Weapons in NTW and historical

NTW sparked my interest in history of Napoleonic era. I've read some accounts and some historical research, especially about the Battle of Borodino.

Here is a few interesting facts.

Russian muskets were effective for about 50-70 yards, with max range of 150-200 yards with about 4 shots per minute and the rifles were effective for about 250-340 yards! That's almost five time the max effective range of muskets with 1-2 shots per minutes rate of fire.

This gets better, Russian cannons about 9 shots per minute rate of fire!!!, with sharpnell shot went out to 300m, with grenades going out for 1km, solid shot 2.1-3km depending on the caliber. French had howitzers that could send an explosives shots for up to 2 km. According artillery training manual of that time, anything with in 200 meters of the cannon was in deadly kill zone.

Also trenches and field fortifications played a vital role and the emphasis in the defense was on the arty positions.

Heavy cav was armed with shotgun type of gun, that was used to break even square formations.

Lancers or Ulans were most effective against cavalry, not the infantry.

I wonder if implementing some of these changes could throw game balance off somewhat.

T

Could you give us sources?

Originally Posted by Skejtu

Could you give us sources?

http://militera.lib.ru/h/0/pdf/yulin_bv01.pdf

Unfortunately it's in Russian, page 22 deals with weapons. Take a look at page 25 with unified cannon ammo. I'm doing some cross checking, so far muskets info seems correct.

I tried using French attack column vs AI last night, got my ass kicked.

Originally Posted by CPL Trevoga

http://militera.lib.ru/h/0/pdf/yulin_bv01.pdf

This reeks of nationalism old boy, as everyone has already stated, Russian weaponry operated at or near to the period standards...and all that. It is also improper to explore rate of fire in terms of "unaimed" shots, at least in my opinion, RPM should be taking in context of the use, ammo for artillery was limited, and some battles the fighting lasted well over 9 hours -- Austerlitz, for example. Barrages were not thunderous cannonades, but a protracted attrition affair.

No indeed, this is true for whatever period of gunpowder warfare, even today a "barrage" is often 2 rounds on target per minute, where as "suppression fire mission" is often 10 rounds on target as fast as possible, I use Canadian standards, of course, but the point still stands. Even if the cannons are capable of 9 rounds per minute, it means little, as Didz said, they'd hit nothing if they maintained such a rate of fire. I am loathe to give you a more accurate rate of fire for period cannons without a source, but I'd say a safe guess would put RPM of any calibre from 1-3 rounds per minute, maybe less if the battery commander is micromanaging his guns.

Originally Posted by CPL Trevoga

Unfortunately it's in Russian, page 22 deals with weapons. Take a look at page 25 with unified cannon ammo. I'm doing some cross checking, so far muskets info seems correct.

It looks impressive......a lot of nice illustrations anyway

Not sure what you mean by 'so far muskets info seems correct', as already explained whether it is correct or not depends on the context. There is no doubt that a musket could be fired four times a minutes, however, there is also plenty of evidence that it rarely would have been. I've read similar historical sources that claim that the Prussians could fire seven rounds a minute, but again its not a question as to whether it was feasible, but whether it happened on the battlefield. If nothing else ammunition usage, fatigue and unit cohesion would have a direct influence on rate of fire in battle conditions.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

This video basically proves that left to his own devices as skilled soldier could easily manage four rounds per minute. The problem arises when that soldier is fighting as part of a platoon. Under those conditions the soldier would not be allowed to fire until the order was given, and the file to his left had fired, and so the rate of fire would be affected by the need to close ranks, clear fouled muskets, replace flints etc. and by the platoon officer deciding upon the best timing and direction to shoot. The other thing to note is that this guy has deliberately not fixed his bayonet, for obvious reasons.

Originally Posted by CPL Trevoga

This is just preliminary findings, the explanation for faster shootings lies in the fact that cannon balls were made sligtly smaller than the cannon's caliber allowing easier reload and in unified ammo. Alternatively, that made them travel less distance.

That was pretty standard practice and similar advantages are quoted for the French system. The windage caused by the lose of gasses around the edge of the shot was avoided by the use of a sabot or wad that was jammed into the barrel between the charge and the shot and held it in place. These were often pre-packaged as a single unit to speed loading.

However, once again the key issues were ammunition usage, fatigue and a you rightly mention the potential for damage to the barrel. Artillery was certainly capable of a high through-put of shot when under direct threat, Twelve rounds per minute sounds a bit excessive but assuming corners were cut like not sponging the barrel it might be possible at terrible risk to all concerned.

But once again these are 'the mad minute' examples that would only occur for a very short time and pretty much put the battery out of action for some period afterwards as it re-organised itself, caught its breath and replenished its ready ammo. In tabletop wargaming 'a mad minute' could called for any battery which would increase the rate of fire for that battery for one turn, but would then silence that battery for several subsequent turn whilst it sorted itself out.

That certainly could have been included in the CA battle engine as it is a common feature of Napoleonic Wargame rules, but it would be a universal option and certainly not restricted to one or two nations.

Russian muskets were no more or less effective than anybody else's, and Russian cannon did not shoot any faster than other nations' cannon.

You've gotten some false information.

Originally Posted by 43rdFoot

Russian muskets were no more or less effective than anybody else's, and Russian cannon did not shoot any faster than other nations' cannon. You've gotten some false information.

I have to agreed with you. Though it could just be a matter of misinterpretation either by the Corporal or by the author of the source.

Most experienced soldiers of the period would have been able to manage four shots per minute from a musket. But we know that fire control systems usually mean't that the speed was reduced to three shots per minute when firing was controlled at battalion level.

Likewise with artillery. Paddy Griffiths book on French Artillery makes the valid point that the rate of fire for artillery was regulated by the tactical situation it was in. It might be as slow as one round per minute or even less when involved in protracted bombardments and seiges, where accuracy and care in relaying the gun after each shot was more important than speed.

However, the French also reverted to what they called 'The Mad Minute' if the battery was directly attacked or threatened, whereupon cannister rounds were literally shovelled into the guns as fast as possible and anything up to four or five could be discharged in a single minute at the expense of accuracy and great fatigue and risk of injury to the gunners. Likewise, Mercer recalls that during the French cavalry attacks at Waterloo his gunners were shovelling canister into their pieces so fast that there was no time to run the guns forward after each discharge and the entire battery ended up on a muddled heap at the foot of the slope by the end of the battle.

Even so 9 shots per minute still sounds excessive.

The 2km range for French howitzers is just one of those useless facts that historians like to throw into their books because they found some detailed range test documentation. Most artillery weapons were capable of lobbing shot and shell a considerable distance if they were propped up at a ridiculous angle and rammed full of the best quality powder. The only risk being that the barrel would burst under the pressure and the tests were partly conducted to test the quality of the foundry process.

In battlefield conditions such ranges were irrelevent, as the charges were pre-packaged and fixed at a practical level and the degree of elevation possible was limited by the gun carriage.

The range was also limited by the fact that all artillery fire in this period had to be direct as there were no battlefield telephones. radio's or spotter planes to help direct area fire onto masked targets. Then of course there was the influence of the terrain itself which could deflect or absorb the energy of a shot en-route to the target.

So, whilst a French howitzer might have been able to lob a shell 2km that certainly doesn't mean that they ever engaged a battlefield target at that range.

The cavalry comments are curious and like you I'd be interested in the sources. In theory cavalry could have been armed with shotgun type weapons but I fail to see why they would be more effective against squares. Logic would suggest the range would be very short and the effect pretty poor, though I suppose aiming would be simpler, though with an increased risk of shooting you own horse, or a nearby comrade.

The Lancers v Cavalry/Lancers v Infantry debate is a bit pointless and sounds more like an opinion than a statement of fact.

To pick up on the Corporal's closing question. If NTW was changed to reflect these weapon performances then not only would it be even more unbalanced than it already is, but it would be even more inaccurate than it already is.

Originally Posted by Didz

I have to agreed with you. Though it could just be a matter of misinterpretation either by the Corporal or by the author of the source.

Most experienced soldiers of the period would have been able to manage four shots per minute from a musket. But we know that fire control systems usually mean't that the speed was reduced to three shots per minute when firing was controlled at battalion level.

Likewise with artillery. Paddy Griffiths book on French Artillery makes the valid point that the rate of fire for artillery was regulated by the tactical situation it was in. It might be as slow as one round per minute or even less when involved in protracted bombardments and seiges, where accuracy and care in relaying the gun after each shot was more important than speed.

However, the French also reverted to what they called 'The Mad Minute' if the battery was directly attacked or threatened, whereupon cannister rounds were literally shovelled into the guns as fast as possible and anything up to four or five could be discharged in a single minute at the expense of accuracy and great fatigue and risk of injury to the gunners. Likewise, Mercer recalls that during the French cavalry attacks at Waterloo his gunners were shovelling canister into their pieces so fast that there was no time to run the guns forward after each discharge and the entire battery ended up on a muddled heap at the foot of the slope by the end of the battle.

Even so 9 shots per minute still sounds excessive.

The 2km range for French howitzers is just one of those useless facts that historians like to throw into their books because they found some detailed range test documentation. Most artillery weapons were capable of lobbing shot and shell a considerable distance if they were propped up at a ridiculous angle and rammed full of the best quality powder. The only risk being that the barrel would burst under the pressure and the tests were partly conducted to test the quality of the foundry process.

In battlefield conditions such ranges were irrelevent, as the charges were pre-packaged and fixed at a practical level and the degree of elevation possible was limited by the gun carriage.

The range was also limited by the fact that all artillery fire in this period had to be direct as there were no battlefield telephones. radio's or spotter planes to help direct area fire onto masked targets. Then of course there was the influence of the terrain itself which could deflect or absorb the energy of a shot en-route to the target.

So, whilst a French howitzer might have been able to lob a shell 2km that certainly doesn't mean that they ever engaged a battlefield target at that range.

The cavalry comments are curious and like you I'd be interested in the sources. In theory cavalry could have been armed with shotgun type weapons but I fail to see why they would be more effective against squares. Logic would suggest the range would be very short and the effect pretty poor, though I suppose aiming would be simpler, though with an increased risk of shooting you own horse, or a nearby comrade.

The Lancers v Cavalry/Lancers v Infantry debate is a bit pointless and sounds more like an opinion than a statement of fact.

To pick up on the Corporal's closing question. If NTW was changed to reflect these weapon performances then not only would it be even more unbalanced than it already is, but it would be even more inaccurate than it already is.

That makes sense.

During the battle of Borodino, French concentrated and positioned their "Grand battery" howitzers and heavy guns almost 1.4 km to 2 km away from Russian positions, away from the reach of the Russian guns. So as you can see, that they placed emphasis on their ability to outshout Russian guns and concentration of the firepower.

English Wiki page, although does not go into details of cannons, it does show that French arty played a vital role.

In a sense, artillery represented ok in the game. Other day I was fighting vs my buddy. Just for hell of it, I took 4 cannons, 1 howitzer, 1 24 lb and 2 horse. It was on Waterloo map. Because of clear fields of fire and long ranges, his troops lost up to 25% of their strength before we engaged in the battle on my right flank. My line was fresh and I quickly brought up one 6-lb horse arty from my left flank and deployed it there. It quickly routed his flanking attack with shrapnel.

Originally Posted by CPL Trevoga

During the battle of Borodino, French concentrated and positioned their "Grand battery" howitzers and heavy guns almost 1.4 km to 2 km away from Russian positions, away from the reach of the Russian guns. So as you can see, that they placed emphasis on their ability to outshout Russian guns and concentration of the firepower.

This is probably another example of poor research by the historian who wrote the piece. This is from http://www.napolun.com/mirror/napole...dinodeployment

The deep-throated ‘boom’ of cannons rang out across the countryside. The first shots had not yet ceased to reverberate before others rang out and yet more were heard mingling with and overtaking one another.

"At 6 AM, the French guns opened up, the Russians answered, and as nearly a thousand cannon spewed out their charges, to those present, even those who had been in battle before, it seemed as though all hell had been let loose." (Zamoyski - "Moscow 1812" p 267)

Soltyk, watching from a few paces behind Napoleon, has "never heard anything like it. At moments the uproar was so terrible it was more like broadsides discharged from warships than a land artillery engagement."

It was quickly discovered the 102 guns Napoleon had ordered formed on the 6th were too far away from the Russians. The guns were limbered up and moved forward. The artillery fire quickly spread down the line to the I and III Corps and the Russian Second Western Army. It was without doubt the heaviest concentrated cannonade of the war so far. The gun smoke spread out over the whole space.
The artillery barrage signalled the attack of infantry. In the center part of Davout's infantry (5th Division) moved against the fleches, on the northern flank part of Eugene's corps attacked Borodino.

Unfortunately, many historians base their maps of the dispositions of this Grand Battery and the other corps on the initial French deployment plans, as no record was made of where the 102 guns moved to after they had been ordered forward.

A similar forward movement occured at Waterloo after the inital bombardment of Bylandt's Brigade had been masked by the advance of D'Erlons Corps. The main French batteries were moved forward off the French ridge where they had been deployed at the start of the battle and redeployed closer to the allied line on a smaller ridge within rifle range of the orchard of La Haye Sainte. The aim had been to allow them a better field of fire over the allied line, and more particularly against La Haie Sainte. However, initial disruption by Kings German Legion rifles in the orchard resulted in the delpoyment being delayed until the orchard was cleared, and the battery was only just getting into position when it was overrun by the British cavalry. In fact, as eyewitnesses confirm, when the Scots Grey got in amongst the guns their limbers were still in attendance and many of the young boys acting a limber drivers were slaughtered along with the gunners.

If one measures the distances on the map of Waterloo you can see that the initial deployment of the French batteries was between 1,000M and 1,400M from Bylandts brigade. They then moved forward after D'Erlon had commenced his attack with the aim of setting up a fresh gun line approximately 400M from the farm of La Haie Sainte, and about 800M from the main Allied ridge line. Which fits in quite nicely with the effective range of 800-900 metres quoted by Vernon for 8pdr and 12pdr cannon in 1817.

Originally Posted by Didz

This is probably another example of poor research by the historian who wrote the piece. This is from http://www.napolun.com/mirror/napole...dinodeployment
Unfortunately, many historians base their maps of the dispositions of this Grand Battery and the other corps on the initial French deployment plans, as no record was made of where the 102 guns moved to after they had been ordered forward.

A similar forward movement occured at Waterloo after the inital bombardment of Bylandt's Brigade had been masked by the advance of D'Erlons Corps. The main French batteries were moved forward off the French ridge where they had been deployed at the start of the battle and redeployed closer to the allied line on a smaller ridge within rifle range of the orchard of La Haye Sainte. The aim had been to allow them a better field of fire over the allied line, and more particularly against La Haie Sainte. However, initial disruption by Kings German Legion rifles in the orchard resulted in the delpoyment being delayed until the orchard was cleared, and the battery was only just getting into position when it was overrun by the British cavalry. In fact, as eyewitnesses confirm, when the Scots Grey got in amongst the guns their limbers were still in attendance and many of the young boys acting a limber drivers were slaughtered along with the gunners.

If one measures the distances on the map of Waterloo you can see that the initial deployment of the French batteries was between 1,000M and 1,400M from Bylandts brigade. They then moved forward after D'Erlon had commenced his attack with the aim of setting up a fresh gun line approximately 400M from the farm of La Haie Sainte, and about 800M from the main Allied ridge line. Which fits in quite nicely with the effective range of 800-900 metres quoted by Vernon for 8pdr and 12pdr cannon in 1817.

