Anvil Game Studios

Author Topic: Musket Accuracy In holdfast?  (Read 864 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Bluehawk

  • Global Moderator
  • Midshipman's Mate
  • ****
  • Posts: 216
  • Faction: British Empire
Re: Musket Accuracy In holdfast?
« Reply #15 on: September 06, 2017, 07:56:32 pm »
In the Russian army, first of all, they were required to shoot rarely, and accurately.

Spoiler
[close]

The same regulations call for the soldier to be able to reload up to three times a minute or more, which was the standard rate of fire for other European armies.
Отделение второе, Глава 2. О заряжании без команды.
[close]
http://adjudant.ru/regulations/1811-infantery-08.htm

Offline Shadilaynes

  • Petty Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 22
  • Anglo Boys are the Best Boys
  • Faction: British Empire
Re: Musket Accuracy In holdfast?
« Reply #16 on: September 06, 2017, 11:49:43 pm »
I understand that in real life, and in NW that muskets were horribly inaccurate. However, I hate how FSE made no effort to even make aim down the sights, despite modeling them on the bloody gun!
Either way, we must keep in mind, despite that fact this game is based heavily in history, these must be SOME things sacrificed for fun, as that is the real purpose of games in the first place. Note the "some" in that previous sentence. I believe that this is part of that, albeit small, area.
edit: changed TSE to FSE
« Last Edit: September 07, 2017, 02:26:05 am by Shadilaynes »

Offline Andee

  • Standing Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 251
  • Faction: French Empire
  • Nick: [3DM]Kpt. Andee
Re: Musket Accuracy In holdfast?
« Reply #17 on: September 07, 2017, 01:38:29 am »
I understand that in real life, and in NW that muskets were horribly inaccurate. However, I hate how TSE made no effort to even make aim down the sights, despite modeling them on the bloody gun!
Either way, we must keep in mind, despite that fact this game is based heavily in history, these must be SOME things sacrificed for fun, as that is the real purpose of games in the first place. Note the "some" in that previous sentence. I believe that this is part of that, albeit small, area.

TSE?

Offline Shadilaynes

  • Petty Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 22
  • Anglo Boys are the Best Boys
  • Faction: British Empire
Re: Musket Accuracy In holdfast?
« Reply #18 on: September 07, 2017, 02:26:27 am »
I understand that in real life, and in NW that muskets were horribly inaccurate. However, I hate how TSE made no effort to even make aim down the sights, despite modeling them on the bloody gun!
Either way, we must keep in mind, despite that fact this game is based heavily in history, these must be SOME things sacrificed for fun, as that is the real purpose of games in the first place. Note the "some" in that previous sentence. I believe that this is part of that, albeit small, area.

TSE?
Fixed it. Silly mistake

Offline Hughes

  • Surgeon's Mate
  • *
  • Posts: 25
  • Faction: Neutral
Re: Musket Accuracy In holdfast?
« Reply #19 on: September 07, 2017, 02:24:54 pm »
Historical accuracy is the only benchmark worth the effort.
Musketry fire is fundamental to how battles are fought; How and when melee takes place.

This game will be judged by the historical accuracy of its elements

Offline TooL69

  • Petty Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 56
Re: Musket Accuracy In holdfast?
« Reply #20 on: September 07, 2017, 04:17:21 pm »
An experienced soldier trained in shooting (a former hunter for example) could easily hit a man in the chest at 90 meters.

Probably with time to aim, without any people to disturb him. But try it in a battle, with smoke, etc...

This is an interesting video where they try to experiment the accuracy of a smooth bore musket during a battle:



Go to 15:15

I think the actors specially shoot badly to justify the stereotype of inaccurate muskets.
I've already brought a video from Murphey's Muskets in which he shoots out an original French musket that's 200 years old. And it shows a very high accuracy of 90 meters.
Also, the experiments conducted at the polygons in the 18-19th centuries show much higher accuracy results:
Haythornthwaite Ph. J. Napoleonic Infantry: Napoleonic Weapons and Warfare
Hughes B. P. Firepower. Weapons effectives on the battlefield, 1630-1850

Of course, in a real battle, the human factor plays a huge role. Soldiers find it difficult to aim in battle conditions due to stress, fatigue, smoke ..

