"6 shots to the minute" Topic
39 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please don't make fun of others' membernames.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the 18th Century Discussion Message Board Back to the Napoleonic Discussion Message Board
Areas of Interest18th Century Napoleonic
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Workbench Article
Featured Book Review
|
Gunfreak | 25 Dec 2013 1:05 p.m. PST |
Some Aussies test the Sharp myth of spittball and tap loading YouTube link I have not seen this techniqe in any history books about the Napoloeinc period, but Mark Urban mentions it in his book about the 23rd welch fuziliers. How the soldiers ran out of ammo, becasue the tap loaded and only had 25 rounds. |
vtsaogames | 25 Dec 2013 1:14 p.m. PST |
The usual load of cartridges during the Napoleonic wars was 40. This often sufficed for hours of fighting. If soldiers used the tap loading method steadily, 40 cartridges would last 7 minutes or so. One must also consider the amount of smoke generated by rapid fire. Troops would soon be firing into a large cloud with no aiming point. I would add that this method is for well-trained troops, like the Rifles. |
Sundance | 25 Dec 2013 1:56 p.m. PST |
Could a rifle, however, load that quickly? My understanding is that it was noticeably harder to load a rifle than a musket because of the rifling. |
MajorB | 25 Dec 2013 2:06 p.m. PST |
Could a rifle, however, load that quickly? My understanding is that it was noticeably harder to load a rifle than a musket because of the rifling. Normally, yes, But tap-loading made it almost as fast as a musket albeit with a certain loss of accuracy due to the absence of the patch. |
MajorB | 25 Dec 2013 2:30 p.m. PST |
"6 shots to the minute" Actually, having just watched the video, it's six shots in TWO minutes. And yes, it can be done! |
Cyclops | 25 Dec 2013 2:39 p.m. PST |
The hours of fighting would mainly be marching or standing around for a several hours and a few minutes of firing, so seven minutes of ammunition would be fine in most circumstances, with exceptions such as Hougmont. And as said above, the troops who could actually carry this out would be rare. Forty rounds would be twenty minutes of firing for most. |
Gunfreak | 25 Dec 2013 2:55 p.m. PST |
The usual load of cartridges during the Napoleonic wars was 40. This often sufficed for hours of fighting. If soldiers used the tap loading method steadily, 40 cartridges would last 7 minutes or so. I think I've read that most british in the peninsula had 60 rounds in the cartridge box and anywere from 30-80 more in the backpack. Plus sevral spare flints. But then the British did favor musketry more then most armies at the time. |
MajorB | 25 Dec 2013 3:59 p.m. PST |
If soldiers used the tap loading method steadily, 40 cartridges would last 7 minutes or so. Given a tap-loading rate of 6 shots in 2 minutes (as in the video clip), 40 rounds would last about 14 minutes. But then the British did favor musketry more then most armies at the time. They did? |
Major Snort | 25 Dec 2013 4:35 p.m. PST |
The most notable thing from this experiment is that there is still a reasonable degree of accuracy (for a musket) when using this method of loading when firing at 100 yards. There are a few period references that show British soldiers actually used this shortcut in action. Those from the Napoleonic era suggest that it was not common in the British army (but was standard for French skirmishers) and that it had a very detrimental effect on the lethality of the fire. |
14Bore | 25 Dec 2013 4:46 p.m. PST |
Watched it with a few other videos the other day, 6 shots in two minutes and with less velocity than a rammed ball. |
Ashenduke | 25 Dec 2013 5:31 p.m. PST |
Can someone point me to some of the specific historical references of it being used and what battle? |
jgibbons | 25 Dec 2013 6:45 p.m. PST |
I would be afraid the ball would not be seated on the powder
. |
ScottWashburn | 25 Dec 2013 7:43 p.m. PST |
Wow, once having had a blank charge cook off on me while loading (burning my eyebrows off) I'd be incredibly reluctant to lean over the muzzle and spit the ball into the barrel. A cook-off at that moment would be extremely awkward (and possibly fatal). Granted that cook-offs are going to be less likely when shooting live rounds, but still
|
Raynman | 25 Dec 2013 10:15 p.m. PST |
You should also notice that Sharpe started that timed shoot with a bullet already in the barrel. They only really timed 5 shots. At least that was what was written in the book. |
MajorB | 26 Dec 2013 2:48 a.m. PST |
I would be afraid the ball would not be seated on the powder
. Isn't that what the tapping action is for? |
Major Snort | 26 Dec 2013 3:22 a.m. PST |
Here are a couple of period references, both written about the Battle of Waterloo: This account by an anonymous officer of the 1st Regiment appeared in the United Service Journal in 1841 and suggests that while the British may have occasionally shortcutted the loading process, it was more of a French trait: Their (the French) fine, long, light firelocks, with a small bore, are more efficient for skirmishing than our abominably clumsy machine. The French soldiers, whipping in the cartridge, give the butt of the piece a jerk or two on the ground, which supercedes the use of the ramrod; and thus they fire twice for our once. I have occasionally seen our old hands do the same. This process is also noted by Cotton in his Voice from Waterloo, along with the detrimental effects that it had: Comparitively few of the enemy's cavalry were destroyed, even by our musketry. This might be attributed to many of our infantry, when hard pressed, adopting the French skirmishers' method of loading i.e. after priming, shakimg the rest of the powder into the barrel, dropping the ball after it, and then giving the butt a rap or two on the ground, which from the rain was quite soft. The ball, in consequence, not being rammed down to confine the powder, came out at times nearly harmless. Nobody mentions actually spitting the ball down the barrel, just that the cartridge was not rammed. In order for this process to work, the ball would almost certainly have had to be removed from the paper cartridge, rather than loading it still contained within the paper, which was the normal procedure. I have tried to jog paper ball cartridges, which were made as close as possible to original specifications, down the barrel of an original Brown Bess musket, and while the first one down a clean barrel might reach the powder, subsequent loads down a fouled barrel would not normally even go half way. With the ball removed and dropped in separately there was no problem in it reaching the powder, but obviously something that rolls in so easily will also roll out if the barrel is tilted even slightly downhill. Apart from the detrimental effects on velocity, this is a potentially dangerous practice. |
spontoon | 26 Dec 2013 7:20 a.m. PST |
I think Bernard Cornwell got things confused when writing his first Sharpe novel and hasn't found a way out of the hole yet. Spitting the ball into the muzzle of a musket would probably require more care than going through the prescribed loading drill, hence more time. Also it would involve biting the cartridge at the bullet end. A painful process if one is in a hurry! Much better to bite it at the powder end, softer end! Avoids lead poisoning, too! I don't think the process coudl be done at all with a rifled weapon. The ball would have to be substantially undersized to not engage the rifling. Therefore a sizeable gap could be established between ball and charge. Not a reccommended practice! I've done tap loads with both French and British style muskets and it's equally easy with both. Accuracy doesn't seem to suffer, but the " bang " is less satisfying when the powder isn't compacted well. That probably means the velocity is lower, which doesn't matter much when firing at wood or paper targets; but could be important when your ball bounces off the cuirrassier's breastplate! I've had 30+ years of re-enacting experience to try it and it's only advantage to me is that you're unlikely to send a rammer arcing across the field at your opponents. When I worked as a student at Fort George in Niagara-On-The-Lake, Ontario we were very well drilled and could easily do four rounds a minute with rammers. At least until the firelocks fouled up! I don't think Sharpe's riflemen actually tap load in the stories, just the redcoats from the South Essex. Maybe Harper! The only record I've ever seen of musket armed folks holding the ball in their mouth and spitting it down the barrel were Plains Indians when mounted, and they'd more than likely be using powder in a horn, and definitely not tap loading! All in all it think it's a literary device to emphasize Sharpe's veteran status and should not be taken seriously as a military practice. |
AICUSV | 26 Dec 2013 7:43 a.m. PST |
With any rifle using black powder, after a few rounds you have to use the rammer. Fouling can buildup quickly. I have fired smooth bore using the tap method and can see how the French were able to do it. The US weapons were base directly on the the French both being 69 cal. US rounds were made to 68 cal. this small difference allowed for the paper and some fouling. So by removing the shot from the paper the ball should fit all the way down the barrel. If this sizing difference was followed by the French as well, then it can be done. I've not read of US troops using this method, but the most common ammo issued to them was buck and ball. I too think that the use of the spit loading in the books was to make them appear cool. One thing that I have learned over the years that when dealing with the military, avoid anything that is cool. |
von Winterfeldt | 26 Dec 2013 8:10 a.m. PST |
try to spit a ball into a musket with fixed bayonet. Even tap loading, you have to peel the ball out of the paper, in case you leave it in the paper of the catridge it won't go down there by fouling the barrel is getting sticky at the interior. Moreover what use is a high rate of fire by missing targets, you need time to aim |
andygamer | 26 Dec 2013 12:08 p.m. PST |
If it was Harper doing it, it would have to be the tap-tap-tap-tap-tap-tap-tap method. |
MajorB | 26 Dec 2013 12:11 p.m. PST |
try to spit a ball into a musket with fixed bayonet. Well you wouldn't would you, that's just silly. Moreover what use is a high rate of fire by missing targets, you need time to aim A high rate of fire is not about hitting the target, it's about the morale effect on the enemy. |
Ron W DuBray | 26 Dec 2013 12:36 p.m. PST |
Sorry sir but he did aim and he was a very good shot at 100 yards he hit the massed target with all six shots. level shots 2 to 3 ft to the right with one over corrected 1 ft to the left and one low to the right. Sorry but you can't hit a single man sized target with a smooth bore gun at 100 yards more then 1 in 20 times, and even then its just luck. You have to fire a lot of rounds to powder foul a smooth bore. you can use a patched ball with the rod once every 25 shots (This cleans the tube) and not need the rod the rest of the time. I have done this for hours and hours and even have a rubber block as a tapping stump. You can do this same loading trick with mini balls in a rifle and hit the one man sized target at 100 yards but lead fouling is a problem, not the powder, after about 10 rounds and you need to run a cleaning brush down the tube to keep loading without using the rod. |
Gunfreak | 26 Dec 2013 1:05 p.m. PST |
You can hit a man sized target 9 out of 10 times at 100 yards with smooth bore, but you do not use paper cartridges. 1, you have experimented with the perfect amount of poweder, any more or less and it effects the accuracy. second you use greased leather balls. Sure no soldiiers did that during this period, those that fire with the weapons in modern times use this, and that way you can hit a small target most of the time. People do actualy have accuracy competions with smoth bores now, again, they use very exact weight of poweder, and greased leather ball.
|
Ron W DuBray | 26 Dec 2013 2:09 p.m. PST |
yea custom made modern ammo I can see that, but do it with a cast lead ball :)even with very exact weight of powder and the gun locked in a shooting Jig aimed with a laser,at 100yds the rounds are going to be all over the place. ( done this looks like a shotgun pattern made at 30 yards) Its just the way it works and why modern weapons all have rifling :) done with a rifle loaded with cast mini balls and you get a nice 3" hole where all the rounds hit the target at 200yds. This stuff was my missed spent youth ( shot the tubes out of more firearms then most people ever just shot)don't count the people that never fired one. |
14Bore | 26 Dec 2013 5:07 p.m. PST |
YouTube link 1050fps with rammed, 770fps with tap method. At close range either should do, the drop off at longer is were it should show the difference. |
number4 | 27 Dec 2013 9:00 p.m. PST |
This one has done the rounds before, but as an NRA qualified Range Officer, I personally would throw anyone foolish enough to put their face over a hot barrel off my firing point. As to the historical aspect, the Model 1800 Baker rifle fired an unduly charge for its weight yet the proportion of to lead was not such as to give high speed hence trajectory was high even over short ranges. It used an over size ball and the 95th Regiment soldier was obliged to carry a small wooden mallet and short iron loading stick to start the ball down the barrel before using the ramrod. A clean bore was hard to load, and on a dry day a used bore was almost impossible. Soldiers complained that they were to sacrifice bits of their scanty linen and amounts of saliva for cleaning purposes. If properly loaded and aimed the rifle was of hitting a man at 200 yards about 8 shots out of 10. But the rifle was rarely well aimed first because stock was so straight that only an abnormally necked man could readily use the rear sight, second because the recoil was so severe that the first shot a soldier was unlikely to take pains with the aim of succeeding shots. The Model 1802 Baker rifle an undersized ball provided with circular greased patch. This permitted mallet and loading stick to be discarded and increased the firing speed. The use of undersized ball (by omitting the patch) was possible in emergency, effectively turning the Baker rifle into a short musket. |
number4 | 27 Dec 2013 9:05 p.m. PST |
Sharpe & Co not withstanding, this is how the Baker rifle was used link "PLATOON EXERCISE FOR THE RIFLE The words of command for firing and loading are as follows: Caution – Prime and Load At which the flugelman steps in front. I. Prepare to Load 1st. Is the same as the first motion in the present. [The rifle is to be raised about two inches by the right hand, and brought forward a little from the shoulder, at the same time the left hand is brought briskly across the body, and seizes the rifle with a full grasp even with the shoulder.] 2d. The soldier half faces to the right, and in the motion brings down the rifle to an horizontal position just above the right hip, the left hand supports it at the swell of the stock, the elbow resting against the side, the right thumb against the hammer, the knuckles upwards, and elbow pressing against the butt, the lock inclining a little to the body to prevent the powder form falling out. II. Load 1st. The pan is pushed open by the right thumb; 2d. the right hand then seizes the cartridge with the three first fingers and draws it from the pouch; 3d. the cartridge is brought to the mouth, and placed between the two first right double teeth, the end twisted off and brought close to the pan. III. Prime. 1st. The priming is shaken into the pan; in doing which, to see that the powder is properly lodged, the head must be bent; 2d. the pan is sut by the third and little finger, the right hand then slides behind the cock, and holds the small part of the stock between the third and little finger and ball of the hand. IV. (Cast about) for brevity "'Bout." 1st. The soldier half faces to the left; the rifle is brought to the ground with the barrel outwards, by sliding it with care through the left hand, which then seizes it near the muzzle, the thumb stretched along the stock, the butt is placed between the heels, the barrel between the knees, which must be bent for that purpose; the cartridge is put into the barrel, and the ramrod seized with the fore finger and thumb of the right hand. V. Rod. The ramrod is drawn quite out by the right hand, the left quits the rifle and grasps the ramrod the breadth of a hand from the bottom, which is sunk one inch into the barrel. VI. Home. The cartridge will be forced down with both hands, the left then seizes the rifle about six inches from the muzzle, the soldier stands upright again, draws out the ramrod with the right hand, and puts the end into the pipe. VII. Return. 1st. The right hand brings the rifle to the right shoulder; turning the guard outwards; 2d. the left seizes it above the hammer-spring till the right has its proper hold round the small of the stock; 3d. the left is drawn quickly to the left thigh
.. To fire on the spot with closed ranks, the following words of command will be given: Caution – The Company will Fire. I. Company. At this word, the right hand file of each platoon takes three quick paces to the front, the rear rank man steps to the right of his file leader. II. Ready. At this word, the rifle is brought by the right hand before the centre of the body, the left seizes it, so that the little finger rests upon the hammer spring, and the thumb stretched along the stock raising it to the height of the mouth, the right thumb on the cock, and four fingers under the guard; when cocked, which must be done gently, the right hand grasps the small of the stock. III. Present. The soldier half faces to the right, the butt is placed in the hollow of the right shoulder, the right foot steps back about eighteen inches behind the left, the left knee is bent, the body brought well forward, the left hand, without having quitted its hold, supports the rifle close before the lock, the right elbow raised even with the shoulder, the fore finger on the trigger, the head bent, and cheek resting on that of the rifle, the left eye shut, the right taking aim through the sight: as soon as the rifleman has fixed upon his object, he fires without waiting for any command. When he has fired, the right hand quits its hold in facing to the right about, the left swings the rifle round into an horizontal position with the barrel downwards; the rifleman resumes his post in the platoon, in fronting to the left about, brings his rifle into the position to prime and load, half cocks, and proceeds to load, going through the motins as above without further words of command." |
MajorB | 28 Dec 2013 9:40 a.m. PST |
The Model 1802 Baker rifle an undersized ball provided with circular greased patch. This permitted mallet and loading stick to be discarded and increased the firing speed. The use of undersized ball (by omitting the patch) was possible in emergency, effectively turning the Baker rifle into a short musket. This is presumably the state of things in the Peninsular War then? Did anyone still use the 1800 Baker rifle in 1808? |
MajorB | 28 Dec 2013 9:41 a.m. PST |
Sharpe & Co not withstanding, this is how the Baker rifle was used Very useful information, thank you. But was it the ONLY way the Baker rifle was used? |
ratisbon | 28 Dec 2013 12:44 p.m. PST |
The standard cartridge box for most nations held 40 rounds but the French and British would stuff an additional 20 rounds in their pockets, for 60. With other armies it wasn't so clear, though all entered battles with 40 rounds. All French batteries were supposed to have a caisson for infantry cartridges, so theoretically resupply was within quick reach. Most likely other nations used the same method of resupply. Muskets averaged about one misfire every 8 to 10 rounds caused by various things including flash in pans, and incorrectly seated powder, such as when soldiers tapped. Easy enough to identify if firing whilst alone. Not so easy when in close order surrounded by the smoke and noise of hundreds of muskets much less the screams of men who just spewed their guts all over you. So if you fail to identify a misfire you double or triple load when the musket does fire
boomsy-daisy! Then there's the flint which has to be replaced every 15 rounds or so. I use "or so" because flint wear is not a science and replacement could be necessary on a more frequent basis. Of course when one is tapping and firing, either on purpose or because you shot your rammer, even if you don't double or triple load by mistake the barrel will become so hot it will cook off the powder as it is poured down the muzzle. The remedy is to pour water or urinate on the barrel to cool it down. In any event, if not gingerly handled (slowing the ROF) the overheated barrel will burn fingers causing blisters also slowing the ROF. All things considered 2 rounds per minute, 3 considering a pre loaded musket, is much more realistic than some fool on YouTube blazing away at 5/6 rounds per minute. Bob Coggins |
John Miller | 28 Dec 2013 2:11 p.m. PST |
I am in no way as knowledgable or expert as most of the above contributers to this conversation, however I can't comprehend how anyone could get off six shots a minute with any flintlock, rifle or musket, using any method, under actual combat conditions, (as described most ably by ratisbon, above). Using every trick I know loading flintlocks, (not claimimg to know them all, or even most), I was lucky to achieve the 8 or 10 rounds without a misfire that ratisbon mentions. John Miller |
Major Snort | 28 Dec 2013 3:16 p.m. PST |
With the greatest respect to other contributors here, I think some of the information provided needs some clarification. Regarding the group from Australia, although I don't know any of them, and their experiments are not made with health and safety as the prime concern, they cannot be classed as idiots and have a good knowledge of British arms of this period. Regarding the Baker Infantry Rifle, there were three variants in this era. The first was of musket bore and produced in such small numbers that it can be disregarded. The second was the pattern of 1800 which was of carbine bore, nominally 0.625", and was the standard weapon issued to the riflemen. The third was the pattern of 1805, which was exactly the same calibre and was undoubtably issued to some units at some point. The only real difference between the two carbine bore versions was that the patch box of the earlier model had a circular compartment for patches and a smaller square compartment for cleaning tools, whereas the later model had a single large oblong compartment. It is thought that this change indicates that seperate patches and loose balls were to be phased out. It is sometimes claimed that the stocks on the later model were straighter, and this might be true, but it would be necessary to compare many examples to be sure about this. Oversized ammunition was never issued for these rifles. The ball was always less than bore diameter, with the difference taken up by either cloth, paper or both. Up to around 1810 loose balls and patches were issued alongside paper ball cartridges with the loose balls and patches intended for sharpshooting. Baker considered that the wooden starter mallet was not necessary at all, and the 95th did not use it, but the 60th were still requesting them in 1809. After around 1809-10, it seems that all ammunition was issued in cartridge form, either with or without a patch pre-wrapped around the ball. One of the main reasons for this change was the danger of loading loose powder from a flask in action. Just after the wars, the artillery complained about having these two forms of cartridge ammunition, some of which was preferred by some battalions and some by others, and suggested that the battalion commanders should be consulted to determine the best type in order to simplify logistics. Regarding shooting the rifle, the recoil is not a problem if you are happy with shooting military weapons of this era with full military charges, even with the straighter stocked examples. Nor is it difficult to aim the straighter stocked examples. Regarding accuracy, from the period references that are available: Recorded target practice sessions from the 95th regiment indicate that 32% of shots hit a target measuring 6 feet by 2 feet at was was almost certainly a range of 200 yards. Similar records show that rifle companies of the East India Company achieved a hit rate of 24% at the same range on a similar target. The Baker is not really an accurate rifle, the main reasons being the very slow twist rate and the very deep grooves which are difficult to seal with the patch material. |
Major Snort | 28 Dec 2013 3:42 p.m. PST |
Regarding British muskets and musketry, the following information is taken from period sources. The records of the East India Company show that infantry hit a target measuring 6 feet by 2 feet with 24% of their shots at 100 yards, falling to 8% at 200 yards. Although this has little relation to battlefield accuracy, this is the average of many thousands of rounds fired, so illustrates the maximum capability of the musket in the hands of soldiers who fired around 30 live rounds per year with properly loaded military ammunition. This standard ammunition consisted of a 0.685 ball still wrapped in paper fired out of a musket with a bore of around 0.76" which was the only practical ammunition for easy loading and sustained firing. Modern target shooting loads are not applicable to period military muskets. Regarding British rate of fire, several trials are recorded, all of which indicate a maximum rate of fire of around 3 rounds per minute, with notes that this could not be expected from troops in formation, nor was it desirable, and a slow deliberate fire would be more effective. |
number4 | 28 Dec 2013 4:11 p.m. PST |
Very useful information, thank you. But was it the ONLY way the Baker rifle was used? Of course not, but it is the way the soldiers were trained to use it; when circumstance permitted, they made use of what cover was available – like all skirmishers. That said, this drill was a LOT closer to actual combat practice than the antics of Sean Bean and his crew, ditty bopping as if they were in Basrah or South Armagh. The X rounds a minute is a meaningless debate anyway as it completely ignores the reality of 18th century linear warfare. The job of the musket armed infantryman is to take and hold ground at the point of the bayonet: most of the killing is done by artillery (hence battalion guns and the later grand batteries). The musket was longer than it needed to be, not for increased accuracy but to mount a bayonet beyond the reach of a mounted man with a saber. Winning the firefight is a modern concept that was unthinkable and impossible to the 18th century commander – the musket with it's maximum effective range under a hundred yards just isn't up to the job. So much emphasis is placed on the first volley because if you've ever seen four hundred muskets all go off at once, you'll see that after that, they are fighting in a fog. Remember that your target is only 100 yards away, and now they're mad at you. They can close that 100 yards in under a minute – if they're on horseback, it's just a few seconds. You're going to be lucky to get a second volley off, never mind six, eight or ten shots
And the job of a rifleman is to fire deliberate, single, aimed shots, not rapid fire anyway. " In battle, the Redcoats usually sought a quick decision. They preferred to close to within 75 yards of the enemy, fire a volley, and then charge with the bayonet. These tactics brought them victory more often than not." (source: With Zeal and with Bayonets Only, Prof. Gregory J. W. Urwin) |
spontoon | 28 Dec 2013 7:54 p.m. PST |
@ Major Snort and Number4; Very reasoned and well supported arguments. I concur, heartily! |
Gunfreak | 29 Dec 2013 6:58 a.m. PST |
I don't agree number4. While it is true that arty did 60-80% of castualties in the major battles, that still leaves 20-40% killed or wounded mostly by musketry. And in smaller battles on the continent or in the penisula were artillery was fewer, musketry probebly did the reverse with 60-80% from muskets and 20-40% from artilery. And in the smaller battles on campaign you often did only have 1-2 batteries, while you had thousands of troops. Again msuketry would do more damage. And firefights did happen, and it was a bad thing, when close range firefights did happen it often lead to the enialation of both units, as they would be 30-40 yards just fireing and loading into the smoke, untill one side was all dead or it had run away. And during the 7YW again much less artillery, less mobile artillery, better musketry traing, led to most of the killed and wounded came from muskterty.
|
teper1961 | 29 Dec 2013 7:14 a.m. PST |
Maybe I've missed something. Sharpes Eagle was the episode. Sharpe was asked 'what makes a good soldier?' and replied ' the ability fire 3 shots a minute'. The reply was 'ha! the South East Essex could only fire 2 and on a good day. (the French 3 shots per minute). Sharpe was given until sunset to achieve this and anyone who didn't would be flogged. Watching the video towards the end, ensign Denny says '3 shots and 10 seconds to spare'. Then the camera turns to Dobbs (one of the light Company who had been flogged the day before). Sharpe then counts down the last 10 seconds as Dobbs fires his last (4th) ball. Denny then says ' 4 shots to the minute sir!' at which point Dobbs collapses. So the challenge should surely be can they get off 4 shots per minute? not 6 shots in 2 minutes. |
MajorB | 29 Dec 2013 8:25 a.m. PST |
All things considered 2 rounds per minute, 3 considering a pre loaded musket, is much more realistic than some fool on YouTube blazing away at 5/6 rounds per minute.Bob Coggins Agreed. Even in the video clip posted by the OP, they were only shooting 6 rounds in TWO minutes. |
number4 | 29 Dec 2013 9:31 p.m. PST |
20-40% killed or wounded mostly by musketry How much is 'mostly'? Please provide a source. Considering that cannon out ranged the musket, could fire at least as fast and when firing canister, used the same size shot, I would be fascinated to know how this figure was arrived at. This discussion is somewhat handicapped by being crossposted across two boards covering different eras where tactics and to a certain extent technology evolved significantly; the battlefields of Marlborough and Frederick the Great were different from those of Napoleon. To speak of fewer batteries is erroneous, as in the 18th century, a battery was a field fortification, not a military unit. Armies had a Park of Artillery which comprised the less mobile battering pieces and mortars, but they also had regimental artillery – light battalion pieces designed to move with and support the infantry. You won't see them on army lists but they were there, and in large numbers too – normally a pair of 3,4 or Light 6 pdr guns to each battalion: "The two guns attached to the flank battalion did infinite execution among the French infantry as they retreated; having got command of a certain spot over which the enemy must pass, they cut them down by platoons at a time" PDF link They fell out of favor at the beginning of the 19th century with the formation of dedicated, mobile gun (especially horse artillery) batteries used en masse, but the French captured so many light cannon from the Austrians and Prussians in the early years that Napoleon continued to distribute them to his infantry regiments. Most of not all were lost in the 1812 Russian campaign. link |
|