"Aimed Fire?" Topic

Do any of you know the extent to which line infantry during the Napoleonic era were trained in marksmanship? I have seen virtually nothing on this topic other than the usual statemets that the smooth bore musket was a very inaccurate weapon and hence the soldiers were simply taught to ‘point and shoot'. Having been invoved in several blackpowder matches using a shotland pattern brown bess, I know that the weapons are surprisingly accurate. For example I have been able to easly group hits in a 1ft diameter circle at 50 yards. So, it would seem to me, given the cost of weapon, the cost of training the soldier, effectiveness of aimed fire, military leaders would have spent time training the soldiers in some level of marksmanship.

For muskets – volume of fire and number of shots per minute was more important than accuracy.
And knowing to aim slightly higher at longer ranges.

For rifles I would agree about the training and accuracy.

50 yards range is very close. Add the effects of drifting smoke and deafening noise. Add the trauma of whole files of your own unit disappearing in an instant having been carried off by 6pdr and 12 pdr roundshot arriving at 1200 feet per second and you may not achieve anything like the degree of accuracy I am sure you would obtain in relaxed firing conditions.

- Allan

Many of the light units of the British army used muskets rather than the Baker rifle so it would seem that it was more to do with training

3eme,

Some points to note:

1. Your musket is probably not clogged up.
2. Your musket is probably not worn.
3. You can see your target as you are not enveloped in a cloud of smoke created by several hundred (or thousand?) muskets.
4. You are shooting for accuracy, not for effect.
5. Nobody is trying to kill you.

There is no comparison between shooting matches and musketry combat on a battlefield.

Many of the light units of the British army used muskets rather than the Baker rifle so it would seem that it was more to do with training.

And the fact that a rifle was probably much more expensive, and many (notably the French) felt that the longer load time wasn't worth the trade-off.

6. You may have a ball better fitted for the musket caliber. Since speed was more importent than accuracy, the ball size could have a lot of windage to compensate for the musket getting fouled (see #1) after several shots.
link

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_Bess

So .75 caliber with a .68 ball.

7. You probably have better quality powder, giving more consistency to the flight of the ball.

There is mention (I think it's in Hollin's "Warrior" Osprey on the Austrian Grenadiers & Infantry) of the Austrians placing more emphasis on aimed fire in 1806 or 1807. The infantry were still given only a handful of rounds for live fire each year, if I remember correctly, with a few sharpshooters receiving more resources.

He also describes marksmanship competitions in that Osprey.

So, at least for the Austrians, it was mentioned but do to costs involved and the fact that NCOs and officers knew very well that there troops would be under stress in combat it seems that the rate of fire was emphasized much more.

Gentlemen,
I appreciate the feedback. I am in complete agreement that firing a weapon under battlefield conditions is different than firing a weapon at a target that is not shooting back at you. But thats not the point. Clearly one can assume that if a soldier is taught to aim, his fire is going to be more accurate, given the same conditions, than one who is not.

"For muskets – volume of fire and number of shots per minute was more important than accuracy." Really – what if they are missing the target? Also, lets consider skirmish fire as well.

"1. Your musket is probably not clogged up." Actually it was a timed event and the fire was over several minutes and the ramming procedure became more difficult as time went on.
"2. Your musket is probably not worn." Thats true. It had been used alot but I suspect no more worn than the average one in the era we are discussing.
"3. You can see your target as you are not enveloped in a cloud of smoke created by several hundred (or thousand?) muskets." Agreed, but then for at least the first volley on a Napoleonic Battlefied the soldiers would, more likely than not, have a clear field of fire. If there was any kind of breeze I doubt smoke would have been much a problem when within 100yrds.
"4. You are shooting for accuracy, not for effect." Is there any difference?
"5. Nobody is trying to kill you." Agreed – but the weapon itself is still just as accurate.

My question is whether they were trained or not. Pragmatics suggest that if they were, they would inflict more casulties than a unit that was not – given identical circumstances.

Rob

Rob,

1. Your musket will be less clogged as you have better quality powder; it makes a difference.

2. Your musket may have been used a lot but how many times has it actually been used for live firing? It has also not been used to hit somebody over the head (I hope!), subjected to frequent rain, occasional snow and relentless baking heat.

3. Musket smoke of the volume involved tended to reduce battlefield visibility immensely. It was a real factor.

4. There is a huge difference; shooting for effect means shooting to kill or injure as many of the enemy as possible, not to get a nice grouping. This can be best done by blazing away at where one believes a large group of the enemy to be, rather than taking careful aim at something that one cannot see through the smoke. Remember that, in firefights, many soldiers dispensed with the ram rod in favour of tapping the butt on the ground, thus reducing accuracy even further but increasing the rate of fire.

5. Any weapon is only as accurate as the person using it; a soldier who is aware of his friends being killed or maimed around him, and is expecting to be hit at any moment, is not going to be as calm and accurate as someone who is not being shot at.

Many soldiers were trained in accurate shooting; the French ran shooting competitions in 1804-05. However, in battle what generally mattered in non-skirmish combats was volume of fire. Fine aiming was pointless for the above reasons and also because, at typical engagement ranges, the target (an enemy unit) was rather large and all that one had to do was hit it somewhere rather than aiming at individuals. Therefore, careful aiming offered no real advantage for most infantry.

Colin

4. You are shooting for accuracy, not for effect.

Is there any difference?

Yes, shooting for effect means getting your shot into a box roughly 100 FEET wide and 3 feet tall, 2 feet off the ground (roughly a company's frontage, in 3 ranks, IIRC). You don't care in the slightest where any two shots hit relative to each other, just that every shot hits that 300sqft target box.

Everything I've read has always emphasized rate of fire, with even the Riflemen being expected to maintain 3 shots per minute.

Soldiers certainly did aim and were sometimes trained to aim. This was most important for skirmishers though. I think (though cant remember source) that the british marines were quite keen on it too. They would after all be expected to snipe the enemy on their ships. Nelsons death for example?

For heavy infantry it was not a priority. Steady nerves, a steady hand and only firing when told to was.

"I think (though cant remember source) that the british marines were quite keen on it too. They would after all be expected to snipe the enemy on their ships. Nelsons death for example?"

Nelson wasn't killed by British marines.

But I get your point…
Si

'Nelson wasn't killed by British marines.'

Enter the conspiracy theorists!

In rank and file you did not aim, you could do aiming only when skirmishing.

In contrast to the usual belief there was a lot of life fire training in a lot of armies, one only has to read memoires.

It has always been my understanding that the rank and file, even if they got live practice with their weapon, were never taught to aim, just to "present" – that is to generally point the weapon in the enemy's direction. So even when in line skirmishers would have done the same. Aimed fire was largely restricted to specialists like skirmishers and snipers.

These are the instructions for the British army when firing in close order from the 1807 Rules and Regulation for the Manual and Platoon Exercises:

"Bring the firelock down firmly to the present, by sliding the hand to the full extent of the arm, along the sling, without letting the motion tell;- the right hand at the same time springing up the butt by the cock so high against the right shoulder, that the head may not be too much lowered in taking aim ; the right cheek to be close to the butt, the left eye shut, and the forefinger of the right hand on the trigger; look along the barrel with the right eye from the breech-pin to the muzzle, and remain steady. Pull the trigger with the forefinger, and, when fired, remain looking on the aim while you can count one-two;"

We can debate how effective this might have been, but the intention was for the soldiers to actually aim, even in close order.

Point taken about inaccuracies, battlefield stress and smoke etc, but if you point a Brown Bess in my direction I am not going to rely on this to save me and I guess that's why skirmishers were trained to make use of cover whilst non skirmishers were trained to stand and take it.

It is very hard to be really accurate when someone else tells you when to fire. When the command is given, you pull the trigger regardless of your point of aim. which is why it doesnt matter what you do in a practice feild.

Try this. Go to the range, and have a freind more or less randomly yell fire. You have to pul;l the trigget regardless, other than safty issues. See what kind of groups you get with that.

Also dont discount the shoock of all those other muskets going off around you. It is hard enough to consintrate when you are by yourself.

Another part of the problem looking back is that we understand that individual aimed fire can be effective. Many in the Napoleonic era know no such thing. There where certainly those that believed that, but they where not in a majority.

Goverments are also notoriuos for erattic spenmding policys. I have seen a time when we got 49 rounds a year a soldier. 9 to zero with and 40 for one qulification shoot. If that didnt do it, tough. That only lasted a little bit when I first enlisted, but it had been going on for some time. At the same time, we didnt move the vehicles much do to fuel shortages. Was all this cheapness a good idea if a war had broken out? Icertanly didnt think so, but congress did not bother to ask me.

I suspect that may have played a big part in the Napoleonic era. Once the musket is payed for, it is payed for. It can go from soldier to soldier.But powder and shot have to be repaid for every time, and besides "everybody knows" that you cant get accurate with them things anyway.

So while it may seem silly to us, it made sense to them at the time.

A few other things that I think are very important.

[1] You are not standing less than 27 inches from people on each side who are also trying to shoot and are getting in your way. And deafening you with their fire.

