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.
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.
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.