Through the course of the Seven years war Frederick won 7 battles and lost 3
And those against horrible(Charles of Lorraine etc..) to mid commander(Daun,Laudon)
Archduke Charles went against much tougher foes from Jourdan,Moreau(Already better than Daun and Laudon),Massena and Napoleon himself and snag victories from them
The most militarily talented Royals of his time
He was apparently a decent Corp commander under Radetzky in 1848-49
He is most well known for his role as commander of Southern army during the Austro-Prussian war in which he defeated the larger Italian army in battle of custoza
The battle of Custoza itself seem rather enigmatic for me. Some give credits more to his chief of staff Franz Freiherr von John,Some said it is a clumsy battle while others painted it as decisive battle worthy of Napoleon, Some criticized the Archduke for not exploiting the aftermath and win a more decisive victory while others praised him for preserving the army for later showdown with Prussia
Eminence figure no less than Alfred von Schlieffen himself praised the Archduke as Radetzkian thruster
More likely than not though. Custoza was a mediocre victory that own as much to the Italians incompetence as the Archduke military acumen(Radetzky victpries in 1848-49 wasn't much different in that regards but the Count did display more finesse and energy)
After 1866 he becomes one of the main pillar of Austria-Hungarian army alongside Friedrich von Beck-Rzikowsky
All in all,He display less military skills than many of the Austrian generals that was crushed by Napoleon(like Wurmser,Alvinczi,Melas) and was still obviously much inferior to his father(and he also inherited the indecisiveness of his father worst moments)
He was rightly judge better than his contemporary and the commander of Northen army Ludwig von Benedek(Who was utter bum,Do not ever make excuse for this guy) by displaying superior grasp at strategy and would have performed much better against the Prussian(since the bar was in hell with Benedek) but whether the result would ended in favor of the Archduke is a different story...
His performance also compare somewhat favorably against the generals of Napoleon III(much better than Bazaine and not far behind Macmahon)
People critizised his battle plan at Austrelitz but it is basicslly the same as Frederick the great at Leuthen!
Twice Von Weyrother triumph over Napoleon at Second Bassano and Caldiero! Not to mention his part in the victory at Magnano and Legnano
What if.Instead of the Austro-Russian army, the French army were the one that carry out his plan?
What if.Instead of Archduke John,Another commander stood beside him at Hohenlinden
Did the victor of Arcole,Rivoli,Marengo,Ulm and Austerlitz truly envious of the Victor of Auerstedt?
Why did the QF-18 Pounder went with 84mm caliber?
A question that bug me for a long time now is the rationale behind the British adopting 84mm caliber for their field gun in contrast to others contemporary armies who went with 75-77mm
I'm aware if the following
-The requirement for new british field(and horse artillery) gun was drafted following the debacle of Second Anglo-Boer war by commission of experts
How did this commision of experts arrived at magical number of 20lbs shell weight for field gun and 12 lbs for horse artillery though?
-Unlike the French,German and Austrian who still used 87-90mm field gun from the aftermath of Franco-Prussian war till the mid 1890s and then only replace those with new generations of 75-77mm field gun(Although only the French ones were quick firing) the British already adopt 76.2mm caliber breech loading gun for their field and horse artillery from mid 1880s
-They found out during these period that It is a bad idea to give field gun to horse artillery since those are to heavy,So there is impetus to develop seperate design,So perhaps they decided to give bigger caliber to field gun on principle?
-They first obtain 76.2mm Ehrhardt/QF-15 Pounder artillery in 1900 to get a feel for Quick firing guns
-They develop QF-18 Pounder that weight between French 75mm and German/Austrian/Ehrhardt gun for field artillery and QF-13 Pounder for Horse artillery that are equivalent in spec to German/Austrian/Ehrhardt gun
-After this period there are great debates about how QF-18 Pounder are superfluous and not enough of a significant improvement over QF-13 Pounder to warrant a seperate weapon class(especially since 13 Pounder are more accurate) this debate went on till the PM side with 18 Pounder
(I can't find these Debate content though)
Most of these information are from THE HISTORY OF THE ROYAL ARTILLERY FROM THE INDIAN MUTINY TO THE GREAT WAR vol.2
But they still did not give me the answer,Why did they chose 84mm caliber/20lbs shell for 18 Pounder,Only some conjecture on my part