Slitherine

MikeHorah wrote:Dawson, Dawson and Summerfield on Manhandling Guns - pages 222-24. (An excellent book if a bit dear at £29.95 but I have seen it it remainder shops recently for much less. )

You can find it for less than a tenner online:

http://www.naval-military-press.com/nap ... llery.html

A very good site which all wargamers need to keep looking at for some fantastic bargains.

I appreciate the historical and design intent background info from the authors. I won't prolong the discussion further.

adonald wrote:

I will try to think, but off the top of my head i don't recall a situation where a battery coming up to deploy was mangled by enemy fire. I can think of some in the mid to late 19th century. But ranges were greater.

Famously happened to the French in an attack. A horse battery destroyed by the enemy's artillery. Can't remember the place and time but will look it up

Alastair Donald

Found it:

Wattignies 15 October 1793. French horse battery destroyed by Austrian artillery 1,100m away.

Alastair Donald

After playing a couple of the Quick Start games I would push for Infantry with Artillery attachments movement to be the same as Prolong move distance.
If this was a Games Workshop rule set then fine at the same move distance as other Infantry but as this rule set is meant to have some historical basis then a shorter move would be more correct.
Another option, if the artillery attachment fires then the unit can not move.

We're talking around 6 guns compared to 1800 men or more! What are you modelling with the unit? Infantry or artillery? It's infantry.

Maybe the gun sections are moving by bounds with some unlimbered and firing and some limbered and moving, maybe they are being prolonged in the footprint of the unit. Read some accounts of the battles in 1813 with the Prussians especially about how a battery would support an infantry regiment. You will find the rules simulate this quite well.

I suspect you'd like a cavalry unit with an artillery attachment to be moving 2MU as well.

We provide less dice for an attached artillery piece as a proporion of the guns they represent - compared to a unit of artillery. This is partly because with they guns were spread across the unit, not all of them were likely to have a target. It also allows us to consider that at any time some of the guns will be limbered ready to advance (or retire). We don't expect artillery attachments to be permanently unlimbered and advancing by prolong. It wouldn't take long to limber a light gun, move it 400 yards and unlimber it again - and would still leave enough time for a couple of shots at least.

I have actually 'prolonged' a 4 ton 155mm Gun-howitzer 500m with a detachment of 16 Gunners (double detachment) over heavy ground.
Napoleonic Gunners 'attached' to infantry units would certainly make use of nearby Infantry to assist in prolonging or 'Manhandling' the guns.
The rules do not make the Guns overly manoeuvrable IMHO. I think these rules model Artillery very well.
Cheers
Scott (Gunner of 30 years experience)

Trailape wrote:I have actually 'prolonged' a 4 ton 155mm Gun-howitzer 500m with a detachment of 16 Gunners (double detachment) over heavy ground.
Napoleonic Gunners 'attached' to infantry units would certainly make use of nearby Infantry to assist in prolonging or 'Manhandling' the guns.
The rules do not make the Guns overly manoeuvrable IMHO. I think these rules model Artillery very well.
Cheers
Scott (Gunner of 30 years experience)

High praise findeed from a professional gunner and I am so pleased to hear that. It was one of the elements we thought particularly hard about from the very beginning- artillery generally not just prolongs.

We're thoroughly enjoying the rule. We, (Crabbie and I) are gaining more and more appreciation for the mechanisms the more we play. Well done.