11th ACR | 16 Nov 2010 6:44 p.m. PST |
Ok there have been many question on this unit over the years. TMP link TMP link Here are mine. 1. Strength? 2. Did all personel were that head gear? 3. Colors (flags)carried my this unit? 4. (a) Did they have a Grenadier and a Light company? (b) Or all troops the same? 5. Did officers were the same head gear? Thanks in advance. Robert Henry |
Adam D | 16 Nov 2010 7:31 p.m. PST |
They fielded 303 men of all ranks at the battle of Camden; considerably fewer men at Hobkirks Hill. I can't answer your other questions with certainty, but they are on my to-do list (in 15mm), and I'm planning on depicting all ranks with caps and plumes, and to have them carrying colors. |
11th ACR | 16 Nov 2010 8:49 p.m. PST |
Yes, I intend to do them in 10mm. I am looking at caps and plumes for all unless some other info shows up. As far as the unit colors go, I will go with a generic green regimental color. Also unless some other info shows up. Thanks for the help. Robert Henry |
95thRegt | 16 Nov 2010 9:33 p.m. PST |
I plan on doing them in 28mm.I'm doing the Southern campaign,and I kinda need them. I'm using the Perry Saratoga figures for my VOI.BTW,the Flag dude makes a stand of colors for them.I have them in 28mm. Its similar to the Queens Rangers colors but in green. Bob |
Supercilius Maximus | 17 Nov 2010 6:38 a.m. PST |
Bob, Have you looked at Perry's Hessian fusiliers? Apart from the satchel-style knapsacks, they are actually pretty close. |
edinburghowl | 17 Nov 2010 7:03 a.m. PST |
A mate of mine sculpted his own a while back: link 1. Katcher states 781 (a surprisingly large number, probably an authorised strength that was never reached). 2.& 4. We'd assumed officers in hats, but the recent osprey shows an officer in the LI style cap – i suspect senior officers chose their own head gear. Drummers would probably be in the cap (i'm not aware of any record of provincials receiving bearskins for musicians). Ditto for grenadiers i suspect. 3. As essentially a light infantry unit i doubt they carried them in battle – they were taken onto the regular establishment in 1782 so should have received colours then (possibly replacing any they had before?). 4. Yes, grenadier and LI coys. |
roughriderfan | 17 Nov 2010 2:48 p.m. PST |
Answers of a sort to your questions Raised in Philadelphia in the fall of 1777 as a standard regiment of foot. In 1779 taken onto the "American Establishment" as the 2nd American Regiment – which meant that its officers would be able to make a claim for "half pay" after the war was over. In late 1782 they were made the 105th Regiment of Foot – and disbanded in April of 1783 after returning to Ireland. Strength – Katcher gives a max strength of 871 for the war which includes everyone. They were noted as having 412 rank and file in October of 1778 – an account of their parading in New York mentions the corps as over 400 strong. When Rawdon takes them south in 1780 they are listed as having 414 r&f, 467 all ranks. However by September of 1780 the numbers had dropped to 13 officers and 286 men fit for service – the returns for Camden show 16 officers and 287 men. The following year (1781) there were less then 200 men fit for service at Hobrirks Hill in April – but the return for September 1st gives a strength of 398 all ranks Uniform, organization and colors questions They were organized as a British regiment of foot, with ten companies, one light, one grenadier and eight line. The question of uniforms gets into one of "what year". Shoulder wings for the flank companies could be added by regimental tailors – the headgear is another question. I guess is that the grenadiers looked like the line troops The standard issue of Loyalist equipment for an infantry regiment did not provide for light infantry caps or bearskins – however caps could be made out of cocked hats – bearskins would depend on finding a source of funding. The colonel of the unit – Lord Rawdon – was somewhat wealthy so he could have purchased these items. Colors would have been provided for this regiment – at least when it was taken on the American Establishment in 1779 I raised the question of what year for the uniform as it strikes me that the southern campaign dress would be different from the 1778-1779 period. For 1780-81 I use a mixture of the Perry "southern dress" in roundabouts and hats for these lads. Rawdon appears to have been a good commander who understood warfare in the Americas – and when faced with issues of heat and comfort – and sickness – cutting into his strength – I can see him taking steps to make life more bearable for the rank and file. Officers are a different question – I can see those keeping to the regulation dress of the coat with brandenburgs and the cap more then the rank and file My .02. |
95thRegt | 17 Nov 2010 6:21 p.m. PST |
Have you looked at Perry's Hessian fusiliers? Apart from the satchel-style knapsacks, they are actually pretty close. >> Nah,you got the big Hessian cartridge box,fur pack,and they're armed with short swords among other things.. Bob |
Ralpher | 22 Nov 2010 7:53 a.m. PST |
roughriderfan is nearly correct that the Katcher figure. The number 871 represents "Cumulative total (Estimated)". It appears as though Katcher used Paul H Smith's article on pages 259-279 of the William and Mary Quarterly from April 1960 entitled, The American Loyalist: Notes on their Organization and Numerical Strength. Smith's article had tables where the strenght figures included Maximum strength (Known), Dead discharged deserted (Known), Attrition rate (Estimated), Officers (Known), Cumulative total (Known) and Cumulative total (Estimated). Those for the Volunteer of Ireland are: Maximum strength (Known) – 632 Dead discharged deserted (Known) – 43 Attrition rate (Estimated) – Moderate to heavy Officers (Known) – 46 Cumulative total (Known) – 679 Cumulative total (Estimated) – 871 To help understand some other aspects of the changes in their strength, some detailed information may be of use. Most returns quoted in books are actually partial returns and only give the "present fit for duty strength" (and, then, often only for the rank and file). You may see what I mean below when the drop between the "fighting strength" (rank and file, present fit for duty) is due to most of those men being "sick". In fact, the number of rank and file men on the rolls increased. Anyway, the returns were part of the Dreer Collection at the Pennsylvania Historical Society (at least it was) for February 1779 and December 1780 for the Provisional Forces which showed the regiment had (pffd is Present fit for duty) Rank – (February 1778) (December 1780) Present Commissioned officers – 27 11 Staff – 4 2 Sergeants pffd – 22 18 Drummers pffd – 18 14 Rank and file pffd – 340 243 [my subtotal – present] [411] [288] Sick Sergeants – 3 8 Drummers – 1 5 Rank and file – 38 185 On command Sergeants – 1 3 Drummers – 1 3 Rank and file – 21 60 On furlow or recruiting Sergeants – 4 nil Drummers – nil nil Rank and file – 26 nil Prisoners with the rebels Rank and file – 2 25 Total [on rolls] Sergeants – 30 30 Drummers – 20 22 Rank and file – 427 513 Non-effective Discharged – 14 [not given] Deserted – 13 [not given] Other than the "missing" sergeant for the December 1780 total that may be a single man on recruiting (though I recall checking at the time), if there appear any errors, they may well be my old penmanship as I do not have a photocopy of the returns. – R |
Ralpher | 22 Nov 2010 8:01 a.m. PST |
Argh, the submission did not keep the distances between columns, let me try again with dashes and dots: Rank – – - – - – -(February 1778) (December 1780) Present Commissioned officers – -27 . . . . . .11 Staff – – - – - – - – - – 4 . . . . . . 2 Sergeants pffd – – - – - 22 . . . . . .18 Drummers pffd – – - – - -18 . . . . . . 14 Rank and file pffd – – -340 . . . . . .243 [my subtotal – present]-[411] . . . . [288] Sick Sergeants – – - – - – - – -3 . . . . . . 8 Drummers – – - – - – - – - 1 . . . . . . 5 Rank and file – – - – - – 38 . . . . . .185 On command Sergeants – – - – - – - – - 1 . . . . . . 3 Drummers – – - – - – - – - -1 . . . . . . 3 Rank and file – – - – - – - 21 . . . . . . 60 On furlow or recruiting Sergeants – – - – - – - – - 4 . . . . . . nil Drummers – – - – - – - – - nil . . . . . .nil Rank and file – – - – - – - 26 . . . . . . nil Prisoners with the rebels Rank and file – – - – - – - – 2 . . . . . . 25 Total [on rolls] Sergeants – – - – - – - – - – 30 . . . . . . 30 Drummers – – - – - – - – - – - 20 . . . . . . 22 Rank and file – – - – - – - – 427 . . . . . .513 Non-effective Discharged – – - – - – - – - – 14 . . . . [not given] Deserted – – - – - – - – - – - 13 . . . . [not given] |
Ralpher | 22 Nov 2010 8:14 a.m. PST |
I see that I incorrectly typed 1778 in the column heading, it is in fact February 1779. My mind must have slipped for I also have similar information for the regiment as of August 1778, which is: -----------------(August 1778) Present Commissioned officers – – –18 Staff – – – – – – – – – – –4 Sergeants pffd – – – – – – 20 Drummers pffd – – – – – – –10 Rank and file pffd – – – – 210 [my subtotal – present] – [262] Sick Sergeants – – – – – – – – – –1 Drummers – – – – – – – – – – 2 Rank and file – – – – – – – 18 On command Sergeants – – – – – – – – – – 1 Drummers – – – – – – – – – – nil Rank and file – – – – – – – – 13 On furlow or recruiting Sergeants – – – – – – – – – – – 2 Drummers – – – – – – – – – – – – 3 Rank and file – – – – – – – – – 20 Prisoners with the rebels Rank and file – – – – – – – – – – nil Total [on rolls] Sergeants – – – – – – – – – – – – 24 Drummers – – – – – – – – – – – – – 15 Rank & file – – – – – – – – – – – 261 |
lucky1oldman | 15 Sep 2021 8:27 a.m. PST |
Hi, Any consensus on whether all ranks had the light inf. cap or just the light inf.coy.? If different hats, would the other coys. have round hats? |
historygamer | 02 Oct 2021 4:17 p.m. PST |
Not sure I understand your question, but this unit is a bit of a mystery since their uniforms were so very different. |
lucky1oldman | 04 Oct 2021 11:48 a.m. PST |
To historygamer; I've seen the entire regt. wearing the light inf. cap & I was wondering if this is correct or just correct for the lt. coy. only. Just wondering as I thought I could paint up the BMC Hessians to look like the Volunteers. |
historygamer | 07 Oct 2021 5:13 a.m. PST |
I think you are mistaking the unit's normal cap for a Light Infantry cap. The better question (I think) is, what caps did the unit's Lights and Grens wear? This chap is from a line company, not a flank company: link Note, he does not have any wings on his coat. |
lucky1oldman | 08 Oct 2021 4:18 a.m. PST |
|