Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 35

Thread: Rapid fire method.handing & loading Rifles to your men engaged on the firing line .

  1. #11

    USA Sergeant

    thomas aagaard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Aalborg, Denmark
    Posts
    591
    Quote Originally Posted by crazychester1247 View Post
    Oh hell no. In the napoleonic wars their were like 3 battles MAX that had 20% losses. In the ACW not only was 20% casualties the norm, but you'd often have battles with 30% casualties, and one after the other too.
    battle French Loss % Enemy Loss %
    Austerlitz 12% / 19%
    Auerstadt 27% / 14%
    Eylau 19% / 35%
    Friedland 9% / 41%
    Borodino 23% / 33%
    Salamanca 28% / 10%
    Vitoria 10% / 7%
    Waterloo ? but higher than the allied looses 22%
    (figures are from David Chandler's Guide to the Battlefields of Europe)

    And many of the battles was larger. Borodino had 70-80.000 casualties in a day. compared to about 22.000 for Antietam...

    How many large civil war battles had a side loosing more then 30%? I can only think of Gettysburg...
    (and maybe Antietam depending on what numbers you use for the CSA)

    Waterloo cause similar numbers of dead and wounded in one day... as Gettysburg did in 3.
    (and then we got two other battles just two before it that caused another 25k+ casualties)


    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    Also, total casualties for the war were around 2 million (killed, wounded, etc.) It was the bloodiest war America has ever fought.
    According to the nps the total number of casualties was just around 1,1 million.
    And 2/3 of the deaths was to sickness.
    (https://www.nps.gov/civilwar/facts.htm)

    Quote Originally Posted by Kilburnblue View Post
    ,Gettysburg still wreaked of rotting flesh two years after the battle, it was simply in 186os unbelievable the carnage and proceeding died of wounds shocked the whole continent
    Yes it shocked the americans... but that don't change the fact that it was not more bloody than earlier European wars.
    Last edited by thomas aagaard; 05-24-2017 at 12:56 PM.
    Thomas Bernstorff Aagaard

  2. #12

    USA Sergeant

    thomas aagaard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Aalborg, Denmark
    Posts
    591
    Quote Originally Posted by Kilburnblue View Post
    The rifled field weaponery of the war really did
    just about nothing to effect the casualty rates.
    For the first half of the war smoothbores was in general use. At Gettysburg about 20% of csa infantry and 15% of union infantry used smoothbores.
    (and out west the % was higher)

    To hit a target at a range of more than 100yards with a rifle musket, you need to be a good marksman. This include being very good at range estimation.
    If you set your sights at 300 yards and the target is only 270 yards away, you will miss. The round will go high because of the rather low velocity.

    To become a good marksman you need instruction in how to use your sights, how to judge range, proper trigger pull, controlling your breath...
    And you need to do regular live fire on a range where your are told if and where your hit.
    This was what the British army did.

    None of this was done in any organized form north or south... (out side of the sharpshooter units and Cleburne's command out west)

    The result is that the typical combat range was about 100 yards. Just like 60 years earlier.
    And at that range a smoothbore firing buckshots is better than a rifle-musket.

    In april of 1864 Meade gave this order:
    (from the official records Series 1 - Volume 33)
    "HEADQUARTERS ARMY OF THE POTOMAC, April 19, 1864
    To familiarize the men in the use of their arms an additional expenditure of 10 rounds of small-arm ammunition per man is hereby authorized. Corps commanders will see that immediate measures are taken by subordinate officers to carry out the order. Every man should be made to load and fire his musket under the personal super- vision of a company officer. It is believed there are men in this army who have been in numerous actions without ever firing their guns, and it is known that muskets taken on the battle-fields have been found filled nearly to the muzzle with cartridges. The commanding general cannot impress too earnestly on all officers and men the necessity of preparing themselves for the contingencies of battle.
    By command of Major-General Meade:
    CHAS. E. PEASE,
    Captain and Assistant Adjutant-General."

    The general skill level in the army is so low that getting the men to successfully fire their weapons is the focus... not hitting the target.

    This comment "it is known that muskets taken on the battle-fields have been found filled nearly to the muzzle with cartridges." refer to the fact that about 12.000 muskets was found after Gettysburg loaded two or more times.
    Thomas Bernstorff Aagaard

  3. #13
    Kilburnblue's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    London N.W
    Posts
    24
    Define bloody ?

    A Danish man at arms cutting the head from the shoulders of a Swedish merchant is bloody ???
    Re your figures , in the above one on one encounter the Swedish side suffered 100% casualties ,,, killed

    Regarding marksman

    Grouping at one hundred yards is a marksman on a range

    Knocking down an enemy at one hundred , fifty five or 5 yards under fire is much more than a marksman ; he's an "effective " he's the 15% of your Coy that donates your unit first rate or second rate once this relitivley small number of effective shooters (good men) are killed or wounded there unit can rapidly become second rate.

    Don't ever believe grouping on a range will help steady your arm under fire , it won't
    Last edited by Kilburnblue; 05-24-2017 at 02:58 PM.

  4. #14
    Moderator

    CSA Major

    Leifr's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    1,268
    Are you aiming for any particular point or just waffling?

  5. #15
    Kilburnblue's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    London N.W
    Posts
    24
    Just waffling

    Sir
    I refer you to with the greatest respect the first two lines of my first post with regard rapid fire and free motion from one mark to another
    I am sir yours
    Tom

    I'm a very very very steady reliable waffled individual shot

    Never fire off into the dark you'll always be high and wide of the mark and you simply don't know who your shooting at old boy

    Lt col. Glazier 1st Q,W,R Gommercourt June 1916
    Last edited by Kilburnblue; 05-24-2017 at 07:40 PM.

  6. #16

    USA Sergeant

    crazychester1247's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Gonzales, Texas
    Posts
    693
    Quote Originally Posted by thomas aagaard View Post
    battle French Loss % Enemy Loss %
    Austerlitz 12% / 19%
    Auerstadt 27% / 14%
    Eylau 19% / 35%
    Friedland 9% / 41%
    Borodino 23% / 33%
    Salamanca 28% / 10%
    Vitoria 10% / 7%
    Waterloo ? but higher than the allied looses 22%
    (figures are from David Chandler's Guide to the Battlefields of Europe)

    And many of the battles was larger. Borodino had 70-80.000 casualties in a day. compared to about 22.000 for Antietam...

    How many large civil war battles had a side loosing more then 30%? I can only think of Gettysburg...
    (and maybe Antietam depending on what numbers you use for the CSA)

    Waterloo cause similar numbers of dead and wounded in one day... as Gettysburg did in 3.
    (and then we got two other battles just two before it that caused another 25k+ casualties)



    According to the nps the total number of casualties was just around 1,1 million.
    And 2/3 of the deaths was to sickness.
    (https://www.nps.gov/civilwar/facts.htm)


    Yes it shocked the americans... but that don't change the fact that it was not more bloody than earlier European wars.
    You aren't getting the point here, as I said previously sure there were a FEW 20% casualty battles in the napoleonic wars. But in the ACW almost EVERY SINGLE BATTLE was 20-30% casualties. Even skirmishes. Not only that but battles happened almost constantly. Whereas in NW there were large lulls in the fighting. Shiloh, Chikamaga, The Seven Days, Spotsylvania, Cold Harbour, Fort Donelson, The Wilderness, Channcelorsville, and Stones River all had at least 20% losses.

    Also your numbers include captured.
    Last edited by crazychester1247; 05-24-2017 at 07:56 PM.

    Pvt. William J. Sadowski

  7. #17
    Kilburnblue's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    London N.W
    Posts
    24
    this is the 1860s
    Last edited by Kilburnblue; 05-24-2017 at 08:24 PM.

  8. #18

    USA Captain

    Alexander Greene's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    St. Louis, Missouri. United States.
    Posts
    211
    Warfare in the 1860s was about how many men you could shove into the meat grinder and still have an army left after the battle. With the invention of rifled muskets and cannons, now you could easily and accurately hit an enemy formation from 1,000 yards away or more. 30%casualty ratins became common among regiments, which are at least 1,000 men each, sometimes 1,200 men. Strategy still relied heavily on Napoleonic tactics and, with those rifled muskets and cannons, entire regiments, battalions, and even brigades were wiped off the face of this Earth in bloody, frontal assault charges. The vast majority of the time, frontal assaults were vaporized before they got half way to a target, unless the charge started pretty close to the objective. At Gettysburg, some regiments had a 90% casualty rating. Robert Lee lost a good portion, about 1/3 of his estimated 75,000 man army, in three bloody days. I don't even remember what Meade lost but he had bigger casualty ratings than Robert Lee. Sometimes, the fighting got so intense that literal piles and lines of bodies were found at the sites of the most intense fighting after the battle had ended. Burying the dead in mass graves became freakishly common. Check out statistics for Bloody Lane, the Cornfield, and Burnside Bridge on Antietam, the Cornfield, Wheat field, Railway Cut, and Peach orchard for Gettysburg, The Hornet's Nest for Shiloh. I could go on and on but I don't think we're old enough for that. Entire populations of the males in towns across the nation were wiped out in four years. Some towns were crippled for decades to come as they coped with the hellscape that their town had become, filled with the wounded, sick, and dying, and destroyed buildings and infrastructure. Hell, even Europeans were horrified at what we were doing to ourselves over here, at least when they heard about it.
    Last edited by Alexander Greene; 05-24-2017 at 09:05 PM.

  9. #19

    USA Sergeant

    thomas aagaard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Aalborg, Denmark
    Posts
    591
    Quote Originally Posted by Kilburnblue View Post
    Don't ever believe grouping on a range will help steady your arm under fire , it won't
    Then why do modern armies train men in marksmen ship if it have no effect?
    Thomas Bernstorff Aagaard

  10. #20

    USA Sergeant

    thomas aagaard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Aalborg, Denmark
    Posts
    591
    Quote Originally Posted by Alexander Greene View Post
    Strategy still relied heavily on Napoleonic tactics and, with those rifled muskets and cannons, entire regiments, battalions, and even brigades were wiped off the face of this Earth in bloody, frontal assault charges. The vast majority of the time, frontal assaults were vaporized before they got half way to a target, unless the charge started pretty close to the objective. .
    I trust you mean tactics and not strategy?

    Nothing Napoleonic about infantry walking is close ordered line forward towards the enemy.

    The french under Napoleon would have 25%+ of its infantry out in front of the columns skirmishing with the enemy before the main attack hits.
    They would have horse artillery moving forward to support the attack
    They would have cavalry ready to charge any enemy line who do not form square.
    (when things was done successfully as they generally where for more than 10 years)

    And the British under wellington would have as much as 33% of their infantry out in front of their lines skirmishing.

    None of this was done to any large extent. The civil war is tactically much, much closer to the 7 year war as fought in Europe than the Napoleonic wars.

    (and had the officers actually done as was written in the original french drillbooks that Hardee/Casey plagiarized, then they would have had 20% outin front covering their attacks.. and they very rarely did)


    And no, attacks was not "vaporized before they got half way to a target". They where usually stopped within 50-100 yards, just like the french where stopped by British volleys in Spain and at Waterloo. (At Gettysburg they even managed to penetrate the union lines for a short while... despite attacking over open ground against an enemy in a good defensive position)

    And finally.
    "I don't even remember what Meade lost but he had bigger casualty ratings than Robert Lee."
    No, Lee lost more men and had a smaller army, so that is obviously not correct.

    TOTAL ESTIMATED CASUALTIES (Gettysburg)
    51,112
    Union
    23,049
    3,155 killed
    14,529 wounded
    5,365 missing & captured

    Confederate
    28,063
    3,903 killed
    18,735 wounded
    5,425 missing & captured

    Quote Originally Posted by crazychester1247 View Post
    Also your numbers include captured.
    So do the usual numbers used for the civil war. just look at the example above. taken from civilwar.org.

    ----

    The civil war, 2nd Sleswig war, 1866 and 1870-1871 all had successful frontal assaults.. and frontal assaults that failed.
    No different than during the Napoleonic wars.
    For an attack to work, you need proper combined arms and local superiority.
    (early on with both artillery and cavalry supporting the infantry. later artillery became the main support)
    Last edited by thomas aagaard; 05-24-2017 at 10:02 PM.
    Thomas Bernstorff Aagaard

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •