the winner, by a nose

[MacRob46]

Though it is debated who said it or if had actually been made as a threat, the Overmountain Men firmly believed it by most accounts.
Gus

There really is no debate. Ferguson sent the message to Isaac Shelby by one of his relatives, a man named Samuel Phillips who had been captured and paroled. While it was delivered orally rather than in writing, given the gravity of the situation in which the Over the Mountain Men found themselves it can be readily assumed that it was delivered verbatim: "If they do not desist from their opposition to the British arms, he would march over the mountains, hang their leaders, and lay their country waste with fire and sword."

 

[Alden]

Unless you are training long gun shooters (sniper sequence) KD ranges are pretty ineffective for your basic combat tng as they teach the wrong skills....too slow and deliberate.

Huh? What would you train recruits in then... Only CQB point-n-shoot, shoot-n-scoot, spray-n-pray!? The basics come first turtle. KD course rules.

 

[Artificer]

Though it is debated who said it or if had actually been made as a threat, the Overmountain Men firmly believed it by most accounts.
Gus

There really is no debate. Ferguson sent the message to Isaac Shelby by one of his relatives, a man named Samuel Phillips who had been captured and paroled. While it was delivered orally rather than in writing, given the gravity of the situation in which the Over the Mountain Men found themselves it can be readily assumed that it was delivered verbatim: "If they do not desist from their opposition to the British arms, he would march over the mountains, hang their leaders, and lay their country waste with fire and sword."

Wow, glad to see that proved and laid to rest. Thank you.
Gus

 

[Artificer]

Unless you are training long gun shooters (sniper sequence) KD ranges are pretty ineffective for your basic combat tng as they teach the wrong skills....too slow and deliberate.

Huh? What would you train recruits in then... Only CQB point-n-shoot, shoot-n-scoot, spray-n-pray!? The basics come first turtle. KD course rules.

While the Rapid Fire stages of the KD course are only engaging a single target, it does not take much to change from target to target in a combat scenario. Still, training by actually firing at more than one target is a good thing.

There is a lot I like about the Army course, but many Soldiers have informed me the scoring is such that not many hits have to be done at 300 yards to Qualify.

Back in the 80's, there were many of we Marines who were pushing for the Annual Qualification/Re-Qualification to be first one week on the KD range followed by one week on Reactive Targets similar to what the Army was using. HQMC actually wanted to do it, but we just did not have the funds to do it.

After I retired in 1997, the Corps went from KD to what was supposed to have been a more combat efficient Re-Qual Course, but after a few years, we found it did not work as well and went back to the KD course. We also give training on fast target acquisition/shooting along with other types of combat shooting for our Regular Infantry or other Marines before going over to Iraq or Afghanistan, though. We also updated our Pistol KD course to adding magazine changes during firing stages and that really helped many Marines in combat.

When I was the Battalion Ordnance Officer for an Artillery Bn. and when assigned as the Security Officer for the Logistic Train, I used tactics from the Rev War and UnCivil War that were still just as good today as then. Of course I had to teach them terms like "Companions in Battle, Flying Squad, and Ranging the Guns," though the Artillery did have a modern term for the latter. Have to say I did appreciate having radios and not having to use Runners or Horse Mounted Message Carriers. Grin.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

Though it is debated who said it or if had actually been made as a threat, the Overmountain Men firmly believed it by most accounts.
Gus

There really is no debate. Ferguson sent the message to Isaac Shelby by one of his relatives, a man named Samuel Phillips who had been captured and paroled. While it was delivered orally rather than in writing, given the gravity of the situation in which the Over the Mountain Men found themselves it can be readily assumed that it was delivered verbatim: "If they do not desist from their opposition to the British arms, he would march over the mountains, hang their leaders, and lay their country waste with fire and sword."

Wow, glad to see that proved and laid to rest. Thank you.
Gus

Well, it was too late to add a P.S., so I will add another post.

I may be wrong, but I believe most people today have no idea what the age old threat of "laying their country waste with fire and sword" actually meant and how that was the most terrible threat that could be made. In effect, it meant stealing or killing all livestock and possessions, burning down every building, stealing or destroying every bit of crops and property, raping women and children and then murdering everyone to the last person - leaving no one or nothing behind in their wake than ashes.

The Overmountain Men MAY not have taken that literally or seriously in other cases or times, but for the American Propaganda after the Battle of the Waxhaws/Buford's Massacre a few months earlier on 29 May. That was the battle/skirmish where Banastre Tarleton got his nickname "Bloody Banastre" and where his supposed slaughter of surrendered and wounded American Soldiers was the origin of the term "Tarleton's Quarter."
(Historians are STILL arguing over whether or not there indeed was such a general slaughter and not just a few Americans killed when Tarleton's troops thought he had been killed, but it seems evidence today shows it was not a general massacre.)

Whether or not there was a massacre at the Battle of the Waxhaws, the Overmountain Men BELIEVED there had been such a massacre where no quarter had been shown to those who surrendered. So when they got word of the threat of "Laying waste of their country by Fire and Sword," they believed the threat was real and would be carried out to the fullest extent of the age old threat against their family and friends.

This at first caused hot rage that turned into what some describe as "cold rage" where the rage is kept down just enough to still allow one to act decisively with purpose, but with the simmering rage underneath that keeps the soldier going in battle harder and longer than usual. I am certain the Overmountain Men were not going to stop at anything to get their hands on Ferguson and destroy that force. So as the battle went back and forth, there was nothing that would stop them and falling back to regroup or retreat was out of the question. They were after blood vengeance. I am actually a little bit surprised they did not slaughter some of the British prisoners, but perhaps the body of Ferguson cooled their rage enough.

I wonder if Ferguson realized before he died just how foolish his threat turned out to be and how it caused his downfall.

Gus

 

[azmntman]

Well, for me anyway, if someone threatens wife and/or children with great bodily harm there is only one honorable response. must NOT chance it to occur IMHO :idunno:

 

[MacRob46]

Ferguson's ego would have caused him to try to carry out the threat but he was smart enough to realize that once he had aroused the mountaineers, marching over those mountains to get at them would have been fatal to his command. It took the threat to thoroughly coalesce the backwoods militia to actually undertake the arduous march to Kings Mountain, along with Samuel Doak's sermon on the subject of revenge. It is interesting to note that after the battle the Patriot forces begin to break up as they marched their prisoner's west which is a classic situation with "peasant armies" (I use that term with the utmost respect) in all times. Their reason to band together had been destroyed and it was time to go back home and tend to the family.

The Tory prisoners did suffer at the hands of their captors. Several were summarily hanged. Also, the Tories had to display the white flag twice before the Patriots stopped shooting. The layout of the battlefield meant that not everyone could see the white flag or hear the cease fire order. Isaac Shelby actually rode to the top of the ridge and faced the Tories, commanding them to drop their weapons before they actually did ground them. I am sure it was chaotic. The Patriots also left wounded Tories on the mountain after they began to head west. Local sympathizers tended to them but quite a few died any way.

 

[Turtle Creek]

The more you shoot the better but have never been a kd fan unless for long gun shooting and experienced/trained shooter.
It always comes down to money/time tho.
Firm believer you should never shoot a target that does not look like a man/silhouette...imprinting.
I was the Group CSM of the Special Warfare Tng Gp at Bragg that trains all SF (some spec ops Marines/Af) and would not allow 'target shooting' basically unless it was mansized and fluid.
If you are training someone to kill. train them to kill.....you could do something similar at long distance.

 

[George]

Firm believer you should never shoot a target that does not look like a man/silhouette...imprinting.

Different strokes for different folks. I won't shoot at targets representing people, ever. I'm not training to be a man killer, I'm a hunter. We have far too much of that macho badass BS in our culture as it is without doing it as a hobby. If a man can't learn to shoot a gun by firing at a bullseye target, let him put the gun down and go play golf.

Spence

 

[Turtle Creek]

We were discussing military training.
Besides, I tried using a golf club once and it was to damned messy.

 

[bpd303]

I'm sure the military training being discussed is 1865 or prior. If not maybe the forum rules should be reviewed. :wink:

 

[Turtle Creek]

Totally applicable as studies have shown that training soldiers to 'shoot a mark' or shoot round targets did not train them to kill opponents on the battlefield...less that 10% actually shot to kill.
This includes 1865 and prior.
Many of the 'missed shots' pointed out in the numerous stories were probably men that could not shoot to kill.

 

[Wes/Tex]

If a man can't learn to shoot a gun by firing at a bullseye target, let him put the gun down and go play golf.
Spence

Whole new set of targeting problems!
http://images.sodahead.com/polls/0...00578_11_468x302_5609_976655_poll_xlarge.jpeg

 

[cynthialee]

I never use any form of target other than a basic bull's-eye or a pie plate. If I can hit dead center or within 2 inches of that I am good to go on minute of deer or man.

 

[Turtle Creek]

Killed many men have you?
Not true at all...SLA Marshall and another good read "On Killing' have annotated the innate natural aversion to killing one's own species.
This can be observed in man and beast.
The avg. shooter to kill ratio prior to modern quick kill silhouette training instituted in the late 60's was 10%.
Since imprinting training it is more like 90% shoot to kill, the other 10% will allow themselves to be killed before they do it.
To make this more date specific historians, concerned with this subject, have shown that the majority of killing on Civil War battlefields took place in the back ranks....the front ranks shooting high or just not aiming at all.
Ever seen two Bucks fighting, they go rack to rack...not to kill but to win thru strength when one quits...when a buck fights another species he goes for the flank...to kill.
I've served in 4 conflicts and seen this first hand....you have to train a man to kill, it isn't natural unless you are criminally out there.
Folks that haven't had to just assume that it's easy.
That isn't a bad thing btw.

btw, the anomaly to this is crew served weapons where there is oversight. When the shooter knows he is being observed critically.

I seriously believe this also impacts the discussion here of 'observed' combat misses by supposed marksman with rifled flintlocks.

Seriously, two ranks at 50-75 yards standing and firing at each other, everyone aiming ..... and you lose 3 to 5 men a volley.

 

[54ball]

I hope I can touch on some points that are often overlooked. Some may explain the negative attitude towards riflemen as the Continental Line matured into a real army.

The Revolution was a strange conflict. The shooting war began before there was an army and for that matter, before there was a country!

It was not a total war. The closest it came to a total war is in the Southern Campaign of 1779-81 and in the West when the Indian tribes were loosed.

Early war, riflemen had great propaganda value. Even in the halls of Parliament, the Whigs warned of the prowess of the American Riflemen.

As said the first official regiments raised for the new army were rifle regiments. Many general officers were early rile enthusiasts. Here you have groups of skilled men already armed with arguably the most accurate firearm in the world. So there was a lot of hype about the riflemen in the press, in Congress and as said even in the Halls of Parliament.

Many expected the riflemen to wipe out the British in a Braddock like defeat anytime the British Army took the field. The reality was much different.

You hear things on online forums and around campfires that the Continental officers were stuck with linear tactics and stubbornly wanted to fight the British with the British fight. You hear the the Continental officers did not know how to utilize riflemen and even disbanded them to issue the men muskets. A lot of this is true but the reasoning is much more complicated.

The riflemen were for the most part from the frontier or at least the more rural areas. Many of these men may have had experience fighting Indians and still others may have been veterans of the F&I. Many had their own ideas of their fight and just what that fight was.

By it's nature the rifle is an intimate and precise instrument to this day. There is a solitary bond so to speak between the rifleman and his target. So by nature, a rifleman is an individual, a rifle regiment especially in 1776 is a loose group of individuals. This makes discipline a problem and add to the fact that many were believing their own headlines, now you have a real discipline problem.

So lets put on the cocked hat of a Continental General officer. You have an infant army, you have troops so green they may not can march in a straight line much less maneuver. You have regiments of undisciplined frontier riflemen.

How are you going to use them?

Washington at New York tried to place his riflemen where they could fight their fight and have the best advantage. Unfortunately many a fine rifleman wound up pinned to a tree and others fled in mass. So the reality of war was much different.

Rifle troops are special troops but how do you cultivate a special fighting force in the midst of training a army the basics and also fighting a shooting war?

So what exactly is the Rifleman's fight?

Is it ambush behind cover maybe in groups behind the enemy?
Remember this was a limited conflict.
Do you really want to divide your force for misadventures and loose groups of murderous banditti upon the enemy?
What will be the response?

Since a rifleman has three times the range do you put him on the line? For best accuracy he is slow to load. Even if he has a hit another takes his place and on and on. Eventually the ranks are close. Without a bayonet he is dead man. If he is a smart man he flees to fight another day.

I could go on and on but I hope you can see how difficult it is place riflemen on the battlefield, at least in 1776.

Don't take me wrong by the end of the war many commanders knew how to best use the riflemen.

Daniel Morgan who is by far the best rifle officer knew the nature of the frontier citizen soldier.
Cowpens was a masterpiece. Morgan chose the ground. Its open with a series of gentle hills that are not apparent as you approach them. Before the hills he places two lines of frontier militia with orders to fire two shots and withdraw. The British took losses from these two lines but seeing them withdraw they pursue. Just as they top the knoll there is the until now unseen Continental Line.

As with every battle the issue was in doubt, the militia continued to flee in disorder and then as if by magic, they about-faced and turned into the Redecoat's flanks. William Washington and his hidden Calvary cut off the enemy's rear. Morgan had achieved the dream of every military commander, a double envelopment.

Greene another good general who knew how to use riflemen tried the same tactic later at Guilford Courthouse but due to the thick terrain the militias were not able to regroup and turn the flanks. The British won the field but at such a high cost. So much so a speaker in Parliament said we can not stand another such victory.

Riflemen seemed to come through when they were needed the most. Saratoga, Kings Mountain and numerous other conflicts. With that said the Continental Line with it's discipline had to exist. For a time in the winter of 1776-77 the Line was the Revolution.

As said this was a limited conflict. The British could have won but at what cost?

As the war stagnated in the North the British turned South. Hopes were high that Loyalist legions would join the Crown and end the war. Despite defeat after defeat, they could not finish the Patriots in the South. When General Clinton received word of Kings Mountain, He remarked "The war is lost".

The Continental Line deserves credit for victory but so does the the Partisan fighter and the Citizen Soldier. Many historians and press outlets try to downplay the contribution of the Citizen Soldier in favor of the well Trained Army.
IMHO like the rifleman, the Citizen soldier came through when most needed. As far as the Revolution, in the beginning and in the end.

 

[Artificer]

Well over 95 percent of all muzzle loading shooting I have done since I got first .50 Cal. TC Hawken in January 1972 has been done on bullseyes, animal silhouette targets and some specialty shooting like splitting the ball on a double bladed axe blade, stake shooting, clay pigeons and that sort of thing. The only times I have fired at man sized silhouettes with reproduction Longrifles, various reproduction Flintlock Military Muskets or CW Rifle Muskets were to conduct informal experimental archeology (so to speak) to see what the guns were actually capable of shooting in as realistic conditions as could be done. Of course, no one was ever shooting at me and I was not in the least danger when I conducted those shooting trials, etc., etc. ”“ so I could not completely get similar results to actual combat conditions in the 18th century.

I very much agree with much of what Turtlecreek has written in his last few posts and he has related some of the psychological problems for Riflemen in the Rev War (and other wars in the BP era through modern times) that I only touched on. In addition to what Turtlecreek has mentioned about the effectiveness of earlier period rifles, muskets and rifle muskets; I would like to add the following.

Already mentioned Volley Fire shooting was often very ineffective from before the Rev War through the Civil War for a number of reasons. Jerking the trigger caused the men to shoot high, as well as the Very heavy trigger pulls of period Flint Muskets through Rifled Muskets and shooting from the least accurate shooting position in the offhand. Turtlecreek’s information leads to other points. What is not often mentioned on why the first rank of military formations, who directly faced the enemy, did not shoot as accurately as the second rank or third rank - when they were still using 3 ranks. One of the reasons is the front rank is directly exposed to enemy fire, while the men in the second ranks are afforded more protection from bullets hitting them as the bullets often or even usually went into the bodies of the front rank men and “survivability” was more sure in the second rank and even more sure in the third rank from opposing Musket or even Rifle Musket fire. Because one is much more exposed to enemy fire in the front rank, it is extremely difficult to not think about that and shoot as accurately as the second or third ranks. Oh, and in some actual combat situations, those in the second rank would sometimes rest their muskets on the shoulders of the men in the front rank for more stable shooting positions and thus shoot more accurately. This is not mentioned or taught in the drill manuals, but it actually happened in some percentage of actual combat situations.

Though I cannot document this directly from period accounts, I believe they continued to use volley firing for a number of reasons we don’t think about. Sure, the oft cited reason was to pour maximum firepower into an enemy formation to wound/kill as many as possible AND get them so shaken psychologically, that the bayonet charge broke their enemy’s will and then broke their formations and thus won battles and wars. What is not normally mentioned about using volley firing is that it overcomes the “natural instinct” not to shoot at the enemy that Turtlecreek mentioned and especially for raw recruits and to a lesser extent, even seasoned veterans. When Soldiers were well trained and concentrating on loading and firing “by the numbers,” they were much more likely to shoot their Military Muskets and not give in to the natural instinct to flee, especially when it seemed like they may have been outnumbered or losing a battle when they may have not actually been in that situation. There is still an age old adage that says the difference between a raw recruit and a seasoned combat veteran is seasoned combat veterans KNOW when the time comes that no matter how hard troops are fighting and how accurate their fire is, they have to fall back until support arrives or to save the Army in a bad situation and live to fight in another battle when they would have the upper hand.

So far this discussion has touched on the psychology and technology of the period for common 18th century combat. OK, so what about using 18th century Riflemen as “Sharpshooters” or “Snipers” as we call them today. I don’t care HOW good at long range shooting people are, that does not automatically mean they will or even can be effective snipers. Taking a deer at 100 to 200 yards was/is not the same thing as deliberately shooting at a single Enemy Soldier in 18th Combat or today. In the 18th century, taking a deer meant you and your family ate meat and got protein to survive. The hide paid for things one and their families needed for not only prospering, but also basic survival. That is a whole lot different than shooting at an individual human target, even considering he is an enemy. That is a very difficult thing to do. No one wants snipers who are homicidal maniacs, nor snipers who wind up as psychological basket cases because they can’t shoot at individual people without going crazy. We describe it today where we want Snipers who think of it more like varmint shooting.

Finally, Riflemen and Frontiersmen who were already veterans of fighting with Native Americans or even other Europeans; certainly made better soldiers and snipers than those who had never actually had to fight and possibly or really kill others. They already had dealt with psychological issues Turtlecreek is mentioning.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

Great points made in your post above.

I hope no one mistakes my intention that Riflemen did do good service in the War. However, there is no reason to have an exaggerated view of what they were capable of doing and actually did do.

Don’t get me wrong, I like a good story or romantic myth (like the myth about Tim Murphy at Saratoga) as well as anyone. I laughed and still laugh when I first heard and again hear Bill Cosby’s comedy routine about the fact the British lost the coin toss in history; so the Americans got to wear any color clothes they wanted and could hide behind rocks and trees, while the British had to wear bright red coats and march in straight lines and let the Americans shoot at them”¦. Such stories and myths are entertaining and often stay with us longer than what really happened. But, isn’t that a problem? Too many people remember these things or think things were often or sometimes done that were at most a fluke or rare happenstance, if those things actually happened at all. I suggest this takes away from the real story and the sacrifice and deeds and dare I say “heroics” that actually were done?


It was Dan Morgan, a rifleman, who first effectively used a combination of Riflemen and Light Infantry to support and yes, protect the Riflemen at Saratoga. That way Dan got the best use of Riflemen in what is most likely their finest hour.

Very much concur about Dan Morgan at Cowpens. He prepared the battlefield in an innovative and uncanny manner almost eerily similar to the Romans who smashed Queen Boudica’s Army of Britons and Dan Morgan sucked the British forward in almost the same way. Dan understood his Riflemen, Militia, Regulars, Cavalry Dragoons and enemy far better than any other American General. Dan’s brilliance at Cowpens was astounding enough on its own, but when one adds in that Dan was suffering from severe sciatic attacks in his legs and back before and during the battle, then it truly became the stuff of legend that he set up and directed the battle so well while enduring that. I’m sure Dan had not had to resign after Cowpens, he would made even more of a name for himself.

Greene did indeed adopt Morgan’s tactics at Guilford Court House and forced Cornwallis to have his artillery fire on his own men to win a pyrrhic victory.

Though it is my opinion for whatever that is worth, I suggest the greatest contribution made by any Rifleman was Dan Morgan in leading troops at Saratoga and Cowpens and even more importantly, teaching the American Army how to use Riflemen and win battles against the British with what troops he had.

Gus

 

[smoothshooter]

In the incident with Col. Hangar (? ), it is likely the American shooter was aiming at the group of three mounted men, hoping to get lucky by hitting a man or a horse, and he did. And it's a shot I would probably have taken , knowing that even if I missed, it might interrupt whatever the mounted men were up to and cause them to retreat. The reason we have an account of it is because there was a hit ( on a horse ). We rarely hear about the misses, for obvious reasons. It is very possible Hangar was singled out and fired at several times that day by various rifle and musket shooters , to no effect .

 

[azmntman]

I'm with Cynthia, 90%+ 0f my shooting is a paper plate, often cut down a bit (they just show up so well on a pine tree ya know?). For sighting I am known to use a small cirlce of a paper plate at the end.

If the times come I have to shoot (a human) to kill that's what I will be trying for (only want my side of the story told I hear). Have seen alot of dead folks in my job and hasn't bothered me yet (cept a 12 yr old girl once I made eye contact with before she passed). I have been told its all about picking a point/spot and taking a GOOD shot while yer opponent MF's ya and holds his pistol sideways to match his cap, should be able to get a good shot?

Hoping I never know.

I believe back in the day there were some naturally good shots and that certainly some of the stories are true and certainly more are exaggerated over the generations. Like my 36" blue gill I caught whilst puking out a canoe hung over in 1980 :shocked2: ....well it was big enough to cure the hang over instantly anyway!