4pdr pop gun. They got caned by Austrian gunners, notably Smola, at Neerwinden, after thinking they were in the ascendency with big heavy guns (and a 3:1 advantage) at Jemappes. So, they knew they needed mobile guns – ie: horse artilelry used by everyone else from about 1780 – so they had to hook up 8pdrs. Lo and behold, they had more mobile guns with bigger punch – THAN A 4 PDR. The failure to consider the last point is why so many inaccurate claims have ben made about G guns. The french gunners only really became effective after 1803 – and that was with the YR XI (L copy) 6pdr.

Another point for Kevin from his own piece on Strassbourg – (probably) de Scheel says that the improved windage on G guns (over previous French weapons) meant that the ball carried further. Unless the ball flies flat, this means its range to first bounce must be longer than other weapons (especially with a larger charge behind it) – oh, that is interesting in the light of Smola and the guy in IR42.

Dave,

You asked for a citation for Gribeauval's experimentation with both the Prussian and Austrian field pieces. It is in DeScheel, and not from the Introduction by Don Graves, but in the text: 'After the experiment which Gribeauval had made on Austrian field pieces of sixteen calibers, and on Prussian of fourteen, he did not hesitate to reduce ours to eighteen calibers.' This clearly demonstrates that Gribeauval field tested the Austrian and Prussian pieces.

Your comment that DeScheel wrote approximately 40 years after the Strasbourg experiments is incorrect. The Strasbourg experiments took place in 1765. DeScheel's treatise was first published in 1777, twelve years after the Strasbourg experiments. DeScheel's treatise is a compilation of Gribeauval's papers, so it is from the original work by Gribeauval, including the plates.

'The weight point is quite obvious from, erm, the weights really.'

As for mobility of the pieces, this was greatly aided by the use of brass housings for the interior of the wheel adn the iron axle. 'From the lightness of field pieces and their carriages, so advantageous, and so certainly combined with necessary strength, the 4-pounders are drawn very freely on all kinds of roads, with four and even three horses; and that with eight men, by means of the traces [bricole] and handspikes placed in the trail curve, it may advance or retreat in battle on every sort of ground, as fast as a troop of infantry can march. The 8-pounders, on good ground, may also advance in battle with eight men, and on worse ground with eleven, part of whom are to draw by the traces [bricole], and the strength of the others is to be applied to the trail or cross handspikes, and on the road these pieces go very freely with four horses. The 12-pounders go equally well with six horses, and in battle do not require more than eleven men to draw them on good ground, and fifteen in the most difficult, both in advancing and retreating.'-DeScheel

Tousard, in Volume II on horse artillery, page 45, remarks that 'in order to give [horse artillery] the advantage of superior fire to that of the other powers, 8-pounders and 6-inch howitzers were adopted. These two calibers appear to have, hitherto, completely answered every object which was expected from them, and the ammunition required for these dimensions did not occasion an excess of wagons, or an embarrassing weight, which, in bad roads, would follow very tardily the rapid movement which this kind of artillery is constantly performing.'

For the mobility of the 12-pounder, Tousard states on page 47 of Volume II: 'Thought the 8-pounder be the most preferable caliber for the general service of the horse artillery, still the 12-pounder may be employed very advantageously; for it is equally susceptible of celerity in its motions. Its weight is only 1800 pounds, consequently six or eight horses, if the ground be difficult, are more than sufficient to execute, in conjunction with the cavalry or chasseurs, the most prompt and decisive maneuvers.'

Therefore, weight isn't an issue with mobility of the Gribeauval pieces, and your assumption/opinion is incorrect. Further, if it is not an issue or a problem with horse artillery, it certainly isn't with foot artillery.

A few other comments:

'we need the original material'

You keep repeating this but don't provide any. Could you do that, please, to back up your opinions. Or, have you just made up your mind, as Evan has suggested, without having anything solid to back them up except your preference for the Austrians?

'His guns were so poor that gunners Nap and Marmont had it replaced with L weapons in March 1803. These are matters of recorded fact in French sources, not my opinions.'

Which French sources? Could you cite them with a page number please? I may have them and can look them up. Thanks very much in advance.

'The accuracy of production should be clear from go/no go rings no longer used by the Austrian artillery.'

As the no-go ring was not developed until ca 1765 by Gribeauval, I'm not surprised the Austrians didn't have/use it. What was their method of ensuring their rounds were both cast and were within tolerances? What were the stated Austrian tolerances? Gribeauval went to great pains to ensure the tolerances on his gun tubes, gun carriages, and ancillary vehicles were strictly applied and exact. One of the reasons his Tables weren't published until after his death is that they were continually being modified to ensure both accuracy and practicality.

'G's production methods were poorer (hence the rings)'

Could you show evidence of this, please? According to Duffy, the Austrians used scrap metal when casting their gun tubes which makes the metal weaker. Further, they were still, in the 1750s, according to Duffy, casting gun tubes around a central core. When did the Austrians start casting their gun tubes solid and them boring them out for a truer bore?

'and a narrow windage means simply that if he barrel is too small or the ball only slightly above the desired mean (as it could be with rings), then it will simply jam in the barrel.'

No, it doesn't. There were listed tolerances for the cast roundshot which would fit the respective French calibers. If you have evidence this is not correct, please provide it.

'G's production methods could not actually do what you claim.'

Do you have something from a primary source to back this up? If that were so, the brass housings for artillery wheels, the iron axle, and the adjustable rear sight for the artillery pieces and the screw-in vent could not have been manufactured.

'he thought that you needed a thick barrel to reduce wear'

No. He designed heavier gun tubes than the Prussians and Austrians to lengthen the service life of the piece. He believed that both the Prussian and Austrian guns were too light and would last only a few campaigns or the maximum of three years. See DeScheel, page 4.

'You have not even read up on Gribeauval, let alone his supposed inventions.'

I have both Hennebert's and Nardin's biographies of Gribeauval in my library. Nardin's is the more recent and detailed. Neither back up your opinion that Gribeauval was an incompetent. Neither do DeScheel's or Persy's artillery treatises.

Could you please show me where I quoted Duffy on the bricole?

If you recall, I've already told you that I didn't believe it necessary to include an illustration of the AN XI 6-pounder as there was a photograph of one in Chartrand's second artillery volume. Why repeat it? I found it more useful to put copies of original drawings which most people probably hadn't seen before.

'There is nothing beyond claims by Gribeauvalists in 1816 to support the claim that the YrXI carriages were defective'

Do you have these or have you seen them? Rene Chartrand is a very careful researcher, and I believe him to be the best of the Osprey authors (sorry!). He has done excellent work, and if there is contrary evidence on his remarks on the AN XI gun carriages, then please provide it. Again, you're giving nothing but opinion.

The argument over AN XI never ceased. Gassendi and others were against the adoption in 1803, and the only two pieces that were fielded in any numbers were the 6-pounder and the 5.5-inch howitzer. Therefore, it was a partial adoption that supplemented the Gribeauval System and didn't replace it. General Ruty did a study in 1814 to bring back the 8-pounder as the 6-pounder was not considered as efficient by many of the senior artillery generals as the 8-pounder. When the new Valee System replaced the Gribeauval System in 1827-29, the two gun calibers they used were the 8- and 12-pounder. The 6-pounder was considered to be becoming obsolete, as the throw weight was not enough.

You can provide for the forum solid evidence of your opinions and conclusions? You ask for it from Evan and I, so quid pro quo is in order I would think. It would be more than interesting for you to provide something besides opinion and your own conclusions, as, while they are fine, they are not evidence. And, until you can list or provide something that is actually evidence what you have stated has to be taken at nothing more than opinion. I'm not trying to be disrespectful or rude, but you are arguing your points (which you are entitled to of course) with nothing but your own conclusions. It isn't supported by anything concrete that I can see unless I'm missing something. Please provide more so all of us can learn.

Lastly, I think that you said in an earlier posting that you quoted a lot from Smola from your artillery booklet. I have found only one quotation by Smola in the booklet, on page 8, though you apparently have paraphrased him a few times also. Have I missed something and/or did I misinterpret what you said on this matter?

Looking forward to your reply.

Sincerely,
Kevin

'Can I perhaps quote you from your own book, p.271: "it is necessary that the windage should be increased in ratio of their calibres" – that is the L method, not a standard 0.13in under G, which you then list. Which is it?'

That is material taken from Tousard to be used as interest for the period. Are you sure you interpreted it correctly?

;-)

Sincerely,
Kevin

'The french gunners only really became effective after 1803 – and that was with the YR XI (L copy) 6pdr.'

Dave,

Please provide evidence that the French artillerymen 'only really became effective after 1803' and that the AN XI 6-pounder was a copy of the Lichtensteim 6-pounder.

As of right now, that is only your opinion. And there is much evidence that the French horse artillery was immediately effective when it was introduced. If you'd like to see some, I can readily provide it for you. Further, if it wasn't effective in the 1790s, then it wouldn't have been expanded to six regiments from a start of two companies.

Sincerely,
Kevin

'horse artilelry used by everyone else from about 1780 '

Dave,

The British didn't establish their horse artillery arm until 1793, not 1780.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Lord Ghee,

If you take a look at artillery organization in the American Civil War, there was still a difference between batteries designated as horse artillery and those designated as field artillery. The horse artillery had their gunners individually mounted, the field artillery had theirs mounted on limbers and caissons.

You are correct that all of them were 'mounted' and rode.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Dave :

"However, if a ball is to fall 9.8m in one second, then it will drop 1.5m in 1/6 second. "

You are confusing the acceleration due to gravity (which is 9.8 meters per sec per sec) with the velocity of a falling body (the first partial derivative of acceleration with respect to time). I assume that this was an unintentional little slip-up. But if you dont understand the difference, I can readily expand on this theme for you.

Unless thrown toward the earth or fired "down", the initial downward velocity component on a falling body is 0. After one second, neglecting air resistance, it is falling at 9.8 m/sec.
In the case, for example, of [450 m/sec muzzle velocity, 0 elevation, 1.5 m mouth of the tube, including air resisitance], the round hits the ground about 0.6 sec after clearing the tube, with a velocity in the vertical direction of about -5.1 m/sec and a horizontal speed component of about 340 m/sec. Absent air resistance, the round hits the ground about a few milliseconds earlier, with a slightly higher velocity in the vertical direction and a horizontal speed componet that is unchanged from the muzzle velocity.

To have the round land at 300 m downrange :
450 m/sec muzzle velocity : requires 0.24 degrees elevation with air resistance.
0 degrees elevation : requires 585 m/sec muzzle velocity.

Now, whether or not one could, 200 years ago, control the muzzle velocity of a 12 lber + or – 68 m/sec or its elevation (or the flatness of the test range ) + or – 38/100ths of a degree is beyond my knowledge, or time events in the tenths or hundredths of a second. My guess is that the answer is "no" , at least for some of the required measurements.

You still have not provided the QUOTE from Smola on this whole issue of the French tending ot miss at 500 paces. You not posess the original text, am I correct ? If so, where did you get the information, and did exactly the secondary author say that Smola wrote ?

- Evan