Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22

Thread: Small Arms Effective Range vs Engagement Range

  1. #11
    Don Dixon is offline
    Team:
    Wheat's Louisiana Tigers
    Member
    2881V
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    353
    Region:
    Chesapeake - Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania and Ohio
    There was a group of marksmanship theorists, whom I think of as the "rifle partisans" in the U.S. and foreign armies. In addition to Heth, First Lieutenant Cadimus Wilcox was one of the rifle partisans – American and Europen -- who believed that rifled arms would utterly revolutionize warfare. They believed that with the increased range and accuracy of rifled arms in the hands of properly trained troops, the enemy would simply be unable to close with you. Wilcox wrote:

    “Without entering into a detailed enumeration of the changes that the improved rifle will produce in tactics, a brief statement will be made as to its probable effect.
    “Fields of battle will be more extended than formerly; there will be more difficulty in estimating the variety and number of the adversary; more difficulty in properly placing troops on the field, and directing their movements. Keeping them together, holding them well in hand so as to mutually protect and sustain each other, will, in future, require the greatest care. As fields of battle will cover more ground than formerly, new tactical means to obviate the disadvantages resulting from this will be required; that continuity of lines required by tactics will no longer be necessary.
    “…Formerly the position of the enemy could be approached to within 300 yards without experiencing much loss from the fire of his infantry. Now this fire is destructive at 1000 or 1200 yards, and well directed at 600 yards, becomes irresistible. The range of the rifle permitting battles to commence at considerable distance, without great care on the part of the general, his whole lines may become exposed at once to a destructive fire; the position assigned to troops not immediately engaged will require as much attention as those that are so engaged. The distances between lines in battle are fixed by tactics, and much importance seems to be attached to this feature: this will probably give way to a different order…
    “With the improved rifle, the infantry fire is fourfold more destructive than formerly; hence the necessity, in order to secure the full effect of the arm, to have a thorough system of instruction in target practice; every infantry soldier should be so instructed before he enters his battalion.
    “…every company should be thoroughly instructed at target practice and the skirmish drill; but as some men will excel others in the use of the rifle, and have greater aptitude for the duties of light troops, the fourth battalion of each regiment should be formed of such soldiers…
    The improved rifle against cavalry. – Formerly cavalry could take up its position in columns of squadrons in full view of the infantry to be charged, at a distance of 400 yards, and could approach within 300 yaards without experiencing much loss…Under the existing condition of the infantry armament, cavalry will be within its sphere of action at 1200 or more yards, and as it approaches nearer the fire will become more and more destructive.
    “The chances of success with cavalry are much lessened in the presence of the new arms…
    Improved rifle against artillery. – Formerly artillery began battles; it could take its position at pleasure in front of infantry and deliver its fire without incurring danger or loss from the fire in return of the infantry. Now that the range of the rifle is equal, if not superior, to that of field-pieces, the influence of light artillery in battles will be lessened…It is clear that field artillery, with its present range, cannot with any chances of success remain in action in front of infantry; its comparative efficacy is lessened, and even by extending the range by increase of calibre, or by a successful application of the principle of rifling, cannot restore it to its former comparative condition. The infantry rifle has now a range equal, or greater, than the limit of distinct vision, and greater even than the extent offered by field of battle in general, and should a range of several miles be given to artillery it would still fail to restore it to its former comparative state.
    “The new rifle clearly gives to infantry, in all secondary operation of war, and in the defence of position, an element of force that it did not possess formerly.” [emphasis added] (Wilcox (Rifles and Rifle Practice), Chapter VI)

    Jim Burgess wrote that "Keep in mind that deliberate, aimed fire tends to go out the window when the bullets come flying in your direction. Soldiers will tend to fire back as rapidly as possible." Control of fires is a command function, and a failure of control is a command failure. Well trained troops will fire very deliberately, because their training causes them to believe that they can and will hit what they aim at.

    Had the Army of the Potomac been trained to Heth's or Wilcox's standard, Pickett's grand assault wouldn't even have reached Cemetary Ridge. Because, at every 50 yards, beginning at 1,000 yards they would have had to have passed through a beaten zone of fire. If they stopped to fire at you, that just meant that they passed more time in the beaten zones. But, the Army wasn't trained to shoot then, and it for sure isn't trained to shoot now. That requires time, effort, skilled instructors, ammunition, ranges, and most importantly command emphasis. Rock painting, grass mowing, and leaf raking, are construed to be much more critical skills.

    Regards,
    Don Dixon

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    North Georgia
    Posts
    26
    Region:
    Visitor
    The tactics of the day were truly outdated in regard to the rifled small arm. But just as sobering, had those arms been used to their full potential by either side, the outcome could have been drastically different. And quite possibly even more horrific.

    Thanks for replies!
    -milsurpshooter

  3. #13
    ms3635v's Avatar
    ms3635v is offline
    Team:
    1st Pennsylvania Cavalry
    Member
    03635V
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    suburban Philly
    Posts
    866
    Region:
    Middle Atlantic - New York, Pennsylvania and New Jersey
    If anyone is interested, I just bought a reprint of Heth's book, "A System of Target Practice: For the Use of Troops," from Amazon. The book was reprinted by BiblioBazaar. I think I paid $15.00 for it and it's a pretty cool little book.
    Mike Santarelli 03635V, Adjutant
    Member since 1979
    Co. B, 1st Pennsylvania Cavalry, #229
    National Inspector General
    Small Arms Committee

  4. #14
    Curt's Avatar
    Curt is offline
    Team:
    Visitor (non-N-SSA Member)
    Member
    NA
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    260
    Region:
    Midwest - Ohio, Kentucky and Indiana
    Hallo!

    In general, and with exceptions... the Ordnance Department viewed target practice (and repeating rifles) as a waste of ammunition. Many men were drilled on the 'School of the Soldier" but not in marksmanship.

    After the War, fighting Plains Indians, complaints pop up about the lack of ammo being made available for it, or some officers having to pay for it themselves. So, even when NOT facing shoulder-to-shoulder lines of enemy infantry any longer, the dominant thinking for some time was that a "horizontal sheet of lead" was good enough despite or in spite of that the "art and science" of visionaries said.

    Curt
    Curt Schmidt
    Formerly 17 years a Sherman's Bodyguard
    Married to a descendant of Senator John Sherman's wife

  5. #15
    Smosin is offline
    Team:
    Visitor (non-N-SSA Member)
    Member
    NA
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    71
    Region:
    Visitor
    Quote Originally Posted by milsurpshooter View Post
    I agree, and that was to some degree the purpose of my question. After my series of shots at a lone silhouette at 400 yards, where I had almost as many hits as misses (and most of the misses were near), I began to think about how effective a formation of such infantry would have been on a massed opponent. Even under some level of stress, as long as the properly trained/disciplined shooters had their sights set to the proper range, a massed volley on a large formation at 400 yards would have been devastating.

    Thanks for all of the replies!
    - milsurpshooter
    Britain and her well-trained professional army, armed at first with the Pattern 51 minié rifle and then the Pattern 53 Enfield, wreaked havoc on the Russians in the Crimea, often at very long ranges. Read any account of the battle of Balaclava--"As the Russian cavalry approached, the 93rd discharged three volleys: at 600, 350 and 150 yards" utterly destroying the Russian cavalry. Figure out the running speeds of a cavalry charge and you can see that the Highlanders fired and reloaded with speed and precision, and were ready to fire another volley "at point-blank range" when the remnants of the Russians fled.
    Combine that and other disciplined long range infantry actions, with frequently successful British sniping operations at Russian artillery positions from 400-900 yards, with their P51's and then P53's, (even kill shots were documented at 1300 yards. Russian Admiral Nakhimov the overall Russian commander, was killed by a long-range sniper), gives you a small idea of what US Civil War battles could've been, if either side had the time or inclination to actually train troops to shoot effectively, and at long range.

  6. #16
    Don Dixon is offline
    Team:
    Wheat's Louisiana Tigers
    Member
    2881V
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    353
    Region:
    Chesapeake - Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania and Ohio
    Although Captain Heth articulated an army wide theory of marksmanship instruction, the instruction was not centralized, and the U.S. Army still lagged far behind almost all of the armies of Europe. The French had established the Ecole de Tir [School of Musketry] at Vincennes, with branch schools at Grenoble, Saint Omer, and Toulouse. Each regiment in the French army was required to send a detachment of several officers and enlisted personnel to the school for an intensive four-month course. At the conclusion of the course, they returned to their regiments as cadre to teach their troops how to shoot their new rifle musket. To add emphasis, the school was commanded by a brigadier general. With the adoption of the Pattern 1853 rifle musket, the British established a School of Musketry at Hythe, England, -- commanded by a full colonel -- with a two and a half month course to train officer and enlisted cadre, who were then responsible for training their regiments on the new Pattern 1853 weapons and on marksmanship. The Spanish (1855), Dutch (1855), Swedes (1855), and Russians (1857), established similar schools. Every summer, Even before the adoption of Muster 1854 System Lorenz rifles, Baron von Augustin brought cadre from the k.k. Army regiments to Vienna for train-the-trainer instruction on marksmanship and arms maintenance. All of the schools placed emphasis on estimating distances, since without the ability to estimate range the rifles of the day could not be accurately fired at targets at a distance. By comparison, the U.S. Army had Heth’s manual.

    But, how could we possibly be confused regarding our belief that America was the nation of riflemen.

    Regards,
    Don Dixon

  7. #17
    Cannonman1 is offline
    Team:
    Visitor (non-N-SSA Member)
    Member
    NA
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Grand Marais, Minn.
    Posts
    36
    Region:
    Visitor
    Quote Originally Posted by milsurpshooter View Post
    I agree, and that was to some degree the purpose of my question. After my series of shots at a lone silhouette at 400 yards, where I had almost as many hits as misses (and most of the misses were near), I began to think about how effective a formation of such infantry would have been on a massed opponent. Even under some level of stress, as long as the properly trained/disciplined shooters had their sights set to the proper range, a massed volley on a large formation at 400 yards would have been devastating.

    Thanks for all of the replies!
    - milsurpshooter
    I would also think that a lot of this rested on how seasoned the regiment or brigade was.. Green or timid command and new regiments would start shooting a long time before the more seasoned troops would have I would expect..
    Also, effect of hanging smoke and fog of war would make it harder to see the enemy at 400 yards, bringing the two sides closer than they may have wished to be before all hell broke loose.. and once engaged, it would have been like 2 bulldogs fighting over the same cat..

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    North Georgia
    Posts
    26
    Region:
    Visitor
    Quote Originally Posted by Cannonman1 View Post
    I would also think that a lot of this rested on how seasoned the regiment or brigade was.. or timid command and new regiments would start shooting a long time before the more seasoned troops would have I would expect..
    Also, effect of hanging smoke and fog of war would make it harder to see the enemy at 400 yards, bringing the two sides closer than they may have wished to be before all hell broke loose.. and once engaged, it would have been like 2 bulldogs fighting over the same cat..
    I recently did some more shooting at the 400 yard silhouette and video taped the shots in order to see the hits/misses. I was surprised to find that one could easily see the round traveling downrange and impacting. That also got me to thinking, once again, about a massed volley. The projectiles flying downrange from 150+ troops during a mass volley must have been easily visible, both on the sending and receiving end. Horrific, to say the least.
    - milsurpshooter

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Deep Southern Maryland
    Posts
    815
    Region:
    Potomac - Virginia, Maryland and Delaware
    Given how critical distance estimation was, I'm a little surprised officers weren't issued rangefinders of some sort.
    Support the USIMLT! Help your fellow Skirmishers go for the gold! www.usimlt.com

  10. #20
    Ron/The Old Reb Guest
    The projectiles flying downrange from 150+ troops during a mass volley must have been easily visible, both on the sending and receiving end. Horrific, to say the least.
    - milsurpshooter


    ​I don't think we realize or appreciate how brave these men were, who fought the Civil War.

Similar Threads

  1. Remington 44 with 80k sn range
    By MR. GADGET in forum Small Arms
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-13-2016, 04:21 PM
  2. More range time with my Navy arms P61 musketoon
    By Eterry in forum Shooting Techs, Tips, & Tricks
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-17-2014, 04:59 PM
  3. Euro arms 1853 Enfield Musketoon at the range
    By David Lapell in forum Small Arms
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-27-2010, 05:19 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •