Jump to content
Free downloads from TNA ×
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Remembered Today:

Foot Artillery


PhilB

Recommended Posts

Google indicates that Continental armies had foot artillery as well as field artillery in WW1. What exactly is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They must have big feet to carry that! Unless they mean the horses' feet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The original definition of foot artillery was that the gunners marched with the guns rather than riding with or even on the guns which was horse artillery. Thus field artillery could include both foot and horse artillery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bit of a misnomer then? Gives the impression they marched and carried or dragged their guns! I assumed horse artillery was so named because the horses drew the guns, not because the artilleryman rode on them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Phil_B @ Jul 5 2008, 03:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Bit of a misnomer then? Gives the impression they marched and carried or dragged their guns! I assumed horse artillery was so named because the horses drew the guns, not because the artilleryman rode on them.

No as far back as one looks the field artillery of all nations has been drawn by horses (or sometimes oxen and in India elephants) with the gunners trudging along. However in some continental armies (such as that of Saxony) some gunners sat astride artillery caissons known as wurst wagons. Attempts to produce light artillery that could move faster than marching pace were stymied by the fact that the gun arived in position long before the slower moving ammo wagons could catch up. It was with the introduction of the Congreve pole trail that allowed a limber to be used and therefore some significant ammount of ammo to be carried with the gun that horse artillery became truely effective with some gunners on the gun and the rest on horseback. Of course by WW1 with increasing mechanisation the distinction became much less and by today its efectively enshrined in units history and ceremonial as much as anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Horse artillery was introduced into European armies to provide increased firepower for the cavalry as it manouevered independent of the main body of the army. This meant that weight had to be traded off in favour of manoeverability, so the guns were lighter. All the gunners in the field artillery were mounted but, because they manouevered in support of the infantry, there was less need for out and out speed and the guns could be heavier. All armies however, need siege guns and heavier guns or howitzers for particular tasks. This was the province of the foot artillery in the German army. In fact all the advancing German armies in, say 1914 had foot artillery units, but they would follow up the advance along the line of march and only deploy into action in the event of a sigificant check to progress.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Horse artillery was introduced into European armies to provide increased firepower for the cavalry as it manouevered independent of the main body of the army. This meant that weight had to be traded off in favour of manoeverability, so the guns were lighter. All the gunners in the field artillery were mounted but, because they manouevered in support of the infantry, there was less need for out and out speed and the guns could be heavier. All armies however, need siege guns and heavier guns or howitzers for particular tasks. This was the province of the foot artillery in the German army. In fact all the advancing German armies in, say 1914 had foot artillery units, but they would follow up the advance along the line of march and only deploy into action in the event of a sigificant check to progress.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All the gunners in the field artillery were mounted ......

Jack

Cannot agree: historically, foot artillery walked, horse arty. were mounted, either on the limbers [even some on the guns] and on horseback.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The definitions of foot & field artillery supplied by Jack are correct for the German Army of WWI. The definition of horse artillerymen riding on the guns or the horses pulling them & foot artillerymen marching beside the horse drawn guns is correct for the Napoleonic Wars. I don't know when the change occurred or what the situation was in other Continental armies during WWI.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It should however be noted that in 1914 the German field artillery contained elements of both horse artillery and, what everybody else would have called, foot artillery (effectively infantry support). The following field artillery regiments 1st Guard,1,3,5,8,10,11,12,15,35 and the 5th Bavarian each contained additional Abeteilung of horse artillery dedicated to supporting the cavalry. A number of works confusingly refer to horse artillery and field artillery whereas in fact the horse artillery batteries (4 guns instead of 6) were part of the field artillery. What the German army called foot artillery would, in the British army, have been the heavy artillery and the RGA.

As the war settled down to fixed positional warfare and cavalry became increasingly just differently labeled infantrymen then the horse artillery elements seem to have just become ordinary field batteries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the 19th century the U.S. Army had both light and heavy artillery units. Light artillery was essentially horse artillery that accompanied field armies, whereas heavy artillery consisted of big guns in fixed fortifications as well as slow-moving siege guns. For all intents and purposes heavy artillery was foot artillery. Around the time of the Great War light artillery got the name of field artillery and the heavies became known as the coast artillery. After WW II the coast artillery was abolished and mobile heavy guns became part of the field artillery. A neighbor of mine who was in the coast artillery in 1947 calls it by its old name, heavy artillery. (Another nomenclature peculiarity is that until the latter 19th century the U.S. Army had companies of artillery, when the name changed to batteries. Until the name change the organizational entity was called a company, but it was referred to as a battery when it was deployed in a position in firing order. When writing about the subject one must bow to conventional usage and say battery to keep editors and skeptics at bay.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the 19th century the U.S. Army had both light and heavy artillery units. Light artillery was essentially horse artillery that accompanied field armies,

Light artillery was often referred to as field artillery as early as the ACW and contained horse artillery units (to support the cavalry) as well as those whose job was to support the infantry. To confuse matters in the USA the latter were originally referred to as mounted artillery even though the gunners marched so one had mounted artillery units and horse artillery units (as the phrase goes 'only in America') however in the 1840s gunners in the mounted artillery were actually taught to ride and provided with horses upon which they stopped calling them mounted artillery (presumably because someone thought it might be confusing). They were often then just called field artillery so the light artillery contained horse artillery units and field artillery units. ACW records contain a great many references to horse artillery (on both sides) and there is a horse artillery monument at Gettysburg. The USA maintained distinct horse artillery units specifically to support the cavalry certainly up to 1919 particularly since the US cavalry was still conducting classic cavalry actions on (and over) the Mexican border. One such horse artillery unit was the 82nd US Horse Artillery which as late as 1919 was still engaging targets in Mexico (its men appear to have been a little aggrieved having mainly volunteered for service in France but not accredited the kudos of those units that actually went there). By this stage the Light Artillery was referred to as field artillery (which now contained horse and field artillery!).

In effect most western armies had field artillery which was effectively divided into horse (supporting the cavalry) and foot (supporting the infantry) artillery right and into WW1 they just used different labels for these functions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to Instruction for Field Artillery by French, Barry and Hunt, U.S. War Dept., Lippincott & Co., Philadelphia, 1861, the following is how these terms were defined:

THE troops of the artillery are divided into two kinds, viz., Foot Artillery, and Light or Field Artillery.

To the Foot Artillery belongs the service of siege, sea-coast, garrison, and mountain artillery, rocket batteries, and the artillery duties of the park.

To the Field Artillery belongs the service of the batteries which manoeuvre with the troops on the field of battle. It is divided into two parts. Horse Artillery, which is generally attached to and manoeuvres with cavalry, the cannoneers being mounted on horseback; and Mounted Artillery, which is generally attached to and manoeuvres with infantry, the cannoneers marching at the sides of their pieces, or, when necessary, mounting the ammunition chests.

During the Civil War the terms light and heavy usually showed up in the official names of specific units. I notice that by 1861-1865 the term battery was used frequently in official correspondence, although company and battery are both used for the same organization in the reference cited above. Probably some terms became synonyms for each other prior to official changes in nomenclature taking place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for your input, gents. I`m a little surprised that foot artillery seems to be essentially static whereas I expected foot artillery to be as mobile as the infantry it nominally supports.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phil

I can see from some of the comments, quite apart from your last post, that I did not make myself sufficiently clear. By 1914, regardless of its antecedents, the Foot Artillery of the German army manned heavy guns and howitzers, some of which were in static locations, but there were others which were mobile. Incidentally, just to confuse the issue, heavy howitzers were known as 'mortars', possibly as a security measure to conceal their lead in this class of weapon. There had been a thought that considerations of weight and route restrictions might have meant that the heavy artillery would have no role to play in mobile operations, but each of the advancing German armies did in fact deploy with this class of weapons and they were used on many occasions in support of infantry operations, though that task was primarily that of the Field Artillery.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The simultaneous use of the terms 'company' and 'battery' to describe artillery units of the American Civil War is a product of the great paradigm change in artillery organization that, among other things, gives the term 'foot artillery' so many different meanings.

At the start of the nineteenth century, most armies possessed artillery units of two types. Horse artillery batteries were fully mobile units with fixed establishments of men, horses, equipment, and ordnance. Foot artillery companies had fixed establishments of men, but obtained transport and ordnance on an ad hoc basis. That is to say, if assigned to a fortress, they would serve some of the guns of that fortress (and, in many cases, have a secondary mission of serving as infantry). If, on the other hand, they were assigned to an army in the field, they would be provided with transport and a number of field pieces, thereby becoming field artillery batteries. Likewise, if gunners were needed to serve the ordnance of a siege train, or man the guns installed in improvised works, foot artillery companies could be configured as siege batteries or position batteries. In addition to this, foot artillery companies were often employed as infantry units, whether to garrison the infantry works of fortresses or to provide a small force capable of conducting sorties.

At this point in time, the distinction between 'batteries' and 'companies' was a clear one. A 'battery' was a group of artillery pieces. A 'company' was a group of men. Thus, a horse artillery battery, with its fixed establishment of ordnance and men, was both a 'battery' and a 'company'. On the other hand, a foot artillery company was, unless configured as a particular type of battery, just a company. (Indeed, while serving in a fortress, a particular company was likely to serve the guns of several batteries.)

In the middle years of the nineteenth century, foot artillery companies began to specialize. Some became full-time field artillery units, and, as such, received fixed establishments of transport and ordnance. Others remained organized in the traditional way, and began to specialize in the service of the heavy ordnance of fortresses, siege trains, and the like. In the United States, this transformation took place on the eve of the Civil War, when many of the artillery companies that had been serving at various coastal and frontier fortresses were reconfigured as field artillery batteries, and a number of artillery officers (to include the authors of the book mentioned in the preceding post) had become convinced that such units ought to receive the official designation of 'battery'.

In the second half of the nineteenth century, the increasing complexity of the various kinds of ordnance used in fortresses and siege trains caused many armies to divide their artillery establishments in two, with a 'horsey' branch made up of field and horse artillery batteries and a 'technical' branch made up of fortress, coast defense, and siege companies. In the British Army, this second branch became the Royal Garrison Artillery, while in Germany it took the name of 'foot artillery' (Fussartillerie).

By the start of World War I, however, the strict distinction between these two types of artillery had already begun to fall apart. The need to deal with fortifications of various sorts (whether field fortifications or small barrier forts) lead many armies to convert garrison artillery companies into mobile heavy batteries. As these were provided with fixed allowances of ordnance and transport, they had much in common with field artillery batteries. Indeed, the only practical difference between the field batteries and mobile heavy batteries of 1914 lay in the size of the guns or howitzers with which they were equipped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Phil_B @ Jul 6 2008, 09:57 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Thanks for your input, gents. I`m a little surprised that foot artillery seems to be essentially static whereas I expected foot artillery to be as mobile as the infantry it nominally supports.

Phil

In field artillery, the gunners did not walk beside the guns: they rode on limbers and ammunition wagons, and these were the units which supported the infantry. Under the preceding definitions, both the British RHA and RFA would count as horse artillery.

The foot artillery was what the British called garrison artillery: primarily positional in peacetime but in war providing heavy support to divisions and corps (the 60-pounder batteries) and for siege warfare (the multitude of siege batteries formed from scratch during the war).

Ron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Henry J. Hunt, one of the authors of Instruction for Artillery cited above, became a general officer and chief of artillery of the Army of the Potomac. In about 1900 a coast artillery fortification on the Potomac River near Alexandria, Virginia was named for him. I grew up in the area and attended Fort Hunt High School.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron

Field artillery did not just support the infantry - it supported both cavalry and infantry. Originaly the cavalry (horse) supporting artillery was manned by mounted gunners and the artillery that supported the infantry (or foot) walked beside the guns (there were too many in a gun crew for them all to get on the gun and limber) after about 1840 ish they to were often supplied with horses so some some would ride and some ride on the limber etc. With the advent of the introduction of recoil system gun crews got smaller as there was no longer a need for men to run the gun back into firing position after each shot and then it was possible to accommodate a crew on limber and gun. However horse artillery still tended to have some mounted crew as a loaded gun and limber would have difficulty keeping up with the cavalry. This division persisted into WW1 although different armies would apply different labels to the various artillery components. Thus those elements that supported the infantry could be described as foot artillery inso much as they once walked and they still supported the foot soldier. Given that the German army still had batteries specifically committed to supporting their cavalry and others dedicated to supporting their foot soldiers they could be said to retain the same distinctions withinn their field artillery even if they gave them different names. Does anyone know what they actually called them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The expansion of the light artillery form of organization in the U.S. Army was mainly due to the efforts of Joel Roberts Pointsett, secretary of war from 1837 to 1841. Today Pointsett is best remembered for the red Pointsettia plant often used as a Christmas decoration which he brought back from Mexico after a diplomatic assignment there. The light artillery's image of itself as a mounted arm of service is indicated by its choice of sidearm, the Light Artillery Saber, Model of 1840. It has a brass hilt and an extremely curved blade that is reminiscent of the sabers of the Napoleonic period. The one I own was made in 1860 and shows signs of field use as well as decades of neglect. Mine has the original leather straps attached to the scabbard that were for hanging the saber from the belt or saddle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the German Army of 1914, the field batteries assigned to infantry divisions - the equivalent of the RFA in the British Army - were known as 'driving' (Fahrende) batteries, while those assigned to cavalry divisions were called 'riding' (Reitende) batteries. In peacetime, most field artillery regiments consisted of six 'driving' batteries. A few, however, consisted of six 'driving' batteries and three 'riding' batteries. Upon mobilization, the 'driving' batteries remained with their parent regiments while the 'riding' batteries were detached for service with the cavalry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to keep going on about this, but the slightly flippant reply I gave right at the beginning of this thread is in practical terms correct for the German army at that period. Hoplophile has accurately described how the field artillery split up on mobilisation. It is entirely incorrect to describe the element which supported the infantry as 'foot artillery'. The foot artillery manned all heavy guns and howitzers, which did indeed in the broadest sense support the infantry - or anyone else for that matter. So the difference in titles is related to the equipment issued to the units and formations concerned and the particular fire missions each could take on.

Incidentally the Reitende Abteilungen (i.e. battalion sized units) were few and far between. In 1914 only one was allocated to each cavalry division and their batteries only had four guns each. The only field artillery units to contain one were: 1st Guards, 1st, 3rd, 5th, 8th, 10th, 12th, 15th, 35th and Bavarian 5th Koenig Alfons XIII. von Spanien. On the authority of a War Ministry letter of 11 Dec 1916 after one cavalry division was disbanded and three other lost their horses, four of these specialist units (3rd, 5th, 8th and 10th) were converted back to normal field artillery. Approximately one year later the same happened to 1st Guards, 11th, 12th and 35th. As far as I know the Bavarian unit saw the war out, only disbanding when the the Bavarian Cavalry Division returned from the Ukraine during the winter 1918/1919 - but I am not certain about that.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... and the artillery that supported the infantry (or foot) walked beside the guns (there were too many in a gun crew for them all to get on the gun and limber).

Hello centurion

I take your point about the horse artillery with cavalry, and Jack Sheldon has answered your question on nomenclature.

The following is from 18-pdr QF Gun Drill (June 1918 edition):

Positions when mounted

1 and 10 on their horses, and when limbered up usually on the left of the gun and wagon leaders respectively; 2 and 3 on the gun limber; 5 and 6 on the wagon limber; 4 on the wagon of the firing battery; 7 and 8 on the limber; 9 on the wagon of the first line; 2, 4, 6 and 8 on the near side, 3, 5, 7 and 9 on the off side.

Note that no-one rode on, or walked beside, the guns.

Of course this only refers to the RFA in the British Army, but I am guessing that the French and German Armies had similar arrangements.

Ron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...