Pike and Shot suggestions

[KateMicucci]

What does stick in my mind from the Conquest of New Spain is that the Spanish seem to have wasted little time exchanging their heavy metal breastplates for quilted linen armor, presumably because of the heat.

From my reading, Diaz says that the conquistadors brought the cotton corslets with them from the beginning. Quilted cotton armor was already used in Europe so that's not hard to believe. I don't think that he mention metal breastplates, only chainmail a few times. I find Diaz's descriptions of the conquistadors already having cotton armor when they landed difficult to square with the Mexican's illustrations of the conquistadors wearing breastplates, though. Maybe only the officers had them, or the pictures were drawn later when metal corslets were more common.

[shawkhan2]

Here is one historical quote I like a lot.

"A soldier's musket, if not exceedingly ill-bored (as many of them are), will strike the figure of a man at eighty yards; it may even at 100; but a soldier must be very unfortunate indeed who shall be wounded by a common musket at 150 yards, provided his antagonist aims at him; and as to firing at a man at 200 yards with a common musket, you may just as well fire at the moon and have the same hopes of hitting your object. I do maintain and will prove, whenever called on, that no man was ever killed at 200 yards by a common soldier's musket, by the person who aimed at him."

Col. George Hanger, To all Sportsmen and Particularly to Farmers, and Gamekeepers (London, 1814)

[Aryaman]

A battalion firing a salvo with muskets was very much like artillery targeting an area, rather than individual soldiers.

[lk2500]

A battalion firing a salvo with muskets was very much like artillery targeting an area, rather than individual soldiers.

This is more along the lines I was thinking so I'm glad you mentioned it. i don't think there is much argument that you're not going to hit a moving specific target at whatever distance, but a massed wall of muskets is bound to hit something at whatever distance.

[shawkhan2]

Amusing, but probably not very practical.
At beyond 150 yards a musketball aimed properly hits the ground.
You are hoping that your musketeers actually tilt their muskets up at the proper angle to drop their balls in the general area of the target. This of course was impossible during this time. Artillery fire could be observed and corrected. There is no way to correct the fire of an entire battalion of individuals.
This does not even take into a
ccount the fact that musketballs curve in a random direction upon leaving the muzzle, up, down, left, right, or at a diagonal.
I suppose that if you fired long enough, some random shot might actually hit the target, but it is hardly a practical proposition. A fraction of 1% hits might be achievable at ranges of 300 yards, but it would not be something anyone would seriously consider.
If you pointed a musket up in the air like a mortar, you might get the ball to travel 500 yards, but I wouldn't expect you to be able to hit anything smaller than a town.
Of course people have been hit by meteorites so I guess anything is possible.

[TheGrayMouser]

Amusing, but probably not very practical.
At beyond 150 yards a musketball aimed properly hits the ground.
.

This just shows that the musket wasn't "properly aimed"

Marshall Davout 1791 regulations re enacted 1811:

"all soldiers shall excersise at 108 yards at 216 yards and finally at 324 yards"

He also understood at 50 yards men should aim at the knees and at great ranges above the target.

I will agree with you in practice, the men had too little actual practical training to make this too effective, apart from British armies. This could be why the Brits more often than not could hold fire til very close ranges and ravage an enemy battalion. Other nations, went more with max volume of fire beginning as soon as as one closed the approach. This is why the Prussians were often derided as walking shooting automatons.

[Aryaman]

Amusing, but probably not very practical.
At beyond 150 yards a musketball aimed properly hits the ground.
You are hoping that your musketeers actually tilt their muskets up at the proper angle to drop their balls in the general area of the target. This of course was impossible during this time. Artillery fire could be observed and corrected. There is no way to correct the fire of an entire battalion of individuals.
This does not even take into a
ccount the fact that musketballs curve in a random direction upon leaving the muzzle, up, down, left, right, or at a diagonal.
I suppose that if you fired long enough, some random shot might actually hit the target, but it is hardly a practical proposition. A fraction of 1% hits might be achievable at ranges of 300 yards, but it would not be something anyone would seriously consider.
If you pointed a musket up in the air like a mortar, you might get the ball to travel 500 yards, but I wouldn't expect you to be able to hit anything smaller than a town.
Of course people have been hit by meteorites so I guess anything is possible.

I was talking about direct, not indirect fire, the one used by artillery at that time. However I have read historical testimonies of the use of muskets in the role of indirect fire. For sure very low effectivenes, yet in war morale is what counts, and a rain of musket balls, even inaccurate, was morally damaging. The same applies to artillery, it was a great killer at this time, yet it was morally devastating, especially against green troops, because the type of damage inflicted (gore) and the fact that you had to endure it without firing back.

[fogman]

there is no such thing as indirect fire by musket:
indirect fire needs spotting. you cannot spot musket balls.
musket balls are not aerodynamically suited for high trajectory: kinetic energy is negligible on the way down.

there is also no such thing as battlefield indirect artillery fire before the use of explosive shells.
cannonball are solid, essentially a big round stone, designed to bounce horizontally to inflict damage.
a high arcing cannonball would just get stuck on the ground when it comes down, not what you want.
therefore artillery batteries were always deployed in front of the battleline, never behind it.

[shawkhan2]

One of my pet peeves in the game is that repeated artillery fire at the same target should gradually increase in effectiveness as fire is corrected.

I have no explanation for historical accounts of musket fire at extended ranges, but ballistic facts are facts. As one of my degrees is in history, I can tell you that even in modern times it is highly subjective and not to be believed implicitly. It is inconceivable(to use one of Fassini's favorite expressions) that more than 1% hits are achievable at ranges of over 200 yards. Even perfectly aimed muskets at over 300 yards will randomly be hitting in about a 12 yard circle.

18th and 19th century muskets would naturally be better made and more consistent in quality than those of the 16th and 17th century. Black powder was to hit its peak in quality in the 19th century, indeed, it was of better quality than the black powder available today.
Straighter barrels and tighter tolerances would also help extend ranges.

Just as King Edward specified archery practice of ranges in excess of 220 yards, one is free to practice at any range desired, regardless of its effectiveness.

In my miltary service, we fired at ranges of up to 500 yards, but in battle conditions that range is only practical for snipers.

[Aryaman]

there is no such thing as indirect fire by musket:
indirect fire needs spotting. you cannot spot musket balls.
musket balls are not aerodynamically suited for high trajectory: kinetic energy is negligible on the way down.

there is also no such thing as battlefield indirect artillery fire before the use of explosive shells.
cannonball are solid, essentially a big round stone, designed to bounce horizontally to inflict damage.
a high arcing cannonball would just get stuck on the ground when it comes down, not what you want.
therefore artillery batteries were always deployed in front of the battleline, never behind it.

Ok, you can call it "Plunging" fire if you want "Beyond 300 metres, up to about 600 metres. these
muskets could still hit their targets by elevating the muzzle. Since rounds so fired would
have a steep angle of descent. they would also have a '*plunging" aspect. and fall behind
breastworks and other shelters"from EA Lund The generation of 1683. He then proceed to explain situations in which, quoting several contemporary sources, plunging fire was used.

[fogman]

Hitting anyone behind cover with a 'plunging' musketball is sheer fantasy.

since you pointed to Lund, the doctoral thesis states:

"Beyond 300 metres up to about 600 metres, these muskets could still hit their targets by elevating the muzzle. Since rounds so fired would have a steep angle of descent they would also have a "plunging" aspect and fall behind breastworks and other shelters. Such fire could be effective and it was used. " (p 55)

He includes ZERO bibliographical support for this wild assertion. Beside, hitting someone at this extreme range is one thing, to do damage is another as kinetic energy may not be sufficient to penetrate the skin (the angle of penetration would be far from the ideal 90 degrees to the horizontal, and the higher the muzzle elevation, the greater the energy dissipation).

[Aryaman]

Hitting anyone behind cover with a 'plunging' musketball is sheer fantasy.

since you pointed to Lund, the doctoral thesis states:

"Beyond 300 metres up to about 600 metres, these muskets could still hit their targets by elevating the muzzle. Since rounds so fired would have a steep angle of descent they would also have a "plunging" aspect and fall behind breastworks and other shelters. Such fire could be effective and it was used. " (p 55)

He includes ZERO bibliographical support for this wild assertion. Beside, hitting someone at this extreme range is one thing, to do damage is another as kinetic energy may not be sufficient to penetrate the skin (the angle of penetration would be far from the ideal 90 degrees to the horizontal, and the higher the muzzle elevation, the greater the energy dissipation).

You are right in that those particular data doesn´t seem to be properly referenced, however on the proceedings of plunging fire he does mention a serie of sources, as you can check yourself.

[esde]

Observation/Question/Suggestion?

I am quite new to P&S and am enjoying its unique perspective on the battles of this period.

I am currently playing (PBEM) through the ECW battles but I should add before I go any further, that the P&S epoch is an era which I only have a marginal (my main periods being later) historical knowledge of.

We have recently completed Cheriton and (to be succinct) much of our forces ended up slogging it out in the woods. Are pike (mainly) foot units in any way disadvantaged by the (under the hood) game system when engaging horse &/or musket (mainly) foot units?

Whilst happily accepting the granularity of the battles as portrayed by this fun system, my curiosity was piqued.

Kind regards

Stephen

[rbodleyscott]

We have recently completed Cheriton and (to be succinct) much of our forces ended up slogging it out in the woods. Are pike (mainly) foot units in any way disadvantaged by the (under the hood) game system when engaging horse &/or musket (mainly) foot units?

Do you mean in a wood?

An all-pike unit would be Severely Disordered in a wood, as would cavalry (= -45% combat effectiveness, and a keil would lose any keil bonus). An all musket unit would be Disordered (= circa -23% combat effectiveness). A mixed unit with 34% pike, 66% musket would be slight more disordered (=circa -26% combat effectiveness).

You can see all these factors as they apply to each combat by turning on Detailed Combat Reports in the Advanced Options section, also by turning on Detailed Tooltips or holding down the CTRL key while considering a potential combat.

[BrentBJ]

I've recently started playing Pike and Shot and I'm surprised at the ability of Mounted and Pike units to move through woods. I know they are disadvantaged in combat while in the woods and their speed is reduced, but in the games I've played so far it has not been much of a penalty.
Is it possible to have some woods or part of them as impassable?
Possibly the smaller woods would remain as they are but the larger (more than 5 squares?) are either totally or partially impassable to pike and shot and mounted.

[rbodleyscott]

I've recently started playing Pike and Shot and I'm surprised at the ability of Mounted and Pike units to move through woods. I know they are disadvantaged in combat while in the woods and their speed is reduced, but in the games I've played so far it has not been much of a penalty.
Is it possible to have some woods or part of them as impassable?
Possibly the smaller woods would remain as they are but the larger (more than 5 squares?) are either totally or partially impassable to pike and shot and mounted.

Well that isn't what we as developers want to do, but it would be easy enough to mod Impassability as a terrain overlay for particular scenarios.

This issue has been discussed before - you will find it somewhere in the threads. I think you overestimate the difficulty of passing most woods. Deciduous woodland was an important managed resource in this period. We are not talking about jungle.

Whole Swiss pike divisions passed through woods to attack the Burgundians by surprise, and were not significantly delayed restoring order when they got to the other side (which would rather have defeated the point of the manoeuvre).

Moving through woods against opposition, however, is another story, as you will find if you try to push pikes or cavalry through a wood occupied by lighter-equipped enemy infantry.

A river or cliff will protect your flank. A wood or marsh will only do so if you can prevent the enemy moving through it by defending it with more suitable troops, or can prevent them from emerging.

[w_michael]

This issue has been discussed before - you will find it somewhere in the threads. I think you overestimate the difficulty of passing most woods. Deciduous woodland was an important managed resource in this period. We are not talking about jungle.

North Americans probably have a different concept from Europeans of what the terrain type Woods is like. In Ontario, you would expect dense, rugged wilderness. I was very surprised when I visited Britain and saw what they called a forest. To me it looked like an open manicured park.

[dpt24]

The topic of musket vs. bow is interesting and one I do not know enough to explain. One thing I do know is in Pike and Shot, shot's biggest edge on bows is the fact that shot units tend to have more impact power, and that allows them to cut through their opponents via charging which takes into account shooting right before hitting the enemy. That seems to be where the shot armed units often (though not always) get the edge against pure Pike and bow armed units.

[lk2500]

Hitting anyone behind cover with a 'plunging' musketball is sheer fantasy.

since you pointed to Lund, the doctoral thesis states:

"Beyond 300 metres up to about 600 metres, these muskets could still hit their targets by elevating the muzzle. Since rounds so fired would have a steep angle of descent they would also have a "plunging" aspect and fall behind breastworks and other shelters. Such fire could be effective and it was used. " (p 55)

He includes ZERO bibliographical support for this wild assertion. Beside, hitting someone at this extreme range is one thing, to do damage is another as kinetic energy may not be sufficient to penetrate the skin (the angle of penetration would be far from the ideal 90 degrees to the horizontal, and the higher the muzzle elevation, the greater the energy dissipation).

Has anyone seen the Korean movie "The Admiral"? I watched it last night on Vudu (with English subs of course). I highly recommend the movie to all, it was very well done. The movie is about the Korean Admiral Yi taking on a Japanese naval fleet in 1597 with 12 ships vs 300+ (200+ were support ships).

In the movie the Japanese Marines (shipboard) are shown tilting their muskets (arqbusiers?) at about 30 degrees to fire at the Korean ships and It made me think of this thread. I have no idea at what range the Japanese musket barrage had much effect but it seemed pretty far out. I am no expert on this period so I read up on the battle and tactics used. I had no idea the Koreans were so far advanced to the Japanese as far as ranged cannon fire for naval battles. The Japanese relied more on the grapple and board tactics.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3541262/

Good stuff.

[lk2500]

Here is the actual clip from the movie I was talking about, go to about 04:12:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gziCU1M8UCQ