Musket accuracy

[paulvallandigham]

OH, I agree about what men in battle would more likely do. However, I read a history somewhere that explained the officer's concerns about the tactic of shooting officers. The British experience came from the continent, fighting just about everyone there. In the Americas, with most of the residents being British citizens, They did not have to worry about what our soldiers would do if they killed OUR officrs. But, the British didn't make that distinction. Hence, there was a recorded incident where a British officer or soldier had Washington in his sights, and did not fire. Perhaps later in the war, he would not have hesitated. I have always thought " Rules of War " was an absurd concept. The very thought that your enemy would abide by some code of conduct even if they were losing on the battlefield seems rediculous.

 

[mastrsgt]

I believe it is just word choice. I have no doubt that a a 69 cal musket ball would be leathal at 200 yards and probably further. I only meant that the ability to accurately place that ball at that range would have been lacking.

I believe the soldier that had GW in his sight was Ferguson, inventor of the Freguson rifle. this took place at Brandywine and according to Ferguson he "ordered three good shots to steal near...and fire at them, but the idea digusted me. I recalled the order"

Don R

 

[smoothshooter]

It is very unlikely that any American was hit by any British soldier aiming specifically at him. More to the point, most line infantry troops were trained specifically not to aim, but to fire when their weapon came up on the "level". It is very likely that some Americans were hit at random by the sheer volume of fire. Also, unless it was a very windy day, the higher rate of fire from the British lines would have created such a smoke screen that anyone on the American side who may have had a rifle and the requisite skill (rare even in those days) to score hits at that range would have had his work cut out for him.

 

[sherpadoug]

I have always thought " Rules of War " was an absurd concept. The very thought that your enemy would abide by some code of conduct even if they were losing on the battlefield seems rediculous.

My favorite though on this line concerns naval warfare. In the 18th century warships were captured more often that they were sunk. The most valuable part of a warship was its guns. The guns are on wheels...on a ship at sea. When you are being captured it would not be too hard to simply roll the guns into the water, thus denying the enemy most of the value of the ship. But I have NEVER read of this being done.

It would be so easy to make every fourth gun port or so open flush with the deck. Maybe the Admiralty didn't want their Captains to be tempted to eject the guns in a bad storm? I just don't understand!

 

[Coot]

As captain of the ship that is fighting yours, I will do my utmost to kill you and all of your crew up to the point that you surrender. Once you surrender, any action that would reduce the value of my prize (your ship) or any move towards any of the arms or armament would be considered a resumption of hostilities & I will order my men to mow you and yours down. Now, up to the point that you chose to surrender, wouldn't you rather have all of your crew trying to fight me off rather than having some of them working to make your ship LESS able to fight me off by throwing away your guns?

 

I have always thought " Rules of War " was an absurd concept. The very thought that your enemy would abide by some code of conduct even if they were losing on the battlefield seems rediculous.

My favorite though on this line concerns naval warfare. In the 18th century warships were captured more often that they were sunk. The most valuable part of a warship was its guns. The guns are on wheels...on a ship at sea. When you are being captured it would not be too hard to simply roll the guns into the water, thus denying the enemy most of the value of the ship. But I have NEVER read of this being done.

It would be so easy to make every fourth gun port or so open flush with the deck. Maybe the Admiralty didn't want their Captains to be tempted to eject the guns in a bad storm? I just don't understand!

It wasn't done because it wasn't possible. Ships have a wall around the deck, waist high at least and stout enough to stop bullets and small shot. Hoisting a gun weighing from several hundred pounds to a couple of tons and tossing it overboard just wasn't practical. If one wants to destroy a ship to keep it from being captured, all you have to do is set it on fire. Of course there are a few obvious drawbacks to this.

 

[Blivetmaker]

I see a few variables in the British officer's account that would need to be cleared up before evaluating the engagement.
First: There is no mention of an advance upon the enemy from either side. The British were engaged at range and by surprise. The estimate of American numbers is therefore subject to debate.
Second: "Popping" away at enemy personell for two or three days gives a rather scanty description of the volume of fire, and the difference between
48 and 72 hours is something even a second john on his first time out without the ole' man should be able to keep straight :grin:

The Bess's ball is lethal for the full length of
it's flight path. I'd rather get rained on from a duck hunter's sixes than have a .75 cal meteor fall out on me from a mile-away salute shot. The problem is the accuracy; but the ball has to go somewhere and it does indeed go where it's supposed to occasionally.
No matter how you slice it 200yds. is a piece of change even with a RB rifle. You need good eyes and a very good and well maintained rifle and reliable munition to take advantage of the situation. Colonials in the field were fielding a very different kit than what we take out now.
An American rush against the British apparantly didn't happen (probably because their troop strength wasn't close to having a chance of hitting regulars in the defense)
The British officer didn't care to mention that, in the course of a few days of engagement, nobody got around to getting some reenforcements together to rout or capture the affront to his most gracious majesty. :shocked2:
If anybody's got a time machine and a videocam we might get the straight poop; but there's just to many loose bits to make a good judgement :thumbsup:

 

[paulvallandigham]

YOu have corectly learned something about human nature that has existed throug out history, and that is the propensity of people in charge who fail to gain an objective, or complete a task to explain the situation in terms that COVERS YOUR ASS( CYA). :hatsoff: