The stereotype of Napoleonic Warfare and indeed any gunpowder war before the World War 1 is that soldiers just line up and shoot without regard to marksmanship because they assume that an enemy will get hit in the mass fire of volley. So much that I seen comments about how you don't even have to hold your rifle properly and you just shoot it in the American Civil War and earlier because you are guaranteed to hit an enemy in the mass rigid square blocks they are stuck in.
However this thread on suppressive fire in modern warfare made me curious.
https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/7vkubw/how_important_is_individual_marksmanship_is_in/
The OP states despite the cliche that hundreds of bullets are spent to kill a single enemy and most tactics in modern war involves spraying at an enemy to get him to become too scared to shoot back and hide while you have one person sneak up behind the now cowering enemy and kill him, plenty of marksmanship training is still done in modern warfare.
So I have to ask if marksmanship was important even in volley fire seen before WW1 in the American Civil War and other earlier time periods in particular Napoleonic? Is it misunderstood much like modern suppression tactics is by people where they get the wrong impression that you just spray bullets on an enemy and marksmanship doesn't matter because your buddies will sneak behind them and kill them? Is it more than just "spray bullets nonstop and hope it hits the guy in front of you who's in a bayonet block"?
If its true that soldiers prior to the World War 1 particularly the Napoleon years just shot bullets aimlessly without bothering to try to target on an enemy because they expected their mass volleys to hit so many marching enemy troops in square formations......... Why did they still hold rifles in the basic aiming stance and arm structure? Why didn't they just tell soldiers to hold rifles from the hips and shoot in any angle or any stance they want?
Demian points out the crucial fact that regardless how well trained for aiming the soldier was and regardless to the quality of arms - you cannot aim when firing in rank in file due to the tactical formation.
This was a different story for skirmishers, and here most armies did extensive training for aiming and shooting - and not only the Brits, or French - this is well documented for the Prussian, Saxon and Bavarian army - for example as well.
Those shooting competitions were conducted for example in the Prussian army for the Schützen as well, and even the officers took part in it - for more you must wait on a chapter I wrote in a multi author book to be published by Helion.
The most over looked topic is not aiming and hitting, or not training or training - but fire discipline, here seemingly the British Army was the best who could initiate a fire fight, stop it and charge.
so it is impossible to expect that a sure shot can happen. Yes, even the best Jäger (marksmen, sharp shooters expert to hit with a shot, so to speak Hessian, Austrian, Prussian Jäger units) as soon as they would have to fire in rank and file, they would not hit better by the ruling constriction and disorder than the usual line infantry man.“