The reason why the musket was so in accurate under combat conditions, is yes, because men were firing at them, also because smoke eventually clouded their view, also because in cramped formations, the muzzle of the 3rd ranker was at the face of the 1st ranker, causing a lot of anxiety about the discharge that would come from them, this is also true of the touch hole flash which caused men to turn to the right to avoid their neighbours flash. Another factor, is that people may have cringed at the thought of shooting at a living person, and may have just shot into the air, hoping that their comrades would do the killing for them. None the less, nice pleasing animations. Good.
Can I just say the ''bouncing ball'' thing is an 18th century cartoonish myth. It was actually caused by the irregular spin that any ball would have coming down a barrel, this then causes the magnus effect, curving the ball to one side.
It's actually both things. The magnus effect is an inherent flaw of smoothbores but a larger sized bullet does modestly increase accuracy. Watch this video to see for yourself czcams.com/video/LDzYshFmlXY/video.html
@ 1:42 Now, divide these by 9, you'll get roughly the percentage that would have killed or seriously wounded the enemy, assuming the targets were actual people (not shooting back); this number comes from a similar test performed by Ligne (mentioned in Duffy's book on 18th century warfare). The difference was that he had outlines of soldiers painted on the target, so as to see how the balls would have hit the enemy. He discovered that around one in nine shots would have been fatal, or at least severe; another 25% didn't hit any of the outlines, and the rest either grazed the outline or would have knocked over hats, winded the target, temporarily incapacitated them, etc. (it's worth noting that soldiers often got struck repeatedly in a firefight, without being killed or seriously wounded; this is due to the balls striking hats, canteens, cartridge boxes, even coat-tails (Washington at Monongahela had four bullet holes in his coat, but was never wounded); there's one other factor, but I'll save it for later. So using his equation (results rounded to nearest integer): 8%, 6%, 3%, 2%. Based on this, I'd predict a hit rate of ~ 10 percent at 40 meters. But wait! there's more! Similar tests by the Prussian and Austrian Armies showed that only between 20-50% of the balls penetrated the target (which was of pinboard). This may be because many of the shots were in fact ricochets, or improperly loaded. Such rounds are naturally more spent than a ball going full tilt. These were far less likely to kill someone or even wound them seriously to drop them. I forget what the figures were, but I remember when plugging them in, the numbers got even smaller; the ones up to 200 meters IIRC were about half of the above., beyond that, much less. once you also factor in the possibility of over-penetration (very likely, as advice to spread men out in skirmishes to avoid a ball killing two men exists in Roger's rules for ranging)., It looks as though the above hit rates for close range aren't far off; but for further ranges, the numbers are minuscule--well under 1% I don't think fear factors in as much as one would expect (smoke might be another matter); the shots are already flying erratically. I'd conclude, based on this, that firefights were effective at ranges of 150m and below; anything greater than that would have been a waste of ammunition. One can also infer, based on the hit rates you give, that firefight were generally over 75 m in distance; it', alongside the stresses of battle, are the only way to explain the low numbers. Sources: www.amazon.com/Military-Experience-Reason-Christopher-Duffy/dp/113899586X (it has all the firefight data I refer to). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Rogers%27_28_%22Rules_of_Ranging%22 (I have a PDF of the rules from another place, so I know this one's right; second rule alludes to over-penetration).
Good writeup, but i think there's a flaw. You say that Prince de Ligne's test showed that 1/9 of shots aren't lethal, but 1/4 do hit the target, so using the 1/9 figure misrepresents the real accuracy of the weapon. Furthermore there's no mention of the range that Ligne's test was conducted at, so it's really fallacious to generalize either the 1/9 or 1/4 figure to all ranges, when it is obvious that this figure should be greater for shorter ranges
@@idonnow2 Admittedly, I'm only considering the typical firefight ranges, which the video (and those tests) covered. Close range volleys (below 40 yards) are another matter. With that in mind: "You say that Prince de Ligne's test showed that 1/9 of shots aren't lethal" I said the exact opposite: 1/9 WERE lethal (or at least serious). 1/4 completely missed, and the rest were "hits", but apparently de Ligne considered minor. Here's the quote: " He discovered that around *one in nine shots would have been fatal, or at least severe*; another 25% didn't hit any of the outlines, and the rest either grazed the outline or would have knocked over hats, winded the target". The part about closer ranges is a valid point, and worth a closer look (with the caveat that most firefights actually happened at between 100-150 yards): theoretically, after all, there's every reason why the rate of serious injuries should go up, but looking at period accounts of close-range volleys, it's hard to demonstrate that (De Ligne IIRC was testing out to typical combat ranges. so 100-150 yards). Of course, the accuracy of the weapons at this range might paradoxically explain the apparently low numbers at close range: imagine if nearly every shot hit someone, but instead of ~1 bullet/man, imagine 3, 4, or more bullets per man down. So the theoretically 100% hit I'd expect under 40 yards will in practice /appear/ to be much lower, simply because the poor men in the front have taken all the hits. EDIT: Forgot: this was also noted at the time, and I mentioned it in the opening comment. So at this point, we have an apparent hit rate (ratio of men down/number of bullets), and actual hit rate (how many of the bullets hit a man. As a result, the deadliest volleys seem to have rarely had an apparent total hit rate of ~20%--and these may well be over-estimates. Take, for example, the Garde Francaises at Fontenoy, 1745; the estimate derived for the hit rate of the volley the grade received at the hands of their British counterparts are based on the total casualties the unit sustained, divided by the approximate number of British guards. The problem here is that we know the Gardes Francaises had been taking casualties prior to the volley and would continue to take them afterward (they rallied and went back in the fray). The supposed hit rate of the guards would thus be an overestimate (and this is 20-25%). Then there's the infamous example described by Maurice de Saxe, of an Ottoman cavalry charge on two Hapsburg battalions (de Saxe's "Reveries"). two battalions, a total of ~600 men only felled 50 Turks, with a single volley at a range under 20 yards, before the Turks were atop them and sabering them; the Austrians were so unprepared for this that it was a massacre (the battle was, however, an Imperial victory; that's how he was able to count). And then there's the weirdest example--the battle of Minden. Here, the British waited until the enemy was ~10 yards away, and then blasted away. Unlike the Turks, the French were repulsed. Yet the French survivors remarked that it wasn't just the bullets that injured so many men, but also that the horses smashed into each other at full gallop, crushing their own men. Admittedly with the latter two examples, we're dealing with cavalry, but infantry hit rates weren't THAT much better--not even at Quebec, where the French actually stood there for a while while the British poured into them at under 40 yards (It's a pet peeve of mine, but the battle is misrepresented on so many levels). EDIT: and of course, there are a variety of other factors: fear, confusion, weapon malfunction, etc. Hope that helps: you raise valid points, and they certainly invite closer scrutiny. I guess what I'm getting at is that ultimately, the effectiveness of muskets is much more complicated than what those Prussian tests would suggest--and are at times counterintuitive.
@@Albukhshi Oh shit i must have been drunk when writing that comment i completely messed up the 1/9 and 1/4 figures lmao good thing that my point still got accross. Anyways very thankful for the further information, very insightful!
There was a study which had figured out that US troops in Afghanistan spending about 200,000 or so rounds of ammunition on every dead taliban militant. So 5-7% was, actually, not that bad.
Much different shooting conditions and combat reality. I know you mean well but it's a terrible analysis and I'll try to quickly explain why. The possibility of fast repeated shooting that came with technologicals advancements in warfare the 19th century (bolt action, lever action, single action) created a new technique in combat named "supressing fire", the invention and widespreading of fully automatic weapons in the first half of the 20th century made Supressing fire an integral part of combat. The afghan figure does not account for that and ignores that most fires shot in modern combat serve to supress the enemy, for a variety of reasons, instead of taking targets. If only shots to kill (which under normal combat conditions must be asked permission for) were counted that figure would have been much much greater.
but the afgan jizali was the best in the world with a range of 300 meters to 350 it was a very long master gun have heard about it....any way gun powder was a revolution it made central autority more strong armys grow and empires rise and fall
The reason why the musket was so in accurate under combat conditions, is yes, because men were firing at them, also because smoke eventually clouded their view, also because in cramped formations, the muzzle of the 3rd ranker was at the face of the 1st ranker, causing a lot of anxiety about the discharge that would come from them, this is also true of the touch hole flash which caused men to turn to the right to avoid their neighbours flash. Another factor, is that people may have cringed at the thought of shooting at a living person, and may have just shot into the air, hoping that their comrades would do the killing for them. None the less, nice pleasing animations. Good.
Can I just say the ''bouncing ball'' thing is an 18th century cartoonish myth. It was actually caused by the irregular spin that any ball would have coming down a barrel, this then causes the magnus effect, curving the ball to one side.
its the laymans term of speaking of the 'magnus effect'
It's actually both things. The magnus effect is an inherent flaw of smoothbores but a larger sized bullet does modestly increase accuracy. Watch this video to see for yourself czcams.com/video/LDzYshFmlXY/video.html
@ 1:42
Now, divide these by 9, you'll get roughly the percentage that would have killed or seriously wounded the enemy, assuming the targets were actual people (not shooting back); this number comes from a similar test performed by Ligne (mentioned in Duffy's book on 18th century warfare). The difference was that he had outlines of soldiers painted on the target, so as to see how the balls would have hit the enemy. He discovered that around one in nine shots would have been fatal, or at least severe; another 25% didn't hit any of the outlines, and the rest either grazed the outline or would have knocked over hats, winded the target, temporarily incapacitated them, etc. (it's worth noting that soldiers often got struck repeatedly in a firefight, without being killed or seriously wounded; this is due to the balls striking hats, canteens, cartridge boxes, even coat-tails (Washington at Monongahela had four bullet holes in his coat, but was never wounded); there's one other factor, but I'll save it for later.
So using his equation (results rounded to nearest integer): 8%, 6%, 3%, 2%. Based on this, I'd predict a hit rate of ~ 10 percent at 40 meters.
But wait! there's more!
Similar tests by the Prussian and Austrian Armies showed that only between 20-50% of the balls penetrated the target (which was of pinboard). This may be because many of the shots were in fact ricochets, or improperly loaded. Such rounds are naturally more spent than a ball going full tilt. These were far less likely to kill someone or even wound them seriously to drop them. I forget what the figures were, but I remember when plugging them in, the numbers got even smaller; the ones up to 200 meters IIRC were about half of the above., beyond that, much less.
once you also factor in the possibility of over-penetration (very likely, as advice to spread men out in skirmishes to avoid a ball killing two men exists in Roger's rules for ranging)., It looks as though the above hit rates for close range aren't far off; but for further ranges, the numbers are minuscule--well under 1% I don't think fear factors in as much as one would expect (smoke might be another matter); the shots are already flying erratically.
I'd conclude, based on this, that firefights were effective at ranges of 150m and below; anything greater than that would have been a waste of ammunition. One can also infer, based on the hit rates you give, that firefight were generally over 75 m in distance; it', alongside the stresses of battle, are the only way to explain the low numbers.
Sources:
www.amazon.com/Military-Experience-Reason-Christopher-Duffy/dp/113899586X (it has all the firefight data I refer to).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Rogers%27_28_%22Rules_of_Ranging%22 (I have a PDF of the rules from another place, so I know this one's right; second rule alludes to over-penetration).
You deserve more likes...
This is way to much, but I will still like it.
Good writeup, but i think there's a flaw. You say that Prince de Ligne's test showed that 1/9 of shots aren't lethal, but 1/4 do hit the target, so using the 1/9 figure misrepresents the real accuracy of the weapon. Furthermore there's no mention of the range that Ligne's test was conducted at, so it's really fallacious to generalize either the 1/9 or 1/4 figure to all ranges, when it is obvious that this figure should be greater for shorter ranges
@@idonnow2
Admittedly, I'm only considering the typical firefight ranges, which the video (and those tests) covered. Close range volleys (below 40 yards) are another matter. With that in mind:
"You say that Prince de Ligne's test showed that 1/9 of shots aren't lethal"
I said the exact opposite: 1/9 WERE lethal (or at least serious). 1/4 completely missed, and the rest were "hits", but apparently de Ligne considered minor. Here's the quote:
" He discovered that around *one in nine shots would have been fatal, or at least severe*; another 25% didn't hit any of the outlines, and the rest either grazed the outline or would have knocked over hats, winded the target".
The part about closer ranges is a valid point, and worth a closer look (with the caveat that most firefights actually happened at between 100-150 yards): theoretically, after all, there's every reason why the rate of serious injuries should go up, but looking at period accounts of close-range volleys, it's hard to demonstrate that (De Ligne IIRC was testing out to typical combat ranges. so 100-150 yards).
Of course, the accuracy of the weapons at this range might paradoxically explain the apparently low numbers at close range: imagine if nearly every shot hit someone, but instead of ~1 bullet/man, imagine 3, 4, or more bullets per man down. So the theoretically 100% hit I'd expect under 40 yards will in practice /appear/ to be much lower, simply because the poor men in the front have taken all the hits. EDIT: Forgot: this was also noted at the time, and I mentioned it in the opening comment.
So at this point, we have an apparent hit rate (ratio of men down/number of bullets), and actual hit rate (how many of the bullets hit a man.
As a result, the deadliest volleys seem to have rarely had an apparent total hit rate of ~20%--and these may well be over-estimates. Take, for example, the Garde Francaises at Fontenoy, 1745; the estimate derived for the hit rate of the volley the grade received at the hands of their British counterparts are based on the total casualties the unit sustained, divided by the approximate number of British guards. The problem here is that we know the Gardes Francaises had been taking casualties prior to the volley and would continue to take them afterward (they rallied and went back in the fray). The supposed hit rate of the guards would thus be an overestimate (and this is 20-25%).
Then there's the infamous example described by Maurice de Saxe, of an Ottoman cavalry charge on two Hapsburg battalions (de Saxe's "Reveries"). two battalions, a total of ~600 men only felled 50 Turks, with a single volley at a range under 20 yards, before the Turks were atop them and sabering them; the Austrians were so unprepared for this that it was a massacre (the battle was, however, an Imperial victory; that's how he was able to count).
And then there's the weirdest example--the battle of Minden. Here, the British waited until the enemy was ~10 yards away, and then blasted away. Unlike the Turks, the French were repulsed. Yet the French survivors remarked that it wasn't just the bullets that injured so many men, but also that the horses smashed into each other at full gallop, crushing their own men.
Admittedly with the latter two examples, we're dealing with cavalry, but infantry hit rates weren't THAT much better--not even at Quebec, where the French actually stood there for a while while the British poured into them at under 40 yards (It's a pet peeve of mine, but the battle is misrepresented on so many levels).
EDIT: and of course, there are a variety of other factors: fear, confusion, weapon malfunction, etc.
Hope that helps: you raise valid points, and they certainly invite closer scrutiny. I guess what I'm getting at is that ultimately, the effectiveness of muskets is much more complicated than what those Prussian tests would suggest--and are at times counterintuitive.
@@Albukhshi Oh shit i must have been drunk when writing that comment i completely messed up the 1/9 and 1/4 figures lmao good thing that my point still got accross. Anyways very thankful for the further information, very insightful!
Great video Corvus hope to see you in Napoleanic Total war 3 mod soon!
Empire 2 Total War would be very nice!
There was a study which had figured out that US troops in Afghanistan spending about 200,000 or so rounds of ammunition on every dead taliban militant. So 5-7% was, actually, not that bad.
I came across a factoid a couple years ago that 4.2 million rounds of ammunition were produced in WW II for every battle field death.
Much different shooting conditions and combat reality. I know you mean well but it's a terrible analysis and I'll try to quickly explain why.
The possibility of fast repeated shooting that came with technologicals advancements in warfare the 19th century (bolt action, lever action, single action) created a new technique in combat named "supressing fire", the invention and widespreading of fully automatic weapons in the first half of the 20th century made Supressing fire an integral part of combat.
The afghan figure does not account for that and ignores that most fires shot in modern combat serve to supress the enemy, for a variety of reasons, instead of taking targets.
If only shots to kill (which under normal combat conditions must be asked permission for) were counted that figure would have been much much greater.
d narrator sounds like hes about to fall asleep...
Held at gunpoint by a musket
2:41 Wrong side of the Ram Rod.
Literally a wrong ram rod
Exactly the scenario when firing under stress or when in panic.
Airoforces, A slow musket ball would be affected by wind and other elements.
Very informative
Nice video!
Nice~
and that's why they fought in lines XD!
i like it !
This makes great ASMR 😴
2:05 only 5 to 7% but at what distance? Also 300 or longer or shorter.
I shot a wild turkey with this one during Thanksgiving
Maybe those soldiers didn’t know how to aim correctly
So , it's not that muskets were inaccurate, the men were
but the afgan jizali was the best in the world with a range of 300 meters to 350 it was a very long master gun have heard about it....any way gun powder was a revolution it made central autority more strong armys grow and empires rise and fall
nice but to slow
Der klingt deutsch
you need to read a bit more, before posting aa video. So, I didn't gave you thumb down, but... you should ream much, much more.
where is your video about Napoleanic warfare muskets?