Colonial marksmen, via the 'London Paper', circa 1775

[Nazgul58]

The problem was, not every leader knew how to use Riflemen...

Morgan did at Saratoga, this is the battle that convinced France that we had a chance...

The over the mountain men did at Kings Mountain...Not only did they win, they resupplied with what arms the Loyalist militia had, took out Patrick Ferguson and this battle helped recruit more Patriots...

Morgan knew how to used them at Cowpens, once again giving the Patriots not only more supplies but boosting their moral...

Nathaniel Green, through Morgan knew how to used Riflemen at Guilford Courthouse...Cornwalis lost 25% of his fighting force, used up his supplies and headed to the coast to resupply...He ended up in Yorktown, surrendered and the rest, is history....

So, take Rifles out of these key battles, with the fighting spirit of the Scot-Irish and the outcome could have been very different...

My thoughts exactly . Having read Johann Ewald and accounts of Morgan and others, rifleman definitely had their place. As did those with muskets. The trick was how to employ them effectively.

Ewald was smart and a quick study in how to counter the enemy, rifles or not. He was impressive.

Interesting subject, still true in Modern warfare how to utilize new tech.

Don

 

[Artificer]

The problem was, not every leader knew how to use Riflemen...

Though it must have been grueling for Morgan, I believe the time he spent as a prisoner awaiting exchange in Quebec caused him to think and re-think the disastrous use of Riflemen there as regular infantry. I also believe in the one year plus in prison, he used that time to come up with and work out in his mind the new tactics to effectively use Riflemen that worked so well at Saratoga.

Actually, most American commanders in the AWI never figured out how to properly deploy riflemen even after Morgan showed everyone how to do it the first time at Saratoga. (The notable exception was Nathaniel Green, as you mentioned.) Riflemen HAD to have Infantry Support working closely with them to be their most effective and for most of the remaining battles in the war. (King's Mountain the exception to this, but that was not a typical AWI Infantry battle.)

Neither Morgan nor Green had been over indoctrinated in British Army Infantry tactics, as so many other American commanders had been, and both were willing to think outside the box and use what worked best.

I enjoyed your synopsis. Well done.

Gus

 

[user 55620]

You think you were treated badly? How do you think they treated the English at home?

 

[springfield art]

British officers were encouraged to make out a last will and testimony before shipping out for the colonies. They knew they would be targeted.

Our modern guys and women are told to do the same when deploying to any "hot" zone....

 

[smoothshooter]

Hi,
That is a great quote and I've heard it many times from my brother who is a member of Morgan's Rifle Company in the Brigade of the American Revolution. However, consider that Washington did not want any more "riflemen" after the first year of the war. He wanted troops armed with muskets and bayonets. The British learned very quickly how to combat the riflemen using the German jaegers and teamwork. That quote is from 1775 when riflemen were picking off British soldiers holed up in Boston. It was before they ever really faced riflemen in battle and the fear of them diminished considerably thereafter. Moreover, it wasn't riflemen who picked off British officers at Lexington, Concord, and Breed's Hill. Focusing on officers was a general American practice.

dave

As I have mentioned here before, Washington considered riflemen a mixed blessing, at best, for a variety of reasons.

 

[smoothshooter]

Odd statement considering Washington commissioned Daniel Morgan to raise the Corps of riflemen in 1777

Washington needed warm bodies, and probably knew the only way to get more frontiersmen to enlist was to let them have the opportunity to fight with minimal supervision with their own weapons, and above avoid serving in line infantry companies with too many rules marching drills.

 

[Tumbledown]

Washington needed warm bodies, and probably knew the only way to get more frontiersmen to enlist was to let them have the opportunity to fight with minimal supervision with their own weapons, and above avoid serving in line infantry companies with too many rules marching drills.

Riflemen in their own unit, with a commander who knew how to use them, could be effective in their tasks. Mixed in with the general troops, though, they were problematic.

 

[RAEDWALD]

It wasn't the taxes, per se. It was the arbitrary manner in which they were levied. The Colonists were increasingly beeing treated as a revenue source for England. Coupled with the lack of hard cash in circulation, it made those taxes both politically unpopular and a financial burden.

As for Americans having few valid reasons to separate, it wasn't just over those taxes. Things escalated quickly. Local representative governments were dissolved. Judges and governors were appointed and funded by the king and parliament, calling into question their bias and loyalties. The stationing of troops to enforce royal decrees was alarming, and their use in attempts to disarm colonists "for their own safety" clearly demonstrated to the colonists they were considered subjects of the Crown.

We disagreed.

America was a money pit for Britain. It cost large amounts to defend it at the cost of the British exchequer and the inhabitants threw a wobbly when asked to actually pay towards their own defence despite being much more lightly taxed than their British counterparts. When it came to a choice between the Caribbean Islands or America there was no competition.

Fortunately now America is independent taxes can revert to the extremely low levels before the rebellion can they not?

I’ll get my coat…….

 

[smoothshooter]

I am sure that is true. But, still, they were an effective fighting force, albeit of a different style than the European mass of men facing off.

I will not dispute that.

 

[DuncNZ]

I am put in mind also of the battle of New Orleans where most of the ‘Kentucky Rifles’ ended up shooting muskets and locally procured fusils in the fight
We should keep in mind a few facts. Rifles were effective enough that it drove England to develop military rifles. A few years later Napoleon poo-pooed rifles and the French made little use of them.
He never faced Americans. And while the English/Germans won oven Napoleon with muskets, I wonder if just enough of an edge came from what was even then light use of rifles.
Here in America muskets played THE roll on the army. But I wonder how Saratoga would have played out with out rifleman

The battle of New Orleans was fought in 1815 at the end of the war of 1812 , actually after the peace had been signed but the combatants had not been told . The British used Baker rifles and Muskets in that war .
The British used 1000 pattern 1776 rifles in the Revolutionary war . The P1776 rifles used Superfine powder , a different grade from that used in the Brown Bess
The decision on whether to use rifles or smooth bores was more a question of tactics to suit the field of battle than the accuracy arms being used .

 

[Artificer]

America was a money pit for Britain. It cost large amounts to defend it at the cost of the British exchequer and the inhabitants threw a wobbly when asked to actually pay towards their own defence despite being much more lightly taxed than their British counterparts. When it came to a choice between the Caribbean Islands or America there was no competition.

This brings up a question I admit I have not thought about much.

How were British citizens on the home islands taxed during the 18th century? Were there separate taxes for local government and additional taxes paid to the crown? Or were all taxes paid to the Royal Tax Collectors and they divvied up the money to the various government functions?

Yes, Britain did spend a lot of money here in the wars against the French, but didn't they spend a lot more fighting the French and others on the continent and on the seas? Sure, transportation costs to fight on the continent were not as great, but Britain sent a lot more Regiments there and spent the most on the best equipment of the period for them?

The Seven Years War/FIW did indeed almost bankrupt Britain, but the costs came from much more than defense of America. However, once the French were beaten in Canada, they didn't have to worry about spending a lot of money here. Not so on the home islands.

Gus

 

[tenngun]

America was a money pit for Britain. It cost large amounts to defend it at the cost of the British exchequer and the inhabitants threw a wobbly when asked to actually pay towards their own defence despite being much more lightly taxed than their British counterparts. When it came to a choice between the Caribbean Islands or America there was no competition.

Fortunately now America is independent taxes can revert to the extremely low levels before the rebellion can they not?

I’ll get my coat…….

Just my reading of the history it wasn’t the taxes that set them off. It was the fact that parliament could set the tax without colonial representation.
There was no English law requiring a representative to be from the area they represented. But had to be elected from that district
But for centuries parliament controlled the empires purse….. to an extent, since the king has his own income he could spend as he saw fit. But since the English civil war the idea of a parliamentary system of representation for the tax makers had ripened supreme. Now the colonies were being asked to pay taxes in a system they had no say in.
Thirteen new members of commons would have been a lot cheaper than the war.
Yes I would trade our tax system for what a colonial was being asked to pay in ‘75

 

[RAEDWALD]

The British had very little say in their own taxation at the time, hence the Chartist riots and movement later on. The King was a red herring. Parliament reigned supreme. Elected by a the small proportion of property holders.

Rebel irregular riflemen doubtless did sterling work for the revolutionaries, but it was their regular musket troops with artillery support who took or held ground. The more significant decider was the French and Spanish navies restricting the operational mobility of the loyal and regular American, British and allied German troops around the 13 colonies by sea and providing the powder without which the rebels would have been reduced to using pointy sticks.

The use of riflemen as part of a combined arms set became appreciated by the Loyalist forces and rifles became an increasing part of their forces with German service rifles, German made imported rifles, British made copies of German rifles and the first British Pattern service rifle entering service in considerable numbers.

The fear of rural riflemen was soon (no pun intended) exploded and the lesson was soon learned to either use cover or immediately close with them before they could reload. The domestic rifles being without bayonets. The classic ‘American Rush’.

