Friday, March 15

English Civil War artillery notes..

The inimitable Rick Scollins, naturally..
Hello, what's your name? MY NAME IS BOB RIVERS! Where are stationed, Bob? I'M IN ARTILLERY! Well, can we play something for you? ANYTHING! JUST PLAY IT LOUD O.K.?
Good Morning Vietnam (RIP Robin) 

...by way of another in an occasional series as I expand on my knowledge of the period...  this time the artillery.. 

Usage:

NB. This is a precis/summation of a Stephen Ede-Borrett article (full link below) which I found fascinating, and well/persuasively argued
  1. Guns were widely spaced and their effectiveness reduced by having no overall fire control.
    There are no (surviving, or otherwise) regulations from the 17th century for artillery placement but we do know that in the 18th century, before the advent of a new level of artillery doctrine during the Napoleonic Wars, the normal frontage for guns was 19 yards. This frontage fits well with what we know of English Civil War infantry deployments when there are references to a pair of guns being placed between battalions.  No wheel to wheel grand batteries, then....!

  2. Guns are positional - once positioned they didn't move... They were taken to the lines, unlimbered, all of the supplies are dumped around them and the horses are taken back to somewhere safe. A12pdr gun was allocated nine horses for movement (plus any more required for the ammunition and equipment), these would be an obstacle to a second line looking to move up through the guns, and also horses in that number make a target and horses were considerably more valuable to an army than men.

  3. Gunners and artillery crew did not fight hand-to-hand - they were poorly armed, few in number, and pretty isolated (see point 1.) - they had case shot, but with the separation distance of guns and the width of an attacking unit and their ability to get off maybe only one round it was VERY unlikely to be an 'attack stopper'. They were more likely to run, often it seems in good time, and without trying to get off a last round…

  4. Ammunition was not plentiful. In May 1643 the Royalists organised an artillery train for the forthcoming campaign with 19 guns - they were allocated only 50 rounds of ball and 20 rounds of case each - if we take that a gun could fire two rounds a minute without effort (and three if rushed), then they could have fired off all of their ammunition in less than 25 minutes - for the whole campaign. This implies that the contemporary concept was for only a very small amount of artillery fire in the opening minutes of an action and even then must have been at selected targets.
Food for thought!


Types (and this was the main reason for me reading up on it):

So basically guns can be divided into three broad types:
  1. Siege guns (Cannon royal to Culverin);
  2. Field pieces (demi-culverins, sakers and minions), and
  3. Light pieces (falcons-robinets and galloper guns, and also multi-barrelled 'leather guns' the Scots were fond of). 
NB. The lighter pieces were sometimes attached on a semi-permanent basis to regiments of Foot. Galloper guns had a split trail between which a horse could be harnessed, with others in front of it. Wilmot had a couple of these with him at Roundway Down in what was largely a Royalist cavalry force so they were clearly mobile..

Calibre (inches) Weight (lb) Length of Piece (ft) Weight of Shot (lb)
Cannon Royal 8 8000 8 63
Cannon 7 7000 10 47
Demi-cannon 6 6000 12 27
Culverin 5 4000 11 15
Demi-culverin 4.5 3600 10 9
Saker 3.5 2500 9.5 5.25
Minion 3 1500 8 4
Falcon 2.75 700 6 2.25
Falconet 2 210 4 1.25
Robinet 1.25 120 3  0.75
Source: Hall

By way of a comment - a Napoleonic 12pd'er weighed 2400lb's - the equivalent English Civil War period gun is almost twice that - which puts weight (did you see what I did there..) to point 2/. above...

Ignoring the siege size guns then, we have the following of interest - I've largely ignored ranges^ as all of these would have comfortably covered a typical battlefield:
  1. Demi-culverin - bordering on siege weapon size but classed as a medium cannon - typically  firing an 9-pound round shot (though there were variants firing 8-pound or 10-pound). Much prized for it's accuracy and hitting power - 9 horses or more to pull it
  2. Saker - slightly smaller - typically fired a 5.25 pound shot with a maximum range 7,400 ft- required 6 horses to pull it. The most common type of battlefield gun.
  3. Minion - from the French word for 'cute' (bet you never knew that!) - primarily an anti personnel weapon firing predominantly case
^ Having said that Rogers has the saker and falcon with point-blank ranges of 360 and 320 yards, and 2,170 and 1,920 yards extreme ranges respectively..

All sides used what they could find, of whatever size and age.

They may have had pre-made cartridges, but more likely not. That meant powder barrel and ladle close to smoking match and one of the reasons for arming the artillery train guard with early pattern flintlocks

17th Century Falconet - Firepower Museum of the Royal Artillery
Logistically, the Train of Artillery was regarded as a sponge that soaked up money. Horse teams were large (7-9 horses), and needed a lot of feed, and the guns used a lot of powder. Gun crews were also large, although they probably only had a couple of skilled gunners to each piece. The Train needed a special guard unit, armed with flintlocks rather than matchlocks, which added to the expense. With all that though these armies did not drag guns around for the fun of it - clearly there was a morale effect even if the attack effect was limited..

Enough to get me going I think..!

Sealed Knot re-enactors...  think they are Robinets - almost a large shotgun on wheels
Sources:

14 comments:

  1. Very interesting , not a ECW player - are these ideas reflected in wargaming rules ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Svjek - I'm not sure as I am not much of a rules reader - for this project I am thinking of putting my own together based on the SYW rules I use as I like the underlying mechanism - the above will definitely be reflected in those...

      Delete
    2. Yes, interesting. I've painted/played ECW in both 15mm and 25mm and enjoyed both. If I may ask, what SYW rules are you referring to?

      Delete
    3. Bill - I'm a fan of a set of rules by Will McNally, I modified them for the Marlburian project, and I think I'll do the same for this project - more detail and a download link here => https://steve-the-wargamer.blogspot.com/p/blog-page.html#Rules

      Delete
    4. Thank you Steve! Your WSS Project section is a marvel unto itself.

      Delete
  2. Steve I agree though in gaming terms ECW artillery can be pretty thin on the ground . Wilmots 2 gallpers did nothing at Roundway and seem to have just been for signalling purposes. Infield actions guns once placed were very rarely moved- excepting just possibly the lighter regimental pieces Have been in a re-enactment gun crew the small guns can be mover fairly easily but with small crews carrying the shot / powder / tools would be no picnic. Moving the guns using limbers on the battlefield does not seem to have been practice- but willing to be proved wrong on this. Even when re-enacting the big guns we had then- a Saker and a Culverin did not move Mine was a little rabinet equivelent and could be moved by two blokes on level ish ground but still needed a hand on the wheelss sometimes. In my games only "regimental guns" can move the rest are battery guns or siege guns and once place stay put

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Andy - you have it in one I think... that meshes with how I plan to play them.. limited or no movement, limited ammunition, morale effect/result more likely than a damage result...

      Delete
    2. Yes on the whole that right- At Braddock down the discharge of two royalist drakes caused the Parliamentarians to "shake". At Hopton Heath the Royalists demi cannon "Roaring meg" "made such a lane through them that they did not like to close again- them being Sir John Gell stand of pikes but they only seem to have done this once. At first Newbury Parliamentarian Drakes- used as a catch all term for light regimental guns- gave the royalists a hard time. Yes they do cause casualties but usually the effect is morale. I might make a possibility of heaier losees with hailshot- but supplies of this would be VERY severly limited and possobly only to light guns- not sure if heavier guns even had hailso cases made

      Delete
  3. That table of definitions is excellent.

    Thank you for publishing it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ta Murdock - it was the smaller one's I wasn't sure of... can't take credit for the table, only finding it.. :o)

      Delete
  4. A great summary, and useful reminders on ecw artillery effectiveness. We recently had to test this in a Pike and Shotte game with Swedes attacking prepared imperial batteries. Seemed to work ok. At Lutzen the Imperial artillery was captured and used against the Imperial troops. Perhaps a another factor to consider?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Haig... oh those Swedes... fascinating stuff reading up on how Gustavus used his artillery..

      Delete
  5. A really interesting post which I'm sure will give many food for thought.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cheers David... I'm not one for going along with the general consensus, my hobby background is from the days when we had to go off and do research as the books simply weren't available, so I love doing this stuff.. only problem is I keep getting sidetracked!

      Delete