"Henry V's archers vs Wellington's redcoats: Who would win?" Topic

I think the time tables, given by the royal armories are a bit wrong.
Around 1500 hardening was actually already on its way out, notably in italy. it didn´t help that much against high KE lead balls, it was actually somewhat counterproductive against this threat.
hardened surfaces are more brittle.
The same development can by the way be seen in ww II tank armour.
bullets did require somewhat thicker softer plates.

Captain Gars,,

Lol,, I knew what you were doing,,no critique intended,,,I was prolly getting too detail oriented for here(anal better describes me here,, lol)..

"The plates might be 2 mm thick and rounded in form. It would be made of medium-carbon steel (0.5%C or better); it would often be hardened, but for this example an air-cooled steel will be considered."

I think this is the part you were referring to.. and I think when he says 0.5%, that would be 50 points of carbon,,

cptn Iglo,,

this is a good example of what I was meaning when you don't really understand the process. Hey says hardened,,but we are dealing with medium carbon steel,,when this is "hardened" it is best used as a tough steel,, ie for a hammer. when a high carbon steel is "hardened" it is best used as a cutting tool. and he doesn't give enough information,, if a piece of steel of any type if fully "hardened" it becomes very brittle. you can give it a light rap on the anvil, with hammer, or drop it on concrete, and it will shatter before yer very eyes!! So in truth,, he should have said "tempered" or the hardness drawn back to a very specific temperature,, depending on use.

all this tech stuff isn't meant to make you guys blacksmiths,,but just to demonstrate when you get data off the internet,, it usually needs some background to actually properly interpret just what is being said or meant in real world terms… Intuition is great, but just be careful not to let data that you don't understand reinforce, perhaps, a wrong intuitive idea.. let it give you more information to "tune" your idea to better fit the situation real world situation.

anvil

Lol,,

I am doing just that as well.. I started off with this thread with an idea of what would happen if a group of longbowmen confronted a group of "brownbess" musketeers and coming from the point of view of "Gamer\amateur historian". I guess i still have not changed that intuitive thought.

From there we got involved in a discussion on arrows piercing armor. I started off again,,intuitively,, with my background, making assumptions. I truly had no idea as to the type of iron or steel(type of material used), hardening process or not, thickness of material,,etc used in making armor or bodkin tips for arrows.. I am not an armorer, nor am i a weapons smith… I do architectural ironwork,,but i use the tools and techniques that all smiths across time use.I do and have done repose work from sheet steel and have made Damascus knives for family and friends. I do,,as all smiths must make my own tools and occasionally specialty tools for other craftsmen… So I challenged my preconceived ideas about my craft that i could muddle thru this and figure it out.. and see if my ideas held up. Basically that is that a "General smith" has all the knowledge that any "Specialty smith" has,and if he so desires,,can do the work equally as well,, all things considered, that is.. Lol, they did,,and i have increased my knowledge about a couple of specialties of my craft!! Ya just cannot beat it,, hehe except in the shop,,hot and by hammer in hand!!

Thanks to one and all of you for the challenge… and the gained knowledge.

anvil

Here´s a link to a very interesting article on medieval/renaissance armour production.
as said above, the royal armory claim about hardening processes being introduced around 1500 is very likely wrong.
examples can be found from 1350 onward, in italy hardening went out of fashion already around 1500, the author doesn´t really know why.I know at least one source who claims it was because hardening had not much or even a negative effect against balls.

oakeshott.org/metal.html

cptn iglo,,

"Ha,ha,
you speculate as much as me.
type 16 is a broadhead, I´ ve seen it at work against wood, maybe on steel its different.
you´re reasoning is based on tool making, mine on using gun standards for penetration, in both cases its not exactly fitting."

Absolutely right,,my reasoning is based on tool making,, and it is absolutely on the mark,, a perfect fit,, a hardened type 16 bodkin hole in our theory,,, lol,,,

You design a tool to do a job,,define me the job,,and i will define you the tool,, If you are still interested,, i will then price your tool,,and make it for you.. hehe its just that simple. my scrap pile may grow a bit whilst perfecting techniques i do not use on a daily basis,, but with out a question, i would use the type 16 pic as a great starting point,,so to speak,,, for the job at hand,,

anvil

cptn iglo..

"as said above, the royal armory claim about hardening processes being introduced around 1500 is very likely wrong."

I don't really have any expertise here, but the article specifically stated southern Germans. I do know that there are many regional specialties. The primry dividing line seems to be Southern Europe vs Northern Europe. The dividing line is roughly France,Spain,Italy vs everything else to the north!! Now i do know that the guild system more or less encouraged journeymen to travel extensivly,, so most Master's of all crafts would be well versed in these differences, but when they opened their shops,, did work as was done within their region.

So I wouldn't be so bold as to call them, wrong,,,

anvil

"a hardened type 16 bodkin hole in our theory,,, lol,,,"

sorry,, meant to say Your,,not our,, theory,,,

Great article on Milan and iron\steel production…

It actually fits my thoughts. I have not really been able to accept that plate was actually made from steel.. The process he describes,not the Cast Iron, but the other,, is actually case hardening. this puts a very thin layer(micorons) of carbon steel on the surface of wrought iron. It is way easier to heat treat,,and there just wasn't that carbon steel available. As he points out, this would be pretty much reserved for weapons, not armor.But it is not in any way in the same catagory as a true carbon steel,, done by the other process he talks of,,and compared to modern steels,, no contest.

more knowledge,, hehe thats great!!

anvil

cptn iglo

"I know at least one source who claims it was because hardening had not much or even a negative effect against balls."

I wouldn't take your source too seriously.. it goes against the whole known process and reasons for steel.

besides in this very interesting article, he does give his reason,, spec or other wise,,

"It is likely that fashion won over hardness in Italy and makers left the armors soft to eliminate a step that might be nullified by over heating in these decorative processes.6"

hehe makes sense to me,,

anvil

cptn iglo

"I know at least one source who claims it was because hardening had not much or even a negative effect against balls."

I wouldn't take your source too seriously.. it goes against the whole known process and reasons for steel.

besides in this very interesting article, he does give his reason,, spec or other wise,,

"It is likely that fashion won over hardness in Italy and makers left the armors soft to eliminate a step that might be nullified by over heating in these decorative processes.6"

hehe makes sense to me,,

anyway this article is really good. The author only made a few mistakes and misasumptions. he did great research, but missed one source,, he should have searched for some of our truly fine smiths of the day,,and a number of his questions and improper assumptions would have been dealt with.

interesting the directions this thread has taken…

anvil

Anvil,
The article in question was written in 1999 and lot has happen in the field since then such as the publication of The Knight and the Blast Furnace as well as other research. So it's not strange if it's not up to current standards.

Captain Gars,

I have a pretty good collection of books on my craft, old and new,,but not much on Medieval arms and armor. So this has been a really interesting topic. I probably would never have know of The Knight and the Blast Furnace!! without it. As expensive as it is, it is on my list for the near future. My connection is so slow that reading it at google books is just not reality for me.

It sounds like from your posts you have an interest of some sort in iron and the like,, perhaps historical?

anvil

IGLO, point 16 is a broadhead , again no good penetrator for hard stuff. broadheads are for tissue, even modern broadheads are made of the best hardened steel, hardening alone is no indication for armour piercing use.

link : you've claimed that "B" (type 16) is a broadhead. It is not. The entire width of the head from edge to edge is scarsely wider than the shaft of the arrow. It fits the very kind of cutting "tool" referred to by anvil: "…as a general rule as the iron\steel gets harder, better penetration\shearing happens with a broader angle to the tip… …." The shearing action of this type 16 tip would be excellent, especially since it is hardened "tool" steel and not bog iron. A broadhead is much wider than this tip that you call a "broadhead." The only tips that are not broadheads, i.e. are designed exclusively for penetration of armor, are, 7 through 10, and 16. We only know that 16 is an armor penetrator because of the analysis proving it be a high tech point of hardened carbon steel. Otherwise, by appearances only, we would assume it as an attempt at compromise: penetration strength and enough edge to cause blood loss.

I meant, 7 through 12 are armor piercers: the triangular tips (11 and 12) are very strong and not particularly sharp; more like "punches"; whereas, 16 is obviously acutely edged, and from the analysis is also very hard. Being edged, it would cause more blood loss than the "punch" approach of the bodkin and its "cousins", tips like 9 through 12. The rest are blood-letters, except 5, which is a flight arrow tip much like a modern field point; and 6 which is for cutting rigging on ships.

Cpt Iglo I fear you must bow out under the weight of this authorative experience and knowledge that proves King Harry's weapon was and is superior to a LMG.
One can only speculate on the reason why such utterly inferior weapons superceded it on the battlefield; perhaps one of the plagues that swept western Europe at the time was military stupidity.

JeffsaysHi

Lol,,, great post,, but the reason has been mentioned,, it takes years to train a bowman of any sort,, whilst a man with a musketeer can be trained in weeks to shoot "into the brown"!!

as for an LMG,, or a mac 10,, hehe,, just look at the inner city types that throw out tons of lead in an instant!! I doubt they spend much time on the ole shooting range!! Its more fun just to do drivebys, or threaten Mom and Pop type 7-11 stores than waste time and money practicing!! :)

anvil

JeffsaysHi

Lol,,, great post,, but the reason has been mentioned,, it takes years to train a bowman of any sort,, whilst a man with a musketeer can be trained in weeks to shoot "into the brown"!!

as for an LMG,, or a mac 10,, hehe,, just look at the inner city types that throw out tons of lead in an instant!! I doubt they spend much time on the ole shooting range!! Its more fun just to do drivebys, or threaten Mom and Pop type 7-11 stores than waste time and money practicing!! :) not to mention,, walking the streets with a bow and black trench coat is a bit obvious,,,, lol,,,

anvil

Hi

Jeffry, ………WHAT?

First we get accused of being fanboys, acolytes of Hardy and strickland, now the hyperbole of LMG.

Let me explain one more time. I have all the refrenced weapons on this thread except the LMG. WE have claimed no such thing as you deride. I shoot these weapons.

For ME as a life long shooter, I would pick a Bow over a bess. However, since you and Iglo have no weapons in your experience, I would pick Bess for either of you. I can take an afternoon out and have you shooting a bess as good as it can be shot. But It takes a big strong guy and a decade of practice to do the shooting necessary with the longbow.

Similarly, I can teach you how to build a bess using available smithy tools and a simple lathe, but being a boyer who can structure a bow such that it doesn't break at high draw weights, takes a decade. Just getting the spine of the arrow correct is an art in itself.

But I can make bullets over a campfire.

Thus, Henry has 7000 longbow, but Wellington has 100,000 musket.

Sorry you guys are so wedded to your prejudices that you are unwilling to learn.

R

Wow, this thread is still going on. 319 and counting…

Still, I bet it doesn't rival the longest threads on the Nappy board (I haven't looked, I just assume this to be the case)….

rocky, you can't make any argument foolproof, b/c fools are so ingenious.

suffice it to say that those of us who know, know the longbow is a better weapon in the hands of an individual capable of wielding it to full effect.

It's when you need 100,000 of the best scrapings of London's jails on a battlefield you need the 'Bess. And at that point, of course, Henry V's tiny army would be defeated.

Interesting thread to read…at the end of course!
:)

Thanks guys. This was something I've always wondered about but couldn't get my head around. There remains one last question for me. It may have already been answered amongst the 300+ posts and I've missed it. The French Cuirassiers breast plates where supposed to be bullet proof or at least resistant. How would a Long Bow arrow compare to the Bess's ball for penetration?
regards
max

They actually tested the cuirasses by shooting a bullet into them. In most surviving examples, you can see the dimple in the metal caused by the test firing.

Hi

Grin, but the test was done with a pistol on half charge…armor salesmen had decendents in the Used Car business!

The large calibre bess should have a better chance of penetration than a longbow at 100yds. Not really the issue. The horse is unarmored, the horse falls and takes everyone around it down.

A lot of this cuirass issue was predicated on close range melee combat between riders cutting and perhaps shooting each other. Facing a mass of musketfire sort of went away as a cavalry idea in the renaissance. Initially, you have a late medieval practice where a block of pike protects the gunners from cav, giving the gunners a place to retreat through or behind. But with time, the pike got fewer as people realized you could just shoot. And the pike was a last line of protection, becomeing, in a literal sence, a single line of men. Which disappeared entirely when they thought of doing bayonets.

Rocky

At the time of Agincourt, that bullet test wasn't being sold as part of the armor's guarantee. That occurred later in the 15th century.

However, to directly answer your question: a bullet penetrates much better than an arrow or bolt does. The kinetic energy (expressed as joules here) required to "utterly defeat" the armor of 2mm (even thicker than that at the center of the breastplate) is far too high for any longbow or crossbow to achieve. I am safe in claiming that not one single French knight was mortally wounded in the chest from arrows, or probably from hand-held weapons either. The glancing surfaces presented by plate armor deflect all but the most directly impacting arrow/bolt or hand-held blows. But a bullet hardly "notices" the glancing surfaces at all: it is traveling much faster and with many times more energy than an arrow does. The causes of death from arrows were the fluke hits in the small spots not protected by the plate; and in the thinner plated areas, e.g. toward the backs of the thighs, on the sides of the torso, in the arms, to the face and neck, etc.

I have found this to be an interesting thread, especially as I know little about medieval warfare or the chances of an arrow piercing armour. I am, however, a little confused as to whether the experts on the longbow (Rocky, LordL, F5 etc) consider it to be a superior MILITARY weapon when compared to a musket, as per original question, and for this purpose, please ignore any potentila numerical superiority of musketeers.

My opinion (not necessarily correct!) is that the musket would have the edge.

The longbow seems to have demanded an inflexible deep formation, only suited to the defensive, with the position fronted by stakes to deter the attacker, whereas the musketeer, especially if we are talking about Wellington's infantry, had the option of firing at range, or rapidly closing, fronted by a fordidable array of bayonets. A thin 2 deep, rapidly advancing line would also have presented a less than ideal target to archery. If archery was really that effective, then a third rank equiped with shields could have been employed to cover the advance of the musketeers behind until within a decisive range.

From period tests, musketry could score an impressive hit rate at even 300 yards against a company sized target. Although this success rate was never achieved in battle, how would a deep archer formation fare in test conditions firing at the same 300 yard range?

Several people have also mentioned that the reason for the adoption of the musket was that the time needed to train an archer was prohibitive. I am not sure that this is correct, as several years ago, I practised with a 50lb bow (this is weak, I know) for about an hour a week, and after a couple of months, I could hit a bullseye with about 6 out of ten arrows at 30 yards. I realise that this is not very impressive, but if professional archers had been employed by say the British Napoleonic army, they could train ad infinitum at target shooting, the cost only being a few broken arrows, and the limits imposed by the cost of practice ammo, as with musketry, would not really have applied. Even if this was impractical for the masses, surely elite units could have been formed such as the "95th Longbowmen" if this weapon had really been so superior.

It is interesting that Charles I was petitioned by the Fletchers and Bowyers of England to re-adopt the longbow during the English Civil War, a request that was turned down flat, and apart from an odd company that was was raised, the only use that bows found during the war was that of firing messages into beleagured towns. This calls into question the fact that the technical know-how needed to manufacture a bow was lacking during the period of musketry manufacture.

The final plus point for the bow is the rate of fire. We hear that 12 arrows can be fired in a minute, and this may be true, but what effect would this have? I know that modern marksmen using a Martini Henry can fire the weapon up to 18 times a minute, and hit a target at 200 yards 80% of the time at this rate, but the useful military rate of fire, from period manuals was 4 or 5 rounds per minute, and this would not be sustained for very long at all.

Any thoughts?

The 12 rounds per minute is not a sustained rate, but a "shoot at will" rate when the enemy is very close. Each arrow is as likely to hit as any at a lesser rate of shooting, however, because that is an aimed rate of fire, not hasty or desperate. The volley rate is half that at most.

You are right, that volley shooting depended on being in deep formations for mass effect. The thinner the ranks of bow, the less destructive the arrow storm. And if two or three lines of musket were approaching, most of that 8 to 16 ranks of longbow would be hitting the grass and not men; but the men would be out of the fight, being "unarmored" after all. That is what Rocky's little game produced TMP link : the musket was shot down before getting to optimum range. When they advanced in column at the double, behind a screen of skirmishers, then deployed into line well within 100 yards, the longbow formations took a pasting; the muskets had an enormous, deep target to shoot at!

The objection to raising longbowmen for the EDW was not that the musketry was superior, but simply that the world had gone that way, and the bow and arrow "industry" was not up to the demand without a huge shifing of gears, so to speak. The guns were readily available and familiar to far more soldiers than the bow was anymore. And you can't play down the time to train aspect either.

Up above in this thread, I made the point that battlefield use of the longbow had to perforce be learned ON the battlefield. Once that cadre of longbow veterans was gone, the entire process of getting proficient in masses had to be learned all over again, and it never was. The WotR saw the last of that generation of longbowmen suited to mass combat on the battlefield, a la at the HYW proficiency level.

*ECW, sheesh….

Hiya Captain Snort ( anyone with a nom de plume from Trumpton immediately gets in my good books ).

Re: your question about the longbow and its place in the order of things. I guess I'm far better qualified to put the case for the bow rather than the case for the musket. Apart from a couple of shots at a re-enactment my practical experience with them is zero. I've been a Napoleonics buff for 20 years but thats only half the time I've been shooting longbows so I'm up on the theory side but very short on the practical of gunpowder. It's a difficult one to answer as its never been tried and very likely never will so I'll try and construct a scenario and look at it from the archers viewpoint. I'm sure there are a lot of musketmen out there who can give us the view from the other side.

Lets take 200 of each. I don't think numbers are too important but we have to start somewhere. I'll deploy my bowmen in two lines and I'm pretty sure the opposition will do the same. First we have to get it clear about this 'aimed' and 'arrow storm ' aspect. There are two options open to the bowman. Firstly to put up arrows quickly unaimed and in a general direction. Secondly to take an aimed shot which is done in a very different style. For the first I literally just want to get arrows in the air and by far the best way is to stick arrows in the ground in front of me where i can grab them, nock them draw and loose. You can get a pretty good rate of fire that way. 12 per minute is certainly not unusual but any chance of any accuracy goes out the window apart from a general direction. The other drawback is that every arrow I pull out of the ground is gonna come up with all manner of things sticking to it and that will affect the flight of it substantially. So why not draw from a waist quiver? Takes too long if your looking for speed. Back quivers are purely for Robin Hood & his merry men. So if we want a nice steady rate of unaimed fire delivered to a fairly compact area then 8 a minute shouldn't be unreasonable. Next thing we consider is the draw itself. Lets assume government issue arrows which are in the main fairly roughly finished. They are all cut to the same length for our medieval bowmen which we know to be around 32/33". Why this length? Because archers have different draw lengths. It doesn't matter too much if theres some arrow hanging over the end of the bow at full draw but the last thing you want is an arrow thats too short. Take a right handed archer. Which most of us are ( or would be ). That means he holds the bow in his left hand. The arrow is knocked and lays along the left fist. You draw with your right and the arrow travels backwards until you reach full draw. By that time the drawing hand is somewhere under your right ear. The last thing you want is for the arrow to be drawn off your fist because then you have this nasty sharp thing pointing at the fleshy part of your bow hand and only your right hand keeping it from making a big hole in it.
I'm 6'2" and draw 32" to the ear. By all accounts our medieval forbears were a deal shorter so I would imagine on average a fairly shorter drawlength. So plenty of safety margin. (If your curious as to your own drawlength stand with both arms fully extended and fingertips pressed together. Get someone to measure the distance from your fingertips to your chest. Thats your drawlength.) So elevated at 45 degrees will give me a shot maybe just over 200 yds with a 60/70# bow and heavy arrow. Now the important bit is that whatever distance I shoot I still have to come to full draw. I've not yet met an archer who varies his ( or her ) range by varying the distance they draw back. This means that the only way I have of reducing the range I'm shooting for is to lower my bow hand and the nearer the target comes the lower it drops. Now this introduces an interesting point when we are talking about blocks of archers even just 8 ranks deep. At what point do I become a deadly menace shooting through the archers in front holding 6' of yew at an angle?

Lets move to an aimed shot. Personally with a 100 man wide target I would expect to achieve hits at 120 yds or so if the target is in close order. Not every time thats for sure but
as often as not. At 100 yds if the target didn't dodge about and kept formation and stopped to fire it would be no great feat to hit with 50% of my arrows. And 100 yds may likely be the muskets opening range. Now for an aimed shot the style of shooting changes. As the gun boys will tell you straight away you wouldn't put the butt of the musket on your shoulder and pull the trigger. You bring your eye in line with the muzzle. Exactly the same with bows. Instead of drawing to the ear you
draw to the corner of the mouth. This puts the arrow under the eye and so in theory it goes where you are looking. Not so with drawing to the ear. It means I'm shooting a much flatter trajectory directly at something I'm looking at. Thats why I've put my anti Napoleonic archers in two lines. They can all shoot for distance and when the time comes they can all switch to aimed shots. The act of aiming adds time to the shot. 10 seconds to nock an arrow, draw , aim and loose is generous. But I've allowed some time for the archer to observe where his last shot has gone. All us archers are the same. We just can't resist seeing how good we are ( or not ).

If you read my previous comments you'll see I've never been a supporter of the 'all longbow archers were good shots ' school of thinking. Considering the percentage of professionals was quite low, the bows and arrows were mass manufactured and not produced to anywhere near the same standard as today's competition bows and arrows and given the fact that being under fire is gonna affect the contestants on both sides then what we are really left with is rate of fire I would have thought. Assuming our lines will be 100 yds apart. The musketeers will have lost some, and I'm not getting into the mathematical morass, of their numbers. How many?? I've no idea. But lets say they have traveled from the 200 yd range to the 100 yd range with 200 x 8 arrows a minute dropping in their general area. Would 5% hits be reasonable? Thats still 80 of their number down. And if you get hit anywhere by a clothyard shaft with any type of head on it, bodkin, type 16 or horse arrow that will still take you out of play. Same as a musket ball will. If our opponents were superbly trained Brit infantry then we look for 3 rounds a minute. But I think 100 yards would be a reasonable opening range for them. And accuracy?? Again an unknown but whatever way we look at it seems to me the longbows have the edge on muskets for delivering firepower both at distance and at equal range. I shall now take to my bunker and await the devastating replies of the musket lobby.

I don't claim the longbow as superior. Given the amount of time I have spent shooting both then naturally I'll opt for the bow. I'm familiar with it. I know how to shoot one. And perhaps this business of the time spent by bowmen in the practice and use of their weapon may be pertinent. Like you I'm puzzled by this reference to 10 years or so to make a longbow archer. I can't see much problem in teaching someone to put up arrows in numbers in fairly short order. Hitting targets at any distance is a different matter. The longbow is notoriously difficult to shoot accurately without a great deal of practice. Strength helps but its the 'drawing the bow with the whole body' which is the trick. From scratch and shooting only at weekends ( plus some practice in the garden on summer evenings ) I was proficient enough to start taking a few prizes in competitions after a few months. And I'm certainly nothing special. The other great mystery to me is the 'wedge/block' thing as I have already mentioned. It is literally impossible for archers in depth to take aimed shots at 100 yds or so or less . So what did they do? At Agincourt the enemy we know was a target in depth and crammed together. No doubt the time the enemy remained inside the ' barrage zone' was much longer than normal. But I'm certain thats how they operated.

Over to the gun lobby.

F5

The only chance I see for the bow as military weapon (apart from the usual tactically completely irrelevant sniper) is what LordloveaDoug has described as "target saturation" with massed formation shooting, thats how the bow as infantry weapon did usually appear on the battle field throughout the ages.
I think the main reasons for this are lack of destructive energy of the single missile and, perhaps even more important, lack of accuracy in a combat situation.
The bow, unlike the musket has indeed no built in inaccurcy, which makes it in theory a very accurate weapon.
A skilled man who trains the 100yd distance will have a good chance to hit his target if he can repeat his 100 yds targeting routine in a quiet and balanced mood like on the shooting range and if the target is indeed exactly 100 yds away.
The problem naturally is that combat stress is not so good for a sensitive targeting process and that the target in combat is usually not exactly 100 yds away.
Because of the very low velocity the ballistic trajectory at longer distances is more like artillery, the beaten zone(in which the arrow drops the height of a standing man) at 100yds is already just 4-5 yds deep.
So finding the accurate range is actually the key for succesful targeting.
doing ranging shots and accurate spotting should have been impossible with lots of archers shooting and the target was often moving, if this is taken in account, then accurate shooting should actually have been completely impossible at all ranges beyond the direct shooting distance, which was for the longbow not more than 30yds I think.
I don´t think its a matter of skills and training, the trained marksman archer was perhaps completely unfit for major combat.
As far as I see it the practice of target archery is more or less impossible to repeat in a completely different and much more stressful and rewarding combat situation, even the much easier process to shoot with a fire weapon never reproduces the shooting range results.
And shooting a fire weapon is actually a quite robust way to engage an opponent. Even random hits can have a devastating effect, the flat trajectory solves the ranging problem, there is no significant wind influence and the projectile will hit the target without delay.
Even the earliest fireweapons did have these qualities.

Below´s a link showing early fireweapons in action, it all looks quite funny, but already these early weapons did have more than ten times the energy of a longbow and five times the velocity, giving a nice flat trajectory at up to 150m , still aiming these weapons must have been not so easy, all looks even a bit dangerous for the shooter.

link

As far as accuracy of thelongbow for both types of shooting, I will side with FalconFive,,hands down.

The tests done for blackpowder muskets, as I understand them were not done at 300 yds, but at 100 yds, and less. These tests were one off,, meaning not repetetive shooting, only single shots. At 300 yds under the best of situations the ability of a smoothbore blackpowder musket to hit anything was slim or none. It was then and is today considered that max effective range for this type of weapon was 100 yds.

the longbowman was trained to aim and shoot at up to 300 yds, 100 yds, and closer. The musketeer of the era was never,, repeat never trained to aim and fire, it just wasn't doctrine. there must be a reason for this? My belief it was because all knew that the time taken to aim vs increases in hits in combat situation was not worth the time taken or powder spent. To suggest that training makes no difference defies logic in my mind,, whether it is a bow, musket,or fingers on the keyboard…

Combat training? well i have learned a lot about the era of the longbow in this thread,,and that is great. What i have picked up is they had their times of victory, their times of defeat, and their times of holding their own. Whenever contact was made,and they lost, the bowmen, with their side arms apparently stood and fought the mounted, armored knights toe to toe.. I haven't heard of them retreating and not taking casusalties,,ala light infantry tactics. In my humble opinion, if these unarmored foot soldiers are up for hand to hand with this type of opponents, they are up to anything the battlefield wants to throw at them,,, so Shooting under these conditions is not much of a detriment to them.. training tells. under stress, you go on auto mode, training creates instincts,and these rise to the surface. with a musket, there are just too many steps where mistakes can happen.. I mean to forget to prime, or even more likely, priming just doesn't fire,,and you don't notice it,as one possible example, is one of the primary tech problems with a blackpowder weapon.. With a bow,, you either have one in your hand, bow in the other, or you don't.

Rate of fire? no contest under any situation here. A musket in the best of hands,, IE SYW Prussians was max,initial,not sustained, 3 rounds per minute. 2 is a better number for a musket. I will take FF's rate of 6 sustained rate,aimed,any range, as acceptable for a longbow with no problems…

seriousness of injury: again with all due respect,to consider that 3 ft of arrow, sticking out of your body anywhere is not going to render an unarmored man hors-de-combat is ludicrous.

nice vid,, hope you noticed they were wheellock weapons,,and I suspect,,not very representative even for a wheellock as to how to shoot,, but not sure,, hehe.. they were having good fun. In favor of the musket, the first thing one tends to done if one has never fired a musket,and especially if one is used to firing a modern rifle,,is to flinch when the flas in the pan happens!! as many of these guys did,, but even with a bit of experience,, this quickly goes away…

to quote erbprince..

"rocky, you can't make any argument foolproof, b/c fools are so ingenious."

anvil

Hi

Iglo, again you repeat these myths that just demonstrate the breadth of your lack of aquaintaince with the weapons.

I will get to your points later.

Snort, if I read your post correctly, you actually already understand my point, but havent linked it up. First, english longbow weren't "professional" in the sense of a modern army where being the soldier and shooting a lot is the case. they were working stiffs who shot on weekends. Now, you noticed that shooting on weekends for a few months you got 50% hits at 30 yards. Here is the cool part. Should you come by, I would have you getting BETTER accuracy than this with a smoothbore musket by lunch.

Similarly,one may mass cut bow staves, in fact this was the case, Yew wasn't available in england, I believe, after about 1200, and was imported as rough cut staves. The mistake mentioned above is that the bows were finished, but the finish was supplied by hand, one at a time by a very small group of boyers. And the shaping makes all the difference.

But with a drawing any blacksmith, and every village in the country has a smith, can make a viable musket. And ammo doesn't need a fletcher, anybody can cast a ball over a camp fire. In fact I have 19th century pioneer era bullet making tools for my buffalo rifles and do make the ammo that way.

Doug, as a kit, I learned the trick from one of my indian friends in the destert. We were hunting rabbits with small short osage wood bows, and the rabbit ducked behind a wall, and my friend merely elevated the bow to about 80degrees, and dropped the arrow on him! In fact, it was a crazy game we played. Arrow catching. We would shoot near straight up and try to hit our friend who would step aside and try to grab the arrow! This is how the back ranks particpate at short range.

Now to Iglo. Longbow engagement ranges at Agincourt measure out at 225 yards. This is a "proof" that I have used against Hardy et al, that the bow at the battle were uniformly about 70/75# draw weight. And if the field bow is roughly uniform, it makes fletching easier. This may surprise you but the term "bow shot" in medieval europe and survived to more modern "furlong". In italy, the civic militias maintained shooting ranges and guess what, the range was a furlong! This was used for both bow and crossbow. One aspect where bow is superior to gun is feedback. You shoot, you have to stop shooting, go look to see where you actually hit and then, somehow, remember how you were holding and aiming to correct. With the bow and crossbow, one can see the missile all the way and make corrections. Thus, your whole problem with hitting a moving target doesn't get that after years, that is the 10 year part, you have watched your arrow chase the deer a LOT.

Thus, iglo, your speculation of 30 yards for direct fire means those stupid mediveals firing 16 deep were idiots when their lives were on the line, and the byzantines and medieval italian milita didn't have a clue when they used a wall of spear 8 deep in front of their missile.

Now to the why of NO 300 yards for the musket. Simply this, iglo is wrong again when he says there is no built in inaccuracy. In fact this is why the musket isn't a rifle! The musket as iglo mentioned in another poste can be expected to hit randomly in a meter circle drawn around the aimpoint at 100yds. If you have, by some magick, a 6' tall guy, 1'80, holding still, aimed (they didn't have sights)at his belt, the target has only about a 35% chance of being hit! Throw in the shooter moving, the target moving and you have a problem at 100 yards.

In shooting this is defined as "minute of angle". that is, all guns have a built in inaccuracy defined in minutes of angle producing a cone of hits at range. A MOA of 1, means the bullets will hit within 1" of aimpoint.

Now, muskets have an MOA in the 30 to 40 range. This means that if your anticipation of drop is right, at 300 yards all bullets will hit randomly within 9FEET of the aimpoint. Even if shooting at a company of men 30 yards wide, perfection means pehaps a single random hit.

10 years of bow shooting, is different. A bow, as any target shooter knows, can be done to a moa of about 3

3 is about the range of an early roundball rifle such as a Baker or Kaintuck. Most modern hunting rifles have an MOA of 3.

Better rifles, like my buffalo rifles or a better quality modern hunting rifle have an MOA under 2.

And I even have a couple dedicated modern sniper weapons that shoot under 1moa, and a couple specialized german target rifles.

Nappy period muskets weren't expected to have real effect at any more than 60 yards.

Rocky

Gents,

As we have discussed, musketry tests took place at ranges far in excess of 100 yards. Apart from the Prussian tests already quoted, Muller's tests showed a success rate for veterans of 23% and recruits 15% at 300 yards. A French test was described by Picard as producing 20% hits at 328 yards. These volleys would have been fired at a target with the dimension of a formed company or battalion. If I understand F5's post correctly, 200 yards is the upper limit for the range of a typical longbow. 300 yards seems an awful long way to be shooting an arrow with any hope of hitting a target. If this is correct then the bow would be outranged by muskets, not the other way round.

As I have stated before, these test figures are very misleading, and battle hits would never come near this ratio, but it is wrong to think that musketry was only used at ranges of less than 100 yards. Most rounds were fired at considerably longer ranges and there are dozens of examples that could be given. At Quatre Bras, the 42nd Highlanders fired the majority of their ammunition at a range of 2 furlongs. At Arcangues, the British drove French gunners away using musketry at 1000 paces! and this is from troops who were famous for witholding their fire. Sub-60yard ranges should be seen as the zone of decision. Good troops would hold their fire until this distance to be sure of a delivering a decisive blow, but it was not the only means of inficting damage.

I accept that the musket was inherently innaccurate, and that the majority of soldiers were extremely poor marksmen, but that does not mean that soldiers never aimed in battle as has been suggested. Volleys from a close order line would not normally be aimed, but merely levelled at the enemy, but soldiers of the British Light division at least were trained in target shooting, and practised this on the battlefield, as no doubt did the skirmishers of other nations. Also, increasing numbers of British muskets were fitted with rear sights during the Napoleonic wars, and I have 2 period Brown Besses equiped in this way, and have seen examples of many others, (note that these are not Light Infantry pattern muskets which had rear sights as standard). Someone must have thought aiming was benificial.

Interesting posts

Cptn Snort

"At Arcangues, the British drove French gunners away using musketry at 1000 paces!"

Before anyone points out the implausibilty of this feat, it is from the account of John Cooke, a normally reliable witness. Oman thought the distance was more like 400 yards.

technically not implausible.
The musket did have a ballistic range of around 1000 m.
At this distance the balls would still be able to create disabling wounds.
The french 1791 regs did among other firings regulate shooting at 200 toises, thats over 400yds.
At this range not the muzzle, but the 2nd band of the three band musket was to be used as front sight, a smart idea actually.
I know at least 2 experienced military writers of the day, one of them a light infantry general, who did recommend skirmisher shooting at 600 paces.
Scharnhorst did calculate skirmisher musketry in combat with a 5% hit rate at 400 paces,thats with 1000 men shooting 5 kills every 20 seconds.
the widely recommended musketry range for volleys was actually 300 paces.
less than 100 paces was already considered deadly musket range, some sort of an ideal, but just one way to deliver musketry and often not even the most practicable or desirable.

Ah, I see it clearly now: we know almost nothing about practically everything. Only empirical experience will give us that "knowing" ability. The very best archers can shoot well beyond 300 yards. The very best muskets can shoot a bullet three times that far. And, AND, the very best shooters can claim wonderous feats. How these extremes apply to the discussion of entire armies becomes the kicker.

wow,, awesome,, 1000 yds huh,, 30 – 40% accuracy,, sheesh,, I guess they really had good eyes? using bands on a musket to aim,, well lest we forget,, as it must truly be an urban myth" Wait til you see the whites of their eyes"!!

why shoot,, hehe,, that really puts artillery in the "no need" dodo bird extinct category with normal shooting like that,,,

sorta goes in the 1-1\2 – 2" light wound keep on fighting catagory,,, again,, why shoot,, hehe,, I can only think of one place where that would be a light wound,, other than what may be around yer belly,,if you fight a desk all day,,,and thats the good ole glut max,,when the bad guys are north,,and you are headed south!!

please guys,, do some more homework,, check out most anything by Charles Grant, search google books for some of the really geat training manuals from this time period,,

here is a gem,,and it is avalable on line,,, link

I'm sure others can recommend more,, and a few good ones have been already listed here.

check out the thread here on must have books of this era.. some really great ones there.

anvil

Hi

A "pace" is not the same as a "yard". Depending on the army, a pace can be as small as 18"

At 1000yards, the ball, ignoring the rainbow like trajectory, will strike randomly somwhere in a circle 30 some feet in diameter. Spot on, this means that 80% of the shots will, with perfect steady aim, and spot on estimation of elevation not even be on the company front. Add in wide and missed guesses and you might cast a "disbelief" spell on this one.

So, it sounds like we have gone from dismissing the "longbow" fanboys, and the armor fanboys to the musket fanboys.

Snort, have you actually SHOT your besses?

R

Rocky ,
your musket numbers are actually much to good.
according to Col.Petain who made references to period ballistic tests, already at 300 meters the hitting zone around the aiming point did have a diameter of 20 meters. So even a 3 story building could not be hit with certainty by a musket.

Still tacticians did see 400 paces(that was around 300 m in most armies) as, not the ideal, but an acceptable effective range to engage with skirmisher musketry.
A line or column would fill the target zone out completly on the horizontal level, no left or right misses, the men were around 175cm tall, thats 8% of the vertical target zone, so 8% of all balls would actually hit.
Give them a 5% score and thats the number calculated for example by Scharnhorst for skirmisher shooting at 400 paces.

100 men would shoot 6000 balls in 60 minutes, with a hit rate of 5% this would be 300 hits.

The marksman´s and the tactician´s definition of effectiveness is obviously something completely different.

And inaccuracy should not always be seen as something bad, for long range shooting at the ballistic limits it was actually necessary.
In the golden era of long range rifle shooting before WWI it was usually practiced on the platoon/section level with 2 or 3 different settings of the sights, this was meant to create a larger beaten zone, and this was just necessary because of the old range estimate problem.

An opposing infantry line at 1500m hat to be engaged with a target zone depth of a few hundred meters just because no one could define the exact range.
This was discovered already in the 1870ties, when shooting instructors did find out that inaccuratly aiming recruits were actually shooting better at over 1000 m than crack infantry men.

the same rules can be applied to muskets or even bows at naturally much shorter ranges.

Rocky,

A British military pace was 30", however, I have checked what Cooke actually wrote, and he says 1000 yards. Whether you believe it or not is up to you – I think it is probably an exageration. Clearly this incident did occur as it is mentioned in other accounts, and the gunners were driven off at a considerable range. How many were actually hit by the fire, I have no idea, but would imagine it was very few.

I am under no illusions regarding the accuracy, or rather innaccuracy, of muskets. The points made were simply a response to comments that musketry was not practised at ranges more than 100 yards, something that is easily disproved by reading a few first hand accounts.

Similarly, the point about the rear sights on Brown Besses was a response to the comment that the musket was never aimed. This is also clearly not true.

I have fired muzzle loaders, but not to any great extent, but have never fired the 2 that I mentioned above, both being antiques. In the UK, a license is required for both firearm and black powder, and weapons that are intended to be fired must be securily locked away, however, antique weapons that are not intended to be fired can be owned and displayed without a license. All my Napoleonic weapons are on display, although I am often tempted to try them out.

"The musketeer of the era was never,, repeat never trained to aim and fire, it just wasn't doctrine."

Just wanted to check my statement,, yup,, no mention of skirmishers… and no mention of just what an individual may do,, just doctrine…If you happen to know of any nation where this was different, I would really like to know which ones,,and a source? That would be a great help to me at this particular time..

glad, by the way that you don't accept that 1000 yds,,and have brought ranges down to 400 paces…and again,,as the dust clears,,we are in agreement..lol,,,

"100 men would shoot 6000 balls in 60 minutes, with a hit rate of 5% this would be 300 hits."

no problem here either,, and,double the time,doubles the casualties.. of course two things to consider,, 1) The other side is shooting at more or less the same rate,,causing the same casualties on the other side as well. So if we carry this out,, somewhere around 30 minutes into this,, both sides would be obliterated… 2) I don't believe you will find very many firefights where each side spent an hour,,standing up, 100 yds apart(normal max range for a brown bess type musket) , shooting at each other..

"The points made were simply a response to comments that musketry was not practised at ranges more than 100 yards"

I was referring to practice,, not actual combat,and am under the belief that very little powder was spent in actual practice,,, as opposed to the weekly practice done by the English Longbowman…

In truth I am sure in combat massed fire did happen at ranges over 100 yds,, and when this happened, I have no doubt, the other side sighed a great sigh of relief,,knowing their opponents had done their "worst" at such an extreme ineffective range!!

Its often times hard to keep things straight,,when we swing between what an individual can do vs national doctrine,or the different rolls of troop types,, etc,,, A musketman in the ranks certainly would have been chastised for aiming and firing,,and messing up the cadenced fire drill required,,whilst a skirmisher just potting away would be looked down upon just as harshly for wasting ammo etc,,,

anvil

Hi

The problem with the thousand yards is the ballistics of the round ball. Round ball has the worst aerodynamics of "bullets" and, simply, you coulnd elevate enough to do 1000 yards, Runs out of speed and drops. this is aided by something called "seconional density". The short non math version involves how much mass at a given velocity is beind the round. This is what the term "carry" refers to among shooters. No round ball that small is going to "carry" much beyond 400 yds, rifle or musket. It is one of the reasons behind going to conical. A given muzzle loading rifle in, say, 50 calibre is a 200yard weapon with round ball, or with the right "twist" to the barrel, 300 yars, with with a fictional maximum of 400, make it a conical, like a minie, and you have 600 yards effective and 1000 plus.

Thus, when iglo refers to shooting in the 1870s, he is referring to the practice called "fire storm". But these are true bullets shooting several times the mass behind the same calibre, and even with this max firing, 1200, 1300 and any elevation leave the full bullet hitting the ground.

