Why Didn't the British Army "Take Aim?"
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 чер 2024
- Sign up for a 14-day free trial and enjoy all the amazing features MyHeritage has to
offer. If you decide to continue your subscription, you’ll get a 50% discount! bit.ly/BrandonF_MH
The British army of the American War of Independence may have trained to "Present" their muskets rather than to "Take Aim" like the Rebels did, but that doesn't mean that they weren't aiming their muskets! Indeed the British army were one of the few European forces to regularly drill their men in "Firing at marks" with live ammunition. The difference in terminology is really just that; purely nominal. In this video, I discuss how soldiers were capable, and even expected, to aim their muskets, and how they were trained to do so.
If you'd like to read more, you can find the primary sources listed in this video here:
www.nativeoak.org/library
Or, you can find some excellent secondary scholarship through these affiliate links:
With Zeal and With Bayonets Only: amzn.to/3eqDfp6
Noble Volunteers: amzn.to/3TgtRmY
Timestamps:
Intro 00:00
The Sights / Aiming a Musket 02:24
Did the Army Actually Aim? Primary Sources 06:34
Sponsored Message 09:56
Did the Army Actually Aim? Secondary Sources 12:10
So, why didn't they "Take Aim"? 15:01
Learn more at:
www.nativeoak.org/
If you'd like to support the channel, please consider giving on Patreon,
/ brandonf
You can follow me on Facebook and Instagram!
/ thenativeoak
/ brandonfisichella
And finally, you can write me at:
PO Box No. 4114
6400 Emerald Parkway
Dublin, OH 43016
Sign up for a 14-day free trial and enjoy all the amazing features MyHeritage has to
offer. If you decide to continue your subscription, you’ll get a 50% discount! bit.ly/BrandonF_MH
That's so cool MyHeritage sponsored your video. Their coloring tool is one of the best I've tried.
@@Scorcho44 how accurate is the site though? I've heard some people use family tree websites and ended up with sharing the same ancestor with, say, a friend... even though they and their friend aren't related
@@tevarinvagabond1192 Personally, I use Ancestry for family trees so I can only go by that. Unless you hire an expert to do it then you make the tree manually. After you set up the first relatives, Ancestry will recommend further ancestors based off census data, birth and death indexes, marriage records, etc. I've found it very accurate since there are usually multiple sets of records you can use to verify if people are related. In the case you mentioned, it wouldn't be uncommon at all to see how those two very unrelated people might share an ancestor maybe a few centuries ago, especially given how large families were back then. I have only been able to get my own tree about a few hundred years back but already I found that, just through my 12th geat-grand uncle Tristram Coffin, I'm distant cousins to T. S. Eliot, Calvin Coolidge, and William H. Macy just to name a few. The farther back you go, the crazier the amount of distant relatives you'll find.
All men are created equal, except for blacks, natives, asians, women, disabled children, normal children and liberals
Brandon, your ancestors were Russians? Wow! Globalization processes are working.
Isn't it more tied to the origins of the Continental training? The Von Steuben's prussian inspired drill? In German they said "zielen" for "present", litterally "take aim". That might be just a direct translation rather than an emphasis on marksmanship compared to the British.
Given that they also had French and Spanish attaches helping with training, it makes sense.
I do not believe this , because in prussian regulations like the 1743 Manual exercise, the command is ,,Schlaget An!''.
@@karlwilhelmmeinert7592 In Spanish the command was and still is "¡Apunten!" ("Aim!")
@@karlwilhelmmeinert7592 I'm kind of surprised, there must be a typo in your transcription, for Schlaget means "bat" in German and Schlagen means (Schlagt?) means "to hit", Schlägen means "beating". I don't know. Are you sure it's not something like "Legt an!" which would mean "lay the musket on target", or "put on target"?
@@KroM234
It's a separating verb, the full version would be 'anschlagen', meaning to strike a tone, gesture or pose.
People must really think that our ancestors were idiots. 99% of questions about the past are made out of assuming that people in the past did things in horribly inefficient, harmful or stupid ways as if the human instinct isn't to find the best method to do something as quickly as possible
I've spoke to people who genuinely thought they European armies of hte period had never thought of the idea of taking cover and were confused and shocked that the Americans had come up with this remarkable innovation.
i suspect its more that people assume, that military COMMAND and those above strangle good progress in the name of conservative glorious ideals rather than good rational sense
see here: trench warfare in ww1.
It gets really tiring hearing people say shit like people were "dumber" in the past. Humans aren't any dumber or smarter on average back then or now. Circumstances change, technology changes, people don't. But because some kid can look up whatever they want on the internet they somehow get the impression that they're smarter than everyone in the past. Likewise some think people are dumber now just because of what they see on the internet; they don't understand how badly things like the internet can skew perception of what the world is like.
@@MintyLime703 I would say society in general was more IGNORANT in the past, lord knows we rightly got rid of a lot of toxic ideas along the way. But that's just the whole of culture finally catching up. For every hateful, toxic, inhumane status quo in history you can find people fighting it tooth and claw.
You know I think that you're right about that but my daddy when I was a little boy let me get in the back of the pickup truck and me and my friends and we used to ride around town while he was drunk. I'm not sure if that was so smart now that I'm 38 years old and I have 16-year-old daughter myself and I wouldn't consider myself to ever get drunk in front of my kids. But that just speaks out on my behalf I'm sure there's millions of others and billions of others and they have behalf
Live firing practice during this period was really restricted because black powder was unbelievably expensive.
In fact, the British army was feared around the world during this period because they were allotted much more allowance for live firing training which made them unusually good marksmen compared to other field armies.
They did indeed had a couple of live shots per year allowed. But that hardly gets you enough training to get any difference in terms of individual marksmanship. Never read testimony talking about how the British were feared for their marksmanship. There's a lot about their good discipline and morale under fire, but nothing I can think of about dreaded accuracy. This is more something you read about the Austrians or any army who could recruit natural marksmen from regions renown for their hunters (forested areas or mountains, like Schwartzwald, Franconia, Bavaria, Tyrol...). Those guys used to shoot live targets for hunting purpose since their childhood and were very looked upon to build up light infantry regiments and Jägers. British never had any real huntsmanship tradition.
@@KroM234 A couple a year? Where are you getting that information? Brandon refutes you in this very video!
Uhm as far as I know aiming was redundant with this sort of muskets because it basically blinded them as soon as they squeezed the trigger
@@austinwhite3132 not disagreeing with the whole sentiment, but the point of aiming is to aim at something before you fire, yes you'd be blinded but no more so than closing your eyes after pulling the trigger
@@jeffreysmith2443 true
British Army commands: "Make Ready Click It would normally be higher than this but I have a low ceiling!, Present!, Fire!"
American Army commands: "Make Ready Click!, Take aim!, Fire!"
No wonder the Americans won, they were able to get so many more volleys in while the british had to go through that "normally higher but ceiling" bit!
Yeah but if there was a low ceiling when they were fighting they would be really well prepared.
@@funkydanieluk I read in an infantry manual from 1699 that most combat did occur in low-ceilinged battlefields during that time, hence the command.
Firing in lines has a really big advantage particularly during the period.
Not only could an officer make sure that his men weren't intentionally aiming high, the peer pressure helped as well.
It's always been a pretty big problem getting soldiers to not intentionally miss.
In a volley situation anyone not properly aiming stands out.
"wilson i cannot help but notice your musket is at a 15 degree angle to everyone elses"
I don’t think it’s ever been a problem to get soldiers to shoot to kill when missing means that the other guys are going to kill you.
Another advantage of firing in lines is that it provokes foolish people on the internet to say "why didn't they just fight like guerillas?!" allowing Brandon easy bait to earn ad revenue and our admiration.
I think that's a misconception. Everyone seems to say that (biggest example) in WW1 like 60-90% of people weren't aiming at the enemy.
To me that just doesn't sound logical. When there's an enemy who (as far as you know) is gunning to kill you, you're gonna take whatever shit you have to kill him.
Every soldier I've ever talked to said they had no problem with killing the enemy. Now sure, in the U.S we have a large professional army, fine. But then look at those WW2 interviews just here online, or from your grandparents. It seems like nobody had any issue killing the enemy then either. Heck many of them will joke about it.
@@spiffygonzales5160 I agree. I feel like people dramatically over-estimate the whole "we have a natural desire not to kill" claim. Maybe fresh troops, but after a little while at the front, a lot of what I've read (and just natural sense) would indicate otherwise. I wonder if any major studies have been conducted on this idea?
To me, and this is just a thought without having tried it yet, "present" makes for a better command in the heat of battle than "take aim." "Present" seems like it would be easier to bellow loudly, and thus be heard, over the din of battle.
Especially because is was often issued as a single syllable: p’sent
Alternatively, I suspect "Present" might be an artifact of Pike & Shot warfare, where Britain's musketry tradition began. Basically, unified language between Pikemen and Musketeers kept things simple because both weapons were "sent forward" and it just never became wrong so why 'fix' it. The US only every had guns so only every had to worry about "aiming."
The 15th Foot were still known by the nickname "The Snappers" 180years after they earned it at the battle of Brandywine. The story goes that they were running low on ball, so it was only given to the best shots while the remainder fired powder only, i.e. snapped, to mask their predicament & give the impression they were a still a formidable foe. You'd have to practice aiming to know who the best shots were.
Volley fire was using your muskets as a composite area weapon, often in the smoke of battle when you might not see much of the enemy. It was more effective to have all the shots flying parallel, so there was no convergence leaving gaps elsewhere in field of fire. You may well not have aimed if there was not a target directly in front of you.
Very good point! We sometimes forget the sheer volume of smoke on an 18th (and 19th) Century battlefield, especially if there was no wind to clear it and if the humidity count was high. Fire a black power piece on a windless and/or humid day and look at how long the smoke hangs in the air. Then multiply that by hundreds or thousands.
You can understand why volley firing was sometimes the only option.
Cross firing is more effective according to Essential Subjects field manual… US Army.
Isn't it possible that the Americans used "Take Aim" so that their commands would sound distinct from the other English speaking army they were fighting that would have also had identical accent? Makes sense to be able to distinguish your commander from the enemy's at first listen.
You know that's a good point I think, I think the Americans at the time would have sound pretty similar to their British counterparts, after all, they were British at the start.
I think it's fairly unlikely that you would be able to hear the British across the field.
another reason could be discipline and training.
an inexperienced rebel soldier who joined the force like a week ago, is going to get nervous and trigger happy.
the royal army soldier has had extensive training, he knows what each command means and aiming before firing is second nature to him.
if you're commanding an army of commoners with varying levels of training and skill you want your commands to be as literal as possible. you don't want to yell "present!" only for some guy, who decided to oppose the british yesterday, to pull his dick out. you yell "take aim!" and even that guy knows to point his gun at the enemy.
@@windhelmguard5295 Probably not. It's not like "Take Aim" or "Present" actually mean anything different
@@davidpeters6743 Yes, take aim is just a more direct way of saying that they should be pointing the gun at the enemy. If anything it's a bit of a swipe at the stuffy British officers.
The translation for « En joue » is very precise while the meaning is indeed to aim it is word for word « in cheek » or « at cheek » which makes a lot of sense appropriately with your explanation. Very informative video thank you as usual. Very proud to have been a subscribers for a couple years now. Cheers from Quebec !
Whew, google translate hasn't failed me yet! Thanks so much!
In German there is the expression "anbacken" for getting a rifle into the firing position. It is not commonly used anymore. It also means "to the cheek" in the context of shooting. So the idea and the term seem to be common to a degree.
Ah the revolutionary war seen through the eyes of American military historians, when the British army was both the most elite fighting force in the world and at the same time didn't know how to aim
"Star Wars" syndrome!
Kinda reminds me of the fascist propaganda of the 20th century.
The "enemy" was simultaneously full of subhuman degenerates and a super powerful threat to everyone.
I'm commenting a bunch I realize, suddenly. But I think it's because American frontier culture really likes to paint Americans as really good marksmen, like it's a huge part of our (I'm from the US) cultural idea about ourselves. So I think that's why we see that.
Depends what time during the war, at the start the Brits were very unprofessional.
By and large with some notable exceptions (light companies) the regular British soldier was only given 5 rounds a year to practice live firing their muskets. Naturally they weren’t very good at aimed fire. Many colonials hunted on a fairly regular basis and by extension did practice aimed fire continuously through out their daily lives. The American revolution was the primary reason the British army changed is training to include a substantial increase of fire arms proficiency especially aimed fire.
To be fair, none of the European countries at that time practiced aimed fired. They were more concerned with weight and speed of fire, ie through enough crap at a wall and some of it will stick. Also bear in mind that most 18th century soldiers were very reluctantly so. Well over half did not wish to be soldiers. The reasons most European countries trained their recruits the way they did were quite sound for the time they lived in.
It’s easy to criticize a military’s choices looking back 250 years, but given the same circumstances they had to deal with would any of us have different choices?
French viewer here and both your pronunciation and translation of joue is great. The Etymology sounds deceptively intuitive and I could only find it on Wiktionary, so a grain of salt is advised, but yes, fundamentally it means to get a cheek-weld on the gun. Although it must be said, that it would be understood by modern day french people (and arguably our ancestors as well) as simply a synonym for aiming, without paying too much attention to the etymology.
It was also used as such as far back as the XIXth century, "Tenir en joue ..." (Holding in the cheek ...) and "Mettre en joue ..." (Put in the cheek ...) usually refers to someone that is being AIMED at and not to a gun being physically HELD or PUT in the cheek.
Although If I had to guess, I'd say that the use of "Take aim", for the action of .... well ... taking aim instead of the military lingo, probably has to do with the fact that officers were training individuals that might not have military training, but often knew one end of a musket from the other. Using a plain text command to make sure you're understood by people, might have been a more pragmatic thing to do, for a hastily put together continental army, rather than enforcing strict jargon.
It could also have to do with the French having their own "Présentez armes" (Present arms) command, which is a derivative of "Portez armes" (Carry arms). "Portez armes" is basically the Ready position, picking up the weapon and resting it on the , whereas "Présentez armes" also calls for the left hand to hold the weapon near the barrel and is meant as a salute position. My knowledge is not from the period though, what these command would have specifically referred to back then, I cannot say. But "Take aim" could have been a way to avoid confusion when Continental and French forces fought alongside each other.
Thanks for the added context! Makes sense that it basically just means 'take aim' nowadays, but the etymology is important here I think. And, the British also had the command to "Present Arms" as a ceremonial order. It was *also* called "Rest your Firelocks" depending on the context! But that didn't stop them from still using "Present" as the command to level before firing.
@@BrandonF They also used "Port Arms" (Portez armes) so perhaps taken from the French with whom they often fought.
Brandon please do a Pennisular War video
In reference to the "take aim/en joue/present", while every army and training is different (I'm not a reenactor of any sort), I do remember from drilling and on line rifle ranges that words with a hard consonant (like the T in present or target) tended to give a more precise moment to begin executing a movement, and it carries much better over the noise of movement and other weapons
Hum, that's an interesting idea, I hadn't considered the actual consonants in various commands as being all too relevant before.
@@BrandonF that is definitely the case when marching and doing facing movements
@@BrandonF it could also be a question of ambiguity.
the british soldiers were trained to know what to do when each command is ordered, they all had the same training, so they knew what to even if the word of the command was perhaps not entirely clear.
the rebel army couldn't afford to do that because a lot of the rebels were commoners with little to no formal training who decided to join the cause,. you shout "present!" at someone like that and they're like "present what?" you yell "take aim!" and even that 16 year old who decided to oppose the british yesterday knows "got it: point shooty thing and guy in red!"
@@BrandonF Also, your pronunciation of "en joue" was more than decent. And it does mean somthing as "in cheek position". "Vient probablement du fait que la crosse de l’arme est rapprochée de la joue au moment de l’ajustement."
Brandon - excellent presentation. When describing the dressing order of the British troops please include that they did not stand shoulder to shoulder but that Sir William Howe had the men form with "open files" with 18 inches between each man. Apparently, this was continued by Sir Henry Clinton as well - even though he really wasn't a fan of it. But, he did say it was continued and that the Americans were doing it as well. I think this is important since I have not seen any American sources that mention their dressing order. I think most people assume it was shoulder to shoulder or 6" between files as used in the 1764 manual. Hope this helps.
Vr
Joe
I wonder if a lack of cavalry (relative to European armies) on both sides allowed for a looser formation?
Just found your channel with this video, and I gotta say, your level of enthusiasm made the subject matter way more interesting than I usually see Civil War stuff.
Oh my goodness, primary sources! I nearly fainted to see such a video on UA-cam. Well done!
In the Spanish army the commands were (and still are) "¡Apunten! ¡Fuego!" (which would translate as "Take Aim! Fire!"). I wasn't able to find any documments on training on the Ordenances of Charles III (issued after the 7 years war, and served as the basis for the Spanish military structure during the following two centuries) beyond the fact that there would be daily trainings at company and battalion level, and weekly drills at regimental level. In the 1804 military reestructuring plan, however, which was heavily influenced by the French training models, ordered that all infantry would be trained to aim and fire at distances of 50, 100, 200 and 400 meters both individually and in formations at company and battalion level. Given that one of the ideas behind that plan was to have a kind of "universal infantry" that could act as either light infantry or line infantry depending on the situation, and that Spain used rifled muskets by this point (the extremely sturdy Fusil Modelo 1752) it makes sense.
My guess, on the context of the Spanish training manuals from the time, is that the order of "Take Aim!" is supposed to get the entire group targeting the enemy and ready to fire within a moment's notice, so then when the infantry is ordered to "Fire!" they give a concentrated volley on the enemy. So, going by the context of the Spanish army, the misconception you mentioned in the beginning of the video would be completely false, as the order to aim is precisely to have the soldiers prepare to fire a volley.
Your knowledge is vast. Thank you for sharing.
Great video Brandon, I will definitely check out My Heritage!
Great video as always!
Never knew this actually! Very interesting! Thank you!
5:52 The Spanish M1752 Musket has the same kind of rudimentary lock, and kept it on the modernised M1828 rifle version and the M1836 percussion cap version.
I've fired a musket and it's quite an experience. The man-sized target was about 50 yards away and I was a bit concerned about hitting a couple of exotic birds in front of it, no need as from the bird's experience that was the safest place to be. There's an initial small bang and a cloud of smoke from the priming pan, half a beat of pause then it goes off with an enormous cloud of smoke. The shot was nowhere close even if one could see the target through the smoke. A line of muskets going off and you wouldn't see 10 yards ahead let alone 50. A smart move having uniforms in red.
I found you through Alun Shei Films and I am very glad I did. Great content!
just found your channel with this video, good stuff i love history
With my 1766 charleville, I can use the tang screw as the rear sight, and by doing so can actually get very good accuracy at 50 yards (with patched round balls) so yes, if I had to guess the tang screw would have been used as a rear notch
I was going to say the same thing with my Bess.
The tang screw slot in line with the sight.
I reenact but not this era. I have always called this fore end lug the sight, why else would it be placed there.
2 birds with one stone.
I always learn some little tidbit to make my impression better from your talks.
The translation for « En joue » is very precise while the meaning is indeed to aim it is word for word « in cheek » or « at cheek » which makes a lot of sense appropriately with your explanation. Very informative video thank you as usual. Very proud to have been a subscribers for a couple years now. Cheers from Quebec
Seems like an interesting video
BTW, what was the regular training period for a regular British soldier in the mid - 19th century?
You should ask Britishmuzzleloaders for that.
@@karlwilhelmmeinert7592 k
Your explenation of en joue was pretty good !
Out of curiousity I took my original India Pattern Bess down from over the fireplace to see if what I remembered was true, and it is!
On the barrel tang there's a notch filed in it about 1 1/2 inches long and parallel to the axis of the bore. Since the patina matches the rest of the barrel it's obviously been there all along. Is is a rudimentary rear sight, or just a reference point for aiming? I'm not sure. If it's a rear sight it's not a very good one, and if it's a reference point it might have SOME use. This just adds a little bit to the story here.
Obviously since I've never handled every original Bess I have no way of know if they were all made that way. My Pedersoli doesn't have one of those notches.
By the way everyone, it's MUSKETS over the fireplace, NOT big screen TV's! Every time I watch a home remodel show on HGTV and they put a big screen TV over the fireplace my skin crawls.
What are they gonna do? Fight bad guys off with the remote?
I used a large single action revolver when it had the sights removed, 45-70, it was massive, anyway, I found it quite easy to aim using merely the curvature of the barrel. At close ranges it was easy to hit the targets and at further ranges it was easy to get near misses, when I say longer ranges I mean 100m and further.
