"Actual engagement ranges in the FPW" Topic

I've just been reading again about the differences between the Chassepot and the Dreyse needle gun (always a fun distraction). While on paper the difference is quite stark (1200m vs. under 250m?), the difference seems mostly academic to me. Even today, when every rifle exceeds the accuracy of Chassepot and Dreyse, automatic fire is ubiquitous, and powder is nearly smokeless, engagement ranges still rarely exceed 500 yards. A big deal is often made about how much more accurate ACW weapons were over Napoleonic ones, but the engagement ranges and even casualty rates from small arms fire seem about the same. Increased long-range accuracy definitely improves the range of snipers, but not necessarily massed units.

What were the actual engagement ranges on FPW battlefields?

It seems I should be able to answer this question from written accounts, but alas, I don't have the right sources on hand to find out and Google hasn't shown me the right rabbit hole yet. I thought I'd toss it out to the peanut gallery.

Reading recommendations appreciated, as usual.

- Ix

Remember that they were still using much more massed formations. Loose order but not quit full Skirmish order. the target was 'that mass over there' and not single soldiers hiding in cover. Terrain would be the best reason ranges might have been shorter.

2000m for guns, 1000m and closer for small arms.

Another aspect is that units could go prone and maintain fire, further reducing casualties.

The Chassepot had an effective range of 1,500 yards and could fire 8 to 15 rounds a minute while the Dreyse could only fire 4 or 5 rounds a minute . The bullets of the Chassepot were smaller than the Dreyse, but had more penetrating power .

A Comparison here…

link

Both in action…

link

Of possible interest…

link

link

Testing both rifles…

link

The Dreyse Needle Gun…

link

The Chassepot Needle Rifle

YouTube link

link

link

Armand

+1 to Saber6.
I believe the Chassepot was used to bring Germans under fire at ranges of 1,000 metre or so. I'm not sure how well controlled the fire was, and could result in low ammunition by the time the enemy got to more effective ranges, but it did certainly slow down Prussian advances at, for example, Gravelotte-St Privat.

On St Privat:

"It should be pointed out here that a French division of troops armed with the Chassepot rifle could theoretically issue 40,000 rounds per minute! This is the avalanche of lead that the Prussian guardsmen attempted to march through. The 4th Guards Brigade covered about 1,500 yards before they were massacred by the French defensive fire. All their field officers were lost and the units was pinned down on the slopes about 800 yards from the French lines. The 1st Guards Brigade did little better, getting pinned down 700 yards from the French infantrymen with 2,000 casualties. The 2nd Guards Brigade was flattened 1,000 yards from the spires of St Privat. By 6:30, the Prussian Guard Corps suffered over 8,000 casualties and made no progress against VIth Corps."
link

As saber6 says, terrain is obviously the main limiting factor. The Germans got better at exploiting cover as the war went on: in the last battle of the war, Le Mans, they captured a mitrailleuse on the Plateau d'Avours by use of infiltration tactics foreshadowing WWI Sturmtruppen.

Another factor is doctrine. The French favoured defensive positions chosen deliberately to exploit the chassepot's long effective range. The Germans emphasised the value of rapid fire at close range.

(All this off the top of my head, no references, so others may add nuance or correct me.)

Chris

Bloody Big BATTLES!
groups.io/g/bloodybigbattles
BBBBlog:
bloodybigbattles.blogspot.com
BBB on FB:
link

By 1914, I believe German infantry companies had rangefinders, and trained to fire over a beaten zone at a specified range. As armies learnt to spread out (both the shooters and the targets) and use cover, such speculative fire would be less effective.

In the spirit of crediting where credit is due I have to say that the links, with brief descriptor, by Tango were really well chosen. I may not always be a fan but it was very cool and informative seeing the difference between a Dreyse and Chassepot being fired.

Thanks!

Thanks to Tango and all the above posters for some great info.
The Franco Prussian War has always been my favorite period of
history and my preferred gaming era.

Tango, thanks so much for the detail links on both the
Chassepot and the Dreyse. If memory serves correctly,
you too are a devotee of the FPW.

Gentlemen, again, thank you.

A votre service mes ami! (smile)

Armand

Tango, it's 1500 PACES, not YARDS. A pace is about .75 yards or .7 meters, so 1200 yards even overstates the range.

And, yes, the French often opened fire at long ranges – and failed to do much damage. The French Army failed to train infantry officers at range estimation, and the accepted figure for range estimation error by untrained persons is +-20%. As a result the French often opened fire at incorrect ranges.

A further problem was the poor training of the average French infantryman, who, in the heat of action, often failed to adjust his sights as the range closed. Given the heavily arced trajectory of black powder weapons, this meant that most rounds went over the heads of the intended targets.

The figure of 15 rounds per minute for a single shot breechloader is questionable, at least for the average rifleman. And the Dreyse could be fired every bit as rapidly as the Chassepot, but German soldiers were trained NOT to fire fast, but accurately.

And the effective range of the Dreyse was actually about 450 meters, not 250.

St. Privat was an unusual case, in that the defenders were firing at known, marked ranges (remember the sergeants in Zulu Dawn pacing out the distances and planting range stakes), and their officers actually calling out range changes and making sure their men reset their sights.

Part of my motivation for bringing this up is my desire to play with my 15mm FPW armies.

