"Scale of the battlefield and weapon ranges." Topic

For years I have been interested in the scale of naval games and am now turning my attention to the land. I have been reading With the Flag to Praetoria which gives some information on weapons ranges during the Boer War. This book says the range of both sides rifles was about 2500 yards. Reading it appears that firing was generally between 800 and 1500 yards which I assume was in part the nature of the conflict and in part the effective range of the rifles.

If you used a true scale on the game table with 1/300 figures and gave rifles an effective range of 1000 yards it would require 10 actual feet on the table to emulate the 1000 yard rifle range. Obviously playing a 1:1 ratio skirmish type game with true ranges would require us to play on a gymnasium floor.

What this all leads to is a feeling that I have had for some time that giving rifles a range of say 18 inches on our tables is misleading. We really should say that in a 1:1 skirmish game rifles have an unlimited range on our typical 4X6 foot table. In other words, if you can see it you can shoot at it.

I am not sure how we should distort true scale when the bases on the table represent larger units. Lets say that a base 40mm wide represents a battalion. What would true scale rifle ranges be for such a base?

Effective ranges for riflemen are nowhere near 1000 yards The official effective range of the M-14 and M-16 are both 460 meters. I doubt that most soldiers could even see individual targets at 1000 yards. That is over half a mile.

It's vaguely possible that that rifles have theoretical maximum ballistic ranges of 2500 yards, but that's irrelevant.

Whatever ranges you find for actual engagements, just accept a distorted figure scale as necessary. At 1:300, who cares and who can tell?

Obviously playing a 1:1 ratio skirmish type game with true ranges would require us to play on a gymnasium floor.

Not necessarily. As Brad pointed out, weapon ranges and actual use are quite different… the typical range of firefights start between 200-500 yards. That has been true for the last century and a half--not counting snipers.

Chain of Command has 15mm equals 2 metres on the ground, so as the rules state, the ranges for most weapons is anywhere on the table. It works well and 15mm figures are to table scale.

In 1871 firing at the NRA range at Wimbledon was at 200yds (standing), 400y & 600y (both prone).

By 1900 rifles were much improved on those used in 1871 so, given the right conditions and a suitable target, enemy in 1900 could be engaged at 1000 yds with the expectation of some success.

McLaddie – artillery crews were shot off their guns by Boers firing at ranges over 800yds. Conditions on the veldt are very different to those in most modern conflicts.

Conditions on the veldt are just about ideal for long-range shooting.

But you also have the troops being pretty much stationary targets at those distances, and not using modern cover&movement drills.

Didn't the Prussian Guards' attack at St Privat in 1870 stall initially under chassepot fire at about 1,000 yards? Similar story for the Russians assaulting Plevna in 1877? Massed rifles against massed targets have quite a long effective range.

As for your 40mm wide base being a battalion: how deep are you going to make it? It was common for a battalion to post out a company or three as a skirmish line, with more companies couple of hundred yards behind them as supports, and then a further company or two some 100s of yards behind them as reserves. If you factor that in, then you may add some 100s of yards to the effective range of your weapons: the bases representing your two opposing battalions' main bodies might be over 1000 yards apart, but their advanced skirmish lines could be well under 600 apart and in an intense firefight.

In the Boer War games we've fought with BBB (which I may add have been highly entertaining), 12" is the engagement range for rifle-armed units, and I think a 12" grid square is typically 2500-3000m.

Chris

Bloody Big BATTLES!
link
bloodybigbattles.blogspot.com

Oh, and as it happens, just a couple of weeks ago I was looking at an Enfield rifle in a museum with a volleyfire sight graduated up to some 1000s of yards. Here's a relevant thread:
link

Chris

Ted Herbert's "Handbook for Colonial Wargamers" includes an interesting fire effects table extracted from "Rules for Conduct of the War- Game" 1884 (an official military publication). Effects are based on 1 minute of fire by 200 riflemen, and while the table is extended to ranges up to 1300 yds. expected casualties decline rapidly beyond 600 yds. As an example: in open ground with relatively little cover, against an enemy in a formation similar to that described by ChrisBBB2, at 200 yds. the shooters might expect to inflict between 15 and 40 casualties (that for 2000 rds. expended @10 rpm) while at the other extreme of 1300 yds. between 1 and 3 casualties might be inflicted (for expenditure of 600 rds. @3 rpm).

Years ago I tried to develop rules that reflected these effects with some success, but the complications of necessary ammunition limitations and resupply proved to make the project unappealing.

Brad J – 460m at a scale of 1/300 is still around 1.5m or 4.5 feet. McLaddie – 300 yards would be 1 yard or 3 feet. This would indicate that the ranges used in most rules systems are way too short. emickinney my thought is that the distortion is great enough that you can tell and I prefer not to accept too great a distortion. Lion in the stars – with true scale ranges modern cover&movement, which slows movement, would have to start much farther from your opponent than is true in most rules. Battles with miniatures are IMHO way too distorted solely based on distortion of ranges which impacts our games ability to give somewhat historical results. I know we are playing games but some concessions to reality would be nice.

Chris – what size is the formation you mention for BBB and what is the width of its base in your 12"/2500m grid square? Your grid square scales around 1" equaling 200m. 2mm miniatures such as Irregular sell would be men about 15 feet tall, a little over twice the size you would need for true scale. McLaddie – AT 15mm = 2m you are using approx. 15mm miniatures which makes Chain of Command sound about right. I am not familiar with those rules.

Some folks say that for many of our games we should go to board games or as emickinney suggest we must accept the distortion. My point in this exercise is to recognize the distortion and figure out how great a distortion to accept before playing board games. I must also admit that I have not looked at distortion in board games. It may be just as bad.

Al

McLaddie – artillery crews were shot off their guns by Boers firing at ranges over 800yds. Conditions on the veldt are very different to those in most modern conflicts.

Conditions on the veldt are just about ideal for long-range shooting.

But you also have the troops being pretty much stationary targets at those distances, and not using modern cover&movement drills.

Well, I said 'typical firefights', but what is said is true, both the ranges and situation. Colenso wasn't so much a firefight as 'sniper' target practice over a long period of time. The Prussian Guard's advance at Gravolette was similar long-range fire--the Prussians weren't firing back. One General that Bruce W. quotes, said that the Prussians found in 1870 that they had to deploy further back than the conventional 300 yards because the French were hitting them out to twice or three times that far.
Even so, most 'firefights'[when both sides were firing at each other] even in 1870-71 were within that 200-500 yards typically.

From 1861 to 1916, the effort to advance against long-range fire was not to stop and fire back, but to get into close range [under 2-300 yards] as quickly as possible…with the usual results. That was the approach during the early parts of WWI.

Oh, and as it happens, just a couple of weeks ago I was looking at an Enfield rifle in a museum with a volleyfire sight graduated up to some 1000s of yards.

So are 20th and 21st century weapons…or ranged further. However, was the Enfield used regularly at that range? The US Military has done several studies around actual small arms combat ranges, from the 1880s to 2016. Paddy Griffith insisted that most ACW combat with Enfields and Springfield rifled muskets were within 300 yards… when both--at times--were provided with sights out to three times that range.

So, guess the typical ranges of firefights occurred during the last century and a half according to the US Military?

The Union 3 inch Rifled artillery was ranged out to nearly 5000 yards, but would they hit anything at an elevation of 16? Here is the lid instructions for a 3-inch Ordnance gun:

In any case, you will be hard pressed to find a situation where rifled artillery was used at more than 2500 yards or a mile and a half, even though I have seen one account of a Union artillery crew hitting a target at 3000 yards with a rifled artillery piece. That is the longer ranges the Prussians fire at with their rifled breachloaders in 1870.

The weapon's effective range and the range at which they are typically employed are not necessarily the same. If the decision is to use the weapon at one range regardless of the actual, longer range capability, which issue is more important? The gun's capability or its typical use?

That applies to both artillery and small arms. It is wargame conundrum: Do designers provide units with 'effective ranges' for weapons or simply the ranges that the weapons were used at during the period in question?

Allen, it's your game so play the ranges at whatever you want as long as you are consistent. I don't play skirmish games in 1/285 or 1/300. For me I play usually micro-armor at a US Company versus a Soviet Battalion. The effective range of the tank main gun or a coaxial machine gun is so long that to play it in true scale would take too much room.

For skirmish games I used to use 20mm and have switched to 15mm. The rules I use are 20 inches equal effective range of the rifle. I game mostly in Western Europe so lines of sight would rarely be much more than 200 meters for the average dismounted infantry man. My experience is that you would rarely spot a stationary opponent in cover at much more than 30 meters so the scale for effective small arms fire at 20 inches works fine for me. Fist Full of TOWS is my rules set of choice for Micro-Armor and it works to a scale of one inch equals about 100 meters but theoretically a rifleman can shoot out to about 4 inches but they usually become pretty deadly at 100 meters or 1 inch or less. Enemy armor has trouble even spotting them until the armor closes to about a hundred meters or less unless the infantry opens fire on them.

I spent 3 years in the Marine Corps from 1970 to 1973 and fired both the M-14A1 and M-16A1 on many known distance rifle ranges. I shot expert most times; sometimes high sharpshooter, and I can tell you while both rifles were capable of hitting a 16 inch bullseye from 460 meters they were only capable of doing that from a perfect shooting condition with verified elevation and windage information on the sights. At 460 meters or 500 yards we had five minutes to get off 10 aimed shots at a stationary target. At a moving target attempting to use the folds of the ground for cover and concealment I would have had a difficult time hitting an individual infantryman as a target, and I was an above average rifleman. When you fired on combat ranges to hit a man sized pop up target that was only in view for about 5 seconds was a real challenge unless you were looking for that target to pop up in your firing lane. Your battle sight zero for your weapon was set for 200 meter range. For ranges farther than your battle sight zero you held high. For in close you held a bit low. Hitting even the pop up targets at 200 meters or so was not all that hard.

I think it depends on your choice of historical period and weapons. I remember my dad and grandpa arguing about whether their rifle was more effective than the others. My grandpa stated that they were getting kills on the Marne at ranges over half a mile. My dad's response was with the Germans advancing in mass formations they had to hit someone even if it was not the guy they were shooting at. My dad fought in the Pacific in WWII and said they rarely saw opponents at farther than 50 yards usually less so the official Effective Ranges were meaningless.

If the enemy is in the house across the street, that's as effective as I'm concerned about.

Some folks say that for many of our games we should go to board games or as emickinney suggest we must accept the distortion. My point in this exercise is to recognize the distortion and figure out how great a distortion to accept before playing board games. I must also admit that I have not looked at distortion in board games. It may be just as bad.

Al: You might want to look into Chain of Command I am using for the Spanish Civil War and am enjoying it.

I think that 'distortion' is all about what the designer wants to accomplish and what their priorities are concerning such things as weapon ranges and effects.

Read Rick Priestly's chapter on "A Question of Scale" in his book Tabletop Wargamies: A Designers' & Writers' Handbook if you want to see how much distortion a designer is willing to accept/invent if that isn't a priority. Unfortunately, then Rick P. goes further and states that anything else but his solution is impossible…which is a over the top justification for something he would do anyway.

Distortion isn't necessary at all, depending on what you want to achieve as a game experience. Knowing what the un-distorted ranges and effects are remain the basic questions before you can talk about distortion.

There is a good deal of myth about the marksmanship of the Boers. The idea that they were picking off British officers at a mile or more is simply rubbish – no one could have picked out an individual target at that range.

The Boers were very ill-disciplined and nervous, and often opened fire at extreme ranges due to their terror of British bayonets… and if a couple of thousand Mausers are blasting away at a mile, then it stands to reason that some British troops would get hit.

British military theory at the time called for a battalion to advance to within 500 yards of an enemy position and then for the front echelon of the battalion to 'win the fire fight'. A good example is the advance to contact of the Devons at Elandslaagte (one of the very first battles of the war) in which they advanced frontally, went to ground at about 800 yards of the enemy and engaged in a lengthy fire fight with dug-in Boers… then re-commenced their advance after a successful flank attack went in.
The Devons did not lose a single man killed at Elandslaagte.

And the very simple answer to the OP question is that if your battalion is based on a frontage of 40mm, which represents a typical battalion front of 500 yards and max rifle range is 1500 yards, then the battalion can shoot 120mm.

If you are using more FPW troop densities (say 200 yards per battalion), then they shoot 300mm. Simple.

Martin Rapier

Yes – you are spot on.

However, I think 500 yards would be on the lower side of typical battalion frontages in the Boer War.

The frontage of the KRRC at Twin Peaks was nearer 1500 yards, for example. The frontage of the Yorks & Lanc, South Lancs and Royal Lancs at Vaal Krantz was similar.

The various battalions at Modder River had frontages of about 1000 yards apiece.

Though, as you rightly assert, there would have been examples of battalions adopting much tighter frontages.

This is always a dilema. In our rules we accept a deviation of a factor of about 5 between figure and ground scale. Even then other distortions are necessary.

For ranges under about 200m we add about 50 to 70 m. If you had a real weapon (an example I can give is the Panzerfaust with a range for the early version of about 30m). in the real world that would take it well across a real road from beside a house. With table top roads they are well wider than 30m on ground scale so would be worthless. To be honest maps would and do have the same problem.

Similarly thre will always be too few building in a built up area. Our solution is pack them in a bit tighter and make sure you have more houses than you can deploy in and you get at lest an idea of the level of complexity of a real battle.

I should not that at a 5 to 1 ground to figure scale most areas on a map can have all the roads and hedges mapped at 1 to 1. Key if you want to have sensible cover for infantry. At that scale the typical field does not look absurd even though the hedge is 5 times closer at figure scale than it should be.

PS we play 1/144 scale at 1=1m so disparity is 6.9 to one and at 1/72 1" = 10m about 5.4 to one. To be honest the 5.4 to one is better certainly at short ranges but we went for the 6.9 to 1 for 1/144 as we could use metric rulers and much of the action is at longer ranges and the country is generally more open where we chose to create our battles.

Hi Allen,

"Chris – what size is the formation you mention for BBB and what is the width of its base in your 12"/2500m grid square? Your grid square scales around 1" equaling 200m. 2mm miniatures such as Irregular sell would be men about 15 feet tall, a little over twice the size you would need for true scale."

BBB's ground and troop scales vary. For the scenario Anton and I just finished this week, Paardeberg, the basic element, a 1" square troop base, represent 250 men.

Most of the British units are half-brigades of two battalions, each of ~750 men, thus the units have 6 bases and a 6" frontage in line, or 3" per battalion.

The ground scale for the scenario is just under 220m per inch, therefore ~650m frontage per battalion.

We use 6mm figures, about 5 per base = 1:50 troop scale.
Ground scale disparity is about 25:1, since 6mm would be about 50m tall. Still it doesn't look too distorted to my eye, as the figures are small enough that when they are fighting each other a foot apart, and viewed from several feet away, it looks plausibly like a battle. Not as bad as the wheel to wheel and muzzle to muzzle tanks you often see fighting WWII actions in 20mm or 28mm. But it is true that the distortion is still there in our BBB games too.

In the end it's an aesthetic compromise, isn't it? You can either have the battle really look like a battle; or you can have attractive model soldiers that are recognisable as their historical counterparts from a couple of feet away; but you can't have both.

Chris

Even with Napoleonic weapons, it's really hard to get figure scale equal to ground scale and still have a table you can play on. I've seen it done at 3mm, 6"=100yds, but even then you're running into trouble with table width. A 6' table is only 1200yds wide.

Even American Civil War rifled muzzle-loaders makes that deploying in shooting range of the infantry, and more modern weapons just makes it worse and worse. At some point, you need to decide your 'out of contact' movement is going through dead terrain, and not simply out of weapons range.

"What this all leads to is a feeling that I have had for some time that giving rifles a range of say 18 inches on our tables is misleading. We really should say that in a 1:1 skirmish game rifles have an unlimited range on our typical 4X6 foot table. In other words, if you can see it you can shoot at it."

Except for short range weapons (like pistols), I got rid of the range stats for weapons in my WIP skirmish game engine, going with a steadily worsening shooting modifier as the range increases, so 'unlimited' range isn't a problem…

The Boer war is a bit of an oddity.
Partly since they had excellent rifles, excellent marksmen who were well used to shooting game at range.
The "empty battlefield" is the modern response but units were still marching around at the time.
They also didn't have indirect artillery fire. Meaning less problems from giving away positions.

300m is wildly optimistic as an effective range for rifles on a modern battlefield. But of course support weapons are effective way beyond this.
If they have a visible target.

Well, yes and no.

No doubt the Boers had good rifles (as did the Imperial units), but the notion that the republicans were all tangle-bearded, Bible-reading, sharp-shooting frontiersmen in 1899 is largely post-war myth (I won't go into why Afrikaner Nationalists and Apartheid-era propagandists were so desperate to indulge in such myth-making):

'Of course, those who were indeed tough farmers, hunters, or grizzled frontiersmen made naturally formidable—if decidedly individualistic—warriors. These were hard, resourceful men who were perfectly at home in the saddle, and who were crack-shots with their Mausers, their martial skills having been honed by years of endless native wars. But it is often overlooked that many others in the republican ranks were tender-footed townsmen, more at home behind a desk or shop-counter than in the field. Deneys Reitz described his comrades in the Pretoria Commando as, ‘mostly young fellows from the civil service and the legal offices and shops in the town. Few of them had ever seen war, or undergone military training'.'

General Ben Viljoen agreed:
‘…immediately martial law is promulgated the entire Boer adult male population is amenable for military service. In the ranks of a commando one finds men of every profession, from the advocate and doctor to the blacksmith and plumber.'

The mercenaries / idealists of the various recently-arrived foreign contingents would have had no more experience of 'shooting game at long range' than the rawest British Tommy.

Only in the rarest cases (Hart's Brigade at Colenso, and the Highland Brigade at Magersfontein – the latter being a cock-up of timing) were troops 'marching about'. Viljoen gives a rather different appraisal of how the Tommies attacked:

‘…in scattered formation … much less visible to our marksmen. When advancing to the attack the British foot soldiers were wont to crawl along on their faces, seeking cover whenever that was available; thus advancing, and especially when they were supported by artillery, their men proved very difficult to repulse.'

Rather than super-human marksmanship, the big change was the use of smokeless powder and the extensive use of trenches (both of which largely nullified suppressive fire), plus the sheer (hitherto pretty much unprecedented) weight of fire that two or three thousand magazine rifles (often backed by machine guns) could lay down – even firing at 1000 yards or so. But the idea that Boers were picking out (and picking off) individual targets at a mile or two is post-war nonsense, though one can still hear it being spouted every weekend, in every bar and around every braai in South Africa.

Indirect artillery fire was used in the Boer War, but was certainly in its infancy:

'2nd Balloon Section RE claimed a world first when they employed this ground-breaking advance, directing the fire of the RN guns at Ladysmith in November 1899. Writing about events in April 1900, Captain (later Lt. Gen) George MacMunn described how he had gone up in a balloon to direct the fire of a 6' gun against republican positions and guns ‘on the other side of the Vaal, about 7,000 yards away and hidden by koppies'. The bombardment was entirely successful and the Boer forces were quickly scattered: ‘Great fun it was. You never saw such an exodus of every sort of vehicle hastily inspanned'.'

Wow – how did they coordinate a battalion troops over 1,500 yards of frontage before radios?

Plus – interesting that the frontage of 1,500 yards is similar to the range of the rifles!

I seem to recall that the frontage of a 1980s British Army platoon-attack was about 300 metres – which was also the battle range of our SLRs. (Individual fire max out to 400 metres, section fire out to 600m, GPMG light-role out to 800 metres, GPMG fixed-role out to 1,200 metres)

Coordination was certainly a challenge, though they managed more often than not. I guess lots of loud, foul-mouthed NCOs were mainly responsible.

The attacks by (for example) the Devons at Elandslaagte and the KRRC at the Twin Peaks were text book executions.

For those who still cling to the myths of Boers casually picking off blundering Tommies at a mile, here it is from the horse's mouth, so to speak:

Telegram from Commandant-General P. Joubert to Assistant-General Botha [GOC at the Tugela line], 7th December 1899:

‘I cannot neglect to reiterate pointing out to you and begging you to insist sternly with the officers and men against wild firing at long and almost impossible distances… our burghers with their rapid-fire rifles begin to shoot at so great a distance, and it is much to be feared that in a fierce fire fight lasting a whole day, they fire way all their ammunition to no purpose without hurting the enemy'

Let's examine that Mauser firing at one mile (1700 yards). The open ramp sights for the Boer Mauser can be set for up to 2000m so shooting at 1 mile is feasible. In the early 1900's 2000m would be group area fire, not sniping of individuals.

I could not find any specific data for accuracy but most Mauser's should be capable of 1.5 to 2.0 MOA. You could find some excellent ones with a 1.0 MOA. A 1.0 MOA is 1 inch per 100 yards so would shoot a group that is 2 inches in diameter. At 1700 yards 1.5 MOA would be 48 inch group. A 2.0 MOA would be a 72 inch group. If a human torso is 16x24 inches you'd have a fair chance of hitting in good conditions with an experienced shooter as that is the inherent accuracy of the rifle. At 800 yards the groups would be about 50% smaller.

Another variable is the aiming error which is most likely to occur with the open sights. This could increase the group's size by about 20% – 40% depending on the shooters eyesight and environmental conditions. Wind and mirage is another variable too. However, with a good spotter, those can be overcome.

The big variable is knowing the correct range. If you set the sights for 1700 yards and the target was at 1500 yards you'll get a 2.0 MOA of a group of 72 inches at 1700m but all of the rounds would miss and go over the target at 1500 yards. Range estimation is the biggest variable.
I can hold a 12-18 inch group with my M1 Garand at 600 yards which has about 1.5 – 2.0 MOA in the prone sling position with iron peep sights in good lighting and no wind. That's using old CMP Greek Army surplus ammo, not custom reloads. Any Mauser should do a little better. I've pulled targets for super accurized AR-15's holding 4-6 inch groups at 600 yards. I have not been on the range with Mauser's.

I'm not familiar with the Boer War at all. However, I think if you had someone that was an experienced marksman and a spotter with a 10x scope you could spot the vapor trail of the round to get the gun ranged in and create a range card for different targets. This would mean being in a fixed position for a number of days and the targets cooperating to a degree. If one shooter got the range and relayed it to everyone else they'd be able to put accurate fire on a static defender but wasting most of their ammo. I would not consider this "wild firing".