 

[Artificer]

Watch out ye lads for them thar' armed wid twisted barrels!

View attachment 148355

This and two other quotes were actually from Americans writing to the London Newspapers to scare British Soldiers. IOW, it was some of our first international propaganda.

More info may be found here:

https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/threads/18th-century-rifle-accuracy.103783/
Gus

 

[user 55620]

So. The question is:- was the war of independence America trying to get rid of the English, or The English trying to get rid of the Americas?

After WWii didn’t one of your generals say, “With American technology and British troops, I could rule the world.”? How different things could have been.

 

[Tumbledown]

So. The question is:- was the war of independence America trying to get rid of the English, or The English trying to get rid of the Americas?

After WWii didn’t one of your generals say, “With American technology and British troops, I could rule the world.”? How different things could have been.

Seriously??

The Torys were trying to subjugate uppity New Englanders. Then as now, us Yankees don't take kindly to being pushed beyond our limits. Mind you, we didn't *want* a fight, and held out the olive branch more than once, but the Crown believed it held the high ground morally, politically, and militarily.

 

[Tumbledown]

The British had very little say in their own taxation at the time, hence the Chartist riots and movement later on. The King was a red herring. Parliament reigned supreme. Elected by a the small proportion of property holders.

Rebel irregular riflemen doubtless did sterling work for the revolutionaries, but it was their regular musket troops with artillery support who took or held ground. The more significant decider was the French and Spanish navies restricting the operational mobility of the loyal and regular American, British and allied German troops around the 13 colonies by sea and providing the powder without which the rebels would have been reduced to using pointy sticks.

The use of riflemen as part of a combined arms set became appreciated by the Loyalist forces and rifles became an increasing part of their forces with German service rifles, German made imported rifles, British made copies of German rifles and the first British Pattern service rifle entering service in considerable numbers.

The fear of rural riflemen was soon (no pun intended) exploded and the lesson was soon learned to either use cover or immediately close with them before they could reload. The domestic rifles being without bayonets. The classic ‘American Rush’.

The French and Spanish navies didn't restrict the Brits along the American coast. The lack of British ships did. There simply weren't enough to keep the coast locked down and still move troops (which itself was a logistical headache.) The French navy did not have direct involvement until a couple of years in, and most of their actions were in the Caribbean.

As for an American navy, that was virtually nonexistent. Privateers were more of a problem for the Brits, but we were never able to develop an effective navy due to a lack of ships and qualified commanders.

When and where did the Brits employ rifles in considerable numbers? Imnot aware of any such development.

 

[RAEDWALD]

The French and Spanish navies didn't restrict the Brits along the American coast. The lack of British ships did. There simply weren't enough to keep the coast locked down and still move troops (which itself was a logistical headache.) The French navy did not have direct involvement until a couple of years in, and most of their actions were in the Caribbean.

As for an American navy, that was virtually nonexistent. Privateers were more of a problem for the Brits, but we were never able to develop an effective navy due to a lack of ships and qualified commanders.

When and where did the Brits employ rifles in considerable numbers? Imnot aware of any such development.

One notes that the French were able to ship large numbers of muskets to the rebels and ship the bulk of the powder they used.

The government had several companies and regiments of their German allies come armed with rifles, ordered substantial numbers of the same from German makers, similarly ordered copies of the German rifles from British gunmakers plus making their own pattern (Pattern 1776 Infantry Rifle) and ordering these to be made in Britain. All to be shipped to light companies etc. serving in the war supporting loyal American patriots. Those also receiving some of the rifles and doubtless some of the loyal Americans brought along their own rifles too when entering under the colours. I see no reason to expect their competence with a rifle to be any less than that of a rebel counterpart.

Army doctrine took on board the use of the rifle as part of all arms actions and incorporated them into the infantry regiments, typically in the Light Companies. At the end of the day both sides looked to the musket as the principal battle long arm, best suited to take or hold ground.

 

[DuncNZ]

British officers were encouraged to make out a last will and testimony before shipping out for the colonies. They knew they would be targeted.

Just the sea voyage to the Colonies could be lethal , Death stood at the shoulder of all on board . The Officers would have made their last will and testament's before leaving , especially as almost all Officers were the gentleman sons of wealthy families , they had to be, to be able to buy their commissions .
The English called it the American Rebellion , the Americans called it the Revolution , since the Americans won I call it the American Revolution .

 

[user 55620]

A very interesting piece of American history is that of the Fenian Brotherhood’s invasion of Canada. Google it. You will be impressed.