This is a period I really *want* to like, but so far it just hasn't worked for me in 15mm. The long ranges and WWI scale of firepower make it a grand tactical period, shrinking the ground scale and unit footprints. I've played 1871 a few times, and tiny battalions of 3-4 figures just don't do it for me. I really prefer a unit to have more than a dozen figures to give a better impression of massed formations.

This has sent me in search of tactical rules to try out, but those darned Chassepots can shoot all the way across a table at standard tactical gaming ground scales (e.g. 25yd/inch). I'm sceptical that tactical FPW gaming is likely to be much more fun than Pickett's Charge.

- Ix

Admiral, have you looked at BBB? Yes, it's grand tactical, but it might produce the massed-formation look you're after. The base unit is either a brigade or a division, typically of 4 to 6 bases, each 1" square. If you have 4 x 15mm figures on a 1" base, you'll usually have units of 16-24 figures. (Though a 2-base cavalry unit might look a bit weedy.)

Chassepot range in BBB is 12", which leaves plenty of room for manoeuvre on a 6'x4' table. There's lots of movement and the situation usually changes significantly to present new choices every turn.

The rulebook includes 9 scenarios for all the biggest battles of the war; there are another 6 or 7 in the BBB group files:
groups.io/g/bloodybigbattles

Chris

Bloody Big BATTLES!
BBBBlog:
bloodybigbattles.blogspot.com
BBB on FB:
link

I read lots of notes about the larger range of the Chassepot rifle in German memoirs – but also I read that the French used to aim to high, so often the larger range was not too helpful.

As the German army adopted the Chassepot rifle particularly for the cavalry after the FPW there were several discussion about its use … a work edited in 1879 gives an examination of the Chassepot use particularly at Gravelotte 18th August 1870. You may download the book at the Munich library via link

… and fortunately it is not printed with the old German letters :-)

Greetings from Berlin
Markus Stein
2empire.de

I forgot to mention that I gave some information about the Chassepot – and of course the other weapons of the German army at link
(you may use the translating aid via the flag)

Greetings
Markus Stein

Yellow Admiral,
Try Chassepot and Needlegun written by the late Larry Brom.
It has been my ruleset of choice for years. Available from
Sergeants 3. You should find several posts about the rules
here on TMP.

Another possibility is the now out of print, They Died for
Glory.

As far as rules go, I'm most likely to use Regimental Fire & Fury. I love them and I'm very familiar with them, plus I have already added the Chassepot and mitrailleuse for a silly Franco-American fantasy war in Mexico. I'd have to check to see if the Dreyse, Krupps and various French rifled guns are adequately covered by ACW weapons categories, but adding any I think are missing is a simple matter of adding lines to a custom QRS like this one.

I'm also partial to Rank & File. The only reason I don't play with those rules more is because the utter lack of C3 rules drives me to waste hours fruitlessly trying to write my own until I give up and go back to playing RF&F. For a fast-playing multi-player game, though, they should work as written (and amended for the FPW period).

Regardless of my prejudices, I have a copy of Chassepot and Needlegun on the way, because I'm always interested in Larry Brom's take on things. I have read several discussions of it on TMP, and I thought it worth at least a look. (And I also like supporting Sergeants 3. )

I tried They Died For Glory about 20 years ago, and I remember being unimpressed, but I don't remember anything else. I wasn't much of a black powder era gamer then¸ so I should probably hunt down a copy and try again. My feelings about the period have definitely changed. Bob Burke is also a member of my gaming club, so there's probably even a local cadre of TDFG players who would like an excuse to blow the dust off their armies.

I would play any grand tactical game as attractive as one of Bruce Weigle's own, but as I said above, I don't feel 15mm miniatures are a good fit for that level of command. To put together something that nice myself, I'd have to start over with 6mm or 10mm miniatures, and I don't think I'm that interested in the period. I'm more likely to make a Kreigspiel-style block-and-map game for that approach. Maybe someday.

- Ix

@ Yellow Admiral:

If you can find them, you might take a look at Richard Brook's "Schlachtenbummler" rules published in "Wargames Illustrated" No. 5 of Jan. 1988. These are tactical rules for late 19C. (1870- 1878). Battalions muster 12- 16 figures; rifle ranges up to 16"; ground scale approximates 60m./1".

Thanks!.

Armand

… or if you already love Fire & Fury, surely you want the official F&F variant for FPW etc: Bill Gray's "Age of Valor"?
ageofeagles.com/age-of-valor

F&F (and AoE and variants) is brigade level, RF&F is regimental level.

I played a lot of Fire & Fury in the first 15 years of this century, but after playing more tactical black powder era games, the abstraction of brigades into mobs of stands using tactical formations started to bug me. I actually prefer the depiction method Weigle used in his 18xx series of rules; the battalion elements may be generic damage sponges, but I like seeing proper grand tactical formations and individual uniforms. In the F&F model, I would miss things like the chasseurs, zouaves, Turcos, Jaegers, etc.

If I liked playing 1870/1871, I'd probably just zoom out the scaling and use 3-4 stands to represent each battalion. Unfortunately, the order system and simultaneous movement leave me a bit cold.

Jeff Knudsen's Rifle Wars may solve my personal issues with the 18xx system. Once I can game in person again, I should give Part I (covering the ACW) a trial game.

- Ix

Neil Thomas's "19th Century" rule book. Covers all aspects in a simple form. Superb.