Napoleonic Artillery Tactics
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 13 พ.ค. 2024
- A look at Artillery Tactics during the Napoleonic Wars. This video covers gun types, ammo types like round shot, canister and shrapnel, effective range, organization, horse / foot artillery, tactics, employment like positioning and counter-battery fire.
»» SUPPORT MHV ««
» Early Access & more with: / mhv
» Early Access & more with Subscribe Star - www.subscribestar.com/mhv
» Paypal Donation: paypal.me/mhvis
» TH-cam Membership - / @militaryhistoryvisual...
» Book Wishlist www.amazon.de/gp/registry/wis...
»» MERCHANDISE ««
» teespring - teespring.com/stores/military...
» SOURCES «
Dawson, Anthony L.; Dawson, Paul L.; Summerfield, Stephen: Napoleonic Artillery. The Crowood Press: Ramsbury, UK, 2007.
Kiley, Kevin F.: Artillery of the Napoleonic Wars. Field Artillery, 1792-1815. Frontline Books: Yorkshire, UK, 2004.
Chandler, David G.: The Campaigns of Napoleon. Scriber: New York, USA, 1966.
Rothenberg Gunther E.: The Art of Warfare in the Age of Napoleon. Indiana University Press: Bloomington, USA, 1980.
Nosworthy, Brent: Battle Tactics of Napoleon and his Enemies. Constable: London, UK, 1997.
Bruce, Robert B.; Dickie, Iain; Kiley, Kevin; Pavkovic, Michael F.; Schneid, Frederick C.: Fighting Techniques of the Napoleonic Age 1792 - 1815: Equipment, Combat Skills, and Tactics. Thomas Dunne Books: New York, USA, 2008.
Browing, Peter: The Changing Nature of Warfare. The Development of Land Warfare from 1792 to 1945
Philip J. Haythornthwaite: Weapons & Equipment Of The Napoleonic Wars
Bruce, Robert B.; Dickie, Iain; Kiley, Kevin; Pavkovic, Michael F.; Schneid, Frederick C.: Fighting Techniques of the Napoleonic Age 1792 - 1815: Equipment, Combat Skills, and Tactics
Hughes, B. P.: Firepower - Weapon Effectiveness on the Battlefield, 1630-1850
#Artillery #Tactics #Napoleon
There are various errors in this video, since some of the sources contained errors. Big thank you to Konrad Anderle for pointing them out:
1. The imperial Austrian Cavallerie-Geschütz-Batterien were not a mounted artillery (Horse Artillery), but a conventional artillery: The operating crew only mounted and rode the sausage for tactical movements during the battle. Otherwise it marched alongside the gun. The Cav. 6pounder was manned with six horses, the 7pounder Cav. howitzer with four horses. A part of the ammunition was carried by pack horses.
2. There were no fundamental differences in artillery tactics between the countries at the end of the Napoleonic Wars. Large Batteries were also faced by Napoleon at Leipzig, for example. The artillery was effective when it engaged the enemy's infantry at canister range. Outside these it usually made little more than noise. Battery fire was intended to enfilade the enemy. The batteries were therefore supposed to act from the flank.
Moreover, an effect was only given when the fire of several guns could be concentrated, for example around the perimeter of a battery. Then 3 canister layers of six guns were sufficient to stop an advancing enemy to force him to withdraw. Enemy infantry tried to stay out of the canister shot range as long as possible or avoid it completely.
All powers employed their field artillery offensively whenever possible. To this end, the gun was advanced. Thereby one wing advanced a certain distance while the other covered it. When the distance was reached, the other wing advanced under cover of the first. The fire was directed - if necessary - against enemy ordnance. The fire was concentrated on the enemy gun on one flank of the enemy battery. This was fired upon until it was useless; then the next enemy gun was targeted.
The mobility of the artillery was essentially determined by its weight. Thus, 12-pounders could hardly be maneuvered during the battle.
The aiming angle for howitzers was 15° at most. Elevation beyond this resulted in rapid destruction of the gun carriage. For this purpose, powder charges of different weights were also used, which allowed different ranges. The howitzer was used to fire on the enemy's towns and covered formations.
4. In French and Austrian artillery, the tactical formation of the battery was not introduced until 1803 and 1809, respectively. Until then, there were only line and reserve artillery. These batteries existed only for the duration of the campaign.
Administratively, the french and Austrian artillerymen were divided into companies, battalions and regiments. Only in the Russian and later in the Prussian Artillery introduced the battery as a tactical and administrative formation.
Well a very good video i notice errors when i make videos all the time.
However this video is so informative
1:49 1:49
This remembered me of the incident when the Mythbusters fired a cannon into a "safe" hill, but the ball actually ricocheted up and away, flying hundreds of meters into a town until it stopped inside a random house.
So, in short: artillery creates opportunities for victory, infantry achieves victory, cavalry exploits victory.
In a nutshell, yes. Very succinct.
*politicians exploit victory
@@robspecht9550 Well, not on the battlefield.
@@robspecht9550 politicians make victory impossible
Cavalry also discovers potential opportunities for victories (scouting), informs on them (message riders) and also chases deserters.
Here's a idea for a video. Logistics. How do people in the rear know where the hell the guys in the front have gone, or how do they actually get there?
A lot of horse messangers and prior planning. Some good books on the subject include Feeding Mars by Martin van Creveld and The Art of War in the Western World by Archer Jones.
@@b.griffin317 And you followed the main road. If units went off a paved road, you'd see it clearly by the trails they'd make. Also, "march towards the sound of the gunfire";)
MHV: Today ve'll be taking a look at logistics during the second vorld var.
Wehraboos: Oh no.
@@b.griffin317 i have supplying war by creveld. Didn't know he has 2 books on the subject.
@metziih As a former logistics officer, I have to point out you have it all backwards. In those days, I'm pretty sure there wasn't a lot of "pushing" of supplies to the front. The usual practice was for the logistics sites (caches of food, ammunition, gunpowder, horse fodder, water, clothing, spare horses, and an aid station nearby) to be placed near a road junction the line units had to be told to find. The line units would then "pull" their (re)supply up to where it was needed. I definitely want to check out the books mentioned by @b. griffin so I won't have to speculate so much.
My son visited Gettysburg and brought me a book. Something like, "The Artillery of Gettysburg." (Which was improved over Napoleonic artillery. But not that much.) Two stories I remember: (1) The altitude adjustment was by a screw crank under the rear of the barrel. As the gun fired each shot, the screw vibrated & automatically cranked a little bit, increasing the altitude of the aim. In the heat of battle, gunners often forgot to check it. After the battle a number of guns were checked and it was found the gunners were almost certainly shooting over their targets. (2) There was a hole in the top of the gun, called the thumb hole. One gunner would wear a heavy leather thumb glove and stuff his thumb down the thumb hole while the barrel was being swabbed out. During battle the barrels got red hot and the thumb gloves burned up. During Gettysburg, the thumb gloves at one Union cannon got used up. One officer was mortally wounded and shoved his naked thumb down the barrel to allow his crew to fire one last shot before they were over run! His thumb was burned to the bone and he died from his wounds. He was awarded, posthumously. a medal for bravery above and beyond the call of duty.
bullshit.
I’m pretty sure I can whittle a stick the diameter of my thumb, slightly tapered.
They were quite a bit improved. Better shells and rifling.
Image getting shot by a wurst gun
"Here lies Jacque, killed by a sausage"
That's the worst pun.
@@adm0iii the wurst pun?
Puns are so much better when you have to explain them. Sigh.
@@adm0iii It's up to the joker to write them correctly in the first place.
Explanations are so much better when you have to explain them. Sigh.
While Napoleonic battles were known for their sharp, regal uniforms I can think of no type of wound more bloody and horrific as a solid ball of iron smashing its way through a column of human flesh. Brutal stuff.
I imagine crushed raspberries
nah its the grapeshot for me
One can imagine so much worse that the concept of severity loses meaning and you can no longer rank them. For instance, the scene from the original All Quiet on the Western Front where... (trigger warning: extreme gore)
...An already wounded French soldier trying to pull himself up on some barbed wire gets disintegrated by a near-direct hit from an explosive shell, leaving only his severed hands still clinging to the wire, is based on a real account by a German veteran.
@@fluffly3606 ouch
Hmm, maybe TNT and fragmentation?
To cannon, All men are equal - Napoleon
Not if you're in a trench....
And that's the reason why the Soviets loved heavy artillery...
@@podemosurss8316 But the soviet heavy artillery of the WW2 sucked
@@neieduardodepaula4556 Not really, their massive salvos were very effective.
@@quisqueyanguy120 No, their massive salvos were very ineffective and in most cases totally useless
As a man who likes precision , I cannot help but to point out to you that in the syntax of the age of Napoleon, the plural of "cannon" is "cannon".
But the language has changed since then... in America. American sources use "cannons", so Bernard is free to use either.
That's not syntax
@@adm0iii America also uses Cannon as a plural.
@@BeKindToBirds In the US, "cannons" is far more frequent.
@@adm0iii They are both used in different grammar contexts. When talking about how something is equipped cannons is used. (As it was during napoleon's time) When talking about a group of cannon, cannon is used.
There are many contemporary sources where a ships "cannons" are referenced. They were used differently to speak of different kinds of groupings.
Cannon is still used in its same context in america today but the context doesn't come up because of the way artillery itself evolved.
“God fights on the side with the most artillery” Napoleon
Rad Derry those weren’t unarmed civilians, those were pro-aristocrats who were attempting to throw a counter revolt to restore the monarchy. Paris was literally in chaos and plus Napoleon was just an officer, not the commander, he had at most a company of fusiliers and half a squadron of horse chasseurs
best* not most
@@LeeRenthlei then u get roflstomped by superior airforce cuz artillery lacks mobility.
that's such a funny quote.
Gods on the Russians side then
Russia is the graveyard of military horses was a lovely sentence :D
I can't help wondering if that extends to trucks in the age of motorization/mechanization.
If you mean during the second world war, there it was still many horses on the side of the axis
British lost 800,000 horses in the Boer War. In terms of troops engaged and length of conflict, that is brutal
@@Archangelm127 yes.
They say the number and smell of the dead horses at Gettysburg stunned them more than the dead soldiers at the end.
I bought a cannon yesterday, it was the WURST!
Regarding your assessment of the Queen Of Battle..."Americans in 1950 rediscovered something that since Hiroshima they had forgotten: you may fly over a land forever; you may bomb it, atomize it, pulverize it and wipe it clean of life-but if you desire to defend it, protect it and keep it for civilization, you must do this on the ground, the way the Roman legions did, by putting your young men in the mud. ”
― T.R. Fehrenbach
a truth that has been known since Caesar
@@brandoncampanaro7571 but one that all major military powers starting belittling once airpower became a major player and started ignoring post nuclear. That it was a wrong assumption was shoved into the faces of the US/Allied forces hard was in Korea
@@oldegrunt5735 I'm never saying that airpower isnt a crucial part of winning a war im just saying that you need boots on the ground to have any lasting effect
@@brandoncampanaro7571 I read another version of his statement, but it ended "but you don't own it until you can stand a 17yr. old boy with a rifle on it".
@@lamwen03 that's an unfortunate truth about armys and wars, the young are the ones who fight them the old decide who won and everyone else suffers
While grape and canister have less penetration, I think you could still expect several lines of men to be strongly affected by it. A musket shot can penetrate more than one man, so surely artillery can at least do that much?
Are you sure about that? A musket ball is a big slow moving piece of lead so I suspect they would generally stop in the person they hit, though if it was an arm or leg and no bone got in the way I could see them passing through and hitting someone else too. Suspect that with canister or grape the first line takes most of the hurt, with some damage to the second and possibly third line, whereas round shot could go a lot deeper into a formation. But hey, it's all guesswork, don't think a modern health and safety obsessed world would let us use black powder smooth bore muzzle loaders against a French column :-)
@@gwtpictgwtpict4214 I'd say it depends heavily on the range the shot was fired at the poor souls in question, at 50 yards I see no reason why the shot wouldn't got right through a man if it missed their spine and come out with enough energy to wound the man behind.
Someone tried to comment, but for some reason youtube blocked his comment. This is what I saw of it:
"I think it's likely. US Civil War era cannister shot was capable of shredding entire columns with a single volley. Napoleonic era cannister, while not as powerful, would surely be capabl"
I recall seeing some reports of musket shot penetrating two or more men. They certainly overpenetrate deer (never known a properly loaded ball to stop in one), so I have every expectation they did the same to humans at the time. I'd estimate a .45 70gr round to pierce up to about six bodies, personally.
Ofc the Austrian system is called sausage-system...
and that system was about riding those sausages
I'm told Austrians call Wieners (Wiener means Viennese in German) Frankfurters. They blame Frankfurt for the atrocity against mankind that Wieners are. Was told this by an Austrian.
actually, the main Austrian system was the Liechtenstein one. I am not very sure, but I think the "Wurst" system was the Liechtenstein guns only equiped with the wurst seat
@@lordyaromir6407 AFAIK the wurst guns were for the horse artillery but i dunno the exact relation between wurst seats and the liechtenstein artillery system
everything in german-speaking countries is called wurst, wanna talk to the head of government "wurst-minister" churches "wurst-hauses", things to put on bread? "wurst", things to eat for dinner "wurst mitt wurst" and so on...
9:22 talks about guns firing blind, while showing a graphic of a Star Wars Storm Trooper. Excellent shade, sir, and very subtle!
Thank you so much for this and other Napoleonic videos! I may have fallen in love with this era of warfare thanks to you, and will be making a school project about it.
You should watch the videos of Epic History TV channel about the Napoleonic wars
@@martinseguicotano7346 Thank you for the suggestion!
The most incredible of this video is the fact i searched on YT for strategy for the game Napoleon: Total War and I come across a video with historical sources of the generals undertakings experienced at that time. Magnificent video, with a very nice historical depth.
Wow! I have been thinking about researching these 3 subjects as a part of my American Civil War interests. But you just covered it all in a manner that I understood and feed my need for sources. Brilliant
Thanks, again, for your continued focus on all matters military.
Great, I hope this is useful for Napoleon:Total War.
NTW III mod in particular
I have become rather fond of Scourge of War: Waterloo, and its expansions. In Napoleon: Total War you might command a small skirmish of around 2000, perhaps 2500 men (amounting to a large regiment, or perhaps a small brigade) and one or two dozen guns. In Scourge of War: Ligny (one of the Waterloo expansions) I had the awesome pleasure of commanding 90,000 Prussians and I'm not sure how many hundreds of guns across miles of battlefield (10:1 graphical scaling, so you might count 9,000 figures, although all 90,000 are accounted for in the battle mechanics). The battles are so large that it is, except for Quatre Bras, impossible to see the entire battlefield at once.
Scourge of War also has correct tables of organization, with regiments subordinated to brigades, and battalions subordinated to regiments. There is a realistic fog of war, in which you cannot see anything that none of your troops can see. The effect of cannon and musket fire is also far more realistic.
Melee combat is a weak point of Scourge of War, as it is with all wargames simulating this era. It does a good job of simulating the sorts of casualties that would be produced, and the rate at which they would be produced, when the units do engage in melee combat. What it gets wrong is that units should almost never actually engage in melee combat. Historically, whenever a bayonet charge is conducted (which would often be met by a countercharge) one side or the other would almost always break and flee before any bayonets actually crossed. Only on very rare occasions would the two formations actually meet, and even then the melee would only last a few seconds before one side or the other broke. For the most part the casualties would be stragglers. The effect of the bayonet is not as a casualty producing weapon, but to break the enemy's cohesion. Bayonets are very useful for driving the enemy back either to help shore up a cracking defensive line, or to seize key terrain. By breaking the enemy's cohesion you may also make them more vulnerable to other arms, such as cavalry. Anyway, that was a fairly long paragraph just to say that I am pretty disappointed that there are precisely zero games out there (that I am aware of) that accurately simulate the effect of bayonets.
Another weak point of Scourge of War, again shared by most games, is that you have pretty precise and unlimited command and control of your troops. In this case HistWar: Napoleon is probably a far superior Napoleonic war simulator (although I haven't played it as much so I can't give a detailed review, I'm holding out for version 7 with 1:1 unit scaling). On the higher realism settings HistWar will simulate orders delay (the delay between you issuing the orders, and the unit for which the order is meant actually receiving a signal or runner and executing the order, if you are into more modern combat Command Ops also has an excellent orders delay system). HistWar will also simulate some fog of war over the dispositions of your own forces depending on where your commander is (again, this is on the higher realism settings, so you can easily turn it off). HistWar also has the merits of having far more battles available to play than Scourge of War does.
Account for Comment except nobody uses artillery in Multiplayer but artillery are used in NTW3 multiplayer.
@@republicempire446that fine. I never play multiplayer anyway. Simply try to improve beyond beating easy difficulty.
Account for Comment that’s good. Trust me, vanilla MP is not worth it
Very interesting video, though I stumbled upon some minor inaccuracies regarding canister-shot. The can, in which the small balls are laying, tears apart right after leaving the barrel, and not after hitting the ground - though it keeps the balls closer together. The museum I work at did a livefire a few years back with canister, and the slowmo can be found here:th-cam.com/video/VJ7TOZctubI/w-d-xo.html
As far as I remember, we had a spread of about 2 meters at 100 meters, and 4 meters at 200 meters with a 12-pounder.
yeah canister ALWAYS bursts on firing, often the charge breaks the containers bindings on firing but it still holds together until it leaves the barrel, it can't take that kind of shot, unless you specifically designed it to hold together...which would be tricky and expensive
Call me impressed, that is some very tight and controlled expansion for old muzzle-loading artillery.
Your research and attention to detail is excellent
Nice to see some more Napoleonic content. Thanks.
Great Star Wars Stormtrooper reference :D I'm really enjoying your videos!
Wow you have done an extensive research and presentation . thank you for sharing!
This was amazing! Thank you.
Danke! Ein absolut klasse Video!
Excellent video, very informative.
Thanks!
i was under the impression that the great war was the age of artillery. Obviously by 1914 artillery is a different type of weapon system altogether. But there was several advancements in artillery from tactics to the focus on increasing production.
That was a good vid bro excellent work. I love the napolean wars
Thanks for making these!
People who played Total War Napoleon: The expert.
IIRC siege warfare was more of an exact science during the Napoleonic era than at any other time in military history. A video about this--siege artillery, sapping, fortifications, etc--would be very interesting. :)
"Say hello to my little friend"
Napoleon Bonaparte.
More like (Ney) "Hello to my little friend."
"Hello."
~Napoleon
Great videos! Thank you for all your hard work
Glad you like them!
Informative and very nicely done...Congrats from France!👍
Napoleon is like math expert and also artillery man. This is his specialty
The British cannon did not fire common shell as did howitzers. Instead they fired shrapnel, invented by a colonel Shrapnell. The common shell was a hollow round shot filled with gunpowder and relied upon the splinters from the casing to inflict damage. The shrapnel shell had musket balls and gunpowder mixed together. The musket balls did the damage.
After watching this, of the three military tactics videos you created. I feel like taking on all of Europe.
Hahaha, that skull jack-in-the-box at minute 05:00 is hilarious!
Thanks 😊
Foot soldiers are "cannon fodder".
Cannon and cavalry may neutralize an area, but occupying it requires boots.
Well infantry is there, just to give us artillery men time to zero-in and destroy the enemy. I'm sorry. That´s just the way it is. Both are needed, but I´m safer. Atleast until airstrikes and counter-artillery fire :)
There's a balance but every branch of the military needed another to cover the other one. Artillery protect infantry, infantry protects cavalry, cavalry protects artillery. So essentially the more casualties the less you could protect each other especially is a particular branch took more casualties proportionately
Hey mhv that was a great pun you used with your icon to denote the cannon blind fireing with a stormtrooper helmet hilarious
Man, could you imagine Napolean with tech a hundred years later? I've always heard he was an artillery man and just knew well how to adopt the weapons role. Imagine putting him in a more modern setting
Napoleon in a modern setting wouldn't be that interested in artillery as Napoleon in his own time wasn't that interested in bows and arrows
Or he'd just skip the military and go straight into politics. Seeing as using violence in a coup isn't the most effective means to get into power in a democratic country nowadays.
