Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Philip
The limited utility of firearms in 19th cent. cavalry encounters, as compared to that of hand-to-hand weapons, was commented on by Lt. Gen. Sir Wm Warre, liaison staff officer for Marshal Beresford in Portugal during the Peninsular War. Observing a number of encounters, he wrote,
"A strong proof of how ineffectual the skirmishing of Cavalry is, except to cover the retreat of larger bodies, and prevent the columns being fired into. Our people and theirs were constantly within 30 yards of one another firing with no effect, though neither party had any idea of fear. When it can possibly be avoided the less powder wasted this way the better. The best arm for the Cavalry is the sword or saber, a well-broken horse, and firm presence of mind...
|
Good shot, Philip.
May i add that, context is important in these issues; a man trotting or galloping a horse has hardly enough stability to shoot a weapon at target with effectiveness ... whatever the quality of the weapon may be. While on foot all quality miseries arise, despite immobility and discipline bein taken into account. Listen to Peninsular War chronicles written by A.H.Norris and R.W.Bremner: A soldier that gets wounded by a musket at a distance of 135 mts. should be in fact rather unlucky, this assuming that his enemy is aiming at him.The ratio of missing shots could be so high as 13 to 2, even with good weather and, in rainy days, it was improbable that any shot could take place.... gunpowder was very crude, gun barrels had to be frequently cleaned, the French ones more than the British. Heavy rain could simply inutilize the weapon, as the gunpowder got wet and would not explode.
And adding to that, the smoke; there are countless narrations of soldiers mentioning that, the (black) gunpowder smoke in battle was so dense that they couldn't discern where to aim at.
.