A firepower Friday thread. One of the most persistent and inaccurate views of this period is that infantry firefights occurred at extremely close range: 50 yards or less. TL;DR, firefights often occurred at longer range, between 100-300 yards. Please, tell your friends. 1/25 Image
The public (and even historians) often imagine battle looked like reenactments. In these reenactments, troops often open fire at a very short range, at say 50 or 25 yards. For those unused to picturing ranges, imagine one half or one-quarter of an American football field. 2/25
Troops in the eighteenth-century occasionally fired at such close range (such as the Swedish Karoliner of the Great Northern War, or the British in some circumstances) but MUCH more frequently, fire-fights developed at longer range. Imagine 2 football fields between troops. 3/25 Image
In the eighteenth-century, the term "musket-shot" usually referred to a distance of around 300 yards. Commanders, concerned about the accuracy of their musketry, often performed tests in peacetime to discover an optimal range. 4/25
During the era, such tests were conducted at between 500 yards and 80 yards, 200 yards and 100 yards, and further estimations of 250 yards and 80 yards and 200 yards and 80 yards. Leaving aside this theoretical point, let us turn to what the soldiers of the era say. 5/25
In the first category, there are skirmishes and premature fires by inexperienced troops. These preliminary skirmishes often occurred at 300 yards, or even a greater distance. As a result, they were not very deadly. 6/25 Image
In 1759 and 1760, French troops and their native allies opened fire on the British at a range of 300 yards, which seemed quite normal to the participants. During a skirmish on Staten Island in June of 1777, preliminary skirmishing began at about 300 yards. 7/25
At the Battle of Mollwitz in 1741, the Prussian infantry, inexperienced in real combat, opened fire at the considerable range of 600-800 yards. In Europe during large-scale and determined combat, battlelines could draw much closer. 8/25
A good "average" range for combat during the Seven Years' War appears to be between 200 yards and 100 yards. At the Battle of Leuthen in 1757, Ernst von Barsewisch recalled, "As soon as we had cleared the forest, we approached the enemy's second line of battle at a... 9/25
...distance of 200 paces [150 yards], which was preparing to march against us. Now... our officers ordered, "Fire! Fire!" Later in the war, Barsewisch recalled being fired on by Croats at a similar distance. The lines at Prague in 1757 were around 150 yards apart. 10/25
At Hochkirch in 1758, Johann von Archenholz recalled that the Austrians opened fire at, "a few hundred paces." During a skirmish near Prenzlow in October of 1760, hostile forces approached to within 200 paces [150 yards] of one another. 11/25 Image
At the Battle of Vellinghausen in 1761, official reports indicate that battle lines were 150 paces [100 yards] apart, and indicate that this was uncomfortably close. When the battle lines closed to 80 yards at the Battle of Minden, the contest was no longer in doubt. 12/25
In North America, infantry firefights followed a similar mold. At the Battle of the Plains of Abraham, the French opened fire a very regular European distance, 130 yards. In 1759, Francis Downman noted that the enemy kept, "always 200 yards in our front." 13/25
During the American War of Independence, this pattern continued. During the flank attack at the Battle of Brandywine, both the British and Americans gave fire at 150 yards, and then the British immediately charged at the run with their bayonets. 14/25
The French attack on St. Lucia in December of 1778 was conducted, "at a distance not less than 280 yards." At the Battle of Camden, John Robert Shaw describes an infantry firefight at 100 yards. At Guilford Courthouse the American line opened fire at 140 yards. 15/25
Troops were often ordered to hold their fire until very close to the enemy line, but appear to have found it difficult to follow this directive. At the Battle of Germantown in 1777, Joseph Plumb Martin describes this in his humorous way: 16/25
"We saw a body of the enemy drawn up behind a rail fence on our right; we immediately formed in line and advanced upon them. Our orders were not to fire till we could see the buttons upon their clothes... 17/25
...but they were so coy that they would not give us an opportunity to be so curious, for they hid their clothes in fire and smoke before we had either time or leisure to examine their buttons." 18/25
When troops did approach (or fire) at ranges closer than 100 yards, it was often because a bayonet attack was underway. The Swedish Army in the Great Northern War, and the British Army in the American War of Independence, both made quick moving assaults as standard. 19/25 Image
Nicholas Creswell describes this type of attack on Staten Island in 1777: "When [the two sides] were about 100 yards from each other, both parties fired, but I did not see any fall. They still advanced to the distance of 40 yards or less and fired again... 20/25
...I then saw a great number fall on both sides. Our people rushed upon them with their Bayonets and the others took to their heels." If troops moved into 50 yards or closer, it was not to have a firefight, but bc one or other intended to make an attack with bayonets. 21/25
Some British commanders may have preferred try and close the distance before firing. Prescriptive sources: drill manuals, books offering advice to officers, etc, often instructed soldiers to reserve their fire until at thirty or fifty yards of the enemy. 22/25
Often, the commanders judged their tactics on a case-by-case basis. At the Prussian 1785 Review, British General Cornwallis criticized Prussians for advancing too close to their mock enemies before opening fire. 23/25 Image
While a good idea in theory, advancing into such close range under a heavy fire proved difficult to do. Notably, the British seem to have achieved this at the Battle of the Plains of Abraham, but examples of this kind are rare. 24/25
On average, troops seem to have fired at ranges of 100 yards or longer. The myth of robotic soldiers marching into close range and slugging it out with the enemy at 50 yards for an extended period of time is not tenable.
Footnotes= kabinettskriege.blogspot.com/2018/01/how-cl… 25/25

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Dr. Alexander S. Burns

Dr. Alexander S. Burns Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @KKriegeBlog

Feb 23
A thread today on the Festschrift I edited for Christopher Duffy. Its a collection of essays from an incredible group of scholars, and I want to note their achievements. If you're interested tactics, battlefield archeology, social, or cultural history, check this out. 1/12
We were able to present Christopher with the collection in July of last year, before his passing in November. Being able to respect my mentor and hero in this way was real honor. It continues Christopher's work, showing the way that 18th cent. armies were serious militaries. 2/12
You can find the table of contents here: helion.co.uk/military-histo…. 3/12
Read 12 tweets
Feb 22
Wargamers may find this one interesting. Did 18th century soldiers attack using assault columns? Conventional wisdom argues that this was a post-1789/Revolutionary and Napoleonic development. Was it? TL;DR, Column assaults happened in the 18th century. 1/23 Image
The Austrians attacked in columnar formations during the Seven Years War. These formations were not only "march formations" which took the unit to the battlefield, but used within musket range of the enemy troops. 2/23
This post does not look at the most often cited example of a attack in column during the Seven Years War: the abortive French infantry attack at Rossbach. This is a clearly unintentional use of the column, born out of necessity. 3/23
Read 23 tweets
Feb 21
I'm going to do a thread on an aspect of 18th cent. uniforms later this week, so here is a snippet. Historians are used to working with textual sources, so finding a piece of textile in the National Archives of the UK was fun. Its a piece of 18th century gaiter cloth.
1/11 Image
While thinking on light infantry reform in his role as Lord Lt. of Ireland in the early 1770s, George Townshend sent a letter to Lord Rochford, laying out a plan of clothing for soldiers using flannel socks and cloth gaiters instead of yarn stockings and linen gaiters. 2/11
“... The gaiter of course cloth, such as were worn in America, ... being of the same colour as the regimental breeches, is a very graceful clothing, like the Hungarian, especially if divided by a garter of the colour of the regimental facing.” 3/11 Image
Read 11 tweets
Feb 20
A Melee Monday Thread. The classic depiction of eighteenth-century warfare is troops marching into close range, firing a few volleys, and charging with bayonets. How frequent was melee (hand to hand) combat in this era? TL;DR, troops didn't fight in hand to hand very often. 1/28
Melee combat occurred, but it was less frequent than we might think. I am sure we can all think of famous examples: Culloden, Bunker Hill, and Guilford Courthouse stand out. When fighting the Ottoman Empire, both Russian and Austrian soldiers reported fierce melees. 2/28
Many military commanders, at some point in their careers, seemed to prefer a cold steel attack. Frederick the Great advocated this idea in the early Seven Years' War, Alexander V. Suvorov famously stated that, "the bullet is a mad thing, put your trust in the bayonet." 3/28
Read 28 tweets
Feb 19
A Spanish Succession Sunday. Our second place in the poll was the era between 1688-1730. I usually write on the 1730s on, but I examined this era, particularly in Eastern Europe, in my MA work. If you want recommendations on books and who to follow wargaming-wise, read on. 1/9
First, stop reading this thread, and go buy Erik A. Lund's "War for the Everyday: Generals, Knowledge and Warfare in Early Modern Europe, 1680-1740." Focused on Habsburg experience, his book charts the everyday work of leading armies in this era. Seriously, go buy it. 2/9
I'm assuming the sort of folks who would follow an account like this are already familiar with David Chandler's body of work, but maybe you don't have John Marshall Deane's Journal. Released in 1984, and hard to comeby, this is a treasure trove of info from an enlisted man. 3/9
Read 9 tweets
Feb 17
A firepower-Friday thread. Organized firings by volley, rank, platoon, and division marked 18th century warfare... or did they? TL;DR, most 18th century soldiers fired as fast as they could load without orders. This topic is dear to my heart: wargamers, please read. 1/25
In the eighteenth century, commanders prized orderly and disciplined fire. The British and Prussian armies were famous for their level of discipline and firepower. These armies particularly valued soldiers who fired by platoons. 2/25
Soldiers and junior officers noted when troops were able to achieve this level of discipline on the battlefield. At battlefields like Mollwitz, Dettingen, Prague, the Sullivan Campaign, and Reichenbach soldiers maintained firings by platoons, divisions, and battalions. 3/25
Read 25 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(