From: daggs@l42bb.jsc.nasa.gov (Clark)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Aiming.
Date: 1 Sep 1992 14:08:47 GMT
Organization: Houston Civil War Roundtable

In article <1992Aug30.225754.6360@iscsvax.uni.edu> dargan@iscsvax.uni.edu
writes:
>In article <Btt8zC.5tB@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, tbarnes@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
(thomas wrentmore barnes) writes:
>> In article <1992Aug29.220134.4444@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
pdunn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Patrick L Dunn) writes:
>>>In article <1992Aug27.235139.2348@bnlux1.bnl.gov> COWAN@ANL.GOV writes:
>>>>If every man was firing 60 aimed shots at a roughly
>>>>equal number of opponants, why wasn't everybody killed? With an assumption
of
>>>>equal numbers on both sides, 25% casualties means only 1 of 4 soldiers (on
>>>>average) hit any thing with his 60 shots. That is 1 hit per 240 shots! You
cal
>>>l
>>>>that aiming? And this totally ignores all the casualties due to artillery
fire
>>>>and the fact that healthy prisoners were also included among the
"casualties".
>>>>Even accounting for the fact that not all units saw heavy fighting even in
the
>>>>biggest battles, and the fact that the armies stood far apart the accuracy
rat
>>>e
>>>>seems amazingly low. After all they were shooting at errect targets
standing i
>>>n
>>>>a (more or less) straight line. Do any re-enactors out there have a feel
for
>>>>where all those other shots went?
>>>
>> 
>> I am not a reenactor, but I am a historical wargamer (and wargamers
>> spend endless amounts of time debating this sort of stuff). There are
>> many reasons why accuracy with infantry weapons is so low in battles. In
>> the ACW the reasons were:
>> 
>> POOR WEAPONS - Not all units went to war with the new En-/Spring-field
>> rifle musket. Many units carried flint-lock, smoothbore muskets which
>> were only accurate out to about 50 meters and only really effective en-masse
>> out to about 250 meters. Some units (esp. Confederate) still carried
>> 
>I'm skeptical about significant numbers of either side carrying smoothbores or
>flintlocks after the winter of '61.  
>
>smoothbores of some sort or another at the war's end. 
>> 
>> COMPLEX LOADING SEQUENCE - Men in battle are fearful and confused by the
>> incredible noise and lack of a sense of what is going on. A rifle musket
>> takes at least six seperate steps to load (tear catridge, pour powder
>> into muzzle, put ball and paper into muzzle, tamp charge with ram rod,
>> withdraw ram rod, lift hammer, place cap on nipple) in the heat of
>> battle many men performed this sequence incorrectly or more than once.
>> At best this means a wasted round or a wasted cap priming an empty
>> chamber, at worst it means you have to spend 5 minutes drilling out the
>> ball after you forgot to put powder in, having the gun blow up in your
>> face because you didn't tamp the charge right or double loaded it, or
>> shooting away your ram rod. Even if a unit in combat takes no
>> casualties, it will lose firepower as men make mistakes with their
>> weapons. This means that a lot of cartidges never got fired or were
>> wasted.
>> 
>> POOR VISIBILITY - ACW battlefields tended to have thick vegetation (by
>> European standards) and got smoky from all the gunfire (esp. cannon
>> fire) very quickly. The combined effect of all of these factors was that
>> many times an infantryman never got a good look at a live enemy. All he
>> saw was an enemy flag on the edge of a wood lot through a thick haze of
>> smoke. Firing blind greatly reduces accuracy.
>> 
>> LACK OF PRACTICE - ACW regiments tended to devote most of their training
>> to close order drill rather than rifle practice. This might have been
>> different for sharpshooter units, but most men (in spite of the myth
>> that every American boy of the period grew up with a gun in his hand and
>> could shoot the eyes out a squirrel at a mile) had very little concept
>> of how to shoot accurately. A rifle bullet in flight tends to rise and
>> then fall in a long arc. This means that a shot at a man 100 meters away
>> is likely to go over his head, rather than through his chest. Many
>> vicious looking firefights resulted in few casualties because of this
>> and other factors. (It also explains why officers told their men to
>> "shoot when you see the whites of their eyes" - point blank range, or to
>> "aim for their belt buckles", or to "aim low").
>> 
>> PANIC - A man in combat has very little sense of what is going on around
>> him. The noise of thousands of rifles going off at once is incredible.
>> People around him are killed and wounded in dozens of horrible ways.
>> Many men develop tunnel vision, breathing is quick and breathes are
>> shallow, many men shake with fear. All of these factors make aimed shots
>> virtually impossible. Men in modern combat shoot to supress the enemy,
>> move to cover and shoot again. Many soldiers just hide and don't fire
>> their guns at all. Others shoot in the air or in the general direction
>> of the enemy.  U.S. WWII after-action reports revealed that only 25% of
>> men in combat ever fired their weapons and that it took about 1000 shots
>> for each gunshot casualty inflicted. This was with the soldiers carrying
>> bolt-action, clip fed rifles. Imagine how much more difficult it would
>> be to hit something if you were carrying a smoothbore, flintlock
>> musket!
>> 
>>    In general though, accuracy didn't matter so much as shock effect,
>> especially when stopping charges. A regiment would generally start out
>> firing volleys and then go to "fire at will" trying to spit out as much
>> fire as possible. The effect was to make the enemy realize that he was
>> being shot at and demoralize him enough that he would retreat or could
>> be swept away by a charge or a threat of charge.
>> 
>> Tom \|/
>>      0
>> 
>Actually, projectiles *never* rise above a line formed parallel to the bore of
>the musket.  What you are talking about is a *perceived* rise that is the
>result of parallax which results from having the rear sight elevated somewhat
>so that the gun is *actually* aimed in high so that the projectile will cross
>the sight line at least twice.  A small point perhaps, but one that often
>confuses.
>
	Ditto the above, but I must add a thing or three...

RANGE - most prolonged firefights took place at ranges in excess
of 200 yards. At that range even a good shot who has taken ample 
time to aim will have trouble hitting a melon (head) sized target, 
especially a moving one, and that assumes that you can see it. 
Even my 20-15 vision has trouble aquiring a target that isn't
safety orange at that range. The issue of range is not at all
unique to the ACW. In other wars where rifled small arms were 
the norm firefights took place beyond the accurate range of the 
shooter. Anyone so foolish as to get closer (without the advantage 
of cover) usually got shot. 

MASSED FIRE - In a prolonged firefight, lots of people are 
discharging their weapons in your general direction. Most aiming
opportunities require you to expose yourself. If many enemies are
carelessly throwing lead in your direction while you aim, you die.

LOADING SEQUENCE - to add to Mr. Wrentmore's comments, there is
a step in the sequence wherein the Minie ball must be crushed in
order to engage the rifling. If this is not properly performed
then the rifle-musket becomes no better than a smoothbore; the ball
will bounce around the bore and tumble in the air, reducing range
and eliminating any semblance of accuracy.

REGULARS Vs. VOLUNTEERS - Small arms target practice was not required
in the US army until the 1880's. I believe that the army did not 
allocate ammunition for this purpose before the war (I am certain, 
however that this was true from 1865 until after Little Big Horn). 
On the other hand, most militia companies had regular drill and 
practice, albeit lax discipline. It really is a case by case sort of thing.
Some US regulars were deadly accurate shots (i.e. 2nd US 
Cavalry), while others seldom drilled (ditto the Militia). There 
were volunteer regiments with a high proportion of hunters so it
is really difficult to compare most regulars to most volunteers. 

Clark J. Daggs
1864 El Mar Ln.
Seabrook, Texas 77586
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa