Battles in the 17th-18th-19th during which...

[Salem1]

Artillery caused extreme amounts of casualties relative to ''usual'' battles? what ones are there?

[Carl von Döbeln]

Well the battle of Jankow 1645 was a huge artillery battle won by the the "sharp shooter" Fieldmarshal Lennnart Torstenson.



An artist's deception of the battle

[IronBrig4]

The American Civil War battles of Malvern Hill and Gettysburg saw artillery inflict a world of hurt on advancing infantry. Most of the Confederate casualties in both fights were caused by well-placed Union batteries. These 19th century battles are well outside Empire's time frame, however.

[Shrapnel]

The Grand Battery at Waterloo caused significant British casualties.

[Behind The Mask]

Didn't Russian Artillery at Poltava cut a bloody mess of the Swedish Infantry because they had decided to leave most of their own cannon behind?

[Carl von Döbeln]

Yes, the russian artillery caused heavy losses amongst the swedish infantry, mainly in the final phase of the battle, when 4000 swedish infantry assulted over 20.000 russian infantry, infront of the Russian camp.

Despite heavy losses the swedes continued their assult forward, and they were on the verge of breakthrough, but the cavalry that was needed to finnish the russians off were still stuck in a swamp.

And about the swedish artillery, if i remember correctly the swedes had 4 artillery pieces, they had more but they had left them behind, because they were too heavy to move in the assult and i think they had some major ammo problem aswell, not sure though.

[Behind The Mask]

Yes, the russian artillery caused heavy losses amongst the swedish infantry, mainly in the final phase of the battle, when 4000 swedish infantry assulted over 20.000 russian infantry, infront of the Russian camp.

Despite heavy losses the swedes continued their assult forward, and they were on the verge of breakthrough, but the cavalry that was needed to finnish the russians off were still stuck in a swamp.

True but it is still reasonable to believe that even had the cavalry been brough up quickly it wouldn't have finished the Russians off... I'm a bit shaky, but at this point in the battle when the Swedes were on the verge of a breakthrough, didn't Peter revive the crumbling line by sending in his reserve? And at the same time, wasn't the Swedish right wing crumbling from concentrated artillery fire?

Really, though I may be wrong, after Roo's surrender (I believe about 1/3 of the Swedish force in battle) and the bloody mess made of the Swedish Infantry by enemy fire, it was not likely that the Swede's would win... defiantly seeing as they lacked the charismatic and talent of Charles at Poltava.

Also, as for the OP, I know this may be outside the timeline slightly but what about the Battle of Hanegju, during the Japanese Invasion of Korea?

3000 Koreas defeated a force of 30000 Japanese, and the Korean general assosiated the success largely to the Korean Artillry, which was 40 Hwacha's (which each fire 200 arrows, so 40 x 200 = 8000 shots per load)... fascinating bit of machinery, like a large rocket launcher that also played a role in the naval success of admiral Yi Sun-sin... truly a brillant fellow.

[Carl von Döbeln]

True but it is still reasonable to believe that even had the cavalry been brough up quickly it wouldn't have finished the Russians off... I'm a bit shaky, but at this point in the battle when the Swedes were on the verge of a breakthrough, didn't Peter revive the crumbling line by sending in his reserve? And at the same time, wasn't the Swedish right wing crumbling from concentrated artillery fire?

The Swedish forces were on the verge of breakthrough, like in many other battles, this was the decisive moment. Several russian regiments started to retreat back towards the camp, but when the cavalry support that was needed to push the entire russian line back from all fronts never came, the long russian line outflanked the swedish line and it became like a "battle of Cannea scenario".
About the right wing, yes they suffered from heavy losses, but they held the line, and with organised cavalry, they would hopefully been successfull in pushing the russians back.

Another interesting thing is that the Swedish gunpowder was wet, and the swedes had to rely on hand to hand combat, the volleys they fired were in many cases unsuccessful, and as Lewenhaupt said;
"It sounded like someone hitting a leathercoat"

Really, though I may be wrong, after Roo's surrender (I believe about 1/3 of the Swedish force in battle) and the bloody mess made of the Swedish Infantry by enemy fire, it was not likely that the Swede's would win... defiantly seeing as they lacked the charismatic and talent of Charles at Poltava.

Yes, but even if Charles was not there, the soldiers moral was very good, and if the russian line collapsed, it would have been very hard for Peter to bring the fleeing soldiers back into formation.


PS: this might interest you.
Historical Battle maps inaccurate

[Behind The Mask]

PS: this might interest you.
Historical Battle maps inaccurate

Interesting link, on the part where it talks about the Swede's advancing near the Russian Camp... didn't one of the Swedish Forces (I forget which, I'm terrible with names) reach the camp beyond the Russian Redoubts and had planned to launch an attack but was called off so that the original plan could be done (though, at the time Rehnskiold (?) didn't know of Roos fate), is this the advance on the camp they are talking about or is it part of the battle advance?

Also, I recall that during the battle, Peter had some of his best regiments outfitted in grey uniforms as a rouse to get the Swede's to attack them specifically... Imagine how this battle would have turned out if the plan had been properly communicated throughout the Swedish ranks, it still could have gone either way but perhaps not as badly as the end result.

Nevertheless both sides fought a good battle, the Swedes pushed far despite their overall condition and in some of the debates I come across on the subject somewhat sicken me in that they take hits of the men on either side... everyone performed well considering what they had on hand.

[Carl von Döbeln]

Interesting link, on the part where it talks about the Swede's advancing near the Russian Camp... didn't one of the Swedish Forces (I forget which, I'm terrible with names) reach the camp beyond the Russian Redoubts and had planned to launch an attack but was called off so that the original plan could be done (though, at the time Rehnskiold (?) didn't know of Roos fate), is this the advance on the camp they are talking about or is it part of the battle advance?

I find it very unlikely that the main swedish line could have reached the russian camp, afterall, it was 20.000 men between them and the camp. But in the documentary, they said that is was possible that the left ( or right can't remember) actually reached the russian camp, in the final phase of the battle.

Also, I recall that during the battle, Peter had some of his best regiments outfitted in grey uniforms as a rouse to get the Swede's to attack them specifically... Imagine how this battle would have turned out if the plan had been properly communicated throughout the Swedish ranks, it still could have gone either way but perhaps not as badly as the end result.

Indeed, many things could have happened.

Nevertheless both sides fought a good battle, the Swedes pushed far despite their overall condition and in some of the debates I come across on the subject somewhat sicken me in that they take hits of the men on either side... everyone performed well considering what they had on hand

Agreed, honor to those who fell that day.

[Radosław Sikora]

Artillery caused extreme amounts of casualties relative to ''usual'' battles? what ones are there?

It depends what you mean by 'usual casualties' . I know many battles from 17th c. where artillery caused minimal casualties even if the bormbardment was very long. So the battle, where some army lost 50 soldiers thanks to artillery fire, might be called unusual. But I don't know if you agree that 50 killed soldiers is an extreme amount of casualties.

[Captain Jin]

When the light brigade charged at Balaclava? I'm pretty sure most of their casualties were from Russian artillery on the heights above as well as directly into which they charged... But that's also out of the time frame...

[Radosław Sikora]

When the light brigade charged at Balaclava? I'm pretty sure most of their casualties were from Russian artillery on the heights above as well as directly into which they charged...

According to sergeant Smith who saw wounded soldiers, only about half of them were wounded by cannon fire. The rest wounds were made by lances and sabres of Russian cavalry.

[CBR]

Artillery caused extreme amounts of casualties relative to ''usual'' battles? what ones are there?

It is not easy to judge actual losses done by artillery, but one good indication to how much damage they could have done would be battles involving lots of artillery. The Seven Years War and the last years of the Napoleonic Wars is where you find the biggest artillery concentrations for European battles.

Torgau 1760 and Borodino 1812 would be examples of battles with heavy losses on either one or both sides. With the way they were fought I'd say artillery did a lot of damage there.


CBR

[Radosław Sikora]

It is not easy to judge actual losses done by artillery,

I agree, that usually it is impossible to say which part of casualties comes from artillery. But sometimes it is very easy. There exist very precise registers of casualties which directly say who was killed / wounded by cannon ball or by any other weapon.
Another possible way is to look for this actions which involved only artillery.

but one good indication to how much damage they could have done would be battles involving lots of artillery.

I'm affraid it is not a good method. You never know which part of casualties comes from artillery, which part from musket fire, which part from hand to hand fighting and which part of casualties comes from killing vulnerable enemy (during a chase for example).

[CBR]

The best wound statistics we have AFAIK are from hospitals and would a) involve casualties from all kinds of actions and not just larger battles, b) only count those who survived and with the knowledge that the KIA/WIA ratio is different from musket balls to roundshot, we cannot use such values directly without guesstimating KIA.

It is a question of probability: the more you have of a certain weapon system the larger its impact will be. Apply that to the accounts of how a battle was fought and losses from specific units one can get an idea of what caused the losses.

Casualties came from either muskets, artillery and melee(either infantry and cavalry) and melee between infantry happened rarely except from villages and redoubts. So unless there is some larger pursuit phase (cavalry chopping down fleeing troops) most losses came from gunpowder weapons.

I doubt artillery in battles involving 1 gun per 1000 men would have same effect as battles with 4 guns per 1000 men so as I said it is a good indicator. After that one would have to go into the details of how the battle was fought. And both Torgau and Borodino seems to be good examples.


CBR

[Radosław Sikora]

The best wound statistics we have AFAIK are from hospitals and would a) involve casualties from all kinds of actions and not just larger battles,

The best statistics I know, were written just after battles and describe casualties in battles. They give: names of soldiers, KIA, WIA, and MIA; they also give horses KIA, WIA and MIA. Apart from these informations, they also specify type of wounds (shot, cut, cannon ball). Those kinds of statistics are rare, but they exist.
Knowing actions and units which participated in these actions, knowing casualties, it is possible to come to many interesting conclusions - for example you can fix an effectiveness of cannon fire.