Weapons & Tactics in the Period 1861-1914

[old_pop2000]

Just thought we would try a different area of investigation and study. Maybe some of our reenactors in the US and Europe will chime in to educate us. The period is the Civil War, Austro-Prussian, Franco-Prussian, Spanish-American, Sino-Japanese, Russo-Japanese, Boer, Zulu, Indian, the Balkan wars with Turkey preceding The Great War. The discussion should center on, but be limited to, small arms, artillery, small and medium unit tactics etc. Weapons design, innovations, non-lethal inventions like the Wireless and four stroke gasoline engine etc.

[Kyle Holgate]

I'm bowing out of this one - my "expertise" (if I can call it that) rests with WW1 forward. I know there was some little skirmish in Europe that ended at Waterloo for example and that Napoleon was short - but beyond that...?

[old_pop2000]

I was reading over the Chapter Marne and Tannenberg 1914 in JFC Fuller's excellent set of volumes entitled "A Military History of the Western World". He describes French and German infantry tactics at the start of The Great War.


After the Franco-Prussian War the French and German General Staffs periodically revised their training manuals, and after 1905 the tactical doctrines expressed in them were almost exclusively based on the offensive; the bayonet assault remained the accepted goal of the attack. ....Intellectually, the German is heavy and methodical and the Frenchman quick and cautious. The French followed Napoleon and believed in attack in order to uncover, and then, when information had been gained, to maneuver against the point selected during battle for the decisive blow. The Germans did not. They believed in marching direct upon the enemy once he had been located, and then attack him au fond in front and simultaneously to envelop his flanks. Their system was Spartan... The French was Roman.

.....As regards infantry tactics, the German believed in opening an attack with a dense firing line; to advance it until the enemy's fire was felt; then to smother the enemy's position with bullets; next to crawl forward to between 800 and 400 yards of the enemy; to gain fire superiority, and lastly to advance again and at 100 yards assault with the bayonet. .....

The French theory was based on the doctrines of Ardant du Picq; to move forward under controlled fire to 400 yards range, at which point it was held that, because aimed fire would become impossible, losses would diminish, and then to advance and take the position with the bayonet

Sorry for the length. If you have access to the volumes, this snippet is from Volume III, Marne and Tannenberg, 1914 Pages 187-188. The previous chapter entitle "The Foundation of the First World War" is also excellent preparatory information for any reading of The Great War.

Comments, ideas?

[old_pop2000]

I'm bowing out of this one - my "expertise" (if I can call it that) rests with WW1 forward. I know there was some little skirmish in Europe that ended at Waterloo for example and that Napoleon was short - but beyond that...?
Sorry Kyle, but I felt that we are disenfranchising many of our members by devoting all of our discussions to battleships, naval warfare and alternate histories. This whole forum is titled Military history, so I believe that we should give them a chance to discuss areas of study, that are important to them. This period is vital to the understanding of The Great War.

[Ed Rotondaro]

I was reading over the Chapter Marne and Tannenberg 1914 in JFC Fuller's excellent set of volumes entitled "A Military History of the Western World". He describes French and German infantry tactics at the start of The Great War.



Sorry for the length. If you have access to the volumes, this snippet is from Volume III, Marne and Tannenberg, 1914 Pages 187-188. The previous chapter entitle "The Foundation of the First World War" is also excellent preparatory information for any reading of The Great War.

Comments, ideas?

Dennis:

Yet neither side as you mentioned had figured out that units could be smashed at ranges exceeding 500 yards. Hell a machine gun was meant primarily to batter the beaten ground well outside of accurate rifle fire.

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

Yet neither side as you mentioned had figured out that units could be smashed at ranges exceeding 500 yards. Hell a machine gun was meant primarily to batter the beaten ground well outside of accurate rifle fire.
Ed:
That's one part of the puzzle. But, in fact, both sides understood the issue of losses. The French knew they would incur heavy losses but felt it was the cost of war and that it's soldiers should understand that. It was the old issue of dying for your country and that was considered to be an honor. Sound familiar?[Japan] French mentions this in his 1919 book about the losses. Great losses in men did not affect the French officers at all. That is part of the reason for the Mutiny in the last year of the war. The Germans were no different.

[Kyle Holgate]

Sorry Kyle, but I felt that we are disenfranchising many of our members by devoting all of our discussions to battleships, naval warfare and alternate histories. This whole forum is titled Military history, so I believe that we should give them a chance to discuss areas of study, that are important to them. This period is vital to the understanding of The Great War.

I totally agree - military history in general has a wider scope than we tend to focus on here.

[Mike Malanaphy]

Ed:
That's one part of the puzzle. But, in fact, both sides understood the issue of losses. The French knew they would incur heavy losses but felt it was the cost of war and that it's soldiers should understand that. It was the old issue of dying for your country and that was considered to be an honor. Sound familiar?[Japan] French mentions this in his 1919 book about the losses. Great losses in men did not affect the French officers at all. That is part of the reason for the Mutiny in the last year of the war. The Germans were no different.

Hi Dennis,

The Eurpoeans were well acquainted with massed infantry casualties from the Naploeonic conflicts, but later pre WW I conflicts were short lived and decisively concluded. I believe that it was the lack of command and control ability beyond bugles and voice commands that explain the inability for more dispersal on the battlefield. Without a means to quickly communicate, formations gone to ground or off course could ruin an attack. Even when tanks were able to assist in breakthroughs on the Western Front, a lack of effective communication prevented exploitation even though forces were poised to do so. A similar problem effected the Ludendorff Offensive against the Allies.

[asnrobert]

It was the old issue of dying for your country and that was considered to be an honor. Sound familiar?[Japan]

I think the Romans said it first: "Dulce et decorum est, pro patria mori."

[old_pop2000]

Mike:
Actually, when calculated, modern weapons have actually produced casualty rates per thousand that were less than the Napoleonic Wars. In fact, lethality of weapons since medieval times has increased 2000 times, as calculated by T.N. Dupuy. However, the casualty rates per 1000 soldiers has decreased. The casualty rates since the 1600's have been steadily declining except for two spikes during the Napoleonic War and ACW along with the Franco Prussian War. In those wars, the victor had a casualty rate of up to 20% per 10000, The defeated had a rate of 25% per 1000. The Great War saw a casualty rate of around 9% for the victor and 10%. I have included a table of dispersion of forces. As the Air University history of Warfare states:


The impact of the dispersion of forces on this equation is evident from the data in Table 2. It is clear that as weapons became more and more destructive, armies reacted by adjusting their tactics to increase their dispersion of forces so as to minimize the targets provided to the new weapons. Again, the overall result has been a decline in battle casualties even as the lethality of weapons increased.

Enclosed also a chart showing the relationship between lethality and dispersion

This maybe counter intuitive, but it makes perfect sense. Do the Math!!;)

[old_pop2000]

I think the Romans said it first: "Dulce et decorum est, pro patria mori."
It was the Roman poet Horace in an ode. "It is sweet and right to die for one's country".

[asnrobert]

Mike:
Actually, when calculated, modern weapons have actually produced casualty rates per thousand that were less than the Napoleonic Wars. In fact, lethality of weapons since medieval times has increased 2000 times, as calculated by T.N. Dupuy. However, the casualty rates per 1000 soldiers has decreased. The casualty rates since the 1600's have been steadily declining except for two spikes during the Napoleonic War and ACW along with the Franco Prussian War. In those wars, the victor had a casualty rate of up to 20% per 10000, The defeated had a rate of 25% per 1000. The Great War saw a casualty rate of around 9% for the victor and 10%. I have included a table of dispersion of forces. As the Air University history of Warfare states:



Enclosed also a chart showing the relationship between lethality and dispersion

This maybe counter intuitive, but it makes perfect sense. Do the Math!!;)

Could it be that the casualty rates have dropped since Napoleonic times due to advances in medicine?

[old_pop2000]

Could it be that the casualty rates have dropped since Napoleonic times due to advances in medicine?
I would agree that the percentage of soldiers who survive wounds has risen, but overall rate of mortality decreased. This is only due to the dispersion of forces, because armies have realized that the more dispersed the force, the less targets there are per area.

[djcyclone]

Medicine has its advantages, but it also has disadvantages. I read somewhere that Pearl Harbor still holds the record for being a battle in which more people died from the missuse of medicine (overdose of morphine) then from actual battle. I am sure other battles have had similar results, but just have not had the same numbers as PH.

[Citadelvette]

I do Civil War reenacting and I'll tell you there's nothing better than getting out of Napoleonic formations and into skirmish lines using tactics not to dissimliar from today's. Plus combine dispersed formations with a repeating cartridge rifles live a Henry or Spencer and the enemy had better watch out. But the saddest lose for me as a historian and reenactor is the loss of real good mobile artillery until WWII with self-propelleds. A good light weight yet powerful fieldgun is a tremendous advantage. I known when most people think ACW artillery they think Napoleons but my favorite gun is the Model 1842 6lb Gun a standard for both sides early on its powerful with good range/accuracy for a smoothbore and great for targets right up to the muzzle and the piece is light enough that my crew could move it with an adavnce w/o loosing the ability to just stop and fire. Most of the bigger guns were stationary and strategic in nature once emplace on the feild while the '42 can provide tactical support or be withdrawn if the enemy overuns our artillery. As for non-lethal inovations, in the mid-19th century I gotta go with the telegraph and the railroad as they were so vital for the ACW, Austro-Prussian, and Franco-Prussian Wars.

[old_pop2000]

I do Civil War reenacting and I'll tell you there's nothing better than getting out of Napoleonic formations and into skirmish lines using tactics not to dissimliar from today's. Plus combine dispersed formations with a repeating cartridge rifles live a Henry or Spencer and the enemy had better watch out. But the saddest lose for me as a historian and reenactor is the loss of real good mobile artillery until WWII with self-propelleds. A good light weight yet powerful fieldgun is a tremendous advantage. I known when most people think ACW artillery they think Napoleons but my favorite gun is the Model 1842 6lb Gun a standard for both sides early on its powerful with good range/accuracy for a smoothbore and great for targets right up to the muzzle and the piece is light enough that my crew could move it with an adavnce w/o loosing the ability to just stop and fire. Most of the bigger guns were stationary and strategic in nature once emplace on the feild while the '42 can provide tactical support or be withdrawn if the enemy overuns our artillery. As for non-lethal inovations, in the mid-19th century I gotta go with the telegraph and the railroad as they were so vital for the ACW, Austro-Prussian, and Franco-Prussian Wars.
Good perspective. The Model 1842 weapon, you have discussed was eventually superceded by the 1857 Napoleon. I noticed that the 10 lb parrott was not that much heavier than the 1842 weapon? It was made from iron and seems to have a better range at 2000 yards. Is this true, or myth?

[Citadelvette]

Good perspective. The Model 1842 weapon, you have discussed was eventually superceded by the 1857 Napoleon. I noticed that the 10 lb parrott was not that much heavier than the 1842 weapon? It was made from iron and seems to have a better range at 2000 yards. Is this true, or myth?

I've only seen 2 or 3 10lb Parrotts on the field and their crews were like so many artillery crews I've met well on the rotund size and since they wouldn't let anyone near their precious gun I can't speak from experience on tactical mobility but I would suspect that it would be comparable to other 10lb pieces like a Napoleon. I can speak on range however, the Parrotts are rifled guns instead of smooth bores so the range and accurancy are increased considerably. My old CO did some live fires with a '42 and got a max range of about a mile and accurate fire between 1500 and 2000 yds. From my knowledge the Parrotts could be expected to reach out to about two miles and accuracy should be better anywhere past point blank. I really do love the 6lb '42 though it's easy to use and maintain, crew can move the piece with relative ease to support an advance or withdrawl to prevent the piece's capture, heck when we have have the gun limbered we don't even need horses (or a truck/ATV) to move it so we don't, pure manpower it's probably the most mobile poece I've seen short of a mountain howitzer or and 1890's 3lber. Of course most of the guns I've seen used are heavy becvause the crews are themselves inherently staionary so why use a mobile piece, you should see these guys pull up to the firing line in a F-650 and unload a 24lb Parrott emplace it and fire it at he opposition!:eek:

[old_pop2000]

I've only seen 2 or 3 10lb Parrotts on the field and their crews were like so many artillery crews I've met well on the rotund size and since they wouldn't let anyone near their precious gun I can't speak from experience on tactical mobility but I would suspect that it would be comparable to other 10lb pieces like a Napoleon. I can speak on range however, the Parrotts are rifled guns instead of smooth bores so the range and accurancy are increased considerably. My old CO did some live fires with a '42 and got a max range of about a mile and accurate fire between 1500 and 2000 yds. From my knowledge the Parrotts could be expected to reach out to about two miles and accuracy should be better anywhere past point blank. I really do love the 6lb '42 though it's easy to use and maintain, crew can move the piece with relative ease to support an advance or withdrawl to prevent the piece's capture, heck when we have have the gun limbered we don't even need horses (or a truck/ATV) to move it so we don't, pure manpower it's probably the most mobile poece I've seen short of a mountain howitzer or and 1890's 3lber. Of course most of the guns I've seen used are heavy becvause the crews are themselves inherently staionary so why use a mobile piece, you should see these guys pull up to the firing line in a F-650 and unload a 24lb Parrott emplace it and fire it at he opposition!:eek:
Your information and knowledge is why I put this thread up, to get the information from historians and reenactors. Information that is not always in the books but is vital to the real understanding of the progress of weaponry and tactics in the period. Keep the information coming.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Mike:
Actually, when calculated, modern weapons have actually produced casualty rates per thousand that were less than the Napoleonic Wars. In fact, lethality of weapons since medieval times has increased 2000 times, as calculated by T.N. Dupuy. However, the casualty rates per 1000 soldiers has decreased. The casualty rates since the 1600's have been steadily declining except for two spikes during the Napoleonic War and ACW along with the Franco Prussian War. In those wars, the victor had a casualty rate of up to 20% per 10000, The defeated had a rate of 25% per 1000. The Great War saw a casualty rate of around 9% for the victor and 10%. I have included a table of dispersion of forces. As the Air University history of Warfare states:



Enclosed also a chart showing the relationship between lethality and dispersion

This maybe counter intuitive, but it makes perfect sense. Do the Math!!;)

Dennis:

Is this also a function of the sizes of modern armies? A medieval army fielded at best 20,000 troops. A Napoleonic amry could have up 100,000+ troops. The average US Army in WWII based on 7-9 divisions in three corps plus attached troops had at least 400,000 soldiers. More targets, less deaths? But a more serious casualty rate for the infantry.

[Citadelvette]

Something which is seen repeatedly since the introduction of good cartridge and repeating firearms is the resistance mounted by the military brass in adopting the newest weapons. Look at the resitance put up to the Sharps, Smiths, Spencers, and Henrys during the Civil War. It took depending on the weapon President Lincoln, a few determined forward thinking officers, or a community who spent all the money they had to equip the units raised there with the best equipment just to get these weapons to the field. Revolvers met similar resitance when they were introduced earlier and the US resited the bolt action's higher rate of fire over the trapdoor Sprinfield's and when a bolt action was adopted it was the Krag which was slower to load than the charger loading Mauser which was as a result of experience in 1898 lincensed, modified, and adopted as the M1903 Springfield. Since then semi-automatic and full-auto weapons have been met with initial hesitation and the M16 was even modified from full auto to burst fire. The reason is almost always "it's a waste of ammunition." I find it depressing that weapons which our soldiers could/could have benefit(ed) from have been witheld by such closed minds.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Something which is seen repeatedly since the introduction of good cartridge and repeating firearms is the resistance mounted by the military brass in adopting the newest weapons. Look at the resitance put up to the Sharps, Smiths, Spencers, and Henrys during the Civil War. It took depending on the weapon President Lincoln, a few determined forward thinking officers, or a community who spent all the money they had to equip the units raised there with the best equipment just to get these weapons to the field. Revolvers met similar resitance when they were introduced earlier and the US resited the bolt action's higher rate of fire over the trapdoor Sprinfield's and when a bolt action was adopted it was the Krag which was slower to load than the charger loading Mauser which was as a result of experience in 1898 lincensed, modified, and adopted as the M1903 Springfield. Since then semi-automatic and full-auto weapons have been met with initial hesitation and the M16 was even modified from full auto to burst fire. The reason is almost always "it's a waste of ammunition." I find it depressing that weapons which our soldiers could/could have benefit(ed) from have been witheld by such closed minds.


Citadel:

Militaries are inherently conservative by nature, so that's part of the reason. Sometimes cost factors in too. During the 1930s, John Garand, the designer of the M1 was working on a different self loading rifle using a newer smaller cartridge that most likely would have been a better idea. General MacArthur firmly convinced him that with millions of .30-.06 cartridges in storage the chance of adopting a new caliber in the middle of the Depression was remote to say the least. So Garand stuck with the 30 caliber and his rifle got bought and went on to make history.

One reason why the newer M16s removed the full auto feature was that it promoted very poor shooting. Even though the recoil from the 5.56mm isn't ferocious, it was found that after the third shot, the barrel still lifted off target as much from the action of the weapon as from the recoil. In Viet Nam many troops took to firing off a full magazine in few seconds in the general direction of where they thought the enemy was. "Spray and Pray" so to speak.
It really makes more sense to use the squad automatic weapon or a heavy machine gun for putting out large volumes of fire, they're better designed for this. I'm not sure what they thinking in other armies is regarding full auto, but the US feels it is not as effective as controlled bursts. Perhaps Mike M or Mike S or any of our other vets can shed some light on this subject?

[old_pop2000]

Something which is seen repeatedly since the introduction of good cartridge and repeating firearms is the resistance mounted by the military brass in adopting the newest weapons. Look at the resitance put up to the Sharps, Smiths, Spencers, and Henrys during the Civil War. It took depending on the weapon President Lincoln, a few determined forward thinking officers, or a community who spent all the money they had to equip the units raised there with the best equipment just to get these weapons to the field. Revolvers met similar resitance when they were introduced earlier and the US resited the bolt action's higher rate of fire over the trapdoor Sprinfield's and when a bolt action was adopted it was the Krag which was slower to load than the charger loading Mauser which was as a result of experience in 1898 lincensed, modified, and adopted as the M1903 Springfield. Since then semi-automatic and full-auto weapons have been met with initial hesitation and the M16 was even modified from full auto to burst fire. The reason is almost always "it's a waste of ammunition." I find it depressing that weapons which our soldiers could/could have benefit(ed) from have been witheld by such closed minds.
It isn't closed minds actually. Military commanders must be conservative to protect the lives of their men. They must be absolutely confident that the weapons they are going to provide will stand up to the rigors of combat. The military, by it very nature, is a conservative organization. It must be, to protect the soldiers lives.

As for the M16, most combat soldiers will agree that on full auto, you are just wasting ammunition, which is not always so plentiful or easy to get in the heat of combat.

As to the Mauser and the Krag, the K98 Mauser was not available for the 1892 competition to replace the single shot springfields. The best Mauser did not reach the German army until six years later and when the change was made to the M1903, it was really due to the better .30-03 cartridge and later to the famous .30-06 cartridge. By the by, the M1903 was a direct copy of the K98 Mauser, IIRC. Just a note, one of the gripes against the Krag was that it only had one locking lug, while the Mauser had two. Actually, in most cases, the second lug does engage, so in point of fact, the mauser is single lug gun also. There is something called lapping that has to be performed to get it to lock with both lugs. I am not certain of this, hopefully one of our gun experts will know the truth.

[Citadelvette]

Ed and Dennis,
You both are very right of course and at least in more contemporary times we issue small numbers of weapons out to be field tested, which means those conservative elements get to save money and the troops get better weapons sooner. I think if we had such measures back in the day lives could have been saved. But at least we had some individuals and groups who saw the light, and we eventually learned from our mistakes (again and again). At least when I go out I can grab a Henry to defend my 6lber and I'm not stuck with a Springfield when a company of Johnny Reb/Billy Yank (depending on the day) comes for my gun. It the gun I "load on Sunday and shoot all week."

And I agree that a burst or semi-auto is more effective than full auto for the average infantryman and that why the M16 and M14 lost their full-auto (for most guns). When you need an lighter more compact auto weapon you reach for and SMG or a M4 Carbine or that guy you just killed'd AK. Were fortunate to have a good balance of weapons today and intelligence to realize that some of our retirerees and B-team waepons still got what it takes. And that's why so many M14s and M1911s are back in service. Many of my friends who've been to Iraq have said they go out of their way to get a M14 or M1911 because their reliable, powerful, and well built. That's why thir are new versions of the M14 and M1911 and why the Mk 23 Mod O SOCOM .45 was built.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Ed and Dennis,
You both are very right of course and at least in more contemporary times we issue small numbers of weapons out to be field tested, which means those conservative elements get to save money and the troops get better weapons sooner. I think if we had such measures back in the day lives could have been saved. But at least we had some individuals and groups who saw the light, and we eventually learned from our mistakes (again and again). At least when I go out I can grab a Henry to defend my 6lber and I'm not stuck with a Springfield when a company of Johnny Reb/Billy Yank (depending on the day) comes for my gun. It the gun I "load on Sunday and shoot all week."

And I agree that a burst or semi-auto is more effective than full auto for the average infantryman and that why the M16 and M14 lost their full-auto (for most guns). When you need an lighter more compact auto weapon you reach for and SMG or a M4 Carbine or that guy you just killed'd AK. Were fortunate to have a good balance of weapons today and intelligence to realize that some of our retirerees and B-team waepons still got what it takes. And that's why so many M14s and M1911s are back in service. Many of my friends who've been to Iraq have said they go out of their way to get a M14 or M1911 because their reliable, powerful, and well built. That's why thir are new versions of the M14 and M1911 and why the Mk 23 Mod O SOCOM .45 was built.

Citadel:

In the case of the M14, it was almost uncontrollable on full auto since it was not heavy enough. When firing a full bore .30 caliber round, you need a weapon with enough weight to handle the recoil. Interesting enough, due to its straight line design, the AR10 which was the father of the M16 could be fired full auto with reasonable control.

The M14 has made a comeback as the "designated marksman's rifle". These are usually parceled out at a rate of about one per platoon. The user is generally a good shot, not necessarily at the level of a sniper per se, but able to hit at longer ranges than most troops. These rifles are used to provide covering fire and long range interdiction. In recognition of the challenges of urban combat, the Army has taken to employing sniper teams up much closer to the battle to act as overwatch and take opportunity shots. There is also some question as to whether the Army should consider adopting a larger caliber round in place of the 5.56mm. There are a number of choices, all of which would easily work with the basic M16 design.

[john964]

The M14 has made a comeback as the "designated marksman's rifle". These are usually parceled out at a rate of about one per platoon. The user is generally a good shot, not necessarily at the level of a sniper per se, but able to hit at longer ranges than most troops. These rifles are used to provide covering fire and long range interdiction. In recognition of the challenges of urban combat, the Army has taken to employing sniper teams up much closer to the battle to act as overwatch and take opportunity shots. There is also some question as to whether the Army should consider adopting a larger caliber round in place of the 5.56mm. There are a number of choices, all of which would easily work with the basic M16 design.Ed, I talked with my brother and he says that they have 2 types of designated marksmen, the first is useally a solder who shoots expert with the M16/M4. He is issued a M16 with a slightly longer barrel with a scope for more accurate shooting out to about 500yds. The second is a solder who has either did not want to or failed sniper school he is issued a M14 with a scope for accurate shooting out to 1000yds. The first type averages about 1 per squad the second is useally about 1 per platoon.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Ed, I talked with my brother and he says that they have 2 types of designated marksmen, the first is useally a solder who shoots expert with the M16/M4. He is issued a M16 with a slightly longer barrel with a scope for more accurate shooting out to about 500yds. The second is a solder who has either did not want to or failed sniper school he is issued a M14 with a scope for accurate shooting out to 1000yds. The first type averages about 1 per squad the second is useally about 1 per platoon.

John:

I understand that the M14s used have been heavily re-worked and are scoped.

[john964]

John:

I understand that the M14s used have been heavily re-worked and are scoped.Only by the USMC and USA for sniper use IIRC this involves a heaver barrel and artifical stock as the wooden one can flex from moisture and twist from age. The M14 that is issued is a fairly standared one.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Only by the USMC and USA for sniper use IIRC this involves a heaver barrel and artifical stock as the wooden one can flex from moisture and twist from age. The M14 that is issued is a fairly standared one.

John:

In reference to the stocks on the M14s, I learned something new in a similar vein. The reason that sniper rifles and hunting rifles have long exposed barrels is so the stock doesn't affect accuracy as you mentioned. Whereas with ordinary service rifles, the stock mostly covers the barrel to protect it against damages (picture a British SMLE and see how little of the barrel protrudes, just enough to attach a bayonet to).