"Tactical differences between ACW & Napoleonic warfare" Topic

I didn't, it is from Griffith, Battle in the Civil War (not to be confused with Battle Tactics of the Civil War).

Just FYI. A friend in his diligent searches in Google found two books that are fascinating, 1857-1860 studies by the French concerning American and British Rifles and their possible effects on combat.

The first is Des nouvelles armes rayées, de leur role et de leur influence à la guerre by Léon Marès

link

Hit the "Plain Text" button and then "Translate". You will get middling translation into English where you can at least get the gist of the text and the areas that deserve closer attention.

Mares includes some very pertinent discussions concerning this thread's questions:

1. He gives what he sees as the changes in small arms ranges with the new rifles. He gives the Napoleonic volley range for smoothbore muskets as 250 yards. He sees the ranges increasing to 400. He predicts that artillery will not be able to get as close to infantry in the future.

2. He cites ordinance tests for the British Enfield and Springfield rifles, where he identifies the high tragectory problem with the slower velocity minie ball. One ordinance test had troops firing at targets representing columns [@20 yards by 50 yards] at 250, 300 and 400 yards. A consistent pattern emerged: Even though the shooters were aiming/firing at the front of the column, more hits landed at the back of the column.

3. He describes the way an infantry attack can progress, citing examples from the Franco-Austrian war 1859 and earlier wars, contrasting them to the Napoleonic wars. [Again range is increased, but tactics are pretty much the same with more emphasis on skirmishing to soften up the opposing infantry/artillery.

4. He suggests that infantry have more firing practice [from fifty shots at short range a year, to 200 shots, at least half at longer ranges. He notes that the rifle will be little better than the smoothbore musket if troops are not trained to use them. He cites examples including Napoleon's use of battalion guns in 1809. They added little to the fire of his infantry and got rid of them. Of course, infantrymen were firing them and attached artillerymen bemoaned the lack of ability they demonstrated. The battalion guns were worthless because the crews were untrained.

The other book is also in French:

System of modern warfare, or New tactics with the new weapons of War Volume 2 1862 By Léopold Michel Martial d'Azémar

link

Google does a awful job of categorizing books. You have to be persistent in your search because they have many books listed both as full view and no view…sometimes even when the book is in a new, current edition… I have used the above links at different times only to get very different results, sooo…

Bill

67thtigers 18 Aug 2010 3:22 p.m. PST
I didn't, it is from Griffith, Battle in the Civil War (not to be confused with Battle Tactics of the Civil War).

*NJH: Interesting. At which time during the battle did he make that calculation? The numbers for the OOB of the Union army varies widely depending upon the source. However, let's allow 90,000 for the Army of the Potomac.

On the First day the Union didn't even have 26,000 soldiers, of any type, on the field. Therefore, it was quite impossible for 26,000 men to man any frontage.

On the Second day, the Sixth corps wasn't on the field and the cavalry were spead out on the flanks, which means about 25,000 weren't in the frontage. Plus there were the casualties of the first day. However, let's not consider them at this time. The front runs roughly from Big Roundtop to Spangler's Spring. That's about 3.75 miles. From the 90,000 AoP we subtract the Sixth Corps and the Cavalry Corps (25,000 men), and get 65,000. That's 17,333 per mile not 26,000.

On the Third day the front increases by about a mile, but the AoP has suffered about 16,000 casualties in the first two days. Toss in the casualties (from the first two days) with the cavalry and now the AoP is down about 27,000 men (63,000 men). That's about 13,263 men per mile.

Thus my question.

Mr Griffith seems to be mostly about stirring the pot, and being provocative. I've not been impressed with his research and too often his assertions/conclusions are more conjectural hyperbole than carefully reasoned deductions. He's an interesting read, but so is Erich von Däniken.

Still, 17,000 men per mile of frontage is indeed impressive.

Cheers

McLaddie extracted in part:
"….2. He cites ordinance tests for the British Enfield and Springfield rifles, where he identifies the high tragectory problem with the slower velocity minie ball. One ordinance test had troops firing at targets representing columns [@20 yards by 50 yards] at 250, 300 and 400 yards. A consistent pattern emerged: "

The lower MUZZLE velocity of the minie ball versus the roundball is just one aspect of the ballistics. The roundball is shot at a high muzzle velocity in order to be effective in the sub-100yard range. It has a horrible ballistic coefficient (its big, it has to push air out of the way and drags a vacumn behind it) so it slows down rapidly. At the muzzle it is above the speed of sound and the ballistic coefficient is above 1 whereas the elongated, heavier cross section minie ball is 0.7 to 0.2. (see frfrogspad.com/extbal.htm)

What always gets lost in these discussions is that no one of that time even thought of using a smoothbore musket at long range. (e.g. + 150 yards. see pg 16 link for a realistic discussion). They did try to use the rifled musket at extended range (200 – 350 yards)and found that there were issues with estimating range and bullet drop.

Alright, how 'bout your miniature poses?

Why is it that there are no two stands within an ACW battalion or brigade that have miniatures with the same posture, not to mention uniform variation? While every Napoleonic unit has near total uniformity?

Some have called the American Civil War a battle between militias. I think that's a myth.

Not just the miniature poses, but the whole basing system.

Why do so many ACW games show figures mounted in a ragged sort of skirmish line? You almost never see the guys lined up in close order.

Billsfan wrote:

What always gets lost in these discussions is that no one of that time even thought of using a smoothbore musket at long range. (e.g. + 150 yards. see pg 16 link for a realistic discussion). They did try to use the rifled musket at extended range (200 – 350 yards)and found that there were issues with estimating range and bullet drop.

Really? Then why do so many treatises give 200 to 250 yards as the range of a smoothbore? A couple have been quoted on this thread. Even the term 'half a musket shot' refers to 100 yards.

Do you want some more examples from the period? Just look in Oman. Several places he gives examples of French infantry opening fire at 200 and 250 yards.

Certainly the smoothbore had real trajectory variance, and like the rifled musket was difficult to range with the bullet drop, but the fact is, contemporaries did use the smoothbore musket at ranges greater than 150 yards.

Bill

Bill

Hi

Which cracks me up!

See in other threads, we have people insisting that casualties are so few from a volley, that we cannot define anything with stand removal or much of anything.

So, if the casualties are minuscule at 50 yards, why would they be effective at 250? Curiously, Nofzinger has lectured me on how he doesn't believe in anyone doing more than one or two volleys for various reasons, thus no battle description to him, history or fiction, is correct.

I am sure that people fired from out of range. I am certain that the import was getting shot at is no fun and there are examples of units taking no hits but being routed from just being fired on. HOWEVER, I don't think that either "proves" anything.

As for the repeated "trajectory" issue, that just has so many problems that I am not sure why I bother with this. This is simple, there is a concept of how ballistics work that makes a nonsense of the point being made.

i will try again.

Yup, troops weren't that well trained except for the ones who were.

Yup, the initial velocity WITH THE SAME LOAD might be higher for a round ball than a conical, but irrelevant to this discussion. Round ball loses speed and energy much much faster than a conical(minie), that simple.

Further even with bad aiming, hits on target when the round ball at 200 yards cannot be trusted to hit within 12 feet of the aim point doesn't lend to the concept that it is as good oar anything versus a Minie which can be relied upon to hit within a foot of aimpoint.

Rocky

RockyRusso 15 Sep 2010 10:52 a.m. PST
…..
Further even with bad aiming, hits on target when the round ball at 200 yards cannot be trusted to hit within 12 feet of the aim point doesn't lend to the concept that it is as good oar anything versus a Minie which can be relied upon to hit within a foot of aimpoint.

*NJH: If my target is regimental sized, then 12' left or right is good. When aiming at an area target (regiment or brigade) I don't care who I hit as long as I hit them.

BTW – I attended a three day CAS event last weekend. Tons of fun, and I shot 7 of 9 stages clean. I lost concentration on a couple shots which cost me a clean competition. At the side matches I got to watch a fellow firing his Martini-Henry – very cool. The long range shooting .45-70 et cetera was at 220 yards – also very cool.

Rocky wrote:

I am sure that people fired from out of range. I am certain that the import was getting shot at is no fun and there are examples of units taking no hits but being routed from just being fired on. HOWEVER, I don't think that either "proves" anything.

Rocky:
I've read the above comments over several times and I am still not sure what you were trying to say, so I apologize if I respond off target.

My post to Billfan was simply to say that the evidence is fairly clear that Napoleonic troops did volley and skirmish at ranges greater than 150 yards. How often, why and how effective such practices were, I can't say with any certainty, so yes, that doesn't prove anything concerning casualty rates or general practices, etc.

To state the obvious, one of the major reasons for volley fire was the relative inaccuracy of smoothbore muskets. As DJ says, my target is regimental sized, then 12' left or right is good.

All we have is the historical records and what we can do with them. Any conclusions have to be in line with the evidence. I think that is one thing you were saying, and I agree.

Bill

Hi

Well, 12 feet left or right is fine, 12 feet long or short might not be.

I think we all know of examples where volleys had no observable effect, so that some commanders ordered volleys at 200 yards is to my mind likely just a psychological concept.

Remember, for the contention above, some are asserting that the armies of the world changing from muskets to rifle and then rifle using minie was a huge waste of money as they regularly "prove" that muskets are superior!

So, my stance is that they didn't spend money for fun, and as an owner/shooter I understand why rifle. My opinion isn't based on some myth, I don't work that way!

If you argue that no one could shoot, and thus the Bess without sights is superior to a 41 rifle, fine, but then I am confused as to the WHY everyone bought the rifle. As a shooter, even when I guess the range wrong, at least the round is going to hit close to where I aim.

Oh, and 45/70? I have shot mine to 1300 yds with effect. While the Springfield "fits", comes to shoulder for me and gives an instant sight picture, I must admit that the Remington rolling block I have with a creedmore barrel is a "tack driver" at any range. Shoots under 1moa! Not a practical military weapon though, weight and balance.

Rocky

Rocky,

You've mentioned the "going to ground" factor repeatedly in your arguments, and not to disagree with you, but I'd be interested to know if you think the same principle, literally speaking, applied during the Napoleonic Wars and if so, how ?

Jim

Hi

I don't know. The american thing is having read commanders discussing the idea of command and control with brigades with mixed units ranging from green to war weary.

I have not read that much in napoleonics to get into that level of thought. there is a romance in gamer minds with napoleon and I usually expect that some nappy fan boy will answer questions like this!

Back to the musket issue. I have read too many sources where while Oman or someone report a 200 yd volley, i took that as more a report of a remarkable event. More commonly, one reads of people waiting until 50 yards because of the problem of doing damage.

As I said, in conversation with Nafzanger some years ago at Origins, I was asking about reloads available for some unit, and he held that he didn't believe in multiple volleys!

With this we have the concept, oddly just like shooting canister or shrapnel, that the rounds fall at random on a shape described as the base of a cone. With a platoon at a company front, we have all sorts of period tests to identify hits on the 33man theoretical frontage. And, of course, no company is as "solid" as a white sheet, and their is the issue with estimating range. But assuming that the ability to "aim" is unchanged (even though muskets often do not have sights) the issue is simple. If the aim is wrong, missing is missing. If the range/aim is correct, the ellipse described by a musket means that on target, 3/4s of the rounds will be randomly high or low at 200 yards. The same aim with a rifle isn't having that massive cone base size and shape.

Rocky

Rocky:

Thanks for the clarifications. I am not suggesting that rifles weren't a better weapon than the smoothbore in both range and accuracy. Nor am I suggesting that inflicting casualties was the only reason to fire. I have read where Napoleonic officers recommended using vollies to goad the enemy into committing to fire combat as well as to create a smoke screen for units maneuvering behind the firing unit.

However, it is patently obvious from military treatises by military men including Scharnhorst, British, French and Russian officers, that 200-250 yards was considered the outside tactical range for a smoothbor musket, not 100 or 150 yards. Whether significant casualties were caused at that range, I don't know. Certainly there was great debate about the effectiveness of smoothbores in general and when and how to use them specficially.

It is also obvious that holding fire and engaging in firefights at much closer ranges were seen as a much more effective use of the weapon.

Nafzinger's insistance that only one or two volleys were used in battle doesn't hold up according to the accounts. It is clear that limiting volleys to one or two before charging was a tactic widely used by Napoleonic armies, particularly the British. But there were enough firefights of long duration [certainly longer than two volleys] to question George's conclusion or why after all the research he has done, he would insist on it.

Bill

Hi

I was puzzled as well! Again, I own these things and said a couple points about rate of tire, teaching friends to shoot them and so on, that I just did not hold with a lot of the conventions I read in various third hand sources about the problems of speed of volley and how many.

As for how far. Again, I observe that a difference happens when the armies switch from bow or crossbow to gun. Guns besides the casualties cause people to stop or sometimes just break without a lot of casualties. One doesn't see the sort of determined advance in the storm you get at, say, Agincourt when guns are the issue. similarly, the various discussions of how to volley, introduction, reduction, platoon, line all revolve around the psychological aspects.

So, I have no problem with the idea of firing at beyond real casualty range, but the results being psychological rather than physical.

Rocky