Napoleonic Artillery Basics Part 1: Cannons and howitzers

Part 1 of a 2 part series covering the very basics of napoleonic artillery. This video covers the workhorse of artillery batteries, cannons and howitzers. Stay tuned for a special announcment on the channel tonight!

[@ratelmike8825]

Might be an older video Tim, but absolutely brilliant. Learned so much about artillery and its ammo from this one. Fascinating stuff.

[@UncleMerlin]

About the combined arms part, Napoleon actually had his cavalry have dedicated artillery pieces that followed them being "horse artillery". He deemed this so because Cavalry was very susceptible to both canister shot and square formation against Artillery and Infantry respectively. The Horse artillery was used to disorient the enemy before the cavalry charge occurred, leading to commanders and units being unable to change shot as quickly or forming square as efficiently.

[@NapoleonicWargaming]

Absolutely. It's something I don't think BP caters for very well. I did a video about having an 'artillery phase' in which I discuss this topic in depth kzbin.info/www/bejne/o6PYd5lpadigkNU

[@patricklnolen]

The British already had Horse Artillery at this point, Mercer, one of the more famous gunners at Waterloo was a RHA captain.

[@LittleLouieLagazza]

This is why I so love Getz & Bowden's "Empire!" series of rules. Light infantry and opportune artillery skirmishes were a joy, really captured the flavor

[@spqrd13]

You're looking for the term inertia. A heavy metal ball moving through the air takes more to stop it moving then just passing through one person or hitting the ground once.

[@andrewrobinson3030]

Great content. Love the painted background. I’ve just bought a roll of lining paper to paint my background on

[@CZuskia]

Awesome! I'm started off (and getting interested) in the Napoleonic Wars! I'm going to check up on more of your videos, soon. I'm lovin' these videos.

[@LittleLouieLagazza]

They are decidedly choice =D Welcome! Enjoy your time with us!

[@terrencestafford3660]

The howitzers were also used as anti-artillery. As some of your illustrations show a battery would be quite spread out. The shell fired by the howitzer could be more effective against it and could cause also sympathetic detonation if it landed near a caisson.

[@NapoleonicWargaming]

I hadn't thought about that, but makes sense!

[@viterf9227]

Carcass shot was a iron ball it just had a holes in it with gel in the middle so when I was fired from the howitzer the jell catch on fire it was in a bundle of sticks

[@NapoleonicWargaming]

I did not know it was that advanced! Thanks!

[@thrifikionor7603]

The idea behind shrapnel is that it would extend the range of canister. The explosive charge only needed to be large enough to burst the shell, the killing power came from the musket balls inside travelling the same speed as the shell was travelling and it has to explode just before the enemy, far enough to allow it to spread but still close enough so dont loose too much energy or spread it too much. The timing was therefore really critical which later led to really intricate time fuzes just before WW1 when shrapnel became the standard and then they found out that shrapnel is quite useless against trenches

[@gromuk]

Great set of videos mate, learned a lot listenning to those. I would love a video on Lannes, i kinda have a mancrush on him as a commander !

[@NapoleonicWargaming]

Check the channel later thus evening Bro. Not Lannes but a new series that might be right up your street

[@johnschultz2728]

Very good video again. Well thought out and presented.

[@remittanceman4685]

Double shotting was not two loads of cannister. It was a cannon ball and a cannister loaded together. Very effective against column.

[@skepticalbadger]

Actually, 'double shot' without any other context meant loading two ordinary pieces of shot. In context, depending on army and period, it just meant to load twice - whether solid shot, cannister, or one of each.

[@remittanceman4685]

@@skepticalbadger Interesting. My main area of interest is the Peninsular war, particularly the Brits and their allies. In that context "double shotted" is taken to mean ball and canister. I assumed it was a more widely accepted term. It's always nice to learn something new.

[@johnwayneeverett6263]

YES MADE MY DAY.....Thank you buddy.....

[@johnwayneeverett6263]

THAT BACKGROUND IS SWEET..

[@BaronsHistoryTimes]

Nice overview; - foot/horse soldiers/officers often termed canister/case shot as grapeshot in their memoirs - shrapnel shell was called spherical case during the Napoleonic era; the shrapnel name was given years after Waterloo. - Shells would explode from a certain medium to maximum range..... but it seems at Waterloo, some accounts observing their explosions at close ranges also. - field guns firing roundshot had an elevation ranging from 0-3 degrees, while howitzers stubby barrel designs had up to 12 degrees elevation for their unique lobbing high-arc effect for shells.

[@gracesprocket7340]

Case, grape et al.. Sea service grape uses 9 ball of around 1/10th the nominal size of the gun (so a 32lb gun uses 3lb shot in the sea service grape loading) quilted in guns (the origin of the name grape). For Howitzer and Carronade grape is tinned, to protect the bore and preserve the more tightly controlled windage - bronze guns are also more prone to wear so might use tin as well. For land service, grape uses more shot, typically of a more common range of sizes, but 15-24 shot according to size, as they only need to take effect at long range vs infantry and cavalry, and not to penetrate bulwarks, ships boats, rigging etc. Case or cannister was provided in two natures, also quilted for iron guns, tinned for Carronades, Howitzers, Bronze guns. The "large case" had around 34-51 large shot, above musquet ball size in larger natures, 'small case' 96-112 smaller shot in field guns sizes, both having their 'best' range for employement the small cannister being useful to around 500-600 yds, and the large cannister extending out from 600-900 yds (it would also have effect closer in, obviously, but was only superior to small cannister at these longer ranges, Shrapnel or spherical case was burst just before the target range and the case fragments and shot spread widely as they continued along the trajectory. Shell was designed to burst 'at' the target, ideally just before arriving, though it could also function after coming to rest, at least some of the time, with the use in naval warfare eventually settling on percussion fuse trains and an intent to lodge the shot within the structure by using moderated charges - at the time of cut 'cord' fuses set by trimming and lit by the action of 'blow by' during firing they were considered unreliable, unsafe and were not widely used at sea. (The French Obusier d'Vassieu, which had been designed to use them was largely relegated to case and grape). Shot would graze and continue, and with firing in ricochet the apex of the trajectory could be held below the height of troops' heads for around 1500 yds - with elevation the first bound might be higher, but the subsequent bounds would continue onwards up to around 2000 yds. At higher elevation settings though the 'random fire ranges' would result in the shot coming to rest near it's first graze, and little or no additional distance from ricochet. Ricochet was widely used, both on land and at sea, as long as terrain or sea-state permitted it, especially when there was less requirement for penetrative capability and more for extended effect against small targets (e.g. gunboats, or personnel/artillery). When terrain was less suitable for rollshuss/ricochet use, then artillery effect was much reduced. Both case and grape would also benefit from suitable terrain and hard ground for rollschuss and would lose effectiveness if the ground were irregular or (very) soft.

[@rickhudson7929]

Very interesting vid. Learned a great deal :-)

[@historex54tamiya]

Superb easy explanation, good

[@johndoerayme7064]

Great series of videos mate, keep it up :) If you'll forgive a bit of an extra titbit about the Russian artillery piece that you mentioned: Licorne is the French name for the Unicorn, named for the foundry where they were originally made as they had a unicorn symbol cast into them (or because of the shape of the barrel handles, sources vary on that point). Enjoying your content matey :D

[@bibybattles9829]

Nice keep it up

[@turfdorbrittlebeard1674]

Are there some home brew rules for howitzers that are better than the rules lumped in with mortars in BP?

[@smooth_sundaes5172]

I think you're right in questioning whether "combined arms" is an appropriate term for this period but I would say that when the three arms did work together it could be devastating. Horse artillery particularly, when used agressively such as at Friedland, could be a battle winner. But yes, that is as much down to the abilities and awareness of the commanders on the spot as much as anything else. Outside the period, I'm reminded of the battle of Aliwal in 1846 which General Sir Harry Smith (I love that name :)) described as the "perfect battle". All three arms working perfectly together and overcomng a numerically superior enemy.

[@MrDidz]

I would just point out that Horse Artillery was specifically conceived to work with cavalry, and that whilst it was also found to be useful working with infantry it did so as an expansion of the branch not as an alternative. In fact, by 1815 the only difference between most Horse Artillery and Foot Artillery batteries was the number of horses assigned to the battery. The French, for example, had pretty much standardised on the 6pdr canon and the British on the 9pdr. The logic is obvious, that a 6-pound ball was just as deadly to humanity as a 12 pdr ball and a damn sight cheaper and easier to deliver on target. Certainly, the most advanced armies when it came to combined arms thinking were the French and Prussians. Both deliberately formed Combined Arms formations of Horse, Foot and Guns under a unified command specifically for co-operation. These were the very first recognition of the multi-arm formations so I would say that the Napoleonic Wars were the birthplace and training ground for the principles of combined arms. For example when both D'Erlons Corps and the Imperial Guard attacked at Waterloo every column of their formation was interspersed with artillery sections being hauled forward to provide close fire support. Likewise contrary to the bias views of British historians primary evidence shows that the French cavalry attacks were closely supported by both infantry and artillery. Not on the Allied extreme right where Wellington was trapped in a British square and oblivious to the facts, and the ground was too restricted to allow it. But certainly in the centre where there is ample testimony of the impact of the supporting infantry and artillery on the Allied Squares of Alten's Brigade and its German neighbours. And even on the right Mercer tells us quite clearly that between each cavalry assault his battery was harassed by enemy skirmishers who came boldly forward to within a few paces of his men to shoot.

[@nickhindley4295]

There was one form of naval shot I did not hear about in your otherwise comprehensive video and that is heated shot "Heated shot or hot shot is round shot that is heated before firing from muzzle-loading cannons, for the purpose of setting fire to enemy warships, buildings, or equipment." Courtesy of Wikipedia. Love the videos, have watched some several times, highly entertaining and very useful source of information and practice sharing. Thanks

[@NapoleonicWargaming]

Thanks for watching. Heated shot is a controversial one, I've heard that it was used in fortresses firing at ships, but rarely, if ever, on them for obvious flamey reasons. It's a good point though, I should have at least mentioned it

[@nickhindley4295]

@@NapoleonicWargaming It certainly was not a common form of weapon used hence my checking. According "Wikimedia" The Royal Norwegian Navy used it?? It does seem a little risky having hot coals on the gun deck!

[@manuelkong10]

I think you're looking at it wrong in terms of "combined arms"....the commenter was right. It's not up to the Cavalry OR Artillery to "do what they do", "set their watches" etc... It was up to the corp or army commander to make sure that cav and inf attacks were supported by the artillery. It was and is up to the commander to use cav to force enemy inf into square, then have artillery ready to pound the square etc

[@Arconeus]

The main issue with Shrapnel/Shell is timing. The fuze wasn't what we would call exact. Just a wooden tube full of a gun powder slurry. There were hash marks that the Gunner would trim the fuze for a relatively pre determined time until the shell explodes. It was used primarily in sieges. Where you know the ranges. Also used with packed lines (as you stated) in protracted engagements. Where you have an idea of how far the enemy is and a reasonable assumption that the enemy will still be there when the shot fires. You forgot my favorite shot. Hot shot. I *THINK* it was the most common way of lighting fires with artillery. Most armies had ovens special built to heat up the humble cannon ball to a white hot. (Actually significantly hotter than red hot metal) once fired at it's target (usually a wooden target...say a boat or a roof) it will smolder and all combustible material will erupt into flame. The application of copious amounts of water will douse the flames, but the source of the heat will still be so hot it reignites. That's how the Americans burned Fort George in November 1812. This being AFTER the Brits introduced America to Shrapnel in September of 1812. Legend has it the first Shrapnel round fired in North America landed down the barrel of a gun on the north redout between when the powder charge was loaded and the shot was loaded. The subsequent explosion ended the artillery duel. And wiped one of two gun decks at the time capable of firing back from exisitance.

[@smokedbeefandcheese4144]

Wow what a crazy one in 1 million shot it’s literally like something from a movie or whatever.

[@sirlordhenrymortimer6620]

My top 5 nepoleon Marshall 1. Jean Davout 2. Micheal Ney 3. Jean lannes 4. Andrie massena 5. Kiebler

[@Manco654]

I always wondered if there was any truth to Empire and Napoleon Total War’s quicklime shells... do you happen to have any info on that because I literally can’t find anything about it.

[@NapoleonicWargaming]

I've not read or heard about them myself, but it doesnt seem beyond possibility, particularly in colonial wars.

[@Manco654]

@@NapoleonicWargaming Ok, thanks for answering 🙂

[@bearmare9710]

Question: I was told that levels of literacy in the French Army were the lowest among the artillery. Can some light be shed on this information?

[@NapoleonicWargaming]

Was that the officers or the crew? Crew wise it's basically manual labour, the skill comes from the aimers, sighters, etc. But if anyone has more knowledge on this it'd be fascinating to hear

[@maxburns9278]

Lol spy vs spy reference😀

[@Edward-Plantagenet]

Are you still planning to do a part 2?

[@NapoleonicWargaming]

I've already done it dude. It's the video with the rockets in the thumbnail

[@NapoleonicWargaming]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/sIOleGSOgNCBa6c

[@Edward-Plantagenet]

@@NapoleonicWargaming Ah. Thanks. Was looking under videos and couldn't see it. Looks like YT was only showing me 'Most Popular'. Showed up after I set it to display all 'By date added'.

[@thomashoellering9810]

In the context of the French Ships firing high...its not because they wanted the prize money and sell the ships, that was an English thing. The Royal Navy needed to destroy but mostly capture enemy ships, whereas the French were waging a war against English shipping. Firing High was more often the result of less skilled seaman, and the idea was to incapacitate the English so they could escape and wage their war against English merchants. Also, if you are downwind or leeward, you often had no choice but to fire high, whereas the upwind vessel fired low, because of the heel of the ships hull. All matter in sea warfare considerably. Yes, the French also use a lot more chain and bar shot. Once again, poor crews etc.

[@NapoleonicWargaming]

They certainly did have prize money, it was implemented in the 17th century and only got rid of in WW1. But either way, that's the beauty of history always room for debate.

[@thomashoellering9810]

You mentioned nothing about the bounce or skipping of the ball and how iron balls ricochet off hard dirt or stone. Nor the quantity of shot, powder, and the amount of men and horses, wagons etc required, nor the tens of thousands (hundred of thousands actually) of shot required nor Napoleons use of Grand Batteries or other nations use of Cannon. Perhaps a part 2 is needed. Also, the weight in shot varied by country. A French 9 pounder was not the same weight as an English 9 pounder, their measurements were NOT the same. The French was actually 8 pounds, other nations 7 pounds but in their measuring system 9 pounds. Confusing for modern people, that a pound is not the same in every country...but it was like that.

[@NapoleonicWargaming]

There's always more that can be added! You might find some of thise points in other videos. The grande battery for example I talk about in more detail in the Imperial Guard artillery video As for the different weights, I'm not really interested in it to be honest. For wargaming purposes they are all considered as the same class of gun, and I think to the guy being hit, the difference between an 8 or 9 pdr is pretty irrelevant. Glad you enjoyed the video though!

[@johnwayneeverett6263]

VISTULA LEGION IN SPAIN ...BEFORE N AFTER 1812 ... WOULD BE GOOD THE POLISH PEOPLE....

[@markedfanatic9349]

"Prince Alexi" in War & Peace? I think you mean Prince Andrei Bolkonsky

[@NapoleonicWargaming]

I absolutely do! Good catch sir! Thank you

[@RockinL7BuckingBulls]

Why didn’t you actually show pictures of artillery projectiles?

[@NapoleonicWargaming]

I didn't really think of it! Good idea though!

[@kateeverett6301]

that my e bay site i paint n make n sell....nasps 28 20 mm

[@spqrd13]

Grapeshot was bigger than musket balls

[@NapoleonicWargaming]

You are correct

[@spqrd13]

@@NapoleonicWargaming you said it later. But you said it was between a musket ball and a pistol ball at first

[@kateeverett6301]

I LIKE THE BACK GROUND PLATE OF ART WORK SHOWING THE ROLLING HILLS ..WHERE DID YOU GET THAT ....THAT'S WHAT THE HOBBY DOES NOT REALLY HAVE IS A SIDE BOARD THAT YOU CAN HOOK ON A TABLES FAR SIDE FOR BACK GROUND LOOKS PLUS ADDS MORE SPACE ON YOUR TABLE TOP IF YOU MADE IT 4 INCHES WIDE SO FIGURE COULD WALK UP THE HILL SIDE INTO A STAR FORT ECT ..AND SHELFS LITTLE MINI SHELVES SO YOU CAN PUT TREES AND FIGURES , ECTS .... SO NOW THE TABLE TOP IS GOING UP , SO IN A CORNER IT CAN BE MADE STRONG TO HAVE TWO DIRECTIONS IN THE CORONER HAVE A VICE AND OR CLAMPS TO ATTACH TO TABLE IT COULD OPEN UP A WHOLE NEW MARKET ....LETS TALK ....I WOULD LIKE YOUR INPUT BUDDY..

[@perjohansson2865]

What do you know about the American Civil War?

[@NapoleonicWargaming]

Not a huge amount to be fair. What were you thinking of specifically?

[@perjohansson2865]

@@NapoleonicWargaming I mean organization of cavalry and infantry and artillery in the American Civil War