Help support TMP


"The Aim of British Soldiers" Topic


56 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.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Napoleonic Media Message Board

Back to the American Revolution Message Board

Back to the 18th Century Discussion Message Board



2,462 hits since 30 Oct 2015
©1994-2017 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Pages: 1 2 

Tango0130 Oct 2015 12:21 p.m. PST

"Myth:

British soldiers were taught not to aim, but merely to point the piece towards the target

…the British soldier was a poor marksman. Actually, he did not "aim" his musket but merely "pointed" it at the enemy. The British manual of arms did not even include the command "Aim!"

Its inaccuracy was reflected in the British manual of arms. There was no command to "aim." Instead, men were ordered to "level muskets" before firing…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

historygamer30 Oct 2015 4:28 p.m. PST

No such command as level muskets. Present.

Andrew Preziosi Supporting Member of TMP30 Oct 2015 5:15 p.m. PST

Presently, we're doing our level best to aim our muskets.

Our aim is to present our muskets in a level fashion.

We do our level best when we present our aimed muskets.

Those muskets presently aimed are on the level.

If I could be on the level with you, we'll be aiming our muskets presently.

377CSG30 Oct 2015 6:28 p.m. PST

Level the playing field – aim high (U.S. Air Force)

von Winterfeldt31 Oct 2015 12:06 a.m. PST

nobody took aim when firing in rank and file and volley firing, here an Austrian observation :

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."

A different thing for skirmishers though

Supercilius Maximus31 Oct 2015 2:18 a.m. PST

Not only did the "broomstick-up-the-whazoo" Redcoats aim, they even skirmished at the same time: Barker's journal refers to "marksmen" being called out from the battalions of Percy's relief column to suppress enemy snipers whilst Smith's and Pitcairn's exhausted flank company men took some time out on Lexington village green.

It's not hard to see why the myth of British troops not aiming has evolved – it is a very convenient and comfortable juxtaposition with the equally dubious idea of their opponents all being eagle-eyed marksmen.

42flanker31 Oct 2015 3:21 a.m. PST

No such command as level muskets. Present.

I suspect that the reference to 'men being ordered to "level muskets"' may be a description of the action rather than the specific command.

It's not hard to see why the myth of British troops not aiming has evolved – it is a very convenient and comfortable juxtaposition with the equally dubious idea of their opponents all being eagle-eyed marksmen.

The myth that will not die, There is an amusing exchange on this very point betwenn Don Hagist and a reader in the comments section of the article. Ouch!

Winston Smith Supporting Member of TMP31 Oct 2015 5:03 a.m. PST

If you read the article Armand linked to, it seems that the British did indeed aim.
His allotted three paragraph quote is rather misleading in that regard.

I find it interesting that my contention that the peace time Boston garrison was not well trained is somewhat correct. The more well trained units could and did shake out "marksmen" to counter the equally mythical hordes of Yankee citizen sharpshooters.

I have always found the myth about the British not aiming rather silly and counter intuitive.

FlyXwire31 Oct 2015 6:20 a.m. PST

This allows me to ask a question that's been lingering on my mind – between the accuracy of including oblique fire allowances in game rules, and whether this was commonly achieved on the battlefield, or able to be efficiently ordered during an exchange of volley fire between opposing battle lines……(you can probably read into my wording here that I'm trying to narrow this question to the specific exchange of volley fire between formed lines, and not from skirmishing) -

In many linear warfare rules, there's often an arc of fire allowance for aiming at enemy units off from the frontal aspect of a firing formed line – is this accurate compared to 1) text book drill 2) if 1) is yes, to orders that can be efficiently executed during the heat of battle (that is the re-directing of fire from front, to a different enemy unit left or right from what was the on-going volleying), and/or 3) the possibility to redirect a line's fire left or right once smoke from successive exchanges of fire might begin to obscure the battlefield?

Might these allowances for oblique fire be a little too generous compared to the difficulty of actually executing such a command under battlefield conditions?

Personal logo ochoin Supporting Member of TMP31 Oct 2015 6:34 a.m. PST

The aim of British soldiers was to defeat their enemies.

Which they largely did from Blenheim to the Falklands.

Cerdic Supporting Member of TMP31 Oct 2015 7:19 a.m. PST

FlyXwire…

I think you are right to be dubious about a line having an 'arc' of fire. An average battalion in line would be about 150 yards long. The effective range of muskets was about 150 yards. So if a soldier at one end of the line fired sideways his shot would only get to the other end of his own line.

For a line to fire at an angle the enemy would have to be very close!

I have read a lot of letters, diarys, memoirs, etc by soldiers who fought in the Napoleonic wars and as far as I can remember they always talk about what was happening in front of them rather than off to the side!

FlyXwire31 Oct 2015 7:26 a.m. PST

Cerdic, could you also post your reply in this thread (which I've just started for the discussion)?

TMP link

Much appreciated, and TY for your reply!

spontoon31 Oct 2015 10:31 a.m. PST

It's hard to aim Brown Bess with no rear sight!

rmaker31 Oct 2015 10:58 a.m. PST

It's hard to aim Brown Bess with no rear sight!

That old chestnut! Obviously you've never been upland game (grouse, pheasant, rabbit, etc.) hunting with a shotgun. A rear sight is NOT necessary for aiming!

42flanker31 Oct 2015 3:29 p.m. PST

It's hard to aim Brown Bess with no rear sight!

That question is dealt with in the article

von Winterfeldt01 Nov 2015 5:30 a.m. PST

it is sufficient to point, the Brown Bess doesn't even have a front sight when you have fixed bayonets.
aiming in technical sense as we understand it – no – but reading contemporary sources one will very often encounter the word aim – in context with flintlock muskets which did leack rear and front sight, or just had front sights only.

I agree with Cedric, in battle most of the soldiers would should straight and not oblique, there was already a long discussion on TMP on this subject

Queen Catherine01 Nov 2015 1:07 p.m. PST

The aim of British soldiers then was the same of British soldiers now: clothing, shelter, pints, and pretties.

Things haven't changed much.

Oh, as for shooting… the purpose of firepower in the period was to use mass fire. For that, you really don't need to "aim".

Queen Catherine01 Nov 2015 1:12 p.m. PST

I agree with flyXwire, they didn't shoot oblique.

Oblique shooting as a game mechanism is necessitated by the freedom with which the 1000' tall general known as "the gamer" gets to try and move his unit with a ruler and stay exactly 1/32" out of the 12" range of the shooter.

So as a rule mechanism, you need it unless you've something going on to counter-act the other problem!

42flanker02 Nov 2015 1:08 a.m. PST

for those too busy to read the OP article; closing paragraph reads:

"Of course, this doesn't mean that every soldier was a great marksman, or that in the pressure and confusion of battle every soldier aimed carefully. There are even comments about soldiers who appeared not to aim at all.[11] But it is clear that the importance of aiming was recognized, taught and practiced in Britain's professional army – which should really come as no surprise. With many years of experience and experimentation in tactics and battlefield procedures, these career soldiers had figured out that firearms were more effective if aimed than if not. Why do people believe that they didn't aim? That remains a mystery."

Just saying.

FlyXwire02 Nov 2015 7:03 a.m. PST

Does this article's premise rest primarily on what aiming means to the person reading it?

I believe I've read that British light infantry received "markmans" training beyond that given to the hat companies, because they would be operating as skirmishers in N. America (can someone confirm this). Ferguson's rifles required extra training to utilize that greater precision and to generate optimum rate of fire offered by the weapon.

As many have already mentioned, the Brown Bess was not such a precision weapon, so would pointing, and adjusting elevation for range when firing beyond "point blank" qualify as aiming – sure, but, there's a difference between the accuracy achieved by a skilled musketeer and that capable from a skilled rifleman (a trained riflemen drawn from any army of the time).

(actually don't think this article provides anything new, other than perhaps allowing for a "skew" to linger, that's based on an unspecified definition of what aiming might mean with a musket, and that age-old battle over sniping American [riflemen – not musket-armed troops], and their ability to pick off musket-armed troops, or worse their officers, which obviously occured)

Personal logo capncarp Supporting Member of TMP02 Nov 2015 7:17 a.m. PST

Secondary question:
to what degree were British soldiers aiming? That is, somewhere at the mass of enemy before them, or at a specific figure within the grouping?

Queen Catherine02 Nov 2015 8:31 a.m. PST

They used the crosshairs of the telescopic sight to aim for center of the brass button on the chest. Always the best spot.

Seriously, I'd say that they were encouraged to "point low" since overhead fire is a total miss, while a short shot may still bounce into someone or kick up rocks and dirt that hurts, also. So I lean towards shooting at the feet of the enemy line before you.

FlyXwire02 Nov 2015 9:55 a.m. PST

Not to mention the whole issue of musket accuracy and comparisons between the field forces might get complicated by the use [or not] of buck & ball during the AWI:

TMP link

Seriously though, I've also heard some AWI enthusiast prefer 15mm lead to 25mm, or even 28s, and vice versa – now there's a controversy to partake!

42flanker02 Nov 2015 2:44 p.m. PST

Does this article's premise rest primarily on what aiming means to the person reading it?

If you mean being reasonably conversant with Standard English, it probably helps-

"I saw a Regiment & the Body of marines, each by itself, firing at marks. A Target being set up before each company, the soldier of the regiment stept out singly, took aim & fired.."

spontoon02 Nov 2015 6:22 p.m. PST

Nope, never hunted with a shotgun, except for pike! But shooting with small-shot is an altogether different thing from firing smoothbore ball! Even the French muskets had a front blade sight but no rear sight. From experience I can tell you the French muskets shoot better.

Yeah, you can only really fire obliquely to the left; otherwise you burn the bloke to the right with your bent flash!

FlyXwire02 Nov 2015 6:37 p.m. PST

So when the Patriots target practiced, and each proudly yelled out "I'm aiming" before they fired, that the article argues there's claiming Steuben-trained troops were better shots with a musket because of it?

Conversely, highly-drilled and disciplined British troops when commanded to "level muskets" and fire, might have interjected their own personal will to take aim?

Seems like the controversy is far from busted.

Queen Catherine02 Nov 2015 6:54 p.m. PST

I think "taking aim" in the modern sense is a great big fat "NO!!!" But aiming in the contemporary sense, perhaps.

Personally, I'm inclined to give both sides in the AWI the same shooting potential, Hessians and French not included.

FlyXwire02 Nov 2015 8:10 p.m. PST

Well I'm still working through this Standard English thing 42nd turned us on to. Seems like old Baron S. could tell the difference though, and figured level muskets and take aim weren't the same. (and he didn't know English from what not)

Spontoon, thanks for your insights on the oblique firing limitations btw.

42flanker03 Nov 2015 12:14 a.m. PST

The exercise of individual soldiers taking aim and firing at marks, as described by Lieutenant Mackenzie in 1775, would be a waste of time and ammunition if there was not some prospect of hitting the mark and increasing that possibility through practice.

FlyXwire03 Nov 2015 6:59 a.m. PST

Mostly inference, and probably an enjoyable exercise if done at a leisurely pace. I'll wager no waste of time either if done for beer money, or "Premiums" as was noted in Standard English.

The author's own refutation: "Of course, this doesn't mean that every soldier was a great marksman, or that in the pressure and confusion of battle every soldier aimed carefully." (actually no evidence sited that time was taken to aim carefully while volley firing in battle)

It's been said, what, that only a 'couple' US soldiers from a infantry squad actually shot their weapons while engaged in fire fights during WW2, even though trained in marksmanship on the firing line.

This helps sums it up: "Ironically, linear tactics were needed for linear tactics."

42flanker03 Nov 2015 7:31 a.m. PST

"Inference"? Doctor Honeyman (not Lt Mackenzie, I misquoted) is writing very precisely.

The notion that the troops practiced live firing with closely controlled ammunition stocks for their own enjoyment and had the choice of whether or not to take part according to whether there were prizes, may have been relevant in some army a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away but not to the British Army in 1775 -

but, please yourself, they're your toys to do with as you wish.

FlyXwire03 Nov 2015 7:51 a.m. PST

I believe you've misquoted yet again, do you mean Honyman, instead of Honeyman?

Perhaps you should take a deep breath, and hold it a little before you fire away (does wonders for getting closer to the mark).

We can wait…..

Virginia Tory03 Nov 2015 12:56 p.m. PST

>I believe I've read that British light infantry received >"markmans" training beyond that given to the hat companies, ?>because they would be operating as skirmishers in N. America
>(can someone confirm this).

Well, all the troops (hat companies and flank companies) were trained in open order, two ranks per Howe's order in 1776.

link

Not sure anybody was told ahead of time to improve their shooting, but I suppose it's possible.

Last Hussar03 Nov 2015 5:34 p.m. PST

The aim of British Soldiers is the same as it always was.

To beat the French.

FlyXwire03 Nov 2015 6:17 p.m. PST

Virginia Tory, that's a good synopsis of Howe's Open Order formation.

Here's another web link, and it supports what many of us in this thread have suggested (starting around Page 153):

link

"The soldiers, Peterson has noted, "could never become marksmen with the smooth bore musket. It just was not an accurate weapon". In fact, most muskets were not even equipped with a rear sight."

One thing I'm curious about, was von Steuben's simplification of the Prussian manual of arms drill. I vaguely remember reading that his firing drill streamlined the motions, making it more efficient than that used by European armies. Can anyone support this? The next line of thought from that, is to discern whether the new "Blue Book" movements were actually faster to accomplish than the British firing drill.

Any AWI drill master able to shed light here – could von Steuben's firing drill have been any more efficient in this regard?

von Winterfeldt04 Nov 2015 12:48 a.m. PST

""The soldiers, Peterson has noted, "could never become marksmen with the smooth bore musket. It just was not an accurate weapon". In fact, most muskets were not even equipped with a rear sight."

I cannot agree, skirmishers could very well hit targets, the smoothbore was accurate enough for the task it was built, to fire on big targets, like a battalion, even single targets could be hit – as did skirmishers show in the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars.

In rank and file it was difficult – next to impossible to hit, regardless of what drill regulations or quality of the gun.

While in the 7YW – rapid fire wa advocated, it went into a different direction later, where it was tried to fire slower but more deliberate, there were different trys to overcome the impossibilty to aim in rank and file.

One for example, in the old days, as soon as one pulled the trigger the musket was brought down into loading position, to cut time for loading. The Prussians observed that by that a lot of shots got very high so they instructed the soldiers to aim low, at the knee caps, at the shoes, even in front of themselves.

The French soldiers, had to wait after firing, in the fire position, till he was commanded to laod, to counter the high firing tendency.

The British for the light infantry, and even later some battalions of the line, changed the present pose – instead of holding the musket before the face, they did hold it in loading fashion, so to have a better line of sight, when doing independent fire.

FlyXwire04 Nov 2015 6:03 a.m. PST

Does sound like the effects of the rapid fire motions risked proper pointing or "aiming" (as opposed to skirmish shooting, and/or with advantage for resting against a support). Your example of the French waiting for command to begin the loading is significant.

Any observations on differences between von Steuben's drill vs. those of the 7YW?

marshallken Inactive Member05 Nov 2015 11:18 a.m. PST

I thought the aim of British soldiers was to get drunk and laid?

FlyXwire01 Dec 2015 2:33 p.m. PST

To add to what differences Von Steuben's manual of arms method altered from 7YW practices, and by introducing a streamlined version of the British firing drill, a variation which the Continental Army was instructed in during the later years of the AWI -

From The Continental Army, by Robert K Wright, Jr., pg. 141 (thanks to Brecthel198 for spotlighting this excerpt in another recent thread):

"He simplified the British manual of arms and slowed its prescribed tempo to improve execution."

link

Stueben may indeed have allowed the Continentals more time to actually "take sight" during volley firing, as compared to their British counterparts.

von Winterfeldt02 Dec 2015 8:44 a.m. PST

it is a misconception that infantry in rank and file did aim, or took sight, maybe this could be done in American scramble tactics but hot shoulder to shoulder.

42flanker02 Dec 2015 4:47 p.m. PST

Isn't the point of DOn Hagist's article that it is a misconception that that is a misconception?

"This doesn't mean that every soldier was a great marksman, or that in the pressure and confusion of battle every soldier aimed carefully. There are even comments about soldiers who appeared not to aim at all. But it is clear that the importance of aiming was recognized, taught and practiced in Britain's professional army – …career soldiers had figured out that firearms were more effective if aimed than if not."

historygamer02 Dec 2015 7:28 p.m. PST

Von W:

Why not? If you are firing at another mass of men, how hard would it be to pick one out in front of you to aim at, even in ranks?

I'd also point out that modern (WWII) experience found that then entire aim before you shoot was way over rated. I believe post was doctrine (based on WWII practice) was to go with area suppressing fire, especially since you could not usually see who you were shooting at anyway. One could make a case that regiments firing in ranks were doing just that in the 18th century.

Finally, I don't think anyone can make the case that the Americans were any better at hitting their targets than the British. In fact, the Crown side had many more organized rifles in the hands of their soldiers than the Americans ever had.

Personal logo RNSulentic Supporting Member of TMP02 Dec 2015 9:07 p.m. PST

Really it's important to understand what *particular* tactical conditions are going on to figure out whether 'aiming' was happening or not. Foragers in a skirmish? Yes, they are aiming.

A battalion told off for action? and under control of its officers? Maybe not so much, especially for the guys in the back ranks. I can remember being in a little experiment at an event in the 1980's where we did three rank firing, (cause we had enough guys to put together a platoon) and after the first round, I couldn't see anything from the 3rd rank because of all the smoke. Curiously, Don was still reenacting at the time, and was the officer in charge.

Loose files? Probably aiming, depending on whether attacking or defending.

So, the soldiers are being trained to aim, it is pretty clear, for use when appropriate.

I don't WWII isn't very "modern" any more, and I was taught to aim when I was in the Army in the late 1980's. Pretty sure that is still doctrine.

von Winterfeldt03 Dec 2015 12:16 a.m. PST

"Gaudi, another eye witness writes about the Prussians of the 7YW :

Who will think back will have difficulties to remember that in a battle or action to have witnessed that at firing the first rank will have knelt down or did do this constantly, despite such a thing happens constantly on the drill ground, but they kept standing as the rear ranks. There one witnessed this at those troops who rightly were classed as being the best taught and disciplined, so the thought to kneel down in action must be un natural.
(Jany, page 47)

Tempelhoff another veteran writes :

The Bataillenfeuer (feux de bataille) as the fire at will was typically was called replaced in the hitherto battle in the end the drilled art. Then everybody fired who could fire and wanted to and everybody as often as he was capable without giving a damn about his neighbour or front man.
(Jany page 46 / 47)

Ein Veteran des Siebenjährigen Krieges , General v. Tempelhoff, bemerkt darüber : „Man feuert in einer Schlacht ganz anders als auf dem Exerzierplatz; denn die anrückende Infanterie fängt trotz allem dem, was man auf dem Exerzierplatze gelehrt und eingeprägt wird, oft schon auf 800 Schritt vom Feinde an zu feuern; doch wenigstens auf 600. Gewöhnlich glaubt man, daß ein solches Feuer nichts thut, allein hierin irrt man sich. Eine Kugel aus dem kleinen Gewehr tödet oder verwundet einen Mann, wenn sie nur trifft, ebenso gut, sie mag aus in einem Bogen oder horizontal abgeschossen werden.
(Jany, p. 38/39 (Gedanken des Generals v. Tempelhoff vom 11. April 1802, Beilage 13 zu Band II der Massenbachschen Memoiren, Amsterdamm 1809, S. 504)

A veteran of the 7YW, General v. Tempelhoff notices about (range of firing and hitting vW) ; "One is firing total differently in a battle than on the drill ground, despite what was learned and taught on the drill ground – the advancing infantry often opens fire at 800 paces distance from the enemy – at least however at 600. Usually it is believed that such a fire is useless, however this is an error. A small arms ball kills or wounded a man as long as it hits regardless of being short in an arc or horizontally.
(Jany, p. 38/39 (Gedanken des Generals v. Tempelhoff vom 11. April 1802, Beilage 13 zu Band II der Massenbachschen Memoiren, Amsterdamm 1809, S. 504)

and the best observation :

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.
Though not everything can be applied for the French soldier the trend would be the same.

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

Please note what he says when even riflemen would be in rank and file

historygamer03 Dec 2015 6:53 a.m. PST

The US Army concluded after their WWII experience that they spent a lot of time teaching their soldiers to aim and fire, but that battlefield experience had shown that area suppression fire was used more often since you could not usually see the enemy. That did not stop them from continuing to teach soldiers to aim in training.

I think the fact that the British taught their soldiers to aim is rather well documents. There is no evidence to suggest rebel accuracy was any better or worse than British. The inclusion of the command to do so is interesting, but does not really lead anywhere that I can tell.

42flanker03 Dec 2015 8:08 a.m. PST

OT but was there also not interview evidence collected after WWII that a signifcant proportion of infantry in any given action did not fire their weapons- or, at least, did not fire at enemy soldiers?

per ardua03 Dec 2015 3:28 p.m. PST

You will still die from an aimed or unaimed shot.

historygamer03 Dec 2015 3:39 p.m. PST

42nd – well, kind of, kind of no. It was anecdotal evidence (testimonial) collected during interviews by SLA Marshall, but there was no further research following it up that I am aware of – and the US Army did go through a lot of ammunition, so someone was shooting at something. :-)

I know there is evidence of British practicing firing at marks, but I am less familiar with the same exercise taking place on the American side.

42flanker03 Dec 2015 3:44 p.m. PST

You might, if you are unlucky enough for it to hit you.

It seems to be a constant that an extraordinary expenditure of ammunition is required for one round to cause an injury.

von Winterfeldt03 Dec 2015 11:42 p.m. PST

"It seems to be a constant that an extraordinary expenditure of ammunition is required for one round to cause an injury."

Yes indeed.

Any idea how the amount of ammunition to casualty is in recent conflicts`?

Pages: 1 2