Issue # 22 of this magazine Tom DeVoe in his article "MORE ON MUSKETS" brings up several points and the subject of FIRE DISCIPLINE. Tom also tells us that the subject is missing from my article on musket fire published in issue # 20 and also from my sources. The subject of FIRE DISCIPLINE may be missing..from my article, although I am speaking of fire training, but certainly not from my sources. My main source of information for this article was FIREPOWER and in that book very precisely the importance of FIRE DISCIPLINE is recognized and acknowledged several times. I think an extract from page 85 is of interest: "The effect of small-arms fire depended entirely on the standard of fire discipline in a unit. When fire could be opened at 60 yards or less, the effectiveness of the musket could be remarkably high, but any lack of control in this respect led notlonly to wasted effort but also to muskets being unloaded when they were most required. And it must not be forgotten that good fire discipline was the result not only of good training but also of the soldier having great confidence in his commanders and in the soundness of judgment." I think that is a full acknowledgment of FIRE DISCIPLINE and its importance. Tom goes on and tells us that: "Historically, units would hold their fire to allow the target to advance closer for better results." Of course such fire discipline occured in battles and I believe that the British infantry was very good at it, if not the best. An example of that can be found in FIREPOWER page 81: "(At the battle of Blenheim in 1704) ... With the superb discipline of those days the British line obeyed its orders not to open fire until its commander touched the palisades with his sword The rigidly-dressed scarlet line moved forward in complete silence until, when it was thirty paces from its objective, a French volley from 4000 muskets struck it and one third of its strength fell, killed or wounded." The same again happened at Fontenoy where musket fire was opened only at thirty paces -- this time by the British. Superb fire discipline was also displayed during the Napoleonic period especially by the British but this was not a British exclusivity. Was that kind of close rangae FIRE DISCIPLINE maintained at all times? During all circumstances? Was the standard equal for everybody? FIREPOWER again, page 83, makes an interesting statement: "(in 1743) ... As regard to small-arms all accounts agree that the fire discipline of the French infantry was inferior to that of the Allies." So, the French had, in 1743, a lower standard of FIRE DISCIPLINE than the Allies. If one analyzes the three above quotations it becomes clear that the training or fire drill was an essential ingredient of Fire discipline. I think that before we go any further we should see what the fire training or fire drill was for the different armies of the Napoleonic period. I. U.S. ARMY in 1812-14 During the Napoleonic period the U.S Army was drilled on about the same basis that the European Armies. Following is a quotation on the type of fire drill used by the U.S. Army from Philip N. Katcher, THE AMERICAN WAR OF 1812-1814 (Osprey Men-At-Arms Serie) page 32: "Two hours a day on a six days a week were devoted to drill in full uniform. The drill had been the Revolutionary War's Baron von Steuben's version of Prussian drill, but, 1812, gave way to Colonel Alexander Smyth and Lieutenant-Colonel William Duane's version of French drill." What were the instructions of the drill? Here we are lucky to find some unusual precisions in the same book page 34: "Instructions of how to win were quite explicit. On 27 November 1812, General Smyth wrote to Lieutenant-Colonel Winder., 14th Infantry, giving for battle tactics: (1) The artillery will spend some of their first shot on the enemy's artillery, and then aim at the infantry, raking them where it is practicable. (2) The firing of musketry by wings or companies will begin at the distance of two hundred yards, aiming at the middle and firing deliberate. (3) At twenty yards' distance the soldiers will be ordered to trail arms, advance with shouts, fire at five paces' distance and charge bayonets. (4) The soldiers will be silent above all things, attentive at the word of command, load quick and well and aim low." Please note point 2: "FIRING WILL BEGIN AT THE DISTANCE OF TWO HUNDRED YARDS." We are here far from the concept of firing at point blank range. It is apparently safe to assume that, according to the above drill., that FIRE DISCIPLINE for the U.S. Army in 1812 did not officially includes firing at point blank ranges, which does not mean that such point blank range fire never occurred under specific conditions. II. PRUSSIAN ARMY As a general rule, under Frederick, an infantry line was formed for an attack at about 200 yards from the enemy. The Prussian infantry never opened fire until the line was completely formed. ref. Petre, NAPOLEON'S CONQUEST OF PRUSSIA 1806, page 178 etc. However, the infantry was required to fire 6 volleys at gradually shortening ranges and finally assault from a distance of 50 yards. ref, FIREPOWER, page 94, which continue: "The evidence already presented suggests that the opening fire at such long range was unlikely to have been effective physically, and it is thought to have been carried out mainly for moral effect." Specific references giving the exact range at which musket fire was opened are difficult to find.Petre in NAPOLEON'S CONQUEST OF PRUSSIA 1806 (Petre thereafter) page 143 tells us: (At the battle of Iena) "The French skirmishers were driven in., and it was only as the Prussian got within 200 paces of the guns that they saw line upon line of fresh infantry moving against their front, or outflanking them on either wing. They halted and opened fire." The range in that instance appears to be about 200 paces or less since it certainly took some time to stop and fire. The Prussian were already in a formed line. Quimby in THE BACKGROUND OF THE NAPOLEONIC WARFARE (Quimby thereafter) page 118, quotes Guibert about the Prussian fire during the time of Frederick: "All the emphasis had, heretofore, been placed upon speed of fire, following the Prussian example which was much admired, he said. Though the Prussian battalions had the greatest rate of fire, they were also the least accurate. Their first discharge, loaded outside the action, was usually very effective, but after that the soldier did not ram the charge home. This cut the range by as much as 75%. Moreover, the men did not aim, they merely raised their guns and fired. All other armies imitated the Prussian fire which had been introduced in the French Army via its German regiments." The above is very interesting and is in full agreement with the article of Greg Novak "NOTES ON SMALL ARMS OF THE NAPOLEONIC WAR. I don't have any reference that the Prussian in 1806 and latter kept the practice of not ramming the charge home. But no evidence is not absolute proof. Perhaps someone can help here. Anyway PRUSSIAN MILITARY REFORMS 1786-1813) tell us page 22: "(in 1806) "Soldiers were as carefully trained in musketry as in drill. A volume of fire was preferred to accurate shooting; therefore, quick-loading and firing rather than target practice were stressed. Double-ended iron ramrods, large funnel-shaped holes in their flintlock muskets, and careful rehearsal of the movements of loading, gave the Prussians a speed of fire that exceeded that of any other European army. With the new muskets in use in 1806 the infantry could fire six shots a minute in practice, but only two and a half shots were expected on the battlefield. Most of the artificial styles of shooting that had been in use under Frederick the Great, such as fire by companies or sections of companies had been abandoned by 1806 in favor of battalion salvos." Most of the examples that can be found indicate that volley fire was the commonly used type of fire even against skirmishers. A multitude of examples can be found in Petre and Houssaye IENA, etc. They all fully agree. The following quotation-from Houssaye IENA, published in 1912, pages 102-103 is typical: "...Near Vierzehnbeiligen, the magnificent Prussian line halted and fired systematic platoon volleys against the French skirmishers." I think at that point the classical Prussian experiment on the efficiency of volleys at various ranges become pertinent. I have pointed out the experiment in my article ON MUSKET FIRE published in issue # 20 of this magazine. The ranges used-are up to 225 yards. Please note how that data cross references with the article of Greg Novak and all the other data presented here. The Prussian experiment can be found in Chandler THE CAMPAIGNS OF NAPOLEON. III. FRENCH ARMY A great deal of information has been published about the French army, very little on how good French fire could be is available. In many comments it is common to read that the French were sent to battle after firing only few shots, sometimes none at all. Indeed that was true on some occasions like in 1814 etc. but was it the standard practice? Indeed they were times like in 1743 in which the fire standard was lower than the fire standard of the Allies. However, the battles of the War of the Austrian Succession(1740-1745) made the French realize how efficacious fire could be. The French suffered heavily from the fire of the Hanoverian and the British especially at Minden Fontenoy. In 1754 appears the first French army Regulation on Fire. Prior to that is astonishing to find that practically no fire training was given individually or collectively. Yet, the soldiers were allowed Ao fire some 40 rounds a year but that no effective use was made of that firing. ref. Colin, L'INFANTERIE AU XVIIIe SIECLE, page 32. A few improvements had been made to increase the rate of fire by the introduction of the iron ramrod and in 1744 that of the cartridge. The Ordinance of 1754 allowed a more effective use of firearms by reducing the depth of the lines used from four to three. Several types of fire could be used. One of them is the "feu de chasseurs" (independent fire) which was deadly when well aimed while fire by command produced only mediocre effects. ref. Quimby page 85. The old fire by rank had been abolished in 1754 for a dozen years and fire was now performed by section, platoons, manche, half rank or battalion. There was in addition the "feu de chausee" to be used by columns. (We are already speaking of columns in 1754!) Speed of fire in-the deployed standard formation reached 3 to 4 shots per minute still according to Quimby page 89. The Ordinance of May 30, 1775 was chiefly notable for prescribing the fire drill to be used by the troops. They were to fire at ranges from a 100 to 220 yards and to perform the various commands for firing. This was a very specific tire instruction. Only a small amount of ammunition was allocated for that purpose. Speed and accuracy were declared to be essential. ref. Quimby page 203-204. It is of importance to note here that the Ordinance of 1791 which was in effect during the Napoleonic period was nothing more that the synthesis of all the previous Ordinances used by the French Army prior to the French Revolution. The Ordinance was even prepared by the same officers -hat were involved in the previous ordinances. That of 1791 was the work of a committee presided by the Colonel Vicomte de Noailles of the Chasseurs d'Alsace. Section---III "School of the Platoon" was the method of fire and provided that the method of fire must be done on three ranks. There were two kinds of fire permitted, that by salvos (with all its variations) and the fire of two ranks at will. In the former the entire unit fired on command. The latter was more complicated and was seldom used. Both the feu de chaussee and the feu de rang were eliminated from the Ordinance but reestablished by General Schauenbourg as it has been in the Regulation of 1788. It is generally admitted that fire by salvos and fire by two ranks sanctioned by the Ordinance of 1791 were never used in war. According to Collin the French Army only used the feu de deux rangs (two rank fire) Yet, it is also reported by General Friron that it was impossible to keep a French