artillery strength (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Age of Muskets] >> Horse and Musket: Volume I, Frederick the Great



Message

Iņaki Harrizabalagatar -> artillery strength (4/14/2005 12:26:40 PM)

From my experience in other Napoleonic wargames, artillery strength become an issue dificult to asses. There are no casualties report that I know on percentage of kills by artillery in battle. The example of the American Civil War, where those reports exist and put it at around 5% seem to indicate that in Napoleonic times it would not be very different, a low percentage. However, there is no doubt that the morale effect was much greater than this. It is not the same to see a comrade fall hit by a bullet than trounched by a cannon ball.Apart from close range cannister, I think the main effect of artillery should be morale



Tim Coakley -> RE: artillery strength (4/14/2005 5:57:31 PM)

I will look at the casualty rates for the weapons.

My understanding is that artillery did cause large numbers of casualties during the period. I would love to see some more info from the community on this.

Thanks,
Tim



Iņaki Harrizabalagatar -> RE: artillery strength (4/15/2005 4:38:40 PM)

There is as well another factor of difference between roundshot and cannister, with roundshot the ratio of kills to wounded was 3 to 1, with cannister was 1 to 3.



Tim Coakley -> RE: artillery strength (4/15/2005 6:00:22 PM)

Interesting data. I don not have the casualties broken by range, only by melee and fire combat.

Good item for the future, filing it away in my notes.



Iņaki Harrizabalagatar -> RE: artillery strength (4/15/2005 10:03:23 PM)

In the case of artillery, range is of course very important, iespecially n a game with 100mts scale. For most guns, the maximum range for cannister was 400-500 yards, while the maximum effective range for roundshot was about 1000-1200 yards. Cannister was much more effective, as you can imagine. Besides, roundshot required level ground to be really efective, as well as frim ground, remember Napoleon delayed his attack at waterloo because the ground was too wet and roundshot could not ricochet



jnier -> RE: artillery strength (4/15/2005 10:32:50 PM)

I don't know if there is any really good data on the effectiveness of artillery during the Napoleonic Wars. One study that I have seen cited examined the types of wounds among those admitted to Invalides in 1762:

69 % by musket balls
14 % by sabers
13 % by artillery
2 % by bayonets

These figures would obviously exlude those who were killed in action, and therefore probably underestimate artillery effectiveness.



Iņaki Harrizabalagatar -> RE: artillery strength (4/16/2005 11:49:47 AM)

Probably bayonet and sabre are also underestimated in wounded reports, but I think overall the picture is basically correct, musket did most of the killing, while artillery, cavalry and bayonet charge basically had a morale impact, however a decissive one. Napoleonic battles were not so much about destroying the enemy but about routing it.



Iņaki Harrizabalagatar -> artillery range (4/16/2005 11:51:29 AM)

From du Teil's work The New Use of Artillery in Field Wars
'The artillery should, whenever possible, open fire at a distance of 1050 yards or less, where its effectiveness starts. A ridge that rises only slightly above the field is preferable to those that are greater; because the line of fire of the guns is always horizontal. If the position is any more elevated the fire becomes too plunging, and in that case it buries itself into the ground on the first impact, and the effect of the ricochet is lost, both for ball and for canister, so that the enemy has much less to fear as he approaches the battery
'It is necessary to observe that one can arrive at thirteen or fourteen hundred yards from the enemy without fearing much the effects from their artillery, because it is too distant and also because one is moving. From that distance one would then be able to prolonge even close, if one finds some shelter



Tim Coakley -> RE: artillery range (4/16/2005 10:32:22 PM)

One aspect of the editor is that the user can adjust the combat values for the weapons.

Feel canister is underrated? Increase the #s for the lower ranges.

Muskets to leathal? Reduce the #s.

This can all be saved as a data set associated with each scenario.

I will have a default set with the game but I am sure play testing and player experience will help tweek the numbers over time to get some great results.

Tim



Iņaki Harrizabalagatar -> RE: artillery range (4/17/2005 10:29:03 AM)

Then maybe we could design scenarios not only for Napoleonic, but also for early XVIII century battles, or maybe even American Civil War?



Tim Coakley -> RE: artillery range (4/17/2005 8:31:42 PM)

The game is intended to be the first in a series to represent the Black Powder era. It will be some time before the engine matures enough to be a single source...Napoleonics for now.



rich -> RE: artillery strength (5/4/2005 8:40:18 PM)

It's hard to estimate artillery effectiveness and anecdotal evidence may sometimes be misleading or open to varied interpretation.

Of course cannister would be lethal at close range - assuming the gunners didn't panic and seek cover with nearby infantry, and of course the guns had sufficient time to fire and weren't still loaded with shot - but roundshot, and especially shell and shrapnel were far less predictable than say 1870 breechloading rifled Krupps percussion shells. So. for realism, the artillery of this period should (apart from at close range) sometimes be very ineffective (smoothbore guns could often completely miss a quite large target) but occasionally quite deadly (for instance roundshot getting a direct hit on a square, marching column or into the flank of a line, or a shell bursting directly over cavalry).

So artillery fire factors should attempt to reflect this unpredictability.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.5