| myArmoury.com is now completely member-supported. Please contribute to our efforts with a donation. Your donations will go towards updating our site, modernizing it, and keeping it viable long-term.
Last 10 Donors: Anonymous, Daniel Sullivan, Chad Arnow, Jonathan Dean, M. Oroszlany, Sam Arwas, Barry C. Hutchins, Dan Kary, Oskar Gessler, Dave Tonge (View All Donors) |
| Author |
Message |
|
Tom B
|
 Posted: Mon 21 Jan, 2008 6:55 pm Post subject: Musket versus shields and bucklers |
 |
|
|
We like to discuss the effects of musketry against our suits of armor, but has anyone done a good study of the effects of a musket against a steel buckler, a targe, and other sheilds of the period compared to long bow or crossboy? Im awful tired of having the dispute end in "ill hind behind my shield while you struggle to get your matchlock to function".
|
|
   |
 |
Daniel Staberg
|
| Posted: Tue 22 Jan, 2008 12:12 am Post subject: Re: Musket versus shields and bucklers |
|
|
| Tom B wrote: | | We like to discuss the effects of musketry against our suits of armor, but has anyone done a good study of the effects of a musket against a steel buckler, a targe, and other sheilds of the period compared to long bow or crossboy? Im awful tired of having the dispute end in "ill hind behind my shield while you struggle to get your matchlock to function". |
A buckler is too small to offer any meaningfull protection against any missile weapon regardless of wether it's a bow, crossbow or firearm. A musket would penetrate all but the best of the shot-proof shields of the 16th Century at effective range, most shot proof shields were proofed to withstand arquebus shot since the arquebus was the primary firearm until the late 16th Century.
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas Watt
|
| Posted: Tue 22 Jan, 2008 1:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
In a word "puncture wound".
One of the things that makes gunshot wounds so bad is when the round penetrates other materials before penetrating the person. The result is foreign matter contaminating the wound. Death from infection occurs even when the wound is otherwise survivable.
And since the types of rounds we are usually talking about were ruled "inhumane" by the laws of war drafted many years later, you are talking about rounds that mushroom upon impact, and do a lot of damage.
Have 11 swords, 2 dirks, half a dozen tomahawks and 2 Jeeps - seem to be a magnet for more of all.
|
|
|
|
|
M. Eversberg II
|
| Posted: Tue 22 Jan, 2008 11:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
It's going to bust through your shield, and you along with it.
If it didn't, armies would have re-equipped units with shields as the status-quo.
M.
This space for rent or lease.
|
|
    |
|
|
Raymond Deancona
|
| Posted: Tue 22 Jan, 2008 12:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
In a recent study of early firearms, a British blacksmith was asked to make a 14th century handgonne. It was test fired and found to throw a .75 calibre ball at 800 feet per second with a 25 grain charge. It did not go through a "proofed" breastplate, but they also did not try a heavier powder load, as they were afraid to burst the seam. The reason early firearms persisted is simple: it took a week or two to train a gunner, and a lifetime to train a good bowman. Add to that the sturdy nature of the handgonne as opposed to the wooden bow, and crossbow. Plus tactics for use didn't change until after the American Civil War. Line up alot of men to fire at the same time, throwing a great deal of lead down range. If anyone can dodge a 3/4 inch lead ball moving at 800+ feet per second or pull up a proofed shield to hide behind, I want to see it! If anyone subscribes to the military channel on cable TV this study was done in conjuction with the BBC, so will most likely be rerun again sometime soon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kevin P Molloy
|
| Posted: Wed 23 Jan, 2008 7:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I am glad someone brought up this question I have been thinking of posting a similiar question myself. Here is what I have thought about. If you had Highlanders with targes facing muskets at 100 to 200 yards,the standard tactic of the day was to fire a volley across those distances and then advance and fire again. The reason they fired in volleys was because the musket was very inaccurate. So would it increase the Highlanders survivability if when the first volley was fired they protected their vital organs with the targe. This along with the heavy clothing they wore might slow the musket ball enough so it would not penetrate the body at that distance(100 to 200 yards or so). Then they could use their famous highland charge before the next re-load (of course they could probably run smack into a second volley from the next rank but I am just speculating here).
I base this speculation on the fact that I have seen cases were modern 9mm ball ammo is fired into a windshield or other safety type glass and the first round penetrates but just drops to the ground on the inside losing its terminal velocity when hitting the glass. I would like to hear what others think on this and if anyone has ever fired muskets at targes at 100 or more yards to see if it did slow the terminal velocity down enough to minimize damage then also adding in the heavy clothing factor also.
I was actually thinking of sending this question to mythbusters to see if they would do the experiment, under the guise of finding out what it would take to bullet proof a targe.
I am not sure of the distances for the musket volley maybe someone can verify that, if the distances were longer for the first volley of course that would help my theory.
I would like to hear what others think about this.
Kevin Patrick Molloy
"The Prince of Firceall of the Ancient Sword is O'Molloy of the Freeborn Name"... O'Dugain(d.1372AD)
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Moffett
|
| Posted: Thu 24 Jan, 2008 1:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
I am not going to get too involved but there is one little factor I need to help out on. In the 16th to 19th lines of soldiers do not fire at 200-100 volley shots as a main tactic. In the 16th they get quite close. around 80-50 yards. IN the 17th things have not changed much. By the late 18th early 19th you are shooting at 80 yards it seems.
I'd think the shield or target would stop glancing or deflected shots but not direct hits under 80 yards.
Something to keep in mind is that most of the armies who ditched helmets as firearms became a main power on the field they noticed that a number of deaths and injuries would be prevented with a helmet from the stray and deflected bullets readopting them and improving them to today. Body armour has been readopted as well. WHo knows, in the future perhaps we'll get full suits or something.
RPM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lin Robinson
|
| Posted: Thu 24 Jan, 2008 4:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kevin P Molloy wrote: | I am glad someone brought up this question I have been thinking of posting a similiar question myself. Here is what I have thought about. If you had Highlanders with targes facing muskets at 100 to 200 yards,the standard tactic of the day was to fire a volley across those distances and then advance and fire again. The reason they fired in volleys was because the musket was very inaccurate. So would it increase the Highlanders survivability if when the first volley was fired they protected their vital organs with the targe. This along with the heavy clothing they wore might slow the musket ball enough so it would not penetrate the body at that distance(100 to 200 yards or so). Then they could use their famous highland charge before the next re-load (of course they could probably run smack into a second volley from the next rank but I am just speculating here).
I base this speculation on the fact that I have seen cases were modern 9mm ball ammo is fired into a windshield or other safety type glass and the first round penetrates but just drops to the ground on the inside losing its terminal velocity when hitting the glass. I would like to hear what others think on this and if anyone has ever fired muskets at targes at 100 or more yards to see if it did slow the terminal velocity down enough to minimize damage then also adding in the heavy clothing factor also.
I was actually thinking of sending this question to mythbusters to see if they would do the experiment, under the guise of finding out what it would take to bullet proof a targe.
I am not sure of the distances for the musket volley maybe someone can verify that, if the distances were longer for the first volley of course that would help my theory.
I would like to hear what others think about this. |
Kevin...
Your question about range was answered above and I concur with what Randall said. The reason for volley fire was to keep a lot of lead in the air at all times. The musket itself could be reasonably accurate at ranges of less than 100 yards. The problem with musketry was that the soldier was not trained to aim the musket! They simply loaded on command and pointed them in the general direction of the enemy when firing.
The large heavy ball of a .75 cal. musket still packs a wallop at 100 yards plus, although with its poor ballistics it is beginning to slow dramatically by then. It is still capable of penetrating heavy clothing at that range and beyond. Whether it would penetrate a targe I do not know for certain but one thing for cerrtain is there would be a noticeable impact.
In order to use a shield to protect against musketry I would think a very large shield would be necessary, which would hamper the mobility needed by irregular and light troops of the 17th century on. Accounts from Culloden mention a lot of Highlanders with broken legs, some of them probably from grape shot but some undoubtedly caused by musket shot. The targes carried by the Highland troops provided no protection to that area.
IMHO the shield is a very poor defense against musketry at all but the most extreme ranges, and impractical in that instance.
Lin Robinson
"The best thing in life is to crush your enemies, see them driven before you and hear the lamentation of their women." Conan the Barbarian, 1982
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kevin P Molloy
|
| Posted: Thu 24 Jan, 2008 5:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thank you gentleman for your replies. I do not have any knowledge about ranges muskets were fired from in battle. However since we are talking about Highlanders I think their hey day would be the 17th and 18th century, pretty much ending in 1745 at the battle of Cullodden. So I would still like to see how much a musket ball is slowed down by a targe and heavy clothing at 80 yards. Would it still penetrate the body or not? Or would it only 50% or 60% etc, etc of the time. Or would it penetrate 100% of the time. And I am really only talking about protecting the chest area when I say vital organs similiar to what a modern police officer is protecting with his kevlar vest. A musket ball crashing thru a targe and slamming into your head would probably do some damage either way and or kill you and of course a leg shot would take you out and you could still die from it.
Part of my curiosity about this is also if there are times were the musket ball doesn't penetrate the vital organs wouldn't that increase their confidence of surviving by taking their targe into battle?
Also I spent 4 years in the US Marine Corps and my understanding of why the helmut came back in use in the modern era was to protect soldiers from primarily shrapnel from exploding artillery rounds and grenades. Many many more soldiers are killed by this then ricocheting bullets although the helmut is good for that also.
Kevin Patrick Molloy
"The Prince of Firceall of the Ancient Sword is O'Molloy of the Freeborn Name"... O'Dugain(d.1372AD)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lin Robinson
|
| Posted: Thu 24 Jan, 2008 7:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kevin P Molloy wrote: | Thank you gentleman for your replies. I do not have any knowledge about ranges muskets were fired from in battle. However since we are talking about Highlanders I think their hey day would be the 17th and 18th century, pretty much ending in 1745 at the battle of Cullodden. So I would still like to see how much a musket ball is slowed down by a targe and heavy clothing at 80 yards. Would it still penetrate the body or not? Or would it only 50% or 60% etc, etc of the time. Or would it penetrate 100% of the time. And I am really only talking about protecting the chest area when I say vital organs similiar to what a modern police officer is protecting with his kevlar vest. A musket ball crashing thru a targe and slamming into your head would probably do some damage either way and or kill you and of course a leg shot would take you out and you could still die from it.
Part of my curiosity about this is also if there are times were the musket ball doesn't penetrate the vital organs wouldn't that increase their confidence of surviving by taking their targe into battle?
Also I spent 4 years in the US Marine Corps and my understanding of why the helmut came back in use in the modern era was to protect soldiers from primarily shrapnel from exploding artillery rounds and grenades. Many many more soldiers are killed by this then ricocheting bullets although the helmut is good for that also. |
At 80 yards, a hit from a musket ball most anywhere on the body will cause significant damage. If the ball did not strike a vital organ and hit bone instead, it would break that bone, probably shattering it, necessitating amputation of the limb. A hit in most parts of the body will likely be fatal, if not instantly then from sepsis after a period of time. A musket ball at 80 yards will definitely penetrate clothing and probably a targe. Forget about bullet proof targes because so far none have been found. In short, musket balls could easily be lethal at that range. People received horrible wounds from musket balls and lived to tell about it, but a large number of them did not.
Lin Robinson
"The best thing in life is to crush your enemies, see them driven before you and hear the lamentation of their women." Conan the Barbarian, 1982
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kevin P Molloy
|
| Posted: Thu 24 Jan, 2008 7:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lin Robinson wrote: | | Kevin P Molloy wrote: | Thank you gentleman for your replies. I do not have any knowledge about ranges muskets were fired from in battle. However since we are talking about Highlanders I think their hey day would be the 17th and 18th century, pretty much ending in 1745 at the battle of Cullodden. So I would still like to see how much a musket ball is slowed down by a targe and heavy clothing at 80 yards. Would it still penetrate the body or not? Or would it only 50% or 60% etc, etc of the time. Or would it penetrate 100% of the time. And I am really only talking about protecting the chest area when I say vital organs similiar to what a modern police officer is protecting with his kevlar vest. A musket ball crashing thru a targe and slamming into your head would probably do some damage either way and or kill you and of course a leg shot would take you out and you could still die from it.
Part of my curiosity about this is also if there are times were the musket ball doesn't penetrate the vital organs wouldn't that increase their confidence of surviving by taking their targe into battle?
Also I spent 4 years in the US Marine Corps and my understanding of why the helmut came back in use in the modern era was to protect soldiers from primarily shrapnel from exploding artillery rounds and grenades. Many many more soldiers are killed by this then ricocheting bullets although the helmut is good for that also. |
At 80 yards, a hit from a musket ball most anywhere on the body will cause significant damage. If the ball did not strike a vital organ and hit bone instead, it would break that bone, probably shattering it, necessitating amputation of the limb. A hit in most parts of the body will likely be fatal, if not instantly then from sepsis after a period of time. A musket ball at 80 yards will definitely penetrate clothing and probably a targe. Forget about bullet proof targes because so far none have been found. In short, musket balls could easily be lethal at that range. People received horrible wounds from musket balls and lived to tell about it, but a large number of them did not. |
I'm not sure but I think you missed the point of my post. I am asking what the results would be from a musket ball fired at 80 yards THROUGH a targe AND heavy clothing? Would it penetrate through all that and into the body? Would it be slowed enough to save the Highlander behind the targe and heavy clothes? Has anyone done any experiments like this? I know there are no bullet proof targes.
Kevin Patrick Molloy
"The Prince of Firceall of the Ancient Sword is O'Molloy of the Freeborn Name"... O'Dugain(d.1372AD)
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Thu 24 Jan, 2008 8:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kevin P Molloy wrote: |
I'm not sure but I think you missed the point of my post. I am asking what the results would be from a musket ball fired at 80 yards THROUGH a targe AND heavy clothing? Would it penetrate through all that and into the body? Would it be slowed enough to save the Highlander behind the targe and heavy clothes? Has anyone done any experiments like this? I know there are no bullet proof targes. |
For a modern comparison think of a 12 gauge slug as being nearly as powerful as a heavy musket .79 in calibre.
The exact ballistics I don't have figures for but the lethal range should be at least many hundreds of yards. Accurate practical range is a different thing.
My guess is that a targe would barely slow down a musket ball of the 18th century. An early musket of the 16th century, the heavy type needing a fork rest is closer to .85 calibre or 8 gauge and even more powerful.
A very spent musket ball at 500 yards might be stopped by a targe sufficiently to give the person behind a chance at only being heavily bruised: Normal killing range of 300 to 350 yards and a wounding range of 500 meters and a bruising range of 700 yards: From this site. ( Don't know how reliable the numbers are ? )
http://www.guns.connect.fi/gow/QA18.html
Heavy round ball projectiles lose velocity rapidly because of inefficient ballistic shape but they do retain lethal velocity at very long ranges: If the muzzle velocity was around 1250 ft/sec at extended ranges the projectile should still be moving at 500 to 600 ft/sec and being very heavy still have a great deal of momentum.
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Thu 24 Jan, 2008 9:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lin Robinson wrote: | | The problem with musketry was that the soldier was not trained to aim the musket! They simply loaded on command and pointed them in the general direction of the enemy when firing. |
This would only be true (if at all) for the second and later volleys, when the smoke has become thick enough to prevent meaningful aim. In the first (and often the secon) volley when the air was still clear, the soldiers did aim after a fashion. The idea that they didn't bother to aim at all is thoroughly undermined by the persistence of admonitions to "aim low" or "aim at their shoelaces" from at least the 17th century all the way to the American Civil War.
Of course, that just means more bad news for the poor Scots and their targes...
|
|
|
|
|
Bas K.
Location: the Netherlands Joined: 25 Jan 2008
Posts: 8
|
| Posted: Fri 25 Jan, 2008 5:43 am Post subject: Re: Musket versus shields and bucklers |
|
|
| Tom B wrote: | | We like to discuss the effects of musketry against our suits of armor, but has anyone done a good study of the effects of a musket against a steel buckler, a targe, and other sheilds of the period compared to long bow or crossboy? Im awful tired of having the dispute end in "ill hind behind my shield while you struggle to get your matchlock to function". |
You want to know who will win in the event of a group of men armed with muskets facing a group of men armed with swords and bucklers, or 1 on 1, or just the penetration effect of a musketball on a buckler?
Once More unto the Breach, My Friends.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lin Robinson
|
| Posted: Fri 25 Jan, 2008 5:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kevin P Molloy wrote: |
I'm not sure but I think you missed the point of my post. I am asking what the results would be from a musket ball fired at 80 yards THROUGH a targe AND heavy clothing? Would it penetrate through all that and into the body? Would it be slowed enough to save the Highlander behind the targe and heavy clothes? Has anyone done any experiments like this? I know there are no bullet proof targes. |
I know of one person who built a "bullet proof targe" using Henry Fletcher's well-known description of an apparently non-existent targe. He fired two rounds from a .75 cal. musket at the targe. Both penetrated but did not go all the way through. However the targe was so heavy as to be unuseable as a shield.
Having fired many .75 cal. rounds from a short land pattern musket at various ranges, I can assure you that there is enough punch left in a ball at 80 yards to penetrate the average targe and heavy clothing worn by a Highlander. Sorry if I missed your point the first time around.
Lin Robinson
"The best thing in life is to crush your enemies, see them driven before you and hear the lamentation of their women." Conan the Barbarian, 1982
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lin Robinson
|
| Posted: Fri 25 Jan, 2008 5:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Lafayette C Curtis wrote: |
This would only be true (if at all) for the second and later volleys, when the smoke has become thick enough to prevent meaningful aim. In the first (and often the secon) volley when the air was still clear, the soldiers did aim after a fashion. The idea that they didn't bother to aim at all is thoroughly undermined by the persistence of admonitions to "aim low" or "aim at their shoelaces" from at least the 17th century all the way to the American Civil War.
Of course, that just means more bad news for the poor Scots and their targes... |
I wouldn't confuse an admonition on the battlefield with actual training. By most accounts I have read, at least as it regards British troops, the soldier only fired his musket with ball loads a couple of times a year (when not actually in combat). That hardly translates to marksmanship training. And, the musket had no sights which makes careful aiming problematic. And, as you mention, after a couple of volleys, especially in calm air, anything in front of the line is obscured by powder smoke.
The order to aim low was an attempt to counteract the recognized tendency of troops in battle to fire high. That was demonstrated many times during the Civil War when trees were found to be full of bullets or even cut down by volleys of rifle balls at the height of 10 - 12 feet! Buildings were also shot full of holes at a much higher level than would be expected from aimed fire.
In short, "aim" is just a word.
Lin Robinson
"The best thing in life is to crush your enemies, see them driven before you and hear the lamentation of their women." Conan the Barbarian, 1982
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eric Myers
Location: Sacramento, CA Joined: 23 Aug 2003
Posts: 214
|
| Posted: Fri 25 Jan, 2008 8:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
In 1998 at an encampment, we shot Steve Moffat's target with a .57 caliber matchlock from a distance of 20 or 25 yards. The target was wood and iron, roughly 2 feet diameter. I don't remember clearly how thick it was, but I think it was about 3/4 inch total, and actual wood, not plywood. The target was leaned against a tree. The shot hit several inches from the edge, and was deflected to the rim. Part of the lead ball had clearly melted on impact, but produced a huge divot near the edge and ended up trapped in the rolled edge of the shield, which was partly blown out. (Steve continued to carry that target at renaissance faires and reenactments for awhile, so some you in California may have seen it.)
We were all of the opinion that the target would have saved a life, but the impact and the deflection of the shield would have been painful, and possibly bruising.
Also, the thought of actually planning to use a 2 foot target to protect yourself from flying lead didn't give any of us that warm fuzzy feeling.
Eric Myers
Sacramento Sword School
ViaHup.com - Wiki di Scherma Italiana
|
|
|
|
|
|
James Martin
Location: Hutto, TX Joined: 12 Jul 2006
Posts: 26
|
| Posted: Fri 25 Jan, 2008 8:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Well I don't have any hard data but after firing many, many muzzleloaders, I would say your highlanders wouldnt stand a chance OP.
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Staberg
|
| Posted: Fri 25 Jan, 2008 2:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lin Robinson wrote: | | Lafayette C Curtis wrote: |
This would only be true (if at all) for the second and later volleys, when the smoke has become thick enough to prevent meaningful aim. In the first (and often the secon) volley when the air was still clear, the soldiers did aim after a fashion. The idea that they didn't bother to aim at all is thoroughly undermined by the persistence of admonitions to "aim low" or "aim at their shoelaces" from at least the 17th century all the way to the American Civil War.
Of course, that just means more bad news for the poor Scots and their targes... |
I wouldn't confuse an admonition on the battlefield with actual training. By most accounts I have read, at least as it regards British troops, the soldier only fired his musket with ball loads a couple of times a year (when not actually in combat). That hardly translates to marksmanship training. And, the musket had no sights which makes careful aiming problematic. And, as you mention, after a couple of volleys, especially in calm air, anything in front of the line is obscured by powder smoke.
|
The no sights claim may apply to brittish muskets but of the musket models used between 1600 and 1800 by the Swedish army at least 90% have sights mounted. German muskets and calivers manufactured in Suhl during the 17th Century have sights as well as do Dutch weapons import to Sweden durign the first half of the 17th Century.
With regards to target practice Swedish soldiers are noted as training marksmanship in the 1560's and such traingin seems to have been kept up as logn as the trainign standards were enforced. By the late 17th Century there were marksmanship contests as part of each regimental review and the best shots were rewarded and those who failed punished.
Warfare before the mid-late 18th Century was domianted by siege warfare and the "small war", activities in which aimed fire played an important role. Veterans troops were acknolwledged as superior in these activites due to their marksmanship skills. Hence aimed fire was trained by various methods provided the resoruces were available, of course there was alos neglect due to Goverments beign laoht to spend the cash on shot and powder or corrupt officers kept the cash for training themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Fri 25 Jan, 2008 9:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
At 50 yards mass aimed or unaimed fire volley fire probably produced similar results but in smaller engagements or if range was greater some minimal aiming skill would have been useful I think.
As well in the 16th century the traditions of archery accuracy and crossbow accuracy would have influenced a certain desire for archebuse/musket accuracy (individual warrior competency as opposed to the soldier as cannon fodder mentality ? ). Later on 17th /18th speed in reloading became the priority and individual skill less a concern, at least with certain armies !
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic