on page 62 of volume I it reads 'The military educational establishments in 1800-1808 did not provide any special artillery training.
We mean that in that period there were no military educational establishment in Russia, which was specifically aimed at the preparation of artillery officers. Any officer graduated from any cadet corps could choose to serve in the artillery. This does not mean that all artillery officers were not well educated.
also reads in the same paragraph that 'The artillerymen were mainly trained in their companies.' This says to me that formal artillery training was almost nonexistent during this period except for one class in the Russian Guard artillery and training was done in the companies.
Under the word "artillerymen" we here mean the NCOs and privates.
On page 26, as a precursor to the above, it reads, 'What is surprising, Paul reorganized the Artillery and Engineer Cadet Corps into the Second Cadet Corps, which now gave no special artillery education; its program of education became similar to that of the Land Cadet Corps.'
Yes, in 1798 or 1799 Paul ordered to change the educational programme of the Artillery and Engineer Cadet Corps to the same pattern as in the Land Cadet Corps, but it doesn't mean that the officers graduated from any of these cadet corps were educated not well enough to serve as artillery officers.
On page 2 of Volume I it reads that 'Langeron also wrote that most officers were not well educated and trained: there were three cadet corps preparing young men to be officers in the army, but the number of men in these establishments were limited, too small for the army, and the usual way for young nobles to become officers was to enlist in the army as NCOs and wait for commission.'
Langeron wrote this in 1796, when he was the commander of the Little Russia Grenadier Regiment. He had served in the Russian army since 1790 - six years. He had never served in the artillery. So he was not qualified enough to judge whether the Russian artillery officers were good or not. He obviously mean the Russian officers in general, not specifically the artillery officers. His words about the enlistment of young nobles to the army as NCOs and waiting for commission strongly suggest that he mean infantry and cavalry officers.
This was written in 1796 or so if I'm not in error and the specific comment about artillery officers not being well-educated made by Wilson was made ten years later. What seems to be the case to me is that Russian officers in general were not well-educated or trained and that artillery officers in particular were not getting the training they should have been receiving.
Was Wilson an expert in artillery?
I am not trying to argue that the Russian artillery officers in Napoleonic period were as well educated and trained as the French artillery officers. But it seems to me that the Russian artillery officers were educated well enough to inflict significant casualties to Napoleon's troops and sometimes even to destroy his plans.