[2] You do not have a rank of people behind you, sticking a musket barrel just in front of your head and touching the thing off. Gee, if he fires just before you do, where do you think your shot is going?

[3] You are not almost touching your neighbor when you shoot 45 degrees from your front

[4] You are on level ground. Your target is probably also on level ground. You know the distance to the target. You don't have to worry about how high to aim.

The rainbow trajectory of the round makes it very easy to have a shot hit above and beyond or in front of a target which is > 100 yards away.
How good are you at estimating distances to targets which are anywhere between 75 and 200 yards away? How good are you at estimating differences in elevation? There are good reasons why the most effective fire was done with an initial volley at less than 50 yards. There are good reasons why two lines could get into a fire fight at 125 yards and still be there 3 hours later, little the worse for wear and the victor usually determined by who ran out of ammunition first.

[5] You want to hit the target. A soldier maybe wanted more, that his shoulder didn't hurt and he poured in less powder, held the musket away from his shoulder and flinched up quickly as soon as jerking the trigger (to make the recoil force raise the musket barrel up, while his shoulder and body flinched backwards).

[6] You use fresh powder. His was often wet, or wet and dried-out a few times. He didn't use a seperate priming powder. He didn't have the best quality flints.

Sorta suprising that anybody got hurt.

8. There were no sights on a standard musket, so what were they to 'aim' with?
But
They were generally taught to 'level' & were allocated ball as well as powder to practice with by all armies.
The Austrians , IIRC, had target boards with 3 lines on for boots, midrif, hat, which equalled something like 50paces, 100paces,200paces – you levelled your musket at the appropriate line and loosed, which should be enough for a massed target.
There is a memoir of a SYW British officer tapping down the muskets of the nearest men with his cane to achieve the correct level – in battle!

Also
9. Only psychopaths will calmly shoot a human in the head as shoot a painted target – and barely 2% of the population are that way inclined. The rest require specific pavlovs dog popup target training and then not surprisingly many require post combat long term psychological treatment.

It appears that both line units and even militia did practice aimed fire. I came across this extract recently link
Of course we do not know how big the target was, perhaps a company frontage. These were not battlefield conditions although the element of competition may have put a bit of pressure on the participants. What is most interesting is that this was watched by the public. How common was this? Were there individual competitions presumably firing at smaller targets? There is a great deal we do not know about the period.
PS The Canadians were a grenadier company so Select Embodied Militia (more or less full time)

some posters seem to imply that skirmishing was specialist or rare and therefore aimed fire was rare.

Skirmishing was not rare at all and therefore neither was aimed fire. Entire brigades sometimes deployed as skirmish screens.

Also lets not forget the large ammount of smaller battles/skirmishes/actions that would probably had a higher proportion of skirmishing infantry.

Guys – we are getting some pretty interesting feedback on this topic. I certainly appreciate it and hope everyone feels the same.

Capt. Snort – here is an interesting comparison between the aiming command given, as you quoted from the 1807 Rules and Regulation for the British army, and its French counterpart, Le Reglement du 1791.

JOUE (Present)

"Abaisser brusquement le bout du canon, glisser vivement la main gauche jusqu'à la première capucine, appuyer la crosse contre l'épaule droite, le bout du canon un peu baissé, les coudes abattus sans être serrés au corps, fermer l'œil gauche, diriger l'œil droit le long du canon, abaisser la tête sur la crosse pour ajuster, placer le premier doigt sur la détente."

Translated:

Sink down, smartly, the muzzle of the piece, slipping the left hand back along the stock, as far as the first band (note the Charleville was a banded musket vs the Brown Bess which had a pinned barrel) apply the butt to the right shoulder; let the muzzle be below the level of the eyes a little, and the right elbow kept lowered, without being pressed against the body; shut the left eye; look along the barrel with the right eye; sink forward the head towards the butt in order to level; and place the forefinger on the trigger.

I think the interesting and virtually identical parts of the corresponding commands,

Le Reglement "…let the muzzle be below the level of the eyes a little, and the right elbow kept lowered, without being pressed against the body; shut the left eye; look along the barrel with the right eye; sink forward the head towards the butt in order to level…"

The Rules and Regs, "…the left eye shut, and the forefinger of the right hand on the trigger; look along the barrel with the right eye from the breech-pin to the muzzle, and remain steady"

Although not definitive, both regulations certainly suggest a degree of consideration was given to aiming the musket. If one were just pointing at the enemy why bother closing the left eye and having the men basically sight down the barrel?

