As for the contention that someone could fire a shot every 6 seconds with a musket, that’s just ridiculous. These were muzzle-loaders. You had to stand up to load them. It took a LONG time. The very best elite soldiers could manage 2 or three shots per minute, but most units could not hope to go that fast. And that’s with paper cartridges of measured powder. You try fumbling around with a powder horn and it’s going to be longer.
And of course, these weapons were highly innaccurate and dangerous to the user.
The modern battlefield, with high-powered rifles making exposing yourself certain death, makes it hard for us to understand pike and shot tactics. Didn’t those guys know that you shouldn’t just stand there when the other guys are shooting at you, you should take cover? But they marched in formation, stood in formation, fired in formation and died in formation because that was the way you won battles. It was only by the time of the American civil war that firing from a skirmish line became standard tactics.
And formations worked because they allowed command and control, they allowed concentration of force, they increased morale. Formations won battles, disorganized skirmishers were cut to pieces.
You should reread that post, since no one was making any claim about the mechanics of muskets. The claim was that one shot every six seconds is no less accurate than 10 shots fired all at once each minute.
Can you substantiate this? I’m reasonable certain that several writers from the era in which muskets dominated commented on the need for weight of fire to increase lethality (as well as for other reasons, as you mention). I’ll dig through some books later this evening to see if I can come up with a conclusive cite.
Assume with each shot, you’re rolling a die. If a 1 comes up, you hit a target. Anything else, you missed.
Whether you roll 10 dice at once, or roll 10 dice spread out, the expected number of 1’s (hits) is the same.
Now, that’s given that each roll is independent. The question is whether musket shots are independent. That is, does the fact that shooter ‘a’ missed/hit affect whether shooter ‘b’ missed/hit?
With arrows, you can see that spreading out the shots might allow a people to dodge/block. But I don’t think that’s the case with muskets.
As a matter of fact. . .a musket shooter firing AFTER the previous shooter would have new information to base his shot on, and I would imagine that hits would actually increase in the spread scenario.
But, just to reiterate: I’m sure there are other considerations to the battle that might make it logical to fire all muskets at once, and produce more hits over the course of a battle (discipline, order, etc.)
I was just saying that it’s not the fact that muskets are inaccurate that would lead to the idea that they should be fired in volley. That’s sort of a probabilistic fallacy.
With muskets, I think – and have been told by history teachers, but who knows where they got THEIR facts – the main reason for volley fire with muskets was psychological.
With sporadic, individual fire, and the low accuracy, as you charge across the battlefield you’re going to see a buddy drop here, there, stumble and keep moving, etc. With volley fire, there’s not as much constant threat but when it hits you see a wall of men scream and fall at the same time. It’s much more intimidating – rational thought like “Well, now I have at least thirty seconds before they can fire again!” doesn’t enter into it.
Or so I’ve been told, and it sounds reasonable to me.
Without a source (such as someone who has been there, heh), I don’t think you’re going to get a factual answer on this one.
If everyone fires at the same time, then everyone reloads at the same time. theoretically.
Well, yes, but it was also an excellent way to precede a bayonet charge.
If you loose a volley of musket at the bad guys and they do the same then you’re seeing “Bang!”-“thud” on either side about every 45-60 seconds. But if you go “bang!” and then sprint toward the bad guys then they have 3 choices: 1) fire at the charge and use their weapons as clubs, 2) run like hell away from the charge, or 3) fix bayonets and KILL! KILL! KILL WITHOUT MERCY! It’s no coincedence that when rifles became more accurate over longer ranges that the volley pretty much became the exception. Fortunately, we still keep the bayonette. War just ain’t war without a bayonette.
Also, the effective range of a musket was about 100 yards or so. Much beyond that you’re not going to hit what you’re aiming for, so you’re basically firing lead arrows–basically a humongous shotgun.
Thank you, Inigo. That was exactly what I was looking for but couldn’t figure out how to Google.
Notice that until the invention of the Minie ball, they didn’t even bother to put rear sights on a musket. That should tell you something about their accuracy.
I agree that weight of fire is important. But synchronizing everyone’s shooting has no effect on weight of fire. You still have the same average amount of bullets/arrows being fired in a given time period. If anything, synchronizing fire will reduce the weight of fire - as I wrote above, some people would have been able to shoot faster than average and could have been firing more bullets/arrows in that time period if they had been allowed to.
Of course, if individual fire was superior in any way, Maurice of Nassau or Gustavus Adolphus would have used it. Since they didn’t, we can assume that wiser tacticians than us decided that synchronised fire was more effective.
Dont think Ive seen it mentioned yet - but volley fire would presumably allow it to be easier to track ammunition levels for your troops as well? As in ensure not too many people are using it all too quickly.
In those days they might be only carrying 20 arrows or so for immediate fire, so keeping track of that would be fairly important Id have thought, and would ensure volume of fire is kept for when its most important.
– the main reason for volley fire with muskets was psychological.