1777 - what weapons would you choose to fight the redcoats?

[arcticap]

What if too many soldiers aimed & shot at the same enemy soldier at the same time?
There's no way to effectively communicate which target to shoot at among the ranks, and if there was, even hitting the intended target would be a long shot.
Shooting volleys at randomized targets would probably insure more complete coverage of the enemy ranks, while maximizing the effectiveness of the inherant inaccuracy of the muskets.

 

[Rachen]

A volley of incendiary rockets would work the best against mass formations.

All we need are 50 wagons, each carrying 20 or more rockets lined up and connected by a single fuse.

The head of each rocket would be filled with kerosene or naphtha. The backblow of the hot gases from the end of the tube when the projectile hits the target will rupture the head of the missile, spill out the incendiary liquid, and ignite it at the same time.

The result will be Hell on the other side.

The firestorm not only incinerates all it touches, but the size of the fire would suck all of the oxygen from the surrounding air, causing what is known as a fire devil. Those who are lucky enough not to be burned will face aphyxiation. If the fire devil is even larger, it will create abnormal currents in the lower atmosphere, intense heated air mixes with cool surrounding air, creating extremely violent cyclonic windstorms on a local scale. Imagine the devastation that the combined heat, suffocation, and turbulence of the firestorm will wreck upon a field formation, or a large fort.

Just look at Tokyo when it was firebombed in 1944. The pattern of devastation resembled a very large tornado.

 

[goon]

What if too many soldiers aimed & shot at the same enemy soldier at the same time?
There's no way to effectively communicate which target to shoot at among the ranks, and if there was, even hitting the intended target would be a long shot.
Shooting volleys at randomized targets would probably insure more complete coverage of the enemy ranks, while maximizing the effectiveness of the inherant inaccuracy of the muskets.

I once read somewhere that it took something like 7 shots fired for every casualty during the revolution (I think but it has been a long time since I read that).
It would seem that even if everyone did shoot at the same guy on that first volley, "your" side would still probably come out ahead. A short solution might have been to just have it standard practice to "aim" at whoever you considered to be more than less straight in front of you. I'd think that no matter how simple the guys you were commanding were, if they could get the drill of loading and firing a musket down, they could figure out which direction was more than less "straight" ahead.
It seems that it would have been preferable to wasting better than half your shots by shooting over, under, and around the enemy anyhow.
Plus you might be able to engage from a longer distance, possibly putting an "extra" volley into their ranks before they considered you to be within their effective range.

Granted, I'm not as educated on tactics and whatnot as many of the guys posting on this thread so I could be entirely missing something. But I've still always wondered what it would have hurt to start the battle with one fairly well placed shot before resulting to spraying lead in each other's general direction.

It also seems that the rocket idea would have had some potential. IIRC, the Chinese did use a version of sort of a handheld MLRS style launcher at one point. I'd still stick to the flintlocks for the most part because one your rocket launcher is has been fired it's basically an empty tube.
At least a musket with a bayonet can still be reloaded or used to beat and stick someone.



Back to the original topic, I think I'd like to eventually have a smoothbore, possibly something that splits the difference between a musket and a fowler - maybe something like some of the pics I have seen that show fowlers that were converted for military/militia use. But I have a lot of research to do first.
I have searched online and can't find much info on Revolutionary War reenactment units in my area but maybe I can locate and visit a couple this summer/fall.
Regardless, a PA rifle, Fowler, or musket is looking like a pretty significant investment so I will have to find a group to help me get it right the first time.

 

[4v50 Gary]

What if too many soldiers aimed & shot at the same enemy soldier at the same time?
There's no way to effectively communicate which target to shoot at among the ranks, and if there was, even hitting the intended target would be a long shot.

How to deal with multiple targets? Why, you pair up your men and deploy them in a skirmish line. Then you have them fire by file, with each shooter aiming at his mark. The second man then covers him while he reloads. When he's finished reloading, then the covering soldier becomes the shooter and the original shooter becomes the covering soldier. It worked for the light infantry during the Napoleonic Wars. It was also used by Roger's Rangers during the F&I and by Herkermir's men at the Battle of Oriskany.

 

[Rachen]

It also seems that the rocket idea would have had some potential. IIRC, the Chinese did use a version of sort of a handheld MLRS style launcher at one point. I'd still stick to the flintlocks for the most part because one your rocket launcher is has been fired it's basically an empty tube.

The actual plan is for the rockets to be deployed about 1000 yards away from the enemy formation, with the wind blowing towards the enemy because if it is blowing in the wrong direction, the firestorm might head right towards your militiamen.

Once the rockets are launched, we would draw our swords and wait for the firestorm to rip through the enemy ranks.

It might take up to a half hour for the flames to die down to a safe level, at the time most of the enemy would be completely immobilized, if not already burned or suffocated.

Finally, we sound the charge. Flintlocks will work well now too, but at close range, a lightly armed soldier with a broadsword might be able to do far more damage upon the surviving Redcoats already mangled, drove to delirium, and half baked by the flames....................................if they had managed to survive the initial firestorm.

Back to the original topic, I think I'd like to eventually have a smoothbore, possibly something that splits the difference between a musket and a fowler - maybe something like some of the pics I have seen that show fowlers that were converted for military/militia use. But I have a lot of research to do first.
I have searched online and can't find much info on Revolutionary War reenactment units in my area but maybe I can locate and visit a couple this summer/fall.
Regardless, a PA rifle, Fowler, or musket is looking like a pretty significant investment so I will have to find a group to help me get it right the first time.

An entire company equipped with rifles will work just as well, and it will work even better if you use a form of fighting called strategic retreat.

You line up your riflemen, while the enemy is still 800 yards away, you start firing, devastating their lines and driving them into confusion. After a few volleys, you keep retreating up to a new spot. Then fire again, taking down more of the enemy. The enemy will spend a few days fruitlessly pursuing a phantom unit that is continuing to move back, keeping out of sight, yet, picking off their soldiers with frightful accuracy.
I believe that is one of the tricks that Daniel Morgan, the "Old Wagoner" used against Burgoyne at Saratoga. Morgan's men were stationed on trees almost 600 yards away from the advancing Redcoats, and within minutes, their devastating fire cut down over a third of Burgoyne's army. Burgoyne was simply stunned by the catastrophe.

 

[Blacksmoke]

Burgoyne was simply stunned by the catastrophe.

-rachen

Was that when the General declared "English Gentlemen DO NOT hide behind trees"?

According to Bernard Shaw, General Burgoyne had a low opinion of British marskmanship, prefering the "... bayonet with some guts behind it".

 

[Rachen]

Was that when the General declared "English Gentlemen DO NOT hide behind trees"?

That is absolutely right.

During Bunker Hill, General Howe so much had his men remove the charges from their muskets and advance with bayonets only.
The colonial muskets behind the redoubt were loaded with buck and ball. One .75 caliber lead ball with three or four grapeshots wedged in.
One can imagine what the lobsterbacks faced when they went up against that wall.

It was only after we ran out of ammunition that the Brits overran us and forced us to back off.

 

[goon]

Was that when the General declared "English Gentlemen DO NOT hide behind trees"?

This makes me glad I'm an American.


While we're on the subject, what were the most common guns for colonists to be armed with?
Were there outdated "surplus" guns like we have today with Mausers and Enfields? If so, what models?
How common were French weapons among the colonials - maybe acquired through trade or as battlefield pick-ups from the F&I war?
Just looking for some education since some of you obviously know more than I do.

 

[Rachen]

While we're on the subject, what were the most common guns for colonists to be armed with?
Were there outdated "surplus" guns like we have today with Mausers and Enfields? If so, what models?
How common were French weapons among the colonials - maybe acquired through trade or as battlefield pick-ups from the F&I war?

The colonists living in the mountains of Pennsylvania, Virginia and the Carolinas have plenty of accurate longrifles. The ones living in NYC and other cities along the seacoast have all kinds of weapons EXCEPT rifles, since they were a phenomenon of the fur trapping business. It would be common to see flintlocks of all types and sizes. And blunderbusses were common, as so are pistols with bayonet attachments that were activated by a spring switch.

Speaking of outdated "surplus" guns, they had blunderbusses, matchlocks, and wheel locks that their ancestors carried when they crossed the Atlantic years ago. Many of those weapons were kept as family heirlooms or emergency pieces in case their primary musket or pistol fails. French weapons are very common, although they are seldom seen on the regular trade. The Charleville musket and various assorted pistols are also available, although they are not seen as frequent on the market. French longarms and pistols are very expensive and are most often carried by the 'aristocracy', such as plantation owners and businessmen.
There were also many other pistols from places such the German states and Austria.

I once saw a pistol dating back to the 18th century Austria-Hungarian Empire that had fancy engraving all over it, of imps, gnomes and mythical creatures associated with chivalry and mounted knights. It was found in a very old Brooklyn colonial apartment house in Williamsburg and dates back to the pre-Revolutionary War years.

 

[Zoogster]

This makes me glad I'm an American.

America did not technicaly exist at the time just yet. It was formed in spirit on paper, but not nationaly recognized. It was still Brits killing Brits.

In fact the 'revolutionary war' was more of a civil war. Many "American" citizens supported the crown.
Like most wars a large numberof the public just wanted someone to win and hostilities to stop, supporting neither side or whoever seemed like they were winning at the time to insure they were on the winning side when it was over.
Wars are generaly fight and won or lost by minority numbers on each side. Most citizens don't want to fight, and don't care enough about ideology or who actualy wins to risk thier lives to stand up for something either way.

There was entire units of volunteers of Americans who joined on the side of the Crown to fight the rebels, known as loyalists, estimates are over a third of the American population were loyalists.


So the identity was not what it is now. It was not America fighting the British. It was some in the colonies fighting others in the colonies. The British soldiers were the police of the time. The modern concept of police did not exist at the time, and military soldiers were both police and for defense against foriegn entities.
So while now people treat it like it was Americans fighting British, it was really rebels organizing against thier current rulers and the police in a civil war.
The rebels were terrorists of the day, and used guerrilla tactics and other dishonorable means. In fact they were even known for tarring and feathering those who felt differently, a treatment that was often lethal, and left permanent scars for life on those who survived.

The French later helped not so much because they cared anything about America, but because they were always in conflict with the British, and if they could encourage British to fight British it would weaken England.
So they were simply supporting terrorists of thier enemy, not helping America "win its freedom" as history would lead you to believe.
Much like we supported Afghanistan terrorists against the Soviet Union. Not because we cared so much for Afghanistan, but because they were tying up our opposition and it was convenient. If the English crown had to send reinforcements to the coloinies just imagine how little they could get done in Europe, leaving the French with the upper hand.

So history creates identities and friendships that were not real at the time.
At the time it was colonists fighting colonists. The terrorists would eventualy succeed, and create a nation of unique liberty, and greater limitations on government powers than anywhere else in the world. In fact most of those liberties stem from the very fact that they did not trust a government to ever be fair, and wanted what was the bare minimum to function. That is why they supported militia rather than a more effective standing army (police and military where one and the same at the time) because they wanted to keep the power out of a government and in the hands of locals.
As close to anarchy as possible without remaining weak to foriegn conquest, or even domestic conquest by someone siezing power within.
The world did not recognize the US as independent yet, and foriegn conquest by either the British or others was a very real possibility. In fact it would not be until after the war of 1812 when the British came back to retake what was thiers that the United States was officialy recognized as a nation not going anywhere.

 

[Rachen]

The rebels were terrorists of the day, and used guerrilla tactics and other dishonorable means. In fact they were even known for tarring and feathering those who felt differently, a treatment that was often lethal, and left permanent scars for life on those who survived.

I can't believe it.......Calling freedom fighter terrorists

Those who were tarred and feathered were often ones who committed inexcusable crimes, such as giving to the British names of those who are involved in the independance movement.

The British were imperialists, and always are. They claim the sun never sets on their "empire", right?. In the colonies, they just tarred and feathered the imperialist sympathizers. You should have seen what we Chinese did to the British occupationists in our homeland during the Boxer Revolution.

In the ancient imperial capital Xi'an in 1900, we had the severed heads of opium sellers and British and French imperialists dangling off the walls of the imperial fortress, to teach the imperialists a lesson about invading another sovereign nation. We later killed over 1,000 of them before we were suppressed by their firepower and our own dynastic government led by the Dowager empress turned against us. If only we had more advanced weapons, we could have really made the imperialists feel that invading China was the worst mistake they ever made in their whole sorry lives.

The British rule in colonial America was just as brutal. They sicced their vicious Indian allies like bloodhounds on innocent civilians and the Native American tribes that were on our side. They tried wiping out our native allies with smallpox infested blankets. They also went up and down the Hudson River Valley, creating some real mayhem like Alex and his "droogies" did in "A Clockwork Orange".

The colonists wasn't citizens according to the "King". They were subjects. It was back to the middle ages again. Serf versus master. Serf wants freedom from oppression. The United States of America showed the vassal lords of the old world what freedom really means, and that we really MEAN IT.

 

[goon]

Zoogster - in any case, it still makes me glad that I'm not an English Gentleman because according to what I was taught by the US Army, if one wishes to live in a gunfight there is a distinct advantage in hiding behind trees, rocks, etc.
My real point was that I'd rather fight by using savagery and dirty tricks than by lining up and waiting for a .75 caliber ball to haphazardly punch through my sternum.
If that isn't sporting, oh well.

Odds are that you're not too far off on the real history of it - history is usually written by the winning side.
IIRC, the British also had tariffs on many goods that were being bought and sold in the colonies that had been ignored by the colonists for years. They had let us slide on that. When they finally started paying attention to the books and expecting us to pay up, we basically told them to stuff it.
They were also dealing with a large debt from the F&I war. When part of that burden was placed on the colonies we again told them to stuff it.
It doesn't suprise me that it started a war.
From their point of view, we were given numerous chances to go along nicely and practically even begged to just play nice and behave ourselves.
Also not suprising that the French supported us. They were still sore about losing colonies during the F&I war and had long smoldering hostilities with the British since about as long as anyone could remember. Helping us out was a way to stick it to the British so of course they would do it. Even if it failed, they would have gotten some revenge and helped weaken their enemy and only lost a few ships and some muskets doing it. The colonists were the ones actually delivering the volleys so the risk to them was minimal.
What's not to like about that?
IIRC, it's also my understanding that the British didn't lose because they couldn't have won - they basically gave up because trying to beat us into submission was costing them too much money.


Rachen - I was aware of that with the PA rifle being created as the practical tool for long hikes in the wilderness.
IIRC, the small bore was used to allow more shots per pound of powder and lead (something like 38 .50 caliber balls per pound of lead versus 11 balls if you have a .75 caliber). Naturally, if you're trying to be efficient with your powder and lead, you want to be accurate enough to hit what you're shooting - which explains the long barrel and rifling.
Overall, the solution was pretty damn ingenious IMO (although there is still something kind of cool about the short, stubby style of the Jaeger rifles).
I wonder what would have been more useful to the "average" colonist though. It's true that you can shoot shot from a fowler but I doubt that would be more efficient than barking a squirrel with your rifle.
Hmmm...
Guess it would depend mostly on who was using the gun though, huh?

This is interesting - a refresher on my history and I get to talk guns.
And I'm convinced that getting in touch with some reenactors is definitely a first step.

But I still sort want a 20 gauge fowler...

 

[Timthinker]

To spice things up a bit, I am surprised no one has mentioned longbows, regular bows or crossbows for this time period. Now before you think I have lost my mind, consider the rate of fire from a longbow or regular bow compared to a musket. True, an expert archer requires far more practice to gain proficiency with his weapon, but the rate of fire is superior to the musket. Indeed, as late as the 1790s, at least one British official mentioned the bow as a potential weapon against the French. I thought this archery inclusion might provide some more "food for thought".


Timthinker

 

[Duncaninfrance]

I Would Think........

............that the same argument regarding the use of parts of an army as a weapon ( volley fire ) rather than individuals would hold true by this time. Uniformity and training without years of practice favours a firearm where as an archer needed years of practice to become really proficient with a long bow. Ask the French!!

As an aside, if anyone is interested in the life of an English Archer in the 14thC then I can highly recommend a trilogy by Bernard Cornwell ( Author of the Sharp series ) called The Grail Quest published here by Harper Collins which is well researched and very well written.

 

[goon]

As an aside, if anyone is interested in the life of an English Archer in the 14thC then I can highly recommend a trilogy by Bernard Cornwell ( Author of the Sharp series ) called The Grail Quest published here by Harper Collins which is well researched and very well written.

Extremely good books - I still have them all.


I always wondered why Native Americans wouldn't have continued to use the bow on at least a limited basis after guns were available. For fighting from an ambush you'd have no smoke or flash to give your position away, no noise, and a higher rate of fire. And they were already familiar with it.
Then again, for all the more I know maybe they did use them.

 

[Rachen]

IIRC, it's also my understanding that the British didn't lose because they couldn't have won - they basically gave up because trying to beat us into submission was costing them too much money.

Even if they managed to beat us in the first revolution, we still would not have given up. Even if they made it a hanging crime to even say "United States" or use terror tactics such as drawing and quartering on the citizens, it would not cow us, it would only made us more angry and vicious.

The resulting war would be exactly like what the French encountered in Vietnam in the 1940s and 1950s. The British army, with it's size and lumbering mass, would be easy targets of well organized and well planned guerilla attacks. While they keep dying off, they would be bewildered. Just who the hell are killing us off?
In time, the colonial resistance's strength would continue to gather and increase, until we could match the British firepower one on one. Then there will a battle like Dien Bien Phu, with us, much more experienced in guerilla warfare and weapons tactics, wipe out an enemy who is used to big armies and "gentlemanly" warfare.

Therefore, in the end, we will still win. However, many innocent people might get caught in such a prolonged war and become casualities. Just like what happened during the Viet resistance against the French imperialists in the 1940s.

 

[Zoogster]

You know at the end of the war, the head United States military officers planned to take over the country and impose martial law.
It was only stopped because of George Washington, who gave them a speech showing he had given a great deal, more than most of them, and expected nothing in return. It was enough to convince them not to do it.