@majungasaurusaaaa you are right about that. The shift of focus is something to keep in mind. Coming back to this thought, it is amusing to think of other world leaders and what they would be like in other times.
He'll loose from AI and computers he has to learn these first and go back to school stuff in school as what he knows outdated. Delays him 5-6yrs in knowledge, he also has to form army or run as politician and win another 4 yrs depends on election dates. Buy equipment and produce them , retrain army 1-2 yrs may be. He might dominate Europe fear Russian winter.
He will surely use nukes name him Hitler in media.
@@majungasaurusaaaa we shall see. I think our peaceful era will not last. The power imbalance is less in favor of establishment. The sons and daughters of previous leaders are inbred weirdos these days, and insurgents are engineers making digital weapons in garages.
Really well researched video
I love the Pictogram to represent "Firing blind" - a Stormtrooper. Genius. Very good video!
-50% Fat. God, you had me at this point already xD
Also, organic artillery is actually a thing. Non-GMO artillery is probably coming soon.
The usage of shell:
Bomb or common shell was used by Howitzer, Mortar and Carronades (which were *sometimes* seen on field carriages as part of the field artillery especially if a 'gun like' performance was wanted from a lighter than gun ordnance - Use in garrison and siege trains was more common though). Russian Edinorogs were early shell guns used both in naval and land service contexts.
Hollow shot - Gun-Howitzer, Carronade and shell-guns - like shot, but lighter.
Spherical case (invented by Mr Shrapnel) was an improved shell and improved canister round, which used a much smaller bursting charge and a filling of small shot to deliver a dense pattern of ball at ranges far in excess of the standard small case rounds, and longer than the effective ranges of large case or grape rounds. Smaller shot could be used, at longer ranges because they were efficiently carried by a large 'full bore, full weight' spherical case, and only started to lose energy like small arms shot once ejected by the bursting. They also produced a more even, denser pattern of fragments than the 'hit or miss' few large shards of the common shell. The downside was less destructive blast against material targets, and with high bursting a reduced ability to set fires. (essentially the same as a modern 'beehive' round, compared to the conventional case being canister).
Carcase was also used, with a spherical case pierced with 3 to 5 holes - filled with inflammable composition and carrying this burning composition to the target.
Informative video thanks.
In addition to the issue of barrel depression, another reason to avoid some prominences was that with altitude you get less ricochet. The balls tend to bury on first contact with the ground unless the shot trajectory is quite close to being parallel with the ground.
Faszinierend... einiges Neues gelernt!
Your videos are amazing
Oh and organization... woof this was fun. Rothenberg touches on it, Kiley goes deeper on it. Companies were PURELY organizational in Napoleon's armies. Batteries with both semi-permanent tactical units and very temporary tactical groupings. So you might have a battery of guns from 3 or 4 companies brigaded together into a battery (like the 100 gun monster at Wagram) under a general. This was also rough no artillery officers. A company had 2 captains, a battery tended to have just 1, the other would be in charge of trains or seconded to staff. No majors, 1 colonel for the regiment, but he would normally be way back at the school doing admin. And other than Drouot, Marmont, and Napoleon himself, very few generals came from the artillery as there were lots of captains and not much else.
9:08 The Spanish artillery manual was similar on this, but more on terms of "visual range" and "estimated range and position".
I'm surprised there's no G. Nafziger's Imperial Bayonets as the source. If someone's interested in the more organization side of the things, Imperial Bayonets is a fantastic book and I highly recommend it.
"One issue was gun depression." - just sprinkle some Prozac in with the gunpowder and blow your troubles away!
Good video, well explained. Might be worth going through training and ranks as well, seeing as you mentioned the number of men.
I love your icons. Especially the jack in the box lol
Thank you!
"To cannon all men are equal." -Napoleon I Bonaparte.
X10 thumbs up. Thanks for creating!
This one’s also very useful for understanding American Civil War artillery tactics (even with the technological changes happening during that War).
Aloha 😊🤙🏼👏🏼
Great video. God can you imagine having to get so close in lines knowing the cannon will bear down on you with that grape, cannister shot. The fact that we fought like that is straight out of a nightmare.
It's kind of strang, if you look at the losses commanders were willing to accept before retreating from the field it was actually a very low percentage. To have two bodies of infantry at that time fighting each other is comparable to two professional boxers in a match today but neither one committing to anything more than light jabs, with many of those jabs missing. The whole purposes of that form of combat was unit preservation from a military doctrine standpoint. Sure you could inflict high damage to enemy units but you would loose most of yours as well so why bother. This is somewhat reflected in the stats he gave in the infantry combat video on the number of wounds treated from bayonets. I think it was down in the single digits. It was very much about breaking the enemy's morale. Sorry for the rant.
Machineguns and accurate rifles with magazines eventually put an end to that nightmare and formed their own kind of nightmares.
that line about the graveyard of military horses is just so funny!
