Magical armour for 18th century warfare, practicality and uses questions.

[Steelinghades]

Hello all, first post in this forum and for that I have a scenario I’m looking for others opinions on using the napoleonic wars as an example.

Assuming that at the beginning of the napoleonic wars, each of the nations of the world receives two thousand wizards who, for this thread are assumed to only have this ability, are capable of taking armour and enchanting it to better resist musket impacts. The first handful of shots--depending on how strong the enchantment is--will fail to pierce. After this though, the enchant fails and has to be re-enchanted, without the enchantment the armour is still very strong, the enchantment strengthens it to a very strong type of steel.

Not every wizard is equal, this is the rough split for how long it takes a wizard to enchant and re-enchant.
100 Highlord wizards: can enchant 1 cuirass per day and a half/can re-enchant one every half day.
200 master Wizards: Can enchant 1 cuirass per two days/can re-enchant one every day.
300 High wizards: Can enchant 1 cuirass per three days/can re-enchant one every two days.
400 Court wizards: can enchant 1 cuirass per three and a half days/can re-enchant one every three days.
1,000 junior wizards: can enchant 1 cuirass per four and a half days/can re-enchant one every four days.

The wizards cannot do both per day, they must choose one or the other to do and focus on that. They must take a day break in between enchanting or re-enchanting in which they'll eat and enter a magical trance to restore themselves. For a Highlord wizard to create a full plate suit of enchanted armour, it will take them three and a half days in total. The enchantment itself will last a full year before needing to be redone. materials needed to make the armour have to be a solid enough surface to chisel the spell runes into its surface, the enchantment also has the habit of taking fairly normal metal and making it slightly stronger then before. The higher quality the material, the better the enchantment.

The range of musket balls a enchanted cuirass can take is around 2-4, though this isn't the only possible number, a junior wizard could screw up the enchant so the armour can only take one and like wise a Highlord could make the armour even better then normal, capable of taking five shots.

Other armour, such as Maille can also be enchanted, which while it will not stop a musket ball, it can help defend against shrapnel. Scale armour is similar except it provides very small protections against musket fire.

Melee weapons can also be enchanted, in this case they can he given an enchantment that can briefly disrupt the enchantment of armour, when a sword with this ability impacts against enchanted armour, the enchant falls off, so to speak, it's not permanent and the enchantment will return. A single enchanted sword impact against armour will disrupt the enchantment for a varied amount of time, between 1 minutes and six minutes depending on what level of wizard enchanted the armour.

A gun cannot be enchanted, enchantments work by carving into the equipment with magical runes and weaving spells around them, you cannot do this with guns. Every piece of a weapon or armour must be carved with runes, for guns, this is impossible as each individual granule of powder must be enchanted.

Here are some additional magical gadgets I've brought into the equation.
Power Banners: Devices carried by a standard bearer that can triple the strength of all enchants within its radius, generally enough to cover a full company, but beware, when I said all enchants, that includes the enemies.
Power crystal: generally these are high quality crystals, the higher quality the higher the amount of power they can store, these crystals are about the size of a fist. Soldiers carry these as they're filled with magical energy and help their armour defeat greater hits.
Spell Banner: These banners don't actually stop anything, all they do is slow projectiles down so that when a projectile hits it is much slower and weaker. This banner will also slow the projectiles of those within it without being lowered first, which is done with a simple five word phrase and then raised by a six word phrase

With all this in mind, what do you, folks believe warfare will look like if a month before eye napoleonic wars this happens.

Specific questions.
1: Would armour be given to every unit or elites?

2: Would more heavy cavalry charges be used, more lances?

3:Would melee focused infantry return to use?

4: What would the practical use of this new armour, in general be?

5: Would there be any new radical changes in tactics?

[LaCroix]

Armor would be given to anyone, trickling down from the elite to the lesser regiments by availability. But given the numbers, you will have more than enough after a year to equip everyone, so then it will shift to "better enchanted ones for better units".

