In 1802-1803 (Year XI), two updated guns were introduced to the French army. The first of these, the French 6 pder, was actually an entirely new gun. Prior to Year 3a all of the 6 pders operating with the French army were captured pieces, both Prussian and Austrian. These guns were lighter than was normal for French artillery (Austrian pieces were on average 130 lbs per pound of shot while Prussian guns were 100 lbs per pound of shot). The Year XI 6 pder was much heavier, weighing in at 150 lbs / lb. of shot and was therefore longer, 18 calibers in length. Napoleon firmly believed that the 6 pder could entirely replace the 4 pder and 8 pder guns, which was in fact accomplished within the Grand Armee by 1812. (Note that the army in Spain retained the 4s and 8s, it was never supplied with Year XI guns). The other change made in the Year XI was the introduction of a heavier 12 pder. According to more than one source Napoleon felt that he needed to "beef up" his heavy artillery so in the updated 12 pders the weight of the barrels reached 2172 lbs (180 lbs/lb of shot) and the barrel lengthened by almost one foot. (the earlier 12 pders were 6' 6.94" at 18 calibers whereas the Year XI guns were 7' 7" at approximately 20 calibers). This change in length is somewhat substantiated by tests run in Hanover in 1785. In those test they found that while there was little difference between 18 and 21 caliber weapons at a 1 degree elevation (982 paces versus 978 paces, respectively), the 21 caliber weapon gained substantial range on the l 8 caliber weapon at a 2 degree elevation (1401 paces versus 1280 paces). Perhaps the range, advantage gained by the increased caliber in this specific instance is the reason for the change. The real question is as to how these factors affect French artillery ratings in HRN. The Year XI 6pdr gun should be longer ranged than that of the Austrian or Prussian 6pdr so I Will be giving it the same range as an 8pdr. Of course this will also mean an associated modification to the cost of any of the units listed in Appendix B which are armed with this weapon. The French "heavy" 12pdr presents an entirely different question as it coexists with Gribeuval's 12pdr. The Year XI gun was specifically designed to increase the range of France's heavy artillery and it therefore seems logical that a new range that for 'heavy' 12pdr be introduced. The other problem created by the introduction of the new gun is determining how, when, and where it will fit within the French organizations which appear in Appendix B. Britain The artillery of England presents an entirely different problem than that of France. In the English army there were four different guns, namely, the 'light' 6pdr, the 'heavy' 6pdr, the 9pdr, and the 'light' 12pdr. The "light" is particularly important as it seems that until 1808 the British artillery arm was almost exclusively armed with this piece. At 636 ft (106lbs/lb of shot), this gun weighs about the same as the French 4pdr. It had a caliber of 16 1/3 and a windage of .198. These facts lead one to believe that this was neither an accurate nor a long ranged gun. Another 6pdr is sometimes listed in the sources and is referred to as the 6pdr "FA", or "foot artillery" gun. Much more impressive than its smasher brother, this gun weighed 1,372 lbs and had a reported length of 84" or around 21 calibers, but still suffered from a problem of windage. This gun seems of little importance, however, as there are no reports of it being on service with the British army on the continent. The next gun to be considered is the famous 9pdr. The British seem very proud of this gun, which weighed 1,512 lbs (168ft / lb of shot) and had a theoretical windage of .20. Twenty percent heavier than the French 8pdr, though of 16 caliber, this gun when reintroduced in 1808 went a long way to balancing what had been a decisive French range advantage. In fact, the Duke of Wellington ordered that all of his foot artillery be rearmed with this weapon (whether it was done or not is an entirely different issue) and had four batteries of 9pdr horse at Waterloo. Although not much is made of it the English also had a 12pdr gun which had accompanied the army to Spain. Of little tactical value, it was quickly withdrawn from service. it had a windage of .223, a weight of 1,200 lbs (100lbs/lb of shot), and was 13 calibers in length. I think we all can agree that in general it looks like it was a pretty lousy artillery piece. Of interest to some, however, is a reference in Von Pivka which states that the light 12pdr was employed in the horse batteries. In HRN I will be making one major change to the British artillery lists by reducing the range of the listed 6pdr to the range of a 4pdr. Russia Determining the quality of the artillery pieces of this particular nation is by far the most difficult. This is, of course, because there is little accurate information on the guns themselves, much less the way the batteries were organized. For example, one source (Von Pivka) lists the weight of the 6pdr at 880 lbs at 18 calibers. These figures, however, do not correspond to those listed in Osprey's Artillery and Equipments of the Napoleonic Wars wherein it lists the 6p&s length at 63.75", 1" shorter than that of the French 6pdr, so it is very doubtful that the Russian gun was 18 calibers long. Further, no information on the windage factor found in the Russian guns is listed. A conclusion can be drawn, however, that this gun was at least as effective as the corresponding guns in the other continental armies. The problem of determining the facts gets even worse when one tries to uncover any information on the 12pdrs., as apparently there were three different guns actively employed in the Russian army; light, medium, and heavy, and yet all of my sources list figure for only one gun. Whether they are describing the same gun is impossible to determine. Von Pivka lists a 12pdr weighing 2,080lbs at 18 calibers, while Osprey lists a gun with a length of 77.5", on par with the 16 caliber gun of Austria. Are they talking about the same gun (doubtful) or is Von Pivka describing the 'heavy" 12pder while Osprey is describing the "medium" gun (most likely). With this kind of information available it is extremely difficult to determine the relative quality of Russian guns, but in HRN two range changes will be made. Both the light position and the horse batteries will have there ranges reduced to 6pdr range. I do this because both of these batteries were armed with the same 6pdrs and the light (10pdr) licorne (the horse batteries simply had two more horses attached to the limber). The range of the heavy position batteries is being increased to 12pdr range. Prussia Prussia's artillery arm definitely deserves a more tough review. At the time of Jena-Auerstadt (1806) the Prussian army's guns were significantly different than those that took to the field in 1812. In the earlier period Prussian guns were maintanied at 14 calibers and a tube to shot weight ratio of 100to 1, giving them a weight of 600 lbs for the 6pdr and l,200 lbs for the 12pdr. This made these guns extremely light for their size and must have acted severely upon the accuracy of the weapons. Further, who knows what the windage of these pieces were. As with Russia, information on the early army is not easy to find. Many sources report that the guns fielded by Prussia in 1812 were even heavier than those of France. According to Von Pivka the "new" 6pdr weighed 935lbs (156: 1) and had an 18 caliber length. He also shows another 6pdr, this one weighing 1,617lbs (269: 1) with a caliber of 22. Osprey pretty much agrees with these figures. The "new" 12pdr weighed in at 1847lbs (154: 1) at 18 calibers, very similar to Gribeuval's earlier 12pdrs, confirming the statement that the Prussian 12pdrs were heavier than Napoleon's (of the same caliber). In the organization sources that I have I find that only Osprey states that after 1806 the light 6pdr was used in the horse batteries and the heavy was employed in the foot batteries. No other source substantiates this claim. Perhaps this is a fact that has been overlooked by most writers or it is a *guess" made in the Osprey book. Hopefully one of these years I will uncover the truth about this. Nonetheless, certain conclusions can be drawn and applied to HRN. To begin with all Prussian 12pds prior to 1812, or at least those attached to those units listed prior to 18 12, should fire at 8pdr range. On the other end of the scale is the 18 12 6pdr horse battery whose range should be raised to 6pdr range. In the era from 1812 on the Prussian 12pdr should fire at 12pdr range. At other ranges in both periods remain the same. Austria Last, but certainly not least is the artillery of Austria. Three gun sized, the 3pdr, 6pdr, and the 12pdr were employed, and it was these guns upon which Gribmuval set the French standard. I cannot find any source which indicates that any changes were made to the Austrian guns during this entire period so I can only assume that they remained as they had before, that being around 130ft per pound of shot and measuring 16 calibers in length. According to Von Pivka the 3prs weighed in at 480lbs, (160: 1) Osprey says 530lbs. The 6pdr at 824lbs, (137: 1) Osprey indicates 912. The 12pdr at 1,618lbs, (134: 1) Osprey list it at 1790lbs. Of course I have no windage figures on any of these guns. At present I have no problem with the ranges presently assigned to the 3pdr and 6pdr guns but I do have some with that given to the Austrian 12pdr (listed at 8pdr range). More than one author has asserted that the Austrian guns suffered from windage problems, but after this review I feel that windage should affect accuracy more than range. Further, there is no hard evidence that the Austrian 12pdr had any more or less windage than those of Prussian or Russia, although it could be argued that the guns of the latter two countries were developed significantly after those of Austria. Nonetheless, the listed weight of the gun indicates that it was a pretty heavy piece, relatively speaking, and could probably throw a projectile a long enough distance to qualify for 12pdr range instead of the 8pdr range given. I initially started this article to do a simple comparison of the weapons used by the various nationalities of the period covered and instead found myself immersed in tube-to-projectile ratios, calibers, and how this information should be applied in HRN--boring to some, the materials within this article were actually quite fascinating to uncover, particularly that portion dealing with the development of the French 6pdr. It ultimately explained to me why the English hunted for poor artillery ground and why Napoleon reverted in the early years to the 6pdr and why a Year XI gun was produced. I hope it answered some of the questions that you might have asked yourself in reviewing the materials available to you. Back to Table of Contents The Messenger August 1994 Back to The Messenger List of Issues Back to MagWeb Magazine List © Copyright 1994 by HMGS/PSW. 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