The sheer difficulty of SEEING a man sized target at 600 yards, let alone aiming and hitting them, cannot be understated. Under ideal conditions at the range, with iron sites, that 300 meter target is really hard to hit. I always accepted I was going to miss at least three exposures (the 300 meter target) and saved those rounds as back up for closer ones on the pop up range. There's also a distinct lack of flatness to the world. I think many people underestimate just how rolling and undulating the field at Gettysburg that Pickett's Charge traversed. The attackers disappeared from the view of Union soldiers several times as they made their way across. It's really easy for a lot of folks to imagine a battlefield of this time period was a bunch of football fields with a few bushes or a fence or two scattered about. And then there's the massive rolling clouds of smoke.
You're correct about the difficulty of seeing an individual soldier at 600 yards. However (apart from rare exceptions such as Sharpshooters) it would be formations or guns that were engaged with rifles at that distance. As for undulating ground - yes, indeed. However, a skilled unit commander would choose areas on the advance where the enemy was visible, determine the ranges, and have his men engage for the period of time they were traversing them.
Props for saying you qualified as marksman. No one on UA-cam qualifies below expert and when they get out no one shoots over 0.75 MOA groups even with their sidearm.
Right? It happens. I probably was well on my way to an Expert in Marine Boot. The miserable, cold, rainy day prior to Qual I'd shot an easy Expert. The day of: I got inside my own head and threw myself into a Marksman. My first annual qual in the Fleet, I got an Expert. The coach running my section of the line was very good and constantly assisting his shooters, and I happily remarked to him on Qual Day that I'd shot an Expert. "You know why? Because you didn't give a f***." Relaxation and keeping calm are amazingly key to precision shooting.
@@goldenhide I can relate to nearly that whole story about thinking you knew what's what at basic, I grew up hunting and my dad did train me pretty well, I even did pretty well on my pre quals but come the day... I got rattled and didn't listen to what the Drill Sergeants had taught us and got marksman. I did 8 years active as an Infantryman and never served with anyone who "Always shot expert." But I sure have been told by every "Vet" at the Bar that they never failed to go 40 for 40.
@@glenlivett78 interesting, I served 11 yrs and knew a few who always shot expert, but these were guys that also shoot a lot on their off time. Not 40 out of 40, but anywhere in the four point range. I only served with one guy who shot 40 every time, but he was a presidents 100 guy. I served early 80's to mid ninties, before computer games, so that may have had something to do with it.
@@Bhartrampf DOn't get me wrong I knew a lot of great shooters in the army, and by the time I was an E4 I usually shot 37-39 and pulled the occasional 40, But I also pulled the occasional 29, My First Sergeant in the 82nd was one of the finest soldiers and shooters I ever met, and I watched him pull a 32 one day... We gave him a wide berth the rest of that day.
I went into this video rolling my eyes at the title and thinking "yeah sure bro. I will hear you out" but damn do you make a good argument for the idea. Can't beleive i never thought of this stuff
I used to be the same way about rifles and the war, and I struggled for a while before I came to realize the evidence and documentation was too extensive to ignore. Glad you enjoyed the video.
The first volley is the only volley in which a soldier using a black powder rifle has a clear view of his target. Even today most soldiers can't reliably hit targets beyond 300 yards under the pressure of combat. It makes sense then to withhold the first volley until the distance is short enough for the majority of soldiers to aim reliably.
Quite so, but in the period assaults made by large groups close together and the accuracy of trained soldiers with rifle muskets would place the shot around the area of the mass of attackers at far greater ranges. So, with both the troops trained to use the sights and the officers to estimate range, fire at over 300 yards was still effective fire. Post rifle musket and in breech loading times, the Ottomans at Plevna were able to maintain an effective rifle fire with their Peabody Martini Henrys at a mile, which the Russians and Romanians had to endure for their whole advance. All of this only highlights the deficiencies in training of troops and officer in the ACW and demonstrates the correctness of Brett’s view in the video. As to how the ACW armies might have managed such lengthy and rigorous training is another matter. A fag packet calculation suggests that it would take at least two years to train the trainers and then the troops and officers to an adequate standard and effective numbers. Not to mention the expenditure of horrendous amounts of ammunition, plus ensuring matching good ammunition was so allocated. Meanwhile, with their third hand in their copious spare time, someone has to hold off the enemy forces as best they might. Politically and logistically a potential disaster for a levee en masse with negligible existing guiding staff and an industry not yet up to the task.
@@vgahren Even before I'd reckon. Also we should keep in mind that while today we are talking about individual targets, back then it was more often than not formations firing at formations. You arent shooting at an individual person and by that metric targets of the size of 100+ men in 3 ranks deep were DEFINETLY possible to hit at 200+ yards.
@@vgahren Based on Prussian and British military testing (can’t remember when exactly): Let’s do the maths and the 300 yard starting distances make sense: 300 yards: 7 hits in 50 shots: 14% 200 yards: 15 hits in 50 shots: 30% 100 yards: 25 hits in 50 shots: 50% 50 yards: 37 hits in 50 shots: 75% So let’s say 100 vs 100. Team A vs Team B. Team B is attacking A from 300 yards with intent to fire at 50 yards then charge home with bayonet. Team A will be able to fire roughly 3 volleys. 1st volley: 14 casualties. 86 remaining. 2nd volley: 26 casualties, 60 remaining. 3rd volley: 30 casualties, 30 remaining. Team B fires volley inflicting 22 casualties then charges in against nearly 3 times their number. If Team A were to get a last min volley off then Team B will be mostly eliminated. At this point team B will probably withdraw being chased by A’s own bayonet charge.
@@MajorCoolD Like I remember a documentary where if civil war soldiers in the front line pushed like a big shield on wheels. It wouldn't work because the ballistics of bullets coming in were very curved like a guy I met had a 45-70 the bullet falls 68 inches at 300 yards.EDIT: To add to my comment a .55 .57 caliber bullet would fall even further at 200-300 yards you get a bit more pressure out of the new shaped bullets minnie balls etc. Yeah not enough to shoot and hit people at 600 yards. It would be like aiming a mortar vs shooting a modern rifle.
One other reason why it matters to get the impact of the rifled musket straight is that the traditional narrative implies that superior equipment is all you need in war, whereas, as you show, there needs to be a lot of training to be able to use that equipment. I was struck by that "eight times faster" claim in the History Channel, and wondered if you would mention it. It suggest they're confusing the rifled musket with something like the Dreyse needle gun. So much for the History Channel.
In the Napoleonic wars, two rounds a minute was standard. So, the History Channel is saying that Civil War soldiers could fire - sixteen rounds a minute??? Those were some amazing soldiers.
Maybe they were referring to the firing rate of older types of rifle muskets (the ones that were around Napoleonic times) that were indeed slower to reload than a smooth bore musket or the Minie ball rifle muskets. Or maybe I’m just giving too much credit to the History Channel.
@@mathieu.robert Just pursuing your thought, Brett has a video on the first rifled muskets (ua-cam.com/video/VYm9OfZZMvc/v-deo.html) and at about 1:10 it appears that an expanding bullet rifle fires about three time as fast as an old-style ball weapon (presumably that's before the fouling gets really bad). At the beginning of his video on the Austro-Prussian war (ua-cam.com/video/PxnurUTqWxM/v-deo.html), he demonstrates a Dreyse firing about twice as fast (or a bit more) as a good expanding projectile rifled musket: which would make it about eight times faster than the Old Skool rifle. So I think you're right, and the History Channel has taken the biggest number it could find (because, if we have to have numbers, the bigger the betterer, am I right?) and slammed down the difference between an early 19th c. rifled musket and the Dreyse without considering whether or not it is strictly accurate. Perhaps we have got to the source of History Channel's error. Do you think they care?
I shot a lot before I went to basic, my granddad WW2, Dad Korean and boy scout leader Vietnam, made sure all of us boys and gals within their circle new how to shoot with iron sights and we all started with single shot guns. A lot of us went into the military. Growing up like that, I just assumed that everyone knew how to shoot, I was amazed that hardly anyone had ever even shot a gun before, and like you said, at distance. I grew up in the mountains in Oregon, where we hunted to fill the freezer and shot handgun silhouette. We used M16A1's when I went in, I was already used to shooting peep sights and buckhorns out to 300 yards. I am really grateful to everyone who shoot me how to shoot when I was young and since then. It made me a better soldier and later a better hunter also. I still learned different things in the military about better ways to shoot and how not only different positions changed, but tactics also. Awesome presentation as always, you seem pass out nuggets of good stuff every time. I am also fascinated with history and the weapons.
This was so educating! I have allways struggled to understand a decision made in the Danish army right before the war of 1864. They chose to keep on using the smoothbore instead of changing to rifles. In the war against Preussia they were defeated by troops armed with the needle rifle. So why didnt they get rifles? You have just answered that question. And why did Denmark REALLY lose that war.. Because of artillery and being outnumbered 4-1 thats why.
you are completely wrong about this. Denmark had been using riflemuskets since 1848. Int he 1850ties usually with 20% men armed with tham, and 80% with smoothbores. In 1860/61 the ex frence model 1822 smoothbroes where uprifled. So in 1864 the entire danish army was using riflemuskets. Just like the Austrians where.
Yes you are correct about learning how to shoot when you enlisted into the Army. I had experience as a kid and US Army JROTC being on the school rifle team. During Basic Training at Ft. Benning we had old M16A1 rifles from the Vietnam era in 1986. I shot horribly on our first diagnostic qualification along with everyone being over confident. I qualified by one shot. Only 12 guys along with me only qualified as marksman.I told my Drill Sergeant that I wasn't good enough that I needed retraining. My Drill Sergeant admired my honesty that they gave me more push ups and made me do 7 pull ups everyday during rifle qualification week. They made me very tired and told me to relax, I was too high strung. They told me final qualification was another week and at the end of the 2 weeks. I was on the Weaponeer everyday and on the zero range and pop up 300 meter range. I took advantage of the retraining. Finally on qualification day just for myself just barely making Marksman, I qualified expert during Basic and again at Infantry AIT before graduation. My Drill Sergeants smoked me to relax and to work through the pain and focus on sight picture and trigger squeeze. My Drill Sergeants were amazing instructors indeed.
It should be recalled that the introduction of the percussion cap increased the reliability of the weapon to repeatedly fire. In Napoleonic warfare, a battalion's flintlock fire could decrease to possibly only 60 percent of the muskets available after the first volley.
The reduction in rate of fire in Napoleonic muskets was not down to problems with the ignition, but with a problem that is common with black powder. Fouling. It does not MATTER what black powder firearm you are using, build up of fouling is an issue. More modern black powder mixes build up more slowly, but they still build up. The reason why percussion cap overtook the flintlock was not reliability, the flintlock was actually a very reliable system. It was simply that the percussion cap system was cheaper and easier to make, while still being at least as reliable as the flintlock. Whether you use a flintlock or percussion cap however, you are still going to have to flush out the barrel of your weapon after 10 or so rounds because of the build up of partially burned powder and debris (that fouling) in the barrel, which makes the loading process much more difficult.
@@alganhar1 I gave your comment a thumbs up because I partially agree with your statement on cap development. However, I must disagree on the reliablilty of flintlocks being just as reliable as caplocks. In hunting use - then yes, with time and opportunity for proper care and prep. But in battles? Part of the problem with flint is that its supply was never a sure thing, being quarried, split, and processed down to usable shapes in the millions. That much is not in dispute, whereas caps could be made quickly and by the tens of millions in factories with quality control being easy, and made by relatively low skilled workers. Flint knappers were not cheap labor. They were almost on a par with the local blacksmith in demand. As to reliablilty: I do agree that a flintlock is a good system, but not an excellent system. It has inherant weaknesses that the caplock almost completely eliminates. Easier to carry by the numbers, more weather resistant (can be sealed by soft wax), more reliable flash, hotter flash, more consistant flash. Caplocks will burn through accumulated fouling at the touch hole when the powder in the pan may not. Caps project their flash into the nipple which acts as a jet to accelerate and "point" the fire into the main charge. Almost all of the fire goes into the touch hole, whereas only th eperiphery of the pan fire contacts the the hole. The rest is blown into the air, doing nothing. Thus, flintlocks, by comparison, are somewhat passive in the mechanics of ignition, relying on a clean vent and just the right amount of powder in the pan. Too much, along with fouling, and the flash might not even reach the main charge. Too little brings its own issues, along with prior fouling at the touch hole. There is no channeled fire that gets forced into the main charge like a small gas torch. Don't get me wrong. I am not biased against the flinter. I love them and have a lot of time behind a few very nice ones. But, I am convinced that the higher ratio of casualties of wars after the advent of the caplock - however short a period that was until brass cartridges - was because of the reliabilty of almost every shot being sent down range, even after the first ten shots worth of fouling. That, and rifling. My own experince with caplocks over 45 years ( Springfields, Model of 1841, Enfields) show that bore fouling builds to a point of making loading difficult(at about 12 shots depending on weather), but that it can be rammed through, with the fouling getting scrubbed clear enough to continue firing up to 47 shots in some instances. It's as if the hardest fouled load gets scrubbed down into the breech, and then gets ejected so you sort of start over. I did this test many times to try to get an insight as to how - during a battle - the troops continued to fire when there was no time to do a precursory cleaning. Just my theory.
To continue, the British found that in the testing in the Tower, that an infantry flintlock using a standard cartridge, would under ideal loading conditions, fire about 6 of 10 times. Usually, the first volley was the only full volley by a unit. I should note that with the dependability of the cap, the infantryman no longer needed to carry a sword as the last means of defense after a flash in the pan upon the approach of lancer.
Very interesting topic. The potential for the rifle-musket was there, in theory, but in the real world it could never be realized except in some unusual situations, like specialist sharpshooter units.
It did actually make a difference in terms of a fight between old and new (e.g. One side could start shooting at the other before they themselves got in range), the British proved this many a time during the Indian mutiny, but while it was almost certainly a factor in the American civil war there were plenty of others and indeed European observers tended to credit the willingness of America units to shoot each other to pieces and thereby engage in a battle of attrition over committing to steel for the very high casualties (you might take casualties in a charge but men tend to also run rather than face the bayonet and thus the casualties overall are much lower that if they shot each other into combat ineffectiveness), this is why greater aggressiveness was largely the lesson taken, unfortunately for them faster loading rifles were on the horizon and would revolutionise tactics in a totally different direction.
I came after a recommendation from Brandon F and the “Because History Matters” collaboration. I was very enlightened to learn about the truth behind civil war tactics and why the devastating war casualties took place, not as a result of the effectiveness of the Rifle, but more as the result of the poor training of the soldiers in modern firearms training that would have given them the tactical advantage in combat. You’ve got a long term viewer out of me!
Well said! As someone who shoots a muzzleloading musket and rifle (and is very definitely not a great shot) what I can say is that the rifle at least has less randomness as to where the shot is going (versus a smoothbore, where the possible space that the bullet could occupy as it flies along resembles a trumpet with the flared end starting at around 75m). This cuts down the problem to the user, who can at least get consistent feedback as to where they should be trying to adjust their aim to. Also bang on about the ranging issue. The drop on a musket or muzzleloading rifle is obscene - at 200m you would have to aim above the head to hit a man's toes. Not having a way to rangefind accurately, the best bet is to wait until the target is 150m away or less (i.e. close enough to make out individual features) and then aim centre mass.
Before I went to Marine boot camp in 1975 I was reading everything I could about the "new" M16A1 service rifle and its shortcomings. One story was sending marksmanship training units to train rifle platoons in Vietnam. The platoon would be polled for its Gomer Pyle and that soldier would be dragged out and subjected to a short, intense period of remedial marksmanship instruction. Meanwhile, the rest of the platoon would be given a loaded magazine and lined up to shoot silhouette targets at (drum rolls!) TWENTY-FIVE meters. After the entire platoon had fired a magazine (20 rounds? That was standard at the time, but it was also common practice to load only 18 rounds for reliability--not a problem with current STANAG 30-round magazines) each the hits were tallied up. Some of the platoon fired full auto. Some fired from the hip. All fired from standing. Then Gomer Pyle fired a magazine from prone--and often that "lousy shot" managed to achieve more hits at 25 meters than the rest of the platoon combined. During previous wars there were command complaints that riflemen weren't shooting their weapons in combat. Training took place on a formal live-fire range with clearly-visible targets. When in combat, the "trained" rifleman had no target--and had a choice between saving ammo until there WAS a visible target or spewing shots across the countryside to convince everybody that the rifleman was DOING something. Does this have any application to Civil War industrial-age armies? The M16A1 and its product improved rifles are able to put five-round one-hole groups at 25 meters from a machine rest. Soldiers are not machine rests. It was common for riflemen to miss targets within 25 meters whether that was 1864 or 1944 or 1968 or in the 21st Century. Locating an enemy beyond 100 meters is difficult. Then you have to ID and hit the enemy.
I am reminded of the horrific spray of wildly missed rounds displayed at my local range at 25,50&100 metres baffles. Looking more like it had been used by 84mm Charlie Gs with a canister round than supposedly precision rifles and pistols.
And then when the NRA wasn’t sufficient we did it again with the civilian marksmanship program in 1903!!! At this point I think we need a new government sponsored program!!! Everything is neuters and each year there’s less places to shoot it seems. We need more ranges especially outdoor (currently 90% of my small collection is black powder). Man it sucks to have guns and ammo but no where to discharge!!!
The rifle musket is really not more effective than a smoothbore in the hands of a common private, but the minie ball is a much deadlier projectile. A round ball flies so poorly through the air it loses much more of its kinetic energy at range.
I was completely enthralled by this video. I’m a civil war buff and I have to admit I was pretty much duped by the idea of the rifle musket being the thing that made the civil war so deadly. Thank you for so professionally and informatively explaining why it was not, I think I basically completely subscribe now to your explanation and I purchased your book on amazon before the video ended. I am also a newly redeemed lost causer and I honestly feel like I’m only just beginning to actually study the civil war rather than look for stereotypical points of interest that serve the lost cause narrative. (I know you didn’t really mention politics in this video just wanted to say that, feels good to give up that backwards view of the war)
The biggest killer was their terrible leadership on both sides. The Europeans saw American leadership as primitive despite having some of the best technology in the world at the time. The ironclad terrified the entire world as a single one could take out a wooden boat navy
I am as well, and also really fell for it; it really doesn't help that it is repeated ad nauseum in school, and most places you look, unless you put in research like PC does. And if you don't know you need to do that research, you probably won't, as we didn't
I'm NOT a civil war buff and I didn't think the rifled musket was why it was so deadly. I didn't really think anything though cause I don't know much about the civil war.
Found you through the collab, I like what I see, subbed. I don't think there exists a single History Channel documentary that doesn't have at least one glaring mistake. It's always been a huge problem with made for tv (or streaming service nowadays) documentaries. A company orders a doc from some agency, and the people producing it don't gaf about accuracy, it's just a paycheck for them. The rise of the amateur UA-cam historian has been a blessing.
I really enjoyed your video. I got caught up and couldn't stop watching. I'm a former N-SSA skirmisher, and used to shoot lots of John C. Garand matches, but I've rarely shot past 200 yards. Anyway, I became aware of the reality of your thesis many years ago, that the Minie rifle, even more than the round ball rifle, requires exceptional skill in range estimation because of its extreme trajectory, and thus had nothing like the long-range influence claimed in the Standard Myth. Buck-and-ball was generally better, because the vast majority couldn't hit an elephant at this dis... Anyway, great video. Your presentation is very engaging and makes for a very watchable video.
Well done mate! Really good to see such a good historical analysis on youtube (or anywhere else these days). So good to see a study collect and analyse evidence, then draw conclusions, rather than the other way around.
This is a very interesting presentation and made me appreciate Civil War history more. Some of the points you raise about buck-and-ball effectiveness at closer ranges is very similar to my research dealing with earlier blackpowder weapons in the 16th and 17th century. At around 100 to 200 yards the smoothboore matchlocks were effective enough to get center mass hits. Certainly not the kind of accuracy a military would look for today, but sufficient for volley fire.
@HalideHelix Definitely and there is a lot of variation among the matchlock weapons, the Turkish sources I have studied will list long and short muskets separately in armory equipment lists, with separate accoutrements. This is a sign that there was a degree of standardization and muskets for different roles. If these weapons were so inaccurate it doesn't make sense that an empire would put significant resources into building and issuing them.
Awesome video, years ago I used to read some alternate history forums where posters shared a lot of info about training of the British and French. Some "what if" discussion centred around Crimean war shocking US Army into establishing a rifle school before ACW even started and effects that would have had. If I remember right some officers were sent as observer but did not get to Crimea till after the city surrendered. One point I wanted to make is that when firing at those ranges at men formed into battalions or batteries in the open you do not have to hit men sized target. You need to be in the ballpark that is a lot larger and range estimation is by far the most important aspect of it. If you know battery is 475 yards away as long as you shoot for that range volume of fire would suppress it.
I remember reading in Co. Aytch by Civil War Private Sam Watkins that either (or both) Stonewall Jackson or Braxton Bragg would issue some number of cartridges (around 40) and that they would be charged money if they wasted those cartridges outside of combat. If that's even a little true, the average soldier wouldn't risk losing valuable bullets (let alone reload time) to fire at a target they weren't sure of hitting.
In the Civil War, I figured most line infantry were close enough to the officers and NCO's that they could be told what sights to set. Firing in volley means everyone is essentially shooting at the same target anyway.
They usually were close enough to their officers/NCOs for that to happen, but only if the officer or NCO: a/ Understands the capability of the firearm his soldiers are using. b/ Accurately estimates the distance. c/ Decides to order his men to open fire at that distance. and also if the men: d/ Are trained well enough to be able to set their sights to the distance given. e/ Have the skills to hold, aim and fire their firearms correctly. In the ACW, none of these are a given.
You need officers who could make good range estimates and you still need soldiers who have trained aming in controlled firing. There was a reason that the minimum service time was around two years in most armies with draft.
Thanks for the informative video! I’m new to your channel. I’m a long-time reenactor and a novice at live fire with a rifle musket as the chance to do any long-range practice is rare for me. Your point about Civil War soldiers not receiving adequate training in shooting is clear. The only training one of my ancestors got was a couple of roadside volleys on their way to Antietam. He was a nine month volunteer in the 130th PA! I’ll check out your other videos!
Thanks. Ive barely fired anything living in a Canadian city. Im happy to hear on the ideas, practices and lived experiences of those who do. I also enjoy history and re-enactments (mostly medieval) where putting on the kit and actually doing it really gives a much closer understanding.
I typically go to Canada every June to shoot muskets, although that is in remote part of Alberta. But there are TONS of people who shoot black powder in Canada. I’m sure you could find some near you.
While the video dispells the ultra long range myth quite nicely it does not address the actual performance differences between Napoleonic flintlocks and percussion cap Minnie ball rifles. A similar deepdive into the Napoleonic era infantry warfare is needed.
Rewatching this, i now truly appreciate the monstrous ballistics of the padewils rifle musket you spoke of in your latest video on the Bavarian campaign of the Austro-Prussian war. That thing was firing a bullet 500-600fps faster than many of its contemporaries.
Bravo, and Huzzah!! Given that the rifle was given very little opportunity for correct application, with many interractions taking place using Napoleonic tactics fifty yards apart. A rifle was wasted. Not so my time watching this excellent and thought-provoking 47 minutes and 22 seconds. Thank you, for time well-spent in watching your words on as fascinating period in the history of the US of A.
Very interesting and thought provoking video. One of my ancestors was a 93rd Highlander who probably was in The Thin Red Lone that showed that old tactics of forming square by default no longer held true for infantry against cavalry in every case.
The 93rd, at Balaklava, fired their first volley when the Russian cavalry were at 450 yards. They got in two further volleys before the Russians had enough and veered off. This was using the Pattern 1851 Rifle, which fired a .702 inch, 680 grain bullet; exactly the same as the French 1842 Rifle. This is the rifle that was used in the major battles of the Crimean War, with devastating effect, yet most of the British troops arrived in the Crimea still armed with smooth bore muskets. It wasn't till the siege of Sevastopol that the Pattern 1853 Enfield rifle was introduced. This was the .577 rifle that was used in the American Civil War. So, professional British troops arrived in a combat zone armed and trained with smooth bore muskets. They were then equipped with musket bore rifles, which they used to devastating effect, at relatively long ranges, after minimal training. They were then issued with a smaller calibre, more accurate rifle, which they used for effective sniping at previously unknown ranges, after minimal training. All within two years of continuous combat. The American generals should have learned from this and hired British musketry instructors.
The amount of soldiers on the battlefield also contributed to the amount of people killed. My thoughts are that people look at things superficially. They have no idea of what was actually involved in most wars. One would also think that untrained leaders didn't understand tactics. Someone was the leader and officer of a group who was a professor of Bible studies or Mayor of a town. Initially there was ignorance of what not to do tactically.
It's also worth pointing out that battles fought with smoothbore muskets were every bit as lethal as those fought with rifled muskets. At Malplaquet in 1709 an allied army of 86,000 men suffered about 22,000 casualties in a SINGLE DAY. At that army was under the leadership of Marlborough and Eugene of Savoy, two of the greatest commanders of their day. Attacking entrenched infantry armed with firearms was always going to be incredibly bloody, whether those weapons were rifled or not.
