Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: early 18C weapons better quality than Napoleonic

  1. #1

    Default early 18C weapons better quality than Napoleonic

    I have heard and read in some places that early 18c weapons, such as Muskets and ships even, were prized as higher quality than the Rubbish produced for armies in the Napoleonic period.
    It seems that Napoleonic armies were not as well equiped as their earlier counterparts.
    Speaking for Myself, I think I even like the earlier look of the Queue and tricorn than the shako. The later uniforms don't seem to show the same individual personality of a unit and its commander.

    I'm assuming that during the Napoleonic period mass production and the meat grinder, combined with less use of the aristocratic persons fitting out their troops took its toll.

    Sail your ship as part of a fleet. Devs previously worked on: Darthmod, World of Warplanes, World of Tanks, RaceRoom, IL2-Sturmovik, Metro, STALKER and many other great games..

  2. #2

    Default Re: early 18C weapons better quality than Napoleonic

    Mass production of weapons usually results in cosmetic polishing being dropped from the production process. Look at small arms in WWII: the US dropped the Thompson submachinegun, with its milled receiver and hardwood furniture for the M3, which made out of gloriously ugly sheet metal stampings. Likewise, the Germans dropped the Luger P08 for the P38 and thenceforth progressively less refined sauers.

    Realistically, it doesn't make any difference for infantry small arms, and on something as simple as a musket, even less so. In fact, in WWII infantry arms it was a good thing, as many of the new, cheap designs like the MG-42, MP-44 and SKS were actually more effective combat weapons than the painstakingly produced, refined and overly complex designs they replaced. It would largely predate the era of Empire, but the changeover from wheel-lock to flintlock guns was the same way; flintlocks were both cheaper and better.

    If a country were to rush the production of ships or cannon, however, things where craftsmanship made a big difference in the reliability of the end product, then there would be problems. Ships don't work so well with holes in them, and cannons tend to explode when their casting leaves voids. Likewise, late world war two Japanese aircraft were made with such rushed techniques that they often crumpled under normal takeoff, flight and landing conditions.

    So, I think, generally speaking, the decline of quality control under wartime duress is largely cosmetic in simpler materiel and may even prove beneficial as production methods and models are refined and simplified, while more complex systems and machinery suffers.
    Last edited by Dulce_et_Decorum_Est; October 28, 2007 at 01:54 AM.
    Under the patronage of Simetrical. I am but a pawn in his evil schemes.

  3. #3

    Default Re: early 18C weapons better quality than Napoleonic

    OK I will give an example.
    Somewhere on this forum, their was a test recorded and documented. The document dated to Napoleonic times or Prussian times something like that. The test indicated that earlier muskets were a lot more accurate and the rate of fire faster, than the later variant of the same model. The quality of the later muskets caused more mis-fires aswell. You see I am not talking about change in Tech, just change in time period.
    You can imagine the troops uniform changing, but the evidence indicating that the earlier troops were actually more effective due to superior weapons of the same type.
    It would be fairly interesting to see ETW have you hoarding your old weapons & units, knowing you are gonna get handed crappy ones when things decline. Much like the Roman army lost its real legionaries to cheaper local non-centralised alternatives. I would want to keep the legionaries from the height of the empire personally.

    Ships as I understand it seem to have also been to some extent better earlier, some later designs being a bit of a joke due to hulking and other problems. Certainly ships are one of the weapons that remained in use throughout the period. New Napoleonic ships serving with ships up to 100yrs old iirc. Certainly the HMS Victory was something like 50yrs old at Trafalgar.
    I would say thats older than most of us on this board by a long shot!

    Now I undersand the ww2 example, but its not the rule.

    EDIT: OK I found the quote:

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by LegionnaireX
    Because guns of the time were wildly inaccurate and for the average group of soldiers firing in volleys would do more damage. There were various soldiers that were very skilled marksmen, however, that did practice guerilla tactics and were extremely effective. Just look up Lexington and Concord for evidence.

