Wellington's Legacy: The Reform of British Army 1830-1854 by Hew Strachen states on page 158 that..."Although effective musketry training had only just begun to be adopted, its impact in the Crimea was immediate. At the battle of Vittoria in 1813, one bullet in - at the best - 459 took effect; at the Alma and Inkerman one in sixteen."
That's a heck of an improvement but it leaves out some crucial information. Is that 1 - in - 16 of bullets fired? Or distributed to troops? If Tigers number of 199,820 bullets used or lost is correct than Britain alone inflicted 12,489 casualties. As British forces composed only 53% of the allied troops on the field this means they must have inflicted near 100% of the casualties suffered by the Russians at Inkerman. This must be news to the 7,500 French soldiers that fought there.
As per Tigers' own website the Union Army expended about 1,300,000 rounds of ammunition during the three days at Gettysburg (and also including some post battle skirmishing). Given that the Confederates took about 23,300 casualties this gives us an estimate of about 56 rounds fired per casualty inflicted.
A Slightly Odd View of the American Civil War
Neither set of numbers factors in lost ammunition, those who stack multiple rounds in their rifle, and other factors not accounting for rounds misused.
So even if we go with the high end Russian casualties (16,000) at Inkerman and assume that British troops inflicted 2/3 of those casualties ~10,700 than this means that the British expanded ~171,000 rounds (or hit with every 1 - in - 18.7 rounds expended per Tigers number of 199,820). If we go with the low end of about 11,000 Russian casualties and Britain inflicted ~55% of those casualties (6,050 casualties inflicted by the British) than we get a wholly different set of numbers (96,000 rounds expended or one casualty per 33 rounds fired). Furthermore I'm not taking into account artillery casualties so its likely both Union and British rifleman were worse shots than the numbers may say.
Either way if Union troops hit with 1 in 56 shots and the British with 1 in 16 than that's a huge difference but almost certainly an inaccurate simplification that ignores so many other factors and 1 in 33 is less of a difference. Too many of these arguments assume that neither side, but especially the Union it seems, can adapt and learn. Contemporaries in Britain greatly feared a war in the US. They feared loosing Canada. Despite grand plans by the RN, they feared how their deep draft ironclads would far in coastal waters against monitors. They feared the miserable affects of rifle fire against massed troops and charging cavalry. And they feared campaigning across vast tracks of land where in the past victory had previously been quite elusive.
In a Trent Affair sparked intervention Britain will almost certainly win, but it's not assured and it wouldn't be fun.
Benjamin
That's a heck of an improvement but it leaves out some crucial information. Is that 1 - in - 16 of bullets fired? Or distributed to troops? If Tigers number of 199,820 bullets used or lost is correct than Britain alone inflicted 12,489 casualties. As British forces composed only 53% of the allied troops on the field this means they must have inflicted near 100% of the casualties suffered by the Russians at Inkerman. This must be news to the 7,500 French soldiers that fought there.
As per Tigers' own website the Union Army expended about 1,300,000 rounds of ammunition during the three days at Gettysburg (and also including some post battle skirmishing). Given that the Confederates took about 23,300 casualties this gives us an estimate of about 56 rounds fired per casualty inflicted.
A Slightly Odd View of the American Civil War
Neither set of numbers factors in lost ammunition, those who stack multiple rounds in their rifle, and other factors not accounting for rounds misused.
So even if we go with the high end Russian casualties (16,000) at Inkerman and assume that British troops inflicted 2/3 of those casualties ~10,700 than this means that the British expanded ~171,000 rounds (or hit with every 1 - in - 18.7 rounds expended per Tigers number of 199,820). If we go with the low end of about 11,000 Russian casualties and Britain inflicted ~55% of those casualties (6,050 casualties inflicted by the British) than we get a wholly different set of numbers (96,000 rounds expended or one casualty per 33 rounds fired). Furthermore I'm not taking into account artillery casualties so its likely both Union and British rifleman were worse shots than the numbers may say.
Either way if Union troops hit with 1 in 56 shots and the British with 1 in 16 than that's a huge difference but almost certainly an inaccurate simplification that ignores so many other factors and 1 in 33 is less of a difference. Too many of these arguments assume that neither side, but especially the Union it seems, can adapt and learn. Contemporaries in Britain greatly feared a war in the US. They feared loosing Canada. Despite grand plans by the RN, they feared how their deep draft ironclads would far in coastal waters against monitors. They feared the miserable affects of rifle fire against massed troops and charging cavalry. And they feared campaigning across vast tracks of land where in the past victory had previously been quite elusive.
In a Trent Affair sparked intervention Britain will almost certainly win, but it's not assured and it wouldn't be fun.
Benjamin
Last edited: