Discussion "Aim Low" - Why?

[Pollaco]

When men along side other men start seeing their comrades getting shot in the "lower region" morale sinks fast. Alot of the enthusiasm in the charge suddenly evaporated.Some men are like that, I know I am.The idea of getting castrated by a bullet has a psychological effect.

 

[Saphroneth]

Might it also be due to fact that a high shot misses 100% of the time, but a low shot that bounces off the ground might still hit legs and and pelvis?

Again, I think the difficulty with hitting at all makes aiming low instead of aiming "to hit" a false path. That may have been part of the logic but I don't think there's any sense in it if so.

 

[Old Soldier]

Might it also be due to fact that a high shot misses 100% of the time, but a low shot that bounces off the ground might still hit legs and and pelvis?

That depends on a lot. A 'high shot' with sights unset (100 yards) at a target further away may just hit the target - in comparison 'aiming low'. Setting sights was not always a priority for some. A high shot at a close enemy (sights at 400/500yds) will certainly miss. In the early days of the war, there was a distinct lack of marksmanship training. Better to aim low (at the feet?) and get a good deflection or riccochet than accidently hit someone much further away.

 

[Saphroneth]

What I actually wonder about is if there was a corruption of a rule by osmosis. A "rule" for how to compensate for not having had time to reset the sights as the enemy closes would be to aim lower than the target by another body length or so (depending on situation of course), and if this got simplified into "aim low" it might explain it.

 

[Jeff in Ohio]

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.

A memoir by a Kentucky attorney includes a story told him by an older attorney who had served in the Spanish American War of 1898, and used the black powder trapdoor rifle...he explained that the soldiers given wide brimmed black felt hats so that, after they fired, they could use those hats to fan away the black smoke obscuring their vision!

 

[Saphroneth]

In terms of smoke generation, it should be noted that the French at Gravelotte and Mars-la-Tour with breechloading rifles that fired around 10 times per minute were able to put out a barrage of fire with a hit rate of about 1 in 50 at ranges of 500-600 yards. That's with black powder weapons. So the smoke can clearly be managed.

 

[Joe Whitworth]

A memoir by a Kentucky attorney includes a story told him by an older attorney who had served in the Spanish American War of 1898, and used the black powder trapdoor rifle...he explained that the soldiers given wide brimmed black felt hats so that, after they fired, they could use those hats to fan away the black smoke obscuring their vision!

I think you mean white smoke.

 

[Saphroneth]

I think you mean white smoke.

In 1898 it might (note this is speculation) have been "brown" or "cocoa" powder, which had a darker smoke colour. That was mostly for big guns, but as noted this is speculation.

 

[Jeff in Ohio]

I think you mean white smoke.

Yes, as you say, black powder produces white smoke.

 

[C. Cash]

Go with Occam's Razor on this one. Your just more likely to miss if you aim high. Especially if your on higher ground. Your also more likely to do damage on multiple targets if you "Draw low." Bullets keep going.

 

[Saphroneth]

Go with Occam's Razor on this one. Your just more likely to miss if you aim high. Especially if your on higher ground. Your also more likely to do damage on multiple targets if you "Draw low." Bullets keep going.

I don't think you're more likely to miss if you aim high? Unless you compare aiming high with aiming correctly - if you aim too high you miss almost as surely as if you aim too low.


That said, there's one possibility that comes to mind, which is that "aim low" is a reminder to aim for the waist not the head. In that context, then that's reminding people to aim so that an error in height of 2-3 feet either way still results in a hit, while if aiming at the head any positive height error is a miss.

All else being equal we should expect that a round aimed slightly too high will hit a man behind the man it's aimed at, while a round aimed slightly too low would strike the ground and do nothing.

 

[Old Soldier]

Who said anyone was aiming?

 

[Saphroneth]

Hmm, here's an interesting point. When I searched the ORs now for the First Bull Run campaign, I found "aim low" mentioned as advice given by then-Major Henry Hunt to his gunners. Which is correct for trying to get a grazing shot that trundles along through a unit!

I wonder if it's artillery advice, misapplied.

 

[C. Cash]

I don't think you're more likely to miss if you aim high? Unless you compare aiming high with aiming correctly - if you aim too high you miss almost as surely as if you aim too low.


That said, there's one possibility that comes to mind, which is that "aim low" is a reminder to aim for the waist not the head. In that context, then that's reminding people to aim so that an error in height of 2-3 feet either way still results in a hit, while if aiming at the head any positive height error is a miss.

All else being equal we should expect that a round aimed slightly too high will hit a man behind the man it's aimed at, while a round aimed slightly too low would strike the ground and do nothing.

Aiming low would mean lower towards the belt line/belly. You're much more likely to hit. At closer range, if you shoot high you are likely not going to hit the rank behind either downhill, uphill or even on flat ground. Your just going to miss. Bullets, even Minie balls just do not drop that fast. The bullet is still rising in it's arc at closer fighting distances. See narrative I posted above regarding Pickett's Mill. Sorry the 1st page shows up last.

 

[Saphroneth]

Bullets, even Minie balls just do not drop that fast. The bullet is still rising in it's arc at closer fighting distances.

I don't think that works, at least not at a firefight range of 100 yards? The musket is at eye level - if you fire it so that it goes level over someone just grazing their head, it's only risen about 10-20 cm.

At 100 yards, a levelled musket (no upwards angle whatsoever) takes 1/3 of a second to arrive at the target (about 900 fps versus 300 feet) so by SUVAT it's dropped about 1 meter from the point a laser dot along the barrel would illuminate. (S = ut + 1/2 a t^2, a is 9.8 and t is 1/3). So it would hit someone in the abdomen.

So if the ball passes just over someone's head, it's going to be on the down arc. Granted, it'll not be at a very extreme angle (about 1 in 90 or something like that).

 

[C. Cash]

To be sighted in at 100 yards, your bullet is going to rise and fall about 5 inches above your line of sight? At closer ranges the shot will go high of the mark if sighted for 100. Even at 100, if you miss the first rank with a high shot, you're more likely to miss who is just behind them there too. Possible you could hit them especially if on higher ground. But the practice of aiming low is going to give you more hits at fighting distances. I believe seasoned vets practiced it.

 

[Saphroneth]

To be sighted in at 100 yards, your bullet is going to rise and fall about 5 inches above your line of sight? At closer ranges the shot will go high of the mark if sighted for 100.

How close are you thinking? Granted that in very short range firefights then using sights for 100 yards is going to be inaccurate, but in very short range firefights then the accuracy problem should go away almost entirely - you don't need the sights, you just point the gun level.

 

[C. Cash]

I suppose they did just point in the smoke when their vision was obscured or when overwhelmed. But the great advantage of any rifle is it's sights. Even at shorter ranges your going to want to line up your sights. Pointing gets you in the general area of your target but you can still easily miss, especially when adrenaline is coursing through you. Sights....even rudimentary ones and a bullet that closely fits the rifling and bore were/are gamechangers. A vet would have made good use of them.

 

[Saphroneth]

I suppose they did just point in the smoke when their vision was obscured or when overwhelmed. But the great advantage of any rifle is it's sights. Even at shorter ranges your going to want to line up your sights. Pointing gets you in the general area of your target but you can still easily miss, especially when adrenaline is coursing through you. Sights....even rudimentary ones and a rifled bullet that fits the bore are gamechangers.

Assuming they're actually being used, of course - but the evidence strongly suggests that American musketry was on the whole not sufficiently advanced for this. The hit rate in firefights is comparable to the Napoleonic War smoothbore hit rates, or in some cases somewhat worse, despite combat taking place at Napoleonic smoothbore range.

 

[C. Cash]

Assuming they're actually being used, of course - but the evidence strongly suggests that American musketry was on the whole not sufficiently advanced for this. The hit rate in firefights is comparable to the Napoleonic War smoothbore hit rates, or in some cases somewhat worse, despite combat taking place at Napoleonic smoothbore range.

I don't know. I think the shot/kill and wound ratios would be very hard to compare and qualify. I just know there were bodies piled on top of each other several layers deep in many of these CW battles. The carnage during the Revolution was bad but it became obscene during the Civil War. I think of Cleburne's or Cheatham's men. Pickett's Mill, Kennesaw Mtn. dead angle, Antietam, Gettysburg, Shiloh etc.