French Riflemen

[RO Citizen]

Originally Posted by Godless Pickle

The question is why did Napoleon hate the rifle? They were such an advantage in battle, I dont see why a Commander would despise it...

Agree with you

There were also several German Rifle units, and all German battalions had sharpshooter detachments armed with Baker Rifles. (Which is probably where Bernard Cornwell got his idea for having Sharps detachment attached to the South Essex).

Originally Posted by Didz

The Austrian's also had rifle regiments as did the Portueguese and the Prussians had Shutzen units attached to their battalions armed with rifles. The Brunswick Corps had a battalion of Jager armed with Rifles at Waterloo and the Russian's had rifle armed jager battalions.

Actually, I think every enemy of Napoleon used rifles. In-game, it could a be good, balancing thing that France doesn't have riflemen.

[CBR]

Originally Posted by Godless Pickle

The question is why did Napoleon hate the rifle? They were such an advantage in battle, I dont see why a Commander would despise it...

Their advantage is not so great if one adds up all the factors involved.

Scharnhorst performed some tests and the conclusion was that the rifle and the musket produced about the same number of hits in the same period of time but the musket needed 3 or 4 times the ammo.

At shorter ranges the rifle lost its advantage in accuracy and could not produce the same effective volume of fire compared to a musket. Of course a rifleman could fire an ordinary ball just as fast as a smoothbore but then his rifle was simply a glorified carbine.

As rifles were expensive and only had an advantage in certain situations it was more a weapon for specialists and not something to equip the whole army with.


CBR

[Sol Invictus]

Originally Posted by Didz

I don't think he considered them appropriate to the qualities he wishes to inspire in his men. The rifle with its longer range and accuracy actually encouraged its owner to keep his distance from the enemy and spend time in sniping. Napoleon beleived that battle was essentially a psychological contest in which one side should seek to impose its dominance on the other by rapid and aggressive advances. Therefore, he did not want men stopping to take time to snipe at the enemy he expected his men, even his skirmishers to constantly be pushing forward into close range and forcing the enemy to give ground. In that respect he probably considered the riflemen ranged against him as a potential weakness as he would assume that they would constantly fall back to extent the range in order to keep their advantage.

This is a myth perpretated by some badly researched early wargame rules. In fact, the Baker rifle could be loaded and fired as fast as a standard musket, all the riflemen had to do was omit the leather patch that wrapped the ball and engaged the rifling. Without the patch the ball dropped down the rifle barrle just like a standard musket shot and could be loaded and fired at three rounds per minute, albiet with lesser accuracy than a rifle shot.

In his book Mark Urban even notes that some Riflemen deliberately omitted the leather patch even when firing at long range as it reduced the kick when the rifle fired thus making the weapon less painful to their shoulders, and in prolonged engagements this was often more tempting than the accuracy.

Oh I agree, but there were some very conservative types who were not keen on rifle-armed soldiers for the reason I stated.

[Didz]

Originally Posted by Sol Invictus

Oh I agree, but there were some very conservative types who were not keen on rifle-armed soldiers for the reason I stated.

Oh! well there will always be those at the time who are opposed to change. I mean there was considerable opposition to the tank, and to the aircraft, not to mention the aircraft carrier. But with the benefit of hindsight we should be able to see beyond the spin and prejudice and look at the value of such weapons dispassionately.

[JaM]

In fact, the Baker rifle could be loaded and fired as fast as a standard musket, all the riflemen had to do was omit the leather patch that wrapped the ball and engaged the rifling. Without the patch the ball dropped down the rifle barrle just like a standard musket shot and could be loaded and fired at three rounds per minute, albiet with lesser accuracy than a rifle shot.

auccuracy of such shot would be same as with smothbore musket, so no real benefit... at the other side, normal musket allowed standard bayonet to be fixed, which was much supperior to sword bayonet used with Baker Rifle....

Scharnhorst performed some tests and the conclusion was that the rifle and the musket produced about the same number of hits in the same period of time but the musket needed 3 or 4 times the ammo.

At shorter ranges the rifle lost its advantage in accuracy and could not produce the same effective volume of fire compared to a musket. Of course a rifleman could fire an ordinary ball just as fast as a smoothbore but then his rifle was simply a glorified carbine.

in normal battle condition, vision was obscured by smoke - long range shots were impossible - French light infantry preferred short range fast fire - at 30-50m musket had comparable accuracy to Rifle -light infantry unit in loose skirmish formation in good cover could cause a lot of casualties to advancing enemy, or in reversed situation - they could go in - in loose order, provoke enemy to fire and cover themselves in smoke, and then shoot the hell out of them (skirmish order / cover) - killing officers, preparing the ground for main attack Line Infantry column. As you can see, for both musket was enough, rifle didnt provide any real benefit - and for some long range sniper work, every light infantry (non com) officer had a rifle - those men were mostly promoted experienced soldiers...

[Marcus Licinius]

yes, the standard bayonet was superior when attached to the musket as both sides were sharp as the sword one side and the top 3" as it was a substantial length longer, it could also be used when not attached to the baker

[Randall Turner]

Originally Posted by JaM

auccuracy of such shot would be same as with smothbore musket, so no real benefit...

Actually, no. The Baker's sub-caliber round depended on the patch to reduce windage and improve seal on the rifling - and the round fired was a sub-caliber round. When fired in "non-rifle" mode it was less effective than a standard musket.

The US Army in the War of 1812 used standard Baker-style rifles (US design, but similar) in addition to the usual Kentucky rifle units. They had the highest rifle-to-musket ratio of any army in the world, but even they had something like 10:1 musket to rifle ratio. This is because of the obvious - in most situations, a musket was superior to the rifle. This is true even when fighting in the backwoods of the American frontier! (Which is why the Voltigeurs asked for their muskets back.)

It would have been very easy to make all infantrymen use rifles in any army, perhaps a bit moreso in the US or Britain, but very do-able for any army. It didn't happen during the Napoleonic wars or afterwards for good reasons. Edit: until, of course, the invention of the Minie-ball.

[JaM]

ok, then worse, it is just another example how movies can twist the reality - baker rifle was told to be supperior, which was true, but not in battlefield conditions, which actually made it less effective than musket, that is described as a "joke" in terms of accuracy... but the real life tests showed that musket was enough for its job - there was no need for long range accuracy if your view will be obscured by smoke in few seconds... for blind fire is rate of fire much more important...

[gord96]

Originally Posted by EmperorBatman999

Well still, Sharpe didn't exist.

thanks for clearing that up. here all along I thought he was a real guy and that the Sharpe series were all non-fiction. i am crushed.

lol