by James Burbeck During the Revolutionary and
Napoleonic Wars which swept Europe between 1792 and 1815, the small
professional armies of the Eighteenth Century quickly gave way to large
national armies composed of draftees. This same period saw artillery
transformed from a specialized profession overseen by "mechanics," into a major
service branch capable of dominating battlefields. An example of this is the
French Army of Italy, which in 1796 had 60 artillery pieces to its credit.
Sixteen years later, at the Battle of Borodino, the artillery for both sides
totaled nearly 1,200 guns which fired an average of 15,000 rounds per
hour during the course of the day's fighting. And that was on a mere two
mile front! Many factors combined to bring about this fundamental change;
decades of technical improvements, improved grand-tactical doctrine and the
rise in status of artillery officers. But how exactly was artillery of this
period employed? How did it function during the confusion of combat? And most
of all, what factors led to the rise in status of artillery from a belittled
specialist branch to that of a new god of war?
Improvement and Changes The artillery pieces used during
the eighteenth century were large and clumsy affairs, whose great weight barely
allowed their transport over European roads. Most field armies were not yet
capable of moving their own artillery, so the guns were pulled around by
civilian contractors who by nature avoided organized violence as much as
possible. Because of this unhappy arrangement, it was not unusual for gunners
to manhandle or "prolong" their artillery pieces onto a battlefield. Once in
place, the heavier guns commonly moved very little during the course of a
battle, especially if the terrain was rough. Despite these awkward
arrangements, and partially because of them, most European nations sporadically
continued to improve their artillery arms. Many of these efforts were focused
around specific individuals who through genius, influence, or both, managed to
push through various improvements in both design and employment of
artillery.
Beginning in the late 1760s, the artillery used by the
French Army was completely redesigned along scientific principles by Jean
Baptiste Grimbeauval, who standardized all construction and design. This
resulted in lighter, more manageable cannon and better quality barrels and
ammunition. The Russians also designed new artillery at this time, creating the
Licorn artillery howitzers, which were ancestors of later dual purpose
field pieces. In 1805 they standardized their main gun calibers to just two
sizes, a notable departure from that army's otherwise archaic lack of
contemporary standards. In 1792, Sir William Congreve introduced the block
trail to Great Britain's Royal Artillery. This block trail was another
breakthrough for artillery, further lightening the artillery carriages and
improving their handling through the efficient design. Most nations at this
time also began constructing gun/limber designs which allowed gunners to ride
with the guns. These individual breakthroughs; French standardization and
professionalism, Russian dual purpose guns, and British carriage designs,
coupled with numerous other changes, helped to lay the foundation for modern
artillery design and employment.
By the time France plunged into
revolutionary chaos in the early 1790s, its army artillery had been brought up
to the latest standards, and many new gunners and officers trained in their
employment. Even during the Revolution, the artillery arm continued to make its
presence felt, and the fighting at Valmy and St.Roch were only two incidents
which highlighted the continuing influence of the many trained artillerists and
engineers in the face of terror and upheaval. After 1800 the French artillery
service especially benefitted from the fact that their new Commander-in-Chief,
Napoleon Bonaparte, was one of these very same artillery officers who had
exerted so much influence on revolutionary fighting. Combined with the sweeping
technological and organizational changes begun before the revolt, this assured
that the French artillery service was the state-of-the-art for its time. These
improvements boosted morale in a branch of service which already had a long
tradition of professionalism. The end result was more aggressive battlefield
tactics and ensuing success which ushered artillery away from a supporting
position into a decisive and highly destructive role all its own.
The scale artillery piece shown at right is typical of the
Grimbeauval designs of the late eighteenth century. Reducing the "windage" gap
between the shot and the inside diameter of the barrel allowed a reduction in
barrel mass over previous models. This, coupled with the use of bronze for the
barrel allowed for a lighter carriage assembly for the gun. These field pieces
were half the weight of their predecessors, which enabled turn-of-the-century
artillery officers to maneuver their gun sections in ways scarcely conceivable
thirty years before. Unlimbering time was usually less than one minute, and
most artillery pieces included a ready supply of ammunition in small chests
carried across the gun trail.
The example shown here is a 12pdr, the heaviest standard
field caliber used during this period. Such heavy guns would usually have a
bore diameter of approximately 11½ centimeters. For comparison, the
lighter 6pdr pieces would have a bore diameter of around 9¼ centimeters.
For transport, the bronze barrel was hoisted into a lower set of trunnion
cut-outs, thereby moving the piece's center of gravity toward the middle of the
limbered assembly. This allowed gun teams to move over uneven ground with less
chance of overturning. Before battle, the piece would be un-limbered and the
barrel would be moved into the forward firing position. Strange though it may
seem, there were occasions when the relatively slow artillery units would be
left behind with their guns if they could not keep up with the rest of an army.
In Spain, one column of French troops abandoned their artillery park when the
guns could not fit through a narrow roadcut. As the infantry moved ahead, the
gunners used picks and tools to manually widen the rock walls of the roadway.
Once on the move again, gunners took turns walking ahead of the column with a
limber axle as a gauge to assure passage of the guns behind! The orphaned
artillery column ended up far behind the main force and barely survived an
attack by partisans.
Organization Eighteenth century
conventions usually placed artillery batteries into a general pool of units
which were then parceled out to temporary "column" commanders. Even with this
method, commanders could and did mass artillery instead of distributing it in
small groups along the line. Austrian commanders used massed artillery at the
battles of Marengo and Aspern-Essling, and the Russian use of massed artillery
at Eylau is well known.
The technique of massing artillery was not unusual. What was
unusual was that the French Army, as part of their reorganization of the army
into a modern division/corps structure, created semi-autonomous artillery
formations which were under the command of smart, aggressive young artillery
officers. These comparatively young men were accustomed to the democratic air
of the revolution. They did not hesitate to tell their commanders, " Let me go
do this, it will work...," behavior which was discouraged in other armies of
the time. And it should not be forgotten that Napoleon and several of his
senior generals were experts at maintaining offensive tempo on the battlefield,
including the efficient coordination of artillery fire. All of these factors,
coupled with new, relatively lightweight cannon breathed life into the behavior
of battlefield artillery, turning it into a potent offensive weapon. Only the
tendency for the French army to get itself into outnumbered situations allowed
its opponents to bring great numbers of cannon onto the field, partially
negating the French artillery's newfound strength.
The presence of officers leading and coordinating massed
artillery formations was one of several important factors in the superior
performance of the French artillery arm at this time. The Russians were no
strangers to massed artillery, yet only in 1813 (very late in the wars) do
their organizations show specific artillery officers commanding corps level
artillery reserve formations. Before this, artillery reserves seem to have been
rather nebulous affairs, made available to army commanders to use however they
saw fit. While this certainly allowed for massing of guns, it did not allow for
very much innovation or independent thinking among the batteries themselves. It
also prevented the coordination among batteries which usually resulted from
central control. The Austrians at this time demonstrated the same tardiness in
forming semi-permanent artillery formations, while the Prussians had precious
little army left after their 1806 defeats. When they finally put their ragged
troops into the field in 1813, it was along the lines of the new Russian
organization, which were beginning to use independent artillery officers in
increasing numbers. The British Army at this time continued to use the old pool
system, parceling out individual batteries to brigades or divisions. And while
the individual batteries were well led, there was little coordination among
them.
Battlefield Deployment and Use The
positioning of artillery was of the utmost importance. While common sense may
lead one to believe that high ground is always the best place from which to
fire, this was not the case during the Napoleonic era. Artillery usually fired
iron balls, called roundshot or just "shot," which was most effective
when fired at a level trajectory about chest high. If allowed to pass straight
through ranks of men, the shot could cause enormous destruction. Ultimately the
ball would bounce several times and begin rolling, still capable of tearing off
feet or breaking ankles. If fired from high ground, or on a steep trajectory,
the shot would hit the ground at such an angle that even if it hit anyone, the
"bounce zone" would be much shorter. As a result, artillerists usually sought
areas of flat, hard, open ground, devoid of obstacles or irregularities. It was
across these areas of hard, bare ground that artillery could grind an assault
dead in its tracks! One benefit of high ground would have been the slow
approach it forced on attacking units. Artillery stationed on high ground was,
if time allowed, placed behind makeshift redoubts and issued plenty of
shotgun-like case rounds to use against enemy units as they toiled upslope.
This ammunition is now commonly called grapeshot, even though true grapeshot
was a special heavy caliber ball ammunition used only by navies of the period.
Case shot was made in two basic types; light case and heavy case. Light case
was used at close range, and was composed of 60 to 120 small balls enclosed in
a thin cannister which broke apart as the artillery piece fired. Heavy case was
employed at longer ranges than light case, and was composed of roughly 30 to 60
larger balls in a similar container. Both types of case could tear gory paths
through the ranks of vulnerable units, so it is not surprising that frontal
attacks on case-armed artillery was one of the most unpleasant of duties.
Artillery batteries (usually called companies at this time)
appear to have had the natural tendency to fire to their immediate front.
People who do military simulations for this period may be familiar with the
common practice of converging the fire of several batteries onto single
targets, even at long range. The evidence points against this as any common
practice. The few accounts available indicate that artillery batteries had an
overwhelming tendency to fire what might be called "area fire" to their front.
The occasions when fire was converged onto narrow points seem to have been when
the targets were well defined, such as buildings, active enemy artillery
batteries or very specific lone units. Even then this was when the guns were
handled by well trained gunners who could think clearly while being shot at.
This is not to say that artillery at this time did not concentrate their
firepower, certain commanders were reknowned for their ability to concentrate
artillery fire. But the overwhelming tendency in the heat of combat was for the
gunners to fire straight to their front.
Another problem with target selection was battlefield smoke
and the possible difficulty of identifying friend or foe. According to
eyewitness accounts, some period artillery batteries could not tell the
difference between friendly and enemy troops as close as 800 yards if they were
engaged. This helped to negate the theoretical maximum range of 1,500 yards for
larger guns. Once they did begin firing, artillerists would likely continue
firing even though their own smoke blocked the view to their front. The
resulting impression is one of massive confusion which could only be avoided
through coolness of thought and the powers of observation on the field. Also,
the maintenance of fresh reserves, even artillery reserves, develops a whole
new meaning when faced with images of such confusion. Even if the reserves were
not perfectly fresh, those who had been kept at a distance from the main action
would have a better chance of evaluating their situation.
Artillery Fire Upon firing, an
artillery piece would create a huge explosion which pushed its projectile out
of the cannon barrel and through the air toward the enemy, usually whistling
and whining the entire way. The gun carriage would be viciously thrown back
several feet by the recoil of the explosion, after which the hot gun had to be
"run up" again to its original position and carefully but quickly reloaded. A
calm gun crew would reposition the gun before preparing to reload. At Waterloo,
Captain Cavalie Mercer's horse artillery battery was firing so feverishly at
one point, that the guns were not run back into their positions after firing.
This eventually caused the guns to become tangled with each other back among
the caissons and limbers, which were by then immobilized due to the loss of
half of their horses. It certainly demonstrates that during the confusion of
battle, a battery can become terribly disordered. At this point in the battle,
Mercer's battery had come under enfilade fire from a Prussian artillery
battery, an odd situation which may have inflicted unusual disorder on the
unit. It does bring another factor to light; the effects of artillery fire
itself.
The effects of Napoleonic artillery fire on humans could be
terrifying. While modern weapons may or may not tear and rend, artillery
roundshot was virtually guaranteed to cause dramatic and gory casualties. The
cannonballs themselves were subsonic, and lobbed slowly through the air, loudly
whistling as they approached. Even at the end of its effective range, rolling
shot would bowl men over and cause widespread injury. If flying shot hit a
horse, it was not just a matter of the horse falling over; the ball might
strike the saddlebags, scattering the contents in every direction as the horse
went spinning, splattering pieces of the animal closely behind the chunks of
leather and cloth.. At close range, artillery fire would punch holes straight
through entire sections of units. During the battle of Waterloo, British
artillery fired "doubleshot" charges (one charge of cannister backed up by a
round of shot) at point blank range into advancing French heavy cavalry. In one
case, the entire front rank of cavalry was taken down, stopping the assault
only because none of the following troops could make their way over the heaving
pile of men and horses to their front! The cuirass at right belonged to Antoine
Faveau, a Carabinier trooper killed at Waterloo. The photograph explains
itself, the main feature being the cannonball hole punched completely through
both front and back halves of the steel cuirass!
Another feature of the battlefield was damage to the
artillery batteries themselves. When people hear the word "damaged" they think
of dead men and damaged guns, neither of which prevent the rest of the
survivors from moving on. However, a battery with a third of its horses killed
could be totally immobilized. Again taking Mercer's example (Captain Mercer's
account of the Waterloo campaign is an exceptionally clear telling of period
artillery in action), 140 of his battery's 200 horses were killed at their
final deployment point. He noted that all of these dead horses had to be freed
from the harnesses before the living horses could be re-grouped into effective
teams. A battery could completely lose its mobility as well as receiving damage
to the cannon and crew.
Conclusion The turn of the
Nineteenth Century saw artillery used in ways which presupposed the
Post-Industrial Revolution use of big guns. The aforementioned Battle of
Borodino was so notable for its use of firepower, that a Russian messenger
observed in his crossing of the battlefield, that he had to keep his mouth open
in order to stabilize the pressure from the firing of the guns. Starting with
this period, the military world was to become steadily more familiar with the
phenomenon of so many guns firing at once that everything turned into a
never-ending, high pressure rumble. This is something taken for granted today,
but it was relatively unusual 200 years ago. The Napoleonic era's most famous
artillerist did once comment that he would use thunderbolts if they were
available, but one wonders what his wildest dreams really contemplated for the
future.
recommended
reading Dillon, Col. Henry A. Dillon on Defence. Cox &
son 1811 Haythornthwaite, Philip J. Weapons and Equipment of the
Napoleonic wars. Blanford Press 1979 Jeffery, George. Tactics and
Grand Tactics of the Napoleonic Wars. Courier 1982
Mercer,
Gen. Cavalie Journal of the Waterloo Campaign. Da Capo Press 1995 (at
Amazon.com) Savary, Gen. Anne Jean. Memoirs of the Duke of
Rovigo. Paris 1828 Wise, Terence. Artillery Equipments of the
Napoleonic Wars. Osprey 1979
|