Military Review

Year XNUMX artillery

144

F. Roubaud. "Borodino panorama" Fragment: "The French attack the Russian positions at the Semyonovsky stream." In the foreground, a scenic view of the French horse artillerymen with a cannon galloping across the stream. Behind them, the closed ranks of Saxon cuirassiers are marching into battle. On the subject level, broken Russian unicorns. Although why broken? The trunks are intact! They just broke their wooden axles. But who prevented from putting these barrels on sandbags and at least once to shoot from them buckshot at the attacking French? But no one reports anything about such use of guns at that time, which means that it ... was unknown


I scored a charge in the gun tight
And I thought: I'll treat a friend!
Wait, my brother!
What's there to cunning, perhaps to battle;
We will go to break the wall,
We will stand head and shoulders
For your homeland! "
M. Yu. Lermontov. Borodino

Balls of cast iron everywhere
Between them they jump,
The ashes are digging and hissing in the blood.
A.S. Pushkin. Poltava


Weapon 1812 year. The artillery of the Russian imperial army in the years preceding the "thunderstorm of the twelfth year", managed to show itself from the best side. Thanks to her actions, many battles were won, the same Seven Years War, it was actively used by Suvorov, and in the wars with Napoleon, she showed herself as a completely modern branch of the army. Moreover, its next transformation took place back in 1802, when, thanks to Minister Arakcheev, a weapon system was developed, which received his name, or "the system of 1805". According to this system, a 12-pounder gun had to have a caliber of 120 mm, a barrel - weight of 800 kg, carriage - 640 kg; the caliber of the 6-pounder gun was 95 mm, the weight of the barrel was 350 kg, and the carriage was 395 kg. The caliber of a 1/2-pound unicorn was supposed to be 152 mm with a barrel weight of 490 kg and a gun carriage of 670 kg, and a caliber of a 1/4-pound unicorn was 120 mm with a barrel weight of 335 kg and a gun carriage of 395 kg. In the same 1802, a sight was introduced in the artillery, albeit removable, with a range scale that had divisions from 5 to 30 lines (with a distance between divisions of 2,54 mm). They aimed with it through a hole in a rectangular plate, which, depending on the distance of the target, was set at one of the divisions. Changing the elevation angle of the barrel, the gunner (4th gun crew number) combined the hole on the bar, front sight and target on the line of sight, and, pointing the gun, gave the command to fire, and the sight plate lowered before the shot.


Mortar bomb and grenade for a field gun of 1812. Penza Museum of Local Lore

Arakcheev watched by the hour that no more than 30 seconds passed from setting the gun in position, uncovering the barrel and until the shot itself. That is, the not tired gun crew demonstrated a very high rate of fire in those years!

The guns, despite all their seeming simplicity, were protected. In the stowed position, for example, to prevent dirt from getting into the trunks, they were closed with special wooden plugs. The ignition holes were also closed. For this, lead plates with leather belts were used.


This is how these "plugs" looked on the guns of the Russian army in 1812. Just don’t think this gun is real. No, this is a well done layout. Bagration Museum stories region, Bagrationovsk. It was on the site of this city in East Prussia that the famous battle of Preussisch-Eylau took place, where General Bennigsen commanded the Russian troops and in which he actually defeated Napoleon!



One of the main weapons of the Russian imperial army

Of great importance in the artillery of the Russian imperial army were "unicorns" - guns with a conical charging chamber, which got their name from the unicorn depicted on the coat of arms of their creator, General Feldseichmeister Shuvalov. The coat of arms adorned its breech, and, although they stopped decorating the trunks from 1805, this name was preserved for this type of weapon. Unicorns were good in that they combined the properties of cannons and howitzers and could fire both cannonballs and grenades and buckshot. This was allowed by the shorter barrel bore and the conical loading chamber compared to conventional guns. The barrel turned out to be of less mass, and this made it possible to reduce the mass of the carriage and achieve greater maneuverability on the battlefield. True, Russian weapons had wooden axles (iron ones appeared in 1845), which is why they often broke and had to be constantly lubricated. Therefore, each gun was given a bucket of grease and a second bucket for water (with vinegar) - moisten the bannik before cleaning the barrel after a shot, as there could be burning pieces of the cap that could cause the next charge to ignite. Horizontal aiming was carried out by the rules (right and left) - levers inserted into special sockets on the rear cushion of the carriage. Vertical aiming was carried out with a wedge handle. The sight was removed before the shot, which was not very convenient.


Just such unicorns stood on the subject plan of the panorama "Battle of Borodino"

1/2-pound unicorn shot at 2300 m, 1/4-pud at 1500 m, while the aiming range (that is, the most effective fire) for a 1/2-pound unicorn was 900-1000 m.Cart at 1 / 4- pood unicorns were used as a long range (bullets made of cast iron with a diameter of 30 and 49,5 mm) - 400-500 m, and a short range (bullets also made of cast iron, but with a diameter of 21 and 26 mm), for firing at distances from 50 to 400 m.

The French artillery also consisted of 6- and 12-pounder cannons, but lighter and more maneuverable 3-pound (70 mm) and 4-pound (80 mm) guns, as well as 6-inch short ones, were cast specifically for the campaign in Russia. howitzers (caliber 152 mm). The field artillery of the Great Army was divided into 8 regiments, each consisting of 12 companies (batteries). The company (battery), in turn, consisted of six cannons (6 or 12 pounders) and two howitzers. The rate of fire of the French artillery was approximately one shot per minute with cannonballs and grenades, and two shots per minute. The average firing range of cannonballs was 400-1000 meters for cannons and 400-1600 meters for howitzers. The grape was fired at 400-800 meters. Moreover, the charges into the barrels of the French guns entered with a smaller gap than that of the Russians. And since the breakthrough of gases because of this was less, then the range of the French guns was higher. But, on the other hand, the Russian guns were faster, as they charged faster.


In France, the creator of a new system of weapons was Jean Baptiste Griboval, who developed it in 1776

In the epochal battle of Borodino, Napoleon had 587 guns, and Kutuzov had 640. His artillery was more mobile, as it consisted of 3- and 4-pounder guns. The Russians had 95 and 120 mm guns - less maneuverable, but more long-range. True, at Borodino, Napoleon also had 80 heavy and long-range guns, with the help of them he hoped to crush the battle formations of the Russian army. In tactical terms, he turned out to be a cut above Kutuzov, since he refused to disperse his guns in front of the front of his troops, and brought them together in several batteries in the directions of the main attack. Moreover, his batteries were very large: 50 and even 100 guns! In such a battery, when the last gun fired, the first was already loaded, so the target was fired continuously. But, in addition to such batteries, on the eve of the invasion of Russia, Napoleon also ordered each infantry regiment to give two 3-pounder trophy Austrian guns for direct artillery support. The best soldiers of the regiment had to serve these guns, and this was considered a great honor, equal to being awarded a medal, and besides, it raised the morale of the soldiers!


All Griboval's guns had the same design and differed only in proportions associated with an increase in caliber

Kutuzov did not do that. Knowing about Napoleon's tactics, he nevertheless dispersed the guns he had along the front: south of the village of Maslovo, 28 guns were placed on three flashes; between Maslovskie flashes and the village of Borodino on five fortifications another 37 guns, a trench was dug near the village of Borodino and four guns were placed; at the Kurgan height - 18 guns, finally, on the Semyonov flashes (on three) 12 guns, and another 12 were delivered at the Shevardinsky redoubt. And this despite the fact that, as historians of the Soviet era said, "Kutuzov figured out Napoleon's plan to strike on his left flank." Where did he figure it out, if he placed only 12 guns in the direction of the enemy's main attack? But he left 305 guns in reserve! And it turned out that, having more guns than Napoleon's, Kutuzov did not have even the slightest advantage in artillery in any sector of the battle. So, the same Shevardinsky redoubt was defended by 12 cannons on it and 18 to the right of it in an open position. Napoleon allocated for his attack ... 186 guns and literally covered the redoubt with cannonballs. Bottom line: Russian losses in defense - 6000 people, French losses in the offensive - 5000! You cannot call such a command any other way! Historians note that in some cases, in the direction of the main attack, Napoleon used up to 200 guns per kilometer of the front, that is, the guns were literally wheel to wheel. This means that all his artillery was used, while 305 Russian cannons were in reserve near the village of Psarevo. Meanwhile, only for the eighth attack of the Semyonovsky (later Bagrationovsky) flushes Napoleon concentrated 400 guns!


Griboval's 12-pounder guns were distinguished by their long range, but in harness they were no longer carried by six horses, but eight!

The battle for Bagrationovskie flushes, as you know, went on for six hours. It was possible to figure out where Napoleon was aiming, who at the end of the day concentrated up to 50000 infantry and cavalry soldiers against them, supported by 400 guns. But from the side of the Russian army, they were defended by up to 30000 people with ... 300 guns. And if the reservation of manpower by Kutuzov can be understood (he believed that Napoleon had a great advantage in manpower) and explained by the fact that he saved the force for a powerful counterattack, then the reservation of artillery with a gradual and slow replacement of knocked out guns can be practically justified by nothing. except for the personal qualities of Kutuzov, the consequences of severe wounds and just ... old age, which, as you know, is not a joy!


Griboval's short howitzer. The Russian unicorn was preferable in terms of use on the battlefield

Already for the first attack of the flushes at the beginning of the battle, the French set up a battery of 102 guns against them, which fired at them from a distance of 1000 meters. The defenders of the flashes, as you know, at this time had only 12 guns, firing mainly at the attacking flush infantry. Moreover, their fire was not very effective. So, when at 6 o'clock in the morning Marshal Davout led two infantry divisions against them with 30 guns and began to build them into columns for the attack, with flashes they began to hit them with cannonballs from a distance of 500 meters. But, despite this, the French, being under fire, not only completed the rebuilding, but also went on the attack with deployed banners to the sound of drums. From a distance of 200 meters, our cannons switched to buckshot and only together with the attack of the rangers repelled the French.


Griboval's 24-pound howitzer at the Army Museum in Paris

Only by the third attack, Kutuzov allocated 100 guns from the reserve to Bagration, so that the total number of guns under his command reached 120. Then, on reflection, he gave him another 180 guns, but ... they could take their places only after 1,5 —2 hours, since they had horse traction, and the orders were carried on horses by adjutants!

Year XNUMX artillery

Bombardier of the Guards Foot Artillery. Summer form. Field artillery fireworks. Winter form. Artist N.V. Zaretsky. 1876-1959. Russian army in 1812. SPb., 1912

So Kutuzov was able, of course, to hold out on the Borodin field, putting a lot of his soldiers on it. But he could, without straining, put much more French soldiers, or even completely defeat Napoleon's army. After all, Bennigsen advised him to immediately strengthen the left flank. But "he is German," so his advice was "bad", so Kutuzov did not listen to him. He did not, but was then forced to act as he had told him about it before the battle. And what can I say - his stubbornness cost both the army and the country, but all our noteworthy patriots were all happy and rejoice at this "victory" to this day!


Bronze cannon from the museum. Caliber about 70 mm. That's how they were then! Penza Museum of Local Lore

All information about the course of the Borodino battle is taken from the brochure of the Stalinist period: "The Battle of Borodino" (published in 1947 by the Military Publishing House of the Ministry of Defense, when it was impossible even to think about any "slander"). The author of the brochure, Colonel V.V. Pruntsov, stated everything in it very accurately, as if in an encyclopedia, because at that time the writing of books, and even more so these, as well as their editing, were taken extremely seriously. The editor of the publication was Major N.P. Mazunin, and the editor, Major G.A. Vorozhtsov. It is clear that Stalin's words, by the way, only one of his evaluative phrases, he cited in this work, and Bennigsen, as one would expect, scolded, but in all other respects this is an exceptional work in terms of the accuracy of the presentation of facts. The numbers, which, however, speak for themselves!


