Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

Consider this video of recreationist infantry delivering fire at a 2007 event:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72EaVvk8P7c

The battle they're recreating was in 1707. Did Napoleonic era infantry deliver fire in the same way? If so, what does this say about the idea that the third rank in a 3 rank line would not be firing? Wargames rules often give English 2 rank a 50% bonus on the assumption that the third rank shouldn't fire and therefore the English get the benefit of the continental deficit. For me, this video would call that in to question, no?.

However, I don't know how Napoleonic 3 rank lines delivered their loads. Does anyone here?

There were various systems of delivering fire, but I believe that if the system being used actually involved the third rank firing then it's fire was largely ineffective, due to the first two ranks obstructing their view and aim and the shots going harmlessly over the heads of the enemy. Some systems involved the third rank not firing at all and loading muskets for those in front of them, and of course adding to the mass in melee. With the British system all muskets could be fired effectively.

But there are perhaps other reasons in addition to the 2 rank formation why the British should get a bonus:
1. The effective British use of levelling techniques - to prevent the general tendency of infantry to fire too high.
2. Their steadiness, temperatment and discipline enabled them to retain cohesion and withold fire until very close to the enemy, thus guaranteeing a devastatingly effective volley.
3. This volley was often IMMEDIATELY followed (both in attack and defence) by a very enthusiastic bayonet charge at the moment of maximum vulnerability for the enemy, which stood an excellent chance of shattering the morale of the enemy. This of course can't be simulated well in the game but the increased fire value perhaps covers the effect of it in an abstract way.

Perhaps there are other reasons or other ways of looking at this?

<center>[url="http://homepage.ntlworld.com/a.r.barlow/Napoleonic/nap.htm"]Brigadier General Antony Barlow[/url]
~ [url="http://www.geocities.com/anglo_allied_army_stats/Anglo_Allied_Army_Cavalry_Corps.htm"]2nd British (Union) Brigade, Anglo-Allied Cavalry Corps[/url] ~
~ [url="http://www.geocities.com/militaireacademie/dragoons.html"]4th (Royal Irish) Dragoon Guards[/url] ~
</center>

Volley fire was not something that happened very often. Even Fredricks Prussians with their strict discipline could rarely achieve it. It tended to be fire at will. Someone always got nervous and fired before the order was given then it degenerated into a fire at will. On a parade ground yes, facing an enemy no. Hollywood notwithstanding volley fire is a myth.

General de Brigade Pierre D.
Armee du Rhin
VII Corps, 22eme Division, 1ere Brigade

Monsieur I brought this up and was told that ju can change the fire of your unies your self and that the games were not going to be change to show the 3 or 2 rank fire rate as of now all nations fire in attack the same one rank. Now if this rep 60 men firing that would be 120 men firing.I don't understand how 600 + men can fire in line and only get one hit??

Col de Art 6/3 II Corps AN Marbot CS

Cheers for the info, fellas. As it happens, I'm not concerned about the implications for the HPS games. They're certainly not going to change, whatever they are. It's a discussion that has come up in a wargames club local to me, prompted by a bloke there basing up his Bavarians who had 2 ranks in 1806 and 3 thereafter. Do they get British bang if they're in 2 ranks?

Here's a reply about firing process:
-----
The French system of three rank fire is quite ingenious and, in a given cycle, would end up with all muskets being fired. Let me explain

The first rank would kneel then fire and reload from the kneeling position.

The second rank would fire their musket then exchange theirs with the third rank soldier and fire it. The second rank soldier reloads the musket he has just fired - then fires it before exchanging with the third rank soldier and so on.

This means that the front kneeling rank will fire once and the second rank fires twice in a given cycle of firing - all 600 muskets in the ubiquitous 600 man battalion.

But what about the rate of fire? ie how long for the French battalion to complete the cycle. Let's say that the two battalions facing each other - one British and one French are both veterans and can, from the standing position load and fire at the rate of 3 round per minute. That means one shot each 20 seconds.

It would then take the British battalion 20 seconds to complete one cycle of fire.

How long would it take the French?

In this example I'm giving the kneeling front rank soldier (who can reload and fire in 20 seconds from a standing position) an extra 5 seconds to reload and fire from the kneeling position making 25 seconds to complete the cycle.

The second rank soldier will reload and fire his musket in 20 seconds and then spend 5 seconds only to exchange muskets with the third rank soldier aim and fire it. - Making 25 seconds per cycle

So in the above example the British unit completes a cycle in 20 seconds and the French in 25 seconds. The effect of this is a 25% slower fire rate for the French. (I know the above example is in an ideal world where both the British and French unit are performing at their best. But you've got to start somewhere. Indeed Marmont is quoted in Haythornthwite: Napoleonic infantry page 90 as saying that "firing with three ranks was impracticable under battlefield conditions" Ney, page 89, felt that fire should be restricted and that third rank should be held back as a reserve." so the fire rate of the three ranks could possibly have been slower.
-----------
So that might indicate that English should have a fire factor + proportional to that speed difference. However, I also agree enthusiastically with Antony. I think their doctrine, and Wellington's skillful use of it in Spain, was the major difference. Not all troops love the bayonet.

Have a read of the French turning action at the Battle of Albuera and there you get a great example of battalions and regiments facing off in a "volley match" both French, British and Spanish! Total confusion and not a lot of immediate casualties done but quite a lot over a period. ranges as close as 20m are mentioned!!

I would suggest the longer the period of fire the less hits you are going to get due to smoke, casualties, stress and reloading problems occuring.

Range, steadiness, experience, tactical position and accuracy of the first few vollies are way more important than who shot faster or with more weapons IMHO. The overriding factor in all regards to this period is the way thetroops are used not so much the weapon they use.

Lt Col Mike Ellwood
Konig Regt
1 Bde, 22 Div
VII Saxon Corps, ADR

100% agree mssr Ellwood!
Volleys were fired in the Napoleonic period usually at the start of the firefight and particularly by the brits.

The volley against the guard at Waterloo comes to mind.

Now Maitland now is your time.....

'Stand up guards!'

Le garde recule....[:(][:(][:(]

General de Brigade Knox
Baron de l'Empire
2e Regiment Gardes d'Honneur (the regaled pheasants)
La Jeune Garde
CO. 1er Brigade, III Division Cavalerie Legere, III Corps Armee du Nord
http://www.aspire.co.nz/colinknoxnwc.htm

According to Brent Nosworthy (in Battle tactics of Napoleon and his enemies) the rate of fire is largely irrelevant. As Colin and Mike said it's the first volleys that count, especially if they are delivered from close range. According to first hand accounts of the time the idea of the British firing 5 volleys a minute in prolonged firefights is largely a myth developed by later historians who tried to account for British infantry success. Perhaps they were capable of doing this but it didn't usually happen.

Discipline and steadiness were key factors, as was the ability to fire effectively (not over the enemies heads!). This meant the British could hold their fire better than other nations which enabled them to get very close to the enemy before delivering a murderous volley, followed by the bayonet charge, which often won the day. There are even examples where the British didn't fire at all but went staight in with the bayonet. The enemy seems to have generally believed that the British infantryman was intent on actually using his bayonet. Calm, silent unflinching approach, disciplined volley, then transforming in an instant to full-blooded bayonet charge - quite a psychological effect! I guess it all depends on the awareness of commanders too and how they handled their troops. In the wrong situation all the above advantages could be negated.

<center>[url="http://homepage.ntlworld.com/a.r.barlow/Napoleonic/nap.htm"]Brigadier General Antony Barlow[/url]
~ [url="http://www.geocities.com/anglo_allied_army_stats/Anglo_Allied_Army_Cavalry_Corps.htm"]2nd British (Union) Brigade, Anglo-Allied Cavalry Corps[/url] ~
~ [url="http://www.geocities.com/militaireacademie/dragoons.html"]4th (Royal Irish) Dragoon Guards[/url] ~
</center>

Concur with Tony on this. British superiority lays somewhere in their counterattacking capability which Nosworthy abmirably demonstrates in his work.

Colonel Bill Peters
Armee du Rhin - V Corps, Cavalerie du V Corps, 20ème légère Brigade de Cavalerie, 13ème Hussar Regiment
HPS Napoleonic Scenario Designer (Eckmuhl, Wagram, Jena-Auerstaedt and ... more to come)

[url="http://www.fireandmelee.net"]Fire and Melee Wargame site[/url]

The Brits were really a minority player in the Napoleonic wars [:D][B)] though so it would be interesting to hear expert comment on the how the French infantry of say 1805 and 1806 conducted firefights.

There is much talk of swarm of skirmishers and assault columns but I understand the French often deployed into line for a firefight before carrying the position. Also close cooperation with arty at short range seemed a key component (Austerlitz and Friedland offer examples of this).

Comments?

General de Brigade Knox
Baron de l'Empire
2e Regiment Gardes d'Honneur (the regaled pheasants)
La Jeune Garde
CO. 1er Brigade, III Division Cavalerie Legere, III Corps Armee du Nord
http://www.aspire.co.nz/colinknoxnwc.htm

Monsieur the British were end players in this game often sending others to do their fighting. The French use the Beau daughters to do theirs, and the charge of the Cheval not till 1810 did I hear or read that the great Armee decline mostly due to the Russians and Austrians Army. The power of fire was in the Legers that were all over the battle field of the Glory years.

Col de Art 6/3 II Corps AN Marbot CS

Some interesting YouTube clips to visit:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIvFiQlSS7A Test firing a Brown Bess. Note the action in the firing pan: the amount of flash and smoke. You can easily see why troops often turned their heads away when firing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7_wRJLc ... re=related A present-day demonstrator getting off 3 rounds from a Brown Bess in 46 seconds. Note that he doesn't have time to aim but blazes away. So, at his very very best, undistracted by carnage or noise, this parade ground demonstrator could manage just under 4 unaimed shots/minute. I think the 5 shots/minute figure mentioned with due scepticism by Antony below is indeed just a jingoistic academic's fantasy. Nothing 'largely' about it. It's just rubbish invented by an armchair general.


There's another demo with essentially the same result: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJMbxZ1k ... re=related But note that neither musketeer separates the wad from the bullet. The whole lot goes down the tube together, enhancing his speed. So much for the musket's crap accuracy at its best!! I realise that they are both firing blanks, but do you believe a real soldier held the bullet in their mouth and spat it down the barrel? The wikipedia entry on musketry says it's a myth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musket
----------
"(The idea that the ball itself was somehow bitten off the top of the cartridge and held in the mouth is a myth invented by modern historical novels)."

&

<i>"Upon the command "About". The butt of the musket was then dropped to the ground and the soldier poured the rest of the powder from the cartridge, followed by the ball and paper cartridge case into the barrel. This paper acted as wadding to stop the ball and powder from falling out if the muzzle was declined. (The myth of spitting the ball into the end of the barrel from the mouth is easily disproved - as soon as it is fired, the barrel becomes extremely hot; it would be extremely painful to place the lips anywhere near the hot metal.)"</i>
---------

and I note that in this historical drill - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34-BTPAR ... re=related - no part of the exhaustive movements indicate that there was a separate movement for putting in a ball separate from the wadding. I am led to agree that the whole pack went down as one.