|
There are two complex issues here.
1. The theoretical justification of FP differences for various nations.
Establishing the constant values of some variables like charge-size, accuracy, rate of fire, and supply ability mentioned above is not easy to say at least. For example, rate of fire and supply availability (and in occasionally quality of ammo) were never the same and in one’s turn dependant on other variables –e.g. tactical situation, personal preferences, weather, speed of manoeuvring and changing positions, timing, condition of the ground, the age of the barrels (the section of the barrel) etc. Trying to generalise all these variables is not realistic.
I am attaching a few tables from Nafziger to facilitate the discussion. At a number of points, these tables contradict the information found in other sources which complicates the issue even further. Also, as noted in the book, Nafziger research was based on a number of assumptions due to lack of information and especially the lack of reliable scientific tests. Also, occasionally the data available was from 1820s and even as late as 1860s.
In 1904, Colonel Nylus, the inspector of Artillery Academy and the author of a few textbooks on artillery undertook a gigantic research with a goal of establishing the effectiveness of similar guns across various nations from Napoelonic era. He examined the following sources:
1. Gassendi: „Aide memoire a l'usage des officiers d'Artillerie“. 1801
2. Lamartilliere: 1) „Reflexions sur la fabrication en general des bouches a feu — 1847“ и 2) „Recherches sur les meilleurs effets a obtenir dans 1'artillerie“. 1819
3. Cotty: „Encyclopedie methodique“. 1822
4. Tables des principales dimensions et poids des bouches a feu des artilleries principales de l'Europe. 1827.
5. Marion: „Notice sur les obusiers“,
6. Duchand: „Observations critiques sur l'organisation nouvelle de l'artillerie“. 1835
7. Le Bourg: „Essai sur l'organisation de l'artillerie“. 1836
8. „Cours special a l'usage de sous-officiers de l'artillerie“. 1840
9. Migout et Bergery: „Theorie des affuts et des voitures d'artillerie“. 1840.
10. Thiroux: „Instruction d'artillerie“. 1842.
11. Poisson. Memoire sur la probabilite du tir a la cible“,
12. Poisson. Formules relatives aux effets du tir d'un canon sur les differentes parties de son affuts“ 1825 и 1838
13. Piobert „Proprietes et effets de la poudre“. 1839
14. Piobert Cours d'artillerie — theorie et applications“, 1841
15. Piobert Traite d'artillerie theorique et pratique 1846
16. Piobert Memoires sur les poudres de guerre des differents procedes de fabrication“. 1844.
17. Piobert Recherches sur le mouvement des projectiles dans les armes a feu“. 1864
18. Didion: 1) „Memoire sur la balistique“. 1846;
19. Didion „Traite de balistique“ 1848;
20. Didion „Des lois de la resistence de l'air“. 1856 и 1857
21. Helie: 1) „Memoires sur la probabilite du tir des projectiles de l'artillerie“. 1856
22. Helie: Traite de balistique experimentale“. 1865
23. Fave: „Nouveau systeme d'artillerie de campagne de Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte“. 1850
24. Timmerhans: „Essai d'un traite elementaire d'artillerie“.. 1839
25. Timmerhans: Experience faites a Liege sur les carabines a double rayure et celles a canons lisses“. 1840
26. Timmerhans: Historique de l'artillerie Belge“. 1836.
27. Coquilhat: „Percussions initiales sur les affuts“. 1863
28. Coquilhat: „„Notes sur les projectiles creux“. 1854
29. St. Roberto Des effets de la rotation de la terre“. 1858.
30. St. Roberto Du mouvement des projectiles dans les milieux resistants
31. St. Roberto Sur l'analyse du charbon“. 1860
32. St. Roberto Etudes sur la trajectoire que decrivent les projectiles oblongs“ 1866
33. St. Roberto Notes sur le volume de l'embrasure“ 1859.
34. St. Roberto Consideration sur le tir des armes a feu rayees“. 1860;
35. St. Roberto Memoires scientifiques“ (Balistique et Artillerie). 1872–73
36. St. Roberto „Des projectiles lenticulaires
37. „Leitfaden zum Unterricht in der Artillerie“. 1818 и 1829.
38. К. и J. Smola. „Handbuch fur k. k. Oestereichische Artillerie-Officiere“. 1831 и 1838 г
39. Otto „Mathematische Theorie des Ricoscheten schuss
40. Kameke: „Erlauterung zu der Sammlung von Steindruckzeichnungen der materiellen Gegenstende der Preussischen Artillerie“ 1837 и 1847
41. Jacobi: „Beschreibung des Materials und der Ausrustungs des Niederlandische (1836), Franzosische (1837)[263], Wurtembergische (1837), Englische (1837), Hessische (1838), Nassauische (1839), Schwedische (1840), Bayerische (1841) und Oesterreichische (1843) Feld-Artillerien
42. Burg: „Zeichnen und Aufnehmen des Artillerie Materials“. 1845
43. Hutz: „Die Feldartillerie und ihre Organisation“. 1853 и „Die Organisation und die Leistungen der Feldartillerie“ —
44. A. Schuberg: „Handbuch der Artillerie Wissenschaft“. 1856
45. Oelze: „Lehrbuch der Artillerie“. 1856.
46. Handbuch fur die Officiere der kon. Preuss. Artillerie. 1860.
47. Hand- und — Taschenbuch fur Officiere der Preussischen Feldartillerie.“ 1865
48. „Leitfaden zum Unterricht in der Artillerie.“ 1866
49. Decker: „Geschichte des Geschutz-wesens und der Artillerie in Europa“, 1822
50. „Die Artillerie fur alle Waffen“, 1826
51. „Les batailles et les principaux combats de la guerre de Sept ans consideres principalement sous le rapport de l'emploi de l'artillerie“. 1837
52. E. Tennent. „The story of the gun“. 1864
53. Griffiths: „The artillerists manuel and british soldier's compendium“,1847, 1859 и 1873
54. 1. „Краткое обозрение состояния артиллерии с 1798 по 1848 гг.“. 1853
55. 2. „Краткое историческое описание древних российских пушек“. 1808
56. 3. „Разные положения о иностранных артиллериях
57. 4. А. Маркевич. Артиллерийского искусства
58. Гогель: „Основания артиллерийской и понтонной науки“. 1816
59. Резвый: „Артиллерийские записки“. В 1843, 1847 и 1853
60. Вессель: „Артиллерия“. 1851–57. С
61. Безак: „Руководство для артиллерийской службы“. 1853.
62. Крыжановский. Очерк устройства и хозяйства французской артиллерии. 1858
63. Шварц и Крыжановский: „Справочная книжка для артиллерийских офицеров“, 1862 (III часть — 1870).
64. Баранцев „Краткий обзор преобразованиям в артиллерии с 1856–1865“.
65. Анкудович. „Теория баллистики“. 1836
66. Маиевский. „О давлении пороховых газов на стены орудия и приложение результатов опытов к определению толщины стен орудий“. 1856.
67. Douglas: „A treatise on naval gunnery“, 1820
68. Dub (перевод Риффеля): „Manuel concernant la connaissance, la fabrication etc... des armes a feu“, 1858.
69. Breithaupt: „Technisches Handbuch fur angehende Artilleristen“, 1821.
70. Busch und Hoffman: „Die Kriegsfeuerwerkerei der Preussischen Artillerie“, 1851.
71. Meyer: „Erfarungen uber Fabrication des eisernen und bronzenen Geschutzes“, 1831, и „Handbuch der Thechnologie fur Artillerie Offiziere“, 1835.
72. Muller: „Waffenlehre“, 1859.
73. Больдт: „Руководство для изучения военного огнестрельного оружия“, 1858.
74. Bottee et Riffault: „L'art de salpetrier“, 1831 (переведено на русский язык в 1849 г.) и „Traite de l'art de fabriquer la poudre a canon“, 1811.
75. Cazaux: „Nombreuses experiences nouvelles confirmant la theorie de la poudre“, 1837.
76. Charpentier-Cossigny: „Recherches physiques et chimiques sur la fabrication de la poudre“, 1837.
77. Rieffel: „Recherches sur la Theorie de la force de la poudre“, 1851.
78. Schiesspulver und Feuerwaffen: „Illustrirte Ubersicht“, 1866.
79. Decker (перевод Terquem'а): „Experiences sur les schrapnels, faites chez la plus part des puissances“, 1847.
80. Tortel: „Memoires divers sur les obus a balles ou schrapnels“, 1889.
81. Dahlgren; „Shells and shell-guns“, 1857.
82. Badini: „Cenne sulle granate a cassa sferica dette comunemente schrapnel“, 1852.
83. Espiard de Colonge: „Artillerie pratique“.
84. Scheel: „Memoires d'artillerie, contenant l'artillerie nouvelle“. 1765
85. Durtubie: „Manuel de l'artilleur“. 1792–1795
86. Monge: „Description de l'art de fabriquer les canons“. 1794
87. Scharnhorst: „Handbuch der Artillerie“. 1804–1814
88. Th. Morla: „Lehrbuch der Artilleriewissenschaft“. 1795
89. Papacino d'Antoni: „Institutioni physico-mechaniche“.
90. Papacino d'Antoni: „Uso delle Armi da fuoco“ — „De l'usage des armes a feu“, 1785
91. Hutton: „Nouvelles experiences d'Artillerie“.— 1802
92. Данилов: „Начальное значение теории и практики артиллерии“. 1762
93. Вельяшев-Волынцев: „Артиллерийские предложения“, 1767
94. Шувалов: „Описание новой артиллерии“. 1758.
95. Лопатин: „Записки о штате артиллерии до 1772 г“.
96. Русская артиллерия в памятниках своего искусства“ (1389–1889)
97. Ген. Бранденбург: „Исторический каталог С. П. Артиллерийского музея“; 1877–1889
His conclusion can be found on page 42 of the H&R Main PDF.
Of course we are all welcome to try to come up with something better than colonel Nylus, but most people would agree that it is hard to be optimistic about the credibility of such findings. Most likely to arrive at the justified and credible findings, it will require an international team of highly specialized professionals in the fields of military history, artillery, physics, linguistics and mathematics, along with ability to conduct laboratory testing and forensic investigations. Even in this case, such team would have to operate under a number of assumptions, in particular regarding the availability of ammo and actual, in battle rate-of –fire which was dependent on the tactical situations and specific orders of the field commanders.
2. In-game application of FP.
Even assuming the hypothetical scenario that for example an Austrian 3-lbr was superior to Frenhc 3-lbr we face another complex issue. How do you measure the difference and apply it correctly to PDT FP table?
Also, artillery FP changes should take into account the minutes per turn and in-game movement speed factors. For example, in the game, it might take 3 turns for infantry to approach the guns, which is translated to 30 min (less hypothetical command delay for infantry). How do you adjust FP to make it more historical taking into account that in-game FP and opportunity to shell the enemy does not necessarily reflect the number of volleys the battery could fire ?
Furthermore:
“The only statistics available on the actual casualties that were ever inflicted on an attacking unit come from the German historian Muller and are given in Table 88. He served in the King's German Legion and assessed the numbers of casualties inflicted by a 6-pdr during such an attack. In addition, he used a higher rate of fire in his calculations. The average was two round shot per minute or three canister, but Muller seems to believe that the artillerists could reach a rate of eight rounds per minute when being charged. Unfortunately, he does not indicate the type of formation being fired upon, which would make a considerable difference in the number of casualties likely to be inflicted. Inasmuch as cavalry generally operated in line it must be as-sumed that the figures for cavalry casualties are based on firing on such a formation. With that assumption, one should also assume that he was consistent in his assess-ments and that the infantry were also formed in line.” (Nafziger, Imperial Bayonets, p 271)
As of today, there are no comparative findings on causalities inflicted by artillery, hence how do we know how to measure the relative effectives of our FP changes across different nations and especially at different ranges?
Finnally, the HPS FP scale generally ranges from 16 FP to 1 FP. But it is likely that, the difference in FP of guns used by various nations would be not that material and the current FP scale (from 16 to 1) is not detailed enough to model the possible damage which can be inflicted by guns used by various nations esspecially at different ranges. A more gradual and detailed FP curve is need for this (for example like 32 FP to 1 FP) but as of now it is not how the engine is designed.
_________________
General-Leytenant Alexey Tartyshev
Leib-Guard Preobrazhensky Regiment (Grenadier Drum)
1st Brigade
Guard Infantry Division
5th Guard Corps
(I don't play with with ZOC kills and Rout limiting ON)
Last edited by Alexey Tartyshev on Sat Jan 08, 2011 9:47 pm, edited 5 times in total.
|
NWC
Login
FAQ
that said I call on the Russians to avoid such action if indeed they have done it and Bill it's not personal just an intelligent debate.