Topic: war wagon help

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

As it happens:



Mariano Taccola: De ingeneis. Ca. 1440. Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, München, Clm 197.

[GamesPoet]

I had not seen that picture before, and the idea that they were firing these early gunpowder weapons from the saddle in 1440 is quite interesting.  Suspect it was rare, but obviously it was being considered, if not outright attempted.

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

The historical hand mortar first appears in the 16th century, but reached its peak around 1700. It was never used in large numbers, and had the reputation to be more lethal to its user than the enemy. I am not sure if it was ever in official use with any cavalry unit.

Hellebardier and shield:



Germany, 16th Century. Bayerisches Armeemuseum, Ingolstadt.

[GamesPoet]

Any idea which town or city's coat of arms that is?

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

It is one of the Imperial banners during the Habsburg dynasty. The double-headed eagle stands for the Holy Roman Empire, the central shield contains the colours of the HR Emperor (black and gold) and the colours of Austria.

[GamesPoet]

Excellent.

[Rowsdower]

On the subject of that guy on the horse with the early powder weapon
Armies have been using powder weapons longer than we believe they have [I'm not sure on exact dates as modern military history is my forte] but they were used in lesser numbers as they were more expensive, cumbersome and not as accurate. I guess nobles in the renaissance gave troops bows and crossbows over firearms as they were easier to produce and could fire at a faster rate.

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

The earliest known depictions in Europe of a powder weapon are from 1326, in works by Walter de Milemete: 
- De secretis secretorum, 1326, Bodleian Library Oxford, ms 458( the "Holkham ms"):
- De nobilitatibus, sapientiis, et prudentiis regum, 1326-7, Christ Church Oxford  (‘de Milemete ms’).

The earliest powder weapon found in Europe (the Loshult gun)  dates from ca. 1330/40 (Statens historiska Museum, Stockholm, Inv.-Nr. 2891).

The Mary Rose (which sank at Portsmouth in 1545) had 91 cannon (of various types), but it also had 250 longbows on board.

[scrubber]

Interesting thing on the Mary Rose cannon's. Some on display at Portsmouth are not what I expected of a navel gun, but had a carriage of an artillery gun used on land, as per the Empire cannon.

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

The Mary Rose was built in a transitional period. She herself was re-equipped a number of times. By the time of the Armada (1588), the English navy was well ahead of the Spanish in naval artillery, with better standardisation and a more general inroduction of gun carriages adapted to naval warfare.

[Rowsdower]

I saw a documentary about the conquistadors taking crossbows with them. That's interesting as we associate the conquistadors with early guns

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

It is also the case that they did not wear the Morion helmets. 

Neither the firearms nor the crossbows were particularly suited against lightly armed opponents (like the Indians). At least, the firearms had a psychological effect.

[Condottiero Magno]

As it happens:



Mariano Taccola: De ingeneis. Ca. 1440. Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, München, Clm 197.

I know of one Victorian era recreation based on this fantastic image and at least one rulebook containing an handgun mounted knight, though this combination probably never existed, as I've haven't come across a reference beyond this drawing. Even if the horse was trained not to spook at the sound and smell of gunfire, it wouldn't be fired on the move with any accuracy it couldn't be reloaded easily, hence pre-wheelock/firelock/flintock mounted gunmen, would dismount to fire.

Back on topic, anyone used the alternate war wagon rules in UK WD 146/147? This version had a light cannon and additional crewmen armed with arquebuses.

[Condottiero Magno]

The Mary Rose was built in a transitional period. She herself was re-equipped a number of times. By the time of the Armada (1588), the English navy was well ahead of the Spanish in naval artillery, with better standardisation and a more general inroduction of gun carriages adapted to naval warfare.

No such difference in naval artillery quality between the English and Spanish navies. The Navy Royal's ships while making use of the four wheeled carriage, relied on a variety of guns, new and obsolete, with gunners of various quality and a shortage of ammunition. Spanish naval doctrine relied more on boarding actions, so wouldn't have made a difference if they used two or four wheeled carriages. In the end, long range gunfire didn't have that significant and effect in breaking up the Spanish formations - all three armadas failed due to the weather.       

[Condottiero Magno]

On the subject of that guy on the horse with the early powder weapon
Armies have been using powder weapons longer than we believe they have [I'm not sure on exact dates as modern military history is my forte] but they were used in lesser numbers as they were more expensive, cumbersome and not as accurate. I guess nobles in the renaissance gave troops bows and crossbows over firearms as they were easier to produce and could fire at a faster rate.

Increasingly centralized states, not nobles, had a monopoly on guns during the Renaissance and crossbows were phased out by ~1550. By the end of the 15th Century, guns were cheap and ubiquitous throughout Europe in a variety of calibers - the Italians led the way. Unlike the arquebus, the crossbow could be used and reloaded mounted with the aid of a crannequin, though large groups tended to be employed like dragoons. 

[Rowsdower]

So far I've finished most of the wagon [I need find something to make the side panels with] and I've made three crew members from swordsmen kits. One has a repeater gun, another has a halberd and the third has a blunderbuss. I'll make the others when I can get the right parts. I've also painted them to look like the crew from the 199x rule book.

Oh and in regards to our other discussion, I just finished a book about the Jacobite rebellion. It states that the post war Edinburgh royalist militia, patrolled the streets with halberds; in 1746. 

[Warlord]

I may have something for you for the sides? I think I owe you something anyway?

[Rowsdower]

I may have something for you for the sides? I think I owe you something anyway?

The wagon I have I made from city ruins parts and celestial hurricanum bits. I'm not sure if the old pewter war wagon parts would fit to well to what I have. I was going to improvise side panels out of cavalry bases

[Warlord]

Oh fair enough then. It is fun DIY.

I have two side panels with parts of the bottom struts cut off from when I built my War Altar years and years back, but have never found a use for them. Up to you - offer is there 

[Rowsdower]

Oh fair enough then. It is fun DIY.

I have two side panels with parts of the bottom struts cut off from when I built my War Altar years and years back, but have never found a use for them. Up to you - offer is there 

Thanks for the offer though, Warlord.

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

No such difference in naval artillery quality between the English and Spanish navies. The Navy Royal's ships while making use of the four wheeled carriage, relied on a variety of guns, new and obsolete, with gunners of various quality and a shortage of ammunition. Spanish naval doctrine relied more on boarding actions, so wouldn't have made a difference if they used two or four wheeled carriages. In the end, long range gunfire didn't have that significant and effect in breaking up the Spanish formations - all three armadas failed due to the weather.     

Of course, there was. The Englsih sailing qualities and tactics were superior to the Spanish. As you say: the Spanish relied on boarding - a doctrine that is unlikely to succeed against a faster and more agile opponent. The number of different types of cannon of the English fleet was smaller, and thus, they needed less different types of shot. The Englsih bcannon crew consisted of sailors too, and there was a single command on a ship.  Having clumsy two-wheeled carriages was a major disadvantage for the Spanish: inboard loading was very difficult; outboard loading suicidal. As a result, in most cases, the Spanish were able to fire only the pre-loaded shot of te heavier guns. The fast firing of the English meant that they actually run out of ammunition (which they also had too little of).   

That said, the Spanish mission was not to defeat the English fleet, but to be able to transport and land the invasion force from Flanders to England. As you say, the English were not able to break up the Spanish formation. From a strategic point of view, Gravelingen as such was not a Spanish defeat.

[Condottiero Magno]

No such difference in naval artillery quality between the English and Spanish navies. The Navy Royal's ships while making use of the four wheeled carriage, relied on a variety of guns, new and obsolete, with gunners of various quality and a shortage of ammunition. Spanish naval doctrine relied more on boarding actions, so wouldn't have made a difference if they used two or four wheeled carriages. In the end, long range gunfire didn't have that significant and effect in breaking up the Spanish formations - all three armadas failed due to the weather.     

Of course, there was. The Englsih sailing qualities and tactics were superior to the Spanish. As you say: the Spanish relied on boarding - a doctrine that is unlikely to succeed against a faster and more agile opponent. The number of different types of cannon of the English fleet was smaller, and thus, they needed less different types of shot. The Englsih bcannon crew consisted of sailors too, and there was a single command on a ship.  Having clumsy two-wheeled carriages was a major disadvantage for the Spanish: inboard loading was very difficult; outboard loading suicidal. As a result, in most cases, the Spanish were able to fire only the pre-loaded shot of te heavier guns. The fast firing of the English meant that they actually run out of ammunition (which they also had too little of).   

That said, the Spanish mission was not to defeat the English fleet, but to be able to transport and land the invasion force from Flanders to England. As you say, the English were not able to break up the Spanish formation. From a strategic point of view, Gravelingen as such was not a Spanish defeat.

There wasn't a significant difference...

If the English sailing qualities and tactics were superior to the Spanish, then they wouldn't have had to change things during the campaign, by dividing the fleet into 4 squadrons. In addition to a shortage of ammunition, the English lacked enough sufficiently trained gunners, explaining the rapid ineffectual long range firing, in contrast with the better trained close range orientated Spanish sea soldiers, who had to make do with badly cast ammunition, insufficient to penetrate hulls. It was only after engaging in close range gunnery, were the English able to inflict some damage, but it wasn't enough to break apart the formation, so they had to resort to fireships. Much has been made of the small number of race built galleons in the past, derived from French and Spanish galleys, in some cases converted ones from Henry VIII's reign, but the agility didn't have a sufficient impact in the campaign.

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

Adaprting your plans according to circumstances is exactly a sign of good leadership.

But you do not have to take my word for it:

We found that many of the enemy’s ships held great advantage over us in combat, both in their design and in their guns, gunners and crews ... so that they could do with us as they wished.

Don Francisco de Bobadilla, the Armada’s senior military officer.

[Condottiero Magno]

Do not take my word for it:

We found that many of the enemy’s ships held great advantage over us in combat, both in their design and in their guns, gunners and crews ... so that they could do with us as they wished.

Don Francisco de Bobadilla, the Armada’s senior military officer.

So what's so onerous about my responses?

Maybe I should cherry-pick stuff too...

"In fact, in 1588, while one English gunner complained about the lack of skilled gunnners in the fleet, Spanish observers claimed that the English fired their guns as frequently as the Spanish could fire a musket." (p. 43, Tudor Warships v. 2)

Adaprting your plans according to circumstances is exactly a sign of good leadership.

You're grasping at straws now...

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

Maybe I should cherry-pick stuff too...

"In fact, in 1588, while one English gunner complained about the lack of skilled gunnners in the fleet, Spanish observers claimed that the English fired their guns as frequently as the Spanish could fire a musket." (p. 43, Tudor Warships v. 2)

There is no contradiction. It depends on the level of skill you would expect.

Adaprting your plans according to circumstances is exactly a sign of good leadership.

You're grasping at straws now...

The shoe seems rather on the other foot.