The Loose Association of Wargamers

grizzlymc wrote: ↑Sun Sep 17, 2023 12:31 am They may have had a better process in Europe, but iron guns were painted black in South America and had to slow their rate of fire after a few minutes as the gun heated up very quickly.

Two of the reasons that bronze tubes were increasingly preferred to iron ones, despite the higher cost, were that (1) as the tubes heated up through prolonged firing, iron tubes would droop and be difficult to realign, and (b) on the rare occasions that a tube "failed" a bronze one would simply crack, whereas the iron one would explode and spray shrapnel all over the crew.

You see one gun for 500 men in these OOBs and you wonder how men survived. Then you read that the battle opened with a cannonade and when the fire dropped off, one side or another made an attack. Why weren't they slaughtered with cannister? Because the barrels were hot. San Martin cast his own 4 pdrs in a church bell foundry, and they outgunned every enemy against whom they fought. The Spanish sent a battery of horse artillery to the Americas in 1813, presumably to try to even the score.

If you get the chance, obtain a copy of "British Napoleonic Artillery" by Franklin. Among other useful charts (and paint recipes, Donald!) it has one that estimates which ammo and how many rounds you will get to fire at a selection of targets (eg a cavalry formation charging the guns, an infantry column assaulting your line, etc). From the initial reading of the chart, your "Why weren't they slaughtered?" comment sounds extremely pertinent; why they weren't was usually due to undulations in the ground and the overall inaccuracy of canister - the latter being largely sorted out by the latter half of the 19th Century explains (in part at least) why casualties became heavier.

Also nerve, the point at which cannister becomes most effective, the enemy is awfully close.

Also remember artillery commanders were parsimonious with money in peacetime, so gunnery practice was limited and many gunners had actually fired only a few times.

This is one area where naval gunners had an advantage.

FreddBloggs wrote: ↑Sun Sep 17, 2023 10:40 am
This is one area where naval gunners had an advantage.

Yes. I've read my Patrick O'Brian.

donald

I think that's one point about fortress artillery. They rarely practiced, so slow and innacurate. Against that, they had nearly infinite ammunition and powder and were well protected from return fire.

I don't know such thing as a militia artillery. However some decades before, in the 1690s I think, it was mentioned in St-Malo that the civilian sailors and privateers living in town were more efficient to use the guns on naval carriages on the city walls than regular soldiers.

What do we think was used more in harbour city walls, naval guns? And wheeled artillery in inland walls?

Naval style carriages, any half decent carpenter could knock them up. Unless the rampart had stop blocks, one shot on a field carriage on stones and it is off the back of the wall. Garrison carriages were roped to the walls.

Ooh - good point. So would inland city walls have naval style carriages too?