Napoleanic era Foot battery?

[Double D]

I am currently reading Allan Mallinson's historical novel, A Close Run Thing: A Novel of Wellington's Army of 1815.  In it is several reference to the deployment of artillery during the battle at Waterloo.  There are references to 2 types of artillery, Horse artillery and foot artillery.

I pretty much understand what Horse artillery is.  A light fully mounted mobile artillery unit.  

In the American Civil war the foot artillery were those who manned the heavy garrison and siege guns.

Wellington was very critical of his artillery's actions at Waterloo.   Instead of directing fire at troops they engaged in counter battery fire.  

The Horse artillery moved around the battle field at will.

But foot artillery was slow to move and emplace.  They didn't have heavy guns and seemed have the same guns as the Horse artillery.  How were Foot Artillery of the that era deployed; a foot, by wagon/caisson, how?

[Rayfan87]

The way I understand it was horse artillery was basicly cavalry with cannons where foot only used horses to haul the guns between battles.

[Artilleryman]

The webpage has some very good information that helps explain the differences.


http://www.civilwarhome.com/artilleryterms.htm

[Double D]

Thanks Norm I saw that.  It describes the Foot artillery of the U.S. Civil war to a T.

But the description of the  Foot artillery for the Battle of Waterloo doesn't fit that description.  The Order of battle describes them as equipped with 6 and 12 PDRS and being maneuvered around the battlefield not as rapidly as the Horse artillery but maneuver non the less.   

[Rayfan87]

Just my own guess, but from what you are saying and what the posted link says, I'd say the 'foot' you referenced would be the 'mounted' in the link. Like anything else, when two groups who use the same term for different things come into contact, there is a possibility of misinterpretation.

[Cannoneer]

It's been a while since I've read anything about the battle of Waterloo, but the Duke of Wellington was probably justified in being critical of his artillery battery officers for wasting their energy and ammunition engaging in counter battery fire with the French, because (as I remember accounts of the battle) Napoleon's artillery was really ineffectual in the battle. The French were using one of Napoleon's (who was an artilleryman) favorite tactics of firing at the ground in front of their targets to skip the projectiles through enemy troops and ordnance, but because of recent rains the ground was wet, and the projectiles were just being embedded in the ground where they hit.

[lance]

Foot artillery, horse artillery, don't forget: artillery of the park.

[Double D]

It's been a while since I've read anything about the battle of Waterloo, but the Duke of Wellington was probably justified in being critical of his artillery battery officers for wasting their energy and ammunition engaging in counter battery fire with the French, because (as I remember accounts of the battle) Napoleon's artillery was really ineffectual in the battle. The French were using one of Napoleon's (who was an artilleryman) favorite tactics of firing at the ground in front of their targets to skip the projectiles through enemy troops and ordnance, but because of recent rains the ground was wet, and the projectiles were just being embedded in the ground where they hit.

Wellington also kept his troops on reverse slope.

[A.Roads]

The Foot Artillery was the "regular" artillery & Horse Artillery was a relatively new concept, introduced circa 1793.

The role of the Horse Artillery was initially to give fire support to the cavalry & the gun team was mounted for swift movement, rather than marching and/or riding on the batteries carriages like the Foot Artillery.

As battalion guns fell from favour & Horse Artillery was also used for infantry support so any difference in roles of the Horse & Foot artillery became more blurred. 
Adrian

[Double D]

Thanks Adrian....