"Rifle Armed Units" Topic
95 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please remember that some of our members are children, and act appropriately.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Firearms Message Board Back to the American Revolution Message Board
Action Log
20 May 2019 5:30 p.m. PST by Editor in Chief Bill
- Crossposted to Firearms board
Areas of InterestRenaissance 18th Century Napoleonic American Civil War 19th Century World War One World War Two on the Land Modern
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Recent Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Showcase ArticleThe Acolyte Vampires return - based, now, and ready for the game table.
Featured Workbench ArticleDon't let the horses daunt you!
Featured Profile ArticleA Civil War boardgame is adapted to miniature wargaming.
Featured Book Review
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
Pages: 1 2
Oldgrumbler | 08 Oct 2016 12:48 p.m. PST |
Did any rifle armed units have bayonets? JPK |
Dn Jackson | 08 Oct 2016 1:02 p.m. PST |
No. There weren't an rifles I know of that were made to take a bayonet. I've always wondered why Washington didn't have plug bayonets made for his riflemen. Anyone know why? |
Winston Smith | 08 Oct 2016 1:16 p.m. PST |
Because he didn't like riflemen. Seriously…. Riflemen were thought of as a separate troop type. It took 3-4 times as long to load a rifle as a musket. And a bayonet would ruin the delicate balance of a rifle. A socket bayonet requires a lug that would interfere with the aim. So they were usually protected by musket men with bayonets while they reloaded. Riflemen were ususlly distributed among such units. So, the riflemen took their time reloading, while bayonet armed men protected them. Even jaegers usually had musketeers or grenadiers to protect them. For this reason, the special care and protection they required, and the fact that frontier riflemen were a rowdy undisciplined lot, Washington disliked riflemen. |
Winston Smith | 08 Oct 2016 1:23 p.m. PST |
Think too about a plug bayonet with a rattled inexperienced hillbilly riflemen. Even an experienced one. Can you imagine how dangerous it would be to fire a loaded rifle (he forgot!) with a plug bayonet securely jammed in the barrel? |
jowady | 08 Oct 2016 1:52 p.m. PST |
Think too about a plug bayonet with a rattled inexperienced hillbilly riflemen. Even an experienced one. Can you imagine how dangerous it would be to fire a loaded rifle (he forgot!) with a plug bayonet securely jammed in the barrel?
I imagine it also didn't fit into the way that Riflemen were supposed to be used. They weren't supposed to stand in line of battle and come to close quarters with the enemy, that's why they had a long range rifle. And if things did get close I imagine that many of them would have been much more comfortable fighting with tomahawks or hunting knives. |
Brechtel198 | 08 Oct 2016 3:18 p.m. PST |
I haven't seen anything credible that states that Washington 'disliked' riflemen. Washington did know, though, from experience that riflemen were not the answer to the British and German regulars. That's why he never wanted more than 1,000 with the army at any one time. From American Army Life by John Elting, 23-24: 'The Americans had expected that their riflemen would shoot the British Army to pieces, but had overlooked the facts that loading a rifle took twice as long as loading a musket and that the rifle did not have a bayonet. The British quickly developed the tactic of giving the American riflemen a volley and then charging through the smoke with the bayonet, catching them in the act of reloading. So rushed, riflemen would break for the rear, throwing the regular infantry behind them into disorder. As a result, no new rifle units were enlisted, and some seem to have been rearmed with muskets.' 'In 1777, Washington formed a provisional Corps of Riflemen, under Col Daniel Morgan, with picked marksmen detached from Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Maryland Continental regiments. They were sent to deal with the Indians who had been raiding in the Hudson Valley as part of an invading British army under Gen John Burgoyne. Working in close cooperation with the American light infantry, Morgan employed his riflemen with great effectiveness as sharpshooters in the battles around Saratoga. This 'corps' was broken up during the winter of 1777-1778 and never reactivated. Other rifle units, mostly militia or state troops, served usefully in the south…' More material, which supports this viewpoint, can be found in The Book of the Continental Soldiers by Harold Peterson, 38-44. There is much myth about the rifle being 'the gun that won the Revolution' and that is just plain nonsense. The same myth grew up about the rifle after the Battle of New Orleans in 1815, which stated that the rifle won the battle. The weapons that won it were artillery and the musket, not the rifle. |
historygamer | 08 Oct 2016 5:40 p.m. PST |
Yes. The Ferguson breachloading rifle mounted a bayonet. Other rifle units on both sides werevusually supported by musket units that carried bayonets. |
nevinsrip | 09 Oct 2016 1:10 a.m. PST |
Washington never "hated" Riflemen. He just didn't understand how to properly use them. |
Early morning writer | 09 Oct 2016 7:44 a.m. PST |
And a point I've not seen made but I think would have been part of the problem – the American rifle was as much a work of art as a weapon and much likely more fragile than the standard musket. I suspect it wouldn't have been very effective with a bayonet attached since the whole idea behind a bayonet is to turn a musket into a short pike and a pike that broke just put the pikeman in danger. I think that would have happened with a 'delicate' rifle. Then there is the matter of monetary value to a rifle for its users versus the common musket. Can anyone quote period data for the difference in cost between a single rifle and a single musket for comparative purposes? |