third rank impassible under fire. They also insisted on firing. ref. Quimby page 311. General St. Cyr says that the French infantry would fire even when formed on four or six ranks and that without waiting for the command if it was too long delayed. It is of interest here to note that the feu de rangs was successfully used by other armies especially when in square formation. Each rank fired consecutively and consequently could not be caught without fire by cavalry- Aitgood example of French infantry did not use "feu de rangs" can be found in Manceron AUSTERLITZ page 277. A square of the 1st battalion of the 4th of the Line fired a volley at the first wave of Russian cavalry and repulsed the attack; but was unable to do so with the second wave because the muskets were unloaded. British infantry squares at Waterloo were using "feu de rang". Weller in WELLINGTON AT WATERLOO, covers the subject extensively. That does not mean that French infantry in square had no fire discipline. The example of the battle of Auerstadt quoted in Houssaye IENA, page 136 is significant: "In spite order to fire a square of the 17th Light did not fire. Colonel Lancesse screams: "Fire for God Sake!" A carabinier to answer: "We have plenty of time. We'll see that at 15 paces!" In all the battle reports I can remember French infantry squares were always firing at point blank range. It is as usual very difficult to find specific ranges. In the UNIVERSAL SOLDIER one can find a report of a skirmish in which the French fired at ISO yards against British skirmishers without much effect. I don't think from the above that fire discipline for the French Army can be identified with firing at close range, which does not mean firing at close range was never practiced. Marsall Bugeaud in his MEMOIRES reports how efficient was musket fire at close range and that terrible casualties could occur, but that it was difficult to convince the soldiers to practice close range fire. IV. BRITISH ARMY I don't think it is necessary to speak at any length on the British fire discipline. We have the many examples of the British infantry coming intact from the reverse slope, then making a half circle around the surprised French columns and opening fire at very close range (30 to 50 yards). The results were dreadful and the French could not deploy under such accurate and devastating fire. That was not very very different from Fontenoy where 19 officers and 600 men of the French and Swiss Guards fell at the first British volley. V. RUSSIAN AND AUSTRIAN ARMIES I don't have very much data on hand to speak about the fire drill and discipline of the Austrian and the Russian, The Austrian are reported to have a slow but precise fire of a rate of about 2 rounds per minute. Chandler in THE CAMPAIGNS OF NAPOLEON page 45, says: "The Austrian put their faith in platoon, company and battalion volleys." Against skirmishers, the Austrian practiced, apparently, the same type of fire practiced by the Prussian in 1806. Chandler page 87, gives us an instance of such occurrence, in Italy, in which the Austrian regiment of Kehl drawn up in line was making occasional discharges against French skirmishers concealed by the brushes at the edge of the river. Of course the above was not necessarily true in 1809. Perhaps someone can help. On the Russian Army not much has been published as far as practice. We have already presented some data on that matter in past issues of this magazine from Duffy BORODINO. Here again any help from an authoritative source would be appreciated. CONCLUSIONS From the above data it is hard to identify range with FIRE DISCIPLINE. I think it would be wrong to make a rule on the release from FIRE DISCIPLINE. Instructions were issued to the U.S.Army to open fire at 200 yards. The Prussian Army was also opening fire from that distance even against skirmishers. The French were also trained to*fire above 100 yards apparently up to 200 yards. There is no question that fire from small arms is more accurate at close range but that can not be regulated by a rule. It would be unrealistic. However a firing rule including all the points presented by all of us here, including the greater efficiency of the FIRST VOLLEY would be very good. It is very likely that fire would be held as long as possible by a wise player. But that could be in contradiction with the Instructions of General Smyth for the U.S Army in 1812 for instance. It is not easy to make a rule that take. in consideration all the pertinent national differences. I think that all the data presented in my first article is pertinent. So is the data from FIREPOWER. The data presented by Mr Novak is of great interest and confirm that volley fire was practiced at 200 yards and above the classical Prussian experiment presented in my previous article). The question of range is open for individual fire against an individual target. Obviously individual fire was not too accurate above 80-100 yards except against compact formations. In spite of all that has been presented by all of us, I don't think that we are far apart. It don't think that the different types of Charleville muskets were very different (see my article of issue # 21) and there is no evidence that such older types of muskets were used by the French infantry of the.Empire. All the old stocks had been pretty much cleaned up by the huge needs of the Armies of the Revolution. Even the stock of old spare parts were used by the Revolutionary Armies with their so-called fusil deparoille. I would to conclude with a quotation from FIREPOWER, page 119: "The definition of maximum effective range for the musket is controversial. As stated in charter 23, some would put it at no more than 100 yards and other reputable authorities, remembering that in such cases as this the target was a dense mass of men in close order, would claim that effective fire could be delivered from 250 yards." Back to Empire, Eagles, & Lions Table of Contents Vol. 1 No. 24 Back to EEL List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1978 by Jean Lochet 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