Page 1 of 1

Re Cannon, or the lack thereof

Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 2:29 pm
by decaro
I'm still getting the feel of this game in the (easier) French and Indian War scenarios. With the exception of strong forts, there is a scarcity of cannon in these games. I imagine it was difficult to make or even move any type of (heavy) artillery through the forests of North America.

Does cannon play a larger role in the Revolutionary War scenarios? Does anyone know (really know) if there is such a thing as a "grand battery" for that war, i.e., did any side have enough artillery for such a formation, or is that concept more suitable for Napolianic warfare?

RE: Re Cannon, or the lack thereof

Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 2:44 pm
by Lightsfantastic
The farther you get into the Revolution campaigns you could amass quite a bit of artillery, even siege artillery. The French and Indian war not so much.

RE: Re Cannon, or the lack thereof

Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 5:13 pm
by Lord_Stanley
Joe D.
The concept of the Grand Battery did not exist during this time period. It really didn't come along untill Napoleon. Armies in North America had small amounts of artillery compared to Napoleonic War era armies, maybe only 10-12 guns at the most. I'd have to look through my books for OOB's and numbers. Let me know if you want actual types and numbers.

RE: Re Cannon, or the lack thereof

Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 4:31 pm
by decaro
If it's not too much trouble; I know a fellow gamer who was considering a grand battery formation command/icon for a Revolutionary War mod.
Guess he shouldn't bother, but would probably appreciate some historic numbers.
Until the French arrive, I'm assuming any American cannon is/was built in Britain.

RE: Re Cannon, or the lack thereof

Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:39 pm
by Philthib
A good part of American ordnance were casted locally in fact [8D]

RE: Re Cannon, or the lack thereof

Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 2:33 pm
by decaro
I guess if you can make a bell, you can make a cannon. But if the Continental Congress couldn't even pay/supply its own troops, where did they get the cash to make cannon?

RE: Re Cannon, or the lack thereof

Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 8:54 pm
by jjjanos
Local governments for their own troops. Private citizens outfitting their own units.

RE: Re Cannon, or the lack thereof

Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 9:35 pm
by anarchyintheuk
I thought cannon played a more important role in the FIW than the AR scenarios. Less militia is available to absorb casualties. Taking Louisburg w/o a big siege train isn't that easy.

RE: Re Cannon, or the lack thereof

Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:26 pm
by decaro
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

According to the History Channel, ordnance in early America was the responsibility of the citizen soldier, hence the right to bear arms. Militiamen provided their own musket (and balls?). I don't think that even small arms were furnished by the local government, so where could the Colonials get their own cannon?

America couldn't (mass) produce and distribute arms until the Civil War, which prompted Lincoln to pass an income tax to pay for it (cannon).

I still suspect the only cannon we Colonials had were left-overs from the French and Indian Wars (British!), or an outright gift from the French, i.e, the cannon on the Bonhomme Richard. But if anyone knows and can give a good source, please post it.