Issues I have with realism

[Filibert]

1- Fire effectiveness :

I did this little experience : small sandbox of 15 minutes between two Brigades, I have 2 000 men (Prussia) and I fight against approximately the double number of this (France).
The combat takes place in the open, at ranges inferior to 150 meters, at the lowest it was 40 meters. Fire at will.

There was, on my side :
32 600 ammunitions spent
342 enemy casualties inflicted
This means 103 shots per single casualty.
Which means only 1% of the shots were hits.

I latter did another battle : This time I had cavalry and guns, as my enemy did. One battery of 8 cannons, their target are several squadrons of enemy cavalry at ranges less than 600 meters, the closest engagement was 200-300 meters. The artillery fire lasted 10 minutes. Result : 15 enemy losses.

I note a strange disparity between melee fights which are very bloody (as the casualty counter racks up very fast when there is a melee), and the fire fights which seems barely harmful...

Do you find this normal ? Is it realistic ? Could you explain to me the causes of these strange results ?

2- Charge speed :

I am a bit incredulous when I order a charge and I see my unit moving to contact with the enemy at walking speed, never running, never doing anything as much as accelerating. I suppose this is excusable for Infantry, because it may be tired in the legs, and it is more important to maintain a perfect formation, and because it is scary to go against bayonets... But shouldn't cavalry be galloping ? Shouldn't Lancers and Cuirassiers go faster than that ?

[Jean Lafitte]

Will share my thoughts as someone who retired as an Officer after over 21 years of military service, and as one that has spent a lifetime studying small unit tactics as well as studied Napoleonic battalion/squadron/brigade tactics.

100 shots per casualty in an infantry firefight is probably close to reality when dealing with muskets at ranges upwards of 110 meters. If the game needed the ratio that you cite for some overarching reason, the current ratio probably should stand.

With regard to Melee, we have learned that most Melee events between infantry in the 19th century involved less "clash of bayonets" than most would think. One side or the other would fall back at the run before too long in a Melee. As such, perhaps extremely bloody infantry v. infantry Melee in the game should be re-considered.

Cavalry in the stock game seems slow. Maybe it is because of the muddy battlefield, but, often enemy infantry appear to be running away faster than friendly cavalry can catch them!

With regard to cavalry not executing all charges with full gallop, that is realistic. The horses could not full gallop too much without becoming too tired to be useful. So, the game should not show Cavalry at the full gallop very often.

[Saddletank]

Cavalry attacks were delivered at the trot. Any faster pace and command control and cohesion would be lost.

Any Hollywood film that shows galloping cavalrymen without any attempt at maintaining order is pure fantasy.

If anything I feel the cavalry attack speeds are too fast.

Artillery in the game is woefully underpowered and inflicts far too few casualties.

There are mods out there that correct this error.

Canister range is also too short in the game (and musket range is possibly too long at 150yds).

Melee losses are far too high. As Jean says the fear or threat of melee would be enough to make one side break and retire before a serious hand to hand fight ensued. About the only time there were significant infantry melees was in towns and fights over defended buildings.

The rate of losses from musketry is about right.

[cratcliffe20]

In Chapter 12 of 'With Musket, Cannon And Sword: Battle Tactics Of Napoleon And His Enemies' Brent Nosworthy describes the many issues that caused such inaccurate Musketry fire.

If you download and use the 'Realistic Smoke' mod you can get a look at one of the reasons, but reading this chapter indicates it was more to do with human instinct and self-preservation.

[Jean Lafitte]

I honestly almost choke on the words that I write when I write that "100 musket rounds per enemy casualty is realistic" because I find it hard to believe my own words, but, the historical research says that it is true.

It is difficult for me to believe it, but, from all that we know from study, it's close to reality and seems to be the truth.

:ohmy:

[Filibert]

Yes indeed, I agree that it is difficult to believe, especially considering all the accuracy tests that have been done showing that with the correct load, muskets have the potential to be somewhat accurate at 100 meters*. I, too, have read that it took a hundred shots to hit anyone on the battlefield, but I've also read the account of Humfrey Barwick, an English officier in the late 16th century who claimed that, with his own arquebus, he was capable of hitting a man at 100 meters. He even proposed a challenge where the best archer in England stands at 120 yards and shoots 10 arrows at him before he returns fire with 2 shots from a musket or arquebus (and strangely enough, nobody dared accepting this challenge). And he made the statement that the maximum effective range of muskets in volley fire was 220 meters.**

Thomas Digges in "Stratioticos" (1590) claimed that the effective range of the musket was 150 meters (but conceded that the ball would have to fit tightly inside the barrel, otherwise it would be more likely 75 meters)***

It is hard to believe than napoleonic soldiers were such bad shooters... :unsure:

cratcliffe20, thank you for giving a reference, but unfortunately I don't have this book. I'd like it very much if you elaborated on the reasons why accuracy in battlefield conditions was so low.

Thank you all for your answers !

*Accuracy tests :
http://firearmshistory.blogspot.fr/2016 ... ms-iv.html
https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/M ... 7669/22312
https://bowvsmusket.com/category/modern-test/

**Quoted by Sean McLachlan in "Medieval Handgonnes"
https://books.google.fr/books?id=au_20j ... ds&f=false
"A Brief Discourse Concerning the Force and Effect of All Firearms and the Comparative Inferiority of the Longbow and Archery" by Humfrey Barwick : http://the-norseman.livejournal.com/13230.html?nojs=1

***Cited by Geoffrey Parker in "The Military Revolution: Military Innovation and the Rise of the West, 1500-1800" https://books.google.fr/books?id=cIFiNR ... es&f=false

[cratcliffe20]

Hi Filibert, I took a gander at your links and the tests that were done on musket accuracy.

Nosworthy states it was not so much the musket that was the issue, as it was proven to be accurate at acceptable distances.

It's a decent sized chapter, but some of the issues were.

1. Smoke: A single musket does not produce much smoke on discharge, but when you have 500+ muskets fired then in a couple of minutes the smoke would hide the targets in front of them and if the enemy is also firing then the smoke gets even worse. Smoke would linger if there was no wind as i is denser than air.

2. Pan flash-to cartridge ignition: The tendency for the barrel to rise when a shot was fired was no worse than a modern rifle, so it did not affect accuracy any more than today. However, there was about a 1/2 second delay between the pan flash and the cartridge ignition. Soldiers would tend to close there eyes anticipating the flash, which takes their eye (If they were aiming correctly, which they were not) off the target.

3. Kick: The soldier was taught to put there cheek on the stock with their head near the breech and aim down the sight. Often the kick from the musket being fired would have the breech hit them in the mouth of nose, blooding either or both if not held tightly enough. If it happened enough he'd start to keep his head away from the stock and just aim in the general direction of the enemy.

4. Aim: He talks about numerous reports of musket fire aiming too high. The soldiers were taught to aim at different parts of a man depending upon distance from the enemy. Most times, they would aim for center of mass no matter what the distance and unless they were close the ball always sailed high.

5. Terrain: All of the fire training took part on the practice range or parade ground which was flat. Most of the time the fighting took place in uneven ground. Nosworthy references several contemporary reports where units on the high ground consistently missed high due to not accounting for the height difference. The men were taught to aim toward the ground or the feet of the infantry coming up the hill but it was against their natural instinct to do so. It was the same problem but in reverse aiming upward.

6. Third rank: In three rank formations, the third rank was supposed to load muskets for the second rank to fire. A lot of times the third rank would fire it themselves and could hurt the soldiers in front of them. Nosworthy cites Napoleon, who, during 1813-1814, suspected his green troops were self-inflicting wounds to try and be relieved of duty until it was discovered it was third rank firing that was causing the wounds.

There was another contemporary reference saying in the firing line, you'd have the man next to you kneeling to fire, another standing forward to get a better view through the smoke, men in different stages of getting their weapon loaded, the din of the shots being fired all around, other muskets being fired close to your head, seeing someone with an awful wound who two men would 'volunteer' to carry out of line, worrying that that could be you, men running out of ammunition, the Officers shouting commands that couldn't always be heard or were ignored.

Jean Lafitte mentions "100 musket rounds per enemy casualty is realistic" but Nosworthy lists experiments and contemporary experience that suggests that figure may even be high.

In general, the French understood that a regiment to regiment fire fight would not resolve itself. Only if one side started to run out of ammunition or if aid from another unit (cannon fire say) would resolve it. When they had their units advancing on the enemy, they did not wish them to pause and fire a volley first as it was difficult to get them moving again. It was 'safer' to stand and fire than come to grips with an enemy that refused to retreat from your advance.

[Saddletank]

I don't have any problem accepting that dozens of tests, both modern and contemporary, stated that a smoothbore musket was capable of X amount of accuracy - they almost certainly were and are very functional weapons; the thing people rarely take into account is that during these tests no-one was standing at the opposite end of the field or firing range, similarly armed and trying to kill you, nor that you had 500 men stood either side of you facing another 500 all doing likewise.

In those conditions no amount of test condition data remains reliable, even though it maybe completely true in those tests.

[mcaryf]

In the Battle of the Rosebud in 1876 between the US Army and Sioux plus Cheyenne Indians, it has been calculated that the US Army with rifles against a somewhat more elusive foe fired on average over 200 rounds for every warrior casualty.

Regards

Mike

[Capt Saucier]

I think the best way to look at the issue is to study accounts of historical battles and then see whether the game results produce results similar to the history. My view is that both the Gettysburg and Waterloo games produce reasonably accurate results, certainly better than the Total War Napoleon game does from a tactical standpoint. I wish that the game engine did not produce the "milling around" that occurs, but I have (sort of) become used to it. Perhaps artillery results are a tad weak, but overall casualty rates from the battles I have played seem about right.

Do any of the mods eliminate the milling around?