Setting out to write a comprehensive work on Civil War
tactics, I decided to wade through a wide range of primary
sources: veterans' memoirs, newspapers and magazines, military
scientific treatises, etc. It soon became evident that period
tacticians and weapons experts had an entirely different few of
the rifle muskets' capabilities than most modems. Belgian ballistic
pendulum tests showed that the Enfield rifle musket had an initial
1115 ft./sec , [1] while Major
Mordecai's own tests showed this to be 1750, 1500 and 947
feet/second, for the 1841 old style rifle, smoothbore musket, and
pistol, respectively. [2]
This meant that trajectory of shots fired from all Minic type
rifled muskets were very parabolic. For accurate fire at long
range, the shooter had to correctly estimate the range of the
target and then adjust the back guides accordingly. This,
incidentally, was known as the "scientific method of firing" and
was systematically taught at Vincennes and Hythe. During the
1850s, the French military increasingly felt that the average
soldier lacked sufficient presence of mind to perform these steps
under fire and Napoleon III reemphasized the importance of
bayonet charges and withholding fire during the attack.
An examination of the effectiveness of the rifle musket in
battle seems to partially support Napoleon III's tactics. A number
of sources discuss the typical accuracy of fire during battle. An
1863 article in the Army and Navy Journal calculated that during
the Battle of Murfreesboro 145 "musket" shots were needed to
inflict a casualty, while during the battle of Gaines Mills, there
was approximately one hit per 100 shots.
Modern analysis of shots fired versus casualties inflicted
returns similar results for the Battle of the Wilderness. The
American infantrymen's ability to inflict a casualty for every 80 to
125 shots fired compares very favorably for the one to 800 ratio
observed for British infantry during the battle of Vittoria (1814)
[3]
However, concluding that the rifle musket was 6 or more
times effective than the smoothbore musket, it must be
remembered that a British observer during the Mexican
American during the Battle of Churubusco (Aug. 20, 1847)
observed that Mexican infantry inflicted one casualty for about
every 800 rounds expended, while the American infantry were
able to kill or wqound a Mexican for every 125 rounds. [4]
Here, the Americans achieved the same effectiveness with a
smoothbore flintlock as did their Successors with rifle muskets
during the Civil War. This suggests the reasons for the increased
effectiveness for American infantry fire did not stem necessarily
from the weaponry, but from how it was employed on the
battlefield.
Consider the hypothetical case where a 300-man regiment
that on average inflicts casualties equal to 0.3% of the shots
fired, the casualty rate estimated for British infantrymen during
the entire Peninsular War. Let's say ten new replacements are
experienced hunters who achieve a 25% hit rate under fire
whenever they encounter an enemy formation within 200 yards.
The remaining 295 men in the regiment continue at the 0.3% rate.
The new average for the regiment would now be equal to 295 x
.003 + 10 x .25/300 or 1.1%. In other words, the addition of five
extremely good shots would result in an overall increase of 266%
in the average rate of casualties per total shots fired by the regiment.
Notes to Above
[1] Wilcox, pp. 171, 177.
Brent Nosworthy
As a military simulation designer, first for Simulations
Publications Incorporated (SPI) and then Operational Studies
Group (OSG), Brent Nosworthy became interested in the
evolution of weapons technology and its impact on tactics and
fighting methods during the age of the flintlock. His first two
works, The Anatomy of Victory: Battle Tactics 1689 -
1763 and With Musket, Cannon and Sword: Battle
Tactics of Napoleon and his Enemies have received
international acclaim among military scholars and enthusiasts.
Turning his attention to the rifle musket and the advent of
breechloaders and repeaters, he has just published a smimilar
work dealing with the Civil War - The Bloody Crucible of
Courage: Fighting Methods and Combat Experience of the
Civil War. The book is available from leading dealers, as
well as on the internet.
[2] US, Report Small
Arms (1856), p. 108; Wilcox, pp. 171, 181.
[3] A & N Journal, Vol. 1, p. 11, fn
[4] A & N Journal Vol. 1, p. 11.
Back to Table of Contents -- Charge! #1
Back to Charge! List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 2003 by Scott Mingus.
This article appears in MagWeb.com (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com