Reloading while marching?

According to

this

amazing video made by Christian Strumb Prussian infantry can reload while marching in the Battle of Jena.
It was extremely hard to reload while marching because of the complex steps to reload a musket. Do you guys have any accounts that support this? Were the Prussians THAT well-trained (Considering the fact that they lost to the French, but probably because of lousy leadership)?

I can't watch the video due to this crappy connection, but...

Reloading on the march was a key factor in the early 18th century tactics of Sweden. The usually infantry proceedure was to fire a volley, advance while reloading, then charge while firing a point-blank volley, or saving a shot for the melee depending on the situation. This was, later in the Great Northern War, also adopted by the Russians.

There's no reason why the ability to reload while moving would vanish, although it'd be something only very well trained infantry could do.


As to the Prussians, they lost to Napoleon primarily because their leadership was under the impression that it was 1762. And that the ghost of Frederick the Great was going to appear and beat Napoleon for them.

Originally Posted by Swerg

I can't watch the video due to this crappy connection, but...

Reloading on the march was a key factor in the early 18th century tactics of Sweden. The usually infantry proceedure was to fire a volley, advance while reloading, then charge while firing a point-blank volley, or saving a shot for the melee depending on the situation. This was, later in the Great Northern War, also adopted by the Russians.

There's no reason why the ability to reload while moving would vanish, although it'd be something only very well trained infantry could do.


As to the Prussians, they lost to Napoleon primarily because their leadership was under the impression that it was 1762. And that the ghost of Frederick the Great was going to appear and beat Napoleon for them.

Not to mention the Prussians didn't know how to deal with Napoleon's mass skirmish and irregular warfare (for that time period) tactics.

Originally Posted by ♔EmperorBatman999♔

Not to mention the Prussians didn't know how to deal with Napoleon's mass skirmish and irregular warfare (for that time period) tactics.

Like I said, they were pretending it was 1762 and everybody was marching around in great big lines. Back in the day when men wore tricorns and bloody well stood up when people shot at them. And you were allowed to beat your soldiers as much as you wanted.

I thought the Prussians have skirmishers, such as the Frei-korps, Jaegers, and Fusiliers in 1806?

Originally Posted by Prince Francesca

I thought the Prussians have skirmishers, such as the Frei-korps, Jaegers, and Fusiliers in 1806?

But not on the massive scale of Napoleon's forces.

Originally Posted by Prince Francesca

I thought the Prussians have skirmishers, such as the Frei-korps, Jaegers, and Fusiliers in 1806?

Prussian Fusiliers were just line infantry in different uniforms, at least until later in the wars. Most countries used the majority of their 'light' infantry this way. Within the Russian army, for example, the only difference between a line infantryman and a jaeger was their height. Jaegers were the guys who were too short to get into the regular line.

That changed later on, though, when people started to adopt large scale skirmishing.

Prussian Jaegers, though, were definitely proper light infantry. Most countries seem to have had some small units of REAL light infantry hanging around, the British in particular.

Originally Posted by Prince Francesca

...It was extremely hard to reload while marching because of the complex steps to reload a musket...

I respectfully disagree with the difficulty level in reloading a musket. As someone who has instructed the equivalently knowledgeable people (early teenagers) how to fire muzzle loading rifles, in my experience the difficulty associated with reloading from the muzzle are overrated. I found they took to it quite well after brief instruction, and I didn't even beat them with a stick.

At first, everyone looks awkward reloading a musket, and I think that is where many historians become confused by firing rates higher than 3 rounds a minute.


I would say that if you are marching in good order at half step it would not be unfeasible to reload while marching. Granted, it will hurt your rate of fire, but that's what multitasking does.

If I'm not mistaken, Major General Sir Colin Campbell trained his highlander brigade to fire and reload while marching during the Crimean war. They actually did so during the battle of Alma I think was.

Isn't this problem why Fire and Advance was used?

But wouldn't it be easier to reload a shorter weapon like the Baker Rifle on the move?

Having said that the Highlanders in Crimea presumably had 1853 pattern Enfields or 1851 pattern Minies which were both as long as the Brown Bess musket.

And on the Prussians one of their most antiquated features was that they moved to a much slower step rate - I think I've seen it described as a waddle - than the French.

If they were expected to reload their muskets and maintain completely straight lines while marching this makes a lot more sense.

Originally Posted by Clodius

But wouldn't it be easier to reload a shorter weapon like the Baker Rifle on the move?

Having said that the Highlanders in Crimea presumably had 1853 pattern Enfields or 1851 pattern Minies which were both as long as the Brown Bess musket.

And on the Prussians one of their most antiquated features was that they moved to a much slower step rate - I think I've seen it described as a waddle - than the French.

If they were expected to reload their muskets and maintain completely straight lines while marching this makes a lot more sense.

Rifles were VERY difficult to reload. With rifles, you have to physically ram the ball through the barrel, since the rifling has to 'bite' into it. With a musket, you can more or less just drop the ball down the barrel. With a rifle, you'd have to brace it on something to even get the ball started down the barrel. I think it would be pretty much impossible to reload one on the move.

Also, I believe a 'regular' march used in line formation was something like 45 paces per minute. Compare to the modern military cadence which I think is something like 105 paces per minute, and the French advance in column formation which was 75 paces per minute (increasing to something like 100 and 107 as they approached the enemy). However, this does make sense since it's MUCH harder to maintain a straight line formation than a column.

Originally Posted by Swerg

Rifles were VERY difficult to reload. With rifles, you have to physically ram the ball through the barrel, since the rifling has to 'bite' into it. With a musket, you can more or less just drop the ball down the barrel. With a rifle, you'd have to brace it on something to even get the ball started down the barrel. I think it would be pretty much impossible to reload one on the move.

Also, I believe a 'regular' march used in line formation was something like 45 paces per minute. Compare to the modern military cadence which I think is something like 105 paces per minute, and the French advance in column formation which was 75 paces per minute (increasing to something like 100 and 107 as they approached the enemy). However, this does make sense since it's MUCH harder to maintain a straight line formation than a column.

I remember an episode of sharpe when they thought some guys just to spit the bullet in the barrel

Originally Posted by TheJohan

I remember an episode of sharpe when they thought some guys just to spit the bullet in the barrel

Naturally, the British rifles were superior, being constructed with the use of zero-friction smartlubes which made reloading effortless and quick, and allowing rates of fire up to 20 rounds per minute. With accuracy at up to 1,000 meters. And also the bullets had tiny seeker warheads in them which were set to detect the scent of cheese and wine. And destroy the source with extreme prejudice.

Originally Posted by Swerg

Rifles were VERY difficult to reload. With rifles, you have to physically ram the ball through the barrel, since the rifling has to 'bite' into it. With a musket, you can more or less just drop the ball down the barrel. With a rifle, you'd have to brace it on something to even get the ball started down the barrel. I think it would be pretty much impossible to reload one on the move.

Not the Baker rifle used by the British. The Baker rifle was designed so that without the patch the ball simply dropped down the barrel without engaging the rifling. This allowed it to be loaded and fired as rapidly and easily as a musket but with the conresponding reduction in performance.

This was considered vital to enable the Rifle battalions to function independantly without supporting infantry. According to Mark Urbans book on the Rifles one of the problems that arose from this option was that some riflemen rapdily discovered that loading without the patch also reduced the kick when the weapon was fired and so deliberately left the patch out to reduce the impact on their bruised shoulders.

Originally Posted by TheJohan

I remember an episode of sharpe when they thought some guys just to spit the bullet in the barrel

Thats perfectly feasible given the facts explained above, however, in the episode to which you refer Sharpe was teaching the South East Essex Regiment how to load and fire three rounds a minute and they were armed with standard British land pattern muskets, one of which he had borrowed for the demonstration.

Originally Posted by Swerg

Also, I believe a 'regular' march used in line formation was something like 45 paces per minute. Compare to the modern military cadence which I think is something like 105 paces per minute, and the French advance in column formation which was 75 paces per minute (increasing to something like 100 and 107 as they approached the enemy). However, this does make sense since it's MUCH harder to maintain a straight line formation than a column.

Drill regulations of the period varied from nation to nation, but both the British and the French used a cadence of 76 paces per minutes in line and 120 paces per minutes in column. The British being slight faster only because the French were forced to adopt 'saldern's waddle' due to the 12" intervals allowed to them between ranks which limited the length of their pace to 22", whereas the British allowed a full 30" pace between ranks and therefore could use a full 30" march step.

Originally Posted by Didz

...the French were forced to adopt 'saldern's waddle' due to the 12" intervals allowed to them between ranks which limited the length of their pace to 22", whereas the British allowed a full 30" pace between ranks and therefore could use a full 30" march step.

Waddling is a sign of poorly trained soldiers. In my experience in the military, we easily marched what we called "sac to crack". This is exactly as close as it sounds, you can look down in front of you and see the boots of the man behind you, a good practical joke to play in formation and within the capacity of anyone who has been marching for more than a month, assuming they aren't a complete moron.


As for reloading while marching, I must again reiterate that I have personally instructed firing muskets. It is easy, all this "oh, its so complicated" is only true if you don't take the time to practice shooting and reloading.

"They would be too cramped"
Well obviously they would spread out a bit and "at ease march" (not sure the European term for it, but not marching in step) to allow soldiers the movement they needed to perform such a task.


Finally
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBRF8...eature=related
This should wrap up the conversation regarding reloading while moving. Granted, he had more difficulty than if he was standing still and he missed. but he reloaded while at a quick step.

Originally Posted by Didz

Not the Baker rifle used by the British. The Baker rifle was designed so that without the patch the ball simply dropped down the barrel without engaging the rifling. This allowed it to be loaded and fired as rapidly and easily as a musket but with the conresponding reduction in performance.

This was considered vital to enable the Rifle battalions to function independantly without supporting infantry. According to Mark Urbans book on the Rifles one of the problems that arose from this option was that some riflemen rapdily discovered that loading without the patch also reduced the kick when the weapon was fired and so deliberately left the patch out to reduce the impact on their bruised shoulders.

Using an undersized round isn't exactly a design feature. The Kentucky rifle, as mentioned in that video SMIDSY linked, could operate as a musket if you didn't use a patch and needed to load quickly. Pretty much anybody could do the same thing.

Drill regulations of the period varied from nation to nation, but both the British and the French used a cadence of 76 paces per minutes in line and 120 paces per minutes in column. The British being slight faster only because the French were forced to adopt 'saldern's waddle' due to the 12" intervals allowed to them between ranks which limited the length of their pace to 22", whereas the British allowed a full 30" pace between ranks and therefore could use a full 30" march step.

From Richard Riehn's "1812: Napoleon's Russian Campaign". Starting on page 109, if you happen to possess the volume.

Only a fool would stand up and amble across open ground under fire. Yet his is precislely what the military establishments of the 18th century expected their infantry to do in order to accommodate the requirements of linear tactics. That is, the infantry was expected to literally wlatz downrange at an ambling cadence of about 45 paces per minute as, densely ranked and elbow to elbow, they went up against the enemy's deployed firing lines."

This speaking of pre-Napoleonic tactics in the era of Frederick the Great. Later on, page 121 discusses Napoleonic era cadences.

With speed of movement an essential factor of these new tactical forms, the injunction against running, a dominant factor throughout the era of formal mass tactics, had been somewhat accommodated by the pas de charge. This was done at a cadence of between 132 and 140 paces per minute, as opposed to the deployment march, which was done at about 100 cadence, or the advancing pace of the old linear order which was done at around 45. Sometimes during the first decade of the 19th century, the quick march, at about 109 paces, came into use in Prussia and elsewhere. This comes close to the modern 114 cadence as practiced by the U.S. Army today.

Originally Posted by Swerg

Using an undersized round isn't exactly a design feature. The Kentucky rifle, as mentioned in that video SMIDSY linked, could operate as a musket if you didn't use a patch and needed to load quickly. Pretty much anybody could do the same thing.

That may be the case, but the point i was making was that there was no need for a British rifleman armed with a Baker rifle to be hampered in loading by having to force the ball past the rifling. The simple solution was to omit the patch and simply drop the ball down the barrel. So, in that respect loading on the march was no more difficult for a British rifleman than a man with a Brown bess. In fact it might even be slightly easier as the weapon is shorter and so easier to hold on the march.

Originally Posted by Swerg

From Richard Riehn's "1812: Napoleon's Russian Campaign". Starting on page 109, if you happen to possess the volume.

The figures I quoted are taken directly from the respective regulations of the period as quoted by Nafizger. The 75-76 paces per minute was pretty much standard as the ordinary step for use in line by all armies of the period. The French 'Pas de Charge' was 120 paces per minute.

Here are a few comparisons from Napoleonic drill manuals as supplied by Nafziger.
Austrian - Ordinairschritt 90 paces per minute each of 25"
French - Pas Ordinaire 76 paces per minutes each of 26"
Prussian - Ordinaire schritt 75 paces per minutes each of 25"
British - Ordinary pace 75 paces per minute each of 30"
Russian - Tchyi szag 60 paces per minute each of 30"

Originally Posted by SMIDSY

Waddling is a sign of poorly trained soldiers. In my experience in the military, we easily marched what we called "sac to crack". This is exactly as close as it sounds, you can look down in front of you and see the boots of the man behind you, a good practical joke to play in formation and within the capacity of anyone who has been marching for more than a month, assuming they aren't a complete moron.

'Saldern's Waddle' was the common term used to refer to that form of marching, it didn't necessarily mean that the men involved waddled, (although thats obviously how the reference originated.) however, it did place a physical limitation on the possible length of pace that could be taken. Hence the British marching pace was longer than that of the French.

There is a rather nice video on youtube which shows a unit of dutch re-enactors drilling using 'saldern waddle'.

So when infantry charged with bayonet in the Napoleonic wars, they walked rapidly instead of running?

Originally Posted by Prince Francesca

So when infantry charged with bayonet in the Napoleonic wars, they walked rapidly instead of running?

Yes and no, people get very confused in these modern times with the meaning of the word 'charge'. So, many movies of US Cavalry galloping like a bunch of loonies over the battlefield with trumpets blaring etc.

The term 'Charge' when used in this period merely mean't an intention to close with the enemy and drive them back. Thus the command 'Charge bayonet's' did not involve any running, merely the presentation of the bayonet in a aggressive posture. Likewise 'pas de charge' was simply the marching pace used by troops when making a determined advance on the enemy.

The final rush once an enemy had decided to quit their position might well have seen a few men break into a jog, though as most were carrying over 60 pounds of equipment it would probably not be a run.