Bill N | 09 Oct 2016 9:57 a.m. PST |
The only reference I've seen about plug bayonets being issued to troops refer to Patrick Ferguson's command at Kings Mountain. For example in his From Savannah to Yorktown Lumpkin states "Those among Patrick Ferguson's Loyalist militia not armed with bayonetted "Brown Bess" were issued long knives with specially tapered wood hilts that could be jammed into a rifle or fowling piece muzzle to form a crude bayonet." |
42flanker | 09 Oct 2016 10:24 a.m. PST |
Apart from their comparitive fragility, the plug for a rifle would have to have been mighty fine. Plug bayonets dated from an era with much heavier muskets. |
Major Bloodnok | 09 Oct 2016 1:48 p.m. PST |
There are surviving plans of a "folding pike" that was to be issued to riflemen. This pike had a leather sling and sling swivels so that it could be carried by the rifleman. How many got made, and issued, (if any), is another story. |
Old Contemptibles | 09 Oct 2016 9:22 p.m. PST |
Jaegers were rifle armed. I thought they had bayonets. |
Old Contemptibles | 09 Oct 2016 9:26 p.m. PST |
Were American rifle units issued a standard rifle or did they provide their own? That might be one reason for the lack of bayonets. Have to have a variety of sizes to fit all those different barrels. It seems a fixed bayonet would through off your aim. Not such a big deal when firing a musket but a rifle is all about accuracy. |
Early morning writer | 09 Oct 2016 10:08 p.m. PST |
Rallynow, don't know about the bayonets for the Hessians but it is my understanding they had shorter and much heavier rifles than the American version. |
Major Bloodnok | 10 Oct 2016 2:39 a.m. PST |
The Jaegers carried short swords rather than a bayonet. American riflemen owned their own rifles. The rifle used by Jaegers was short, think the size of a Baker Rifle. The American rifle evolved from the German jaeger rifle. I doubt Colonial rifles were that much lighter than Jaeger rifles. |
Brechtel198 | 10 Oct 2016 4:47 a.m. PST |
Washington never "hated" Riflemen. He just didn't understand how to properly use them. Can you support this statement with evidence? In all the time I've studied the War of the Revolution I have never seen this in evidence. |
Brechtel198 | 10 Oct 2016 4:48 a.m. PST |
American rifle units were not issued a standard rifle until the War of 1812. |
Old Contemptibles | 10 Oct 2016 11:53 a.m. PST |
Then that would one reason they did not have bayonets of any kind because their so many different rifles. I know the Jaegers had shorter barreled, than the typical American long rifle. I just wasn't sure if they had a sword bayonet. The same as the later British rifle units in the Napoleonic Wars. |
Brechtel198 | 10 Oct 2016 1:17 p.m. PST |
The American rifle was not made to take a bayonet which is why they didn't have one. |
historygamer | 10 Oct 2016 4:24 p.m. PST |
The American rifle was not developed as a military weapon. Having fought on the frontier for so many years, I am not sure you can say Washington didn't know how to use rifles. I think the challenge was figuring what, if any role, a large group of rifles had on the battlefield. I tend to believe that American rifles were a lot more useful in the daily grind of small actions taking place around the British armies. That might mean both militia and Continentals using rifles for skirmishes, etc. The British usually fielded more rifles than the Americans, as they had rifle in their Light companies, foot dragoons, perhaps some Loyalists units, and Jaegers. |
Brechtel198 | 11 Oct 2016 3:42 a.m. PST |
Which British light infantry companies were armed with rifles? |
Supercilius Maximus | 11 Oct 2016 3:54 a.m. PST |
As far as we know, all of them. Each light company armed its best shots with Tower rifles; it's not entirely clear what happened to all the old Ferguson rifles once his unit was disbanded, but some of them may have ended up in the mix as well (the company of Select Marksmen in Burgoyne's army used some of the rifles captured from Morgan's men in the failed attack on Quebec). The number of riflemen per company was not fixed at this time, but two to five was the norm, the lower number being more usual. There was a similar arrangement within each mounted troop of the two Regular light dragoon regiments, wherein two men were armed with rifled carbines. When the light companies were formed into battalions, all of the riflemen were converged into a single platoon, under a subaltern, and this platoon led the way on the march. It was supported by one of the light companies (I'm not sure if the identity of the latter varied, or if it was the same one the whole time) for support. |
historygamer | 11 Oct 2016 7:05 a.m. PST |
Use of rifles by British units goes back to the F&I period. IIRC, 15 rifles were issued to Bouquet's detachment of 60th during the Forbes campaign in 1758. I don't recall seeing any details on how they were used, but I suspect it was in a similar fashion to the Rev War – though there were no Light companies with Bouquet (they didn't exist yet in 1758). |
Brechtel198 | 11 Oct 2016 7:29 a.m. PST |
As far as we know, all of them. Do you have a source for this? |
historygamer | 11 Oct 2016 9:30 a.m. PST |
The Pattern rifle is well documented as is its use during the war. Colonial Williamsburg has at least one on display and credits it being carried by a cavalry unit. |
historygamer | 11 Oct 2016 9:33 a.m. PST |
|
historygamer | 11 Oct 2016 9:35 a.m. PST |
Sorry to cite wiki but at work and all reference books are at home. These rifles are well documented. |
Supercilius Maximus | 11 Oct 2016 9:43 a.m. PST |
