How did American forces reload in battle?

jefair1 said:

THe militias in the revolution did have issues reloading and were kniwn for breaking and running. Washington issued an order that all rifle and militia companies would have a musket company to support them. The fact that militia companies was used with great success in the battle of Cowpens. Morgan had the militia men fire 2 shots and then run. Tarleton thought he had won the field and pursued and got his butt kicked.

Click to expand...

Ah but the militias were known to break and run long before they were having ammo issues. Hence the Morgan strategy. The British were well known to get the Militia and Continentals as well, to fire a volley at the Brits at 100 yards or so, and then the British would charge with bayonets. They could cover the distance faster than the Militia and even the Continentals could reload. See With Zeal and Bayonets Only by Matthew H. Spring. Von Steuben put an end to that tactic with getting bayonets for the Continentals AND then training them to deal with a bayonet charge.

LD

Interesting thread; I bet there's no one specific technique used by all; much variation, I'll bet.

Hi LD,
In ole Dan's own words after Cowpens:
"I would not have had a swamp in view of my militia on any consideration; they would have made for it, and nothing could have detained them from it. And, as to covering my wings, I knew my adversary, and was perfectly sure I should have nothing but downright fighting. As to retreat, it was the very thing I wished to cut off all hope of. I would have thanked Tarleton had he surrounded me with his cavalry. It would have been better than placing my own men in the rear to shoot down those who broke from the ranks. When men are forced to fight they will sell their lives dearly and I knew that the dread of Tarleton's cavalry would give due weight to the protection of my bayonets and keep my troops from breaking as Buford's regiment did. Had I crossed the river [before giving battle], one half of my militia would immediately abandon me."

dave

ronaldrothb49 said:

Love the part about you will not believe his story. The question is how much of any of the stories these guys told can we believe? Many of them were tellers of tall tales.

Click to expand...

Joseph Plum Martin tells how he saw a kill at a mile with a musket, I’m forced to think he exaggerated just a tad

Loyalist Dave said:

Ah but the militias were known to break and run long before they were having ammo issues. Hence the Morgan strategy. The British were well known to get the Militia and Continentals as well, to fire a volley at the Brits at 100 yards or so, and then the British would charge with bayonets. They could cover the distance faster than the Militia and even the Continentals could reload. See With Zeal and Bayonets Only by Matthew H. Spring. Von Steuben put an end to that tactic with getting bayonets for the Continentals AND then training them to deal with a bayonet charge.

LD

Click to expand...

I don't fault the militia. To me it is totally stupid to march out shoulder to shoulder onto an open field 50 to100 yards away form another group of idiots who have done the same thing and trade volleys. Me I'm going to find a tree to hide behind while I reload and pick them off one at a time with my rifle. I would not have made a good soldier of the regulars. But really when you had a commander who understood the limitations of the militia they performed well. The biggest problem with the militia was the lack of a standard caliber of the weapons they had. That made it pretty much impossible to resupply then with ammo if they were running out during a battle.

I also like the run & gun, also leap frog tactics. Shoot n fall back while the next group hiding behind trees shoot while the 1st reload

ronaldrothb49 said:

I don't fault the militia. To me it is totally stupid to march out shoulder to shoulder onto an open field 50 to100 yards away form another group of idiots who have done the same thing and trade volleys. Me I'm going to find a tree to hide behind while I reload and pick them off one at a time with my rifle. I would not have made a good soldier of the regulars. But really when you had a commander who understood the limitations of the militia they performed well. The biggest problem with the militia was the lack of a standard caliber of the weapons they had. That made it pretty much impossible to resupply then with ammo if they were running out during a battle.

Click to expand...

AH the myths abound!

So they didn't fight shoulder to shoulder. They fought at open order. Battles were decided by bayonet for the most part. OH and using those tactics, very few of the battles were "won" by the Continentals.

Which would be dumber. Using combat ammunition which was the reason they fired volleys, or everybody firing ammo that required a good swabbing every 4th or 5th shot, meanwhile... the enemy then closes, firing as he does, and then runs you down while your side is cleaning?

The militia wasn't hampered by different calibers. They were hampered by a lack of training. So were the Continentals. They were facing professional soldiers. When they finally got the training, then they fared much better.

IF woodland tactics, aka the skulking-way-of-war was so superior, why did Washington send his riflemen to the Western frontier, and Washington's Forces won without them ???

