historygamer | 21 Apr 2016 5:21 a.m. PST |
Curious how gamers who use British Grenadier rules base their American riflemen? The scenarios don't usually show them as skirmishers, but I would be surprised to learn that they fought in close order formations carrying rifles. So how do others handle and based them soldiers? |
historygamer | 21 Apr 2016 6:52 a.m. PST |
Wow, apparently still asleep when I wrote that last sentence. :-( |
Supercilius Maximus | 21 Apr 2016 7:47 a.m. PST |
Whilst there is no doubt that, under Morgan, riflemen acted as snipers and skirmishers with some effect, there are many occasions – especially in the South – when rifle-armed units under-performed (Weitzels Mills, Cowans Ford, and Spencer's Ordinary spring instantly to mind) and several where they were used as ordinary "line" troops, like other militia. Washington became less and less enamoured of them as the war went on, especially from a disciplinary viewpoint, and I would say that whilst the British over-estimated the threat of the rifle at the start of the war, thereafter they began to treat it with less and less respect. Beyond killing Fraser at Bemis Heights, there were very, very few occasions when it actually achieved much of any real note on the battlefield. I would say use rifle-armed skirmishers in 3s (inferior), unless they are specific Continental units in the early war (eg 1st Continental Rgt) or commanded directly by Morgan (eg Saratoga), in which case in 2s (superior). Non-Continental riflemen should always be in 3s. |
historygamer | 21 Apr 2016 8:12 a.m. PST |
I agree with your assessments on the rifles. I always say that it seems Saratoga was their high water mark. Let me rephrase the question a bit – other than Saragota, in what formations would you place your Continental Riflemen in – always in skirmish and/or also able to operate in close formation? |
Supercilius Maximus | 21 Apr 2016 9:55 a.m. PST |
I would always have Continental riflemen as skirmishers, in 2s under Morgan, 3s under anyone else (bear in mind they get extra range as their "bonus"). I would normally have Militia riflemen as skirmishers also, but always in 3s; but I'd also allow the option for Virginian militia to act as linear troops in the South in 1780-81. |
historygamer | 21 Apr 2016 12:30 p.m. PST |
Thanks for the advice. :-) |
nevinsrip | 21 Apr 2016 1:18 p.m. PST |
Beyond killing Fraser at Bemis Heights, there were very, very few occasions when it actually achieved much of any real note on the battlefield. Didn't Morgan use Riflemen/Sharpshooters to shoot the British Officers at Cowpens, thereby causing a leadership failure? I would say that was significant.
|
historygamer | 21 Apr 2016 2:56 p.m. PST |
A lot went wrong at Cowpens. |
Winston Smith | 21 Apr 2016 3:04 p.m. PST |
Perhaps if Tarleton got shot early, the British could have won. |
nevinsrip | 21 Apr 2016 5:48 p.m. PST |
A lot went wrong at Cowpens. What's that supposed to mean? Morgan, more than anyone, understood how to use his riflemen to his best advantage. I would also argue that Riflemen played a significant role at King Mountain, where only the best shots were picked to actually participate in the battle. |
Virginia Tory | 22 Apr 2016 4:45 a.m. PST |
Most of what went wrong at Cowpens had to do with Tarleton's and Morgan's tactical handling of the battle rather than anything the rifles did. Morgan did an excellent job of placing and instructing his troops and keeping a formed reserve. Tarleton acted like a cavalry cornet in his first charge and lost control of the engagement. Agree with SM's analysis. Right now I have Morgan's battalion mounted by 2s as skirmishers. They work much more effectively that way, with Dearborn's musket-armed battalion acting as their formed supports. |
Jcfrog | 22 Apr 2016 5:10 a.m. PST |
There are not that many in one place. In case you find a nice wall or welcoming sunken road, pure skirmish basing looks a bit ridiculous. "Hey man the wall is not long enough for our formation." Put them singly. You can always use them for Shap practice2 in case! |
nevinsrip | 22 Apr 2016 11:52 p.m. PST |
Most of what went wrong at Cowpens had to do with Tarleton's and Morgan's tactical handling of the battle rather than anything the rifles did. I disagree. The rifles killed or wounded a great percentage of British Officers, leaving the infantry leaderless. It especially caused the raw recruits of 7 th Foot to flounder. The 23 RD was also full of replacements and suffered from lack of direction. This was where the battle was won. Without seasoned leaders, the British Line turned into an unruly mob and was soundly defeated. Yes, it's true that the cartoon version always gives the American Rifleman credit for winning the War. It is also true that they played a greater part than some would give them credit for. As for Washington, he made plenty of mistakes. Not using his riflemen, as Morgan did, was one of them. Gates seemed to catch on quickly and used them effectively at Guilford. British Officers also caught on quickly and removed rank insignia before heading off to do battle when riflemen were about. |
Virginia Tory | 23 Apr 2016 5:21 a.m. PST |
