Massachusetts Form M 3 Instructions: Fill & Download for Free

Top U.S. research university in EDA(Section #1)UC Berkeley EECS is a clear winner by far.Their research spans from electronic system-level (ESL) design and verification to technology CAD (TCAD). No other research university has that range of research teams/labs/groups that span so many EDA topics. The collaborators of UC Berkeley's faculty and students include many of their alumni, the academic descendants of Berkeley EECS alumni, and industry and academic collaborators from all over the world. Two of their faculty members, Prof. Alberto Sangiovanni-Vincentelli and the late Prof. A. Richard Newton contributed greatly to the founding of two of the three giants in electronic design automation (EDA): Synopsys (company) and Cadence Design Systems (company). Their alumni have become successful faculty members in world-class research universities, like MIT and Stanford. Their graduate classes in EDA also span from TCAD (e.g., device modeling) and physical design to logic synthesis and verification, and also from ESL design and cyber-physical systems (CPS) to Bio Design Automation and VLSI formal verification (e.g., sequential equivalence checking).Good U.S. research universities in EDA(Section #2)Off the top of my head, other good research universities that have good EDA labs (at least 2-3 faculty members working in EDA) and multiple graduate-level EDA classes include (not listed in any order):University of Michigan: physical design, logic synthesis, EDA for quantum computing, logic verification, and post-silicon debugging. Prof. Igor Markov is a professor at Michigan's EECS department.Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Numerical techniques (e.g., nonlinear Model Order Reduction, integral equation solvers) for EDA, including circuit simulation, interconnect modeling, and layout/parasitic extraction; check out the Computational Prototyping Group at MIT's legendary Research Laboratory of Electronics (RLE). Prof. Arvind and Prof. Srini Devadas have worked on problems in ESL, and logic synthesis and logic verification.Carnegie Mellon University. They work on problems in analog/RF and mixed-signal (AMS/RF) CAD, Design for Manufacturability (DFM), EDA tools for network-on-chips (NoC)... They also have graduate classes in physical design and logic synthesis/verification.Cornell University: EDA tools for Asynchronous Circuits, TCAD, physical design, ESL, VLSI testingGeorgia Institute of Technology: Nanoscale 3-D physical design and circuit simulation (or rather, numerical techniques for EDA).Northwestern University: physical design, thermal-aware EDA tools, and FPGA CAD tools.Purdue University: VLSI testing, and a range of topics addressing nanoscale challenges concerning variability and reliability, model order reduction for VLSI circuits and systems, physical design, and interconnect modeling.Stanford University: range of "non-traditional" EDA projects spanning multiple traditional EDA topics, TCAD, EDA tools addressing reliability concerns, and VLSI testing. They also used to work on VLSI formal verification.Texas A&M University (TAMU): Physical design, numerical techniques for EDA (including power grid verification) and AMS/RF CAD, NoC, EDA tools addressing fault-tolerance, DFM, logic synthesis, and ESL... Texas A&M University (TAMU) is not as famous as the other universities, but it does produce stellar research papers. For example, Prof. Peng Li has won 4 best paper awards at Design Automation Conference (DAC) and International Conference on Computer-Aided Design (ICCAD) in the last 10 years, which is 20% of the best paper awards for DAC and ICCAD in this time frame.University of California, San Diego: DFM, physical design, ESL, and VLSI testingUniversity of California, Los Angeles: physical design, logic synthesis, ESL (including high-level synthesis), DFM, and numerical techniques for EDA (including model order reduction and interconnect modeling).The University of Texas at Austin: DFM, physical design, VLSI formal verification, VLSI testing, and TCADAlso, see Choosing a Graduate Program in VLSI Design & Related Areas: Things to Consider.Competitive U.S. research universities in EDA (Honorable Mention)(Section #3)Honorable mention:University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: numerical techniques for EDA (including model order reduction, layout/parasitic extraction, and interconnect modeling)... I may be wrong, but I reckon they have other stuff. However, they do not seem to be prominent in EDA, even though UIUC is a world-class research university.Brown University: EDA tools for thermal analysis/design, VLSI testing, and some other topicsBoston University: There are 2-3 faculty members working in EDA there, including Prof. Douglas Densmore work works in Bio Design Automation.University of California, Irvine: Has a strong research lab/group in ESL, including high-level synthesisUniversity of California, Riverside: numerical techniques for EDA (including model order reduction, layout/parasitic extraction, and interconnect modeling), application-specific instruction-set processor (ASIP) synthesis and design methodologies, and low-power EDA. They may have professors working on ESL and logic synthesis, too.University of California, Santa Barbara: VLSI testing, logic verification, and physical design. They may also be working on logic synthesis.University of Southern California: physical design, physical synthesis, logic synthesis, logic verification, EDA tools for Asynchronous Circuits, EDA for Quantum Computing, ESL, VLSI testing, EDA tools for low-power design, and NoC.University of Minnesota - Twin Cities: physical design and physical synthesis, logic synthesis and verification, and numerical techniques for EDA (to some extent)The University of Utah: Design automation for Cyber-Physical Systems, Bio Design Automation, EDA tools for Asynchronous Circuits, and VLSI formal verificationUniversity of Wisconsin - Madison: physical design, physical synthesis, DFM, EDA for reconfigurable logic (e.g., FPGA), post-silicon debugging, low-power EDA tools, EDA tools for fault-tolerance, and VLSI testingSufficiently Competitive U.S. research universities in EDA(Section #4)Other research universities that may interest you:Arizona State University: Strong TCAD group in device modelingColumbia University: EDA tools for Asynchronous CircuitsDuke University: Design automation for Microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) (microelectromechanical systems) and digital microfluidic devices (biomedical devices), and VLSI testingUniversity of Arizona: A bunch of faculty members in VLSI testing, interconnect modeling, DFM, NoC, among other thingsUniversity of California, Davis: ESL groupUniversity of California, Santa Cruz: physical design groupUniversity of Massachusetts, Amherst: Kinda like University of Arizona; it has a bunch of decent faculty members working on different things... TCAD, VLSI testing, and EDA for reconfigurable logic (e.g., FPGA)University of Notre Dame: ESL???University of Pennsylvania: EDA tools for nanoscale reconfigurable logicUniversity of Rochester: Lone maverick working on numerical techniques for EDA (e.g., interconnect modeling), physical synthesis, physical design, and AMS/RF CADIowa State University: Physical designColorado State University (specifically, Colorado State University ): ESLAuburn University: VLSI testing. TCAD, and computational electromagneticsUniversity of Maryland, College Park: TCAD, approximate computing, energy-efficient EDA tools, and DFMNorth Carolina State University: AMS/RF CAD, and random topics in EDA, just like University of Massachusetts, Amherst and University of ArizonaUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill: EDA tools for Asynchronous CircuitsStony Brook University: ESL and AMS/RF CADPortland State University (Portland State University): VLSI formal verification, VLSI testing, and ESL (and Bio Design Automation???)University of Pittsburgh: mixed-technology design automation tools, including design automation tools for OptoelectronicsSouthern Methodist University: VLSI testing, logic synthesis, and logic verificationDrexel University: physical design and NoCDecent/"Decent" U.S. research universities in EDA(Section #5)If you can't get into the aforementioned universities, here are some other universities that may be of interest to you. They have at least one lone faculty member working in EDA.Southern Illinois University CarbondaleUniversity of IowaUniversity of Maryland, Baltimore County (UMBC): Power modelingMichigan State University: Computational electromagneticsMichigan Technological University: TCAD and numerical techniques for EDAMissouri University of Science & Technology: electromagnetic compatibility, like signal integrity analysisUniversity of North Carolina at Charlotte: AMS/RF CADUniversity at Buffalo: VLSI testingUniversity of Cincinnati: lone ranger working on digtial EDA, who had worked on AMS/RF CAD tools.Utah State UniversityThe University of Texas at San Antonio: physical design, DFM, and physical synthesisUniversity of North Texas: AMS/RF CAD based on meta-heuristicsIllinois Institute of Technology Chicago - Illinois Tech: power grid simulation of Very-Large-Scale Integration systemsUniversity of South CarolinaWell, if you are considering these places, you may as well check out opportunities in Europe (e.g., see Computer Science Programs in Europe, Pasquale Ferrara's answer to When recruiting Software Engineer/Computer Science majors for US companies, what international universities are on par with MIT/Stanford?, and Pasquale Ferrara's answer to Which university is best to recruit computer science majors from and why?) and Taiwan (e.g., National Taiwan University and National Tsing Hua University). Also, Federal University of Rio Grande Do Sul (UFRGS) is also making some noise in EDA in Porto Alegre, Brazil. Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST) (and perhaps Seoul National University) seems like a reasonable choice.For graduate programs in EDA, I would strongly recommend that you do not go to graduate school in India, Singapore, or Australia.If you want me to make a recommendation, if you cannot get into a good/competitive U.S. research university in EDA (see sections 1-3, or perhaps sections 1-4), it may be worth your while to go look at other competitive research universities outside the U.S., such as National Taiwan University (NTU). NTU has done well (placed top 3 regularly in the last 5 years) in EDA programming/research contests, such as the ISPD programming contest and the CADathlon (held before the start of ICCAD). See Learning about Physical Design outside of National Taiwan University about my blog post titled, “Learning about Physical Design outside of National Taiwan University.”

How did the cavalry engage in long battles without fatiguing the horses?"I can make more generals, but horses cost money." — Abraham LincolnShort answer: The horses of the cavalry were almost always fatigued or worse. As the American Civil War progressed, many cavalry encounters became middle-range shooting matches with one group of mounted men throwing lead at another in a promiscuous scattering of more or less “innocent” fire that lacked the dash and bravado of a saber charge. (See my cavalry trilogy on Amazon — Amazon.com: James M. Volo)(Thanks to all those who have answered knowledgeably concerning the deployment of cavalry in Europe, but America was a different thing.) In the United States, there were four regiments of light dragoons in the Revolutionary War and other mounted forces that fought in the Civil War and Indian Wars, but there were never any horsemen deployed that could be considered heavy cavalry.Horses chosen for military service did not have a very long useful life. After Second Manassas, Generals Bayard and Buford reported that there were not five horses to the company that could be forced into a trot. (Gen.) David Gregg later noted: “With some exceptions, whatever care was given the horses, was at such times as best suited the convenience of the individual trooper, and as the horses generally stood in mud to their knees, unless their masters were prompted by exceptionally humane feelings, the intervals between feedings and watering were distressingly long. In many of the regiments … their condition was the worst possible.” At one point in this campaign, the horses of the 1st Rhode Island "were not unsaddled for one hundred and four hours; were without food for sixty-four hours; and without water thirty-seven hours." In the winter of 1862-3, with a wide rivers separating the armies and the roads two feet deep in mud, slush and water, the horses of the 1st Massachusetts, then on picket duty, remained saddled for fifteen consecutive days and nights and died by dozens of exposure and starvation.Cavalry charges in the American Civil War were occurrences that took place in the imagination of illustrators and reporters more often than on the battlefield.Although military training schools stressed those strategic and organizational precepts formulated during the Napoleonic Era, technological advances had made a number of tactical and logistical conventions obsolete. Chief among these was the almost universal introduction of rifles among the troops on both sides, making frontal assaults by mounted men particularly bloody and ineffective. The rifled musket took much of the dash and glamor from the mounted service.A cavalry officer during the American Civil War attempted to explain to those unfamiliar with cavalry mounts the hardships suffered during cavalry service.“You have no idea of their suffering [the horses]. An officer of cavalry needs to be more horse-doctor than soldier … You are a slave to your horses, you work like a dog yourself, and you exact the most extreme care from your sergeants, and you see diseases creeping on you day by day and your horses breaking down under your eyes, and you have two resources, one to send them to the reserve camps at the rear and so strip yourself of your command, and the other to force them on until they drop and then run for luck that you will be able to steal horses to remount your men … We swipe the first horse we come to and put the dismounted man on his back.”[i]As the men gained campaigning experience, getting down to the bare essentials of gear became a fine art. In addition to the trooper, his weapons and ammunition, they had to carry two saddlebags filled with extra clothing, a nose-bag filled with corn, a heavy leather halter, an iron picket-pin with a long picket rope, two extra horseshoes, a pair of blankets (one used as a saddle pad) and a rubber poncho, currycomb, brush and gun tools, the whole equipage weighing as much as 70 pounds over and above the weight of the rider, saddle, and harness. For this reason light and agile recruits were preferred.Cavalry regiments were composed of ten companies of 100 to 110 troopers each. There were five squadrons in a regiment, a squadron being a combination of two companies. This was later changed and the regiments were divided into three battalions. Cavalrymen could fight either mounted or on foot in a staggered skirmish line. Fighting on foot did eliminate some of the unit's firepower as one soldier was designated as a holder for four horses, including his own, while the other three troopers were detailed to the firing line. This saved the mounts from exhaustion, and provided a modicum of protection against direct enemy fire.A surprising number of books dealing specifically with cavalry tactics came out in the years before the Civil War. In actual practice, however, the United States developed many tactical methods that would have made a European cavalryman shudder. Dabney H. Maury had commanded the Cavalry School at the Carlisle Barracks in 1858 and authored a book, Tactics for Mounted Rifles, which became a standard textbook there. Maury resigned to become a Confederate office.