Army Life And Marksmanship

[Don Dixon]

All depended in what Army Unit you served in. Your Elite Units as in Ranger Batts or SF get plenty of range time. It's said Marines are Riflemen first and they place a big effort in Rifle Marksmanship. It's all in the Training. Better Training, better results. Whether CW, Military, or Law Enforcement. Main reason you see so many Law Enforcement mistakes, No Training or poor Training. Same for a CW Unit. Some Departments or Agencies only qualify once or twice a year.

In 2010 Staff Sergeant Jeffrey Wall, California National Guard, wrote that troops deploying to Afghanistan received:

"…1 day on the rifle range. According to 1st​ Army standards we are to – ideally – train a rifleman going to war with 58 rounds of ammunition – 18 to zero and 40 to qualify on the 'Pop up Target Range.'
"Let me say that again – 58 rounds.
"What is not trained when Soldiers are sent to war after having fired only 58 rounds? Well let's see – long range marksmanship, range estimation, the effects of wind and gravity on trajectory, short range marksmanship, gun handling skills such as rapid magazine changes and enough practice to cement these skills – all things that might help in Afghanistan.
"In the civilian world one might call this 'criminally negligent.'" [emphasis in original] (Wall, "A Rifleman's War," Small Wars Journal, 9 September 2010)

Sergeant Wall holds the Distinguished Rifleman Badge, was a member of the All-National Guard Shooting Team, and was training deploying units. In the early stages of the 2nd war in the desert the Army recruited Distinguished shooters through the Civilian Marksmanship Program and hired contractors to train deploying units because it didn't have the internal resources to conduct effective training. In 150 years the Army has learned virtually nothing. Over-all, the Marines are better. Not necessarily good, just better. Don't ever get in a rifle fight with the Swiss.

Regards,
Don Dixon
LTC, USA (Ret)

Distinguished Rifleman Badge
Distinguished Pistol Shot Badge
President's Hundred Tab (Service Rifle and Pistol)
Shooting member of two winning National Trophy (Dogs of War) Teams
Shooting Member of a winning Interservice Team and winning 1,000 Yard Service Rifle Team.

 

[Sheltowee]

Just some additional comments from my recollections as an infantryman- 40 years ago.

Full disclosure- I was enlisted National Guard, and did not live the life of a grunt, 24/7. My highest regards to those who do/ did. Their comments should bear far greater weight than mine. Also, my time in was during the Cold War, when major strategy hinged on a massive Soviet assault thru the Fulda Gap. Army doctrine has obviously changed, since then.

The way I understood it, due to superiority of Warsaw Pact numbers- the conventional strategy was primarily defensive..... at least initially. If wrong, please correct me. My unit had a Capstone mission designated as "cold weather, island defense". Since BRAC has closed the base, I assume OK to share that we were tasked with defending the naval base at Adak Island.

I guess the keyword here is "defense". We went to the field, and immediately created a defensive posture with 2-man fighting positions, and cleared fields of fire. We would conduct frequent stealth reconnaissance patrols. But, as I recall it, a "good day" would be that where you spotted an enemy formation- and then called in artillery/ air strikes. With that said, long-distance rifle work was not emphasized. In the case of close contact- the enemy was neutralized via maneuver (called bounding overwatch, if I remember) at near distance. Close combat with overwhelming firepower.

We qualified once/ year on pop-up targets. The closest was 50 or 75 meters- the furthest was 400 meters (I think). It was quite possible to pass, and never hit anything beyond 200 meters. I know there were many 400 meter targets that I would never see, unless the sun glinted off them, as they raised. True- the effects of wind, gravity, trajectory were never taught. But how much effect on a 200m target?

So just some scattered memories- and I guess it true that true marksmanship was not as valued. But, we focused on a defensive posture, utilizing indirect fire. I wonder if there is more attention on marksmanship today?

 

[thomas aagaard]

I've always been under the impression that the tactics of the day, imported from Europe, placed more emphasis on getting the soldiers to move in unison in large groups rather than on individual marksmanship. Hence, lots of time was spent in drilling, not shooting.

By 1861 most(if not all) European armies had structured marksmanship programs... just a clear difference in how many shorts each soldier got to fire. (But even firing a few rounds under instruction is massively better than firing no shots with no instruction)

The Danish 1858 program would result in soldiers who had experience at hitting a target simulating a enemy line at 400yards.
(but because of budget issues the shooting part of the program was more often than not followed to its full extent)

And the basic way a soldier learned how to shoot in 1858 is the same as the British system then and the exact same as when I did my mandatory service back in 2001. And it works. (and we did plenty of shooting at 400m withy our H&KG3s)

And some armies had made the heavy skirmishline the main way of fighting and their doctrine was based on wining with firepower.
This include the brits, Denmark, prussia a few of the other german states.
The Austrians had gone that way, then lost in 1859 and changed back to a bayonetcentric system.
But the handbook on the Lorenz still have a good chapter on marksmanship.

 

[thomas aagaard]

It CW times bayonet wounds are a rarity.

It was also rare during earlier wars. The bayonet is a moral weapon. Close combat between two infantry units in the open is very rare in all periods. Either the attack gets stopped by firepower or the attacker fall back/run away. (when we se a lot of close combat its in villages, woods and fortifications.)

And if you drive the enemy back with no bayonet wounds... it is still an effective weapon.

 

[thomas aagaard]

The reason for such high casualties. The weapons more advanced then the Tactics.

Actually not. The french 1845 drill that was used during the civil war, had been updated to a battlefield with rifle muskets.
And since most soldiers didn't know how to shoot at long distance the improved firearms had little impact on the tactics.

What the drillbook do not factor in. Is the lack of battlefield cavalry.
One big reason you need to mass your infantry is to be able to form square very very quickly. But when that is no threat you can open up the formations with no risk.

And terrain. North america was simply less open than Europa. So you need more open formations

We see the exact same during the 7 year war (French Indian war) and the war of independence.
The brit drop their 3 rank close ordered formations and use a 2 rank extended order as the standard way of fighting.

And we see the same during the civil war. From the drillbook close ordered formations early in the war to more open more loose formations late in the war.
And it can all be explained by terrain and lack of cavalry.

 

[thomas aagaard]

Don't ever get in rifle fight with the Swiss.

The swiss sure know how to have a well trained and "well regulated" militia...

"58 rounds of ammunition" That just criminal.

When training for Afghanistan* I think we shoot way to little in general. But there was one exception.

I (and most of the others) had to unlearn how we did close combat reaction shooting. And learn a new way.
(things had changed a lot from my time doing mandatory service in 2001-02 to 2007 when I trained for deployment)

Spend two workdays shooting half the time and dry training the other half. Must have gone true 750-1150 rounds each day.

And then on the following monday I did the actual program where you walk down a path and targets popup.
Mentally I was telling myself. "remember the new way, remember the new way"
First target pop up and I used the old way.
A good example of how how the system worked. It was simply muscles memory... despite having been a civilian for 5 years.
And two days on the range had not been sufficient to unlearn it.
(If I was handed a "M4" today I would very likely still do the old way in a quick and effective manner... despite not havening shot a "M4" for close to 15 years)


* I later hurt my knee in soccer match during PT, so ended up not deploying. So by danish standards Iam not a veteran.

 

[Lincoln56]

Unfortunate wording... I don't think Hess bears as much responsibility as people who run with the error and propagate a new myth.

It is the case that as a general rule, ordnance development has long sought a higher velocity bullet in large part because the projectile will have a flatter trajectory. The flatter the trajectory, the less "drop" at realistic ranges, the less "arc," and an improved ability of the typical person firing a rifle to hit what s/he is shooting at, regardless of the misunderstanding of the actual range.

People were wowed and astonished with the capabilities of the new ogival-conoidal bullets, i.e. the compression types, the skirted Minie/Burton balls, and the paper patched Enfield/ Pritchett varieties. But the necessity of correctly estimating the range and setting the sights was paramount. Absent the training and ability to use the sights, there was indeed a so-called "dead space" where the bullets would sail harmlessly well above the heads of the enemy...

A far more dubious proposition, becoming dogmatized into a hardened myth, at least in my view, is the notion that officers were unconcerned about marksmanship in the era of smooth-bores. Going all the way back to "Old fuss and feathers" Winfield Scott, there are detailed descriptions of the "best practices" of the time to promote marksmanship among the ranks, descriptions of targets, recommendations that a booklet be kept recording scores and so on. All of this is simply vanished away with assertions that smooth-bores were understood to be inaccurate, and hence, there was no concern about it. What the actual practice was could be at considerable variance with the published recommendations but thanks to digitization, we can all actually consult the primary resources and read what officers of the past thought was a good or a bad idea...

Recall reading no rear sights were installed on smoothbores as they expected high volume volley fire as @jackt62 describes in post 5 above.

Is this correct regarding the rear sight or a misconception?

 

[FedericoFCavada]

Recall reading no rear sights were installed on smoothbores as they expected high volume volley fire as @jackt62 describes in post 5 above.

Is this correct regarding the rear sight or a misconception?

There were no rear sights on the great preponderance of smooth-bore muskets. It was basically "aimed" a bit like a shotgun bead. Some designs used a bayonet lug on the top of the barrel as a "sight" while others had a brass or steel piece on the front barrel band.

Modern smooth-bore musket shooters highly prize the old Prussian Potsdam musket (mostly a copy of French muskets) because it does have a front and rear sight, albeit rudimentary. By the end of the smooth-bore period, other musket designs began to install a crude rear sight... Even some of the later "Brown Bess" pattern muskets.

 

[Don Dixon]

Recall reading no rear sights were installed on smoothbores as they expected high volume volley fire as @jackt62 describes in post 5 above.

Is this correct regarding the rear sight or a misconception?

It is true of the U.S. Army. The Germanic armies equipped their smoothbores with rear sights. The expectation in the Austrian Army was that the best shots with Muster 1842 smoothbore muskets could hit a man-sized target at 200 Schritt [164 yards/151 meters], that massed fire would be effective against an infantry company front at 250 Schritt [205 yards/189 meters], and at a cavalry formation at 300 Schritt [246 yards/227 meters]. This was considerably different that U.S. Grant's oft quoted statement that "you might fire at a man all day from a distance of 125 yards [with an American musket] without him ever finding it out."

Regards,
Don Dixon

 

[Yankeedave]

The Army spends much time on the range also. All must qualify before going onto their respective a.i.t. and mos.

 

[Yankeedave]

And the manual of arms at the time says that shoulder to shoulder is a touch at the elbows.

 

[bayonet]

The Army spends much time on the range also. All must qualify before going onto their respective a.i.t. and mos.

Yeah and when their done with that and report to their Unit how much Range time you think they get? I knew Leg Units that only qualified once or twice a year, same as some LEO Agencies & Departments. Not enough!

 

[Yankeedave]

That I got? 3-4 days a week for 13 weeks. After I duty posted it depended on where we were and what we did. Real time and running through what was done when back "home".

 

[Yankeedave]

And BTW fellas, napoleonic tactics in wide open France translates poorly to Mississippi etc.

 

[bayonet]

Actually not. The french 1845 drill that was used during the civil war, had been updated to a battlefield with rifle muskets.
And since most soldiers didn't know how to shoot at long distance the improved firearms had little impact on the tactics.

What the drillbook do not factor in. Is the lack of battlefield cavalry.
One big reason you need to mass your infantry is to be able to form square very very quickly. But when that is no threat you can open up the formations with no risk.

And terrain. North america was simply less open than Europa. So you need more open formations

We see the exact same during the 7 year war (French Indian war) and the war of independence.
The brit drop their 3 rank close ordered formations and use a 2 rank extended order as the standard way of fighting.

And we see the same during the civil war. From the drillbook close ordered formations early in the war to more open more loose formations late in the war.
And it can all be explained by terrain and lack of cavalry.

Actually Yes, regardless of what some French Manuel said both sides used massed Infantry assaults using Napoleanic and earlier tactics. That may have worked against smoothbore flintlock muskets that took longer to load and had an effective range of 50 yards. BUT Rifled percussion Muskets which could be loaded faster (worse if armed with a carbine or rifled Spencer or Henry) and an effective range of 300 yards. Fredericksburg proved my point. Artillery had rifled barrels now that extended there range greatly. Plus much of the Leadership early on was clueless and amateur on how to fight battles just going on old Manuels or how their Grandfathers fought.
All this talk on lack of marksmanship folks forget many Southern Boys (and some North) already knew how to shoot and hunt with a firearm. Didn't take much effort to point down a barrel and fire on slowly moving massed Infantry especially when your firing upon them with a massed volley. Plus the minie ball was a much more devastating wound than the round ball, it moved faster, farther, and penetrated more. The Tactics were outdated when going up against the weapons of that time.
Also your comment on the Brits going from 3 to 2 line formation is not totally correct. Some engagements here during the Rev War the Brits still kept a loose less numerical 3rd rank. Their job was to bayonet or bash in the skulls with their musket butts any surviving or wounded Americans they overran. That way the first two lines would not break ranks or be delayed in doing it. Several archaeological digs at numerous Rev War battles have discovered many remains of Americans with bashed in skulls confirming this.

 

[Craig L Barry]

"Some of our boys got Austrian rifles, some Enfield, and others Springfield. I got the Enfield, and Bob got the finest arm of the whole lot, a fine United States Springfield rifle. Training in the use of these weapons was startlingly belated and haphazard." - Pvt. Orrin W. Cook, Company B. 22nd Regt. Massachusetts Volunteers.

I like this particular quote for several reasons, but the highlighted passage supports that training in the use of their new rifles was "belated and haphazard." This lack of training is often pointed out as a possible reason for the "two-in-a-hundred" hit rate during some battles. Failure to understand the sighting system necessary for the parabolic trajectory of the rifle-musket would certainly limit its effectiveness. The "old style" muskets being replaced were of course, more or less 'point and shoot.' Anyway, it is an interesting passage.

 

[thomas aagaard]

Actually Yes, regardless of what some French Manuel said both sides used massed Infantry assaults using Napoleanic and earlier tactics. That may have worked against smoothbore flintlock muskets that took longer to load and had an effective range of 50 yards. BUT Rifled percussion Muskets which could be loaded faster (worse if armed with a carbine or rifled Spencer or Henry) and an effective range of 300 yards. Fredericksburg proved my point. Artillery had rifled barrels now that extended there range greatly. Plus much of the Leadership early on was clueless and amateur on how to fight battles just going on old Manuels or how their Grandfathers fought.
All this talk on lack of marksmanship folks forget many Southern Boys (and some North) already knew how to shoot and hunt with a firearm. Didn't take much effort to point down a barrel and fire on slowly moving massed Infantry especially when your firing upon them with a massed volley. Plus the minie ball was a much more devastating wound than the round ball, it moved faster, farther, and penetrated more. The Tactics were outdated when going up against the weapons of that time.

You are repeating common myths...

The drill system used was written for units armed with rifle-muskets... in 1845 When rifle-muskets was first introduced.
By 1861 it was in no way a new weapon... despite what plenty of documentaries claim.

Knowing how to hit a rabbit with a smallbore rifle do not in any way teach you to judge distance precise (at 200+ yards) and to hit a enemy at that range with a military rifle.
Hess is exaggerating the issue of range estimation, but it is still a critical skill. And one that require structures training.. something that was not done outside of a few select units.

then add the issue that most soldiers was firing a gun where the sights where not correct for the cartridge used.
So basically if you did everything correctly, you would miss at 300 yards.

All springfields used the wrong cartridge. Lorenz had sights set in Austrians military steps. And where often uprifled to 58cal. and if not they used the wrong 54 cal burton bullet. Enfield used the wrong cartridge (same as the springfield), unless you where a csa soldier who got lucky and got imported English made cartridges.

Sure a good marksman would learn how to compensate for all this. But how do you learn to do that, if you never fire your gun outside of combat? You cant.

There is simply no evidence that the typical soldier, north or south, knew how to take advantage of his rifle and most soldiers would have been better off with smoothbore firing buck shot.
And this is the very reason why the NRA was created post war.


oh, And Fredericksburg would have been even worse if the csa soldiers had been armed with smoothbores firing buckshot. Since the federals took the firefight at close range. where the extra 3 bullets would have slaughtered the federals even faster.

----
" Didn't take much effort to point down a barrel and fire on slowly moving massed Infantry"
Have you ever tried shooting at a mansized target at 400yards... from a standing position with no support with open sights?
Even with a "modern" H&K G3 battlerifle it is dam hard. The target is very small. Sure having a infantry line makes it easier, but the target is still small in the height.
Also you need to be sure its at 400yards, and not 350 or 425.

And yes, at 100yards it pretty easy... but then you might as well use a smoothbore. It shoots just fine at 120-150 yards.
(at least the French M1822 smoothbore used by the Danish army from 1848-1860 had no issue hitting at that distance. as shown by period testing)

 

[Yankeedave]

Much of the powder in the south was made by the Gaines Brothers. It was judged as a superior quality.

 

[Will Carry]

Is Hess saying that a rifle bullet rises when it comes out of the barrel?

 

[Yankeedave]

It will kick. Seems like mostly up.