tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31246093.post2930170527638685876..comments2024-03-28T12:29:39.157-07:00Comments on Graphic Firing Table: Decisive Battles: Lexington to Boston, 1775FDChiefhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10607785969510234092noreply@blogger.comBlogger30125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31246093.post-47320553478727295762009-04-30T12:47:00.000-07:002009-04-30T12:47:00.000-07:00I like your analogy to "Mommy Dearest" -- that's i...I like your analogy to "Mommy Dearest" -- that's it!<br /><br />Re.: "A 'government' that needs foreign troops to rule its own people has already lost what in China we like to call the 'Mandate of Heaven'" --<br /><br />again, a perfect analogy from today to the colonies. For the colonists, having the Hessian mercenaries was a bridge too far, so I understand.Lisahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08839236994990699117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31246093.post-7724030314634133582009-04-30T09:59:00.000-07:002009-04-30T09:59:00.000-07:00Jim: hat tip for the link - I'll check it out.
I,...Jim: hat tip for the link - I'll check it out.<br /><br />I, too, love my rifle. But I loathe the moron-level politics of the NRA.<br /><br />Lisa: Ta.<br /><br /><I>"...the line of enforcing occupation can be held while also maintaining the favor of the subdued peoples."</I>And, as always, you strike to the heart of the contradiction that is "counterinsurgency". COIN has always seemed to me the politico-military equivalent of the "Mommy Dearest" school of parenting: we will hold you and cuddle you until you do something we don't like, at which time we'll snatch you out of your bed and beat you while screaming insanely wearing a cold-cream night mask.<br /><br />Occupation by foreign troops will always be resisted in some form, from resentment and dissatisfaction to violent rebellion except in places and cases where the locals have made their own lives so utterly hellish that they welcome something, anything that will save them from themselves.<br /><br />But once the place has started to get back on its feet, or as in the case of the American colonies where it was never so devastated, the external policeman is going to become an enemy. Not for no reason did Washington not apply to his former ally and comrade-in-arms Rochambeau for troops to put down Shay's and the Whiskey Rebellions. <br /><br />A "government" that needs foreign troops to rule its own people has already lost what in China we like to call the "Mandate of Heaven".FDChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10607785969510234092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31246093.post-45849673642062790802009-04-29T21:39:00.000-07:002009-04-29T21:39:00.000-07:00Re. my last garbled sentence, "I learn a lot." [L...Re. my last garbled sentence, "I learn a lot." [Like I say, it's time for me to get on a better sleep regimen :)]Lisahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08839236994990699117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31246093.post-73907373477417695092009-04-29T21:35:00.000-07:002009-04-29T21:35:00.000-07:00Chief,
I am always intimidated by your analyses, ...Chief,<br /><br />I am always intimidated by your analyses, but I do get to them.<br /><br />First let me say your ending was chilling, the analogy quite apt. So very many similarities to our current wars. They both seem no-win situations and very sad.<br /><br />As you state, "To both sides, it must sometimes have seemed like a malignant dream." I do not understand how the line of enforcing occupation (surely how the rebel colonists saw the English at that point) can be held while also maintaining the favor of the subdued peoples.<br /><br />I enjoy the way you explain the failures and critical junctures. as always, as learn a lot. Thanks.Lisahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08839236994990699117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31246093.post-80819288688612434262009-04-27T10:05:00.000-07:002009-04-27T10:05:00.000-07:00Chief -
It was $225 at Alibris books - too rich ...Chief - <br /><br />It was $225 at Alibris books - too rich for my blood. And the nearest libraries that I could find that had a copy were Frazer U. in British Columbia or UC Davis in Cal.mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31246093.post-39634751888771691342009-04-27T07:49:00.000-07:002009-04-27T07:49:00.000-07:00FDChief,
You can seat a bullet in the PA/Kentucky ...FDChief,<br />You can seat a bullet in the PA/Kentucky rifle also by slamming it on the ground and using the ball unpatched-this decreases accuracy and velocity but adds to the volume of fire.This is important when using massed formations. My point is that it's extremely difficult to ram a patched ball home when the bayonet is mounted on the weapon. There's a lot of force req'd and especially if the weapon is dirty from repeated shooting. In short, the bayonet is better for smooth bore muzzleloaders, this consideration is lost on most of us used to breachloaders<br />jimrangeragainstwarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02126542922536584950noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31246093.post-77063313895471248322009-04-27T07:40:00.000-07:002009-04-27T07:40:00.000-07:00To all,
The National Rifleman has a great article...To all, <br />The National Rifleman has a great article this month on the rifleman of the revolution by John Plaster .It's instructive for this art., I saw it at the library this weekend. And no I do not belong to the NRA!<br />jimrangeragainstwarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02126542922536584950noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31246093.post-70026619615013498692009-04-25T10:37:00.000-07:002009-04-25T10:37:00.000-07:00mike: Unsure about Moore's movements after Penobsc...mike: Unsure about Moore's movements after Penobscot - let me check further.<br /><br />And I'd love to get my hands on the Fuller book. In college I worked my way though most of his "History of the British Army". Fucking incredible work of military history.FDChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10607785969510234092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31246093.post-45687503088620563302009-04-25T10:36:00.000-07:002009-04-25T10:36:00.000-07:00Jim: Good points on the Penna. rifle vs. musket. M...Jim: Good points on the Penna. rifle vs. musket. My understanding is that a good British line trooper could fire up to two shots a minute by just slamming the butt on the ground to seat the ball.<br /><br />Everything I've read suggests that many of the American militiamen along the Battle Road DID have bayonets - their armory was designed to equip them for a regular war against the French or their Indian allies. But I would agree with you that there's a difference between having a bayonet and USING a bayonet. The Americans militia didn't practice with it and didn't like either to use it or to face it - that was the genius of Morgan's tactics at Cowpens; he let his militamen fire their volleys (which they could do and do well) and then skedaddle before the British and Loyalist regulars closed with the bayonet (which ensured that the militia actually retreated and not routed).<br /><br />Frankly, I'm with them - I'll shoot all day, the larger the barrel the better - but cold steel does something to me and not in a good way.FDChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10607785969510234092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31246093.post-15424789593827781162009-04-24T11:22:00.000-07:002009-04-24T11:22:00.000-07:00To All,
Sheer- you called the Brown Bess a rifle ...To All, <br />Sheer- you called the Brown Bess a rifle and later a musket. It was a musket/unrifled. You know this but i wanted to clarify the point.<br />The American long rifle generally fired a lighter patched ball that adhered to the rifling and increased velocity and accuracy but didn't add much to Knock down power. The accurate range was closer to 100 meters.<br />The Brown Bess threw a heavier slug /non-patched with greater knock down factor.Big bullet-big punch very similar to todays shotgun pumpkin ball. These had better sustained fire rates and were better for rapid massed fires. These guns didn't even have rudimentary sights- it was all volume of fire and follow up with cold steel which the colonial rifles lacked since they had no bayonet lugs. In addition it's harder to load a bayonet equipped rifle because of the need to ram the patched ball home. The BB could seat a charge by hitting it on the ground to seat the charge and the projectile and also required less training.<br />Interestingly with all the history outlined in this fine article and discussion the US adopted unrifled muskets for our Army, there were a few exceptions but i speak largely.<br />Fine discussion- I learned a lot.<br />jimrangeragainstwarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02126542922536584950noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31246093.post-10313923247166568302009-04-24T11:06:00.000-07:002009-04-24T11:06:00.000-07:00You are probably correct. Some companies of his r...You are probably correct. Some companies of his regiment (82nd Foot) served at Guilford Courthouse and were with Lord Corny at his surrender in Yoktown. But I thought that Moore stayed with his Brigadier in Halifax. His bios seem inconclusive IMHO. Do you have a specific reference?<br /><br />In any case, I would love to get a copy of JFC Fuller's book: <I>Sir John Moore's System of Training</I> which I understand is long out of print.mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31246093.post-12022163201784048162009-04-23T21:49:00.000-07:002009-04-23T21:49:00.000-07:00mike: My understanding is that Moore went south wi...mike: My understanding is that Moore went south with Cornwallis and ended up @ Yorktown, so I'm guessing he knew at least secondhand about the rifles at Cowpens and such.<br /><br />But I also thin that you're right in that Moore didn't just pull his ideas out of his ass. The idea of light troops, rifle-armed troops, must have impressed itself deeply on the Revolution generation of officers. And seeing what happened to the Fredrician linear armies of Europe at the hands of the French revolutionaries with their clouds of skirmishers...well, a bunch of Brits; Moore, Stewart, and others must have had (an) "a-ha" moment(s)...FDChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10607785969510234092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31246093.post-53025132343078104482009-04-22T22:09:00.000-07:002009-04-22T22:09:00.000-07:00PPS - Sir John Moore I believe also served under C...PPS - Sir John Moore I believe also served under Cornwallis during the Irish Rebellion. The Brits really used Roman COIN techniques there - Lord Corny was not taking any chances of another Yorktown.mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31246093.post-51177747411792177212009-04-22T21:52:00.000-07:002009-04-22T21:52:00.000-07:00PS - It was Arthur Wesley - the Wellesley name cam...PS - It was Arthur Wesley - the Wellesley name came later when he and his brothers decided to gentrify.mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31246093.post-56003590785911737022009-04-22T21:31:00.000-07:002009-04-22T21:31:00.000-07:00Chief -
Well I never liked the Duke anyway. But ...Chief -<br /><br />Well I never liked the Duke anyway. But my point was not that the Duke himself learned the lessons taught to the Brits by Morgan, Stark. Greene and others. And I will cheer for General Moore as a Scot and because my sweet grandma's maiden name was Moore.<br /><br />But on the whole, I have to think that the lessons learned were never part of a formal process back then. And probably never learned by General Moore as his only experience in America was the Penobscot Expedition which was an American disaster and mostly a Brit naval victory. Although I did admire Moore's depiction in the fictional novels about Sharpe. <br /><br />I would vote for another Scot though, Billy Stewart, for introducing riflemen into the Brit Army. He did not have any experience in America but was a devoted student of weapons. It was he who was the champion of and the first commander of the <I>Experimental Corps of Rifles</I>. Although they say he was a terrible general. <br /><br />And I note that Wiki claims Stewart got his ideas for riflemen by observing Tyrolean and Croat light infantry with rifles when he was an observer with the Austrian Army - I call BS on that. He and many like him got those ideas at their regimental mess during bull sessions with older vets who had served at Saratoga or Cowpens or Guilford Courthouse or .....mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31246093.post-83928195737065384212009-04-22T16:43:00.000-07:002009-04-22T16:43:00.000-07:00Mike: Agree with your comment re: the British and ...Mike: Agree with your comment re: the British and light infantry but the guy you're looking for is Sir John Moore. Moore started his career in America, served in New England and then in the Carolinas. It was his training in Shorncliffe Camp in 1803 that started the British light infantry (including the Rifle) regiments. He took that experience to Spain in 1808 and it helped him win the Battle of Corunna.<br /><br />Arthur Wellesly was a pretty smart guy, but he was gifted the light infantry organization and tactics by Moore - and, admittedly, used it brilliantly.FDChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10607785969510234092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31246093.post-19382423012075667212009-04-22T09:23:00.000-07:002009-04-22T09:23:00.000-07:00Well, they did learn some lessons, but in tactics,...Well, they did learn some lessons, but in tactics, not in politics.<br /><br />Case in point from my favorite theory which my lone Brit acquaintance tells me is harebrained:<br /><br />The Duke of Wellington used lessons learned from the American Revolutionary war during his peninsular campaign. These included:<br />* a few specialized rifle units used as skirmishers interspersed throughout the rarmy, the bulk of which carried muskets;<br />* targeting of French officers and NCOs by those riflemen;<br />* close coordination with and use of Spanish guerrillas<br />* several lines of defense with the first manned with irregulars falling back a la <I>the Battle of Cowpens</I> to lure the attacking force;<br />* and I am forgetting a few others, will have to hit the bookcase.<br /><br />Yes - I know the Duke did not enter the British army until several years after the treaty of Paris as an 18-year old ensign. But as a junior officer and later as a field grade he served with many veterans of that war, including Cornwallis.mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31246093.post-63745860971899619572009-04-22T08:30:00.000-07:002009-04-22T08:30:00.000-07:00Hmm, I would like to think that the colonials were...Hmm, I would like to think that the colonials were a confusing lot of beggars and scoundrels, but...well...something about the way Parliment and the Crown treated the colonies as little more than a business says other wise.<br />I think back to the meeting that Franklin was having with some parlimentarians, and it was commented by a scholar that he went into the meeting as an Englishman, and came out as an American. The meeting was obstensibly suppose to be about reconciling the colonies as extensions of the empire, and thus worthy of representation in parliment. However, the treatment therein was less than ideal.<br />Also, if we look at the way the colonies were set up, much like Australia later on, the America's were a convienent dumping ground for the malcontents, unemployed, the irritators, and the religious sepratists.<br />Given that the Eastern seaboard, from north to south, was colonized by various groups, Puritans up north, Catholics just wee north, business anglicans in Virginia, and in the Carolina's I can see the mash of confusing dynamics.<br />I think I'll have to do some more reading in this area...I've forgotten so much.sheerahkahnhttp://www.freewebs.com/sheerahkahn/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31246093.post-70332825822718526802009-04-21T23:02:00.000-07:002009-04-21T23:02:00.000-07:00Actually, Sheerah, the American colonies were diff...Actually, Sheerah, the American colonies were difficult for the British to figure out because they were almost <I>sui generis</I>. They were the only foreign dominion the Brits had with a thriving Anglo population of any size and economic/military potential. Compounding the difficulty was that they were a confusing hotch-potch of different polities, from the smallholding democracies of New England through the commercial colony of New York, the planter aristocracies of the Carolinas and Virginia, the Quaker what-the-hell-was-it on Pennsylvania...<br /><br />The Brits did well where the autochthnous settlers were a tiny minority in a sea of natives; India, the West Indies, Egypt, the African colonies. They knew how to manage those sort of colonies.<br /><br />They only had three where the colonists were a politico-military force in their own right. We know what happened in the Americas. South Africa was a similar disaster that had to be put down (and was) by force. So when we talk about how they learned their lessons from the events of the 1770s and 1780s, it was really only Australia that benefitted...<br /><br />I think honestly that neither the American colonies in 1775 nor South Africa in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries could have avoided war. It wasn't that the Brits were so bad, it was just that the colonists weren't in a mood to settle for what the Crown was willing to offer...FDChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10607785969510234092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31246093.post-79023230037833393272009-04-21T14:53:00.000-07:002009-04-21T14:53:00.000-07:00"True, but I think we got the last laugh."
Well, ..."True, but I think we got the last laugh."<br /><br />Well, in a sense, not really.<br />The fact of the matter was that the English still had an itch for the America's (which is how the colonies were viewed and communicated as such), which would later lead to more...er, "discussions" of a military nature.<br />But in the immediate, the problems of finances were huge, and not easily resolved. Being an American was one of novelty and insecurity.<br />Once out from under British protection the Colonials pretty much had to play both sides of the asile with the French and the English. Not to mention the whole touchy, feely thing with the Dutch who were the bankers at the time.<br />Just thinking about how all the things that could have gone wrong and didn't just boggles the mind.<br /><br />I think it's safe to say that "somehow it all worked out."sheerahkahnhttp://www.freewebs.com/sheerahkahn/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31246093.post-71400648830616612792009-04-21T10:41:00.000-07:002009-04-21T10:41:00.000-07:00P.S. - I caught a blurb on CNN where Ron Paul and ...P.S. - I caught a blurb on CNN where Ron Paul and the Texas governor publicly discussed the circumstances under which Texas would secede from the union. So far all the discussion is highly theoreticalPlutonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31246093.post-20893767509619722772009-04-21T10:38:00.000-07:002009-04-21T10:38:00.000-07:00Sheera: "Hence, the reason why the whole "no taxat...Sheera: "Hence, the reason why the whole "no taxation without representation" kind of made them chuckle."<br /><br />True, but I think we got the last laugh.Plutonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31246093.post-40710844761377727972009-04-21T09:05:00.000-07:002009-04-21T09:05:00.000-07:00mike: The "Powder Alarms" are a fascinating bit of...mike: The "Powder Alarms" are a fascinating bit of hitory and worth apost in their own right. The author of the Wiki entry on Lexington and Concord (who does some pretty decent work, IMO, as I noted in the main post) is pretty definate about the importance of the Somerville raid in setting forward the rebel plans for armed preparation for war and, consequently, the events of 19 April. I have to agree; if Gage had failed, or hadn't attempted, the raid on the Somerville powder house the fuze to rebellion would have been quite a bit longer.