"Prussian shooters" Topic

With the August 2015 deadline for our mega game of Ligny looming, 87) , I'm looking at a further tweak of the rules, this time effecting rifle-armed Prussians.

As you know, unlike the French, the Prussians had units of rifle-armed skirmishers: notably Schutzen & Jager. These will be fielded though I'll probably not use rifle-armed companies of Volunteer Jager. I understand that the rifle of the time was, n many ways, a superior weapon to the musket but I do not want an ahistorical situation where Prussian shooters are the equivalent of SAS troops armed with assault rifles.

Our venerable & much loved rule set, ELAN, allows a die per 2 figure stand of skirmishers to determine shooting casualties.

If musket armed, a steady stand hits @ 50mm on a '5-6' & @ 100mm 0n a '6'. Steady rifles hit up to a 100mm on a '5-6'. etc. Also superior are targets from 100mm to 200mm where a musket is unable to hit whereas a rifle can on a '6'.

Note: a mm roughly equals a metre.

This is OK IMO but there is where it ends. There are no penalties for the slower rate of rifle fire. I am considering that if rifle armed units fire on consecutive turns, their hits are calculated on the musket table to represent tap-loaded rifles. I think a limitation of some sort is needed to better capture the historical reality.

Comments?

In Shako 2, rifle armed skirmish stands can fire 12" rather than the 9" a regular musket armed stand can fore.
Only if it stands still for the turn.
Otherwise it is just the same, if it moves and in all other respects.

Under the time scale (30 to 45 min's per turn), I think rifles aren't really over-rated in Elan, mate. The problem comes when people don't use them as they were historically, and every rifle-armed figure is put in the skirmish line. In fact the 1/2 battalion attached to a brigade operated with one platoon on the firing line, one platoon ~100m behind them as supports, and the remaining two platoons 150+m behind them, formed in two ranks, as a support/rally point.

In game terms it's simple- they can't deploy more than 1 stand in four as skirmishers, with the others staying formed up. You could also limit the Fusilier battalions and French skirmishers, as well, allowing no more than 1/3 of a battalion to actually go into skirmish order.

Cheers.

Dal.

Thanks, Dal.
That's what we do as per the rules. All Skirmish infantry need a formed support stand (the command stand) to their rear & we cap their numbers: 12-14 figures as per the line & Guard battalions of 14-16.

One day you'll have to drop by for a game. In spite of about a page of "tweaks" it's the same ELAN you know so well.

Where the rules will allow you to deploy 8 figures and keep 4 formed as the command stand, for Prussian rifles it should be one stand out and the others formed. Most gamers deploy them like the 5/60th in the Peninsula, though.

I wouldn't mind that, mate, but it's a bit of a hike from the NSW south coast. We've got a good group down here, though, should you ever wander down for a different view of surf and sand. :-) Though we're not doing too much with Napoleonics at the mo', just some skirmish games and a bit of experimentation with Pete Sullivan.

Or if you ever get down to the farm, we could mix gaming with shooting a replica Prussian musket at a termite mound.

Cheers.

Dal.

Dal, what did the termite mound ever do to you? 87)

Such a trip may be possible. Keep in touch.

Hi Guys !

Nice to see you both here again!

Re. rifles: I added just a few lines to my own rules a few years back now… goes like this:

"Rifle-armed skirmishers:

Ranges for rifle-armed skirmishers are as follows:
6 centimetres is short range and 12 centimetres is long range.
There is a -1 modifier against enemy smoothbore musket skirmishers if they are within 4 centimetres range."

So the advantage to rifle-armed is range + skill level (they tend, in general, to be rated higher than line battalion light company troops).

After all, the thing to do if out-ranged is to close quickly and with all things considered smoothbores are probably at evens with rifle armed at close range – this makes the rifle-armed much less formidable.

one realy must consider two points

rifles loaded with patched ball and indivdual powder measurment plus special priming powder (very fine) – long loading time but very accurate.

in pitched battles this practise seemingly was not that much in vogue any longer and a lot of rifle units used prefabricated cartridges which could be loaded without hammering the ball into the nozzle of the barrel – accurary – not that much better than a carabine, but being in the hand of trained marksmen – seemingly efficient.

Also – some nations used a mix of smoothbore armed "shooters" along with rifle armed "shooters" – so that each of them could be used whatever the tactical situation demanded (Austrian Jäger for example)

@ MC

Nice to see you both here again!

Well thank you but I never really left. I just kept my head down but most of the Napoleon-Warriors seem to have left, so it's safe now.

As for Dal, I think he's just been quiet, too, until my string of most excellent questions on the Prussians caught his attention.

I agree with your tactics. Artillery fire is mostly useless. A charge by light cavalry is the most effective but you don't want to run the risk of damaging such a precious unit for skirmishers. If possible, I charge them with my light infantry, force them to evade back to their supports & then shoot them up. Poetic justice.

@ HK

the hand of trained marksmen

Interesting information. I would imagine the 1815 Prussian Jagers, Schutzen & Volunteer Jagers were all, more or less, trained marksmen.

Actualy little known fact, prussian jegers, were armed with phasers, The battle of leipzig was actualy 40 prussian jegers vs 320 000 french and allies.

100% of the french died, including Napoleon, the prussians had one man with a slight stomach ache because he didn't cook the pork enough.

But we don't learn about that in the history books, no no, they invented this whole abdication and waterloo just to make the british look better, but the Napoleonic wars ended at leipzig when Ensign Worf vaprorised Napoleon.

On a more real note, I only know about the British rifles.
They had leather patched rounds, in diffrent sizes(as the barrle got chocked with poweder redidue. )

But they also had even small balls that turned them into shortis muskets. There were sevral close range firefights when the rifles came out on the winning side, so no evidence that the rifles fired any slower then muskets.

Scharnhorst did extended tests of rifles vs smoothbore musket tests.

He found that out to about 150 yards muskets and rifles put as many shots in the target… muskets could fire twice as fast as rifles. Once the range increased to 200-250 yards, rifles were superior.

The bottom line is that rifle-armed troops could do about as much damage as smoothbore muskets over time with half the number of shots… and 100-150 yards longer effective range.

Scharnhorst actually contemplated arming all troops with rifles… save on ammo with the same hit ratio… but it was far too expensive a weapon.

there is a tremdous article in

Zeitschrift für Kunst, Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Krieges

Sechstes Heft 1828

pp. 227 which disusses the whole subject in great detail and puts forward interesting conclusions.

These are mine and not from the above article – the rifle is only superior in hitting when it was loaded with a patched ball – otherwise also the rifled armed soldier is superiorin hitting – there he was trained to hit and also due to his usual skirmishing tactics he could exploit the potential of the rifle much better than infantry fighting in rank and file.
Even when loading with a cartridge he would hit with more accurary with his rifle (acting as a carabine) than a usual infantryman with a musket

the three basics to take into account

training of soldier
tactics
armament

all three have to be seen as entity there the performance of the soldier would depend on it.

Yep, I noticed that some members had either "gone to ground", or were "missing" …and things have quietened down just recently – at least on the threads I`ve read or participated.
Anyways, a useful reminder to me that I might need to incorporate a few odd points properly in to my rules… not a major re-write, just a few notes.

McLaddie got to it before I did about Scharnhorst's tests. This simplifies things from a wargamer's perspective. The extra expense and training required for rifle-armed troops will not worry the wargamer as it might have done Napoleon.

The rifle has extra range, but is equal to the musket at shorter range. Also rifle armed troops should run out of ammunition less quickly. Their extra training will make them less likely to waste ammunition in the way of inexperienced troops anyway. Whether that is worth reflecting in wargames rules is another matter – depends on the time intervals represented.

I might need to incorporate a few odd points properly in to my rules… not a major re-write, just a few notes.

Exactly. I do tend to read something & want to leap out & bolt on a few more amendments but , especially for a mega-game, simpler is better.

You can't footle too much with rules for two battalions when you're wargaming Ligny with 2000+ figures.

Seems like this point about rifle skirmishers was just one thing that got missed… perhaps I was distracted by something or other at the time?
I`ll probably wrap up all the additions and suggestions made regarding the rules over the years and make them available as a free download at the GM website.

Ochoin

Dal, what did the termite mound ever do to you? 87)

They built me a very nice target, mate. I'd hate to disappoint them by not using it. It also assists the queen by keeping her subjects busy with renno's and repairs:

I would imagine the 1815 Prussian Jagers, Schutzen & Volunteer Jagers were all, more or less, trained marksmen.

While the volunteers were probably experienced hunters, they probably hadn't been properly trained to shoot and also had to learn how to skirmish effectively. People who "know how to shoot" can be an absolute pain to try to teach shooting techniques. They've usually embedded some quite bad habits, are less willing to listen and, often, believe that zeroing is a waste of time (not applicable to Napoleonics, true). Young middle-and-upper-class lads who already "know it all", and who know they're in line for early promotion, would be about as bad a squad as I think would need to be trained. So in game terms the VJ's would be a class lower than the regular riflemen, due to inexperience and a lack of training (or paying attention to training) for 1815.

MC

Nice to see you both here again!

It was accidental, mate. I was looking for the gents'.

Doing chores for the missus, uniform plates for Kronoskaf and WWI 1/32 aircraft keep me busy these days, though the occasional Prussian topic catches my eye here.

Cheers.

Dal.

G'Day Gents

The average soldier during the Napoleonic era fired less rounds in training in a year than a modern reservist in one day. With this said, it is the shooter behind the weapon system that makes the difference.

The Napoleonic Soldier was trained, but they they did not possess the full set of skills we do (supposed to have) today, and without mastering the basics, everyone will miss the target.

Therefore the effectiveness of the trained soldier with a musket and rifle should be the same at a certain distance, with a marginal difference up to about 20 meters…and missing with both after that. This is increased by uncorrected vision problems.

I only give skirmishers in the supported position with rifles a slight bonus up to 100 meters like in the 1824 Kriegsspiel.

Best Regards
Art

"Young middle-and-upper-class lads who already "know it all", and who know they're in line for early promotion, would be about as bad a squad as I think would need to be trained"

I resemble that remark. (But it was the Navy, so maybe not so bad).
Dal, you must have been one h*ll of a great soldier and small unit leader. I bet I would have learned how to behave if I had been assigned to your squad.

- Sasha

G'Day Dal and Alexandre

I think that Helicopter Pilots beat everyone…especially when trying to teach them a simple Bowline Knot for their survival skills ;-)

Never did I see a group of men respond with…'do you know how to do this on a helicopter'…so many times during their training… ;-)

Best Regards
Art

It is all much more complex, recently I just was reading around and stumbled about an article in the Beiheft zum Militärwochenblatt – about Freiwilige Jäger, I was quite surprised to read for example how much a Landwehr Jäger outfit was trained to shot.

Usually Jäger (not only Prussian ones) and in some cases light infantry units g(Hessian, for example) got a much better training for hitting than the ordinary infantry man, they were trained to shoot on targets, on moving targets, etc., the training was much more sophisticated than most of us believe, they weren't dumb idiots but state of the art soldiers in may cases, true professionals

It is not only the shoter behind the weapon but also the tactics which exploit a fire arm, and rank and file firing was detrimental to that – compared to skirmishing.

The Jäger were brilliant in my view, full of enthusiasm and won't let themselves being treaded like merde of spit and polish officers – in case – as good leader you know how to exploit such motivation, those troops are second to none In combat and maybe not on parade).

G'Day Hans Karl,

I think that the Swiss Chasseurs from the Cantons of Bern, were perhaps the best trained prior and during the Napoleonic era, and they used moving targets as well…

-but that is strictly my opinion.

Your statement that we do not find their training sophisticated for their era is a broad sweeping statement…and wrong.

There were indeed some units that used complex training aids and techniques…but its takes more than that…and no one suggested they were dumb idiots…

I think that Dal has articulated it very well.

Best Regards
Art

This is a great thread. Thanks everyone for contributing.
Can I add the issue of social class into this discussion? The giving and receiving of orders to inferiors and superiors?
We don t get much of this in fairly classless societies such as modern Australia or Scotland but outside of the more egalitarian French, I think this might have been an issue?
Who officered the volunteer jäger? Did their NCOs come from their class?
I think this might have made a difference to their willingness to accept instruction and orders.

Art, good to see you here, mate! How's the missus and kids- SWMBO still trying to get you to run marathons?
Are you a grandfather yet?

Agree with what you say to a point. However specialists, such as trained skirmishers and riflemen, got a lot more ammo' and had marksmanship training appropriate to the existing technology (as H-K's diagram shows). One of the reasons was financial- why spend the money on expensive rifles if you're not going to get full use from them?

I think that Helicopter Pilots beat everyone

Any pilot, mate. The worst ones I had to teach were a bunch of assorted fliers (RAAF, Army and RAN) on some sort of aircrew course. They refused to listen to anybody who didn't have buzzard's wings on their uniforms. That didn't stop them screaming and carrying on when most of them failed the weapons qualifications.

Nearly as bad- junior officers (especially if they were fresh out of OCS, RMC or ADFA), NSW police SWAT teams (heads well and truly up their….) and Special Forces- especially the ARes mob.

Sasha

I resemble that remark. (But it was the Navy, so maybe not so bad).

It could have been worse, mate. At least you weren't air force.

Dal, you must have been one h*ll of a great soldier and small unit leader.

Thanks for the compliment, but I was (hopefully) just average, Sasha. I was a reasonable shot and always chosen for my unit rifle teams (when they had them), so I believe I have a better than average grasp of what it takes to be a good shot. It also meant I got to do more than my fair share of weapons instruction (along with the other members of the team), and spent more time on the range. So it had several advantages.

HK, that's a brilliant diagram, mate. Though the point of aim on the figure target is rather nasty. I was always taught to aim a little higher than that.

The Jäger were brilliant in my view, full of enthusiasm and won't let themselves being treaded like merde of spit and polish officers

Agreed. However, to use their enthusiasm to the fullest they would need to be trained to work together, to work with skirmishers from other units and to use the weapons to their full extent. No matter how enthusiastic and naturally skilled someone is, they still need some training- even if it's just enough so they can tell friend and foe apart.

ochoin

Can I add the issue of social class into this discussion? The giving and receiving of orders to inferiors and superiors?
We don't get much of this in fairly classless societies such as modern Australia or Scotland

Yer reckon? You've never had to put a squad of MAJ and LTCOL through their annual weapons qual's as a SGT, mate. Or tried to explain to a SWAT SGT 1st Class that he is closing his eyes when he fires his weapon when you're just an army LCPL. Or tried to explain to an engineer why her vehicle installation has to be changed, when" You're only a technician, what do you know?".

Class divisions are there, mate, especially for those who like to think they're a cut above the rest. They're more job and post-code based than birth based, that's all. But that's why we have an index and middle finger- so we can communicate appropriately with such individuals. Not a good idea when in uniform, regardless what your hind-brain thinks at the time……

I believe the FJ NCO's came from the FJ ranks themselves (elected?), but the officers were appointed. HK or Oli can answer this.

Cheers.

Dal.