Royal Horse Artillery; G Troop: Bring the guns in !

Hi,

Just spotted that only one has shakos.

Best wishes,

Chris

These Airfix figures are still the best RHA figures available, and it's the only set with correct figures for the Corps of Royal Artillery Drivers. I do swap the guns with the ACTA foot artillery set though.

Very nice job on these Gerd. The painting is terrific, I really like your conversion of the mounted and unmounted officers and the groundwork and background for the photos are excellent.

Really enjoyed this one>

Very nicely done, and that Airfix set remains one of the best ever made - if only they had not spoiled it by putting those silly "limber riders" in there. It was called "Horse Artillery" for a reason, folks

Quite right Chris, also, C.E.Franklin in "British Napoleonic Field Artillery:The First Complete Illustrated Guide To Equipment And Uniforms" agrees that RHA crew members rode the limbers.

Specifically he says: riding on the limber towing the gun were the No.7, spongeman; and No.8, loader. Riding on the limber towing the amunition wagon were the No's.14 and 15 who, in the case of a block trail gun's crew, were both amunition carriers.

Some people, I suspect, are still going to argue the toss; I can only suggest that they should look at every model of a limber they have, every picture of a limber they can find (Franklin's book has excellent drawings of all of them), or indeed the original plans if you can access them; If it wasn't always the intention that crews should ride the limbers, then the limbers would never have been fitted with footplates (they are though, all of them). If it wasn't intended that men should ride the limbers the footplates would be an unnecessary waste of resources and space; space that would be better used to house another ammunition box perhaps.

Ammunition wagons, which had two ammunition boxes, had two sets of footplates, fore and aft so that 4 or 5 men of a foot artoillery battery could ride on them. Because foot artillery crews could be mounted on the equipment when required.

Interesting stuff and great research.

Franklin and Adkin are normally meticulous in their research but the RHA galloping around the Earls Court arena makes you think about rough ground. There are also various WW1 clips of British artillery teams bouncing around that make Alton Towers look pretty tame!

The design of the limber with floorboards and handles is clearly to allow personnel seating.

However, as suggested I will stick to foot artillery units riding it as it seems the more likely scenario.

The TMP had a thread on this but it seems pretty inconclusive so I have not left the link.

Best wishes,

Chris

No confusion on my part. The mention in my post of Field Artillery is in the title of Franklin's book "British Napoleonic Field Artillery", note the inverted commas. When I cite someone's book I like to get the title right.

The term "Field Artillery" in franklin's book does not refer to a division of The Regiment of Royal Artillery seperate from The Royal Horse Artillery. Your confusion may result from the fact that in later times, e.g. WWI, The Field Artillery and The Horse Artillery were seperate divisions of The Royal Artillery (My thanks to Ironsides for teaching me that), but in Napoleonic times that was not the case. In Napoleonic times the two divisions of the Royal Regiment of Artillery were The Royal Artillery (who were the foot artillery) and The Royal Horse Artillery (who were, perhaps unsurprisingly, the horse artillery).

"Field artillery" in franklins book refers to the ordnance and equipment that was used to support the army in the field, as distinct from the ordnance and equpment that was used in garrison artillery or siege artillery or Naval artillery. To quote directly:

"The role of the field artllery was to support the army in the field and in this context the Royal Regiment of Artillery had two fighting arms, the Royal Artillery and the Royal Horse Artillery. The Royal Artillery supported the infantry and was formed into 'Brigades', the gunners marching with the guns. The Royal Horse Artillery supported the cavalry and was formed into 'Troops' with all the gunners mounted or riding on the equipment."

Which means that I have not confused horse artillery with field artillery because the horse artillery WERE field artillery; and I can assure you that Franklin's comments that I referred to in my post were specifically related to RHA crewmen riding on limbers. You are perfectly entitled to disagree with any claims Franklin makes in his book, but I will resent any suggestion that I'm not capable of reading them correctly.

Also I have not confused the RHA with the Corps of Royal Artillery Drivers. If you look at my first post in this thread you will see that I have said the Airfix set is the only one that correctly depicts the Corps of Royal Artillery Drivers (it is). Who,incidently, did not not wear a similar jacket to the RHA. The Corps of Royal Artillery Drivers wore the same jacket as the Royal Artillery, a short tailed infantry style jacket (but blue rather than red, the reversed colours indicating 'Royal' status); with bastion shaped infantry style lace (but yellow rather than white); whereas the RHA wore a tailless braided cavalry dolmen. Aside from the colour the two garments are distinctly dissimilar.
The Airfix set has the drivers, those mounted on the team horses, correctly uniformed for the Corps of Royal Artillery Drivers; artillery jacket, cavalry overalls and Tarleton helmet. But the two men on the limber wear the Light cavalry style braided dolmen of the RHA uniform. I have made these observations several times on this and other forums.

