Musket formations

[myrmidones]

I always wondered about this, maybe i can finally get some some closure, why did they fire line by line, why not this the first line crouches and fires (taking down the first line) then backs up (for reload?), the second line fires (taking down the enemy's second line) and repeat. Why the massacre line fighting system? How much of a genius did they have to be just to figure some thing out? I'm problably way off but i just wanted to know a bit more,

[43rdFoot]

Because muskets are not very accurate, and it was important to have them condensed and acting like a big shotgun to have results. Also, it was fairly common for drill to break down somewhat rapidly after the first shots were fired. It was simply too much to ask of a person with all the stresses of combat to also perform a firing drill. There was also the threat of cavalry; a condensed line cannot be attacked from the front by cavalry as the horses do not like running into masses of people, especially ones with bayonets. Along with all of that, it makes command and control easier. It is easier to control a unit if they are closer together.

[Farnan]

Actually it was something far more than the accuracy of the weapon that was the issue. It had more to do with command and control than anything else. Placing soldiers in blocks made command and control possible as they could easily move the units as a single entity. A skirmish line reduces command and control greatly making maneuver far more difficult. Trust me its easier moving 220 people in a close formation than 20 in a skirmish line unless you have good NCOs. Modern style formations rely upon a good NCO and Junior Officer Corps to be effective (or an independent minded force) and Napoleonic Armies lacked that except in the Light Infantry formations.

Further, the block formations were more effective at bayonet charging than the skirmish line.

[Emperador Carlos]

The Spanish Pike-and-Shotte formation, the tercio, first popularized the "Concentrated firepower" aspect of it. Looser formations became more common as light infantry developed, and rifled muskets eventually made tight-packed formations suicidal.

[hellheaven1987]

I always wondered about this, maybe i can finally get some some closure, why did they fire line by line, why not this the first line crouches and fires (taking down the first line) then backs up (for reload?), the second line fires (taking down the enemy's second line) and repeat. Why the massacre line fighting system? How much of a genius did they have to be just to figure some thing out? I'm problably way off but i just wanted to know a bit more,

Ohhh, I am not sure what you are complaining about, because your idea was fully applied by Maurice of Nassau, the Prince of Orange, during Eighty Years War. Maurice was credited of revolutionizing the musket formation by introducing exactly what you say - two fire line, first line crouching and second line standing, and after firing these two lines would move back and reload. It seems he was also the first one that introducing block formation, as the book I read claim before Maurice musketeers were just shooting eachothers in one big group.

Edit: I do a quick check about my source. To put it short, Spanish Terico deployed four separated small musket formations in four corners of formation, with two formations of pikemen in center and garrison (halberders) in the space of each formation (total of six formations with a regiement formation). Maurice improved it by simply deployed four formations - two pikemen and two musketeers. He increased the amount of musketeers same as pikemen, and deployed musketeers on the flank of pikemen (which occupied center, and two musketeers occupied left and right). In the same time, Maurice developed drill for musketeets, trained them to fire quicker, how to maintain their equipments and most important, deployed two firelines and line formation, hence enable Dutch to use valley fire. Later on, Gustavus would adopt similar approach as Maurice, but lighter the musket and artillery so Swedish formation was very mobile (not to mention he was first one introduced horse artillery). He also introduced three firelines (first line lying down, second line crouch, third line standing), hence increased the fire power of musketeer formation. Lastly, Swedish formation generally encouraged a small reserve of musketeers, so those reserve could reinforce breaking point anytime.

To put a side note, French formation basically copied Dutch formation but had large front with thiner rank. Other German nations, such as Catholic League and Bohemia, had their own formation too.

[myrmidones]

Did the lines (crouching, standing, prone) fire simultaneously? Cause if they did, wouldn't that be a major waste of ammo on dead people? I'm thinking if they fired like this - prone fires, reloads - crouch fires, reloads - etc it would be more effective cause the dead would fall and the new set of weapons could now hit the fresh line behind them and that packs an extral moral punch

[43rdFoot]

That's simply asking too much of a soldier to think about while he is facing the stresses of combat and that of keeping in line. Besides, it is always batter to get as much lead downrange as fast as possible.

[Salem1]

That's simply asking too much of a soldier to think about while he is facing the stresses of combat and that of keeping in line. Besides, it is always batter to get as much lead downrange as fast as possible.

Don't fire until the man in front of you has begun reloading can hardly be too much strain for a drilled soldier, can it?

[Slaytaninc]

Don't fire until the man in front of you has begun reloading can hardly be too much strain for a drilled soldier, can it?

In the initial actions? Probably not.

When all hell breaks loose? Definitely.

[hellheaven1987]

Did the lines (crouching, standing, prone) fire simultaneously? Cause if they did, wouldn't that be a major waste of ammo on dead people? I'm thinking if they fired like this - prone fires, reloads - crouch fires, reloads - etc it would be more effective cause the dead would fall and the new set of weapons could now hit the fresh line behind them and that packs an extral moral punch

I have read that Maurice actually tried such tactic, but failed since:

1. It did not make much difference overall. The inaccuracy of 17th Century muskets means the amount of projectles shot out per minute is far more important than how accuracte the fire is. Hence, three lines firing together increase the firepower of musket formation, and three times more projectles also mean higher accuracy overall (more enemies got hit).

2. During battle, simpler order is generally prefered, since complex tactic only means more difficulty to execute the command without mistakes. Besides, if the commander got hit, it would cause more chaos since troops would got panic when there is no order.

