"Small arms fire hittng units beyond target" Topic

We usually accept that fire from smoothbore and early rifled artillery often damaged units beyond the target.

How much do you think this was a factor with musket fire respectively fire from rifled muskets. How long would a potential danger zone be – do you have examples of this effect fro SYW, Napoleonics, 1859, crimea, ACW?

We usually accept that fire from smoothbore and early rifled artillery often damaged units beyond the target.

How much do you think this was a factor with musket fire respectively fire from rifled muskets. How long would a potential danger zone be – do you have examples of this effect from SYW, Napoleonics, 1859, crimea, ACW?

In my 7YW rules, I have an equivalent to accurate musket range beyond the target unit for 'Bounce Through'
link
I think it is hard to find examples apart from the spacing between lines historically used.

I've read of many officers getting hit several hundred years away from the front, remember there would be tens of thousands of musket balls flying over their targets and continuing on their merry way. I've read about at least two instances of soldiers getting hit by a musket ball a mile away, by that time they generally only get a nasty bruise.

"I've read of many officers getting hit several hundred years away from the front…"

Those would be extreme cases of PTSD

When armies usually deployed in long lines of battalions with a supporting line 300 or so yard/metres/paces (take your pick) behind, I have always understood that the distance was partly so that musket fire at the first line would not be excessively dangerous to the supporting line. The comparatively light weight musket balls would loose too much energy and cause few debilitating injuries. Where as the much heavier round shot would retain sufficient force to be really quite dangerous.

It gets far more acute with rifled weapons, for range and flatter trajectories…I could be taken into consideration for tactical games, sure should for grand skirmish. Event cards perhaps?

Smoothbores and even the early rifles had such a low muzzle velocity that the bullets flew in a considerable arc. At anything other than short range the bullets would be coming down on the target at a fairly sharp angle. Misses would not travel very far past the target (50 yards maybe). At short range (100 yards or so) of course, a miss could go much farther. And you always have to consider very poorly aimed shots which could very far afield.

The distance between lines would be as much to give time to react to what was happening in front (and to see a bigger picture) as to be worried about enemy fire.

infantry overshooting their direct target but inflicting losses on the reserves behind, an example here :

Jany, Curt : Die Gefechtsausbildung der Preußischen Infanterie von 1806. Mit einer Auswahl von Gefechtsberichten.
Urkundliche Beiträge und Forschungen zur Geschichte des Preußischen Heeres.
Herausgegeben vom Großen Generalstabe, Kriegsgeschichtliche Abtheilung II.
Fünftes Heft
Berlin 1903
18. Ein Preußischer Jägeroffizier Leutnant von Seydlitz, später Yorks Adjutant und bekannt als Herausgeber des Tagebuchs des Yorkschen Korps von 1812, berichtet 1808 das „die französischen Tirailleurs schon auf 1600 Schritt blessierten." Ferner : „Die Belagerung von Danzig giebt als Beispiel, daß Jäger ohne Bajonett eine Schanze weggenommen und keine Blessierten hatten, und ihe Repli, Linieninfanterie mit Bajonett, was 1500 Schritt hinter ihnen stand, dazu eine Menge hatte." (…)
S. 103
Footnote 18
A Prussian Jäger officer, lieutennat von Seydlitz, later ADC of York and famous as editor of the diary of York‘s corps in 1812, reported 1808, that ; "the French tirailleurs wounded already at 1600 paces." Also : "The siege of Danzig shows as example that Jäger without bayonet took a redoubt without any wounded and their support, line infantry with bayonets, who stood 1500 behind had many of them."

SYW & Naps:

Close country spacing – 200 yards, open country spacing – 300 yards this is for troops deployed in lines.

This spacing distance would be good for reducing casualties from overshooting by lead musket balls or direct-fired lead canister shot. Round missiles lose velocity very quickly at certain distances.

Mid-Naps:

Changeover to iron canister shot which can be bounced (lead deforms). The beaten zone would be deeper – more dangerous to masses – probably 400 yards is safer spacing for second line.

Post Naps:

Rifled rounds – the beaten zone would be deeper – especially for boat-shaped bullets – they don't suffer the velocity drop-off of spherical bullets.

This latter may explain why ACW went back to linear formations – beaten zones too deep for formations a la profond.

The gap between lines in a mid-18th century to early 19th century army was also to allow the second line to fire at any enemy troops who penetrated between the two lines without greatly endangering the first line.

In some of our rules we give "bounce-through" fire to artillery fire but not to infantry fire. We also treat two lines that are too close together as a column target, making it easier to inflict hits, which can then be divided between the two units.

Jim

Better question, is the overhead to the rules worth the effect?

Maybe in a small action, no in a full battle.

Yes, then as usual minimal effects are best discarded in games. In skirmishes (the need for L shaped ambushes? already?) it might be occasionally relevant.
both in the measure of rare events possibly.

Solid shot Artillery during the Napoleonic Wars was often viewed as being either 'direct fire' at a target or 'random', interdicting an area in front of the lines. Clausewitz comments on this when he acted as a courier. He could tell how close he was getting to the 'front' by the number and quality of the shot landing around him. [quality being weigth, height and whether it was 'targeted' shot or not.

Random was often simply necessity because of smoke… you got shot down range simply because that is where the enemy was, not that you could see them or know where your shot was falling.

Small arms fire, particularly ACW rifles, did have a serious drop in trajectory… which means over or undershooting was a significant possibility.

Having said that, I haven't read anything Napoleonic or after that mentions taking casualties from small arms fire behind the front lines… which *I think* is what we are talking about here. On the other hand, how would troops in the second wave assaulting the stone wall at Fredericksburg know whether they were being hit by pass through fire or being the principal target?

To my mind, it would be a needless complication.

Yea, even .22 cal rounds are supposedly dangerous out to a mile or more.

You can put an eye out with that, not to mention other stuff.

Of course, woods, forests, trees, hills, buildings, etc., will negate a lot of that.

G'Day Nicolai

If I may….

There was also a method of executing fire over a formed body.

It was called Feu Fichant.

Normally associated with artillerie, but it was also a feu d'infanterie as well, which was a mode of fire that was executed as a tactical fire.

A while back…Hans-karl and I discussed this issue, and it is not found in the Reglement or Rules and Regulations because it is considered under the principles of feu d'artillerie et du fortifications (et mousqueterie).

It is used for firing into trenches, depressions, into fortifications, large stationary objects, such as a large mass formation (large), and artillery.

Artillery executed this fire against both cavalry and tirailleurs hidden in close proximity.

It was meant to push them from a position temporarily with a hail of non-aimed continuous fire. It was not used on moving objects, and as Gneisenau states..at best, 'unaimed vertical fire, rarely hits anyone, but could make men nervous'. It was considered by most a waste of ammunition, with little results. Nevertheless it was executed through the Napoleonic Era by both artillery and infantry.

Of course this method of fire may not be what you were seeking in your thread…

Best Regards
Art

Trajectory is only one part of the equation; the other is the extent (depth) of the incoming cone of fire.

B

@art

The Vickers was used for indirect fire against enemy positions at ranges up to 4,500 yards (4,115 m) with Mark VIIIz ammunition.[35] This plunging fire was used to great effect against road junctions, trench systems, forming up points, and other locations that might be observed by a forward observer, or zeroed in at one time for future attacks, or guessed at by men using maps and experience. Sometimes a location might be zeroed in during the day, and then attacked at night, much to the surprise and confusion of the enemy. New Zealand units were especially fond of this use. A white disc would be set up on a pole near the MMG, and the gunner would aim at a mark on it, knowing that this corresponded to aiming at the distant target. There was a special back-sight with a tall extension on it for this purpose. The only similar weapon of the time to use indirect fire was the German MG 08, which had a separate attachment sight with range calculator.

link

G'Day Oli

PAINT ME STUPID

Thank you for the correction:

My IP address is messed up…I can receive but cannot send from my personal account. Comcast swears up and down, that it is not their fault ;-)

I should have it fixed next week…or so they say…if nothing else I will send you my gmail account…

Here is the correction for my posting thanks to Oli:

"feu fichant"

For those who read French:

Bardin makes a difference between this term applied to artillery, and applied to infantry. They mean to different things:

link

For those who can read only English, here is the translation as "feu oblique" in 1816, here it is the infantry fire:

Feu+Fichant

Best Regards
Art

Smoothbores and even the early rifles had such a low muzzle velocity that the bullets flew in a considerable arc. At anything other than short range the bullets would be coming down on the target at a fairly sharp angle. Misses would not travel very far past the target (50 yards maybe). At short range (100 yards or so) of course, a miss could go much farther. And you always have to consider very poorly aimed shots which could very far afield.

Actually, this is not exactly true. Roundball muskets had a very high initial muzzle velocity. Their trajectory was quite level for 100 yards or so. What was in effect is that they had a poor ballistic coefficeint. The shape (round ball rather than a long clinder moving on axis) was light in weight for its diameter. So it did not have a lot of energy (mass x v x v) to push the air out of the way and quickly slowed down. This caused it to sink very rapidly with distance and curve downward a lot. (Actually, the physics is that with time, things fall more and more quickly- the acceleration of gravity).

Anything in the smoothbore era out past 300 yards is pointless. And seems most firing was at longer range so beyond that initial unit is out of range.

For that reason they did deliberately fire in an arc, when firing on long range distance firing, also accidently – the third or second rank was firing high and so long distance fire ensued which could cause damage on the units in the second line or at the reserves.

It's the law of great number, tens hundreds of thousands some times millions of muskets balls were fired, a tiny fraction of a % hit their target.
The rest went over, under or to the side of the target. Except for those going under, the balls continued on their merry way. The vast majority would drop to the ground at some point. But with so many random bullets, hundreds of unintentional hits would happen. Be it 200, 300 or 400 yards behind the original target. Officers on horses has a higher chance of getting hit.

PAINT ME STUPID

Is that a new color?

The venerable Quarrie rules considered this. Every type of weapon has a 'penetration' value in yards/metres, meaning that you resolve attacks against not only the target unit, but also against those beyond it within penetration distance.

I am not sure whether the question was about pass-through or unintended overshot, or purposeful fire beyond the first line…

Which is it, Sparta?

Thx a lot for all ther valuable feedback. My intention with the question was mainly about passthrough or unintended overshot. Allthough details such as Art´s on deliberate plunging fire is very intersting for the potential range.

My main interest is what would constitute a reserve zone in the different periods. Was infantry ususally 400 meters back during SYW and Napoleonics to avoid overshooting musketfire or just cannister (Napoleon was wounded by a samll cannister shot at Regensburg a long way from the front). And in the FPS it would seem thta the safe zone was ectended to 600 meters.

The interesting aspect in rules is how to penalize troops that are not kept well out of harms way.

Is the recommended spacing specified in any regulations? Bearing any of these in mind:

* Closeness/open-ness of country
* Preponderance of friendly/enemy cavalry
* Preponderance of friendly/enemy artillery
* Own/enemy troops ability to manoeuvre
* Etc

A little hunting about will turn up diagrams of ACW attack formations. One such can be found in the book "They Fought for the Union" by Francis Lord (Bonanza Books; 1960).

One such diagram shows the attack formation of 19th Corp at Winchester/Opequon -

. . . . . . . . skirmishers . . . . . . . . . .

interval 415 yards

-------Bde-------- --------Bde---------
interval – 220 yards
-------Bde-------- --------Bde---------

interval – 415 yards

-------Bde-------- --------Bde---------
interval – 220 yards
-------Bde-------- --------Bde---------

<------ Frontage – 1360 yards -------->

I think it's important to remember that no infantry formation consisted of marksman who reliably knew the range or even had their sights properly set. While projectile angle of fall was a consideration, the depth of the beaten zone that represented all the random aiming errors/variations of several hundred individual men was IMO a good deal more important. Likewise, case shot (shrapnel) had a considerable beaten zone, especially given the error budget inherent in early time fuzes. Solid shot fired in ricochet fire over good level ground could have a prodigiously deep "beaten zone".

FWIW.

B