"French Artillery - Pre-Marengo?" Topic

Eureka sells 4pdr, 8pdr and 12pdr French cannon.

Anyone have a source on what were used for what?

I am guessing the 4pdrs were used in Horse batteries, 8pdrs for Foot batteries attached at Division level, and 12pdrs for army level.

Clarification appreciated.

Both 4- and 8-pounders were used by the horse artillery, the 8-pounder being the preferred field piece by that arm.

According the Louis de Tousard in his American Artillerist's Companion, the 12-pounder was also suitable for use by horse artillery if necessary as it was mobile enough for that type of employment.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Tousard (1809) is available online at:
link

Adye (1801-27)in Bombardier and Pocket Gunner
link
lists 6 horse teams for 12 pounder "field" artillery.

Another intersting "find" is tables of casulties from artillery fire given at:
link .

Just gotta compare this with your favorate wargame gunnery table.

French horse artillery was always supposed to be equipped with six horse teams, no matter what the caliber.

In the French service, all 12-pounder companies were supposed to have 6-horse gun teams for the field pieces as well as one of the five caissons per piece.

Sincerely,
Kevin

The initial Eureka feedback is similar, although their expert is on vacation.

So 4pdrs for French Foot Artillery

8pdr or 12pdr for French Horse Artillery

???

I'm trying to replicate the French OOB in Italy 1796-97

As a guide to the artillery available to the French in 1796 you might want to review this French OOB extract for Castiglione 5th August 1796:

Division Sauret:
9263 infantry, 327 cavalry, two 4-pdrs

Division Despinois:
1773 infantry, one 8-pdr and one 6" howitzer

Division Massena:
11053 infantry, 418 cavalry, two 8-pdrs, one 12-pdr and two 6" howitzers

Division Kilmaine:
1818 infantry, 905 cavalry, four 8-pdrs and three 6" howitzers

Division Augereau:
8058 infantry, 945 cavalry, three 8-pdrs, 0ne 12-pdr and three 6" howitzers

Division Serurier:
4878 infantry, 160 cavalry, four 8-pdrs, four 12-pdrs and three 6" howitzers

Source: 'Castiglione 1796, Bernhard Voykowitsch, Maria Enzersdorf, 1998.

Artillery numbers were so low that guns and howitzers were pooled at Divisional level and allocated as appropriate on a day by day basis.

As an aside, it would not be out of the question for the French to use 12-pdrs as horse artillery.

- Allan

I would recommend as a 'rule' for 4- and 8-pounders for horse artillery and any of the three calibers for foot artillery.

Allan's excellent posting illustrates how artillery was allocated in the Army of Italy during the period.

Sincerely,
Kevin

In theory, 4 lb for horse but they liked 8 lb as well, 8 lb for divisional field batteries and 12 lb for corps reserve heavy batteries.

This was often in effect when campaigns started and then varied as fate intruded, with guns captured or abandoned when stuck in the mud or for lack of draft animals, and possible reinforcement by guns of various calibers taken from the enemy.

Sorry guys the Horse artillery used 8 lbers and was formed with them in 1793, the frist company at Neerwinden which impreesed everyone that the French goverment formed a 2nd right after that. They were station with the main army in flanders like the Cuirasser regiments.

During the empire period (Horse?) artillery was introduced to the cavarly divisions which gave the French advantages in scouting vs enemy cav. after the victories of 1805 any gun that could be had was used to form up companies to attach to cav divisions (a number of 3 lbers companies in 1807 ect) by Freidlan most divions had a company of horse artillery (company not battery right Kevin?) Napoleon wanted all to have 6lbers but production lagged.

Lord Ghee

The 4lber was the mainstay of French artillery for 100 years. During the 7 years war period the french would have a 10 to 1 ratio of 4 to 12 example the battle of cuno had 100 4lbers and 8 12 blers. After France finsihed the wars they wrote in thier miltary papers and letters that they felt that the many 6 lbers in Austrin service allowed the French to be out shot in places of the battle line. so the 8lber was introduced into service.

all French guns were cosidered field pieces, the 4lber was not a regimental piece. The Austrins and the Prussians used 3 lbers for "battalion guns" and 6 and 12 for field guns.

Lord Ghee

The French are already using captured guns, esp Austrian 6pdrs and 7pdr howitzers (from which the Year XI designs were copied), so you might consider those too.

LordGhee,

Yes, for the French it was an artillery company, not a battery. That term was not used in the French army until 1829 for the company-sized artillery unit. The British used 'brigade' and 'troop' (field artillery and horse artillery, respectively) for their company-sized artillery units, and the United States used company. The Austrians, Russians, and Prussians used the term 'battery.' At the same time, battery was used for any artillery emplacement no matter what the number of guns.

The introduction of the 6-punder into French service by the Artillery Committee for the new Systeme AN XI was a topic of debate and the Committee itself was divided on its adoption. The 8-pounder was a favorite field piece among many artillerymen and the horse artillery arm in particular. Notably, Gassendi opposed the new system and caliber and Ruty wrote a paper urging the reintroduction of the 4- and 8-pounders and the suppression of the 6-pounder in 1814. The 8-pounder was just as mobil as the 6-pounder and had a higher throw weight. When the new Vallee System was introduced in 1829 the cannon calibers used were 8- and 12-pounders, the 6-pounder was rapidly becoming obsolete as too light in throw weight.

The French, being economical and using common sense, certainly employed captured ordnance. The great haul of captured ordnance from the allies made this possible, especially the great captures of an intact Vienna Arsenal in 1805 and 1809. Boulart tells an excellent story of being loaned an Austrian field piece while one of his was in maintenance getting a new vent after Essling in 1809. No new training was needed to man a captured field piece, the only disadvantage was the difference in the weight systems used by the different armies, the French pound, for example, being heavier than the one used by the Austrians. Therefore, the French 6-pounder and the Austrian 6-pounder did not fire the same ammunition weight, the French round being a little heavier, being close to 7 pounds in English weight (and that would make the French 8-pounder close to an English 9-pounder in throw weight.)

The 8-pounder had been a standard French caliber since at least 1832 with the introduction of the Valliere System.

Regarding Systeme AN XI, the only field pieces that were produced in any numbers were the 6-pounder and the 5.5-inch howitzer (also known as the 24-pounder howitzer). There was also a new 6-inch howitzer produced for the Guard artillery. The 6-pounder was not a copy of the Austrian 6-pounder and was an entirely new design (just as the Gribeauval System was not a copy of the Lichtenstein artillery system-that is an of-repeated error). I have never seen any evidence to support the idea that it was a copy, though I have seen the statement repeated many times with no supporting documentation.

Interestingly, as late as 1808 a significant portion of the Army of Germany had both 4- and 8-pounders in the artillery companies, especially in Davout's III Corps. The Imperial Guard still had 4-pounders as late as 1811. Both the 4- and 8-pounders were still employed in Spain throughout the conflict. Not only were these field pieces still being employed, but some were still being produced in the French arsenals.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Kevin,

I note that the French horse artillery used 6-horse teams for all their guns, but the British used 8-horse teams for their 9-pdrs (which was introduced to counter-act the French 8-pdrs and, as you say, matched them in weight of shot). Do you think this gave the British any advantage in manoeuvrability/speed of deployment?

Dear Kevin
The Valliere System was introduced by decree in 1732. (I assume that was a typo and you were not referring to the Valee system that was introduced in France in 1828).

The AnXI System ordnance was not copy of the Austrian System. It was a natural follow on from Gribeauval, the work of Manson, experience with Piedmont ordnance and the Allix 6-pdrs.

I have found no evidence of 4-pdrs being produced after 1805. None of the pieces capture in Russian and Spain bore the Imperial Cypher. Napoleon ordered that they would be melted down to make new pieces. The only 4-pdrs taken to Russia were as Regimental Guns for the Young Guard.

The Ruty report was made in December 1814 and this was to ingratiate himself with the returned King of France. This is the same as Gassendi 1819 that is oft quoted upon the AnXI System. It was not politically correct or safe to support ideas that were from the revolutionary or Napoleonic Period. Remember Gassendi was in exile until 1819 and was reinstated because of the new edition of his manual.

Stephen

Dear Max
The British 9-pdr was superior to the older Gribeauval 8-pdr for a number of reasons.

1. It did not need to move the barrel from the travelling to the firing position. This took precious time. Kevin has quoted less than one minute. Well we have tried that and it took over 5 minutes using the methods shown in the Manual of 1824.

2. The Gribeauval 8-pdr did not have ready ammunition. The small coffret was for emergency only so would have to wait for ammunition to be supplied from the caisson.

3. The British limber carried ammunition in boxes so there was no requirement to manhandle each round by hand as in the French system. Consider unloading a ship before containers and now.

4. It is quicker and safer to unlimber a British 9-pdr than the Gribeauval 8-pdr. I have done both. Getting inside the wheel for the Gribeauval Limber is disturbing when the horses are rather excited.

5. British ammunition carts had 152cm wheels compared to the French Caisson with 114cm wheels. The latter was troubled with bogging down in mud. Plenty of references to this for Russia and Waterloo.

6. Some French "horse artillery" with 8-pdr were still wurst wagons in to 1806.

7. We are back to the discussion as to fully mounted, vehicle mounted and semi-vehicle mounted horse artillery. See the Smola paper in Smoothbore Ordnance Journal 1 that was published last year translated by Digby Smith.

8. The British Horse Artillery at Waterloo were able to deploy and redeploy whereas the French did not. Although there has never been study of the use of the French HA or lack of use there. The lack of support given to the cavalry charges has always amazed me.

9. The Valee System adopted the black trail and the British Equipment. Only the drafting was different. This was later adopted by the US and used into 1870s.

10. Charles Dupin who was a French Spy extolled the virtues of the British System in his Force Militaire. The English Translation was published by Ken Trotman last month.

11. The wheels and the axels of the block trail and the limber were interchangeable.

12. The drafting of the British Desaguliers limber permitted 1 horse, 2 horse or horses abreast.

All in all I am sorry to report that the British had a superior form of horse artillery.
Stephen

All Continental armies used six-horse teams for Horse artillery pieces and 12pdrs. The mechanical advantage per horse reduces quite quickly beyond six, but the Iberian terrain may have necessiatted it.

You are looking at this in the wrong way however – throw weight is a fatuous argument, because logic would suggest you deploy 18 and 24pdrs, which you don't, because the weight of the piece increases disproportionately to any shot gains.

The 8pdr was used by the French in Spain, because the 4pdr was a pop gun and N needed his efficient guns (captured/YrXI 6pdrs) in Germany, while 12pdrs were also needed there, but were too heavy for efficient use in terrain like Spain. The 8pdr barrel weighed about 580kg (compared with 390kg for the YrXI 6pdr), with a carriage weight of 659kg, while the UK 9pdr was somewhat heavier at about 687kg with a carriage weight of about 780kg. Just for comparison, an Austrian 6pdr had a barrel weighing 388kg and a carriage of 483kg.

It is yet more myth that the 9pdr was some kind of "response" to the Gribeauval 8pdr – simply because it was first designed in the 1790s!

It was actually designed to use a load of spare ammunition from the Admiralty, which was replacing its iron 9pdrs. DD&S note that Blomefield's guns were "heavily influenced by the Austrian system". Indeeed, the Peninsula experience quickly prompted Blomefield to produce 3 versions of a 6pdr in 1810 with barrels weighing 412-509kg, all his guns remaining in service until the 1850s. The reason DD&S note was that the 9pdr was disliked – it was heavier than a 6pdr (barrels of 305-458kg), needed 8 horses and more crew and carried less ammunition.

Dear Dave
The 9-pdr was designed in 1805 and was medium weight of 160:1 rather than the Light Blomefields of 120:1. It is interesting that the Long Desaguliers 6-pdr had the same range brackets as the 9-pdr.

The French also used AnXI guns in the Peninsular. Some fine examples can be seen in Lisbon.

Stephen

Yes, I should have expressed that as "the requirement developed" in the 1790s, as it would have made the point more clear that it was not some reaction to the Gribeauval 8pdr.

Dear Dave
The 8-pdr and 9-pdr discussion was more relevant to the 1830s-1850s when the French chose the 8-pdr for the Valee system because the British had the 9-pdr. The British retained the 9-pdr because the French had the 8-pdr.

This is where the idea came from. Not from the earlier period. In any case the French retained the 4-pdr and 8-pdr because of the large stocks of Spanish Gribeauval Ordnance and munitions. Combined with the problems of supply to Spain that was so disrupted by the poor roads, RN naval domination of the sea and the Partizans.

Stephen

'All in all I am sorry to report that the British had a superior form of horse artillery.'

Why sorry? The British artillery arm was excellent and their horse artillery was an elite arm. I would consider the French horse artillery arm to be superior in both dash and elan, but the British equipment was more modern and handy. I read somewhere that the British horse artillery considered the French horse artillery to be the best in Europe, but I cannot find the source at the moment.

'Some French "horse artillery" with 8-pdr were still wurst wagons in to 1806.'

Where, whom, and what source, please.

As to the 'best' form of horse artillery, it has to be that which is most mobile, best trained, etc. My druthers is horse artillery that has the gunners individually mounted is the most efficient. The most economical is not necessarily the most efficient.

American experience in the Civil War definitely validates the usefulness of individually mounted horse artillerymen.

Leutnant Smola's paper, while interesting, is somewhat biased and it was written after the wars were over. What combat experience did Smola have and how did he arrive at his conclusions? As I read the paper, it seemed to me that his 'results and conslusions' were somewhat cooked and not reliable. They are opinion only.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Strange really that someone, who was the son of a great artilelryman and joined the army as a Kadett Bombardier (an institution with no rival across all of Europe), serving later with 2. Artillery regiment and then as a Hauptmann, transfers to the General Staff, clearly knmows nothing.

Indeed, maybe we should wonder why his opinion is clearly "biased", given that he bothered to collect material on the subject from all major nations and could review the performance of the artillery over 23 years of war. Of course, it is as of nothing compared with gunners, who were tryiong to ingratiate themselves with the new Bourbon regime or were simply resistant to change.

Karl Freiherr von Smola (1802-62) link

As Marshal Lefebvre said to a young aristocrat bragging about his ancient pedigree, 'It is better to be an ancestor than to have one.'

K

'Of course, it is as of nothing compared with gunners, who were tryiong to ingratiate themselves with the new Bourbon regime or were simply resistant to change.'

Have you read Ruty's report? I have a copy and the tone of the report is anything but ingratiating. It is well-sourced and written by a combat veteran who knew what he was talking about regarding artillery.

And if you've read Leutnant Smola's 'study' the entire paper is to justify the old way of Austria doing business because it is cheaper in the long run. Seems to me that is resistance to change, not the other way round.

K

Dear Kevin
Yes I have read Ruty's report. I am stating when it was written and the audience. It was not written when Napoleon was in power.

If you have written my work on the Austrian Army, you will see a system that evolved. It was not set in stone for 1753. See Smoothbore Ordnance Journal 3.

Stephen

Well, I doubt you have read the original French or indeed the political background, but perhaps you should read Stephen's post of 27/07 at 2.30pm?

In your own book, you list Bowden's translation of it and despite the confident assertions made by Ruty, it seems nothing was produced to evidence his claims of the 8pdr being "better and more accurate" – especially as he admits there has not been any testing of the two weapons and that the weight saving did not give a decisive advantage (except in terms of weight and cost I suppose?). Note "decisive" with its implied admission of similar performance.

You then refer us to your Table 9, which merely shows that the YrXI 6pdr had a significantly larger caisson load for little increase in weight (52% for 13%), that the 6pdr only required 1.5 caissons compared with 2 for an 8pdr and a 6pdr ammo box could take 21 rounds compared with 15 for an 8pdr. Seems he wasn't listening to Napoleon's concerns about ammo supply?

Indeed, Nafziger said in Imperial Bayonets that there was no loss of effectiveness when the YrXI was introduced – which presumably he found in another French report. DD&S note that the report on the YrXI had the hitting power of an 8pdr (p.74), but much like many key reports, you failed to mention this in your book. DD&S make it clear that there was an ongoing debate over the guns throughout the wartime period, yet you mention nothing of it, simply jumping on one translated report.

Had you actually read Smola's book, rather than listing it in your bibliography to give a false imporession of your reading, it was Smola's papers collected and presented by his two sons.

You are quite entitled to disagree with Karl Smola's conclusions, but maybe we could see something better than a simple dismissal because you do not like what he says. In contrast, perhaps we can hear the evidence produced by Ruty? You did not deem it worth mentioning in your book – much like claims that both YrXI and Lichtenstein carriages were "weak" – when the key problem was with G carriages splitting (DD&S p.70).