Back in the 80's I came across a statement concerning muskets misfiring on the battlefield during the era of muzzle loading weapons. Of course I can not know remember the source of this statement. Could be my old age or could be I'm just a few beers short of a case.
It is alleged that in the era of the muzzle loader there was a "rule of thumb" among military thinkers that the percentage of misfires in any given unit, due to errors in loading, would double on each successive volley delivered after the first. The first theoreticly, being loaded correctly.
The errors were thought to be caused by excitement, fear, noise, fatigue, level of experiance, frequency of drill or lack of it, etc, etc.
The number of incorrectly loaded muskets found on the battlefield of Gettysburg might go some way to substansiating this theory but I am not sure how much can be made of this, (I think most of us are aware of the figures for that).
This was given as one of the reasons for delivering the first volley at as close a range as possible.
The whole idea seem reasonable to me.
I have never found any other mention of this "theory" in my reading on civil war tactics and I wonder what you guys think of this or if you have ever heard of it before.
Thanks to anyone who cares to respond!
It is alleged that in the era of the muzzle loader there was a "rule of thumb" among military thinkers that the percentage of misfires in any given unit, due to errors in loading, would double on each successive volley delivered after the first. The first theoreticly, being loaded correctly.
The errors were thought to be caused by excitement, fear, noise, fatigue, level of experiance, frequency of drill or lack of it, etc, etc.
The number of incorrectly loaded muskets found on the battlefield of Gettysburg might go some way to substansiating this theory but I am not sure how much can be made of this, (I think most of us are aware of the figures for that).
This was given as one of the reasons for delivering the first volley at as close a range as possible.
The whole idea seem reasonable to me.
I have never found any other mention of this "theory" in my reading on civil war tactics and I wonder what you guys think of this or if you have ever heard of it before.
Thanks to anyone who cares to respond!