This is important. Although many discuss the supposedly "unprecedented" slaughter of the Civil War, more well-informed historians point out that the casualties were comparable to Napoleonic battles.
@@peterblum613 It also demonstrates that commander competence doesn't prevent high casualties, either - Grant is reviled by many as a butcher, but he was no more so than Napoleon, Marlborough or Lee.
It's good to hear your take on this. I grew up being told and believing the fallacies of rifle muskets in the civil war. I've even heard Shelby Foote say that the rifle musket was the reason for the high casualties. It was Earl J. Hess who convinced me otherwise when I read his book on the subject last year.
@@ichimonjiguy It was just the nature of the linear tactics used. Battlefield casualties during the Napoleonic wars, which were fought almost exclusively with smoothbore muskets, were also quite high.
The casualties were not heavier in the ACW compared to the Napoleonic wars or the Seven Years War. If you find the casualty rates at battles like Borodino in 1812 you will find that they were every bit as deadly.
@@ichimonjiguy I believe artillery. Just like the rifled musket, you started getting rifled Parrott guns and other rifled artillery pieces with much greater range. Something I read said in Napoleon's day typical artillery range was 500 yards - in the Civil War it was 1500. When you read diaries, they often mention the "galling" artillery fire, especially cannister shot at 200 yards or closer. It would create big gaps in the line.
The first firearm I ever shot in my life was my M16a2 that was issued to me at Fort Knox. But during my ten years in the Army, I never score higher than marksman until I was able buy my own AR-15 rifle and go to the range on my own time. Only then did my score improve. Well, that and the adoption of red dot sights.
I’m so glad to finally see this video! I’ve been wanting to hear more on this topic since we meet back in Nov. Its really good to hear the real history of it all. Be interested to hear more about the sharpshooters and any know engagements they took part in.
Excellent video on the subject matter. Glad I’m not alone in believing that training more than technology had an impact on the course of ACW tactical realities. Without diminishing the significance of the conflict, I’ve always been critical of quality of ACW troops overall. Although some would say that the average veteran by 1865 would be equal to or better than top-tier European veterans (British, French, Prussian), I am unconvinced (and it is all speculation anyway). It seems like the US really struggled with troop quality during the 19th century, and the lessons were long and hard. Watching the video and reading some comments, I am reminded of how the War of 1812 precipitates a lot of the issues that pop up in the ACW. Unlike in Wellington’s Peninsular army, there were no rifle units in British North America. There were, however, four US Rifle regiments, rifle volunteers attached to line infantry units, and rifle-armed militia units aplenty for the US, never mind weight of numbers. And yet, the presence of these units’ technological superiority did not translate into tactical superiority, due to the poor training of the regulars and militias alike. All Canadian offensives failed, and ultimately the coastlines could not be secured. Smoothbore-armed, professional British troops(who typically had 10+ years of service in the Canadas and an annual marksmanship training programme like the one used in the 1850s and 60s) bested them. Only troops rigorously trained by Jacob Brown and Winfield Scott achieved tactical parity and success, and those were smoothbore-armed troops using a standardised, modernised drill manual. It’s also interesting to note that Buck-and-ball were first issued to US troops during the War of 1812 to act as a stop-gap compensating method for the overall poor quality of troops. However, it did not appear then to provide a significant advantage, so it is interesting to hear that it was well-respected in the 1860s for its destructive potential.
I stayed to the end 😂. I have to say i was surprised. I was always lead to believe the rifle musket “changed everything” it kind of reminds me of the “Lions led by Donkeys” myth of WW1. Would it be fair to say a lot of the casualties of the civil war were caused by artillery on the battle field or disease behind the lines?
The rifle indeed caused 80 to 90% of casualties. While the rifle wasn’t used out to its full capabilities, at the shockingly close ranges that CW battles were fought at, it was still terribly destructive.
Very interesting, didn't put 2&2 together -had heard about cw soldiers not getting range time, that would negate the advantages of the rifle musket. Thanks for showing the spot on the street where the Conf. marksman were set up!
Superb work Sir .... even for a Blanket Stacker 😊. A most interesting and informative channel - as always we tend to simplify much in military history in respect to weaponry (I have seen much the same regarding armoured warfare 1939-1942 too - with incorrect assessment of the British 2 pounder and German panzers etc) Well Done 😊
Great video, I just ran across your stuff yesterday. I've really enjoyed the information presented on the European schools of Musketry and how they compared to the lack of American schools either Union or Confederate. This also explains the motivation of the founders of the NRA after the Civil War and their observations that the typical Union soldier didn't know how to shoot. Tied a lot of ends together. You should've attended an Appleseed Project event before enlisting, my daughter qualified in our program before going on active duty in 2012 and shot expert walking in the door, transitioning from a Ruger 10-22 to an M16. I look forward to reviewing the rest of your material. Stay safe on your next deployment.
One advantage I do see over the smoothbore is the ammo. A conical projectile is going to penetrate better and have more mass to crush through mass. I know I’ve heard they were known to be capable of killing after going through someone. Given their doing large charges it seems the extra lethality would have some advantages?
It did have advantages. Rifle Muskets used a percussion cap also making them more reliable. This all played a part in why the Civil war was so deadly. But just a part.
@@hardcase-69 yeah but they had caplock conversions of smoothbores. I would love a caplock Brown Bess reproduction that I could use as a 10 gauge shotgun essentially that would be sweet!!!
Great video! It reminded me of the time Larry Moore, my high school history teacher explained to the class that the Minnie bullet expanded in the air after it left the muzzle of the rifle. Even at that age a few of us knew that he didn’t have a clue.
The minie ball is smaller in diameter than the barrel, so it could conceivably be shot and loaded more times before the black powder gums up the rifle barrel and cleaning was necessary. That was one advantage over the smooth ball, where the smooth ball and barrel diameters were very close to avoid powder blow by when the rifle was fired.
It is smaller but has an expanding tail to make contact with the barrel. That actually increases metal on metal wear but reduces the rifling getting gummed up. Swings and roundabouts.
Thank You for the interesting approach to this topic. The connection of military, economical, technical and social influences invites for a deeper research and makes You reading more. Thanks and lots of greetings from Bamberg, Germany, Marcus.
Very Good Presentation. The Austrians had similar problems in 1859 when fighting the French. The Austrians had just issued the new Lorenz rifles without proper training. The French were able to close the range in massed columns with few losses.
"Casualties on an unheard of scale?" Did the History Channel ever heard of the Napoleonic Wars? At Borodino alone the French and Russians lost over 70,000.
Thank you for your well reasoned discussion about the lack of training with the rifled musket& it's effect on civil war battle tactics. Fascinating & thought provoking. I recently discovered tour channel on paper cartridges that's educational & interesting to ruminate upon! Cheers, Paul from S. Central Tx.
Very, very well done with much to think about. Many thanks. As a case in point, the British army, somewhere along the line went from good musketry training to getting their pants shot off in the Boer War. But learning that lesson they again instituted excellent training which proved out in the first battles of WWI.
This has to do with the long distances involved, rather than musketry training. The British Army were out-shot in the 2nd Boer War because they were unable to use the accurate .303 ammunition they had developed, as it has hollow-point. They had to revert to the solid Mk2 ammunition, which was not as accurate at long range as the excellent 7x57 Mauser ammunition. Also, most British troops were unaccustomed to the long ranges encountered in South Africa, whereas the Boers were used to them. Fortunately, the accurate Mk7 round was developed before 1914 and training was carried out at longer ranges. The American Army was using a 150 grain target round at this time, which, although accurate at medium range, did not reach the German trenches.
"But learning that lesson they again instituted excellent training which proved out in the first battles of WWI." That is nonsense. The British version of Mons and Le Cateau is an entertaining military fairy tale. There was no good infantry tactics on the side of the BEF: The Brits lost 11500 men in both battles, the Germans 7500. At Le Cateau the attacking Germans were outnumbered, but drove the defenders out of their positions and inflicted 2.5 times higher losses. At Mons the losses were equal, the numbers too. If you do not want to die stupid I suggest you read Zuber's book on Mons.
Twentieth Century rifle combat mostly took place at less than 100 meters--if I can believe my sources. There were reasons enough to fill books, and I'm summarizing here. Rifle marksmanship is a skill set that takes months to master--it's not quite as difficult as mastering the English long bow, but rifle marksmanship cannot be developed in one session of four hours and a handful of rifle cartridges on a live-fire range. Sure--that minor bit of training can be useful as long as tactics take into account limited effective ranges due to lack of synthetic experience (another term for "training" is "structured play designed to impart skills") but most 20th Century armies depended on their squad-level crew-served automatic weapons ("light machine guns") to do most of the rifle squad's killing and the rifle supported the squad's automatic weapon. On another note--the average range for a rifle kill on deer seems to be around 80 yards distance. Check on what the maximum "sporting" range for deer hunting is today--if you can find good figures. Doesn't seem to have changed much for the past two centuries. During the Civil War there were sharpshooters armed with heavy benchrest target rifles that hit their targets at distances as far away as a mile--but those were very experienced match shooters and their equipment wasn't practical for general issue. Looks as if advanced technology doesn't necessarily translate into long battlefield effective ranges.
I don’t shoot them modern guns, except my home defense guns. Counting that Springfield as modern too. If’n it ain’t got a rock in the lock it ain’t worth shooting. 😊 Now I live a few miles from Wilson Creek battlefield. I note that all the positions were in range of my fusil and my musket. I get a little better accuracy with my smooth rifle, but not enough to matter past a hundred yards. Watching some soldier demonstrating the arms, I’m thinking I could lay down more shots per minute then the cap lock, and be in the effective range of that battle. I do note that the battle of Waterloo and Gettysburg had both similar numbers of soldiers fighting and similar casualties
So to push back a bit the I think the rifle musket did have an impact just not in precisely the way people thought. For one, the rifle would still be better at shooting than the smooth bore by virtue of the expanding base of the minie ball giving it higher velocity. This small increase might seem inconsequential but it wasn't. This slight increase made it that much harder for either side to carry out a successful bayonet charge which was the actual decisive method of attack of the era. This is decisive as in ability to actually carry a position and retain the cohesion necessary to conduct a follow up attack. The second is that even if the rifles weren't actually much more effective, there was still a much greater emphasis on shooting than closing with the bayonet. This had the effect of stalling attacks as troops would stop and engage in fire-fights to carry the position instead of decisively attacking. We can see this difference by examining the battles of the Napoleonic wars where the bayonet charge was emphasized rather than shooting. In the Napoleonic era campaigns culminated in decisive battles, In the ACW there were almost no battles that were decisive. Here I mean battles were decisive if they resulted in the comparative destruction of one of the forces and a victor capable of exploiting the results of the battle. Despite the different outcomes of the battles the casualty rates were similar, but the manner in which they occurred were different. A bayonet attack was likely to result in high casualties as they were exposed to the defenders fire however if successful it would result in a rout and even heavier casualties among the defenders, not from the bayonets but from the follow up pursuit forces of cavalry. This method also had the benefit of retaining order among the attackers as they would charge as a cohesive unit. In such a battle a victorious attacker would actually tend to suffer significantly lower casualties overall than the defender and it was the secret sauce that allowed Napoleon to consistently defeat larger forces through very aggressive action. In the ACW by contrast positions were carried by soldiers engaging in firefights at close range, this method resulted in very heavy casualties and very high disorder among both forces with cavalry rarely ever making a direct contribution to a battle and even more rarely actually charging or pursuing a beaten force. This is why ACW battles almost never resulted in a decisive action, the victorious force was always so disorganized by their own victory that they couldn't exploit it. This allowed a beaten force to re-constitute itself and fight another battle causing the conflict to drag on. I would also point out that the length of the conflict itself was more responsible for the loss of life than the battles were. While over 600k died in the war, roughly 2/3 were disease/non-battle injury, this was still an era where disease caused far more damage than combat, POW camps had a horrendous reputation but the encampments of the armies were not much better. There was also a very large amount of famine related death in the South. So I suppose it can be said that the lack of decisive action caused more death simply by prolonging the war than by the combat itself.
I don't think the access to rifled muskets itself contributed much to the changes on the battlefield; the rifle will be slightly more accurate at, say, 150m, but if anything was causing ACW fighting to have less emphasis on the bayonet charge it'd probably be the traing of the chain of command (which might itself have been influenced by the US's decision to equip soldiers with rifles); bayonet charges were still prevalent and were used to great effect by some armies in europe in the 1850's; even though rifles, with the proper training, were getting more prevalent there than they'd ever become in the american civil war; aditionally the terrain can play a large role in how armies choose to engage.
Thanks for this video. I've gotten interested in historic muzzleloading arms in recent months and coincidentally am currently reading "The Destroying Angel." I've also got copies of "The English Cartridge" and "Like Fire and Powder" on my to-read stack. Fascinating stuff!
What I was told was the reason for the high casualties was that in European battles the bayonet charge usually caused one side to give way and retreat but in the US Civil War often that didn’t happen and very bloody hand to hand fighting resulted. That combined with the huge amount of artillery used and the bad medical care relatively speaking lead to higher causality rates.
All of what you said is true, but Americans were not keen on the bayonet either. Some commenters that observed the battles criticized American troops for not being willing to close to bayonet melee. That was partially correct, but the reasons may have been that Americans were particulary religious, having just experienced a national Revival in the 1840'-1850's which began in England, which eventaully caused the abolishion of slavery in the Empire. Men were reluctant to kill when it was close and personal, but were willing to do their duty at a distance. Bayonet melee did occur, but it was somewhat uncommon and focused on a narrow section of the line, and was to be avoided if possible. You would not see a lot of mass bayonet charges of whole regiments. One famous example, really, of a regiment charging the bayonet: Joshua Chamberlain's 20th Maine at Gettysburg. There were others, but they stand out because of their rarity and desperation, rather than for it being a common tactic. Men feared the bayonet, and would run from an attack more often than from volley fire.
I remember reading somewhere that after the Battle of Gettysburg (I think) they found some 2000 abandoned rifles (or muskets) that had been loaded more than once without having fired.
@@papercartridges6705 I wonder, how much it says about musket armies in general. The gettysburg numbers are thrown about very often, when discussing musket era warfare. But also, I am not sure if the US CW was super 'normal'. It sounds any marksmanship training was highly unusual, firing guns outside of battle rare and soldiers thrown into battle without any real training. Yet, barely hundred years earlier, contrary to popular belief, the british during the AWI rather commonly mention firing at marks, live firing exercises, that a recruit was considered a soldier only after a year of being trained etc.. While all those things did ache and suffer under the pressures of having a war going on, it seems they still did train soldiers for a period of time, they did live firing exercises etc. Now one is left to wonder, how the famed american citizen, born with a gun in hand and an expert rifleman by birthright alone seems to have had less training than the redcoated line-standing morons from the far side of the pond and century... perplexing.
Great video and very interesting. I have to admit, I started the video thinking there was no way your premise was correct. After all your well researched evidence, I am convinced you are indeed correct!
I think it’s a hell of a lot more brave to die charging into battle when you have no idea what you’re doing than if you’re a pro. Got a ton of respect for that
The point of traditional historians is not an evaluation of the devastation of the rifle at 600 yards, rather to point out that the devastation of the rifle at 100 yards equaled the devastation of the musket at 100 feet. Far more soldiers died at fifty yards in the Covil War than in the Revolutionary War, due to the rifled bullet. It altered the balance of power in armed conflict from the offense to the defense. Longstreet discovered this during the Mexican War; Lee never discovered it; the Europeans did not appreciate this until WWI. The fact that Civil War armies continued to practice Napoleonic offensive tactics, does not undermine the observation that the tactic had become obsolete by the rifled bullet.
The only problem is that the available evidence points strongly against “traditional historians” (or what Dr Hess calls the “standard interpretation”). This is why, over the last 40 years, the traditional view has been almost entirely debunked by the new assessment of the rifle in the CW. I’m not aware of a single publishing historian at a major university today who is still arguing for the traditional view.
I figure windage was also underestimated at these longer ranges, not to mention just raw skill of marksmanship regardless of sights being set to the appropriate distance. With a bullet that large, moving that slow it would be no surprise for a sizeable portion of a volley to miss the opposing unit. At 300-400m/s, a target at 300-400m would, obviously, take a full second to receive lead. My girlfriend's parents live out on farmland in the midwest and the wind gusts that come through can be truly *wicked*, I have no other words to describe the power that whips through those flatlands. Today with modern optics, modern powder, modern metallic cartridges etc many people struggle to accurately hit a target at 300-400m. It is an achievement for casual marksmen to get to the point to be able to routinely hit steels at that range with magnification and a flat trajectory from a bench, let alone standing in an open field with the wind whipping by or the oppressive rays of the sun in your eyes, smoke and phosphor burning your nostrils and the anxiety of watching thousands of angry southerners storm towards you with malice. Even if you found the appropriate range, you have to prepare your sights somewhat in advance of firing in order to appropriately organize an accurate volley, further complicating matters. I highly doubt any but the best marksmen may achieve a hit on a target with primitive iron sights in the best conditions let alone the real combat circumstances they found themselves in. This all to illustrate the true skill gap that was present between skilled and unskilled units. A unit that could leverage those rifles for what they were designed to achieve could truly wreak havoc. This brings me to a couple curious what ifs. I wonder what if these units utilized a few trained marksmen to measure range with test shots and relay the ranges they found to their officers and NCOs acting like a rangefinder and fire controller on a warship. Another curiosity, which maybe they didn't have the technology for, is the proliferation of etched reticles today which provide shoulder-width estimations for ranging. Could they have produced spotting glasses for officers/NCOs with these etchings to make rangefinding easier? or even a quasi-ironsight device which achieved that end?
The average CW soldier could not hit at 300-400 yards. But there were sharpshooters that could. I used to shoot in smoothbore competitions and I was not a good shot. My best was 6 out of 8 at 35 yards. I knew people who could hit regularly with a smoothbore out to 75 yards. I believe to be accepted into Berdans sharpshooters you had to hit your target at 150 yards.
So what caused the horrendous casulties of some units? Many many units in the thick of fighting would lose 30-50% of the unit. Was artillery the biggest cause then? And soldiers do comment on the "galling" fire of the musket balls.
Small arms (both rifles and muskets) caused about 90% of battlefield casualties. Brett isn't contesting the fact that small-arms caused huge casualties. The question he was answering, was whether rifles influenced the Civil War; the answer being 'not much', because they were very rarely used to anything like their full potential.
Wow this seems very misleading. Everyone knows that before Mr. Springfield invented the rifle, all bullet shots were inaccurate past fifteen yards (or a furlong as they say) so I don’t know why you’d say such a thing. The Civil War was the dress rehearsal for WWII and everyone stood back in horror as they found out how amazing American rifles were! [for the love of God and for the sake of those not in the mood to interpret, this is sarcasm.]
The bullet shots had groves to grip the riffling. Invented by an AMURICAN. We used them to shoot the redcoat officers standing out in the open while we forged a different path, and discovered how to use cover. But they didn’t take no heed and had to learn these lessons all over again in WW2, before we could scrape their beans off the griddle. Twice!
I studied this a few years ago and was surprised to learn that modern infantry (even special forces) advance at about three minutes per hundred yards (to maintain combat coherence) and that most combat is at less than 300 yards. So the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Thank you for an interesting and informative video. I'm a combat veteran, former Army officer, and have studied the Civil War since I was a boy. My observations concerning Civil war casualties are as follows: 1. More soldiers died from illness than from direct combat. 2. The average soldier was, and still is, a poor marksman. It just takes too much training. The rifled musket was for the most part a short-ranged area weapon. It is just too expensive to train good marksmen to be practical (though the USMC makes a good effort at it). 3. In most modern (Napoleonic era on) wars, artillery is by far the greatest cause of combat casualties. 4. The Prussians were rightfully more interested in the enormous logistical advances that railroads and Northern industrial capabilities enabled, and the communications advances of the telegraph. (Amateurs talk about tactics, professionals talk about logistics.) 5. The big advantage the rifled musket brought was because of the use of the percussion cap and and its positive effect on rate of fire. Paper cartridges are far more effective when you don't need to prime the pan. Even with mediocre marksmanship, rate of fire makes a big difference.
You make a good point that attributing the carnage of war to failure to be clever, gives the false impression that war is usually anything else. Liddell Hart and his school succumbed to the idea and promise of bloodless superiority.
Something may be said about the pragmatic realism of the Prussian/German school, which understood it would be bloody, but let it be bloody, quick, and over with.
No only could they not aim they also could not hardly fire! Half of recovered firearms on the field of Gettysburg had multiple projectiles stuffed into the barrel some as many as 10!!!!
and we got this order from spring 1864: HEADQUARTERS ARMY OF THE POTOMAC, April 19, 1864 To familiarize the men in the use of their arms an additional expenditure of 10 rounds of small-arm ammunition per man is hereby authorized. Corps commanders will see that immediate measures are taken by subordinate officers to carry out the order. Every man should be made to load and fire his musket under the personal supervision of a company officer. It is believed there are men in this army who have been in numerous actions without ever firing their guns, and it is known that muskets taken on the battlefields have been found filled nearly to the muzzle with cartridges. The commanding general cannot impress too earnestly on all officers and men the necessity of preparing themselves for the contingencies of battle. By command of Major-General Meade: CHAS. E. PEASE, Captain and Assistant Adjutant-General." And on the other side a brigade from Cleburnes Division was used to test ammo from Britain and the Atlanta arsenal in august 1863. The Division ordnance officer in charge of the test (cpt Vanderford) realized during the 100 yard phase of the test that Although the troops had been in service for a year and a half three quarters of them had never been instructed on how to load, aim, and fire military shoulder arms." he also concluded that " "In firing at 300 yards distance, it appears that neither the Atlanta nor the English cartridge gave proper results, the guns being sighted directly upon the center of the target. Three fourths of the 'misses' fall too low, nearly one half striking the butts below the lower line of the target. This is perhaps attributable principally to the considerable windage of the guns, the balls being too small for target practice. This by no means a fault, however, the difficulty being (usually) to load [the] guns after the 12th or 15th round."" The problem is that they used Lorenz rifles. And they had sights set in austrian military schritt and Not yards. So obviously the rounds fall short. But the division ordnance officer don't know this. How can anyone claim that the texas of this entire brigade where goods shots when they (and the division ordnance officer) didn't even know that their sights where NOT in yards.
The sheer difficulty of SEEING a man sized target at 600 yards, let alone aiming and hitting them, cannot be understated. Under ideal conditions at the range, with iron sites, that 300 meter target is really hard to hit. I always accepted I was going to miss at least three exposures (the 300 meter target) and saved those rounds as back up for closer ones on the pop up range.
There's also a distinct lack of flatness to the world. I think many people underestimate just how rolling and undulating the field at Gettysburg that Pickett's Charge traversed. The attackers disappeared from the view of Union soldiers several times as they made their way across. It's really easy for a lot of folks to imagine a battlefield of this time period was a bunch of football fields with a few bushes or a fence or two scattered about. And then there's the massive rolling clouds of smoke.
You're correct about the difficulty of seeing an individual soldier at 600 yards. However (apart from rare exceptions such as Sharpshooters) it would be formations or guns that were engaged with rifles at that distance.
As for undulating ground - yes, indeed. However, a skilled unit commander would choose areas on the advance where the enemy was visible, determine the ranges, and have his men engage for the period of time they were traversing them.
Props for saying you qualified as marksman. No one on UA-cam qualifies below expert and when they get out no one shoots over 0.75 MOA groups even with their sidearm.
It was an eye opening experience because I thought I knew how to shoot.
Right? It happens. I probably was well on my way to an Expert in Marine Boot. The miserable, cold, rainy day prior to Qual I'd shot an easy Expert. The day of: I got inside my own head and threw myself into a Marksman.
My first annual qual in the Fleet, I got an Expert. The coach running my section of the line was very good and constantly assisting his shooters, and I happily remarked to him on Qual Day that I'd shot an Expert.
"You know why? Because you didn't give a f***."
Relaxation and keeping calm are amazingly key to precision shooting.
@@goldenhide I can relate to nearly that whole story about thinking you knew what's what at basic, I grew up hunting and my dad did train me pretty well, I even did pretty well on my pre quals but come the day... I got rattled and didn't listen to what the Drill Sergeants had taught us and got marksman. I did 8 years active as an Infantryman and never served with anyone who "Always shot expert." But I sure have been told by every "Vet" at the Bar that they never failed to go 40 for 40.
@@glenlivett78 interesting, I served 11 yrs and knew a few who always shot expert, but these were guys that also shoot a lot on their off time. Not 40 out of 40, but anywhere in the four point range. I only served with one guy who shot 40 every time, but he was a presidents 100 guy. I served early 80's to mid ninties, before computer games, so that may have had something to do with it.
@@Bhartrampf DOn't get me wrong I knew a lot of great shooters in the army, and by the time I was an E4 I usually shot 37-39 and pulled the occasional 40, But I also pulled the occasional 29, My First Sergeant in the 82nd was one of the finest soldiers and shooters I ever met, and I watched him pull a 32 one day... We gave him a wide berth the rest of that day.
I went into this video rolling my eyes at the title and thinking "yeah sure bro. I will hear you out" but damn do you make a good argument for the idea. Can't beleive i never thought of this stuff
I used to be the same way about rifles and the war, and I struggled for a while before I came to realize the evidence and documentation was too extensive to ignore. Glad you enjoyed the video.
The first volley is the only volley in which a soldier using a black powder rifle has a clear view of his target. Even today most soldiers can't reliably hit targets beyond 300 yards under the pressure of combat. It makes sense then to withhold the first volley until the distance is short enough for the majority of soldiers to aim reliably.
Quite so, but in the period assaults made by large groups close together and the accuracy of trained soldiers with rifle muskets would place the shot around the area of the mass of attackers at far greater ranges. So, with both the troops trained to use the sights and the officers to estimate range, fire at over 300 yards was still effective fire. Post rifle musket and in breech loading times, the Ottomans at Plevna were able to maintain an effective rifle fire with their Peabody Martini Henrys at a mile, which the Russians and Romanians had to endure for their whole advance. All of this only highlights the deficiencies in training of troops and officer in the ACW and demonstrates the correctness of Brett’s view in the video.
As to how the ACW armies might have managed such lengthy and rigorous training is another matter. A fag packet calculation suggests that it would take at least two years to train the trainers and then the troops and officers to an adequate standard and effective numbers. Not to mention the expenditure of horrendous amounts of ammunition, plus ensuring matching good ammunition was so allocated. Meanwhile, with their third hand in their copious spare time, someone has to hold off the enemy forces as best they might. Politically and logistically a potential disaster for a levee en masse with negligible existing guiding staff and an industry not yet up to the task.
True, but then there’s that much less time to reload. Commanders have been trying to find that delicate balance since 1775.
@@vgahren Even before I'd reckon. Also we should keep in mind that while today we are talking about individual targets, back then it was more often than not formations firing at formations. You arent shooting at an individual person and by that metric targets of the size of 100+ men in 3 ranks deep were DEFINETLY possible to hit at 200+ yards.
@@vgahren Based on Prussian and British military testing (can’t remember when exactly):
Let’s do the maths and the 300 yard starting distances make sense:
300 yards: 7 hits in 50 shots: 14%
200 yards: 15 hits in 50 shots: 30%
100 yards: 25 hits in 50 shots: 50%
50 yards: 37 hits in 50 shots: 75%
So let’s say 100 vs 100. Team A vs Team B.
Team B is attacking A from 300 yards with intent to fire at 50 yards then charge home with bayonet. Team A will be able to fire roughly 3 volleys.
1st volley: 14 casualties. 86 remaining.
2nd volley: 26 casualties, 60 remaining.
3rd volley: 30 casualties, 30 remaining.
Team B fires volley inflicting 22 casualties then charges in against nearly 3 times their number. If Team A were to get a last min volley off then Team B will be mostly eliminated. At this point team B will probably withdraw being chased by A’s own bayonet charge.
@@MajorCoolD Like I remember a documentary where if civil war soldiers in the front line pushed like a big shield on wheels. It wouldn't work because the ballistics of bullets coming in were very curved like a guy I met had a 45-70 the bullet falls 68 inches at 300 yards.EDIT: To add to my comment a .55 .57 caliber bullet would fall even further at 200-300 yards you get a bit more pressure out of the new shaped bullets minnie balls etc. Yeah not enough to shoot and hit people at 600 yards. It would be like aiming a mortar vs shooting a modern rifle.
One other reason why it matters to get the impact of the rifled musket straight is that the traditional narrative implies that superior equipment is all you need in war, whereas, as you show, there needs to be a lot of training to be able to use that equipment.
I was struck by that "eight times faster" claim in the History Channel, and wondered if you would mention it. It suggest they're confusing the rifled musket with something like the Dreyse needle gun. So much for the History Channel.
In the Napoleonic wars, two rounds a minute was standard. So, the History Channel is saying that Civil War soldiers could fire - sixteen rounds a minute??? Those were some amazing soldiers.
Maybe they were referring to the firing rate of older types of rifle muskets (the ones that were around Napoleonic times) that were indeed slower to reload than a smooth bore musket or the Minie ball rifle muskets. Or maybe I’m just giving too much credit to the History Channel.
@@mathieu.robert Just pursuing your thought, Brett has a video on the first rifled muskets (ua-cam.com/video/VYm9OfZZMvc/v-deo.html) and at about 1:10 it appears that an expanding bullet rifle fires about three time as fast as an old-style ball weapon (presumably that's before the fouling gets really bad). At the beginning of his video on the Austro-Prussian war (ua-cam.com/video/PxnurUTqWxM/v-deo.html), he demonstrates a Dreyse firing about twice as fast (or a bit more) as a good expanding projectile rifled musket: which would make it about eight times faster than the Old Skool rifle. So I think you're right, and the History Channel has taken the biggest number it could find (because, if we have to have numbers, the bigger the betterer, am I right?) and slammed down the difference between an early 19th c. rifled musket and the Dreyse without considering whether or not it is strictly accurate.
Perhaps we have got to the source of History Channel's error. Do you think they care?
Glad you said it because it hurt my brain "traditional weapon"? They mean smooth bore musket? Hand cannon? Bow and arrow? 😂
I shot a lot before I went to basic, my granddad WW2, Dad Korean and boy scout leader Vietnam, made sure all of us boys and gals within their circle new how to shoot with iron sights and we all started with single shot guns. A lot of us went into the military. Growing up like that, I just assumed that everyone knew how to shoot, I was amazed that hardly anyone had ever even shot a gun before, and like you said, at distance. I grew up in the mountains in Oregon, where we hunted to fill the freezer and shot handgun silhouette. We used M16A1's when I went in, I was already used to shooting peep sights and buckhorns out to 300 yards. I am really grateful to everyone who shoot me how to shoot when I was young and since then. It made me a better soldier and later a better hunter also. I still learned different things in the military about better ways to shoot and how not only different positions changed, but tactics also. Awesome presentation as always, you seem pass out nuggets of good stuff every time. I am also fascinated with history and the weapons.
"They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance."
This was so educating! I have allways struggled to understand a decision made in the Danish army right before the war of 1864. They chose to keep on using the smoothbore instead of changing to rifles. In the war against Preussia they were defeated by troops armed with the needle rifle. So why didnt they get rifles? You have just answered that question. And why did Denmark REALLY lose that war.. Because of artillery and being outnumbered 4-1 thats why.
also poor planning and logistics and numerous bad decisions at the command and poltical level.
you are completely wrong about this.
Denmark had been using riflemuskets since 1848. Int he 1850ties usually with 20% men armed with tham, and 80% with smoothbores.
In 1860/61 the ex frence model 1822 smoothbroes where uprifled.
So in 1864 the entire danish army was using riflemuskets. Just like the Austrians where.
Yes you are correct about learning how to shoot when you enlisted into the Army. I had experience as a kid and US Army JROTC being on the school rifle team. During Basic Training at Ft. Benning we had old M16A1 rifles from the Vietnam era in 1986. I shot horribly on our first diagnostic qualification along with everyone being over confident. I qualified by one shot. Only 12 guys along with me only qualified as marksman.I told my Drill Sergeant that I wasn't good enough that I needed retraining. My Drill Sergeant admired my honesty that they gave me more push ups and made me do 7 pull ups everyday during rifle qualification week. They made me very tired and told me to relax, I was too high strung. They told me final qualification was another week and at the end of the 2 weeks. I was on the Weaponeer everyday and on the zero range and pop up 300 meter range. I took advantage of the retraining. Finally on qualification day just for myself just barely making Marksman, I qualified expert during Basic and again at Infantry AIT before graduation. My Drill Sergeants smoked me to relax and to work through the pain and focus on sight picture and trigger squeeze. My Drill Sergeants were amazing instructors indeed.
Did the Malone Complex myself in 1980. You probably had my weapon!
It should be recalled that the introduction of the percussion cap increased the reliability of the weapon to repeatedly fire. In Napoleonic warfare, a battalion's flintlock fire could decrease to possibly only 60 percent of the muskets available after the first volley.
Remember the poorly functioning Maynard tape primer. Sometimes people confuse it with the reliable cap.
The reduction in rate of fire in Napoleonic muskets was not down to problems with the ignition, but with a problem that is common with black powder. Fouling. It does not MATTER what black powder firearm you are using, build up of fouling is an issue. More modern black powder mixes build up more slowly, but they still build up.
The reason why percussion cap overtook the flintlock was not reliability, the flintlock was actually a very reliable system. It was simply that the percussion cap system was cheaper and easier to make, while still being at least as reliable as the flintlock.
Whether you use a flintlock or percussion cap however, you are still going to have to flush out the barrel of your weapon after 10 or so rounds because of the build up of partially burned powder and debris (that fouling) in the barrel, which makes the loading process much more difficult.
@@alganhar1 True, but remember: "Cleaner" bullets were often issued to fix this. ua-cam.com/video/wUhAxfeTrUk/v-deo.html
@@alganhar1 I gave your comment a thumbs up because I partially agree with your statement on cap development. However, I must disagree on the reliablilty of flintlocks being just as reliable as caplocks. In hunting use - then yes, with time and opportunity for proper care and prep. But in battles?
Part of the problem with flint is that its supply was never a sure thing, being quarried, split, and processed down to usable shapes in the millions. That much is not in dispute, whereas caps could be made quickly and by the tens of millions in factories with quality control being easy, and made by relatively low skilled workers. Flint knappers were not cheap labor. They were almost on a par with the local blacksmith in demand.
As to reliablilty: I do agree that a flintlock is a good system, but not an excellent system. It has inherant weaknesses that the caplock almost completely eliminates. Easier to carry by the numbers, more weather resistant (can be sealed by soft wax), more reliable flash, hotter flash, more consistant flash. Caplocks will burn through accumulated fouling at the touch hole when the powder in the pan may not. Caps project their flash into the nipple which acts as a jet to accelerate and "point" the fire into the main charge. Almost all of the fire goes into the touch hole, whereas only th eperiphery of the pan fire contacts the the hole. The rest is blown into the air, doing nothing.
Thus, flintlocks, by comparison, are somewhat passive in the mechanics of ignition, relying on a clean vent and just the right amount of powder in the pan. Too much, along with fouling, and the flash might not even reach the main charge. Too little brings its own issues, along with prior fouling at the touch hole. There is no channeled fire that gets forced into the main charge like a small gas torch. Don't get me wrong. I am not biased against the flinter. I love them and have a lot of time behind a few very nice ones.
But, I am convinced that the higher ratio of casualties of wars after the advent of the caplock - however short a period that was until brass cartridges - was because of the reliabilty of almost every shot being sent down range, even after the first ten shots worth of fouling. That, and rifling.
My own experince with caplocks over 45 years ( Springfields, Model of 1841, Enfields) show that bore fouling builds to a point of making loading difficult(at about 12 shots depending on weather), but that it can be rammed through, with the fouling getting scrubbed clear enough to continue firing up to 47 shots in some instances. It's as if the hardest fouled load gets scrubbed down into the breech, and then gets ejected so you sort of start over. I did this test many times to try to get an insight as to how - during a battle - the troops continued to fire when there was no time to do a precursory cleaning. Just my theory.
To continue, the British found that in the testing in the Tower, that an infantry flintlock using a standard cartridge, would under ideal loading conditions, fire about 6 of 10 times. Usually, the first volley was the only full volley by a unit. I should note that with the dependability of the cap, the infantryman no longer needed to carry a sword as the last means of defense after a flash in the pan upon the approach of lancer.
Very interesting topic. The potential for the rifle-musket was there, in theory, but in the real world it could never be realized except in some unusual situations, like specialist sharpshooter units.
and again and again and again in the hands of well trained British infantry.
It did actually make a difference in terms of a fight between old and new (e.g. One side could start shooting at the other before they themselves got in range), the British proved this many a time during the Indian mutiny, but while it was almost certainly a factor in the American civil war there were plenty of others and indeed European observers tended to credit the willingness of America units to shoot each other to pieces and thereby engage in a battle of attrition over committing to steel for the very high casualties (you might take casualties in a charge but men tend to also run rather than face the bayonet and thus the casualties overall are much lower that if they shot each other into combat ineffectiveness), this is why greater aggressiveness was largely the lesson taken, unfortunately for them faster loading rifles were on the horizon and would revolutionise tactics in a totally different direction.
I came after a recommendation from Brandon F and the “Because History Matters” collaboration.
I was very enlightened to learn about the truth behind civil war tactics and why the devastating war casualties took place, not as a result of the effectiveness of the Rifle, but more as the result of the poor training of the soldiers in modern firearms training that would have given them the tactical advantage in combat.
You’ve got a long term viewer out of me!
The National Rifle Association NRA was founded by military men, about 8 years after the Civil War, for the purpose you are explaining. Thank you.
Not for these purposes anymore.
Thats debatable. Generally I still believe they hold true to their origins
How far they have fallen
Well said!
As someone who shoots a muzzleloading musket and rifle (and is very definitely not a great shot) what I can say is that the rifle at least has less randomness as to where the shot is going (versus a smoothbore, where the possible space that the bullet could occupy as it flies along resembles a trumpet with the flared end starting at around 75m). This cuts down the problem to the user, who can at least get consistent feedback as to where they should be trying to adjust their aim to.
Also bang on about the ranging issue. The drop on a musket or muzzleloading rifle is obscene - at 200m you would have to aim above the head to hit a man's toes. Not having a way to rangefind accurately, the best bet is to wait until the target is 150m away or less (i.e. close enough to make out individual features) and then aim centre mass.
Right. I aim at the "head" at 150yards. Hits are at the gut/pelvis.
You can alternatively just set the sight to 300 and aim below their feet.
I *LOVED* your improvised step out into the street to SHOW us the scene of that actual rifle vs rifle, sharpshooter vs sharpshooter face off.
Before I went to Marine boot camp in 1975 I was reading everything I could about the "new" M16A1 service rifle and its shortcomings. One story was sending marksmanship training units to train rifle platoons in Vietnam. The platoon would be polled for its Gomer Pyle and that soldier would be dragged out and subjected to a short, intense period of remedial marksmanship instruction. Meanwhile, the rest of the platoon would be given a loaded magazine and lined up to shoot silhouette targets at (drum rolls!) TWENTY-FIVE meters. After the entire platoon had fired a magazine (20 rounds? That was standard at the time, but it was also common practice to load only 18 rounds for reliability--not a problem with current STANAG 30-round magazines) each the hits were tallied up. Some of the platoon fired full auto. Some fired from the hip. All fired from standing. Then Gomer Pyle fired a magazine from prone--and often that "lousy shot" managed to achieve more hits at 25 meters than the rest of the platoon combined.
During previous wars there were command complaints that riflemen weren't shooting their weapons in combat. Training took place on a formal live-fire range with clearly-visible targets. When in combat, the "trained" rifleman had no target--and had a choice between saving ammo until there WAS a visible target or spewing shots across the countryside to convince everybody that the rifleman was DOING something.
Does this have any application to Civil War industrial-age armies? The M16A1 and its product improved rifles are able to put five-round one-hole groups at 25 meters from a machine rest. Soldiers are not machine rests. It was common for riflemen to miss targets within 25 meters whether that was 1864 or 1944 or 1968 or in the 21st Century. Locating an enemy beyond 100 meters is difficult. Then you have to ID and hit the enemy.
I am reminded of the horrific spray of wildly missed rounds displayed at my local range at 25,50&100 metres baffles. Looking more like it had been used by 84mm Charlie Gs with a canister round than supposedly precision rifles and pistols.
And because of this.......Poor Union soldier marksmanship.....the NRA was founded in 1871.
And then when the NRA wasn’t sufficient we did it again with the civilian marksmanship program in 1903!!! At this point I think we need a new government sponsored program!!! Everything is neuters and each year there’s less places to shoot it seems. We need more ranges especially outdoor (currently 90% of my small collection is black powder). Man it sucks to have guns and ammo but no where to discharge!!!
And then there is the cost of ammo. You practically need an operating loan to go shooting.
@@danielcurtis1434try 1776 or a pirate ship
@@seanlanglois8620 I don’t understand what your referring to?
Thier marksmanship was good enough to win the war
The rifle musket is really not more effective than a smoothbore in the hands of a common private, but the minie ball is a much deadlier projectile. A round ball flies so poorly through the air it loses much more of its kinetic energy at range.
History Channel has gone from something worthwhile to episodes of Ancient Aliens and Pawn Stars.
I was completely enthralled by this video. I’m a civil war buff and I have to admit I was pretty much duped by the idea of the rifle musket being the thing that made the civil war so deadly. Thank you for so professionally and informatively explaining why it was not, I think I basically completely subscribe now to your explanation and I purchased your book on amazon before the video ended. I am also a newly redeemed lost causer and I honestly feel like I’m only just beginning to actually study the civil war rather than look for stereotypical points of interest that serve the lost cause narrative. (I know you didn’t really mention politics in this video just wanted to say that, feels good to give up that backwards view of the war)
The biggest killer was their terrible leadership on both sides. The Europeans saw American leadership as primitive despite having some of the best technology in the world at the time. The ironclad terrified the entire world as a single one could take out a wooden boat navy
I am as well, and also really fell for it; it really doesn't help that it is repeated ad nauseum in school, and most places you look, unless you put in research like PC does. And if you don't know you need to do that research, you probably won't, as we didn't
It certainly played a part but there is no one reason. Weaponry in general was becoming more advanced.
I'm NOT a civil war buff and I didn't think the rifled musket was why it was so deadly. I didn't really think anything though cause I don't know much about the civil war.
Found you through the collab, I like what I see, subbed.
I don't think there exists a single History Channel documentary that doesn't have at least one glaring mistake.
It's always been a huge problem with made for tv (or streaming service nowadays) documentaries. A company orders a doc from some agency, and the people producing it don't gaf about accuracy, it's just a paycheck for them.
The rise of the amateur UA-cam historian has been a blessing.
I really enjoyed your video. I got caught up and couldn't stop watching. I'm a former N-SSA skirmisher, and used to shoot lots of John C. Garand matches, but I've rarely shot past 200 yards. Anyway, I became aware of the reality of your thesis many years ago, that the Minie rifle, even more than the round ball rifle, requires exceptional skill in range estimation because of its extreme trajectory, and thus had nothing like the long-range influence claimed in the Standard Myth. Buck-and-ball was generally better, because the vast majority couldn't hit an elephant at this dis...
Anyway, great video. Your presentation is very engaging and makes for a very watchable video.
Well done mate! Really good to see such a good historical analysis on youtube (or anywhere else these days). So good to see a study collect and analyse evidence, then draw conclusions, rather than the other way around.
This is a very interesting presentation and made me appreciate Civil War history more. Some of the points you raise about buck-and-ball effectiveness at closer ranges is very similar to my research dealing with earlier blackpowder weapons in the 16th and 17th century. At around 100 to 200 yards the smoothboore matchlocks were effective enough to get center mass hits. Certainly not the kind of accuracy a military would look for today, but sufficient for volley fire.
@HalideHelix Definitely and there is a lot of variation among the matchlock weapons, the Turkish sources I have studied will list long and short muskets separately in armory equipment lists, with separate accoutrements. This is a sign that there was a degree of standardization and muskets for different roles. If these weapons were so inaccurate it doesn't make sense that an empire would put significant resources into building and issuing them.
Awesome video, years ago I used to read some alternate history forums where posters shared a lot of info about training of the British and French. Some "what if" discussion centred around Crimean war shocking US Army into establishing a rifle school before ACW even started and effects that would have had. If I remember right some officers were sent as observer but did not get to Crimea till after the city surrendered.
One point I wanted to make is that when firing at those ranges at men formed into battalions or batteries in the open you do not have to hit men sized target. You need to be in the ballpark that is a lot larger and range estimation is by far the most important aspect of it. If you know battery is 475 yards away as long as you shoot for that range volume of fire would suppress it.
I remember reading in Co. Aytch by Civil War Private Sam Watkins that either (or both) Stonewall Jackson or Braxton Bragg would issue some number of cartridges (around 40) and that they would be charged money if they wasted those cartridges outside of combat. If that's even a little true, the average soldier wouldn't risk losing valuable bullets (let alone reload time) to fire at a target they weren't sure of hitting.
In the Civil War, I figured most line infantry were close enough to the officers and NCO's that they could be told what sights to set. Firing in volley means everyone is essentially shooting at the same target anyway.
They usually were close enough to their officers/NCOs for that to happen, but only if the officer or NCO:
a/ Understands the capability of the firearm his soldiers are using.
b/ Accurately estimates the distance.
c/ Decides to order his men to open fire at that distance.
and also if the men:
d/ Are trained well enough to be able to set their sights to the distance given.
e/ Have the skills to hold, aim and fire their firearms correctly.
In the ACW, none of these are a given.
You need officers who could make good range estimates and you still need soldiers who have trained aming in controlled firing. There was a reason that the minimum service time was around two years in most armies with draft.
Two things learned, the sniper standoff & the effectiveness of buck & ball.
Dry compelling to the end, a well put together presentation that has many dovetailing details to it. You presented it very well. I learnt sumpin new!
Thanks for the informative video! I’m new to your channel.
I’m a long-time reenactor and a novice at live fire with a rifle musket as the chance to do any long-range practice is rare for me.
Your point about Civil War soldiers not receiving adequate training in shooting is clear. The only training one of my ancestors got was a couple of roadside volleys on their way to Antietam. He was a nine month volunteer in the 130th PA!
I’ll check out your other videos!
Thanks. Ive barely fired anything living in a Canadian city. Im happy to hear on the ideas, practices and lived experiences of those who do. I also enjoy history and re-enactments (mostly medieval) where putting on the kit and actually doing it really gives a much closer understanding.
I typically go to Canada every June to shoot muskets, although that is in remote part of Alberta. But there are TONS of people who shoot black powder in Canada. I’m sure you could find some near you.
While the video dispells the ultra long range myth quite nicely it does not address the actual performance differences between Napoleonic flintlocks and percussion cap Minnie ball rifles. A similar deepdive into the Napoleonic era infantry warfare is needed.
Rewatching this, i now truly appreciate the monstrous ballistics of the padewils rifle musket you spoke of in your latest video on the Bavarian campaign of the Austro-Prussian war. That thing was firing a bullet 500-600fps faster than many of its contemporaries.
Yeah it was wild fast velocity for a rifle musket.
Excellent video once again Brett! Keep up the great work!! Thanks!
Another great video! Also, I just finished your book "Like Fire and Powder". It was a wonderful read. Thanks for all the hard work.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Bravo, and Huzzah!! Given that the rifle was given very little opportunity for correct application, with many interractions taking place using Napoleonic tactics fifty yards apart. A rifle was wasted. Not so my time watching this excellent and thought-provoking 47 minutes and 22 seconds. Thank you, for time well-spent in watching your words on as fascinating period in the history of the US of A.
These knowledgable deep dives to specific topics are much more enjoyable than shallow format of tv and tv like programs.
Very interesting and thought provoking video.
One of my ancestors was a 93rd Highlander who probably was in The Thin Red Lone that showed that old tactics of forming square by default no longer held true for infantry against cavalry in every case.
The 93rd, at Balaklava, fired their first volley when the Russian cavalry were at 450 yards. They got in two further volleys before the Russians had enough and veered off. This was using the Pattern 1851 Rifle, which fired a .702 inch, 680 grain bullet; exactly the same as the French 1842 Rifle. This is the rifle that was used in the major battles of the Crimean War, with devastating effect, yet most of the British troops arrived in the Crimea still armed with smooth bore muskets. It wasn't till the siege of Sevastopol that the Pattern 1853 Enfield rifle was introduced. This was the .577 rifle that was used in the American Civil War. So, professional British troops arrived in a combat zone armed and trained with smooth bore muskets. They were then equipped with musket bore rifles, which they used to devastating effect, at relatively long ranges, after minimal training. They were then issued with a smaller calibre, more accurate rifle, which they used for effective sniping at previously unknown ranges, after minimal training. All within two years of continuous combat. The American generals should have learned from this and hired British musketry instructors.
@@TheDubsmannie 3 out of 4 divisions had P1851s when they landed.
And everyone had been trained on it.
First on Malta and then at Varna.
The amount of soldiers on the battlefield also contributed to the amount of people killed. My thoughts are that people look at things superficially. They have no idea of what was actually involved in most wars. One would also think that untrained leaders didn't understand tactics. Someone was the leader and officer of a group who was a professor of Bible studies or Mayor of a town. Initially there was ignorance of what not to do tactically.
It's also worth pointing out that battles fought with smoothbore muskets were every bit as lethal as those fought with rifled muskets. At Malplaquet in 1709 an allied army of 86,000 men suffered about 22,000 casualties in a SINGLE DAY. At that army was under the leadership of Marlborough and Eugene of Savoy, two of the greatest commanders of their day. Attacking entrenched infantry armed with firearms was always going to be incredibly bloody, whether those weapons were rifled or not.
This is important. Although many discuss the supposedly "unprecedented" slaughter of the Civil War, more well-informed historians point out that the casualties were comparable to Napoleonic battles.
