Q17.1

Peter Hofschrber is trying to locate the following manuscript sources for the Campaign of 1815 in the Low Countries, and would be grateful for any assistance:

Diary of Dr. Jenks, Surgeon of 10th Royal Hussars

Manuscript notes by William, 20th Baron de Ros, on conversations with the Duke of Wellington, 1836-40.

Papers of De Lacy Evans

Papers of Delancey Anybody knowing of the whereabouts of any of the above is requested to contact Peter via the Editor.

Q17.2

The Austrian Grenadier Battalions carried the Leibfahne of their constituent divisions in rotation. Since Austrian infantry regiments only had one Leibfahne, does this mean that (after 1808) the parent regiment's 1st Battalion would be carrying an Ordinarfahne?. Does anybody know which 1st Battalions were carrying Ordindrfahne at Aspern and Wagram?

--Alan Bunting

Q17.3

Artillery canister is often likened to a shotgun blast, and its danger zone to a three-dimensional cone. To my mind, this means that close to the artillery piece's muzzle, the individual projectiles have not yet had time to spread. Whilst there may be close to 100% hit rate on an attacking formation, it is likely to be only on a small group of men.

There must therefore be an optimum distance where there is:

(a) still a significant number of individual projectiles at a height and velocity capable of causing a damaging wound, and

(b) a sufficient spread of the individual projectiles such that each member within the lethal zone will be hit by no more than one projectile.

The statistics quoted in Maj.-Gen. B. P. Hughes' Firepower, and in the Scharnhorst Trials, seem to bear this out, since they do not quote hit rates for any distances under 300 yards. Logically, any graph of canister hit probability should be bell-shaped, since at 0 yards range, the canister has not yet had a chance to spread. Casualties thus inflicted will only be in single figures, whereas at 300 yards some dozens of hits are expected, dropping off to 600 yards when the round is spent. Most wargame rules seem to assume that maximum casualties are inflicted at 0 yards, and that they decrease with range. Am I out of step in thinking that their logic is flawed? On the other hand, have these rule-smiths assumed that at close range, artillery will either use double shot or increase their firing rate, and ignore the effect on both gun and crew?

--Bob Smith