If marksmanship skills didn't matter for line infantry esp in volley fire, why did soldiers bother aiming on their iron sights using proper stances?

[RileyFonza]

This post from Reddit is making me inquisitive.

The stereotype of Napoleonic Warfare and indeed any gunpowder war before the World War 1 is that soldiers just line up and shoot without regard to marksmanship because they assume that an enemy will get hit in the mass fire of volley. So much that I seen comments about how you don't even have to hold your rifle properly and you just shoot it in the American Civil War and earlier because you are guaranteed to hit an enemy in the mass rigid square blocks they are stuck in.

However this thread on suppressive fire in modern warfare made me curious.

https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/7vkubw/how_important_is_individual_marksmanship_is_in

The creator of the above link states despite the cliche that hundreds of bullets are spent to kill a single enemy and most tactics in modern war involves spraying at an enemy to get him to become too scared to shoot back and hide while you have one person sneak up behind the now cowering enemy and kill him, plenty of marksmanship training is still done in modern warfare.

So I have to ask if marksmanship was important even in volley fire seen before WW1 in the American Civil War and other earlier time periods in particular Napoleonic? Is it misunderstood much like modern suppression tactics is by people where they get the wrong impression that you just spray bullets on an enemy and marksmanship doesn't matter because your buddies will sneak behind them and kill them? Is it more than just "spray bullets nonstop and hope it hits the guy in front of you in a bayonet block"?

He does bring a good point about one thing-why did soldiers prior to World War 1 esp in the era of 1 bullet guns like Napoleonic and American Civil War bother learning proper stances and how to hold a rifle if warfare in the time used nonstop volleys after volleys while in formation because you'd be too blinded to shoot because of the smoke from shooting guns creating fog in the battle field? If that was true, why did soldiers bother even aiming on their iron sights as they began their volleys?

If individual aiming was useless, why not have soldiers just fire their guns at random from the hip or some other sloppy random shooting method? Why did soldiers still train to lay their eyes near the rifle as they shot like modern hunters do while aiming at deer and other prey? If volleys were used during this time because speed of shooting bullets and reloading ASAP to shoot again was the key to victory, why bother teaching soldiers on how to hold rifles in a specific way during the gunpowder eras when guns contained only a single bullet esp in the Napoleonic Wars and before Abraham Lincoln was assassinated? Most of all why did American Civil War soldiers, Revolutionary War troops, and Napoleonic armies bother aiming on their iron sights if gun accuracy was so poor and armies were expected to close in and shoot nonstop volleys where speed of reloading guns was of utmost important? Esp if the battlefield was expected to be covered with smoke thus blinding soldiers? Why no armies ever did volley fire at the hips or some random disorganized way if accuracy was based on how close you were to the enemy and the smoke blinded soldiers' vision? Why bother even aiming on your iron sights at all in such circumstances esp with the method of fighting in this era?

 

[RedRover]

This post from Reddit is making me inquisitive.



He does bring a good point about one thing-why did soldiers prior to World War 1 esp in the era of 1 bullet guns like Napoleonic and American Civil War bother learning proper stances and how to hold a rifle if warfare in the time used nonstop volleys after volleys while in formation because you'd be too blinded to shoot because of the smoke from shooting guns creating fog in the battle field? If that was true, why did soldiers bother even aiming on their iron sights as they began their volleys?

If individual aiming was useless, why not have soldiers just fire their guns at random from the hip or some other sloppy random shooting method? Why did soldiers still train to lay their eyes near the rifle as they shot like modern hunters do while aiming at deer and other prey? If volleys were used during this time because speed of shooting bullets and reloading ASAP to shoot again was the key to victory, why bother teaching soldiers on how to hold rifles in a specific way during the gunpowder eras when guns contained only a single bullet esp in the Napoleonic Wars and before Abraham Lincoln was assassinated? Most of all why did American Civil War soldiers, Revolutionary War troops, and Napoleonic armies bother aiming on their iron sights if gun accuracy was so poor and armies were expected to close in and shoot nonstop volleys where speed of reloading guns was of utmost important? Esp if the battlefield was expected to be covered with smoke thus blinding soldiers? Why no armies ever did volley fire at the hips or some random disorganized way if accuracy was based on how close you were to the enemy and the smoke blinded soldiers' vision? Why bother even aiming on your iron sights at all in such circumstances esp with the method of fighting in this era?

As mentioned, using the sights while volley firing was necessarily limited... and they were practically worthless in rapid firing by file (that mode generally used in battle lines)... Line infantry in the previous decades had, in fact, employed the firelock musket... which did not even have rear sights...

The rifle-musket of the 1850s could be fired rapidly, practically unaimed, like the musket, OR, as a rifle, aiming at an individual target at distance, as necessary.

When acting as light infantry or riflemen, viz. in skirmish order, firing at will, etc., the rifles' sights were of tremendous advantage. The previous distinction between infantry, light infantry, and riflemen in previous wars was eliminated in the 1860s.. with any rifle armed troops capable of acting as line infantry, or skirmishers or riflemen as necessary: viz. either delivering rapid firing as with the old muskets... or careful aimed fire like riflemen generally... as necessary or appropriate.

The principal tactics employed by both armies from the commencement was Hardee's "rifle and light infantry" tactics of 1855...

Both armies redesignated this system as their common "infantry tactics" generally...

General Sherman observed in his memoirs, that the troops deployed in regular lines, but in the fighting often in the looser order, where the men could make better use of their rifle's accuracy if possible...

Rifles and Rifle Practice

www.google.com

For the Union Army...

Rules for the management and cleaning of the rifle musket, model 1863, for the use of soldiers : with descriptive plates : United States. War Dept : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Springfield armory, April 28, 1863, adopted by the War department for the government of the United States troops.

archive.org

General Bragg had a system of conducting musketry instruction for the Army of Tennessee in 1863.

 

[The Ninth Ohio]

Keep in mind that loading and firing and indeed most of the school of the soldier and the company are designed just as much for the safety of the individual soldier and those around him as it is for annihilating the enemy.

I wouldn't want to be in a firing line where people are just shooting from the hip.

 

[Lampasas Bill]

Troops in line may not have been able to pick out individual targets, but the sights were useful to keep them from firing too high or too low. Of course this still happened anyway in the smoke and confusion.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

I think then, as today, there is a time for marksmanship and a time for suppression fire. Skirmish line or the first few volleys, before things got smoky, that aim would matter. Or if we're trying to shoot down an artillery crew before they could unleash canister in your face. Or if you spotted a conspicuous officer.

Part of it is drilling routine into the men. Men committed all sorts of panic errors in the heat of battle, like firing off ramrods or loading a gun multiple times without firing it. If the bullet, powder, and wad weren't all packaged together I bet some guys would load powder without bullet or vice versa. Including aiming helped smooth the process slightly (a moment where you weren't rushing) and helped ensure the bullets were flying in the right direction.

A musket also has a kick which your shoulder needs to take. Fire a musket from the hip with sweaty hands and you may not hold onto it. There are probably few long arms other than shotguns and .22-cal where it's realistically feasible to fire from the hip unless you're strong and experienced due to the recoil. (Hip-firing seems like a Hollywood trope.)

 

[7thWisconsin]

When standing in close ranks, you don´t have a lot of room to move before you start tangling your gear and musket up with those of the guys on your right, left and rear. The reason drill manuals are quite precise is so that each individual soldier has the required room to work his piece without taking up any more space in the line. You and a hundred of your closest friends are moving through the same motions at the same time, so there´s economy of space and time. This not only ensures that fire is delivered quickly, but is safer for the men in the ranks too. There´s so much more to drill than presenting and firing the musket - there´s loading, drawing fixing and returning the bayonet, not to mention the various positions for carrying the musket. Now do those movements in 2 ranks. It´s like ballet - everybody has to do the same thing at the same time as smoothly as possible.
Now in terms of actually firing - I´m certain that a large percentage of Civil War fire was delivered largely unaimed. The soldier presented the musket with the barrel roughly parallel to the ground, pulled the trigger and blzed away at no one in particular. Many soldiers were still not being taught how to use the long range sight 10 years later in the Nez Perce War. But a big chunk of lead will only travel so far before it hits something, with any luck something that is important to the enemy. Furthermore, even largely unaimed fire in your general direction (what we now call ¨suppressive fire¨) is disconcerting. It makes you start to question whether or not standing like a cigar store Indian waiting to return fire is all that good an idea.