Two of de Witt Bailey's books have copious Board of Ordnance references in them: Small Arms of the British Forces in North America, 1664-1815 British Military Flintlock Rifles, 1740-1840 |
nevinsrip | 11 Oct 2016 11:12 a.m. PST |
Can you support this statement with evidence? In all the time I've studied the War of the Revolution I have never seen this in evidence. Yes, Cowpens and Guilford. Morgan used Riflemen correctly and Greene was smart enough to realize that Morgan was right and did the same thing at Guilford. Washington never grasped the concept of using Riflemen to destroy the British Officers Corps. |
Winston Smith | 11 Oct 2016 4:50 p.m. PST |
When the light companies were formed into battalions, all of the riflemen were converged into a single platoon, under a subaltern, and this platoon led the way on the march. There were certainly light companies in all the large battles in the north. All part of the "Cornwallis Task Force", the inspiration of all wargames. How did they perform? I've never seen any reference to this before. Did they perform any notable feats? Somewhere between "hating" riflemen and "not knowing how to use them", Washington probably didn't think they were worth the bother. Despite folklore and wargaming lore, they were not at all common in the FIW. They were relatively new fangled in America, and individually owned. Washington was very annoyed by their rowdy, indisciplined behavior at Boston. He knew they were slow to reload and needed protection. I would not be surprised if he sent the riflemen under Morgan to Gates thinking "Here. Maybe you can do something with this lot. Get them out of my hair." Due to each rifle being individually owned, and probably unique, it would be inefficient to use them in a volley. That would annoy a tidy military mind. And they needed protection. Plug bayonets could not be mass produced to fit them. Each would have to be individually fitted. And they could even ruin the end if the barrell, ruining their accuracy. Jaegers were disciplined riflemen. Frontier men were most definitely not. Perhaps if Washington had had access to disciplined riflemen, with trained support, he may have had more use for them. Let's not forget that one of Washington's main wishes was to produce a regular army, based on the British model. Let's also not forget that he was bitterly disappointed in not receiving a regular commission in the British army. Rowdy hillbillies did not fit his picture of what he wanted. |
nevinsrip | 11 Oct 2016 11:15 p.m. PST |
Absolutely. GW was British trained and could not adapt as he should have. Morgan was a frontiersman and Indian fighter. He knew how to use the troops at his disposal to maximum advantage. He was not encumbered by British military training as GW was. Greene had no formal military training, but he knew a good thing when he saw it. He too, wasn't bogged down by the "proper way to fight a war." He saw what worked and he used it. Riflemen should have been used as snipers and as long range marksmen, shooting at British officers as they approached. Then retreat behind the Continentals and reform and fire more longer distance shots. Not gentlemanly enough for Washington. |
Major Bloodnok | 12 Oct 2016 3:01 a.m. PST |
I was under the impression that the doodle's picking off officers was common enough that British officers were campaigning in plainer dress, making it harder to pick them out. It may be that the indiscipline of the the riflemen was the key to GW's supposed dislike of riflemen rather than a gentleman's moral objection to sniping other gentlemen. It may be that what tactical advantages of having entire bns. of riflemen were being negated by their indiscipline? |
Virginia Tory | 12 Oct 2016 7:46 a.m. PST |
"Absolutely. GW was British trained and could not adapt as he should have. Morgan was a frontiersman and Indian fighter. He knew how to use the troops at his disposal to maximum advantage. He was not encumbered by British military training as GW was." Well, that's one of the wierder things I've seen posted on TMP. I think you are confusing 18th century field tactics with popular mythology about how riflemen were used. Somebody tell me what "British military training" is and how it was different than what von Steuben taught the Continental Army? Morgan did an excellent job of getting the best performance he could out of his men; that said, Tarleton's careless handling of his force played at least as much a role as any losses caused by riflemen. Greene certainly had a good grasp of what was operationally required, but he was far from a good tactician. His lines at Guilford, for example, weren't even in supporting distance--which contributed to the collapse of the first line and defeat of the second by a numerically inferior enemy. |
Winston Smith | 12 Oct 2016 10:24 a.m. PST |
True. One could even call Guilford Courthouse 3 different battles fought on the same day. |
historygamer | 12 Oct 2016 11:47 a.m. PST |
"Absolutely. GW was British trained and could not adapt as he should have." Not sure where to start on that one. GW was self taught, like more officers of the day, including British. He held is VA regiments to a British regular standard of discipline during the F&I War (see Brunwell's new and excellent book), but he was not trained by them at all. He served under them, but in most cases that was only for brief periods of time, otherwise he was off on his own doing his own thing. GW was a surveyor as a young man and wandered the frontier in that capacity. He served the colony of VA from 1753 to the end of 1758, usually on the frontier, and usually under his own command. He worked with all kinds of troops and scouts, this in my opinion, this statement is waaaaaay off course. "Morgan was a frontiersman and Indian fighter." And served with Washington on Braddock's campaign of 1755 – but Washington was treated as a staff officer while Morgan was a wagon driver, not a soldier. But, the point is, both served on the frontier, just in different roles. "He knew how to use the troops at his disposal to maximum advantage." Morgan was well regarded and was successful at in two battles in particular. Of course he was not responsible for all of the actions taken that led to those victories.
"He was not encumbered by British military training as GW was." Debunked. "Greene had no formal military training, but he knew a good thing when he saw it." British officers had no formal training either. All officers were self taught, to a large extent, and read the current works of the time, many of which addressed the topics of irregular warfare.
"He too, wasn't bogged down by the "proper way to fight a war." You've been watching too many movies. :-) "He saw what worked and he used it." As did all American officers. But comparing the small engagements to the large battles Washington fought is apples to watermelons. That said, Greene lost most of his battles, so he can hardly be considered any more successful than Washington, at least in the tactical sense of employing men. "Riflemen should have been used as snipers and as long range marksmen, shooting at British officers as they approached." Okay, you stand across a field and I'll run at you with a bayonet on my musket. Let's see how that works out. Oh, guess what, the British used cover too and did not march shoulder to shoulder. Ever read Spring's book? "Then retreat behind the Continentals and reform and fire more longer distance shots." Through the formed units? It just seems you are one of those starry eyed rifle lovers that think they could have one the war, hiding behind rocks and such. Nonsense. "Not gentlemanly enough for Washington." You sound like one of the radicals in the Continental Congress grumbling about Washington's lack of victories. Too funny, and not very realistic. |
nevinsrip | 12 Oct 2016 12:06 p.m. PST |
Greene wasn't a good tactician? Really? Now that's one of the stranger things I've seen on TMP. Who won the Race to the Dan and bled the British dry? Greene's tactics are still studied today, as he maneuvered brilliantly throughout the Campaign. Who held things together in the South by wisely using what he had. He used the "partisans" to full advantage. He also knew how to best use his Mounted units, something GW never did. Without Morgan/Greens the South falls and the War is over. Here's my list of the 5 most important battles of the AWI: Saratoga (including Bennington) Gates, Arnold, Stark. Trenton/Princeton Washington Cowpens Morgan Kings Mountain Various Yorktown GW, Rochambeau. You may add Bunker Hill, as it showed the Americans they could stand with the British, when behind barricades. GW wasn't their, either. GW was only at two winning battles and, at Yorktown, he deferred to the French, who knew more bout siege warfare than he did. Only when Washington thought outside the box and tried a nighttime, surprise attack, was he successful. When he reverted to the "stand tall and fire" linear warfare he was soundly beaten every time. As for tactics. Washington was constantly outflanked, because he failed to guard flanking positions. Chads Ford, Hempstead Road/Jamaica Road ring any bells? Time and time again, he let victory slip away because of basic failures to secure the field. Washington was the greatest American who ever lived. Make no mistake about that. Everything goes to hell without his presence. But he was no military genius. |
nevinsrip | 12 Oct 2016 12:27 p.m. PST |
Historygamer So everybody in both armies was self taught? No one had formal military training? Astounding!!!! You have so many ridiculous points that I don't know where to begin. But I'll take two quick ones. You can start 200 yards away and run with your musket and bayonet. An experienced marksmen will kill you before you get within 50 yards of them. Men that owned rifles knew how to use them. They weren't for show. Studies show that you have to shoot an attacker within 18 feet before someone armed with an edged weapon can stab you. So, 200 yards should be enough. Two…Study Cowpens and you'll see how the Marksmen and Militia both reformed after passing through the Continental lines. |
historygamer | 12 Oct 2016 5:43 p.m. PST |
"Greene wasn't a good tactician? Really?" No, not particularly, but he was an excellent strategist, certainly better than Cornwallis during the Southern campaign. "Now that's one of the stranger things I've seen on TMP." I doubt that. :-) "Who won the Race to the Dan and bled the British dry?" That would be conducting military operations at what is called the operational level today, following his strategy of avoiding a fight unless the odds favored him. You seem to be confusing tactics (battlefield arrangements) with operational and strategy. "Greene's tactics are still studied today, as he maneuvered brilliantly throughout the Campaign." That would be his operational and strategy, not his tactics. He did not display a gifted tactical sense at all as he lost most of his battlefield fights. "Who held things together in the South by wisely using what he had." Strategy. And he spent himself into the poor house at the end of the war and pretty much died broke, like so many other heroes of the war. "He used the "partisans" to full advantage." Like Benjamin Martin? "He also knew how to best use his Mounted units, something GW never did." I'd give more credit to Lee and Washington on that front, though they also had a lot of reverses too. It is true the cavalry of the Main Army never jelled, but that seemed to be more due to petty bickering among themselves and a lack of suitable ground to deploy on – which also affected the British as well, and carried over into the Civil War for the same reasons. Cavalry was also expensive to maintain and if you have ever read books on the cavalry there were often without mounts, swords, uniforms, boots, tack gear, etc. "Without Morgan/Greens the South falls and the War is over." He was a skilled strategist, and I would suspect his only equal on that score was Clinton. He was very important to the success of the Southern campaign but we can only speculate if he could have been replaced by anyone. Morgan was a good officer too, but both Morgan and Greene had some bad moments too. One of Greene's was advising to hold Fort Washington, which was very poor advice indeed. Morgan had his failure moment when he did not march to the battlefield at Monmouth, though the orders to him the night before were confusing and he was a very literal commander when it came to following orders, according to the authors/historians in the new book on Monmouth. |
historygamer | 12 Oct 2016 6:03 p.m. PST |
"Historygamer So everybody in both armies was self taught? No one had formal military training? Astounding!!!!" Yes, that is a fact. Other than Woolrich for the artillery, the British did not yet have a military academy. If you have ever read a book on the background of British military officers you'd know that many hired tutors to teach them mathematics and engineering, such as Wolfe did. A few went off and studied at various European military schools, but this was spotty at best. If you had ever read "Books and the British Army in the Age of the American Revolution" by Ira Grubb, you'd know that most officers (in both armies) were self taught, and that there were standard works they were all expected to read – such as Caesar's campaigns, Bland, etc. For British officers they purchased their commissions and worked their way up, learning by experience, just as George Washington did during the F&I period, where he commanded the equivalent of a brigade at the end. Knox and Greene both learned by books, though they had a lot of catching up to do and did not have the same military experience as their counterparts, though they were fast learners. "An experienced marksmen will kill you before you get within 50 yards of them." Maybe, maybe not. How many shots did it take to kill Fraser? And even then he was not hit in the mass of his body. Who even knows if that rifleman hit him or he was hit by another round? Of course it is a fact that the British often had more rifles than the Americans on any given battlefield. Factor in the skirmishers and artillery that was also shooting at the riflemen, and that the Brit Lights were often covered by rifle detachments – it makes the effort of reloading and aiming a little problematic in the middle of a battle. "Men that owned rifles knew how to use them. They weren't for show." And the same could be said for the 800 Jaegers that served with the British, and the rifles with the Lights and cavalry. The difference there was they were all disciplined soldiers as opposed to the frontiersmen who did not always do well under army discipline. I believe Washington's first experience with this group was outside Boston when a big fight broke out among them. "Studies show that you have to shoot an attacker within 18 feet before someone armed with an edged weapon can stab you." What studies? "Two…Study Cowpens and you'll see how the Marksmen and Militia both reformed after passing through the Continental lines." Yes, but that battle (like many) was largely won before the first shot. Exhausted British troops pushed beyond their limits, a unit that had already been captured once or twice and rebuilt, cavalry full of ex-patriots not anxious to engage their ex-friends (or want to get captured and hung for turning coat), and a young aggressive commander who had no real experience handling infantry. Morgan's men were well rested and well ordered. The militia performed better here than perhaps any other battle (not counting the Minute Men as militia). Rifles were useful, no doubt, but they were not a war winner. They were expensive and took a long time to manufacture, could not hold in close combat without bayonets backing them up, and the British had more of them at almost every large battle. I am indeed a Washington fan, as I am of Greene (for his strategic and logistic ability – though he was a poor businessman) and Morgan. |
Winston Smith | 12 Oct 2016 6:25 p.m. PST |
Greene never won a battle. That argues against his tactics, although it must be said that sometimes his army let him down. Yet he won the campaign in the South. Hmmmm…. How many battles did the Patriots win in that campaign? I can think of Cowpens and King's Mountain. Most battles were won by the British, for all the good it did them. I like to game Greene's "losses" and see if he can win. Not that it matters, since his losses led to victory. So, I agree with historygamer. Rommell sucked at logistics. Would you rather have a brilliant tactician, or a strategist who wins the war? The tactician is more glamorous for the gamer. Greene was similar to Grant. Lose a battle? Shake it off and continue with The Plan. It worked for both. |
nevinsrip | 12 Oct 2016 8:30 p.m. PST |
HG, You can have your opinion and I'll have mine. The object is to win the war, not individual battles. I'm hardly confusing anything and the 100 or so books in my AWI library are all well read. Some a second and third time. So you can save that. Military Training. Just being in an Army is military training. The British Army was thought of as the best trained army of it's time. It's absurd to think that everyone just learned on the fly. Is it your contention that every officer in the British army had zero military training? You mentioned tactics not being part of strategy. I worked in a par military organization. Part of the overall strategy to achieve the objective, was the choice of tactics used. So you are incorrect about that. "An experienced marksmen will kill you before you get within 50 yards of them." No. No maybe about it. If you've ever seen someone who can handle the weapon use it you would know the answer to that one. It took 3 shots (by most accounts) to kill Fraser. One or three? Who cares? The objective was gained. Fraser was just as dead no matter where he was hit. Additionally, if you've ever been in a cow pasture you would know that it's full of clumps, clods, roots, weeds and cow pies. That's the terrain you would be running on with your musket. Studies show that you have to shoot an attacker within 18 feet before someone armed with an edged weapon can stab you." What studies? FBI school. You have 18 feet to kill you attacker before he gets to you. Even if you shoot him within that range he can still get to you. "Two…Study Cowpens and you'll see how the Marksmen and Militia both reformed after passing through the Continental lines." Yes, but that battle (like many) was largely won before the first shot. OH? So why fight the battle at all? Let's just save everybody the trouble and go home. Just disregard the fact that it was done successfully. Riflemen and militia were never meant to stand up to British steel. Expecting them to do so, was foolish. Both should have been deployed, just as Morgan did. I noticed you didn't refute my top 5 AWI battles. Yours? |
Bill N | 12 Oct 2016 8:47 p.m. PST |
I think Bill may overstate things, but in broad outlines he is correct. Washington at heart was a conventional commander. He saw some benefit to rifles, but in the end could not figure out how to integrate them tactically in the kind of army he was creating. Morgan was a rifleman. He understood what rifles could do, but by 1780 he also understood their limitations and understood the benefits of regulars. With that understanding Morgan's tactics at Cowpens makes sense. Just as rifles ideally shouldn't be used to engage their opponents in close combat except on their own terms, so also Morgan didn't want the militia and rifles on the first two lines to engage their opponents in close combat in the opening phase of the battle. There were rifles and militia in Morgan's third line, possibly more of them then Continentals, but they were hand picked with the expectation they could fight as regulars. Morgan gave Greene his plan, but based on his performance at Guilford Courthouse I doubt Greene fully understood it. Greene's strength in the south though wasn't tactics. It was strategy. He understood that his field army was just one piece of many that he could play. |
Brechtel198 | 13 Oct 2016 6:02 a.m. PST |
I noticed you didn't refute my top 5 AWI.</q?Two of your five were not battles. There was no battle of Saratoga, but there were battles of Saratoga, such as Freeman's Farm and Bemis Heights. Saratoga was the place of the British surrender. Yorktown was not a battle, but a siege. There is a great difference. And you have underestimated the American proficiency in sieges. The American artillery arm had both siege and field artillery and contributed their fair share to the siege. Further, the Continental Army had a corps of Sappers and Miners who were employed at Yorktown to advantage. French engineer General Duportail established both the American Corps of Engineers as well as the Corps of Sappers and Miners. And of the two ground assaults during the siege, one was conducted by the US and one by the French-both were successful night attacks. You also left out Guilford Courthouse as a decisive battle. Though technically a tactical loss for Greene, it ruined Cornwallis' army whose casualties were nearly 30 percent of those engaged, two of the best units in his army, the 33d Foot and the 2d Guards Battalion, were mauled by the Continentals at the Third Line. Because of Guilford, Cornwallis retired to Wilmington and then moved into Virginia, to eventually be trapped and surrender at Yorktown the October following the battle. Guilford Courthouse led directly to Yorktown. |
Virginia Tory | 13 Oct 2016 7:09 a.m. PST |
>HG, You can have your opinion and I'll have mine. The object is to win the war, not individual battles. I'm hardly confusing anything and the 100 or so books in my AWI library are all well read. Some a second and third time. So you can save that. Yes, and the Rebels won the war--they just didn't "win" it with riflemen as you seem t imply. And you are confusing tactics and operations. Green was very good at one and not so good at the other (as was GW, in some ways). >Military Training. Just being in an Army is military training. Not in the 18th century it wasn't, at least for officers. >The British Army was thought of as the best trained army of it's time. It's absurd to think that everyone just learned on the fly. Is it your contention that every officer in the British army had zero military training? What he said was they were largely self-educated or peer-educated as there was no Sandhurst at the time. The lesson learned from the past 100 years of campaigning, but in strategy and tactics were not handed down in a structured way that we would find familiar today. >You mentioned tactics not being part of strategy. I worked in a par military organization. Part of the overall strategy to achieve the objective, was the choice of tactics used. I've also worked for the military--operations and tactics are not the same thing. For that matter, strategy is a third level. And if the objective was to win a battle, clearly the tactics were faulty as this didn't happen, certainly not at Guilford. >So you are incorrect about that.
