adrian@siesoft.co.uk (Adrian Hussey) (12/01/89)
From: Adrian Hussey <adrian@siesoft.co.uk> I am writing a set of wargame rules for the mid-18th century, and I'm trying to assess the battlefield effectiveness of smoothbore muskets and artillery. Does anybody in the group have any interest in or opinions on this subject? The sort of questions I'm looking for 'answers' to are: * what sort of hit rate would these weapons expect to achieve. (Hughes in "Firepower" has a lot of interesting evidence and theories about this, and estimates that about 2% of musket balls fired would actually cause a hit.) * what rate of fire would be PRACTICAL with these weapons, given the amount of smoke they generate. I would particularly like to hear the opinions of anyone who has actually fired such a weapon - any reenactors out there who can shed some light on this? Given a 2% hit rate - which sound pitifully low - and a ROF of 2 rounds a minute (theoretically reasonable?) an infantry battalion of 600 men would be able to cause, on average, 120 casualties in 5 minutes! (10 volleys at 12 hits each). But the impression I have is that infantry firefights lasted much longer than this - 20 minutes? an hour? - and the final casualty rates, whilst still unpleasant, don't match these rates. Therefore, other factors must be at work - I suspect the amount of smoke reducing the effective ROF appreciably, fatigue, fear etc. Hence my interest in your, possibly more knowledgeable, opinions. Please post or email me as you think fit. ANY responses would be greatfully received. Indeed, if there is anybody out there who's interested in discussing ANY aspects of mid-18th century warfare, please email me. Thanks for your time. Adrian Hussey adrian@siesoft.co.uk [mod.note: In _Napoleon's Military Machine_ (1988) (ISBN 0-87052-549-2), Philip J Haythornthwaite gives the following for Napoleonic muskets: Effectiveness of musketry results of tests under ideal conditions Mueller (Elements of the Science of War) Percentage of hits on a target representing a line of cavalry Range By well-trained men By ordinary soldiers 100 yds 53% 40% 200 yds 30% 18% 300 yds 23% 15% Picard (La Campagne de 1800 Allemagne) Target 1.75m x 3m 75m 60% hits 150m 40% 225m 25% 300m 20% The author states that rate of fire was theoretically 4 rpm, but would drop to about 2 during battle, as the bore became fouled and panic took effect. He gives a misfire rate of 1 in 6.5 rounds under test conditions. Casualties were sometimes very high; at Austerlitz, the 36th Grenadier regiment lost 220 men out of 230. Many volleys were at 50 yds or less. The French casualties at Vittoria, he states, suggest one hit per 459 shots, which does not account for the 6800 artillery rounds fired. He cites Roquerol, in _L'Artillerie au debut des guerres de la revolution_ as stating only .2 to .5% of bullets were "effective", and mentioned a contemporary theory that it took seven times a man's weight in shot to kill him. Bill ]
rbeville%tekig5.pen.tek.com@RELAY.CS.NET (Bob Beville) (12/04/89)
From: Bob Beville <rbeville%tekig5.pen.tek.com@RELAY.CS.NET> Let me direct you to some background material: I just acquired this book: _FROM CROSSBOW TO H-BOMB_ by Bernard and Fawn Brodie, Dell Publishing Co., 1962... paperback only, apparently... This book covers the development of weapons from Roman times... spears, bows, crossbows, catapults, etc... gunpowder chemistry/history... Roger Bacon devised a workable gunpowder formula in 1248, but chose to hide the formula in a cryptagram. Our poster, inquiring about smoothbore effectiveness, will learn how early Rev. War battles were conducted using European field tactics... just fire volleys toward the enemy. Gen. Washington taught his men to pick their targets, take aim and fire from cover. Washington crossed the Delaware in the Battle of Treton(12/26/76) with 2400 men to surprise the Hessians. The victory cost the Colonial Army only four wounded and no dead, because W.'s men took concealment in the houses and started picking off the officers in the streets-- violating another European tenet of fighting etiquette. In the rain, the Hessians muskets would not fire, and soon surrounded, outnumbered and without officers, the Hessians quickly surrounded... Let's see you make some wargames rules out of that... And since I mentioned crossbows, a posting I did a month ago inquired about GI issue crossbows... alluded to by seeing one for sale in MANION's Military Antique Auction House... I got a direct response from John M.... about a visit to the Royal Small Arms factory in Enfield, England where he saw rifle stocks being sawn off, leaf springs and brake cables for bowstrings, etc. The tour guide tells him it had the power of the .303, and effective at about 50 yards.... It was used by coverts and commandos to shoot sentries... That sorta confirms my inquiry. And to Keith M. about that TM manual improvised munitions handbook, that is one wicked book... that's -OWARI- from GLOWWORM-7-9-4 best regards, rbeville@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM Bob Beville, Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR 97077
cperlebe@encad.Wichita.NCR.COM (Chris Perleberg) (12/07/89)
From: cperlebe@encad.Wichita.NCR.COM (Chris Perleberg) In article <11911@cbnews.ATT.COM> rbeville%tekig5.pen.tek.com@RELAY.CS.NET (Bob Beville) writes: > Roger Bacon devised a workable gunpowder formula in 1248, but > chose to hide the formula in a cryptagram. Now, this is positively uncanny. A friend of mine today returned a book he borrowed from me months ago, The Codebreakers. It's a fascinating book, which I would recommend to anybody interested in cryptogaphy. Anyway, just after reading this message on the group, I opened the book, and it came open to page 889: "A British Artillery colonel, H. W. L. Hine, has `deciphered` a text proving that Roger Bacon invented gunpowder; unfortunately, while the most important letters of this text appear in the printed version through some errors, they do not exist in the original manuscript." I mean, what are the odds? Chris Perleberg cperlebe@encad.wichita.ncr.com
terryr@ogicse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker) (12/07/89)
From: terryr@ogicse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker) In article <11862@cbnews.ATT.COM> adrian@siesoft.co.uk (Adrian Hussey) writes: > > >From: Adrian Hussey <adrian@siesoft.co.uk> > >* what sort of hit rate would these weapons expect to achieve. > (Hughes in "Firepower" has a lot of interesting evidence and > theories about this, and estimates that about 2% of musket balls > fired would actually cause a hit.) > There is a short piece in the current Strategy and Tactics that discusses the military effectiveness of muskets. Apparently, there is still much confusion, and the bottom line is that they were very inaccurate. I know that doesn't help for a wargame. I will give you some of the figures from the article, and you can play with them til something *feels right*. There is a table from the Prussia Musket trials of 1790, range is in meters: range hits 300 20% 200 25% 140 40% 70 70% There is evidence to show that in combat that actual figures might be only 20% of those listed. Then there is the question of the wound caused by a hit. Over 100m most wounds weren't serious. At 50m, the musket could be devastating. One estimate of 3000 rounds per minute fired at 70m was that there could be as many as 450 wounds, although the pesimistic case is that there would be only 6 fatal wounds. Note this analysis does not take into account how many wounds per man. It also gives no distribution of the severity of the wounds. >* what rate of fire would be PRACTICAL with these weapons, given the > amount of smoke they generate. I would particularly like to hear the > opinions of anyone who has actually fired such a weapon - any > reenactors out there who can shed some light on this? > The same article lists ROF up to 6 RPM. A lot depends upon the training, motivation, and fatigue of the men, and the type of equipment. For example, due to trainin and equipment, the British could sustain a ROF 50% higher than anyone else. >Given a 2% hit rate - which sound pitifully low - and a ROF of 2 >rounds a minute (theoretically reasonable?) an infantry battalion of >600 men would be able to cause, on average, 120 casualties in 5 minutes! >(10 volleys at 12 hits each). But the impression I have is that infantry >firefights lasted much longer than this - 20 minutes? an hour? - and >the final casualty rates, whilst still unpleasant, don't match these rates. >Therefore, other factors must be at work - I suspect the amount of >smoke reducing the effective ROF appreciably, fatigue, fear etc. >Hence my interest in your, possibly more knowledgeable, opinions. > Some additional considerations for your analysis. Misfires were palentiful. The article doesn't discuss how easy it was to restore the weapon to working order. Second in a 20 minute firefight, the troops may not be firing continuously; there is usually some movement, and fatigue concerns. Smoke does not seem to be a problem unless it could obscure entire formations. These were not point fire weapons, you pointed them in the direction of the