"of skirmish lines and horse-soldiers" Topic

I was watching another one of those lame videos that mock tactics of days gone by. I always presume the professional of the day knew what they were doing – at least as far as the basics were concerned.

Anyway, they were mocking the idea of wasting 25% of your firepower by having horse-holders. I wonder if it is really that simple?
I am not an expert marksman by any standard, but I do think I am a bit above average. It is really hard to hit a moving target at distance, even when firing from a supported position. When both the shooter and the target are moving, hitting something is often as much luck as anything.
The only alternative to having horse holders, would be to fire from horseback. Firing from the back of a skittish horse seems unlikely to hit the broadside of a barn.
I guess what I am getting at is that I suspect that a dismounted skirmish line, even with 1/4 its men acting as horseholders would more than make up for it with improved accuracy. Wouldn't 30 guys shooting dismounted, supported, be more effective than 40 guys trying to shoot from horseback?

Isn't the point "dragoons" loose firepower to needing horse holders but gain from the mobility of being able to 'shoot & scoot'? NB no one since the ECW has given much credence to firing whilst mounted.

I've always thought it interesting that as late as the Boer War, both sides "spent" valuable resources on mounted infantry units.
I would suggest, as the OP wrote, they knew what they were doing.

For US cavalry at least, the lack of firearms training and practice firing was significant. Probably zero time was spent practice firing from the saddle.

So what did the youbtuber think they ought have done? Shot from horseback? Abandoned the horses? Not been mounted in the first place?

Chariots are a much stabler firing platform.
And deaf horses!

Firing from the saddle is by and large a complete waste of ammunition – and leaving horses untended in the middle of a gunfight is a good way to learn to walk long distances

Shooting at a moving target isn't nearly as difficult when it is CBDR (Constant Bearing Decreasing Range), additionally, the much greater surface area of a horse and rider, as opposed to a crouching/prone rifleman also increases the % hits.

One in four holding horses isn't the whole story; in fact, not all countries opted for that. In some armies, the proportion was one in three. Also, most nations had regulations that said when you are talking about an entire regiment, one troop or sometimes squadron would remain mounted to provide protection for the horse holders. Since the regulations were written by professionals, I would assume they have some relation to what was actually practical and wise in the field, and I would not immediately discard them out of hand.

Grelber

The most interesting skirmish line that I read about occurred when I was doing research on my series of article of Native Nation military history.
A major Comanche raiding party moved into the Oklahoma Indian Territory.
A Pawnee , with a few other local warriors, mounted militia troop armed with American supplied carbines. This happened in the 1830s iirc.
They formed a skirmish line and inflicted heavy losses on the Comanches. The horses holders had to defend the horses with hand weapons.

My Father in law was in a cavalry unit pre WWII and they trained with their horses so they became accustomed to the noise. They also learned how to fire over the saddle & mounted but for skirmish they had horse holders. Makes sense to me to have your valuable mode of transport kept safe.
Paul

Totten in "Strategos: An American Game of War" written in 1880 as a training game. gives a 1/3 multiplier for fire from horseback. And that is assumed to be not moving. Moving gives you another 1/4. So that's 1/3 to 1/12 for mounted fire as opposed to 3/4 for the troopers dismounting. No too hard to figue out which is better.

The Indians seems to be able to fire from the saddle. I don't know how accurate they were. The Boers fired from the saddle to good effect against the Zulus.

If you want to get really wrapped around the axle, British bicycle units of WW1 trained to fight in pairs, one chap holding both bicycles whilst his oppo engaged the Boche with his SMLE.

Granted, the standard of musketry in the British Army at the time was significantly better than, say, US cavalry in the second half of the 19th century…

There seems to have been French practice, during the Napoleonic Wars, for light cavalry (perhaps even dragoons) to receive a charge firing from the saddle. Most times it appeared to have failed