WI The British Army in didn't practice with Powder?

[Yelnoc]

What if, during the Napoleonic Wars, the British army didn't use real gunpowder in its drills? I read somewhere that this practice created a greater accurancy and efficiency amongst British troops, allowing them to win a few key victories. If this edge was not in place, how would it have effected the war? Could Napoleon still have won (assuming butterflies keep him from doing something overtly stupid)?

 

[Gecko]

I've no idea how much difference practicing with real gunpowder makes. However, my own view is that even if it made a great deal of difference, Napoleon still loses. And thats because it wasn't really the British Army that defeated him, so much as the British Navy, vastly superior British finances, and the Russian climate.

 

[Nikephoros]

Can't say much about the effects on the Napoleonic Wars, but it would definately change the British tactics. Britain had a tradition of musketry second to none. In large part because of such practice.

Of course British Infantry tactics isn't what won them the wars, it was their ability to choose their place of battle that one them the war.

 

[67th Tigers]

Much of shooting live wasn't to teach marksmanship, but was battle innoculation. That said, the British were taught a much more effective musketry practice, they were taught to aim (straight down the barrel using the bayonet lug as a sight), release the shot properly and only fire at 100 yards. This enabled them to get the first few volleys on target, doing great execution, after a couple of volleys there is enough smoke that the accuracy of shooting drops tremendously and being better shots doesn't really matter.

The British of the Napoleonic wars relied heavily on the bayonet. The French were happy to stand and shoot all day, but level bayonets and give them a charge and they'd break before bayonets were even crossed. The same is true of a lot of low quality forces.

Napoleon's Army of England he built from 1802-5 was beautiful, some of it's Corps were easily the best troops in Europe (there was huge variation, depending on the quality of the Marshal), but he spent them in 1805-7 and never really had high quality troops after this.

 

[Bill Cameron]

67th,

Didn't Britain have easier access to saltpeter, particularly Bengali saltpeter, and that meant they could afford relatively more practice rounds both ashore and afloat?


Bill

 

[67th Tigers]

67th,

Didn't Britain have easier access to saltpeter, particularly Bengali saltpeter, and that meant they could afford relatively more practice rounds both ashore and afloat?

Bill

Access to saltpetre was a critical concern to every European state of the time (and indeed to both sides in the ACW). However, Europe was prettymuch self-sufficient for their peacetime requirements, producing saltpetre from manure beds. Britain is, of course, a special case, as HEIC could provide thousands of tons annually (greater than the native production of France).

One aspect of the Napoleonic Wars rarely considered is saltpetre supply. In France, the last King had Lavoisier form a saltpetre producing company in 1775 and supply increased dramatically, and even provided large excesses allowing for thousands of tons of powder to be actually stored and even exported. France exported heavily to Spain, Holland and the 13 English Colonies in rebellion.

Typical wartime supplies were on the order of:

Britain: 3,000 tons pa (imports)
France: 6,000 tons pa (native production)
Sweden: 300 tons pa
Prussia: 75 tons pa

Britain heavily supplied Austria, Prussia etc. with gunpowder, which they simply lacked the materials to produce in sufficient quantities.