What is the 23d RD? The main foot units were the 7th (Newmarsh's resurrected battalion) and the 71st. I won't rule out the rifles contributing to British cohesion problems--after all, that's where riflemen usually made a contribution if they were any good, such as happened to Maxwell's "Lights" at Cooch's Bridge at the hands of the Hessian Jaeger. But it was more than just that. I think Washington was reacting to results. The rifles never really proved all that decisive in any engagement, apart from a few where tactical issues played as big a role--King's Mountain comes to mind. Not sure what important role rifles played at Guilford. There were only a couple of companies of them and they were out on the flanks fighting a private war with the British lights. Did you mean Greene vice Gates? Gates was history after his debut at Camden. And the terrain at Saratoga was a lot more conducive to using riflemen compared to say Monmouth or other major engagements in the mid-Atlantic. Not sure Morgan accomplished as much as he could have. The first thing that happened to him after destroying Major Forbes' pickets was to get counter-charged and run off the field by Hamilton's brigade during the September battle at Freeman's Farm. After that they were just another force multiplier for Arnold. |
nevinsrip | 23 Apr 2016 12:26 p.m. PST |
Did you mean Greene vice Gates? Gates was history after his debut at Camden. Yes, I did mean Greene. My error What is the 23d RD? I was referring to Guilford, where the 23 rd was full of new recruits who needed a firm hand from line officers. Once they were all killed or wounded, it all fell apart. |
historygamer | 23 Apr 2016 9:09 p.m. PST |
Not sure I agree with your assessment's nevin. So aside from Tarleton, who were the other senior officers commanding at Cowpens? I can't name one. The 7th was a hard luck regiment, already captured once, and likely suffered from poor morale. The Crown Forces at Cowpens just came off a forced march and were flung into battle with little scouting or understanding of the ground – let alone time to rest the men or let them eat (IIRC). Morgan's men were fairly well rested, well posted, and well instructed. After this battle Tarleton (who was in his 20s I believe) rarely held an independent command, certainly none of any size. I am curious what you base your assertion on that so many officers were killed by rifles hits? Short of conducting autopsies, how would anyone know that? Officers removed their rank insignia? What is this based on? Rank insignia consisted of an epaulet that was not easy to get off, perhaps not usually wore anyway in the field. Certainly hard to spot over 50 yards. Hard to say if officers wore their scarlet coats or wore enlisted coats (as Guards officers did when the paraded before the King prior to shipping out). If they wore scarlet, then can't hide that. Sergeants also wore a brighter red coat than the men too, probably looked like officers at a distance. The sashes for officers and Sergeants would be hard to tell apart over 20 yards. Officers likely worn an undress hat in the field, so not likely marked by metalic tape on their cocked hat. The useless gorget was likely discarded prior to taking the field, perhaps kept in a haversack or such. Officers carried fusils that mounted a bayonet, so again looked much like the men in ranks. Of course their positions in the line were more likely to give them away than their uniform. The 23rd was led by a Captain at GHC, IIRC. Officers were again short all around. The next senior officer to Cornwallis was O'Hara, likely mounted and marked by that. Same for Lt. Col Webster of the 33rd, who was killed. I believe O'Hara was wounded. As to Washington not using his rifles correctly, what battle would that be at? On the whole, I think Washington was a pretty good general. He certainly had a good grasp of the strategic. He had enough sense to send his rifles north where the terrain favored their tactics. His frustration with the rifles was their lack of discipline and staying power in a stand up fight. As to officer casualties, while they were high at GCH, they were off the charts at Bunker Hill, yet the British were still victorious. Probably few rifles there, more fowling pieces than anything else for the Americans. I think that was the highest proportion of officer casualties for the war and the British could perhaps be termed trained, certainly not veterans. |
nevinsrip | 24 Apr 2016 6:42 a.m. PST |
"Not sure I agree with your assessment's nevin." That's fine. Not everyone agrees and I'm good with that. By the way it's Bill, not nevin. The whole purpose here is to trade ideas and thoughts. "The 7th was a hard luck regiment, already captured once, and likely suffered from poor morale." Okay, so hard luck explains it? "The Crown Forces at Cowpens just came off a forced march and were flung into battle with little scouting or understanding of the ground – let alone time to rest the men or let them eat (IIRC). Morgan's men were fairly well rested, well posted, and well instructed. After this battle Tarleton (who was in his 20s I believe) rarely held an independent command, certainly none of any size." And this has what to do with Morgan's riflemen shooting the officers? We all know that Tarleton screwed up. Morgan played him like a violin. As for the insignias I believe that they were covered up, not removed. I've read this in several tomes concerning the War in the South. "I am curious what you base your assertion on that so many officers were killed by rifles hits? Short of conducting autopsies, how would anyone know that?" The riflemen were positioned by Morgan, who instructed them to shoot the officers. This is recounted in several accounts. Good enough for me, as proof. Morgan also did this at Saratoga, to great advantage. Anyone one of these books will verify that. I have neither the time nor the inclination to find the passages. However, "Devil of a Whipping", "The Road To Guilford Courthouse" and "Long Bloody and Obstinate" are all concerned with the positioning of the riflemen at Cowpens and at Guilford and in some case go into the toll that it took. I'm sure that you've read them all, as you are knowledgeable on the subject. As for Washington, he was not without his faults. Don't forget that GW was trained by the British, who felt that it was not sporting to shoot officers. Morgan, on the other hand, was an old Indian fighter who didn't take to such niceties. Mel Gibson was right when he said that it was madness to stand toe to toe with the British Army. Yet, Washington continued to do so over and over again. Don't get me wrong. GW was the only man in the Colonies who could have pulled this off. But he was man, and all men make mistakes. As for the Bunker Hill scenario, I think two things. One: There were many, many more officers at Bunker Hill than at either Cowpens or Guilford. So of course many more were killed or wounded Two: The British were unprepared for officers to be shot at. This was not done in Europe and they were caught by surprise. A hard lesson to learn. Yes, the Brits were victorious at Bunker Hill, just as they claimed the field at Guilford. What was it that was said afterward? Something about any more such victories and the British Army will be no more.
|
historygamer | 24 Apr 2016 12:11 p.m. PST |
I think poor morale for any unit in a losing battle can explain a good bit. The circumstances of the British at Cowpens, to me, explains why they lost a lot more than any particular weapon shooting at them. Officers covered up what exactly? I have four officer coats and kits hanging in my closet, I'm not sure exactly what I would cover up short of throwing a blanket over myself. Some have suggested that. :-) Point being, officers often went into battle in a field kit that made them hard to differentiate from the men. Not sure I buy the covering up idea at all. I think you are making a lot more of doodles shooting officers. They had fought a long war here in the F&I where they often had high casualty rates, including officers. What was good for the goose was good for the gander. The Brits fielded a lot more rifles as an army than the rebels did. Many American officers were shot. So were they shot by musket balls or rifles? Who can tell at this point. It took that one rifleman at Saratoga how many shots to hit Fraser (who was not advancing)? I think three. Even then he did not hit him square on. It is equally likely that there weren't nearly the number of British officers at Cowpens or GCH to match the TOE. So certainly hitting a few could have an impact, then again, it did not in the final outcome at Bunker Hill – which was my point. GW was not trained by the British, though he emulated them like many did during the time period. Overall I'd say he did pretty well. The reason that the American army could not usually go toe to toe with the Brits had more to do with their system of recruiting and enlistment than anything else. That said, they seemed to do well enough in many battles, often holding their own for long periods of time. I just buy the fact that the Brits were unprepared to have officers shot. That smacks too much of Mel Gibsonism and Lethal Musket. The Brits could have employed the same thing back in spades. The Indians, French, etc, often shot and killed officers. No surprise there. Just ask Beaujeau, Braddock, Halkett, Montcalm, Monkton, Murray and Wolfe. :-) |
Winston Smith | 24 Apr 2016 12:23 p.m. PST |
Standing in the live while the enemy fires at the unit is not s safe practice, regardless of whether the sharpshooters are aiming at officers or not. And if the riflemen are all ordered to shoot at officers, then it would be a lot safer to be a private. I guess the privates were all safe until the riflemen ran out of officers to shoot at. Is a guy armed with a mere musket allowed to aim at officers? Or is that job restricted to the exalted rifleman? |
Bill N | 24 Apr 2016 2:56 p.m. PST |
Rifles should be based the way they are organized and employed. However since that is as much in dispute as their effectiveness I that probably is no help. My readings indicate that rifles were employed both as skirmishers and in line, and in companies that were almost entirely rifles and also companies with predominantly muskets and fowling pieces. Being cheap and lazy I don't want to have to buy or paint more figures than necessary, so I usually put my 28mm rifles on single figure bases. This allows me to alter their use depending on the scenario. If I were doing 15mm or smaller I would be tempted to base my rifles in pairs. Some sources indicate that in skirmishes they would typically operate in groups of two or three. |
Eclaireur | 24 Apr 2016 2:59 p.m. PST |
historygamer – coming back to your starting point that 'the scenarios don't usually show them as skirmishers'. generally the scenario maps try to give an idea of historical start point. whether you send out companies to skirmish is entirely up to you. With Morgan's men, I would base them in pairs as clearly 1st class skirmishers. I would also do enough skirmish / close order bases to allow various combinations. while riflemen are not entirely an 'early war phenomenon' there was a shock effect on the British from some of their early encounters. this caused them to be written up extensively by British participants in those early battles. after a while they became more sanguine about it. but of course they're still often present on the battlefield… EC |
Virginia Tory | 25 Apr 2016 6:49 a.m. PST |
There was also a tendency after the war to blame the British loss on "sneakiness" (e.g., rifles) to distract from poor strategy or tactics. The rifles could shoot further than a musket, but with iron sights the odds are not many people could hit what they aimed at. They were not hunting--they were on a battlefield where controlled chaos was the order of the day (including a lot of powder smoke). I don't rule out that hitting officers or NCOs at Cowpens was a factor, but Newmarsh's battalion was already a bit shaky and it was the formed Continental charge that send the British packing, not rifle fire. Hence, I see rifles as force multipliers, not something that is decisive in of itself. |
historygamer | 25 Apr 2016 7:36 a.m. PST |
IIRC, the British accused the rebles at Bunker Hill of shooting all kinds of odd scrap metal at them, with the supposed intent of maiming them or causing infections. |
Supercilius Maximus | 25 Apr 2016 7:37 a.m. PST |
historygamer/nevinsrip, Morgan assigned 12 men to kill Fraser, of whom Timothy Murphy may (or may not) have been one. That means at least 12 men probably shot at Fraser, at least once each; Fraser was only hit once. link |
historygamer | 25 Apr 2016 7:38 a.m. PST |
Wasn't that also the battle where the British Legion was ordered to charge but instead rode away? I believe they blamed the cause of this on that they had a lot of recently freed American prisoners in their ranks no fighting for the Crown. |
nevinsrip | 25 Apr 2016 11:31 a.m. PST |
Brendan I recall, the shot was over 200 feet in the middle of a battle. As someone who has extensive training with firearms, I can testify to how difficult that would be. These are NYPD stats: Most gunfights happen within seven to fifteen feet. Nine shots fired total, is the average. The hit ratio is less than 18%. Lots of re-enactors claim that they could make that shot. Yeah, maybe with nobody shooting back at them. Anyone who has ever had shots fired in anger at them, will tell you it's a whole new ballgame when the lead starts flying at you. I also recall reading the Morgan told Murphy to climb a tree and shoot Fraser and that it took him 3 shots. Morgan may have assigned 12 men to the detail, but are there any records, or proof, that 12 men actually fired at Fraser? |
nevinsrip | 25 Apr 2016 11:57 a.m. PST |
Bren I just read the article and see that it contains various and conflicting accounts. Only one person mentions the number 12. A few say several and many more have Morgan talking to Murphy, specifically ordering him to shoot Fraser. I don't see a single thing in that article that disproves that Murphy shot Fraser. In fact, more sources that actually spoke to Morgan (one his close friend) repeat the story that Murphy killed Fraser on Morgans orders. However, the one thing that they all mention in common that it was a Rifleman that killed Fraser |
Supercilius Maximus | 25 Apr 2016 12:17 p.m. PST |
Bill – The fact is that nobody has ever produced a source for Murphy being the one. I merely mention the number 12 as it is the only number quoted – it could have been more, it could have been fewer; the point is, it wasn't just one man. As for it being difficult, well, that is precisely my point – shooting someone at that range in the middle of a scrap would be much harder than many people (including some rule writers) think. |
Virginia Tory | 26 Apr 2016 6:36 a.m. PST |
"Yeah, maybe with nobody shooting back at them. Anyone who has ever had shots fired in anger at them, will tell you it's a whole new ballgame when the lead starts flying at you." That's why I always laugh when I read the stories about riflemen "barking" squirrels etc. It's different when the squirrels are shooting back. The other (in)famous account of riflemen missing the mark was at Wetzell's Mills, where LtCol Webster (mounted) was fired on repeatedly without success. No doubt incoming fire was having an impact, among other things. |
Virginia Tory | 26 Apr 2016 6:39 a.m. PST |
The timing of a lot of those Murphy stories is significant. The period of the 1830s-40s was something of a nationalist awakening (the Jacksonian era) and there was a real hunger for stories of heroism, etc to help build the historical narrative for the public. Artwork from the periods prior can be instructive. Some of the earliest Lexington Green art was reasonably accurate, showing the Light Infantry firing by platoons, the militia scattering. By the 1840s, the militia are standing firm, returning fire and even inflicting losses. The same issue applies to other "famous" AWI incidents, such as that of Squire Cheney at Brandywine--they only date back to the 1830s or 40s. |