The cover of this book

Drawings of artillery pieces were made by A. Sheps.

To be continued ...
Author:
Articles from this series:
Pistols of the war of 1812
Thunderstorm of the twelfth year. Shotguns
144 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. svp67
    svp67 16 August 2020 05: 44 New
    16
    To the author - Thank you
    In tactical terms, he turned out to be a cut above Kutuzov, since he refused to disperse his guns in front of the front of his troops, and brought them together in several batteries in the directions of the main attack. Moreover, his batteries were very large: 50 and even 100 guns
    Well, it was not for nothing that he started as an artillery officer and achieved all his victories precisely by concentrating artillery in a narrow area. But how did they drag them so as not to disrupt the formation of the troops and how did they provide timely support? And how did they solve the problem with horses? Well, what a mass of horses should have been concentrated in the near rear, interfering with the movement of other troops ... Yes, a good organization. It was necessary to study well and study well.
    And yet Kutuzov outplayed him strategically
    1. kalibr
      16 August 2020 07: 16 New
      +7
      Quote: svp67
      And yet Kutuzov outplayed him strategically

      Nobody argues with this. But even here there is no special merit of him. All plans of Napoleon before the start of the war were reported to Alexander by our intelligence. It’s a pity for the people who died. And horses ... horses, yes. There were a lot of them. And I wrote about this in an article about the Civil War in the United States. Sherman spent 150 horses a day during the "march to the sea", and the entire army of the northerners - 500 horses a day! : horses for the light cannon, eight for the medium and 10 for the heavy. It's just a gun to carry!
      1. svp67
        svp67 16 August 2020 07: 59 New
        +6
        Quote: kalibr
        eight for medium and 10 for heavy. It's just a gun to carry!

        And for 100 guns for concentration from 800 to 1000 ... it’s beyond my mind how they organized the logistics, and it was also necessary to bring up the ammunition.
      2. Kote Pan Kokhanka
        Kote Pan Kokhanka 16 August 2020 09: 19 New
        +8
        Why do you think Vyacheslav that there is no merit of Kutuzov in the strategic victory?
        I am afraid that, with the exception of Barclay de Tolly, few could have carried the idea of ​​a strategic retreat to the end. Yes, and he is probably unlikely!
        1. svp67
          svp67 16 August 2020 14: 55 New
          +7
          Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
          I'm afraid that with the exception of Barclay de Tolly

          In fact, he is, the main creator of that victory. He did not allow the 1st and 2nd Russian armies to be routed separately, he was able to make a difficult maneuver to retreat, give the Smolensk battle, defend the road to St. Petersburg and fell out of favor, hand over the army in perfect order to Kutuzov ... an old "schemer", that is, a strategist. He just brilliantly completed de Tolly's plan.
          1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
            Kote Pan Kokhanka 16 August 2020 20: 26 New
            +3
            I agree! But I'm afraid that de Tolly might not have surrendered Moscow! The pressure on the latter was too strong.
            Kutuzov - could!
        2. ccsr
          ccsr 19 August 2020 12: 06 New
          +1
          Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
          Why do you think Vyacheslav that there is no merit of Kutuzov in the strategic victory?

          I think because he adheres to strictly defined views that began to be presented to us long before him:
          "In the midst of the Franco-Russian diplomatic rapprochement, in 1890-1897, three volumes of his research" Napoleon and Alexander "were published one after another, where he sets out the history of the Franco-Russian wars and the Franco-Russian alliance in the era of Napoleon I. The point of view is basically Sorelev's: Napoleon is essentially not to blame for the wars with Russia, just as he is not guilty of any wars in general. And in general, can Napoleon be guilty of anything? Apparently, this is not clear to Albert Vandal. At least in his second large two-volume study "The Rise of Bonaparte", published in 1902, five years after the end of the first work, setting out with his characteristic brilliance (in a literary sense, he writes better not only Sorel, but also Taine) the history of the coup On the 18th Brumaire, Vandal finds that Bonaparte is not guilty of establishing a despotic regime and, in general, in everything, without exception, that he did before and after the coup d'état. A tense, enthusiastic tone that even the old historians, even Thiers, did not have."

          E.V. Tarle
      3. your1970
        your1970 17 August 2020 23: 00 New
        +1
        I read somewhere that the French lost about a million horses during the war of 1812 in Russia
    2. Snail N9
      Snail N9 16 August 2020 07: 42 New
      27
      Shirokorad in his book "God of War 12. Artillery in the Patriotic War" seems to have described everything in detail. Including why the Russian artillery was located this way. Firstly, the "Borodino field" is actually not a "field" at all, but a section cut by beams, ravines, heights and groves, and Kutuzov placed his artillery in two lines due to the fact that it was simply impossible to install a larger number of guns in the areas where they defended his troops due to the terrain and the peculiarities of the built fortifications, which, moreover, were not completely ready ... In addition, Kutuzov still did not believe that he would be able to stop Napoleon's troops and left a large reserve of artillery, so that in case the breakthrough of Napoleon to cover the directions of the breakthrough and the withdrawal of her troops, which she actually did at the end of the battle, since by the evening an artillery battle actually flared up - artillery fired from all sides, showering the enemy with shells covering tired troops. Napoleon massively set up and used his artillery, however ... because of the terrain and the fact that he wanted its massive fire, he was forced to install it far enough from the Russian troops and his artillery could only in a few places hit the Russian troops to the depth of the order. Russian artillery, distinguished by its greater range, rather successfully conducted counter-battery firing and had greater maneuverability of fire into the depths of the French troops. Well, and a remark that, why not shoot from the barrels of damaged guns, putting them on bags of earth or fascines .. Actually, given the large weight of the body of the gun, its heating and the lack of wheels, move it even for a short distance by tired fighters - a tough thing, especially considering that they don't even have anything to do there for carrying - they need to do a "strapping", which is simply unrealistic in a battle. And how to aim and shoot? He put something in, then brought a pallet and an ambet - when fired, the barrel flew back, crippling the shooter and those behind? It is on wheels that the cannon rolls back with recoil, but the free barrel, if it is not secured, when fired, not only flies backward, but also gets a twisting effect in any direction - fig knows where it will fly. To be fair, it should be noted that the Russian artillerymen fired to the last in this battle, they even used the broken guns for the last shot and stopped firing only when there was no one to shoot ...
      1. The comment was deleted.
    3. Serg4545
      Serg4545 16 August 2020 13: 59 New
      +4
      Anyway, one gets the impression that a teenager wrote!
      This is a prominent thought:
      You are all fools. They believed that Kutuzov was a great commander. And I exposed him. Kutuzov supposedly fought not optimally. They say if I made such and such a decision, then on our side there would be fewer losses, and the enemy would have more.
      Well, since you are all fools, then I'm all in white!)
      Such a teenage war with authorities.

      Here's a really great quote from the author:
      // After all, Bennigsen advised him to immediately strengthen the left flank. But "he is German," so his advice was "bad", so Kutuzov did not listen to him. He did not, but was then forced to act as he had told him about it before the battle. And what can I say - his stubbornness cost both the army and the country, but all our noteworthy patriots were all happy and rejoice at this "victory" to this day! //

      Well, first of all, that only Bennigsen gave Kutuzov advice?
      Of course, Kutuzov was advised by many. Why did Kutuzov have to agree with Bennigsen? This author knows how the battle developed, and Kutuzov was forced to use troops based on many possible options for the development of the battle.
      And the funniest thing (which the author does not take into account) is that if Kutuzov had listened to Bennigsen, then with a high probability Napoleon would have discovered a different formation of the Russian army and would have built the battle differently. By initially drawing up a different plan or replaying the plan during the battle. And as a result, he could defeat the Russian army! And then the author would now say the following:
      What Kutuzov! I listened to Bennigsen. A German, a foreigner! So I lost the battle.)))

      Let's actually ask the question:
      Could we defeat the French at Borodino? Almost all historians say no. Could not. The French army was at that time the best in the world. And at Borodino, she also had a significant numerical superiority.
      And Kutuzov, unable to defeat the enemy in one battle, chose a long war. And strategically outplayed the enemy!
      Kutuzov is a genius!
      The author does not eat. Kutuzov at Borodino had one task. Prevent the Russian army from being routed. And he coped with this task!
      That at the same time the Russians suffered too great losses, according to the author? Let me remind you that we fought with the best army in the world and were greatly outnumbered.
      Probably there were opportunities to increase enemy losses. And reduce our losses. But it is quite likely that these opportunities would simultaneously increase the likelihood of our losing the entire war. Here's an example to illustrate:
      The author criticizes Kutuzov that he kept about half of the artillery in reserve.
      Well, let's say Kutuzov brought all the artillery to the front line. What if the French could defeat our army and force it to flee from the battlefield? The infantry and cavalry could quickly retreat from the battlefield, but we would most likely lose the artillery. And fighting armies without artillery was not possible. We would lose the entire war for a tactical advantage, in a tactical battle. That is, they would have committed utter stupidity.
      That is why Kutuzov is a GENIUS.
      And the author will not be accepted as an astronaut)
      1. Trilobite Master
        Trilobite Master 16 August 2020 15: 09 New
        +4
        Serg4545 (Sergey) Today, 13:59
        Your emotional comment is partly correct. In hindsight, we are all strong and it is simply impossible to put ourselves in the place of the commander of the Russian army.
        In general, any war is a tragedy of mistakes, and the one who is the last to last one wins. Both Kutuzov and Napoleon made mistakes. Kutuzov was not a genius, and he did not even claim this role himself. And the numerical advantage and advantage in artillery were at Borodino at the Russians, however, the battle with difficulty and great losses was only reduced to a draw. Well, if we evaluate the battle according to the rules of a boxing match, we managed to avoid defeat by knockout and lost on points by a split decision.
        I agree that Kutuzov had many advisers and some of them were both older and more authoritative than Bennigsen. Events could unfold in different ways, Napoleon was always distinguished by his unpredictability, courage and thoughtfulness of decisions, so put all the eggs in one basket, putting artillery in the forefront in the direction alleged the main blow would be too great a risk, which the commander could not and should not afford.
        Now we know exactly where Napoleon hit and who, in his assumptions, turned out to be closer to the truth. You are right here.
        But it is also impossible to talk about the impeccability of Kutuzov in managing the army at Borodino. Having given Napoleon the initiative in the battle (he remembered, of course, Austerlitz and knew how Bonaparte was able to intercept this initiative), Kutuzov doomed himself to the role of the defending side. And this despite, I repeat, the superiority of his army both in the number of personnel and in artillery. Therefore, the Russian army throughout the battle was forced to fight in decisive areas in a numerical minority and with an overwhelming enemy fire superiority, while carrying bоGreater losses than they could have, Kutuzov led the battle more boldly and energetically. Here the author is right.
        Once again, I am bursting with curiosity, which, unfortunately, will never be satisfied. Fight between Napoleon and Suvorov. Two geniuses of maneuver, apologists for offensive strategy and tactics, decisive, courageous, instantly thinking and confident in their own superiority over the enemy in any situation ... To be honest, I do not know who I would put money on in it. Alas, history has not provided us with such a battle of the titans.
        1. IS-80_RVGK2
          IS-80_RVGK2 16 August 2020 20: 40 New
          +8
          Quote: Trilobite Master
          Fight between Napoleon and Suvorov.

          And I am more interested in the option - Napoleon against Shpakovsky. Judging by the unshakable confidence of the author of the article, he would have defeated the French emperor at the border. And if Shpakovsky was instead of Peter at Poltava? And instead of Suvorov under Ishmael? The prospects are breathtaking.
          1. pmkemcity
            pmkemcity 17 August 2020 11: 52 New
            +1
            I will defeat him with intellect ...
        2. pmkemcity
          pmkemcity 17 August 2020 13: 06 New
          +1
          Kutuzov, with his construction in depth, perhaps a hundred and fifty years ahead of the development of military art. Isn't it a "second tier" strategy? Perhaps the battle plan itself provided that the French would nevertheless break through the first line, and in already disrupted battle formations, with lagging artillery, they would go to our artillery reserve. But, as they say, something went wrong, the French got stuck, and seeing this, the same Bagration grabbed a good position, and a meat grinder, later called "Verdun", began, which swallowed up all the reserves of both armies. At the same time, Napoleon did not confirm his "genius" with decisive maneuvers, but the Russian army, on the contrary, after revealing the enemy's intentions, was widely maneuvering with reserves, including artillery. Undoubtedly, Kutuzov did not appreciate the left flank as "the key to the position", because the loss of the right flank left both roads behind us, but the loss on the "Old Road" definitely led to the encirclement of the Russian army in the floodplain of the Moskva River. Moreover, I support a little-known artilleryman Tolstoy, LN, who assumed that the Shevardinsky redoubt was the left flank of our position, and therefore, "something went wrong" from the battle for this redoubt. The capture of the Shevardinsky redoubt was a "thick hint" for Kutuzov about the direction of the main blow, which he could not recognize. Napoleon, on the other hand, halved the front against ours, and therefore created a numerical superiority on our left flank, but he also did not have the courage or the mind to "run" behind our flank, behind the village of Utitsa, because he had the space and strength for this maneuver ... Our strike "into the void" of Platov's and Uvarov's cavalry was not decisive and looked like a banal demonstration. Much more effective and in more suitable terrain, our cavalry could attack along the Old Road, to Yelnya. Even if it were just a demonstration, it would have much more decisive goals.
        3. CTABEP
          CTABEP 17 August 2020 18: 42 New
          +2
          Everyone imagines himself a strategist, seeing the battle from the side (s). What we are talking about - Napoleon was a great tactician, and the fact that he outplayed Kutuzov in a single battle is not surprising (it is rather surprising that the result of the general battle was a draw). As well as the fact that Kutuzov was insured by a reserve of artillery from the defeat and loss of the entire army in case everything goes really bad. Well, the result is still - Russian hussars in Paris.
      2. kalibr
        16 August 2020 17: 29 New
        0
        Quote: Serg4545
        What if the French could defeat our army and force it to flee from the battlefield?

        Is it like having so many guns? Or did our gunners still not know how to shoot? They knew how ...
      3. kalibr
        16 August 2020 17: 30 New
        -1
        Quote: Serg4545
        greatly outnumbered.

        Is it?
      4. kalibr
        16 August 2020 17: 34 New
        -1
        Quote: Serg4545
        And the author will not be accepted as an astronaut)

        At 65 they don't take anyone!
    4. The comment was deleted.
  2. Kot_Kuzya
    Kot_Kuzya 16 August 2020 06: 20 New
    +9
    Well, Duc, Napoleon was an artillery officer, and therefore well understood how to use artillery as efficiently as possible.
  3. Catfish
    Catfish 16 August 2020 06: 23 New
    12
    Moreover, its next transformation took place back in 1802, when, thanks to Minister Arakcheev, an armament system was developed, which received his name, or "the system of 1805".

    Thank you, Vyacheslav, otherwise we have Alexander Sergeich with a light hand as soon as he was not barked. And he is a satrap, and Sullen and vaasche ... a bastard from the latter. But Arakcheev really did a titanic job, clearing the "Augean stables" of the time of Catherine, and carried out a radical reorganization of the Russian artillery. And the country owes many of the victories of that time to the excellent state of the artillery park. And this is the handiwork of Arakcheev, "without the flattery of the devotee." He and the satrap, perhaps, but he knew the artillery business well, it was not for nothing that Alexander I, after three years of exile, summoned him from the wilderness, showered him with favors and again instructed him to "lead" the artillery.
  4. gorenina91
    gorenina91 16 August 2020 06: 46 New
    +3
    -However, I personally never understood how it was in the presence of excellent artillery, nevertheless, the Russian army at Borodino did not inflict colossal losses on the advancing French ... -And how is it that the Russian army, defending itself, had losses even more than the French ... -And that's what's the matter ... -And then you read about that; how bravely the Russian artillerymen fought (about the Raevsky battery, etc.) ... -and you just wonder ... -and that the French had "multiple launch rocket systems", perhaps ... -that time they inflicted such heavy losses on the Russian army, which was on the defensive ... -Now everything became clear ...
    Therefore, each gun was given a bucket of grease and another bucket for water (with vinegar) - to moisten the bannik before cleaning the barrel after the shot,

    - One can only imagine ... - what a stench (from this vinegar) was on the battery ... - you won't envy the artillerymen ...
    1. Kot_Kuzya
      Kot_Kuzya 16 August 2020 07: 12 New
      +9
      War in itself is a dirty business. The smell of vinegar will seem like a Chanel scent compared to the smell of rotting bodies (both corpses and living ones, rotting alive) and the insides of the unfortunate, torn apart by cannonballs.
    2. Kote Pan Kokhanka
      Kote Pan Kokhanka 16 August 2020 08: 01 New
      +9
      Quote: gorenina91
      -However, personally, it was always incomprehensible to me how it was with excellent artillery, nevertheless, the Russian army at Borodino did not inflict colossal losses on the advancing French ... -And that's what's the matter ... -And then you read about that; how bravely the Russian artillerymen fought (about the Raevsky battery, etc.) ... -and you just wonder ... -what the French had

      With all due respect, the afterthought is still harmful!
      Especially the "troops on the defensive." So the columns of French divisions in the attack were opposed by columns and squares of Russian divisions in defense. In this connection, the classic 3 versus 1 did not work. At Borodino, field armies fought and the defenders had no advantages, with the exception of felsh and redoubts. Where was the artillery!
      By the way, this was fully implemented by the Russian army!
      The death of Kuytasov and Bagration played a negative role in the development of the artillery duel! Well, stamps!
      In their works, Popva, Begunova and Ivanov note that the domestic horse artillery was head and shoulders above the French. More than once or twice it thwarted the attacks of Napoleon's army.
      1. kalibr
        16 August 2020 08: 15 New
        +1
        Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
        domestic horse artillery was superior to the French

        Artillery - yes. But commanding her ... not everything is clear.
        1. Liam
          Liam 16 August 2020 08: 43 New
          +1
          Quote: kalibr
          Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka

          Artillery - yes. But commanding her ... not everything is clear.

          It is not clear from your story that
          domestic horse artillery was superior to the French
          1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
            Kote Pan Kokhanka 16 August 2020 10: 15 New
            +4
            Quote: Liam
            Quote: kalibr
            Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka

            Artillery - yes. But commanding her ... not everything is clear.

            It is not clear from your story that
            domestic horse artillery was superior to the French

            This is not a question for Vyacheslav Olegovich (caliber), but for me. He just emphasizes the superiority of the French artillery.
            If you want to know how our guns were superior to similar French modernist style, read Shirokorad or about the reforms of Arkachiv, the same Begunova!
            For the sourdough, let me draw your attention to the recruiting of the French regimental artillery from the author's lines!
            Until the company of 1812, the French had no field artillery in their regiments! Peter I did it during the Northern War!
            Even having received 2 Austrian guns per regiment (we had 4 each), they did not have constant calculations!
            Etc. Alas, there is no time to continue the discussion, we must run! hi
            1. Liam
              Liam 16 August 2020 10: 24 New
              +3
              Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
              This is not a question for Vyacheslav Olegovich

              The question is exactly to the address. Throughout the article he describes how the French artillery has outplayed more than completely Russian, and in the comments it turns 180 degrees and agrees with your thesis that
              domestic horse artillery was superior to the French

              Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
              Etc.

              This is very interesting, but, sorry, nothing.
              Theoretical sophistication must be confirmed by practice, but in practice Russian artillery on the battlefield was in no way more effective than Napoleonic, but quite the opposite.
              1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
                Kote Pan Kokhanka 16 August 2020 13: 10 New
                +4
                Vyacheslav Olegovich says that Napoleon won the artillery duel in the Battle of Borodino. Otherwise, in 1812, the French artillery was inferior to the Patriotic one or was on an equal footing.
                By the way, in the organizational part, the French and the Russians mutually enriched themselves by borrowing each other! The French are introducing the same furshtat 30 years after us. The light regimental artillery already mentioned by me with 3-pound Austrian cannons and a temporary command was inferior to the domestic one with two 6-pounder guns and two unicorns with permanent numbers. Having received the mustals in the companies of 1805-1809, the French borrow the organization of our field artillery. However, we also qualitatively reworked the organization of their horse artillery, where they could only surpass us in numbers.
                Constructively!
                The French cannons were even heavier than the fifty-year-old Shuvalovskys! Having the ability to shoot further and more accurately had primitive sights!
                Moreover, Vyacheslav was mistaken since 1809, our guns had a permanent attached Kabanov sight. “Fortified on a special pin at the tide. Rotating around the pin, the sight always maintained a vertical position, which eliminated the influence of the material part. This had a beneficial effect on the speed of movement by 2 divisions, along which the flap with holes and an indicator of the inclination of the trunnions moved. The front sight in the form of a pyramid was attached to the muzzle bulge.
                Only the newest Morro cannons had iron axles, the Gibrival axles had wooden axles bound with iron!
                True, the French cannons were superior to ours in the range of grapeshot, but our unicorns were tired of this !!!
                Realizing this, Napoleon is introducing into circulation light three-pound cannons, which have been removed from service with us and transferred to the jaeger teams or in the fortress by Pavel!
                According to the French themselves, it was heavy and uncomfortable, and most importantly, it had a weak shot power. Together with the latest Morro long guns, it was removed from service in 1815 !!!
                On howitzers, read the Germans! Unicorns were more maneuverable, more convenient and more effective both when firing bombs and buckshot! Only the Gibreville light howitzer was lighter, but in terms of effective fire range it was 1,5 times inferior to the Shuvalov one! In the rate of fire due to the smaller number of numbers three times! In maneuverability due to 4-wheel charging boxes and heavy front end twice !!!
                If we compare the French howitzer with the unicorns cast after 1803, the advantage of the latter is even more obvious! The newest unicorns had a very successful carriage, which was superior to the French ones until 1845! The unicorns themselves remained in service until the advent of rifled artillery.
                Uv hand writing tired !!!
                Respectfully, ready for constructive criticism!
                Although to the attention of the last two strokes!
                1. The Germans, Austrians and French took the captured unicorns into service, we squeezed the Triumphal Column out of the captured French cannons - almost scrapped them! Today its remains lie in a woodpile in the Kremlin and near the museum of the panorama of the Battle of Borodino!
                2. Purely French guns in the park of the Great Army were only 2/3 of the rest of the combined hodgepodge, including 100 years ago. For example, the Italians!
                Only under Borodino did the French have about a hundred 12-pounder guns of the era of the Kings !!! Which is even ashamed to compare with Shuvalovsky artillery !!!
                Once again with respect!
                1. Liam
                  Liam 16 August 2020 13: 18 New
                  -1
                  Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
                  Vyacheslav Olegovich says that Napoleon won the artillery duel in the Battle of Borodino. Otherwise, in 1812, the French artillery was inferior to the Patriotic one or was on an equal footing

                  Otherwise, what? In the glitter of copper plaques? Artillery was created in order to win artillery duels. According to you, the French artillery won the duel. The rest is theory for the poor. hi
              2. kalibr
                16 August 2020 13: 48 New
                -1
                It was more effective not in the quality of the weapons, but in their control. There will be more about French guns ...
                1. Liam
                  Liam 16 August 2020 14: 09 New
                  -1
                  This is a bit like .. our team is stronger than the opponent's head, because our sticks are better than his. True, we regularly lose matches. Because we skate worse, play bad combinations and the coach is not.
                  PySy.To carry on conversations among non-specialists that this gun is worse because it is heavier, and that the other is better because it shoots one of the types of ammunition 50 meters further is a useless occupation. We are talking about products and wars 200+ years ago.
                  It is necessary to rely not on such shaky things, but on a more serious base. For example, on the fact that France of that period (and, in principle, always) was a first-class economic, technological, industrial and military world power. And objectively outstripped RI in these spheres. "headlong" backlog, and even in such an important area as guns, is out of the question
                  1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
                    Kote Pan Kokhanka 16 August 2020 15: 54 New
                    +5
                    France of that period (yes, in principle, always) was a first-class economic, technological, industrial and military world power. And objectively it was ahead of RI in these spheres. speeches

                    Inquire about ways to drill artillery barrels from the early 19th century!
                    In "delightful" France, steam engines were used, but drilled in a different vertical way. In the backward Russian Empire, they tried on an archaic water drive, but with an innovative horizontal roll drilling of the barrel! The British were cooler who used both advanced methods, but their infantry guns were worse than those of the French and Russians !!!
                    So, despite the industrial superiority, due to the "toughness" of the technical control of acceptance, the quality of the gun alloy and the engineering school, domestic guns were better than French ones !!! If you do not trust me, read Scharnhost, the German understood this more than many of his contemporaries !!!
                    From patterns On tools, we left before the "frogs" by a quarter of a century. With regimental (light) and horse artillery, they were ahead of them by a century, with a buffet table - by 30 years, with two-wheeled charging boxes - by half a century, sights - by a decade, with a dischl thrust system - by 5 years, a vertical propeller with a vertical aiming clear - by 3 years! The French never created weapons like unicorns! They were ahead of us only in creating gun parks! But in 1812 we already had them !!! Organizationally, we have already abandoned ineffective 3-pounder cannons, leaving them only in the Jaeger regiments!
                    100 Vauban cannons of the Great Army and 300 guns of the Allies, in fact, were a sludge of European artillery! Italians and Spaniards used rarities from two centuries ago! The Germans are heavy 12-pound guns with a wedge-shaped vertical fire with "technological" guns, duckweeds and weighing as much as two of our 12 pound average proportions! The Austrians had quite good artillery, but their 3 pounds had a shaft thrust system, charging boxes on four wheels, the trunnions had a front position, and the sight consisted of one front sight and a copper plate with calculations. And I also forgot the elevation angle was 10 degrees, and she was more cheerful than our removed from service Shuvalov 3-pounder!
                    That's it, that's enough! Good day.
                    1. Liam
                      Liam 16 August 2020 23: 02 New
                      -1
                      Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
                      If you do not trust me, read Scharnhost, the German understood this more than many of his contemporaries !!!

                      I read it.

                      At the beginning of the 1774th century, the Prussian general Scharngorst assessed Griboval's artillery as follows: “The French artillery, which was the first in Europe in the previous period, became the most perfect again in XNUMX; it is true that the main ideas of its design and organization were borrowed from the Prussian artillery, but they were implemented in such a way that the French guns are still not inferior to any others ... everything that was borrowed received the highest possible degree of perfection. The French artillery corps took the most outstanding part in the development of artillery science and technology ... when in other states artillery was a craft, in France it has already become a science ... French material and French institutions now serve as examples for all other artillery


                      You get too hot
              3. Trilobite Master
                Trilobite Master 16 August 2020 15: 15 New
                +7
                Quote: Liam
                Throughout the article, he describes how the French artillery beat more than completely Russian, and in the comments it turns 180 degrees

                I don't know, but I understand what the author is talking about in the article about the technical superiority of the Russian artillery, about its quantitative superiority at Borodino, but all these advantages, as I understood, in the author's opinion were leveled out by the inability of our command to use this artillery. In this respect, I don't see any 10 degree turn.
                1. Liam
                  Liam 16 August 2020 15: 50 New
                  -2
                  Quote: Trilobite Master
                  I understand

                  And I do not agree with this statement and explained my position in the answer to him and my colleague Kote.
                  Artillery is not only guns, but also the training of calculations, logistics, tactics of use and the talent of military leaders to dispose of it all. And the quality of the guns in this list takes a firm last position in importance. Therefore, to talk about any overwhelming hypothetical superiority of the Russian artillery in this particular battle or in the absolute, there are no grounds. On all other points (except for the quality of the guns), the opponents themselves agree that the French are stronger.
                  As for the quality of the guns. It is more than doubtful that the Russians were utterly superior to the French ones. About the "no analogs" 50-year-old Shuvalov unicorns who were supposedly cooler back then, you can only shrug your shoulders. This could not be for a variety of reasons. Starting with the indisputable industrial and military leadership of the then France and ending with the fact that during that period there were wars every year, the Russians suffered many defeats in them, leaving hundreds of guns on the battlefield and the French had no obstacles to remake their supposedly famous Russian miracle cannons that have no analogues. They had the time and knowledge and the opportunities and skills for this.
                  However, they didn’t do it for some reason. And they were definitely not fools. Therefore, I believe that these technical super-advantages of Russian guns are nothing more than a myth.
                2. ccsr
                  ccsr 18 August 2020 20: 54 New
                  -1
                  Quote: Trilobite Master
                  I don't know, but I understand what the author is talking about in the article about the technical superiority of the Russian artillery, about its quantitative superiority at Borodino, but all these advantages, as I understood, in the author's opinion were leveled out by the inability of our command to use this artillery. In this respect, I don't see any 10 degree turn.

                  In vain did you believe the author of the article, because there is a monument on the Borodino field, which indicates that in this battle there were 640 Russian guns, and the French - 1000.
                  So to take seriously the opinion of the author that our artillerymen had an advantage in numbers means to reject what has long been studied in the days of the Russian Empire. However, for those who have never been to the Borodino field, here are some photos from this place:



                  By the way, the assertion of one of the authors that the field was allegedly cut by ravines and had a complex relief does not correspond to reality:
                  1. Trilobite Master
                    Trilobite Master 18 August 2020 22: 11 New
                    0
                    The author took his numbers not from the ceiling, but from authoritative research. I came across exactly the ones that Vyacheslav Olegovich brought, for example, by E.A. Razin (the first thing that came to mind). I don't know where the number on the stele came from. Try to figure it out for yourself if it matters to you. And if you tell me later, I will not be falsely grateful.
                    1. ccsr
                      ccsr 19 August 2020 11: 21 New
                      0
                      Quote: Trilobite Master
                      The author took his numbers not from the ceiling, but from authoritative research.

                      Aren't you surprised that he did not cite his "facts"?
                      Quote: Trilobite Master
                      I don’t know where the number on the stele came from. Try to figure it out for yourself if it matters to you. And if you tell me later, I will not be falsely grateful.

                      It's strange that you believed a person without even looking at the OFFICIAL site of the Battle of Borodino:
                      The main monument to Russian soldiers - heroes of the Borodino battle
                      Architect A. Adamini, 1839 Destroyed in 1932, rebuilt in 1987. Tomb of the general from infantry P.I.Bagration. Reburial in 1839
                      At the barrow height is the Main Monument to the Heroes of Borodin, which was laid in August 1837, on the 25th anniversary of the Battle of Borodino. In July 1839, at the foot of the monument, the remains of Prince Peter Ivanovich Bagration were buried, transferred here by order of the emperor from the village of Sima in the Yuryev-Polsky district of the Vladimir province.
                      The height of the monument together with the cross is 27,5 meters. Its edges contain information about the numerical strength of both armies on the day of the battle, about the "twelve languages" of Napoleon's army, about the Russian generals who died on the memorable day on August 26, 1812. Here are also expressive texts about the retreat of the Russian army to Moscow, about the entry of the French into the capital and Russian troops into Paris.
                      In 1932 the monument was destroyed as “having neither historical nor artistic value”. The crypt with the ashes of Bagration was also damaged. In 1987, the monument and the gravestone on the grave of P.I.Bagration were recreated in the previous forms and materials - in cast iron and bronze with gilding - according to the surviving drawings of the architect Anthony Adamini.

                      https://www.borodino.ru/muzej/pamyatniki-borodinskogo-polya/glavnyj-monument-rossijskim-voinam-geroyam-borodinskogo-srazheniya/
            2. Liam
              Liam 16 August 2020 10: 49 New
              -1
              Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
              Until the company of 1812, the French had no field artillery in their regiments! Peter I did it during the Northern War!

              And this somehow did not particularly prevent Napoleon from regularly smashing his opponents for 15 years, including the Russians who had regimental artillery
              1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
                Kote Pan Kokhanka 16 August 2020 12: 17 New
                +2
                Quote: Liam
                Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
                Until the company of 1812, the French had no field artillery in their regiments! Peter I did it during the Northern War!

                And this somehow did not particularly prevent Napoleon from regularly smashing his opponents for 15 years, including the Russians who had regimental artillery

                However, how to get on mordas for 15 years and mostly from the Russians !!!
                By the way, Napoleon, not Alexander I, finished his years on the island of St. Helena, so the conclusion is obvious !!!
                1. Liam
                  Liam 16 August 2020 12: 24 New
                  -2
                  Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
                  However, how to get on mordas for 15 years and mostly from the Russians !!!

                  Where did he get so much from the Russians?
                  Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
                  on Saint Helena

                  This is a very weak argument; in football, it's called saving the situation by knocking the ball out.
                  He was sent to St. Helena by the Battle of Waterloo. Would it be difficult to name the name of the Russian military leader who commanded there?
            3. Undecim
              Undecim 16 August 2020 12: 29 New
              +2
              If you want to know how our guns were superior to similar French Art Nouveau, read Shirokorad
              If anyone wants to know "how our tools were superior to similar French ones", one should not read Shirokokrad's multi-tool compiler, but the classics, Nilus, for example.
            4. arturpraetor
              arturpraetor 16 August 2020 14: 44 New
              +5
              Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
              Until the company of 1812, the French had no field artillery in their regiments!

              First, field and regimental artillery are two different things.
              Secondly, this is not entirely true. The French had regimental artillery, 4-pounders were rarely used in field artillery, de jure regimental artillery in France was allocated by Griboval (or maybe this happened even earlier, he did not dig the topic in detail, and did not see earlier mentions), and de jure in fact, the 4-pounder battalions were attributed to the EMNIP since the time of Louis XIV (the peculiarities of the recruitment of units of that time and their organization led to the fact that the French battalion could in fact be equal to the regiment's staff we adopted, in the "old" guards regiments, for example, there were 70 mouth). The fact that the French did not have guns at all with the regiments is misleading, apparently due to the fact that Napoleon decided to transfer the captured Prussian and Austrian guns to the regiments. Although it is easier to open the casket there - the traditional French system of Griboval's calibers "had no analogues" among Napoleon's opponents, which did not allow the use of captured ammunition. Therefore, in 1805-1808, the 4-pounder regimental artillery was replaced by the 3-pounder, and in the field artillery, the 8-pounder was revised in favor of the 6-pounder. At the same time, captured weapons were used as much as possible. The surplus 4- and 8-pounders were sent to Spain in 1808, since the Spaniards were the only country that used the Griboval system calibers, and there were no problems with the use of captured ammunition with old guns.

              In general, the history of pre-rifle artillery in Russian is greatly distorted, and therefore it is as easy as shelling pears to pick up errors on this topic. Just what is the quite often met statement that the Griboval system was based exclusively on Russian developments in the field of artillery. And the assertion that the Griboval system (1776) appeared in France only during the era of the Napoleonic Wars ...
              1. Undecim
                Undecim 16 August 2020 16: 49 New
                +2
                And the statement that the Griboval system (1776)
                1765 year. Approved by decree of 13 August. It was canceled in 1772. It was restored in 1776.
                1. arturpraetor
                  arturpraetor 16 August 2020 16: 55 New
                  +2
                  So yes, an omission. For some reason, I remember that in 1765 Griboval had just begun to work out the future system.
              2. Kote Pan Kokhanka
                Kote Pan Kokhanka 16 August 2020 18: 13 New
                +1
                Hi Artem!
                If, in a nutshell, you are somewhat right, and in some cases you are wrong!
                Musketeer regiments in the era of the last French kings were formed at the expense of their commanders. So there were 4 pounds, as it were, with shelves, but did not have a buffet table and permanent numbers. Yes, these 4 pounds of the Waban system were as heavy as our 6 pound guns. By the revolution, and this died. So Napoleon restored what the revolution had killed!
                Austrian peers of our guns were worse than French ones! In 1810 they tried to rectify this situation, but how much they managed to do in two years! They even copied the unicorn, but I doubt they were in the Great Army.
                Unification of cores? Don't tell me Napoleon's menagerie used over 40 different calibers! In France, Austria, Germanic principalities, there were different pounds, and some had two or three subspecies!
                So the French at Borodino were superior to us in heavy artillery, but inferior in howitzer and regimental !!!
                By the way, Arakcheev and his predecessors fought all the best from the French system, without hesitation!
                Well, the last thing, why super long-range guns if there are no scopes !!!
                1. arturpraetor
                  arturpraetor 16 August 2020 19: 02 New
                  +2
                  Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
                  So there were 4 pounds, as it were, with shelves, but did not have a buffet table and permanent numbers.

                  Those. regimental artillery was, only organizationally different from the usual to us. This does not allow us to assert that it did not exist at all.
                  Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
                  Yes, these 4 pounds of the Waban system were as heavy as our 6 pound guns.

                  I suspect you are about the de Vallière system. Yes, his guns were really heavy ... But this is the system of 1732, then the guns of all countries in Europe were heavy and cumbersome. The mobility of artillery began to come to the fore after the war for the Austrian inheritance and the Seven Years, Russian artillery, if anything, up to that moment, too, did not shine with mobility, largely because of the heavy and cumbersome gun carriages. Except, perhaps, unicorns.
                  Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
                  By the revolution, and this died. So Napoleon restored what the revolution had killed!

                  EMNIP is the first decree on regimental artillery under the revolutionary troops - 1792 or 1793. Yes, in the conditions of revolution and total chaos, not all regiments could receive artillery ... But this does not change matters.
                  Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
                  Unification of cores? Don't tell me Napoleon's menagerie used over 40 different calibers!

                  Since the days of the de Vallière system, there were only FIVE calibers in the field and regimental artillery of France - 4, 8, 12, 16 and 24 pounds, not counting howitzers. Over 40 calibers are the end of the XNUMXth and the beginning of the XNUMXth centuries, and then if we take all types of artillery, in principle, from falconets to siege mortars and howitzers.
                  Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
                  In France, Austria, the Germanic principalities, there were different pounds, and some had two or three subspecies!

                  But the difference was not so catastrophic, because the calibers in pounds were too small to have a radical difference, and the artillery of that time always had a gap between the cannonball and the bore. Plus, the French pound is heavier, so it's easier to roll balls from other comparable pound caliber guns with little difference. For comparison, you can take 12-pounder guns - the French had 121 mm, the Austrian and Prussian - 119,5. But the Prussians and Austrians had lower calibers of 6 and 3 pounds, while the French had 8 and 4. Therefore, they had to replace artillery with captured ones - it was easier to supply at the expense of strangers during the war, and there were a lot of captured guns. A similar problem with the Russian artillery - the pounds there are practically the same as those of the French, but the calibers are completely different, with the exception of 12 pounds.
                  Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
                  Well, the last thing, why super long-range guns if there are no scopes !!!

                  Did I say something about super-range? smile
                  1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
                    Kote Pan Kokhanka 16 August 2020 21: 56 New
                    +1
                    1. 4 pounds - a fundamental difference in the organization!
                    2. Yes Aviary, though initially Vauban had a hand. Then I forgot. Initially, the regimental artillery was created by the Swedes in the 30-year war! Then they refused. The next one was Peter the First, I think from poverty. But the decision was good. Especially when the shortened 4 pounds and howitzers (howitzers) began to be adopted for the raising of the regiments. The French, praised by you, copied the Dutch howitzers for the first time, after 50 years !!! They were not in the regimental artillery, from the word at all !!!
                    Oh yes, the Shuvalov 12 pound of medium proportion is lighter than the analogous cannon of Aviary and even Griboval! At the same time, Gibroval's gun had only superiority in accuracy and range of a shot with a cannonball and buckshot! But considering that Aviary cut down even the flies from his guns, and they were returned only at the beginning of the 19th century! What is the superiority of the French artillery !!!
                    So the "frogs" had to fence up 100 cannon batteries, which suppressed one or two Russian batteries !!!
                    By the pounds! Shove a French 12 pound cannon (in royal pounds) into an Italian 12 pound cannon !!! Or fire an Austrian bomb from a German long 12-pounder cannon !!! In the first case, it will not enter; in the second, the bomb will explode in the barrel! So I was not writing about the French, but about the Great Army! So to the 5 calibers of the guns we add 3 for howitzers, 2 for mortars, 12 for German guns, 8 for Austrian and 3 Italian ones, and yes, the Kremlin has one Spanish one in the trophies! We get 34 caliber !!! Yes, not 40, but not much less!
                    Artem, I like to argue with you, with sincere respect, Vlad!
                    1. arturpraetor
                      arturpraetor 16 August 2020 23: 05 New
                      +1
                      Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
                      Initially, the regimental artillery was created by the Swedes in the 30-year war! Then they refused. The next one was Peter the First, I think from poverty.

                      Not entirely out of poverty. Regimental artillery - i.e. artillery that can support the infantry with wheels and fire - they still wanted to create from the XVI century. Alas, the possibilities did not allow - such a gun should be light enough, and heavy carriages and heavy barrels led to the fact that either it is mobile, but ineffective, or effective, but not very mobile, and therefore useless. Swedish leather cannons were both mobile and effective, but unreliable, which was why even the Swedes themselves were gradually discarded. In fact, it was technologically possible to reach regimental artillery only by the beginning of the 1686th century, and this affected all countries. The first officially created and successful regimental artillery of a regular staff appeared in England in 2 (3 XNUMX-pound guns per regiment). In Russia, the regiments had guns even before Peter, with the "new system", but they had an irregular basis and worsened the mobility of the regiments (if we were not talking about some very light swivel guns).
                      Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
                      Especially when the shortened 4 pounds and howitzers (howitzers) began to be adopted for the raising of the regiments

                      And now with proofs, please, as howitzers appeared in the regimental artillery under Peter. Because I saw the staffs of the Petrine regiments, and the regimental artillery was represented only by light cannons, experiments were carried out with howitzers, but this business did not go to the masses.
                      Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
                      The French, praised by you, copied Dutch howitzers for the first time, after 50 years !!!

                      Sorry, but find the one who told you that the French did not have howitzers in their field artillery until the middle of the XNUMXth century, and spit in his eye. "The French, praised by me" - it is generally recognized that they possessed the most developed artillery school in Western Europe, and the largest artillery park. I would not treat them with such disdain.
                      Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
                      They were not in the regimental artillery, from the word at all !!!

                      In no other country in the world were there classic howitzers in regimental artillery. Including Russian, if you look at the states. Unicorns are a little different, and as far as I remember, they were not included in the regimental artillery either, or were included occasionally. Even quarter-pound unicorns went to the artillery regiments.

                      In general, I suspect that you do not quite understand the difference between field and regimental artillery, and write to the regimental all the guns in a row.
                      Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
                      Oh yes, the Shuvalov 12 pound of medium proportion is lighter than the analogous cannon of Aviary and even Griboval!

                      And even shorter. This, too, should not be forgotten, it also has its consequences.
                      Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
                      But considering that Aviary cut down even the flies from his guns, and they were returned only at the beginning of the 19th century! What is the superiority of the French artillery !!!

                      Firstly, Vallière could not return anything at the beginning of the 1759th century, since he died in XNUMX.
                      Secondly, according to the state, a sight was relied on the guns of Griboval. It was a copper plate cut into the torus with a vertical cut and a bar moving in it, which was fixed with a screw at the required height. And no one took them out of there. This is the same man who told you about the lack of field howitzers among the French?
                      Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
                      What is the superiority of the French artillery !!!

                      In the range and accuracy of fire. And the Russians had unicorns. At the same time, the Russian artillery is less long-range and accurate, while the French have disgusting howitzers, which they themselves perfectly understood, but did not consider this a critical drawback. In general, until the age of about 1830-1840s, the French and Russian artillery schools were more or less equivalent, and left the rest far behind. But some, apparently, want the superiority of the Russians here in general to be absolute, and therefore they are trying to belittle the French artillery school by telling a bunch of horror stories about it ...
                      Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
                      Shove a French 12 pound cannon (in royal pounds) into an Italian 12 pound cannon !!! Or fire an Austrian bomb from a German long 12-pounder cannon !!! In the first case, it will not enter; in the second, the bomb will explode in the barrel!

                      First, why do this if the opposite option is envisaged - the use of captured ammunition by FRENCHES? Which artillery caliber in mm is the largest, and therefore they are "omnivorous" in terms of the caliber of the nuclei of other countries?
                      Secondly, I have already shown you an example of a 12-pounder cannon from France and Austria, which have a MINIMUM difference in caliber. At one time I was interested in this issue, and the difference in calibers in mm of the same pound cannon from different countries is not critical, and given that the cannonballs were always noticeably less than the bore diameter, even the "largest" cannon will fit into the "narrowest" cannon of its weight category. Although there were some reservations - but again, not critical. Or do you think that the nuclei there were fitted under the bore to a millimeter? The Austrian 12-pounder with a caliber of 119,5mm had a core diameter of about 112-113mm. The French Griboval cannon has a caliber of 12 pounds (121-122mm), SUDDENLY, also 112-113mm! And so practically throughout the artillery. I don’t remember a cannonball for a 12-pounder cannon in one country that was larger or equal in diameter to 12-pounder calibers in other countries, the gaps of at least 4-5 mm always remained. This is not enough for the cannon to explode right away, or it could not be loaded.
                      Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
                      So I was not writing about the French, but about the Great Army!

                      First, we started about the French in general. The great army is a different story, the combined hodgepodge of troops of different nations has never been easy to supply.
                      Secondly, many countries used French weapons. For example, the Italians you mentioned above used almost exclusively French weapons - from pistols and rifles to cannons.
                      Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
                      We get 34 caliber !!! Yes, not 40, but not much less!

                      And at the same time the resulting kaleidoscope will in no way characterize the actual French artillery, which was discussed. In addition, even this figure is probably overestimated, since, for example, 5 "French" cannon calibers include 16 and 24 pounds - which I do not remember being used by field armies at all, this is already siege artillery, which was not constantly carried with them (especially taking into account how Napoleon did not like siege fuss). With howitzers, too, everything is not easy - EMNIP in one of the two calibers of these, the Austrians simply copied the Austrians, down to the caliber. Although howitzers in the case of the French are generally the tenth thing, they did not consider them particularly valuable, therefore they did not develop especially, limiting themselves to very mediocre models.
                    2. arturpraetor
                      arturpraetor 16 August 2020 23: 11 New
                      +2
                      Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
                      Artem, I like to argue with you, with sincere respect, Vlad!

                      Likewise, best regards hi But alas, I do not guarantee that I will be able to maintain the dispute further. Today the plans were definite, it was almost midnight - and I had not even begun to implement them, which is a terrible bad manners recourse
                      1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
                        Kote Pan Kokhanka 18 August 2020 16: 28 New
                        +1
                        Good luck in implementing your plans !!!
                  2. ccsr
                    ccsr 19 August 2020 11: 58 New
                    0
                    Quote: arturpraetor
                    But the Prussians and Austrians had lower calibers 6 and 3 pounds, while the French had 8 and 4.

                    In the Museum of the Battle of Borodino, next to the 24-pound howitzer there is a 6-pound Napoleon cannon, so not only the 8 and 4-pounder guns were in service with the French troops, but the 6-pound ones too:
                    1. arturpraetor
                      arturpraetor 19 August 2020 13: 19 New
                      0
                      Guns of 6 and 3 pounds in France appeared just after several successful European companies, when they collected a lot of captured ammunition, but the caliber of their artillery did not allow them to be used against their former owners. What I have already mentioned in the comments. Yes, what is there - you quoted from the description of the process and the reasons for rearmament to "European" calibers smile Unless I indicated there that the French made their own 6-pounders after the decision to re-equip, and EMNIP basically replaced trophy ones by 1812. But the 3-pounders seem to have remained mostly trophies of European wars. In addition, in 1812, there were practically no 8- and 4-pounders left in the French army, only on the Iberian Peninsula, and in trace quantities in the Great Army (8-pounders - only as part of several artillery companies under the Young Guard, if I remember correctly) ...
                      1. ccsr
                        ccsr 19 August 2020 13: 29 New
                        0
                        Quote: arturpraetor
                        Yes, what is there - you quoted from the description of the process and the reasons for rearmament to "European" calibers

                        You confused me with your opponent, I have not quoted any quotes. It's just that I was in the Museum of the Borodino Battle, and I have preserved many photographs from it, which is why I was surprised by your statement that the French army had only 8 and 4 pounds, when there were 6 pounds made in France, and not captured.
                      2. arturpraetor
                        arturpraetor 19 August 2020 13: 41 New
                        0
                        Quote: ccsr
                        I have not given any quotes

                        You quoted me, and the quote is just from my words about why the French began to use captured guns. But it’s also my fault - my colleague and I were only talking about trophies and regimental guns, so I didn’t mention 6-pounders (field artillery) according to the Griboval system, although I know very well that they were. But they appeared precisely after the aforementioned problems. Well, and one more characteristic of the French 8-pounders - they had 2 trunnion positions on the carriage, combat and transport, since in the combat position a too long barrel could "peck" the ground when transported by horses. The 6-pounders were smaller and shorter, and this was no longer a problem. Although they put up with this up to a certain point.
    3. Liam
      Liam 16 August 2020 09: 53 New
      +2
      Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
      classic 3 versus 1 didn't work

      And when was this “classic” -3 to 1- born? When did it become a dogma, in what historical period?
      1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
        Kote Pan Kokhanka 16 August 2020 10: 02 New
        +2
        For the first time, 3 to 1 in the Russian military literature appeared in the 60s of the last century, when it began to praise the Battle of Kursk. Isaev describes this quite well.
        1. Liam
          Liam 16 August 2020 10: 06 New
          +1
          And then sisl to drag 3: 1 to the Battle of Borodino?
          1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
            Kote Pan Kokhanka 16 August 2020 12: 14 New
            +1
            I'm not the author of the comment that I oppose!
            1. Liam
              Liam 16 August 2020 12: 26 New
              -1
              I don't see even a hint of 3: 1 in his post
  • The leader of the Redskins
    The leader of the Redskins 16 August 2020 07: 22 New
    +4
    I repeat that this time period is not my "hobbyhorse", but I read it with interest. Thank you, Vyacheslav Olegovich. Good day.
  • VicktorVR
    VicktorVR 16 August 2020 08: 02 New
    +1
    Bagrationovsk. It is at the site of this city in East Prussia


    But what about? Poland? From sea to sea? :)
    1. Catfish
      Catfish 16 August 2020 08: 09 New
      +2
      And to hell with her, one puddle of the Baltic is enough for a divorce. Sailors are damn great. laughing
  • kalibr
    16 August 2020 08: 14 New
    -4
    Quote: Snail N9
    He put something in, then brought a pallet and an ambet - when fired, the barrel flew back, crippling the shooter and those behind?

    Are people completely stupid to stand behind? The dress is long! You can step aside ... You can shoot at close range once. They didn't take squishies into the artillery. Anything can be justified. They didn't report, didn't know, hoped, believed ... that's what we and the people are.
    1. Snail N9
      Snail N9 16 August 2020 08: 35 New
      +3
      You can just as well justify the opposite - why not? could not, but why? and actually where were you from 8 to 11? (a phrase from the film, if you remember) ... There is no need to bring anything to the point of absurdity. And what about the "squabbles" .... remember "Tushin's battery"? As you remember, he was neither tall nor heroic article ...
      1. kalibr
        16 August 2020 13: 51 New
        -1
        Quote: Snail N9
        remember "Tushin's battery"?

        There may be links to fiction, but this is not an example.
  • Senior seaman
    Senior seaman 16 August 2020 09: 44 New
    +5
    In the epoch-making battle of Borodino, Napoleon had 587 guns, and Kutuzov had 640. Artillery with him was more mobile, as it consisted of 3- and 4-pounder guns.

    Who?
    Only then the context becomes more or less clear.
    Well, unicorns for bags are really not the best idea. all the more so because further you describe in detail the aiming process. How about? To dig in with a shovel or to score chopiki? Plus, the charging process. The point is that the muzzle-loading gun rolls back when fired and the calculation charges it under the protection of the parapet.
    And most importantly, if the carriages are so broken, then what about the people?
    1. kalibr
      16 August 2020 17: 18 New
      -1
      Quote: Senior Sailor
      Well, unicorns for bags are really not the best idea. all the more so because further you describe the aiming process in detail.

      Ivan! The Japanese fired just like that from 1600 onwards! Lafetov was not used! And they managed somehow!
      1. Senior seaman
        Senior seaman 16 August 2020 17: 36 New
        +5
        And we fired like that ... during the siege of Kazan.
        in principle, the Kazan archers had a similar firepower to the Japanese. But the Napoleonic grenadiers are higher.
    2. Kote Pan Kokhanka
      Kote Pan Kokhanka 16 August 2020 18: 56 New
      +1
      Quote: Senior Sailor
      In the epoch-making battle of Borodino, Napoleon had 587 guns, and Kutuzov had 640. Artillery with him was more mobile, as it consisted of 3- and 4-pounder guns.

      Who?
      Only then the context becomes more or less clear.
      Well, unicorns for bags are really not the best idea. all the more so because further you describe in detail the aiming process. How about? To dig in with a shovel or to score chopiki? Plus, the charging process. The point is that the muzzle-loading gun rolls back when fired and the calculation charges it under the protection of the parapet.
      And most importantly, if the carriages are so broken, then what about the people?

      I know only one example of cannons on homemade carriages without wheels - the defense of the Cola in the Crimean War !!!
      Carriages without wheels were also used on swivel beds on a wooden base. For example gunboats with semi-pudding unicorns and 6 pound guns. The gun carriage drove off to the rear along the inclined flooring, then it grows back into place.
      In principle, if at the level of experience. The guns and unicorns of the Ural factories were firing from a rigidly fixed gun carriage without wheels! I know for sure about the 24-pound corranadas. So figuratively, you can break off the second wheel, put sandbags on the carriage and fire buckshot! But beyond innuendo!
      Yours!
  • Undecim
    Undecim 16 August 2020 10: 41 New
    +6
    On the subject level, broken Russian unicorns. Although why broken? The trunks are intact! They just broke their wooden axles. But who prevented from putting these barrels on sandbags and at least once to shoot from them buckshot at the attacking French?
    Vyacheslav Olegovich, hereinafter you yourself answered your question.
    The caliber of a 1/2-pound unicorn was to be 152 mm with a barrel weight of 490 kg and a gun carriage of 670 kg, and a caliber of a 1/4-pound unicorn was 120 mm with a barrel weight of 335 kg and a gun carriage of 395 kg.
    Do you think that a half-ton barrel can be freely worn in position, and even put on sandbags? Under fire? "We took a log and with a smile ...."
  • Undecim
    Undecim 16 August 2020 12: 15 New
    +4
    In the same 1802, a sight was introduced in the artillery, albeit removable, with a range scale that had divisions from 5 to 30 lines (with a distance between divisions of 2,54 mm). They aimed with it through a hole in a rectangular plate, which, depending on the distance of the target, was set at one of the divisions. Changing the elevation angle of the barrel, the gunner (4th gun crew number) combined the hole on the bar, front sight and target on the line of sight, and, aiming the gun, gave the command to fire, and the sight plate lowered before the shot.
    This is Markevich's screw-on sight, the main sight of the Russian field artillery of the first quarter of the XNUMXth century. But it is not removable.
    1. Undecim
      Undecim 16 August 2020 12: 24 New
      +4
      And the pendant sight of the captain Kabanov was removable. Installation of it on the guns began in March 1812, accompanied by difficulties. how many of these scopes were installed is unknown.

      Its main advantage is that it did not lose aiming accuracy when the pins were deviated from the horizontal.
  • Aviator_
    Aviator_ 16 August 2020 12: 22 New
    +7
    This is what I like about VO - because there you can hear the opinion of a military specialist directly. Well, Shpakovsky is a writer, so his advice on using guns on the battlefield without gun carriages is not even funny.
    1. Undecim
      Undecim 16 August 2020 12: 37 New
      13
      Well, Shpakovsky is a writer
      Yes, he has a lot of technical flaws in his articles and sometimes, let's say, ideas that are far from reality. However, you must agree that for today's site, Shpakovsky's departure in the content will punch a hole that no one can fill at the moment. Or do you prefer Samsonov's delirium, the fountains of Skomorokhov's technical ignorance, Ryabov's verbiage or Kharaluzhny's datszybao?
      1. Korsar4
        Korsar4 16 August 2020 15: 05 New
        +1
        Almost a listing of passions from the Old Testament or Vanity Fair.
      2. Aviator_
        Aviator_ 16 August 2020 20: 16 New
        +3
        I do not scold Shpakovsky. "Don't shoot the pianist - he plays as best he can." Other authors listed by you also play as best they can. I just emphasized that on VO you can hear the masters of their craft, and in the comments, not in the articles. This is VO and valuable to me.
      3. Grim Reaper
        Grim Reaper 17 August 2020 20: 45 New
        +1
        Quote: Undecim
        Well, Shpakovsky is a writer
        Yes, he has a lot of technical flaws in his articles and sometimes, let's say, ideas that are far from reality. However, you must agree that for today's site, Shpakovsky's departure in the content will punch a hole that no one can fill at the moment. Or do you prefer Samsonov's delirium, the fountains of Skomorokhov's technical ignorance, Ryabov's verbiage or Kharaluzhny's datszybao?

        One seems to have already left. It's a pity. His articles on battleships and flights to the moon are missing. And about Skomorokhov you are in vain, he sets a topic and it is interesting to read comments to it, few of the authors know how.
        From SW.


        Ps. I have a very respectful attitude towards Shpakovsky. I have books with his signature.
        1. Undecim
          Undecim 17 August 2020 20: 47 New
          +2
          he sets a topic and comments on it are interesting to read
          That is, you think that in order to write interesting comments, the article must be written technically illiterate?
          1. Grim Reaper
            Grim Reaper 18 August 2020 00: 19 New
            +1
            Quote: Undecim
            he sets a topic and comments on it are interesting to read
            That is, you think that in order to write interesting comments, the article must be written technically illiterate?

            It is enough if it is written in the format "young technician" who wants to dig deeper. Again, I will repeat about the value of comments.
            From SW.
    2. kalibr
      16 August 2020 17: 15 New
      -1
      Sergei, before you laugh, find out that the Japanese, having received guns from the Dutch, did not put them on carriages! And they shot ... putting the barrels on the ground! They made an elevation out of earth or sandbags, hammered bamboo trunks from behind and ... shot. And not only during the siege of castles, but also in field battles. They carried them on themselves (trunks), although, probably, they were weaker than even Captain Tushin. And when a person does not know something, then before making fun of others, a smart one would try to find out what these or other statements are based on. Stupid - everything that surprises him is considered the fantasy of another.
      1. Senior seaman
        Senior seaman 16 August 2020 18: 54 New
        +7
        Quote: kalibr
        And they shot ... putting the barrels on the ground!

        It seems to me, Vyacheslav Olegovich, you give out a bug for a feature :)))
        Here are stupid Europeans, for some reason carriages have come up with .... well, stupid!
        The Japanese artillerymen were opposed, at best, by shooters with match rifles, and not with "Brown Bess" muskets. And with metals they are not as good as in Europe. And with the craftsmen who are capable of making a carriage, and most of all, it is bad with the roads along which horse-drawn artillery teams could drive.
        In general, it seems to me that they laid the cannons on the ground not from an excess of intelligence and Asian prodigality, but from despair.
        Something like that.
        1. Undecim
          Undecim 16 August 2020 19: 36 New
          +4
          It seems to me, Vyacheslav Olegovich, you give out a bug for a feature :)))
          You are absolutely right. The main factor is the Japanese relief. The Japanese considered it stupid to carry heavy cannons on carriages across mountains and forests, so they used small cannons, rather large-caliber arquebusses.
          1. Undecim
            Undecim 16 August 2020 19: 40 New
            +2
            And already in the XNUMXth century, the Japanese had carriages.
      2. Kote Pan Kokhanka
        Kote Pan Kokhanka 16 August 2020 19: 09 New
        +4
        Vyacheslav Olegovich, I'll clarify a little about the Japanese. From the Dutch they received the falconets (bass in our opinion). The caliber was not large, no more than 3 pounds. On ships, they were placed in a kingpin. In addition, according to the times of the frame, I am afraid that this happened before the appearance of cast-iron cannonballs and that Japanese falconets were fired with lead cannonballs or iron shot! They could really be carried.
        Even if I am mistaken, these were coolers (squeaks), then due to their length they are much more convenient for shooting without a gun carriage than later bastards, howitzers and unicorns !!!
        Still, it's scary to shoot without a gun carriage from a 12-pound cannon or a half-pound unicorn !!! Especially remembering how the bombard "recoil system" was arranged!
      3. Undecim
        Undecim 16 August 2020 19: 30 New
        +3
        Sergei, before you laugh, find out that the Japanese, having received guns from the Dutch, did not put them on carriages!
        And they were not intended to be installed on carriages. They were mounted on a swivel.
        1. kalibr
          16 August 2020 20: 29 New
          -3
          You should know that they also had the most ordinary smoothbore guns. I had here an article about Japanese guns of that time, where everything was painted in detail. I can not give this schedule. I have this gun there in color!
          1. Undecim
            Undecim 16 August 2020 20: 51 New
            0
            Yes, I even inserted an illustration in the comment above - with an ordinary cannon on a carriage.
  • sevtrash
    sevtrash 16 August 2020 12: 36 New
    0
    Pruntsov does not describe the concentration of French artillery as a key component of the battle, not even to say that it is very significant. From his brochure, a more or less favorable outcome of the battle for the Russians was determined by the high morale - fighting spirit, experience, and enterprise of the commanders. The French had everything too, but the best units - the Guard - did not participate in the battle. So the infantry decided everything.
    If Napoleon had risked a guard, then the Russian army would most likely have been defeated and, probably, Alexander would have gone to negotiations and would have joined the continental blockade. Would it turn the history of Europe? It is quite possible, but unlikely for long, very much Napoleon was uncompromising.
    1. kalibr
      16 August 2020 20: 30 New
      -3
      Quote: sevtrash
      which is not very significant.

      Is the difference of 100 guns insignificant? Oh well...
      1. sevtrash
        sevtrash 17 August 2020 14: 06 New
        0
        Quote: kalibr
        Is the difference of 100 guns insignificant? Oh well

        The quantity just does not determine the effectiveness, it seems clear. I repeat, but in Pruntsov's brochure, artillery is not listed as a key component of the battle.
        1. kalibr
          17 August 2020 18: 12 New
          -3
          Quote: sevtrash
          The quantity just does not determine the effectiveness, it seems clear.

          This determines, with similar performance characteristics and training of gunners. And what is written in the specified brochure ... Look for a year. Reference data in it at height. But value judgments ... "not a light in the window."
          1. sevtrash
            sevtrash 19 August 2020 08: 49 New
            0
            Quote: kalibr
            This determines, with similar performance characteristics and training of gunners. And what is written in the specified brochure ... Look for a year. Reference data in it at height. But value judgments ... "not a light in the window."

            Pruntsov's writing is not bad. Briefly and to the point. Almost 150 years from Borodino. You yourself advertised Pruntsov. And I have never met anywhere before that would indicate the decisive role of artillery as a result of the battle in Borodino.
            1. kalibr
              19 August 2020 11: 15 New
              -3
              Quote: sevtrash
              And I have never met anywhere before that would indicate the decisive role of artillery as a result of the battle in Borodino.

              And you just need to say so and UNDERLINE again, right? Also take a look at Pruntsov, write down ALL the moments where he compares the number of guns here and there - here's your answer. Will automatically come to mind!
              1. sevtrash
                sevtrash 21 August 2020 22: 28 New
                0
                Quote: kalibr
                And you just need to say so and UNDERLINE again, right? Also take a look at Pruntsov, write down ALL the moments where he compares the number of guns here and there - here's your answer. Will automatically come to mind!

                Do you seriously not understand what? The number of units of this or that weapon is not equivalent to its effectiveness. No one ever said that the outcome of the Battle of Borodino was determined by artillery. As well as Pruntsov too.
  • Undecim
    Undecim 16 August 2020 12: 49 New
    +3
    According to this system, the 12-pounder gun had to have a caliber of 120 mm, a barrel - weight 800 kg, a carriage - 640 kg
    According to "this system" there were two 12-pounder guns - small and medium proportions. The difference is in the length of the barrel. For a small proportion cannon the length of the gun was 12,3 caliber, for a cannon of medium proportion it was 15,8 caliber.
    Accordingly, the weight of the barrel of a small proportion gun was 29 pounds or 464 kilograms, and that of a cannon of an average proportion was 50 pounds or 800 kilograms. The caliber of both guns is 4,76 inches or 121 mm.
    1. Undecim
      Undecim 16 August 2020 13: 24 New
      +4
      On the subject of unicorns, I missed out on the 3 pound field unicorn.
      1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
        Kote Pan Kokhanka 16 August 2020 19: 27 New
        +1
        Quote: Undecim
        On the subject of unicorns, I missed out on the 3 pound field unicorn.

        They were given to the Jaeger regiments, two each!
  • Old26
    Old26 16 August 2020 14: 44 New
    +4
    Thank you for the article, Vyacheslav Olegovich! I read it with interest. the artillery of this period is a completely dark forest for me. especially interesting for me personally were the calibers of the guns.
    1. kalibr
      16 August 2020 17: 09 New
      +2
      There will be another article about the artillery of that era. When I was in the Paris Army Museum I filmed a lot of things, and then I read ...
      1. ccsr
        ccsr 18 August 2020 21: 07 New
        0
        Quote: kalibr
        When I was in the Paris Army Museum I filmed a lot of things, and then I read ...

        It would be better if they went to Borodino, then they would know that the French had one and a half times more guns.
        By the way, here are the trophy "bad" French guns - why are they bad for that time?



        1. kalibr
          18 August 2020 21: 48 New
          -1
          Quote: ccsr
          It would be better if they went to Borodino, then they would know that the French had one and a half times more guns.

          Where is it from? All sources give the figure 587. Data on Russian guns vary. Data from 1947 - 640. Data from Russian Wikipedia 624. And on the field I was last in 2012 when I was preparing material for the anniversary article for the magazine "Battle place".
          1. ccsr
            ccsr 19 August 2020 11: 13 New
            +1
            Quote: kalibr
            Where is it from? All sources indicate the number 587.

            I know very well that you are a propagandist of the Soviet spill from the district committee and I look at all your "facts" in the context of the fact that you yourself do not indicate the sources, but you take facts from dubious sites, and you think that your fertility is a guarantee of truth. But this is not so, and I realized this long ago.
            Quote: kalibr
            Russian Wikipedia data 624.

            This is a very "serious source", to say nothing. But I believe more what our Russian historians of the last century knew.
            Quote: kalibr
            And the last time I was on the field was in 2012 when I was preparing material for the anniversary article for the "Battle place" magazine.

            Well, how could you not count that at least 100 French guns were used on only one monument of the Battle of Borodino, which we got as trophies after the war of 1812? Or did you not want to notice this and think that historians in the Russian Empire knew the results of the Patriotic War of 1812 worse than you?
            1. kalibr
              20 August 2020 13: 34 New
              -3
              You are blind and do not want to notice the obvious. The numbers of the guns are taken from the book of the SOVIET COLONEL, from a book published in the USSR in 1947. It is available on the Internet, can be downloaded and read. There is no need to read my articles across, along and selectively. The main source is just indicated. Stalinist author, Stalinist time, the era of the great USSR, who just used ... our domestic sources. And the wiki ... the wiki is listed for comparison, not as a source. Got it?
              1. The comment was deleted.
                1. kalibr
                  20 August 2020 18: 34 New
                  -3
                  And where did you lead one and a half times? One and a half is a lot more than 587, isn't it? And what are your numbers and where? 100 guns from the monument? Where are the others. I saw half-witted fools, of course, but you give everyone a head start ...
                  1. ccsr
                    ccsr 20 August 2020 18: 42 New
                    0
                    Quote: kalibr
                    And what are your numbers and where? 100 guns from the monument?

                    No, the monument indicates that 1000 guns were in Napoleon's army at the time of the battle. If we count that the Russian army had 640 guns, then multiplying it by 1,5 times you just get the desired figure - about 1000 guns

                    Quote: kalibr
                    I saw half-witted fools, of course, but you give everyone a head start ...

                    I have seen swindling propagandists, but you will give them all odds, because you are constantly caught in fraud and laugh at your knowledge of history. By the way, where are the scans from the book - have they started to wag again?
                    1. kalibr
                      21 August 2020 07: 51 New
                      -1
                      Quote: ccsr
                      By the way, where are the scans from the book - have they started to wag again?

                      Don't you know how to download books from the Internet? Unhappy! I can tell you how this is done ... Page 22, if anything ... As for the number on the monument ,. then both the Soviet and Russian historical science has long refuted it. And the guns and people. Well, in the old days people loved large numbers, that's all! So victory seemed to them more significant. And defeat is not so offensive. "The superior forces of the enemy" - but of course. And below is the data of the Ministry of Education and the Internet address where it is written. So shake it off and start exploring the Internet ...
                      1. ccsr
                        ccsr 21 August 2020 16: 37 New
                        0
                        Quote: kalibr
                        As for the numbers on the monument, then both the Soviet and Russian historical science has long refuted it. And by guns and people

                        Lies, because you did not give a single fact that refutes these figures. Of course, any person understands that the figures on the monument are Rounded, but not to such an extent that they are one and a half times wrong. As for the work of V.V. Pruntsov, then this is a POPULAR essay, not a historical monograph, which does not even indicate the sources of information used by the author, which is why you immediately wagged and left the answer. So where is the documentary confirmation of these figures - facts in the studio, an expert on the Internet dregs.
                        Quote: kalibr
                        So shake it off and start exploring the Internet ...

                        You have to admit that you fantasized again, and you cannot find a single documentary confirmation, so you use the facts from the essay, which, incidentally, was released not for the anniversary of the Battle of Borodino, but for the anniversary of Kutuzov.
                      2. kalibr
                        21 August 2020 19: 51 New
                        -2
                        Why should I bring something when there is an article on the MO website. This is enough for me personally: http://stat.mil.ru/et/war/borodino.htm. And the source is not indicated on the monument either. You never know what you can write to a stone?
                      3. ccsr
                        ccsr 21 August 2020 20: 42 New
                        -1
                        Quote: kalibr
                        Why should I bring something when there is an article on the MO website.

                        The MO website uses only the data of V.V. Pruntsov and moreover, since they do not have exact numbers, they directly write:
                        The number of parties on the day of the battle is still controversial..


                        Quote: kalibr
                        And the source is not indicated on the monument either.

                        The monument was erected 25 years after the Battle of Borodino, when the participants in this battle were alive, and in Russia there were trophy documents and materials from which these figures were taken. But where Pruntsov took the numbers is still unclear - it is not indicated in his essay, and you did not give a scan, which means there could be an error in the network material.
                        Quote: kalibr
                        You never know what you can write to a stone?

                        You never know what you read on the Internet, or in a book, the author of which wanted to present our commanders of the Great Patriotic War higher than the tsarist military leaders of the Patriotic War of 1812. By the way, in 1947, Pruntsov could not see the monument, which is why his figures do not coincide with those given by the historians of the 19th century to the architect of the monument. However, you will still play your own tune, but you will never provide a link to a historical document.
                        But the good thing is that you downloaded the book I indicated.
                        If you carefully read this book and understood what it was about, you would pay attention to the words:
                        with 587 field artillery guns.
                        , but nothing is said about howitzers, as well as about whether there were siege weapons in the artillery train of the French on the Borodino field. So learn to understand what is written correctly before challenging what was known in the 19th century.
                    2. kalibr
                      21 August 2020 19: 53 New
                      -2
                      Quote: ccsr
                      Lies, because you did not give a single fact refuting these figures.

                      Well, we will find and bring. Business after time ... One more article will be, that's all. I'm better off!
                      But the good thing is that you downloaded the book I indicated. No wonder Shurochka Azarova said: "That even bears are trained!"
              2. kalibr
                20 August 2020 18: 46 New
                -2
                By the way, here are the figures on the website of the Ministry of Education today: The main Russian army (the combined 1st and 2nd Western armies of infantry generals MB Barclay de Tolly and PI Bagration) numbered about 150 thousand people: 113-114 thousand regular troops, about 8 thousand Cossacks and other irregular cavalry, 28 thousand warriors mainly of the Moscow and Smolensk militias with 624 field artillery pieces. The regular troops consisted of 14,6 thousand recruits who had completed only basic military training.
                On the day of the battle, the "great army" of the emperor numbered about 135 thousand people (according to the roll call) with 587 field artillery pieces. The number of parties on the day of the battle is still controversial.
                http://stat.mil.ru/et/war/borodino.htm
                This is the official source for today. All other calculations from the field of AI are not serious.
  • Molot1979
    Molot1979 16 August 2020 15: 23 New
    +4
    To kill yourself with a slipper ... it turns out that in the Russian army the orders were passed by horse adjutants, and the guns were horse-drawn. Didn't the author want to hint that the European artillery was towed by semi-tracked tractors, and the orders were given by radio? That is why these allusions and open spitting towards Russia? A bold hint that our victories were always not really victories, and even those came from the enemy being burnt with corpses?
    1. kalibr
      16 August 2020 17: 10 New
      0
      Don't look for devils in the censer!
  • Denimax
    Denimax 16 August 2020 15: 36 New
    +1
    A lot of numbers, which is very pleasant. The caliber of buckshot is indicated, and how much was in the charge? Wouldn't it be better to use smaller balls of 10 mm? , will not kill, but cripple severely. The morale of the lame and crooked attackers can drop dramatically.
    1. BAI
      BAI 16 August 2020 16: 06 New
      +2
      Wouldn't it be better to use smaller balls of 10 mm?

      1. The range of the shot drops.
      2. Penetration decreases.
  • BAI
    BAI 16 August 2020 15: 54 New
    +1
    But who prevented from putting these barrels on sandbags and at least once to shoot from them buckshot at the attacking French? But no one reports anything about such use of guns at that time, which means that it ... was unknown

    “After the Tsar Cannon was cast and finished at the Cannon Yard, it was dragged to the Spassky Bridge and laid on the ground next to the Peacock cannon. To move the gun, ropes were tied to eight brackets on its trunk, 200 horses were simultaneously harnessed to these ropes, and they rolled the cannon lying on huge logs-rollers. Initially, the Tsar and Peacock cannons lay on the ground near the bridge leading to the Spasskaya Tower, and the Kashpirov Cannon was at the Zemsky Prikaz, which was located where the Historical Museum is now. In 1626 they were raised from the ground and installed on log cabins, densely packed with earth. These platforms were called roscats ... "(Alexander Shirokorad" Miracle weapon of the Russian Empire ").
    They knew 200 years before the events described.
    But, I dare to suggest that a gun lying on the ground is exposed to a large temperature contrast at the moment of firing, which threatens to rupture (destroy) the gun. Therefore, they did not shoot from the ground, especially if it was wet.
  • 3x3zsave
    3x3zsave 16 August 2020 17: 07 New
    +4
    Thank you, Vyacheslav Olegovich!
    Thank you comrades for your comments!
    Meanwhile, no one had the idea that Kutuzov wanted to arrange "Cannes" for Bonaparte, but the stubbornness of the center of the Russian army reduced the commander's plan to "zero". Napoleon, having guessed the enemy's plan, did not throw the "old guard" into the attack. As a result: on both sides - "Pyrrhic victory".
    1. Liam
      Liam 16 August 2020 17: 24 New
      0
      Quote: 3x3zsave
      did not throw the "old guard" into the attack

      That is, he won the battle without even using the best part of his army.
      Quote: 3x3zsave
      Cannes

      Since the course and results of this battle are described in Roman sources (and there are no others), this could not have happened in reality. The encirclement and simultaneous death of such a mass of people (60.000 people) was impossible with those means of destruction. It is no coincidence that such an order of loss in one battle in one place in such a short period of time never happened before the appearance of machine guns, rifled artillery, etc.
      1. 3x3zsave
        3x3zsave 16 August 2020 17: 45 New
        +2
        Greetings comrade!
        What, nafig sixty thousand? In the Roman Republic? Do you believe that?
        1. Liam
          Liam 16 August 2020 18: 02 New
          +2
          hi The republic of that period collected an army of 80 K without any problems, there is no doubt about that.
          But that these 80.000 heavily armed, well-trained infantrymen allowed themselves to be surrounded by 10.000 light cavalry recruited from the world on a string, and then almost all of them allowed themselves to be hacked with large knives in half a day to half the number of people - this is out of the question.
          So, who then chased to repeat Cannes, chased a mirage)
          1. 3x3zsave
            3x3zsave 16 August 2020 18: 11 New
            +2
            Hmmm ... That is, "cannes", you exclude, as a fact!
            1. Liam
              Liam 16 August 2020 18: 20 New
              +2
              Not as a fact, but as a scale. 60.000 soldiers armed with shields and "armor" cannot be killed with swords in a few hours. This will be a rather difficult operation even with machine guns)
              1. 3x3zsave
                3x3zsave 16 August 2020 18: 56 New
                +3
                Good. The scale. What was the population of the Republic at the time of the second Punic War?
                Honey, I will note, after 2000 years, the number of dead and missing in the Battle of Borodino, on both sides, assumes about two hundred thousand people. In Republican Rome, were you fond of cloning?
                1. Liam
                  Liam 16 August 2020 19: 20 New
                  0
                  ))
                  Even 100 years before the Punic Wars, the number of the indigenous population of the peninsula (excluding slaves and visitors) was in the region of 3 million people; under Octavian, it was already 5.
                  At the time of the 2nd Punic, almost all of Italy from Sicily to the Alps was part of the Republic. So by the 3rd century BC, there were approximately 3,5 million. The population of Rome itself at that time was about 200.000.

                  Quote: 3x3zsave
                  Honey, I will note, after 2000 years, the number of dead and missing in the Battle of Borodino, on both sides, assumes about two hundred thousand people

                  The most realistic modern estimates of Borodino losses are 20 / 30.000 Frenchmen and 40/50000 Russians. In total, -60/80.000 total losses with a total number of armies of about 350/400.000. With the use of 1000+ guns and 300.000+ firearms. nuclei for 50/60.000 clearly understand. And cartridges, obviously for millions. And not one.
                  And Cannes-80.000 Romans + 40.000 Hannibals. The dead (allegedly) -60.000 + 15 / 20.000
                  1. Liam
                    Liam 16 August 2020 19: 39 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Liam
                    Oter-20 / 30.000 French and 40/50000 Russians. In total -60 / 80.000

                    This is not the number of those killed. These are the total losses - killed, wounded, prisoners, deserters. The killed and half of this figure will not be typed
  • 3x3zsave
    3x3zsave 16 August 2020 17: 27 New
    +2
    "In the course of the play" another question arose. We, dear comrades, are too far from the events of more than two hundred centuries ago, and we cannot imagine the fierceness of the confrontation. We are only theorizing about this event. Will it not happen that our great-great-grandchildren will view the Battle of Stalingrad from the same positions?
    1. Korsar4
      Korsar4 16 August 2020 18: 14 New
      +2
      The main thing is that they, like us now, should not be indifferent to either the Borodino or Stalingrad battles.
      1. 3x3zsave
        3x3zsave 16 August 2020 18: 41 New
        +2
        Sergei! hi
        I wrote a pretentious answer, but it got lost somewhere.
        "Take it as it is, I will not sing anymore" (c)
        1. Korsar4
          Korsar4 16 August 2020 20: 13 New
          +1
          It's just that now generations are changing a little faster than before. And it's important to speak the same language.
  • Tavrik
    Tavrik 16 August 2020 22: 06 New
    0
    The rate of fire of the French artillery was approximately one shot per minute with cannonballs and grenades, and with buckshot - two

    Three to four shots. As a military-technical experiment, the rate of fire was achieved at the test site, either 10 or 12 rounds per minute.
    Not a word in the article about the organization of artillery. In the Russian army there are battery companies, light companies. How many guns and unicorns are in the companies. What is the difference between a company and a battery .. Horse and foot artillery - what is the difference in combat use? Or will there be a sequel?
  • gorenina91
    gorenina91 17 August 2020 09: 12 New
    +1
    -In general ... personally, I agree with the statements of some of the sites here that the Russian artillery at Borodino was used rather ineptly and unprofessionally ...
    - After all, even in the Battle of Preussisch-Eylau in 1807, Russian artillery showed such high professionalism ... - in just 20 minutes, literally mowed down two French infantry divisions, which during a storm accidentally entered the positions of our artillerymen ...
    -In general ... -Napoleon then himself was almost captured by the Cossacks ... -Murat barely managed to recapture him ...
    -If Russian artillery was also used at Borodino; then the French would have suffered such colossal losses that they would not care about any Moscow later ... -Just lose the battle and begin to take their feet out of Russia ...
    -But everything went wrong ... -Obviously ... Kutuzov was not such a talented commander ... -so many blunders and mistakes in defense ...
    -Peter the First at the battle of Poltava was much more professional and prudent ...
  • xomaNN
    xomaNN 17 August 2020 11: 09 New
    +1
    An interesting insight into history. Understand what exactly Kutuzov kept in his head? Alas! We are then, two centuries later, of course, Great strategists soldier
  • evgeniy.plotnikov.2019mail.ru
    evgeniy.plotnikov.2019mail.ru 19 August 2020 03: 42 New
    +1
    Nice, intelligible article. Save God!
  • kalibr
    20 August 2020 18: 36 New
    -1
    Quote: ccsr
    but no evidence was provided for their numbers.

    I definitely don't have a time machine. There is a book that contains numbers. In the USSR, what was good was that they were thoroughly tested. Especially if the book was published by the MO.
  • hostel
    hostel 4 September 2020 07: 05 New
    0
    And I was always interested in how, having superiority in artillery, the Russian troops in defense suffered the same losses as the advancing French. It turns out that my question was answered back in 1947. And by and large, the bones of a good general (Kutuzov) and the innovation of Napoleon (who was an artilleryman) are shown. That's the whole conversation. My respect for the author.