The Brown Bess in combat- how effective was it ?

[TNGhost]

As with any weapon it was as effective as the tactics employed. The M16 employed as a 600-1000 yard sniper rifle, would be less effective than the Bess employed in the above mentioned period formations.

Would it hit? Most definitely within its range, and that would increase with the size of the target(formation). 500 grains of lead launched at 1300 fps certainly would be effective upon impact.

The Brown Bess served quite a long time (over 100 years) with the Empire and its colonies, and I do not think it would have been around so long had it not been effective in the period it served.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

In conventional British weapons drills there were orders for everything from return your rammer and prime your piece to Present and Fire. There was no command for Aim. Aiming takes time. The British soldier was trained to get off 3 or 4 shots a minute. Now a Regiment of 1,000 soldiers firing 4 shots a minute are going to produce a hail of lead. However, many of the troops were probably shooting too high. Often military leaders didn't want to waste money on live fire. So troops rarely got to shoot at a mark.

Now that being said, that was the Line or Hat troops that were extensively trained in volley fire. The Light troops, the little guys that were used as flankers and scouts may have learned to aim since they were in situations where it was handy to be able to hit what you aim at.

The British Army while in the Colonies dealing with the insurrection did institute aimed fire training.

In the case of Rogers Rangers it becomes more interesting. There are some indications that they may have carried 2 or 3 kinds of loads. Standard Cartridge for serious work. Buck shot for close up and patched round ball for accuracy. Buck shot could also be added to a cartridge to increase effectiveness.

The lack of the wording "take aim" vs. "present" is one of those reenactorisms..., where folks conclude there was no aiming nor marksmanship for the British soldier with the Brown Bess..., YET ..., the Continental Army for example had the command to "take aim" and there is no evidence that the British suffered sufficiently higher casualties to claim that the British weren't aiming and that aiming mattered..., when they could see the enemy through the smoke, as Gus has pointed out in a previous post.

While the British soldier was trained to load and fire in 15 seconds, that's NOT the same as actually firing at that rate in combat. At that rate the average "Hat Company" would be out of ammunition in 9 minutes or less depending on the number of cartridges in the box.

"If we see a platoon fire with ball at a mark, it is certain that many ball will fall short, and many go over, yet sufficient numbers will hit to do horrid execution. Suppose the same platoon in action, and it will undoubtedly fire with less justness."

"The companies being thus perfected in their duty, should begin to fire with ball, and practice it, as much as their allowance of ammunition and opportunity will permit, till they become good marksmen."
A Military Essay Containing Reflections on The Raising, Arming, Clothing, and Discipline of the British Infantry and Cavalry, by Campbell Dalyrymple 1761

"The general yearly allowance of Ball to a Regiment, when not on Service, being only four to each Man, the insufficiency of that number, for frequently practicing the Companies at in firing at marks, must be very obvious ; it will therefore be absolutely necessary, as these four Balls are scarcely enough, to answer the purposes mentioned...., that molds and lead be provided for the Companies in order to cast an additional quantity [of ball] ...,"

"..., and that all the cartridges may be exactly proportioned to the bore of the firelocks, wooden formers, of a proper size, must likewise be provided."
Cuthbertson's System for The Complete Interior Management and Oeconomy of a Battlion of Infantry. 1776

As for use of patched ball in muskets or smoothbores, I have yet to see any period reference to the use of the patch in a musket or other smoothbore in the 18th century, as the same fouling that requires the bore of a rifle to be wiped after several shots applies as well, and perhaps sooner, to a smooth bore. While the paper cartridge was made to closely fit the bore of the musket, it was by no means and as unyielding as a patched ball, by comparison.

LD

 

[tenngun]

accuracy--- well why is it when you see period drawings and paintings, oils & watercolors that the BRITISH soldier is pointing his weapon forward and his face / head is always facing to the right? how can he hit anyone shooting like that? that should have some bearing on your query.

You want a dead deer, elk, moose, bear Ect, and you want it with one shot.
It doesn’t make any difference when your target is killed, wounded or ran.
A hunting gun is made to kill, quickly and cleanly if possible. From an Egyptian mace to a nuclear bomb the purpose of a war weapon is to scare the enemy so much he will no longer resist.
If it comes to a fight, wounded is as good as dead. Even better. Standing next to a screaming wounded soldier can even be more disheartening then a dead man. And running or dropping to the ground as if wounded accomplished the same goal.

 

[nkbj]

Passing thoughts...
Lead shot used by slingers in ages past worked quite well against enemy soldiers.
Man portable light tubed directional mines could have been nice.

 

[Canute Rex]

I have seen a number of Brown Bess muskets in armories in the UK. They generally have oval bored muzzles, aligned top to bottom. The British soldiers drilled six days a week, and much of that was "dumb show" (no ammo) loading and firing drill. I also noticed that the buttons on the ramrods were universally worn down to nubs. The accuracy of such a weapon was minimal. There is the statement of a contemporary military observer to the effect of; even if a soldier's musket isn't exceedingly ill-bored, if he should fire at the figure of a man at a hundred paces he would have as much chance of hitting the moon.

Others have noted that Roger's Rangers cut 6-8" off the muzzles of their Besses, probably to get past the most outrageously worn bits.

It took years to train a soldier properly, and so they weren't thrown away in slugfests. Sgt. Lamb of the 9th was in the Battle of Hubbardton and noted in his diary that his regiment fired 12 shots that entire day, which was the hottest battle he'd ever been in. The doctrine of the day was about taking the field, not destroying men, so, as noted above, there was a lot of maneuvering for advantage. No shame in retiring if outflanked.

As for toot's comment, British soldiers were trained to follow the man on their right, with order above all things. There is an account of a cannon ball from the flank knocking the muskets out of the hands of 14 grenadiers, giving you an idea of how precise their alignment was. If the man on the far right of the line had his musket leveled, there was a chance that the volley would do some execution. The vertically oval bores I mentioned would send a lot of balls either into the sky or the dirt.

 

[RAEDWALD]

For those unused to the concept, volley fire is not just lining up everyone and letting them go in one blast. Volley fire could be any combination of battalion, company, half company or platoon fire according to the orders given. The fire being by each part separately and was a system that regulated the rate and/or volume of fire under command.

 

[Artificer]

For those unused to the concept, volley fire is not just lining up everyone and letting them go in one blast. Volley fire could be any combination of battalion, company, half company or platoon fire according to the orders given. The fire being by each part separately and was a system that regulated the rate and/or volume of fire under command.

Yes, Volley Firing could be done in an entire Regiment by "rolling" or having each platoon fire by volley and going right down the line and even stopping when some new threat like cavalry or artillery came forward, then changing the aiming point of the rest of the Regiment.

I had no documentation for this, but one aspect of my "bag of tricks" when I did UnCivil War reenacting was having the front and rear ranks fire "by the numbers." I would have my unit dress ranks and "count off" by ones and twos. Then I had the front rank volley fire by ones and reload. Then the rear rank fire by ones and reload. Then the front rank fire by two's and reload and the same for the rear rank. While it LOOKED like we had unloaded our muskets firing each time by rank, we kept up a continuous rate of firing. Commanders on both our side and the other could not believe how fast we reloaded and thus kept them at bay. Grin.

I used that tactic when we were the first to arrive on the field and had to give covering fire for units coming up and other times when our firing created quite the diversion for other units maneuvering.

My Corps Commander was often surprised by what could be done when thinking outside the box.

Gus

 

[FlinterNick]

The lack of the wording "take aim" vs. "present" is one of those reenactorisms..., where folks conclude there was no aiming nor marksmanship for the British soldier with the Brown Bess..., YET ..., the Continental Army for example had the command to "take aim" and there is no evidence that the British suffered sufficiently higher casualties to claim that the British weren't aiming and that aiming mattered..., when they could see the enemy through the smoke, as Gus has pointed out in a previous post.

While the British soldier was trained to load and fire in 15 seconds, that's NOT the same as actually firing at that rate in combat. At that rate the average "Hat Company" would be out of ammunition in 9 minutes or less depending on the number of cartridges in the box.

"If we see a platoon fire with ball at a mark, it is certain that many ball will fall short, and many go over, yet sufficient numbers will hit to do horrid execution. Suppose the same platoon in action, and it will undoubtedly fire with less justness."

"The companies being thus perfected in their duty, should begin to fire with ball, and practice it, as much as their allowance of ammunition and opportunity will permit, till they become good marksmen."
A Military Essay Containing Reflections on The Raising, Arming, Clothing, and Discipline of the British Infantry and Cavalry, by Campbell Dalyrymple 1761

"The general yearly allowance of Ball to a Regiment, when not on Service, being only four to each Man, the insufficiency of that number, for frequently practicing the Companies at in firing at marks, must be very obvious ; it will therefore be absolutely necessary, as these four Balls are scarcely enough, to answer the purposes mentioned...., that molds and lead be provided for the Companies in order to cast an additional quantity [of ball] ...,"

"..., and that all the cartridges may be exactly proportioned to the bore of the firelocks, wooden formers, of a proper size, must likewise be provided."
Cuthbertson's System for The Complete Interior Management and Oeconomy of a Battlion of Infantry. 1776

As for use of patched ball in muskets or smoothbores, I have yet to see any period reference to the use of the patch in a musket or other smoothbore in the 18th century, as the same fouling that requires the bore of a rifle to be wiped after several shots applies as well, and perhaps sooner, to a smooth bore. While the paper cartridge was made to closely fit the bore of the musket, it was by no means and as unyielding as a patched ball, by comparison.

LD

I’ve never seen any reference to patched round balls being loaded in any infantry musket. The only reference I’ve seen to a patched round ball for military firearms was in reference to Hessian Jaeger Units, British Riflemen units and American Riflemen. Not sure about the Ferguson rifle though, I don’t see how a paper cartridges would work to the soldiers benefit in loading.

American Riflemen during the War of 1812 were issued a standard pouch which wasn’t very large, filled with smoothed round balls in a greased rag. This was in reference to those units armed with 1803 rifles. Later period rifles such as the 1817 common rifle and 1841 Mississippi Rifle are referenced using paper cartridges with the ball ends greased.

Its very possible that irregular troops and militia did use patched round balls in muskets, simply because it was what was available to them.

 

[Tumbledown]

Others have noted that Roger's Rangers cut 6-8" off the muzzles of their Besses, probably to get past the most outrageously worn bits.

Rogers and his rangers likely cut guns shorter for better maneuverability in the thick forests.

As for it taking years to train a soldier? Training good officers, perhaps, but not rank and file infantry. If that were the case, England would have lost by attrition. No, the common soldier was a drone, following strict orders, executing commands learned by endless drilling, all enforced by strict discipline, at times cruel and inhumane, but horrendously effective.

 

[Tumbledown]

I’ve never seen any reference to patched round balls being loaded in any infantry musket. The only reference I’ve seen to a patched round ball for military firearms was in reference to Hessian Jaeger Units, British Riflemen units and American Riflemen. Not sure about the Ferguson rifle though, I don’t see how a paper cartridges would work to the soldiers benefit in loading.

American Riflemen during the War of 1812 were issued a standard pouch which wasn’t very large, filled with smoothed round balls in a greased rag. This was in reference to those units armed with 1803 rifles. Later period rifles such as the 1817 common rifle and 1841 Mississippi Rifle are referenced using paper cartridges with the ball ends greased.

Its very possible that irregular troops and militia did use patched round balls in muskets, simply because it was what was available to them.

New England militia were expected to turn out with cartridges of a set quantity, or an equivalent amount of loose powder and ball for their muskets. I'd be interested to know if those balls were "patched" or if they used something for wadding.

 

[Tumbledown]

One Colonial Colonel, John Stark of New Hampshire, learned to think "outside the box" while a junior Officer with Rogers Rangers during the FIW. At Breed's Hill when he came up to reinforce American Colonel Prescott, Prescott was so happy to see him and knew of Stark's competence, that Prescott said Stark could set up wherever he thought best. Stark realized the flank was weak, so he set his troops there.

What is not commonly known is Colonel Stark had "Range Stakes" driven into the ground 40 yards in front of his line and strictly forbade any shooting until the British crossed the "stake line." (Stark was NOT a man to have his orders disobeyed and his troops followed the orders exactly.)

The following is otherwise a pretty good account of what happened:

"When the New Hampshire militia arrived, the grateful Colonel Prescott allowed Stark to deploy his men where he saw fit. Stark surveyed the ground and immediately saw that the British would probably try to flank the rebels by landing on the beach of the Mystic River, below and to the left of Bunker Hill. Stark led his men to the low ground between Mystic Beach and the hill and ordered them to "fortify" a two-rail fence by stuffing straw and grass between the rails. Stark also noticed an additional gap in the defense line and ordered Lieutenant Nathaniel Hutchins from his brother William's company and others to follow him down a 9-foot-high (2.7 m) bank to the edge of the Mystic River. They piled rocks across the 12-foot-wide (3.7 m) beach to form a crude defense line. After this fortification was hastily constructed, Stark deployed his men three-deep behind the wall. A large contingent of British with the Royal Welch Fusiliers in the lead advanced towards the fortifications. The Minutemen crouched and waited until the advancing British were almost on top of them, and then stood up and fired as one. They unleashed a fierce and unexpected volley directly into the faces of the fusiliers, killing 90 in the blink of an eye and breaking their advance. The fusiliers retreated in panic. A charge of British infantry was next, climbing over their dead comrades to test Stark's line. This charge too was decimated by a withering fusillade by the Minutemen. A third charge was repulsed in a similar fashion, again with heavy losses to the British. The British officers wisely withdrew their men from that landing point and decided to land elsewhere, with the support of artillery.

Later in the battle, as the rebels were forced from the hill, Stark directed the New Hampshire regiment's fire to provide cover for Colonel Prescott's retreating troops. The day's New Hampshire dead were later buried in the Salem Street Burying Ground, Medford, Massachusetts."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stark#Bunker_Hill
Most of the American Commanders were either trained as British Officers when they were young or learned warfare on the British Model. Most didn't think outside the box very well. Further, until after Valley Forge, American Soldiers were just not as good as British Regulars. AFTER Valley Forge, they came out as REGULARS and equal to the British, IF properly led by their Officers.

However, it was not until a RIFLEMAN by the name of Daniel Morgan came along and they finally promoted him to Brigadier General late in the war, that someone came up with the right tactics and strategy to whip the British Regulars at their own game and even without much artillery support.

Dan Morgan led the British on a long and exhausting chase, while he marshalled his forces and chose the ground to fight. He then used brilliant "defense in detail" tactics that suckered the British under Tarleton to their destruction at the Battle of Cowpens.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cowpens
Had Morgan been promoted earlier as he should have been, these tactics would have been available sooner to the American Army. Morgan was in intense pain from Sciatica during the Battle, but still got the job done. However, he could go no further afterwards and had to "medically retire" right after the Battle.

General Greene used Morgan's tactics as effectively as possible at the Battle of Guilford Court House not long after Cowpens. Had Cornwallis not had his artillery open fire on his own troops, the British probably would not have won the battle, but it bled the British more than in men and materiel than they could afford. It set the British on their path to defeat at Yorktown.

Gus

I just love this kind of historical recounting!

One thing I've learned is how the simple lack of training among our Continentals almost did us in, and how Baron Von Stuben's drilling and manuals at Valley Forge turned a ragtag band of Patriots into Soldiers.

 

[vintovka]

To Under stand ML in war try a team shoot competition. Not sure they do it any more but 6-10 fires in unison to hit an array of clay pigions arranged on backstop. Next 5-10 rounds are rapid fire. First team to break all pigeons wins. I did it once and and had nightmares that night of being back in SEA. Will say by 2-4 rounds downrange animal instict kicks in and prolly same for our ancestors. Had the shoot included fixing bayonets and charging backstop we would have done it.

 

[Tumbledown]

Just wanted to post a little eye candy to go along with the subject at
hand.
.

 

[tenngun]

New England militia were expected to turn out with cartridges of a set quantity, or an equivalent amount of loose powder and ball for their muskets. I'd be interested to know if those balls were "patched" or if they used something for wadding.

Patching ball is known back to late sixteenth century. Alas we have no one describing it for smoothies until the nineteenth century. The writer talks then as if it’s known and not a new invention.
We know lots of references to wads. I’m going to bet, not prove mind you, that the colonials with loose ball and powder loaded a wad.
That said should someone turn up some obscure reference to PRB in militia muskets I’m not going to be surprised. Instead I’ll say ‘always thought so’.

 

[Canute Rex]

Rogers and his rangers likely cut guns shorter for better maneuverability in the thick forests.

As for it taking years to train a soldier? Training good officers, perhaps, but not rank and file infantry. If that were the case, England would have lost by attrition. No, the common soldier was a drone, following strict orders, executing commands learned by endless drilling, all enforced by strict discipline, at times cruel and inhumane, but horrendously effective.

I'm sure that lightness and handiness were factors in shortening muskets, but moderate accuracy was also necessary in woods warfare.

I'll push back on the training issue a bit by noting two things. 1) I wrote "train a soldier properly", with emphasis on properly. I could train a novice to perform the manual of arms with basic competence in the space of a week (and have). That's different from a properly trained soldier who will perform it as prescribed when there is lead and iron flying around. 2) I'll quote your use of "endless drilling." Yes, it did take endless drilling to get all the movements and marching and commands etched into a man's muscle memory. According to military men of the time that took a couple of years.

 

[Eterry]

I've heard somewhere, maybe the History Channel, the Brown Bess was the AK-47 of its day. Not a rapid fire weapon, but the assault rifle of the 18th century.

Troops of the day walked to battle, or by ship. Either way you had plenty of time to drill. By the time you got to the battlefield you were proficient in everything except shooting.

 

[Artificer]

I've heard somewhere, maybe the History Channel, the Brown Bess was the AK-47 of its day. Not a rapid fire weapon, but the assault rifle of the 18th century.

Troops of the day walked to battle, or by ship. Either way you had plenty of time to drill. By the time you got to the battlefield you were proficient in everything except shooting.

Actually, the Brown Bess (and French and other military muskets of the day) were indeed the "Military Assault Weapons" of the 18th century. Compared to period hunting arms, they were DESIGNED to:
1. Be heavier/more robust as military arms
2. Be loaded and fired much quicker
3. Generally larger caliber
4. As uniform as possible in caliber
5. Be fitted with slings
6. Have other specifically designed military tools and equipment for their use
7. Have Bayonets fitted (this though admittedly a fair number of civilian smooth bores were fitted with bayonets, though certainly not the majority of them)

There is no doubt the people of the 18th century did not know these were the most modern, up to date Assault Weapons of the day.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

Hi Gus,
The "Old Waggoner" was a very great tactical commander, offensively and defensively. It is important to note that, although he initially commanded a rifle unit, at Cowpens, he had continentals with muskets, a little cavalry, and militia mostly with muskets but also some rifles. One of his biggest successes was using militia, who tended to run away, in a way that allowed them to be effective soldiers without pressing them too hard. With respect to effectiveness of muskets, Hughes provides data indicating that theoretically, a 500-man battalion firing 2 volleys at an advancing solid line of enemy beginning when they were 100 yards away could result in 500-600 hits from those 1000 shots. However, in reality, that kind of carnage was almost never inflicted because soldiers often tended to shoot high, vision was obstructed with smoke, lines were rankled by opposing fire and artillery, and while the first rank might take a beating, following ranks not so much. That was the idea behind Napoleon's attack in columns. They presented a small front from a distance and unless hammered on their flanks, could charge through a line, breaking it. Hughes states that the principle goal of firing was to disrupt the cohesiveness and determination of the enemy line so it was ripe to be overwhelmed physically and psychologically by a bayonet charge. I really liked your description of Stark's tactics at Breed's Hill. He was another officer who knew how to handle militia. By the way, probably all of the British "light Bobs" approaching Stark were armed with this, not the Brown Bess:

The British pattern 1760 light infantry carbine.

dave

Hi Dave,

Colonel John Stark must have been one heck of a leader and a force of will of some magnitude. When Prescott sent out his urgent calls for reinforcements of Breed's Hill, most of the Patriot Militia were stopped by the British Ships' bombardment at the neck of the peninsula. Stark came forward, ordered his 200 Militia men into formation and marched them straight across the area without a casualty to any of them. No wonder Prescott was so happy to see him and his troops!

I have no documentation to back this up, but I bet Daniel Morgan did a LOT of self examination on leading troops, during his year as a POW in Quebec. It is almost forgotten he took the overall command of Patriot forces at Quebec after Arnold was wounded and successfully broke through the outer defenses of Quebec with the Patriot Militia there. Morgan did a heck of a lot with too few men and carrying out the over reached orders of his superiors.

What is often missed is Dan Morgan skillfully used Musket Armed Militia to support his Riflemen at Saratoga.

Dan Morgan fought well in many smaller battles and skirmishes after Saratoga with his Riflemen and additional musket armed militia and supporting arms that are not well known today and SHOULD have been promoted, while other less qualified men got the promotions. No wonder he went home disgusted and in pain from his Sciatica in 1779.

It may be the single best thing Light Horse Harry Lee did during the entire Revolution when Nathaniel Greene was looking for a good commander and Lee said something to the effect of, "Have I got the right guy for you!" I'm not sure Greene would have thought about sending for and promoting Dan Morgan without Lee's recommendation.

Gus

 

[dave_person]

Hi Gus,
If only the real world was fair and just because, adequately supplied, the strategic and tactical team of Dan Morgan and Benedict Arnold would have been unbeatable.

dave

 

[tenngun]

Hi Gus,
If only the real world was fair and just because, adequately supplied, the strategic and tactical team of Dan Morgan and Benedict Arnold would have been unbeatable.

dave

And Arnold would be a hero of the revolution today. Maybe ending his public career as President Arnold.