Artillery of the Napoleonic Wars by Kevin Kiley

[LFDLM]

Having finished my rereading of Artillery of the Napoleonic Wars by Kevin Kiley, I quote two passages that I think contradict what is done in Napoleonic Battles :

Artillery seldom took position directly behind friendly troops, for two reasons: first, the troops did not like it, as a round could fall short and cause friendly casualties; and secondly, the reaction of those troops to their own artillery might be detrimental to the offending artillerymen’s state of mind and personal safety.

However, it is a very good tactic in NB to put artillery right behind your infantry, just one level higher.

It should be remembered, when studying the field artillery of the period, that all of the guns and howitzers were direct-fire weapons, in that the gunner had to see his target, whether he was firing a gun with a flat trajectory or a howitzer with a more parabolic trajectory which allowed it to fire into ditches, behind walls, etc. Modern fire control methods were unknown during the Napoleonic period.

On the contrary, in NB, howitzer are indeed indirtect-fire guns (think about artillery in FWWC which must have a free direct line of fire to shoot at 5 or 6 km (so with a parabolic trajectory)).

[devoncop]

Having finished my rereading of Artillery of the Napoleonic Wars by Kevin Kiley, I quote two passages that I think contradict what is done in Napoleonic Battles :

Artillery seldom took position directly behind friendly troops, for two reasons: first, the troops did not like it, as a round could fall short and cause friendly casualties; and secondly, the reaction of those troops to their own artillery might be detrimental to the offending artillerymen’s state of mind and personal safety.

However, it is a very good tactic in NB to put artillery right behind your infantry, just one level higher.

It should be remembered, when studying the field artillery of the period, that all of the guns and howitzers were direct-fire weapons, in that the gunner had to see his target, whether he was firing a gun with a flat trajectory or a howitzer with a more parabolic trajectory which allowed it to fire into ditches, behind walls, etc. Modern fire control methods were unknown during the Napoleonic period.

On the contrary, in NB, howitzer are indeed indirtect-fire guns (think about artillery in FWWC which must have a free direct line of fire to shoot at 5 or 6 km (so with a parabolic trajectory)).

Weren't the Congreve Rocket batteries employed by the British very much indirect fire weapons ?

(As well as being as useful as a chocolate fire guard?) 

[gwgardner]

Would skirmishers venture into areas in front of artillery, historically?

[LFDLM]

Having finished my rereading of Artillery of the Napoleonic Wars by Kevin Kiley, I quote two passages that I think contradict what is done in Napoleonic Battles :

Artillery seldom took position directly behind friendly troops, for two reasons: first, the troops did not like it, as a round could fall short and cause friendly casualties; and secondly, the reaction of those troops to their own artillery might be detrimental to the offending artillerymen’s state of mind and personal safety.

However, it is a very good tactic in NB to put artillery right behind your infantry, just one level higher.

It should be remembered, when studying the field artillery of the period, that all of the guns and howitzers were direct-fire weapons, in that the gunner had to see his target, whether he was firing a gun with a flat trajectory or a howitzer with a more parabolic trajectory which allowed it to fire into ditches, behind walls, etc. Modern fire control methods were unknown during the Napoleonic period.

On the contrary, in NB, howitzer are indeed indirtect-fire guns (think about artillery in FWWC which must have a free direct line of fire to shoot at 5 or 6 km (so with a parabolic trajectory)).

Weren't the Congreve Rocket batteries employed by the British very much indirect fire weapons ?

(As well as being as useful as a chocolate fire guard?) 

As I understand it, it doesn't matter what the parabolic trajectory of the shot is if the shooter needs a direct view of his target.

[LFDLM]

Would skirmishers venture into areas in front of artillery, historically?

Everything I've read says so, but, theoretically, skirmishers are very good troops, well trained, cool under fire, etc.

But I imagine it must have been very stressful. Skirmishers often had to feel "le vent du canon" on their back from their own artillery.

[LFDLM]

The reason for so many caissons assigned per battery was that Napoleon required that there always be a double “approvisionment” (standard load) of ammunition per gun with the army– 300 to 350 rounds per gun. The system worked very well, and the Grande Armée never ran out of ammunition.

No out of ammo french guns...