David Morier, the British artillery train at the camp of Roermond (Flanders) in 1748. Lt. – Gen. Albert Borgard, 1st Col. – Commandant of the Royal Artillery, in Holland – centre.
The successes of Gustavus Adolphus ‘s field artillery in the
seventeenth century exerted a profound effect throughout Europe. The British
army responded by differentiating between its large caliber siege and coastal
“heavy equipments” and its “light equipments” for field
use. The light equipments were of bronze or brass and incorporated guns as
heavy as 12-pounders and howitzers up to 24-pounders. As early field carriages
were heavy, ponderous affairs, English field artillery of the period was
typically deployed in more or less static positions as “Artillery of the
Park,” to provide covering fire for infantry and cavalry units.
During the latter seventeenth and throughout the eighteenth centuries,
the British army began detaching two light field pieces per infantry battalion
and cavalry regiment. The remaining, typically heavier, artillery stayed
centralized in the Artillery of the Park. Although that arrangement
occasionally provided a tactical edge on the battlefield, the army ultimately
found it organizationally impractical. As a result, at the beginning of the
nineteenth century, Britain abandoned the earlier system in favor of an
autonomous Artillery of the Park arrangement.
English as well as most other European smoothbore cannons
were made of both iron and bronze, and in England they were classified into
four major types: guns, mortars, howitzers, and carronades. The small swivel
gun also saw extensive use during the period as well. The trunnions of early
English field pieces were typically mounted somewhat below the barrel’s
centerline.
Britain’s progress from the jumble of various earlier
artillery types to a rational organization mirrored that of other European
powers. The various calibers, established during the Elizabethan period,
included 6-, 9-, 12-, 18-, 24-, 32-, and 42-pounders-sizes that remained in
British service through the eighteenth and into the early nineteenth centuries.
The country began the century fielding a cannon design known as the “Rose
and Crown” after the raised decorative motif cast into the upper face of
its second reinforce. Later cannons were decorated with the raised royal cipher
of the individual monarch, the name of the founder, and the date of
manufacture. In use from 1650 through the end of Queen Anne’s reign in 1714,
most if not all Rose and Crown pieces were of iron and exhibited a long,
graceful profile with the trunnions situated below the tube’s centerline and a
rather plain, unadorned cascabel.
Despite his country’s attempts at standardization, when
General John Armstrong investigated Britain’s ordnance inventories in the 1730s
he found six sizes of 24-pounders then in service, ranging from 8 to 10.5 feet
in length. After a series of tests, Armstrong attempted to correct the
situation with what has come to be known as the Armstrong System, consisting of
the optimal lengths of brass (bronze) and iron guns. Still, the situation was
little better in 1764; Board of Ordnance records indicated, for example, three
lengths of bronze 6-pounders and seven of iron. The board’s official listings
of recognized cannons of that year illustrate a dizzying array of artillery
pieces then in British service.
However well intentioned, Armstrong’s reforms proved
short-lived as other theorists stepped into the debate. Chief among them was
John Müller, the master gunner of Woolwich. Author of Treatise of Artillery
(1768) and Elements of the Science of War (1811), Müller exerted considerable
influence over European and U. S. artillery development and theory during the
latter half of the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Müller’s main
concern was to increase the efficiency of British cannons by eliminating all
unnecessary weight without sacrificing their effectiveness or compromising
their crews’ safety.
He subsequently reduced barrel lengths and the amount of
metal used in their construction. Whereas the shortening of the cannon barrels
was a rather straightforward proposal, the limiting of actual gunmetal used in
the tube presented a number of more complex issues. To ensure safety, earlier
guns had often been overengineered, being cast in the form of a series of
“reinforces” that stepped the outside diameter of the barrel downward
from breech to muzzle. Müller favored a smoother exterior profile yet did
somewhat reluctantly agree to allow the addition of more or less decorative
bands around the tubes, at least to suggest added strength. He also reduced the
windage in British guns, making them more efficient in harnessing the explosive
power of the charge and thus reducing the actual powder needed.
By midcentury British guns were relatively consistent in
style, with a cleaner exterior profile; they were distinguished by a raised
band around the center of the cascabel. As the century progressed minor changes
occurred, including a flattening of the surface of the breech face, straight
rather than tapered trunnions, and the addition of rimbases to the trunnions.
On bronze guns, a connecting ring at the breech for the elevating screw was
added. Although iron was much less expensive and the most common metal for
artillery, Müller also advocated the use of the more flexible and hence less
brittle bronze for seacoast and shipboard use. To this argument he also added
bronze’s advantage in that it does not rust-a considerable problem for iron
guns used near saltwater or sea air.
THE BRITISH LIGHT EQUIPMENTS
As the century progressed, the British leadership gradually
grew to appreciate the advantage of mobile artillery in the field. During the
1701-1713 War of the Spanish Succession, John Churchill, First Duke of
Marlborough (1650-1722), proved a pioneer in the tactical use of field
artillery against the forces of Louis XIV. At the 13 August 1704 Battle of
Blenheim, Marlborough, after four unsuccessful attacks, detached a number of
pieces from the Artillery of the Park and ordered them forward with his
infantry. Their added firepower at the pivotal moment of the battle proved a
decisive factor in breaking the French lines. At the 11 September 1709 Battle
of Malplaquet, Marlborough again proved himself when he moved his forty-gun
Grand Battery forward with his infantry. Their fire devastated the French
cavalry waiting in reserve and contributed to the French withdrawal from the
field. A half-century later, at the 1759 Battle of Minden during the Seven
Years’ War, the Royal Artillery placed a 12-pounder battery in position to
enfilade the French positions and then moved it forward with the infantry to
provide fire support. Experience during the Napoleonic Wars prompted the Royal
Artillery to refine its field artillery equipment and tactics still further.
As the gun drill was virtually identical for all British
field pieces of the period, artillery companies were assigned the appropriate
ordnance to suit the needs of individual campaigns. The standard field pieces
included the light 3-pounder gun, the 6-pounder, 9 – pounder, and 12-pounder
guns, and the 4.4-inch and 5.5-inch howitzers. Of those weapons, the 9-pounder gun
seems to have fallen in and out of favor before making a comeback in 1808
during the Peninsular Campaigns. Introduced in 1719, the excellent brass
9-pounder proved itself on numerous battlefields and saw extensive service
during the Seven Years ‘ War. It was, however, not included in the official
lists of ordnance in 1753 and seems to have been dropped in favor of the 6- and
12-pounder guns and the howitzers.
The situation reversed itself when, in preparing for the
Peninsular Campaigns, British artillery commanders deemed the 12-pounder gun
too cumbersome to negotiate Spain’s rough terrain and primitive roads. As a
result, the 6-pounder was the heaviest British field gun at the beginning of
the campaign. Unfortunately, however, having sacrificed firepower for mobility,
British crews soon found themselves outgunned by the French, who fielded both
8- and 12-pounders. Significantly more powerful than the 6-pounder and lighter
than the 12-pounders, the 9-pounder thus presented a logical compromise and was
soon reintroduced into the British artillery train. To compensate for the
9-pounders’ weight, their horse teams were increased from the normal six horses
to eight. The 9-pounders went on to render such outstanding service that
Lieutenant General Arthur Wellesley, the Duke of Wellington (1769-1852),
ordered that the majority of his horse artillery and later his field batteries
be issued large numbers of the guns. Prior to the duke’s decision, the British
Royal Horse Artillery went through a number of ordnance types in search of the
ideal combination of mobility and firepower. As originally organized in 1793,
each troop fielded two light 12-pounder guns, two 6-pounder guns, and two light
5.5-inch howitzers. Having proved too heavy, the 12- pounder was dropped by the
end of the decade, and from about 1800 troops were issued five 6-pounder guns
and one light 5.5-inch howitzer. Wellington’s reform then altered the mix to
five 9-pounder guns and one 5.5-inch howitzer.
