How did "capturing the enemy cannons and turning them on the enemy" work in practice?

[Herbert West]

When one reads or watches descriptions of late medieval or early modern battles, one can often encounter the phrase: "side X overran the cannons of side Y and turned them against their former owners".

However, how did this work in practice? Even assuming that the shot and powder was captured too, how would you turn the enemy cannon on them?

Being an artillerist was a very specialised job.

While there was standardisation within countries, there wasn't between them.

Did armies run around with a whole set of spare specialist artillerymen to take over captured equipment? If you are a Swedish artilerist, how would you know how much powder to put with the shot so that you use the captured Russian artillery to blow up the Russians, and not yourself?

I get the broad idea of "capture gun, rotation of 180 degrees, fire", but the more I think about it, the less I can belive that captured equipment would be used in the same battle.

 

[Kovax]

I suspect that a few of those mentioned cases fail to point out that the infantry capturing the guns were only able to fire the ones already or nearly loaded, until a few of the artillery crews sent one or two members from each to man the new guns. They may even have had a couple of "spare" artillerists in the ranks, but not enough to use the captured guns to their full potential until after the battle.

As for proper powder charges, an experienced artillerist could probably "guesstimate" the amount of powder based on the size/weight of the projectile compared to that of his regular gun. There was some leeway for error in the design of most guns, so "close enough" was probably safe MOST of the time. There may have been a few "accidents" along the way, which weren't mentioned for the obvious reason of playing up the significance of the event. Life was cheap, so if you only got to bring home 8 of 10 captured guns, and a few less artillerists, that's still a win.

 

[Geriander]

The Battle of Breitenfeld doesn't make much sense if it wasn't possible for the Swedes to, by the end, operate the Saxon, the Imperial and their own artillery. That is one of the most studied battles in history and I haven't found any historian theorizing that this part didn't take place.

Edit: Looking further into it I found some claims that Gustav had cross trained his infantry and cavalry as gunners.

MilitaryHistoryOnline.com - The genius of Sweden's 'Lion of the North'

Gustavus Adolphus

www.militaryhistoryonline.com

The Lion of the North: The Story of Gustavus Adolphus, Sweden's Gunpowder King

For his infantry, Gustav made sure that he had men trained in specific styles of fighting, whether it was pike or shot. Cavalry was integrated into the wings or rear of much thinner infantry lines of 5-6 ranks. The thin formations allowed for rapid redeployment in the changing conditions of a...

historycollection.com

 

[JodelDiplom]

Maybe it says "they turned their cannon against them"

but does it say they hit anything?

 

[The mad chemist]

In the Battle of Trenton, militia artillerymen accompanied the infantry who captured several Hessian cannons and manned them to use against their former owners.

 

[Henry IX]

GIven the location of the enemy guns (in their own lines) I would assume they were generally fired at close range using canister shot (or its low tech equivilent - a bunch of musket balls). To do this you don't need the kind of skills required to lay accurate round shot. Just shove in a charge and the balls, point and shoot. Most infantry of this period are used to non-standardised firearms, so they would likely have some experience at guessing charges and working non-standard weapons.

Even if firing round shot, the close range makes it more forgiving, as you can basically assume a flat trajectory for the round, so just point it in the right direction with 0 elevation and fire.

By the thirty year war most armies had roughly standard power charges, and all the artillerist needed to know was know the number of charges and the elevation to hit a target at a specific distance with their gun. For someone unfamilier with the gun you should still be able to make a reasonable guess for a short ranged shot. Hitting an entire tercico isn't that hard to do at short range.

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

"often encounters?" To be honest, I can't recollect having come across this. I am sure it may have happened a few times, but these must have been few and far between.

Spiking enemy cannons, yes, happened quite routinely.

 

[Henry IX]

"often encounters?" To be honest, I can't recollect having come across this. I am sure it may have happened a few times, but these must have been few and far between.

Spiking enemy cannons, yes, happened quite routinely.

Just as an example it happened 3 times in the battle of Brietenfeld: first the Imperial army captured the Saxon guns and turned them on the Swedes. Later in the battle the Swedish cavalry captured a battery of Imperial guns and turned them against the Imperial infantry and finally the Swedes recaptured the Saxon guns and turned them back against the Imperials.

 

[Kovax]

This brings to mind a little anecdote about a relatively local historical artillery unit of Pennsylvania Germans that served in the American Revolution. According to the unit's history, an English unit charged the guns. The first man to reach the cannons spread himself across the muzzle of the gun and proclaimed "I claim thee in the name of the King", whereupon the gun crew fired the gun, replying "Sie must, Sie hast" (You want, you got), spraying the rest of the charging troops with the remains of the unfortunate front runner. The gun crews then held off the charge until reinforcements arrived.

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

Just as an example it happened 3 times in the battle of Brietenfeld: first the Imperial army captured the Saxon guns and turned them on the Swedes. Later in the battle the Swedish cavalry captured a battery of Imperial guns and turned them against the Imperial infantry and finally the Swedes recaptured the Saxon guns and turned them back against the Imperials.

Sure. That was cited above, and seems like a celebrated case. But I can't think of others.

 

[Henry IX]

It seems like it was most common during the 17th century.

Several battles of the English Civil War, including Marston Moor and Prestons, involve batteries being overun. Those guns seem to have been used by the side that took them, although the sources I read are not really clear on whether or not they were used.

During the French wars of religion the battle of Dreux involved the protestants Capturing and using the Catholic artillery.

Capturing guns was also fairly common during sieges during this period.

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

During the French wars of religion the battle of Dreux involved the protestants Capturing and using the Catholic artillery.

You sure about that? At Dreux, Catholic cannon was indeed captured, but I don't think they were turned around and used on the field. May have been used by Huguenots in later battles, but not on the spot. At least scanning through accounts (e.g. this on Dreux), they don't seem to say that. But maybe I'm missing it.

 

[Henry IX]

You sure about that? At Dreux, Catholic cannon was indeed captured, but I don't think they were turned around and used on the field. May have been used by Huguenots in later battles, but not on the spot. At least scanning through accounts (e.g. this on Dreux), they don't seem to say that. But maybe I'm missing it.

I'll have to recheck my sources. You may be right, but I recall an account of the guns being used during the Catholic counter-attack during the second phase of the battle. Serves me right for relying on my memory.