1000 is physically impossible for a round ball.

When I talked about the cone at range, I was only addressing the 85% which would fall long or short. As iglo points out, the broad side of a building chouldn't be hit.

But even if you accept this, the problem with a company front test, is that even that is against a fence or sheet. The actual people formed that way, you still only have 40% of that company front actually occupied by flesh. So, assuming 5% hits on a fence, make that 60% statatistically likely on real people, throw in that some will be hit multiple times and you have nothing like the numbers accessed.

Snort, I wasn't trying to pick on you. I was hoping you would share your experiences with shooting them, not challenging. In the US I do own and shoot my antiques.

In the US we have a concept of a "kit gun". That is, in the field, where I live, there are actual wild animals not to exclude people. So, it is common to carry a lightweight pistol in your "kit". The idea is that besides warning off the passing moutain lion, if for some reason you become isolated by a flash flood, you might have something to take small game with if you run out of food. my kit gun is an 1862 Colt's pocket police in .36. It is as accurate as any of my specialized target pistols, but comes to hand easier.

I didn't like the feel of the bess, I preferred the balence of the charleville musket. But neither were accurate in any reasonable manner. My "long rifle" was a nicer weapon by any measure,and more fun. So, all I was trying to do is discuss your enjoying the weapons.

Rocky

Rocky,,

Thanks for the tech input,, I knew that, and agree 100%, but did not have the tech facts handy…

anvil

Here is some information on aimed fire as practiced by the British Napoleonic army. Hopefully this will be of some interest, and not stray too far from the thread subject.

Most of my Napoleonic knowledge is gleaned from the pages of contemporary British diaries, memoirs and drill manuals. There are many myths about the rate of fire and accuracy of British musketry, mostly nonsense. The average British soldier was a very poor marksman, who rarely, if ever, practised aiming his musket at a target, most musketry training being devoted to ensuring that the battalion as a whole could deliver organised volleys often carried out with blank rounds. Their reputation stemmed mainly from good fire discipline and a willingness to close with the bayonet. The same can not be held true for the units designated as Light Infantry, especially those trained at Shorncliffe.

To answer Anvils point about close order infantry never aiming, here is a passage from Cooper's Practical Instruction for Light Infantry Officers which is very similar to the instruction for Light troops in the 1792 Rules and Regulations:

"When the company is NOT in extended order (i.e. in close order), all firing is to be done by single men, each firing as quick as he can, consistent with loading properly…The rear rank man should always endeavour to permit his file leader to fire first, and to fire himself immediately after, observing to take good aim."

Light troops were trained in target shooting. A good description of the target and practice ranges is found in Cooper's manual. He states that the target was 5 or 5.5 feet tall and 21 inches broad. There was a broad stripe in the centre, and also a broad stripe at the top and the bottom to assist with aiming as various ranges. Soldiers practiced at 50, 100, 150, 200 and 300 yards. At the distance of 100 and 200 yards aim was taken at the lower mark, while at 300 yards aim was taken at the higher mark.

The Light infantry battalions were armed with muskets fitted with a rear sight. This is often assumed to have been the New Land Pattern Light Infantry Musket, but it seems that this was not produced in any numbers until 1810, while there are records of light troops receiving their double sighted weapons before this date, so it must be assumed that some, if not all of these were specially modified India Pattern weapons.

The regiment who were involved in the incident at at Arcangues, mentioned in previous posts, were the 43rd Light, who would have been armed and trained as described above. This unit, along with the other battalions of the Light Division, had already proved their marksmanship at action such as Sabugal. John Dobbs of the 52nd mentioned that the accurate fire at this engagement was due to the training methods used, and also possibly the double sighted muskets.

Regarding Arcangues, all accounts acknowledge that the 12 French guns were engaged with musketry at an immensely long range. Napier, who was an officer in the 43rd, says that the brigade commander, James Kempt, thought the range was too great, and sought to stop the fire. Others confirm that the men fired on their own initiative, with no word of command being given. Kincaid also acknowledges the extreme range of this fire, but states that when the enemy position was examined on the following day, all the trees and bushes on the French position were absolutely riddled with balls, testiment to the accuracy of the fire, and explaining why the French batteries were unable to maintain their position.

Below is link to a study from Col. Petain (in french) who adresses in the section on "armament" some key points about the Charleville musket.
When raised 43 degrees it would have a range of 500 toises (974 meters, slightly over 1000yds) and would still be able to create disabling wounds.
This was obviously not a regulated shooting distance and the british officer might have exaggerated a bit, still they must have shot in this instance at a much larger distance than usual, perhaps 600 yds, perhaps 400.

according to Petain the 1791 regs did regulate in a paragraph shooting on the range at 50, 100 and 150 toises.
150 toises is around 300 meters.
The effective range at which line musketry could have an effect is described by Petain as below 200 meters because up to this distance the weapon had to be poined just at the center of the man.
Effective range is often described by tacticians as the distance at which the round drops the height of the target, this was around 200 meters in case of the musket.

stratisc.org/Petain_1.html

A 5 % hit rate against a line or column should include a corresponding rate of hits.
Shooting through a dense close order formation like a line column, or in our case a block of archers, should produce an effect, just shooting through without a hit would be a very lucky miss, which might still have a devastating morale effect .
In case of the archers standing 30yds deep the hit rate at 300yds would actually be larger than the thoretical 8 % because even 2 ft overshooting would still reach the rear ranks.

So sending the light companies forward would be the first step do destroy a dense and static formation of archers with musketry, all at a range where the archers could do nothing.
In the napoleonic era opening combat with the tirailleurs was usual in most armies, engagements like Jena were even decided by this practice.
Over 90% of all shooting at Waterloo was of this kind.

Captain Snort,,

Thanks for the info,,and I have no problem with that,,, it is how i imagine the lights to have performed as well..And to clarify, my statements were concerning line infantry,not lights. I should have qualified my statements.

cptn iglo..

considering my poor French and the rough job done by my translation software,, it appears to me that your first paragraph is based on what they are indicating is theoretical ranges,, and these being impossible to aciieve..but it also appears that they re saying the French musket couldn't hit\reach the side of a 4 story house at 400 yds…

sounds in fact like he is saying that if you point the musket at about a 45 degree angle, the ball would theoretically carry nearly 1000 yds, but that this was in actuality not possible. hehe,,

"The variations with 400 meters varied from 5 to 25 meters, so that a correctly aiming gunner was not certain to reach at this distance a house on four floors.One could thus pose in theory that beyond 200 meters the effectiveness of the shooting was due only randomly."

and thus,,,

"The shooting at the distances lower than 200 meters had only a great fatal effect. The effectiveness of the shooting thus did not follow, as with our current weapons, a progression uniformly decreasing. This fact explains why the troops which reserved their fire for the brought closer shooting were to have and indeed had a great superiority on those which opened fire beyond 200 meters.

The defect of precision of the weapon had other causes that the shape of the ball. It was due also, for a great part with the irregularity of the powder load, the retreat and smoke.