If you have them, why not use them. Makes lines stand up longer to enemy fire. On the other hand, people will stay a bit more focussed under fire, being somewhat protected, and will take more careful aim to hit heads, as volley-shooting into a group has now about 50% less effect due to the torso no longer being a wounding/killing hit.
More likely, rifles and longer-range engagements (2-300 yards instead of 100 or less) will become more frequent in use, because shooting 2 rounds per minute instead of 4-5, but having each a headshot will be much preferable. Ironically, it might cause battlefields to get much deadlier.

Thin, enchanted cuirasses to be worn under, or most likely - OVER vests/jackets will become a fad for nobles. It might even cause an upswing in duelling.

Cavalry stays about as useful - since you useually shot the horses out under them, anyway - it's hard to hit the rider charging you, but the horse is a great target. Also, cavalry was usually used when it was less likely for them to be shot at.
Making cuirasses for horses only mitigates the old problem, while taking it away from the line units who really need them

Melee weapons stay mostly obsolete, for it's stupid to engage with others who also have the same armor. Enchanted weapons are a waste of time for the same reason - to hit them on the armor to make it briefly weaker to gunshots is useless, for you are in melee and can't shoot them, right now. Also, they will hit you in the face with their non-magical saber or bayonet while you are trying to hit their armor. And even unenchanted cuirasses will be pretty much immune to any melee, anyway, so by giving them out, you made charges less effective.

Giving elite forces full plate will make them better at melee (and mostly useless with guns), but it will cause them to become a preferred target for artillery and infantry when they advance. Precise rifle fire and canister shot will shred them long before they reach the lines.

[Elheru Aran]

Uh... no comment as to the math as I have no desire to work out the numbers. That said:

--Generally as new high end items (and magical armour would definitely qualify) come out, they are definitely assigned to elite units first. So you would be seeing them given to, say, the Garde Imperiale for example, before other units.

--You do not mention the effect of artillery. Allow me to link a convenient picture:



While artillery isn't really accurate enough in this time period to target individual infantry (and indeed it should not be used as such) it still had its, ah, impact. A blast of grape from a small battery at close range could level whole lines of troops. If musket fire becomes less effective, expect artillery to be increased in order to maintain the same weight of fire against troops and cavalry.

Even if this magic armour can withstand a shell... will it negate the kinetic energy? Because even if the shell doesn't go through... a direct blow like in the image is very likely to break bones and render the wearer combat-ineffective.

--Yes, I suppose you might see more heavy cavalry used... BUT.

Is horse-armour going to be issued, as well? Because if shooting at the horsemen doesn't work... they're going to start shooting for the horses.

--Melee infantry won't return. Not entirely. Instead you'll see more issues of melee weapons. Are bayonets going to get enchanted? That gives each soldier an instant short pole-arm. Hatchets/tomahawks? Hanger swords? Et cetera. Guns are simply too useful and too capable of sending out a heavy volume of fire to discard entirely. Maybe the bullets themselves can be enchanted? If it's a matter of hitting the armour directly to overwhelm its enchantment, expect infantry training to start focusing on aimed fire rather than volleys in the general direction of the enemy. Conversely, you might see increased research into creating machine-guns and breech-loaders, early cartridge weapons and what not.

Now that's not to say you won't see units equipped solely with melee weapons... but they won't be very common. They might be used in breaking through fortified positions and such, where you did get a lot of melee at that time because nobody had time to reload after the first shot or two. And even so, expect them to use pistols and such still.

--Practical use of this armour... I dunno, maybe they can put it over a fire and cook some bacon'n'eggs on it. Come on. It's armour. You think they're gonna use it as a foot-stool?

--Radical changes in tactics... now that might be a good question. I'm not well versed enough in Napoleonic warfare to really answer that, though.