I found this as well, French moved their guns from their initial positions. So the arty manual ranges are more in line.

What do you think about the rifles used during that era? Effective ranges seem impressive, reloading seemed pain, because it required a special hammer to ram the bullet down the rifle's barrel.

Originally Posted by 43rdFoot

Russian muskets were no more or less effective than anybody else's, and Russian cannon did not shoot any faster than other nations' cannon.

You've gotten some false information.

Muskets I agree with,

This is just preliminary findings, the explanation for faster shootings lies in the fact that cannon balls were made sligtly smaller than the cannon's caliber allowing easier reload and in unified ammo. Alternatively, that made them travel less distance. Obviously such fires could not be sustained for long, my guess here is because of barrel overheating and the crew fatigue and the fact the piece had to be re-aimed because of recoil. Arty manual of that time, states that fire at long distance targets was to be rare and harassing. Just basing on the battle accounts and the army composition, it's clear the the artillery was a fire power of that time.

I'm reading Encyclopedia of 1812 and it states that it was possible for a British 6 pounder to take 10-12 unaimed shots per minute! So it's not that off.

Take a look.

http://books.google.com/books?id=_c0...page&q&f=false

Originally Posted by CPL Trevoga

I'm reading Encyclopedia of 1812 and it states that it was possible for a British 6 pounder to take 10-12 unaimed shots per minute! So it's not that off.

That sounds unrealistically fast...more like a theoretical rate of fire based on timing a single load/discharge than a real battlefield measurement. To maintain that rate they would have to sponge the barrel, load/ram the cartridge, load/ram the round and fire the gun repeatedly every 5 seconds. Since the crew was around 9 men, each with a specific task, things would have to be highly drilled and organised for everyone to be in exactly the right position after each shot without getting in each other's way. Sounds unlikely to be achieved in the heat of battle.

According to the Osprey book "British Napoleonic Artillery 1793-1815 Field Artillery [New Vanguard 60]" the best performance was about half that figure - "It is thought that a good gun crew could fire as many as five rounds a minute" - presumably less from an 'average' gun crew. I'd think that even a good gun crew would have difficulty maintaining that rate in the heat of battle, especially if they started taking casualties.

Originally Posted by meme_engine

That sounds unrealistically fast...more like a theoretical rate of fire based on timing a single load/discharge than a real battlefield measurement. To maintain that rate they would have to sponge the barrel, load/ram the cartridge, load/ram the round and fire the gun repeatedly every 5 seconds. Since the crew was around 9 men, each with a specific task, things would have to be highly drilled and organised for everyone to be in exactly the right position after each shot without getting in each other's way. Sounds unlikely to be achieved in the heat of battle.

According to the Osprey book "British Napoleonic Artillery 1793-1815 Field Artillery [New Vanguard 60]" the best performance was about half that figure - "It is thought that a good gun crew could fire as many as five rounds a minute" - presumably less from an 'average' gun crew. I'd think that even a good gun crew would have difficulty maintaining that rate in the heat of battle, especially if they started taking casualties.

On occasion gun crews would not sponge or worm their pieces. While this is incredibly dangerous to the crew, it does offer the advantage of being able to pound away faster than otherwise.


So the 9 shots per minute thing isn't necessarily wrong, but it wasn't unique to Russian guns.

This is a great discussion. Thanks for starting this. I think what we have is a theoretical account of what could have been possible verses what was practical and more realistic under stressful situations. Could a soldier fire 4 or 5 rounds per minute. Yes, but did they while under a high rate of stress? Probably not for reasons stated already. Fire control was one reason and probably to conserve ammo that was in short supply during a battle. Cannons too could fire at high rates. But what we have is practical verses theoretical and those two stats can often be very different. I think what changes the theoretical and practical stats is the fact that fatigue and other stress conditions would warrant a more steady rate of fire verses these extremes.

Great finds though and a great conversation!

Cheers!