I just want Holdfast's ballistics to be fair. And the human factors that affect accuracy can be simulated as it is done in rising storm 2 / red orchestra 2. And with the help of skills and perks.
« Last Edit: September 07, 2017, 04:22:36 pm by TooL69 »

Online Lecourbe

  • Surgeon's Mate
  • *
  • Posts: 239
  • Par le fer quand le feu manque !
    • 61e Régiment
  • Faction: French Empire
  • Nick: [61e] Lecourbe
Re: Musket Accuracy In holdfast?
« Reply #21 on: September 07, 2017, 06:21:36 pm »
An experienced soldier trained in shooting (a former hunter for example) could easily hit a man in the chest at 90 meters.

Probably with time to aim, without any people to disturb him. But try it in a battle, with smoke, etc...

This is an interesting video where they try to experiment the accuracy of a smooth bore musket during a battle:



Go to 15:15
I think the actors specially shoot badly to justify the stereotype of inaccurate muskets.

Why the fuck would they aim especially badly? xD

It's just an experience made by some fans. But I hope that shooting won't be too accurate in the game, it will obviously conduct to a boring gameplay...

Offline TooL69

  • Petty Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 56
Re: Musket Accuracy In holdfast?
« Reply #22 on: September 07, 2017, 08:09:59 pm »
Spoiler
[close]
I already wrote why I think so.
In addition, the majority of modern reenactors and fans of historical weapons shoot much better soldiers of the times of Napoleon.

Offline TooL69

  • Petty Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 56
Re: Musket Accuracy In holdfast?
« Reply #23 on: September 09, 2017, 12:29:24 pm »
I hope the Holdfast pistols will be accurate enough and effective in the range of 20-30 meters.
http://mlaic.org/2016/05/08/the-first-ever-100-score-in-cominazzo-achieved-by-ernst-stefan/

Offline Max

  • Able Seaman
  • *
  • Posts: 17
  • Retired Commander-in-chief of NWP Servers
  • Faction: Neutral
Re: Musket Accuracy In holdfast?
« Reply #24 on: September 09, 2017, 03:40:09 pm »
We have clear figures and testimonies regarding accuracy.

Col. George Hanger in To All Sportsmen (1814) (A very experienced man an a sharpshooterr):

"A soldier's musket, if not exceedingly ill bored and very crooked, as many are, will strike the figure of a man at 80 yards ; it may even at hundred ; but a soldier must be very unfortunate indeed who shall be wounded by a common musket at 150 yards, PROVIDED HIS ANTAGONIST AIMS AT HIM ; and, as to firing at a man at 200 yards with a common musket, you may just as well fire at the moon and have the same hopes of hitting your object."

So this is pretty clear:

- 80-100 yards [70-90m]: Good to medium accuracy.

- After 100-150 yards [90-135]: Sharp decline in accuracy.

- 200 yards [180m]: Almost no chance to hit.

Now regarding the video there:


It rather confirms what Col. Hanger said. You can't kill much at 200 yards, you have some good results at 100 yards, and it becomes very deadly under 100 yards. So I would rather rely on this video than on the first one where the guy puts all 3 bullets inside the target at 75 yards.

According to Bernard Cornwell in his book Waterloo, the British fired 3,675,000 bullets at Vitoria for 8000 dead or wounded, so we have an average accuracy of 0.2%.

This means that they were usually not engaging at short range. This makes very much sense, because I doubt that any line would stand in formation for a very long time with 30% casualties on the first volley, and you wouldn't want to remain on the first rank either.

If you look at the casualties at Austerlitz, you can see that out of 65,000-75,000 men (Wikipedia), the French had 1,305 dead and
6,940 wounded. So for the victor death toll was rather low (2%). So the idea that muskets were accurate or used accurately in battle is completely dismissed. Muskets would apparently wound much more than they would kill.

Another conclusion is that you would have to be very cautious when charging because musket fire is deadly at close range. You wouldn't risk your Old Guard for example. So you would only charge when you have moral superiority, and the enemy would most likely flee, so actual melee combat must have been rather rare.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2017, 03:45:02 pm by Max »

Offline Exodus

  • Chaplain
  • *
  • Posts: 517
  • Major Jackson - 1st Royal Victoria Regiment
  • Faction: British Empire
  • Nick: Louis Jackson
Re: Musket Accuracy In holdfast?
« Reply #25 on: September 09, 2017, 04:01:21 pm »
As the devs have said, it's all based on bullet velocity, drop and a bunch of other random factors. I'm excited to see how the system turns out.

Offline TooL69

  • Petty Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 56
Re: Musket Accuracy In holdfast?
« Reply #26 on: September 09, 2017, 06:03:57 pm »
Do you seriously draw conclusions about the accuracy of weapons according to statistics ?? Lol.
In modern war, for one killed, about 50,000 to 250,000 rounds of ammunition are spent! Does this mean that the machine guns do not shoot well?

Rifles in the American Civil War badly shot?
More than 60 years after Waterloo, in 1876, in the Battle of Rosebud (USA),
General Crook's troops, 43 officers and 1,000 other ranks armed with modern
carbines and rifles, repulsed several charges made by 800 mounted Sioux
and Cheyenne warriors. The Indians attacked with "an enthusiasm for battle"
seldom seen. "(- Gregory Michno)
The battle raged for six hours, the soldiers had expended 25,000 rounds of
ammunition, the Indian lost. It gives a rate of 250
rounds / 1 casualty. All shots are taken into account, including the ones
fired at very long range. Keep on mind that the target were fast moving
mounted warriors.


Your problem is that you do not understand the difference between technical accuracy and accuracy in combat conditions.

This article contains many authentic experiments:
http://sas1.livejournal.com/97508.html
As you can see, ordinary soldiers hit the target in the size of 1.75x3 meters from a distance of 328 yards in 20% of cases.
A good shooter could easily fall into the chest of a man for 90 meters. This is proved by modern lovers of historical weapons.

But probably in a real battle they fired much further, and smoke, stress, flashes, and counter-fire of the enemy prevented the soldiers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B0_%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D1%80%D0%B5%D0 % BA% D0% B5_% D0% 98% D0% BE% D1% 80% D0% B8
As you can see, the Russian soldiers spent 22,000 rounds. Killing and wounding about 2000 enemies. It turns out that only 10-20 rounds per dead / wounded enemy!

And your arguments about the ratio of the wounded / killed are simply ridiculous!
Take any battle of the American Civil War, one killed had 10 wounded. So the rifles did not shoot well?)
In modern wars, 70% of hits fall into the hands and feet: http://artofwar.ru/d/dmitrij_m_k/text_0260.shtml
Just hands / feet in the area occupy 70% of the projection of a person, respectively, in these parts of the body most often hit by bullets.

Offline Shadilaynes

  • Petty Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 22
  • Anglo Boys are the Best Boys
  • Faction: British Empire
Re: Musket Accuracy In holdfast?
« Reply #27 on: September 09, 2017, 10:34:46 pm »
We have clear figures and testimonies regarding accuracy.

Col. George Hanger in To All Sportsmen (1814) (A very experienced man an a sharpshooterr):

"A soldier's musket, if not exceedingly ill bored and very crooked, as many are, will strike the figure of a man at 80 yards ; it may even at hundred ; but a soldier must be very unfortunate indeed who shall be wounded by a common musket at 150 yards, PROVIDED HIS ANTAGONIST AIMS AT HIM ; and, as to firing at a man at 200 yards with a common musket, you may just as well fire at the moon and have the same hopes of hitting your object."

So this is pretty clear:

- 80-100 yards [70-90m]: Good to medium accuracy.

- After 100-150 yards [90-135]: Sharp decline in accuracy.

- 200 yards [180m]: Almost no chance to hit.

Now regarding the video there:


It rather confirms what Col. Hanger said. You can't kill much at 200 yards, you have some good results at 100 yards, and it becomes very deadly under 100 yards. So I would rather rely on this video than on the first one where the guy puts all 3 bullets inside the target at 75 yards.

According to Bernard Cornwell in his book Waterloo, the British fired 3,675,000 bullets at Vitoria for 8000 dead or wounded, so we have an average accuracy of 0.2%.

This means that they were usually not engaging at short range. This makes very much sense, because I doubt that any line would stand in formation for a very long time with 30% casualties on the first volley, and you wouldn't want to remain on the first rank either.

If you look at the casualties at Austerlitz, you can see that out of 65,000-75,000 men (Wikipedia), the French had 1,305 dead and
6,940 wounded. So for the victor death toll was rather low (2%). So the idea that muskets were accurate or used accurately in battle is completely dismissed. Muskets would apparently wound much more than they would kill.

Another conclusion is that you would have to be very cautious when charging because musket fire is deadly at close range. You wouldn't risk your Old Guard for example. So you would only charge when you have moral superiority, and the enemy would most likely flee, so actual melee combat must have been rather rare.

I'm in the process of reading Waterloo Right now. Great book, Cornwell is a great author. He did create the Sharpe novels, after all.
But, I digress.
This conversation seems to have diverged more into the matter of musket accuracy in real life, as opposed to that of musket accuracy in Holdfast.
Oh well, it's still an interesting conversation.
I don't really know how much we could say due to the lack of material we have on the subject.

Offline Max

  • Able Seaman
  • *
  • Posts: 17
  • Retired Commander-in-chief of NWP Servers
  • Faction: Neutral
Re: Musket Accuracy In holdfast?
« Reply #28 on: September 09, 2017, 10:57:45 pm »

I'm in the process of reading Waterloo Right now. Great book, Cornwell is a great author. He did create the Sharpe novels, after all.
But, I digress.
This conversation seems to have diverged more into the matter of musket accuracy in real life, as opposed to that of musket accuracy in Holdfast.
Oh well, it's still an interesting conversation.
I don't really know how much we could say due to the lack of material we have on the subject.
We have much material actually. In his book Les armes de Napoléon (2011), Eric Dauriac says that actual combat accuracy sharply declined and fell to 1-5% hits at 100-200 meters, and soldiers would most likely fire one round per minute. The conclusion is based on the study of different battles:

https://www.cairn.info/revue-napoleonica-la-revue-2016-3-page-84.htm#no25

Over 400 meters, the bullet couldn't even penetrate the clothes.

Note that Tool69 figures completely dismiss his own claim that you could "easily fall into the chest of a man for 90 meters". I quote:

"French tests with a fixed musket, at a target 3x1.75 metres (10x5.7 feet) registered 60 per cent hits at 75 metres (82 yards)."

And those tests were probably made with trained soldiers, but the overwhelming majority had poor training, especially in the French army where they would shoot only 10 bullets a year. However Officers and Guard had much better training.

So if we wanted to make a realistic game, we would have to make muskets far less accurate and longer to reload than they are in Napoleonic Wars.

Offline TooL69

  • Petty Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 56
Re: Musket Accuracy In holdfast?
« Reply #29 on: September 09, 2017, 11:56:48 pm »
Quote
Note that Tool69 figures completely dismiss his own claim that you could "easily fall into the chest of a man for 90 meters". I quote:"French tests with a fixed musket, at a target 3x1.75 metres (10x5.7 feet) registered 60 per cent hits at 75 metres (82 yards)."

There is no contradiction. I already wrote that modern shooter lovers are prepared much better than the average soldier of Napolon's time.
If French / Russian / British soldiers could train at any time using the unlimited number of cartridges, they would easily hit the target by 90-350 meters.

Certainly there was no systematic training in live fire, but rather shooting competitions. Napoleon's Grande Armee had target matches, bands played and prizes being given to the winners. The target shooting competitions for the whole army were not low cost affairs.
Marshal Berthier, Napoleon's Chief-of-Staff, wrote that the conscripts should "fire a few rounds so that they would know which eye to use in aiming." The target was 5.5 'x 21' (French) at ranges of 50, 100, 150 and 200 toises In December 1806 Napoleon wrote to Eugene Beauharnais, "Give them target practice; it is not sufficient that a soldier knows how to shoot, he should shoot straight. "
Target practice was an annual affair where few rounds were fired "so the soldier could not learn to be afraid of the tremendous kick of his musket." (George Nafziger - "Imperial Bayonets" p 30)
"Training remained rudimentary." The new conscript might receive 2 or 3 weeks of basic instruction at the depot, but he would fire on average only 2 musket shots a year in practice. " (David Chandler - "Dictionary of the Napoleonic Wars" pp 207-208)

In 1805 and 1806 the musket fire of French infantry was very effective due to the considerable musketry practice with live ammunition that was carried out at Boulogne Camps. At Austerlitz in 1805 the French II / 10th Light (750 muskets) exchanged volleys with two Russian battalions (total of 1,000 muskets). Both sides held the ground. More battalions drew into line.
In 1809 Napoleon noted that since the battle of Wagram, Tharreau's infantry division had attended nor battalion school nor target practice. Henceforth, the Emperor ordered, the men would perform the basics of the soldier's school and practice platoon drill each morning. They would fire 12 cartridges daily at the marks and for 2 hours in the evening perform battalion maneuvres. The Guard fired at targets 3 times per week (for a few weeks).

Quote
So if we wanted to make a realistic game, we would have to make muskets far less accurate and longer to reload than they are in Napoleonic Wars.
This is the most stupid idea!