Scourge of War Boards

Posted: **Tue Apr 19, 2016 4:58 am**

"Firepower Weapons Effectiveness on the Battlefield 1630-1850" by Major General B.P. HUghes (1974 isbn 1-885119-39-9) covers this subject in great detail. Many armies conducted weapons effectiveness tests using bodies of troops firing at individual targets and also firing at company or battalion sized targets. Cutting to the chase the 1-1.5% figure for musketry at 100m is about right. Now the theoretical effectiveness tested both on bench rests and also by trained troops against cloth targets by several armies in the 1800 time range puts theoretical musket effectiveness and at a range of something like 50% accuracy at 100 meters. (Mean defectiveness from thee studies on the range at the time show 75m=65%, 100m=50%, 25m=40%,200m=30&, 250m=20%)

However in actual combat conditions inefficiencies to effectiveness are brought about by smoke, ground, technical difficulties, moving targets human error, ammunition supplies, etc, the studying of specific parts of specific engagements (e.g. Albuera, Talevera,Bussaco, Ferozeshah) where there is detail of known amounts fired from one known body of troops to the next place battlefield performance at about 1 to 1.5% of shots fired actually hitting at 100m. Artillery fire caused about 1-2 casualties per rounds fired.This should not come as the slightest surprise to anyone and is preciously why fire tactics evolved as they did at the time.

1% sounds crappy but with 500 men firing at 3-4 shots per minute in a sustained firefight,the recipient target battalion could find itself losing 15-20 men per minute and after 15 minutes could be down to 225-300 men. Once ranges drop below 100 meters effectiveness of fire seems to have risen to 3-5%. Anyway its a neat book and covers artillery as well. Doesn't seem like the game is off.

Frankly It seems the amount of rounds to kill ratio was much more efficient in 1800 than it is in 2015.

Los

Posted: **Tue Apr 19, 2016 1:10 pm**

I am always suspicious of figures you mention of "3 to 4 shots a minute". Generally troops followed a drill controlled by officers and NCOs and having extensively fired a flintlock musket myself in lengthy re-enactment conditions I would say that 2 shots per minute or less is the sort of rate one should expect.

There is a video on youtube of a re-enactor proving that 3 shots per minute is possible but it is clear from this that the soldier is physically fresh, his musket clean and his situation isn't one where his life is under threat. Tired men, fouled muskets and other distractions would make a shot per 30 seconds quite hard to maintain after a while. Taking misfires into account about one effective shot per minute might be considered a fair rate of fire after a while.

The situation you describe where, after a short while a 500 man unit might be reduced in strength significantly must be taken with caution because you need to take into account that two sides are exchanging fire and with each losing men at a comparable rate, the rate of losses is going to drop until the exchange of fire theoretically should become a stalemate, as one poster above noted the French army testified.

Of course firefights did not go on this long and one side or the other would break off the combat or add other factors to it such as fresh units or an attempt to close with bayonet to force the issue.

Posted: **Wed Apr 20, 2016 1:04 am**

I'm just passing along whats in the book. Which I believe supports your assertions. You are correct about such things things as battlefield vs theoretical performance, its an important point in the book. Though the book claims that in some battles those rates of fire were sustained for some period of time, (this is coming from direct observation from various sources) and of course ROF may drop off but range decreases which increases accuracy. Many fights continued to under 100 meters where accuracy doubles or triples. And its one thing trying to hit a 2 foot wide by 6' high target at even 50m. (I've got a brown bess and a kentucky long rife myself) Its another thing to hit a 100' wide by 6' high target at 50m. (Packed mass of men) Also yes there are both sides are shooting at each other and reducing each other, and also many other times where one side is advancing ala bayonet while the other side is simply firing. Many many variables...this is all spelled out in the study.

The OP was wondering whether the casualty rates in the game were off. I'm just saying that this book supports the notion that SOW games do not seem to be terribly off. The book is based on research and actual combat experience carried out at the time of the Napoleonic wars by multiple armies. In reenactment you can sit there all day long banging off rounds for long periods of time till you are too tired to fire off more than one or two rounds at a time, because no one is getting killed. All the sudden a hundred men die in the space of a few minutes in a close knit group and a more than average response by many units might be pull back, become disorganized, or lose control in some fashion.

Los

Posted: **Sat Apr 30, 2016 1:57 pm**

Musketry casualty rates aside, for me, more important realism issues in the stock game revolve around the relative ineffectiveness of artillery, the too-short canister ranges, rather silly capturing of guns mechanic and so on.

I realise WL had an extremely short development time and changes from the GB systems were of necessity limited but now, after many monthis of feedback, such issues should have been addressed in patches.

Posted: **Mon Oct 16, 2017 3:48 pm**

Scourge of War Boards

Issues I have with realism

Re: Issues I have with realism

Re: Issues I have with realism

Re: Issues I have with realism

Re: Issues I have with realism

Re: Issues I have with realism