Austupaio said:
The only reason soldiers these days don't fire off all their ammunition is because they have superior, modern training and, even more so, because it's part of modern doctrine to fire all day long. Suppressive fire is the tactic of 21st century so far.
Soldiers with the level of training they had in the 1700-1900 (and many conscripted) are ignorant, scared animals. Just like a young spider bite, at the first startle they would empty every bullet they had at an enemy.
Actually mate, fire discipline (controlling one's fire) has been a feature of warfare since the beginning of recorded history, otherwise battles would consist of all javelins being flung pell-mell instead of controlled volleys, as we know the Romans did and similar to how archers fired by command in the medieval. Modern doctrine does
not state "fire all day long," and suppressive fires have in fact been falling out of vogue with modern counterinsurgency experience.
I happen to know a lot of conscript soldiers (Swiss and Finnish friends) and they're all good, well-trained soldiers in my opinion; my background is defence analysis, military history, and instructing small unit tactics. I know that earlier in history (1700-1900) soldiers were not as well trained, but battlefield tactics were considerably easier; most of it consisted of standardized drill manouevres and the loading and firing drills; again, firing to command.
Historically, interestingly, we see adoption of "Light Infantry" tactics and abandonment of controlled fire (loosened formations, use of terrain cover, firing by pairs etc) by all units with combat experience in the American Revolutionary War (Mark Urban, Fusiliers) and in the Peninsular Campaign (Light Division. See: Rifles, Mark Urban), but we see that these 'poorly trained' soldiers did not fire off all of their ammunition in the first contact. I cite Mark Urban since he's got very readable accounts of this, everything else is a bit turgid. In the offchance you happen to buy it, might as well have recommended a good book with the appropriate data rather than some pain in the ass historical tome, right?
And with the adoption of magazine fed rifles, the same soldiers who are believed to be liable to "fire off all of their rounds at first startle" by their own officers, don't. Boer War demonstrates this rather well, as it comes in on the tail of the whole "thou shalt not have a magazine fed rifle or thy troops will not have ammo after five minutes of battle" thinking - and the British Army did not change over the course of adopting various single shot and magazine fed rifles.
The only troops I am aware of to fire off all of their ammunition at "first startle" are American conscript soldiers in Vietnam issued the M16. Their fire discipline is demonstrably very poor. Soviet conscripts in Afghanistan had similar issues, so it's not a function of being in a jungle. It's a function of having a
fully automatic weapon and poor leadership.
Nijis said:
Yes they were, all the time. Irregulars were involved on a large scale in the Seven Years' War, the American Revolution, the Napoleonic Wars, the American Civil War, and probably every other major conflict as well. I assume most of them would have the freedom to bring their own weapons to the muster.
Militaries fielded all kinds of experimental troops as well -- Austrian air-rifle jaegers,for example. With all the dozens and dozens of active militaries in the 18th and 19th centuries out there competing with each other, and watching each other, and fighting irregular forces, and experimenting, I doubt seriously that any genuine affordable battlefield-worthy repeating firearm would be excluded from use simply because of doctrine.
My mistake, allow me to rephrase: No soldier spontaneously carries a new weapon*. Doctrine is God, especially in this era. A failure to understand this is a failure to understand the nature of warfare in this period. Irregulars are not soldiers; nor on the topic of this thread do I feel they would have access to very expensive experimental "repeating" flintlock designs - those who had enough money to own them had enough money to buy commissions in regular units or avoid fighting altogether. To my knowledge, none of these experimental designs - like the Austrian "Windbueschejaeger" or the British Rifle regiments with their Bakers - were adopted for limited issue use, which would be the second distinction.
* - Exceptions would be extenuating circumstances; if his lock mainspring breaks, pick up a French one or a fallen comrade's until you can have it repaired. If he's cut off from his unit, again, pick up and use what works; but importantly any weapon acquired in this manner is not official and cannot be considered widespread use. Almost every invention sees some use, but very little of it is historically notable. Repeating flintlocks, in the tune of this thread, don't see any use that I am aware of. As I explain to Archonsod below, any citations you can make to the contrary would be awesome for filling in gaps in my knowledge.
Archonsod: Repeating firearm is defined as a magazine fed manually or mechanically actuated firearm with a single barrel. That is to say, a lever-action rifle is a repeating firearm. The Lee Enfield is a repeating firearm, so is the SVT-40, M16 family, etc. Revolvers generally aren't included as they've multiple chambers, which seems to be interpreted by some as to mean 'multiple barrels' which I feel is crap. Good example with the caplock revolvers.
The main obstacle to adopting a repeating rifle was primarily ammunition. By the time mechanically fired breechloaders have superceded flintlocks, the only cartridges in use are still paper cartridges, not durable enough to survive mechanical loading. Adoption of the metal cartridge case enables this - once you've got a reliable breechloader, you've got a reliable repeating rifle if and only if the ammunition can stand up to being loaded mechanically. It's not reliability or logistics, it's simply that the ammunition of the time didn't handle being loaded mechanically. Given that a breechloading single shot rifle is identical mechanically to early magazine fed (repeating) breechloading rifles, and their recorded accuracies and v0s (muzzle velocities) match this, it's not a case of mechanical limitations due to the rifle.
Infantry rely on battalion trains (logistics train; not literally a railway train) for their ammunition. Non-standard firearms don't have ammunition carried for them. I'm not going to argue that battlefield pickup didn't occur, as it very clearly did from contemporary accounts. But your earlier logistics objection flies in the face of Light troops acquiring rifles for their own use through means other than official issue (which would only pertinent to some Jaeger and the Rifle regiments).
I'd really like to know your sources for where the 95th is wielding American or German rifles commonly. Just so we're clear, I'm not trying to be confrontational; this is what I do for a living and if there's information I don't have I can't use it effectively, so cite me some sources here as a courtesy. I haven't heard it before. I have heard of - and no, I can't cite you back unfortunately as I don't remember which book it's in, but I will look through my collection and get you a full citation when I find it - redcoats (regular British Line Infantry) being executed by the more draconian Colonels for abandoning Her Majesty's property (issue musket) on the field. As to discipline in Napoleonic militaries, it depends largely on the regimental commanding officer and any general's standing orders issued: it certainly varies from flogging and being billed to being executed.