Kind of an off-beat question, but here goes. Does anyone on this list know how much live-fire rifle practice a British army regular would have received in the mid-19th century (1850-60)? A friend of mine, who knows more military history than I do, says that in the mid-19th century European armies even regular soldiers received very little marksmanship practice. Could this be true? Are there any books on nineteenth century training?

Hello. Welcome to the forums.

I've heard something like that before... more time spent on drill than firing range time...reminds me of when Jimmy Carter was in Office!

I would suggest that you post your question over in the section titled "British and Commonwealth Military Discussions". You might get more replies. Posters named Irish Guard, Trench and Bladensburg usually know "stuff".

During the Napoleonic period the British Army (and by association the KGL and the Portuguese allies) was credited with being the only army to regularly practice musket drill with live ammunition. It's often claimed that this is one of the things that helped to make up for the fact that they were usually outnumbered and it almost certainly made them steadier in battle. There are instances where units fled at the sound of their own volleys (notably a Spanish battalion the night before [IIRC] Salamanca).

What, you might ask, does this have to do with half a century later?

Possibly very little but the British Army at home became quite ossified after Waterloo and was probably still holding to many of the reforms that Sir John Moore had introduced at Shornecliffe at the turn of the century. The army of the Crimea was thus not greatly different from that of the Hundred Days War, indeed it had only just adopted percussion rifles as standard.

Other things to bear in mind are:
-That the British Army was involved in small-scale conflicts on a regular basis all over the world in a way that perhaps the great armies of Europe were not. This means that brigade and battalion sized units were often acting independently in which case their colonels were the arbiters of what training was done with little oversight from Horse Guards.

-That "marksmanship" practice and live-firing are not necessarily the same thing. Until the lessons learned in the Boer War were assimilated it was often weight of fire rather than accuracy that was considered important with volley and platoon fire being the ultimate expression of this.



As for books I'd recommend you have a look at books about the Crimean War and possibly the Indian Mutiny.
There might be something useful in Richard Holmes Redcoat: The British Soldier in the Age of Horse and Musket but I can't be sure as my copy seems to have walked. Redcoat is worth reading anyway on it's own merits and you'll probably find references to some useful contemporary accounts and other primary sources.

Thanks for these helpful comments. I am reading a memoir of a man who served in the army of the Papal States in the pontifical regiment of zouaves in 1867-69. In describing the training in his regiment he mentions that one day each week they had to practice at the firing range. Each visit they fired only ten rounds: six standing, two kneeling, and two prone on the ground. The regiment used the Remington, breechloading rifle. My military history friend insists that this was way more shooting than an infantryman would have received in a peacetime European army in the 1860s.

He might have a point ammunition costs money after all.

Anyway, think how much shooting the modern soldier gets in when not on exercise or working up for deployment. I've heard of some battalions getting perhaps half a dozen range days a year at times.

quote:

Originally posted by Bladensburg:
He might have a point ammunition costs money after all.

Anyway, think how much shooting the modern soldier gets in when not on exercise or working up for deployment. I've heard of some battalions getting perhaps half a dozen range days a year at times.

That could be the case, it was in the American Army, regular Army soldiers were allowed to use 20 or 30 rounds per year for target practice. If an officer wanted his men to get more target practice he had to pay for the ammo out of his own pocket. Considering the pay at the time, most officers could not afford it.
This was a common practice until the 1880s, when somebody must have realized that marksmanship was an important skill for a soldier. Not only did it become a valuable skill, soldiers were paid an extra 2 to 5 dollars(if I remember right) dollars per month, depending on how well they scored at the firing range. Considering that even a Sergeant Major only earned about 60 dollars a month, this was quite an incentive. This practice continued up the beginning of WWII, with the extra pay being 5 to 15 dollars a month.

quote:

Originally posted by rangerdoug:

quote:

Originally posted by Bladensburg:
He might have a point ammunition costs money after all.

Anyway, think how much shooting the modern soldier gets in when not on exercise or working up for deployment. I've heard of some battalions getting perhaps half a dozen range days a year at times.

That could be the case, it was in the American Army, regular Army soldiers were allowed to use 20 or 30 rounds per year for target practice. If an officer wanted his men to get more target practice he had to pay for the ammo out of his own pocket. Considering the pay at the time, most officers could not afford it.
This was a common practice until the 1880s, when somebody must have realized that marksmanship was an important skill for a soldier. Not only did it become a valuable skill, soldiers were paid an extra 2 to 5 dollars(if I remember right) dollars per month, depending on how well they scored at the firing range. Considering that even a Sergeant Major only earned about 60 dollars a month, this was quite an incentive. This practice continued up the beginning of WWII, with the extra pay being 5 to 15 dollars a month.

Perhaps one of the few benefits of the purchase system for commissions was that half-colonels (and regimental colonels) tended to have a private income and so could if necessary fund their own ammunition I suppose. The more conscientious officers were certainly not above paying for kit out of their own pockets.

quote:

Originally posted by Bladensburg:

quote:

Originally posted by rangerdoug:

quote:

Originally posted by Bladensburg:
He might have a point ammunition costs money after all.

Anyway, think how much shooting the modern soldier gets in when not on exercise or working up for deployment. I've heard of some battalions getting perhaps half a dozen range days a year at times.

That could be the case, it was in the American Army, regular Army soldiers were allowed to use 20 or 30 rounds per year for target practice. If an officer wanted his men to get more target practice he had to pay for the ammo out of his own pocket. Considering the pay at the time, most officers could not afford it.
This was a common practice until the 1880s, when somebody must have realized that marksmanship was an important skill for a soldier. Not only did it become a valuable skill, soldiers were paid an extra 2 to 5 dollars(if I remember right) dollars per month, depending on how well they scored at the firing range. Considering that even a Sergeant Major only earned about 60 dollars a month, this was quite an incentive. This practice continued up the beginning of WWII, with the extra pay being 5 to 15 dollars a month.

Perhaps one of the few benefits of the purchase system for commissions was that half-colonels (and regimental colonels) tended to have a private income and so could if necessary fund their own ammunition I suppose. The more conscientious officers were certainly not above paying for kit out of their own pockets.

The major problem the American Army was that Congress was not willing to spend much money on the military. In fact if I remember right, sometime during the 1870's they even reduced pay for soldier. The US Army did not have a purchase system and most officers did not come from rich families. There were a few that did have a private income and they would spend money out of their own pockets to provide better food, clothing, equipment, etc. for the troops in their regiments. But they were few and far between.

I searched my library for something on this but found nothing. I do have a couple of thoughts.
1. The late 1850's to early 1860's were the time of the formation of the rifle volunteers. These were bodies of civilains formed into their own infantry companies. They paid for there own kit and weapons so memebership was middle -class. Now if the civilians were getting very keen on markmanship perhaps the Regular Army also was.
2. Enthusiasm for markmanship in the British Army goes in roughly a 40 - 50 year cycle. This is usually driven by embarassment on prior operations. We have the *****ular War, The early 1900's between the Boer War and WW1 and the 1960's (The time when the training pamphlet was 'Shoot to Kill'. On that basis perhaps the post Crimea years were aso a time of more inteest in weapons training.