Discussion "Aim Low" - Why?

[Kennedy]

Over the years I've heard that CW infantry were instructed to "aim low." Is this for real or a myth? And why aim low? Does it have something to do with firearms or ammo in general or with the firearms or ammo in use at the particular time, the kickback of the firearm, or what? I have no idea, but no doubt someone here will know. Thanks! KT, Columbus Ohio

 

[Jamieva]

Better chance to hit someone, more mass from the neck down.

 

[Story]

Still holds valid.
It's easy to aim too high in the heat of the moment.
If you aim low but hit high, then you'll likely strike him in the chest.
If you aim low and hit a guy in the pelvis, he's not going anywhere at best /bleeding out (at worst, for him)
[Afterthought - this will come in particularly useful during the next Zombie Apocalypse]​

 

[Borderruffian]

Because in combat there was and still can be a tendency to aim higher and thus negate hits on target. The rifles during the ACW had a somewhat arcing trajectory modern weapons have flatter trajectory but nerves effected both ACW Riflemen and modern Riflemen.

 

[Sowbelly and Hardtack]

Why did Civil War officers tell their men to "aim low"?

I'm listening to Gettysburg by Stephen W. Sears and the officers on both sides seem to always exhort their men to "aim low". For instance, General John Gibbon told his 2nd Division infantry: Do...

history.stackexchange.com

"The sights on the Springfield Model 1861 had settings for three distances: 100, 300, and 500 yards. In the civil war, however, many battles were fought at much closer range. According to Battle Tactics of the Civil War (Paddy Griffith) many were fought inside of 100 yards. At this shorter range, the bullet didn't drop as much as the sights were calibrated for. Worse, it's almost inevitable that at least a few were using an incorrect setting, so their sights were calibrated for the even longer distances. If you were shooting only 50 yards with the sight calibrated for 500, the projectile was going to hit a lot higher than where you aimed.

Another point to keep in mind is that many of the soldiers were probably accustomed to shooting various hunting arms. A military load used a prescribed amount of powder that was intended (as you can probably guess from the sight calibration) to maintain accuracy out to around 500 yards. Most people hunting at the time almost certainly used considerably less powder to minimize their costs (at the time, hunting wasn't a game to play in the fall; it was a primary source of protein). Most were probably accustomed to compensating for a fairly extreme trajectory, but the military load shot much "flatter".

There is another point that isn't specific to that particular war, but it's probably still significant: shooting high tends to either kill (if you happen to hit somebody in the head) or miss completely. Although missing is obviously undesired, what may be less obvious is that killing generally isn't considered the optimal result either.

It's actually generally preferred that you wound an enemy rather than kill him. Although it doesn't always happen, if a soldier is wounded there's some chance that one of his comrades will attempt to rescue him and get him back to where his wounds can be tended to by medical personnel (or at least get him out of the line of fire). When/if that happens, you've effectively taken not just one, but two enemy soldiers out of action (at least temporarily). Although a rescuer might come back into battle later, getting even a few extra enemy soldiers out of the battle at the right times could be decisive if the two sides started the battle almost evenly matched.

Aiming low increases the chances of wounding an enemy rather than killing him (at least immediately)."

 

[R. Porter]

I can't help but think that when using a cheap target bow and arrows from, say, Walmart or the local hardware store, if you don't aim low you'll probably miss the target and fly over the backstop altogether. It's that whole parabolic vs. flat trajectory thing.

 

[7thWisconsin]

People under stress aim high. It´s not just the nerves. The trigger pull on a musket is ferocious and you may as well just pull your whole hand back toward your shoulder as try to squeeze the trigger. So the entire weapon is going to raise up when you do that. It´s been said the deadliest place on the battlefield was about a foot over your head. You know, that space you have to put your right forearm every time you load the musket. Not surprisingly, right forearm was a very common wound.

 

[thomas aagaard]

If you got 30 minutes watch this video from Brett gibbons about the Danish M1848 Taprifle.
(So an early rifle musket using the "pillar-breech" system)

It cover this very topic, because Brett where shooting way way high and he could not figure out why.
(and he own and shot a number of different rifle muskets and have written a number of "must have" books on rifle muskets and paper cartridges)

 

[thomas aagaard]

It´s been said the deadliest place on the battlefield was about a foot over your head.

here is a quote from "Ten years in the ranks" by August Meyers:
(at this point, summer 1864 he is serving as brigade ordonnance sergeant in the regular brigade AoP)

I made the important part Bold, but the entire text is telling about the skilllevel of the soldiers.

Lieutenant Pond, who had reported for duty, ordered me outside of the breast-works during the afternoon of this day with wagons and a large detail of men to collect the abandoned arms on the battle-field. The wounded had been removed and the dead buried; only dead horses remained. After dark I was sent out again to the picket line on the ground of the first day's battle. There we collected a large number of arms, remaining until approaching daylight warned us to depart and avoid drawing the enemy's picket fire. On the following night this was repeated under a heavy, soaking rain. I collected upwards of fifteen hundred fire-arms, of which more than half were those of the Rebels. There were rifles, muskets and carbines; also bayonets, swords, belts and cartridge boxes. The arms were rusty from having lain on the field during several days' rain.

It was necessary to classify these arms, make a report of them and turn them over to the ordnance depot at City Point. This work kept me, with the assistance of the ammunition guard, occupied for several days. Arms that were charged had to be fired, or the charges withdrawn, which was difficult in their rusty state. This work proved interesting to me and coincided with my own observations when in the ranks with my company in battle. I found that the ram-rods were missing from a considerable number of discharged guns, and a greater number had failed to be discharged on account of defective caps, or a befouled nipple. Some were doubly charged, and an occasional one had three, or even four, cartridges in the barrel, indicating that the soldier continued to load without noticing that his piece had not been discharged. Others were bursted at the muzzle, showing that the tompion had not been removed before firing. There were some with stocks broken by violence, probably by cool-headed men taken prisoners, who thoughtfully rendered their arms unserviceable. Such of the guns as had more than one charge in the barrel were fastened to a tree and, after fresh priming, we pulled the trigger with the aid of a string, at a safe distance. A few that could neither be drawn nor discharged, we buried in the ground. It has been said that it takes a man's weight in lead for every soldier killed in battle. I am inclined to almost believe that, from my own observations and from the amount of ammunition I knew to be expended on the battle-field of the Weldon Railroad, where I noticed innumerable bullet marks on trees standing on level ground, at height that could only endanger birds.


The entire book can be found her:
Ten Years in the Ranks, by Augustus Meyers—A Project Gutenberg eBook
It is worth the time to read. He served from 5 years in the prewar army as a musician, and then reenlisted in summer 1860 serving for 5 years in the regular army during the war.

 

[Pollaco]

By aiming low you can see your target. The smoke of 10,000 rifles with Black Powder going off all at once would be obscuring your vision from about waist up on man sized targets. Clouds of smoke!

 

[Lampasas Bill]

Of all the many first person accounts I've read, there are frequent mentions of a unit avoiding casualties because the enemy fired too high, but never of them firing too low. Units on a higher elevation were especially prone to firing too high.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

Units on a higher elevation were especially prone to firing too high.

I recall reading of a few engagements where the high ground was thought to have proven a detriment for that reason.

 

[thomas aagaard]

By aiming low you can see your target. The smoke of 10,000 rifles with Black Powder going off all at once would be obscuring your vision from about waist up on man sized targets. Clouds of smoke!

Not if the day is windy then it is gone very quickly

But when completely calm and the right weather 30 men with muskets and a 12pounder can cover a field in 3 shots each to an extent that you can't see more than30 yards... and it takes a hour to lift.

But note that the blackpowder used today is way way more dirty and ineffective compared to 19th century blackpowder... and as such generate more smoke.

 

[7thWisconsin]

Of all the many first person accounts I've read, there are frequent mentions of a unit avoiding casualties because the enemy fired too high, but never of them firing too low. Units on a higher elevation were especially prone to firing too high.

There´s a primary account of the first shot a man fired. I can´t remember where I saw it last but it includes the words ¨and blazed away at no one in particular.¨ It´s been said that among these citizens turned soldiers, that a lot of them, at least in the beginning, didn´t necessarily want to hurt someone, or at least have it on your conscience that you did. So the level of marksmanship was appalling not only from training, or lack of training, but from psychological design.

 

[Pollaco]

Why is today's Blackpowder any more dirty and ineffective then the 19th century Black powder? It's made with the same ingredients isn't it?

 

[Old Soldier]

Aim high and you are likely to miss completely. Aim low and you will hit something. A shot into pelvis or legs will certainly 'down' them. Marksmanship was, apparently, not a priority in training new recruits, so things like 'sight picture' and 'aiming mark' would not have been apparent.
**For anyone trained to shoot, it is second nature, but how do you aim if you have not done this before and the instructor just says 'point the rifle' or 'look down the barrel' as some will have done.

 

[Snowbound]

At the battle of Assunpink Creek/2nd Trenton Cornwallis made three attempts to storm the bridge and break the army. Washington personally asked Col Charles Scott him to defend the bridge, "to the last extremity," Scott replied, "to the last man, excellency."

Scott is reported to have addressed his men "Well boys, you know the old boss has put us here to defend this bridge; and by God it must be done, let what will come. Now, I want to tell you one thing. You're all in the habit of shooting too high. You waste your powder and lead, and I have cursed you about it a hundred times. Now I tell you what it is, nothing must be wasted, every crack must count. For that reason boys, whenever you see them fellows first to put their feet upon this bridge do you shin' em. [Shoot them in the shins!]"

 

[thomas aagaard]

Why is today's Blackpowder any more dirty and ineffective then the 19th century Black powder? It's made with the same ingredients isn't it?

The by fare biggest buyer of blackpowder in north america is the US military.
They use blackpowder in Artillery shells and a lot of the smaller explosives that are used for exercises.

So most modern blackpoweder is not made for shooting muzzlelaoded smallarms, but for modern day military use.
And for that use consistency is of critical importance since an "item" made today need to work exactly like one made in 1995.

But fouling is all but irrelevant.

Brett Gibbons that I mentioned before is a Major in the US army and currently deployed in command of an ammunition company.
He have made small quantities of blackpowder using the method the brits used. And he gets velocities that match the historical records with his Enfield and cartridges that are an exact copy of the historical one.

With modern blackpowder (including swiss) you simply don't get the same results....but lower velocities.
And it foul way more and generate more smoke So the modern powder burn less effectively.

The critical difference is what type of wood is used for the charcoal.

 

[Pollaco]

The by fare biggest buyer of blackpowder in north america is the US military.
They use blackpowder in Artillery shells and a lot of the smaller explosives that are used for exercises.

So most modern blackpoweder is not made for shooting muzzlelaoded smallarms, but for modern day military use.
And for that use consistency is of critical importance since an "item" made today need to work exactly like one made in 1995.

But fouling is all but irrelevant.

Brett Gibbons that I mentioned before is a Major in the US army and currently deployed in command of an ammunition company.
He have made small quantities of blackpowder using the method the brits used. And he gets velocities that match the historical records with his Enfield and cartridges that are an exact copy of the historical one.

With modern blackpowder (including swiss) you simply don't get the same results....but lower velocities.
And it foul way more and generate more smoke So the modern powder burn less effectively.

The critical difference is what type of wood is used for the charcoal.

I most definitely agree the type of wood used in the charcoal process is the "difference". But are you saying that the gunpowder companies are making two batches? One for the military and another for civilian use? If so why? The only reason that makes any sense is cost maybe?

 

[yulzari]

The military are not concerned with performance or fouling. What they want is consistency. It must go bang the same way every time to set off the modern explosive propellant. As long as it does that they are happy.
The civilians want maximum power, minimum fouling and done cheaply. These three conflict. Only the Swiss Aubonne works sells the top end with best wood, long milling and density with consistent granulation and low fouling.

Each supplier to the civilian market sells some sort of compromise.. For instance the French government Vectan black powder is made from the same machinery and materials as go into making French artillery shells. Their 'mousquet' powder is a mix of granulations and is cheap and somewhat dirty. Their cheapest 'chasse ' powder is a mix of all the sweepings it appears to me.

Swiss is a very good approximation of good powders of the forum period. Some others are way behind. As ever "yer pays yer money and yer takes yer choice". The period issue powders were not all the same depending upon various factors in manufacture, transport and storage. Swiss uses the best alder buckthorn wood, as does Vectan curiously enough but very differently processed.