HistWar
HistWar (English zone) => General discussions => Discussion démarrée par: Gunner24 le 16 mars 2010, 13:59:56 pm
-
Does anyone else think that counter battery fire is a little too good, there are a lot of cannons lost (to arty fire) in all the battles I've taken part in.
-
I agree that any prolonged duel between two batteries results in most of the guns up in smoke - but I don't know how realistic this is - I suspect that in reality once a battery lost a gun or two then it would pull back unless specifically ordered to hold.
-
Same here, I'm not saying it's right ot wrong, I'm not too sure, it does feel like too many cannons are being hit from what I've read in books - but I'm far from certain about that.
If you check the F7 stats page you will see cannons are being destroyed quickly as soon as they come into contact with each other, I'd prefer to see this "attrition" a bit slower and perhaps a rout being seen instead - like Inf and Cav Regiments....rout and re-form further back.
-
For the French I know some real life facts about counter battery:
Artillery officer Jean du Teil published a treatise on the use of artillery in 1778, which greatly influenced Napoleon, since he served with du Teil in the same artillery regiment under Jean du Teil's older brother Joseph, who became one of Napoleons chief patrons.
French Artillery was made shorter, therefore lighter and therefore better to handle when General Gribeauval was inspector general of the french artillery. With those improvements du Teil's opinion was that artillery should be more agressively used than before. When casualties occured, a fresh battery should come forward as fast as possible, to relieve the weakened unit and keep the firepower up.
Another thing du Teil's reforms brought, and this is why I started to write here in the first place :D, is that he argued against counter battery fire. In his opinion it was a waste of resources and fire should instead be concentrated primarily on enemy troops and only fire on artillery when there was no other target, or the enemy artillery was causing too much trouble.
So for the french, I think we can say, counter battery fire in real life was not the primary use of artillery, like in other armies.
-
A short quote from : http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/artillery_tactics.htm#_artillery_combat
Target selection was a very important thing in artillery. The primary target were enemy's infantry and cavalry and not artillery. The counter-battery fire was recommended only there were no other targets as its fire was considered as a waste of ammuntion.
Much, much more info there.
-
Very nice, I only knew of the French view on the issue, nice to know that many others thought the same.
-
And yet, when you read accounts of actual battles, you find out they did it anyway, even when under strict orders not to and under threat of punishment. And not just when they were being fired upon themselves.
You just can't make people act totally against their nature.
Hook
-
That's the beauty of HLG, you can't make it act against the nature of the period tactics (at least when AI bugs have been fine tuned)
-
Due to his immense erudition, I trust blindly JMM try, as much as it is possible, to reproduce the acts of this era.
Thus, logical with myself, blindily I modified the doctrine in the way to fire first cavalry then infantry.
But, now, mates, I am beginning to doubt. Is it possible JMM ignore what is reported by Spec10 and I read something like that from other reliable source.
"If other targets are availables, counter-battery is a waste of munition, because the guns were not sufficiently accurated".
-
I forgot to add the source to my information. What I wrote about in my post comes from a book called
"Fighting Techniques Of The Napoleonic Age 1792 - 1815 Equipment, Combat Skills, and Tactics"
by Robert B. Bruce, Iain Dickie, Kevin Kiley, Michael F. Pakovic, Frederick C. Schneid
And of course artillerymen didn't always act according to the rulebooks, war is chaotic, but I just wanted to point out what the (French) Officer Corps of that time thought about the issue, that's all.
-
I tried my doctrine with a first target choice NOT at artillery and it was a disaster, the enemy will destroy your guns by counter battery fire before they have time to do enough damage to the enemy Inf and Cav.
I have no objection with CBF - but it might be better if it were less deadly !.
-
I tried my doctrine with a first target choice NOT at artillery and it was a disaster, the enemy will destroy your guns by counter battery fire before they have time to do enough damage to the enemy Inf and Cav.
Talk to Mercer about how deadly counterbattery fire can be. Journal of the Waterloo Campaign.
Hook
-
No Hook, talk to Gunner24, I just took out 200 of his guns at Borodino. It's looking black for him now, it's about time though he kicked my **** at Marengo
-
Artillery fire is always too deadly when you're on the receiving end. :) I've never heard anyone complain that their own artillery was too powerful.
Hook
-
Not me, my friend, not me
-
I'm not complaining about anything, I'm asking the question, did armies lose several 100 cannons to counter battery fire ?.
It's not something I've seen mentioned in books very much, try finding the numbers of cannons lost in battles, it's not easy to do, most books concentrate on how many men were lost.
Question : How many cannons were lost on both sides at Borodino ?, answers on a post card please.
-
Question : How many cannons were lost on both sides at Borodino ?, answers on a post card please
[/glow]
Damn Gunner that was funny :lol: :lol: :lol:
Seriously though I'm interested in the answer to that one. Any of you history buffs out there can enlighten us, because for all I know it might be normal. One thing I've learned on this Forum, there are a lot of guys who know a hell of a lot more than me!!!!
-
Seriously though I'm interested in the answer to that one
So am I, I've looked at about 20 different sites on the net and not found a single mention of cannons LOST, all mention how many were there to start with - but not numbers lost in action, let alone lost to CBF.
Someone must know this answer, I hope there looking in and can provide it for us.
-
Artillery...
Big question! Could you read Jomini, "Précis de l'Art de la Guerre", Chapter VII, Article 46...
He talked about the use of artillery... Very interesting... There are some rules, and I think we can say- after reading his text- one of them is "there isn't a real rule"... just some ideas...
IN HW, the AI in charge of artillery tries to adopt this rule :
a) doctrine
b) but when there is a threat, gunner don't take care at the doctrine and they open the fire at the threat
That said, there are several texts about the doctrines.. for example T de Moria's Tratado de Artillerie,.. but I have to search the other references :oops: ;) and several texts talking about the battle.. for example at Austerlitz, Lannes asked to his gunners to destroy the Bagration's artillery which was firing at his infantry... some minutes after, the russian artillery was broken.
JMM
-
Quotation of Gassendi doctrine for artillerie : it seems that counter battery were frequent and very effective.
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k732658.image.hl.r=duel+.f548.langFR
-
One thing to note is that there is a difference between losing a battery entirely because all the cannon themselves were actually destroyed and 'losing' a battery during a battle because that batteries combat effectiveness was diminished. The latter could happen because of deaths to crew or animals and destruction of necessary equipment and ammunition caissons other than the cannon itself. As I understand it (admittedly my knowledge is limited), a cannon itself might be a small target, but a whole battery including limbers and caissons had quite a large footprint.
I imagine this type of damage is abstracted in HWLG as a destroyed cannon but in reality would have been repairable after a battle. Whether the degree of damage is correct though, I have no idea.
-
a cannon itself might be a small target, but a whole battery including limbers and caissons had quite a large footprint.
I imagine this type of damage is abstracted in HWLG as a destroyed cannon but in reality would have been repairable after a battle. Whether the degree of damage is correct though, I have no idea.
This makes a lot of sense, I agree, having taken that view should we be asking if the artillery battery should pull back (like Inf and Cav do) before it gets to the stage of being utterlly destroyed ?.
As things stand now you would be taking a very large risk to make you cannons fire at cav and Inf rather than the enemy batteries, if you do they will destroy your cannons.
Why is it so hard to find reference to how many cannons were lost in major battles ?.
a) doctrine
b) but when there is a threat, gunner don't take care at the doctrine and they open the fire at the threat
I'm 100% sure this is the right way to do it, my only doubt is that counter battery fire is too effective, and the battery being fired on is staying in place too long with heavy lose.
-
This makes a lot of sense, I agree, having taken that view should we be asking if the artillery battery should pull back (like Inf and Cav do) before it gets to the stage of being utterlly destroyed ?.
[...]du Teil's opinion was that artillery should be more agressively used than before. When casualties occured, a fresh battery should come forward as fast as possible, to relieve the weakened unit and keep the firepower up. [...]
It would certainly be nice to have the option of letting the AI behave according to this and pull back, as soon as serious casualties occur in a battery.
-
As things stand now you would be taking a very large risk to make you cannons fire at cav and Inf rather than the enemy batteries, if you do they will destroy your cannons.
Yes, it would also seem to discourage keeping an artillery reserve. Perhaps multiplayer could be set up such that certain doctrines are forced on all players if mutually agreed on. This way, you could ensure that both sides adopt a doctrine whereby artillery prioritise inf/cav if that is what you want.
Regarding numbers of lost cannon in historical battles, I would guess these were not reported because often the cannon were repaired afterwards and so essentially were not lost. In contrast, although I am not very widely read on the period, I do recall seeing numbers reported when cannon were captured, i.e. irrevocably lost.
Perhaps this problem will have to be approached indirectly, such as tracking the action of batteries throughout historical battles. How often were batteries in opposition to each other historically (I must admit that in HWLG it often seems like batteries are everywhere)? And how often did batteries fight for the entire duration of a battle - were they knocked out as quickly as in HWLG when not attacked by other arms?
-
This way, you could ensure that both sides adopt a doctrine whereby artillery prioritise inf/cav if that is what you want.
That's a very interesting idea you have there, I like that, but some would not want to do it.
As it's the same for both sides this is not really a massive problem, but I can not help thinking that to lose 200 cannons to CBF in just a few hours is not realalistic. I would expect most were captured, rather than hit by cannon balls.
-
Amazon brought me Nosworthy today.
Appearantly counter-battery fire was debated a lot at the time as well. It proved to be necessary if enemy artillery inflicted more damage than your artillery would.
Ways of counter-battery fire were also debated. Some said that each cannon needed a different target, but this would never fully destroy the enemy battery. Others said therefore that all cannons should focus on a single target and this would completely wipe out enemy cannons.
Nosworthy gives some nice examples of how this was done.
Oooh this is going to be a great read :)
-
Which Nosworthy book? With Musket, Cannon and Sword?
-
Battle Tactics of Napoleon and his Enemies.
-
Oh, yes. Same book.
It's excellent. I'm reading it now for the third (or is it the fourth?) time !
-
Just reading Barbero's 'the battle' and there's quite a nice chapter early on 'the bombardment in the houghoumont sector' pp117 where it claims that Wellington forbid the use of counter battery fire, but the crews couldn't help themselves returning fire at the enemy artillary, it just human nature to attempt to protect yourself. This was apparently the norm all along the line for the majority of the battle, much to the Duke's frustration! I believe he even threatened the court martial of the first artillary officer he caught doing it. Also the french knocked the British Howitsters out of action within two hours of counter battery fire - this seems pretty effective to me.
-
Counter battery fire was only considered a waste of ammo when it wasn't ordered bye some fellow with a lot of braid on his hat . As an example Ney deployed French Horse artillery batteries at Waterloo in precisely that role. When employed in an organized manner it was extremely affective however when it was a knee-jerk reaction to being shot at....not nearly as much. The English were especially proficient at it courtesy of a nasty bit of ordnance known as spherical case shot or shrapnel. I would say that the game is rite on the money with arty set for counter battery fire as the first priority.
-
There are still many cannons being lost to counter battery fire, if you start with 200 you may only have 20 left at the end, not all lost to counter battery fire of course, but also to Inf and Cav attacks.
-
The 180 lost guns in that case also include the number that have routed off the field, retreated off the field because the corps they belonged to was retreating, and guns that have left the field because they were out of ammo.
At the end of the day at Waterloo, Mercer had barely enough crew for 2 of his 6 guns, and no effective limbers to move the guns. He was only under effective couterbattery fire by one battery, although was shot at by other batteries before that without much effect.
Hook
-
Right, I re-opened this topic because a couple of NBC members have commented that artillery loses appear very high, but if 90% artillery loses were common in Napoleonic battles then I guess it's about right.
I have still not been able to find any facts and figures to confirm or deny this "fact"........but as with most things, it is the same for both sides playing, so no big deal, only that it looks too high to me.
-
I've never seen anything to indicate what actual battlefield losses were either. I have no idea if we're even in the ball park.
However, if you include all the artillery that retired because of running out of ammunition or any other reason not related to actual loss, then the numbers don't seem so inflated. I think there's a lot of abstraction in the cannon loss mechanism in the game as well, so the actual destroyed guns is probably larger than it should be while guns that have left the field is lower. Yeah, at the end a lot of guns aren't available in the game, but I don't have a problem with the numbers.
Actual battles may have had more cannons at the end because they kept some back as a reserve. You probably have to adjust the doctrines to achieve this in the game, as artillery likes to move forward to support the front lines. Real commanders probably used their artillery a bit differently than we use ours too.
Hook
-
Hook, your last post sounds very sensisble, I would agree that is the likely cause of what we see in game.
-
Sometimes an artillery unit that is no longer combat effective will simply disappear from the map, so it's hard to keep track of what's actually happened to all the artillery. I'm not going to say that this is the best possible way to handle artillery; we can just hope that the overall effect is within reasonable limits. As far as I can tell, it is. I just don't have time during a battle to keep track of every artillery unit on the map. The units that I have watched closely act the way I'd expect, so I'm going to trust the game to do it right.
Hook
-
Even the victorious side has often a big loss of artillery. In my last battle for example it was 40% compared to 20% inf or cavalary. The losing allies lost 80% of their artillery compared to 40% inf cav.
I still think, artillery is too "cavalerish" when on the deployment move.
Perhaps AI should always make a cavallary unit scout ahead, so that artillery don't bounce into each other.
Also when a threat is there, they should retreat into the infantry line/ squares.
-
Even the victorious side has often a big loss of artillery. In my last battle for example it was 40% compared to 20% inf or cavalary. The losing allies lost 80% of their artillery compared to 40% inf cav.
I still think, artillery is too "cavalerish" when on the deployment move.
Perhaps AI should always make a cavallary unit scout ahead, so that artillery don't bounce into each other.
Also when a threat is there, they should retreat into the infantry line/ squares.
it is true that artillery would never deploy that far ahead without serious protection - and if it did it would have only been horse artillery - as seen by Bagration in Austerlitz, who deployed one HA-Battery with an entire Hussar REgiment - the Mariupol-hussars- in support
JMM said that he's working on the wondering artillery - so we'll probably see that foot artillery will stay closer to the main corps - yet we will keep seeing that the losses remain high, as the losses included everything Hook mentioned above!
CvC
-
Let me remind that, historically, artillery losses were only very high when the loosing side couldn't retire his artillery due to external circumstances, e.g. the mud preventing from taking the guns to the back.
This was particularly true in the 1814 campaign, as well for the French at La Rothière (losing (i.e. leaving behind) 73 guns) or for the Allies at Montmirail (26 guns) or Château-Thierry (14 guns).
Guns were rarely destroyed by counter-battery fire, since this was only used in particular circumstances.
-
Anyway, the doctrine editor allows you to establish priorities, right?
-
Guns were rarely destroyed by counter-battery fire, since this was only used in particular circumstances.
Let me remind that not all losses are destroyed guns. I keep bringing up Mercer, but it's the only good example that I've seen of an artillery commander who got under some severe counterbattery fire.
When it was over, he had barely enough crew to man 2 of his 6 guns, and the limbers and horses were pretty much destroyed. The guns were not reported as damaged. This is still a loss of 4 guns no matter how you count it, and any time a battery comes under effective counterbattery fire this kind of thing is going to happen. When there are enough losses to a battery in the game, the battery is removed from the map and counted as destroyed.
As for destroying guns, it's virtually impossible given that the guns are such a tiny target. The crews are a much larger target, and the limbers and horses even larger. A gun put out of action because the crew are casualties or rendered immobile because the limbers or horses are destroyed is still out of action.
Hook
-
As for destroying guns, it's virtually impossible given that the guns are such a tiny target. The crews are a much larger target, and the limbers and horses even larger. A gun put out of action because the crew are casualties or rendered immobile because the limbers or horses are destroyed is still out of action.
Well, when artillery was used to directly support infantry, it was pulled by hand. It moved slowly, but moved.
-
This is still a loss of 4 guns no matter how you count it, and any time a battery comes under effective counterbattery fire this kind of thing is going to happen. When there are enough losses to a battery in the game, the battery is removed from the map and counted as destroyed.
As for destroying guns, it's virtually impossible given that the guns are such a tiny target. The crews are a much larger target, and the limbers and horses even larger. A gun put out of action because the crew are casualties or rendered immobile because the limbers or horses are destroyed is still out of action.
Hook
You are right, Hook. Out of action is not the same as destoyed.
But the effect, on the short run, is the same.
But here also, the one who keeps the battleground is at an advantage. Mercer's gun would have been again in action after a few day...
-
Guns can be moved by prolonge over reasonably flat ground. I don't think I'd want to try to move them very far, or over hilly terrain, especially 12 pounders. You can probably find references to crews doing exactly that, however. The movement rate couldn't have been very fast with larger guns.
I think I'm making a mistake by referring to guns being destroyed. I can imagine starting with 200 guns and only having 20 effective guns at the end of a battle. I cannot imagine 180 of those guns being actually destroyed.
I'd have to look it up again, but I think Mercer was able to gather enough horses and spare parts to move in a day or so. This probably required recruiting some infantry to help, although I don't think Mercer mentions it.
Hook
-
Well, when artillery was used to directly support infantry, it was pulled by hand. It moved slowly, but moved.
In French artillery, "bricole" (a little rope used to pull the gun by hand) is only used to pull guns in some ground where horses can't go and in very short distance. French foot artillery always limbered/unlimbered to support and follow infantery ; French horse artillery always use "prolonge" (a long rope to pull gun with horses without limbering) as soon as it arrives on battlefield in order to move faster (especially to follow cavalry). You can get information in "Traité d'artillerie théorique et pratique", "Aide mémoire à l'usage des officiers d'artillerie de France", memoirs of Boulart, Pion des Loches, Séruzier, etc.
-
In French artillery, "bricole" (a little rope used to pull the gun by hand) is only used to pull guns in some ground where horses can't go and in very short distance. French foot artillery always limbered/unlimbered to support and follow infantery ; French horse artillery always use "prolonge" (a long rope to pull gun with horses without limbering) as soon as it arrives on battlefield in order to move faster (especially to follow cavalry). You can get information in "Traité d'artillerie théorique et pratique", "Aide mémoire à l'usage des officiers d'artillerie de France", memoirs of Boulart, Pion des Loches, Séruzier, etc.
I know of at least one instance where the guns were pulled alongside the infantry formation. I will post it later when I am at home.
-
Lodi57! Good to see you posting in the English section again. And good information, thanks.
MdA, if you're talking about regimental guns, those were usually 4 pounders, somewhat lighter than 12 pounders. I remember seeing those in earlier versions of the game, they may still be there in some OoBs.
Hook
-
Lodi57! Good to see you posting in the English section again. And good information, thanks.
MdA, if you're talking about regimental guns, those were usually 4 pounders, somewhat lighter than 12 pounders. I remember seeing those in earlier versions of the game, they may still be there in some OoBs.
Yes, the OOB editor lets you add them to infantry regiments.
Regarding the historical example I mentioned, it is Wagram, Macdonald's "monstruous column", a corps size square (!!!). There are many other examples though. But yes, they must have been 4 pdr.
-
Traité d'artillerie théorique et pratique: précis de la partie élémentaire
You can find it here :
http://books.google.com/books?id=iH6QjJ-KGkoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Trait%C3%A9+d'artillerie+th%C3%A9orique+et+pratique&hl=fr&ei=lpOlTJvVJMmZOqHB9agC&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
-
Aide mémoire à l'usage des officiers d'artillerie de France
http://books.google.com/books?id=RCZEAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Aide+m%C3%A9moire+%C3%A0+l'usage+des+officiers+d'artillerie+de+France&hl=fr&ei=9pOlTObcHMeUOo7YyKkC&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
Histoire générale de l'artillerie Brunet
http://www.google.com/search?hl=fr&tbs=bks:1&tbo=p&q=intitle:Histoire+intitle:g%C3%A9n%C3%A9rale+intitle:de+intitle:l'artillerie+inauthor:Brunet&num=10
http://books.google.com/books?id=M_oOYFfKgYwC&pg=PA91
http://books.google.com/books?id=4DJPAAAAYAAJ&dq=intitle:Histoire+intitle:de+intitle:l'Artillerie+inauthor:Susane&hl=fr&ei=7pqlTPj-BMWQswb1rtyaCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAQ
-
MdA, if you're talking about regimental guns, those were usually 4 pounders
These guns attached to infantry units only existed in the French army from 1809 until 1812.
-
These guns attached to infantry units only existed in the French army from 1809 until 1812.
Correct. They had been suppressed in 1797.
-
In fact, it was a way of finding some utility for the enormous quantity of guns (mainly guns captured from Austria).