Burnt faces of British Troops ???

[duckhunt93]

well you notice a right handed shooter keeps his left eye closed well this should have stopped some of the gases from affecting a soldier shot though it is brutal getting some small burning pieces of powder in the side of the head.

 

[Twisted_1in66]

British soldiers of the day, and most others too, wore a high leather collar called a stock - this took the major part of the porce of the ejecta from the touchhole immediately adjacent to the soldier.

tac
Supporter of the Cape Meares Lighthouse Restoration Fund

Now that's funny! Yes they wore stocks, but the burn doesn't hit you in the neck, it hits you in the cheek!!!

Stocks were worn around the neck to look good so you didn't have an open collar. They were at least as often made out of horsehair as they were SOFT leather (not stiff leather).

I've been burned by the side blast from a rifleman who wasn't using a flashguard and it hits you in the cheek and keeps burning. Not much fun...

Twisted_1in66 :thumbsup:

 

[bingo1952]

They did not "Aim" muskets. They were presented and fired on command with an erect head position. Aiming as we know it today was discouraged. They did not snuggle down on the stock as a modern shooter will do. This was volley fire after after all. They were not trying to shoot tight groups, all they wanted was a wall of lead downrange repeated as quickly as possible. I'm sure some got a little singed from time to time but with an erect head a large part of the gas is passing a foot or so in front of the face of the man to the right. Alittle singe in the heat of combat will probably not be noticed until thr fight is over.

 

[Twisted_1in66]

They did not "Aim" muskets. They were presented and fired on command with an erect head position. Aiming as we know it today was discouraged. They did not snuggle down on the stock as a modern shooter will do. This was volley fire after after all. They were not trying to shoot tight groups, all they wanted was a wall of lead downrange repeated as quickly as possible. I'm sure some got a little singed from time to time but with an erect head a large part of the gas is passing a foot or so in front of the face of the man to the right. Alittle singe in the heat of combat will probably not be noticed until thr fight is over.

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. They were trying to achieve a higher rate of fire and by firing in volleys, that was like using a giant shotgun so accuracy wasn't so important. The Brits would fire at least 3 rounds per minute. The Continentals strove to do the same thing and they did by the 3rd year of the war, but they were told to aim and they did aim.

To think that not aiming protected you from the sideblast of flintlock next to you is ludicrous. And the blast sure isn't passing in front of you. This becomes abundantly clear if you participate in a reenactment as a soldier of the line. You are close, and you are in line - not staggered and if you do it long enough, eventually someone next to you will have a flashguard malfunction and you will get burned.

Regarding open order lines. As best as we can tell from primary sources the line troops used open order when advancing over rough terrain - not so much over open fields. It was used not to reduce casualties (which it did) but to allow them to maneuver more quickly and easily. The Light infantry on the other hand almost always lined up in open order as did the rangers. Riflemen would also line up in open or extended order when they lined up.

Twisted_1in66 :thumbsup:

 

[jchochole]

Guys, as a reenactor in the Brit ranks for many years reading all of this stuff- several sources back up the new tactics of "open order" for the British ranks in all movements and formations. The British examined their role in this new war and realized that shoulder to shoulder was an unwise tactic and quite dangerous to their own troops in combat. They began using "Indian Tactics" and even newly raised regiments of Light Infantry as early as 1771. This absurb and traditional concept of Brits shoulder to shoulder is quaint and in many cases-wrong. However, on the parade grounds of London and later during Napoleon's time, then yes the Brits tightened up their tactics. This tight-ness conception chalks more up to American mythology than real documented history. Looking at any number of sources from Cuthbertson, Hunter, Della Gatta, Howe's orders and many other sources- we see that the British army was in open order and adapting fast (faster than even the Americans) in the North American theatre during the war. Open order prevents much of the flash issue about the initial question. Leather stocks and collars, which aren't in their hey-day until about 1810, don't factor much. Many British regiments wore horsehair stocks or even linen stocks as well. The fact is, let's say you are in a tight Continental line formation volley firing...when you aim down the barrel and turn slightly as you fire, which is normal, much of the flash flies away from you. Granted sometimes you are going to get splattered if the guy next to you over-primes, but that's just normal and also fairly common.

Hope this helps, happy researching!
Jim

 

[nkbj]

You mean Hollywood lied? I'm shocked.

 

[jchochole]

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.

 

[paulvallandigham]

WADR, America is the most EXCEPTIONAL country in the history of this world. We have nothing to apologize for, and its certainly no DISEASE! :cursing: You are entitled to your opinions, but you are NOT entitled to have all of us agree with you.

Americans have every right to be proud of this country, and its history. :hmm: :v We are all the more remarkable because of our Horrendous past, and our willingness to correct ourselves, to make this country greater.

[ We fought a civil war, that cost the lives of over 600,000 Americans to finally end Slavery in this country and form a more perfect UNION.

We paid reparations to the surviving Japanese Americans interned wrongly in concentration camps in WWII here in this country, to atone for that error.

We passed new laws, in '52-'53, that made ALL Native born persons American Citizens, that recognized both Asian Americans, and American Indians as American Citizens for the first time.

We passed laws in the Mid'60s that ended civil rights abuses to Black Americans.

And, two weeks ago, we finally extended the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution to apply to States and their political subdivisions, so that Blacks and Non-white people can no longer be denied the right to own firearms for self defense by state laws and municipal ordinances, overturning, finally, the Supreme Court Decision in DRED SCOTT vs. SANFORD( 1856).] :thumbsup:

No other country or society has done so at its OWN initiative. :shocked2: :idunno: :hmm:

The fact that Hollywood doesn't get it right is Nothing new, nor does anyone expect Hollywood to do so. Gibson didn't get the Scottish History correct in Braveheart, either.

Hollywood is in the business of ENTERTAINMENT, not producing accurate histories about anything. Even the "History Channel" has fallen victim to the Hollywood producers. Consider " Monster Quest".

I rest my case. :hmm: :hatsoff:

God Bless the United States of America. :hatsoff: :hatsoff:

 

[vern faulkner]

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: Amen, my friend, Amen.
Vern

 

[bingo1952]

Well said. :thumbsup: It wasn't however just blacks and other minorities that were being affected by egregious and onerous local and state laws and ordnances. It was a victory for all Americans.

 

[vern faulkner]

Sorry, but my previous post reply was supposed to be directed to PAUL. My mistake. So you can put the rope away now.
Vern

 

[sitges]

Back to the leather stock. It was not there to make them look good by covering an open shirt, but to keep the head of the soldier looking straight ahead.

 

[bingo1952]

:thumbsup:

 

[Joel/Calgary]

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.

 

[colmoultrie]

Good post! You've said elegantly what I tell my AP US History students right after I tear down those Patriot-style myths that they've been taught in middle school - (like British America was settled first by people looking for religious freedom :shake: ).

I remember historian James Loewen answering a question about why history was taught so badly by asking, "How many of you had a history teacher who only answered to 'coach'?" (I know a number of excellent history teachers who are also fine coaches, but the difference is that they are history teachers first.)

At times elements of the British army used open formations; at times they stayed in close order. No, the stock would not protect the man standing to the right, because the musket lock was raised above the level of the neck, unless the firer was shorter than the man to his right.

The British did not lose the Revolution through bad tactics; it was muddled strategy and war-weariness at home that gave America its independence.

 

[jchochole]

Thanks for your post and well said!

 

[jchochole]

Take it easy there big fella- nowehere do I demand obedience and loyalty to my point. My point is, once you put the flag down for a moment, that our huge egos blur our sense of history. That's no insult nor a stretch. The distortions of the American Revolution, and many other time periods, is a product of our American exceptionalism- that's my point. Be as patriotic as you wish..that wasn't my point. But if my post boosted your pride-then go with it.

 

[paulvallandigham]

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:

 

[Jim Cook]

I am new to this forum and to muzzle loaders. Today I came across ulvallandigham's post.

I am proud that you allow me to take part. Thank you to ulvallandigham and to all the members of like mind.

 

[Emet Huntsman]

America IS exceptional. As Paul has already stated so well, we are willing to correct our shortcomings and admit our mistakes. I can't think of any other country that has gone to war with itself to free people not even considered people.

Further, we have gone toe to toe with those foreign powers that would deny their own citizens basic human rights or would try to impose their own rule on their neighbors even though those neighbors stood against everything we stand for (WWII).
I have visited Dachau and stood in the gas chambers. Even after all those years, the tears that came to my eyes were not only because of the emotion, but from the sting of the gas still seeping from the cinder block walls.
I have visited Yad Vashem and seen the pile of eye glasses taken from the death camp internees.
I have stood at the "Treuer der Union" monument in Comfort, TX, dedicated to the German settlers who refused to join the Confederacy and paid with their lives.
I have walked the Americanischer Friedhof in Luxembourg. I have done funerals for men who stood in the breach even though "it was not our ox that got gored."
I cannot think of another nation in the history of this planet that has the kind of record we do (despite our admitted flaws) of going to bat for the little kid on the block. That alone makes us exceptional.
Now I'll get down off my soapbox.
:v