Musket Accuracy

[Lord_Lotz]

Just posted this in a mod request someone had come up with, but I thought it would be relevant for the historical research section (if someone hasn't already addressed this before):

"What I would love to see is a mod that makes musket volleys more realistic in their lethality.

According to my trusty source "The Sharpe Companion" by Mark Adkin, there should be a steady decrease in musket lethality as the target range increases with the maximum effective range being about 100 yards. To put it more accurately:

"A soldier aiming and firing his musket at an enemy over 100 yards away in a battle situation would hit his target once in every thirty shots. If his target was 50-70 yards away the chances dramatically increased to one in three. At less than 50 yards, firing his shot as part of a volley from his company or battalion, the results were likely to be devastating" (pg 27).

This could be modded to an extent in Empire, so once people have a go at the projectiles tables they should be able to make it so at close range there are devastating casualties but at long range, very limited casualties. This, combined with a unit reload time mod that is scaled according to troop experience would be amazing.

Source: Adkin, Mark. The Sharpe Companion: The Early Years. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2003."

[nabo1er]

HI there,

Musket accuracy was even worse than you state. Mass volleys were not aimed, therefore could miss targets as close as a few yards alltogether (as reported by the Marechal de Saxe in his "Rêveries"). Think of the TV pictures of soldiers firing blinly from behind cover. Lots of noise, little effect.
The dramatic effect of successful close range volleys however was devastating, as in Quebec in 1759. That the same men could not reproduce such fire only 6 month later against the same foes at the battle of Sye Foy reminds us of the particular randomness of its effects.
Translating this in to gaming means first having a reserved first volley effect, veterans being good at this, second having a dramatic decrease in effectiveness in fire effect with distance AND time as musket foul and misfire.
Most importantly, soldiers armed with musket, rarely, if ever, fight hand to hand in the open. It kills me every time I see masses of soldiers just going at it, western saloon brawling it in the open instead of shooting it out. Bayonet wounds were always less than 1% and most of those wounds were in the back. Whent troops are fired at, they usually stopped and fired back. Only the best troops closed in without shooting (La vieille Garde for instance), emerging from the smoke with shouldered weapons. The enemy seeing this would just run away, not stay and fight. Only the cornered ones would fight, or usually surrender. This battle was one of will, not steel.

Vive l<Empereur!

[IAB1789]

Most importantly, soldiers armed with musket, rarely, if ever, fight hand to hand in the open. It kills me every time I see masses of soldiers just going at it, western saloon brawling it in the open instead of shooting it out. Bayonet wounds were always less than 1% and most of those wounds were in the back. Whent troops are fired at, they usually stopped and fired back. Only the best troops closed in without shooting (La vieille Garde for instance), emerging from the smoke with shouldered weapons. The enemy seeing this would just run away, not stay and fight. Only the cornered ones would fight, or usually surrender. This battle was one of will, not steel.

Vive l<Empereur!

Yes, and no. For one thing, the statistical study I usually see quoted comes from WWI, which is not a conflict noted for successful bayonet attacks, and it was also derived from field hospital reports. Earlier studies usually use the same data, and since any man in close combat will make certain that his opponent has no subsequent need of a surgeon, I am not sure of the value of such reports. Battlefield observations correlate fairly well with what you say: that one side usually breaks before contact, and that prolonged melee even in contact is rare, but that is because the bayonet (or pikes or swords for that matter) have a psychological impact (artillery also has a psychological effect, of a different sort). You might say that a battle is decided by will and steel. Musket and rifle fire were, during this period, the great killers on the battle field, but they largely lack this effect.

[Swerg]

In terms of general accuracy, I believe I one saw statistics which said that at Borodino the rate of musket hits was something like one per four hundred shots fired.

[tater]

You can draw the parabola for a musket shot, assuming a given firing height, and a typical aim point in distance. The arc of these low-velocity projectiles is fairly high—they are basically the same as typical modern handguns, ~1000ft/s. The deadly space is pretty limited at longer ranges since except for very close, and near the target range the rounds are actually over the heads of the possible targets. Hence you so often read about soldiers being told to "aim low" even as late as the US Civil War and on.

Anyone who has tried to shoot pistols at longer ranges (50 yards or more, lol) knows how tough a sight picture is to form ('cept maybe a Mauser Broomhandle with the stock and tangent sight ). Add to that the smoke from blackpowder, and it's a wonder they hit anything

It would be useful if the game allowed for a bonus sort of like the bonus for player-controlled broadsides in the naval game (which is grossly overdone, IMO). The bonus would be for first volleys, or something like the first volley after XXX seconds of having fire at will off. This to account for cleared smoke, etc. There is a reason many armies had their men withhold fire until close range, then let go a terribly effective volley which seems to be missing in TW.

[Lord_Lotz]

@nabo1er - Pls do post a source (even if in French... I could possibly find a translation). I would be interested in reading more historical studies on the topic. I believe that the source I was quoting focuses only on the French and British interactions during the Napoleonic Wars (rather than the 7 years war as you referred to) so any info regarding other wars/nations' experiences would be greatly appreciated!

However, I believe we agree on the fundamental points of my original post: Close range volleys (in the hands of experienced soldiers) could be truly devastating, while long range volleys scarcely had significant effect.

@tater- it would be great if we could mod a volley button like the broadside button for naval battles... or even if we could mod much better accuracy for the first volley fired within effective range. Unfortunately, while the modding community is strong, I'm not sure it's that strong.

[Player2]

Yea i have tried to get a close volley in but your men are devastated and route before the even get a shot of

[Gustav21]

The volley fire in the old Cossacks II game was pretty realistic regarding range/casualty rate. Maybe something like that could be implemented somehow.