Great video. I appreciate anyone that's willing to look beyond the "muskets are completely inaccurate" thought that permeates so much of 18th/19th century common historical knowledge. Particularly in light of British and French light infantry and Eastern woodlands Native Americans, who all seem to have gotten reasonable accuracy from the same muskets.
There are a few aspects of musket drill that I also feel are overlooked when it comes to the standard history of this period. The first is that those three commands aren't the total drill. They are probably what was actually used in combat, but they are part of a much more complicated and painfully explicit drill where each step of the process has a command, between 12-16 steps depending on the source of drill, and there were multiple sources, and they weren't standardized until around 1800 for the British. (based on your videos, I'm confident this is not new knowledge to you, but it's necessary to make my point) That being said, did they "standardize" on those three terms because they are the ones that made the most sense and were the most necessary when you strip away all the other step by step processes?
The second aspect that I've come to realize is that accurate fire with the intent to kill may not have been the goal of these firing drills. Bear with me on this, as it sounds counter intuitive, but perhaps suppression was more important than lethality. You don't need to hit and kill an enemy to make them decide they don't want to share the field with you anymore. The same as you don't need to plunge a bayonet into an enemy body to convince them they want to run away. The charged side breaking and running before the charge struck home did happen, probably more frequently than we think. Add into that how smokey these battlefields were going to become after just a few traded volleys, controlled volley fire making the enemy decide to be somewhere else may have proven to be just, if not more valuable that outright killing them at that moment. One final thought about aimed fire from ranks, there is no way to control who's shooting at who. So it would suck to be the biggest dude in the opposing line. But in the same sense, what happens if that one guy takes six or seven musket balls and this neighboring five or six buddies don't even get a muzzle pointed at them?
Perhaps I'm getting a bit too modern on this, but the more I've thought about it, the more I question if the intent of firing at this time was to function suppressively in the way we use machine guns on a modern battlefield and the lack of accuracy was something that is perhaps overblown in terms of their concern (and is inflated by movies that show battles being fought until one side is entirely dead every time)
I don't know that there would be a concept so much of aiming at specific men so much as aiming at a mass of men. The estimates of effective range of smoothbore muskets seem to range around 100 yards or 200 yards. They would be more effective firing at a mass of men than trying to hit a single one, and the effective range would be correspondingly longer. We have an image of these being widely inaccurate weapons and they are compared to modern rifles, but they were an improvement on bows which only had an effective firing range of about 50 yards (maybe up to 100) and were more effective firing at a mass formation rather than individual targets.
Part of the suppression effect is that while most shots miss, the high caliber musket balls do significant damage when they hit. The enemy fires a volley and you see fellow soldiers ahead of you or beside you fall. As you get closer, the fire becomes more effective with more falling. Troops who aren't seeing them fall still have to step over fallen bodies or see their line in a column disrupted.
If your column keeps marching will some troops survive to hit the enemy line? Certainly. If the column keeps marching, will you (personally) still be alive when this happens?.... the doubts lead to troops faltering and breaking.
Of course we have many stories of regiments that didn't break, and suffered horrendous casualties and/or achieved great success.
It's not just musket fire. The sight of a column that just won't stop (more determined troops like the Imperial Guard) will have their own effect on a firing line that is well aware how they are not in formation to receive a column.
There is competition shooting with muskets. The accuracy is indeed reasonable. The competitors consistently hit their own target, some even close to the center. I admit that accuracy may suffer on a two way life fire range.
I like your enthusiasm.
Commentary of the Prussian musket practices before and during the 7 years war, emphasise the aim should be at the targets knees, to counteract the tendancy to fire too high that were demonstrated in many test firings
You say you've taken up enough of my time, and yet I intend to watch several more of your videos after this one! Curious. Cheers, Brandon! heheh
Enjoyed the talk as aways
Thank you, I appreciate that!
A very educational video, it is always been my impression that the command game was not given because the soldiers really didn’t aim because of the and accuracy of the musket I just pointed at it into the direction of the advancing troops and pull the trigger. I mean what’s the point in aiming when you have just a mass of men marching in your direction. I know the American rifleman took a aim. The two most well-known examples both deal with Daniel Morgan. At the battle of Saratoga he had one of his man aim and shoot Gen. Frasier end of the battle of Cowpens he instructed his rifleman to aim at the officers and NCOs.
British soldiers had regular Rifle practice practicing their aim on targets. The smooth bore musket was accurate up to a certain yardage just not as far as a rifled musket.
The smoothbore was also much more tolerant to ammunition and powder variation, thus reasonably accurate and volume of fire was easier with equal logistics
Two notes:
1. Just a front sight is still used, and can be used quite accurately (even with solid slugs, which are more accurate than 18th Century military ball for smoothbores) on shotguns, even today. Most of the shotguns made with a rear sight are either intended for primary use with extremely accurate modern slugs, or are intended as "tactical" shotguns furnished to personnel who have already invested a lot of training and muscle memory to line up front and rear sights (the Marines found it was easier to just out "rifle style" sights on shotguns than explain to thsir Marines, "I know we've harped on a proper sight picture and alignment on *literally every other weapons system you've touched so far* , but you don't need it with a shotgun," back in the 1990s.) So, the sighting system of the "Brown Bess" was perfectly adequate for the accuracy achievable with the gun, with mikitary ammunition (which had, from an accuracy perspective, horrific windage - because that ensured you could still load quickly even fairly fouled).
2. As a "cross dressing" reenactor with prior mikitary experience shouting orders, I seemed to find it easier to shout "Present!" In a way audible the farthest, under noisy conditions, than I did, "Take aim!", simple due to how you say the words. Some sounds are easier to project with the voice than others, amd the leading "EEE" and trailing "hard T" lend themselves very well to projecting your voice. More so than the leading "T" and kind of slushy "aim" at the end.
Nice Video Brandon.
If you ever should run out of Video ideas:
Could you maybe do a Video on the dragoons and how and why they evolved from mounted infantry with a Focus on Infantry Combat , to cavalary that depending on time and country could also Fight on foot If they needed too ?
Oh, I don't think there will ever be a time I run out of ideas, given the current list! But maybe some day!
@@BrandonF
Haha ok. Thanks for replying.
I believe the term you are looking for in regards to using the breach pin or breach tang screw is a reference point
Great videos, man. I used to work the maintenance crew of a Colonial-era historical park. I always liked talking to the interpreters and learning about the history of the area I was working. I have a question about muskets that I'm not sure if you've covered in another video but you seem like the guy to ask. I've been thinking about purchasing a muzzleloader or a historical replica (I play too many Napoleonic Era games) but I am a left-handed shooter. I've always wondered if the firelock assembly on the right side would block my vision and prevent me from aiming properly. Though maybe it's not as obtrusive as I think? It's hard to tell from a video and I've never held a musket before. Also - are there any sources or stories about left-handed shooters? Or were infantry just trained to shoot right-handed regardless of hand dominance? Should I even consider spending money on a musket if it's not feasible for a lefty like me to even aim with it? Thanks for the high quality work man. Your videos make me miss the historic parks haha
That's a very good question! And something that could probably warrant a video, some day. As a left handed shooter, it may be a little more difficult to aim, but really the much bigger problem for you when firing a right-handed musket would be the powder flash. Normally the pan is off to the side, and so you won't get too badly seared if the powder is overcharged. But if you're firing it the other way around, it will be pushed right up against your face and chest and potentially burn you. Especially if you over-prime, which is very common and easy to do, you could feel some burning eyebrows! Historically, and even up to the present day in many cases, "There are no left-handed people in the army!" Which is to say, all of the drill from the marching to firing and loading are all based around the person being right handed. If a man was left handed, he'd basically be drilled out of any other preference.
However, if you're willing to spend some extra cash, there are also plenty of examples of left-handed muskets and rifles from back in the day. They were near always custom commissioned and not for enlisted troops, though. More of a novelty item but you'll find a lot of them in museums.
@@BrandonF Thank you for the reply. I suppose I would have to turn my face away like that soldier you showed in the screenshot from the Patriot
Lefty military re-enactors I've seen who use flintlocks all "follow the drill" and shoot right-handed. It's not a bother since they're not really aiming at anyone anyway.
However, those leftys I've known who shoot "right handed" flintlocks but from their left shoulder have told me it's no big deal, the flash is over with quickly and won't bother you unless you're "looking" for it. Kind of like shooting a modern military semi-auto rifle left-handed, I've never heard of it being a problem either. You don't see the brass flying past your right eye unless you're looking for it.
And if you're on the range you should be wearing shooting glasses anyway for safety's sake, you never know.
And if you're interested in a left-handed flintlock rifle or fouling piece there are custom-made new ones available from various sources.
Was wondering if you could do a video on the historical accuracy/authenticity of the military in the BBC show Banished from 2015. The series is on Hulu and I've spent the last few nights watching the 7 episodes and thought it would be a good project for you.
The smoothbore shot group really spread out after 100 yards whereas the rifled musket was accurate past 200 yards. The Minnie ball increased that range by double to over 400 yards on a 12" target. Now we have rifles accurate to 1000 yards +
The only thing making consistent and accurate shots past about 500 meters are purpose built sniper rifles.
And even than only in the hands of trained and experienced marksmen.
The standard service rifle of most armies are only reliable to about 450 meters. Only an idiot is going to shoot at anything at 1000 meters + with a 5.56 or 7.62 rifle.
Really the standard issue service rifle has only improved on rate of fire and ease of use compared to the small arms of ye olden days.
@@clothar23 The Accuracy International AWM chambers two different rounds, one of which is the the .300 winchester magnum which is (7.62×67mm), I have shot it. I guess that makes me an idiot. Don't forget about the Zastava M91(effective up to 1000m), the Zastava M07 (1000M), Yalguzag (7.62 NATO) (1000M), SR 25 (1000M), need I go on?
7:00 Doesn't Breech Pin refers to the screw you had mentioned?
If is that the case, we have a direct reference to the usage of the screw as a rear sight(-ish)
I figured that all shooters knew that. After all most long barreled shotguns usually have a single gold bead for sighting on the barrel.
I had the same thought. Many long barreled shotguns, at least older ones, only have a front sight, and when you get down to it, what exactly is a musket if not an older long barreled shotgun?
@@jaytea4093 A long-barrelled shotgun that only shoots slugs, in essence.
@@benjaminbrockway5998 Only? Buck and ball?
FWIW in a much more modern time, with the L1A1, the commands or states of readiness were LOAD (safety on, mag on) ACTION (chamber a round, rear sight up) INSTANT (safety off, to the shoulder, looking down the sights ready to fire). Nobody needed to be told "aim", it went without saying. I rather think the same may have been true in the earlier times of which you speak.
Yeah, I think the actual commands are fairly arbitrary. They could say "STEP 1" "STEP 2" "STEP 3" and it would mean the same thing. It's not like the trained rifleman are going to be like "Wait, did he not tell us to aim, better fire wildly"
just about to go to sleep, I will watch this tomorrow Brandon. Chilly day here.
In the Continental Army the command "Take aim!" comes directly from General Washington. In von Steuben's manual the command sequence was like the British, "Make ready! Present! Fire!" Washington didn't like "present" and changed it to "Take aim!" It was the only part of Steuben's manual he changed.
Why? I don't know. Probably because he wanted no ambiguity?
Here's the Prussian sequence:
"Macht euch fertig!" "Everybody get ready!"
"Schlaget an!" "Level!"
"Feuer!" "Fire!"
If anyone want to correct my German feel free, I'm not proud!
Accuracy with a Brown Bess? Better than you think, assuming the barrel was made by a competant contractor. I've got an original India Pattern Bess that on the plus side will hit a man-size target reliably out to 75 yards. On the negative side, it would have hit the guy standing to the right of who you were aiming at! The barrel's a bit off. I'm reminded of what British Major George Hangar said about the Brown Bess:
"The common soldier's musket if not exceedingly ill-bored AS MANY OF THEM ARE (emphasis mine) will strike the figure of a man at 80 yards, it may even at 100, but for aiming at a man at 200 yards you may as well fire at the moon with the same hope of hitting your target!"
On the other hand I've got a Pedersoli Brown Bess carbine that with a good load will get you reliably at 100 yards. It makes a good claybird buster too! Great for stopping the action on a trap range, trust me!
Are you loading with cartridge? It makes a big difference. The paper (rag based squishy paper) forms a sabot around the ball.
@@skepticalbadger If you're asking about the India Pattern Bess it's been a long while, but I used to load it like this:
80 grains of FF powder. It was a 200+ year old gun so I didn't want to push it.
A bore sized wad over the powder.
A patched .735 round ball.
At 50 yards I got consistant six inch groups BUT I had to hold a foot to the right.
With the Pedersoli carbine it was a 100 grain load with an over-powder wad and a patched .735 ball. Six-inch groups at 50 yards and holding straight.
My trap load for the carbine was 100 grains, a modern 12 gauge plastic shot cup, 1 1/2 ounces of #8 shot and a paper wad over the shot. I was able to break 24 out of 25! Never could manage 25 straight, not even with a modern shotgun. By the way, in my experience with muzzle-loading shotguns you've only got 2/3'ds the range of a modern shotgun. You'll break birds but you've got to get on 'em quick!
Now this is an unusual load and not authentic, but I also used a load in the carbine with 100 grains of powder and a modern 12 gauge Brenneke rifled slug. That shot like a rifle! Five inch groups at 100 yards!
I just subscribed. Guns and history are my two favorite things. Fellow buckeye here
Only a minute ago I was wondering when you would post again 😂
I wondered that yesterday. It appears that Brandon has once again come to grant us our wishes
I would think that the accuracy of fire is more to do with experience than any drill. The terror of the first fight must have made most recruits forget everything and simply blaze away with their shots. While a more experienced man might temper the speed a modicum to ensure he lined the shot up somewhat
To be fair, that is kind of the point of drilling! You can only ever prepare men for combat so much, but if you make certain actions muscle-memory-like, the posting of one's feet, looking down the barrel, closing the eye, etc. then you dramatically improve the odds that men "remember their training" and resort back to what they know in those key moments. But definitely, combat experience is by far the most important factor when it comes to a soldier's ability to take careful aim during a firefight. There's a reason why the light infantry, for example, was (intended to be) made up of only veteran troops!
@@BrandonF when I began reenacting I was drilled for a single day before entering a battle and I had sever tunnel vision and thought of nothing but staying in formation. I was pretty comfortable operation the weapon before I even visited the event so that wasn't an issue. The idea that leaves in my mind is that unless you have years of drill under the authority of actual veterans of combat, you probably won't be very deliberate in your actions making them lose effectiveness to some extent. However, I do believe even a few weeks of drill were effective at making sure the somewhat frantic actions of green troops would still be useful in the field of battle. I know if I had been firing live my shots would have been in a 7 to 10 foot grouping at 100 yards that first time, and that's without being actively shot at with live rounds. This makes me think the accuracy of muscle memory alone would be pretty bad. Keep in mind I was a trained marksman prior to reenacting and just the stress of a fake battle threw my marksmanship skills to the wind.
Speaking of shooting, and shooting practice, what was the maintenance routine for muskets both historically and in the modern day? Was it strictly enforced, or did it tend to get neglected?
It was pretty strictly enforced if the troops were given the materials to keep the weapons clean. When von Steuben made the rounds at Valley Forge after his arrival he was shocked to see rusty muskets. The anwer was simple, there we no cleaning materials to be had.
As far as cleaning procedures in the time of muzzle loaders soldiers were expected to keep the bores and the exteriors of the muskets clean, they were not allowed to disassemble the muskets, there was no "field stripping" as we know it today. A sergeant might be allowed to remove the lock of a musket, in fact the British Army had what was called a "sergeant's tool" for that purpose, but that was all. Complete tear-downs were left to the armorers.
16:00 I know its written "En Joue!" "To cheek" but if you wrote it as "En Jou!" (Pronounced the same way) that means "In play" (nowadays you'll usually hear that in sports talk, saying that a player or the ball is in play) but i wonder if the primary French sources of the time always wrote "En Joue" or if they changed it to "En Jou" from time to time. Because either would work
great video as always. and a video idea. advantages with a bayonet than with a short sword. know that the British army used bayonets more than short swords. although in Sweden during most of our history the short sword was more popular in the army. and I apologize for my bad English.
Thank you! And yeah, that may be interesting. My only video on the Caroleans did really well actually, so I should probably spend some more time on the topic. One day I'd love to get out to Sweden and speak with some reenactors out that way.
God forgive me, I happened to write in Swedish. forgot English
loved your video on the Carolinas. only had some minor problems with the view comments and their war medtood. but otherwise everything was very well done. Also, I wonder if your brown bess is original or a copy? and there are many reenactment organizations in Sweden, it shouldn't be that difficult to contact any of them
It is in fact simpler to that. The word present means mot specifically "Make a demonstrative act of aiming". The word aim means just aim.
Think of presenting a gift to someone, or the noun present from the verb. A gift is definitely aimed at a recipient. The action is not just raising a gift into the air. It is making a visible show of aiming a gift at somebody
As for the question of the rear sight, your own presentation from the training manual suggests that they were using the breach pin. So the question is what is the breach pin? I have as a metal worker made several muzzleloading firearms so I am very familiar with the practice of using a metal pin instead of screw threads to secure the breach. It is also possible that to keep the screwed breach from backing out they put a pin in. The answer to your question about rear sights May well lie in better understanding the manufacturer of the appropriate muskets and a careful examination of a period musket and how it was put together. Let me add that the muzzle loading firearm where I first used a breach pin now some 30 years old the rust and natural aging of the iron alloy you either have to examine it's breach very carefully or in my case I know where I put it to easily find it. So your challenge and locating that on a 200 year or more firearm may be a bit of a challenge.
I think the term "breech pin's" been misused. The tang screw (assuming the slot is facing front-to-back) is what you'd use as a rudimentary rear sight.
I have two points to make about the accuracy of these weapons. The first was raised by Grossman in On Killing, which is that at the moment of truth, most soldiers become conscientious objectors. The circumstantial evidence is that however good they were on the firing range, once on the battlefield these regiments would mostly fire over each others' heads.
The second is the powder pan, which was flaring only a couple of inches from your face ( to say nothing of what might happen if a piece of red-hot flint broke off and rebounded into your eye - does that show up in any primary sources? Nightmare). Despite the manual, I wouldn't be surprised if most soldiers shut BOTH eyes as they pulled the trigger.
Great videos, really enjoying them!
Is it possible "present" comes from the Dutch? The command in Het Staten Leger was "presenteer". They got a lot of drill and commands, including trumpet/bugle calls from the Dutch following the Glorious Revolution.
The change to "take aim" for the Americans could simply be because they used volunteers who did not spend as much time, or as big a part of their lives, at drill
According to my own reading, Von Steuben blended French, Prussian and British tactical doctrines when training the Continentals, then those who were trained formed a cadre to train others, and so forth. I wonder if any primary sources specify what his preferred loading and firing drill was? I do recall a famous quote from the Baron (who may not have been an actual baron) in which he noted that independent-minded Americans needed persuasion and explanation in order to understand why they should do something, and do it a certain way, whereas most European recruits were more socially inclined to readily follow orders.
The quote from von Steuben in a letter to a friend in Europe went like this:
"You tell your man 'Do this!' and he does it. But here you tell your man 'This is the reason you should do this,' and THEN he does it." Steuben realized early on the average American was a pretty independent breed of cat!
You can find Steuben's drill for loading and firing in any of the reprints of his manual. What Steuben did was take the typical Prussian method and streamlined it of any extra unneeded movements.
@@wayneantoniazzi2706 That's the exact quote, thank you! And thanks for that info on Von Steuben employing the Prussian firing drill. Now that you mention it I think I did read of it previously.
@@AMCmachine You're very welcome! And Steuben was a real baron, the actual title in German is "freiherr," the closest equivalent in English is "baron." Steuben's title came from the prince of Hohenzollern-Hechingen, a small principality in what became modern Germany.
18:02 - That’s my dad! Kings 10th, battalion / line infantry, front and left (our right)
I think something people often overlook when discussing gun accuracy of muskets is that, while yes compared to modern firearms they are inaccurate, getting an accurate shot at a long distance is very hard to achieve, You're holding something that is around 5 kilos or 10 lbs, that is nearly 5 ft long, if not longer, you're going to have at least a little sway even while aiming which no doubt has an effect on accuracy at a distance, then your bullet will likely drop over any long distance, which you only really have instinct and training to combat that, and then there may be environmental factors, such as rain, wind, powder quality, fatigue or so on which can further affect the accuracy. I think most of the people who exaggerate the inaccuracy of muskets usually assume modern firearms are like in a video game where your arms are sturdy like a rock, and the bullet will always meet exactly where the sight is. Irl I've only fired a .22 Rifle from prone a few times at a summer camp, and even then I would struggle to hit any target at the firing range with consistency
It's virtually a synonym. Also it is a single word in contrast to the 'make ready' so when you are already half deaf from your first few volleys there is no mistaking it is the new command rather than a repeat of the previous one to harry any laggards or to wait as the enemy closes in.
Regarding drill, the most important thing is to do it quickly, but carefully. I can remember from studying the Prussian army of Frederick the Great, that they had discovered (either under him or his father Frederick William) through live fire studies at drill speed that not only very few soldiers would hit their target at anything much over 50 yards away, but that also a fair number of them contrived to misload or discharge their ramrods along with the musket ball! The targets were painted onto barn doors, so I assume this is where the saying "Couldn't hit a barn door" came from. Soldiers were often those unfit for other employment.
In combat conditions there is also blinding smoke and adrenaline. Better to fire a quick volley in the roughly correct direction, than hang about under fire hoping for a better shot, while some soldiers lose their nerve and shoot anyway, ruining the mass effect.
The tang screws on original British muskets were pretty much flush with the metal around them with a slight bump tapering up to the center of the screw head on some earlier patterns, unlike the modern repros that tend to have thick side walls on the screw heads (I have originals and reproductions). They wouldn't have been of much use as an aiming aid back in the day. As for actually taking aim, precise, aimed fire was a thing for militia and specialty rifle units engaged in guerrilla/ ambush tactics. The regular continentals and redcoats didn't actually differ that much in terms of tactics.
if you dont mind me asking, how much did you pay for an original musket haha
@@ixxxxxxx Most of mine are from the Nepal cache that IMA brought in and I subsequently restored and/ or conserved, but I've also got a couple ones that I've bought on gunbroker. I don't believe I paid more than $800 for any of them, but bear in mind, all of them have required significant gunsmithing work, and I am a gunsmith. For an original musket in good, and possibly shootable condition, expect to pay north of $1.5k, unless you stumble upon something in an antique store that doesn't know what they have.
You could also say it’s diction. Present (Pri-zent) arms is a lot more crisp and easy to understand in a battle than take aim
Brandon does answer one important question that's been nagging me for some time;
He prefers carpet to hardwood or tile.
More that "Brandon can't afford to buy a house"
@@BrandonF *sad millennial noises*
@@ChristheRedcoat,
_Not yet..._ (I'm optimistic. You do excellent work).
The first round from a Brown Bess, or any musket ,was the one that counted. The further away the less effect of volley fire.
After the first round visibilty would reduce to 25 yards, second round you were firing blind.. Disipline and drill incuding wheeling and kneeling to command was key to winning a firefight not aiming. Nobody aims a water cooled machine gun because it is an area denial weapon.
I find that visibility doesn't drop anywhere near so intensely when you're fighting in open order, or if it is a windy day. I think what you're saying is more applicable to Napoleonic and other larger, general European conflicts, moreso than AWI where most 'battles' were hardly skirmishes on a European scale.
Actually, I've learned a fair bit playing various wargames... one of the first was 1776 by Avalon Hill... (what... there was loyalist militia?) It is a useful and fun way to explore history... provide the game is reasonably accurate.
I've learned a fair amount of history from Avalon Hill too :D
@@aaronfleming9426 Yes, too bad they don't seem to be around anymore. Though Advanced Squad Leader is still available with numerous additions.
I want to hear more about the accuracy of the musket. Also buck and ball.
A Soldier Like Way is an amazing book.
Nice vid. Recommend watching BBCs "Sharp". Sean Bean as a British riflemen vs Bonapart
I was taught to aim for center of mass. Even if the round is off a bit you're more likely to hit something vital.
Aim for a button, miss by a button.
Aim for a head, miss by a head.
@@cameronnewton7053 Aim for a button, hit a kidney.
Brandon F can you do videos on George IV and William IV during their reigns.
The way you described at the beginning, it seems there really isn't a difference at all. "Take aim" isn't an extra step, but rather just the Continental Army's version of "Present." They fulfill the same roles, it's just semantics. "Present" comes with the implication that you'd be aiming. It's essentially the same as saying "shoot" instead of "fire."
Evening Brandon how's your day? And everyone else how's yalls day ?
Total neophyte here, but at 7:05 the 1764 Manual Exercise clearly states to align the right eye from the breech pin to the muzzle, isn't that breech pin the screw that you showed before? If so, there's your reference right there?!
Good video mate. Time the myth of the "Robot Redcoat" was laid to rest, once and for all.
i would wonder about the effect of the 'i dont want to kill a man' impulse weve seen a LOT in warfare'
that might ensure (and the desire to NOT be faceblastted with powder and soot)
could result in a lot more men being less likely to aim specifically down the barrel AT someone in particular.
15:21 Okay, I had not seen THAT video before. It's funny that he goes on about how the Roadman dialect may be incomprehensible to some but I was like, "...that's actually easier for me to understand than some other British accents".
Very interesting
My 1778 land pattern cavalry carbine does have a sight, and I don't think it's a bayonet lug since I doubt a dragoon unit would be charging with bayonets on horseback. Right?
technically when the command "Present" was given, they did take aim, Sergeants were instructed to reprimand or punish those soldiers who intentionally or unintentionally closed their eyes before firing, and individual marksmanship was indeed encouraged. Probably they said "PRESENT" instead of "AIM" or anything else because it would sound clearer to the troops in the chaos of battle (most military commands tend to have a two or three-beat timing like PRE-SENT so that the first part of the command makes the troops realize a command is being given, and the second part is where the troops actually execute the command). It's just that with a government issue smoothbore musket, aiming was more like a "polite suggestion" for the bullet.
It's the reason why until widespread diffusion of rifled guns, and with the exception of scatterguns for fowls, hunting was done almost exclusively with bow/crossbow and arrows (also for cost but that's another story).
It's one of the many reasons why the rank-and-line formations were widespread in basically all european armies, to have a sort of "accuracy by volume".
Just to further this explaination, Karl Kasarda and Russel Phagan on InrangeTV's channel did an interesting experiment with some naval type flintlock pistols. Both are experienced shooters, and Karl has experience with using black powder guns even in competition venues, and both were unable to hit a torso-sized target beyond 30yds. With a longer barrel like a musket you could probably get to 60-80yds with decent accuracy with a well-bult musket in the hands of a marksmanship-trained shooter, which was often the case with voltigeurs, but line infantry's training didn't put a strong emphasys on specifically training individual marksmanship, rather making sure that they would perform the required drills swiftly and effectively even during the stress of combat.
Here's something to consider - what are we comparing the aiming of muskets to? Even if you don't have a sight, you still have a damn long straight tube to aim alongside, and you know what else is aimed alongside a much shorter tube? Bows and crossbows. So unless you have some mechanical defect going on with your musket, aiming alongside just a plain barrel should still give you accuracy that is comparable to a bow.
As for why the word aim isn't used, it's probably because you don't necessarily aim at that point int he drill. The actual final aiming of the musket happens when the command fire is given, in the split second before you pull the trigger - a detail so petty we don't see it consistently addressed.
Finally, for the en jou being related to cheeks, this is likely a more universal connection. Some slavic languages have a word for aiming that is made by taking a word for the cheek and bending it into a verb. I suspect this may be convergent evolution rather than anything that spread from a single source - after all, the most apparent difference between aiming a weapon and holding a weapon is that when you are aiming it, some part of it is touching your cheek.
With Zeal and Bayonets Only is a great book.
Could have the order to Present, come from orders given before much of the infantry had firearms, maybe from the days of using pikes?
0:14 dang that's nice
Bro hit us with the primary and secondary source
I've never fired a black powder long gun without sights but I have fired black powder pistols and rifles without sights. I can say rather confidently that just looking down the barrel is enough to hit a target especially with a human sized target on average black powder era engagement ranges. Though I admit I probably have more weapons training than the average soldier of that time.
Was the reason "present" was the command, because it's shorter, but also because it's a collective command, that the group is firing more so than an individual. That you are less so taking the action individually but as a unit at the command of your officer.
Personally I never thought that the British Army didn't aim, but that it's a different order of discipline.
The sights are very like modern shotguns, mostly down the barrel to a small front sight.
the brown bess had no front sight, the hub was used for fixing the bayonet - and when it was fixed it would disappear from sight, this was different to the fusil d'infanterie. The contemporaries agree that aimed fire - when being formed in rank and file was not possible due to the narrow spacing as well as side effects of firing, flash in the pan burning the face of the neighbour, this may be different to skirmishers. Who was in a fire fight without noticing that in this moment the soldier is acting as a machine, that means he loads his gun, shots in the air, loads again and thinks less to damage the enemy than more to distract himself by the work to ban all thought of fear which are surrounding him in this moment. As soon as the soldier is seeing the enemy he wants to start to shoot being afraid that the other will overtake him in that and only few officers have the power to restrain their soldiers, or when they are able to do this they have not the knowledge about the shooting distance of the gun or to judge the distances. In case however the soldier is not lacking in cold blood and deliberation in a serious fire fight, and he is not acting as a machine, so alone because of the disorder and pushing for quickness, which is usual in a fire fight, is preventing to let him think about aiming. The experience teaches that the soldier is hardly listening at the commands of his officer in this critical moment and that every body as soon as he finished loading wants to shot. When one is closing the pan, the other is working with the ramrod, the third is making ready, the forth is arming and the fifth pulls the trigger. Is one taking into account the disorder which is caused by the falling of the dead, and the retreat of the wounded, as the quite dense smoke of powder which is enveloping the men, so it is impossible to expect that a sure shot can happen. Yes, even the best Jäger (marksmen, sharp shooters expert to hit with a shot, so to speak Hessian, Austrian, Prussian Jäger units) as soon as they would have to fire in rank and file, they would not hit better by the ruling constriction and disorder than the usual line infantry man.“
I don't have time just at the moment to go through your whole comment- but, I think you're ignoring the actual chart of a Short Land Pattern that specifically labels the weapon's sight, that I showed in the video? As well as the various written accounts labelling the same as a sight. The contemporaries absolutely did not "agree that aimed fire...was not possible" and regularly practiced it in a wide variety of circumstances, including in formation drilling. Did you watch this video?
@@BrandonF I am not disagreeing that you could "aim" a miliatry smoothbore musket and yes the knob for fixing the bayonet was called a sight. My point was - based on observation of contemporaries - is that "aiming" did not happen due to the restircted circumstances in operating the musket (loading and firing) when placed elbow to elbow and in close order, regardless how well sighted those muskets were, see the coment of an Austrian officer who wrote a handbook for officers on miliatry matters. As to the sight on a Brown Bess and using the tang screw, what happens when the bayonet is fixed - also is the tang srew at same hight / level of the know, usually back and front sight are on the same level of elevation to avoid aiming mistakes. Other armies - as fusil d'infantrie M 1777 had a real front sight, that was not obstructed when bayonets were fixed and was sitting on the first ring. I am not disagreeing that skirmishers of infantry in open order could aim and did especially when firing on mass targets up to quite a long distance, 800 paces. The effect of a volley was much more a psychological damage than of creating casualties and a fire fight of infantry in close order did often get out of hand and the average soldier wouldn't aim. As for amining - this is a true art and had to be instructed very well, as to judge the distance so you would know where to aim your musket, then idealy you would have always the same amount of propellent powder charge which you did not there you had to used powder from the cartridge to prime the pan and than would vary from each loading procedure. Guibert, p. 127
„ Le feu de billebaude est enfin le seul qui doive avoir lieu dans un combat de mousqueterie. Par de là deux décharges essuyées et rendues, il n’y a pas d’effort de discipline qui puisse empêcher un feu compliqué et régulier de dégénérer en feu de volonté. Ce feu est le plus vif et le plus meurtrier de tous. Il échauffe la tête du soldat. Il L’étourdit sur le danger. Il convient particulièrement à la vivacité et à l’adresse françaises. L’essentiel est seulement d‘accoutumer le soldat à les cesser au signal et à garder le silence.“An old Prussian Officer writes about the Prussians in the 7YW :
One started to fire with pelotons, two, three fired well, but then a common burning started and the usual fire where each who finished loading pulls the trigger, files and ranks are intermingling, the front rank is not even able to kneel down, even if they intended to, and the officers from below up to the generals cannot do anything any longer with this mass, but have to wait till they will move forward or backwards.
(Jany, page 47) It is a very complex topic and we in general suffer from our imagination being shaped by modern movies. In case of re - enactment most units use flash guards to avoid that the neighbour comrades cheeks get burned when pulling the trigger due to the flash and as well as lying of splinters from the flint, most saftey regulation not without any reason are forbidding in re enactment to fire without a flash guard. I was in a unit where we did not use them and you very soon find out not to stay cooly aiming but you would turn your head and pull you shoulders high to avoid getting the blast of the flash. Historically flash pans were introduced when the self priming pan by the Prussian and Austrian infantry was adopted.
On many years the front bead on shotguns were used as a similar sights
I wonder if the lack of back sight is related to vertical accuracy being more important than horizontal accuracy
It’s my first reenactment event tomorrow Brandon
Commander: Fire at will.
Me: Which one's Will?
The sights on the ends of the barrels are not notches, they are tabs. A notch would be a depression or small slot, not a protruding element.
An excellent vid.
To my understanding the command "Present" predates firearms and has origins in the period of the longbow/crossbow. Any thoughts ?
I wince and cringe when, in an historical movie, a commander of archers shouts "Present.....Fire".
I'll stop now because I'm in danger of going into pedant meltdown, but you know what I mean.
It is not entirely unlike the bead sights on modern shotguns.
People think of muskets as the "precursor" to the rifle when they are really more comparable to a military shotgun