"Ramblings of a Military Historian " Topic

My blog: Ramblings of a Military Historian is up and running again. Johnmpriest.blogspot.com

Thank you.

Love your 'Determining the Accuracy of Primary Sources' article! Thank you and keep up the good, honest and from-the-heart posts!

John:

I enjoyed your question and exploration of how fast ACW soldiers could load their muskets and am glad you are back at blogging.

I did read your earlier article on'Determining the Accuracy of Primary Sources' and agree with all that you wrote on how to approach historical evidence.

All the way to the very end--then you finished by writing…:

History is an art, not a science.

Yet you used the scientific method to 'test' how fast you could fire a musket and asked others for their 'tests'.

History does incorporate the scientific method as much as it does art methods. They aren't diametrically opposed, but complementary. Even the hard sciences incorporate art into their work. Just FYI.

I agree with your observation. I should have written that "Historical interpretation and writing is an art."

John:

The rate of musket fire is a conundrum. The consistent claim from Napoleonic times through the ACW is that line infantry can and did deliver 3 shots per minute as the expected rate, or about every 16 seconds. Yet there are yours and others experiences suggesting that really isn't possible. If it isn't reasonable, it is very odd that contemporaries from several nations over 50 years would consistently make that claim.

The dropped minie balls could be from bungled loading, but just as easily the result of soldiers being hit in mid-loading or a combination.

Just some thoughts about this.

I appreciate your observations. There is an excellent YouTube video about what was referred to as "spit loading," in which a man with a flintlock musket could get off three rounds a minute. I do

It is an historical conundrum. Well worth further investigation.

Well, there is this youtube video of a flinklock being fired 3 times in under a minute using the ramrod.

YouTube link

The 'spit loading' seems to me as problematical, but it seems to work in the video I think you were referencing.

YouTube link

Spit loading is a problem because the ball does not have cartridge paper around it to make the ball tighter in the bore. This really reduces the weapon's accuracy.

What is needed is a demonstration using the properly packaged minor, the Enfield cartridge and the patent round.

Hello, Mr Priest -
One of my concerns has to do with the math that underlies the three rounds per minute figure. Disregarding use of cartridges from dead and wounded comrades, three rounds per minute will arguably exhaust a soldier's basic load of ammunition inside of 15 minutes worth of fire fight.

How would you assess the effect of fouling upon the soldier's rate of fire?

B

p.s. – My compliments on your book "Antietam – The Soldiers' Battle". I know it goes back a few years now, but I still consult it.

If everything went by the book – a big IF – the 40 rounds, theoretically would be gone in 15-20 minutes.

How about…In the first minute you fire three times if you start loaded at zero, 30 and 60 seconds. Subsequent minutes are twice unless fouled, i.e. every thirty seconds.
Although wargamers love having their troops firing at every opportunity, even at extreme range, it doesn't feature in that many histories. A short, sharp rapid exchange of musketry with threat of bayonet being far more prevalent in decisive actions. Any tendency towards prolonged firefights is often seen as a waste of ammunition by contemporaries.

You don't read about many prolonged firefights, meaning ones that last long enough for ammo depletion to be an issue mentioned.

While firing three times a minute seems to be entirely possible, I doubt that it could be maintained.

With smoke, the close quarters where men would either be hampered by others or they spread out, where as mentioned you have fouling, flint wear [about 12 shots is what I could achieve before I had to re-position the flint…or get a new one.] There is also the inability to control the firing once it started. The French don't seem to try after the first controlled volley… going to 'battle fire', independent fire.

However, holding fire until the enemy was close or firing and then charging is not something you read about much during most European engagements, though it certainly was done. It seems to take a lot of discipline to hold fire, then to stop firing after a few times, only to have the discipline to then charge.

Firefights were obviously attritional. I have read only rare instances of one side actually retreating from a firefight unless something else happened, reinforcements, a flank attack, a bayonet charge or/and reinforcements appear.

Still interested in comments about the effect of black powder bore fouling upon rate of fire.

Anyone have any information on this point?

B

Fouling was a persistent problem. I have read numerous accounts of rifles fouling after several shots. I have seen no specific studies of how often it occurred only anecdotal accounts.

The Duke of Wellington is quoted complaining that if the troops were not kept under controll they would shoot off their campaign load of 60 rounds in an hour. I doubt anyone can fire 3 rounds a minute for any length of time, but being able to fire 3 rounds a minute can mean the difference between beating off an attack or not. When the British were allied with Spain they were alarmed that the Spanish were trained to fire 2 rounds a minute. In a British 1715 militia manual it mention that for furious firings that the soldier should take the bullet out of the cartridge (after dumping the powder down the barrel) and place it in the bore and thump the butt to make it roll down to the powder. There is a description from Waterloo of a British sergeant doing the exact same thing. This doesn't do much for accuracy but it is a way of squeezing off an extra round into someone's face.

Hence my earlier query about the effect of fouling on the rate of fire of a muzzle-loading black powder musket. My general sense is that, assuming that the unit had started with clean muskets, 3rpm was possible for a short period of time – five minutes or so? – but that, over the course of a sustained firefight, fouling would very soon reduce rate of fire to – my guess here – around 1 rpm.

Once a unit halted and began to fire, it was difficult indeed to get them to stop. I'm doubtful that the standard authorized ammunition issue of forty rounds per man was intended to last for <15 minutes of sustained firing.

FWIW.

B

Fouling

French Fire & Bayonet Protocols in   Bardin, Manuel d'infanterie (1813) 4th edn.

It is interesting that you don't read much about the effect of fouling on the rate of fire.

Bardin wrote a infantry manual in 1805 which was reprinted several times, the 4th in 1813

He goes into detail about the rate of fire and all the things that can interfer:
 
*Flint failure [he describes how the flint end is to be coated with molten Lead give it a proper seat in the lock vice.
*Lock and hammer springs being out of adjustment [the tool for measuring the proper balance is the  blénomčtre
*improper loading
*poor ammunition
*poorly molded balls

He then goes into how to aim at what distances [says it is pointless to fire upslope at a target on a crest.]

He comments on smoke and all the forms of volley fire.

He never mentions fouling as a reason for a slowing of fire or a misfire.

I remember reading an article about an ACW reenactor having purchased a replica Spencer carbine, and after a half dozen shots found he couldn't chamber a cartridge due to powder fouling. He read the testing reports of the Spencer where, if memory serves, 500 rounds were fired and there was no mention of problems chambering the cartridges due to fouling. He then went and attempted to produce his own gunpowder based of the Army formula for the 1860's. He couldn't get all the same materials, and conclided his powder would have matched US Army grade 2 rather than grade 1. In firing he discovered that he had a lot less smoke, more flash, and no trouble chambering his cartridges.

Very interesting scholarly article that suggests musket fouling was indeed a problem in the ACW.

Go here – link

B

Blutarski:

That is a great article with unique approach to the question. It is interesting how much of the ammo was 'defective' or not the right diameter.

If the lead molding was off that often, I wonder about the quality of the black powder. Could 'bad powder' be as high percentage-wise as the bullet manufacturing?

Having said that, I think the author dismisses the veteran soldiers complaining about 'bad powder' as an issue because they have fired off 40 rounds and there would be fouling anyway.

I would imagine that experienced soldiers would know decent gun powder from bad… particularly after firing 40 rounds… I would think that if ALL powder fouled about the same amount, veteran soldiers would not be surprised by the fouling, let alone blame 'bad powder' on it.

Agreed, McLaddie. I too found it interesting. There does not seem to bet a lot of this sort of well organized information/analysis on this subject. The oversize bullet topic, the trend toward increased windage and bullet lubrication or lack thereof were noteworthy to me.

A bit of further interwebnet trolling turned up some additional comment and theory; the reenactor community, for example, clearly includes a number of students of history.

For example, the term "bad powder" was theorized to mean chemically inferior powder; others mention the effects of high humidity and dampness. One item of interest was a comment about the introduction and evolution of the special cartridges with bore-cleaning bullets introduced circa 1863; according to one source, these special bullets were initially incorporated into ammunition packages on the basis of 1 in 10 in relation to normal cartridges, but that the ratio was steadily increased until it reached 1 in 3 by war's end; one individual did question the accuracy of this data, but did not offer evidence in support.

At the end of the day, judging by the number and variety of remedial efforts – both officially and field service inspired – bore fouling does seem to have attracted a fair amount of attention.

B

Even today, smokeless powder can vary greatly in quality (or consistency of loading).

Russian Military surplus (as well as Wolf, Bear, and Tiger brands) is notorious for inconsistency, your empty cases will be all over the place coming out of a semiauto (when they should land in a relatively neat heap if the ammo is consistent).

Prvi Partisan (headstamped PPU) is much more consistent, but generates a lot of black fouling.

Even the M16's reliability issues came from a bean-counter changing the powder specification from what Stoner had designed the rifle for to a powder that didn't burn as clean.

It is unusual for what would be assumed to be a common problem, for fouling to be so little commented as to how to deal with it or how much of an impact it made on fire rates.

I can only imagine that because of the unpredictable nature of poor quality powder, that the problem of fouling was also unpredictable or a problem that could not be remedied pro-actively in the field. The soldier had to 'clean it out' by the methods already mentioned.