While artillery was constructed and cast in 'virtually the same way' all of the nations involved did not have the same production standards nor did they have the same production tolerances, especially in the gun tubes
Who conceived, designed and fielded the unicorn? Would you concede it was the Russians? Who cast the metal to enable the Russians to manufacture the unicorn? To be sure they imported some world class technical help for improvement in casting techniques and metallurgy. I have it from reliable sources that it was a Scotsman. The Russians needed that particular specialized expertise in their technological advance fielded in 1805 system - another example of Russian pragmatism and forward thinking. The Unicorn was a unique and remarkable development acknowledged by almost everyone, used by any real artillerist that could get their hands on it. Unfortunately the 'uneducated' Russians did not leave them laying around a lot. Used to be "virtually all the same way" until the Unicorn - improved casting, construction and design including development of improved powder. Russian single weight of charge.. What do you think? Step backward? Step forward? .
French production standards were very stringent and the tooling they used to check newly cast gun tubes were superior to the other nations involved.
"The musket Fusil d'Infanterie was the basic French weapon issued to all dismounted troops unless otherwise specified. It was also referred to as the Charlevilles from an armory where many were produced. To be sure these were an excellent rifle for the time used also by American and Russian troops by choice and expediency in both cases. However, " These weapons were mass produced from 1803-14, 2,243,000 were manufactured, three- forth of them fusils, the rest mousquetons. These weapons however, were made almost entired by hand, their parts were not interchangable except by chance. A regimental armorer therefore, unlike his modern could seldom repair a damaged weapon by simply replacing its unserviceable parts with new ones from a spare parts box." P 470, Swords Around Throne, Col John R. Elting.
There were no standard other than calibre, length of barrel, source of ignition. Each one was a custom made one of, like everyone else. So much for the precision French casting, boring et al. An excellent rifle however, delicate and easily broken at the stock, the problem being these rifles were difficult if not impossible to service in the field because each one was unique.
:"Cannon of the era had one very convenient. They were interchangeable. French artillerymen could easily utilize captured guns, whether Spanish, Austrian, Russian, or Prussian, without having to learn any new drill, since the design was practicably identical with their own. Ammunition for guns of the same caliber usually was also interchangeable, wherever manufactured." Swords around the Throne. P. 260 Col. Etling. An elegant summation of the essence of the argument.
They might have been fought with equal enthusiasm, but not efficiency. If training and education standards are not high or not as high as other nations, then the guns will not be served with 'equal efficiency.' At the higher levels, division, corps, and army, the French were vastly superior in artillery command and control as has been outlined earlier.
In this era, when the battle was engaged, command and control from the level of Division Core and Army was for all intents and purposes, nearly non existent. It was rendered impotent by the means they had to communicate in that era. It was all dependent on men, junior NCO, Gunners, ettc. This was the glue that held it together then and holds it together today. Any section of infantry or gun and gun battery was a microcosm until it was over. Even time becomes distorted by the mass of the moment.
The eduction mantra you keep alluding to has been well debunked by Alexander and other people however your refusal to consider this must be based upon something beyond lack of available information don't you think?l[/u