Yes, definitely good job has been done in latest patсh and quikfixes.
Including gratifying changes in the game engine, which affected not only RUS, but ACW too, as far as I could notice.
[HR][/HR]
Orel wrote:They are related but are not equal to each other. I doubt that the marching speed of a horse and field 76mm cannon would be that different, the 300kg of course make the job easier for the horses, but it is doubtful that it would make the situation that much different on the march, and possibly even on the battlefield. For example, one of the reasons why the army wished to make a new horse artillery cannon was because the reduction in mass by 300kg was not enough to increase the maneuverability of the cannon close enough to the one the army wanted.
If to speak specifically about the march, the case is not only in 300kg difference of limbered horse and foot cannons. Difference mainly is in the double number of the horses per cannon in horse battery, totally mounted battery personel and better horses.
As regards to complaints of an insufficient mobility, as far as I know, - speech was just about tactical mobility of guns on the battlefield (advance on gallop in front of deploying for attack cavalry). There was no complains about mobility of battery on march - artillery have not slowed down cavalry on the march.
Orel wrote:Carpathians... And notice, even in such a place as the Carpathian mountains the artillery would be faster than the infantry under normal circumstances. And the artillery was slowed down by the retreating rear units, whereas in a normal situation it would be faster than the infantry. It is the same thing as saying that an automobile is slower than a human: and justify this by comparing the common speed of a human and the speed of a car in the special case of a traffic jam. Wewern wrote that the infantry like a walker, went around the traffic jam while his artillery couldn't do likewise.
I'm not sure, that foot artillery in normal situation was faster (at least - much faster) than infantry. Eventually, infantry - it is men in full marching order, foot artillery - it is men, who marching light, guns, caissons and carts. Here may be on the good roads advantage in favor of artillery, but hardly big. On the other hand, normal marching speed of infantry ~30km/day, and on forced march ~1,5 times more. And the Wewern himself writes, that his battery was doing 45-50km/day on forced march.
Orel wrote:What were the responsibilities of the other 7 members of the crew? And were they the crew of the battery or of the individual cannon?
It is gun crew itself, which operates on combat position. All battery personnel was something like 25-30 men per cannon.
As I say before, I have no staffing information about exactly Russian artillery of WWI. But, there is classical composition of crew of horse-towed guns with non-automatic breech block. Sorry, I don't know how to translate russian names of artillery crew "numbers".
1. Фейерверкер (commander of gun, sergeant).
2. Наводчик (directing gun on object).
3. Замковый (opening and closing breech block).
4. Заряжающий (loading shell).
5-9. Установщики (men, who setting up detonators on shells) and ящичные (men, who delivers shells from limber or caisson).
By the way, I was mistaken in previous post: two men, who delivers shells from limber or caisson, performed "hosedrivers" functions, when gun is limbered.
Russian 122-mm howitzer:
English 18-lb:
Austrian 80-mm:
May be, it is worth in order not to clutter this topic, make special topic for discussion about WWI and RCW warfare?
)). But combat crew of 76-mm 1902 field gun is 9 men, and this lads was not included in it. And only 2 of abovementioned 9 men was moved sitting on the limber, as far as I know. Others was marching on their two own foot. Add to this the need from time to time help horsies to drag out cannons, caissons, and carts from sand, mud and lift them on the heights - and I don't know how foot artillery may be more mobile on march than infantry.