[Tiberius Tosi]

Did the lines (crouching, standing, prone) fire simultaneously? Cause if they did, wouldn't that be a major waste of ammo on dead people? I'm thinking if they fired like this - prone fires, reloads - crouch fires, reloads - etc it would be more effective cause the dead would fall and the new set of weapons could now hit the fresh line behind them and that packs an extral moral punch

To reload and fire a musket while laying down is near impossible, and would be a waste of manpower by having them slowly if at all reloading while laying from a position where their aim will be absolutely horrendous anyways.

Honestly musket balls hit so seldom that it would be rather uncommon for there to be so many hits that the dead bodies of the first line are blocking the balls from striking the second row. Did it happen? Sure. But it was more effective to fire all at once as a moral and disruption effect on the enemy line to hit them all at once as opposed to a continuous fire. In theory, by firing at once you are killing the max amount, and therefore reducing the amount of rounds they can put at you for quite a while, giving your line an overall edge. Now in all reality of course after a volley or two it would just turn into a "fire at will" type of action, order usually broke down quite a lot once the balls went flying.

I think you are overestimating how much a volley of musket fire did. The chances of hitting a man from about 100 yards with a musket on the practice range is about 50%, this may seem very high, but battle is a whole other thing. About 10-30% of muskets are expected to misfire, so take away about 20% of your firepower on average. Many soldiers simply get scared and don't shoot. Even in modern times, only about 15% of raw recruits will openly fire at an enemy, the remainder will either aim high or low, not shoot at all, or pretend to be busy, and one can only assume such a number was probably similar then. In fact, this is one of the reasons why they taught soldiers not to aim, but instead hold the musket level. Also, a scared soldier many times would reload his weapon without firing, and thus jam his barrel literally full of musketballs and not be shooting at all. Accuracy rates were absolultely horrendous, and it was very very common for it to be less than 1%. For example, at Vittoria only about 1 out of every 459 shots fired caused a French casualty. At 100 yards, contemporaries report about 5% of shots hitting a target at best. Some estimate a more realistic hit rate during an entire battle at about .2% (note, .2, not 2). With this in mind, there is almost no reason to have to worry about the falling dead and wounded bodies of the front line blocking musketballs from hitting men in the second rank.

[myrmidones]

Thanks for that, you guys really know about this and are very helpful, thank you. But just a little note, the guys in prone postion would slip by the friendly lines to the back of the formation and reload.

[hellheaven1987]

These are reformed by Prince Maurice.

Standardized weapons: For consistent firing results in the weapon Maurice called for
standardized weapons manufacturing. With these new, more reliable weapons Dutch troops
were drilled on how to maneuver with them.

Countermarch: With his use of drill to he could use the concept of interchangeable soldiers to
develop the “volley” technique of firing a volley then marching counter to those moving forward
with loaded firearms, a maneuver called the “countermarch”. This could maintain a rapid steady
fire against the tercio. He demonstrated this at the Battle of Nieuwpoort (1600) where a smaller
more adaptive military force could battle the larger tercio on an even basis. This counter march
enabled Maurice to place men in smaller formations with an increase in maneuverability.

Drill: Maneuverability at several levels came from drills. Individual musketeers drilled in the
steps to load their firearm. Groups of musketeers drilled in the countermarch. Groups of
pikeman drilled in deployment and redeployment during battle. Then groups of infantry,
musketeers, and pikeman drilled in group movement. Count John developed the illustrated drill
manual to standardize the drills and improve training. Not only did this require continuous drill
but also the discipline to perform this maneuver during battle.

Group behavior: Maurice integrated men into functioning units then into larger groups.
Individual heroism faded from battle as success depended on each soldier performing as drilled.
If someone fell in battle, his replacement would step in joining the unified actions of the group.
Though soldiers became interchangeable in a maneuverable military machine Maurice integrated
them into a unit rather than the random placement in the tercio. This required Maurice to break
existing social relations to meet the needs of the unit over standard, accepted warrior
relationships.

Tactics: Maurice studied the tactics of the Roman legion which used small units to make a
longer, though shallower, front. He believed that a longer front could bring more firepower
against the stronger, more compact, tercio.

Leadership: Officers no longer led because of their birth but because they had the ability to
implement defined, rational rules. Authority came from what the officer knew rather than who
he was. With better leadership Maurice could decrease the size of the infantry unit for better
responsiveness. Smaller units allowed officers to give more specific orders in battle when
adapting to changing circumstances. This now required the average soldier to have more
intelligence and use more initiative. The customary hierarchies of royalty leading large bodies of
men into combat gave way to welldrilled platoons with leadership that could adapt to changing
events during battle.

Source.

I have once seen an illusion about the different fireline between Maurice force and Gustavus force, but I cannot find it now.

[Hakkapeliitta]

Thanks for that, you guys really know about this and are very helpful, thank you. But just a little note, the guys in prone postion would slip by the friendly lines to the back of the formation and reload.

If you are under fire and in a prone position, odds are you want to stay just there and not move.

[myrmidones]

If you are under fire and in a prone position, odds are you want to stay just there and not move.

Unless the enemy has artillery their infantry lines won't get a shot until your whole squad finishes firing with this tactic.

[43rdFoot]

Unless the enemy has artillery their infantry lines won't get a shot until your whole squad finishes firing with this tactic.

I don't think you understand. It's not that they'd be easy targets, it's that they'd be too afraid to get back up. Kneeling positions were abandoned for precisely this reason; troops who took a knee were often impossible to get back up again.