Salvo and volley fire

[helen]

I've read that the Protestant armies (notably Sweden) introduced salvo fire in the Thirty Years War in the 17th century and that not long after, the development of the flintlock brought about volley fire, which was adopted across Europe by the end of the 18th century.

I understand that salvo was meant to permit a constant stream of fire by two or more ranks whilst the rest reloaded, but how is this different to volley fire? Is it something to do with combining fire with pike charges etc?

If anyone can elaborate on the tactical differences between salvo and volley, it would be much appreciated!

With thanks,

Helen

Image: Battle of White Mountain, 1620

[Chris Boonzaier]

Here is a good description...

In the late 17th century, the English and Dutch armies adopted volley fire, coinciding with the adoption of the flintlock musket. Volley fire differed from salvo fire. Salvo fire involved the simultaneous fire of entire ranks of the battalion. Volley fire involved the simultaneous discharge of all men in one sub-unit, called a platoon, which was deployed in three ranks. The entire battalion would be divided into 8 or more platoons. Each nation adopted different firing orders of the platoon. One popular method involved the platoons alternating their fire, first from the outside, right then left, and continuing the firing order toward the center of the battalion. This allowed a continuous fire to be presented to the enemy and minimized the obscurity of the target caused by smoke. Also there was no need to exchange ranks as in salvo fire. Therefore there was less confusion after discharging the musket prior to reloading.

All European nations adopted the volley fire method by the end of the Malburian Wars in the early 18th century. The Prussians made modifications to the method to allow troops to reload while marching during the War of the Austrian Succession. However, this decreased the accuracy enough that such volleys were ineffectual. The British perfected volley fire to a science during the Napoleonic Wars. A well-trained musketeer of the British army during the early 19th century could reload in 30 seconds or less.

from

http://www.scotwars.com/html/textonly/equip_smoothbore_musketry.htm

[Mervyn Mitton]

A very interesting subject - and obviously important as it allowed battles to be won. I thought Chris' answer summed up the difference very clearly and I must admit that I had always thought the two to be the same. I always think a good example of volley fire would be the film 'Zulu' - where they formed up in three ranks inside the barricade and fired by ranks on the officer's order.

Seems a simpler World to the one we live in today...

[Brian Wolfe]

Hi Mervyn,

Your statement regarding a simpler world reminded me of a scene from the movie Zulu where they were describing the battle tactic of the bull's head and horns. The British Officer says, "Seems bloody simple". and the Boer says, "It's bloody deadly, old boy". Ok so it may not be a word for word quote.

Regards

Brian

[peter monahan]

In the Napoleonic period (which I reenact) a British soldier was expected to fire 3 times a minute simply to be considered trained and veteran battalions could sometimes do four. Individuals could do even better but 'rapid independent' was not in the lexicon of commands for that period. Companies, or in rare cases half companies fired both ranks at the same time, so no movement was required save the 'locking up' of the rear rank - a half step forward on the levelling of the musket so the 2nd rank's pan's didn't flash the faces of the front rank.

Firing by companies - either from each end of a 10 company battalion or by wings (Coys. 1&6, 2&7, etc) laid down a good base of fire but gave the individual companies more time to wait for the slowest guy and allowed the smoke to disipate slightly to improve aim. It was occasionally referred to as 'rolling fire' and the machine-like tempo, which can be kept up till the cartridge boxes are empty, is very intimidating from the opposite side of the field!

Battalion volleys, as we employ them at least, serve to 'open the ball' - easy to do once with everyone already loaded - or as a shock tactic, often just before a bayonet charge - which in 1800-1815 is a slow, disciplined but again very intimidating movement. Going in with the knife is not something you want to do with loaded muskets - too much chance of accidental discharges.

Three rank formations and firing had largely disappeared by 1800 in the British army - we're not sure exactly when - and I don't know when/if it was officially re-introduced during the Victorian or whether the movie makers of Zulu took a liberty with the regs. It concentrated the fire, especially useful as a battle progressed and the misfire rate from dirty muskets rose but I would have thought that 'modern' breechloaders like the Snider and Martini would have rendered that consideration moot.

My tuppence worth

Edited October 24, 2009 by peter monahan

[Mervyn Mitton]

Peter - what excellent info. - some of the terms and the formation fire, I have never heard of. I suppose a forgotten subject that most of us have never absorbed. With your background in re-enactments you would of course, need to know.

Are you still actively participating - it would make an excellent subject for a thread - particularly if you could tell about the unit you are following ?

[helen]

Thank you all for your helpful responses as ever, especially Chris and Peter. I had heard of the term 'rolling fire' before too, but had never really considered what it meant. Some interesting bits of history here, especially to see how the attempts to maintain as constant a stream of fire as possible had to be considered amid the practicalities of slower shooters, smoke clearing, and pans flashing in your comrade's faces!

[Douglas Jr.]

Nice and interesting topic.