This is by no means a scientific presentation, just some data to give you an idea of the feasibility and potential accuracy of a Mauser at one mile. Make your own conclusion.

Wolfhag

Wow – how did they coordinate a battalion troops over 1,500 yards of frontage before radios?

It is funny how that question isn't asked by wargame designers…

They coordinate the same way they coordinated a division over the same frontage during the Napoleonic wars or a brigade during the Franco-Prussian War or the Greeks at Troy or Marathon or the Romans and Macadonians at Pydna, or Frederick at Leuthen or the 2nd Queen's and 2nd Devons advancing in open order at Colenso.

Regulating units with everyone else keeping up with it.

You see the US Army and Marines using the very same method in advancing into Fallujah in 2004.

Even skirmish order is a kind of a line.
Those guys to our right are moving… So we should move.

Waving people forward was the main use of an officers sword.
And still so in 1914 apparently.
Since the shiny waving swords were apparently how british riflemen spotted german officers. Before everyone had trenches.

Even skirmish order is a kind of a line.

Yes, in that case the 'regulating unit' was the guide or directing file of two men, found on the right or left flank or rarely in the middle. The commanding officer would then control the skirmish line with that file and/or a bugle.

The veldt is just about ideal for long-range shooting. It's generally dry and dusty, so you can see where a shot landed.

Especially if someone is going to be stupid and stand in the open next to a large target like an artillery piece.

Same problem in Afghanistan/NWF. Never stand next to an officer, a white rock, or artillery!

I just watched a documentary on Roark's Drift concerning the VC winners. The British opened up on the Zulu's at @500 yards.

It all depends on the terrain and whether the enemy is shooting back with any effect.

Shooting at a mass of people is obviously going to make it rather easier to hit someone.
Hence the whole empty battlefield thing and modern armies don't march in column onto the battlefield. Unless they're hollywood stupid baddies.

Most of rorke's drift took place at night, didn't it?
There were numerous charges from the garden which were beaten back, rallied and repeated.
The garden is pretty close to the buildings.
I think the zulu force was also elders which iir means 50+.
That day they'd done a full march, swum a river and then the battle started early evening.

Range markers are going to increase accuracy substantially.

Some info on this I came across:
In the book "War to the Bitter End" at Kambula Hill on page 193, it states that range markers were set out in every direction out to 1000 yards.

From the book, "Zulu The Heroism and Tragedy of the ZuluWar of 1879 by SAUL DAVID
Wood had, in addition, ordered range markers to be set up at varying distances from the camp.

A warrior of the uMxhapho remembered: ‘Everyone in the iNgobamakhosi lay down as the safest, for the bullets from the white men were like hail falling about us. It was fearful, no one could face them without being struck . . . I found myself near a large white stone† placed there by the white people; behind this, I got, and remained there.'
† Almost certainly a range marker.

The Martini Henry rifle:
The Mk2 Martini–Henry rifle, as used in the Zulu Wars, was sighted to 1,800 yards. At 1,200 yards (1100 m), 20 shots exhibited a mean deflection from the centre of the group of 27 inches (69.5 cm), the highest point on the trajectory was 8 feet (2.44 m) at 500 yards (450 m). The MK2 Martini's sights are marked to 1,800 yards, but this setting was only ever used for long-range mass volley firing to harass an artillery position or a known massed cavalry position, prior to a main fight, and to prevent or delay infantry attacks.

In 1879, however, it was generally found that in average hands the .577/450 Martini–Henry Mk2, although the most accurate of the Martinis in that calibre ever produced for service life, was really only capable of hitting a man-size target out to 400 yards. During most of the key battles, such as Rorke's Drift and the battle of Ulundi, the order to volley fire was not given until the Zulus were at or within 400 yards. The rifle could achieve a rate of fire of 20 rounds per minute which is about the amount of time a Zulu charge could cover 400 yards.

In the Zulu movie, I recall at the start of the battle two young boys out in front were setting up range markers and had to run back when the attack started.

This is probably more info than you are interested in.

Wolfhag

Shooting at a mass of people is obviously going to make it rather easier to hit someone.
Hence the whole empty battlefield thing and modern armies don't march in column onto the battlefield. Unless they're hollywood stupid baddies.

Most of rorke's drift took place at night, didn't it?

The battle began in the daylight. But yeah, much easier to hit a mass of people who aren't taking cover. I was just noting at what range the British began firing.

And this issue is why most tabletop gamers don't use 1:1 model:ground scaling.

I mean, we don't in Naval, even for the Age of Sail with short range guns.

As I mentioned earlier, Napoleonics is about the last time you could use actual model scale on the ground and not have a stupidly-large table. At 6mm, 12"=100yards, and musket fire was not much farther than that. The problem is that your entire table would be within cannon range. 3mm actually makes that a little easier, 6"=100yds, so a 6x8 foot table would be 1200 yards wide and 1600 yards long.

"In the Zulu movie, I recall at the start of the battle two young boys out in front were setting up range markers and had to run back when the attack started"

Yes – that was in 'Zulu Dawn' – a Corporal (I think) and a young drummer boy / bugler (presumably) were putting out range pegs. If I recall, the youngster gets blatted as they try to get back to the British firing line.

I recently looked into effective musket range for our game.
150 to 200 yards was considered "safe range".
There are several recorded instances where units engaged at 100 yards to no noticeable effect.
So it maybe depends on troop quality, care in loading etc etc but max effective musket range seems to be 100 to 150 yards with a huge drop off beyond about 40.
"Wait until you see the whites of their eyes…"

Having said all that.

Like many things, unit range is configurable in GeneralStaff. So if musket men can shoot 300 yards in your opinion then you're not limited to my understanding of reality.
Most players aren't likely to edit their units.
Or at least that's Ezra's opinion based on UMS and UMS2.

I think that 'in your opinion' really depends on the opinion of those shooting.

Even with smoothbore muskets, military men such as Clausewitz, Scharnhorst and a number of French officers, saw 200 to 300 yards as 'effective range.'

Then there are the ranges that infantry are said to have opened fire in accounts, which too have fire beginning at those very same ranges…Even Oman states that the French at Talavera and Salamanca opened fire at 200 to 250 yards.

The third factor is what kind of effect was being achieved--or was attempted. The reason to open fire at 200 yards wasn't the same as 50.

And another point I hadn't thought of besides the type of terrain dictating ranges, was simply tactics and situational needs.

I heard a fellow on Youtube talking about the changes in ammo from WWI to WWII and after, and one of the things he said was that accurate fire over 1000 yards became less important from WWI to WWII, and that rapid fire at shorter ranges became more important. Even the size of bullets and charges were reduced--not all having to do with the increased effectiveness of gun powder during and after WWII.

One source:

link

"

In terms of performance, tests show that the musket is most accurate at about 50yd. Analysis of 19 battles between 1750 and 1830 shows that the average engagement distance for infantry was 64yd and that closing fire, when infantry was advancing and firing, was delivered at a mere 30yd. In terms of rate of fire a British infantryman was expected to manage three rounds a minute in combat. Tests carried out by the East India Company in 1834-5 using a Board of Ordnance India Pattern musket showed that it could penetrate three 1in-thick deal planks set 12in apart at 60yd and then penetrate 1in into the third three-layer set of planks. This set of results was with the service charge of 6dr of good-quality British powder, and when you observe the slow-motion footage of a musket ball penetrating a gel block and the shattering of simulated bone you can well understand the damage that musket balls wrought on the field of Waterloo.
See the weapons of Waterloo at the Royal Armouries, Leeds exhibition: Waterloo: The Art of Battle, 22 May to 23 August. The museum is open daily 10am-5pm. Entry is free; royalarmouries.org.

"

Andy:

I don't buy it, for the following reasons:

1. All the fire engagements from 19 battles or just one from each? That is a lot of averaging if all fire recorded for each battle.

2. Does that include skirmish fire too? No, probably only close formation fire.

3. Average? The average family in the US is 2.4 children. Seen any that size lately. So what was the actual range of results that 'average' was created from? Two volleys from 150 yards and three from 30 yards = an average of 78 yards. Add one volley from 60 yards and the average is 75 yards. Do the same thing 5 X 30, 60, and 150 and you get 80 yards average. That is the problem.

4. That doesn't explain why units would open up in mass at 200 yards or why experienced officers would put 'effective fire' at twice or three times that 'average' distance.

Bill

What exactly would have been meant by "accurate fire" at ranges in excess of 1000 yards?

I'm guessing MG zone/area fire.

B

The Royal Armouries have people working for them so they are of course capable of making mistakes. They're usually a reliable source though.

Most versions of the battle of Quebec (1759) have the French counter attack opening fire early to little effect. The British hold their fire until the enemy are 40 yards ( 130 feet in some versions ) and this volley is decisive.
This eyewitness account is particularly interesting.
It differs or doesn't gloss over the details quite so much and is by a Sergeant Major rather than an officer.

link

"
On the 14th we landed, at break of Day, and immediately attacked and routed the Enemy, taking Possession of a Battery of 4 24-Pounders, and one thirteen Inch Mortar, with but an inconsiderable Loss. We then took Post on the Plains of Abraham, whither M. Montcalm (on hearing that we had landed, for he did not expect us) hasted with his whole Army (consisting of Cavalry as well as Infantry) to give us Battle; about 9 o'Clock; we observed the Enemy marching down towards us in three Columns, at 10 they formed their Line of Battle, which was at least six deep, having their Flanks covered by a thick Wood on each Side, into which they threw above 3000 Canadians and Indians, who gauled us much; the Regulars then marched briskly up to us, and gave us their first Fire, at about Fifty Yards Distance, which we did not return, as it was General Wolfe's express Orders not to fire till they came within twenty Yards of us --They continued firing by Platoons, advancing in a very regular Manner till they came close up to us, and then the Action became general: In about a Quarter of an Hour the Enemy gave way on all Sides, when a terrible Slaughter ensued from the quick Fire of our Field Pieces and Musquetry with which we pursue'd them to the Walls of the Town, regardless of all excessive heavy Fire from all their Batteries. The Enemy lost in the Engagement, Lieut. Gen. Montcalm, (who was torn to Pieces by our Grape Shot) 2 Brigadier-Generals; one Colonel; 2 Lieutenant-Colonels ; and at least 130 Officers and Men kill'd and 200 taken Prisoners at their very Sally-Ports, of which 58 were Officers. On our Side was killed the brave and never to be forgotten General WOLFE; with 9 Officers, 4 Serjeants and 44 Privates ; wounded, Brigadier-General Monckton , Colonel Carlton, Quarter-Master-General; Major Barre, Adjutant-General; and 50 Other Officers, with 26 Serjeants and 557 privates.-- This Action was the more glorious, as the Enemy were at least 12,000 strong, besides 500 Horse; whereas we, at the utmost, did not consist of above 3500, some of whom did not engage;--for at the Time of the Engagement Colonel Scott was out burning the Country with 1600 Men; Col. Burton was at Point-Levee with 2000 Men; and on the Island of Orleans there were 1500; whereas our whole Army, at our first embarking at Louisbourg, did not exceed 8240 Men.
"

Note that he describes the French firing by platoons at 50 yards and the British are ordered to hold fire until the French are 20 yards away.
Even if the bloke is under estimating the range the French open fire at, the standing order is interesting.

Anyone interested in the Boer War and SAfrican military history in general should most definitely visit the following website -

samilitaryhistory.org

- sponsored by the South African Military History Society. Make sure that you check out the Military History Journal Archive – 40 years of articles!

B

Andy:
That is a great eye-witness account. Four things:

1.What Wolfe issued wasn't a standing order. If it had been, he wouldn't have had to give the order for the battle.
2. How far away were the Canadians 'gauling' the British with fire?
3. Note that it took 15 minutes to end the engagement in which time after the first fire, the French and British were within 20 yards of each other…AND fire from the field pieces which seems to be the weapon that killed Moncalm.
4. The British seem to have taken the worst of it in the way of casualties.

Being a fairly small battle with one tactical event, we can count this as two formed troops opening up at 50 and 20 yards and light troops opening up at?

If you take a look at the description on wiki, it's a bit clearer on the bigger picture.
Other accounts say casualties were roughly equal.

The flank engagement with canadians and indians was with a force almost as big as the entire british. There was some to and fro before it was driven back.

Aoso, casualties were taken assaulting the city. In particular the highlanders took fire from a battery.

Equal casualties. Got it. It would seem then, that relative casualties or where the firing on both sides started didn't necessarily determine the winner of the engagement.

What exactly would have been meant by "accurate fire" at ranges in excess of 1000 yards?

My guess would be an occasional hit somewhere in the unit.

Not hard when someone is standing up and not moving, or only moving slowly. Or when you have a range marker to shoot at like the cannon.

Crud, with a modern smoothbore shotgun I've put two round balls (double ball rounds, very fun to shoot!) through the same hole consistently at 50yards. I do like that Mossberg pump.

I have a Friend who has a French Charleville musket, .69 caliber smoothbore musket, model 1777, the type used by the French during the Napoleonic Wars.

Anyway, he has fired at targets three foot square at 70 yards and been able to hit it 4 times out of ten. When he 'patched' the ball with paper, he was able to hit the same target at 150 yards 7 times out of ten.

There are a lot of things that effect a weapon's performance. Actual use and contemporary views of the weapon effectiveness really are the only two factors that count in determining a weapon's 'effectiveness.'

Technical ranges and weapon performance etc. really don't provide conclusive information which establishes weapon use and effectiveness in the real world. hence field tests.