My mare's pedigree went back to 1743 and the founding of the Prussian Stud farm by Franz Wilhelm. She and the other prussian horses were expected to be good rides, jumpers, but also pull wagons and plow during peacetime. Her gaskins were the best I'd every seen. She had studs in her pedigree that were both Olympic jumpers AND Olympic dressage competitors. Her hooves were also very, very good: carved like butter. Horses also had to be what we call "bomb proof" and not jittered by cannons going off!! A complete package. her pedigree is longer than most people's.
If you make it back to the USA, see about visiting Historic Fort Snelling in Minnesota. It's an 1819 fortification that's been restored to close to the original configuration. We talk about life at the time, and fire demonstrations for the napoleonic era USAA canons and muskets.
Another idea for a video: Military organization/administrative/supply/logistics work - how is everything streamlined so orders are delivered, supply moved, etc. All the behind the scenes work before the battle or war starts. I.E. planning.
This would be very neat from different standpoints. One I would like to see would be an evolution of what we think of as supply chains. Another that would be neat would be how to supply different things like full divions in Europe as well as things like expeditions that took place hundreds of miles away from "civilization" in things like the early American west or the colonization of Africa.
It is interesting how comparatively minor changes in technology and training changed tactics. We could call the American Civil War an Napoleonic era war, however, counter battery fire was most certainly a thing and decisive in several large engagements. Partly due to increased number of rifled guns but mainly due to increased detail of firing tables and crew training. By late war the ammunition was so advanced (impact fuses and such) that the total numbers of guns brought along with field armies was reduced to ease supply lines. (early in the war a ratio of 3 guns per 1k infantry was doctrine, by the end of the war that was down to about 1.5 guns)
As per usual a very good and informative presentation. However there is one point you did not mention with regards to weight of shot used by the various national units. That is, of course, during the Napoleonic wars only the French used the metric system as demonstrated by the weight divisions given to the guns. However, what people might not realise is the fact that each nation had a different weight for a designated weight class. So a six pound shot did not mean that it was the same weight for Spanish, British, Austrian, Prussian or Russian artillery. According to the table I have in my Osprey book, the British 6lb ball was the lightest while the Russian was the heaviest. This means that the artillery pieces themselves would have to vary in weight in order that the barrels firing the shot could deal with the projectile charge, shot weight and compression developed to propel the ball. All of this impacted on movement of the pieces of course. Also, as you explained, in many cases it only took four men to fire a gun. However the extra bodies were needed to move the gun. Especially in Europe where the ground was more than likely soft from rain or prevailing weather conditions. Even in static firing positions, troops would be required to reposition the guns after each shot due to recoil.
I thought you might have mentioned the tactics used by various forces to cope with artillery fire. For example, Wellington had developed an all round strategy to deal with the French before even the first battle he had with them. For the infantry this meant using the reverse slopes of a hill to protect his troops from French shot. This tactic applied to British allies such as the Portuguese and meant the French gunnery was ineffective. What I do not know is how the French or other nations dealt with this issue. Though I would note at Waterloo the Belgian infantry was deployed on the forward slope of the valley and were badly mauled by the Grand Battery to the point where they broke within the first half hour. And who could blame them.
The Osprey Men At Arms book I used for my gaming also disputes the use of draught horses for horse artillery. The British system used riders and large Arabian's in the train to keep up with the cavalry. Though I do think seeing something like Clydesdales in full gallop would have been spectacular though. This point is supported by the animals used by the horse artillery units today. In the British army, the display teams still used horses to tow and set up guns for military parades today and they are definitely not draught horses.
Love the blindfiring icon.^^
Only Storm troopers are that precise...
@@MrDirigible yeah but "[one] can't see a bloody thing in these" ;)
The Russian Licorne was a gun/howitzer that could fire shell and solid shot. They were very effective
Loved it👍👍👍
Lovely video, bud
The detail to which Bernard goes to is brilliant.
Notice how the pronunciation police give Bernard a free pass, cause which ever word his Austrian accent murders is fabulous to the ear.
The Austrian 6 pounder was the best of the wurst. 😂
Interesting video, thanks. Such a lot of thought and ingenuity went into killing fellow man.
I sae a video about HMS Victory. Apparently one broadside from HMS Victory fired more weight of shot than all the cannons Wellington had at his disposal at Waterloo. Must have been a hell of a thing to be on the receiving end of that.
That is complete nonsense. One broadside would be the equivalent to about 50 rounds. Wellington had 3 times that many guns at Waterloo.
The guns at waterloo were pea shooters compared to the heavy guns on a first rate man of war@@domsanchez148
One of my favourite quotes from Friederich der Große: Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be an ugly brawl.
You should mention aiming posts which are still used today. By aiming off the posts which are situated behind the guns at 50 and 100 yards smoke is less of a factor. This also allows accurate firing from a reversed slope. The crew is given range and direction. They spin the sight then move the trails till the sight lines up with the posts. This way they can aim at the target without actually having to see the target. Howitzers intentionally have lower velocity projectiles to enhance airburst and also to drop shells over walls, into trenches or to hit rear areas. Don't be afraid of imperial measurements. It's funny how you spec out the 6 pounder in metric.
Spin the sight? please explain. Are you trying to explain indirect fires as well? Before correcting someone on imperial measurements make sure you understand gunnery, This youtuber did bloody well @MilitaryHistoryVisualized
@@davidclark7758
I was a Bombardier with 11RCA for 9 years.
Battleschool 2RCHA Petawawa class of 93.
I have a basic working knowledge of howitzers, and know which end is the more dangerous.
I wasn’t criticising. I was trying to add to his knowledge. Which is why I watched liked and subscribed to his channel.
To explain what I mean by spinning the sight, the sight is independent of the barrel. How aiming posts work is you have two posts run out to a certain distance. We ran out about 50 running paces and 100 running paces. We then moved the closer of the two so that the gun commander could only see one post.
The sight was then turned and aimed at the post.
This is zeroing.
Now the gun can be turned to an angle accurately.
The compass is broken down to 4800 mils.
So for example if the order comes down that there is a target X yards to the right and a range of Y yards forward the calculation can be made that the gun has to be turned a certain number of miles to the right.
The sight is adjusted that many mils then the barrel is traversed until the sight is pointing at the aiming post.
This revolutionised gunnery. It allowed hidden guns to fire accurately from the reverse slopes of hills which allowed the guns to provide firepower to the battlefield in relative safety.
Also it is appropriate to describe guns as the manufacturer intended.
So a 25 pounder is NOT an 87 mm or even a 3.7” gun. A 75mm is NOT a 2.96” and a 4” is NOT a 102 mm.
Those may be the correct conversions but the guns should be called by their correct names.
So says St. Barbara.
If you don’t know who she is look it up.
@@kellybreen5526 Bomb you made many assumptions. But think your sight may be beyond this period of time. UBIQUE
@@davidclark7758 Nope
Aiming posts and indirect fire were developed during the Seven Years War.
Perhaps perfected in the Great War, but since the battlefield became digitised in the early 2000’s I have more in common with a 1916 Tommy Adkins than a warrior of today.
I am an an anachronistic curmudgeon but at least have the sense to know it.
A quick check reveals that indirect fire goes back to archery (of course!) but the first documentation goes back to Burgundians using firing tabes in the 16th century and at that time it was described as “normal practise”.
So it is even older than I thought. In class they said the frogs invented the use of aiming posts in the mid 1700’s.
Those were the words of the instructor so don’t shit on me for being accurate.
We were learning to fight and didn’t give a crap about political correctness.
@@kellybreen5526 The correction was on the sighting system for the time period and the drill not the indirect role. Which gun in that Era had a sight that was rotatable Also if your instructor taught you 4800Mils for azimuth then explain?
Commander's intent for fire support in strongly effected by rounds available, as Porter Alexander discovered at Gettysburg, some decades after this..
When you said guns have depression, I felt that. If they need someone to talk to just refer them to me.
Jolo Tuzon
If they need someone to talk to, just point them my way?
Depression makes people aim low.
I love this channel.
Thank you!
Is this a ghost channel for Herr Gaston Glock ? Such precise information.
"Spreads the load immediately" you and me both mr non canister shot, you and me both
The French were very fond of ricochet firing in WWI as well. Shells fired with maximum charge on a low trajectory and bouncing off the ground with a delayed fuse would explode right over the target or over a trench, and in this way the 75mm French cannon did considerable damage even to entrenched enemy troops. This was called an "axe blow", and the melinite explosives left traces in the form of charred heads.
For some reason, few people bring this up when berating French artillery as weak compared to German artillery. But I found mention of this fact in a book by Colonel Ignatiev, who was the Russian attaché to the French army.
Please address Napoleonic artillery tactics for dealing with an enemy sheltering behind a reverse-slope on wet/muddy ground.
Too soon
Howitzer, mortar or rockets I suppose. Nice reference though.
Sir Arthur Wellesley laughs quietly to himself. Lie down lads.
GWTPict GWTPict *then carcass and quick lime shoot is used* nope try again you fools get smoked out of there with those shells
@@TheManofthecross You're lobbing rounds over a ridge line that you can't see past. Not saying that you won't do some damage, but good luck with being much more than an irritant.
Firing blind = Stormtrooper :D i died there, well played!
Thank you for this! I've been getting into Napoleonic tactics lately, this was quite informative.
Do you know of any good books detailing battle tactics employed during the Napoleonic Wars?
"The Campaigns of Napoleon" by David Chandler was The Bible for Napoleonic War fans back in the 1980's. It would still be a fantastic reference. You might even want to read the article on "Napoleonic tactics" I helped author on Wikipedia. That article has additional book recommendations.
@@amerigo88
Thank you!
Do you have anything on Bismarck?
@@nordfreiheit Afraid not. C&Rsenal channel on TH-cam has great coverage of small arms from the Era of Otto von Bismarck. This includes the Prussian needle rifle and Chassepot of the Franco-Prussian War (1870-71).
*"On the horse's back" is pronounced: "on the horsEEs back".*
A history teacher told us the use of artillery during a day of battle did not only cause large amounts of smoke but could also cause windy / stormy micro-climate under the right conditions.
That is unclear how these windy weather conditions came to be but was something that occurred quiet frequently in prolonged battles entered around artillery units, creating more difficult combat conditions as the battle went on.
Wondered if you read something about it or if it is an outdated theory.
You have given me something to look up. Thanks!
