I don't have to introduce you to Mike Gilbert since most of you already know him as a wargamer, professional artist and writer. For the ones that do not know him you will find an add from him at the last page of this issue.
Mike in issue #18 propose us a change in howitzer rules to take in consideration the material of my article on howitzer fire published in NJN # 16. I think Mike's ideas are very good and can provide a very good working base for a very realistic firing rule for howitzers. However, it is my feeling that some small changes are necessary for the following reasons:
- (1) Not all howitzers were capable of firing above 12
degrees.
(2) Direct fire also included the firing of explosive shells or howitz, beside canister and grape.
(3) Casualties caused by the howitz at short range before the explosion of the shell were not negligable and should be assessed.
(4) They were more than two classes of howitzers, and since we are making a change why not also include the mortars.
(1) ANGLE OF FIRE
That was one of the main point of my last article on howitzers. Both British howitzers, the light and the heavy 5.5 in. were only capable of firing between 0 and 12 degrees maximum. The base plate could be removed in both Gribeauval howitzers i.e.. the well known 6.54 in. and the lesser known version of some 8.54 in. Ref. NJN # 16, page traceable to de Tousard. I am not sure about the year IX French howitzer copy of the Austrian 5.5 in. howitzer.
As a matter of fact, I don't have any data on Austrian, Prussian, Spanish howitzers on that matter. BRITISH SMOOTH-BORE ARTILLERY page 125 says: "It may be of interest to note that nearly all the countries other than Britain had howitzers firing at 30 degrees elevation, whereas the maximum elevation for British howitzers was 12 degrees." That is quite a surprise for many of you, but I don't think that was affecting the capabilities of the British howitzers. On the contrary, British howitzers were quite efficient especially with the Schrapnell shell.
In issue #16, I already asked for help to find out about the different angles of fire but so far at no avail. It is a point of the utmost importance for the sake of realistic rules.
(2) DIRECT FIRE
In my article in NJN # 16, I quoted de Tousard, THE ARTILLERY COMPANION : the howitz could be fired at low angle. The effect was the one of a ball at close range with as a bonas the effect of the explosion of the shell. We can appreciate such an effect as wargamers. We all know of instances were it is better and more desire-able to fire a solid shot at some specific targets. It becomes more attractive if on top of that we get the eventual bonus of the explosion of a shell hopefully on a second target. That also bring the pertinent question of penetration suggested by Mike in his proposed rule. So far it has not been the practice in our club to take penetration in consideration.
We are all aware that has been the practice in many rules to incorporate a certain penetration for balls usually increasing with the caliber. I am not sure that is fully realistic unless the remaining velocity of the shell is taken in consideration.
(3) RICOCHET
It is also important to note that for a 8.79 in. Gribeauval howitzer had a range of 1386 yards for an angle of fire of 6 degrees, the first bounce took place at 834 yards. At 10 degrees the range was 1450 yards and the first bounce at only 1200 yards.
The length of the ricochet was therefore at 6 degrees 552 yards and at 10 degrees only 250 yards. At 30 degrees NO bouncing or ricochet of the howitz took place. The table I have tused for the above was reproduced in NJN # 16, page 5. In my opinion, according to the above data, the "bouncing table" proposed by Mike for high angle fire is much too long, but acceptable for low angle fire. Please note again that de Tonsard says that above 30 degrees NO ricochet took place and consequently the shell, if not a dud, i5loded at the point of impact.
(4) CLASSES OF HOWITZERS
So far we have never made any difference between howitzers. If we decide to do so to add realism to the game let us do it right. Objectively, one can classify howitzers in 3 main categories:
- Light howitzers 5.5 in type
Medium 6.5 in type
Heavy 8.0 in type
Following is an incomplete table of the main howitzers of a few Nations, classified per categories:
| NATION | CALIBRE | SHELL WEIGHT | CLASSIFICATION |
|---|---|---|---|
| ENGLAND | 5.5 in. | 16 lbs | LIGHT |
| FRANCE | 5.5 in. | 16 lbs. | LIGHT |
| 6.5 in. | 24 lbs | MEDIUM | |
| 8.5 in. | 43 lbs | HEAVY | |
| AUSTRIA | 5.5 in. | 16 lbs | LIGHT : a1so called 7-pounder |
| ? | ? | ?: Also called 18-lbs | |
| PRUSSIA | 5.8 in. | 16 lbs | LIGHT also called 7-pounder |
| 6.54 in. | 24 lbs | MEDIUM: also called 10-lbs |
NOTE. Any help would be appreciated to complete the above list.
The range was almost a function of the length of the tubes, the angle of fire and the charge of powder used. As a general rule the heavier the howitzer the longer the range with the notable exception of the French 6.54 in Gribeauval howitzer which at low angle of fire had the same range that the light howitzers of other Nations. The effect of the length of the tube can be fully appreciated by looking at the table range for the British 5.5 in howitzers of the short and long type for the same powder charge. Furthermore a longer tube meant better accuracy. Such a table can be founded in BRITISH SMOOTH-BORE ARTILLERY page 84.
I would like also to bring a point about the British howitzers. Some rules provide a larger burst pattern for the British howitzer because they were using the famous spherical shell or Shrapnel shell. Such a shell is considered as more efficient which is absolutely correct In some cases but the spherical case was only part of the allotment of ammunition of a howitzer. The common shell was used at short range and the spherical case at longer range. We should investigate the question in a next article.
That is a subject of the greatest importance if one wants to be fully objective. I am not the only one of that opinion. General B.P. Hughes in "BRITISH SMOOTH-BORE ARTILLERY page 27 says the following:
- ... the remaining velocity at the target was also of
great importance as it defined the "hitting power" of a
solid projectile. In modern times, when projectiles are
ballistically efficient, the gun can use most of its
theoritical maximum tangent elevation of 45 degrees to
achieve long range. But in the smooth-bore period the
spherical projectiles then in use had a poor ballistic
performance, and they suffered also from unsteadiness in
flight as a result of the windage .... The remaining velocity
fell off rapidly as the range increased, and the
projectiles of lighter guns ceased to have much hitting
power at ranges of more than about 1300 yards."
The above is quite clear and confirmed by the following table also from BRITISH SMOOTH-BORE Artillery page 27:
| Remaining Velocity of Guns at Various Ranges | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equipment | Muzzle Velocity |
Remaining vefocity (fps) at ranges shown (yards): | ||||
| 500 | 1000 | 1500 | 2000 | 2500 | ||
| 18pdr | 1600fps | 1072 | 737 | 523 | 385 | 284 |
| 24pdr | 1600fps | 1112 | 788 | 574 | 4431 | 336 |
Please note that the above table is pertinent to large siege artillery type guns, i.e. 18 and 24-pounders which were very seldom fielded.
Also the following from GUNS page 90;
- "Ammunition fired from field guns could penetrate several
ranks of soldiers, smash through a roof or fell a tree.
Nevertheless it is very difficult to accurately assess their
power of penetration. All that is known is that during siege
warfare, shots fired from a distance of 300 yards penetrated to
a depth of between 1-4 yards, depending on the nature of the
soil."
Obviously, it is not an easy subject. However if some of you are interested, they pan calculate the theoretical hitting power of a ball or any projectile by using the formula 1/2MVsquared, in which M is in pounds (weight of projectile), V the velocity of the projectile in foot per second. Therefore the result are in foot-pound per second.
Let us take the example of the 18-pounder gun given in example in the above table.
| Muzzle | 500 yards | 1000 yards | 1500 yards | 2000 yards | 2500 yards |
| 23,040,000 | 10,342,656 | 4,888,521 | 2,461,761 | 1,334,025 | 725,904 |
The above numbers may appears to be enormous but they are quite significant in trying to prove my point. At 1500 yards, the kinetic energy of an 18 pound ball is only one tenth of the one at the muzzle of the gun. It is consequently unrealistic to assume a constant rank penetration for a given caliber. That of course opens some interesting applications--especially if one considers light guns firing against a wall or a building etc. We should investigate that in our next issue.
Back to Empire, Eagles, & Lions Table of Contents Vol. 1 No. 18
Back to EEL List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 1977 by Emperor's Headquarters
This article appears in MagWeb.com (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com