How effective was Artillery (field engagements) 1689 -1715

[Captain of Dragoons]

Hello forum,

I am currently reading Chandler's "Blenheim Preparation".

Although there is a chapter on artillery, "The Guns", he talks more about the movement, cost and organization and break down of trains. How effective was artillery in this period when taking part in field engagements? Can it be compared to artillery in the ECW were it is more for show and to "Buck Up" the troops, or are there examples of well sited batteries holding off Infantry and Horse attacks.

I ask this not only in regardes to History but also from the wargamers point of view.

cheers

Edward
captain of dragoons

[barr7430]

Ed,

my experience has been as follows(and I have also tried to reflect this in ULB)

1. it's largely immobile

2. It is not concentrated in batteries but split across the battle line or placed in defendable positions

3. Will have some casualty effect if shooting consistently at the same target

4. Manned often by civilians (less so the further into the period we go)

5. Has a 'morale' effect (both positive & negative) which is arguably more important than the casualties it causes.

6. You shouldn't use too much of it!


My opinion only but based on sme reading, many games and a general lack of massive bodies of evindence to the contrary

[Bluebear]

Ed,

My experience on the tabletop suggests that artillery is more effective at "channeling" your enemy to other areas than it is in causing a terrible amount of damage.

I also suspect that much of its value in this and earlier periods is as a "terror" device. Again its morale impact is almost certainly significantly greater than the physical damage that it causes.

I agree with Barry in suggesting that you limit the number of guns (and I like ULB's pre-battle device to account for preparatory shooting).


-- Jeff "Bluebear" Hudelson