"43rd Foot muskets or rifles" Topic

I intend to expand my 6mm armies, and I would like some information on the British Light Division for the Penninsular Campaign.

I was recently told that the division was smaller as all the units were armed with the Baker Rifle, including the 43rd.

Can any support or refute this claim please?

Refute, only the 95th and 5/60th were all rifle armed of the British regiments.

The KGL light battalions may also have been rifle armed, at least in part as well.

The others regiments in the Light Division were musket armed but light infantry trained.

What he said…. For the British, any unit in red coats was musket armed. KGL similar although they did have very small rifle-armed detachments in their line battalions later. (Even then you're talking 20 rifles and 600 muskets….)

OK, I've had a quick skim. It started out as the light brigade in the 1808 campaign, and early on in the rematch, but from spring 1810 was made up to a division. This was:

1st Brigade
1/43rd Light Infantry (Musket-armed.)
1/95th Rifles
3/95th Rifles
3rd Cacadores (Rifles.)

2nd Brigade
1/52nd Light Infantry (Musket-armed.)
2/95th Rifles
1st Cacadores (Rifles.)

Divisional Troops
Captain Ross's Troop, RHA. (aka "Chestnut Troop")
Detachments of the 14th and 16th Light Dragoons, although these might not have lasted for long – they're rarely mentioned.

Of the above, the battalions of the 95th were frequently well below strength; it was common practice to parcel out a couple of companies of rifles as a detachment to whoever needed them, so the rifle battalions very rarely had 10 companies present. As an example, at Salamanca the 1st had 8 companies, the 2nd only 4, and the 3rd had 5 companies.

(As a PS, there was also a "light division" at Walcheren in 1809, but this was a different unit entirely, including the second battalions of the 43rd and 52nd.)

As others have stated, the 43rd and 52nd were musket armed, but their weapons were different than those of line battalions in that they had a rear sight which made aiming easier to some degree.

The Cacadores were at least partially, but probably not totally, armed with rifles.

Yep, muskets.

Is is true that British light infantry battalions only had eight companies? Would this also have applied to the rifle battalions?

GdeP

There was a big debate at the time over the effectivness of the Baker Rifle over a musket – rate of fire, cost etc.
If you want to read all about the subject try:
The British Light Infantry Arm by David Gates

GdeP – no to both as far as I know; could be a misapprehension based on them not having flank companies as such. From my notes the 1/95th at Waterloo were 6 companies strong for example, but those companies were the 1st, 2nd, 5th, 8th, 9th and 10th.

Yes, Light Infantry battalions had ten companies like Line battalions.

I seem to remember that Portugese Cacadores had one company in each battalion armed with rifles, the rest with muskets. In theory?

As was well said above, any guys in red coats will carry muskets.

I thought Cacadores were predominantly rifle armed, but am very open to being proved wrong on that one – definitely not an area I know much about….

The only definite information that I have found regarding the armament of the Cacadores is from John Dobbs who took command of a company of the 5th Cacadores in September 1813. He states:

"The company consisted of 120 men; one half were armed with rifles, the other half with muskets and bayonets."

Whether this was the case with all companies, I do not know.

What about the South Essex light company?

Remeber, the south Essex had riflemen atached, not organic. So the redcoats still had muskets.

And isnt it sad that I know more about them than a real unit? Of course if it wasnt for Sharpe and Harps, I might still not have that much interest in the Brits, or the peensula

Mark Urban's book on the 1st Bn 95th states that the battalion was ten companies strong strong upon embarkabtion for Portugal in May 1809, but I vaguely recall that as numbers dropped, so weak companies were amalagamated, to the dismay of lieutenants hoping to fill dead men's shoes and advance to captain for free.

Many thanks guys, lots of very useful information.

In an inspection return dated May 1814, the armament of the two KGL Light Battaions is recorded:

1st Battalion: 392 rifles and swords, 253 muskets and bayonets.

2nd Battalion: 392 rifles and swords, 253 muskets and bayonets.

Regarding the Cacadores, in 1809 Wellington requested 2,000 rifles for the Portuguese army. If these were distributed amongst the six Cacadores battalions then perhaps the proportions mentioned by Captain Dobbs of the 5th Cacadores were standard throughout the army.

There werer also 12 companies of Brunswick Oels Jaegers. The title "jaeger" suggest that they were rifle-armed, but…

Of the 12 coys, 3 were attached to various divisions and seem to occupy the same role as the coys of 5/60th. The other 9 companies were in the 7th Division. Now 9 companies strikes me as an unwiedly number, so perhaps 1 coy as rifle-armed skirmishers, the remaining 8 as musket-armed LI?

Thoughts, anyone?

What a lot of rifles! 95th – not so special now, eh?

As Mr G Washington discovered – a rifle doth not a rifleman make…….