[Jub]

Given the scenario it seems like magical crossbows and bolts may be mixed into units to negate the armor of the other side. Perhaps a magical hwatcha (sp?) set to volley at the enemy line before the muskets fire may be of practical value. If that exact method is out multistringed crossbows of more mundane design may fill a lesser but similar role.

Depending on needs, even a magical catapult filled with enruned sling stones may function in this role. Thus fake 'magic' arumored units may try to draw out the limited stores of magic ammo before a large battle.

[Elheru Aran]

Thus fake 'magic' arumored units may try to draw out the limited stores of magic ammo before a large battle.

Dunno about this. They don't have THAT many extra units laying around to get blasted. And after this tactic gets used a time or two, all it takes is a sharp-shooter taking a pot-shot or two to show that they're fake, and can be taken down with ordinary ammunition.

What LaCroix postulated about more long-range, aimed fire makes sense to me. We would expect to see more proper rifles being produced rather than rifle-muskets or smoothbores in this context.

[Jub]

Dunno about this. They don't have THAT many extra units laying around to get blasted. And after this tactic gets used a time or two, all it takes is a sharp-shooter taking a pot-shot or two to show that they're fake, and can be taken down with ordinary ammunition.

What LaCroix postulated about more long-range, aimed fire makes sense to me. We would expect to see more proper rifles being produced rather than rifle-muskets or smoothbores in this context.

True, in this specific scenario such tactics may be out of reach. In a general case however, it might be adopted. Or, rather horridly, peasants from local villages pressed into service as bullet catchers.

I do agree that long range accurate fire likely takes a larger rile. Volley guns and shot will also likely be in vogue as means of overstressing the enemy armor.

Could we perhaps see the gatling gun emerge early under such pressure?

[Elheru Aran]

The gatling gun more or less depends on having brass cartridges, or at least some form of cartridge with a primer. Wikipedia suggests that the earliest metallic cartridge was a pinfire, which wouldn't work with a Gatling action as the rounds need to be carefully aligned with the action. Rimfire cartridges do emerge in ~1845. Centerfire comes along a bit later, though a gentleman named Pauly invented a version of it in 1808. A Pauly type cartridge (only the base was brass, the rest of it was paper) might be made robust enough for use in a prototype machine gun.The Dreyse type needle-fire cartridge (paper case, primer immediately behind the bullet set off by a needle penetrating through the case) could also potentially see use.

EDIT: I did note that artillery could well play a greater role, particularly as OP did not seem to note it. I could see light guns equipped with grape or canister ammunition becoming more common on at least a company level if not platoon/squad. Exploding shrapnel ammunition could also well become more common and used against infantry as well in this scenario.

[Formless]

Actually, the earliest gatling gun used reusable steel chambers with conventional primers of the time, and were reloaded on the field much like one would load the chambers of a revolver. So you don't need brass cartridges at all for that kind of weapon system, it just makes things more convenient.

There are also a whole butload of other, lesser known machinegun designs from the 19'th century besides the Gatling gun, one of which was also used in the U.S. Civil war and used the same kind of steel chambers. In fact, volley guns demonstrate that rapid fire had been on the minds of military engineers for centuries. The Gatling gun was a favorite because any misfired cartridges just get chucked out without the weapon as a whole jamming. It just skips a beat and keeps firing the next round. But in the late 1870's, the British actually started preferring the Gardner gun, which had a lot of features that were later copied by the Maxim machine gun, such as the water cooled barrels, and was generally lighter and more modern than Gatling's contemporary designs. Gatling's designs were still more like a traditional artillery piece than a machine gun, and were mounted as such. The Maxim may have been the first true machine gun, but the Gardener gun is the grandfather of modern heavy machine guns.

[Elheru Aran]

In that case then yeah, that would work. Still not developed until the latter part of the 1850s at least for the first to come out in 1862, so a bit late for the Napoleonic era.

[Elheru Aran]

In that case then yeah, that would work. Still not developed until the latter part of the 1850s at least for the first to come out in 1862, so a bit late for the Napoleonic era.

Quick EDIT:

That said. Would the sudden emergence of this magic armour change the political dynamic of the Napoleonic era enough to keep the peace for long enough for machine-gun technology to emerge, such as the Gatling, Agar Coffee-Mill, etc?

[Jub]

The gatling gun more or less depends on having brass cartridges, or at least some form of cartridge with a primer. Wikipedia suggests that the earliest metallic cartridge was a pinfire, which wouldn't work with a Gatling action as the rounds need to be carefully aligned with the action. Rimfire cartridges do emerge in ~1845. Centerfire comes along a bit later, though a gentleman named Pauly invented a version of it in 1808. A Pauly type cartridge (only the base was brass, the rest of it was paper) might be made robust enough for use in a prototype machine gun.The Dreyse type needle-fire cartridge (paper case, primer immediately behind the bullet set off by a needle penetrating through the case) could also potentially see use.

EDIT: I did note that artillery could well play a greater role, particularly as OP did not seem to note it. I could see light guns equipped with grape or canister ammunition becoming more common on at least a company level if not platoon/squad. Exploding shrapnel ammunition could also well become more common and used against infantry as well in this scenario.

Of course, it won't see use in this specific battle, but with such a need for rate-of-fire, many militaries would have a cost be damned we need something new attitude to filling this need. So perhaps we see some sort of multibarreled magazine/clip feed weapon in the 1830's or 40's instead of when it arose historically.

Of course, we might also see these re-emerge:



These are 1718 vintage and will stop a man in these suits of armor. Think of what need might do to such weapons and weep for the theoretical men who would fall under them.

[Elheru Aran]

Oh yeah, the Puckle Gun definitely has potential. I wouldn't be surprised to see all kinds of light artillery and multi-barrelled gizmos spring up. There are going to be two priorities here:

--Accurate long range fire: not really a thing with artillery, but they'll be equipping a lot more riflemen and training them hard. Unless these wizards start making full plate-- and it sounds like that might be a heavy proposition for them since it takes them some time to just enchant a breastplate-- most people wearing the armour are only going to have their breasts covered, making legs/groins and heads far more attractive targets. And engaging them at range will permit more artillery salvos before the lines close.

--Volume of fire: Now here we get artillery going in two directions, rapid fire (machine guns, volley guns etc) and anti-infantry, anti-cavalry loads such as canister and shrapnel.

[Jub]

SteelingHades, does a weapon have to be wielded to remove enchantments from the armor or could you uncoil rolls of magical barbed wire and strip the enchantments from the men that have to trudge through it? It's far out of period for this scenario, but knowing this helps us take the idea further forward in time.

[Steelinghades]

Uh... no comment as to the math as I have no desire to work out the numbers.

The numbers work out to about two hundred and fifteen thousand per year.

EDIT: I did note that artillery could well play a greater role, particularly as OP did not seem to note it. I could see light guns equipped with grape or canister ammunition becoming more common on at least a company level if not platoon/squad. Exploding shrapnel ammunition could also well become more common and used against infantry as well in this scenario.

I didn't mention it since enchanted armour capable of being worn by infantry has next to no chance of stopping a cannonball; the enchantment will fail if hit by a cannonball or even if it were to hold the wearer would still be dead; the momentum of a cannonball--even a one pounder--is too much for a physical to withstand.

SteelingHades, does a weapon have to be wielded to remove enchantments from the armor or could you uncoil rolls of magical barbed wire and strip the enchantments from the men that have to trudge through it? It's far out of period for this scenario, but knowing this helps us take the idea further forward in time.

It does not have to be wielded, but every piece of it mist be covered with runes or the enchantment tends to explosively fail. If you can carve on it, you can enchant it.

[LaCroix]

SteelingHades, does a weapon have to be wielded to remove enchantments from the armor or could you uncoil rolls of magical barbed wire and strip the enchantments from the men that have to trudge through it? It's far out of period for this scenario, but knowing this helps us take the idea further forward in time.

It does not have to be wielded, but every piece of it mist be covered with runes or the enchantment tends to explosively fail. If you can carve on it, you can enchant it.

Which means that melee and cavalry become almost useless, for people will just roll out a few lines of barbed wire in preparation of the battle... Cavalry might still be able to flank, but you wouldn't use cavalry against a group of riflemen that aren't under threat of, or in a melee. (The rear ranks could just turn around and form against you if they aren't occupied by someone too close to ignore.)

Weapons will evolve rapidly. The smoothbore musket only held on for so long because it's rate of fire was impossile to match.

Nations will have a couple (I changed this a couple of times, already, so I will refrain from a numeric quaifier, for now) possible routes to success:

1. Increase rate of fire even more. Maybe issuing a disposable volley fire gun to each soldier, on top of his rifle. You fire a five barreled gun first, drop it and then switch to the musket. Maybe they will use harmonica guns with pre-loaded strips so they can fire more quickly.

2. Specialized ammo. hitting them multiple times for each charge. We will certainly see 'Buck and Ball' or 'just Buck' come up quickly, for you need to get the lead downrange. Hitting them with a ball and three bucks might cause one of them to go through or hit an unprotected spot. We might even see something resembling stacked Minie balls - with cones stacked up on each other on the base, held together by the lubricant wax.

3. Increased precision. More rifles, maybe some with pop-up chambers for quicker loading (those eliminated the proces of forcing the ball down into the rifling and could be fired almost as fast as a smooth-bore. Usually combined with utilizing the range advantage of rifles.

4. Massed artillery - make everything go boom with shells and grape.

5. Rapid fire anti-personal artillery guns. Same as #1, but on larger scale - gatlings are too early an development, but revolver-type guns or harmonica style guns in the 1lbs range are a ting, and capable of clearing a breach through a couple ranks of even magically armed soldiers.

6. Field fortifications and/or more mobile warfare. (Usually in conjunction with #3) Sandbags, wire, and trench warfare. Or simply constant retreating rifle fire against the advancing enemy. Small harrassment units with rifles trying to weaken the enemy long before the actual engagement. Avoiding big engagements, and if forced, try to use natural cover instead of marching rows of soldiers against each other.

War will become less of a question of "who has more men and how fast do they shoot", but a rock-paper-scissor game.

If someone goes for the "artillery & rapid guns solutions" version, he will loose against someone harrassing them with small rifle units and avoiding a fixed battle. Someone using more rifles will get squashed if forced into a battle against a "volume of fire" style army.

[LadyTevar]

Most of you have been discussing rapid fire weaponry, but I have to wonder about a much simpler solution: Rifled Bores.

Rifling was invented in Germany in 1498, and improved upon in 1520. Germany settlers brought this technology to the American colonies of Pennsylvania and Virginia. Early rifles evolved into the Kentucky Long Rifle, which proved itself in the French & Indian War as able to fire straighter, further, than a smoothbore musket. Even so, an ammo ball with a tight fit was needed to get full advantage from the rifling, which made reloading take longer.
Despite the longer reload time, the rifle was used by many 'backwoods' snipers during both the French & Indian War and the Revolutionary War to great effect. There is the story of the British Officer who was informed of a sniper nearby, and responded "What, he couldn't hit a barn from the...."


Then came the invention of the Minni-ball in the 1840s. Captain James H. Burton, who was an armorer at the Harper's Ferry Armory, developed an improvement on Minié's design when he added a deep cavity at the base of the ball, which filled up with gas and expanded the bullet's rim upon firing. This, plus the conical tip, gave the Minni-ball a higher muzzle velocity, which not only sent the bullet further, but also caused more damage upon hitting flesh.

[Steelinghades]

SteelingHades, does a weapon have to be wielded to remove enchantments from the armor or could you uncoil rolls of magical barbed wire and strip the enchantments from the men that have to trudge through it? It's far out of period for this scenario, but knowing this helps us take the idea further forward in time.

It does not have to be wielded, but every piece of it mist be covered with runes or the enchantment tends to explosively fail. If you can carve on it, you can enchant it.

Which means that melee and cavalry become almost useless, for people will just roll out a few lines of barbed wire in preparation of the battle...

Was barbed wire a thing during this Era?

4. Massed artillery - make everything go boom with shells and grape.

Well, that was generally how things were already done in the napoleonic wars; though I don't think explosive shell became that common until the American Civil War.

Rifling was invented in Germany in 1498, and improved upon in 1520.

Indeed, there were also breechloaders during the 1500s, though they were exceptionally expensive at the time.

[Elheru Aran]

Most of you have been discussing rapid fire weaponry, but I have to wonder about a much simpler solution: Rifled Bores.

Rifling was invented in Germany in 1498, and improved upon in 1520. Germany settlers brought this technology to the American colonies of Pennsylvania and Virginia. Early rifles evolved into the Kentucky Long Rifle, which proved itself in the French & Indian War as able to fire straighter, further, than a smoothbore musket. Even so, an ammo ball with a tight fit was needed to get full advantage from the rifling, which made reloading take longer.
Despite the longer reload time, the rifle was used by many 'backwoods' snipers during both the French & Indian War and the Revolutionary War to great effect. There is the story of the British Officer who was informed of a sniper nearby, and responded "What, he couldn't hit a barn from the...."


Then came the invention of the Minni-ball in the 1840s. Captain James H. Burton, who was an armorer at the Harper's Ferry Armory, developed an improvement on Minié's design when he added a deep cavity at the base of the ball, which filled up with gas and expanded the bullet's rim upon firing. This, plus the conical tip, gave the Minni-ball a higher muzzle velocity, which not only sent the bullet further, but also caused more damage upon hitting flesh.

A couple of us have been mentioning accurate rifle fire as one way to counter this magical armour, yes.

[Formless]

It does not have to be wielded, but every piece of it mist be covered with runes or the enchantment tends to explosively fail. If you can carve on it, you can enchant it.

Which means that melee and cavalry become almost useless, for people will just roll out a few lines of barbed wire in preparation of the battle...

Was barbed wire a thing during this Era?

No; it wasn't invented until the 1840's, and the first deployment of wire obstacles on the battlefield didn't happen until the American Civil War.

However, a kind of anti-cavalry obstacle called a cheval de frise was used during the Napoleonic era, and similar wooden spike type obstacles have been used since Roman times. If anything, enchanting a bunch of spear heads to go on the tips of such battlements would probably be easier for these mages. They could also make magic caltrops, for that matter.

Also, the Chinese invented land mines that would go off when stepped on even before the 19'th century.

[Jub]

Was barbed wire a thing during this Era?

Barbed wire itself was only invented in the 1840's and wasn't mass produced until later than that. Of course, the wire need not be barbed to take away enchantments, so you could drive posts and string regular wire between them. Shoot any men that come to cut the wire and force the enemy to make tough choices about how to proceed in the face of such obstacles.

I wonder if such barriers might introduce the horrors of trench warfare decades early?

[Steelinghades]

Was barbed wire a thing during this Era?

Shoot any men that come to cut the wire and force the enemy to make tough choices about how to proceed in the face of such obstacles.

Well, you wouldn't send men to cut the wire unless you absolutely had to; you'd probably want to take some questions from WW1 in that case and she'll it with mortars, howitzers and cannons, which were on the front line during this time and should have an easier time of targeting the wire compared to first world War artillery.

I wonder if such barriers might introduce the horrors of trench warfare decades early?

