Artillery

Field artillery is geared towards getting in close to the enemy and supporting friendly infantry and cavalry. It is of no use far behind. Which means that mobility is of greater importance than the weight of the shell fired. At the same time, it would be firing directly at enemies right in front of them with allied infantry backing the guns up. The result is that the guns do not need protection built into their batteries and volley fire from enemy infantry is likely to be a bigger threat than enemy artillery. So Napoleonic artillery was based on low trajectory fire and moving fast. This meant they were light and mobile, but not particularly good at hitting well protected or hidden targets.   Now, I mentioned in the discussion of the Ents several things that would not apply to artillery used by Isengard. The first is the mental impacts on the target. We have to recognize that Helm’s Deep is literally the first use of gunpowder in Middle Earth. The shock would be great no matter how it was used. Then, even round shot fired into the tight ranks of standard medieval infantry formations is still devastating – though sometimes that can be overstated. But what is not is the impact it had on even veteran troops in the Napoleonic Era. The smoke and noise produced was massive. The impact on the troops around the poor guy that gets hit by round shot would be devastating. It would be tough to not be traumatized by the sight of your friend being so completely turned into a pool of blood and guts. Even when deaths and injuries were low, the impact was high.   It must be noted that the extra range of 12 pound guns was rarely used due to the loss of accuracy. But they were louder and their shots produced a louder, more eerie sounding whistle as they approached enemy lines. Thus, bigger guns still had an impressive morale effect even on veterans that helps justify their use. This is part of the reason getting in close was important – the closer one gets, the more impact the noise would have. But accuracy was another important element. The French required getting as close as 80 yards in some cases and doctrine only allowed for 450 yards. For the British, a 12 pound gun could be expected to hit its target 87% of the time at 600 yards. Extend that out to 950 yards and the hit rate dropped to 40%. at ranges of 1,300 – only 17%.   Canister shot, which was the more effective in killing infantry, would disperse its shrapnel too wide to be really effective past 300 yards. There was a lot of waste in these shots though. Many of the balls would go over their target’s heads, hit the ground in front or simply go between the soldiers. Basically anywhere but the enemy men. Though a battery using canister shot at 400-600 yards appears on average to be as effective as 500 men with muskets at 100 yards.   But at the ranges desired, even round shot would be devastating. A single shot at Waterloo was recorded as killing or wounding 25 men and an officer. Around 7 was considered average for a hit. Though round shot was more effective against longer ranges and at targets like wagons or enemy guns. But it also had the advantage of ricocheting sometimes an additional 300 yards. This means one shot can keep going deep into enemy ranks even after “first graze”.   However, the case and shrapnel rounds would be more effective in plunging fire and long distances. Granted, there were major problems with fuzes that limited effectiveness, more often than not a round shot at long ranges would simply bury itself in the dirt. Therefore, even with the technical limitations, the exploding shots were better. Also a problem was that if the shot exploded too high, injuries would be mild in comparison. However, this would not be the problem it is often seen as. One simply needs to incapacitate the enemy troops. Killing them outright is not needed to win a battle, so long as they are not able to fight. The power of shrapnel to suppress enemy troops makes these shots useful as covering fire as well.   Generally, common shell and shrapnel rounds in howitzers were better on broken ground, at long ranges, firing over friendly troops and hitting enemy formations hidden behind obstacles. This means that in the attack on Helm’s Deep, we would expect Isengard to have a decent number of howitzers available. They would probably be held back so they would be protected by the infantry. Once in effective range, they would open fire aiming at the tops of or behind the walls.   The other major difference is ammunition types. The Ents would just have round shot to play with. Meanwhile, I suspect Isengard would have canister and incendiary rounds available. After all, Saruman is an amazing scientist. He also had plenty of time to experiment prior to his attacks. I would not be surprised at all of given these two factors, Saruman’s innovations would include other rounds. Mortar rounds filled with flammable materials were used to set targets on fire even in the Napoleonic era. The British also had effective rockets and infantry mounted rocket launchers. It also would not be surprising at all that Saruman would have invented and deployed them as well. After all his two main targets were a wood city and a huge wall.   Normally, the smoke, exhaustion of crew, need to resupply, causalities and so forth would reduce rate of fire. Generally, 1 shot per minute was the average in battlefield conditions. Even by the time of World War One, Often this was done in short bursts at high rates of fire, followed by periods of rest. The accumulation of smoke means that only in the opening stages of battle were shots really aimed. After that, the gunners were practically shooting blind.   When under attack, artillery used different sets of rounds at different ranges and enemies. Between 1,500 and 650 yards against cavalry, the ideal was to fire 7 common shell rounds. In the 650 and 350 yard range, the guns were expected to get off 2 round shots. Closer than that and 2 canisters were to be shot. The Germans expected 4 killed and 2 wounded per shot at the long range, 6 killed and 4 wounded per shot at the medium and 9 killed and 23 wounded at close range.   For infantry attacks, the British guns were expected to fire 19 common shell rounds at the long distances. The medium distances called for 7 round shots. 2 canister shots were expected at close range. The Germans expected 4 killed and 4 wounded per shot at the long range, 8 killed and 2 wounded per shot at the medium and 16 killed and 10 wounded at close range. At point blank range, 30 killed and 90 wounded were expected averages.   Mortars were good at arching fire, as one could guess. They were too light to do much damage to the fortified positions of World War One trench systems. But they were better at hitting rear areas such that operations were disrupted. This kept infantry from forming up and supplies moving forward. They could also more easily be carried by troops as they advanced. I suspect that if used and designed properly, the Isengard rockets would be deployed in a similar manner.   Now, one of the main limiting factors was accuracy. British 18 pounders shooting 3,000 yards for example could only expect 50% of their shells to land in a box 1.44 meters wide and 20 yards long. The rest fell in an area 5.76 yards wide and 80 long. This was part of the reason tactics relying on direct hits do not work. This is also why high explosive and shrapnel shells were preferred - one does not have to get as close to do some damage. This further reinforces the idea of artillery as an area focused weapon.   Though it must be noted that for all their costs, artillery can be brutally effective. For example, the Germans launched a major last ditch offensive. The opening barrage involved 6,000 guns firing 3,000,00 shells over a 60 mile front. This attack penetrated 40 miles into Entente controlled territory before it was stopped. This was a huge distance for that point in the war.

At the beginning of the First World War, artillery was woefully inadequate for the demands that were to be placed on it. We see this play out in the British numbers. In 1914, they produced only 91 guns and 55,000 rounds. By 1918, the total number of guns produced was 10,680 and weekly shell production rose to 250,000 per week. Even German stockpiles of 3,000 rounds per gun was insufficient to cover their consumption rates. This shows me that an industrial power can produce huge numbers if needed. Also - this means Isengard can produce quickly enough for a short campaign even with its resource and time constraints. Since military planners prior to World War One assumed that the upcoming war would be short, we can assume that these early numbers are an indication if what Isengard would start with. By the time World War One got going, the ammunition requirements were recognized as quite high as one could tell by the British expansion of manufacturing hints at. So, we can assume that Isengard too would expand production too if resources and demand expand.   Now, each round of ammunition would probably be “ready” or “fixed”. This means that the propellant was put in a bag and attached to the round itself. Before, the powder had to be put into the barrel separately. Such an advance increased the fire rate. In some cases this led to guns having to slow down or stop to let the barrel cool down – otherwise the heat would ignite the powder prematurely. However, the saltpeter used to make Napoleonic Era gunpowder was naturally found only in tropical climates – not the sort of climate Isengard is located in. It was possible to manufacture it though. The downside was that it was 4 times as expensive while not being near as good. Britain’s navy and colonies in India allowed it to import all its needs during the Napoleonic Wars. France had to rely on the artificial substitutes. This gave Britain the advantage. We can expect this to be the one saving grace for the armies that go up against Isengard.