Rate of fire...

[potter.]

hi,
over here in England we had a series of tv movies called Sharpe, which i've started watching again on you tube, it was set in the Peninsular war 1808-14, with Lord Wellington, Sharpe was a officer in a Rifles company (sharpshooters), with Baker rifles, where as the ordinary infantry had the Brown Bess. Anyway he was telling the infantry a good soldier could get off 3-4 shots a minuet, by telling them "bite, pour, spit, tap" bite the cartridge, pour the powder in, spit the ball in the musket, and tap the musket on the ground to seat the ball, hence saving the time of using a ram rod, but hold the musket up to stop the ball rolling out. Also in the war of 1812, it would have been the same time frame, so would it have been picked up by Washington's soldiers, and passed on down a generation in time for the civil war, what was the rate of fire in the civil war?.
Or was it all made up for the tv?

 

[RodentRevolution]

Or was it all made up for the tv?

Is the greater part of short answer...IIRC the scene is not even from the novels where instead Sharp claims to Colonel Simerson the mark of a good soldier is being able to fire three rounds a minute in wet weather! The rate of fire of four rounds a minute could be achieved by following the standard drill and getting good.

Now there is a practice of holding the round ball in your mouth and then simply dropping it down the barrel that I have heard of being claimed for Native American tribes but actually spitting the ball down the barrel? For a start there are all sorts of issues with putting your mouth to the muzzle end of a gunpowder loaded tube even if it is not hot from previous fire. Further it is unlikely to work unless you use an undersized ball which would likely work anyway without any spit involved if you wanted to shot quickly but inaccurately.

 

[johan_steele]

TV... nuff said.

 

[FedericoFCavada]

hi,
over here in England we had a series of tv movies called Sharpe, which i've started watching again on you tube, it was set in the Peninsular war 1808-14, with Lord Wellington, Sharpe was a officer in a Rifles company (sharpshooters), with Baker rifles, where as the ordinary infantry had the Brown Bess. Anyway he was telling the infantry a good soldier could get off 3-4 shots a minuet, by telling them "bite, pour, spit, tap" bite the cartridge, pour the powder in, spit the ball in the musket, and tap the musket on the ground to seat the ball, hence saving the time of using a ram rod, but hold the musket up to stop the ball rolling out. Also in the war of 1812, it would have been the same time frame, so would it have been picked up by Washington's soldiers, and passed on down a generation in time for the civil war, what was the rate of fire in the civil war?.
Or was it all made up for the tv?

Earl J. Hess, _The Rifle Musket in Civil War Combat: Reality and Myth_ (University Press of Kansas, 2016)

Paddy Griffith, _Battle Tactics of the Civil War_ (Yale UP, 1989)

The smooth-bore musket and the Minie/Burton/Pritchett-ball firing rifle exhibited a similar rate of fire. The Baker rifle used in the Peninsular War were much slower. The Baker uses an undersized lead round ball wrapped/ sewn-in a linen patch that closely fits the inside-the-bore windage (not to be confused with the windage, or left to right adjustment of rear sights), so that the patch grips the rifling. The Minie/Burton ball used an undersized bullet with a skirt. So it loaded much like a smooth-bore's undersized round ball, importantly, when the weapon became heavily fouled by black powder propellant. When the rifle fired, the base of the Minie/Burton ball flared to take the rifling, imparting spin, stabilization, greater velocity, greater accuracy, etc. to the bullet. The Baker is a patched-round ball, so while it is way more accurate and precise than the smooth-bore, it is actually much slower to load and shoot. British riflemen actually got some undersized un-patched balls to load and shoot more like an inaccurate musket "just in case" they got overrun by French Dragoons or whatever.

The two studies above demonstrate that a soldier with a smooth-bore was rigorously drilled to load and fire every fifteen to twenty seconds, for a theoretical rat-of-fire of four shots (assuming a pre-loaded musket, with three reloads) per minute. They also show that in most cases, NCOs would actually slow down their troops' rate-of-fire to improve accuracy. If loaded and fired too swiftly, there is a tendency for the shots to go high.

As for the loading technique: The right hand goes to the cartridge box and slaps it. On the command " handle cartridge" the flap is flipped open, the hand withdraws a paper cartridge and brings it to the mouth. "Tear cartridge" and the soldier rends open the tail of the cartridge with his teeth. Next, with a flintlock, some powder is trickled into the open pan, directly from the cartridge. In modern-day muzzle loading, this is anathema, because loading a primed musket is potentially more fraught with danger, so you'd prime before you fire on the line. The pan is shut, and then the musket is "cast about" to load the cartridge in the bore. The powder is poured down the barrel, and with a smooth-bore the ball and paper can go down too, with the paper serving as wadding. With a Civil War rifle musket, the entire Minie/Burton ball has to be unwrapped completely. With the British Enfield, the paper-patched, greased bullet is put in the muzzle, and the rest of the empty paper cylinder is snapped off and discarded. In the case of the percussion musket, the cap is placed on the cone after it is loaded, just before aiming and firing.

 

[FedericoFCavada]

Is the greater part of short answer...IIRC the scene is not even from the novels where instead Sharp claims to Colonel Simerson the mark of a good soldier is being able to fire three rounds a minute in wet weather! The rate of fire of four rounds a minute could be achieved by following the standard drill and getting good.

Now there is a practice of holding the round ball in your mouth and then simply dropping it down the barrel that I have heard of being claimed for Native American tribes but actually spitting the ball down the barrel? For a start there are all sorts of issues with putting your mouth to the muzzle end of a gunpowder loaded tube even if it is not hot from previous fire. Further it is unlikely to work unless you use an undersized ball which would likely work anyway without any spit involved if you wanted to shot quickly but inaccurately.

Spitting the ball down the barrel was apparently done by people mounted on horses, simply to prevent mis-handling the projectile and dropping it while the horse is in motion. This was also a rationale for the flared muzzle of the blunderbuss used on coaches, or while mounted, or aboard ship with a pitching and rolling deck...

 

[bayouace]

Dunno the answer, but I loved that series when it ran in the US.

 

[potter.]

i'm sitting at your feet and listening to you the masters here, but on the point of not using a ramrod i would have thought that would have saved some time over 3-4 shots, and if they were firing into the French column, a mass of soldiers, accuracy was not of the first necessity. Or the infantry square against cavalry, front row, second row etc...
Also a wikipedia search on the Baker rifle in 1809, a pte Plunket killed a french general at 600yds, and then a second shot killed the generals aide. when he went to the shot general.

 

[Kyle Kalasnik]

Dunno the answer, but I loved that series when it ran in the US.

I have never seen the series. But I have heard a lot of good things about it. Maybe I'll try to watch it sometime.

 

[67th Tigers]

The (then) Royal Green Jackets loved that series, but it was essentially nonsense.

There was a tendency amongst American militia not to ram their balls to get their RoF up, but an unrammed ball has a much lower velocity than a rammed one, and there are accounts of rounds fired into British regulars failing to penetrate their jackets. It is something you can do, but only a fool would actually do it.

A good soldier, ramming properly, could get realistically fire 3 rounds per minute from a smoothbore or an Enfield with British ammunition, or 2 from a clean Springfield or Enfield with US ammunition (which was much tighter). With a Baker, or a fouled Springfield, 1 round per minute is more realistic.

 

[Saphroneth]

There is a difference in how balls were used for the Baker rifle specifically (the weapon used by the Rifles in the period Sharpe portrays) but this is because of the unique design and implementation of the Baker rifle.


The Baker was the first rifle suitable for arming whole battalions (independent tactical manoeuvre units) instead of merely companies. This is because the Baker could be loaded with a patched or unpatched ball:

A patched ball was one which engaged with the rifling properly, and had to be "hammered" down the rifling. This reduced the rate of fire considerably, making it similar to that of other rifles of the period, but also got the benefit of the rifling.
An unpatched ball didn't engage the rifling, and because of this it could be rammed much more quickly (as if it was a smoothbore). This increased the rate of fire back up to a typical smoothbore rate of fire of the period, but didn't get the benefit of the rifling.

The reason why this is a useful quality to have in a rifle is that it means the unit with the rifle can choose to sharpshoot at long range (rifle like) or can load quickly for self defence against cavalry or nearby infantry (smoothbore like). Without this quality a company of riflemen in the Napoleonic period has to operate close to a battalion of smoothbore armed infantry for close in defence (e.g. running into their square if cavalry show up), but the Baker's dual-mode use meant that entire battalions could use it (and form square themselves etc).


The expanding-base Minié ball (and earlier systems with a base plug to expand the ball base when rammed) improved the rate of fire of a rifle enough (in proper use) that they could operate for self defence without needing a battalion of "rapid firers" nearby.


P.S. it's actually an interesting question whether a proper squadron of veteran Napoleonic battle cavalry would have been able to operate against ACW troops with fouled Springfields just as well as against non-Baker rifles.

 

[Old Soldier]

The smooth-bore musket could be loaded in that fashion to increase rate of fire, but it was not accurate or effective beyond 30 yards. The ball was a rather loose fit in the barrel and the cartridge paper acted as a 'patch' to get it to fit the bore and prevent the powder 'leaking' out around the ball. Taking it out of the paper and dropping it down the barrel made it a VERY loose fit. Banging the butt on the ground just compacted the charge. The muzzle had to be kept above the butt or there was a danger of the ball rolling forward and creating an expansion space which could reduce muzzle velocity - or even rolling out of the barrel ! Note: Unless there was a defect in the barrel it probably would not burst the barrel.

The Baker rifle could not be used like that, as the patched bullet HAD to be pushed/rammed down by the ramrod. No patch = no range or accuracy. The RIFLE was a sharpshooters weapon and not used for 'rate of fire'. It was a 'point weapon'.

'Hammering' - that was more to do with the Baker's successor, the Brunswick Rifle, which used 'belted ball' which was matched to the rifling from the muzzle down.

 

[Saphroneth]

The Baker rifle could not be used like that, as the patched bullet HAD to be pushed/rammed down by the ramrod. No patch = no range or accuracy. The RIFLE was a sharpshooters weapon and not used for 'rate of fire'. It was a 'point weapon'.

Though the whole point of the Baker as a distinct weapon is that it can also be loaded with an unpatched ball and function roughly as well as a regular smoothbore. That's why Rifle battalions could form squares.

Weller:

The Prussian, Hanoverian, Brunswick and Nassau armies all contained riflemen but, these were usually armed with non-standard Jaeger-type hunting rifles, often brought by young gamekeepers into the army with them. They generally did not take bayonets and often required extra heavy rammers and/or mallets for loading. These were special purpose arms only; infantry so armed could not fight and manoeuvre in the normal way.
British and KGL riflemen had a weapon which was quite different from those made on the Continent. The Baker rifle could deliver both accurate slow fire and also musket-type, relatively fast fire. If a bullet was carefully patched and forced down the bore, it could be shot precisely. If a regular paper cartridge, 'carbine' size, was used with the bullet unpatched, loading was almost as fast as with a musket. The 95th, the KGL light battalions and the light companies of KGL line battalions were armed with these rifles at Waterloo. They were effective with both types of loading, depending upon whether speed or accuracy was required.

Weller, Jac. Wellington at Waterloo . Frontline Books. Kindle Edition.

 

[thomas aagaard]

I love the Tvseries. But spiting the bullet is made up.
With a smoothbore flintlock from the Napoleonic war 3 shots a minute was doable by a well trained soldier and you can push it to 4 with plenty of training. The bullet was sufficiently undersized to make it easy to load fast, even when the gun started to foul.
During the 7 year war in the 1750ties the Prussians fired 4-5 shots a minute. But that was with muskets that was selfpriming and a paper cartridge designed for it.
So the technical design of the musket and cartridge made it faster to load compared to a "brown bess"
But it cut down of the effective range.

By the 1850ties the Danish army did not (from a doctrinal point of view) expect a higher RoF with a percussion smoothbore than a rifle musket. Yes it was faster to load, but since the danish smoothbores did have both front and rear sights and the men was actually expected to fire out to about 200 yards the bullet had a rather tight fit for a smoothbore.
And yes, it was possible to get a roundball to be effective at that range. When the soldier actually know how much above the enemy heads to aim and the target is a enemy battalion... so a big target.

What was the rate of fire in the civil war?.

The drillbooks expect 3 shot a minute. What is often forgotten is that the drillbooks where simply a translation of the French 1845 drill.

Generally 2 shot pr. minute.. is what I think can be expected if you also use just some time to aim and you might have a front rank man to look out fore.
But often it must have been less.
For one thing Fouling quickly became an issue with American made cartridges. (unlike british made Enfield cartridges)

But more importantly, Soldiers usually had 40 rounds in their box and maybe 20 extra in their "backpack".
At 3 shots a minute that the drill book expect, that is 20 minutes of firing. So when plenty of firefights took way way longer, the RoF must obviously have been lower.

For a good read on the rifle musket I will (as always) suggest the book by Brett Gibbons. "The Destroying Angel"

The Destroying Angel: The Rifle-Musket as the First Modern Infantry Weapon: Amazon.co.uk: Gibbons, Brett: 9781719857277: Books

Buy The Destroying Angel: The Rifle-Musket as the First Modern Infantry Weapon by Gibbons, Brett (ISBN: 9781719857277) from Amazon's Book Store. Everyday low prices and free delivery on eligible orders.

www.amazon.co.uk

It only cost 6.5£

 

[Saphroneth]

But more importantly, Soldiers usually had 40 rounds in their box and maybe 20 extra in their "backpack".
At 3 shots a minute that the drill book expect, that is 20 minutes of firing. So when plenty of firefights took way way longer, the RoF must obviously have been lower.

This issue actually came up in a pretty significant way as the 1860s wore on and breechloaders came in. It's the cause of a move back towards ordered volley fire.


Aleady in the 1850s the British Army had focused more extensively on the use of the skirmish line (or security line) as the primary giver of fire under most situations, with soldiers expected to shoot on their own recognizance and only when they had a good shot, but since the Snider for example had a ROF more like ten rounds per minute and the ammunition was just as heavy as before there was an emphasis on controlled rapid fire at decisive range. This is because if it takes you half an hour to an hour to get through the ammunition in the security line, and you can rotate wings of a battalion twice, you have maybe 2-3 hours to resupply the battalion at "maximum" fire rate.
With the Snider, the whole unit can run out of ammo in 20 minutes with the same arrangement.

 

[thomas aagaard]

This issue actually came up in a pretty significant way as the 1860s wore on and breechloaders came in. It's the cause of a move back towards ordered volley fire.

exactly. The prussians was very concerned about this issue with their breechloaded rifles. So they had a lot of focus on well aimed and strictly controlled volleys.
But also allowed for independent rapid fire at close range. (when they had to blow Danish and Austrian attack columns to pieces)

And when they did this, the men had drilled the loading procedure in steps so well that they ended up firing volleys anyway in some cases.

 

[Saphroneth]

It's my understanding that part of the French losses in the early Franco-Prussian War battles - while owing much to the extremely effective Prussian artillery - are also somewhat to be blamed on French ammunition woes after having blown through a lot of their ammunition firing on Prussian columns earlier in one of the battles.

 

[Old Soldier]

This issue actually came up in a pretty significant way as the 1860s wore on and breechloaders came in. It's the cause of a move back towards ordered volley fire.


Aleady in the 1850s the British Army had focused more extensively on the use of the skirmish line (or security line) as the primary giver of fire under most situations, with soldiers expected to shoot on their own recognizance and only when they had a good shot, but since the Snider for example had a ROF more like ten rounds per minute and the ammunition was just as heavy as before there was an emphasis on controlled rapid fire at decisive range. This is because if it takes you half an hour to an hour to get through the ammunition in the security line, and you can rotate wings of a battalion twice, you have maybe 2-3 hours to resupply the battalion at "maximum" fire rate.
With the Snider, the whole unit can run out of ammo in 20 minutes with the same arrangement.

The British army's main opponents at the time were either massed tribal armies or 'guerrilla' forces. They didn't have an organised European army to fight against, no artillery to speak of used against them. That was why the line and volley fire kept being used - it was so effective. In the first battles in Ethiopia using the new Snider, after the first devastating volley, the tribesmen charged again, thinking that they would be reloading, but the second volley halted any advance and the independent fire that followed completed the job.
That was the tactic in open areas, but the skirmish line and independent fire was a feature of any closed area like forest or mountain - as was the general issue of the short rifle (2-band). It was recognized as 'horses for courses' - you changed your tactics according to your environment and the recognized tactics and weapons of the enemy, but it was usually a less well organised or equipped enemy. That is why the South African War against the Boers - armed with rifles capable of long range rapid fire and no large mass of forces - was such a catalyst for change.

 

[Saphroneth]

The British army's main opponents at the time were either massed tribal armies or 'guerrilla' forces. They didn't have an organised European army to fight against, no artillery to speak of used against them. That was why the line and volley fire kept being used - it was so effective.

And, indeed, against massed tribal armies only the close order line produced dense enough fire to defeat a charge. That's a lot of what caused the defeat at Isandlwhana - open order produced insufficient fire density - and is why the British Army won the battles of the subsequent invasion. They swapped out one order for another and it went from desperate struggle to... not.

It was recognized as 'horses for courses' - you changed your tactics according to your environment and the recognized tactics and weapons of the enemy, but it was usually a less well organised or equipped enemy. That is why the South African War against the Boers - armed with rifles capable of long range rapid fire and no large mass of forces - was such a catalyst for change.

Oddly enough the US Army used volleys in 1898 in Cuba.

What's going on here is that there really are multiple competing pressures. Volley fire (by which I mean ordered fire) is used partly for the morale impact but mostly because it allows for control of ammunition expenditure - a real issue in battles in this period, witness the German troops in the Franco-Prussian War who would burn through all their ammunition at maximum speed and then retreat because they were out of ammunition (frustrating their Prussian commanders) or the French who had difficulties in the same war because they'd used up most of their on-hand chassepot ammunition.

This is opposed by the pressure for more effective individual fire, which independent fire can be if the soldiers are disciplined enough to take aim correctly.

This controlled fire issue is also important in being able to defeat an enemy charge - it's much harder to take a position by fire than by shock, but combining the two is best (i.e. shoot the enemy and then assault), so you need the ability to put out defensive fire after a firefight. This is actually the reason for magazine cutoffs in early magazine rifles (like the Lee-Enfield) because it means you can permit independent fire with the cutoff engaged - but if the commander sees a need for urgent rapid fire he will know that his whole battalion (or company, or platoon) has nine rounds in the magazine they can access by disengaging the cutoff.

 

[Old Soldier]

This controlled fire issue is also important in being able to defeat an enemy charge - it's much harder to take a position by fire than by shock, but combining the two is best (i.e. shoot the enemy and then assault), so you need the ability to put out defensive fire after a firefight. This is actually the reason for magazine cutoffs in early magazine rifles (like the Lee-Enfield) because it means you can permit independent fire with the cutoff engaged - but if the commander sees a need for urgent rapid fire he will know that his whole battalion (or company, or platoon) has nine rounds in the magazine they can access by disengaging the cutoff.

The Mauser G98 (1898) was the first issue magazine rifle NOT to have a magazine cut off. The SMLE lost it in 1916 only due to economy of manufacture - and lack of use. Ammunition supply was a big factor in this.

To return to period times, rate of fire was limited by the muzzle-loading process - always a problem with ML rifles of any type. The advantage of the 'quick' smooth-bore loading was offset by the range advantage of the new rifle musket. The only way to increase rate of fire was to have more men on the battlefield!

Breech-loaders had a better rate of fire, but many suffered range and penetration problems due lower charge and/or breech leakage. In addition, most breech-loaders were carbines, made especially for mounted action to increase rate of fire, so most had a shorter barrel which also limited range. They were not a viable infantry battlefield weapon for the period. (This would remain until the introduction of the metal case/base cartridge.)

The same would apply to revolver weapons - capable of rapid fire before reloading, but limited in use as a personal defence weapon or short-range ambush - 'shoot and scoot' - operations. That applied equally to the Colt revolver rifle as used by the 21st Ohio Volunteer Infantry at the Battle of Chickamauga - devastating firepower - until the ammunition was spent. The Army were not happy with the revolver rifle and sold them off cheap. ($44 unit cost sold off at 42 cents apiece)

 

[Saphroneth]

The Mauser G98 (1898) was the first issue magazine rifle NOT to have a magazine cut off. The SMLE lost it in 1916 only due to economy of manufacture - and lack of use. Ammunition supply was a big factor in this.

I don't think lack of use is really the concern. The magazine cutoff is important unless troop discipline is extremely high, and this is because you need the ability to defend a just-taken trench.

To return to period times, rate of fire was limited by the muzzle-loading process - always a problem with ML rifles of any type. The advantage of the 'quick' smooth-bore loading was offset by the range advantage of the new rifle musket. The only way to increase rate of fire was to have more men on the battlefield!

Though in practice the range advantage wasn't really used very well in the Civil War. Firefight range was well under the 200 yards which was considered the maximum range at which the Brown Bess smoothbore could productively be used.