What is the difference if muzzle loaded canon are being used in the like manner, (volume of and weight of fire) in the Napoleonic Era? There is no difference in Operational Doctrine. After all, incoming is incoming. And seems to me if the Russian artillery was , not capable on a given day, or from a given decision, of fire and movement because of training or whatever circumstances, then the use of all of their assets and their prodigious supply of ammunition in the best manner possible, is sound strategy. I would think also, it is sound strategy that if the Russian officers and troops are not as experiences in field tactics and gunnery drills as the veterans of the French army, then fine. even it up by numbers.
Excuse me for interjecting into the conversation, but it is a intriguing insight, the Russians having a long-standing preference for large amounts of ordinance. So the doctrine is really something that begins about 1750 or before and is still seen in WWII?
However, 'incoming is incoming' is not quite realistic. Fire from three hundred or so Napoleonic cannon is not 'the same' as an equal number of WWII artillery in either deployment or effect. But certainly, the Russian WWII adage that there is "A unique quality to large quantities' does hold.
So, you do feel that the basic rationale for the Russian's predilection for large numbers of guns was to make up for a perceived inferiority in quality? Have you seen this stated anywhere?