 

[Old Soldier]

After the introduction of the Enfield P1853, especially after the Crimean War (1854/55), rifle barrels were now subject to a minimum accuracy test. The British army began serious marksmanship training out to 600 yards. Riflemen in particular, were noted for this. On infantry muskets before 1850, the backsight was either absent or a simple V. Zeroing was unknown and much depended on simple 'pointing' or aiming off - if the point of impact was known - but the emphasis was on the '3 rounds per minute'. The average volley was fired at 50 yards or less and close quarter combat was by bayonet and butt. Most European armies were similar. Marksmen were specialists. The Line and volley fire were still the norm, but the range increased. If the enemy were in large bodies of ranked lines the individual could not be determined, so the target was defined as a particular body of troops. In close country 'skirmish order' was used in much smaller, loose groups under the command of NCOs and junior officers.

In 1860 when the Rifle Volunteers were created and set up they were trained in the same way with the same rifles. Competitions revolved around 300 and 600 yards with 'specials' at 900 and 1,000 yards. All ranges were 1,000 yards where possible.

In the Civil War, most of the instructors in the early days were ex-regulars, used to the manual drills and smoothbore muskets. Officers did not train and did not join in until company and regimental drills were practised. Thus the training concentrated more on the 'three shots a minute' rather than aiming, especially since not all units were issued rifles. Natural marksmen were noted and set apart. Many of the battles were fought in close country so the instinctive 'point and fire' became the standard combat drill. There seems to be no differentiation between rifleman (marksman), light infantry (skirmishers) and line infantry regimentally although all three could be found within a regiment.

** Even after the reforms of 1903, the British Army maintained rifle fire out to 600 yards as 'individual fire', to 1200 yards as 'company fire' and anything more as 'regimental fire'. The last two were not 'volley fire' but usually directed area fire - which was rapidly overtaken by the machinegun. Volley fire continued to be used against 'primitive' enemy attacks. The original SMLE (1903) and the MkIII (1908) still had 'long range sights' on the left of the rifle allowing fire out to 3,000 yards and the standard ramp sight was graduated to 2,000 yards. This was standard on many European rifles of the time but the 'long range sights' were removed in 1916 (MkIII*).

 

[thomas aagaard]

Most of all why did American Civil War soldiers, Revolutionary War troops, and Napoleonic armies bother aiming on their iron sights if gun accuracy was so poor

Because people are greatly exaggerating the mechanical inaccuracy of the smoothbore.
The Danish army in 1855 trained the young men doing their mandatory service to use it at about 170 yards at a target representing a company in close order and multiply ranks. (so about 25men across and 6-8 ranks deep)
From the heavy skimishline that had become the main formation for fighting.

The musket used had fixed front and rear sights, but the soldiers learned where to aim.
At the knees at 60 yards,
Centermass at 120 yards (the range where the sights was in fact zeroed).
and about 6 feet above the heads at 170 yards.

From close order shooting was only done out to 120yards with smoothbores and 170yards with rifles.
(compared to 400 or 500yards when in skirmish line)

And this was all based on plenty of combat in 1848-50 with plenty of riflemusket armed men in the field.

The point is. When shooting at a close ordered formation at 100yards the musket, from a mechanical point of view, have close to a 100% hit rate. The missing at that range in combat is caused by stress, smoke and user error. Not the weapon.

And even with a modern firearm, you can easily miss at 100yards when shooting standing if you don't focus.

 

[wausaubob]

Its generally under estimated how much sport shooting there was for recreation and how many units engaged in friendly shooting contests within their army. Also it seems as if rifle fire became much more lethal by December 1862. When more US armies had Springfield rifles, it became more risky to advance on stationary US infantry position. As mentioned above, the sound of a minie ball whizzing overhead might be disconcerting, whether it hits anything human or not.

 

[Old Soldier]

Because people are greatly exaggerating the mechanical inaccuracy of the smoothbore.
The Danish army in 1855 trained the young men doing their mandatory service to use it at about 170 yards at a target representing a company in close order and multiply ranks. (so about 25men across and 6-8 ranks deep)
From the heavy skimishline that had become the main formation for fighting.

The musket used had fixed front and rear sights, but the soldiers learned where to aim.
At the knees at 60 yards,
Centermass at 120 yards (the range where the sights was in fact zeroed).
and about 6 feet above the heads at 170 yards.

From close order shooting was only done out to 120yards with smoothbores and 170yards with rifles.
(compared to 400 or 500yards when in skirmish line)

And this was all based on plenty of combat in 1848-50 with plenty of riflemusket armed men in the field.

The point is. When shooting at a close ordered formation at 100yards the musket, from a mechanical point of view, have close to a 100% hit rate. The missing at that range in combat is caused by stress, smoke and user error. Not the weapon.

And even with a modern firearm, you can easily miss at 100yards when shooting standing if you don't focus.

It may have been mechanically accurate, bit it is not the weapon that kills but the actions of the operator. Many infantrymen were just taught to point the weapon where they were told, as you say, but few saw where the ball landed. It also relies a lot on the same charge in every load,

 

[DixieRifles]

A musket also has a kick which your shoulder needs to take. Fire a musket from the hip with sweaty hands and you may not hold onto it. There are probably few long arms other than shotguns and .22-cal where it's realistically feasible to fire from the hip unless you're strong and experienced due to the recoil. (Hip-firing seems like a Hollywood trope.)

You said it better than I could.
Also when shooting from the shoulder, you support the weapon in 3 places. This steadies it so you can control it better and pick out your target, even if you are aiming in the general area.
I think it was at the Battle of Bunker Hill(Breed's Hill) where the colonists were give the order: "Hold your fire until you see the whites of their eyes". This command was not telling them where to aim but was dictating the range at which the volley was more effective.

 

[The Ninth Ohio]

It may have been mechanically accurate, bit it is not the weapon that kills but the actions of the operator. Many infantrymen were just taught to point the weapon where they were told, as you say, but few saw where the ball landed. It also relies a lot on the same charge in every load,

That's literally what he said…

 

[1SGDan]

Because every man that you knock down is one less that can kill you?

 

[wausaubob]

Its an interesting question. It might have been that putting the sharpshooters in special units, and organizing the skirmishers separately slowed down the rifle training for the inexperienced soldiers. I wonder which belligerent had the most officers who knew rifles and knew how to train accuracy. Our British friends could comment on who did the training in the British army.

 

[Specster]

I dont agree with the supposition. I think true marksmen would try to aim true EVERY TIME they fired. I think both North and South were much more God Fearing critters in 1860 than now. To kill a man was a question with many strings attached. IMO this seems to be reconstructive reality...and I hope we, in a majority, stop it dead in its tracks rather than go thru another round of revisionist Hx

 

[wausaubob]

I dont agree with the supposition. I think true marksmen would try to aim true EVERY TIME they fired. I think both North and South were much more God Fearing critters in 1860 than now. To kill a man was a question with many strings attached. IMO this seems to be reconstructive reality...and I hope we, in a majority, stop it dead in its tracks rather than go thru another round of revisionist Hx

That's the other consideration: how many soldiers were willing to put a man in their sights and watch to see if he fell?

 

[Old Soldier]

Because every man that you knock down is one less that can kill you?

When there are 10+ men charging at you and you fire your muzzle-loading rifle or musket, there is not much change in your position - especially if you haven't fixed bayonets.

Its an interesting question. It might have been that putting the sharpshooters in special units, and organizing the skirmishers separately slowed down the rifle training for the inexperienced soldiers. I wonder which belligerent had the most officers who knew rifles and knew how to train accuracy. Our British friends could comment on who did the training in the British army.

Officers did not train the men - that was far beneath them. That was the task of the NCOs - the guys who knew what they were teaching. In line regiments, many junior officers did not even know tactics or strategy, just the orders they had to shout out when they received orders from above and the very basic tactics of battle in line. They were full of honor and elan, for sure, but their life on the battlefield was often measured in minutes. This applied to most armies of the time. Honours were awarded to those who encouraged their men to achieve objectives in battle rather than skill in fighting.

Officers did not carry a rifle except in some small units of rifle regiments (British army) who were marksmen but used tactically on the battlefield. The Light Infantry were dedicated skirmishing personel and would class as a 'first contact' unit (Both the Rifles and Light Infantry marched and drilled at a faster rate (140ppm) than line infantry (116ppm). They did not join as 'specialists' but were trained as such. Their officers and NCOs were also trained in the specific tactics for small unit fighting. Regiments recruited their own from whichever area they were based since they had no county or city association at this time.

Sharp is fiction. It was rare for an NCO (common soldier) to be given a commission even in the 1860s. He could not afford mess fees or his uniforms on an officer's pay in any case. The officer was not issued weapons - he bought them. The sword was the primary weapon followed by the pistol.

 

[Old Soldier]

That's the other consideration: how many soldiers were willing to put a man in their sights and watch to see if he fell?

Marksman. The common infantryman was not a 'marksman' as such. At this time, 'marksmen' would today be termed 'sniper' - even their rifles had telescope sights (the length of the barrel). They would be shooting at around 1,000 yards at specific targets.

As others have said, there was little or no marksmanship training - getting the soldier to aim correctly - for the ordinary soldier and little practice for those who did. Aiming was a matter of luck that the rifle shot straight as there was no provision for zeroing. Both the M1861 and M 1963 had a 100m fixed 'battle sight', and had only leaf sights for 300 and 500 yards and the m1863 type 2 had only one leaf for both 300 (aperture/notch) and 500 (notch). These were hardly 'marksmans rifles'. I can guess which sight was used most.

The marksman had to wait a few seconds before their target showed any signs of being hit. He was far away. Firing in line against an opposing line, you would never really know if you had hit anybody. You would be half deaf from all the firing and your thoughts after firing were not so much looking to see whether you had hit anyone but rather how quickly you could reload. As for the common infantryman at close quarters, it was not a matter of choice. As 1SGDan says - if you didn't hit the guy you were aiming at, he would get you. That is why you had to be good with the bayonet too.

For the regular soldier, it was 'just the way it goes'. My marksmanship training in the British Army of the 70s and 80s was recorded on a book titled 'Shoot to Kill'. (It would never be named that nowadays in case it upset someone.!!)

 

[wausaubob]

When there are 10+ men charging at you and you fire your muzzle-loading rifle or musket, there is not much change in your position - especially if you haven't fixed bayonets.

Officers did not train the men - that was far beneath them. That was the task of the NCOs - the guys who knew what they were teaching. In line regiments, many junior officers did not even know tactics or strategy, just the orders they had to shout out when they received orders from above and the very basic tactics of battle in line. They were full of honor and elan, for sure, but their life on the battlefield was often measured in minutes. This applied to most armies of the time. Honours were awarded to those who encouraged their men to achieve objectives in battle rather than skill in fighting.

Officers did not carry a rifle except in some small units of rifle regiments (British army) who were marksmen but used tactically on the battlefield. The Light Infantry were dedicated skirmishing personel and would class as a 'first contact' unit (Both the Rifles and Light Infantry marched and drilled at a faster rate (140ppm) than line infantry (116ppm). They did not join as 'specialists' but were trained as such. Their officers and NCOs were also trained in the specific tactics for small unit fighting. Regiments recruited their own from whichever area they were based since they had no county or city association at this time.

Sharp is fiction. It was rare for an NCO (common soldier) to be given a commission even in the 1860s. He could not afford mess fees or his uniforms on an officer's pay in any case. The officer was not issued weapons - he bought them. The sword was the primary weapon followed by the pistol.

Probably much the same thing happened during the US Civil War. Only a few officers knew much about the rifles. That is why I always surprised to read Grant's comments about the quality of the imported rifles recovered by his units from the surrendering garrison at Vicksburg. There were just a few men like the US volunteer officer Wilder or the immigrant Confederate officer like Cleburne that knew what could be achieved with better weapons and some practice.

 

[thomas aagaard]

Probably much the same thing happened during the US Civil War. Only a few officers knew much about the rifles. That is why I always surprised to read Grant's comments about the quality of the imported rifles recovered by his units from the surrendering garrison at Vicksburg. There were just a few men like the US volunteer officer Wilder or the immigrant Confederate officer like Cleburne that knew what could be achieved with better weapons and some practice.

part of the issue that is often overlooked in the smoothbore vs rifle debate is the quality and wear and tear of the actual guns.
The smoothbores many of Grants men carried where old and worn guns when they where imported from Europe... and then used for up to 1½ years in an active war.
The guns captured was obviously also used in the same war, but many where Enfield's that where new guns when imported.
It also was a step in the direction of standardization on 577/58 cal.
So even without the potential combat multiplier from rifling the exchange of guns was a good idea.