User avatar
Orel
Brigadier General
Posts: 442
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 8:28 pm
Location: Port-Arthur

76mm Horse Artillery vs. Field Artillery

Sun May 20, 2012 1:48 am

To prevent cluttering as you have said, I'll start a new thread.


Old Fenrir wrote:[HR][/HR]


If to speak specifically about the march, the case is not only in 300kg difference of limbered horse and foot cannons. Difference mainly is in the double number of the horses per cannon in horse battery, totally mounted battery personel and better horses.


Towards totally mounted crew I agree, but I am not so sure towards double the number of horses per cannon, since we could hardly fully apply the Kaiser artillery information on the RIA artillery. And not so sure about better horses, though it could be.

Old Fenrir wrote:As regards to complaints of an insufficient mobility, as far as I know, - speech was just about tactical mobility of guns on the battlefield (advance on gallop in front of deploying for attack cavalry). There was no complains about mobility of battery on march - artillery have not slowed down cavalry on the march.


Fully agree.


Old Fenrir wrote:I'm not sure, that foot artillery in normal situation was faster (at least - much faster) than infantry. Eventually, infantry - it is men in full marching order, foot artillery - it is men, who marching light, guns, caissons and carts. Here may be on the good roads advantage in favor of artillery, but hardly big. On the other hand, normal marching speed of infantry ~30km/day, and on forced march ~1,5 times more. And the Wewern himself writes, that his battery was doing 45-50km/day on forced march.


One of the reasons is Wewern's words, which apply to the mountainous Carpathian region, where he notices that his artillery would persistently almost collide with the infantry marching in front. Among other information, on page 149 he writes(translated) "With jealousy looked [the infantry] on our artillerymen sitting on horses or going with a lighter weight(идущих налегке ;) ."

And in the next sentence, he explains why they were walking, they had trouble with the muddy road they were going on, and the cannons required persistent physical force to be applied. I would suspect that under normal circumstances the crew would not be walking. Even if they were, their speed would still exceed the one of the infantry on the march, due to the greater mass of the objects an infantryman must carry. Though considering we are discussing the civil war, the last point may be disputed.


Old Fenrir wrote:It is gun crew itself, which operates on combat position. All battery personnel was something like 25-30 men per cannon.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]18160[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]18161[/ATTACH]

As I say before, I have no staffing information about exactly Russian artillery of WWI. But, there is classical composition of crew of horse-towed guns with non-automatic breech block. Sorry, I don't know how to translate russian names of artillery crew "numbers". :)
1. Фейерверкер (commander of gun, sergeant).
2. Наводчик (directing gun on object).
3. Замковый (opening and closing breech block).
4. Заряжающий (loading shell).
5-9. Установщики (men, who setting up detonators on shells) and ящичные (men, who delivers shells from limber or caisson).
By the way, I was mistaken in previous post: two men, who delivers shells from limber or caisson, performed "hosedrivers" functions, when gun is limbered.
Russian 122-mm howitzer: [ATTACH=CONFIG]18164[/ATTACH]
English 18-lb: [ATTACH=CONFIG]18163[/ATTACH]
Austrian 80-mm: [ATTACH=CONFIG]18162[/ATTACH]

May be, it is worth in order not to clutter this topic, make special topic for discussion about WWI and RCW warfare? :)



I found the information on 76mm field batteries.

276 men(6 officers, 270 soldiers), 219 horses, 8 cannons, 16 caissons, 2-3 telephone carrying carts(I suspect there would be a few more carts fro the supply train but this is only my suspicion, based upon the fact that howitzer batteries had them and Wewern mentions that he had a battery supply train). This is a battery for 1914.
In 1916, the battery consisted of 223 people(5 officers, 218 soldiers), 175 horses, 6 cannons, 12 caissons, 2-3 telephone carrying carts.

Interesting things to notice: the difference in horses is quite strange if only artillery would be using them. Because the battery frees itself of 2 cannons and 4 caissons vs. 44 horses. One goes to the officer that also left, thus we are left with 43 horses. If we suppose that cannons use 6 horses(why I will show in the next paragraph) and caissons use the same number of horses, we get that if we abolish two cannons and 4 limbers we save 36 horses. Even in this case, where we use measures of horse artillery and suppose that limbers use the same number of horses, where did the other 7 go? I suspect in the supply train of the battery which also was reduced. I would also suppose, that some of the men could be traveling in the supply train of the battery, which explains why on a road an artillery battery would be faster than infantry.

A horse artillery battery's composition is unknown, but it initially had 6 cannons, then there were plans to form 4 cannon batteries but there were only a few of these, thus the most widespread composition consisted of 6 cannons, like in the infantry. Plus I have some old footage of horse artillery, it is very hard to count but I think per cannon there are 6 horses, and on 3 of these there is a rider as well. If horse artillery uses this, then infantry would probably do the same and possibly have more men per horse than in the mobile horse artillery. Additionally, the horse artillery may lack telephone carts.


Towards the speed of artillery from Wewern's book of 45-50km: if I am correct he wrote this about the time when he was in the Carpathian highlands. There, the weight of artillery gives a greater problem, the infantry's speed is lower than usual there as well and the weather conditions were very unfriendly for artillery at the time about which he wrote(Autumn).