Regarding the comments I made about footboards on limbers indicating they were meant to be ridden, something I've just read in the introduction to Franklin's book is of interest:

"The Duke of Richmond, the Master General of Ordnance, had proposed a new design for the gun and limber when it was decided to introduce horse artillery into the British service. Generally attributed to General Congreve (1st Bart) it probably owed more to General Desaguliers. He had designed a block trail carriage and a double draught limber for experimental service of a heavy 3-pr gun in 1779. this was based upon a French gun carriage captured at Martinique in 1761 and followed the principles of Prussian horse artillery. As a result, new equipment was introduced which included many of the new ideas. The wheels of the gun and limber were the same size, 60 inches in diameter and interchangeable; iron axles of the same length were fitted to both gun and limber so the wheels of the gun could follow in the wheels of the limber. A new design of gun carriage, the block trail, was adopted and the limber was fitted to carry the first line ammunition. The advantages of this new eqipment were so apparent, it was issued to the rest of the field artillery as soon as it became available."

As far as I can see these 'Congreve' limbers were ther first to have footboards built in, previous limbers seem to be simple axle tree with pintle types. which means that if they were specifically designed to be ridden then they were designed with the mobility of the horse artillery in mind and were adopted by the foot artillery later.

I looked at your 'napoleonguide' link, it seems to agree with franklin that crew rode the equipment' third paragraph:

"With its artillerymen all riding into battle - on horses, wagons or limbers - the Royal Horse Artillery was able to keep up with the troopers it was meant to support."

I also looked at your Royal Artillery history link and I agree that the Ramsay at Fuentes D' Onoro anecdote is good evidence foir gunners NOT riding limbers, but it's not unassailable. If you include the begining of that quote it shows that Ramsay and his men were cut off by the French and that everyone who witnessed the event assumed that the guns were lost and Ramsay and all of his men were dead or captured; because that's what always happened in such circumstances. All present were completely astonished to discover that the mobility of the new horse artillery had allowed Ramsay and his command to escape.
Clearly this was not a regulation drill, Ramsay and his men were acting in-extremis. In those circumstances the gunners on the limber would either hang on or be killed by the French. Or, perhaps more likely, they would jump up behind one of their mounted mates and ride double. I'll cut & paste the full quote here, I'll try to fix the wrong spellings and random incomprehensible inclusions in the source but I might miss half a dozen or so:

" The increase of mobility over that old

system of which the above is a real, although, perhaps,

exceptional illustration which followed the introduction of

Horse Artillery can best be shown by another and later

instance. At the battle of Fuentes d'Onor, Bull's troop of

Horse Artillery now D Battery, B Brigade was surrounded

and cut off by the French cavalry. It was at the time

under the command of the 2nd Captain, Norman Ramsay.

Gleig. " Guns thus dealt with are almost always lost, and con-

" sequently the army ceased to think of Ramsay and his

" men, except as prisoners. Presently, however, a great

" commotion was observed among the French squadrons ;

" men and officers closed in confusion towards one point,

" where a thick dust was rising, and where loud cries and

" the sparkling of blades and flashing of pistols indicated

" some extraordinary occurrence. . . . Suddenly the multi- Napier.

" tude became violently agitated ; an English shout pealed

" high and clear ; the mass was rent asunder, and Norman

" Ramsay burst forth, sword in hand, at the head of his

" troop, his horses, breathing fire, stretched like grey-

" hounds along the plain ; the guns bounded behind them

" like things of no weight, and the mounted gunners followed

" close, with heads bent low, and pointed weapons, in

" desperate career."

As for horse artillery having to get there in a hurry I think that is more a modern concept than a Napoleonic one. The original concept of horse artillery was that they were brigaded with the cavalry and could march and deploy with the cavalry and despite Wellingtons protestations, the cavalry didn't always gallop everywhere. Your Royal Artillery History link illustrates the need for horse artillery by recounting an incident in India where the British had to attack without artillery because the artillery was totally incapable of keeping up with marching infantry. Horse artillery moving at a walk must have seemed mind numbingly fast when they first appeared. Napoleon saw the potential of the horse artillery, hence his "Flying Artillery" and other commanders must have envisaged their use as a rapid reaction force, but in Napoleonic terms I think rapid means they can change their position TODAY!
Springs at the time were, I think, for Gentlemen's carriages. The very richest Gentlemen might have 'sprung' for sprung seating for their drivers but I think the wooden seat and footboards of the gun limbers would not have been any different to most wagons and carriages of the time. If this arrangement was too dangerous for anyone to ride on then we must accept that most wheeled transport in Napoleonic times was driverless technology, and that's a bit of a stretch for me. OK artillery might be moving faster than a farm cart but how much faster? And is riding it really as impossible as people would have us believe?

Further on in your Royal Artillery history link it lists the pay structure for the horse artillery. It says that the men recieved extra pay for the extra duties of caring for their horses but that dismounted NCOs and gunners did not recieve the extra pay. Also drivers did not recieve the extra because they were principally employed to work with horses.
This link also has lists of the number of men and horses attached to batteries at various times. with the quick calculations I've done I can't find enough horses to pull the guns and ammunition wagons and carry the gunners not riding the limbers, and that's without counting the field forge, spare wheel carriage, officers curricle, and all the other stuff.  However I won't resent it if you tell me I can't count, that won't be without some justification.

Honestly, riding a limber does seem like a bad idea. And riding a horse does seem to be a much, MUCH better idea, but the army is not always too quick to warm to a good idea and I haven't seen anything that convinces me there were no limber riders. The other possibility is that there was a difference between the regulation and what actually occured in practice but I've never heard of any account that supports that idea either.

I will look out for Brigadier Graham's book, if it turns up in a Brisbane bookshop I will be somewhat amazed.

Nice statistics but on the breakdown of the Draught Horses/Drivers I would doubt that the Baggage Wagon would have the Drivers Mounted on the horses but rather on the Wagon. As to the Limber Riders in the Airfix set I never had a doubt as to their authenticity and a great moulding to boot. Now if only Hat would send me my British Light Dragoons so that I can add a few mounted Rocketeers to accompany their Rocket Troop and maybe also the Limbered Airfix RHA.

 

Malcolm. the baggage wagon here is different to the four wheeled generic wagons we usually think of and would have had drivers mounted on the horses.

Most Royal Artillery wagons and equpment, and indeed all of the first line equipment (which is what we are talking about here) was based on either the standard gun carriage or the standard gun limber, it was all about interchangeability of parts. The baggage wagon referred to here is probably either the storage wagon which is the same as the ammunition wagon but carrying artificers tools; or it's similar to the officers curricle, which carried the officers kit.

Ammunition/storage carts were doubled standard limbers carrying two ammunition (or tool) boxes rather than one, with towing elms that hooked onto a standard limber to form an articulated four wheel wagon, and towed by a team of four horses.

Mercer described the curricle as a box like structure with a pitched roof and folding doors at the rear mounted on a pair of wheels about the same hieght as a gun. It was probably based on a standard limber, or perhaps on the ammunition cart. All of these were driven by drivers mounted on the near horses.

The mobile forge was modified from a standard ammunition wagon and the spare wheel carriage was a standard gun carriage with three spare wheels mounted on it, towed behind a standard limber, by a team of four horses; thus it was a spare gun carriage, a spare limber, a spare four hourse team, and up to 7 spare wheels.

There were larger ammunition wagons in the second line that looked more like the large four wheeled vehicles we're used to thinking of as Wagons and there were civilian wagons further back carrying the bulk of the baggage and supplies, but the front line wagons looked pretty much like limbers towing big limbers.

Mercer's "Journal Of The Campaign Of 1815" has a complete run down for his command in Belgium just prior to Waterloo. It lists the number of horses and what equipment they were drawing or who were riding them. It also lists the number of personel. Pretty much the same as Mike's list except Mercer says he has only 80 Gunners, only 6 Bombadiers, but a massive 84 drivers.

Horses in draught 120, the same, and the same breakdown of equipment. Officers horses, 6 loaned to them by the Board of Ordnance plus each officer had two of his own and the Surgeon 1. "Horses unaccounted for above, spare, etc-30". Also 6 Officer's baggage mules.

Riding horses; 2 staff sergeants, 2 farriers and a collar maker 5. And 6 mounted detachments with 8 horses each 48.

Putting two men on each of the limbers towing the guns and ammunition wagons accounts for 30 gunners, but it still leaves me short of mounts for 14 gunners, 2 shoeing smiths, 1 collar maker, 1 wheeler and a trumpeter. Oh! And 1 acting Do. (don't ask me). Two things to note, when preparing his troop for foriegn service Mercer said: "another troop, then in the same barracks, was broken up, and we got the picked horses of both, thus making it the finest troop in the service". Also when he changed his 6 pounders for 9 pounders apparently they arrived with extra horses and drivers but without any extra gunners that , perhaps, 9 pounders should have had. Therefore I don't think there can be any chance that he was under strength in regard to horses.

The interesting thing here is his mention of six mounted detachments of 8 horses each. That's 8 mounted crew per gun. This coincides perfectly with the illustrations in Franklin's book. The mounted gunners are the No.s 1, 2, 3, 9 ,10, 11, 12, and 13. The No.s 1, 2, and 3 are the horse holders, the No. 1 being the bombardier; The No.s 9, 10, and 11 are the ventsman, portfire, and NCO in charge of the gun; and the No.s 12 and 13 carry ammunition from the limber to the gun. As I said before the spongeman and loader, No.s 7 and 8 ride on the limber; and the No.s 14 and 15 are assigned to the ammunition wagon and ride that limber.

Which means, all of Gerd's figures look excellent!