Hi all.
The post was about the casualty rates in line infantry warfare, and one of the points was that "People weren't really aiming at each other, but above each other. During training, they hit their targets even after 50 meters (which to my understanding is the optimal line infantry engagement distance)."
If I remember correctly, it was a German officer in the 18th century that conducted the experiment. A white sheet as tall and wide as an infantry battalion (or unit) seen from a hundred meters away was stretched and after the volley, almost all bullets had hit (a volley of 100 shots resulted in 90ish holes).
Now of course there are instances where you might have hit the sheet but not the unit because the bullet went between two heads, grazed a shoulder etc. Still a line infantry unit is tightly packed and you should be hitting guys in the 2nd and 3rd rows in the "bullet went between two heads" sort of situations.
I have spent my entire morning trying to find that post but I couldn't. Do I remember it correctly? Are there other similar experiments like this? After I learned this, I assumed "Well the muskets-are-inaccurate-theory should dissolve in the academia, this obviously refutes that theory..." but then found many comments here still defending the musket inaccuracy, or at least saying "Historians are split on this issue". If this historical anecdote is true, then why are we still contesting the idea of super inaccurate muskets (or do we?)
I can't answer for the exact test you're refering to but I know a similar test was preformed by the British Army against a wooden target the size of an infantry line. At 90 meters just over 50% of the bullets hit (with land pattern Brown Bess muskets), at 200 yards the percentage had dropped to 30% and at 300 it was just over 20%. If memory serves this was done with a normal line infantry company.
A hit rate of 90% at 100 meters sounds very high for unrifled muskets. Now, I suppose the percentages in my example could have been raised a little by having highly skilled infantrymen preform it. Light infantry for example generally had more live fire training than your average soldier of the line (in general terms, variations absolutely existed). Today most skilled black powder shooters will fairly consistently hit a 50x50 cm target at 100 yards.
So, are muskets inaccurate? Well, inherently they're so-so. However, most of these tests were preformed under more or less ideal conditions. A well trained and rested soldier firing under ideal condition. There is a big difference between that and doing the same thing consistently when you've marched since dawn, your friends are falling, screaming and bleeding left and right, cannonballs are ripping through your formation and the air is thick with acrid smoke that stings your eyes and obscures your vision. Added to that you're constantly worried that there is a musket or cannon ball with your name on it somewhere in that line on the other side of the field or a cold eyed cavalryman about to charge out of the smoke far too close for you and your friends to be able to put up a meaningful defence.
There is also the problem of what really constitutes a soldier of the line. Depending on where a when an line infantryman did not always have that much live fire training. There is a big difference in accuracy between a veteran light infantryman who is trained and experienced and a soldier in a hastily raised regiment of the line. For this reason, as well as the many other factors affecting accuracy, it's hard to make general statements about the accuracy of muskets under actual field conditions.