[Hanny]

Cavalry targetsRangeRegular TroopsRecruits90 metres53%40%180 metres30%18%270 metres23%15%

Table for % of hits based on test done at the time with muskets.

Reads better online!http://www.napoleonguide.com/weapacc.htm also has arty ranges as weel

Omans seminal work on the Uk army contains misfires in good weather as 1:7 and in moderate rain as 3:4.http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/in...etry_firefight hasa ton of intresting data.

[Godagesil]

Nobody has even mentioned the affect of smoke. After the first volley, both sides were only firing at and into each others smoke. Black powder smoke hangs heavy and thick except on windy days. Add to that cannon fire, each blast consuming up to 3-5 lbs of powder the equivelent of 256 muskets firing ( 4 lbs = (16 oz X 4)x 4 (quarter oz musket charge)= 256 ) Smoke was the true fog of war and that is what the term originally meant. A battlefield was shrouded in smoke and commanders were hard pressed to see their own units much less the enemies. That is why good or bad unit or subodinate commanders meant the difference between victory and defeat. Ney lost Waterloo. An I believe he did it on purpose.

Smoke is not adequately modeled. it would be great to be able to watch either with horror or delight as a line of grenadiers emerged from a line of smoke to crash into a wavering line of infantry.

[Randall Turner]

Nobody has even mentioned the affect of smoke.

Tater mentioned it. Worth emphasizing.

Read Hughes' Firepower for an exhaustive but "optimistic" summary.

http://www.amazon.com/Firepower-Weap...8971633&sr=8-1

edit: eek, long.

[Archimonday]

Yay! A topic about Musketry.

I too set out to make the musketry, and especially what wins the battles more realistic. I modified my Napoleon about a week ago so that every nation had more or less the same chance of hitting their targets, to reenact how shockingly inaccurate these weapons were. It went like this:

Infantry With Muskets: (was originally going to be 15 percent chance) 25%
Infantry With Rifles: (Doubled) 50%
Militia & Untrained Units: (Lowered trained units fire less successful volleys) 10-15%

In addition the more trained the unit is, the faster it can reload. Each weapon in the game has a base reload time, and then that reload time is put into a percentage for each individual unit. In the current version, Elite Infantry will reload the fastest, followed by Line Infantry, then by light and militia. Light reload slow because the rifles' base reload is longer than that of the musket, and Militia and lightly trained infantry reload slow due to their inexperience.

All these changes make for a much more interesting battlefield. With the lowered effectiveness of the musketry from 50-70%, less men die each volley. It can get to a point where units will actually expel all of their ammunition, and I have found myself at times in a heavy defense where I have to order a Bayonet charge to make up for the lack of ammunition. What have all these changes resulted in? Well for one the battles are getting more challenging, and I've noticed I'm taking much heavier casualties due to the Bayonet charges I am forced to order.

If somebody could post up a good ratio of musket accuracy, I'd be interested in testing it out.

And as far as Empire and Napoleon go, the closer they get, the deadlier the volley (even if incrementally).

P.S. When its done It should be noticeable that Units who have fought more battles and thus have more chevrons for experience, fire more effective volleys, don't route as often, and are better at melee. The yellow bars under the unit description will actually increase (almost like how the agents gain attributes)

[Lt_Col_Sharpe]

The British Smooth bore Brown bess musket was accurate to a range of about 50 yards, butthe British Baker rifle was accurate up to 200 yards.

http://waterloobattletours.users.bto...s/Page1333.htm

[Dunadd]

How accurate did they need to be though, to hit just a big unit of close formation soldiers? Surely unless they fired over their heads they'd find it hard to miss?

[Sirlion]

Actually firing a little up the designated target helped. Bullets werent exactly fired in a straight line, more like a parable. But at any rate, you may have all the accuracy in the world but if you dont want to kill, or you're under deep stress and panic because there is a pissed cavalryman with a sabre pointed to your head running nearby I highly doubt anyone would be able to hit a thing No matter how big.

[Didz]

One of the problems that arise when assessing musket accuracy is that the numerous range test results conducted both at the time and more recently suggest a much greater accuracy than actual performance on the battlefield.

Hughes discusses this in his book Firepower (linked in the post above), but the basic cause can be attributed to the fact that in most range tests the firer is not under stress, and is actually trying to hit the target. Whereas in battle the main pre-occupation of the firer is to avoid screwing up and to survive. It can also be assumed that in most cases weapons used in range tests were well maintained and were loaded using good quality dry powder and were dry, clean and oiled. Rather than caked in mud, damp and loaded in a panic.

The final pervading cause of the difference can also be attributed to the fact that battlefield accuracy is usually calcuated by comparing rounds fired with casualties sufferred. Which is perfectly sensible, but inevitably results in a lower percentile rate because of the tendency of soldiers to fire their weapon without having a target. Even in modern warfare a comparison of hits per shot fired, compared to shots fired at a target on a range would produce different results.

In the Napoleonic period this difference was exaggerate by the fact that soldiers were taught to fire on command as part of a fire control drill. Thus a mis-timed or mis-directed volley wasted anything up to 200 shots, not just a clip. French accounts for example make repeated reference to enemy volleys being fired (way too early) at ranges as far as 200 paces and having very little effect. Whilst everyone seems to mention the tendency for shots to be fired high on the battlefield suggesting that the men were more concerned with keeping up with the drill than actually presenting their muskets properly.

When designing wargame rules I tended to base my fire tables on accuracy figures closer to the battlefield results than the range tests. However, in practice there must be a point at which accuracy was affected by morale and loss of cohesion more than the physical capabilities of the weapon or skill of the firer. Ideally one would want to take the morale effect out of the equation and then feed it back in as part of the morale system. But there are no statistics to help determine that point the point at which weapon performance and firer skill was negated by morale.