How 18th Century Armies Shot At Each Other
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 20 июл 2024
- Signup for your FREE trial to Wondrium here: ow.ly/zvIk30s6zoG
We all know the limitations of musketry. Sure, they're often overblown, but that doesn't mean they didn't exist! Muskets took a long time to reload and lacked accuracy at long ranges. With these drawbacks, how did armies fight back in the day? Or, more specifically, how did they shoot? Because they certainly didn't 'take turns' giving volleys!
My Light Infantry video, if you'd like to learn more about Firing by Files:
• Who Were the British L...
Thanks to Jaron and Declan, my editors for this video!
Declan's channel: / mugwumpey
Jaron's website: www.summertimestudios.net/
Timestamps:
00:00 - Introduction
01:32 - Volley Fire
08:38 - Firing by Sections
11:52 - Sponsored Ad
14:05 - Firing by Ranks
19:12 - Firing by Files
21:10 - Street Firing
25:41 - Firing & Advancing/Retiring
28:25 - Conclusion
You can learn more about my work at:
www.nativeoak.org/
If you'd like to support the channel, please consider giving on Patreon,
/ brandonf
You can follow me on Facebook and Instagram!
/ thenativeoak
/ brandonfisichella
Fire by ranks absolutely existed in at least the French army from the mid-18th century on and likely in other nations as well. De Vault’s memoirs discuss the effectiveness of it, and it was briefly prohibited in the Instructions of 1776, only to be brought back in the Ordinance of 1788. The French would use the fire by rank that other nation’s used, as well as a unique type called fire by two ranks. De Vault says fire by rank was rarely used but was excellent as an anti-cavalry tactic in square, but had little use elsewhere. De Vault also mentions the former fire by rank is drawn up “as the other nations do,” which indicates that others certainly did it as well but he doesn’t seem to name who in particular, although I suspect the British may have also done it informally since he’s often comparing these other firing methods to the British. It was outlawed briefly in 1776 not because it was ineffective in firepower, but because officers noted that soldiers kneeling under fire were often too scared to stand up on command, and as such were far less maneuverable, unable to charge, and badly positioned to receive a charge if so many soldiers are kneeling and refuse to get up.
Essentially, how it would work in practice though, is the first rank would kneel while the second fired. Then the second would reload and then the first would fire while kneeling and so on. This way at least one rank was always loaded to fire on cavalry if needed and there’s no risk to shooting the kneeling soldier while he’s moving to reload because fire is held until reloading is complete. Fire by rank also doesn’t necessarily require the first rank to kneel and can still be done by leveling the musket over the shoulder of the first rank so it’s not as rigid as you’d think. The regulations went back and forth on which they believed to be better, and in some cases one would be outright banned only to be brought back for the other to be banned later. To quote specifically, “it is recommended, especially for the squares formed against the cavalry, the firing of ranks, in which each of the three ranks fires in turn, so as to produce instantaneous effects on the enemy cavalry, without ever being disarmed.”
To also quote Guibert, “Fire by one or more ranks is, I believe, the only proper form against cavalry and for the defense of an abatis, or of a post which the enemy would attack decidedly and with bayonet at the end of the gun, because it is the only one which gives, if I can express myself thus, a mass of fire able to stop and reverse great efforts; but it is necessary, as I say, to employ it only when the enemy is shaken for an attack of strong force, and to spare the control of this fire, so that the two last rows make their last discharge when it is has. twenty-five paces, and that the first rank reserves its own to do it at close range.”
Then there’s Marshal Davout who says positively about firing by rank, and also says volley and platoon fire must never be done against cavalry, “we must only fire against the cavalry in files or ranks. The file fire must begin at least 150 paces, and from the right of each section to feed the fire as the cavalry advances. We can only start firing at 100 paces and even closer, the ranks only firing successively, there are always two of them who have their guns loaded. This fire is very good against cavalry, when it is done with cold blood and great practice. The fires of battalions, half-battalions and platoons must never be used against cavalry, unless the infantry is covered by an abatis, a ditch, a palisade or an obstacle sufficient to stop the shock. In this case, these fires must be made at close range.”
If you can’t trust Davout, who can you trust? Napoleon’s best marshal, who never lost a single battle in his entire career, a man who could defeat entire armies with his single corps, possibly the best tactician of the era.
The fire by two ranks is slightly different where the formation is at a depth of three. The first rank kneels and never fires, but holds it for an emergency, while the rear two ranks fire just like a normal formation of depth of two would if the first kneeling rank wasn’t there, firing by battalion, half-battalion, or platoon depending on the regulation in place or at will.
The French also had a habit of firing by files in line and not just in a skirmish order from the 1760s and onward. The fire would roll across the company front as each file fired successively, and after the first fire it would dissolve into a fire at will where each soldier was instructed to fire deliberate aimed shots, preferably oblique to the enemy, believing at will fire was more accurate than volley fire. The only reason it rippled by file at the start was to keep the firing at will staggered across the front where someone would be firing and another reloading at all times. If it all erupted at once as an initial volley, there would still be a predictable rhythm to the at will firing with most firing around the same time and most reloading around the same time. Depending on the regulation in place at the time, the third rank may or may not fire, with the third rank being prohibited from firing in 1788, where they were instructed instead to reload fusils for the second rank. However the primary accounts indicate that the third rank typically still fired even after 1788 because soldiers don’t want to just stand there under fire and would typically fire against orders. The accounts also indicate that the third rank actually reloading fusils as instructed almost never actually happened because soldiers didn’t trust others’ weapons enough to function in combat and so they would often pretend to swap fusils without actually doing it.
This last part is explained by Captain Tansky, “These truths are so evident that they leave no doubt as to the disadvantage of the third rank in its present destination. I will even add, from my own experience, that a soldier does not have enough confidence in another's rifle; he dares not adjust, lest the butt strike him in the face, and it happened to me several times to notice that the soldiers of the second rank were only making a show of exchanging their guns with the men of the third, and always kept theirs.”
This is all in the regulations, the memoirs of De Vault, and among the theories of the “military philosophes” like Guibert or Pirch, and this is also summarized in “The Background of Napoleonic Warfare: Tactics of 18th Century France” by historian Dr. Robert Quimby.
This comment is BRILLIANT. It needs to be pinned. Brandon needs to make a video just on this comment's content.
I pointed it out to Brandon directly.
Superb comment, got right to the nub of it!
In the osprey book on the battle of Blenheim the author mentioned a case in which a French battalion which had been using fire by rank was driven off by an English one which was firing by platoon
@@fabrizioruffo1799 Firing by rank has the same issue as the tactic Brandon mentioned, where one unit doesn't shoot until the other reloads. It lets you respond to enemy action, but it does it by halving your firepower. Firing by platoon, meanwhile, can have a similar firepower to a volley while still being flexible.
This is French propaganda, DONT LISTEN TO IT BRANDON!
Didn't expect you to upload at 1:45 AM but in the words of Chancellor Palpatine: A Surprise to be sure, but a welcome one.
Perfect quote for the perfect occasion
Smack dab in the middle of the day for us
" this is were the fun begins "
And then what happened?..... Exactly, Fall of the Republic, don't encourage him. Lol
I wake up at 3 am to work at 5, its perfect
Four ranks deployment is typical of French 18th century doctrine. French written accounts (règlement de 1766) and later academics also indicate that there was a great amount of simplification in the musketry firing patterns since the SYW. During the SYW, they speeak about "feu de bilebaude" which refers to independant fire or fire at will basically. The soldiers would fire as soon as they're finished reloading, on their own pace. The French army also had the "feu de rang", where the best marksmen are put in the two front most ranks, and the two ranks in the back will only conduct reloading the muskets for the shooters, who will pass their muskets to the back once fired. This method was also used by early skirmisher forces or legions like Grassin's or Fischer, and in America, notably in cover, where the best shot would fire from cover with at least two soldiers behind bound to reload the muskets only.
The "feu de chaussée" (street firing equivalent) was done in column, each rank would step up with the rest of the column, fire, then run to the back of the column, while the whole column slowly advances.
Great comment, should be pinned. Someone else pointed out that soldiers often refused to let the third rank reload for them, interestingly: /watch?v=EURWwDbKvWY&lc=UgzlynaOuxQ675c00-94AaABAg
Though note that what Brandon called Street Firing was known as the Swede's way, a form of Firing by Ranks used in the 17th century extensively.
@@vanivanov9571 You must refer to the counter-march? I reckon William Louis of Nassau re-discovered the manoeuver from reading Vegetius, and that the Swedes made extensive use of it under Gustavus Adolphus. There's correspondance of a Dutch military observer in Sweden in the 1630's describing how the Swedes employed the counter-march and notes they are using only lighter muskets, that don't require a rest. How William Louis describes the manoeuver (and he produces drawings to support it as well), is that each files of the formation would be spaced enough to allow the passage of one man through all the way to the back. The first rank would fire their muskets, then make a side step to the right, turn about and march to the back. The second, now first rank, would then make one step forward, make ready and fire, and so on. Back then they needed 8-10 ranks to maintain constant fire and a sufficient amount of always loaded muskets to counter a charge, but then again, there was a load of pikemen around still back then.
From what I remember from the letter, but that would require verification, the Swedes didn't conduct the counter-march by marching through the files, but the whole rank would just right face, march to the edge of the formation then turn right again all the way to the back in an Indian file pattern. And again, that's one witness, at one time (a training on top of that). Things could have been different on a battlefield one year later, or change with practice... All the methods presented by Brandon and their variations are still all achieving the same goal and are all valid options at the end of the day.
@@KroM234 Yeah, there are many variations of fire by ranks, be it with gaps or Indian files. The Dutch actually used the Counter March at the end of the 16th century, on the subject.
spain would use the same 4 rank line though most would go the three rank line with the british and especally the concental army would go 2 rank for firepower and if need be to make use of limited manpower you can get and muster at one time.
And eyewitness accounts agree that all the theory and training went out of the window after a couple of volleys, as in the smoke, confusion and noise, orders went unheeded and everyone ended up just loading and firing as fast as they could individually.
Theres something to be said about simply getting as many rounds down range as possible regardless of coordination..
@@1320crusier Machine guns are a good invention following such simple, yet effective, concept
@@mikerodrigues9822 sImPlE
Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face.
@@bimscutney1242 One of Murphys Combat Laws: "Plan A never survives first contact with the enemy."
I was skeptical about the problems with firing by ranks until you reminded me about these being muzzle loaders, that more than anything else convinced me. I've seen those being released, if the way my dad had to do it in Civil War reenacting was anything like the way the British did it, and I'm fairly sure that it would at least have to be nearly vertical... Yeah, I can see how that would be problematic. I can see solutions for every other problem with sufficient training, but that... Muskets are also a lot longer than modern rifles, which complicates things even more.
A brown bess is a couple of inches longer than a springfield 1861 if that helps. Not counting bayonet though.
There actually is a historical Fire By Ranks: /watch?v=EURWwDbKvWY&lc=UgzlynaOuxQ675c00-94AaABAg
Though note that what Brandon called Street Firing was known as the Swede's way, a form of Firing by Ranks used in the 17th century extensively.
It was the way to fight on open ground, but remember, they spread out and got behind cover when it was an option. It helps that a lot of European country at the time was the result of them not being smart enough to replant after cutting down trees.
@@rachdarastrix5251 it wasn't a matter of "not being smart enough to replant," they couldn't afford to. Forests were cleared for two reasons, to get wood for construction and charcoal (charcoal was the most efficient fuel available until they figured out how to burn coal and, even better, make coke, it was pretty much impossible to make good quality iron and steel without charcoal until the 17th or 18th century), and to open up land for farming or ranching. They did not have efficient enough agriculture to maintain their population and natural growth without expanding farmland. Modern technology has done a great deal to let us to get more yield out of less land, which has allowed global land under cultivation to shrink in many areas, though it's a fair point that many of these methods aren't sustainable in the long run. But European governments even during this period were not capable of surviving allowing too a large portion of their population to starve to death, so forests were cleared and farmed. Forests were preserved, but generally only for very specific purposes, the English tried to maintain forests for bow and ship construction, both of which were fairly common on the continent as well, and royal hunting grounds were found in practically every kingdom in Europe. They know how to plant forests, they knew some of the value of woods, they just weighed that value against the value of food, and wood fairly consistently fell short.
More than that, some European nobles were actually setting up protected species, trying to save the Arioch and other creatures. Sadly, common merchants and sailors generally didn't care about such things, and killed the last penguins at the North Pole. They were fishing competitors, but I wish they had survived in some form....
Former English Civil War re-enactor here. Firing by ranks was a common drill in the 17th Century - called 'Fire by Rotation' according to the drill manuals we use. First rank (usually of six) would fire and retire to the rear of the file to reload leaving the way clear for second rank to step forward and have a clear field of fire. Matchlocks are clumsy beasts compared to firelocks with long loading times, hence the need for six ranks, and my best time reloading eas 40 seconds (admittedly I'm not good at it). The fire by ranks beloved of games and some movies with men reloading whilst kneeling - good luck with that carrying a matchlock with rest.
Variations on the theme allow to advance and retreat whilst firing also where the front rank either retires to reload or remains where they are and successive ranks move forward. Back then the technology wasn't as sophisticated but by the 18th century the firelock mechanisms and ubiquity of paper cartridges as well as removal of pikes from a formation enables tactics to evolve.
An interesting aside on platoon firing, I believe David Chandler one wrote that in the War of the Spanish Succession (1702-13) it was not uncommon for British and Dutch regiments utilising the platoon firing system to keep the third rank in reserve as an unofficial 'fourth' firing for emergencies just in case you needed a handy blast of lead if firings one through to three were not ready,
tru
Isn't that that super simular to street firing
@@cariopuppetmaster probably more 18th century street fighting continued to utilise the older methods long tried and tested.
The vulnerability and strength of volley fire is rather well illustrated by certain Carolean letters.
I remember one where the soldier describes how the enemy fired their volley at the advancing Caroleans, only they fire to early, fufty meters or so, and the soldier describes the effect as unimpressive.
This is the the point where the Carolean line goes into a running advance, and then fire their volley at 15-20 meters, which according to the soldier had the effect that "they fell like grass [to the scythe]". After which the Caroleans charge, as per their standard doctrine.
To me this suggests that volley fire might be better as an offensive tactic, as you can follow it up with force projection through melee, which you can't really do on the defensive. This also gives a large extra element of shock yo your charge.
3:10 Force Projection: Honestly, this was more related to bayonet charges and command and control. Problem with this idea, is that having a man-sized gap in your line theoretically reduces the enemy's accuracy by 50%, since half your line is empty space. So double the localized firepower, but half the accuracy would technically cancel itself out.
Additionally, ranged weapons are more flexible about distance. For example, if your line is 100m longer, then at a range of 50m the men at the very far right and left would be shooting at ~72m, about a 44% increase in range. And that is presuming there is no effort to wrap around and flank the enemy line which would eliminate the distance issue and cause enfilading fire.
The real reason is combat was still settled with melee weapons, in that case the bayonet, so a thinned line was liable to be totally routed by a bayonet charge. There would also be cases where space was at a premium, so loose order would mean half your men don't get line of sight on the enemy.
In most Armies you didn't aim as the modern concept. Instead the musket was usually placed in the middle of the chest under the chin tip. In Sweden during the wars against Russia 1808-1809 the regiment/Companies fired in formation but dispersed during reloading (behind solid tree trunks) and then, on signal, formed ranks again. Test against a 25 meter long and 2 meter tall wooden palisade by 800 men didn't' hit anything over 400 meters. Around 300 meter it was mostly secondary ricochets. Only when the distance was 50 meter it was very, very lethal. Not sure how they could compress 800 men on 25 meter.
@@sergeant64 If you don't aim, that's going to make the effect I mention worse, since you can't compensate. I can't remember when exactly aiming became common. I've seen quite similar tests in relation to muskets, where even when held in place they could be remarkably inaccurate.
Really interesting point about the Swedes dispersing between shots. I always wondered if something like that could be done. It'll take a lot of discipline to keep reforming ranks while in range of the enemy. Any idea how effective it was? I can see one issue that the time it takes to move might slow down the reload and fire, possibly.
I don’t think that “cancels itself out”, it’s just a theoretical downside to using the technique to get more concentrated firepower. If you are trying to break the enemy line for cavalry or infantry charge then you want to project the force into a smaller area. Part of it does come down to space, if there’s enough of it then it makes sense to deploy skirmishers instead of making yourself an easier target. It’s all pros and cons for a given situation. Generally if you have your soldiers spread out and “less likely to be hit”, you are also giving up a lot of positioning and defensive capabilities. Your fellow regulars would have to come a longer way to help you out if you are in a vulnerable part of the line. And also your army will be less mobile.
I think the firing by ranks come from people who would think that you need to fire from all points in the line and not realize that it is entirely possible to cover the entire line.
Fire by rank would be effective if you have more than three ranks, but that would be pretty rare
@@tedarcher9120 like in pike and shot warfare.
On pike and shot the standard drill was the "fire and retire / advance" type where the front rank fired and then either they retreated back to reload or the rest of the formation advanced past them, or, if stationary as per "street firing" in later periods but with the front rank retiring through the formation rather than to one side. Musketeers / arquebusiers had no bayonets so were entirely light / missile troops and so relied on protective pikes rather than their own close formation to resist cavalry.
There actually is a historical Fire By Ranks: /watch?v=EURWwDbKvWY&lc=UgzlynaOuxQ675c00-94AaABAg
Though note that what Brandon called Street Firing was known as the Swede's way, a form of Firing by Ranks used in the 17th century extensively.
Wait. This videp was made 7 months ago. You commented this 8 months ago. How?
Fire By Rank is useful in games like Empire TW because you can't really make the men do proper Fire By Section without a lot of fussery so FbR in that regard does a reasonable job of simulating that.
There is also a historical FBR: /watch?v=EURWwDbKvWY&lc=UgzlynaOuxQ675c00-94AaABAg
Though note that what Brandon called Street Firing was known as the Swede's way, a form of Firing by Ranks used in the 17th century extensively.
@@vanivanov9571 can you give a proper link
@@dolsopolar The comment is now pinned, so no need.
Empire Total War totally has platoon firing, and it works perfectly fine. You just have to research it.
Gaurd Units in empire fire by sections it’s just really glitchy
Volley Fire: I feel you needed to emphasize the issue of smoke and different abilities of the troops more. If it takes you 30 seconds and me 15 seconds to reload, then I could be stuck waiting instead of firing two shots. Of course, the reason hey tried to synchronize shooting, is you can barely see anything through the cloud of smoke musketry produces, so you want to have everyone aim and fire at the same time.
They shot each other with guns
/endvideo
for me at least, I didn't really realize that firing by ranks was different but firing and advancing or retiring. When I thought of that sort of firing then the next rank firing, I generally though of it basically being like firing and retiring, although potentially with the front rank taking a pace or two forward to maintain position, or maybe even with the rear rank advancing to become the front while to other ranks are reloading, resulting in a gradual advance. I wonder if this sort of misunderstanding is why people think firing by ranks was more common than is was.
I was about to make the same point. In movies, I think it is easier to have extras kneel once they fire their blank because it shows everyone that they fired and thus for safety reasons, their gun is clear. Also, for directors it might look weird for people to be retiring to the back of the line, since although is accurate, it might seem like they are slowing the pace of the battle down, which would bore viewers. It’s much better to get the first rank of soldiers out of the way so we can have more explosive action.
There is actually a historical Fire By Ranks: /watch?v=EURWwDbKvWY&lc=UgzlynaOuxQ675c00-94AaABAg
Though note that what Brandon called Street Firing was known as the Swede's way, a form of Firing by Ranks used in the 17th century extensively.
Firing by Ranks: As many people pointed out, this was common in Pike and Shot warfare, and specifically a cornerstone of 17th century Dutch military tactics, and is also known as the Swede's Way. Nothing really stops you firing by ranks by section, either.... As someone else pointed out, traditionally the shooters would move to the front, or the reloaders would move to the rear before reloading, so they're not in the way of the line of fire. So, it continued as Street Firing, whether or not it maintained popular use in the field.
