Why was small arms fire so ineffective in the 19th century?

"but IMHO the smoke after the first volleys was the big show stopper: You cannot hit what you cannot see, so massed directional volleys and also"

Good point, and cold weather or vegetation makes the smoke hang longer. Some armies were still using black powder cartridges into World War I, although most have converted by then.

Teddy Roosevelt commented on the U.S. using black powder and the Spanish using smokeless powder in the Spanish American War.

You can still watch combat footage of the Poncho Villa period in Mexico. You can see the smoke just blanket the positions.

Most modern reenactors use pyrodex powder, so you don't get the visual impact by watching them.
 
Here is that amount of ammunition the British Army during the Napoleonic Wars allocated for training. keep in mind that they had a good reputation across Europe for even practising musketry.

Cavalry: 30 blanks, 10 ball, 3 flints
Infantry: 60 blanks, 30 ball, 3 flints
Light infantry: 60 blanks, 50 ball, 3 flints
Rifle Corps: 0 blanks, 60 ball, 3 flints

Source: The British Military, Its System and Organization, 1803-1815. By S.J. Park and G.F. Nafziger.

It's probably out of print now. Nafziger is one of keenest scholars on this period of history.
 
frpm http://www.revolutionarywararchives.org/tactics.html

This is an article that gives some more insight on the ideas, tactics and probs of the time:

Why Did They Do That?
18th Century Military Tactics​
by Donald N. Moran



During the last half of the sixteenth century a major breakthrough was made. A firing mechanism was invented which relied on a spark produced by a flint striking a steel plate to fire the weapon. This weapon was much lighter, did not require the matchlock's holding stand and could fire twice as fast. This was the flintlock musket. But, here again, after being fired, the musket was useless when the soldiers were engaged in hand-to-hand combat.
In the year1642 we find the first mention of the Bayonet. The name comes from the French cutlery manufacturing center of Bayonne, whose daggers and knives were well known at that time as "bayonets". These were "plug" bayonets. They were, quite simply, nothing more than daggers whose handle was modified to be inserted down the barrel of the musket. Although primitive, they did resolve the vulnerability of musketeer in close quarter battle.
This weapon had several drawbacks. The musket could not be fired with the plug bayonet in place. And, frequently it would become detached during use, leaving the musketeer semi-defenseless again. In 1671 another Frenchmen invented the socket bayonet. This foot long spear like device employed a metal sleeve which slipped over the end of the barrel. This permitted the musket to perform its firing function as well as that of the traditional pike. It revolutionized warfare and relegated the pikemen to the pages of history. However much this improved the musket, equipped with a socket bayonet, it was still very cumbersome. The famed British "Brown Bess" musket was very inaccurate. At fifty yards a well aimed musket*ball would have an eighteen inch variance. The musket was heavy, weighing over ten pounds, had a barrel at least three feet long and was difficult to aim. A flint was good for about twenty firings and frequently had to be replaced on the battlefield. Furthermore, the invention of smokeless powder was still a century away. After the first volley, the battlefield was obscured by smoke. Soldiers had to be trained to fire at areas rather then individual targets. With ample training a soldier could, in the stress of battle, fire three rounds per minute.
Battlefield tactics had to be modified to accommodate this new weapon. Linear tactics were developed. Instead of the large squares of pikemen moving as a block, the musketmen were usually lined up in three ranks, bringing the maximum number of muskets to bear on the enemy. Firing rank-by-rank, the massed musketmen could fire a devastating nine volleys per minute!
Tactics of this era sought to simply blast their opponents off the battlefield with concentrated musket fire. Unfortunately for the soldiers, it became a tactical fact of life, that a regiment was rated not by how well it could deliver a volley of musket fire, but rather, how well they could stand after receiving a volley.
As regimental reputations were built on battlefield gallantry, they began to develop more colorful uniforms. This was psychological warfare. A distinctive uniform of a well known regiment would instill fear in their opponents, often causing them to retreat rather than stand and fight. Each of the European nations created their own styles and colors of uniforms. This system remained in place until World War I. Since then, some individual regiments still have "full dress" or ceremonial uniform in addition to the service or field uniform.
Our for bearers were rightfully concerned when facing some of the British Regiments sent here to put down the rebellion. Some of them had fierce reputations and were known throughout the western world!
The traditional enemy of the colonists was the Indian. The tactics used to fight the Indians were quite different from those of massed European armies. Our use of Indian tactics inflicted numerous casualties upon the British, but if did not win battles.
It wasn't until the Continental Army, and to a lesser degree, the militia, mastered the art of 18th century warfare - - - standing in ranks and trading volleys and finally capturing the battle field at bayonet point, did we start winning battles.
With the loss of one third of their men, the British never forgot the lessons learned at Bunker Hill. They were always cautious about attacking Americans when in fortified positions. But, by the later stages of the war, the lines of the blue clad, battle hardened, American Continentals also struck terror in their hearts.
Linear tactics remained the rule through* out the nineteenth and the first part of the twentieth centuries. The mass carnage caused by the invention of the machine gun in World War I forced these time honored tactics to change.
... and don´t ask me why the first part came out formatted centered, or wha it´s two parts, or why one part is bold, just posted a quote: Tried several time to allign left and join everything and unbold, but I guess I am too stupid for those modern methods...

Rattler
 
Sorry, I have not read the entire thread. I am going to say barrel rifling was the malfunction. They simply did not have the aim or range to inflict the damage to beat out airburst shells.
 
A nice article, Rattler. Thanks for sharing. And like it points out, the Americans didn't win the war by shooting from behind trees as the myth goes. They won it by fighting in conventional European formations and with the bayonet.

The one significant exception is the Battle of Kings Mountain. Back wood settlers who really had no interest in the war, massed out of the hill country, attacked and exterminated a British led force with rifle fire after the British threatened to burn them out. After the battle, the frontiersman dispersed and just went home, threat removed.

The battle had a ripple effect on the rest of the British campaign in the region.
 
Thanks George

but IMHO the smoke after the first volleys was the big show stopper: You cannot hit what you cannot see, Rattler

This is a good point which is often missed. I wonder if gunpowder/muskets would have allowed the attacking side to be more successful in more modern battles eg Somme, it effectively does two jobs in one providing the wind in right!
 
A good book to read is Prof. Earl Hess's The Rifle Musket in Civil War Combat. Hess argues that the percentage of casualties were no greater with the superior rifle musket of the Civil War era than that of the smoothbore musket of the Napoleonic period.

What the rifle musket did was enable a soldier who did know how to shoot, to shoot farther than he could otherwise do had he been armed with a musket. One thing to remember is that marksmanship was not really taught in the Civil War army. It depended on the regiment's colonel and then only if the ordnance officer would supply the ammunition. Most officers thought it was a waste of time, lead and powder.

Now, as to why men missed so much, read David Grossman's book, On Killing.
 
I belive it is because of two main reasons.

first it was how the ammunition fit the rifle. the mini ball was a vast improvement on the musketball, but it still shared the problem of a imperfect fit. Many of the firearms used( in particular the CSA) where smoothbore and not rifles. The smooth bores did not give the ball the 'spin'as rifling does making it far less accurate.

Secondly i believe it was because nearly every rifle produced lacked all but the most basics of sites. The only thing most rifles had was a small brass bump at the end of the barrel. This discouraged individually aiming and instead focused on a leveled group volley adhering to the theory of massed concentrated fire.

In short the firearms where still impossible to aim properly, a skilled soldier could put a ball through a window at 100 yards. The problem was most soldiers on both sides where draftees with little training, and still bound to a officer's order to fire.

Sharp shooters enjoed targeting sites, unrestricted orders to engage, and a high degree of skill as only the best in a brigade would be given into the sharpshooter's company ( assuming the brigade even formed one) As a reward, the sharpshooters enjoyed a much more effectiveness when engaged, and it is because of the lack of the luxuries that the common infantryman suffered from why they performed lower than could be expected.