[ii]Cavalry mounts on active duty may have looked rawboned and thin by later Western quarter horse standards.Union army guidelines for cavalry horse selection mandated animals be at least 15 hands high, weighing minimally 950 pounds and aged between 4 and 10 years old, and be well-broken to bridle and saddle. Animals were to be dark colors and free from defects such as shallow breathing, deformed hooves, spavin or ringbone. Geldings were preferred for cavalry horses with the purchase of mares strictly prohibited outside absolute military emergency and stallions' volatility and aggressiveness made them generally unsuitable for service. In the Confederacy, limited horse numbers did not permit such selectivity in trying to keep their armies horsed.Horses aged aged 4 to 8 years and fit for service were usually chosen. It took two years to bring Federal authorities to a realization that animal affairs should be handled by an agency charged solely with that duty. Once in the army, cavalry horses were treated with a callous brutality that is almost unbelievable. At the beginning of the war, they were habitually overloaded—usually due to the inexperience of their riders. With each horse costing the Federal government at least $150, the staggering financial cost of equine losses brings to mind Lincoln's statement that "I can make more generals, but horses cost money."Classically, their motto was: “The horse, the saddle, the man.” They took care of the horse first, then their equipment. Then the man got to eat or sleep.Watch The horse soldiers film by John Ford / John Wayne. No film gives a better view of CW Cavalry operations. (Click lick> 2 hours)Discussion:Generally, the mounted forces in North America didn’t actively involve themselves in prolonged battles — they stationed themselves on the flanks of the field, searched out the enemy, raided supply lines, destroyed railways, protected their own, screened the movement of their own infantry, and were available to run down a fleeing enemy once its lines were broken or take advantage of a miscue by their opponents.According to Antoine-Henri, Baron de Jomini, who had served as an officer under Bonaparte, the Napoleonic mounted regiments were individually gathered into brigades and divisions made up of similarly armed units (Cuirassiers, Hussars, Lancers, Uhlans, Carabiniers, Dragoons) and eventually consolidated as mounted divisions into army corps. Meanwhile, Napoleon used his light cavalry very effectively for screening and scouting, and built up his force of dragoons—mounted warriors capable of dismounted operations and of defending themselves on foot. Jomini was a fundamental source of strategic maxims that informed American military thought during the 19th century.In the first military bill passed by Congress after the start of hostilities in the American Civil War, it was provided that the proportion of cavalry regiments to infantry was not to exceed one to ten. What few regiments of cavalry existed in the regular army were mostly broken up into small detachments for the purpose of ranging the Western frontiers, with a few squadrons patrolling between the outposts carrying messages from camp to camp or pompously escorting the commanding generals in their grand reviews and parades. In the same bill, only one regiment was added to the regular cavalry. In 1861, all mounted regiments of the regular US Army (2 of Dragoons and 1 of Mounted Rifles) were reclassified as cavalry, and re-numbered as US Cavalry Regiments. The difference between mounted riflemen and dragoons was in their weaponry. Dragoons were armed with carbines, sabers, and pistols. Mounted riflemen had no sabers and had, as the name implied, rifles.It was only after First Bull Run that the Northern authorities began to look with favor on the expansion of the cavalry, and in autumn 1861, volunteer cavalry regiments were organized in considerable numbers and in great haste. After Bull Run, the sentiment of the people at large seemed to turn toward the mounted warrior. A peculiar enthusiasm in this direction was perceptible everywhere. One northern observer noted, “It was as though the spirit of the old knight-errantry had suddenly fallen upon us.”[iii]The Federal mounted forces were at first swept from the field by the better-mounted and more skilled Southern riders. Northern troopers, former storekeepers and office workers, had grown away from the rigorous life, but they were tolerant of more discipline and capable of concerted action. Southern raiders kept many times their number in Federal horsemen busy in the chase. Dismounted skirmishing became the forte of the Federal cavalry (sometimes acting decisively, for instance, at Herr Ridge on the first day of Gettysburg). Southern cavalry rarely fought dismounted in the early years of the war, because they could generally drive their opponents from the field without leaving the saddle. However, as Federal cavalry became more expert at fighting on horseback the advantage of mounted combat for the South decreased, and the Confederate horsemen fought more and more on foot.First Fire — Federal Brigadier John