Prussian Artillery 1866

[Chad]

Anyone have a picture of a historically incorrect elephant? 😈

Chad

[Chris Pringle]

Try googling "medieval elephant picture" and you will find loads.

Chris

[fsn]

[Leman]

the ears are not as large as I believe they were on elephants from 1357.

[Chad]

Didn't know plastic surgery on elephants started in 1357. 😜

[Techno]

I think that's a very early experiment in genetic modification.
Elephant crossed with a warthog, a cat and a dog ??.......(Maybe a bit of horse ?)
Cheers - Phil

[cameronian]

Actually its a tapir with tusks !

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

They got the tusks and trunk right, but how did they fail on the rest? I'm assuming an oral tradition and the odd tusk making it to market where the scribe lived, but someone must have mentioned the ears!

[Techno]

Actually its a tapir with tusks !

THAT makes sense ! 
Cheers - Phil

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

Don't beasts like that roam the Brecon Beacons, particularly on Friday and Saturday nights ?

IanS 

[Techno]

Noooooo.

Those beasties, pictured, have all been eaten by the melanistic panthers that live in that area.
Tsk !.....I thought everybody knew that. 

Cheers - Phil

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

If there's nothing to eat, why are the panthers still there ??

IanS

[cameronian]

A question. In the back of my mind I have the notion that Hohenlohe Ingelfingen mentions the number of shrapnel rounds the 12pdrs fired in 1866, am I wrong, does anyone have the answer ?

[mollinary]

Hi Cam,

Haven't looked at H-I since you started a similar thread in August Last Year.  My recollection is that he did not give the figures, but Reilly does. The grand total for Elbe, 1st and 2nd Armies is 462 rounds of shrapnel from the 12pdr guns, a fraction over a third of the total shrapnel rounds fired by the army. The rest were fired by the 6pdrs.

Mollinary

[cameronian]

Thanks for that. I must say the Moises Reilly memo is intriguing, it goes against everything I have ever read or heard concerning the steel barrelled guns, ie that they did not fire shrapnel. If you remember, Grof was emphatic, as the regional archaeologist one would think that he of all people might have unearthed a Prussian shrapnel round somewhere, do we even have an idea how the fuze was constructed/worked ?

Hermann von Muller's "Die Entwickelung der Feld - Artillerie in Bezug auf Material, Organisation und Taktik von 1815 bis 1870: mit besonderer Berucksichtigung der Preussischen Artillery auf Grund Officiellen Materials" published in 1873, makes it very clear that one of the main reasons that the short 12 pdr was retained was its superior performance with canister and its ability to fire shrapnel. He presents a table (no date given) in his discussion of the period from 1850 - 1860 indicating that, for the Prussian short 12 pdr the limber carried 20 shells, 15 shrapnel and 5 cannister rounds and a total, including in the ammunition wagon, for the battery of 510 shells, 288 shrapnel and 96 cannister  rounds. There then follows an extensive discussion of the development and testing of shrapnel. After four pages of detailed discussion and chronology of tests conducted he states that on the eve of the 1866 war;

"Influenced by the opinions prevalent at that point and on the basis of the 1865 tests, the General - Inspection der Artillerie declared in May of 1866 that it was, as a matter of principle, opposed to any introduction of shrapnel in the field artillery, citing as major reasons:

a) The observation and correction of rounds is nearly impossible;
b) The differences in burning time and thus in the intervals are too great, so that reliable functioning cannot be counted on;
c) Serving [the gun]  while firing with shrapnel is too complicated and requires greater calm that can be expected in combat.

At this state of affairs the war broke out in 1866 and the shrapnel question that was thus brought to a standstill was not reopened until after the war, which will be discussed later."

So, due to unresolved problems,  primarily with the fuse, the Artillery Inspectorate flatly declared just prior to the outbreak of the 1866 war that shrapnel was not ready for introduction to the field artillery. The war broke out at that point and the question was not raised again until after the war was over.

August von Witzleben's  "Heerwesen und Infanteriedienst der Koniglich Preussischen Armee",10th Edition published in 1868 states unequivocally that the ammunition issued to the Prussian artillery at that time included shells (Granaten),  incendiary rounds (Brandgranaten)  and cannister (Kartatschen)  with no mention of shrapnel.

Then there's this, and it is from the single most qualified source on the Prussian artillery of 1866. On p. 242 of volume II of "Aus Meinem Leben", Prinz Kraft zu Hohenlohe - Ingelfingen describes how he is en route to Kostelitz and on the way finds a bare hill that provides a good view of the Neu-Rognitz, Burkersdorf and Rudersdorf (Soor) action. The situation is difficult to interpret since it appears that the 'wrong' side is facing the 'wrong' way. He is viewing the action through an excellent naval telescope that allows him to see individual 'atoms', (soldiers).  As an artillerist of course he pays close attention to the shellbursts. Suddenly he realizes that the shells from one side are all bursting on impact with the ground. Shells from the other side are not only bursting upon impact but also in the air.
"Suddenly I was struck by another circumstance.  In the troops on the right, all of the enemy's shells burst on the ground.  In the troops on the left, some burst on the ground, but one also sees explosions in the air.  Now I knew that the Austrians had shells that exploded on impact but also shrapnel with Brennzundern (burning fuze) that explode in the air. We however, at that time, only had such shells that exploded on impact, therefore on the ground.  Those troops over which the enemy shells were exploding must therefore  be Prussian.  How though, could a  Prussian force be there on the left with their backs toward Austria,  the Austrians on the right with their backs toward Prussia?  In any case, the observation of the artillery made it clear that I saw advancing Prussians and retreating Austrians."

Was Reilly correct in his conclusions, did the Prussians, perhaps for political reasons or simple hubris, lead him to believe that their weapon system was more advanced than it really was ?