Help support TMP


"Are the Rifles over-rated?" Topic


137 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 Discussion Message Board



4,238 hits since 4 Sep 2017
©1994-2017 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Pages: 1 2 3 

dibble23 Sep 2017 9:48 p.m. PST

Art

I was a soldier for many years but what does that have to do with discussing a regiments accomplishments 200 years ago?

As for lecturing, I would if I didn't have to come up against table-top teasers with set ideas that work well in their scenarios.

I have posted information and corrections on this thread and also gave opinion based on studies of the regiment.

Remember! The 95th made their successes their fighting skills and thus the reputation we know of today. If you think that they were over-rated (something you don't make clear) or that their being armed with the Rifle was a waste of time with no advantage over the musket, then bring the points to the discussion.

Whirlwind:

I thought the thread was a judgment over whether the 95th were over-rated, compared to what or who, I have no idea.

Paul :)

Personal logo McLaddie Supporting Member of TMP23 Sep 2017 10:13 p.m. PST

dibble:

Hmmm. Good question. Here, I thought it was about the use of rifles in general being over-rated. Again, compared to what or rated as what isn't stated.

Whirlwind23 Sep 2017 10:24 p.m. PST

I thought the thread was a judgment over whether the 95th were over-rated, compared to what or who, I have no idea.

I meant the specific points now not the topic of the thread in general.

Art23 Sep 2017 10:44 p.m. PST

G'Day Gents

I have always attempted to stay within the parameters of weapon and the weak link…

Of course I could have gotten into eye dominance and how that would effect someone leveling instead of aiming…or the need of glasses…

I wonder…what percentage back then needed glasses and didn't even know it…

But not once did I ever give my opinion of what I thought about the 95th… ;-)

Best Regards
Art

Art24 Sep 2017 1:25 a.m. PST

Paul

I will not waste your valuable time… I am only interested in the parameters of muskets / rifles and the weak link…that way you can patrol the forum and make certain that on the spot corrective actions may…hmmm…shall be taken…to put "table-top teasers" in their place…

You have a good day…
Art

Art24 Sep 2017 1:39 a.m. PST

G'Day Bill,

This is about what I mentioned earlier…between 200 to 300 meters…

Scharnhorst and the Prussians did extensive tests in 1809-1812 and Scharnhorst found that:

1. Because the rifle could be loaded about half as quickly as a smoothbore musket, but with increased accuracy, the damage was about equal out to 120 yards.

2. He felt the effective range for the rifle was about 200-250 yards.

I have always had issues with those who say that one could load a smoothbore musket over a rifle was quicker…at a firing range and not getting shot at…this is true…

But when it is skirmisher against skirmisher…the real time needed to fire and hit an object was aiming…getting a perfect sight picture…and following through with the correct fundamentals while getting shot at…

..and if you work as a binôme / binomial…a musket has no advantage…

Best Regards
Art

von Winterfeldt24 Sep 2017 4:17 a.m. PST

It is not that simple, I know the test by Scharnhorst well – he did not test the 3 ammunitons available for a rifle (at least Prussian rifle).

one had patched ball – loading from a powder measurer and individual powder load and using priming powder, using mallet and starter and ramrod.

one had a pre fabricated cartridge – with sort of already included patch / or using the paper as patch, and the ball calibre in that way to be still loaded with a ramrod

the so called emergency cartridge – being well under calibre and could be loaded as fast as the usual musket paper cartridge, denying to use the qualitry of the rifled barrel and shoting like a smoothbore.

So it would again depend according to tactical circumstances how the Jäger would charge his rifle. Consequently, due to the other ammunition, they adopted extra cartridge boxes, there their own were too small to carry them, Ewald mentions this already in the AWI – and in case I remember correctly, Dibble may be may more versed than me – rifleman Harris mentions a box with 80 cartridges.

in case to persue this matter more, there is a very good article in

Zeitschrift für Kunst, Wissenschaft und Geschichte des Kriegs, 6. Heft, Berlin, Posen und Bromberg 1828

Über die Resultate des Scheibenschießens im preußischen Heer, nebst Betrachtungen über die Wirksamkeit des Infanterie- und Büchsenfeuers S. 227 – 252

some very thought provking ideas and results are offered.

Art24 Sep 2017 4:39 a.m. PST

G'Day Hans-karl

what are the ballistics of these three rounds…?

Can we assume that all nations used them?

yes I remember a thread about these rounds…but on a different topic…so long ago..

As for Harris…"I also carried my canteen filled with water, my hatchet and rifle, and eighty rounds of ball in my pouch…" (pp26 and 27) – Were they also of the three types of rounds you mention?

Yes…this is very interesting…do you know what page I can find this in the Scloppetaria?

He mentions other types…and very interesting as well…but he states that the rifle is commonly loaded with balls of the common form…but I would be interested in the three type of packing as well…

I like the fact that he mentions a ball what would put us in big trouble with the UN today ;-)

-or chain shot..never used…but what would one use it for?

Later we can decide how this affected the Second Branch in the science of war…and actions with the advanced or rear guards.

Then again…conflicts on the outposts, convoys, foragings, and war detachments, belong to what is termed Petite Guerre…

Best Regards
Art

von Winterfeldt24 Sep 2017 5:43 a.m. PST

I don't know what kind of ammunition the Rifles carried, but seemingly the Baker rifle was constructed in that way that you could load from a pre fixed cartridge and patched ball, sperate powder load etc. was rarely used – I was speaking for Prussian and Austrian ammunition, the Prussian even spoke sarcastically of the "Schießapotheke" (shooting pharmacy – most likley due to the many drawers to pulled open).

Art24 Sep 2017 6:09 a.m. PST

G'Day Hans-Karl

thank you for the information…too bad we do not have an assessment of the various loads…and whether it enhanced performance of the round…or not…

In one sense…there is no subject that is closer to the hearts of Soldiers than chow..weapons and ammunition…

Even Harris states the following: "…and the eighty rounds of ball cartridge in my pouch; this last, except the beef and biscuits, being the best things I owned…"

In the 70s, 80s, and 90s…most countries carried pro-mask carriers…and what one could find in them…that was not allowed…why the list is endless :-)

Did the Prussians and Austrian segregate these loads in different drawers?

Best Regards
Art

Personal logo McLaddie Supporting Member of TMP24 Sep 2017 7:00 a.m. PST

Scharnhorst and the Prussians did extensive tests in 1809-1812 and Scharnhorst found that:

1. Because the rifle could be loaded about half as quickly as a smoothbore musket, but with increased accuracy, the damage was about equal out to 120 yards.

2. He felt the effective range for the rifle was about 200-250 yards.

I have always had issues with those who say that one could load a smoothbore musket over a rifle was quicker…at a firing range and not getting shot at…this is true…

But when it is skirmisher against skirmisher…the real time needed to fire and hit an object was aiming…getting a perfect sight picture…and following through with the correct fundamentals while getting shot at…

Art:
I mentioned those tests and Scharnhorst's conclusions earlier in this thread.

As he concluded that at 120 the effect [holes in the target sheet] was about equal smoothbore vs rifle, speed of loading vs accuracy, that issue was a wash. Speed in firing would still be an issue assuming that a skirmisher armed with either would take the same amount of time to aim. The real advantage would seem to be the extra 100 to 150 yards in range.

He considered arming all infantry with rifles, as rifles could fire quickly as smoothbores, [no patch, smaller ball] if necessary-- those get the same amount of damage for less ammo used. However, the rifles were 50% more expensive to manufacture and then there was the necessary training…

Art24 Sep 2017 7:25 a.m. PST

G'Day Bill

I know…that is where I copied and pasted from… ;-)

Best Regards
Art

PS: I have Scharnhorst on my external…but it is located in my quarters…it's not much…but it's home away from home ;-)

dibble24 Sep 2017 1:12 p.m. PST

Art.

I don't put anyone in their place, I offer information and evidence I also go out of my way to supply it if asked.

To put things bluntly, I have brushed your fur the wrong way because I questioned your reliance on Oman.

I don't understand your weakest link premiss and I don't understand where you are coming from on the subject in general.

Were they over-rated? What do you think….

Was their 'aimed' rifled musket able to hit the mark at further distances than the infantry smooth-bore musket and was there an advantage in this?

Paul :)

Stoppage24 Sep 2017 2:23 p.m. PST

Digging around…

link

Re: Canister Post by Senarmont198 » June 1st, 2016, 7:36 pm

The light case of the British 6-pounder gun holding 85 1.5 ounce bullets and the heavy case holding 41 of 3.25 ounces, … The extreme range of light case bullets was normally taken to be 250 yards, and it was the British practice to limit the range of all case shot to about 350 yards.

So one British 6-pounder gun outputs 85 iron bullets out to 250 yards.

One British rifle company outputs about 90 lead bullets out to between 200-300 yards.

is there a possible correlation here?

Personal logo McLaddie Supporting Member of TMP24 Sep 2017 5:15 p.m. PST

So one British 6-pounder gun outputs 85 iron bullets out to 250 yards.

One British rifle company outputs about 90 lead bullets out to between 200-300 yards.

is there a possible correlation here?

The only one I have ever read that did was Clausewitz in his tactical section of On War He felt that a six [IIRC] gun battery of six pounders would be worth 3 or more battalions of infantry in firepower/putting hit in a sheet at 250 yards or more compared to infantry at 100 or so yards.

Whirlwind25 Sep 2017 5:26 a.m. PST

To put things bluntly, I have brushed your fur the wrong way because I questioned your reliance on Oman.

Is this back to the casualties at Tarbes question?

The way this seems to me:

The Bns of the 95th suffered about 90 casualties.
Oman – from the French sources, including Martinien – reckons c.180-200 casaulties for the French.
A 2:1 casualty infliction rate whilst attacking a defensive position seems an excellent performance. How much better do we think they should be?
The eye-witnesses from the Rifles claimed far more.
You say (and I have no reason to doubt) that Wellington said that the severest fire he saw was at Tarbes; but he also said that "the enemy's opposition has not been of a nature to try the troops" link so I am not sure how to reconcile these facts.

For sure the French casualty statements are often misleading, and Oman is normally the first one to point this out, but he is no magician: he either looks at the actual French morning states or extrapolates (conservatively) from the officer casualties. I don't think he often relies on Allied eye-witnesses. So why do we think Oman is wrong here?

One way to look at this might be to work out what the second bloodiest battle the Riflemen would have witnessed in the Peninsular War would have been and been in a position to look at the dead; the Coa and Badajoz might have been bloodier, but the individual officers might not have seen it.

LORDGHEE25 Sep 2017 11:39 a.m. PST

Hughes book "Firepower", he makes a good case for a correlation between a 6 pound cannon and a company of infantry.

Personal logo McLaddie Supporting Member of TMP25 Sep 2017 1:57 p.m. PST

Hughes book "Firepower", he makes a good case for a correlation between a 6 pound cannon and a company of infantry.

Most all wargames have one piece of artillery worth between 50-150 men at canister ranges [or 1 gun=one company], but Clausewitz believed that that a six pounder was worth 250-300 men. When I designed the board game "Napoleon's Last Triumph", that is the strength that I gave artillery. The one thing that happened in play testing is that players used the artillery with more 'realistic' tactics than when they were given less strength.

dibble27 Sep 2017 4:19 a.m. PST

Whirlwind

The Bns of the 95th suffered about 90 casualties.
Oman – from the French sources, including Martinien – reckons c.180-200 casaulties for the French.

I posted a detailed (I can give their names too if you wish)run-down of the 95th's casualties for the action above.

A 2:1 casualty infliction rate whilst attacking a defensive position seems an excellent performance. How much better do we think they should be?

A lot more than the 'official' number that's for sure

The eye-witnesses from the Rifles claimed far more.

A non regimental eyewitness too. Which again, I have posted above

You say (and I have no reason to doubt) that Wellington said that the severest fire he saw was at Tarbes;

Well, I didn't make it up!.

In the Wellington despatches that you posted as a link he says at the bottom of page 596 – top of page 597:

"The enemy's loss was considerable in the attack made by the Light Division."


For sure the French casualty statements are often misleading, and Oman is normally the first one to point this out, but he is no magician: he either looks at the actual French morning states or extrapolates (conservatively) from the officer casualties. I don't think he often relies on Allied eye-witnesses. So why do we think Oman is wrong here?

Because eyewitness accounts say different.

One way to look at this might be to work out what the second bloodiest battle the Riflemen would have witnessed in the Peninsular War would have been and been in a position to look at the dead; the Coa and Badajoz might have been bloodier, but the individual officers might not have seen it.

So veterans of the war such as those below are what? exaggerating?


Lt James Gairdner:

Diary entry extract for the 20th March 1814

"They drove in our people who were up there but the remainder of the 1st & the 3rd Battalions 95th arrived just at this time the rest of the division close on our heels, we drove them back again with great loss. They made no further attempt, however our 3 battalions lost in this short time, 9 officers killed and wounded . I never saw on any occasion so many men killed by skirmishers as the many lost on this occasion. Had there been a troop of cavalry with us, they would have made 2 or 300 prisoners"

And William Surtees:

But it is not so much to the driving away of this so much stronger force, that I would draw the reader's attention, as to the great loss the enemy sustained, and solely from our fire. I believe I shall not be far from the truth , if I state their loss in killed and wounded as equal to the whole strength of our sixteen companies.

Andrew Barnard:

"the enemy lost as many men as I think it possible to be knocked over in so short a time – the beauty of the business was that we were formed and ready for another attack in a few minutes. Lord W. saw the whole business and was most pleased with the rapidity with which the corps made its attacks and equally so with the quickness with which they got together when it was over"

Harry Smith:

"Our three battalions of our 95th were most sharply engaged.
Three successive times the enemy endeavoured to drive them of a hill, but the losses of the enemy was so great that one could not believe one's eyes. I certainly have never seen the dead lie so thick, nor ever did, except subsequently at Waterloo"

Jonathon Leach:

"We inflicted on them however, a severe loss, and drove them back in great confusion. The vineyards near the scene of action was covered with their dead and wounded in all directions."

So I would much rather take the word of those who were there than that of an historian writing 90 years ago and French casualty returns.

Paul :)

Whirlwind27 Sep 2017 7:44 a.m. PST

@ Dibble,

Okay. In turn…

Apart from Surtees, none of the witnesses say anything specific about French casualties apart from that they were heavy. Since the lowest estimate has them at twice that of the Rifles, then we can all agree on that. Blakiston, doesn't refer to the French casualties at all unless I am missing something – what he mentions is an impromptu bayonet charge.

The point about Wellington was that in his despatches, he made a point of saying that French resistance hadn't been particularly severe.

So veterans of the war such as those below are what? exaggerating?

Who knows? But is just the logical question. If Tarbes was the most bloody, let's find the second most bloody as the baseline. It doesn't necessarily mean anyone was exaggerating.

So I would much rather take the word of those who were there than that of an historian writing 90 years ago and French casualty returns.

Well, in most warfare, this is absolutely not the case. Soldiers (and sailors and airman) have tended to be wildly optimistic about the casualties that they have caused. French estimates (from "those who were there") were often wildly exaggerated. On the other hand, casualty returns – and so historians – have got closer. This doesn't mean of course that Surtees is wrong and Oman and the French casualty report are right in this particular instance; but I haven't seen anything to make me sure that the reverse is the case either.

Incidentally, does anyone know exactly which French units the Rifles defeated? The orders of battle for Harispe's division between 6th March and Toulouse seem hard to reconcile.

dibble27 Sep 2017 11:55 a.m. PST

OK Whirlwind A body account isn't possible so I suppose you should be convinced by Oman.

OOB 8th Division

General de Division Jean Isidore Harispe (4,250 total)

10th Légère(2 bns)
45th Ligne (1 bn)
81st Ligne (1 bn)
115th Ligne (1 bn)
116th Ligne (1 bn)
117th Ligne (1 bn)

The 45e and 116e were known to have been two of the battalions engaged.

Paul :)

Major Snort27 Sep 2017 1:29 p.m. PST

I have seen very little detail about how the 95th achieved their success at Tarbes. The memoirs, although they give the impression that the French casualties were unusually high, do not actually provide much information about exactly how this was achieved. For example, presuming that the 95th fought as skirmishers, how many of the total force were in the firing line and how many in support?

Why was the same carnage not inflicted at the Coa, Bussaco, Barossa and Sabugal In similar circumstances?

Was it just that there were far more Riflemen fighting together as a group at Tarbes than in the other engagements mentioned above, or was there another reason for this unusual event?

Personal logo McLaddie Supporting Member of TMP27 Sep 2017 2:08 p.m. PST

The success of the Rifles at Tarbes may have something to do with the quality of their French opponents at the time.

Major Snort27 Sep 2017 2:37 p.m. PST

That is a possibility I suppose, but is there evidence to show that Harispe's division, who had served in Eastern Spain for several years, were a particularly poor outfit or full of new conscripts?

One rifles officer (George Simmons I think), thought that the French fought well in 1814, saying something like "every cock ought to fight well on his own dung heap" referring to the fact that the French were defending home soil.

dibble27 Sep 2017 11:37 p.m. PST

Major Snort

It was the one and only time that all three battalions of the 95th fought as one during the Napoleonic wars, with no other regiment participating in this action (Though if things went awry, there were supports). The 45th I believe were the first battalion. Those French regiments engaged are what is known. The 115th may have had a part to play too. Digby Smith includes the 86th? in the order of battle for the action but that must be wrong. (Digby's tome has a number of errors)

Personal logo deadhead Supporting Member of TMP29 Sep 2017 5:13 a.m. PST

All I know about the Rifles is that everything I thought I knew seems questionable now. Just as my 2/95 and 3/95 near completion, I read that, by 1815, no one was using the powder flask. My work on their cap badges (in brass) was probably unnecessary as not worn in action. The swords so carefully converted from Perry AWI command sprues….there is some suggestion they were getting bayonets by then.

As for the Belgic shako…..but that I could not face.

For such a well documented unit…odd how little we know

Personal logo McLaddie Supporting Member of TMP29 Sep 2017 7:59 a.m. PST

That is a possibility I suppose, but is there evidence to show that Harispe's division, who had served in Eastern Spain for several years, were a particularly poor outfit or full of new conscripts?

Major:
In general, in 1813 and 1814, the French were throwing in conscripts as quickly as they could…with limited training, regardless of the actual history of the division. I wasn't suggesting that the French didn't fight hard [for their own dung heap], but whether it was skillful. As an example of what I mean:

Brett-James, Antony, ed., Edward Costello, The Peninsular and Waterloo Campaigns, Longmans, Green and Co Ltd, UK, 1967.[p.68]

Ordered to occupy a part of Fuentes, "The section to which I belonged were posted near the banks of the River Dos Casas. The 79th Highlanders had suffered very severely here, as the place was strewn about with their bodies. Poor fellows ! they had not been used to skirmishing, and instead of occupying the houses in the neighbourhood, and firing from the windows, they had, as I heard, exposed themselves, by firing in sections. The French, who still occupied part of the town, had not escaped rough handling, as their dead also evinced."

So, the numbers of French casualties versus the 95th and the British could be the skill level of the French as much as the proficiency of the British.

Just a thought.

4th Cuirassier29 Sep 2017 9:17 a.m. PST

@ deadhead

It was when I found out that the 95th were in red coats at Waterloo that I gave up.

Personal logo deadhead Supporting Member of TMP29 Sep 2017 9:28 a.m. PST

Don't be so cruel…….I might even believe it……and break into tears….but you did raise a laugh here. I might even now add a colour party and drummer!

I am looking at them nearly finished…so much work. All with powder horns, most with rounded not square peaks to their "shakos", all with cap badges (at least they are brass not silver), every single one with a sword bayonet, all in green overalls (why did I not do some at least in grey?)…but not one in a Belgic shako, that I do not regret, however convincing the evidence.

dibble29 Sep 2017 12:53 p.m. PST

Would you like me to give my opinion on the canteen? Not just for the Rifles, but the whole British army in general.

Paul :)

4th Cuirassier29 Sep 2017 3:14 p.m. PST

Haythornthwaite reckoned the Rifles had white greatcoats. I so want to believe that.

Canteens? Let me guess – they didn't exist? The rectangular wood-framed backpack painted black has been debunked IIRC.

If so the Airfix Highlanders' equipment would be accurate: no canteen and a shapeless backpack. I would laugh like a drain if that were so.

dibble29 Sep 2017 9:59 p.m. PST

Where the water canteen is concerned, there is no hard evidence at all that they were 1) universally light blue/grey, marked with B.O or the arrow. Were all painted with white lettering to a defined regulation or even to a specific design.

The only depiction I have seen of a cavalryman with a light blue 'italian' canteen and marked up with black letters '3HKG (L?), is that of a KGL hussar offering a drink. I have seen no contemporary cavalryman wearing a canteen of any description, but I see them depicted in modern drawing and figures. Would they really need to carry them about their body when they have a nice horse to carry it for them instead of it getting in the way and uncomfortably bouncing off the rib-cage?

I have seen non-Hamilton Smith depictions of canteens in the blue colour but none had any markings on them. It seems (according to Hamilton Smith) that the Guards had very practical water canteens of black leather and of a much slimmer shape but again, with no markings Also, the sergeant of the 87th has what seems to be a small, black kidney type water bottle, an infantryman in great coat with an 'Italian' style canteen but with no markings. the other depiction which is of a Colour sergeant of the 9th, has his 'Italian' canteen suspended on a white leather strap but the canteen is depicted with its front turned away.

I have looked through countless contemporary pictures of militia and regular infantry depictions and they are almost all devoid of a canteen.

As for the 95th Great-coat. It was dark grey and not rolled up and strapped on top of the knapsack. It was rolled up and the knapsack flap buckled over the top. When the knapsack wasn't carried, the greatcoat was rolled up and worn like a portmanteau on the back. The greatcoat (Watch-coat) was worn over the top of all equipment wilst on guard duty but with equipment over the top when on campaign.

Personal logo deadhead Supporting Member of TMP30 Sep 2017 3:29 a.m. PST

At risk of highjacking the thread, this is turning up some fascinating information. So much of what we "know" is probably based on later artwork, which possibly reflects Victorian and Crimean war fashions.

The thing, folded on top of the fictional Trotter backpack, is a blanket, for Waterloo anyway. For the 1815 Campaign, instructions were definite that all "British" greatcoats were to be returned to store. I wonder if the thought was more that the soldiers would sell them (as they did with their blankets) than that they would not be needed in Belgium in June, even if it did look like rain……..

I can imagine a blanket could be a very light grey (when first issued anyway!)

I always think of a haversack as having one strap and worn over one shoulder on the hip. A knapsack is a backpack, but checking on line the distinction seems archaic now

The canteen? I have no idea how authoritative this source is and no references are offered, but he agrees no white lettering for 1815 anyway.
link

So, apart from the cylindric not Belgic shako, the powder horn, the green overalls, the cap badge worn on campaign, the lettering on the waterbottle, heck, the blue bottle itself, the sword bayonet, the "Trotter" backpack…..my units are a model of research and accuracy!

Lion in the Stars30 Sep 2017 11:46 p.m. PST

I'll stand by my posting…Whether musket / rifle…or…AK-47 / M-16…in the end it all depends upon the weak link…humans…

-or if you like…a weapon is only as good as the weak link…


I always call that the "loose nut behind the buttplate," Art. evil grin

Did the Prussians and Austrian segregate these loads in different drawers?

I certainly would keep the various types segregated. Seems to be typical practice today.

For the Napoleonic times, the biggest difference in the Regimental performance would be training.

As you all mention above, the 79th Highlanders got shredded because they didn't use individual initiative like the 95th did. And since individual initiative was rather firmly disliked in most units ("other ranks are lazy and require an officer to make sure they do their jobs" etc), any unit that actively looked for individual initiative would be very unusual. And it's the unusual which will kill you.

Personal logo deadhead Supporting Member of TMP04 Oct 2017 7:17 a.m. PST

Dibble posted on 4th Sept;

"For an excellent history of the 95th, Caldwell and Cooper's 'Rifle green in the Peninsula' series and 'Rifle Green at Waterloo' are an absolute must."

Well my Waterloo book arrived to day, inspired by his recommendation. It looks fascinating. It is currently a bargain at £10.00 GBP off recommended price and postage free in UK.

Prince of Essling Supporting Member of TMP04 Oct 2017 7:25 a.m. PST

The Bayerische Staatsbibliothek have put on line (and downloadable – though you do need to be able to read German once downloaded:
Gerhard von Scharnhost "Uber die Wirkung des Feuergewehrs" published Berlin 1813 link

However for non-German readers, Bill Leeson did translate this as "Results of Artillery and Infantry Guns in Trials" Hemel Hempstead UK 1992.

Scharnhost did note that the fastest musket shooters took never less than 7 minutes and the slowest up to 14 minutes to fire 20 rounds! Remember this was under ideal conditions, so what would the speed have been under real battlefield conditions?

von Winterfeldt04 Oct 2017 7:56 a.m. PST

10 soldiers, of the Leib Regiment, in one rank, could load and shot in their own time.
In fact, I did translate the test and results of the musket trials, for the Smooth Bore Ordonnance Journal, it never materialized

Pages: 1 2 3 

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.