Napolionic weapons

Moglwi

Monthly Donor
I have just finished rereading Sharpes Eagle again and I was was struck by something Morters exsited in this time fram but where big heavy things not sutable for feild use at all. I was wondering if it was posiable with the technology of the time to create a "modern" Morter sutable for use in the field? The british had a bursting charge weopen from Col Shrapnel and the ablity to make metal tubes was there?
 

67th Tigers

Banned
I have just finished rereading Sharpes Eagle again and I was was struck by something Morters exsited in this time fram but where big heavy things not sutable for feild use at all. I was wondering if it was posiable with the technology of the time to create a "modern" Morter sutable for use in the field? The british had a bursting charge weopen from Col Shrapnel and the ablity to make metal tubes was there?

Not really. The materials technology simply didn't exist.

No indirect fire weapon was ever used on the battlefield anyway (even howitzers are direct fire weapons aimed a bit high).
 
Portable tubes wouldn't be strong enough except for the weakest of charges. It was possible, just barely, to make low-powered light guns using metal wrapped with organic strengthening, but they weren't terribly successful. And of course, the real issue is accuracy in indirect fire - mortars weren't terribly good, to put it mildly. Without a much more advanced understanding of aerodynamics and much better manufacturing, you won't improve that enough. They tried something like grenade launchers in the 18th century, and they didn't work out that well, either.

The big tehnological advance of the era is the lightweight, low-powered, close-engagement direct fire gun, the howitzer, Likorn and carronade. Not quite a mortar, but extremely useful.
 

Moglwi

Monthly Donor
So the materials was not there to build it then shame. Perhaps Congreves rockets gan fil the role of Over the hill firing if they had the kinks worked out? (BTW for full disclosure I love the concept of rocket arty in the napolionic war)
 
Oh-uh, Mighty Mortars of Pathans again! Contrary to popular delusion, modern mortar (aka Stokes-Brandt) is NOT low-tech weapon. It was high-tech of the day, which accidentally gave unprecedented firepower to low-tech troops, including "native" units of different kind. In addition to pipe and seal problems (briefly mentioned here), it requires at least three crucial high-tech components: smokeless powder (no swabbing of the pipe), primer (to allow fast muzzle loading) and good detonator. None of which is within technological reach of Napoleonic times. Heck, even more than century later it took Soviet engineers almost half a decade to perfect Stokes-Brandt into feared 82-mm beast. Plus, regular army with mortars have logistic requirements far exceeding everything available during Napoleonic times (mortars eat an awful lot of munitions, when deployed properly).

Rockets are a bit more viable. However, as described here, they're always losing to "normal" artillery in efficiency department. Useful secondary weapon, nothing more. Russians did not replace field pieces with rockets in 1828, although guns were of Napoleonic vintage and rockets were the best stuff they could come up with.
 
Rockets are a bit more viable. However, as described here, they're always losing to "normal" artillery in efficiency department. Useful secondary weapon, nothing more. Russians did not replace field pieces with rockets in 1828, although guns were of Napoleonic vintage and rockets were the best stuff they could come up with.

There's George William Herbert's argument that intermediate-range (500 km)
ballistic missiles were just possible with Napoleonic technology
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.sf.science/msg/7b510dafdbf2c9fa?dmode=source
 
"Modern" mortars i wouldn't know about, but talking portable mortars the first thing i think about is the 12-pound Coehorn.

lumber9q.jpg

modern reproduction of a 12 lb. Coehorn
 
There's George William Herbert's argument that intermediate-range (500 km)
ballistic missiles were just possible with Napoleonic technology
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.sf.science/msg/7b510dafdbf2c9fa?dmode=source
Unfortunately I can't access Google Groups now, but previous discussions I've seen were suffering one fatal flaw - they weren't as much attempts to assess viability of particular Wunderwaffe in particular era as they were attempts to assess viability of particular Wunderwaffe being re-created by some uptimers (who possess all knowledge and just need to adapt to technological limitations of the era). Tell me this particular discussion doesn't follow the pattern.... Besides, BMs are utterly useless without nukes.

"Modern" mortars i wouldn't know about, but talking portable mortars the first thing i think about is the 12-pound Coehorn.
Yes, but this thing had problems hittng proverbial barn. I vaguely remember reading about Russian attempt (either during Seven Years' War or during one of multiple Russo-Turkish wars of 18th century) to deploy coehorns as field weapon, but the damn thing couldn't hit infantry square, much less standard line of 18th century. Besides, effectiveness of projectile was pretty questionnable.
 
Top