No, he's not--you were just missing his point. >"An experienced marksmen will kill you before you get within 50 yards of them." >No. No maybe about it. If you've ever seen someone who can handle the weapon use it you would know the answer to that one. So explain the riflemen at Wetzell's mills, firing at LtCol Webster, who was on horseback, multiple times…and missing. There are a lot of factors that can result in somebody missing. Otherwise, the body counts in these battles would have been much higher than they were, trained marksmen or not. >It took 3 shots (by most accounts) to kill Fraser. One or three? Who cares? The objective was gained. Fraser was just as dead no matter where he was hit.
The point was it's not clear who even hit him, despite Murphy mythology. >Additionally, if you've ever been in a cow pasture you would know that it's full of clumps, clods, roots, weeds and cow pies. That's the terrain you would be running on with your musket. Having run on a field with my musket, it depends. Read Mark Urban's Fusiliers book. Or Spring's Zeal and Bayonets. The British developed specific tactics to deal with riflemen. If fired upon, they advanced on them as quickly as possible--open order, to close the distance and either engage them in effective musket range or close combat. >Studies show that you have to shoot an attacker within 18 feet before someone armed with an edged weapon can stab you." >What studies? >FBI school. You have 18 feet to kill you attacker before he gets to you. Even if you shoot him within that range he can still get to you. Does it take into account AWI factors--smoke, dust, confusion, misfires, etc. >"Two…Study Cowpens and you'll see how the Marksmen and Militia both reformed after passing through the Continental lines."
>Yes, but that battle (like many) was largely won before the first shot. >OH? So why fight the battle at all? Let's just save everybody the trouble and go home. That's an un-serious answer. The point was that Morgan made very effective use of his rifles and militia but it was only one of multiple factors that one the battle. >Just disregard the fact that it was done successfully. He wasn't. He was pointing out additional factors that you seem to want to ignore for some reason. >Riflemen and militia were never meant to stand up to British steel. Expecting them to do so, was foolish. Both should have been deployed, just as Morgan did. And usually were, after the first year of the war. Recall that Morgan's men were scattered after the initial firing at Freeman's Farm--Morgan was found weeping as he thought his battalion had been destroyed (read Luzader). >I noticed you didn't refute my top 5 AWI battles. Yours? You hit pretty much the key battles/campaigns, the the extent to which rifles were a factor is pretty minimal, apart from the atypical King's Mountain battle. Saratoga and Yorktown are the most decisive because one brought in the French, turning the war into a world war, which was a massive game changer. Yorktown obviously broke the British government's political will to keep fighting, thus effectively ending the war (though it dragged out until 1783). |
Virginia Tory | 13 Oct 2016 7:10 a.m. PST |
Also what Brechtel 198 said--excellent points. Arguable the Saratoga campaign made Yorktown possible, because without the French Army, siege train and Navy, it would not have happened. |
Brechtel198 | 13 Oct 2016 11:47 a.m. PST |
The Continental Army and the French made independence possible. Without them the US would have lost. George Washington and Benjamin Franklin were the two indispensable men of the Revolution. Without them the US would have lost. |
historygamer | 13 Oct 2016 11:59 a.m. PST |
I'm enjoying a good academic debate here. :-) "HG, You can have your opinion and I'll have mine." True. "The object is to win the war, not individual battles." And Washington was brilliant at this as he understood the objective – as long as he had an army in the field the Revolution survived. He liked to win battles when he could and actually had a very aggressive nature, unfortunately he didn't have the army (1775 to 1777) or the opportunity (1778 to 1780) to do that. "I'm hardly confusing anything and the 100 or so books in my AWI library are all well read. Some a second and third time. So you can save that." Sorry, but you appear to be mixing up tactics with strategy, at least in this internet exchange. "Military Training. Just being in an Army is military training." Yes, but you said Washington was British trained, which he was not. "Absolutely. GW was British trained and could not adapt as he should have." He was self taught, as were most officers in this war. "The British Army was thought of as the best trained army of it's time." That seems more American 19th century propaganda. The best trained armies of the time period were generally thought to be the Prussians and French. "It's absurd to think that everyone just learned on the fly." Well, sorry but that is generally what happened. There were no organized schools for this or training programs. "Is it your contention that every officer in the British army had zero military training?" I said what I said. If you have evidence to the contrary I sure would like to hear it. Most learned by OJT, with a recommended booklist of things to read. You ignored my Grubb reference. Have you read his book? "You mentioned tactics not being part of strategy." They are two different things, at least in the courses I have taken and books I have read. I'll let the Army War College know you disagree. :-) "I worked in a par military organization." I work for the military. "Part of the overall strategy to achieve the objective, was the choice of tactics used." Circular logic there. They are two very different things. I believe it was the Soviets who came up with the Operational Level theory. "No maybe about it. If you've ever seen someone who can handle the weapon use it you would know the answer to that one." Using that logic every shot is a hit, which we know isn't anywhere to being true, even with modern weapons. Shooting at a range or at a deer is very different then being on a field of combat and hitting your target. Oddly enough, people are shooting back and at you and you are often scared. "It took 3 shots (by most accounts) to kill Fraser. One or three? Who cares? The objective was gained. Fraser was just as dead no matter where he was hit." link Additionally, if you've ever been in a cow pasture you would know that it's full of clumps, clods, roots, weeds and cow pies. That's the terrain you would be running on with your musket. "OH? So why fight the battle at all? Let's just save everybody the trouble and go home."
It is only through the prism of history and hindsight that we know what the likely outcome would in fact be. Tarleton did not have that knowledge before he engaged, just as many losing generals didn't either. "Just disregard the fact that it was done successfully." I'm not taking anything away from Morgan's success. Often battles aren't very fair (unlike what many wargamers seek in a game). It's just that this has no direct application to the large scale battles fought in the north. "Riflemen and militia were never meant to stand up to British steel." I'm sorry if I misunderstood your post as you seemed to imply Washington didn't know how to handle rifles, militia and cavalry. I would direct you to the facts that Washington thought enough of Morgan and the rifles to send them to Gates where they found a battlefield(s) perfect for their abilities. I would also point out that Washington had had enough of militia breaking and running time and again on the field (NY for example) or not showing up in the numbers he hoped for, or sticking around very long (Monmouth). I think he did rely on them to constantly strike at the British and wear them down, which they in fact did – so much so the British in NY had to send to Europe for firewood instead of losing men on foraging expeditions. I find it plausible that perhaps some of those same militia carried rifles too.
"I noticed you didn't refute my top 5 AWI battles. Yours?" Bunker Hill (they could stand and fight) Trenton/Princeton (even Cornwallis told Washington that is where the war was won, not at Yorktown) Freeman's Farm/Bennington/Bemis Heights Philly campaign/Germantown (Howe left Burgoyne high and dry, and Germantown is often credited as the battle that tipped the French into openly declaring war on the Brits) Guilford to Yorktown (ditto references to the French fleet above and the lack of an overall strategy for the Brits – at least one that Cornwallis was following was devastating. You could also throw Rodney under the bus for not tracking the French fleet as he was supposed to, but his reputation was saved by a later victory over the French fleet. |
Winston Smith | 13 Oct 2016 12:11 p.m. PST |
>FBI school. You have 18 feet to kill you attacker before he gets to you. Even if you shoot him within that range he can still get to you.Does it take into account AWI factors--smoke, dust, confusion, misfires, etc. They do not start 18 feet away. They have been advancing steadily and quickly for 100 yards, and with leveled bayonets. And it isn't one guy. It's 300 of them. Your one shot isn't going to stop 299 of them. If they were going to stop, they would have stopped many yards back. |
historygamer | 13 Oct 2016 12:14 p.m. PST |
I will say that it is rather ironic in the one battle you can point to the success of rifles was Kings Mountain, which was against the man who was regarded as the best shot in the British army and who developed a revolutionary rifled weapon. The fact that Ferguson was leading a large majority militia force himself kind of skews the take-a ways though. I never regarded Ferguson's force as a very effective one, though the defeat of it did much to dampen the spirits of Loyalists in the region. Of course that was true every time a British force left any area in the country. |
Pages: 1 2
|