9:30 I am betting this from the battle of Friedland. The French artillery executed an interesting fire and manouver attack, by firing and moving their guns in succession, ever closer to the Russian lines. Quite a display.
*3:13** Angle of 20 to 40 degreeS (plural!)*
Bussi auf Bauchi
There was also another type of artillery, Unicorns. That was basicly universal gun wich could fire all types of ammunition cannonball, shells, canister e.t.c.
i thought those guns were russian sekrit dokumintz
@@ernstschmidt4725 I dont know did some one use it except russians, but it was very effective and inovative gun for its time.
12:20 "grandes batteries" mit einem S am Ende von "grandes" (Plural)*
Note, Howitzers _started off_ as open-field weapons, in 1400s. Then moved to sieges. Then back to field. Then to indirect, long-distance support.
You have to begin with French Probability Theory first then move towards *probability of error* theory.
The French also employed mortars.
Hence why Napoleon could chase off Royal Navy Ships of the line with mere Land Batteries: *"extreme accuracy."*
You can literally see in Lee's employment and deployment of the CSA's ANV at Gettysburg prior to Pickett/Pettigrew's "Charge" the essence of artillery as an offensive asset along Napoleonic lines. He massed the "Grand Battery:" and even described their intended effect to Longstreet as "au fote en fire" (sp. I know) which I guess translates roughly as "a fist of fire". The movie "Gettysburg" goes into great detail as Lee outlines the role of the artillery to a deeply skeptical Longstreet. In my opinion their interactions right before the attack are some of the best in the movie.
Actually Lee did a terrible job massing his guns. Basically he had just guns from 1 of his corps firing, where the other two, in ideal position to enfilade the critical area of the battlefield Pemberton did nothing to aid the assault, leaving E Porter Alexander, a COL in charge of Longstreet's artillery to basically try to get everything done, a task which he lacked the rank for, leaving Longstreet supported by around 60 guns. Henry Hunt on the other hand massed more than 200 guns from Little Round Top all the way to Cemetery hill leaving Pickett, Trimble, and Pettigrew under intense artillery fire almost all the way.
Gettysburg is a very good movie, but it cants very heavily towards the South and the Lost Cause myth in general. One interesting scene missing from the movie would have been Hunt and Meade planning to meet the attack exactly where it ended up happening, followed by the (EXTREMELY PROFANE) argument between Hunt and Hancock on whether Hunt's batteries should have been firing during the pre-assault barrage. Hunt wanted his batteries to remain concealed, and wanted to pull back some that had lost caissons to refill and redeploy (which is what Alexander refers to in the movie as the batteries being pulled back) while Hancock wanted them to fire to encourage the infantry that was being fired at. Stephen Sears has a brilliantly researched book on the battle and another great one to help in touring the battlefield if you get that chance.
@@dzelman444 NO, Longstreet's attack still had the majority of the guns of Hill's Corps in addition to his own, plus the Army reserve (though they were prematurely withdrawn). Only the guns of Ewell's Corp were unavailable. This gave Longstreet NOT 60.. but approximately 110-130 guns depending on which source and at what time you use as a reference.
Dan Zelman You so right sir. Henry Hunt also wanted to diminish union artillery fire as to encourage the confederates to initiate the rebel infantry attack. Confederate artillery was unable to fire back once Pickett's Charge began. Hunt was able to fire all his available cannons without fear of confederate counter fire.
The lenght of a battle would effect the number of shots with the guns rather much. You could not pound to your hearts connent with a muzzle loaded gun without keeping pace to avoid overheating. If the guns went too hot, it could set off the gun powder while loading the gun, wish would be very bad. Overheating a gun would also increase wear - excessive wear due to hot barrels are a thing even today. Basically, they could pound away for a number of shots. But after a while, the guns would need to take a break to allow them to cool down a bit.
Generally you see a water bucket hanging on the gun. The gun was swabbed out and this cooled it. Black powder is much colder than today's propellants and black powder of 200 years ago is colder than what is being passed off as black powder today. The time it took to load the gun allowed for a lot of cooling to occur. It was a multi step process. Fire, swab, scale out the barrel to remove any debris from the charge bag, swab (again), add the charge bag, add the wadding, load the projectile, penetrate the charge through the touch hole, prime, and (finally) fire.
The gun tubes of that time have enough material in them to make over heating a none issue, even with the sun shining on it during the action.
@@danielkohli1542 you could be right. All I know is that in a history book I have about one of the war between Sweden and Denmark, overheating was said to be an issue. And I know for a fact that heating up barrels can be an issue on some modern guns. I do not have actual first hand experience of antique guns.
Just as a warning, I have very limited (as in American civil war reenacting) experience with the type of artillery mentioned in the video, and none with modern artillery and metallurgy
With the reasons listed above, I suggest take my information with a grain of salt.
“god fights on the side with the best artillery”
Le Soleil d'Austerlitz...
Great video as always but I would have liked a longer one with more details and examples. And can you make a video on infantry squares for the same period please ?
Napoleon's tactics became the foundation of all modern artillery. Such that the us army officer ringgold was merely doing what napoleon already had done with mobility, he merely formalized it into the US artillery doctrine.