Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!att!cbnews!military
From: cperlebe@encad.Wichita.NCR.COM (Chris Perleberg)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Battle effectiveness of 18th c. smoothbore weapons
Message-ID: <12064@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 7 Dec 89 04:16:52 GMT
References: <11862@cbnews.ATT.COM> <11911@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: NCR Corporation Wichita, KS
Lines: 33
Approved: military@att.att.com



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