Rob

Andrew,
Excellent bit of information. Certainly indicates that the smoothbore musket is a good bit more accurate than some sources suggest. I think most folks would be surprised to know that at 150 yards the weapon could hit any kind of target achieving accuracy rates of 20% to 28%. And, as you stated these were not under battlefield conditions. But I think it further lends evidence by (virtue of the competetion itself) that accuracy had to be an element in the minds of many of the folks of that day.

Has anyone come across a primary source that mentions something about training in the use of the musket?

I cannot recall, but I have seeen somthing about the topic and the general sense was that the answer is no. Not that some training did not occur, but that on the whole it was not extensive enough to make a difference.

More important was getting the recruit to learn to load without thinking. That way in the middle of combat he is not trying to run through a loading drill in his head; he just loads and fires.

Though not from the period exactly, during the AWI the command from the British manual was ready, PRESENT, fire. I have always found it interesting the the word "present" is used and not "aim". Also, the soldier was not to cock his head aiming down the barrel. He was to keep his head up. Thus, between the two I would say for the period, firing to hit a target was not a priority. What mattered was mass of fire and hope.

Jim

No this is not true – soldiers did practise to shoot on targets, when I am reading my next memoires I will watch out for those statements and copy them in a note book, otherwise I agree fully with this contemporary view :

Part II

This source is form Demian an Austrian officer who published a three volume work for his officers, a sort of handbook about arms, tactics, how to produce arms, black powder etc.

Demian : Anleitung zum Selbst-Studium der militärischen Wissenschaft. Für Offiziere der k.k. österreichischen Armee, Erster Theil : Wafenlehre, Wien 1807

„ If one is looking into the usual instruction of the firing and its true purpose, which should be to hit an hostile item, one finds that these instructions are teaching precisely the non hitting, because :

1. Up to now the line infantry was not trained to fire at an aim. And still aiming is an art, which like others has to be learned and practised; if this is not the case then hitting would be at random. The line infantry man therefore must be taught and must practise when his shots should hit.
2. One is aiming (technically joue, schlagt an, in English maybe arm) always at the half man, without taking into account the different distances and terrain, despite according to the closer or farer distances, also the difference in terrain, demands a higher or lower aiming.
3. The man is pushed for quickness. One has tried to increase with the number of shots also the effect of the fire, and one was giving a lot effort to make the soldier fire seven to ten times per minute. However the experience teaches us that the soldier is shooting worse the quicker he loads, and that all speed and skill in loading is useless without proper aiming. Because not the skill [in loading] but the hitting makes the firing effective. The push for speed at aiming means to train them and use them to shot in the air. And to that already wrong instruction for firing one has to add the natural fear of the man, by which aiming in the heat of battle is almost impossible. Who was in a fire fight without noticing that in this moment the soldier is acting as a machine, that means he loads his gun, shots in the air, loads again and thinks less to damage the enemy than more to distract himself by the work to ban all thought of fear which are surrounding him in this moment. As soon as the soldier is seeing the enemy he wants to start to shoot being afraid that the other will overtake him in that and only few officers have the power to restrain their soldiers, or when they are able to do this they have not the knowledge about the shooting distance of the gun or to judge the distances. In case however the soldier is not lacking in cold blood and deliberation in a serious fire fight, and he is not acting as a machine, so alone because of the disorder and pushing for quickness, which is usual in a fire fight, is preventing to let him think about aiming. The experience teaches that the soldier is hardly listening at the commands of his officer in this critical moment and that every body as soon as he finished loading wants to shot. When one is closing the pan, the other is working with the ramrod, the third is making ready, the forth is arming and the fifth pulls the trigger. Is one taking into account the disorder which is caused by the falling of the dead, and the retreat of the wounded, as the quite dense smoke of powder which is enveloping the men, so it is impossible to expect that a sure shot can happen. Yes, even the best Jäger (marksmen, sharp shooters expert to hit with a shot, so to speak Hessian, Austrian, Prussian Jäger units) as soon as they would have to fire in rank and file, they would not hit better by the ruling constriction and disorder than the usual line infantry man."

Demian page 34 to 37

Demian is talking about Austrian infantry, other nations did practise target shooting, which however was a wasted effort when firing in rank and file as noted above.

I have a copy of John Eltings "Swords Around A Throne". Yesterday I checked it to see if he had anything related to aiming the musket. Here are a couple of exerpts.

Page 482
"In 1792 Rochambeau ordered that all French recruits be taught to take aim as a matter of routine training. Quite contrary to popular history, Napoleon not only continued that training but constantly stressed the importane of it."

Page 483
"During the Hundred Days, Davout put all infanry and dragoon regiments through a quick musketry refresher course: twenty rounds of blank cartridges for firing exercise; twenty ball cartridges for target practice."

"The standard French target was 5 ½ feet high and 21 inches wide with a 3-inch-wide band of bright color across its middle and a similar one at its top. Troops fired at ranges of 50, 100 and 150 "toises" (one toise equaled 6 feet)…Target matches were features of all Grand Armee celebrations, with articles of clothing or cash as prizes….Experienced officers like De Brack taught their men to squeeze their triggers and to hold their weapons straight instead of canted when taking aim…There was also practical knowledge veterans passed to conscripts: When the enemy was 50 yards away, aim at their knees. (Having a low velocity, the musket ball would "climb" quickly into a high trajectory, then drop as quickly) . Therefore, at 100 yards, aim at the waist; at 140 to 200, aim at the head."

Rob

von Winterfeldt,
Thats some interesting information from Demian. He starts with the importance of aimed fire then goes on describing the circumstances contributing to absence of aimed fire in the Austrian army. I take it he also has recommendations for changing over to aimed fire? How infuential was this fellow?

Rob

twowheatons,
During the AWI, the British used the Manuel exercise of 1764. And you are right the commands are "Make Ready", "Present" and "Fire". My understanding is that that exercise was superceded by the "Rules and Regulation for the Manual and Platoon Exercises" See Capt Snorts earlier post.

Rob

Colin,
You stated, "…in battle what generally mattered in non-skirmish combats was volume of fire. Fine aiming was pointless for the above reasons and also because, at typical engagement ranges, the target (an enemy unit) was rather large and all that one had to do was hit it somewhere rather than aiming at individuals. Therefore, careful aiming offered no real advantage for most infantry."

While I agree with elements of what you have stated, I respectfully submit that the overall premise is wrong. Aimed fire will always cause greater casulties than unaimed fire regardless of all the battlefield circumstances you accurately describe. Even if the target is large, going for volume of fire without proper aiming will result in more misses than an aimed shot. Besides, if one is trained to aim, how much longer does it take to do that vs an unaimed shot. I submit to you its not much more than a second. Hardly enough to make a difference if one is looking at delivering fire rapidly.

If you take a veteran (or even well trained unit), those soldiers, through years of training and experience are going to be steady on the field while under fire. They know their drill, they know their weapon and most importantly they know that accurate fire is the only thing that might save them.

I believe these to be the pragmatics of the situation. The real question in my mind though is, "what did the leaders of that period think"? I know there is evidence to suggest that many thought as you do (see von Winterfeldt's posting). Likewise, we have uncovered evidence to suggest some thought as I do that aimed fire was important (the exercise manuals for the British and French; Elting's writings). It would be interesting to know just how pervasive these two schools of thought were and how much they influenced each nation.

Rob

Rob,

Given the ballistic properties of a musket ball of the period and the fact that they were generally a somewhat loose fit in the barrel, it is apparent that attempting to aim accurately would serve little purpose as the ball would not travel in the same manner as a modern bullet or even a carefully prepared round from a high quality hunting weapon or military rifle of the period.

Firstly, on leaving the barrel, the ball would tend to rise in flight before dropping rapidly. This made any sort of accurate aiming rather difficult to say the least and soldiers were taught to aim low at close range, aim level at medium range and aim high at long range, with "aim" in this case meaning the general angle of elevation or declination of the musket.

Secondly, there was no guarantee that the ball would leave the barrel on a course that was exactly "straight"; it could exit at a range of angles that could result in it going anywhere but straight ahead.

These problems,combined with all of those mentioned above, made true aimed fire pointless.

"Aiming" in the sense of Napoleonic line infantry generally meant allowing for the tendency of the ball to rise and then fall in its flight. It was not aiming in anything like the modern sense or equivalent to the way that a rifleman might aim.

Colin

Colin,

I am not claiming that the smoothbore musket is an accurate weapon, or that the majority of Napoleonic soldiers had any real idea of aim or elevation, but your posts on this thread are full of innaccurate information.

"Firstly, on leaving the barrel, the ball would tend to rise in flight."

This is absolutely impossible. The ball cannot rise in flight, but the problem, if there is one, is the fact that the barrel of a musket is considerably wider externally at the breech than at the muzzle. If you level the top of the barrel,the bore is inclined upwards, hence you will fire high. From experience of firing muskets, including actual Napoleonic Brown Besses, if you look along the barrel as described in the Rules and Regulations, you will not fire high, even at 50 yards.