As the war progressed losses became greater, but lets not forget weather and fatigue would play a large effect. I've been out in the cold for extended periods of time. After a while its hard to control your hands, or keep objects steady. I would imagine they suffered from this too.


Sorry for the bad grammar, and spelling- im dead tiered @_@
 
Care to give us a short summary?

Normal people are reluctant to kill. Until recently, military training did little to overcome that reluctance. Shooting at a bullseye is different from shooting a human being. A paper target doesn't scream, bleed or impose any burden of guilt on the soldier. So, soldiers don't associate them with humans.

Thus, in many battles of the 18th-19th century, when ordered to shoot, soldiers often feigned fighting. They went through the motions without any killing as a result. This was in hope that the enemy would do the same. Read virtually any Civil War regimental history and at the start of the war, the history will record how the regiment was fired upon and missed. Instead, of bullets, branches and leaves fell on them. Feigned fighting was also evidenced by loading weapons for those who could fight. You passed your loaded musket up to the guy who actually fired it into the enemy's ranks. He then passed back his empty musket in exchange for a loaded one.

Now, there was always a group of men who could kill. Frontiersmen who were inured to killing. They've seen the elephant before and so it didn't bother them when they donned the uniform. Seasoned soldiers who have been in battle long enough can become desensitized such that they will kill just to preserve their own life and the life of their buddies. While some will gleefully kill out of hatred, others do it just for survival. Desire for revenge for a buddy or relative can also help overcome any reluctance to kill.

In another work, Grossman talked about how today's juvenile could readily kill someone. He states that the desensitization taught today by the armed forces are taught to kids today by the media (music, television, cinema) and that the skills are acquired through video games where they can learn to operate a weapon and receive positive reinforcement in the form of points for stacking up the bodies. Younger generation of Americans had better parenting and if he hurt our playmate, we were punished. Today's parent either don't have the time, don't care or "my baby didn't do nuth'n."
 
Seems to be evidence of Yankees shooting high a lot. There is speculation of blank firing by some Ark. regiments @ Pea Ridge. The P53 Enfield had good sights that allowed very long distance shooting vs the Springfield.
 
George, both sides missed a lot and I've found no evidence that either side was superior to the other. One thing many tend to forget is that many Yankees came from the midwest (Ohio, Illinois, Indian, Michigan, Minnesota, Kentucky, Tennessee, Kansas, Misery. Those states contributed a lot of farm boys who were equally adept with the firearm as their southern counterpart. Additionally, there were a lot of farm boys in the New England states and upstate New York. Look at where Berdan's Sharp Shooters were recruited from.

You're on the mark about the Enfield and many sources I've read stated that the Enfield was superior to the Springfield and any other rifle musket in terms of long range shooting (500-1000 yards). While not equal to a Whitworth, an Enfield in good hands could fetch a man at 900-1000 yards. Even by today's standard, that's nothing to laugh at. That's why the Confederate sharpshooters in the Army of Northern Virginia were given preference on available Enfields.

Still, there's a lot to be said about training and the Confederate approach was based on the Hythe (British Musketry School) Manuals. Ol' Pat Cleburne, the father of the Confederate Sharpshooter, used one to teach his men (though I haven't figured out which edition he used).
 
Gary, yeah that what I thought you were referring to. Interesting stuff, it seems humans have a natural tendency not to kill, yet we now go to extreme measures to overcome that instinct. I wonder if all that training fully switches off when returning to civilian life? The need to train to kill is obvious if we want effective armies, but still worrying non the less.
 
In the military, the have an off switch as given in the command, cease fire! That's the check system. However, some are so traumatized that they get flashbacks and go into the survival mode. I know one ex-ranger who snapped when his wife attacked him with a knife. He flashed back to 'Nam and in defending himself, broke her leg. He did some time for that.

One big difference between the military and the gang bangers is that there is no restraint as provided by the command cease fire!
 
Enfield v. Springfield Rifle Muskets

The Colt 1861 Special Rifle Muskets were built on Enfield machines in America (Whitney mfg. system). The equipment was intended to supply British contracts that dried up when the Crimean War proved shorter than anticipated. Internally, they were largely Enfields. Of the 1861 Rifle Muskets issued, close to one in three was the Colt Special (or so I’ve read — it was a bit before my time.)

The 1863 Springfield incorporated the Colt Special's improvements.

The .58 and .577 arms early on in the War of the Rebellion started using .575 rounds to ease supply difficulties.

A
K
E E L A
 
Supersonic buck and ball smoothbore shoots flatter than subsonic rifle muskets
100 musketeers put 1200 rounds down range per min. That's 300 shots
100 riflemen put 300 rounds per min.
(three shots per min. standing up — slower lying down)
Muskets put more holes in targets (out to 200 yards) than rifle muskets
B&B Muskets hit 98% of shots at 200 yds. 210% at 100 yds.
Rifle Muskets hit 78% and 99% at the same ranges.
American practice was to dump the powder down the bore and load buck and ball still in the cartridge — giving a gas seal wad and something to keep balls in place for shooting down hill.

A
K
E E L A
 
Supersonic buck and ball smoothbore shoots flatter than subsonic rifle muskets
100 musketeers put 1200 rounds down range per min. That's 300 shots
100 riflemen put 300 rounds per min.
(three shots per min. standing up — slower lying down)
Muskets put more holes in targets (out to 200 yards) than rifle muskets
B&B Muskets hit 98% of shots at 200 yds. 210% at 100 yds.
Rifle Muskets hit 78% and 99% at the same ranges.
American practice was to dump the powder down the bore and load buck and ball still in the cartridge — giving a gas seal wad and something to keep balls in place for shooting down hill.

A
K
E E L A
Some of your conclusions seem to be way off. The Buck part of BnB isn't going to be effective much over 50 yds & smoothbore Muskets simply aren't accurate @ 100 yds, much less 200. That's why they had to have troops shoulder to shoulder, lack of accuracy. Muskets are faster to load if you dump powder & ball down the barrel, but if you ram, it won't be much faster than a Minie. No idea what you're saying with those hit numbers, 210% hit rate? HUH? There's no way a smoothbore is more accurate than a rifle. The round ball literaly bounces down the bore & without spin stabilizing it'll go who knows where.
The .69 round ball has a M/V of 1500 FPS with a 412 gr ball, but loses velocity rapidly resulting in a rapid sink rate. By 200 yds it has lost 50% of velosity. In direct comparison the .69 Rifled-Musket has a M/V of 950 FPS with a 740 Gr.ball & is still going 800 FPS (84%)@ 200 yds + is accurate from spin.
The .58 Springfield has a M/V of 1,000, & it still going over 800 FPS @ 200 yds with 80% of M/V retained for a flatter trajectory.
 
The .69 round ball has a M/V of 1500 FPS with a 412 gr ball, but loses velocity rapidly resulting in a rapid sink rate. By 200 yds it has lost 50% of velosity. In direct comparison the .69 Rifled-Musket has a M/V of 950 FPS with a 740 Gr.ball & is still going 800 FPS (84%)@ 200 yds + is accurate from spin.

Looking at these figures surely the density of the ball is different in either case, which partly explains the different deceleration rates? I can't help thinking that with ballistics the projectile is as important as the implement which fires it.

Here's a question why were the projectiles themselves not rifled instead of the bores of rifles?
 
Last edited:
Looking at these figures surely the density of the ball is different in either case, which partly explains the different deceleration rates? I can't help thinking that with ballistics the projectile is as important as the implement which fires it.

Here's a question why were the projectiles themselves not rifled instead of the bores of rifles?
The shape & stabilty has a lot to do with range & accuracy, but a 500 gr round ball dropped straight down will hit the ground @ the same time a 500 gr ball fired from a gun hits the ground. Rifling:Efficientcy I'd say. Modern "rifled slugs" used in shotguns are rifled to impart spin, but it can't be as effective as lead engraving itself into rifling in the barrel. Of course there is a danger of a lead bullet stripping out of the rifling if to powerfull a load is used. That was the concept behind the Whitworth octagon bore & bullet, to make it impossible to strip the bullet out of the rifling
 
Back
Top