The powder contained in the cartridge was also used to start. The soldier, after having torn the envelope with the teeth, was to initially put some powder grains in the small basin and introduced then the cartridge into the gun. As the powder load was very strong, the soldier, naturally carried to avoid the maltreatment of the retreat, made with starting a very big and often unequal part which resulted in considerable differences in the precision and the range.

The retreat, consequence of the powder load and the weight of the ball (24,45 gr.), was so violent that there was no shooting where one did not see men bleeding of the nose; others meurtrissaient the cheek and the lip and all had the more or less contused shoulder.

Smoke was so abundant, that after a shooting of a few minutes, the horizon of the gunner was completely darkened.

French in general is little informed in the mine to make use of their rifle and is worried little to increase the speed of their shooting, in spite of the example of the Prussians. The French infantryman still turns over his rod, because this one is not cylindrical; he tears the cartridge with the teeth, because there does not exist, as at the Prussians, a blade applied to the breech to cut the envelope; he puts a starter in the small basin, because the light was not increased. The load is thus very long; it is carried out in 12 times and French does not complete a load while the Prussian carries out of them three and the Austrian two. French does not give besides more attention at the speed of the shooting than to the accuracy."

If you can muddle thru the translation,, sounds to me like they are saying the French could not fire as fast as the Prussians or Austrians due loading procedures and other tech details,, and that firing over 200 meters was not encouraged.. I guess this pretty well follows just what Rocky has posted above..

I will stick to what I,Rocky and others have said,, that the muskets of this era were not accurate beyond even 200 yds,,and doctrine stated to hold fire 'til 100 yds or closer was the best,,

And this in a very general way applies to the musketeers of all nations at this time. The development of light troops and their being trained to actually aim and a great many of them using rifles..was the next advancement in tactics from the SYW. And the tactics of Light troops was the indicator of just how tactics were to develop.. open order,aimed fire, etc,,, and up to just what we have today…

as far as your %,,, please consider what Rocky has posted,,

and your last statement concerning 90% of the fire being from light troops? well someone prolly has better numbers than me,,but I would guess the lights\skirmishers in the armies of this era were less than 25% of the infantrymen, so i find it highly doubtful that they came anywhere near having 90% of the fun…

Its too bad that you cannot accept what Rocky has said,, he is right,,and this article,,poor translation aside,, supports him as well…

anvil

Anvil,
Some have stated that the musket was uneffective already at over 60yds and that it was impossible to reach 1000yds with a musket ball.

According to Petain the musket ball did have a ballistic range of around 1000 yds and musketry over 200 yds was considered as uneffective.
Petain doesn´t adress the much better better accuracy of skirmisher shooting vs close order volleys by the way.

Below is a link(in english!) to a period author who did adress this issue. He states too, that line musketry should not commence at over 200yds, skirmisher shooting was considered effective at 300yds.

link

The author is Carl von Decker, director of the prussian war school, his work on combined arms tactics was originally published in 1823.

No one, as far as I know, did recommend shooting at the ballistic limit, but technically it was possible and the ball would still have a wounding sometimes even lethal effect.

There were indeed a few other authors who did even recommend opening up with skirmisher fire at 600 paces , which is over 400yds, all based on their experiences. This was not the mainstream view, no doubt about this.

In an epoque were most troops in most cases did already shoot earlier than their leaders considered optimal ,recommending long range shooting at the ballistic limit might have been seen as inapropriate perhaps.
It did indeed become very popular before ww1 and as said, this was practiced with different aims settings to create a spraying effect, which the musket did already have by design.

The topic of the thread is not unused or rarely used tactical options of the napoleonic era, but its sufficient to say that the widespread view about the musket being uneffective beyond 50yds or so is nonsense.

Well, I never said that a musket is ineffective beyond 50 or 60 yards! But I have read posts on this thread claiming that for the longbow! I will continue to stick to the maxim that outside of 100 yards, volley shooting with either weapon is seriously reduced in effectiveness: the longbow, because of armor being almost impossible to overcome with dropping arrows; and the musket because of decreasing accuracy. If you remove the armor factor, volleying with massed longbows is effective against "unarmored" targets out to 200 yards or even further: there is no appreciable reduction in the accuracy of the WEAPON, and the method of volleying in thousands of archers produces the saturation of the "beaten zone": something that the musket at 200 yards (not to mention further) simply cannot achieve. This is why all above comments/opinions, that the musket somehow has the long range advantage over the longbow (any warbow) are falacious.

LordL,

Falcon5, who seems to have a lot of longbow experience, has stated that a 70lb bow elevated to 45 degrees will shoot a heavy arrow around 200 yards. We know from test data that at 328 yards, Napoleonic muskets scored 20% hits on a large target. In the absence of some reliable data on massed longbow fire at a similar distance, I will have to continue believing that the musket outranged the bow.

Cheers

Cptn Snort

Hi

Snort, err, you missed the part about my shooting both.

A minor detail on the above involves sectional density, or "carry" as shooters put it. At 43 degrees, the ulimate range on a weapon, any weapon involves the round hitting at about 56degrees. It is one of the reasons that the "high ground" isn't what most gamers think. 56/60 degrees as a maximum is fixed, no matter how high you get, it is the return fire that suffers range attenuation!

Sorry, I digressed. When you have round ball, the sectional density varies with size! The version you should beable to understand intuitively is that the minor improvement in diameter produces a greater increase in mass, mass versus bore with the same drag characteristics means higher sectional density.

In utah, there is a myth that the feds put "Fort Douglas" where it is because it would threaten from the high ground, the mormon temple. The early days were marked with a lot of conflict. And the mormons tell themselves this myth to indicate how afraid the feds were. Sadly, for the myth, the only artillery on the spot were 12# naploeons, which have a maximum range of 1200 yds. Which means inthis case shooting from fort douglas, the feds would have had to roll forward, pick up the ball and reshoot it 3 times to hit the temple!

Sorry, I digressed again. Assuming the 900yd max for the charleville, the bess, if memory serves is a smaller ball which would make that closer to 700 for the bess. Now, I just don't believe the 900 from my own shooting. But there is it.

But given the inherent inaccuracy even if true, the ball falling at 56degrees(and falling due to acceleration of gravity, meaning not very dangerous) the circle of impact would be optimally no smaller than 20 meters.

It is just too much to play with.

One of the things you can do empiracally is look at the maps of battles. You can place where the various sides started actually shooting, rather than anacdotes. I think you will find that at agincourt, the longbow advanced from their stakes and were shooting at ca 220-240yards doing enough to get the french to leave and try to attack and close. The same thing happens with earlier and later longbow battles. And part of my theory about the "select 5000" is that in the war of the roses, the engagement ranges were closer indicating that the average longbowman was only drawing a 50#. Digressed again. Similarly looking at engagement ranges for the 18th century and early 19th, the ranges usually start at 100 or s0.

In the ACW thread, again, I mentioned looking at the engagement ranges for the rifled muskets started at 500. Which made the patented, advance in column attack from the napoleonic period a real problem.

Rocky

Rocky,

The Charleville is 0.65, the Bess is 0.75 or 0.76, so presumably it would have a greater range?