Burnt faces of British Troops ???

[goon]

Shocking isn't it? I think Gibson's "Patriot" has to rank as one of the galactically worst Revolutionary War films in terms of accuracy. Besides the fact that the Brits fought the colonists...not much else is done well. This perpetuates the American mythology- and let's face it, we don't like real history, we like to BS ourselves a bunch- it just feels better and promotes that American exceptionalistic view of the world. History has fallen victim to that disease as well.

I love my country, but unfortunately you do have a point.

 

[Zonie]

Gentlemen;
Can we limit our discussions to Burned faces of the British troops?

The topic deals with what the British (and Americans) did, if anything, to deal with the flames emanating from a Flintlock Musket while the troops were in line of battle.

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

And you still misunderstand. I tire of people who even refer to " American Exceptionalism", and treat it as a disease, or character flaw.

This is the NOISE of Progressives, who would turn this country into a third rate, third-world country, capable of helping no one, not even ourselves, and dependent on the generosity of other countries to meet our own needs. Its the flaky ideas of what government should NOT BE made up in the 60s by Hippies smoking pot, and tripping on LSD.

You might reflect on the fact that there is NO other country in the world having to build Fences to keep ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS OUT, before you again question how exceptional this Country is. I believe you have been over-ruled by some 20 million Illegals, at last estimate.

Yeah, I am proud to be an American, and I will apologize to no one for that.

I do lose patience as I get older, with sniveling, whining people who have all the benefits of American laws and culture, but insist on tearing it down. Critical discourse about how we govern ourselves is necessary, and contentious. But, cheap shots at the American ideal, without a clear, Better substitute proven to succeed add nothing to the discussion, and can only divide us further.

Remember every day that we have thousands of men and women risking their lives to make sure that you don't have to fear being killed by foreign enemies here in our country, and that more than 4000 have given their lives to keep us all safe since 9/11/01. That is the cost of your right to say anything you want about this country. :hmm:

Bravo Paul.

:hatsoff:

 

[Zonie]

Damnet. Stick to the original subject.

 

[pargent]

from what i have been able to find out (from jurnals etc ) it is not mentioned a lot.what is mentioned is the brutal disipline used,to train the troops to act effectivly on the battle field.flogging was a common form of punishment,the death penalty was also used eg a serious asult on an officer , loosing aram rod, so getting your face burnt would not have been high on a solders list of concerns in combat.

 

[jchochole]

True, and so the punishment is far worse than a minor flash in battle. Plus, the severity of flash is variable and temporary. I have gotten worse burns in my own skin from my own flash than from my neighbors.

 

[Twisted_1in66]

There actually has not been any primary documentation found that said they didn't aim. You are quite right that the order was "present" and then "fire" in the British line, whereas the Continental commands after Von Steuben at Valley Forge were "aim" and then "fire".

The Brit's .75 cal. muskets with a .69 cal. ball weren't accurate beyond about 50 yards, but that wasn't the point. The point was to fire massive amounts of lead faster than the enemy could and close on them quickly enough that you could charge them with your bayonets while they were trying to load. Runnball, you're absolutely right that there was no emphasis placed on aiming by the British, but we have yet to find any documentation that they were told not to aim.

Still accuracy wasn't something the Brits were trying to achieve.

This has been hashed out in many places, including other boards. During the first war of succession :grin:, the British, at least in some commands, did emphasize aiming and accuracy, by both lights and line/batallion troops. I can recall discussions with primary sources cited and quoted, giving ammunition expenditures and/or orders for and/or accounts of routine target practice and sometimes of shooting competitions - best shot in the companies and/or best in the regiment. Lights usually got more practice ammo IIRC, but there were regular summer and winter allocations of both blank (for loading drill) and ball issued for practice. Unfortunately, I can no longer recall the specifics or sources, which were the usual orderly books, journals, letters, published personal-account-of-the-late-war recollections, and such.

Hoping someone will chime in who has researched such, I remain &c,
Joel, an aficionado but a non-reenactor.

Joel, if there is some primary documentation for that, I'd love to see it. There is a fair amount of primary documentation of riflemen shooting marks in competition but never seen anything about Brits doing that with their muskets. There is absolutely nothing in the 1764 Manual of Arms (Drill Manual) that has anything to doing with aiming or expected accuracy and the "Manual of '64" is the Drill manual they used. Here's a link to a nice online copy of it complete with pictures that is provided by a reenactment group, the 35th Regiment of Foot:
1764 British Manual of Arms

The Brits certainly were required to practice loading and firing, but nothing was ever said about aiming. The only part of the British forces that were concerned about accuracy were the Hessian Jaegers and the Indians, both of whom used rifles. The Hessians had their own drills and the Indians didn't use any.

Twisted_1in66 :thumbsup:

 

[Joel/Calgary]

As I said, it's been a while and I can no longer recall even what board/forum/group covered what, but there were a number of primary sources cited and quoted. One might try inquiring on boards/forums of the various progressive reenactment groups from the F&I war & AWI - some have "Yahoo Groups" set up for forums.

Regards,
Joel

 

[DOUBLEDEUCE 1]

I read somewhere a long time ago that the casualty rate of opposing troops in the American Revolution was very low considering the volley fire. This might be attributed to the troops not aiming, and maybe even turning their faces away slightly to avoid being burned. The majority of the shots fired went over the heads of the opposing sides.:idunno:

 

[goon]

from what i have been able to find out (from jurnals etc ) it is not mentioned a lot.what is mentioned is the brutal disipline used,to train the troops to act effectivly on the battle field.flogging was a common form of punishment,the death penalty was also used eg a serious asult on an officer , loosing aram rod, so getting your face burnt would not have been high on a solders list of concerns in combat.

I haven't read a whole lot of primary sources but what I have read supports this. The British were BRUTAL on their rank and file. The harsh discipline (and profanity of British regulars) really offended colonials serving in the vicinity of regulars during the F&I War.
Given that you could recieve hundreds of lashes for the most insignificant act in the British army, I am inclined to agree that a tattoo on the left side of your face after years of service (assuming that you didn't manage to get shot, bayonetted, or hanged by your own army by then) would be a relatively small concern.
If it registered at all, a British regular would have likely ignored it. Their discipline was so strong that under Braddock in 1755 they continued trying to reform into units and return fire in volleys even as they were being obliterated by Indians and the French. It has been theorized that their strict discipline and courage under fire was actually partly to blame for their defeat in this battle.
In my estimation, a British Regular was one tough hombre. A few hot sparks wouldn't have rattled him.

 

[flintriflesmith]

Joel, if there is some primary documentation for that, I'd love to see it. There is a fair amount of primary documentation of riflemen shooting marks in competition but never seen anything about Brits doing that with their muskets. There is absolutely nothing in the 1764 Manual of Arms (Drill Manual) that has anything to doing with aiming or expected accuracy and the "Manual of '64" is the Drill manual they used. Here's a link to a nice online copy of it complete with pictures that is provided by a reenactment group, the 35th Regiment of Foot:
1764 British Manual of Arms

The Brits certainly were required to practice loading and firing, but nothing was ever said about aiming. The only part of the British forces that were concerned about accuracy were the Hessian Jaegers and the Indians, both of whom used rifles. The Hessians had their own drills and the Indians didn't use any.

Twisted_1in66 :thumbsup:

A number of period documents about marksmanship training with muskets were posted on REVLIST in 2005. I saved a few and here are some of those:

SOURCE:Honyman, Dr. Robert; “Colonial Panorama 1775. Dr. Robert Honyman’s Journal for March and April.” Padelford, Philip, ed. Books for Libraries Press,
Freeport, NY, 1939, 1971.
“March 22...“I saw a Regiment & the Body of marines, each by itself, firing at marks. A Target being set up before each company, the soldiers of the regiment stept
out singly, took aim & fired, & the firing was kept up in this manner by the
whole regiment till they had all fired ten rounds. The marines fired by
Platoons, by Companies, & sometimes by files, & made some general
discharges, taking aim all the while at Targets the same as the Regiment...

SOURCE: General Howe's Orders: New York / Boston 1773 - 1775 "The Regiments
will drill their Recruits and Drafts, without a days delay after
receiving them, beginning with the Platoon exercise, and teaching them to fire ball; proper marksmen to instruct them in taking aim, and the
position in which the ought to stand in firing, and to do this man by man, before they are suffered to fire together." - Boston, 14 June 1775

SOURCE:The Diary of Lt. Frederick Mackenzie. Also quoted in "A British Fusilier in Revolutionary Boston"
15 January, 1775: "The regiments are frequently praticed at firing ball at marks. Six rounds per man at each time is usually alloted for this
practice. As our regiment [the 23rd] is quartered on a warf which projects into the harbour, and there is very considerable range without any obstruction, we have fixed figures of men as large as life, made of thin boards, on small stages, which are anchored at a proper distance from the end of the warf, at which the men fire. Objects afloat, which move up and down with the tide, are frequently pointed out for them to fire at, and Premiums are sometimes given for the best shots, by which means some of our men have become excellent marksmen."

SOURCE:The British in Boston, The Diary of Lt. John Barker.
December 3, 1774 "Remarkable fine weather some days past, some of the Regts. out firing at targets &c."


About a half dozen more were posted but I think you can see the evidence that the British were practicing marksmanship.

Gary

 

[Twisted_1in66]

Gary,

Thank you VERY MUCH for that primary documentation. I've been on the Rev List since 2004 and didn't see that discussion (or perhaps just don't recall it). The June 17, 1775 quote from General Howe is particularly telling because it shows this was military protocol as opposed to just some guys gathering for friendly competition, and that it was in practice at the beginning of the war and not a change made in the middle of the war to adjust to circumstances.

Thanks for going to the trouble of digging that up. Well done and much appreciated :thumbsup:

Twisted_1in66

 

[flintriflesmith]

Twisted_1in66,

Glad I could contribute.

I saved these quotes because they were new to me at the time. The thread also had some mentions of how the manuals of arms changed over time from saying "level" to actually saying "aim." If you need those posts I can probably find them.

Coming at the issue of aiming vs pointing muskets from my point of view as a gun builder, I have always felt that the early references in the British arms making trade that called the lug on the top of the barrel a "sight" pretty well proved how it was intended to be used. That idea is also supported by the early French muskets with a sight on top of the front barrel band and a bayonet lug on the bottom of the barrel.

The sight on a Bess was silver soldered or brazed on and the field repair kits issued to regimental armorers had an amazing number of them listed as replacement parts. They must have broken off during training or bayonet drills.

Gary