The planned coup was known as the Newburgh Conspiracy.
It was a primary reason in addition to experiences under the British, why under the Articles of Confederation all states were required to have no standing army or navy.

As it restricts the state, an exception is give for the state militia! A very important thing for highlighting the definition of state militia according to the founding fathers. Arguably even the national guard would be considered a standing army by them.

"Only the central government is allowed to conduct foreign relations and to declare war. No states may have navies or standing armies, or engage in war, without permission of Congress (although the state militias are encouraged)."

The articles of confederation would of course be undone in the late 1780's after shay's rebellion, however it still shows the ideology of the founding fathers, and what they only reluctantly deviated from.

As for weapons of the time. I would have aquired cast iron grenades and used grapeshot or nails in them. The technology existed at the time for cast iron grenades, and had been used over 100 years prior in the UK. Nails were common building items, though they were handmade at the time, and grapeshot and shot for muskets and blunerbuss was available.
Combined with booby traps like sealed cannon and other large containers rigged to explode when advanced on by an army formation, and flammable liquids of various types set to ignite troops near the explosion. Oil and alcohol were widespread, and pitch was used for many purposes.
A good blunderbuss to help dispatch an individual if surprised while rigging booby traps. However never intentionaly directly engaging the troops and remaining in heavily wooded areas, using stealth as often as possible, or blending in with the locals in towns and villages.
The grenades would be in case they started to catch up to me. They would down several troops faster than any slow to reload firearm of the time, and would also work well from a concealed position as they approached.


Various traps resulting in explosions and ignition of flammable substances would have been logical at the time. The Flintlock action would have allowed one to understand how to make a similar ignition device rigged to a trip wire or pressure actived trigger, and setting it up to be protected from the elements would have been common sense.

It would have slowly decimated thier numbers and destroyed morale, giving them an enemy they were unable to fight in battle, without costing many men on my side.

 

[Duncaninfrance]

Oh! By The Way Gents!

HAVE A HAPPY ST. GEORGE'S DAY!

 

[pohill]

In my town in northeast MA, about 40 miles north of Bunker Hill, there's hundreds of British citizens buried - they died here before we became a country. Imagine if we were still part of the British Empire - we'd be driving on the other side of the road and speaking English.

 

[DuncanSA]

A couple of principles embodied in the US Constitution come through clearly in this correspondence.
They are: 1. Never trust a politician. 2. Always keep your weapons handy.
Its self-reliance that made the US the great nation it is today.

 

[Zoogster]

Imagine if we were still part of the British Empire - we'd be driving on the other side of the road and speaking English.

You want some serious irony?! The reason for driving on the left predates driving and was for retention of arms!
You see most people wore thier swords on thier left or weak side as they were right handed and used a cross draw. So by walking or riding down the left side, you could keep your sword away from those you passed walking down the other side of the street. At the same time if you needed to draw your weapon, you would draw it towards your sudden attacker in a quick draw with one movement, either deflecting or attacking.

Well in some parts of the world those who traveled armed were mainly aristocrats, the peasants didn't travel with arms, so had little customs pertaining to it.
So later in places like France after they killed most aristocrats during the French revolution, people would choose to do the opposite because armed aristocrats had traveled that way, and they were going to do the opposite just because.
So forcing people to drive on the right side became an anti aristocratic statement. Later Napoleon, (another irony as he was essentialy the top aristocrat as emporer) would spread right hand driving to most of Europe through conquest.

So walking and riding on the left side has to do with arms which were swords at the time, and predates cars.
If someone attacked or threatened as you passed them, you could draw your weapon into them in one move or bring it up to deflect or defend straight from the scabbard. From the other side however you would first have to draw it in one direction, and then bring it to bear in the opposite. So passing on the left clearly made more sense.

While not related, I guess you could argue that since many carry firearms on thier strong side, and most are right handed, passing on the right makes more sense for the same reason. Unlike a sword you do not need a long draw to free it from the holster, so weak side carry is not necessary.
Just as LEO point that side of thier body away from those they are dealing with, walking by or angling the opposite side towards others promotes retention, and would allow you uninterupted movement to draw if necessary.

Which is also the reason people shake hands with thier weapon hand/right hand as a sign of greeting. It shows that people are willing to make themselves vulnerable to the other side as an initial sign of good faith (and was not to be done lightly.) Over time that custom came to be done routinely as a greeting whether you really meant that or not.
So essentialy doing so was doing the opposite of what was safest. Using the non weapon hand for business and greeting just in case the weapon suddenly had to be drawn at the sign of hostility would have been safer, and shown distrust of the person. So the polite thing to do was the opposite.