@@peterblum613 It also demonstrates that commander competence doesn't prevent high casualties, either - Grant is reviled by many as a butcher, but he was no more so than Napoleon, Marlborough or Lee.
@@biggiouschinnus7489 Yes, in fact, Lee's armies in the aggregate suffered a higher percentage of casualties than Grant's.
It's good to hear your take on this. I grew up being told and believing the fallacies of rifle muskets in the civil war. I've even heard Shelby Foote say that the rifle musket was the reason for the high casualties. It was Earl J. Hess who convinced me otherwise when I read his book on the subject last year.
If not the rifled muskets, what was the reason (cause)?
@@ichimonjiguy It was just the nature of the linear tactics used. Battlefield casualties during the Napoleonic wars, which were fought almost exclusively with smoothbore muskets, were also quite high.
The casualties were not heavier in the ACW compared to the Napoleonic wars or the Seven Years War. If you find the casualty rates at battles like Borodino in 1812 you will find that they were every bit as deadly.
I'm just about to start Hess's book on Civil War Infantry Tactics. His book on Kennesaw Mountain and Peach Tree creek are also great.
@@ichimonjiguy I believe artillery. Just like the rifled musket, you started getting rifled Parrott guns and other rifled artillery pieces with much greater range. Something I read said in Napoleon's day typical artillery range was 500 yards - in the Civil War it was 1500. When you read diaries, they often mention the "galling" artillery fire, especially cannister shot at 200 yards or closer. It would create big gaps in the line.
The first firearm I ever shot in my life was my M16a2 that was issued to me at Fort Knox. But during my ten years in the Army, I never score higher than marksman until I was able buy my own AR-15 rifle and go to the range on my own time. Only then did my score improve. Well, that and the adoption of red dot sights.
I’m so glad to finally see this video! I’ve been wanting to hear more on this topic since we meet back in Nov. Its really good to hear the real history of it all. Be interested to hear more about the sharpshooters and any know engagements they took part in.
Excellent video on the subject matter. Glad I’m not alone in believing that training more than technology had an impact on the course of ACW tactical realities. Without diminishing the significance of the conflict, I’ve always been critical of quality of ACW troops overall. Although some would say that the average veteran by 1865 would be equal to or better than top-tier European veterans (British, French, Prussian), I am unconvinced (and it is all speculation anyway).
It seems like the US really struggled with troop quality during the 19th century, and the lessons were long and hard. Watching the video and reading some comments, I am reminded of how the War of 1812 precipitates a lot of the issues that pop up in the ACW. Unlike in Wellington’s Peninsular army, there were no rifle units in British North America. There were, however, four US Rifle regiments, rifle volunteers attached to line infantry units, and rifle-armed militia units aplenty for the US, never mind weight of numbers. And yet, the presence of these units’ technological superiority did not translate into tactical superiority, due to the poor training of the regulars and militias alike. All Canadian offensives failed, and ultimately the coastlines could not be secured. Smoothbore-armed, professional British troops(who typically had 10+ years of service in the Canadas and an annual marksmanship training programme like the one used in the 1850s and 60s) bested them. Only troops rigorously trained by Jacob Brown and Winfield Scott achieved tactical parity and success, and those were smoothbore-armed troops using a standardised, modernised drill manual.
It’s also interesting to note that Buck-and-ball were first issued to US troops during the War of 1812 to act as a stop-gap compensating method for the overall poor quality of troops. However, it did not appear then to provide a significant advantage, so it is interesting to hear that it was well-respected in the 1860s for its destructive potential.
I stayed to the end 😂. I have to say i was surprised. I was always lead to believe the rifle musket “changed everything”
it kind of reminds me of the “Lions led by Donkeys” myth of WW1. Would it be fair to say a lot of the casualties of the civil war were caused by artillery on the battle field or disease behind the lines?
The rifle indeed caused 80 to 90% of casualties. While the rifle wasn’t used out to its full capabilities, at the shockingly close ranges that CW battles were fought at, it was still terribly destructive.
@@papercartridges6705 I’m surprised The History Channel presented something as fact that was so far removed from reality….well not that surprised.
It was absolute pleasure, many thanks! Cheers from Poland :D
Very well done Sir. Really enjoyed it!
Very interesting, didn't put 2&2 together -had heard about cw soldiers not getting range time, that would negate the advantages of the rifle musket.
Thanks for showing the spot on the street where the Conf. marksman were set up!
It would not change the range advantage over round ball. ballistic coefficient is a thing.
@@Bidimus1 The potential was definitely there, yet the potential was limited due to lack of skill and ability of the user is seems.
Superb work Sir .... even for a Blanket Stacker 😊. A most interesting and informative channel - as always we tend to simplify much in military history in respect to weaponry (I have seen much the same regarding armoured warfare 1939-1942 too - with incorrect assessment of the British 2 pounder and German panzers etc) Well Done 😊
That was really well presented and very interesting. Your arguments and rationale are easy to understand. You speak very well. Thanks very much, Gus
Glad you enjoyed it!
Excellent work, as always, I have learned a lot form your videos, keep it up!
Great video, I just ran across your stuff yesterday. I've really enjoyed the information presented on the European schools of Musketry and how they compared to the lack of American schools either Union or Confederate. This also explains the motivation of the founders of the NRA after the Civil War and their observations that the typical Union soldier didn't know how to shoot. Tied a lot of ends together. You should've attended an Appleseed Project event before enlisting, my daughter qualified in our program before going on active duty in 2012 and shot expert walking in the door, transitioning from a Ruger 10-22 to an M16. I look forward to reviewing the rest of your material. Stay safe on your next deployment.
One advantage I do see over the smoothbore is the ammo. A conical projectile is going to penetrate better and have more mass to crush through mass. I know I’ve heard they were known to be capable of killing after going through someone. Given their doing large charges it seems the extra lethality would have some advantages?
It did have advantages. Rifle Muskets used a percussion cap also making them more reliable. This all played a part in why the Civil war was so deadly. But just a part.
@@hardcase-69 yeah but they had caplock conversions of smoothbores.
I would love a caplock Brown Bess reproduction that I could use as a 10 gauge shotgun essentially that would be sweet!!!
Great video! It reminded me of the time Larry Moore, my high school history teacher explained to the class that the Minnie bullet expanded in the air after it left the muzzle of the rifle. Even at that age a few of us knew that he didn’t have a clue.
The minie ball is smaller in diameter than the barrel, so it could conceivably be shot and loaded more times before the black powder gums up the rifle barrel and cleaning was necessary. That was one advantage over the smooth ball, where the smooth ball and barrel diameters were very close to avoid powder blow by when the rifle was fired.
It is smaller but has an expanding tail to make contact with the barrel. That actually increases metal on metal wear but reduces the rifling getting gummed up. Swings and roundabouts.
not with the burton bullet used during the civil war. It had serious issues with fouling after about 10 rounds.
Thank You for the interesting approach to this topic. The connection of military, economical, technical and social influences invites for a deeper research and makes You reading more.
Thanks and lots of greetings from Bamberg, Germany, Marcus.
However the Army never went back to using smoothbore firearms after the Civil War , rifling cost more than a smoothbore .
Very Good Presentation. The Austrians had similar problems in 1859 when fighting the French. The Austrians had just issued the new Lorenz rifles without proper training. The French were able to close the range in massed columns with few losses.
One of the best private docs I've seen. Kudos sir. Looking forward to seeing more.
"Casualties on an unheard of scale?" Did the History Channel ever heard of the Napoleonic Wars? At Borodino alone the French and Russians lost over 70,000.
Thank you for your well reasoned discussion about the lack of training with the rifled musket& it's effect on civil war battle tactics. Fascinating & thought provoking. I recently discovered tour channel on paper cartridges that's educational & interesting to ruminate upon! Cheers, Paul from S. Central Tx.
Glad you enjoyed it and thanks for your encouraging comments!
Then there's General sedgwick's famous last words
Very, very well done with much to think about. Many thanks.
As a case in point, the British army, somewhere along the line went from good musketry training to getting their pants shot off in the Boer War. But learning that lesson they again instituted excellent training which proved out in the first battles of WWI.
This has to do with the long distances involved, rather than musketry training. The British Army were out-shot in the 2nd Boer War because they were unable to use the accurate .303 ammunition they had developed, as it has hollow-point. They had to revert to the solid Mk2 ammunition, which was not as accurate at long range as the excellent 7x57 Mauser ammunition. Also, most British troops were unaccustomed to the long ranges encountered in South Africa, whereas the Boers were used to them. Fortunately, the accurate Mk7 round was developed before 1914 and training was carried out at longer ranges. The American Army was using a 150 grain target round at this time, which, although accurate at medium range, did not reach the German trenches.
"But learning that lesson they again instituted excellent training which proved out in the first battles of WWI."
That is nonsense. The British version of Mons and Le Cateau is an entertaining military fairy tale. There was no good infantry tactics on the side of the BEF: The Brits lost 11500 men in both battles, the Germans 7500. At Le Cateau the attacking Germans were outnumbered, but drove the defenders out of their positions and inflicted 2.5 times higher losses. At Mons the losses were equal, the numbers too. If you do not want to die stupid I suggest you read Zuber's book on Mons.
Twentieth Century rifle combat mostly took place at less than 100 meters--if I can believe my sources. There were reasons enough to fill books, and I'm summarizing here. Rifle marksmanship is a skill set that takes months to master--it's not quite as difficult as mastering the English long bow, but rifle marksmanship cannot be developed in one session of four hours and a handful of rifle cartridges on a live-fire range. Sure--that minor bit of training can be useful as long as tactics take into account limited effective ranges due to lack of synthetic experience (another term for "training" is "structured play designed to impart skills") but most 20th Century armies depended on their squad-level crew-served automatic weapons ("light machine guns") to do most of the rifle squad's killing and the rifle supported the squad's automatic weapon.
On another note--the average range for a rifle kill on deer seems to be around 80 yards distance. Check on what the maximum "sporting" range for deer hunting is today--if you can find good figures. Doesn't seem to have changed much for the past two centuries.
During the Civil War there were sharpshooters armed with heavy benchrest target rifles that hit their targets at distances as far away as a mile--but those were very experienced match shooters and their equipment wasn't practical for general issue.
Looks as if advanced technology doesn't necessarily translate into long battlefield effective ranges.
I don’t shoot them modern guns, except my home defense guns. Counting that Springfield as modern too.
If’n it ain’t got a rock in the lock it ain’t worth shooting. 😊
Now I live a few miles from Wilson Creek battlefield. I note that all the positions were in range of my fusil and my musket. I get a little better accuracy with my smooth rifle, but not enough to matter past a hundred yards.
Watching some soldier demonstrating the arms, I’m thinking I could lay down more shots per minute then the cap lock, and be in the effective range of that battle.
I do note that the battle of Waterloo and Gettysburg had both similar numbers of soldiers fighting and similar casualties
😂 your funny. Love rock in the lock. From a fellow flinter.
So to push back a bit the I think the rifle musket did have an impact just not in precisely the way people thought.
For one, the rifle would still be better at shooting than the smooth bore by virtue of the expanding base of the minie ball giving it higher velocity. This small increase might seem inconsequential but it wasn't. This slight increase made it that much harder for either side to carry out a successful bayonet charge which was the actual decisive method of attack of the era. This is decisive as in ability to actually carry a position and retain the cohesion necessary to conduct a follow up attack.
The second is that even if the rifles weren't actually much more effective, there was still a much greater emphasis on shooting than closing with the bayonet. This had the effect of stalling attacks as troops would stop and engage in fire-fights to carry the position instead of decisively attacking.
We can see this difference by examining the battles of the Napoleonic wars where the bayonet charge was emphasized rather than shooting. In the Napoleonic era campaigns culminated in decisive battles, In the ACW there were almost no battles that were decisive. Here I mean battles were decisive if they resulted in the comparative destruction of one of the forces and a victor capable of exploiting the results of the battle. Despite the different outcomes of the battles the casualty rates were similar, but the manner in which they occurred were different. A bayonet attack was likely to result in high casualties as they were exposed to the defenders fire however if successful it would result in a rout and even heavier casualties among the defenders, not from the bayonets but from the follow up pursuit forces of cavalry. This method also had the benefit of retaining order among the attackers as they would charge as a cohesive unit. In such a battle a victorious attacker would actually tend to suffer significantly lower casualties overall than the defender and it was the secret sauce that allowed Napoleon to consistently defeat larger forces through very aggressive action. In the ACW by contrast positions were carried by soldiers engaging in firefights at close range, this method resulted in very heavy casualties and very high disorder among both forces with cavalry rarely ever making a direct contribution to a battle and even more rarely actually charging or pursuing a beaten force.
This is why ACW battles almost never resulted in a decisive action, the victorious force was always so disorganized by their own victory that they couldn't exploit it. This allowed a beaten force to re-constitute itself and fight another battle causing the conflict to drag on.
I would also point out that the length of the conflict itself was more responsible for the loss of life than the battles were. While over 600k died in the war, roughly 2/3 were disease/non-battle injury, this was still an era where disease caused far more damage than combat, POW camps had a horrendous reputation but the encampments of the armies were not much better. There was also a very large amount of famine related death in the South. So I suppose it can be said that the lack of decisive action caused more death simply by prolonging the war than by the combat itself.
I don't think the access to rifled muskets itself contributed much to the changes on the battlefield; the rifle will be slightly more accurate at, say, 150m, but if anything was causing ACW fighting to have less emphasis on the bayonet charge it'd probably be the traing of the chain of command (which might itself have been influenced by the US's decision to equip soldiers with rifles); bayonet charges were still prevalent and were used to great effect by some armies in europe in the 1850's; even though rifles, with the proper training, were getting more prevalent there than they'd ever become in the american civil war; aditionally the terrain can play a large role in how armies choose to engage.
I always hated having to listen to reenactors and school teachers tell me that these rifles extended the infantry's effective range out to 1000 yards.
You got off to a slow start but, by the 21 minute mark, you had convinced me!
Glad you stuck around!
@@papercartridges6705 It was a near thing!
Extremely interesting, particularly the part of estimating distance correctly. Never thought about in fact.
Glad you found it interesting!
Thanks for this video. I've gotten interested in historic muzzleloading arms in recent months and coincidentally am currently reading "The Destroying Angel." I've also got copies of "The English Cartridge" and "Like Fire and Powder" on my to-read stack. Fascinating stuff!
Great video. Echoing what I have been talking about for years.
What I was told was the reason for the high casualties was that in European battles the bayonet charge usually caused one side to give way and retreat but in the US Civil War often that didn’t happen and very bloody hand to hand fighting resulted. That combined with the huge amount of artillery used and the bad medical care relatively speaking lead to higher causality rates.
All of what you said is true, but Americans were not keen on the bayonet either. Some commenters that observed the battles criticized American troops for not being willing to close to bayonet melee. That was partially correct, but the reasons may have been that Americans were particulary religious, having just experienced a national Revival in the 1840'-1850's which began in England, which eventaully caused the abolishion of slavery in the Empire. Men were reluctant to kill when it was close and personal, but were willing to do their duty at a distance. Bayonet melee did occur, but it was somewhat uncommon and focused on a narrow section of the line, and was to be avoided if possible. You would not see a lot of mass bayonet charges of whole regiments. One famous example, really, of a regiment charging the bayonet: Joshua Chamberlain's 20th Maine at Gettysburg. There were others, but they stand out because of their rarity and desperation, rather than for it being a common tactic. Men feared the bayonet, and would run from an attack more often than from volley fire.
Thank you for this video. I learned a lot.
Fantastic analysis! I was all in for the rifle vs line narrative! Intersting!
Have been enjoying these talks. All the best from NSW.
Wow ,your shop location is so cool,must be a buzz working at your work with this background history….!
Thanks and regards from New Zealand.
I remember reading somewhere that after the Battle of Gettysburg (I think) they found some 2000 abandoned rifles (or muskets) that had been loaded more than once without having fired.
If memory serves, it was something like 14,000 rifles double loaded or more. Really staggering.
@@papercartridges6705 I wonder, how much it says about musket armies in general. The gettysburg numbers are thrown about very often, when discussing musket era warfare. But also, I am not sure if the US CW was super 'normal'.
It sounds any marksmanship training was highly unusual, firing guns outside of battle rare and soldiers thrown into battle without any real training. Yet, barely hundred years earlier, contrary to popular belief, the british during the AWI rather commonly mention firing at marks, live firing exercises, that a recruit was considered a soldier only after a year of being trained etc.. While all those things did ache and suffer under the pressures of having a war going on, it seems they still did train soldiers for a period of time, they did live firing exercises etc.
Now one is left to wonder, how the famed american citizen, born with a gun in hand and an expert rifleman by birthright alone seems to have had less training than the redcoated line-standing morons from the far side of the pond and century...
perplexing.
Keep grinding man, I'll share the videos and when you get your silver youtube plaque I can say " I've been watching that guy before he had 10k subs."
Great video and very interesting. I have to admit, I started the video thinking there was no way your premise was correct. After all your well researched evidence, I am convinced you are indeed correct!
Thanks for sharing your spur of the moment battlefield tour.
I think it’s a hell of a lot more brave to die charging into battle when you have no idea what you’re doing than if you’re a pro. Got a ton of respect for that
The point of traditional historians is not an evaluation of the devastation of the rifle at 600 yards, rather to point out that the devastation of the rifle at 100 yards equaled the devastation of the musket at 100 feet. Far more soldiers died at fifty yards in the Covil War than in the Revolutionary War, due to the rifled bullet. It altered the balance of power in armed conflict from the offense to the defense. Longstreet discovered this during the Mexican War; Lee never discovered it; the Europeans did not appreciate this until WWI. The fact that Civil War armies continued to practice Napoleonic offensive tactics, does not undermine the observation that the tactic had become obsolete by the rifled bullet.
The only problem is that the available evidence points strongly against “traditional historians” (or what Dr Hess calls the “standard interpretation”). This is why, over the last 40 years, the traditional view has been almost entirely debunked by the new assessment of the rifle in the CW. I’m not aware of a single publishing historian at a major university today who is still arguing for the traditional view.
I figure windage was also underestimated at these longer ranges, not to mention just raw skill of marksmanship regardless of sights being set to the appropriate distance.
With a bullet that large, moving that slow it would be no surprise for a sizeable portion of a volley to miss the opposing unit. At 300-400m/s, a target at 300-400m would, obviously, take a full second to receive lead. My girlfriend's parents live out on farmland in the midwest and the wind gusts that come through can be truly *wicked*, I have no other words to describe the power that whips through those flatlands.
Today with modern optics, modern powder, modern metallic cartridges etc many people struggle to accurately hit a target at 300-400m. It is an achievement for casual marksmen to get to the point to be able to routinely hit steels at that range with magnification and a flat trajectory from a bench, let alone standing in an open field with the wind whipping by or the oppressive rays of the sun in your eyes, smoke and phosphor burning your nostrils and the anxiety of watching thousands of angry southerners storm towards you with malice. Even if you found the appropriate range, you have to prepare your sights somewhat in advance of firing in order to appropriately organize an accurate volley, further complicating matters. I highly doubt any but the best marksmen may achieve a hit on a target with primitive iron sights in the best conditions let alone the real combat circumstances they found themselves in.
This all to illustrate the true skill gap that was present between skilled and unskilled units. A unit that could leverage those rifles for what they were designed to achieve could truly wreak havoc.
This brings me to a couple curious what ifs. I wonder what if these units utilized a few trained marksmen to measure range with test shots and relay the ranges they found to their officers and NCOs acting like a rangefinder and fire controller on a warship. Another curiosity, which maybe they didn't have the technology for, is the proliferation of etched reticles today which provide shoulder-width estimations for ranging. Could they have produced spotting glasses for officers/NCOs with these etchings to make rangefinding easier? or even a quasi-ironsight device which achieved that end?
The average CW soldier could not hit at 300-400 yards. But there were sharpshooters that could. I used to shoot in smoothbore competitions and I was not a good shot. My best was 6 out of 8 at 35 yards. I knew people who could hit regularly with a smoothbore out to 75 yards. I believe to be accepted into Berdans sharpshooters you had to hit your target at 150 yards.
History Channel: Rifles plus Minie ball caused mass carnage in the Civil War.
Artillery: Am I a joke to you?
Artillery only inflicted about 10% of the battlefield casualties.
Superb video! Thank you!!!
Thank you Brett, another very interesting and scholarly video, I’m hooked on your channel!
So what caused the horrendous casulties of some units? Many many units in the thick of fighting would lose 30-50% of the unit. Was artillery the biggest cause then? And soldiers do comment on the "galling" fire of the musket balls.
Small arms (both rifles and muskets) caused about 90% of battlefield casualties. Brett isn't contesting the fact that small-arms caused huge casualties. The question he was answering, was whether rifles influenced the Civil War; the answer being 'not much', because they were very rarely used to anything like their full potential.
Great video. I really like this kind of deep dive.
Wow this seems very misleading. Everyone knows that before Mr. Springfield invented the rifle, all bullet shots were inaccurate past fifteen yards (or a furlong as they say) so I don’t know why you’d say such a thing. The Civil War was the dress rehearsal for WWII and everyone stood back in horror as they found out how amazing American rifles were!
[for the love of God and for the sake of those not in the mood to interpret, this is sarcasm.]
The bullet shots had groves to grip the riffling. Invented by an AMURICAN. We used them to shoot the redcoat officers standing out in the open while we forged a different path, and discovered how to use cover. But they didn’t take no heed and had to learn these lessons all over again in WW2, before we could scrape their beans off the griddle. Twice!
I used to be %100 guilty of perpetuating this myth. It was a good friend and militaey scholar that set me straight. Now I don't continue it.
Cool ballistic info buddy. Thanks
I studied this a few years ago and was surprised to learn that modern infantry (even special forces) advance at about three minutes per hundred yards (to maintain combat coherence) and that most combat is at less than 300 yards. So the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Wow super interesting video! This seriously changes the way I think about the entire war.
Interesting . . Thanks
Thank you for an interesting and informative video. I'm a combat veteran, former Army officer, and have studied the Civil War since I was a boy. My observations concerning Civil war casualties are as follows:
1. More soldiers died from illness than from direct combat.
2. The average soldier was, and still is, a poor marksman. It just takes too much training. The rifled musket was for the most part a short-ranged area weapon. It is just too expensive to train good marksmen to be practical (though the USMC makes a good effort at it).
3. In most modern (Napoleonic era on) wars, artillery is by far the greatest cause of combat casualties.
4. The Prussians were rightfully more interested in the enormous logistical advances that railroads and Northern industrial capabilities enabled, and the communications advances of the telegraph. (Amateurs talk about tactics, professionals talk about logistics.)
5. The big advantage the rifled musket brought was because of the use of the percussion cap and and its positive effect on rate of fire. Paper cartridges are far more effective when you don't need to prime the pan. Even with mediocre marksmanship, rate of fire makes a big difference.
You make a good point that attributing the carnage of war to failure to be clever, gives the false impression that war is usually anything else. Liddell Hart and his school succumbed to the idea and promise of bloodless superiority.
Something may be said about the pragmatic realism of the Prussian/German school, which understood it would be bloody, but let it be bloody, quick, and over with.
I am of the impression incompetence was main reason for high casualties and just the nature of war.
Very interesting and informative, thankyou.
No only could they not aim they also could not hardly fire! Half of recovered firearms on the field of Gettysburg had multiple projectiles stuffed into the barrel some as many as 10!!!!
and we got this order from spring 1864:
HEADQUARTERS ARMY OF THE POTOMAC, April 19, 1864
To familiarize the men in the use of their arms an additional expenditure of 10 rounds of small-arm ammunition per man is hereby authorized. Corps commanders will see that immediate measures are taken by subordinate officers to carry out the order. Every man should be made to load and fire his musket under the personal supervision of a company officer. It is believed there are men in this army who have been in numerous actions without ever firing their guns, and it is known that muskets taken on the battlefields have been found filled nearly to the muzzle with cartridges. The commanding general cannot impress too earnestly on all officers and men the necessity of preparing themselves for the contingencies of battle.
By command of Major-General Meade:
CHAS. E. PEASE,
Captain and Assistant Adjutant-General."
And on the other side a brigade from Cleburnes Division was used to test ammo from Britain and the Atlanta arsenal in august 1863.
The Division ordnance officer in charge of the test (cpt Vanderford) realized during the 100 yard phase of the test that Although the troops had been in service for a year and a half three quarters of them had never been instructed on how to load, aim, and fire military shoulder arms."
he also concluded that " "In firing at 300 yards distance, it appears that neither the Atlanta nor the English cartridge gave proper results, the guns being sighted directly upon the center of the target. Three fourths of the 'misses' fall too low, nearly one half striking the butts below the lower line of the target. This is perhaps attributable principally to the considerable windage of the guns, the balls being too small for target practice. This by no means a fault, however, the difficulty being (usually) to load [the] guns after the 12th or 15th round.""
The problem is that they used Lorenz rifles. And they had sights set in austrian military schritt and Not yards.
So obviously the rounds fall short. But the division ordnance officer don't know this.
How can anyone claim that the texas of this entire brigade where goods shots when they (and the division ordnance officer) didn't even know that their sights where NOT in yards.
The more common thread is that the military is typically fighting the last war in regards to tactics and arms.