LD

I have not researched Washington's tactics nor his orders for combat troops. Them country boys down in the lower east coast harassed the Red Coats plenty without those open volley moves. Stands to reason most British troops followed roads for the supplies n cannons to be moved. Were many places to ambush the rear of such movements with little chance of standing a frontal onslaught from the troops at the front

bronko220002 said:

I agree with this. Also when you have somebody shooting at you you just drop a ball down the barrel and fire back. No time to be messing with patches! I'm sure at one time or another someone in a hurry to load may have shot someone with their ramrod not haveing time to remove it. It may not have been pretty but just as effective.

Click to expand...

Shooting the ramrods did happen. Probably more from being flustered and forgetting it. Some Civil War rifles were also found with multiple shots loaded. Probably from a nervous soldier.

How many rounds do you suppose a soldier actually shot in battle during the Revolutionary war? I doubt it’s as many as people think

I remember reading years ago that of the rifles picked up after the battle of Gettysburg the most common was rifles with multiple charges in the barrel. The second most common was missing a ramrod.
I can't recall ever seeing info on how much ammunition per causality was used during the AWI. I can remember seeing info where they listed the ammo used by the Union forces vs the actual causalities of the Confederates during Picket's charge. I don't remember the exact figures they gave but there was a ridiculous amount of ammo expended for each causality.

Speaking of shooting ramrods. I knew a guy that shot his ramrod out of his muzzleloader at the range. Not once but TWICE on the same day! Everyone had to stop shooting so he could go get his ramrod downrange. I told him to pay attention to what he was doing and quit talking. Or maybe he just had ADD I don't know.

ronaldrothb49 said:

I remember reading years ago that of the rifles picked up after the battle of Gettysburg the most common was rifles with multiple charges in the barrel. The second most common was missing a ramrod.
I can't recall ever seeing info on how much ammunition per causality was used during the AWI. I can remember seeing info where they listed the ammo used by the Union forces vs the actual causalities of the Confederates during Picket's charge. I don't remember the exact figures they gave but there was a ridiculous amount of ammo expended for each causality.

Click to expand...

I read a soldiers memoirs from the Civil War, the smoke of battle was so thick that he never even saw anyone to aim at. He just shot into the direction of the enemy.

I do believe General Washington strived to standardize on the paper cartridge, he even specified a metal cartridge box as an "emergency expedient " due to lack of leather

I will assume the Continental Army made cartridge making a "Soldier skill" because volume of fire wins battles . A Battalion of men, some fumbling with powder horns , some using cartridges, is not conducive to a Manual of Arms. If General Washington was concerned enough to have General Von Steuben teach the Continental Army all the Drill and Ceremony, Musketry, etc than he was concerned enough to have standard ammunition

Now, local Militias, "Minutemen", irregulars armed with Fowlers or old Brown Besses, pretty much did whatever they wanted as far as loading their firearms because they weren't Regular Army and use of cartridges really couldn't be enforced. They would have just dumped powder in from the horn, dropped a ball down the pipe, maybe a little buck, and stuffed paper/bible pages etc on top as wadding

I've loaded both ways with my own .69 muskets. With the use of a measure though , for safety.

Both ways are effective but cartridges are more efficient and faster.

Jedd said:

How many rounds do you suppose a soldier actually shot in battle during the Revolutionary war? I doubt it’s as many as people think

Click to expand...

West Point historians and other people way smarter than me, that study Revolutionary tactics for a living , believe that command and control breaks down in as little as 3 volleys. When there's cannon balls bouncing around , your buddies are getting hit by huge musket balls, there's smoke, and yelling, confusion, panic etc even a seasoned , professional company of Infantry are going to be rattled

If you look at original casualty records from the Revolution , there are many log entries by surgeons stating wounds caused by "bone fragments from other soldiers" just let that sink in for a moment

Usually within the exchange of 4-5 volleys, one side wavered, fell back , suffered enough casualties to become ineffective and retreat was sounded, and/or the battle was decided by the Bayonet. There was so much smoke that both sides would be basically blind after 3-5 volleys.


People have this idea that we just exchanged volleys with the Redcoats for an entire day

I was shooting a .58 rifle musket at my gun club and just by myself, on a hot , still day, I obscured half the 100 yard target line with a fog of smoke after only 10 shots or so. I kinda annoyed some guy but oh well. I'm thinking , imagine 5,000 men touching off muskets. It would be like pea soup out there

jefair1 said:

THe militias in the revolution did have issues reloading and were kniwn for breaking and running. Washington issued an order that all rifle and militia companies would have a musket company to support them. The fact that militia companies was used with great success in the battle of Cowpens. Morgan had the militia men fire 2 shots and then run. Tarleton thought he had won the field and pursued and got his butt kicked.

Click to expand...

Yes. Morgan knew the British would expect the militia to run, so his plan incorporated that. Feigning a rout, the first rank of 150 militia fired two shots each and then ran to the second rank of another 150 militia. All 300 men then fired two shots each and then ran to the main line behind them. The British fell for it both times and then got whipped.

Stantheman86 said:

I do believe General Washington strived to standardize on the paper cartridge, he even specified a metal cartridge box as an "emergency expedient " due to lack of leather

I will assume the Continental Army made cartridge making a "Soldier skill" because volume of fire wins battles . A Battalion of men, some fumbling with powder horns , some using cartridges, is not conducive to a Manual of Arms. If General Washington was concerned enough to have General Von Steuben teach the Continental Army all the Drill and Ceremony, Musketry, etc than he was concerned enough to have standard ammunition

Now, local Militias, "Minutemen", irregulars armed with Fowlers or old Brown Besses, pretty much did whatever they wanted as far as loading their firearms because they weren't Regular Army and use of cartridges really couldn't be enforced. They would have just dumped powder in from the horn, dropped a ball down the pipe, maybe a little buck, and stuffed paper/bible pages etc on top as wadding

I've loaded both ways with my own .69 muskets. With the use of a measure though , for safety.

Both ways are effective but cartridges are more efficient and faster.

Click to expand...

Washington knew how to fight the European way, by the numbers. He also knew how to fight guerilla (Indian) style when needed. At Braddock's defeat in western Pennsylvania, after Braddock was mortally wounded Washington took over and his directions saved both the American militia and the surviving British regulars. An Indian chief saw Washington rallying his troops and later made this comment. "Him not fight like Red Coat. Him fight like Indian. Him must die." The chief then ordered his warriors to concentrate their shots against Washington. There was something like 11 bullet holes in Washington's clothes and hat but, he was not wounded. --- So, working as a unit was (is) important. Also, knowing when and how to act independently is just as important.

Last week I was playing with my 62 caliber/20-gauge smoothbore flintlock. I had some musket balls that were too small. I accidently dropped one down the barrel after it slid off the patch. I went ahead and seated it with a ramrod and then shot it at a 20x24 inch target at 25 yards. I had no idea where that ball went. The next shots were all patched and I did hit paper.

ronaldrothb49 said:

I remember reading years ago that of the rifles picked up after the battle of Gettysburg the most common was rifles with multiple charges in the barrel. The second most common was missing a ramrod.
I can't recall ever seeing info on how much ammunition per causality was used during the AWI. I can remember seeing info where they listed the ammo used by the Union forces vs the actual causalities of the Confederates during Picket's charge. I don't remember the exact figures they gave but there was a ridiculous amount of ammo expended for each causality.

Click to expand...

What was the saying, 200 lbs of lead were fired for each man killed by rifle fire in the Civil War?

stephenprops1 said:

Washington knew how to fight the European way, by the numbers. He also knew how to fight guerilla (Indian) style when needed. At Braddock's defeat in western Pennsylvania, after Braddock was mortally wounded Washington took over and his directions saved both the American militia and the surviving British regulars. An Indian chief saw Washington rallying his troops and later made this comment. "Him not fight like Red Coat. Him fight like Indian. Him must die." The chief then ordered his warriors to concentrate their shots against Washington. There was something like 11 bullet holes in Washington's clothes and hat but, he was not wounded. --- So, working as a unit was (is) important. Also, knowing when and how to act independently is just as important.

Click to expand...

100%, he knew how to fight and how to lead men. I don't think he would be ok with men using different loading methods, he'd have wanted paper cartridges as a standard . Going from memory I think I remember reading somewhere that he issued an order that soldiers are to use cartridge boxes and cartridges in the ranks. Using a horn and loose balls probably would have been seen as "unprofessional " and slovenly in the Regular Army and I'd think NCOs would enforce uniformity during inspections

People forget that Washington was a French & Indian war veteran and a commander of a Provincial militia regiment. He was no stranger to combat by the time he took command of the Continental Army