    BY Condottiere SOG
    This was a wildly accepted opinion at the TheLordz site. However, a Prussian general, General Scharhorst(in 1810) made a find with the Frederician era musket to get;

    Paces 100 200 300 400 500 600
    Hits per 200 rounds 92 64 64 42 26 19
    penetration in inches 56 58 56 23 28 2

    Thus he concluded that the Frederick era musket was able to achieve 40% more hits than the Prussian musket of the Napoleonic era. It was true of most muskets of the times. Napoleonic era muskets were inferior to earlier, better crafted ones. The 'Brown Bess' of the Napoleonic era was actually invented before the Seven Year's War and reflected this.

    Frederick the Great's marvelous general Winterfeldt(in 1755) found that a company of Grenadiers could achieve 10-13% hits at 200 paces and 16.6% hits at 150 paces. Most armies of the era braved hell(musket and artillery fire) to get to 70-80 paces for the regiment-killing volley of 35-50% casualties. Though it was not necessary. Units in smaller armies never got so close, but rather skirmished as was common in the Americas and antiquity. Units of Fusiliers and other light troops came of this practice.

    I'd hate to see this thread become another reason to post disinformation

    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...light=accuracy
    Last edited by Destraex; October 29, 2007 at 03:34 AM.

    Sail your ship as part of a fleet. Devs previously worked on: Darthmod, World of Warplanes, World of Tanks, RaceRoom, IL2-Sturmovik, Metro, STALKER and many other great games..

  4. #4
    Condottiere SOG's Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Somewhere in Europe
    Posts
    2,275

    Default Re: early 18C weapons better quality than Napoleonic

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by LegionnaireX
    Because guns of the time were wildly inaccurate and for the average group of soldiers firing in volleys would do more damage. There were various soldiers that were very skilled marksmen, however, that did practice guerilla tactics and were extremely effective. Just look up Lexington and Concord for evidence.


    was quoted by Legionaire

    the rest by me.

  5. #5

    Default Re: early 18C weapons better quality than Napoleonic

    sorry Condottiere that is true. Just trying to get a point across.
    Yours was most of my case.....

    Sail your ship as part of a fleet. Devs previously worked on: Darthmod, World of Warplanes, World of Tanks, RaceRoom, IL2-Sturmovik, Metro, STALKER and many other great games..

  6. #6

    Default Re: early 18C weapons better quality than Napoleonic

    Quote Originally Posted by Destraex View Post
    The 'Brown Bess' of the Napoleonic era was actually invented before the Seven Year's War and reflected this.
    Hmm, this then seems to contradict your argument. U Becasue that statement would lead one to believe that the weapons had in fact not changed at all. nless the point is that weapons PREdating the Seven Years' War were better than the Brown Bess? Or, that the Brown Bess had declined in quality?

    In any event as has been pointed out there are relatively few mechanical variables in a weapon like a musket, so quality is relatively easy to maintain.

    Other factors could influence the results quoted. The original marksmen were better shots?

    One thing, normal line infantry were seldom giuven the opportunity to fire live ammo on trainning and thus build personal experience of where a shot would go. Muskets generally did not have sights on them, I'm not sure if earlier ones did. In the napoleonic period, most nations trained their infantry to aim for the middle of the body, irrespective of range. Just look along the top of the barrel at an enemy's torso and that will do. The general "expert" thinking of time was that infantrymen wouldn't be able to handle the intelectual ond co-ordination required to aim and fire to order. It was remarked upon how French troops in Spain often fired high, shackos being riddled by bullets. The reason being that they didn't know how to aim and compensate for range (and many were raw recruits). One of the reasons why on average a British volley was more deadly. The whole point about how "incompetent" the users where with their weapons is more often than not overlooked, the guns are described ass "wildly" inaccurate.

    So it might be that earlier guns may have had sights (I have a notion that they were removed to stop infantry aiming). And, that earlier users may have had a better understanding of their weapons' capabilities and how to use. It seems to me that the bloody requirements the Revolutionay and Napoleonic wars put on nations often meant they rushed training.

  7. #7
    Trax's Avatar It's a conspiracy!
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    6,044

    Default Re: early 18C weapons better quality than Napoleonic

    Larger calibre for easier loading and higher rate of fire probably reduced accuracy too. The bullet didn't fit as tightly into the barrel. I think I have posted a quote before about the early smoothbore firearms being more accurate than Napoleonic flintlocks that prioritised the rate of fire above all..
    Last edited by Trax; October 30, 2007 at 08:10 AM.

  8. #8

    Default Re: early 18C weapons better quality than Napoleonic

    ok, it sounds like its vague enough not to be a feature of total war

    Sail your ship as part of a fleet. Devs previously worked on: Darthmod, World of Warplanes, World of Tanks, RaceRoom, IL2-Sturmovik, Metro, STALKER and many other great games..

  9. #9

    Default Re: early 18C weapons better quality than Napoleonic

    About the aiming;

    Up till past the American Indian Wars (ending in the 1880's), the US Army did not allow the troops to practice with their weapons live fire. The reason for this was financial, and the US government did not want the soldiers to waste ammunition. Hence at the Little Bighorn at Custer's battalion's slaughter (over half his command survived under Benteen and Reno) produced very slight casualties on the Natives; they were unable to use their carbines to full effect (apart from the fact that the cheap copper shells prematurely expanded in the chambers when the carbines got hot, and melted so that they would not eject).

    In the 18th century there were in fact "sights" on the muskets, but only forward sights for use with the bayonet. You can go on and on debating the reasons for ineffective musketry, but there's so many reasons everyone is both right and wrong, within reason of course.

    For instance, the pseudo-Napoleonic army of Santa Anna's Mexican Army in the Mex-Am War of 1846-8 saw a very small US Army defeat a massive Mexican Army on their own turf, no less. San Patricios Artillery Battalion (made up of Irish Catholics most of whom were deserters from the US Army) members noted that the reason the US Army was not defeated was that the Mexican Infantry Units overloaded their cartridges with powder; hence the kick from the musket was enough to bring the muzzle up and the US Army would advance literally under the Mexican's musket rounds.

    Also, take into account that no nation really trusts their soldiers when it comes to fighting. Even a hundred years after our period at Rorke's Rift in South Africa British Troops were taught to fire to their front, not aim for certain targets as modern troops do. These were good rifles, too; imagine how gagglish the line would have been if troops in line were ordered to fire with muskets at their own targets!

    Training, training, training! In any Army that is the key. British Troops were crack for a reason; they trained! It is easier to train with no live ammo if you are going to use line infantry in the manner they did at the time. They were supposed to become almost robot-like in their movements, and the government no doubt wanted to conserve money as well. Even today in the US Army they took the awesome M14 rifle, which was fully automatic, and replaced it with the M16, which had a fully auto switch as well. Troops felt good with both because they had firepower if they needed it... but it was using too much money. The M16 now has semi, safe, and 3 round burst-the most useless implement EVER, with most units placing blocks on the 3 round burst.

    Nothing hinders an Army moreso than a government-it's OWN government-can. That is and always will be the case.
    Yes, I hate the fact RTW is out and I still have a Japanese title. Come on now admins- let's get with the program.

  10. #10
    General A. Skywalker's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    currently Coruscant, but born on Tatooine
    Posts
    3,190

    Default Re: early 18C weapons better quality than Napoleonic

    Well, I think it's very unlikely that the quality of the weapons became worse. (Following quotes are from an internet site; if interested ask me for the link)

    "Hughes also concluded that the infantry of the first half of the 18th century are better trained than those of the later 18th and early 19th centuries. If true, then one would expect higher musket effectiveness for the earlier period."

    I guess training is a main factor. I don't know why soldiers of the early period shopuld have trained more than those of the late perios (maybe because the flintlock-musket was still a fresh invention at the beginning 18th century).

    Concerning the Napoleonic Wars: I think soldiers who are trained during such a big and long war must be worse than those trained in peace-time or during less relevant wars.

    Iron vs Wooden ramrod:
    "The next major invention for the smoothbore musket was the iron ramrod. Prior to the mid-18th century, ramrods were made of wood. A musketeer had to be careful in the heat of battle not to push too hard with his ramrod or risk breakage. The windage had to be increased to allow the ball to be seated home. This decreased the accuracy of the musket using the wooden ramrod. Frederick the Great prior to the War of the Austrian Succession (1744-1748) implemented the iron ramrod. This invention helped Frederick's Prussians to increase their overall reload speed as well as accuracy. Other European nations adopted the iron ramrod after the War of the Austrian Succession."


    Most armies adopted the iron ramrod after 1748. As you can read above the iron ramrod causes higher fire rate and also higher accuracy, as windage could be decreased due to that invention.
    From that one can conclude, that in the 2nd part of the 18th century musketry was more effective than before. (Same for the Napoleonic Wars, as they also used iron ramrods. Unless they had higher windage to increase rate of fire, which would be stupid in my opinion.)


    "The tactics of the time influenced the armies to have more windage to increase the reload speed. More volleys meant more casualties. Accuracy was not a factor."

    I wonder if this quote means, that windage in the Napoleonic period was higher than in 18th century. Or does it simply mean, that in all times they tend to have more windage than actually necessary?
    Actually I thaught that they didn't increase windage in early 19th century. And rate of fire wasn't higher than before, was it?



    Well, there is another argument against the thesis, that weapons quality in the late period was worse than before: The shooting tests. I've already posted them in another thread, but I'll copy them, as this is crucial.

    This is a part of the widely known Scharnhorst test from 1810 . 200 men fired at a formation sized target from different ranges. However, I'll only show the results for 300 metres, as that is a very long distance for a musket.

    Prussian Musket 1780: 21 %
    Pruss. Nothard 1805: 33,5 % (!)
    New-Pruss. 1809: 16 %
    French 1777: 27,5 %
    Brown Bess: 27,5 %
    Russian 1809: 24,5 %

    They used contemporary muskets with standard windage for the time.
    We can see that the results are quite good, aren't they?

    Or this one:


    "Another experiment described by Mueller (1811) involved the use of aiming versus no aiming. Infantrymen in the aiming group were encouraged to aim their muskets as hunters would instead of just pointing it roughly ahead and pulling the trigger. Each group fired 1,000 rounds against a cavalry target. The results of this experiment are shown below:


    Range (yd.).............. Aimed shots.............. Unaimed shots

    100............................ 53,4 % .......................40,3%

    200............................ 31,8 % .......................18,3 %

    300.............................23,4 %........................14,9 %

    400............................ 13,0 %........................ 6,5 % "



    Again we have very good results with the muskets from the Napoleonic Wars.

    (Interesting: I have a book where this test by Müller is stated, however there it's said, that the good results were achieved by well trained soldiers and the worse results by normal soldiers. Nothing said about "aiming vs. no aiming there" and I don't know which one is right.)



    "Hanoverian experiments in 1790 showed that when fired at various ranges against a representative target (a placard 6 ft high and up to 50 yd long for infantry, 8 ft 6 in high for cavalry) the following results were achieved at the ranges show:
    ...........................Target type
    Range (yd.)...Infantry....Cavalry
    100...............75.0%..........83.3%
    200...............37.5%..........50.0%
    300...............33.3%..........37.5% "

    ^^ "Infantry" means a target type, as big as an infantry-formation and "Cavalry" one as big as a Cav-formation.

    Well again good results.


    Unfortunately I know nothing of tests from the early 18th century, but I can't imagine that they could be better.


    Conclusion of all this: I think it's very unlikely that quality of weapons had decreased.
    Last edited by General A. Skywalker; November 08, 2007 at 03:18 PM.

  11. #11
    General A. Skywalker's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    currently Coruscant, but born on Tatooine
    Posts
    3,190

    Default Re: early 18C weapons better quality than Napoleonic

    EDIT: Double post, sorry.
    Last edited by General A. Skywalker; November 08, 2007 at 03:17 PM.

Posting Permissions

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