Ticonderoga - Wall Pieces (1 Viewer)

Fraxinus

Master Sergeant
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
1,257
In William Nester's Ticonderoga, there is a "quote" section from a Lt. Grant of the 42nd indicating that the French breastwork was well mounted with wall pieces.

I take those as being swivel guns.

What a great idea for a release!!! A swivel gun and 2 figures, 1 figure charging the piece and another firing the gun.

Apparently, the first line of the attack was suppose to be the American provinicials and rangers, with the British regulars forming the second attack line. The Americans were suppose to occupy the french with musket fire while waiting on the artillery to set-up at the base of Mt. Rattlesnake. The idea was that the artillery fire coming hard to the French left flank along the river would force the French to evacate the breastwork.

The British regulars were not suppose to advance until ordered by the General Abercrombie, and the British regulars were under strict orders not the fire their muskets. At this point, it was suppose to be a bayonet charge to win the breastwork, but this advance was not to happen until the French left hard been hard hit by the British artillery and essentially broken.

Early in the battle, the American Troops started to cheer and shout. To the British in the rear, the cheering and shouting suggested the Americans had breached the breastwork. So several British regiments moved forward on their own under the assumption that the breastwork was breached, but still under orders not to fire their muskets.

Under the assumption that the breastwork was successfully breached, Abercrombie then ordered other British regiments forward to secure and expand the breach, but there was no breach.
 
Last edited:
Ken...

that is a concise well written and very nice read...thank you for helping me to understand the attack...

another fine example of the British blunders at Carillion...

I do like your idea of the French swivel gun and crew set...could the guns on the whale boats be cannibalized to create this...they could be perfect mounted into some small drilled holes in the top of the breastwork...or are they just too small...
 
I would think they would be perfect.

A distinct advantage of a wall piece was the far greater range when compared to a musket, but a wall piece did not use that much gunpowder when compared to a cannon.

So if you needed to "shoot" at something or someone during a siege, a defender would favor the use wall piece over a cannon simply based on the "economics".
 
Ticonderoga must be one of the strangest battles in history. You have an inferior force that abandons a fortified position in order to hastily construct a defensive line in the open. Their only hope of victory is if the attacking force doesn't try to go around them or blow it to bits with artillery, but instead attack it head on. Which of course the British do.
 
Doug...

Montcalm was very slick with regards to the British going around the sides of his breastwork...which coincidently...after the battle he extended both sides as far as they could go...so this wouldn't be a weakness again...

but as far as his being tricky...the French purposely beat out roads through the forrest...hoping the British would take the bait and follow these hastily made entrances...which led their attack the most fortified section of his breast work...

Montcalm was either very lucky or a genius to pull off the defense of Carillion...I have always been impressed with his battle strategies...
 
As someone who lives near Gettysburg, I'm always curious about the tendency to go straight for an enemy. Particularly if they are in a strong position. It seems like at Gettysburg it would have been an easy matter just to move around Little Round Top and Cemetery Hill and force the Union out of position. Similarly at Ticonderoga, how could anyone regardless of incompetence just go straight at them? Like mountain climbers who press on too far when they are close to the top, I think some generals just come to the conclusion that the enemy is in front of them and the tempation is simply to go for them.
 
Carillion was just another example of the untrained leaders or the arrogance of the British command in America...one of their biggest mistakes in my opinion was the advancement by buying commissions by untrained or untested men...

but by the same token...Montcalm's uncle purchased some commissions for him...

as far as overwhelming them with a head on attack...they did outnumber them 5 to 1...it's logical it would work...but with heavy casualties...
 
As someone who lives near Gettysburg, I'm always curious about the tendency to go straight for an enemy. Particularly if they are in a strong position. It seems like at Gettysburg it would have been an easy matter just to move around Little Round Top and Cemetery Hill and force the Union out of position. Similarly at Ticonderoga, how could anyone regardless of incompetence just go straight at them? Like mountain climbers who press on too far when they are close to the top, I think some generals just come to the conclusion that the enemy is in front of them and the tempation is simply to go for them.

Not trying to hijack this thread, but Combat there's a short book by a GNP park ranger, Harman, called Lee's Real Plan at Gettysburg, interesting read, his premise is that Lee's main objective all three days was Cemetery Hill, nothing else really, and Little Round Top was basically an accident, along with Devil's Den and the Wheatfield; they were meant to be quickly by-passed on an assault to "roll-up" the Union left flank toward Cemetery Hill; even Pickett's Charge was in the direction of Cemetery Hill. I was going to PM this to you, but I thought others may be interested in the book. Sorry to get off subject...now back to Ticonderoga :eek:
 
For some reason, I was giving Abercromby some wiggle room thinking his subordinate brigade and regimental commanders disobeyed his orders and attacked under their own authority and against the design of the Abercromby's plan.

The more I read, the less forgiving of Abercromby I become and the more I am leaning towards Combat assessment. Although the regimental commanders might have initially engaged out of context of the "plan", Abercromby apparently did order as many as 7 piecemeal attacks on the breastwork.

From a recent, very academic William Nester history (First Global War) where Nester describes the Indian on Mount Defiance:

"Abercromby positioned them atop Mout Defiance to witness the height of British stupidity rather than send them along Lake Champlain or towards Fort Frederic".

Current academic historians rarely use words like idiot or stupidity (politically incorrect), but in Abercromby's case, those words still apply. The diaries and papers of Abercromby's subordinates are even less kind.
 
The only mitigating factor that I see regarding the British attack relates to the information Abercrombie had regarding the strength of the French defenses. The fog of war makes it easy for us to lay blame after the fact. As I recollect, a scouting party provided Abercrombie with information that the French defenses could be easily overrun and by implication he may have concluded that delay in bringing up the artillery would be both unnecessary and potentially allow the French to strengthen those defense. So time was of the essence. I don't recollect whether Abercrombie himself ever had an opportunity to assess the French defenses prior to the attack. Once the cat was out of the bag it would have been hard for him to break off the attack without great confusion. Lee had a similar problem at Little Round Top where he received a report that the heights were not occupied. Ordered that they be taken, and then determined it was too late to call things off once it was proven otherwise.
 
Abercrombie never personally viewed the French breastwork...a very large percentage of his guns sunk in Lake George...it would have only taken 2-6 pounders to blow the breastwork to smithereens...
 
Abercrombie never personally viewed the French breastwork...a very large percentage of his guns sunk in Lake George...it would have only taken 2-6 pounders to blow the breastwork to smithereens...

One thing that interests me about 18th and 19th century commanders is the imperfect information that they had when making decisions. We probably know much more about battles like Gettysburg than anyone who was actually there including Lee. The smoke, confusion, darkness, terrain obstacles like trees are all variables that limit the information they had to make decisions. And once attacks were underway, there was little they could do except wait for them to succeed or fail which they probably could not even determine until after the battles were over. I always take the accounts written by those involved with a defeat with a pinch of salt. Most of the officers involved pass the blame to others - preferably deceased - to protect their own reputations. A time honored practice perfected by the German WWII generals. None of that is meant to defend Abercrombie who was clearly a nitwit.
 
Ken...two things...

first off...what size would these small guns be...

the smaller one...I originally thought was a telescope mounted on the side of the whaleboat...:D...I really did...it's so tiny...

secondly...seems I read somewhere that these were more accurate than the muskets...could that be possible...I'm sure I read that somewhere...but don't want to search for the source...it just doesn't sound right...
 

Attachments

  • WHRR02pic3.jpg
    WHRR02pic3.jpg
    36 KB · Views: 231
Mike,

I know very little on the subject of wall pieces/swivel guns, but do know Fort William Henry also had a decent number of swivel guns, and that Colonial American forts were generally equipped with swivel guns instead of cannon. Washington had a number a swivel guns at Fort Necessity. Totally clueless on the subject of accuracy. In naval engagements, the swivel gun generally used grapeshot or small caliper roundshot; bore for a 3-foot swivel is about 1.25 inch, which I am guessing is about right for John's larger swivel gun.

Everything below is from Duffy: Fire and Stone - The Science of Fortress Warfare, none of my gibberish :D:D:

Page 83:

Much good work could be done with the wall piece, a massive musket or a punt gun, which rested on a pivot or fork.

Duffy quoting Sieur de Ville (1679)

"Those little guns inflict more casualties then the heavier ones - they have a faster rate of fire and burn up less ammunition, but they still have a long range and capacity to penetrate the thickest armor. It is worth firing a wall piece when you see two or three enemy soldiers in a group, whereas if you shoot off a cannon you waste considerable weight of ammunition when you miss"

Page 85:

One pound of powder would yield roughly 8 charges for a wall-piece or fill between 30 and 40 musket cartridges - which would be rather less than half the quantity an infantryman would fire away on a single turn of normal duty on the ramparts. The musket balls were cast from bars of lead, of which one pound produced twelve or more rounds. One days firing by a single musketeer would therefore deplete the munition stocks by more than 2 pounds of gunpowder and over five of lead.
 
Ken...you're so accommodating on research...thank you...

I'm really impressed with the versatility of these swivel guns...grapeshot for close quarters...the depth range for distance...their penatrability...I had no idea they were so popular and at so many conflicts...

now I want John to make a sculpt of a figure firing one...hehehe...where is my wish list for 2011...get the list out JJ...add this one for me...it would be a pretty unique set Mr. Jenkins...

maybe fixed in a wooden block or a in a log...that could be mounted on a wall or laid on earth in a field of battle...heck...he could just make the figure and we could mount these whaleboat guns easily with a small hole drilled where we want to mount it...just one guy is all it would take...I would guess a one man crew was all that was needed to fire one...I could easily drill a small hole in whatever fortification I have and mount one...

you could sure use a couple on your fort walls...

here's some examples...

I started making a new breastwork...here's one mounted in it...but I'm gonna trash it as I think I have a much easier way to build a better one...

101_2298.jpg


101_2304.jpg


101_2303.jpg


I took a picture of one in a log I drilled a hole in...

the Rangers figures work well with it...

101_2313.jpg


101_2314.jpg


this swivel gun has lots of applications...I wonder if John would make some Frenchies posed shooting one for Carillion...

John...if you end up making a FIW props set for Carlo...as he asked...throw in a couple of these swivel guns por favor...
 
Ken...you're so accommodating on research...thank you...

I'm really impressed with the versatility of these swivel guns...grapeshot for close quarters...the depth range for distance...their penatrability...I had no idea they were so popular and at so many conflicts...

now I want John to make a sculpt of a figure firing one...hehehe...where is my wish list for 2011...get the list out JJ...add this one for me...it would be a pretty unique set Mr. Jenkins...

maybe fixed in a wooden block or a in a log...that could be mounted on a wall or laid on earth in a field of battle...heck...he could just make the figure and we could mount these whaleboat guns easily with a small hole drilled where we want to mount it...just one guy is all it would take...I would guess a one man crew was all that was needed to fire one...I could easily drill a small hole in whatever fortification I have and mount one...

you could sure use a couple on your fort walls...

here's some examples...

I started making a new breastwork...here's one mounted in it...but I'm gonna trash it as I think I have a much easier way to build a better one...

101_2298.jpg


101_2304.jpg


101_2303.jpg


I took a picture of one in a log I drilled a hole in...

the Rangers figures work well with it...

101_2313.jpg


101_2314.jpg


this swivel gun has lots of applications...I wonder if John would make some Frenchies posed shooting one for Carillion...

John...if you end up making a FIW props set for Carlo...as he asked...throw in a couple of these swivel guns por favor...

It's always so nice to see you at work an play Sir Michael and the results of it............PapaZ
 
The British troops apparently had no scaling ladders at Ticonderoga. So getting over those 8-10 foot high breastworks would have been some feat for those who got there. Apparently the few who did get over did so by standing on the shoulders of their comrades. Not exactly ideal for the participants, but it would make an interesting new pose for a JJ highlander set.
 
Brett...I'm not sure I want a "Sgt. Rock" style figure firing a swivel gun from the hip while running...the percussion would probably blow him backwards...but I would like a set of French with a figure holding a ramrod and maybe another firing the small gun...if he makes some artillery figures for Carillion...I would be happy to cannibalize the set and steal the figures to man the small gun...

Doug...I'm sure you have seen this video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hF6Lwvo1UBQ

Chris Fox...the Director of Fort Carillion said he believes this is the most accurate rendition of the breastwork...also stating that the mounds of dirt excavated to make inverted "V"'s of the log breastwork left a sizable ditch in front of the breastwork that made it even taller and more difficult for the Highlanders to scale once they reached it...what is left after 250 years is not too recognizable...but they believe the video is pretty accurate...

I'm trying to make something better than what I originally started...trashing my first two projects...

I'm building the inverted "V" from foam...with a deep ditch in front of it...and will glue the logs to the foam...

the first one I built was just a single row of logs stacked on top of each other...which I'm pretty sure is wrong...

101_2237.jpg


the second one I built is in an inverted "V" style but all the angle and mitre cuts of overlapping timbers is a nightmare...

101_2304.jpg


101_2303.jpg


I think the foam will give me an easy base to work on...easier to attach the timbers to...and will look much better...anyway more accurate...

101_2316.jpg


101_2317.jpg


101_2318.jpg


101_2321.jpg


101_2322.jpg
 
Brett...I'm not sure I want a "Sgt. Rock" style figure firing a swivel gun from the hip while running...the percussion would probably blow him backwards...but I would like a set of French with a figure holding a ramrod and maybe another firing the small gun...if he makes some artillery figures for Carillion...I would be happy to cannibalize the set and steal the figures to man the small gun...

Doug...I'm sure you have seen this video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hF6Lwvo1UBQ

Chris Fox...the Director of Fort Carillion said he believes this is the most accurate rendition of the breastwork...also stating that the mounds of dirt excavated to make inverted "V"'s of the log breastwork left a sizable ditch in front of the breastwork that made it even taller and more difficult for the Highlanders to scale once they reached it...what is left after 250 years is not too recognizable...but they believe the video is pretty accurate...

I'm trying to make something better than what I originally started...trashing my first two projects...

I'm building the inverted "V" from foam...with a deep ditch in front of it...and will glue the logs to the foam...

the second one I built is in an inverted "V" style but all the angle and mitre cuts of overlapping timbers is a nightmare...

101_2304.jpg


101_2303.jpg


I think the foam will give me an easy base to work on...easier to attach the timbers to...and will look much better...anyway more accurate...

101_2316.jpg


101_2317.jpg


101_2318.jpg


101_2321.jpg


101_2322.jpg

You won my award! Truly SUPERIOR!!:eek::eek::eek: Even a wall gun I see.... I just can't wait to see. Very VERY VeRy VEEEEEEEEERRRRRRYYYYYYY nice. By the way, are those reeds, like I had suggested, and how are they working? Whatever they are, just incredible....
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top