I could hardly say how many horses were there per cannon when comparing field and horse artillery cannons. I should recall that Kappel on the Volga front had 2 cannons which would act as horse artillery(outflank the enemy or "ride in the battlefield" with opening fire from small distances). I think they were common field artillery,they were taken from the artillery warehouse in Samara and it was never mentioned they had special limbers, although the battery they were put in was named a horse artillery battery(probably because their commander Vyrypaev was a horse artilleryman) which shows that there really isn't much of a difference. The same cannons, later on became part of the foot artillery of the Simbirsk unit, which shows that even if there was a great difference in the Great War, it would be very small in a civil war.

The photo of the 122mm howitzer by the way I think is of a 1909 model. There was also a 1910 model.
For united Russia!

User avatar
Old Fenrir
Sergeant
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2011 3:59 am
Location: Moscow

Mon May 21, 2012 4:15 pm

Orel wrote: Towards totally mounted crew I agree, but I am not so sure towards double the number of horses per cannon, since we could hardly fully apply the Kaiser artillery information on the RIA artillery. And not so sure about better horses, though it could be.

Not double number of horses in cannon and caissons harnesses, of course. Agree, most of that horses where mounts for horse battery crew. Although, usually in the harness of horse cannon there was one more pair of horses then in harness of foot one. I don't know exactly is this true for the times of WWI in RIA. But on one of your photo there is harness of 8 horses.
About comparision of contemporary German and Russian army battery organization - there is, of couse, may be differences in details, but in general, principles of organization was about the same.
As regards difference in quality of horses - definitely it was. Horse batteries sought to complete with strong and fast horses. Harness of horse artillery was clearly distinguished from foot one by shape and agility of horses. And in time of peace, in horse batteries was kept complete set of horses for the guns, caissons, and for supply train of the first category. So that, horse battery may start march in 6 hours after mobilization. At the same time, foot batteries received the bulk of their horses by mobilization, mostly the mediocre and poor quality, so it was necessary some time to fatten and train them.

Orel wrote: And in the next sentence, he explains why they were walking, they had trouble with the muddy road they were going on, and the cannons required persistent physical force to be applied. I would suspect that under normal circumstances the crew would not be walking. Even if they were, their speed would still exceed the one of the infantry on the march, due to the greater mass of the objects an infantryman must carry. Though considering we are discussing the civil war, the last point may be disputed.

I tend to agree with you, that on more or less passable roads artillery, even foot, is more mobile than infantry, marching in full marching order. But not agree that all battery crew under normal circumstances riding horses and carts. Simple look at number of men and horses in the foot battery of RIA and GCA above. It is quite obvious that most of people in battery were walking. Actually, Wewern constantly wrote, that people were walking.

Orel wrote: Interesting things to notice: the difference in horses is quite strange if only artillery would be using them. Because the battery frees itself of 2 cannons and 4 caissons vs. 44 horses. One goes to the officer that also left, thus we are left with 43 horses. If we suppose that cannons use 6 horses(why I will show in the next paragraph) and caissons use the same number of horses, we get that if we abolish two cannons and 4 limbers we save 36 horses. Even in this case, where we use measures of horse artillery and suppose that limbers use the same number of horses, where did the other 7 go? I suspect in the supply train of the battery which also was reduced. I would also suppose, that some of the men could be traveling in the supply train of the battery, which explains why on a road an artillery battery would be faster than infantry.

Yes, of course, in the battery was the supply train and with reorganization it was redused. But I doubt very much, that much of battery personnel, exept coachmans, travelling in it. In supply train mainly travelled supply and baggage. :)

Orel wrote: Towards the speed of artillery from Wewern's book of 45-50km: if I am correct he wrote this about the time when he was in the Carpathian highlands. There, the weight of artillery gives a greater problem, the infantry's speed is lower than usual there as well and the weather conditions were very unfriendly for artillery at the time about which he wrote(Autumn).

Rather, it was spring 1915. As regards those 45-50km/day - they made them in Carpathians, but moving on the "highway" of pretty good quality, not on the country road.

Orel wrote: I could hardly say how many horses were there per cannon when comparing field and horse artillery cannons. I should recall that Kappel on the Volga front had 2 cannons which would act as horse artillery(outflank the enemy or "ride in the battlefield" with opening fire from small distances). I think they were common field artillery,they were taken from the artillery warehouse in Samara and it was never mentioned they had special limbers, although the battery they were put in was named a horse artillery battery(probably because their commander Vyrypaev was a horse artilleryman) which shows that there really isn't much of a difference. The same cannons, later on became part of the foot artillery of the Simbirsk unit, which shows that even if there was a great difference in the Great War, it would be very small in a civil war.

Yes, light "foot" cannon on the battlefield may move ahead on position relatively fast. As for support the own infantry from close range with direct fire (some times even canister) - it was widespread tactic of Whites artillery, both foot and horse. Artillery and infantry of Reds usually firing poorly, which allowed artillery of Whites to act in this way and even to survive.
I think, a sizeable difference between real horse and foot artillery produced by better horses and fully mounted crew, even if the guns are same, and this took place in Civil War too.

User avatar
Orel
Brigadier General
Posts: 442
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 8:28 pm
Location: Port-Arthur

Mon May 21, 2012 5:47 pm

Old Fenrir wrote:Not double number of horses in cannon and caissons harnesses, of course. Agree, most of that horses where mounts for horse battery crew. Although, usually in the harness of horse cannon there was one more pair of horses then in harness of foot one. I don't know exactly is this true for the times of WWI in RIA. But on one of your photo there is harness of 8 horses.
About comparision of contemporary German and Russian army battery organization - there is, of couse, may be differences in details, but in general, principles of organization was about the same.


Which one of my photos?
I looked over, couldn't find a harness with 8 horses for a 76mm field cannon.
Hardly, the Germans had an artillery that was totally different even by their concept, as well as many other features. As far as I know, if the Russians focused on the power of their artillery, the Germans focused more on reducing the weight and mobility. I would tend to believe the footage I have, where the horse artillery seems to have 6 horses per cannon(3 of which are occupied by riders).

Old Fenrir wrote:As regards difference in quality of horses - definitely it was. Horse batteries sought to complete with strong and fast horses. Harness of horse artillery was clearly distinguished from foot one by shape and agility of horses. And in time of peace, in horse batteries was kept complete set of horses for the guns, caissons, and for supply train of the first category. So that, horse battery may start march in 6 hours after mobilization. At the same time, foot batteries received the bulk of their horses by mobilization, mostly the mediocre and poor quality, so it was necessary some time to fatten and train them.


If I agree with you, this will quickly become a reason that supports my thesis. I will explain why: yes, if we suppose that horse artillery gets better horses then at the first glance it would appear as if that increases the speed of horse artillery. In reality, it is the opposite: when we say better, we cannot mean that the horses are better in all characteristics. What we could say is that the horse artillery had the option of choosing the best horses suitable for their necessities: by this I mean, that if we look back in history and take a look at the horses of a cuirassier and hussar: we would find they are totally different. A cuirassier's horse is good in keeping formation and making a cavalry charge,while the hussars' horse lacks these qualities but instead has greater stamina. Likewise, in the situation of horse artillery: horse artillery would focus on horses capable of making a swift entrance on the battlefield, and not necessarily on the speed when marching.

Old Fenrir wrote:I tend to agree with you, that on more or less passable roads artillery, even foot, is more mobile than infantry, marching in full marching order. But not agree that all battery crew under normal circumstances riding horses and carts. Simple look at number of men and horses in the foot battery of RIA and GCA above. It is quite obvious that most of people in battery were walking. Actually, Wewern constantly wrote, that people were walking.


Yes, of course, in the battery was the supply train and with reorganization it was redused. But I doubt very much, that much of battery personnel, exept coachmans, travelling in it. In supply train mainly travelled supply and baggage. :)


True, yet I would think it is possible for some of the battery crew(not necessarily the crew of the cannons) to travel in the supply train, or maybe some of the least necessary crew members of the cannon, ones which aren't necessarily immediately needed for the successful operation of the cannon itself. For example Rasnitzov in Wewern's book, he as far as I recall moved in the supply train.

Additionally, there was a bit of organization involved as well. If I recall correctly from one of the books on the Eastern Prussia operation, it was customary for infantry to go on the edge of the road, while freeing the middle for the carts, automobiles and artillery. In this case it becomes slightly inconvenient to keep the soldiers on their feet,when they could be successfully transported in the carts. Otherwise, the column stretches, the artillery or carts may even "ride on" the walking artillerymen, and finally the infantry gets tired.

Old Fenrir wrote:Rather, it was spring 1915. As regards those 45-50km/day - they made them in Carpathians, but moving on the "highway" of pretty good quality, not on the country road.


When we think of highway, we tend to think of a paved road, whereas at the time it meant the same country road which had been simply used a bit more often.

Plus, I hate to do this, yet we have forgotten the effect of my proposal in the sense of how it will work in the game. If the field artillery's speed coefficient is set to 130, then no harm is done since this artillery usually travels under the protection of infantry in the game.
For united Russia!

User avatar
Old Fenrir
Sergeant
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2011 3:59 am
Location: Moscow

Sun Jun 17, 2012 4:42 pm

Orel wrote:Which one of my photos?
I looked over, couldn't find a harness with 8 horses for a 76mm field cannon.

The second one:
The attachment gws_russhorseartstream_01.jpg is no longer available

There clearly visible harness in 4 pairs of horses (запряжка в 4 уноса ;) . On the http://www.firstworldwar.com this photo exists with subscription "Russian horse artillery crossing a stream on the Polish front".

Orel wrote: Hardly, the Germans had an artillery that was totally different even by their concept, as well as many other features. As far as I know, if the Russians focused on the power of their artillery, the Germans focused more on reducing the weight and mobility. I would tend to believe the footage I have, where the horse artillery seems to have 6 horses per cannon(3 of which are occupied by riders).

Hardly. Some differences (quite small) could be in the characteristics of the equipment. Some differences (not too big too) in the details of the organization of major military units (division, corps level) in accordance with a difference of opinion on strategy. But at the level of basic units 'battery, battalion, squadron', views on the organization and use of the troops were very similar in pre-WWI European armies.

Orel wrote: If I agree with you, this will quickly become a reason that supports my thesis. I will explain why: yes, if we suppose that horse artillery gets better horses then at the first glance it would appear as if that increases the speed of horse artillery. In reality, it is the opposite: when we say better, we cannot mean that the horses are better in all characteristics. What we could say is that the horse artillery had the option of choosing the best horses suitable for their necessities: by this I mean, that if we look back in history and take a look at the horses of a cuirassier and hussar: we would find they are totally different. A cuirassier's horse is good in keeping formation and making a cavalry charge,while the hussars' horse lacks these qualities but instead has greater stamina. Likewise, in the situation of horse artillery: horse artillery would focus on horses capable of making a swift entrance on the battlefield, and not necessarily on the speed when marching.

I can't agree that the analogy with the horses of light and heavy cavalry is appropriate here. Horses in the horse artillery - it is not racing horses. They exactly must combine with speed such qualities as strength and endurance (eg, heavy variant of Orlov trotter horses). And, as already stated, the horses in the horse artillery was originally just a higher quality than in foot artillery. In combination with a smaller load on each horse, this gives a significantly better mobility on the march too.

Orel wrote: True, yet I would think it is possible for some of the battery crew(not necessarily the crew of the cannons) to travel in the supply train, or maybe some of the least necessary crew members of the cannon, ones which aren't necessarily immediately needed for the successful operation of the cannon itself. For example Rasnitzov in Wewern's book, he as far as I recall moved in the supply train.

Additionally, there was a bit of organization involved as well. If I recall correctly from one of the books on the Eastern Prussia operation, it was customary for infantry to go on the edge of the road, while freeing the middle for the carts, automobiles and artillery. In this case it becomes slightly inconvenient to keep the soldiers on their feet,when they could be successfully transported in the carts. Otherwise, the column stretches, the artillery or carts may even "ride on" the walking artillerymen, and finally the infantry gets tired.

Some - maybe. But many (apparently most) were walking. And Vevern writes that during long marches in traffic jams coachmans sleeps in the saddles or on they seats, while the rest - simply on the ground near the wagons and guns, where they left off. Again, he always says that people were going. Most likely, in the wagon train just was not enough space to accommodate all personel.

Orel wrote: When we think of highway, we tend to think of a paved road, whereas at the time it meant the same country road which had been simply used a bit more often.

Yes, it was not a highway with an asphalt coating. But not a country road, too. It was a a dirt road with a solid ground, which was under repair on a regular basis and maintained in good condition.

Orel wrote: Plus, I hate to do this, yet we have forgotten the effect of my proposal in the sense of how it will work in the game. If the field artillery's speed coefficient is set to 130, then no harm is done since this artillery usually travels under the protection of infantry in the game.

Agreed with this.
Attachments
gws_russhorseartstream_01.jpg

User avatar
Orel
Brigadier General
Posts: 442
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 8:28 pm
Location: Port-Arthur

Mon Jun 25, 2012 12:55 am

Old Fenrir wrote:The second one: [ATTACH=CONFIG]18556[/ATTACH]
There clearly visible harness in 4 pairs of horses (запряжка в 4 уноса ;) . On the http://www.firstworldwar.com this photo exists with subscription "Russian horse artillery crossing a stream on the Polish front".


Looks to me more like a howitzer, most likely the 1909 model.
I doubt it is a 76mm model 1902 cannon, it is totally different in appearance to this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/76_mm_m1902_sotamuseo_helsinki_3.jpg

Old Fenrir wrote:Hardly. Some differences (quite small) could be in the characteristics of the equipment. Some differences (not too big too) in the details of the organization of major military units (division, corps level) in accordance with a difference of opinion on strategy. But at the level of basic units 'battery, battalion, squadron', views on the organization and use of the troops were very similar in pre-WWI European armies.


Very arguable. There were major differences at all levels between the armies of European countries. At the battery level: Russian Artillery started the war with 8 cannons in each battery, while the Germans often had only 4. Also concerning the technical aspect, sometimes even German heavy artillery would lack telephones which forced it to position itself on open positions. And those are only the technical differences, conceptually there were even more differences. Thus I have to disagree.

Old Fenrir wrote:I can't agree that the analogy with the horses of light and heavy cavalry is appropriate here. Horses in the horse artillery - it is not racing horses. They exactly must combine with speed such qualities as strength and endurance (eg, heavy variant of Orlov trotter horses). And, as already stated, the horses in the horse artillery was originally just a higher quality than in foot artillery. In combination with a smaller load on each horse, this gives a significantly better mobility on the march too.


As I mentioned above, higher quality doesn't necessarily mean "better in all aspects". Horse artillery may be capable of making a short sprint better than the field artillery adversaries, but does it have an advantage on the march?

Old Fenrir wrote:Some - maybe. But many (apparently most) were walking. And Vevern writes that during long marches in traffic jams coachmans sleeps in the saddles or on they seats, while the rest - simply on the ground near the wagons and guns, where they left off. Again, he always says that people were going. Most likely, in the wagon train just was not enough space to accommodate all personel.


In traffic, that is one, two there was also the necessity to push the cannons while they were moving, as well make it easier for the horses pulling the wagons due to the weather conditions during which the movemnt took place.

Old Fenrir wrote:Yes, it was not a highway with an asphalt coating. But not a country road, too. It was a a dirt road with a solid ground, which was under repair on a regular basis and maintained in good condition.


Exactly. Which would turn into quite a mess once autumn or spring arrives.
For united Russia!

User avatar
le Anders
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 266
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2011 9:46 pm

Mon Jun 25, 2012 6:04 pm

I would just like to note that anecdotal historical testimony is still anecdotal and not a true general representation of historical fact, however much we could wish it to be - for one, it would make historians' work easier.

User avatar
Old Fenrir
Sergeant
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2011 3:59 am
Location: Moscow

Sun Jul 08, 2012 2:47 pm

le Anders wrote:I would just like to note that anecdotal historical testimony is still anecdotal and not a true general representation of historical fact, however much we could wish it to be - for one, it would make historians' work easier.

I think it would be reasonable to distinguish between cases, where the source retells rumors and anecdotes and cases, where the source contains eyewitness testimony, and eyewitness, moreover, is an experts in this field.
In the first case, skepticism is more than justified. In the second case, the source deserves serious consideration and, in the case of critics, - a serious critical analysis.

Orel wrote: Looks to me more like a howitzer, most likely the 1909 model.
I doubt it is a 76mm model 1902 cannon, it is totally different in appearance to this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/76_mm_m1902_sotamuseo_helsinki_3.jpg


Yes, what is depicted in the photo is not very similar to the 76-mm field gun. Unfortunately, the gun barrel is covered and it is difficult to say with certainty. Maybe, this is Russian 122mm howitzer. Maybe, this is captured Austro-Hungarian or German 105mm howitzer with a chopped off crew seats in the front of the gun shield.

But it does not matter. Firstly, it is quite clearly visible that on the photo artillery limbers has no seats for the crew 'numbers'. That is, we see here exactly horse artillery. It should be noted, that the weight of a 105-mm Austrian/German howitzer and 76-mm Russian field cannon is almost the same.
Secondly, 105mm and 122mm howitzers in foot artillery were transported with harness of 3 pairs of horses. Here we see 4 pairs.
Thirdly, if we speak exactly of the Civil War, I came across mention of the harness of 4 pairs of horses in horse artillery in the description of the Mamontov Corps raid in 1919.


Orel wrote: Very arguable. There were major differences at all levels between the armies of European countries. At the battery level: Russian Artillery started the war with 8 cannons in each battery, while the Germans often had only 4. Also concerning the technical aspect, sometimes even German heavy artillery would lack telephones which forced it to position itself on open positions. And those are only the technical differences, conceptually there were even more differences. Thus I have to disagree.

We can argue long, what is can be considered as large or small differences. :)
Incidentally, the German field battery at the beginning of World War I had not 4, but 6 guns.
As regards to the movement of the personnel of the battery on the march, the differences exists, of course, but not fundamental. For example, the German and Austrian 'foot' guns had two seats for the crew on the front surface of the gun shield. The Russian guns - not.
However, much of the personnel of foot batteries of Russians, Germans and others were walking on the march. On photos of the WWI it is quite clearly visible. Even during the moving on the good roads.

Orel wrote: As I mentioned above, higher quality doesn't necessarily mean "better in all aspects". Horse artillery may be capable of making a short sprint better than the field artillery adversaries, but does it have an advantage on the march?


I think, that definitely they had advantage. It is necessary to take into account that for horses of horse and foot artillery both, ability to endure the marches and ability to do the "sprint" is necessary. Moreover, the first ability is more important.
Treat the horses of Horse Artillery as the "sprinters" and Foot Artillery horses as "stayers" - it's oddly enough.

The appropriate analogy here - it is not comparision between sprinters and stayers, but rather the analogy with two groups of men, who make both marches over long and sprints over short distances in full gear.
Where the first group consists of specially selected men, well trained both in forced marches and in the sprint and bearing the smaller load of gear. And the second group - of the people, who taken "from the street" and trained somehow, and bearing the greater load of gear. It is clear, that on the march and sprinting results of the first group would be much better.

Orel wrote: Exactly. Which would turn into quite a mess once autumn or spring arrives.


Just in this case of the forced march (45-50 km/day), the text means that the road was of more or less decent quality. In addition, the battery at this time was not climbing on the mountains, but mainly coming down from them on the Hungarian Plain.

p.s. By the way, when comparing the mobility of infantry and artillery, we should bear in mind, that the Vevern division was reserve division (второочередная дивизия ;) . That is, the infantry consisted mainly of reservists, who are not accustomed to the march work.

User avatar
Orel
Brigadier General
Posts: 442
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 8:28 pm
Location: Port-Arthur

Tue Jul 10, 2012 3:00 pm

Old Fenrir wrote:I think it would be reasonable to distinguish between cases, where the source retells rumors and anecdotes and cases, where the source contains eyewitness testimony, and eyewitness, moreover, is an experts in this field.
In the first case, skepticism is more than justified. In the second case, the source deserves serious consideration and, in the case of critics, - a serious critical analysis.



Yes, what is depicted in the photo is not very similar to the 76-mm field gun. Unfortunately, the gun barrel is covered and it is difficult to say with certainty. Maybe, this is Russian 122mm howitzer. Maybe, this is captured Austro-Hungarian or German 105mm howitzer with a chopped off crew seats in the front of the gun shield.

But it does not matter. Firstly, it is quite clearly visible that on the photo artillery limbers has no seats for the crew 'numbers'. That is, we see here exactly horse artillery. It should be noted, that the weight of a 105-mm Austrian/German howitzer and 76-mm Russian field cannon is almost the same.
Secondly, 105mm and 122mm howitzers in foot artillery were transported with harness of 3 pairs of horses. Here we see 4 pairs.
Thirdly, if we speak exactly of the Civil War, I came across mention of the harness of 4 pairs of horses in horse artillery in the description of the Mamontov Corps raid in 1919.


Where does the information that 122mm howitzers use 3 pairs of horses come from?

The photo is most probably of 122mm howitzers of 1909. Here is a photo I have of the same howitzer:

The attachment 290.jpg is no longer available


Notice how the barrel seems pulled in through the opening of the shield. Thus I might as well conclude, saying that the photo is of a 122mm field howitzer model 1909.


Old Fenrir wrote:We can argue long, what is can be considered as large or small differences. :)
Incidentally, the German field battery at the beginning of World War I had not 4, but 6 guns.
As regards to the movement of the personnel of the battery on the march, the differences exists, of course, but not fundamental. For example, the German and Austrian 'foot' guns had two seats for the crew on the front surface of the gun shield. The Russian guns - not.
However, much of the personnel of foot batteries of Russians, Germans and others were walking on the march. On photos of the WWI it is quite clearly visible. Even during the moving on the good roads.


Would you mind giving examples of such photos depicting the Russian Imperial Army?

Old Fenrir wrote:I think, that definitely they had advantage. It is necessary to take into account that for horses of horse and foot artillery both, ability to endure the marches and ability to do the "sprint" is necessary. Moreover, the first ability is more important.
Treat the horses of Horse Artillery as the "sprinters" and Foot Artillery horses as "stayers" - it's oddly enough.

The appropriate analogy here - it is not comparision between sprinters and stayers, but rather the analogy with two groups of men, who make both marches over long and sprints over short distances in full gear.
Where the first group consists of specially selected men, well trained both in forced marches and in the sprint and bearing the smaller load of gear. And the second group - of the people, who taken "from the street" and trained somehow, and bearing the greater load of gear. It is clear, that on the march and sprinting results of the first group would be much better.


Field artillery: isn't horse artillery. Especially Russian field artillery. Russian field artillery was a master at firing from closed positions and very seldom would ride out in the field. Sprinting for Russian field artillery wasn't such a priority. Thus, for field artillery the horses would be chosen according to their capability to undergo long journeys.

Horse artillery: a different story. It would pay far more attention to being capable of sprinting in front of the advancing enemy and opening fire from a close range. That is why it is called "horse artillery". Here the horses must be able of making a short sprint that brings the cannons on the battlefield.

Plus:

There is a contradiction between your words and your stance: if field artillery rides out on the field of battle in a short sprint of the horses: then you have to admit that the crew members keep the same speed, which means they cannot be travelling by foot, since unless they wouldn't, the artillery that would ride out would outrun the crew, since running infantry cannot keep the speed of a running horse, which leaves the cannons unmanned on the positions. In such a situation it is a bit tough to inflict harm to the enemy.

Otherwise, if you say the infantry marches by foot then we must dismiss the idea of field artillery quickly deploying on its position which means that it is a, as you called it, "stayer" while the horse artillery is a "sprinter".

Old Fenrir wrote: Just in this case of the forced march (45-50 km/day), the text means that the road was of more or less decent quality. In addition, the battery at this time was not climbing on the mountains, but mainly coming down from them on the Hungarian Plain.

p.s. By the way, when comparing the mobility of infantry and artillery, we should bear in mind, that the Vevern division was reserve division (второочередная дивизия ;) . That is, the infantry consisted mainly of reservists, who are not accustomed to the march work.


Mountaneous regions add problems to marching troops. Descending: means simply getting away from the main line of mountains: it doesn't mean that once the main line of mountains is passed there are no hills or mountains to be met on the journey that one must climb.

We should also bear in mind, that these reservists had plenty of practice in marching over long distances.
Attachments
290.jpg
For united Russia!

User avatar
Old Fenrir
Sergeant
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2011 3:59 am
Location: Moscow

Thu Jul 12, 2012 1:01 pm

Orel wrote: Where does the information that 122mm howitzers use 3 pairs of horses come from?

1. From the book "Энциклопедия отечественной артиллерии" Широкорад А. Б. 2000
76mm cannon and 122mm howitzer are of same weight and were towed by harness of 6 horses. 107mm cannon and 152mm howitzer was of same weight too and were towed by harness of 8 horses.
2. From the all contemporary photos with 122mm howitzers that I have seen. One of them I posted here already:
gws_russhorseartstream_01.jpg


Orel wrote: The photo is most probably of 122mm howitzers of 1909. Here is a photo I have of the same howitzer:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]19063[/ATTACH]

Notice how the barrel seems pulled in through the opening of the shield. Thus I might as well conclude, saying that the photo is of a 122mm field howitzer model 1909.

Definitely this is not 122mm, but 152mm M1910 howitzer. This is clearly seen from the characteristic curved and wide shield without "cutouts" for the wheels:
gws_russhorseartstream_01.jpg

Gun on primary photo has flat and more narrow shield with cutouts for the wheels. That is, it is not 152mm howitzer. Maybe, it is Russian 122mm M1909 or M1910 howitzer, or captured 105mm howitzer, Austrian or German.
By the way, on the one of your photos is shown, apparently, the gun of the same system:
gws_russhorseartstream_01.jpg
And harness in 4 pairs of horses too. :)

Summing up. On the photos
gws_russhorseartstream_01.jpg
and
gws_russhorseartstream_01.jpg
we can see, apparently, a light howitzer with harness in four pairs of horses and limber, typical for the horse artillery. In other words, it is a gun of the horse artillery.
Rather, it is not Russian 122mm howitzer (Model 1909 or 1910). Namely, it is a Austro-Hungarian or German captured 105mm howitzer, that was used in the "informal" basis. Since the barrel of guns on the photos, like the German-Austrian howitzers, situated noticeably lower than that of Russian 122mm howitzers. And since the first howitzer division in the Russian Horse Artillery (in the Guard) was officially formed only in the spring of 1917 and was armed with British 114mm howitzers.

Orel wrote: Would you mind giving examples of such photos depicting the Russian Imperial Army?

gws_russhorseartstream_01.jpg

Orel wrote: Field artillery: isn't horse artillery. Especially Russian field artillery. Russian field artillery was a master at firing from closed positions and very seldom would ride out in the field. Sprinting for Russian field artillery wasn't such a priority. Thus, for field artillery the horses would be chosen according to their capability to undergo long journeys.

Horse artillery: a different story. It would pay far more attention to being capable of sprinting in front of the advancing enemy and opening fire from a close range. That is why it is called "horse artillery". Here the horses must be able of making a short sprint that brings the cannons on the battlefield.

Yes. But we should not overlooked that the horse artillery must accompany cavalry during the marches, not just on the battlefield. :) And for the cavalry, the value of a normal and forced march is about 1.5 times greater than such for the infantry.

Orel wrote: Plus:

There is a contradiction between your words and your stance: if field artillery rides out on the field of battle in a short sprint of the horses: then you have to admit that the crew members keep the same speed, which means they cannot be travelling by foot, since unless they wouldn't, the artillery that would ride out would outrun the crew, since running infantry cannot keep the speed of a running horse, which leaves the cannons unmanned on the positions. In such a situation it is a bit tough to inflict harm to the enemy.

Otherwise, if you say the infantry marches by foot then we must dismiss the idea of field artillery quickly deploying on its position which means that it is a, as you called it, "stayer" while the horse artillery is a "sprinter".

I do not think that here is a contradiction.
Firstly, in order to open fire on the new position, gun does not need the entire crew of nine people. Basically, gun itself, just unlimbered, with four man (two coachmans and two people on the limber sets), can shoot, but not too fast and not long time (without caissons). Turning again to our beloved Wewern, we can recall an episode when, during one of battles in 1915, one of the Russian field batteries rushed out in front of infantry to chase by fire the retreating after an unsuccessful attack Germans.
Secondly, such a "sprint" for guns of foot artillery, for the above reasons, can not be as rapid as for the guns of horse artillery. Likely, there would be not gallop as in the horse artillery, but a trot. So, the unmounted crew members may to keep up, or at least not much lag behind and can fast enough catch up with they gun.

Orel wrote: Mountaneous regions add problems to marching troops. Descending: means simply getting away from the main line of mountains: it doesn't mean that once the main line of mountains is passed there are no hills or mountains to be met on the journey that one must climb.

In this case, it means that the road was mostly going down, and on the march they had to go down much more frequently than to go up.

Orel wrote: We should also bear in mind, that these reservists had plenty of practice in marching over long distances.

Rather, here we can say that these reservists had some practice in march in 1914, and then sat for a long time in the trenches at the siege of Przemysl.
Attachments
gw_warsawartillery_01.jpg
44zq9.jpg
152_03.jpg
rus122.JPG

User avatar
Orel
Brigadier General
Posts: 442
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 8:28 pm
Location: Port-Arthur

Wed Jul 25, 2012 5:22 pm

Old Fenrir wrote:1. From the book "Энциклопедия отечественной артиллерии" Широкорад А. Б. 2000
76mm cannon and 122mm howitzer are of same weight and were towed by harness of 6 horses. 107mm cannon and 152mm howitzer was of same weight too and were towed by harness of 8 horses.

I have heard of Shirokorad as a specialist, but his words make me question this.
Mass:
76mm cannon: 1092kg
122mm howitzer m1909:1330(1337)kg
122mm howitzer m1910: 1340kg
152mm field howitzer: 2160kg
107mm cannon: 2490kg
To me the masses look unique for every artillery piece(except the 122mm howitzers).
I found a photo depicting a 76mm field cannon on the march(
324.jpg
). Notice: 3 members of the crew are riding the horses towing the cannon plus the cannon commander is riding a personal horse.

But at the same time, I came across information that in 1914 76mm cannons had 8 horses towing and sometimes even 10.
I would suppose that usually 6 horses were enough while the remaining two were given to the crew to increase the marching speed. Whereas when troublesome circumstances would come 8 horses would tow the cannon. That would be when the infantry would go on its’ feet.
Also in Vevern, I found that there were 7 crew members(according to photos 3 directly operated the cannon, one was a NCO(фейерверкер ;) , two I would suppose to be horse drivers, the last one I don’t know who could be.
324.jpg
).

Old Fenrir wrote:2. From the all contemporary photos with 122mm howitzers that I have seen. One of them I posted here already: [ATTACH=CONFIG]19084[/ATTACH]
Definitely this is not 122mm, but 152mm M1910 howitzer. This is clearly seen from the characteristic curved and wide shield without "cutouts" for the wheels: [ATTACH=CONFIG]19085[/ATTACH]
Gun on primary photo has flat and more narrow shield with cutouts for the wheels. That is, it is not 152mm howitzer. Maybe, it is Russian 122mm M1909 or M1910 howitzer, or captured 105mm howitzer, Austrian or German.

Yes, my bad. Seems you are correct, I didn’t notice the bottom of the shield.
Old Fenrir wrote:By the way, on the one of your photos is shown, apparently, the gun of the same system: [ATTACH=CONFIG]19086[/ATTACH] And harness in 4 pairs of horses too. :)

Summing up. On the photos [ATTACH=CONFIG]19087[/ATTACH] and [ATTACH=CONFIG]19086[/ATTACH] we can see, apparently, a light howitzer with harness in four pairs of horses and limber, typical for the horse artillery. In other words, it is a gun of the horse artillery.
Rather, it is not Russian 122mm howitzer (Model 1909 or 1910). Namely, it is a Austro-Hungarian or German captured 105mm howitzer, that was used in the "informal" basis. Since the barrel of guns on the photos, like the German-Austrian howitzers, situated noticeably lower than that of Russian 122mm howitzers. And since the first howitzer division in the Russian Horse Artillery (in the Guard) was officially formed only in the spring of 1917 and was armed with British 114mm howitzers.

What troubles me is the height of the first photo. It may be an illusion, but to me it looks like it is lower than the cannon on the second one. Plus, I may be wrong, but the shield on the bottom is different than the one on the second photo.
The shield is straight and not curved thus it cannot be a German or Austrian howitzer. Now it looks to me most like the model 1910 howitzer. It can’t be the 1909 model because of the straight shield. It can’t be a 152mm m1910 because of the cutouts in the shield and the size. Thus most likely it is a 1910 howitzer. Notice on which side the aiming hole is as well as its’ shape and location in relation to the top of the shield, and the double cylinder that supports the barrel when in action.
A horse artillery composed of howitzers is something that never existed in the Russian army of WWI. It can only be composed of field artillery.

Old Fenrir wrote: [ATTACH=CONFIG]19088[/ATTACH]

Where is there artillery here? To me the fellow walking looks more like a machine gunner.

Old Fenrir wrote:Yes. But we should not overlooked that the horse artillery must accompany cavalry during the marches, not just on the battlefield. :) And for the cavalry, the value of a normal and forced march is about 1.5 times greater than such for the infantry.


I do not think that here is a contradiction.

I doubt cavalry sprints on the march. And if it doesn’t sprint, artillery should be capable of keeping at a relatively similar pace. Returning to the first posts of our discussion, we can remember the part of Vevern speaking of how his artillery would outrun the infantry. Thus common horses should probably be fast enough.
Old Fenrir wrote:Firstly, in order to open fire on the new position, gun does not need the entire crew of nine people. Basically, gun itself, just unlimbered, with four man (two coachmans and two people on the limber sets), can shoot, but not too fast and not long time (without caissons). Turning again to our beloved Wewern, we can recall an episode when, during one of battles in 1915, one of the Russian field batteries rushed out in front of infantry to chase by fire the retreating after an unsuccessful attack Germans.
Secondly, such a "sprint" for guns of foot artillery, for the above reasons, can not be as rapid as for the guns of horse artillery. Likely, there would be not gallop as in the horse artillery, but a trot. So, the unmounted crew members may to keep up, or at least not much lag behind and can fast enough catch up with they gun.

They can’t shoot if they don’t have artillery shells, for one. For two: the crew is needed in full, if we want to shoot with any positive result. Usually three people would operate the cannon itself, according to photos. Then we need people to carry the artillery shells. We also need a person to indicate the target. It is not as if there are “extra people” in the crew.
If it is a rapid deployment on the battlefield, then I doubt we should expect the deploying artillery waiting for the enemy shells to come flying upon the deploying artillery.

Plus, we should not underestimate such a thing as fatigue of the crew.

Old Fenrir wrote:In this case, it means that the road was mostly going down, and on the march they had to go down much more frequently than to go up.

Not exactly. If one passes through the roughest part of the hilly region, the following journey is still not as easy as one might think. Yes the terrain becomes not as rough as you progress, but it is still a hilly region with all the following results.

Old Fenrir wrote:Rather, here we can say that these reservists had some practice in march in 1914, and then sat for a long time in the trenches at the siege of Przemysl.

When one says reservists: this doesn’t mean people that were recently recruited but ones that were called from the reserve. Additionally, in Czarist Russia usually soldiers were trained prior to going to battle, except for the situation in the middle of 1915.
Attachments
322.jpg
For united Russia!

User avatar
le Anders
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 266
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2011 9:46 pm

Fri Jul 27, 2012 12:47 am

Orel wrote:I doubt cavalry sprints on the march. And if it doesn’t sprint, artillery should be capable of keeping at a relatively similar pace.

Cavalry "marches" at a trot, unless the terrain or weather conditions prevents it. Normal horse-drawn artillery would not have been able to keep up. Horse artillery might just keep up, although it's speed was utilized on the battlefield, not necessarily at the march.

Return to “Help to improve RUS”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests