Ironsights...?

[AgentGB]

Weren't the 52nd skirmishers though?

Spoiler

yep, and line infantry also, they were very flexible, being able and expected to act on initiative aswell as stand in line and fire in volley. Basically alot of regiments were lighted up to preform this multi role task while the peninsula campaign was underway. You could even say they acted as sappers also, building trenches under fire. But i won't take this thread of topic with my passion for the 52nd. But as Hekko mentioned, they were part of the Light Divsion, fighting alongside the 43rd, 95th and later on spanish/portuguese lights.

Ah I see. I think skirmishing in the terrain of Spain and Portugal against weary French Fusiliers also under constant guerilla attacks may have gotten them more kills that squinting over a lug holding their muskets together.

Spoiler

Thats true,  but the french caused that problem for themselves by mistreating the locals and living off the fat of there land, where as wellington used hearts and minds, paying for all local supplys, proividng arms and trying to enforce the no looting rule almost causing a debt for the expeditionary force.

I don't think anybody is claiming that you can't aim a musket using a bead sight or bayonet lug, but it's an undeniable fact that there are no ironsights in the way people think of them today on muskets. Soldiers other than light infantry and sharpshooters were trained to simply point their shooty-bits in a generally forward direction, since the focus was not on individual accuracy but on accuracy by volume.

Spoiler

I know what you mean, once the lines overtake there skirmishers, a big blob of troops present themselves, and not much accuracy is needed other then to point and shoot. Other then that, fights between skirmishers took place between 50 yards as i think you mentioned earlier ghost dad. Which seemed to be the effective maximum accurate range of a aimed musket. But i do also believe the bore of the bullet and how well packed a shot was could increase the accuracy, athough i can't source anything to prove it atm

LOL, I am just answering the actual thread and not going off topic about Peninsular

Spoiler

Sorry if i appeared to be taking it off topic, but i was making a point, and using the 52nd as an example, since they wielded a musket and fought in a skirmisher role also, with a supposed weapon that as next to no accruacy. Even with an inaccurate weapon, as a skirmisher, im guessing you need to make every attempt to aim your shot to be effective at your role. Which kinda was my point.

and to get back on topic, sorry!

Muskets Did have sights in the Napoleonic wars, EVERY musket had a front sight for the bayonet to lock onto. And What in the hell makes you think people didn't aim their muskets?

"turning their heads": that is an OLD way, only used durning the 17 and 18th century. by the napoleonic wars every one aimed at their targets. Getting sparks in your eyes? really? have you never fired a musket in your life? ever heard of a flash guard?

Final point: Only an idiot looks away from his weapon when he fires.

Thread point: Clearly it whould have required too much work for them to make the animation actually look like you are aiming your musket. instead everyone in this just points their boom sticks in a general direction.

This exactly was my thinking also, but since im not a history buff, i didn't want to educate people with false facts and not blurt out to much about what i really don't know.

here somthing i fount quickly, sorta enforcing Line_Infantry post, cleary not from the british museum, and is actually a Danish musket. But its clear that sights were apart of muskets off the period, and i think people would close there eyes at best then look away. I know ill rather be alive, then worry about getting a bit of smoke in my eye, its not like its a wielders flame after all, which would cause you to go blind.
http://www.svartkrutt.net/articles/vis.php?id=40

 

[Krause]

Sight or not doesn t matter much.
It s just more important how familar you are with your weapon.

>>Battle experience also mattered in accuracy of musket fire.
Let's take a French or Russian line battalion, with the "6 rounds" for target practice. In their first large battle the average infantryman of this unit would fire between 1 and 60 (or more!) rounds. It includes prolonged fights in defending/attacking a wood or village, skirmish fights while screening their own battalion, and even exchanges of volleys with enemy's battalion. If the battalion participated in other battles and smaller combats during this campaign, they became seasoned veterans with several hundreds of rounds fired in just one year. <<

Please read carefully and read all

http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/infantry_tactics_2.htm#_comparison_of_wounds_caused_by_bayonets

http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/

 

[marchal davout]

see anyone look away?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA3DhGCC1x8

 

[nikosierra125]

see anyone look away?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA3DhGCC1x8

No but I did distinctly see them close their eyes, which is pretty much the same.

 

[Sergeant Tristan]

So, they aim, fire, briefly close their eyes, which we do alot cause we BLINK every now and then. I don't see your point ... ?

 

[Lowlander]

see anyone look away?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA3DhGCC1x8

No but I did distinctly see them close their eyes, which is pretty much the same.

Closing their eyes is due to natural human instinct. They had already aimed their shot.

 

[Azrooh]

That's a modern shooting position, so I don't think they're the best for an accurate display of firing muskets... Heels should be together with one pointing out at a 45 degree angle in a firing stance.
The problem isn't the flash, it's the sharp bits of flint that fly right towards your eye.

 

[SeanBeansShako]

Considering now one hit with the musket ball and your out for the count this would slow the casual games pacing down to a even more painful crawl.

Everyone hates it when people crowd up and try and snipe each other halfway across the map with the reticle instead of getting stuck in. I really don't like it when rounds drag on into five minutes when people do this already.

 

[Jimmy Carr]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musket

I think this ends the discussion?

''Most smooth bore muskets did not have sights. Rifled muskets, due to their longer range, were usually equipped with sights. The design and placement of these sights varied. For example, the U.S. Springfield Model 1861 musket used two flip up leaf sights, set for 300 and 500 yards, while the British Pattern 1853 Enfield used a flip up ladder sight, which was graduated from 100 to 900 yards in 100 yard increments (although realistically, hitting anything beyond 500 yards was mostly a matter of luck).''

 

[sinofchaos]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musket

I think this ends the discussion?

''Most smooth bore muskets did not have sights. Rifled muskets, due to their longer range, were usually equipped with sights. The design and placement of these sights varied. For example, the U.S. Springfield Model 1861 musket used two flip up leaf sights, set for 300 and 500 yards, while the British Pattern 1853 Enfield used a flip up ladder sight, which was graduated from 100 to 900 yards in 100 yard increments (although realistically, hitting anything beyond 500 yards was mostly a matter of luck).''

Lol. Wikipedia...

 

[Line_Infantry]

Anyone here who has TRUELY fired a musket knows very well that they are easy to aim, and easy to keep on target.

Musket accuratecy Really has nothing to do with the Smooth bore of the gun it has everything to do with powder count. if you maintained a consistant powder charge, you can hit a target 50 yards away OVER AND OVER AND OVER

I am getting rather sick of people claiming that muskets are not accurate without ever shooting one for themselfs. or if they do shoot one themselfs, they allow THEIR flaws to model the experience.

Went to the range with my Company commander and he had an 3rd model brown bess. For my FIRST time EVER shooting one i landed 8 out of 10 shots on a target 50 yards away. BY AIMING DOWN THE SIGHTS. plus consistant powder amount.

Go ask Reenactors, go ask ANY soldier..... my orignal point "Only an idiot doesnt AIM his weapon"

 

[AgentGB]

Sight or not doesn t matter much.
It s just more important how familar you are with your weapon.

>>Battle experience also mattered in accuracy of musket fire.
Let's take a French or Russian line battalion, with the "6 rounds" for target practice. In their first large battle the average infantryman of this unit would fire between 1 and 60 (or more!) rounds. It includes prolonged fights in defending/attacking a wood or village, skirmish fights while screening their own battalion, and even exchanges of volleys with enemy's battalion. If the battalion participated in other battles and smaller combats during this campaign, they became seasoned veterans with several hundreds of rounds fired in just one year. <<

Please read carefully and read all

http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/infantry_tactics_2.htm#_comparison_of_wounds_caused_by_bayonets

http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/

to quote Krause, if anyone also bothered reading his links

"The first Brown Bess musket was designed in 1722 and was produced until the 1860s. Accuracy of the Brown Bess was fair, as with most other muskets. The rate of fire ranged from 2 to 5 shots per minute. Many variations and modifications of the standard pattern musket were created over its long history.
The musket issued only to the Foot Guards and 4th Regiment of Foot had barrel length of 99 cm (overall length 141 cm), and weighed 4.56 kg (10.06 pounds). The one issued to only to the 43rd, 52nd, 68th, 71st and 85th Light Infantry and the Battalions of the 60th Foot not armed with rifles had similar length and weight. The differences between the two models of muskets were a scrolled trigger guard similar to that of the Baker Rifle except more rounded, a browned barrel and a notch back-sight, the bayonet lug being used as the fore-sight."

the iron sight was in place for aiming? it was as simple as that? may not have been standard with the line infantry,  having a rear sight with the bayonet lug, but they all had sights? Which means people attempted to aim with them surely??

 

[Ghost Dad]

Anyone here who has TRUELY fired a musket knows very well that they are easy to aim, and easy to keep on target.

Musket accuratecy Really has nothing to do with the Smooth bore of the gun it has everything to do with powder count. if you maintained a consistant powder charge, you can hit a target 50 yards away OVER AND OVER AND OVER

I am getting rather sick of people claiming that muskets are not accurate without ever shooting one for themselfs. or if they do shoot one themselfs, they allow THEIR flaws to model the experience.

Went to the range with my Company commander and he had an 3rd model brown bess. For my FIRST time EVER shooting one i landed 8 out of 10 shots on a target 50 yards away. BY AIMING DOWN THE SIGHTS. plus consistant powder amount.

Go ask Reenactors, go ask ANY soldier..... my orignal point "Only an idiot doesnt AIM his weapon"

Nobody is claiming it isn't possible to aim a musket. HOWEVER, it is an undeniable fact that soldiers in the Napoleonic era were trained for volume, not accuracy. Line infantry was literally not trained to aim their weapons. There are a number of reasons for this:
-The 'culture' of warfare at the time was much different than it is today, and deliberately trying to kill your opponent was in some ways 'unsporting'. The whole "don't shoot at officers" thing isn't just something invented for line battles, it was an actual 'rule' of warfare.
-The training was focused on volume of fire, not accuracy.
-During heavy fighting, the heavy smoke 'fog of war' caused by black powder obscured vision sufficiently to prevent soldiers in line from having good aim.

But probably the main reason, which is something you would likely have missed firing a musket today, is that the ammunition issued to soldiers was GARBAGE. Modern musket ammunition is usually made in the same way ammunition was made for hunting historically: it has a fairly close bore-to-ball match, the powder charge is consistent, and the load is done carefully and often with a patch for increased accuracy. A musket loaded in this fashion is actually quite consistent and accurate at short-to-mid range.
Military ammunition, on the other hand, was NOT made for accuracy. It was significantly underbore, again to allow faster reloading. As an example, the British land pattern muskets are all .75 caliber. The ammunition soldiers were issued with? Anywhere from .69 to .67 caliber, with the size actually shrinking as time went on. Issued musket balls also, being mass produced at low cost, often had defects in their shape or casting. Combine a terribly underbore ball with poor paper wadding and dubious powder charge, and you have an inconsistent and inaccurate load for a firearm that already suffers from consistency issues.

Also, in response to the numbers regarding bayonet wounds vs. other types of wounds, you need to consider that very rarely did fighting come to actual hand-to-hand combat, outside of cavalry (hence the higher numbers for sword wounds). Infantry commanders would generally not risk attacking an enemy in hand-to-hand unless that enemy was already demoralized, or otherwise broken, and the very act of a bayonet 'charge' was usually enough to cause the already shaky defenders to rout rather than fight.

 

[Line_Infantry]

Ghost Dad Brings up very good points,

And while i agree and understand that it was indeed about "volume" that consept is mainly because soldiers started fireing at eatch other from well outside the effective range of a Musket of the day. And even Still, they aimed their shots. Main thing i wish to discredit is this nonsense about looking away from the gun when fireing which is NOT the case by the time the 1800's rolled in.

But situational innacuracy wasnt what i was reffering to, more just the musket in general. However, very good points about shot size, wadding, powder and smoke. also to the culture of the day you are also compleately correct.

but to the Thread point: Muskets DID have sights, and soldiers DID use them. simple as that.

But to my original post: Again clearly emplymenting an actual AIMING animation whould have required too much work on part of the creators.

 

[Vicccard]

Anyone here who has TRUELY fired a musket knows very well that they are easy to aim, and easy to keep on target.

Musket accuratecy Really has nothing to do with the Smooth bore of the gun it has everything to do with powder count. if you maintained a consistant powder charge, you can hit a target 50 yards away OVER AND OVER AND OVER

I am getting rather sick of people claiming that muskets are not accurate without ever shooting one for themselfs. or if they do shoot one themselfs, they allow THEIR flaws to model the experience.

Went to the range with my Company commander and he had an 3rd model brown bess. For my FIRST time EVER shooting one i landed 8 out of 10 shots on a target 50 yards away. BY AIMING DOWN THE SIGHTS. plus consistant powder amount.

Go ask Reenactors, go ask ANY soldier..... my orignal point "Only an idiot doesnt AIM his weapon"

Nobody is claiming it isn't possible to aim a musket. HOWEVER, it is an undeniable fact that soldiers in the Napoleonic era were trained for volume, not accuracy. Line infantry was literally not trained to aim their weapons. There are a number of reasons for this:
-The 'culture' of warfare at the time was much different than it is today, and deliberately trying to kill your opponent was in some ways 'unsporting'. The whole "don't shoot at officers" thing isn't just something invented for line battles, it was an actual 'rule' of warfare.
-The training was focused on volume of fire, not accuracy.
-During heavy fighting, the heavy smoke 'fog of war' caused by black powder obscured vision sufficiently to prevent soldiers in line from having good aim.

As a re-enactorr, I fully support this last statement. After a single volley, and without a good wind, it's hard to see more then a few meters. Add multiple regiments and cannons with that, and aiming is impossible.

About flash guards...Some guys in my regiment told us they didn't have those in Nap's time.

 

[Ghost Dad]

As a re-enactorr, I fully support this last statement. After a single volley, and without a good wind, it's hard to see more then a few meters. Add multiple regiments and cannons with that, and aiming is impossible.

About flash guards...Some guys in my regiment told us they didn't have those in Nap's time.

Flash guards are a modern invention, and they don't serve to protect the user, they serve to protect the person standing to the right of the user. Without a flash guard, a jet of hot gas fires out of the vent on the musket, directly into the face of the person standing next to you. The flash guard just directs that gas upward.

 

[AgentGB]

I believe the no shooting officer policy was rule the americans didn't follow, during the war of indepence, and from which the British adopted seeing the effect on morale, and started training there own light regiments to follow suit during the napoleonic wars to fight the reowned french skirmishers. To be quite honest, the British were generally quite unsporting throughtout the napoleonic period, with light companys targeting officers, flag bearers first. Also the same could be said about artillery which also purposely targeted the flag bearers.

Also alot of people have made claims that i would probably consider not to be true, for one, looking away while shooting, and two, muskets didn't have sights since they weren't needed.

I know muskets aren't an accurate weapon in general, especially at a 100 yards, were i read that your most likely still able to score a kill, but not at the target you was aiming for, from which most line to line action would take place, before one side presented a weakness allowing for a flank or a bayonet charge to rout them of the field.

But line_infantry original point on them having sights during the period is valid, and i do also agree, that muskets were effective to a certain range. The point is, any attempt to aim your musket, especially if provided with sights, will increase your odds off actually hitting your target. During a big battle, sheer volumes are needed, or fire power? when firing at blobs of infantry is needed. The reason for the formation weren't to look pretty on the battlefield, but because it was generally necessary in a rock, paper, scissors manner.

As i mentioned before, im not fussed about having iron sights in the game, even thou, for any modder wishing to make mods, the animation and feature would be in place, and is still quite historical to the time period, i can understand why people have voted yes, but as for your vision being obscured by smoke, then yeah, i guess your pretty much blind firing in the general direction of the enemy

 

[Vicccard]

As a re-enactorr, I fully support this last statement. After a single volley, and without a good wind, it's hard to see more then a few meters. Add multiple regiments and cannons with that, and aiming is impossible.

About flash guards...Some guys in my regiment told us they didn't have those in Nap's time.

Flash guards are a modern invention, and they don't serve to protect the user, they serve to protect the person standing to the right of the user. Without a flash guard, a jet of hot gas fires out of the vent on the musket, directly into the face of the person standing next to you. The flash guard just directs that gas upward.

ah, yes, that reminds me of the story of one of our veteran members. First Waterloo, a frenchmen said to him: look! and fired. and laughed. Bit of French humour. 

 

[Evanovic]

but to the Thread point: Muskets DID have sights, and soldiers DID use them. simple as that.

Most muskets didn't have sights as the focus was on volume and spread of fire, not accuracy. It was only really Rifles that had sights because they were meant for precise targeting of officers and far off targets and such. It would have been a waste of metal on Line Infantry muskets.

The 'Muskets' page on Wikipedia seems to agree: 'Most smooth bore muskets did not have sights. Rifled muskets, due to their longer range, were usually equipped with sights'.

Evan

 

[AgentGB]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_Bess

The "New Light Infantry Land Pattern" fitted with a sight, to work with the bayonet lug. So wasn't just rifles, since nearly every dedicated british light division were issued with these muskets, and played a pivotal role in spain. 

The lug althou not proven to actually be a sight itself, may have been used to aim with, and would have indeed have helped to level your aim and increase focus when looking down your musket at a target. Troops who fought in light company in standard line regiment, were still chosen for being a good shot, also among other qualitlys like size and initiative.  I think the bayonet lug served a duo purpose, since it postioned in a fashion that help line infantry to aim, aswell as hold there bayonet on.