There was trench warfare in the American Civil War and trenches themselves have been around a very long time. But all things considered I don't think you'd quite have trench warfare Ala WW1, but a style of trench warfare more like that in earlier eras before machine guns.

[Jub]

Was barbed wire a thing during this Era?

Shoot any men that come to cut the wire and force the enemy to make tough choices about how to proceed in the face of such obstacles.

Well, you wouldn't send men to cut the wire unless you absolutely had to; you'd probably want to take some questions from WW1 in that case and she'll it with mortars, howitzers and cannons, which were on the front line during this time and should have an easier time of targeting the wire compared to first world War artillery.

Without high-quality explosive shells, their attempts to down the wire with artillery will work even less than the WW1 attempts did.

"Many soldiers disputed the fact that shelling was capable of creating a gap in the wire. Arthur Coppard, who observed attempts to destroy barbed-wire entanglements at the Somme remarked: "Who told them that artillery fire would pound such wire to pieces, making it possible to get through? Any Tommy could have told them that shell fire lifts wire up and drops it down, often in a worse tangle than before.""

The reality is that small caliber artillery with poor explosive shells won't have any effect on the wire, so you'll have to cut it up close or find another way.

[Steelinghades]

Shoot any men that come to cut the wire and force the enemy to make tough choices about how to proceed in the face of such obstacles.

Well, you wouldn't send men to cut the wire unless you absolutely had to; you'd probably want to take some questions from WW1 in that case and she'll it with mortars, howitzers and cannons, which were on the front line during this time and should have an easier time of targeting the wire compared to first world War artillery.

Without high-quality explosive shells, their attempts to down the wire with artillery will work even less than the WW1 attempts did.

Then I'd have to ask of they had the industrial ability to forge large enough bunches of barbed wire for combat use.

The reality is that small caliber artillery with poor explosive shells won't have any effect on the wire, so you'll have to cut it up close or find another way.

Artillery wasn't super small caliber, yes it was fairly small during the napoleonic Era, but it did actually get fairly large during the Civil war; especially naval artillery. I could see larger naval guns being brought onto shore for the sole purpose of blasting holes through the wire or even just disrupting it.

[Jub]

Then I'd have to ask of they had the industrial ability to forge large enough bunches of barbed wire for combat use.

In this case, it doesn't have to be barbed at all, just wire covered in runes. Perhaps you could even have the rollers that thin the wire prestamp the wire with runes so the mages don't have to hand scribe so many of them.

Artillery wasn't super small caliber, yes it was fairly small during the napoleonic Era, but it did actually get fairly large during the Civil war; especially naval artillery. I could see larger naval guns being brought onto shore for the sole purpose of blasting holes through the wire or even just disrupting it.

This didn't happen in WW1 and artillery in that war wasn't having much effect on wire obstacles. So while it may happen here, I don't know that it will change much. Wire is simply resistant to the kind of shocks that artillery makes and not much will change that.

[Steelinghades]

Artillery wasn't super small caliber, yes it was fairly small during the napoleonic Era, but it did actually get fairly large during the Civil war; especially naval artillery. I could see larger naval guns being brought onto shore for the sole purpose of blasting holes through the wire or even just disrupting it.

This didn't happen in WW1 and artillery in that war wasn't having much effect on wire obstacles. So while it may happen here, I don't know that it will change much. Wire is simply resistant to the kind of shocks that artillery makes and not much will change that.

There are a few advantages ACW and napoleonic artillery has compared to WW1 artillery in this case--well, one advantage--and that is that it's closer to the front compared to later artillery. The majority of artillery during the first world war--not all of it mind--was farther back from the front line compared to earlier artillery.

And yes, it is hard to knock down barbed wire; the best you can hope for against the wire directly is to knock down the posts holding it up. Though A much better tactic in my mind is to aim the artillery right at the area where the barbed wire ends and blast out some craters for infantry to crawl into and cut the wire from relative safety.