Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!att!cbnews!military From: terryr@ogicse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Battle effectiveness of 18th c. smoothbore weapons Message-ID: <12061@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 7 Dec 89 04:16:45 GMT References: <11862@cbnews.ATT.COM> Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Organization: Oregon Graduate Institute (formerly OGC), Beaverton, OR Lines: 78 Approved: military@att.att.com From: terryr@ogicse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker) In article <11862@cbnews.ATT.COM> adrian@siesoft.co.uk (Adrian Hussey) writes: > > >From: Adrian Hussey > >* 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