You should also consider this point - great lengths were taken to ensure that someone was always loaded. In the line, battalions would fire by alternating platoons, or ranks, or by file. Skirmishers were paired, and ensured that their partner was always loaded before firing. You do not fight alone with a musket - it is about keeping the other party at bay. Ensuring that someone is always loaded means that you will always be able to meet a bayonet with a bullet.
Have you ever read "On Killing" by David Grossman? He takes a very interesting and in-depth look at why soldiers have quite often been so ineffective (relatively speaking) at actually killing their opponents.
whats the advantage of a firearm over a crossbow then? They load about as fast as each other, don't they? And I know that it would be a lot easier to train people to use, and loading would be a lot easier in confined spaces.
@shoopoop21 Firearms left MUCH more gruesome wounds than crossbows, but I think the main advantage was that they were cheaper/easier to make. A steel crossbow took a skilled craftsman to construct, but any village blacksmith could make a decent musket or arquebus.
@shoopoop21 the range of the musket is far longer according to its slope compared to a crossbow. Also balls are cheaper to produce then bolts. Also a well trained gunner could fire off 3 rounds per minute which is much faster then how some one could crank back a crossbow and then sloping it to compensate. Crossbows without a crank also require a lot of strength where as a musket can be used by anyone with hands
Hey i study psychology and genetics alot. The answer boils down to a lack of courage. Its far easier to reload and pull a trigger to kill a man than it is to drive your blade through his torso. You'll say to yourself "well he missed me once, so he might miss again". You'll convince yourself of anything so you wont have to use your blade. Its so easy to just press a trigger. Like the pilot who dropped both atomic bombs on japan.
@1x93cm Depends on the period. All soldiers were issued with swords until long after the advent of the musket period. Many were low-quality "hangers" but they'd still hurt.
Isn't there also a psychological point about bayonets? You mentioned it in another point video. If a large swarm of men run at you with bayonets then the opposing force are likely to run away.
@MrDocProfHe i think thats what they probley told the men in training. but statistics of battle loses in histroy dosen`t show much running. they shot cowards back then. if you ran you were shot a coward. if you stood and fought you may live or die a hero take your pick
Read some about the swedish carolean infantry. The idéa was to draw advantage from that contemporary army tactics was not to engage in melée. The swedes had muskets, wich they fired only once at a very close range. Then they drew swords and charged.
It worked very well. Atleast 'til the russians came up with simple but effective countermeassures.
@Frauenman That's what my impression of musket+bayonet fights has always been. Not just for Swedes, but for anyone who wanted a decisive win in battle. Soldiers would advance, fire once, and then charge with bayonets. Having soldiers reload during battle means you're going for a drawn out fight of attrition, instead of a decisive win.
I'm surprised no one during the thime of Waterloo figured that something along the lines of a buckshot would've been a good idea. I mean, one heck of a cloud of shrapnel is much more likely to hit something than a single, somewhat accurate musket ball..
@MatteV2 buckshot has a limited range, if you're enemy has buckshot and you have a standard lea ball you have the advantage in term of distance so you can get more shots off into the enemy line, killing many and demoralising them.
Also there was a type of buckshot musket used in the Royal Navy called a 'volley gun' used for clearing the decks of an enemy ship.
@MatteV2 The Americans in particular would often load what they called "buck and ball", putting three pieces of buckshot in with the musket ball to increase the short-range effectiveness of the piece.
@MatteV2 Well, you only have a given amount of Energy from the Powdercharge that might acellerate a Ball or several. If all the Energy goes into one Ball, that reaches Velocity X. If the same Charge is used with a ball and many smaller ones, the Energy is split in between, so these Projectiles are noticably slower than the single ball. That subtracts from Range and Penetration-Power, and you have to aim diffrently allowing for more drop. So much, that the Buckshot after short Distance is hardly
I like the points that you bring up. I am however told by the internet that while in rank formation charging with cold steel is the best way to get rid of your enemy. It is however not for the lightly trained troops.
I don't belive that Arquebuses our Matchlock Muskets where as inaccurate as they say. They where professional soldiers and they knew the weapon like nobody and shot it very well and where surely faster realoading
@PompeusMagnus I recall one test using flintlocks where they held the weapon rigid in a vice and fired it at the normal engagement range, aiming dead centre on a man-sized target and it hit about half the time.
@lindybeige Well, it all depends on the Ammunition used and the Distance you're firing at.
With a neatly loaded Musket you can group your Shots to within very few inches at 50 or 100 yards, Striking the Figure of a Man every Time.
With the Ammunition used by the Military, the whole thing looks diffrent, lots of Accuracy is lost. Striking a single man becomes less sure. However, being a Weapon of War, your firing on groups of soldiers, and even with military Ammunition a musket would strike a
@lindybeige [cont] dense pack of People about every Time at even 100 yards. But unforzunately the human Factor fucks up Accuracy.
And Muskets have a bad Reputation, I think, mainly because People are hyping longbows etc., e.g. stating the Longbow had effective range of 250 yards and the musket 50yards, whilst in Reality the maximum to carry an Arrow was 250yds, but the Musket easily carried the Ball to 500 yards and more.
@LutzDerLurch There were experiments done back in the day, using a white sheet the size of a battalion frontage. They were shocked at how few professional soldiers under no pressure of war managed to hit it.
The man in the first rank may not now have a loaded musket, but the man behind him certainly will. Even skirmishers fight in pairs so that one can always be ready to fire. The same applies to field pieces. Bayonet charges are reserved for the point at which the cohesion of the opposing force is starting to crumble. Ideally, when the charge comes to be made, the receiving side will break and run with little use of the bayonet really being required.
ive heard, from a source that didnt seem very reliable, that a musket ball could be deflected by a scottish targe like during the jacobite rebelions. is this true or not?
@mouthforwar17 A glancing blow hitting at a convenient angle from a distance, perhaps might be warded off by a targe. A square-on central hit from well within effective distance, no.
I think a lot of it has to do with drilling and training as well. These men were trained to load their rifles after firing and do so as a unit - so that the next volley could be prepared as quickly as possible. Having something like that pushed into your mind tens of thousands of times might just make what you're describing instinctual. "My gun is empty, Reload." The fact that they're feet away and could just knife the bastard and call it day might just have not entered their mind in such chaos.
In the movie 'saints and soldiers' although it not be the best film, the gun shots are very loud compared to some others and it took me by surprise that they were so loud
Perfect description. I have seen revolutionary war rifles fired before, in the interior of a fort, and even with about six or eight feet of space from me to the gun, it was still unbelievably loud. And, even though the fort was relatively large (not huge, you couldn't fit a thousand guys in the grounds easily) it still echoed off the walls. I would definitely recommend people hear one going off, with ear protection, to somewhat get the feel for it (I listened to them without, in short, don't.)
I am of the opinion that while psychology is important, nothing scares soldiers more than the fear of death. You can make all the smoke and noise you want but as soon as the enemy realizes that it's not doing a whole lot of damage any advantage is gone. For a weapon to be considered very effective it generally needs the killing power to back it up.
2/2 a bayonet charge is only really affective if it can be done in a coordinated way so that the entire line of infantry reaches the enemy together, if the charge is not coordinated then the defenders have a massive advantage.
@jedclampit Antoine Henry Jomini, a general of Napoleonic war fame, once mentioned that he never saw troops coming into bayonet combat in large formations on open field actions, although clashes with cold steel were fairly common during small skirmishes in confined terrains such as woods or city streets, when men often didn't have time to reload. When a bayonet charge reached an opposing line in a massive style one side almost always fled, the number of guys being bayoneted being very small.
1/2 Another reason that springs to mind is more about the disadvantages of attacking over defending. If you have fired your musket and the opponents have also fired theirs. If you charge in with a bayonet by the time you have reached your opponent they may have reloaded, in which case your at an extreme disadvantage. If you do reach your opponent before they finish loading all they have to do is stop loading and point the bayonet at you.
Perhaps that's why the rapier become so popular for civilian combat but wasn't favored on the battlefield, as in battlefield conditions it's more important to incapacitate your opponents quickly than to ensure they die hours or days after they've taken your sword into their ribs and promptlty crippled you with a cut to the leg.
I wonder if similar psychological factors were the main cause for the rapier's ascendency for personal urban combat. A thrust from these weapons is ineffective against armor of any kind, and lacks the immediate stopping power of a cut (or, for that matter, a stab) from a broader sword. But while a rapier stab might not end a fight immediately, it's almost certain to be lethal eventually - and rapier thrusts are very hard to ward off without a similarly nimble weapon. Like, say, another rapier.
@fakejohnwilkesbooth : There's been a good deal of hogwash said about how much faster the rapier was than the cutting sword. In fact, the two were almost equal in weight, as whilst the rapier was narrower it also tended to be thicker through much of the length, and longer in the blade to boot. Also, a rapier thrust is only lethal- immdeiately or eventually- if it penetrates certain areas of the head or body. A stab into the forearm likely won't do it, and may well trap your own blade.
There's another factor at work psychologically. You didn't break ranks in the old days, even to charge. For one thing, the non-coms spent a great deal of time making sure you didn't. For another, there's a lot of comfort in the feeling of being part of a mass, with people to your left and right. Without that, you'd feel very much alone. Soldiers weren't really trained to act individually with the exception of a few units, such as skirmishers or riflemen.
@lindybeige : True, that. But I strongly suspect that because of stress levels, and in the absence of orders to do otherwise, what happened was not really any reasoned action but rather a fugue state of sorts where certain actions were repeated over and over again regardless of effectiveness, much like a panicked person stabbing at the buttons of an elevator that's lost power.
@lindybeige have you read the book "on Killing" by a Colonel in the US Army? it is a psychological analasyis of warfare from modern to revolutionary times, its an interesting book and any one with an interest in military history should give it a read
I can confirm the noise of shooting real firearms inside a building is incredibly loud, I used to be a member of a gun club until the government knee jerk reaction ban to semi automatic pistols. I love that in the movies characters can stand around chatting after an indoor gunfight without any problems, good old Hollywood science eh. In the gun club some of us wore earplugs under our ear defenders due to the exceptional noise of some of the weapons.
Also a possible explanation for the resistance to do bayonet charges is that once the charge has been launched there is little chance to regain command and control of your own soldiers. so they charged only at the very last. When mass, momentum and situation was advantageous. The last maneuvre that like a single drop causes the water to overflow
Read the book "On Killing." It covers the psychology of soldiers in combat in layman's terms very thoroughly. It covers basically 3 responses of soldiers in combat: fight, posturing, running away. He has a load of anecdotes about what people REALLY do under the stress of battle...things like loading a musket over and over and over, never firing...or a Captain in the US Army who didn't pull his sidearm on a Chinese soldier in Korea, but instead tried to beat him to death with his fists.
Very good thought. Back when armor and shields were in use, it was ideal but without armor, it wasn't the thing to do. Bayonet charges if you remember are usually done when the enemy is fleeing also, when the advantage is that you can simply stab a number in the back. Early in the American War for Independence, bayonet charges were frequent however because the colonists had no bayonets to counter with, facing rows of disciplined spears with only axes and knives.
There were 3 kinds of shooters back when they used muskets. The first NEVER shot, instead always reloaded. Some muskets were found with 4-5 reloadings inside, ball, powder and plug! The second shot, but never aimed, and the last was the killers, who shot to kill. These were quite rare, actually.
@paperjack93 Where did you get that from? I wonder why all people tend to believe Soldiers were not real soldiers back then and war were not fought in earnest.
@lindybeige Jepp. But indeed a Percussion-Cap Weapon is more difficult to reload properly, and takes longer even under ideal Circumstances, but with shaky fingers under stress and in battle, the Percussion cap is THE major source for illloaded Muskets. e.g. a Flintlock is much easier to reload on the battlefield.
@lindybeige There is a small, but important diffrence between ACW Caplock Arms and Flintlocks. Arms have been collected after Battles for Centuries before, and Muskets loaded wrong or multiple Times have been found on Battlefields ever since they have been used. What makes the ACW Example so wellknown is that the amount of misloaded arms has astonished everyone in the Day, because that frequenca was never heard of before.
Actually this is in line with what I've heard from other re-enactors who make me believe that there are actually two values to wearing armor. A; It keeps you not poorly and B; it makes you feel invulnerable. This combined with the soldier's culture of earlier years would probably be what allowed for soldiers to engage in the persistent close range combat of those ages.
Do you think it's possible that breastplates were still worn by some cavalry long after it was "useful" for this reason?
@Caliburnis armour, i have read is not to make you invulnerable, thats impossible, its merely insurence against bad luck i.e the sword cut you DIDNT see cominng which would normally cut a great gaping hole, now just hits the armour?
@elgostine He didn't say armour MAKES you invulnerable, he said it makes you FEEL invulnerable. Just like wearing a seatbelt might make you feel a lot safer than you really are. Or to turn that around: if you always use a seatbelt like you're supposed to, try driving at normal speeds WITHOUT wearing a seatbelt, and see what that does to your confidence.
it does that too, but ive ben told thats also a semi badidea , well once you go beyond a certain point since naturally armour has its weak points and you can simply atttack around it.
Honestly, I don't think it's a bad idea at all. In close combat you need to be aggressive and decisive. If you hesitate, you lose, and if you're wearing armor you'll have the confidence and protection required to help you act decisively. I think at least half of the value of wearing armor is that it helps you take control of a dangerous situation instead of being controlled by it.
This of course doesn't make you stupid and do foolish things.
@Caliburnis To be of value, plate had to become thicker and thicker, and thus more and more encumbering. Cavalry in parts keep it because they didnt have to walk with it, and because cavalry was worth the extra expense.
I fired a 12 gauge inside a room before at the door only a few feet away. A herd of elephants could run right past you without you hearing anything. I also say there was a concussive effect and I was a bit 'dazed' for a second or two afterwards.
I am a life long shooter but I didnt fire at an indoor range until I applied with a police department near Austin Tx. I completely missed the first 2 shots during the qualification because the noise from everyone else made me flinch. I finally had to wait until everyone else started shooting so I could adjust, THEN shoot.
In recent psychological studies they have found that we naturally don't want to kill other humans. The factors that allow people to do so are training and range. The further away an opponent is the easier it is to fight them so charging in is the one thing they dont want to do ever. Also the training they received was very ineffective they were trained in a fight to reload and fire at the opponent but often in combat yes they would aim high and miss because they just didn't want to kill or die.
In firefights, discipline tends to break down, and the ability of the officers to muster their men into a coordinated charge tended to decrease over the number of volleys fired. Also, once indoors, shouted orders would really be difficult to hear over the noises. Finally, the whole breaking formation think really is not something a soldier of the day was supposed to do.
Good analysis. Bayonet fights are knife fights. ask anyone who trains in this form of combat and they'll tell you that your chances of getting cut in some form or another in a knife fight is incredibly high.
I sell lottery tickets at my job and I can tell you the lottery is exactly that. If you look at the odds. every $1.00 you put in, you get 50cents back. (PA lotto)
I wonder how the psychological effect of not wanting to charge into melee played out before gunpowder where melee was a necessary part of battle. Did the generals just get all of their troops drunk before a battle? Did the shields add a level of comfort?
On the whole I agree with you, but there are some notable exceptions. Off the top of my head, the highland charge was a bayonet tactic used by the Scottish Highlanders to great effect, also for psychological reasons. Imagine a line of furious Scotsmen running at you with bayonets while it takes you 2 or more minutes to reload...
It could also be because a different type of psychology. That theory goes that the more distance between you and your foe the easier it is to kill. For example it is much more diffecult for a person to strangle someone then to use a sword. You can "blame" the weapon and there is no touch involved. This goes to the extreem of fighterpilots using bombs. Easy to do, no sight of the victim(s) and you remove yourself of the scene. Musketshot or upclose bayoneting might be the same thing.
My American future Father-in-law once shot a deer from the kitchen door with a Winchester .30-30 - his wife was not best pleased.
I totally agree, firearms are surprisingly noisy. As I discovered, if you're trying to shoot quickly your accuracy decreases quite quickly the more your ears start to hurt. Although I guess you'd get used to it over time.
@futsalfred2 Finding time to do these videos is hard enough as it is. I prefer the spontaneity of no script, and there is some pride in the purity of the technique. The last five videos I shot were all done first take, in one take. On the other hand, I did seriously consider reshooting this one because it is unnecessarily long. So, sorry Cut Tha Never Heals, and thanks Futsal Fred.
I think another important reason for such behaviour would be that it's way easier to "simply shoot" someone than to actually step in front of him, look into his eyes and bayonet him with your bare hands. It's more comfortable for the mind to just push a button.
The few times you do hear of full on bayonet charges, they tend to be hugely effective... if you can get all your mates to charge in with you. The terror that cold steel instills in people is huge, compared to standing a few feet away firing musket shot. It just requires that rush of adrenaline/bravery/stupidity to muster the charge. Unless the enemy is particularly brave in return, they're most likely to just leg it. As you say, the prospect of a bayonet to the face is not a nice one.
I'd actually like to hear your assessment of early firearm accuracy. I used to be a French & Indian War-era reenactor, so I'm quite familiar with the sheer noise and recoil a musket generates. I never paid much attention, to my later regret, to accuracy. An AP history teacher later insisted that would not be uncommon for musket balls to exit gun barrels at near 90 degree angles, and that this did not really change until rifling techniques became commonplace. Any thoughts?
@Mandalor91 I have read of a number of scientific tests, many of them done back in the day, and muskets were a lot more accurate than that. However, psychology plays a big role. For one thing, many men fired with their eyes shut, and for another, many would consciously or subconsciously aim high. Killing people is not something people find easy.
@lindybeige Black powder smooth bore muskets were as accurate as any gun up to about 75 yards. But in order to be a marksman with ANY gun it takes literally thousands of rounds of practice. How many tins of pellets have you put through your pellet rifle? Each tin is 500 rounds. Also reloading disciple goes to Hell in battle pressure. Many of the muskets found at Gettysburg had been reloaded as many as three times without being actually fired once.
@youmaus Ohhhh yes...I couldnd hit the barn when starting musketry with a patched ball, now I can make much better groupings with undersized ball. However, the gettysburg illloaded weapons are actually largly caused by the percussin-cap. much more difficult to load them in battle than a flintlock.
@lindybeige From what I have seen (my uncle owns a muzzle loading rifle) and heard, the reason people close their eyes when they fire muskets is due to the large amount of black powder smoke coming back into your face. I've only shot a black powder gun once but it produces a much larger volume of smoke and blast than any of my modern rifles.
@lindybeige Part of that may be due to overloaded flash pans blowing smoke into there eyes. The introduction of the percussion cap greatly improved accuracy and reliability even without rifling.
As an overconfident brawler personally I have always much preferred my chances in a melee than Russian roulette. It would be sabers at noon rather than pistols at dawn for me. As I am not an early riser either.
@MrMonkeybat Well, in Fact the Percussion-Cap did next to nothing improving Accuracy, and the Caps back in the Days were much mor prone to failure then modern Speciment, leaving the Reliability rather unchanged at all. Even worse, loading the Gun became more time consuming, more complicated and thus the likelyhood of loading unproperly were getting higher. they had however benefits in the rain.
@LutzDerLurch Hmm, your claim on the reliability of caps being just as bad as flintlock (which is not bad at all, if properly maintained) is hard to prove. Plenty of 19th century writers clearly stated the superiority of caps over flintlock (they wrote mostly about high quality sporting arms though), and besides why would the US government replaced inaccurate smoothbore flintlock musket with inaccurate smoothbore caplock musket if the latter provided no improvement whatsoever?
@HaNsWiDjAjA Well, a Caplock is easier to make from fewer Parts with fewer important geometries to be kept. The Percussion-Cap had Advantages in Reliability and Moistur-Tolerance, but not as much as many people think. And in the Realities of War as opposed to Traininggrounds, these Effects were even smaller. Also bear in mind, that the Flintlock superseeded the Wheellock for no other Reason than being much less complicated and Cheaper to build.
@MrMonkeybat when actually firing live-ammo, the flash is nothing to worry and that eye-shut thingie is mostly modern misconception, as i the claim that muskets were cheap r target practice was no part of the training.
@lindybeige: They would either close their eye's, or in some cases, turn their head & close their eyes to protect the eyes from flash-back; it would leave powder marks on the face....providing you lived long enough?!
@lindybeige I've also heard that the prospect of running a person through, so to speak, either with a bayonet, spear, pike, etc., is also something people naturally avoid at all costs. Makes me wonder how pike formations really operated.
@000majorwinters000 I can only imagine that the thoughts of o pikeman going into battle are different than those of a rifleman. For a pikeman, battle is up close and undeniably kill or be killed. Soldiers would have that in their minds. A musket is more a case of load point and fire, and maybe it was actually your buddy that killed someone. Gunpowder changes things.
@lindybeige A lot of West African early gun users would apparently hold the gun over their heads, or as far away from themselves as they could, due to the failure rate of the guns they were sold. I imagine that would help to decrease accuracy too.
@lindybeige : Reminds me of what one of the many "political generals" said to his chief of artillery, who protested about being ordered to open fire on a stretch of woods that the enemy were said to be hiding in. The artillerist said that with the dense woods, they could likely do little in the way of any execution of troops there as they could see very little to aim at. "Damn the execution, Sir, it's the noise we want!"
@lindybeige i heard it was part of european doctrine, or english at least, to aim low, orsergents to tell men to aim low so that the recioil would still send the balls intothe enemies bellies and legs, not as lethal but more than good enough.
either that or ive been reading too many sharpe novels
@lindybeige That shutting of Eyes is actually a misconception. Still you are absolutely correct that muskets were far more accurate then most people tend to believe, but its psychology and Circumstances ruining every Accuracy.
Even in open Fiel Bayonet Charges were rarely leading into Melee. Having two lines clash with Bayonets is equal Carnage as the Pike-Squares clashing. In nearly all Cases a Charge was performed, one side turned heel. However, I disagree a bit considering the Noise.
@LutzDerLurch About chutting the eyes when fireing muskets I think you have a valid point about the psychological aspect. But also the fact that fragments of halfburnt powder or parts from the percussion-cap could end up in your eys and face when fireing must also have played a part.
@lindybeige (cont.) The Crack of a modern arm is the Gasses and Bullet breaking the speed of Sound. Musket Balls tend to stay just below SoS, so they won't crack as sharply as modern guns. They are still very loud, of course.
I have however, read that Bayonetfighting was occuring mainly in confined Space, like narrow Streets etc. and extremely bloody and messy then.
@LutzDerLurch The crack is one of the sounds. Muskets were big bore, used a massive charge of inefficient black powder, which is twice as loud as modern gunpowder or cordite.
@lindybeige i happen to shoot Muskets as well as Rifles like K98 and Mosin-nagant, even on the Same Indoor-Range, and I would most definately say that the Noixe Contest will be an easy win for the modern Arms.
@Mandalor91 If it was true that rifling makes that dramatic of a difference (don't get me wrong, it does help a ton with accuracy at long ranges) then my smooth bore shotgun wouldn't be able to hit with buckshot at up to 40 yards and with slugs past 100 yards. I don't want to discredit your teacher, but he/she has probably never actually seen a gun fired, let alone shot one. They have probably just theorized about it in classrooms and teacher lounges.
@MrDeadly25 Slugs have a shape that causes them to spin in the air. That's why they can be shot from smoothbores effectively. Buckshot is not influenced by the rifling because the pellets are smaller than the bore of the gun. I'm afraid to say that your point is invalid.
@paperjack93 Nope, Slugs do NOT spin. spin comes from Rifling. Muskets are by far more accurate then TV and Hollywood, and even most Authors and Documentaries try to tell you.
@LutzDerLurch It is next to impossible to avoid spin. Try throwing a ball even a short way into the air without spinning it all all. Good luck. If a musket ball touches the sides of a barrel at all as it is launched, it will spin.
@lindybeige But you are talking about Ramdon Spin that is, as funny as it reads, eliminated, if people care to actually go and load properly. When firing the Musket unpatched, the ball will most likely get a random spin. with a patch, this spin is annihilated, with the ball sliding along the barrel rather then "rolling" along. When you load in the military way with the Paper around the Ball, it ill also slide rather then roll.
@lindybeige Well, with a loose Ball I'd agree, but e.g. Military cartridges when loaded with their Pafer have the Ball neatly packed on a Sabbot of Paper, with a Chunk of Paper on the Back and a chunk of Paper in the Front of the Ball, being tied to it, which makes any Spin rather impossible. And the Disturbance of the ball from the Paper being stripped away by the Air after exiting the Muzzle is negligeable compared to a Spin obtained by a naked Ball touching the Barrel.
It's not really comparable, a smooth-bore musket of the era had a barrel larger than the ball it was firing, in order to allow it to be loaded easily and to deal with fouling. That's where much of the inaccuracy came from, rather than the smooth bore. Your shotgun was (probably) built in the era of smokeless powder, and so has much tighter tolerances.
@Mandalor91 90 degrees is an overstatement, but up to 10 degrees of was possible but uncommon. Part of the problem was no rifling (which imparts spin stability) but also the shape of musket ball. A lengthened, points spitzer type bullet is less affected by the wind because it's shape prevents it from tumbling, presents a smaller cross section, and makes it a little more massive than balls with the same cross section (and thus has more inertia).
@Mandalor91 You'd be absolutely amazed how live rounds with truly authentic amounts of proper powder change the experience ;) As to the accuracy, I am working on a scientific aproach on that. But the Ammunition used militarily would not stray more than 3 feet to any direction at 100yards. I could give you the degrees, if my calculater werent in my car right now. it is nowhere near 90°, not even near 10°. It should be roughly 0.5 Degree, 1Degree would be excessive. Muskets are highly underrated
You should also consider this point - great lengths were taken to ensure that someone was always loaded. In the line, battalions would fire by alternating platoons, or ranks, or by file. Skirmishers were paired, and ensured that their partner was always loaded before firing. You do not fight alone with a musket - it is about keeping the other party at bay. Ensuring that someone is always loaded means that you will always be able to meet a bayonet with a bullet.
CajunCoder 5 days ago
Have you ever read "On Killing" by David Grossman? He takes a very interesting and in-depth look at why soldiers have quite often been so ineffective (relatively speaking) at actually killing their opponents.
VanMacIan 1 month ago
whats the advantage of a firearm over a crossbow then? They load about as fast as each other, don't they? And I know that it would be a lot easier to train people to use, and loading would be a lot easier in confined spaces.
shoopoop21 1 month ago
@shoopoop21 It makes ever such a loud bang.
lindybeige 1 month ago
@lindybeige That's it? That doesn't sound like such a great advantage over killing power and accuracy.
shoopoop21 3 weeks ago
@shoopoop21 Battles are lost by one side's running away, not being killed to a man.
lindybeige 3 weeks ago
@shoopoop21 Firearms left MUCH more gruesome wounds than crossbows, but I think the main advantage was that they were cheaper/easier to make. A steel crossbow took a skilled craftsman to construct, but any village blacksmith could make a decent musket or arquebus.
CountArtha 1 week ago
@shoopoop21 the range of the musket is far longer according to its slope compared to a crossbow. Also balls are cheaper to produce then bolts. Also a well trained gunner could fire off 3 rounds per minute which is much faster then how some one could crank back a crossbow and then sloping it to compensate. Crossbows without a crank also require a lot of strength where as a musket can be used by anyone with hands
minigun20 3 weeks ago
muskets- early flash-bangs ^^
EphraimRodrigez 1 month ago
This doesn't apply to Caroleans.
RumbitSwe 2 months ago
Hey i study psychology and genetics alot. The answer boils down to a lack of courage. Its far easier to reload and pull a trigger to kill a man than it is to drive your blade through his torso. You'll say to yourself "well he missed me once, so he might miss again". You'll convince yourself of anything so you wont have to use your blade. Its so easy to just press a trigger. Like the pilot who dropped both atomic bombs on japan.
XenverX 2 months ago
i suppose in a small space you couldn't see anything with all the smoke and whatnot
maybe fumbling to put on the bayonet would take longer than reloading in a panic state
but then again ones in a panic state- and i don't think the minion troops carried swords for close quarters ....or did they?
i thought only the cavalry and officers carried swords so...hmm....maybe thats just in movies
1x93cm 3 months ago
@1x93cm Depends on the period. All soldiers were issued with swords until long after the advent of the musket period. Many were low-quality "hangers" but they'd still hurt.
lindybeige 3 months ago
Isn't there also a psychological point about bayonets? You mentioned it in another point video. If a large swarm of men run at you with bayonets then the opposing force are likely to run away.
MrDocProfHe 3 months ago
@MrDocProfHe i think thats what they probley told the men in training. but statistics of battle loses in histroy dosen`t show much running. they shot cowards back then. if you ran you were shot a coward. if you stood and fought you may live or die a hero take your pick
noFinPIKEY 3 months ago
firing a weapon indoors is almost like getting hit with a flashbang grenade. the flash temp blinds you, the concussion will cause hearing loss
daytonafreakboy 3 months ago
Read some about the swedish carolean infantry. The idéa was to draw advantage from that contemporary army tactics was not to engage in melée. The swedes had muskets, wich they fired only once at a very close range. Then they drew swords and charged.
It worked very well. Atleast 'til the russians came up with simple but effective countermeassures.
Frauenman 4 months ago
@Frauenman That's what my impression of musket+bayonet fights has always been. Not just for Swedes, but for anyone who wanted a decisive win in battle. Soldiers would advance, fire once, and then charge with bayonets. Having soldiers reload during battle means you're going for a drawn out fight of attrition, instead of a decisive win.
mcvos 3 months ago
Government tax on stupidity?
Maybe more a tax on desperation and hope. Hurrah.
Love your historical videos :)
Levethian7 4 months ago
I'm surprised no one during the thime of Waterloo figured that something along the lines of a buckshot would've been a good idea. I mean, one heck of a cloud of shrapnel is much more likely to hit something than a single, somewhat accurate musket ball..
MatteV2 5 months ago
@MatteV2 buckshot has a limited range, if you're enemy has buckshot and you have a standard lea ball you have the advantage in term of distance so you can get more shots off into the enemy line, killing many and demoralising them.
Also there was a type of buckshot musket used in the Royal Navy called a 'volley gun' used for clearing the decks of an enemy ship.
TheSirPrise 5 months ago
@MatteV2 The Americans in particular would often load what they called "buck and ball", putting three pieces of buckshot in with the musket ball to increase the short-range effectiveness of the piece.
PrinceHerb 4 months ago
@MatteV2 Well, you only have a given amount of Energy from the Powdercharge that might acellerate a Ball or several. If all the Energy goes into one Ball, that reaches Velocity X. If the same Charge is used with a ball and many smaller ones, the Energy is split in between, so these Projectiles are noticably slower than the single ball. That subtracts from Range and Penetration-Power, and you have to aim diffrently allowing for more drop. So much, that the Buckshot after short Distance is hardly
LutzDerLurch 4 months ago
@MatteV2 [cont] very effective.
LutzDerLurch 4 months ago
I like the points that you bring up. I am however told by the internet that while in rank formation charging with cold steel is the best way to get rid of your enemy. It is however not for the lightly trained troops.
samipso 5 months ago
I don't belive that Arquebuses our Matchlock Muskets where as inaccurate as they say. They where professional soldiers and they knew the weapon like nobody and shot it very well and where surely faster realoading
PompeusMagnus 5 months ago
@PompeusMagnus I recall one test using flintlocks where they held the weapon rigid in a vice and fired it at the normal engagement range, aiming dead centre on a man-sized target and it hit about half the time.
lindybeige 5 months ago
@lindybeige Well, it all depends on the Ammunition used and the Distance you're firing at.
With a neatly loaded Musket you can group your Shots to within very few inches at 50 or 100 yards, Striking the Figure of a Man every Time.
With the Ammunition used by the Military, the whole thing looks diffrent, lots of Accuracy is lost. Striking a single man becomes less sure. However, being a Weapon of War, your firing on groups of soldiers, and even with military Ammunition a musket would strike a
LutzDerLurch 4 months ago
@lindybeige [cont] dense pack of People about every Time at even 100 yards. But unforzunately the human Factor fucks up Accuracy.
And Muskets have a bad Reputation, I think, mainly because People are hyping longbows etc., e.g. stating the Longbow had effective range of 250 yards and the musket 50yards, whilst in Reality the maximum to carry an Arrow was 250yds, but the Musket easily carried the Ball to 500 yards and more.
LutzDerLurch 4 months ago
@LutzDerLurch There were experiments done back in the day, using a white sheet the size of a battalion frontage. They were shocked at how few professional soldiers under no pressure of war managed to hit it.
lindybeige 4 months ago
@lindybeige I read several Accounts of Tests done in the late 1700s early 1800s, and I read nowhere that they were shocked how few hit them.
Cant Find my book right now, but there were some 10 or 20% even at 300 yards. I'll try to find my book tomorrow, got to clean my Room anyway ;)
LutzDerLurch 4 months ago
The man in the first rank may not now have a loaded musket, but the man behind him certainly will. Even skirmishers fight in pairs so that one can always be ready to fire. The same applies to field pieces. Bayonet charges are reserved for the point at which the cohesion of the opposing force is starting to crumble. Ideally, when the charge comes to be made, the receiving side will break and run with little use of the bayonet really being required.
PrinceHerb 6 months ago
ive heard, from a source that didnt seem very reliable, that a musket ball could be deflected by a scottish targe like during the jacobite rebelions. is this true or not?
mouthforwar17 6 months ago
@mouthforwar17 A glancing blow hitting at a convenient angle from a distance, perhaps might be warded off by a targe. A square-on central hit from well within effective distance, no.
lindybeige 6 months ago
I think a lot of it has to do with drilling and training as well. These men were trained to load their rifles after firing and do so as a unit - so that the next volley could be prepared as quickly as possible. Having something like that pushed into your mind tens of thousands of times might just make what you're describing instinctual. "My gun is empty, Reload." The fact that they're feet away and could just knife the bastard and call it day might just have not entered their mind in such chaos.
matchesburn 7 months ago
@matchesburn also, you rarely fought alone. So chances are if you charge ahead, your aloe, and your Enemy has his buddies with him.
LutzDerLurch 4 months ago
In the movie 'saints and soldiers' although it not be the best film, the gun shots are very loud compared to some others and it took me by surprise that they were so loud
Cakevspie94 8 months ago
i love your uploads much more accurate and honest then most of the spew you see on television
hellwolf882 8 months ago
Perfect description. I have seen revolutionary war rifles fired before, in the interior of a fort, and even with about six or eight feet of space from me to the gun, it was still unbelievably loud. And, even though the fort was relatively large (not huge, you couldn't fit a thousand guys in the grounds easily) it still echoed off the walls. I would definitely recommend people hear one going off, with ear protection, to somewhat get the feel for it (I listened to them without, in short, don't.)
tomcat2222 9 months ago
Is this the same as saying that the musketeers didn't have guts?
Keasri 9 months ago
@Keasri They were human, and humans have limits.
lindybeige 9 months ago
I am of the opinion that while psychology is important, nothing scares soldiers more than the fear of death. You can make all the smoke and noise you want but as soon as the enemy realizes that it's not doing a whole lot of damage any advantage is gone. For a weapon to be considered very effective it generally needs the killing power to back it up.
HBOrrgg 10 months ago
No one in their right mind would want to get into a boynet fight over shooting the enemy.
RealmEternal 11 months ago
2/2 a bayonet charge is only really affective if it can be done in a coordinated way so that the entire line of infantry reaches the enemy together, if the charge is not coordinated then the defenders have a massive advantage.
jedclampit 11 months ago
@jedclampit Antoine Henry Jomini, a general of Napoleonic war fame, once mentioned that he never saw troops coming into bayonet combat in large formations on open field actions, although clashes with cold steel were fairly common during small skirmishes in confined terrains such as woods or city streets, when men often didn't have time to reload. When a bayonet charge reached an opposing line in a massive style one side almost always fled, the number of guys being bayoneted being very small.
HaNsWiDjAjA 11 months ago
1/2 Another reason that springs to mind is more about the disadvantages of attacking over defending. If you have fired your musket and the opponents have also fired theirs. If you charge in with a bayonet by the time you have reached your opponent they may have reloaded, in which case your at an extreme disadvantage. If you do reach your opponent before they finish loading all they have to do is stop loading and point the bayonet at you.
jedclampit 11 months ago
@jedclampit True, but I was talking mainly about indoor fights, where the enemy is just a few strides away.
lindybeige 11 months ago
I like the last comment a lot.
Pakistan899 11 months ago
Perhaps that's why the rapier become so popular for civilian combat but wasn't favored on the battlefield, as in battlefield conditions it's more important to incapacitate your opponents quickly than to ensure they die hours or days after they've taken your sword into their ribs and promptlty crippled you with a cut to the leg.
fakejohnwilkesbooth 11 months ago
I wonder if similar psychological factors were the main cause for the rapier's ascendency for personal urban combat. A thrust from these weapons is ineffective against armor of any kind, and lacks the immediate stopping power of a cut (or, for that matter, a stab) from a broader sword. But while a rapier stab might not end a fight immediately, it's almost certain to be lethal eventually - and rapier thrusts are very hard to ward off without a similarly nimble weapon. Like, say, another rapier.
fakejohnwilkesbooth 11 months ago
@fakejohnwilkesbooth : There's been a good deal of hogwash said about how much faster the rapier was than the cutting sword. In fact, the two were almost equal in weight, as whilst the rapier was narrower it also tended to be thicker through much of the length, and longer in the blade to boot. Also, a rapier thrust is only lethal- immdeiately or eventually- if it penetrates certain areas of the head or body. A stab into the forearm likely won't do it, and may well trap your own blade.
althesmith 11 months ago
There's another factor at work psychologically. You didn't break ranks in the old days, even to charge. For one thing, the non-coms spent a great deal of time making sure you didn't. For another, there's a lot of comfort in the feeling of being part of a mass, with people to your left and right. Without that, you'd feel very much alone. Soldiers weren't really trained to act individually with the exception of a few units, such as skirmishers or riflemen.
althesmith 11 months ago
@althesmith But when you are indoors, you have no option to be part of a mass.
lindybeige 11 months ago
@lindybeige : True, that. But I strongly suspect that because of stress levels, and in the absence of orders to do otherwise, what happened was not really any reasoned action but rather a fugue state of sorts where certain actions were repeated over and over again regardless of effectiveness, much like a panicked person stabbing at the buttons of an elevator that's lost power.
althesmith 11 months ago
@althesmith Agreed. Load, fire, hope, load, fire, hope...
lindybeige 11 months ago
@lindybeige : Apparently they even forgot steps sometimes. There would be multiple charges rammed into the barrel.
althesmith 11 months ago
@lindybeige have you read the book "on Killing" by a Colonel in the US Army? it is a psychological analasyis of warfare from modern to revolutionary times, its an interesting book and any one with an interest in military history should give it a read
Kooletz71 11 months ago
I can confirm the noise of shooting real firearms inside a building is incredibly loud, I used to be a member of a gun club until the government knee jerk reaction ban to semi automatic pistols. I love that in the movies characters can stand around chatting after an indoor gunfight without any problems, good old Hollywood science eh. In the gun club some of us wore earplugs under our ear defenders due to the exceptional noise of some of the weapons.
Paintball or airsoft is all thats left now.
733835 11 months ago
Where's the newest video?! I can't wait so long!
pinglauwa 1 year ago
I like so much your latest "points"!
Also a possible explanation for the resistance to do bayonet charges is that once the charge has been launched there is little chance to regain command and control of your own soldiers. so they charged only at the very last. When mass, momentum and situation was advantageous. The last maneuvre that like a single drop causes the water to overflow
mordechaimordechai 1 year ago
Read the book "On Killing." It covers the psychology of soldiers in combat in layman's terms very thoroughly. It covers basically 3 responses of soldiers in combat: fight, posturing, running away. He has a load of anecdotes about what people REALLY do under the stress of battle...things like loading a musket over and over and over, never firing...or a Captain in the US Army who didn't pull his sidearm on a Chinese soldier in Korea, but instead tried to beat him to death with his fists.
Polymarkos 1 year ago
Very good thought. Back when armor and shields were in use, it was ideal but without armor, it wasn't the thing to do. Bayonet charges if you remember are usually done when the enemy is fleeing also, when the advantage is that you can simply stab a number in the back. Early in the American War for Independence, bayonet charges were frequent however because the colonists had no bayonets to counter with, facing rows of disciplined spears with only axes and knives.
WritingFighter 1 year ago
I'm so glad that you are uploading again. Keep it up!
TollTheRavens88 1 year ago
Oh how I've missed the Lloyd rants.
brooksdailey 1 year ago
I would just pull out a side arm and go bang!
44SCB 1 year ago
There were 3 kinds of shooters back when they used muskets. The first NEVER shot, instead always reloaded. Some muskets were found with 4-5 reloadings inside, ball, powder and plug! The second shot, but never aimed, and the last was the killers, who shot to kill. These were quite rare, actually.
paperjack93 1 year ago
@paperjack93 id love for some0ne to FIRE one of these multiply reloded guns
elgostine 1 year ago
@paperjack93 Where did you get that from? I wonder why all people tend to believe Soldiers were not real soldiers back then and war were not fought in earnest.
LutzDerLurch 8 months ago
@LutzDerLurch The finding of multiple-loaded muskets in the ACW is well-attested..
lindybeige 8 months ago
@lindybeige Jepp. But indeed a Percussion-Cap Weapon is more difficult to reload properly, and takes longer even under ideal Circumstances, but with shaky fingers under stress and in battle, the Percussion cap is THE major source for illloaded Muskets. e.g. a Flintlock is much easier to reload on the battlefield.
LutzDerLurch 8 months ago
@lindybeige There is a small, but important diffrence between ACW Caplock Arms and Flintlocks. Arms have been collected after Battles for Centuries before, and Muskets loaded wrong or multiple Times have been found on Battlefields ever since they have been used. What makes the ACW Example so wellknown is that the amount of misloaded arms has astonished everyone in the Day, because that frequenca was never heard of before.
LutzDerLurch 4 months ago
Actually this is in line with what I've heard from other re-enactors who make me believe that there are actually two values to wearing armor. A; It keeps you not poorly and B; it makes you feel invulnerable. This combined with the soldier's culture of earlier years would probably be what allowed for soldiers to engage in the persistent close range combat of those ages.
Do you think it's possible that breastplates were still worn by some cavalry long after it was "useful" for this reason?
Caliburnis 1 year ago
@Caliburnis armour, i have read is not to make you invulnerable, thats impossible, its merely insurence against bad luck i.e the sword cut you DIDNT see cominng which would normally cut a great gaping hole, now just hits the armour?
elgostine 1 year ago
@elgostine He didn't say armour MAKES you invulnerable, he said it makes you FEEL invulnerable. Just like wearing a seatbelt might make you feel a lot safer than you really are. Or to turn that around: if you always use a seatbelt like you're supposed to, try driving at normal speeds WITHOUT wearing a seatbelt, and see what that does to your confidence.
Gilmaris 11 months ago
@Gilmaris good point.
it does that too, but ive ben told thats also a semi badidea , well once you go beyond a certain point since naturally armour has its weak points and you can simply atttack around it.
your point is still fairly valid though.
elgostine 11 months ago
@elgostine
Honestly, I don't think it's a bad idea at all. In close combat you need to be aggressive and decisive. If you hesitate, you lose, and if you're wearing armor you'll have the confidence and protection required to help you act decisively. I think at least half of the value of wearing armor is that it helps you take control of a dangerous situation instead of being controlled by it.
This of course doesn't make you stupid and do foolish things.
Caliburnis 11 months ago
@Caliburnis To be of value, plate had to become thicker and thicker, and thus more and more encumbering. Cavalry in parts keep it because they didnt have to walk with it, and because cavalry was worth the extra expense.
LutzDerLurch 8 months ago
I fired a 12 gauge inside a room before at the door only a few feet away. A herd of elephants could run right past you without you hearing anything. I also say there was a concussive effect and I was a bit 'dazed' for a second or two afterwards.
Pyrela 1 year ago
I am a life long shooter but I didnt fire at an indoor range until I applied with a police department near Austin Tx. I completely missed the first 2 shots during the qualification because the noise from everyone else made me flinch. I finally had to wait until everyone else started shooting so I could adjust, THEN shoot.
ASnakeintheGrass 1 year ago
In recent psychological studies they have found that we naturally don't want to kill other humans. The factors that allow people to do so are training and range. The further away an opponent is the easier it is to fight them so charging in is the one thing they dont want to do ever. Also the training they received was very ineffective they were trained in a fight to reload and fire at the opponent but often in combat yes they would aim high and miss because they just didn't want to kill or die.
soul1d 1 year ago
@soul1d training was NOT ineffective.
LutzDerLurch 8 months ago
In firefights, discipline tends to break down, and the ability of the officers to muster their men into a coordinated charge tended to decrease over the number of volleys fired. Also, once indoors, shouted orders would really be difficult to hear over the noises. Finally, the whole breaking formation think really is not something a soldier of the day was supposed to do.
MusicOfSDG 1 year ago
HA! i knew my pistol bayonet was useful!
neverneen 1 year ago
Reminds me of the "Wolves, Sheep, and Sheepdog" idea.
Humans don't want to kill if they can help it, but they don't want to be seen as cowards so they continue to support the men who are willing.
Wasn't there a musket found at Gettysburg that was just bull of shot? Supposedly he reloaded time and again but never fired.
SamGCampbell 1 year ago
Good analysis. Bayonet fights are knife fights. ask anyone who trains in this form of combat and they'll tell you that your chances of getting cut in some form or another in a knife fight is incredibly high.
gamerfromcanada 1 year ago
I sell lottery tickets at my job and I can tell you the lottery is exactly that. If you look at the odds. every $1.00 you put in, you get 50cents back. (PA lotto)
Pendragondnd 1 year ago
I wonder how the psychological effect of not wanting to charge into melee played out before gunpowder where melee was a necessary part of battle. Did the generals just get all of their troops drunk before a battle? Did the shields add a level of comfort?
MatthiasVargas 1 year ago
On the whole I agree with you, but there are some notable exceptions. Off the top of my head, the highland charge was a bayonet tactic used by the Scottish Highlanders to great effect, also for psychological reasons. Imagine a line of furious Scotsmen running at you with bayonets while it takes you 2 or more minutes to reload...
ElSabio0004 1 year ago
@ElSabio0004 15-20 seconds, not 2+ minutes.
LutzDerLurch 8 months ago
You're back!
themanthatrocks985 1 year ago
Your the best lindy :)
leofootyrome 1 year ago
It could also be because a different type of psychology. That theory goes that the more distance between you and your foe the easier it is to kill. For example it is much more diffecult for a person to strangle someone then to use a sword. You can "blame" the weapon and there is no touch involved. This goes to the extreem of fighterpilots using bombs. Easy to do, no sight of the victim(s) and you remove yourself of the scene. Musketshot or upclose bayoneting might be the same thing.
Phalar 1 year ago
Humans are generally more interested in keeping what they have instead of risking that to gain something else...generally.
Twycross 1 year ago
I fired a .223 round indoors (concrete walled basement no less) without ear protection.... I didn't do it again.
Giblinono 1 year ago
@Giblinono Ow.
fsbritney 1 year ago
My American future Father-in-law once shot a deer from the kitchen door with a Winchester .30-30 - his wife was not best pleased.
I totally agree, firearms are surprisingly noisy. As I discovered, if you're trying to shoot quickly your accuracy decreases quite quickly the more your ears start to hurt. Although I guess you'd get used to it over time.
oOoxelAoOo 1 year ago
Good sir, I've always thought that your videos weren't long enough. Your rambling and tangents is part of your appeal. Tell THAT to the ladies!
"Excuse me miss, may I point out to you my tangents?"
TuberGreg 1 year ago 2
Muskets scare me.
leeham991 1 year ago
please write up your script before hand. And pretty pretty please follow it.
thecutthatneverheals 1 year ago
@thecutthatneverheals I prefer his unscripted videos. His rambles are interesting!
futsalfred2 1 year ago
@futsalfred2 Finding time to do these videos is hard enough as it is. I prefer the spontaneity of no script, and there is some pride in the purity of the technique. The last five videos I shot were all done first take, in one take. On the other hand, I did seriously consider reshooting this one because it is unnecessarily long. So, sorry Cut Tha Never Heals, and thanks Futsal Fred.
lindybeige 1 year ago
Sounds about right sir.
Octavius0 1 year ago
Very nice video, good to see some new stuff ;-)
I think another important reason for such behaviour would be that it's way easier to "simply shoot" someone than to actually step in front of him, look into his eyes and bayonet him with your bare hands. It's more comfortable for the mind to just push a button.
LangerName 1 year ago
if i was alive back then i would have relied on the sword and a pistol for a club
1x93cm 1 year ago
Yes, I have experience of 5.56 blast 1m from my year without using any ear protection.
ChaohsiangChen 1 year ago
The few times you do hear of full on bayonet charges, they tend to be hugely effective... if you can get all your mates to charge in with you. The terror that cold steel instills in people is huge, compared to standing a few feet away firing musket shot. It just requires that rush of adrenaline/bravery/stupidity to muster the charge. Unless the enemy is particularly brave in return, they're most likely to just leg it. As you say, the prospect of a bayonet to the face is not a nice one.
CorvusVal 1 year ago
@CorvusVal Yes, but it's much harder to organise a mass charge when you are blind and deaf and in a building.
lindybeige 1 year ago 4
I'd actually like to hear your assessment of early firearm accuracy. I used to be a French & Indian War-era reenactor, so I'm quite familiar with the sheer noise and recoil a musket generates. I never paid much attention, to my later regret, to accuracy. An AP history teacher later insisted that would not be uncommon for musket balls to exit gun barrels at near 90 degree angles, and that this did not really change until rifling techniques became commonplace. Any thoughts?
Mandalor91 1 year ago
@Mandalor91 your ap history teacher isnt quite correct
you can definently hit the broad side of the barn with a non-rifled firearm... even if the barn is a ways off
check out this video from the history channel w w w.history.com/videos/matchlock-musket-demonstration#matchlock-musket-demonstration
IssunQuixotic 1 year ago
@Mandalor91 I have read of a number of scientific tests, many of them done back in the day, and muskets were a lot more accurate than that. However, psychology plays a big role. For one thing, many men fired with their eyes shut, and for another, many would consciously or subconsciously aim high. Killing people is not something people find easy.
lindybeige 1 year ago 6
@lindybeige Black powder smooth bore muskets were as accurate as any gun up to about 75 yards. But in order to be a marksman with ANY gun it takes literally thousands of rounds of practice. How many tins of pellets have you put through your pellet rifle? Each tin is 500 rounds. Also reloading disciple goes to Hell in battle pressure. Many of the muskets found at Gettysburg had been reloaded as many as three times without being actually fired once.
youmaus 1 year ago
@youmaus Ohhhh yes...I couldnd hit the barn when starting musketry with a patched ball, now I can make much better groupings with undersized ball. However, the gettysburg illloaded weapons are actually largly caused by the percussin-cap. much more difficult to load them in battle than a flintlock.
LutzDerLurch 8 months ago
@lindybeige From what I have seen (my uncle owns a muzzle loading rifle) and heard, the reason people close their eyes when they fire muskets is due to the large amount of black powder smoke coming back into your face. I've only shot a black powder gun once but it produces a much larger volume of smoke and blast than any of my modern rifles.
MrDeadly25 1 year ago
@lindybeige Part of that may be due to overloaded flash pans blowing smoke into there eyes. The introduction of the percussion cap greatly improved accuracy and reliability even without rifling.
As an overconfident brawler personally I have always much preferred my chances in a melee than Russian roulette. It would be sabers at noon rather than pistols at dawn for me. As I am not an early riser either.
MrMonkeybat 1 year ago
@MrMonkeybat: In short, you're a hard man to kill LOL...you're not James Bond by any chance?!
anzac2404 1 year ago
@MrMonkeybat Well, in Fact the Percussion-Cap did next to nothing improving Accuracy, and the Caps back in the Days were much mor prone to failure then modern Speciment, leaving the Reliability rather unchanged at all. Even worse, loading the Gun became more time consuming, more complicated and thus the likelyhood of loading unproperly were getting higher. they had however benefits in the rain.
LutzDerLurch 8 months ago
@LutzDerLurch Hmm, your claim on the reliability of caps being just as bad as flintlock (which is not bad at all, if properly maintained) is hard to prove. Plenty of 19th century writers clearly stated the superiority of caps over flintlock (they wrote mostly about high quality sporting arms though), and besides why would the US government replaced inaccurate smoothbore flintlock musket with inaccurate smoothbore caplock musket if the latter provided no improvement whatsoever?
HaNsWiDjAjA 7 months ago
@HaNsWiDjAjA Well, a Caplock is easier to make from fewer Parts with fewer important geometries to be kept. The Percussion-Cap had Advantages in Reliability and Moistur-Tolerance, but not as much as many people think. And in the Realities of War as opposed to Traininggrounds, these Effects were even smaller. Also bear in mind, that the Flintlock superseeded the Wheellock for no other Reason than being much less complicated and Cheaper to build.
LutzDerLurch 4 months ago
@MrMonkeybat when actually firing live-ammo, the flash is nothing to worry and that eye-shut thingie is mostly modern misconception, as i the claim that muskets were cheap r target practice was no part of the training.
LutzDerLurch 8 months ago
@lindybeige: They would either close their eye's, or in some cases, turn their head & close their eyes to protect the eyes from flash-back; it would leave powder marks on the face....providing you lived long enough?!
Love your work, keep it up; cheers.
anzac2404 1 year ago
@lindybeige I've also heard that the prospect of running a person through, so to speak, either with a bayonet, spear, pike, etc., is also something people naturally avoid at all costs. Makes me wonder how pike formations really operated.
000majorwinters000 1 year ago
@000majorwinters000 I can only imagine that the thoughts of o pikeman going into battle are different than those of a rifleman. For a pikeman, battle is up close and undeniably kill or be killed. Soldiers would have that in their minds. A musket is more a case of load point and fire, and maybe it was actually your buddy that killed someone. Gunpowder changes things.
billybones69420 1 year ago
@lindybeige A lot of West African early gun users would apparently hold the gun over their heads, or as far away from themselves as they could, due to the failure rate of the guns they were sold. I imagine that would help to decrease accuracy too.
Fortramnasdaq 1 year ago
@Fortramnasdaq Solomon islanders loaded their guns for maximum noise and recoil, caring little for whether they were accurate.
lindybeige 1 year ago
@lindybeige : Reminds me of what one of the many "political generals" said to his chief of artillery, who protested about being ordered to open fire on a stretch of woods that the enemy were said to be hiding in. The artillerist said that with the dense woods, they could likely do little in the way of any execution of troops there as they could see very little to aim at. "Damn the execution, Sir, it's the noise we want!"
althesmith 11 months ago
@lindybeige i heard it was part of european doctrine, or english at least, to aim low, orsergents to tell men to aim low so that the recioil would still send the balls intothe enemies bellies and legs, not as lethal but more than good enough.
either that or ive been reading too many sharpe novels
elgostine 11 months ago
@lindybeige apart from being afraid the musket good get his face burned or worse, muskets were notoriously unreliable
backinblack03 11 months ago
@lindybeige That shutting of Eyes is actually a misconception. Still you are absolutely correct that muskets were far more accurate then most people tend to believe, but its psychology and Circumstances ruining every Accuracy.
Even in open Fiel Bayonet Charges were rarely leading into Melee. Having two lines clash with Bayonets is equal Carnage as the Pike-Squares clashing. In nearly all Cases a Charge was performed, one side turned heel. However, I disagree a bit considering the Noise.
LutzDerLurch 8 months ago
@LutzDerLurch About chutting the eyes when fireing muskets I think you have a valid point about the psychological aspect. But also the fact that fragments of halfburnt powder or parts from the percussion-cap could end up in your eys and face when fireing must also have played a part.
Verdunveteran 8 months ago
@lindybeige (cont.) The Crack of a modern arm is the Gasses and Bullet breaking the speed of Sound. Musket Balls tend to stay just below SoS, so they won't crack as sharply as modern guns. They are still very loud, of course.
I have however, read that Bayonetfighting was occuring mainly in confined Space, like narrow Streets etc. and extremely bloody and messy then.
LutzDerLurch 8 months ago
@LutzDerLurch The crack is one of the sounds. Muskets were big bore, used a massive charge of inefficient black powder, which is twice as loud as modern gunpowder or cordite.
lindybeige 8 months ago
@lindybeige i happen to shoot Muskets as well as Rifles like K98 and Mosin-nagant, even on the Same Indoor-Range, and I would most definately say that the Noixe Contest will be an easy win for the modern Arms.
LutzDerLurch 8 months ago
@Mandalor91 If it was true that rifling makes that dramatic of a difference (don't get me wrong, it does help a ton with accuracy at long ranges) then my smooth bore shotgun wouldn't be able to hit with buckshot at up to 40 yards and with slugs past 100 yards. I don't want to discredit your teacher, but he/she has probably never actually seen a gun fired, let alone shot one. They have probably just theorized about it in classrooms and teacher lounges.
MrDeadly25 1 year ago 2
@MrDeadly25 Slugs have a shape that causes them to spin in the air. That's why they can be shot from smoothbores effectively. Buckshot is not influenced by the rifling because the pellets are smaller than the bore of the gun. I'm afraid to say that your point is invalid.
paperjack93 1 year ago
@paperjack93 Nope, Slugs do NOT spin. spin comes from Rifling. Muskets are by far more accurate then TV and Hollywood, and even most Authors and Documentaries try to tell you.
LutzDerLurch 8 months ago
@LutzDerLurch It is next to impossible to avoid spin. Try throwing a ball even a short way into the air without spinning it all all. Good luck. If a musket ball touches the sides of a barrel at all as it is launched, it will spin.
lindybeige 8 months ago
@lindybeige But you are talking about Ramdon Spin that is, as funny as it reads, eliminated, if people care to actually go and load properly. When firing the Musket unpatched, the ball will most likely get a random spin. with a patch, this spin is annihilated, with the ball sliding along the barrel rather then "rolling" along. When you load in the military way with the Paper around the Ball, it ill also slide rather then roll.
LutzDerLurch 8 months ago
@lindybeige Well, with a loose Ball I'd agree, but e.g. Military cartridges when loaded with their Pafer have the Ball neatly packed on a Sabbot of Paper, with a Chunk of Paper on the Back and a chunk of Paper in the Front of the Ball, being tied to it, which makes any Spin rather impossible. And the Disturbance of the ball from the Paper being stripped away by the Air after exiting the Muzzle is negligeable compared to a Spin obtained by a naked Ball touching the Barrel.
LutzDerLurch 4 months ago
@MrDeadly25
It's not really comparable, a smooth-bore musket of the era had a barrel larger than the ball it was firing, in order to allow it to be loaded easily and to deal with fouling. That's where much of the inaccuracy came from, rather than the smooth bore. Your shotgun was (probably) built in the era of smokeless powder, and so has much tighter tolerances.
BlueGrimgrin 1 year ago
@BlueGrimgrin shotgungs and Muskets DO compoare quite nicely. not perfectly, but nicely.
LutzDerLurch 8 months ago
@Mandalor91 90 degrees is an overstatement, but up to 10 degrees of was possible but uncommon. Part of the problem was no rifling (which imparts spin stability) but also the shape of musket ball. A lengthened, points spitzer type bullet is less affected by the wind because it's shape prevents it from tumbling, presents a smaller cross section, and makes it a little more massive than balls with the same cross section (and thus has more inertia).
ElSabio0004 1 year ago
@ElSabio0004 dont confuse windsheer and forwar motions air resistance. I maintain that 10Degrees is stil extremely exagerated.
LutzDerLurch 8 months ago
@Mandalor91 You'd be absolutely amazed how live rounds with truly authentic amounts of proper powder change the experience ;) As to the accuracy, I am working on a scientific aproach on that. But the Ammunition used militarily would not stray more than 3 feet to any direction at 100yards. I could give you the degrees, if my calculater werent in my car right now. it is nowhere near 90°, not even near 10°. It should be roughly 0.5 Degree, 1Degree would be excessive. Muskets are highly underrated
LutzDerLurch 8 months ago
Damn, long time no see.
Been waiting for one of these :D
Tjorvz1 1 year ago
first
baphomet58 1 year ago