target. So as long as you can see the vague outline of the opposing line, you could fire at it. The article mentions fouling after only 10-12 rounds. This would be an added incentive to slow the ROF. As barrels fouled the number of misfires would increase and there would be an effect on accuracy. Finally, in your analysis, you ignore casualties to the firing troops. In any but the best of circumstances both lines will be taking gradual casualties. After 20 minutes of continuous combat, you could see a reduction of up to 50% in the number of effective barrels. Let's face it, the first round carefully loaded in a clean barrel by a calm rested trooper is going to be more effective than the next round fired. To get accurate results you will probably have to build this degradation into the firing tables. The numbers are from the article most of the comments are mine. Terry Rooker terryr@cse.ogi.edu
cperlebe@encad.Wichita.NCR.COM (Chris Perleberg) (12/07/89)
From: cperlebe@encad.Wichita.NCR.COM (Chris Perleberg) In article <11911@cbnews.ATT.COM> rbeville%tekig5.pen.tek.com@RELAY.CS.NET (Bob Beville) writes: > > Our poster, inquiring about smoothbore effectiveness, will learn > how early Rev. War battles were conducted using European field > tactics... just fire volleys toward the enemy. Gen. Washington > taught his men to pick their targets, take aim and fire from cover. Actually, I remember reading that the British introduced aimed fire at the battle of Minden around 1740 (War of the Austrian Succession?). Before that, you pointed your weapon in the general direction of the enemy and fired. Your seargent had a long pole he would use to keep your muskets down. It was all notorious inaccurate. A Prussian guard regiment once fired at a man-sized, solid plywood target from 50 yards away and only scored something like 40% hits. In those days, such volleys were not that devastating. The British became somewhat masters of the art of fighting from cover -- witness Hougomont and the Sandpit at Waterloo. They also made use of rifles on a scale greater than their opponents, having a rifle regiment. Rifles took longer to load and fire (sometimes, you needed a hammer), and aiming required training, so they weren't used much until the invention of the minie ball. As to "picking officers off," I don't really believe this would be possible with a smoothbore. Chris Perleberg cperlebe@encad.wichita.ncr.com
denbeste@BBN.COM (Steven Den Beste) (12/08/89)
From: Steven Den Beste <denbeste@BBN.COM> In article <12064@cbnews.ATT.COM> cperlebe@encad.Wichita.NCR.COM (Chris Perleberg) writes: > > >From: cperlebe@encad.Wichita.NCR.COM (Chris Perleberg) > >As to "picking officers off," I don't really believe this would be possible >with a smoothbore. > It is my understanding that at sea, a big warship would put some marines in the rigging, and that they would fire down onto the bridge of nearby enemy ships in the hopes of killing officers. Lord Nelson was killed in this way. I would suspect that this was done at ranges in excess of 70 meters most of the time, not to mention the difficulties of reloading while in the rigging, and having both your platform and the target rocking in the waves. Steven C. Den Beste || denbeste@bbn.com (ARPA/CSNET) BBN Communications Corp. || {apple, usc, husc6, csd4.milw.wisc.edu, 150 Cambridge Park Dr. || gatech, oliveb, mit-eddie, Cambridge, MA 02140 || ulowell}!bbn.com!denbeste (USENET)
chidsey@smoke.brl.mil (Irving Chidsey) (12/08/89)
From: Irving Chidsey <chidsey@smoke.brl.mil> Many years ago I heard a lecture by Carl Witthoft, an archaeologist with the Pennsylvania Museum Commission. He said therecis an exchange of letters between Lord Cornwallis and George Washington about a musket ball with a nail thru it that was extracted from a Brittish officers leg. Very uncivilized and ungentlemanly! When the excavated the Cloisters at Ephrata, which had been a Colonial evacuation hospital they found a fair number of such musket balls with scars from the forcepts that tried to remove them from wounds. ( Anaesthesia was a glas of whiskey and bite the bullet. ) When they excavated the camps on both sides they found lots of them, unfired. The first volley, loaded at leisure, must have had lots of spiked musket balls. They were not practical for reloading in haste. The lecture was in 1962 or earlier so check sources before you quote me. Irv -- I do not have signature authority. I am not authorized to sign anything. I am not authorized to commit the BRL, the DOA, the DOD, or the US Government to anything, not even by implication. Irving L. Chidsey <chidsey@brl.mil>