France and the rifle

[KillerMongoose]

So I'm sure most of you know that France didn't use rifles in the Napoleonic Wars (for a variety of reasons) my question is, do you think that France's decision not to embrace the rifle at that time was a good idea or a bad one? The core question really is whether riflemen are superior skirmishers to light infantry or vice versa.

[kpetschulat]

You know? I really think that the "rifle" was not needed. It was expensive to hand out to troops. Either way, France's Voltigeurs and Chasseurs a Pied were possibly the finest light infantry at the time. I think Napoleon did the right thing. Rifles take longer to reload, so keeping a musket in the hand of a very skilled light infantryman was the more ideal thing for the French army, rather than spending boat loads to equip the troops with them.

[Mr T]

The French armies relied on, and were famous for using vast amounts of skirmishers (voltiguers) in front of their infantry columns, in most cases these swarms of skirmishers would overpower any enemy skirmishers and start causing damage to the enemies Line infantry, perfect example can be seen at Waterloo when the greenjackets were forced to withdraw because of the amount of skirmishers. Despite having muskets, the French skirmishers were still a formidable force and could shoot faster than the greenkackets.

[Archduke Sven]

I agree with the others, the french always had a large number of expert skimishers who had lots of experience with the musket. Due to the fact there were so many of them and that their muskets could produce a much higher rate of fire, if they got closer to the rifles the rifles would have to leave that ground very quickly or suffer the consequences.

For example, in a combat in Spain, the 95th Regiment ( GB's 2nd best skirmisher formation ) was up against Line Voltiguers ( Men chosen from the fusiliers as skirmishers ) which were not even close to the best skirmishers the french had, as we should all know by now the Armee D'Espagne was largely conscripts since Napoleon would take all the veterans to Germany after they had served in Spain for a few years. Nonetheless the rifles had to yield ground and suffered 26 casualties while the French received slightly more at around 35-40 but they had taken the ground.

Sorry for not presenting sources but im just too lazy for that now, just trust me on it.

[Duuring]

Nevertheless, the addition of a few rifle-armed men to a company of voltigeurs (or to every company of a light regiment) would have been a good idea in my opinion. You don't lose the firepower and speed of a musket, but you still have your best shots taking out targets from longer reach.

[Hekko]

I agree with Duuring, some rifles amongst the french would have given them more flexibility without losing out on the upsides of musket armed skirmishers

[Archduke Sven]

Nevertheless, the addition of a few rifle-armed men to a company of voltigeurs (or to every company of a light regiment) would have been a good idea in my opinion. You don't lose the firepower and speed of a musket, but you still have your best shots taking out targets from longer reach.

Ah, and that is what the Russians did. In each company of Jaegers all NCO's and the 12 best shots would be armed with rifles.

But the Russians are not very famous for their skirmishers since they just remade line regiments into Jaeger regiments so the result would still be that they were robots just like the line.  They did nothing without their officers telling them to do so, something that is very bad in skirmishing, but some of them were good shots, but in general the Russian army were not good shots because they had very little practice. Some of them fired less than 6 shots, and those practice shots would often be made of clay, that was the economic situation of Russia.

Even worse was that those who had been in a battle before were not allowed to have practice shots. In comparison the French always had shooting practice in peace time with targets and then several shooting competitions. In war time they had moving targets to practice on. Additionally, the superiority of the French skirmisher came in intelligence and independence. They often took initiative by themselves and could analyse situations and what to do.

In conclusion, yes, rifles would be a great addition to a voltiguer company if they did it in the Russian pattern ( NCO's + 12 best shots ).

[KillerMongoose]

Personally I'm not a fan of the rifle, I find that its accuracy is not worth the slow reload and incapability in melee. I find that light infantry armed with muskets are a lot more effective in a battle. For instance, in Napoleon Total War (while I know much of that game is very inaccurate) I almost never use riflemen, I always use light infantry and they rather consistently drive off enemy riflemen simply because they're accurate enough to be lethal shots and they reload much faster.

[Archduke Sven]

Personally I'm not a fan of the rifle, I find that its accuracy is not worth the slow reload and incapability in melee. I find that light infantry armed with muskets are a lot more effective in a battle. For instance, in Napoleon Total War (while I know much of that game is very inaccurate) I almost never use riflemen, I always use light infantry and they rather consistently drive off enemy riflemen simply because they're accurate enough to be lethal shots and they reload much faster.

But try Empire : Total War, in Napoleon they nerfed the rifleman units so their accuracy is much lower than it ways, i have recorded more hits with Voltiguers ( 60 accuracy ) than with the Rifles ( 80 accuracy ). I have 700 hours play time on Napoleon so i know what im talking about.

In E: TW the riflemen are much more effective.

[Completenoob]

Nevertheless, the addition of a few rifle-armed men to a company of voltigeurs (or to every company of a light regiment) would have been a good idea in my opinion. You don't lose the firepower and speed of a musket, but you still have your best shots taking out targets from longer reach.

But you do add layer of potential supply complications for weapon replacements, manpower replacements (or in other words, guys who are worthy of using rifle) for losses, firearm production and potential training related issues to make best use of the rifle. Unless it would be made clear the guys with rifles cannot have such pace as other skirmishers over the course of time and in prolonged battles that might drag on for hours, and also potentially sacrifice mild tactical mobility for slightly increased reload times it might still create possible “desynchronisation” inside the unit, even if it may not be that bad in practice.

[Duuring]

Just make them the same calibre. The only problrm would be the good quality power.

But still, if the Russians could manage the logistics, France sure could.

[Completenoob]

Just make them the same calibre. The only problrm would be the good quality power.

But still, if the Russians could manage the logistics, France sure could.

It's not a logistical impossibility by any means and I think it would be obvious to use the same ammo type as that'd be kind of stupid otherwise, but then again the Russian system was quite different from the French system how they approached stuff in the first place, and how units was designated, used and whatnot. It's more that since there was no mass production as it might be understood post 1860s to 1880s+ it takes time to make those rifles and maintain sufficient supply for possible casualties, recruits, lost weapons etc etc. To be perfectly honest, I don't see a reason why they couldn't handle it but given such stuff may have disrupting effect on other things, it's pretty obvious concern for most Generals that they might add some clogs to the wheels, no matter how brief and temporary it is. Spare parts and such might also prove bit trickier than usual, depending if they would just put rifling on Charleville or create something completely new instead.

[Duuring]

The French actually had rifles of their own design which were stopped being produced in 1807 (Or somewhere around there)

[Completenoob]

Well, you learn something new every day. 

[Docm30]

I think the effectiveness of Napoleonic-era rifles is often exaggerated. Major-General Amos Norcott, who served with the 95th rifles in every campaign from Buenos Aires to Waterloo, wrote that the rifle was not nearly the unstoppable weapon it was often touted to be, instead claiming that it was significantly inferior to the brown bess when loaded with prepared cartridges (which was the only choice after the 95th lost their horns and flasks in 1809).

I think one ought to bear that in mind when considering if adopting rifles would have helped the French any.