I can't believe you still go to the trouble of making these paper wraps for the cartridges...you really are a dedicated Martini man!
@britishmuzzleloaders
8 жыл бұрын
+lptomtom They really aren't any trouble... it takes exactly 45 seconds to package ten rounds up.... :-)
@samuelkirke4926
8 жыл бұрын
That moustache is amazing
@rimsdad
8 жыл бұрын
+Samuel Kirke You should what he feeds it!
@markwasington4238
7 жыл бұрын
I'm a transplanted British here in America since the seventies and we've got an old relic just like the one you're using, didn't know anyone's still into the older British arms stuff, I've got lots of old books on war and British arms especially. It's interesting history.
@britishmuzzleloaders
7 жыл бұрын
Glad you are enjoying things! Cheers.
@polkjarga1
8 жыл бұрын
It might be a silly thought but maybe the use of the command to fire was introduced just because you are shooting in a group. If everyone is shooting at their own accord(more or less) in a tight formation I would think that just the noice and the flashes might throw someone next to you of aim. So with everybody firing at the same time you might not as an individual have the best aim due to the stress but more consistent results for the whole platoon.
@HPBrowningBoy
8 жыл бұрын
+polkjarga1 My thoughts exactly. I can also imagine that rifles fired too early would prompt others to squeeze the trigger as well.
@philballphotography
7 жыл бұрын
my thought - and I know nothing here just spitballing - is that perhaps it has to do with the intended effect downrange. With everyone firing on their own time the bullets rain in randomly. Everyone fires on command and you get a wall of bullets a kind of surprise element, and a devastating psychological effect - more likley to make men flee in terror. Even if you survive that first storm of rounds.... you know another one is coming in a few seconds and thats gotta be terrifying.
@dennispenton2052
3 жыл бұрын
For those that embrace all the weaponry you touch upon, just a great insight - thank you so much for wonderful insight & relaxing escapes.
@britishmuzzleloaders
3 жыл бұрын
You are most welcome! Cheers.
@TwentythreePER
7 жыл бұрын
This video is extremely interesting. I usually research historic firearms but have never thought to research historic firearm drill and how they might compare to each other. Fascinating subject, sir. Very well done.
@britishmuzzleloaders
7 жыл бұрын
Thanks! Very happy that you enjoyed it. It's definitely an interesting aspect of the weapon (any weapon)... I have found that (through the questions posed here by others) most people today relate to firearms (even in the case of military usage) by way of simply holding them and shooting them... like the way they see them on TV... but such a big part of the effect of them is also the way they were used in the context of the "group"... formed bodies of men delivering fire in a co-ordinated fashion. Fighting wasn't so "lonely" then, as it can be now... standing or kneeling next to your mates was integral to way the Army fought, back then.
@dash1141
8 жыл бұрын
I love your videos man.
@britishmuzzleloaders
8 жыл бұрын
+dash1141 Thank you for saying so!
@sheridanlefanu3353
7 жыл бұрын
May I ask whether the other Continental Powers such as Germany and Austria-Hungary have volley sights on their rifles or was it unique to the British because I've never heard of any other rifles with volley sights.
@Badwolf75
8 жыл бұрын
Thanks for another great video. l really enjoy how you employ historical weapons, equipment, and drill to produce since an interesting shooting experience.
@britishmuzzleloaders
8 жыл бұрын
+Badwolf75 Very happy that you enjoyed it. Thanks.
@FenWolf68
8 жыл бұрын
Good to see a new video from you sir, glad you're keeping the history alive. (_stands to attention and salutes_) J
@britishmuzzleloaders
8 жыл бұрын
+Jon Blake I'll see that salute and raise you a "thank you"...
@murphysmuskets
8 жыл бұрын
The only experience I have that even comes close to this is American Civil War drill (Hardee's and Gilham's) I have observed that during live fire exercises that when allowed to shoot independently accuracy increases at the expense of rate of fire. When firing by rank and file accuracy decreases but the rate of fire increases. As far as what is better I think it completely depends on the situation.
@thomasbaagaard
8 жыл бұрын
+murpheysmuskets If rate of fire decreases when allowing independent fire, that is because your "soldiers" are way better trained then the men back then, (in marksmanship) and nobody is shooting back at them. One important reason for volley fire is to control the rate of fire and control the use of cartridges, so the men don't just wast them firing away without hitting anything.
@diktatoralexander88
8 жыл бұрын
Men, especially the Confederates, were very accurate people. They had lot's of marksmanship training outside of the war. Because of that, they could just focus on drill practice.
@thomasbaagaard
8 жыл бұрын
+Diktator Alexander That is Myth. There is no evidence that csa soldiers was any better shots then US soldiers. Unless you had access to forrest where you could hunt, there was no reason to own a rifle. And that was natually more likely in less populated areas.(so western troops might have been for use to guns that eastern troops) Owning A shotgun for fear of crime, sure that makes snese, but not a rifle. There is no evidence that prove that Most men was familiar with firearms. Also most firefights took place at less then 150yards.. even when both sides was armed with rifled firearms. That tell us that the men was not able to take advantage of the weapons they carried. During the war there was a clear lack of training in marksmanship, not because the men where good shots, but because it was simply not a priority and it was impractical and costly. There is a number of cases of units going into combat and soldiers from other units having to step in as instructors and tell the men how to load... during combat. Because the unit was new and they hadn't had time to learn how to fire their guns. This would not have happened if most men knew how to use a rifle. One of the results of the horrible marksmanship during the war was the creation of the NRA.
@murphysmuskets
8 жыл бұрын
+Thomas Aagaard excuse me? There has never ever been any one reason to own a rifle or any other type of gun in the US. On top of that there is no way to objectively prove what the percentage of firearms ownership in the population was as records of gun sales didn't start being kept until the 1960's. However it is a researchable fact that the percentage of people enrolled in Millitas was far higher in the South in 1860s
@thomasbaagaard
8 жыл бұрын
+murpheysmuskets Why own a rifle? Shooting for fun was not common since most people didn't have the time or the money. For self defense a shotgun or smooth bore musket was cheaper and better. So what reason other than hunting? You are correct that we don't have clear numbers for gun ownership and that just prove my point. "Diktator Alexander" is the one making the statement that men from the south was better marksmen. So it is him that have to prove it. The weapons in the state armories was mostly smoothbores, not rifles. And the basic fact that both sides had to import hundred of thousands of firearms tell us that the number of rifled firearms was very low compared to the population size. you are correct that the militias was better developed in the south. But that was a clear reaction to John brown. Before his "raid" the system was in disrepair. And even with the work done, the militias really didn't have a size and organisation where they could effect the abilities of the hole male population in just two years. That would have required the importation of huge numbers of firearms and a heavy government focus on getting every male to do training. (like the swiss do today) And being "enrolled" in the militia is not evidence of any skills, since that don't prove that a man was active or that the active men actually did any live fire with rifled firearms.
@ryanvargas4889
6 жыл бұрын
Excellent work, always a pleasure to watch your videos.
@britishmuzzleloaders
5 жыл бұрын
Thank you Ryan!
@justinblundell4208
8 жыл бұрын
Good evening, Another excellent and enjoyable video, can't praise these enough, as a member of The Diehard company here in the UK very jealous of your ability to be able to rough shoot as you do. Please keep up the good job your doing
@britishmuzzleloaders
8 жыл бұрын
+Justin blundell HI Justin. Thanks for the kind words... Humbly, I would agree with your sentiments,... I am very lucky to be able to do the kind of shooting I do. I do not take it for granted!... :-) ... You and your group are a great asset to the Martini world and are the best at what you do. Your attention to detail and polished presentation are definitely appreciated by this Martini shooter. Cheers.
@MrOlgrumpy
8 жыл бұрын
Beautiful country,looks a wee bit chilly by my gauge,Western Aust is much more temperate in winter.I appreciate your dedication making these presentations and have shared them with the local muzzleloaders Cheers,P.
@britishmuzzleloaders
8 жыл бұрын
Thanks for that. Glad they appeal!
@lisar3006
7 жыл бұрын
I like to watch your videos you come up with things I did not know and I read about ever thing on British colonial wars I could find over the years.
@britishmuzzleloaders
7 жыл бұрын
Glad that they appeal to your interests! Cheers.
@jondavidmcnabb
7 жыл бұрын
As an avid classic firearms aficionado, I must tell you that you videos are fantastic. I would love to see a video where you use mk1 eyeball for long range shooting vs a scoped Martini! You and Iraqvetran8888 do amazing things with those beautiful Martini's
@britishmuzzleloaders
7 жыл бұрын
Scoped Martini?.... My friend, the chances of that happening on this channel are about as slim as a piece of paper.... :-).... the horror.... haha.... That said, longer range shooting is so much fun.. especially against steel! Eric really has done a great job with his Martini series.
@keithwortelhock6078
5 жыл бұрын
Cracking video, as always. I would surmise that (perhaps) it had been noticed under actual battle conditions, that stressed troops might have a tendency to hurry their shots. Practice in barracks could not have been as stressful as seeing a horde of angry gentlemen, intent on your demise, coming at you in a huge wave. The introduction of the 'fire' command might have been used as a way of ensuring that a sufficient aiming period was observed.
@britishmuzzleloaders
5 жыл бұрын
Perhaps, but as with most reasons that get considered, if this was the case, then why did it take 40 years to change?.... it was obviously effective enough in the Sikh Wars, the Crimea, The Mutiny, innumerable smaller conflicts in the 1860s, and the same in the 1870s... I don't have the answer as of yet...
@keithwortelhock6078
5 жыл бұрын
@@britishmuzzleloaders True, but the people making the decisions in the Crimea were junior officers at Waterloo. Maybe when people began to notice at the company level, they couldn't do much about it until they rose in rank. Couple that with the tendency to think that the system that you have now is perfect, and suddenly, 40 years goes by in a flash. The British field manual for 1937 is a classic example of preparing for the last war. I don't suppose we'll ever know for sure. Love the channel, and look forward to more.
@mikew735
8 жыл бұрын
love your channel, sad It doesn't have more subs, I show everyone I know that likes these subjects, keep up the great work.
@britishmuzzleloaders
8 жыл бұрын
+Mike W Thank you for your very kind sentiments. Will do.
@JohnClarksc
8 жыл бұрын
Another lovely video. Thanks for sharing with us!
@britishmuzzleloaders
8 жыл бұрын
+John Clark You are welcome. Thank you John.
@gonatas1
7 жыл бұрын
Love the channel! Reintroduction of the "Fire command" in 1881 for volleys may have had something to do with the use of volleys at longer and longer ranges for area effect where aiming at individual targets was no longer relevant. I assume that with the later repeating arms of the period volleys would increasingly be used only at distant massed targets so leaving time for the individual riflemen to take a specific aim would be less useful. At closer ranges (where you could actually see targets) I assume soldiers would routinely be left to fire independently.
@britishmuzzleloaders
7 жыл бұрын
Thanks! I haven't yet found anything definitive. Repeating arms didn't get into the hands of the troops until ten years after this change. Although the argument is logical, the timeframe doesn't match up.. so I wouldn't figure that had anything to do with it.... The Martini had seen use for many years in many campaigns by this point with close range and long range engagements.. the effective range of the weapon didn't change over this timeframe. Even at long range, you still have to aim.... actually, aiming becomes more important the longer the range due to the trajectory of the bullets of this era... I'm not trying to argue with you, of course, I am just walking through the logic, trying to see if it might be a reason... that's all.
@deanschaal1540
5 жыл бұрын
Outstanding channel, excellent work
@britishmuzzleloaders
5 жыл бұрын
Thank you!
@Hunt3rK3nw4y
5 жыл бұрын
Question, is the music in the background the "Fridericus Rex Grenadiers Marsch"? Or is it a march with a similar tune?
@britishmuzzleloaders
5 жыл бұрын
Sorry, I couldn't tell you... I don't write the titles down.
@IAmACanadian
8 жыл бұрын
Liked your video even before I watched it. I knew it would be great... and it is! Well done. Might I add that, I'm so surprised you only have 3,500 subs, should have at the very least 100,000... Keep up the amazing, and informative, videos and you will surely be there is no time :)
@britishmuzzleloaders
8 жыл бұрын
+I AM CANADIAN Thank you very much for the encouraging words.. Glad you enjoyed the clip... Tell your friends!... :-)... I must admit, Victorian Musketry is a bit of a niche topic, fun though it is! Cheers.
@IAmACanadian
8 жыл бұрын
+britishmuzzleloaders I can see that you take great passion in your videos. If I ever have a question about Victorian warfare/tactics, you usually have it :) You literally make the best gun videos for this era (which is my favourite era), which makes you my favourite gun youtuber. I truly wish that musketry was more popular in my area. I will continue to show friends and family your videos, and cheers to you to!
@britishmuzzleloaders
8 жыл бұрын
+I AM CANADIAN Glad the Channel agrees with you. Thanks for the kind words. Cheers.
@mattarmstrong9205
8 жыл бұрын
Rob: great video, I always appreciate your attention to detail in order to be the most historically accurate. I believe you've mentioned in a previous video that you purchased some of your valise equipment from IMA, how was your experience? Is there any particular reason that you don't have videos featuring Enfields with the Snyder conversion? Keep up the great videos, and by the way it's pretty cool to see a comment from murpheysmuskets, I subscribe to both you guys and always look forward to videos from both channels. Maybe you can plan a trip to Texas, or perhaps he can come to Alberta 😉
@britishmuzzleloaders
8 жыл бұрын
+Matt Armstrong Thank you very much Matt. Yes I have got the P71 and the P88 (Slade Wallace) kit from IMA.. It was painless. Online, clickity-click, ka-ching, ding-dong, thank you Mr Postman... Sniders, eh?....... Wait for it!!!!!... (they are coming, but shhhh,.. I want it to be a surprise...) Murph is a great guy ( though I only know him through chatting here and elsewhere) Shooting and history, he with his and I with mine are definitely a common ground to share.... Cheers.
@cristiancoman2125
8 жыл бұрын
I am a huge fan of your videos, keep them up mate. I am of the opinion that the added constraint of the command 'fire' would be detrimental to accurate fire, but to what extent, that remains an open question.
@britishmuzzleloaders
8 жыл бұрын
Hi Cristian. I am glad you kind the clips interesting. Thank you. I think the same about the command "fire", but I still haven't found anything as to why they switched... the search continues.
@Metaldude1945
8 жыл бұрын
I really love your channel and eye for detail.
@britishmuzzleloaders
8 жыл бұрын
+Metaldude1945 Thank you for saying so. Glad you enjoy it. Cheers.
@danellis4437
8 жыл бұрын
Very interesting. Just out of curiosity, do you think that you may attempt the experiment more than once (perhaps you have) in order to determine whether the latter firing drill could actually yield improved results? Thanks
@britishmuzzleloaders
8 жыл бұрын
+Dan Ellis Are you reading my mind?.... Is your name Spock? I was just thinking that it deserves another trial to get more practice... I think there is a topic for a follow up video... Thank you very much!
@danellis4437
8 жыл бұрын
Yup that sounds cosmic.I thought that as troops would go through repetitive training they would learn over time to anticipate the available timing in the evolutions and especially anticipate the command to fire. This would, in theory, provide the opportunity to improve the accuracy.
@britishmuzzleloaders
8 жыл бұрын
Dan Ellis It's on the list... A Volley Fire follow up.
@Nucl3arDude
7 жыл бұрын
"Left right" is a good mnemonic for 1 beat of quick time. "Left right one, left right two, left right three" is a good one for slow time by adding the extra numbers to the phrase. Not sure if it's common to the entire commonwealth, but its essential to any drill in NZ or Aussie. When doing things by numbers we'd go, "One, left right, two, left right, three.", with the execution of each short and snappy movement on each number.
@britishmuzzleloaders
7 жыл бұрын
The timing of "One,.... Two-Three,.... One,..... Two-Three,.......One" (moving on the Ones and pausing on the Two-Threes) is used as well. Gets the same result, for sure.
@anonhunter5191
8 жыл бұрын
A good video as always Rob, thank you.
@britishmuzzleloaders
8 жыл бұрын
+Anon Hunter Glad you enjoyed it!
@tomheptinstall
8 жыл бұрын
This suggestion could be true or false, but I work at the Royal Armouries in the UK, and from my research there (History MA) I found that troops were, for the first time experiencing real long range scenarios. The average soldier, whilst perfectly capable of shooting out a couple of hundred yards, didn't know how to judge long distances (not surprising given that the majority were uneducated), and only the units commander officer would know. Therefore commands were given to fire at certain ranges, such as volley firing at 900, 600 and 300 yards, giving a 'beaten zone' effect. When the enemy got close enough for the troops to gauge the range and fire unaided, then they were often allowed to fire at will. For the longer ranges, I believe the commanded pause would have readied the troops to fire as the enemy approached the exact distance (for example, readying the troops at around 620 yards for them to fire exactly at 600). Ammo expenditure is probably quite high up there too. Just a thought, but who knows.
@britishmuzzleloaders
8 жыл бұрын
+tom h Hi Tom. Very nice to hear from you. Your observations about the difference between volley fire and independent fire would make sense, although there had been a judging distance component of musketry qualifications since the 1850s and was quite comprehensive... That doesn't guarantee that the troops were really good at it but it was completed before they fired a shot, every year. I agree with your assessment of the application of volley fire, too.. A beaten zone is exactly what is created.. It is a topic of instruction in the 1889 Infantry Drill Book, for instance. Ranges were still part of the command to use Independent Fire. "At 300 yds,... 5 Rounds Independent Firing,..... Commence!" for instance. If you can tell the difference between 600 and 620 yds, then you are a better man than I. As an officer or NCO, you are centring the beaten zone created by your men, on the target by observing the effect of the fire. The very nature of a beaten zone is that it is an area, and 20 yds (I realize that this is not necessarily an important number and was only chosen by you as a arbitrary number to illustrate your point) is a number too small to correct for. Great discussion points, Tom. Glad to hear from someone who is studying these fine weapons. Have you other thoughts on the different methods of volley firing? Cheers.
@tomheptinstall
8 жыл бұрын
+britishmuzzleloaders Thanks for the response, all I was really doing was pondering potential reasons why sometimes the officers would sometimes give vocal instructions and then other times not. (Our range at the armouries is a measly 25m so I doubt I could tell the difference between 600 or 800 yards never mind 6-620!!) You asked for other thoughts... I have seen the images of troops practising for range by standing out every hundred of yards, so you are very right in that aspect! But for very very long ranges I think only an officer could judge the scale (I know this is changing what I had said before somewhat)... and this is a bit unrelated to the standard drill you demonstrate in the video, but towards the end of this era troops were often creating beaten zones at extreme long ranges (upwards of 2000 yards.) In our archives we have an interesting report from a Captain Howard to the British War Department in 1879. He found that using the corner of the slide on his Martini-Henry as a backsight, and the pin on the furthest band of his rifle as a foresight he could hit large area targets out to 2100 meters. The Inspector General of Musketry tested this, found he could hit nothing at 1500 yards as the shooting was 'wild', whilst the Superintendent of RSAF scolded Howard for messing with the pins on his rifle. Nevertheless, the Siege Operations Committee liked the idea, and tested out different sight methods at Dungeness in 1879 - finding through various experiments that Martini projectiles could reach out to 3240 yards. This ultimately led to the volley sights (that you will probably find on the side your .303 Magazine Rifle) and methods of extreme range volley fire being used (you can find evidence of this in the second Boer war). They were then later removed when this kind of warfare became obsolete. Troops would stand in rank and fire volleys together to create beaten zones that you described so well in your reply...but instead of at a middle range it would be at extreme range with the intent of slowing an enemy down rather than cutting their numbers. I think that could be a situation where the officer will always voice the command. Again, a bit irrelevant to your video that deals with standard drill, just a quirky point to add!
@britishmuzzleloaders
8 жыл бұрын
+tom h I greatly appreciate your research and ties to the RA... Are involved with their video series? The best example of long range that I know of is probably Omdurman... near 2000yds I believe... A Guards battalion opened up first, I think. There is no doubt that volleys were fired on command... either with "FIRE" or without, depending on the timeframe... "all I was really doing was pondering potential reasons why sometimes the officers would sometimes give vocal instructions and then other times not" By this, I am sensing a disconnect.... are you referring to specifically volley fire or firing in general?... because ALL firing had direction (Fire Control Orders)... Type of fire, Range, Target, Number of rounds, Order to fire... so to say "give vocal instructions and then other times not" is leading me to believe that I didn't make my point as clearly as I could have... Just email misunderstanding, I'm sure. Long range dial sights were included on the service rifle until 1916 when the Mk III* (star) began production. Greatly enjoying your input. Cheers.
@Dreadought
8 жыл бұрын
an interesting anecdote you might be interested in from the War of 1812 here in Canada, I can't remember what they called the battle, Chrysler's farm maybe, it was named after the man on whose farm it was fought on, I do remember that. There is a remembrance handed down from the children of the farm owner, that they watched the battle from the the house, they could tell when the British fired; the American soldier's fire would be strung out, nearly continuous, with no more than a few men firing at the same time, while the British regular's fired in proper volley, with a great *thump* every time they did so that the children could feel in their chests from some distance away. Apparently it had a much more pronounced effect on the American soldiers because they weren't long in front of that percussion before they retreated
@britishmuzzleloaders
8 жыл бұрын
+Dreadnought Good story... Of course this is anecdotal but in reading it, it would be immediately apparent (to me) that this is an example of a difference between volley fire (the British forces) and independent fire (the American forces)... not reading the actual account it is very difficult to determine what the story teller (the original one, not you) is actually trying to describe...
@RabidMortal1
8 жыл бұрын
I'll throw my hat into the ring of speculation. Perhaps the introduction of the "fire" command ensured that target obfuscation by (massed) powder smoke would occur in one, controlled instant. Moreover, command and control might be improved by reducing the duration of the din of fire. Either way, another superb video. I always learn a lot!
@britishmuzzleloaders
8 жыл бұрын
+RabidMortal1 Good point.... But to take a step back (figuratively) and watch a volley from afar, out of earshot of words of command, I say that the difference between the two drills would be difficult to see, and smoke and noise would be the same too... I imagine that the "Present" drills might produce a somewhat more ragged volley, but it would be a volley just the same... It's not like the firing would carry on for 30 seconds after the word Present... If you watch a bunch of, say, American Civil War re-enacting videos, you will see some crisp, cracking volleys and you will see some rolling, ragged ones... All American drills used the word "FIRE".... If "Fire" yields tighter volleys, how to explain the ragged ones, then... These are the points that I think about when trying to figure out the "why" of the change in drills... I haven't found an explanation that satisfies yet... But I love the discussion! Cheers.
@RabidMortal1
8 жыл бұрын
+britishmuzzleloaders Good points So what make the British military's needs different from say that of the Americans'. That would seem to be where the answer might lie. Perhaps the nature of the fighting itself or the number of nationalities under British command?
@britishmuzzleloaders
8 жыл бұрын
+RabidMortal1 I wouldn't say that the needs of the American Armies were different at all... Both armies (American and British/Empire) practiced volley fire and independent/file firing... each technique had it's advantages and tactical niche. As for differing nationalities, if you trained me to fire after a three beat pause on the word "OOGGIE-BOOGIE" I could do it just as effectively whether I knew what that word actually meant or not... I suppose that my question lies in why was there a change.... Volley fire was used, presumably with great effect using the word "Present", long before 1881, with multiple types of weapons in any number of tactical situations... So why the change? It certainly represents more control but not necessarily more effect...
@RabidMortal1
8 жыл бұрын
+britishmuzzleloaders That "OOGGIE-BOOGIE" point you make was essentially what I was getting at. Being able to confidently instill tactics and drills to native troops (or other non-professionals) may have benefited by having an explicit order to fire. Maybe turn the question around?--why did the British Army abandon the command?
@britishmuzzleloaders
8 жыл бұрын
+RabidMortal1 We are on the same page then (the joys of inter web discussions, eh?).. As for abandoning the command, I assume that you are referring to "FIRE".. Although I haven't actually come accross a document stating so, my theory is this. The command "FIRE" was used in the Napoleonic era, before and after, by line infantry. Fair enough. If one looks at the manuals for riflemen from the early 1800s the "Present" drills are very much in evidence... no "FIRE"... with the emphasis on aiming, no time limit stated, although I suspect there was some degree of expediency expected.. So riflemen, with their rifles were trained to give their fire on "Present" because they had weapons that were able to hit their target at range but required the skill of aiming carefully to do so... Incidentally, these drills weren't the preserve of just the Rifles.. all the Light Infantry Regiments were trained so (the Rifles being part of the Light Bobs). Sometime in the 1830s there is an increased emphasis on ALL infantry actually aiming to hit a given target. It's mentioned in the manuals specifically... If you are going to introduce a skill, that before hand was the preserve of certain specialist troops (the Rifles), into the greater army, then why not use the drills they (the Rifles) use to achieve their accuracy? Sights on muskets are mounted starting from the early '40s to enable them to be aimed more effectively and by the time rifles are universal issue to all Infantry in the 1850s, the "Present" drill is a natural fit, wouldn't you say? This carries along right the way through to the late 1870s when a distinct pause (the three beat pause) is mentioned specifically. So that is my take on the why the "Present" command... to me it makes sense. Maybe the pause, as part of the "Present" drill, which had been introduced to allow for good aiming, had, over time, become so formalized and so much time was taken up in "getting it right" that it's real function had become lost... and it was seen that by introducing "FIRE" it would make things so much easier.... Thoughts?
@versal339
8 жыл бұрын
Thanks for another great job. The only difference I can see is that firing on the command of fire would provide a more impressive volley. I know from supervising funeral details that a ragged volley is not desired. I think a Victorian era line Officer would require uniform volley.
@britishmuzzleloaders
8 жыл бұрын
+Hugh Batesel Thanks Hugh. Yes it might 'look" better, but does that mean it "is" better? I would hesitate to equate the theatrics of funeral ceremonies with the effective application of fire on a given enemy. To be blunt, it's bullets in targets that makes the effect, I should think (and hence is the subject of the video). You are right though, firing in "FIRE" does give a tighter delivery.
@michaelcouch66
7 жыл бұрын
I have a vague recollection of a presentation by a reenactor at the National Army Museum in London on a special event about the Zulu War. His explanation of the change was that the Zulus learnt the timing of the pause between the "present" and the men firing, and threw themselves down on the ground just when the men fired - resulting in fewer casualties. His take on it being the change in drill to include a "fire" order was to prevent the timing being so predictable so other enemies couldn't adopt the same tactic. No idea if it's true or not, but its a theory.
@britishmuzzleloaders
7 жыл бұрын
There are so many theories.... The pause between the "Present" and the delivery of the fire under the "old" system was precisely the same timing as the new, with the command "Fire"..... a 3 second pause. Besides, on an active battlefield, you wouldn't be able to hear any commands at 500 distance what with section volleys rolling up and down the line.... This has been perhaps the most enigmatic aspect of musketry I have yet come across.... I will get to the bottom of it... :-)
@pathfinderpreston2538
8 жыл бұрын
great video!
@britishmuzzleloaders
8 жыл бұрын
+prestoncf18 Thanks!
@langet46
8 жыл бұрын
As always, a very professionally presented and instructive video Rob. The old Canadian bush jacket and especially the soundtrack(Fridericus Rex Grenadiermarsch) were the icing on the cake.
@britishmuzzleloaders
8 жыл бұрын
+langet46 Good spotting! It's a great, all purpose jacket.... Thanks for the kind words.
@kaidog9528
8 жыл бұрын
is it me or were you marching up to the target after the second application....or just trying not to slip while u spoke into the camera. Nice vid. looks like you caught a nice break in the weather
@britishmuzzleloaders
8 жыл бұрын
+Kai Dog No marching, besides Victorian marching didn't involve arm swinging until the 1890s.. :-)... (Nerd point I know).... It was slippery,..... the ground that is... It was a beautiful day but got baltic after the sun went behind the trees...
@simoncox1861
8 жыл бұрын
Interesting video as always. Just a thought and it may be coincidental - but didn't the regs change in 81 because of the introduction of the volunteer regiments? The order to pull the trigger on the word 'fire' was deemed easier for the volunteers to comprehend. Due to the knowledge that the Army may still need to pull regiments from the second line needed the Regulars and the second line orders to be the same (creating the change). I studied the Secondary line forces in conjunction with the Haldane reforms and creation of the Territorial Force/Army, unfortunately the majority I looked into was 1906 and after.
@britishmuzzleloaders
8 жыл бұрын
+Simon Cox Simon, the Volunteers were formed in 1859. So that sort of moots the points that you have made... Volunteers were generally linked to Regular Regiments in 1881 but they had existed well before hand. The Volunteers were incorporated into the Territorials in 1907 as you have mentioned. Cheers.
@simoncox1861
8 жыл бұрын
my mistake, as I said, ever so slightly before my scope of study.
@britishmuzzleloaders
8 жыл бұрын
Simon Cox Not a worry!... It's an interesting topic for research, for sure... The Volunteer movement is so complex and the lineages of so many units is a maze of twisted, tangled branches...
@itsapittie
4 жыл бұрын
I do love the Martini-Henry! I wish I could have one in a modern caliber.
@britishmuzzleloaders
4 жыл бұрын
Ewww,..... Why?.... :-) (only kidding)
@edulev2315
8 жыл бұрын
Great videos , keep up the good work
@britishmuzzleloaders
8 жыл бұрын
Thanks! Will do.
@samnapoleon9367
6 жыл бұрын
A few comments from a person who studies 18th century warfare: Volley fire, and indeed any controlled firing was always a short term thing one battlefields in all times of war. Commanders could control 2-3 firings but the men would usually begin to load and fire at their own (often quick) pace. The French supported this idea and encouraged it in the 18th century, while the Prussians hated it and the British tended to use movement to stop it and regain control. There is another factor which is missing from the video and that is, when men with loaded weapons in mass formation “present” their weapons it threatens the enemy and can, without firing a shot, stop an advance or turn an enemy. This was an option to commanders to use and if the enemy does indeed turn or stop, a volley may not need to be delivered and thus saving ammo. I would bet the return to using the word “fire” allows for this control in a way firing after “present” doesn’t. In any case volley fire control would be limited once a firefight had begun and independent firing would take over, whether a command was issued or not.
@britishmuzzleloaders
6 жыл бұрын
As someone who studies 19th century warfare, I can say there are many instances where volley fire was continued well past the 2-3 firings you speak of. The plausibility of stopping an attack with merely bringing the weapons up is highly unlikely especially at the ranges that typical 19th century battles (particularly later in the century, the time frame of this video) took place.... I'm sure you can cite examples of this occurrence in the 18th C and I'd very much like to see them. Cheers.
@samnapoleon9367
6 жыл бұрын
britishmuzzleloaders let me see if I can find an article on the subject. It’s a pretty good read and talks about this sort of thing. Love your channel, hope you continue for a long time.
@jarvy251
7 жыл бұрын
Interesting to note that the modern word of command is "Go on!" instead of "Fire!" I always wondered on that choice of words, but after seeing this perhaps it was an effort to give the men a distinct permission to open fire when ready, rather than the sharper "fire!" which might prompt a soldier to fire immediately, before he had taken proper aim. A distinct word of command to fire may have been re-introduced for similar psychological reasons, as I could see greener troopers focusing on counting the beats rather than aiming, or hesitating, unsure if they were actually given permission to pull the trigger, and so on. Soldiers like clean, definite instruction!
@britishmuzzleloaders
7 жыл бұрын
Don't forget, that "Go on" refers to modern delivery of fire which is, in 19th century terms, "Independent Fire". The term that was used for this back then was "Commence" or earlier, "Commence Firing"... much more relatable to "Go On", in my view. The Victorian "Fire" (or indeed "Present") refers to volley firing, which has very little application today.... That said, "Fire" still has uses. Think of fire held until a specific moment, a volley of light AT weapons or rifle grenades.... Good discussion points!
@jarvy251
7 жыл бұрын
That's a good point! Arty and mortars as well, obviously. In any case an interesting tidbit in the development of rifle doctrine after centuries of volley-firing smoothbores. Love your channel, there's no-one else really doing what you do!
@britishmuzzleloaders
7 жыл бұрын
jarvy251 Thanks for that. Glad you enjoy it!
@JeremyPallant
8 жыл бұрын
Pure speculation on my part. It has been demonstrated that artillery rounds landing simultaneously is far more effective than the same amount of firepower landing over time. If in volley fire, everyone fires upon a specific command, is it possible that psychologically it is more effective than if the volley occurs over a few seconds? Is BLAM! (people die) more effective than BANG, BANG, BANG (people die)?
@britishmuzzleloaders
8 жыл бұрын
+Jeremy Pallant I don't think that volleys would have been discharged over a few seconds (like ten) although in the confusion of a battle at close distances this could have easily happened. I made a compilation of sorts to demonstrate what a volley might sound like in this video at 10:30 (kzitem.info/news/bejne/xn553Zmpepd1oGU ) and here (kzitem.info/news/bejne/ooBm2GigkJOLh6w) at 3:27... Personally I think that this is the product of the movies and the emphasis placed on this theatrical aspect .. This is reliant on the issue of the noise as part of the effect of the weapon(s)... BOOM as opposed to BRRRAAAAPPPPPP.... (pardon the juvenile battle noises here) Here are some of my observations from the Re-enactment at Waterloo last year. There were volleys fired with (evidently) close tight cohesion... typically by small groups or say 25 or 50 guys. There were also volleys fired that were rather more rolling (but certainly not desultory) which were also fired by small groups but also by larger groups... Whether a volley was delivered in one instant or was more like the tearing of canvas, they were just as impressive. The individual volleys were all somewhat lost in the confusion and smoke and most importantly the Noise of the field... which was considerable and far louder than I was expecting... I should think that to the man standing and having to face the discharge or either example, it would be a horrible place to be ... and the tightness of the volley, that last thing he would be thinking of... Good discussion points, Jeremy.
@jamesmc6825
8 жыл бұрын
Where do you get the bullet packets from?
@anonhunter5191
8 жыл бұрын
+James Mcmurrough He makes his own.
@monkeyboy4746
8 жыл бұрын
Guessing here, I would think the "fire" command was better in the din of an actual battle, it allowed each soldier to not think as much, just to wait for the command. Would it be possible to increase the rate of fire with the old method, or was it still the same whether the soldiers were being charged upon by an enemy or not.
@britishmuzzleloaders
8 жыл бұрын
+monkeyboy4746 Interesting points. Don't forget, that there is a command either way.... As for a higher rate of fire, you can only get so fast when you are dealing with 20-80 men loading and getting ready for the next volley.... Naturally, things will take longer, the more men are in the mix.... Therefore, I think that it's the number of men that governs the rate of fire, not the commands... Great discussion points.
@mediocrefunkybeat
8 жыл бұрын
Uninformed, speculative comment here. Perhaps the order to 'fire' was added to ensure consistency in the drill. If you leave a self-judged pause between presenting and firing, the commanding officer would have to wait until all of the troops had fired their weapons before ordering a reload. Although it may seem like a small difference, it could add up, perhaps to a shot or two a minute. Secondly 'fire' is a decisive cadence that ends the drill cycle - whereas 'present' is not. It adds a level of finality to the command and is unambiguous in its meaning. Again, this is purely speculative and I am in no way informed on the matter
@britishmuzzleloaders
8 жыл бұрын
+Duncan Taylor I see what you are getting at, but I think that we are talking about a second or two, not 1/4 minute or anything.. Volley fire was slower by it's nature... The "organic" loading cycle ensures that... A hard extraction here or a fumbled round there adds up to ensure that volleys at a break neck pace are a not a reality... One man can do anything fast but put 100 together doing the same drill and there will be differences... Your second point is quite correct, however if it were that simple why did they use the "Present" command for 40 years and four or five different generations of weapons? I wish I could find a contemporary paper or document talking about it...
@thomasbaagaard
8 жыл бұрын
+britishmuzzleloaders How much effect do it have on your shooting if your got a guy next to you, who fire just before you do? And you got no earplugs. (I know from my time in the army that being too close to the 50cal HMG did effect my accuracy) If the target is a formation in close order and at close range it would properly not matter much. But how about if your are firing at a smaller target. Another reason might have nothing to do with effectiveness of the individual volley. How much direct control should the officers/NCOs have over the soldiers? This question is not new and Iam sure the British officers during this period also debated advantages and disadvantages of allowing independence and initiative. Allowing any only work if the men are well trained and the officers trust that training. Where the british army expanding when this was changed or any other reform that tightened control over the privat soldiers? About the 100men. In 1864 a danish infantry company attacked a Prussian company near a danish town called Lundby. The danish sources are clear that the Prussians fired 3 volleys and the 3rd stopped the danish attack. The Prussian sources makes it clear that the company commander simple held fire and then allowed the men to fire in their own time. That everyone fired just after that is naturally, but the fact that the two next shots are also experienced as volleys by the danes tell us that the prussians was trained to load, aim and fire at a specific beat... and they had done so to an extent that they did so in combat, even when you didn't have to. Should also be added that this was the first time the prussians saw action. My point is - if the men are drilled to a high standard, they will do everything at the same speed... two men or 100. bonus info: the danish procedure (in the 1863 drill) for volleyfire included a "fire" order, but the drillbook makes it clear that hitting the target is more important than everyone firing at the same time. So it takes sort of middleground.
@ward1476
7 жыл бұрын
I do believe part of it is also long term coordination. The first volley may be more accurate, but discrepancies in timing would start to show after many volleys. I think the centralized moment of firing makes certain everyone fires at once every time, and i think increases overall fire rate. But more importantly, by using the word fire the officer can also judge the exact moment when the volley is most effective, handy against charging enemies in Africa, where he would previously have ordered early, as to allow aiming. This somewhat unspecified pause, combined with the stress of being charged at, may cause staggered fire, with some men firing early. While I know film is not wholly accurate, films about the anglo-zulu war show these close-range volley's and stressful situations, where discipline and timing is vital. While the earlier drill would probably be more effective in a longer range situation, i think they took lessons from the recent colonial wars.
@britishmuzzleloaders
7 жыл бұрын
I think the "simultaneous discharge" (and by that I mean "parade square" simultaneous) is a much overrated aspect... While the first volley is always going to have the biggest impact, either through casualties or the shock upon the enemy, whether or not it happens in one instant, or over the course of a second or two doesn't have any effect... here is a quote regarding the a battle in Abyssinia 1868 regarding the use of the Snider... There are some minor discrepancies like the hammers being cocked after shouldering the rifle... but... not etc description of the volley.. " Colonel Cameron also watched intently, gauging the range and speed of movement of the enemy. He was an experienced soldier who knew his business and he wanted the first blast of musketry to be a devastating one, so that although the Snider was effective at five hundred yards he waited resolutely. When the approaching line was some two hundred and fifty yards away he judged the time ripe. He took a firmer grip on his reins, cast a final look left and right along the line of intent, bearded faces and in a clear, unhurried voice gave the order to fire. Three hundred blue barrels came up together and three hundred hammers clicked back to full cock. The first burst of fire ran down the line with a noise like a great tearing of canvas and a wide gap appeared abruptly in the centre of the Abyssinian line as the storm of fire hit it" Note how effective the fire is said to have been, yet how the fire was delivered... in a great rolling volley,.... the "tearing canvas"... hardly simultaneous... interesting.
@CaptainBogroll
8 жыл бұрын
I suppose when you think of Rorke's drift they had (I cannot remember the exact figure) something like 15,000 rounds of ammunition or more initially and by the end of it there was only (again not exact) around 900 - yet it's said that definitely no more than 1,000 zulus were killed. This could be an unfair example however due to the desperation of the situation
@britishmuzzleloaders
8 жыл бұрын
+Captain Bogroll I think that your numbers are somewhat decent.. There was lots at the beginning and not much at the end... I don't see a connection with that fact and the drills though... Perhaps I have missed your point?
@diktatoralexander88
8 жыл бұрын
At least they got out of it. Rorkes Drift and Isandlwana must have been the worst day ever for those men. BritishMuzzleloaders, would you ever imagine yourself in that kind of situation? I think you should try and simulate it with 20,000 wooden targets versus 1,200 Soldiers.
@CaptainBogroll
8 жыл бұрын
britishmuzzleloaders My point was questioning the efficiency or rather the accuracy of fire being in 1879 - of course it wasn't a completely conventional battle but I'm sure the orders were still given in the 'usual' fashion at the time
@britishmuzzleloaders
8 жыл бұрын
+Diktator Alexander You set them up and I'll shoot them down....
@britishmuzzleloaders
8 жыл бұрын
+Captain Bogroll Got it. Thanks. So then, would you think that volley fire say from the 1880s in other parts of Africa or the Frontier was less or more effective? And was this due to drills? Of course, I have my own opinion on that but I'd be interested in yours.
@ghostdog688
7 жыл бұрын
Just a short observation on your methodology more the psychology of it. There’s a potential bias here if you expected one method to work. If at all possible, you could place two targets side by side, and somehow randomise 10 shots using each method (present only on the left, fire by commands at the right). The end result should you mean you have no time to psychologically “expect” a worse performance in one method or the other - simply present after 3 beats, and order to fire after 4/5 to allow you to differentiate them. Place the targets close together and aim between them until you identify the correct command. I would expect a slightly wider FOM in either case as there would be a last minute aim adjustment, but at least this error would be present in both exercises, and may also provide a more accurate simulation of attacking a moving enemy/battlefield stress. Please note, the intent here is to remove as best possible any confirmation bias from your own expectations. I do not mean suggest you had any but it would allow you to eliminate your own presuppositions as clinically as possible to the test. Fantastic work as always!
@britishmuzzleloaders
7 жыл бұрын
Fantastic suggestion.... I've often thought of revisiting this subject to add to the body of results.
@ghostdog688
7 жыл бұрын
britishmuzzleloaders on second thoughts, best to expect present with 4/5 beats - otherwise you may end up firing 20rds at present and jump the fire command!
@itsapittie
4 жыл бұрын
Like everyone else, I'm speculating, but it's based upon decades of military experience. We know from studies and practical experience that when the first man fires everyone else will too. However, it moves like a ripple outward from the point of origin so that the last man to fire may lag as much as a couple of seconds behind the first. Two seconds is long time in combat, certainly long enough to dive for cover. Hypothetically, by having everyone fire at once, you could increase the percentage of casualties you impose upon the enemy by depriving them of that reaction time. Even a small increase in effectiveness can matter, especially when you're outnumbered as the British often (usually?) were in their 19th century colonial wars. I don't claim that's the reason for changing the drill, but it would have a degree of military logic. Based upon the same reasoning, it's possible that one nervous or overeager soldier might jerk his trigger before the slow three count prompting all his mates to also fire before they had achieved steady aim. Again, military logic might suggest that training everyone not to fire until given the order would improve accuracy. Even though in your exercise the figure of merit decreased when you waited for the order, I'm pretty confident in betting it would be even worse if you were startled into firing before you had taken adequate time for good aim.
@britishmuzzleloaders
4 жыл бұрын
Thanks for your observations, Kelton. I am going to revisit this in the coming year.... most perplexing.
@liamclarke1196
8 жыл бұрын
nice I'm curious about the civilian guns of this time period manly the shotgun and pistol can u do a vid on them and have u heard of a shotgun called a tabatiere as iv burt one and wondered if thay are Victorian era shotguns or later modified the the 1900 I carnt find much on the internet cheeses
@britishmuzzleloaders
8 жыл бұрын
+liam clarke I'm afraid that I don't own or shoot sporting guns... One; they don't interest me very much and two; Victorian sporting guns are generally very expensive (too expensive for me.. :-)... ) I find you post somewhat difficult to understand in the way that you have written it. Sorry about that.
@liamclarke1196
8 жыл бұрын
+britishmuzzleloaders ya thay can be pricey and I'm a bad speller SOS mate
@britishmuzzleloaders
8 жыл бұрын
+liam clarke It's all good, my friend!
@Badwolf75
8 жыл бұрын
Could you share some information on the cap worn in this video?
@britishmuzzleloaders
8 жыл бұрын
+Badwolf75 Yes, sir. It is called a Kilmarnock bonnet (not because of its use in Highland units but because it was made in Kilmarnock which was a huge knitting town) and (in various shapes and sizes) was the undress headdress for the Army from the 1830s to the 1860s when it was replaced by the Glengarry.. Line infantry wore a plain blue one, Rifles a green one and Highlanders (generally) one with dicing (as worn here). Small brass numerals were worn denoting the Regiment (here the 78th Highlanders)... They got smaller in profile as time went on. They are knitted and felted (soaked and shrunk) so the material is very compact... Imagine if you threw your wet toque in the dryer... So they are knitted very large and they shrink down... This one was made by "Sally Pointer" in Wales. She is one of the few around who does them... Cheers.
@nikitamckeever5403
2 жыл бұрын
Interesting outcome but your right on the present drill you get your own time to fine aim whereas in the fire drill you fire wether your on or not . I’ve just acquired a Greener Martini Henry 12g Police shotgun . I’ve loaded some solid brass 12g shells with black powder 60 grains with overshot card and waxed wad with no4 lead shot . Going shooting on Saturday to try it out . I need a pith helmet , red tunic , white webbing , black trousers , a Welsh male voice choir and maybe some Zulus 🤣
@britishmuzzleloaders
2 жыл бұрын
Nice!
@notarokescientist3003
3 жыл бұрын
thank you
@laxityazathoth1423
6 жыл бұрын
Late to the debate but perhaps it’s an amalgam of experiences . The pre 1881 drills would have been shown to have failed at isandlwhana and the first boer war therefore the troops needed better fire control ? Also perhaps it was a means of controlling ammo expended ( one of the putative reason for the isandlwhana debacle ) perhaps it was the type of opponent faced massed charges and the regular issue of the fire command was a steadying command ie forget the cloud of fuzzywuzzy pouring over the hill listen for the word of command ( in the way that modern footdrill was historical battle drill)
@britishmuzzleloaders
6 жыл бұрын
It still mystifies me to their day but,... The things that you talk about are really myths... the (musketry) "drills" were certainly not any part of the defeat at Islandlwana. The method of attack was not what you see in the movies... there are many good books on the subject and I might recommend "How Can Man Die Better" by Mike Snook...
@MK-bx7ou
8 жыл бұрын
Are you wearing a mkII jacket? Also great video. I learn something every time I'm on your channel.
@britishmuzzleloaders
8 жыл бұрын
+Matt Khamsihong Not quite sure of what a "MK II Jacket" is.... but I am wearing a Canadian Bush Jacket as used in the 50's and 60s... It was worn in the summer instead of battledress. Glad you are enjoying things on the Channel.
@MK-bx7ou
8 жыл бұрын
Oh ok yeah that's what I meant. For some reason mkII came to mind when I saw it.
@joehill4094
8 жыл бұрын
what march is in the background?
@britishmuzzleloaders
8 жыл бұрын
Sorry don't have it at hand... I think that it is from a Trooping.
@forresta65
8 жыл бұрын
Interesting video. Either way, to stand there and wait for command while a group of Zulus was running at you must have took nerves of steel.
@britishmuzzleloaders
8 жыл бұрын
+forresta65 Or Pathans, or Afghans, or Sudanese..... :-) Thanks.
@Joselbasurto
8 жыл бұрын
Very interesting indeed.
@britishmuzzleloaders
8 жыл бұрын
+Joselbasurto Glad you found it so. Thanks.
@SmokinLoon5150
6 жыл бұрын
Bravo! I'd like to see you recreate the "fire/advance" drill as seen during the Battle of Rorke's Drift in the movie "Zulu". Shoot, three steps forward, kneel, reload, stand, and fire. All on command. You're feedback on that commotion, especially done with partners, would be wonderful. :)
@britishmuzzleloaders
6 жыл бұрын
HI there... "Zulu" is a movie and not representative of the actual battle or the tactics used therein. That -AHEM- "drill" is a director's fallacy.
@vonsprague7913
5 жыл бұрын
Speculating, I'd guess that the effectiveness of the volley is intensified if delivered in one crushing blow and the deliverance of the volleys speeded up by increasing the speed of the command "fire" shooting at a mass of charging tribesmen is far easier than picking out an individual target. Plus it eliminates hesitation or tardiness in pulling the trigger in less experienced soldiers.
@britishmuzzleloaders
5 жыл бұрын
I disagree... "crushing" has nothing to do with the parade square timing of the firing... whether the volley is exactly simultaneous or delivered over a second or two has no different effect on the target... I believe that "we" have been trained to believe that this myth of the perfect volley would make it more effective. If you watch larger re-enactments (in the 1000s of participants) like Waterloo 200 or the last big Gettysburg show, you can see what I mean... verbal communication is extremely difficult with all the noise and volleys tend to stretch down the line to a degree... Like the "ripping" canvas of the Magdala anecdote at the end of the Snider Platoon Exercise video. Somewhere we will, however, find the answer...
@vonsprague7913
5 жыл бұрын
@@britishmuzzleloaders never having taken part in volley firing I obviously fell victim to the myth of 'the perfect volley' having been screamed at by a CSM to "get some f##king rounds down" in a modern fire fight I do understand that hesitation when faced with a fast moving enemy makes the weight of fire crucial to dominating your front. Picking your targets whilst more effective (obviously) will slow your rate of fire and allow the enemy to close on your position. This is prevelant in inexperienced soldiers and surely the reason behind the 'mad minute'? I love your work and the fact that I learn something new about the period that fascinates me namely 1850-1918. Thank you for taking the time to reply.
@ranjitdeshmukh9331
7 жыл бұрын
what is the cost of a Lee Enfield chambered in .303 British?
@britishmuzzleloaders
7 жыл бұрын
Google is your friend.... :-)
@Verdunveteran
8 жыл бұрын
Very interesting! Keep up the good work! :D
@britishmuzzleloaders
8 жыл бұрын
+Verdunveteran Cheers. Will do!
@ncktbs
8 жыл бұрын
wow i go to see this before it even became 720 p
@jamesmc6825
8 жыл бұрын
I don't get it, in 1879 during the Zulu war did they use the word fire or not?
@britishmuzzleloaders
8 жыл бұрын
+James Mcmurrough By the manuals of the day, no they didn't. The command to fire was "PRESENT".
@rifleman17hmrshooter
8 жыл бұрын
the only problem with a martini is the ammo, or acquiring it I should say. short of reloading those monsters, they are very expensive. I think you did a video a while back detailing how the paper patching scours the bore, so reloading looks to be the way to go.
@britishmuzzleloaders
8 жыл бұрын
+rifleman Reloading is the only way to go for almost every reason out there..! :-),... Cost, quality control, accuracy, satisfaction, accomplishment,... you name it. Don't be intimidated, the learning curve isn't too bad. Paper patched rounds need a good bore. If yours is pitted, things tend not to go your way... Cheers.
@versal339
8 жыл бұрын
No sir, Don't get me wrong, I agree completely. Lead on target is the acme of what any Infantry should be trying to accomplish. Maybe I have a false impression of Sir Garnet Wolseley's Officer Corp. The term " All's Sir Garnet" was coined about that time. Just thinking. All of your presentations are right on. You may very well be the most expert person on these subjects in the world.
@britishmuzzleloaders
8 жыл бұрын
+Hugh Batesel Oh come now... Not even close!... As for the Officers. The basic fire unit, especially in the later Victorian era with it's extended order tactics, was the section (15-25 men). Under the command of a sergeant. Of course, fire could be delivered by company, directed by its Captain, and by sub-division (half company), directed by the Lt commanding it, as well. Just to show that it wasn't always officers who directed fire.. :-)...
@prechabahnglai103
8 жыл бұрын
I think it was that some lads just keep aiming and aiming, in battle men can froze up too due to stress, so a word of command therefore was added.
@britishmuzzleloaders
8 жыл бұрын
+Prarp Vadanathorn I would agree if the "Present" drill was a new and untried introduction... but it wasn't. It was in service for 40+ years..... if what you refer to had been a consideration, then you'd think that experience in the Sikh Wars, Crimean War, Indian Mutiny, and many other wars in New Zealand, Africa and India would have exposed that fault and the change would have happened much earlier.. I don't disagree with your observations from the point of view of "stress of men in battle", just the relationship between that and the drills... :-)
@duncanandrews1940
8 жыл бұрын
I think that the very nature of the phrase 'Volley Fire' is in itself a partial answer.Volley fire harkens back to the smoothbore muskets of the late 18th and early 19th century and their inaccuracy. Perhaps it was still perceived that sending a wall of lead toward your enemy was an efficient way to deal with them? Troops were now armed with the same weapon unlike the troops of the early 1800's (Baker Rifle and Smoothbore Musket) and because of that, they had the ability to b time their shots more easily as well as be more accurate. A volley from a section of troops with Martini Henry Rifles would be far more devastating that one from a similar section firing say the Brown Bess. Perhaps the introduction of the control 'Fire' was designed to save ammunition - the first spending cuts applied to Britain's modern armed forces..............!!
@britishmuzzleloaders
8 жыл бұрын
+Duncan Andrews Good discussion points, Duncan. I think that in the era of single shot breech loaders, volley fire was still effective in certain circumstances.. It was used to great effect in the initial stages of Islandlwana and other battles of that war such as Ulundi (of course that battle was fought in square). I agree that the Martini would have been greatly more effective than the BB. Now I would not agree with the fire control thesis, though... A volley is a volley..... whether fired on "Present" or "Fire"... by it's very nature, volley fire is highly controlled.... :-)
@duncanandrews1940
8 жыл бұрын
+britishmuzzleloaders Yes, I take your point on my' Fire Control' comment. I think that the ultimate answer is that we are able to continue to shoot the weapons that were in service 130 or more years ago with the added advantage of modern technology and historical records to compare the data to. A job that you do exceptionally well may I add.
@britishmuzzleloaders
8 жыл бұрын
Duncan Andrews Thank you for that. The discussion is such a good part of it though!...
@kaidog9528
8 жыл бұрын
perhaps i could give you commands..without the predetermined anticipation of hearing your repeated recording the test might yield more different results
@britishmuzzleloaders
8 жыл бұрын
+Kai Dog You mean you'd yell at me? Wouldn't that throw my aim off?
@wjsnow2195
7 жыл бұрын
Off of the top of my head I would assume that experience had shown that the loss of accuracy was made up for with the volume of fire gained by having your men fire slightly faster. At least I assume they were a little faster, otherwise the loss of accurate aimed fire seems to have no rhyme or reason behind it.
@britishmuzzleloaders
7 жыл бұрын
The thing is, this is all centred around volley fire... the minute difference in time is insignificant when you are directing dozens of men at a time... volleys are by nature a slower beast.
@wjsnow2195
7 жыл бұрын
britishmuzzleloaders that’s true, I’m hampered in my assumptions due to thinking about fighting in the modern world where volume of fire and accuracy are easier to reconcile. I sometimes wonder if they understood the principles of laying down fire like we do, I have to assume yes as the British were famous for drilling their men to fire quickly, however when something like this is brought up it makes me wonder. As always I defer to your knowledge in this, your channel is excellent and the information presented wonderfully. As a former military man and amateur historian your channel is right up my ally. Thank you for taking the time to make these videos and answer the comments.
@wierdalien1
6 жыл бұрын
I wonder if the inclusion of the word of command fire post 1881 was just a case of the army changing things for the sake of changing them post isandlwana.
@britishmuzzleloaders
6 жыл бұрын
A bit of a red herring there as the war was brought to a successful conclusion after the setback of that Battle was overcome. The Zulu Army (and nation) was shattered at Ulundi (the final battle of the War) with the Army in a square formation firing volleys on the command "Present"...
@wierdalien1
6 жыл бұрын
britishmuzzleloaders sure I know we conclusively won the Zulu war, with everything after rorkes drift, where also volleys were fired to the command present, going well but you know what politicians etc are like for getting involved after 1200 men were destroyed by 'savages'. To be seen to have done something they changed something that functionally makes little difference. But yeah you are most likely right.
@BlueNeonBeasty
8 жыл бұрын
One consideration that occurred to me that might be a factor is to do with the reluctance to kill. I haven't researched myself, but have heard that up to 70% of modern soldiers fail to fire their weapons in their first fire fight. Also lots of accounts of newer soldiers firing deliberately off target (Americans in Vietnam being one example). So I was thinking perhaps having the command fire provides more psychological disassociation with actually shooting another person? Kind of like you are just aiming & someone else is choosing to shoot? Just thought it might be a factor...
@BlueNeonBeasty
8 жыл бұрын
Love your videos by the way. :) Thank you for sharing your work!
@thomasbaagaard
8 жыл бұрын
+BlueNeonBeasty During combat you don't raise to the occasion, but fall to the level of your training. And if you are properly trained, you do your job. A Danish study show that most soldiers react this way the first time they get in a firefight. They shoot back just as they have learned... Many don't even remember doing so or thinking about it... they just did. (it should be added that the danish study only cover some 500 replies, because of the small size of the army and is mostly replies about combat in the Helman province in afghanistan) Problem is if your soldiers are not well trained. (something that was the case with at least some US soldiers in Vietnam... and all soldiers during the US civil war)
@britishmuzzleloaders
8 жыл бұрын
+BlueNeonBeasty Very interesting point. When taking it a face value it sort of does make sense. If I may make the analogy of what you are talking about.... A paratrooper in training, might stand at the door and be told "GO" which is the command to jump... All good... On this command he immediately executes the drill.... This is like a volley fired on the word "FIRE".... Now later, when that same man is jumping operationally and the plane empties much more rapidly, without individual "tap outs", the JM yells "GO" at the first man in the door and he jumps. Our man is at the back and doesn't get an individual word of command but rather jumps when it is his turn to do so, after the word of command. He doesn't have that personal and very direct command, but still jumps effectively anyway. This might be like a volley fired on the word "PRESENT"... Great discussion point...
@britishmuzzleloaders
8 жыл бұрын
+Thomas Aagaard This is a very good point... If you are trained to fire on the word PRESENT through countless practice of the Platoon Exercise or the Rifle Exercise (depending on the time frame), then you will fire on the word Present. This is what you are saying, no?
@thomasbaagaard
8 жыл бұрын
+britishmuzzleloaders With poorly training soldiers, having a officer yelling "fire" might be a good idea to make sure that they fire at the same time. Just like having a specific "LOAD" order might be a good idea. With very well trained soldiers they will fire when they should, even without an a specific order for it. And with very well trained soldiers you can likely get them to do multiply volleys in combat with out even giving the orders for more than starting the beat. (see my example of prussian soldiers in 1864) If you drill something many, many, many times the muscle memory kicks in and you can do it without even thinking about it.
@99IronDuke
7 жыл бұрын
I doubt the firing of the Camel Corps in the desert was as effective as 1st battalion 24th at Isandlwana. The 1/24th, unlike the 2/24th, were an experienced veteran infantry battalion that had seen action in the Cape Frontier War prior to Zululand. Much of the Camel Corps were actually cavalry soldiers, who, in those days, did not devote all that much attention to musketry. I've also seen it suggested that the reason the Square almost broke at Abu Klea was that the Camel Corps cavalry soldiers were not well drilled in holding formation on foot.
@britishmuzzleloaders
7 жыл бұрын
Read Mike Snook's book, "Beyond the Reach of Empire"?
@charlesshipman446
8 жыл бұрын
I was taught that volley fire was largely redundant after the mass introduction of rifles, an example being that if the americans had had sharpes rifles and the british had martinis then standing in lines at 200 yards would simply have resulted in both sides exterminating each other. volley fire was given a brief return during the zulu campaign but proved ineffective because the 2" thick hide shields of the zulus were quite effective at stopping the cheap ammunition the government had decided would be sufficient up to 150 yards, given the short amount of time it takes to cover 150 yards it isnt hard to figure why the battle was lost....
@britishmuzzleloaders
8 жыл бұрын
+charles shipman I regret that your teachings have been greatly in error. Volley fire was only finally rendered ineffective when the enemy was fleeting, well camouflaged with smokeless ammunition and could stand off at range... Namely the Pathans of the 1897 NW Frontier Rebellion and the Boers of 1899+. I don't know where you came by your info but volleys were used to great effect against massed targets. The latest example being Omdurman where section volleys were opened at almost 2000yds... No Dervish got within 800yds.. The supposed impenetrable shields of the Zulus is a complete myth... And the "government" requirement for ammo that only was good to 150yds is also a complete fallacy. I might suggest that you read "How Can Man Die Better" by Mike Snook. By far the best account of Islandlwana I have read. I think that it might add another layer to your research, if you are so inclined. The actual reason the battle was lost had nothing to do with the range or power of the Martini round... it had plenty (and still does).... :-) Cheers.
@weird_fishes
7 жыл бұрын
Is that a Glengarry on yer 'ead?
@britishmuzzleloaders
7 жыл бұрын
No, it's a Kilmarnock from the 1850/60s
@JoanieKennedy
5 жыл бұрын
I tried this with my springfield trapdoor with very similar results..without the fire command seems more natrual
@britishmuzzleloaders
5 жыл бұрын
That's what I found too... glad you tried it out!
@JoanieKennedy
5 жыл бұрын
@@britishmuzzleloaders I have a target rifle you would either find a thing of beauty or an American blasphemous Martini. It's a left handed Rifle built on a Martini 1887 long action. But has been rechambered for the 45-70 Govt...and a 12 lb 45-70 Govt target barrel. It's not sonething to lug around but a bench rest rifle. That being said I have fallen in love with the Martini actions, it's got me to really wanting a regular 577/450 . If I had a left handed bolt action I might feel different but out of all the guns I own and have shot the Martini action is my favorite action it's genieous.
@eshaanbidarakoppa5738
4 жыл бұрын
Was this used in the first boer war
@britishmuzzleloaders
4 жыл бұрын
Yes.
@Sean_Coyne
8 жыл бұрын
My first thought was to compare the experience of my grandfather in the second Boer War. Volley fire (if indeed it was used in his engagements) versus firing at will by the Boers. If he was ordered to fire on command he'd likely miss what was a hard to see target. The Boers weren't so commanded, firing from cover, they took whatever time they needed and mostly didn't miss. He survived, though wounded, but many of his mates died from long range accurate marksmanship. My grandfather is wearing a slouch hat and is indicated by his initials (he was English btw, I'm Australian). i81.photobucket.com/albums/j210/Coyne53/Fire.jpg i81.photobucket.com/albums/j210/Coyne53/c61db68b.jpg
@britishmuzzleloaders
8 жыл бұрын
+Sean Coyne What great pictures. Thank you Sean.. Was he Lincoln? Your explanation certainly matches research that I have done. From what I understand, volley fire was practiced extensively in the 1890s and was the "go-to" method of delivering fire. On the NW Frontier in 1897 it was found that the Pathan, who were armed with modern rifles and exercised concealment and certainly did use massed tactics, was left, for the most part, unaffected by such fire. The learning curve had begun but hadn't yet permiated down into the entire Army by the time the Boer War. Indepenedent fire, extreme extension, the learning how to use artillery in very close co-ordination with the infantry and the use of the open country to flank were certainly the lessons learned in SA. There are a couple of theses online dealing with this very topic if you are interested.
@Sean_Coyne
8 жыл бұрын
+britishmuzzleloaders Thanks, glad you found the photos interesting, I sure do. :-) You are correct by the way, Lincolnshire Regiment, 2nd battalion. You can just make out a version of their Egypt badge on his dress collar. I was puzzled by the slouch hats though, I didn't know they were issued bush hats for South Africa, just solar topis. I later found out they were issued slouch hats in the later stages of the war. So not just an Aussie thing, lol. As for the switch from volley to independent fire etc, would appreciate a link to the theses you mention. Cheers and keep up the interesting videos (and watch out for Zulus. ;-)
@britishmuzzleloaders
8 жыл бұрын
+Sean Coyne Here are some... wlv.openrepository.com/wlv/handle/2436/99811 kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/files/2934126/543934.pdf www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA437070
@Sean_Coyne
8 жыл бұрын
+britishmuzzleloaders Thanks for those, much appreciated. Some irony in the first one coming from the University of Wolverhampton, as that was my grandfather's home town, as well as my father's (the uni did not however exist in their day).
@JUSSTTIINFU3K
8 жыл бұрын
Nice
@britishmuzzleloaders
8 жыл бұрын
+JUSSTTIINFU3K Thanks.
@Strike_Raid
6 жыл бұрын
If the movie is even a little accurate, the range they were shooting over at Isandlwana (sp?) was so short, neither method wouldn't have made spot of difference. My thought is that 'fire' was added as imperative to make sure the men were always under some level of control and didn't 'drift off'. Things could degenerate over time if that one aligning step was omitted.
@britishmuzzleloaders
6 жыл бұрын
I might suggest Mike Snook's "How Can Man Die Better"... fantastic insight..... and definitely not a movie... As for the commands,... I might move that the word "Present" entails as much control as the command "Fire".
@Strike_Raid
6 жыл бұрын
If you’ve ever directed calisthenics you’d know how fast things do degenerate. Boys have very short attention spans and get distracted easily. If you do push-ups and only call UP, after about 5 reps you’re wasting you time saying anything, it’s already gone. If you call UP, pause and then call DOWN, you may get to 10 before all is lost. Very quickly they pretty much don’t even hear you and just assume the commands (all at different rates). For experienced well seasoned troops, yes, Fire would be detrimental. But we’re talking the Army here, a sizable bunch of those guys are not well trained and don’t give a crap. You’re lucky if you can even get them to form a straight line. Simply calling Present is too open ended and could ultimately result in the reduction of the number of bullets going down range. Besides, if the kid can’t get on the target in 3 beats, he’s probably such a lousy shot it would make little difference if he had more time or not.
@britishmuzzleloaders
6 жыл бұрын
Interesting arguments... the Army at the time was made up of long service professionals.. countless hours of drill and practice with punishment if you didn't perform... not young boys. I think your speculations might be somewhat ill-influenced.
@britishmuzzleloaders
6 жыл бұрын
This is a subject that I have struggle with for a long time... I can't seem to find an answer, official (although there must be one) or otherwise... Like you, many have offered their opinion as to why the change was made and I greatly appreciate the dialogue. Discussing possible answers will eventually get us there, I believe. Thanks!
@leighrate
8 жыл бұрын
By current battlefield standards one kill per fifteen rounds fired is extremely good. Also one thousand Zulu dead doesn't factor in wounded. Slightly wounded, seriously wounded or died of wounds later. Usual ratio is four wounded for every one killed. So the actual Zulu casualty count was probably closer to five thousand. Thirty three percent of their force. No wonder they withdrew.
@britishmuzzleloaders
8 жыл бұрын
+leighrate I agree. Now was volley fire more effective in the 1880s Sudan campaigns? It is such a subjective topic...
@bigsarge2085
2 жыл бұрын
👍👍
@britishmuzzleloaders
2 жыл бұрын
Cheers!
@cpurssey982
3 жыл бұрын
Every man after the Battle of Rorke's Drift had a dislocated shoulder 😱.
@britishmuzzleloaders
3 жыл бұрын
No they didn't.
@Ralph-yn3gr
6 жыл бұрын
It's completely uninformed speculation, but I can think of three possibilities. The first is intimidation. A large group of men firing at exactly the same time on command, with all the noise, flash, and smoke that accompanies that, would probably be more impressive, and more disciplined, than the same group firing a large number of individual rounds at roughly the same time, whether the observers were irregulars or civilians on the frontiers of the Empire or a group of politicians at home on the parade field. The second is good old fashioned conservatism/traditionalism. Based on the video, firing on command doesn't impact accuracy *that* much and it's the way they used to do things and gives officers greater control over the men. If they want soldiers to carefully aim they'd order independent fire, so why sacrifice the control over volley fire for not much gain? The third, and most perhaps most speculative, is as a form of battlefield communication. The "fire" volleys might be more uniform than the "present" volleys, and thus would draw a sharper line between the sound of distinct volley fire and the more sporadic independent fire. That way if a section of the line not visible to another section is forced to switch to independent fire, the second section would be able to more easily hear it and know that the first section was in trouble. Again, they're all pure speculation with no facts to back it up, but they seem reasonable enough to me (although the last one is really speculative).
@britishmuzzleloaders
6 жыл бұрын
This is perhaps the largest hole in my studies.... I need to do another video on it... I would add that in my humble opinion, the issue of "perfect" volleys in the context of the battlefield is a red herring. BUT, the discussion about this topic is great...!
@michelguevara151
5 жыл бұрын
Its not the drilling at fault at Islwandana, but incompetent officers with an overinflated perception of superiority, dividing forces and being horrendously outnumbered by Impis that were ignored as 'only a few marrauders', they didn't expect tens of thousands of Impis, or an allegedly 'jobsworth' quartermaster who refused to hand out ammunition unless you 'waited your turn as a gentleman' while in the thick of it, because paperwork was more important than actually using the ammunition to defend yourself. Afterall, it's just a few jiggaboos with knives isn't it? Underestimating your foe removes your fire superiority, the americans found that out the hard way in Korea and Vietnam.
@britishmuzzleloaders
5 жыл бұрын
The firepower was just fine,... as was the ammo... Numbers, obviously a tipping point.. that lead to outflanking and a collapse of the position... really quite simple really.
@valaudae1809
5 жыл бұрын
britishmuzzleloaders In Lt. Col Mike Snook’s book “How Can Man Die Better”, the author states firing was opened at 600yds. “This was real killing range for the Martini-Henry and these first volleys were extremely punishing.” With a little military service of my own to look back on, as memory serves we fired standing, out to 50yds. Further out we kneeled. Anything over 100yds was from the prone supported position out to a maximum of 300yds. 600yds is a LONG way away if kneeling or, God forbid, standing. I know the principle of beaten zones. This makes sense with a Maxim gun but a dispersed skirmish line? With your practical experience of the M-H, what do you think?
@blancsteve4819
6 жыл бұрын
READY......PRESENT ... WAIT FOR IT WAIT FOR IT. Fhhhhh. Maybe the most decorated marksmen get to shoot first and the rest of the regiment of third class shots get to hide his position behind a cloud of smoke !
@britishmuzzleloaders
6 жыл бұрын
If it was pre 1880, you would have fired in "Present".... :-)
@joedaddy4714
7 жыл бұрын
why didn't you Brits use repeaters like we Americans
@britishmuzzleloaders
7 жыл бұрын
Careful... Your service arm was the Trapdoor until the adoption of the Krag.... Little Big Horn come to mind?
@joedaddy4714
7 жыл бұрын
britishmuzzleloaders that's true but we also had Spencer carbines as well
@britishmuzzleloaders
7 жыл бұрын
Wait a minute,.... "You Brits.."....??
@joedaddy4714
7 жыл бұрын
britishmuzzleloaders what? Just an honest question man I meant no offense
@britishmuzzleloaders
7 жыл бұрын
No offence taken at all!... made me chuckle. I was just surprised, as I am not British. I am Canadian and by the way you said "you Brits" I gathered that you may have thought I was too,.... despite my accent... :-)....
Пікірлер: 241