"the fact that they were generally a somewhat loose fit in the barrel"

If the ball was loaded into the barrel naked, then you have a point, but the ball was loaded inside its paper cartridge. Believe it or not, the paper cartridge is very efficient at taking up the void in the barrel. Not only that but the empty tail of the cartrige that had contained the powder serves as a very efficient wad between the powder and ball. The overall effect is to reduce the gas escape between bore and ball, and keep the ball on a reasonably straight course down the barrel. The paper completetly disintigrates on exiting the barrel.

"Your musket will be less clogged as you have better quality powder; it makes a difference."

I would dispute that modern powder is even equal to that used in the Napoleonic British army. Certainly we cannot achieve the same muzzle velocities. Regarding the fouling, the undersized ball and paper cartridge deal pretty well with this. I have fired 60 rounds with paper cartridges and had no trouble with ramming. The fouling actually makes the musket more accurate, and I have to fire 10 shots or so when using paper cartridges before the groups start to tighten up on the target.

"Your musket may have been used a lot but how many times has it actually been used for live firing."

My best musket, as far as accuracy goes, was manufactured in the 1820s and has seen much service. The barrel is pitted, the frizzen worn and the springs weak, but it still shoots very well indeed – much better than modern Italian reproductions.

Colin,
I have not been thinking of aiming in the sense of a modern sniper. Obviously a musket is not an accurate long range weapon in comparison to a rifle. Rather I have been thinking in terms of exploiting the musket's full capability as a "reasonably accurate" weapon up to say 150 yards against at standing line of men.

I think our differences have to do with the accuracy of the weapon itself. There is a point I would like to make regarding windage. The Bess I have is a .75 caliber weapon – just as the originals. I fire a .71 caliber round – again standard issue (I am aware that some in the British army prefered a .69 caliber ball but I am not sure how prevalent that was). The ball by itself is loose fitting in the barrel as you point out. However, the cartrige surrounding the ball is paper. Some folks seem to think that after the powder is poured down the barrel, ball is removed from the paper and the paper is used for wadding. That couldn't be further from the truth. After the powder is poured down the barrel, the ball with the paper surrounding it is rammed home. This makes for a snug fit and there is no windage. Unlike what some suggest, the paper is destroy by the ignition of the powder, that also is not true. Partially blackened wads are all over the area to the front of a firing line.

I am well aware of the balls trajectory as were our 19th centruy counterparts and instructions were provided to compensate for the rise and drop of the ball. See my earlier posting. Now as far as the ball's travel is concerned, there is no left or right tendency – its simply up or down (and not by much mind you). So, all the ingredients are there to fire a reasonably accurate round. Certainly to hit a man sized target at 150 yards if aimed.

One of the points you made earlier was with regard to the quality of the black powder used today and that used during the Napoleonic wars. I thought there might be something to that, but after reading Elting it seems like the differences are pretty minor.

Colin, despite all this I have a feeling I am not going to convince you about the accuracy of the musket. So, I am offering an open invitation for you to come to my house in Kansas. I'll take you out to the field and we can run any kind of test(s) you choose. Then we can kick back, discuss our respective versions of the Napoleonic wars and have a couple of beers (After the tests!) :-)

Rob

@3e de Ligne

Demian worte a three volume series handbook for officers – I find his observations quite interesting.

In the post 7YW time it was well realized that fast shooting infantry's fire in rank and file was not accurate and there were many ideas how to overcome this fact.

One was – to train the infantryman to shoot on a target.
But as Demian points out, it was realized – that despite this training a close order unit did hardly aim at all.

The performance of the smooth bore was not so bad, I agree with Cpt. Snort – looking at the contemporary shooting tests, like that of Scharnhorst, usually a battle – or fire fight should be over soon.
In reality this was not the case due to the way how close order infantry did fire.

Hey – Captain Snort,

What size ball were you using? My Bess was fouled to the point that it took a good bit of negotiating to ram down the round when I neared the end of the box.

Rob

Rob,

In a paper cartridge, the ball should be no larger than 0.690". British musket balls, from Ordnance records, varied in size from between 0.680" and 0.689"

If firing for accuracy, I use a 0.725" ball with a well oiled cloth patch. If the patch is well lubricated, I can fire at least 50 rounds with no problem.

In competitions (I do not participate in competitions), the best load is a close fitting lubricated naked ball sandwiched between two wads.

Ah Capt!
Its been a while (20 yrs). Now that you mention it it was .725 ball I used. Still used a paper cartridge that was dipped in a beeswax to keep the fowling loose. Our team (64th foot) won several of the team competitions at the Governor's Firelock match at Ft. Frederick in Maryland. I can see why you recommend using an oiled patch. The last few rounds were a bear to manage down the barrel. I had to use a balled-up rag to help push the last of them down. What kind of accuracy did you achieve with the .69 sized ball?

