Question concerning retraining units

[MikeV]

Experience was a great factor in the 18th c., a greater factor than in the national wars to come later, where you could recruit from a very large pool of young men, train them shortly and waste them on the field. 18th c. soldiers were very precious and most generals tried to conserve the manpower of their armies. It was a big difference wether a unit would break when the enemy line came near 100 paces (more experienced troops perhaps would broke only at 30 paces or not at all) or even ran away at the first fire. Also the performance in battle field marching and loading procedures under field conditions differed a lot after some experience.

Yes. During this era, just before the Industrial Age began in earnest, folks thought in terms of precise geometric formations and "mechanisms." Not only was the marching drill awkward and complex, so was the loading and firing of the weapons.

The famous "Brown Bess," typical of muskets in this era, required over 20 separate movements to reload -- well trained troops could get off maybe four (4) shots a minute. And they were lucky to hit anything more than 50 yards away (hence the massed rank fire, and the long lines, etc.). Some estimate that it took somewhere between 200 to 500 shots fired to cause a single enemy battlefield casualty.

So, firepower wasn't the dominant factor that decided the land battles during this era. At that rate, they'd run out of ammo before they'd shot a significant fraction of the line opposite them.

[Feanaro]

The famous "Brown Bess," typical of muskets in this era, required over 20 separate movements to reload -- well trained troops could get off maybe four (4) shots a minute. And they were lucky to hit anything more than 50 yards away (hence the massed rank fire, and the long lines, etc.). Some estimate that it took somewhere between 200 to 500 shots fired to cause a single enemy battlefield casualty.

So, firepower wasn't the dominant factor that decided the land battles during this era. At that rate, they'd run out of ammo before they'd shot a significant fraction of the line opposite them.

Using volley fire, this is true. However, it was found in tests the French conducted that skirmish fire was twice as effective as volley fire.

First, the smoke one volley produces is quite voluminous and, after a bit, you'd be shooting in a fog. This doesn't bother a skirmisher. Second, the skirmisher may take his time. Firing by volley means you fire when the officer tells you to, not when you have a good shot lined up. Third, the shouted command can cause a soldier to jerk the trigger, throwing off the shot.

In fact, the rifle was found to be slightly inferior to the musket in volley fire until you hit 200 yards.

http://books.google.com/books?id=JNt...ox&lr=#PPP9,M1
page 173.