Buford opened the Battle of Gettysburg by dismounting his cavalry, sending fours back, and fighting on foot.Horses became a method of “mobility” rather than a source of “shock” against the enemy positions. At the Battle of Brandy Station in 1863, the largest mounted conflict in the western hemisphere, the Federal cavalry with its vast organization was fully the equal of that of the South. The battle was one of horse v horse and horsemen v artillery. Some historians note that at Trevilian Station in 1864, the largest "all cavalry" battle of the war, the northern and southern horsemen fought each other to a standstill but they did so from entrenchments and railway grades on foot. More than half the Confederates were armed with infantry weapons.One of the author’s own horses — a veteran of many mock cavalry battles and several films, and he has the temperament to withstand gunfire and the rattle and clank of infantry.The cavalry sword was a major encumbrance—some mounted men thought it a nuisance. It was not unusual for troopers to attach their swords to their saddles under the leather skirts or hanging from the cantle in a form of “field modification” to the regulations that veterans will recognize (see above). Most mounted cavalry quickly became convinced of the utter worthlessness of the saber as a cavalryman's weapon. John S. Mosby noted, “We had been furnished with sabers … but the only real use I ever heard of their being put to was to hold a piece of meat over a fire for frying. I dragged one through the first year of the war, but when I became a commander, I discarded it. The saber and the lance may have been good weapons in the days of chivalry … [but are] of no use against gunpowder.”The Battle at Middleburg (1863) was an encounter between mounted force that dismounted, sent their horses to the rear, and fought on foot with repeating carbines.Later in the Civil War, cavalry charges having become less common, the mounted arm took on the role of skirmishers. Many troopers adopted an extra Colt, Remington, Starr, or other percussion cap and ball pistol in the place of a sword. Tactical strength under most battlefield conditions proved to lie, not in the effective range of the cavalry weapon (for pistols about 30 yards) or the number of men firing them, but in the number of shots that could be delivered without reloading. The development of the breech-loading rifled carbine was a significant advance in cavalry arms.Considered the tactical master of modern 19th-century mounted forces, Philip St. George Cooke wrote a cavalry tactics manual just prior to the Civil War that became the training and fighting textbook for American troopers from both sides. Cooke's manual would be used in conjunction with an instruction manual titled Instructions for Officers on Outpost and Patrol Duty, required reading for all cavalry officers as early as September 1861. This book relied heavily on Antoine Fortuné de Brack’s Cavalry Outpost Duties, a French work from 1834.Fours back — the headstalls of cavalry mounts were provide with clips that allowed the horses to be strung together and “held” by one man in four.The French to English translator of the latter work, Major Camillo C. C. Carr noted: “These principles, rapidly mastered and vigorously applied by our active, enterprising, and ambitious cavalry officers, produced a corps of mounted men equally at home whether charging on horseback and using the saber against opposing infantry, cavalry, and artillery, or dismounting to fight on foot; in the latter case showing their contempt for mere theory and tradition, by displaying sound, practical sense enough to adapt their methods to the circumstances of the case ... The American cavalry, Union and Confederate, composed of men versatile enough to adapt themselves to circumstances as they varied, and fully imbued with de Brack's idea of the self-sufficiency of the true cavalryman, as expressed in his remark that ‘a cavalryman, so long as he has a good horse under him, should be able to go anywhere,’ did not hesitate to charge with the sabre on unbroken infantry—of a quality never surpassed—whether in the open field or behind breastworks; to dismount and attack it or any other arm when occasion demanded it; to perform screening and reconnoitering duties extending over hundreds of miles of broken and wooded country; and to take care of itself in daily combat without having to carry infantry with it or call upon it for assistance.” [iv]See:Welcome Page Civil War History website (7th VA Cav. and 1st CT Cav.)Watch (27 minutes — worth it)[i] [i] Krepps, 34.[ii] (about:blank#_ednref1) Andrew C. L. Gatewood, “Andrew C. L. Gatewood Papers,” A Cadet Life & Civil War Collection from the VMI Archives. Letter, 1861 April 18. URL: http://www.vmi.edu/uploadedFiles/Archives/Manuscripts/00068Gatewood/Gatewood1861_VMI.pdf (http://www.vmi.edu/uploadedFiles/Archives/Manuscripts/00068Gatewood/Gatewood1861_VMI.pdf)[iii] Willard Glazier, Three Years in the Federal Cavalry (New York: 1870), 10.[iv] Antoine Fortuné de Brack, Camillo Casatti Cadmus Carr (Trans.). Cavalry Outpost Duties (1893) (Kindle Locations 53-58).

Horses and mules were the backbone of American Civil War transportation and remained so into the mid-20th century when German troops still use animal muscle to move some of their guns. Horses moved guns and ambulances, carried generals, troopers, and messengers, and usually gave all they had on the front lines. Horses are more closely associated with the cavalry and horse artillery, a form more mobile than conventional artillery.Officers and men in both armies in the ACW made extensive use of manuals such as The Artillerists’ Manual, Instruction for Field Artillery (1845). “The horses of the detachment are posted four yards in rear of the limber when the piece is unlimbered for action.” (page 18) https://ia802704.us.archive.org/13/items/instructionforf02deptgoog/instructionforf02deptgoog.pdfA picture is worth a thousand words:Federal batteries in action at Fredericksburg. Civil War Horse HistoryIt was important to have the horses immediately available to move the piece. Many horses were killed alongside their batteries in battle while still in harness to their limbers and caissons. When an artillery battery unlimbered and took its place in an established line of defenses, the horses were ordinarily moved to a place sheltered from direct enemy fire–behind a building or hill, in a copse of trees or in a ravine. Lacking that, they were stationed some distance behind the piece. Such precautions, however, did not always protect the animals from hostile fire.At Ream’s Station in August 1864, the 10th Massachusetts Battery fought from behind a low makeshift barricade, with its horses fully exposed only a few yards behind the guns. The battery was fighting with five guns, and in a short time the five teams of six horses came under fire. Within minutes only two of the 30 animals were still standing, and these all bore wounds. One horse was shot seven times before it went down. Other horses were hit, went down, and struggled back up, only to be hit again. The average number of wounds suffered by each horse was five.In both armies, a battery (usually commanded by a captain) was divided into two-gun sections (usually commanded by a lieutenant). Each gun platoon (usually commanded by a sergeant) included one gun and limber pulled by six horses (four in the Confederate armies), one caisson and limber pulled by another six (or four) horses, and approximately 15-20 gunners and drivers.The so-called heavy artillery weapons made significant contributions to the war effort. However, in the field lighter artillery pieces towed by a team of horses proved capable of accurately firing balls or conical shells at targets as close as a few hundred yards and as far away as most of a mile (1760 yards). The Union purchased more than 4,000 of these more mobile weapons to help the infantry and cavalry troops fight the enemy. This light field artillery (including the horse artillery that accompanied the cavalry brigades) rose to new heights of effectiveness from 1861 to 1865.John Pelham's well-drilled and disciplined battery caught the eye of cavalry commander JEB Stuart, who provided horses for the gunners and transformed the battery into "horse artillery", more mobile than conventional artillery. He was dubbed "The Gallant Pelham" for his innovative use of light artillery as a mobile arm of the cavalry while wreaking havoc on Union soldiers during the Civil War.(Note: Light 2 and 3 pound pieces — never more than 6 pounders — drawn by a single horse known as Galloper Guns had seen use in the 18th century (ca. 1740 in Britain). The Galloper gun and carriage weighed around 600 pounds. It was designed to be pulled by one horse between the shafts and to keep up with fast moving troops, perhaps even cavalry. The shafts acted as the trail for the piece. Gallopers were among the first attempts to give some degree of mobility to guns but the mobility of the gun crew and ammunition transportation remained a problem until they too were mounted and the ammo chests given their own teams.)Light weight Galloper Guns (Crown forces) and light field artillery were the guns most commonly found during the American Revolution.Britain created its horse artillery arm in 1793 as a means of giving valuable heavy-gun support to its cavalry. Britain was not alone in these developments. Austrian developments in the 1750s led to an artillery arms race on the Continent, and France soon reformed its artillery. The use of fast-moving cannons had been successfully used by the British East India Company in India, and also by the armies of Frederick the Great.The Union Brigade Capturing the French Guns at WaterlooWith its artillerymen all riding into battle - on horses, wagons or limbers - the British Royal Horse Artillery was able to keep up with the troops it was meant to support. It began with seven units of five guns - initially six pounders, but later with some nine-pounder guns - and a 5.5 inch howitzer. In 1806 the number of RHA units was increased to 12 and eight fought at Waterloo in 1815. A complete unit of six-pounders totaled 168 officers and men, plus some 182 horses. The French horse artillery seems to have been uniformly composed of 6 pounders and 5.5 inch howitzers.British Royal Horse ArtilleryWaterloo Order of BattleStackPath Produced by today's foremost Civil War historians, this site contains a definitive list of over 325 topics that every student of the Civil War should study.See:Civil War Tech: How Simple It Is After All (Traditional American History Series Book 15) eBook: Volo, James M: Kindle Store