Rob

I think that one of the problems we face is that there was a quite wide spectrum of delivering fire during this period. At one extreme we have a veteran light infantryman who would expect to fire at a man-sized target. At the other extreme we get a body of troops who point their weapons towards the enemy and blaze away. In between there is sufficient evidence, some of which has been presented here, to indicate that some troops were trained in 'regulated' fire. The crucial thing was someone (whether an officer, an NCO, or the firer himself) was estimating distance and adjusting the weapon's angle to take account of this. We know that judging ranges was normal for artillerymen (Scharnhorst even gives instructions for calibrating a telescope to turn it into a crude range-finder) so the principles of doing so were widely understood.

But this did not work for troops in rank and file, they would have to adjust their "aiming" point independendly all the time when an enemy would approach.
How should the unit commander made himself clearly understood all the time and who would the soldiers react when all their comrades would blaze away next to them.
To determine ranges would be usefull for skirmishers and there again, now could an officer with a calibrated telescope transmit his findings?
In the manuals you can find methods how to judge ranges, like by recognizing details of the enemy, like the face, the cross belts, the eyes or buttons of uniforms.

Rob,

If I ever get to Kansas, I may well take you up on that offer; for the moment, I will just envy you the opportunities that you get to fire your muskets as opposed to my very limited opportunities to shoot with my 1848 weapon.

Colin

Sights are not absolute requirements for aiming; I do a lot of longbow shooting and can aim pretty effectively without them.

Andrew,
You stated, "The crucial thing was someone (whether an officer, an NCO, or the firer himself) was estimating distance and adjusting the weapon's angle to take account of this." My experience has been that distances under a 100 yards are not too much of a problem. The effect of gravity isnt that big a deal at those ranges. Beyond that though one needs a bit of practice to understand how much the ball is going to drop.

I think the bigger thing with this whole discussion is the extent to which soldiers in varous armies were trained in accuracy. I suspect its one of those things thats going to run the full spectrum. I was hoping we might get some more detailed information to know whether it was 'some', 'many' or 'most'.
Rob

Another crucial factor here is Your (or ours) perception.
3eme, you appear to have an interest in firearms, and an interest in achieving accuracy with them. In one of your posts you mention "20 years". From that, am I right to assume you have over 20 years experience with firearms, and have been interested in them for at least that long? Its a considerable length of time, and would put you at odds with the vast majority of napoleonic footsoldiers who would have a probably a few months or a couple of years experience of firearms.
The average recruit knew NOTHING about firearms prior to enlistment. Very few lower class individuals would have even touched one before entering the army. To a recruit, it was a heavy thing to lug around and clean a lot, and losing a part of it would get him a beating. A musket wasn't something to be "interested" in.
MOST (not all) soldiers didn't have concepts about aiming with the weapon, why should they? You did with it what you were told would work (i.e.presenting). The odd soldier who showed an "interest" or aptitude with firearms became a skirmisher.
Like so many things in history, attempting to project the thoughts and motives of someone from the early 21st century onto someone who's social, educational, political, religious, influences are so utterly alien to our own can oftem lead to misleading conclusions.

The following excerpt is taken from Wellington's General Order dated May 9, 1815, Brussels:

1. The light infantry companies belonging to each brigade of infantry, are to act together as a battalion of light infantry, under the command of a field officer or captain to be selected for the occasion by the General Officer commanding the brigade, upon all occasions on which the brigade may be formed in line or column, whether for a march, or to oppose the enemy.

3. The Commander of the Forces wishes that some of the light infantry battalions of each brigade should be practiced in the manoeuvres of the light infantry, and if possible in firing at a mark.

These generally repeat one of the Dukes general orders from the Peninsular period, forming similar battalions for operations against the enemy.

It seems interesting that he should only require that 'some' of the formed battalions be instructed in light infantry maneuvers, and that 'if possible' they are practiced at 'firing at a mark' [target practice]. These are the light troops – the skirmishers – if they weren't supposed to use aimed fire – who were?

npm

Is it perhaps the case that formed close-order infantry will tend to fire under officer control en-masse and even if some are trained to aim this will be inappropriate for a volley. The officers should be setting the level of the muskets of the company for mass fire effect.

Independent aimed fire may be appropriate when skirmishing and the skirmishers could be expected to have better marksmanship skills through training and possibly through recruitment and selection of gamekeepers and hunters.

Another tangential thought, how good was the eyesight of the average infantryman of this period. Probably no better or worse than today but less opportunity for correction and a recruitment policy that would not turn down candidates unable to use rifle sights. You might have men in the ranks who can level their muskets as told but could not take aim at anything over 100 yards.

"I have a copy of John Eltings "Swords Around A Throne". Yesterday I checked it to see if he had anything related to aiming the musket. Here are a couple of exerpts.

Page 482
"In 1792 Rochambeau ordered that all French recruits be taught to take aim as a matter of routine training. Quite contrary to popular history, Napoleon not only continued that training but constantly stressed the importane of it."

Page 483
"During the Hundred Days, Davout put all infanry and dragoon regiments through a quick musketry refresher course: twenty rounds of blank cartridges for firing exercise; twenty ball cartridges for target practice."

"The standard French target was 5 ½ feet high and 21 inches wide with a 3-inch-wide band of bright color across its middle and a similar one at its top. Troops fired at ranges of 50, 100 and 150 "toises" (one toise equaled 6 feet)…Target matches were features of all Grand Armee celebrations, with articles of clothing or cash as prizes….Experienced officers like De Brack taught their men to squeeze their triggers and to hold their weapons straight instead of canted when taking aim…There was also practical knowledge veterans passed to conscripts: When the enemy was 50 yards away, aim at their knees. (Having a low velocity, the musket ball would "climb" quickly into a high trajectory, then drop as quickly) . Therefore, at 100 yards, aim at the waist; at 140 to 200, aim at the head."
"

Is this what Elting thinks, or is this what the people he is discussing thought and did? If true, how do we know? Where are his references?

Straight line Accuracy
The contemporary casting of round balls invariably left one part denser than another, or imperfections in the roundness, and so the flight characteristic was often less than straight.
The reason for rifling was to imprint curves on the ball so that the air resistance would keep the ball spinning and these variances then cancel out.

Distance accuracy
1. A major determinant of the distance a ball carried, and its flight path was muzzle velocity. If you have standardised well mixed loads kept at a standard humidity this might work ok, probably not so good from a contemporary mixed powder in a cartridge box on campaign.
2. On the range the distance is predetermined and known.
With unknown distances a practised Mk1 eyeball is generally +/- 20% . Things get much worse when bullets are flying and people typically massively underestimate distances in these stressful circumstances.

Aiming accuracy.
Having avoided species extinction for several million years by scaring rivals into backing down rather than just ripping their heads off, it is a human trait NOT to kill.
Wave a big stick in the air and go BANG – very satisfying and hopeful of result, a natural reaction chosen by over 95% of a population. And hence why even skirmishers could pop off at each other and require their own weight of lead to be shot at them before they were hit

Gentlemen,
A lively discussion to say the least!

Christot
You stated, "3eme, you appear to have an interest in firearms, and an interest in achieving accuracy with them. In one of your posts you mention "20 years". From that, am I right to assume you have over 20 years experience with firearms, and have been interested in them for at least that long?"

Well, I have several muskets but its been about 20 years since I have fired one with a live round. I wouldn't consider myself a dedicated black powder enthusiast.

"Like so many things in history, attempting to project the thoughts and motives of someone from the early 21st century onto someone who's social, educational, political, religious, influences are so utterly alien to our own can oftem lead to misleading conclusions."

I am not sure where you are going here. I don't believe I have been attempting to project a 21st century viewpoint on a 19th century individual. I started with a simple logical question, "Do any of you know the extent to which line infantry during the Napoleonic era were trained in marksmanship?"

Ligniere, you stated,
"…The Commander of the Forces wishes that some of the light infantry battalions of each brigade should be practiced in the manoeuvres of the light infantry, and if possible in firing at a mark."

That's an interesting quote. Certainly seems to suggest that aimed fire (sorry Quistorp, I meant "pointed very accurately") may not have been a significant consideration for the British line infantry. Thanks for the feedback.

Mike, you bring up an interesting point.
"Is it perhaps the case that formed close-order infantry will tend to fire under officer control en-masse and even if some are trained to aim this will be inappropriate for a volley. The officers should be setting the level of the muskets of the company for mass fire effect."

In my mind, volley fire presented (no pun intended) a problem for aimed fire and rapid fire as well. An officer would have to wait until all or nearly all were reloaded. From what I suspect, volley fire was pretty much limited to the first round. From that point on independent fire (Charge à volonté) took over with the command, "Chargez vos armes". I am pretty confident that is what happened in the French army anyway.

Chouan,
You stated, "Is this what Elting thinks, or is this what the people he is discussing thought and did? If true, how do we know? Where are his references?

Now how would I know the answer to that? That's what Elting wrote. I thought he was a fairly well respected author so I quoted him. You can choose to believe him or not. BTW what are your sources to say he is wrong?

Thanks All
Rob