<br /><br />I think the Powder Alarm also says something crucial about MG Gage. His reports to London had a real hair-on-fire quality: <I>"if you think ten thousand men sufficient, send twenty; if one million is thought enough, give two; you save both blood and treasure in the end."</I> But that's as far as he goes. Like Rumsfeld's generals, he wsn't able to bring his courage to the sticking point. He knew - because he had seen the Americans in arms - that London was underestimating the colonists and was overconfident of their own power. But instead of having the guts to tell them "This is the truth, and if you continue to deny the truth you are working to the ruination of my country and I cannot serve my country by serving you." he kept trying to accomplish their half-assed plans. It didn't work for him any better than it did for Abizaid or Sanchez. Sometimes what looks like a self-immolatory moral stand is really just good sense ahead of the conventional wisdom.<br /><br />Pluto: I think one important factor in the change is the British tradition of Royal detachment, Parlimentary supremacy and ministerial rule. The King - unlike the President - is above party and thus can afford to be above partisanship. And his ministers can and will take the blame, and can be, as North and his cronies were, truly cast out into the political wilderness after 1783. Pitt the Younger was a true new broom who swept out a lot of the old squireen tradition, reformed the tax laws to stabilize the Exchequer and made important reforms in the colonial administrations. What have we got? A bunch of Clinton retreads and friggin' Newt fucking Gingrich and Tom Delay still hanging around with their moronic ideas. And a complete indifference to routing out the bad old neocon and Bushite policies, prosecuting the idiots who've got us into this mess and generally strolling along with out thumbs up our collecive backsides.<br /><br />So, no, you're right, I don't get the sense that short of a truly catastrophic failure we will recognize the nonsensical nature of trying to fight a land war in central Asia with a force smaller than the former garrison of Berlin.<br /><br />WASFFDChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10607785969510234092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31246093.post-46988935463299619592009-04-21T08:41:00.000-07:002009-04-21T08:41:00.000-07:00Chief,
I love your series, especially the Colonial...Chief,<br />I love your series, especially the Colonial, and Medieval.<br />I learn so much.<br /><br />One of things most of you should note is that the view of the British Crown and of Parliment was that the colonies were viewed as a mercantile venture, i.e. business.<br />Hence, the reason why the whole "no taxation without representation" kind of made them chuckle.<br />To put it in more recent terms, think of an American Company in China complaining about the taxes the US is leveling against them, and not only taxing their profits, but treating them like they were still on American soil.<br />Same same with the Brits view of the colonies, their view of the colonialists was that they were a business venture, and thus not accorded the same political enfranchisement.<br /><br />Another less optomistic view was that the gun smiths developement of the Lancaster rifle was one of pure artistry, unfortunately, not everyone had one. The Brown Bess being the most common rifle, so no, I wouldn't expect a whole lot of accuracy (note how many times the guy shot at the two fleeing soldiers...brown bess, decent musket, but...yeah).<br />However, the Lancasters, which were finely made rifles were commonly used as hunting rifles, till the frontiersmen were brought into the battles, in which case the Brown Bess, accurate to about a hundred yards, whereas the Lancasters were out to three hundred.<br />As you can see, the disparity of the effective ranges is what brought about the mystique.<br />However, as Chief alluded too, and I'll spell it out, not everyone had a Lancaster. <br />The Lancaster could be counted as maybe one guy out of hundred had one.sheerahkahnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31246093.post-50320857580870920432009-04-21T05:45:00.000-07:002009-04-21T05:45:00.000-07:00You're right about everything, as usual, Chief. I...You're right about everything, as usual, Chief. I'm more interested in the aftermath.<br /><br />The Brits managed to figure out what they were doing wrong and mostly fixed it after the revolution. Will we do as well? <br /><br />Recent history suggests we still have too much power and do not see enough of a threat to change our ways. What will be the consequences of the choice to not change?Plutonoreply@blogger.com