Well that's the thing- if you have the men moving to the rear, or swapping out their weapons, then it really isn't "firing by ranks" as the term is popularly understood today, and as I was discussing it here. It may have used the same name but it was functionally different than the act I was describing, and so may not have had the same disadvantages.
@@BrandonF Napoleon Total War actually had a more authentic, advancing fire by ranks Doctrine. So I figure the version you showed was easier to code, just Empire Total War being lazy. I didn't notice a public misunderstanding of the term Fire by Ranks, which I've seen associated with the Swede's Way and the Pike and Shot era in general.
It'd make more sense to correct people on what it means to historically fire by ranks, rather than say it wasn't done and associate the term with an ahistorical method.
@@BrandonF It turns out there is a very similar method to your fire by ranks used historically, which Gage Newby wrote an excellent comment explaining. You should pin his comment: /watch?v=EURWwDbKvWY&lc=UgzlynaOuxQ675c00-94AaABAg
@@BrandonF Thanks for pinning his comment, Brandon. I think it'd make a good subject for another video.
I think one of the best things about this one is how well these illustrations demonstrate some of the timing and nuances of line fighting. Line fighting already basically breaks a modern person's brain, so I think this is a really great way to help people understand something that on its face seems patently stupid.
i do love when armchair generals jump onto this seemingly stupid tactics and then proceed how they would do this and that as if its a total war game , and every time failing to understand the context of the times and what not
the only reason why we don't use line firing today is because machine guns basically took over for volley fire.
Hey Brandon F, can you tell me the difference between how they shot in formation in the Napoleonic wars to later Victorian wars like Afghanistan, Zulu, eygpt and the Boer.
For the Boer war, at least the second one, read _The Defence of Duffer's Drift._
I don't know if this helps you but check out Sandrhoman. He goes into good detail on the pike and shot era. Which was before this era.
I can't give you the drill, but volley-firing was part of the infantry doctrine into the early 20th Century. The 1903 Springfield and early Enfield SMLE's had magazine cut-offs installed so single-shot volley firing could be employed while the rounds in the magazine were kept in reserve. Volley firing is also the reason those rifles have rear sights graduated out to 2,000-plus yards, it was for volley firing at large formations of infantry and cavalry, they didn't expect anyone to hit an individual target at those ranges.
Of course, the First World War changed all that.
I forgot about this one: _Crossing the Deadly Ground: United States Army Tactics, 1865-1899_ by Perry Jamieson. Also, Paddy Griffith's _Forward into Battle_ may be helpful. Finally, Stephen Ambrose's _Upton and the Army_ sheds light on the development of tactics in the immediate-post-Civil-War era.
@@wayneantoniazzi2706 I recall hearing in either a lindybeige vid or the guy who showcases old british rifles and military drill (forget his name atm) that said the basic drill of firing had not changed, but that open order formations (where men adopt a line but spread out and sometime prone) had replaced the older closed order formations, with the latter being used specifically only as a response to cavalry and not the default formation. Given the massive increase in rifle accuracy it makes sense this would be adopted. There are anecdotal tales of units behaving in closed line formation in the early days of WW1, but it seems this was a misunderstanding of german doctrine who marched in close order columns until under fire to maximize unit cohesion, but who would quickly form into an open order line when engaged. You can see pictures of French soldiers in this kind of drill in combat from photos of the first battle of the Marne, if you're interested.
In those pictures of volley firing, the guns were going off right next to someone else's ear! There must have been a high percentage of hearing loss among soldiers.
If you wanted to do "fire by rank" properly, it would make more sense to have the rear rank shoot first, with the 1st and 2nd ranks kneeling, and rising successively towards the front. Another way is to basically just do volley fire with the first 2 ranks, and the 3rd(and 4th, if any) be in reserve, so that when the need arises, the front ranks can be ordered to kneel and the rear rank(s) can fire their volley. It can also be done the opposite way, like if you are in a square formation 4 ranks deep. Have the 2 front ranks kneel, projecting bayonets, while the rear ranks shoot volleys. If the formation is being charged, the front ranks can be ordered to shoot. If "fire by ranks" were ever done, it would still make more sense to do it by company instead of the entire battalion.
There is something similar to what you described, used historically: /watch?v=EURWwDbKvWY&lc=UgzlynaOuxQ675c00-94AaABAg
Though note that what Brandon called Street Firing was known as the Swede's way, a form of Firing by Ranks used in the 17th century extensively.
I really appreciate the skits you do for your sponsorships. It keeps the pacing of the video itself and is genuinely entertaining unlike the sponsorships in a lot of other RUclips videos, so it's really refreshing to see someone be creative and have fun with their content instead of being solely business.
@ 5:00
It was the standard French practice up to the 1750's, when the fourth rank was abolished just before the Seven Years War (the regulations in 1754 limited infantry to 3 or 6 ranks, and the cavalry to just 2; the six rank system was for bayonet assaults). This for rank system had been the standard in the French Army since the end of the War of Spanish Succession, though five ranks was also used.
The Prussians didn't officially abolish four ranks until the War of Austrian Succession.The Austrians still used four ranks until 1757, Sweden until at least 1758 (when Prussian-style drills were introduced), and the Russians used four ranks throughout the Seven Years War.
Point is: it wasn't experimental, or even limited to the Germans: neither is true. It was just the standard in most armies for the first half of the 18th century to deploy in four ranks. And it reflects the 17th and 18th century trend of shallower musket lines; most armies started with 8 ranks, then 6, 5, 4, 3, and in some armies, 2 ranks. The British started with 8, then 6, and then went straight to 3 (with comical results reflected in the drills from before 1764*), and then 2.
@ 14:25
Fire by ranks is described by Hawley in his recommendations for countering the highland charge, and the system described is similar to what's in ETW: you start with the rear rank, then the center rank. The main difference is that first rank would not have fired, unless the Highlanders practically got atop them.
So the concept was there. The real question is whether it was used or not. If it were used, it would have been at Falkirk, but it's uncertain. Regardless of whether it remained theory, or was used in battle, the actual result would have looked something like this (an actual historic example, but outside the timeframe):
ruclips.net/video/FK5GcG_QHJ0/видео.html
Just imagine the men using 1740's drill, starting from the ready position (front rank knelt, middle loacked in behind them with legs 18' apart and stooping over the front, and the rear stepped right 12 to 18"). Bear in mind that drill at that time was different to what you're used to--or indeed, to what it was just a decade later. See, back then, when a British line fired, the men not only recovered arms, but the two rear ranks also stepped back. No one's getting in anyone's way reloading. This practice of opening ranks to reload wasn't actually abolished until the 1750's--just in time for the Seven Years War (first unofficially--there are references to changing drill as early as c. 1750--then officially in 1756). Not that this matters, because this scheme--the one Hawley proposed (and possibly used), wasn't meant for sustained fire: reloading was an unlikely prospect.
Fire by ranks--in the caracole style--was standard practice in French and German Armies in the War of Spanish Succession (the British and Dutch were by now on the Platoon fire system). But you talk of something akin to it later.
@16:03
The funny thing is that Hawley's instructions aren't meant for sustained fire. It's just about dumping ammunition in a controlled way against a highland charge at close range so that they might break. The idea was that the first firing would happen at an already close range; a bunch of highlanders would be hit. As the shock of this settles in, the second rank would fire, at a still closer range. If this didn't cause the Highlanders to turn on their heels, the third rank would wait till the highlanders were practically atop them. And if that didn't work? Bayonet time!
The reason you do it by ranks is twofold (and recall this was at least definitely a proposal--so everything here is theoretical):
1-The charge is going to be along the whole frontage of the battalion: you don't want any gaps in the firing, as would happen by platoon fire--especially not at close range.
2-The firings not only kill but can "suppress". Psychologically, it's a lot like eating two (or three, if you don't stop) volleys in rapid succession: psychologically worse than 1 big volley. Recall that the goal is to simply stop the highland charge: it's basically a very deadly game of chicken. You don't need to kill all the Highlanders: just break their determination.
Personally, I can't really comment on its effectiveness, but it is telling that a similar scheme was in fact used in the US Civil War, to good effect.
*Prior to the regulations issued in 1764, what we (or really, the rest of Europe at the time--or indeed, the rest of humanity) would call a file in a 3-rank deep line was called a half-file. A file pre-1764 was fixed at six men--a remnant of a time the English deployed six deep--so when the army began using three, the three-rank arrangement got called a half-file. You see it reflected in the drill manuals too: when assembled on parade, the men would draw up six deep at first, and only move to 3 when the platoon exercise (loading and firing) began.
A musket may take anywhere from 15 to 30 seconds to reload. That may not seem that long but try that in any FPS.
And compare that to the 3-8s reload of a 20th century rifle/carbine with a removable box magazine
@@bcfc2947 that exists, it's called Holdfast: Nations at War. Join us, it's fun
@@bcfc2947 yeah, the way flintlock muskets work, makes it hard for game developers make fps games about that time period, but there are strategy games, though,like the Cossacks series, that manages to show how these volleys worked.
@@paulf3228 “war of rights“ as well, but its american civil war and more of a roleplay game.
@@NKDuisburg02 yeah, but most civil war games had been arcade shooters, or strategy games anyway
I always just think how fucked up and terrifying it would be, to be a soldier in battles like these. Stuffed together, lead coming down range towards you and some dude telling you to hold your fire, stay in line while people die all around you, etc.
You sir have earned my sub, a very well-crafted and terrifically informative video. It's intoxicatingly fascinating to hear about the different techniques associated with musket warfare and your narration throughout was academic yet personable at the same time.
As someone who served in the Royal Marines who took fire by the Taliban. I can more understand these ways of firing. It wasn't only about getting more fire toward the enemy it was also about getting as many individual soldiers to actually fire AT the enemy. I myself know multiple people who admitted to purposely firing above where the Taliban were because they didn't want to actually kill anyone.
I myself fired back at them because do to the multiple rounds I heard going over my head I knew the other side was trying to kill me. But do too my fellow soldiers I can only imagine that quite a few in the 18th century and before/after weren't aiming to kill. As someone once said, War is Hell.
Edit: This is also of course not taking into context of single shot firing where as Brandon mentioned is where parts of the company may not have fired with the rest of the line and I'm making this a modern example. Let's also admit that the person that came up with firing 2-3 ranks at a time was an absolute chad in musket warfare.
I used to play Battlefield 1942 on Lazy Bastards with Annie, who was a Royal Marine 17 years ago. Man, I miss that game.
I was with UNTAC in Cambodia. Had a few fire fights with the Khmer Rouge and I shot to kill every time because the first time I thought they’d killed two of my friends and I was fricking angry - after that it was easy (in fact they’d just crawled away in the dark and that group of Khmer had just walked straight across where they’d been, but I didn’t know that at the time). Don’t know if I ever hit anyone because all my firefights there were at night but we hit a few of them and I have no doubt it discouraged them in our area.
@@bradyelich2745 you can always download, man, I played it, and liked, though, I had some problems with it.
@@maximilianolimamoreira5002 I own at least two copies on cd, but to get it to work on Win 10 is difficult. I have several old pc's on network that can play it, but don't want to go online with win xp. By playing on german server my router got hacked and was being routed thru Bulgaria back in 2005.
Yes! It can be difficult to make soldiers *want* to kill the enemy.
1700s infantry was in large part trained to fire and reload, rather than aim carefully. They would at times regress into automation. Logistics troops during the American Civil War on both sides regularly found rifles and muskets loaded to the brim with as many as 17 cartridges, and never fired. This was likely an issue before as well.
Swedes under Charles XII were instructed to aim at the knee level, fire and charge, as it could happen that the infantry would aim high instinctively, and the strong musket recoil would lead the shot even further up. There are reports of formations firing at a closing enemy and hitting the bayonets more than the men who had their arms shouldered. One could hear the musket balls hit metal. Frustrating for the officers I'd imagine.
"Things get a little wonkier when we add a fourth man into the mix..."
This is why they were the Three Musketeers, not four.
Fire by file was actually also done in line formation. It is part of the Dutch exercise of 1815 which was a copy of the older French exercises.
I guess it's one of your most expected videos, since the subject was raised by our always dear friends Ashtyn and Jon.
I wish there was more media depicting street fire, it looks so good when done properly!
Thank you educating us in detail on this Brandon, keep up great work!
Considering how the gatling gun utterly ripped apart these kinds of formations, I'm a little surprised that rapid-firing tactics like street firing were seen as less effective than massed fire.
The gatling was made mid 19th century
@@forminecraftmultiplayeracc2583 -- My original statement may have been misleading. Given that tactics like street firing existed, I'm surprised that it took until the mid-19th century and the development of weapons like the gatling gun before more tacticians realized that mass firing wasn't as effective as was currently believed.
Excellent video that really clarifies a lot of misconceptions and questions about linear warfare.
Man what a joy to see you upload!
The thing to bear in mind is that different methods of firing all have their place depending on unit size, type of terrain, and what the force is hoping to accomplish with their fire. One formation may transition from one mode of fire to another several times throughout the course of a fight as circumstances change. If a unit is attempting to deter an enemy unit from approaching, maintaining much of the unit loaded and ready to fire is a strong deterrence. If a unit is trying to take ground, then larger pieces of the unit firing to convince the enemy to back up, or to cover advances by other friendly elements is warranted. If the goal is to break up an enemy formation (whether you are attacking them, or they are attacking you, then a full volley can be quite effective. Of course in wooded terrain or with smaller units, firing by sections or by pairs might be the equivalent of by companies and platoons in an open field. Everything depends on the situation and the objective.
Thanks for this ; a while ago I did some research on my local militia, the Chaddesden Hussars, for a local history course I was running. I found a newspaper description (early C19) of how the CH gave a display of target shooting, drill and, a display of street firing. I wasn't sure what that referred to, this is a great help and makes a deal of sense in the context.
I’m not sure about Georgian Europe but late Sengoku era Japan of the late 16th century I believe Firing by Ranks or Rotating Fire was used, namely by Ora Nobunaga and Date Masamune. Granted they were using arquebus’ not muskets. In the famous Battle of Nagashino a unique form of Volley Fire was used. Instead of being tightly packed the firing lines were separated in zig zag patterns and behind palisades. This was used to devastating effect against Takeda Shingen’s famous cavalry.
Hello from Czech Republic, firing by ranks (in a way of volley fire, but not with all three ranks at once, just one rank after another) was practiced by Spanish army in the begining of 17th century, at least according to Wallhausen, Kriegskunst zu Fuss, chapter 6_6. The other way of firing by ranks (in units up to 10 ranks deep, I am still referring to the first half of 17th century) is sometimes mentioned in manuscripts here and there, from my head it is described in Turner's Pallas Armata (I have copy of 1671 edition, but there are several others) where he is referring to the French army firing in this way...not sure how much that such system was used in practice, but you can find some mentions of it. Standard way of firing during this period is a method you are calling street firing.
Just a side note...If you want to know how vague the orders in first half of 17th century could be, look for Barriffe's Military discipline (1635 and two later editions) - this guy was training units in peacetime England and really enjoyed as complex maneuvers as humanly possible.
Finally finished my research writing and animating for my western front video, thanks for the great video, better then ever!
Thank you for sharing and setting the record stright!
Volley vs. Salvoe/Salvee is something that I've seen people struggle with when reviewing historical accounts. Proper volley fire is what you call "fire by section" whereas Salvee is the earlier tactic of firing the entire formation.
In the preceding century, what you call "Street Fire" was the norm for the day; called 'Firing by Introduction'. The front rank would fire, and then retire to reload. Your description of 'Firing by Advancing/Retiring' was also used, with the formation firing and then moving between the files.
The Swedish under Gustavus Adolphus are the ones credited with bringing in the proper Salvee (likely erroneously, many forces did this), where the first rank would kneel, and the second and third ranks shoot over them. This was used to deliver a knock-out punch right before a charge into melee, and this tactic would later morph to fit the Carolingian 'Ga Pa' tactic.
Having the entire formation unloaded was less dangerous, since it was covered by pikemen.
Section Fire seems to have been picked up sometime around the turn of the 18th century, with the widespread adoption of the flintlock and bayonet, and an increase in professionalism among the armies reducing the reloading times. As reloading times decreased, it was possible to make formations with more files and fewer ranks. At some point, you reached a tipping-point where there were just too many files to control all together, and so they divided into Section. Once you had subsections of the formation, then volley fire by section became a logical step as a way to maintain constant fire without having to do all of that "trading places" stuff.
I was waiting for this topic to be discussed , thanks a lot :)
Fire by Sections: The main advantage is you can get a similar effect to Firing at Will, without so much smoke obscuring your vision. The smaller the sections you have firing at their own pace, the less you'll get issues where some troops shoot 4 times a minute, and others shoot twice a minute. You also get flexibility in when to fire, based off the cover and activity of that part of the enemy line.
9:25 Note that if you have two units taking turns firing, that is halving your (volume of fire/time), your firepower. This makes sense for pairs of skirmishers with small unit tactics, where cover is a major issue, but I don't know if it's wise on a larger scale. Do period sources recommend this method? It's not much of a concern if you have your sections firing sequentially, of course.
I actually WATCHED your ad instead of skipping through it like I normally do! Thank you for making that entertaining.
Thanks for this my first reaction in how to deal with the reload time(In this video having forgoten ranked fire) was to section fire... Or have a unit fire then pull back and shuffle in a fresh one then volley fire a bit complex but still. Which this was great for one of the books I am working on and a game as both have muskets or atleast breah loaders in them.
Great video, very informative. Love the note of frustration about Concord Bridge.
Hah, thank you! I mean come on, who goes into street firings at such a short crossing??
The effort and enthusiasm you have about this has earned you a Patreon subscription. Well done, good sir!
22:47 The Spanish arquebusiers/musketeers used that same method during the XVI and XVII century to ensure a constant barrage of fire over the enemy formation. The narrow path in this case was the one between the pike squares of the Tercio.
Maybe someone already mentioned it: the Prussian Army introduced an "advancing platoon fire" in 1705. The whole battalion would advance in small steps by placing one foot infront of the other. The platoon which would be about to fire then made 3 large and fast steps forwad, the first rank would kneel and the platoon fired. The first rank rose up and the platoon would be reloading while making their little steps forward. (Sascha Moebius: Beschleunigung von militärischen Bewegungen im 18. Jahrhundert am Beispiel der preußischen Taktik in den Schlesischen Kriegen, 2006.)
Brandon, can you please go into more detail about standard procedure for musket failure?
It's been well recorded that Muskets are not the most reliable weapons, so what would an infantryman do if his musket didn't go off when he pulled the trigger?
Would he just pull the cock back and try again? Would he wait for the next volley before doing that? How would a musketeer "Clear a jam" so to speak?
In case of a misfire the soldier (if he even noticed in all the excitement) would pull the cock back and try again. If that didn't work he could try re-priming, and if THAT didn't work he was through firing for the duration, there'd be no time to draw the charge. He'd just have to trust his skill with the bayonet if it came to that.
I don't know this for certain, but I'd be surprised if fresh flints weren't issued prior to an imminent action to keep misfires to a minimum.
@@wayneantoniazzi2706 I've heard that one of the reasons the Flintlock system was introduced was that it was more reliable than the matchlock one, can you give your opinion, given that you fired a piece, Wayne?
@@maximilianolimamoreira5002 Hi Maximiliano!
Oh, the flintlock system was DEFINATELY more reliable than the matchlock system. That burning rope was a pain in the neck, it could be effected by dampness, was unusable in rain, the glowing match could give away a soldiers position in the dark, and careless soldiers were known to blow up their ammunition bandoliers with the lit slow match. The only advantage to the matchlock was if the lock broke a blacksmith could fix it, not so with a flintlock.
A flintlock could be loaded and carried for hours without the worry of a match burning down and out, dampness wouldn't bother it if the proper precautions were taken, and a flintlock CAN be fired in a light rain, I've done it myself.
Certainly a more expensive ignition system than a matchlock, but obviously everyoen thought it was worth it.
@@wayneantoniazzi2706 i think the price of the flintlock depended on how engraved they were, because one of the alternatives to the matchlock weapons was the Wheelock, that was more waterproof, but finicky and expensive, so, they ended up adopting the flintlock system
@@wayneantoniazzi2706 yeah, I've seem a video about the health effects matchlock muskets had on it's users, some soldiers even had managed to almost blow up their entire faces.
I think Suvorov's tactics is best for musket era. We have 2 types of infantry. One of them does a lot of firing, but they have huge gaps between soldiers thus allowing accurate fire on a densely formed unit while being relatively safe. If they get charged, they run away. If they meet cavalry, they run to linear infantry. Linear infantry was on the other hand barely trained to shoot. They would typically shoot once at point-blank range before engaging in melee which they were drilled into perfection.
He had a phrase the meaning of which is "bullets miss, bayonets- never". Its not an exact translation, but conveys the mean very well.
I do believe that sengoku Japan has something similar to firing by ranks. Although that was the 16th century and they were using matchlocks but none the less they have people kneeling and people firing over them nonetheless
Mass volley fire. The concept is you can't run through the rain without getting wet.
yeah, it was basically like a systematic firing squad
(In regards to re-loading while kneeling) Those who have live fired know how stubborn it can be to ram a ball down a musket (that's somewhat fouled from several rounds already) while standing much less kneeling.
In re-enactments it's ludicrously simple.
Really good insight into why one would fire by sections rather then ranks in a larger formation. The fire by ranks continued use could have been influenced by the 17th century practice of some continental armies where the ranks didn't kneel, but cycled through, so that your front rank was firing and the guys with empty muskets where in the back. That was due to formations being six to eight men deep though.
Another very interesting video sir! Well done. I did have a nice chuckle at the battle of Concord section. Nearly 247 years since and still salty I see.
Ah, always the interesting topics. Thank you for sharing your research.
0:49 That guy was thinking "Hey, a painter! I'll pose so he can get a good view of my face."
Haven't slept yet and I saw this as the most recent upload in my subscriptions. Sir I apologize that is not my business, I hope you're well. Thank you for being here and providing us this stuff for free. Its fascinating.
More than well! I just got in from a long car trip late last night when I received word the video was approved by its sponsors.
I'm working on creating a set of Rules for a fantasy wargame, but with armies if the 16th to 18th centuries, and your videos are helping me understanding better the form of fight of this time.
Thank you so much for making such good content. I'll be weiting for the next video.
Olso, I'm spanish, and even if I understand english more ir less good, is dificult for me to write in it, so please, don't k¡ll my if I make mistakes.
That WKUK clip is a classic! Glad you included it!
Glad to see a photo of some of my old reenactment pals at 1:12
I think firing by rank is used in total War as the end all be all due to the limitations of the game engine. Since it seems like in Empire and FoTS the game can only handle the front two ranks ever firing together.
In my opinion, the best explanation of army tactics from the era, so excellent
I normally hate sponsored ads in videos, but that little skit for the Wondrium ad was pretty good, not gonna lie.
Ahh good. A perfect time for a history lesson.
Also the graphics for this video were really good 👍
Love the fire by ranks animation, when that one dude doesn't duck enough and got blown away
My dad used this video for his soldiers to explain types of fire at Fort George NHS
One description I've read of firing by ranks was pretty much as you described as firing and advancing. So there may be some confusion by some authors about what these maneuvers were actually called. They referred to firing by ranks as a method of "leapfrogging" across a battlefield.
I would love to see you do an in-depth review of the Hornblower series. I loved it as a kid.
Very interesting, it's super good to know about the firing by ranks part.
There is also a historical Fire By Ranks: /watch?v=EURWwDbKvWY&lc=UgzlynaOuxQ675c00-94AaABAg
Though note that what Brandon called Street Firing was known as the Swede's way, a form of Firing by Ranks used in the 17th century extensively.
OK...first, fabulous video, second....mmmmm - never thought of the kneeling chaps not actually firing in line...stands to reason...standing is the thing here...that most would stand and fire and not kneel, kneeling down and loading seems almost impossible to navigate, especially as those French chaps approach in the same ol´ fashion ...naturally as you discussed...circumstances, armies, terrain....skills and experience all being equal. So to conclude - a terrific video with smarts...and guts behind it! Well done that man....greetings from Berlin sir!
Are there any drill manuals that show a kneeling reload? I can’t see how that can be done. Using your ramrod while kneeling seems to me to require the soldier to hold the barrel - which is quickly going to be red hot if my experience with firearms is anything to go by.
By the way, David Chandler’s 1966 classic ‘The Campaigns of Napoleon’ sets out detailed diagrams of French tactical formations (part 6, the works of peace and the road to war’). There is also a great account, by general bugeaud, on p 348 of what happens when you screw up and fail to deploy an advance in column into line in time while attacking British infantry lines. In the instance that bugeaud describes the british (he calls them english) line employs volley fire at extreme close range then charges with the bayonet.
There are manuals for reloading rifles laying down
@@tedarcher9120 yeah, but it looks painfully awkward to reload a muzzleloader from the prone position, gravity makes it hard.
@@maximilianolimamoreira5002 true, but bullets are even harder
@@tedarcher9120 yeah, because rifle bullets at the time were tighter than the bore diameter, and there's the whole fowling thing.
the French 1845 drill that was used by everyone during the american civil war. (but it is there for when skirmishing)
you find similar in other drillbooks for light infantry going back tot he 18th century.
*Interesting historical video! The channel is lit!*
Very systematic and explanatory video. I have done some reenactment myself and I think the the only way to understand how it has been done is to try doing it yourself. However how it has been done does not always correspond with how it is the best way to do it.
I can remember at Waterloo 200 when the 2nd battalion were volley firing when the officers were shouting commands for the far right as we were on the left by the time we heard the command the right were already at the make ready position.. good times
With street firing, was it always just the first rank firing, or did they ever have two or three ranks fire at a time, then retire to reload? I would think that might combine the flexibility of street firing with the power projection/stopping force of volley firing.
Finally. Only took 200 videos about niech subjects for the most important thing at the time to be addressed
And man did i delight myself with this video.
Yes!
A new video from my fav creator!
"Accurate musket fire" - one of the original oxymorons.
The most terrifying commands on the battlefield: "Make ready", "Take aim", "Fiiiiire!" , but then we would return fire to those Redcoats. Aaaah... the memories. So vivid. So sweet.
There I was sitting in my library and study room and pondering on several matters of military history. I suddenly think of Brandon F. I decide to select one of his videos for entertainment listening and lo, I beheld that he had upload a mere hour before, a new video! It is a grand day indeed.
There are several cites from Breeds/Bunker Hill (specifically the wall on the beach and possibly the rail fence that indicate some sort of fire by ranks system. This may have been modified for having an obstacle to defend. (lock to fence, fire, step back) but it was instrumental to the carnage on the beach. The first company of light infantry was blasted at about 40 yards and the next two tried to charge in on the reload only to meet a full volley each. One reason why about half the British fatalities happened to the light Infantry in the first few minutes of the battle.
Though, if the men are firing at the fence and then pulling back, it's not so much "Firing by Ranks" (at least as I was discussing in this video) as much as a very wide and narrow street firing. There's definitely a name for it, I just can't recall at the moment.
I'd guess the firing at Bunker Hill (from the American side) may have been more of a team-up effort with two or three men alternating. Just a guess.
@@BrandonF The term used in the article (in Command Magazine) that specifically discussed it was "reserving the rear". It was a LOT more than a street fighting column firing (you do not inflict almost 100 killed in a few minutes firing in column). I just put forward that Stark's men were likely not perfectly "in formation" but conforming to the obstacle they were behind (first rank is "at the wall", other two a pace or two back). But they were set off in three groups and the logical way to do that would be by ranks.
22:31 I think it was more common in the 17th century, by having the men circulating front to back by file for each volley, I'm pretty sure it is depicted in some treaties from the 80 years war or around that time.
Keep up the great work thank you for the great depictions
The constraints of the era made tactics REALLY interesting and pop culture/ games have really failed to incorporate or understand those interesting constraints by just making muskets fire too fast which loses a lot of the interesting parts of musket combat.
You ask for references - Field Manuals 1808 (originally written by Gen. Sir John Moore.)
To summarise briefly
A battalion of ten companies - of circa 80 men - Colour company approx 60 men - Grenadier Company 100 men - light company approx. 90 men.
Companies deployed in two ranks with rear rank half a pace to the right of the front rank. Thus each rank is approx. 75cm (~ 30 inches) apart ... so the weapon of the rear rank would be half that space - well clear of the loading of the other rank.
Grenadiers are the right of the line, Light company falls back (from skirmishing), to the left of the line.
Intense discipline - endless practice - most regiments maintained 3 rounds a minute (some made it four) with the first minute being four of course as the weapon was already loaded.
Colonel with the Colour Company gives the primary command and the Colour Company front rank fires - as it does so, the officer of the company to the left and to the right also gives the order to fire and so on, in succession, down the length of the 400 muskets of the line - but spreading outward from the centre company (the Colours). So, over a period of some fifteen seconds, there is a ripple of fire down the whole line - not the whole front rank firing a concentrated volley. The American Continental Army has records of noting this as being like a boy running down a picket fence with a stick.
At the count of ten seconds - the rear rank of the Colour Company fires - with the repeat 'peeling' of fire in each adjacent company.
For fifteen seconds is subjected to a continuous discharge - renewed every ten seconds.
If firing on an advancing column - when that column was halted the two wing companies advanced, "forming" (right form and left form) to add fire to the sides of the column.
Finally - there was a sub-command given by sergeants .... "Aim for the balls ..."
This allowed for (a) the enemy being below / above the battalion (b) it adjusts for the centre-of-mass automatically (c) every male has been protecting that part of the anatomy all his life - so it sticks in his mind even through combat stress.
It was also - still - the chant of sergeants during my service in the 1960s.
Much more detail in the Field Manual.
Great stuff. Always well researched and presented. There are probably a thousand variations and each might be applicable in a certain situation. But I think there is always a part of 'Keep it Simple" which applies to battle, especially at this time. Timely communication was difficult and the chance for a miscommunication could lead to disaster. I think the rank firing would have a advantage of keeping up a steady fire across a long line. This may be hard to replicate with section firing. But would it actually impact battle- probably not. Having the front row step back would solve the risk of accidents, but still more room for error.
Having gaps in your line (like skirmishers) would probably decrease the effectiveness of enemy fire but would put your men at risk for cavalry and would make them harder to manage and give orders to.
One of the earliest uses of “street firing” or the concept of firing then retreating to the rear to reload was used by the Spanish during the Italian Wars and would later be perfected when they created the Tercios a few decades later. There’s a perfect example of this in the movie ‘Alatriste’ during the last battle in Rocroi where you see the ranks of arquebusiers doing that reload tactic
I have a vague memory of a French drill in which 4 men fired 1 musket (possibly later than that but I don’t remember) the first fired his musket, passed it back and grabbed the second man’s musket while that one went back to be reloaded and each person had their own step they were in charge of
Brandon, former Civil War reenactor and former professional soldier and military historian here. I think you are missing an obvious drawback of firing by section, platoon, company etc. When employing this technique you only project power along a portion of the enemy line (assuming that their frontage is equal to your own). If you fire by rank, which admittedly is much easier with a two rank line versus a three or four rank line, you do project power along the whole along your whole frontage and thus disrupt a greater portion of the enemy frontage at the same time. This does have a greater psychological affect on the enemy formation.
I also think you over estimate the difficulties of firing by rank for trained soldiers. My experience is that trained soldiers really don't disrupt their file mates loading process as much as you make out. Having said that, it does appear from my primary source readings that most line battles did quickly devolve from tightly controlled volley fire, or fire by files, or fire by sections, into individual fire as the smoke and noise of battle rendered command and control extremely difficult.
This is a great video though and I love your work.
True. He is completely wrong about fire by ranks. It was pretty common and important tactic. No idea how he is learning about historic warfare and missing such fundamental thing.
Brandon, you are one of the best channels on RUclips.
Fascinating and excellent video.
ooh i got on a brandon F video at waterloo 200. when we fired the huge volley near the end.
Cant wait for a Video on Bajonetts:
"How 18th century armies stabbed each other" hahaha
I loved the video ill have to check the light british video seems interesting
Very nice seeing images of Coldstream 1815 in this!
Excellent presentation.
My question is how long it took everyone to go deaf from muskets being fired next to their heads
In my experience, as a shooter of both black powder and modern arms, the modern arms have a sharper, louder crack than that of black powder guns, as the modern smokeless powder creates more pressure, and thus more muzzle blast. Aside from cannons, which have a much larger charge, the BP guns have a "softer" report. More of a boom, as opposed to a louder crack of modern arms.
In other words, firing a modern gun for any length of time without ear pro, leaves your ears ringing, while firing a BP gun doesn't. Not to say there isn't hearing damage, but it's less noticeable.
The word you’re looking for when you talk about “points of contact” around the 18:00 minute mark is “friction points” or “points of failure.”
What I’m curious about (and I haven’t finished the video yet so you may have answered it already) is whether or not you could do fire by ranks at the platoon level, with the recently discharged rank going prone, the next to fire to step forward? Shoot, drop, the guy behind you steps over you, etc etc. sort of like a rolling bombardment but musketry. This would eliminate the worry about the advancing rank accidentally shooting the previous rank while they’re reloading and an added benefit of force preservation from return fire for the proned row.
Thanks for these awesome videos, as a german reenactor for the 18. century these are very helpful. I have a question though.
Do you know sources for the often-stated "fact" that many muskets were found on the battlefield with two or more charges? I know the source for the civil war battle at Gettysburg but would like to figure out some sources for the independence war.
Ah, the broken down plywood walls of the Hougoumont. We still have a few chunks of it from when we tore it down with the 51e back in 2015. Good times!