Watching lock and load with R. Lee Ermey last night he did a show and said the rifle won the AWI

Question:
How Important were the rifles

Choices:
Very Important
Important
Somewhat Important
Way Overrated
Unimportant

 

You could literally spend a lifetime studying one battle. The complications involved, which include the major characters or the top generals, the junior officers and how they interact with their direct commands, how are the commands given and received? The timing involved in those direct commands, how they were physically given or a command that was given yet never received by those junior officers. By junior officers I mean the brigadier generals, colonels and below. Alot happens during just a one day battle yet alone a whole campaign or over an eight year war.
For example, during the second day of Gettysburg Jubal Early's command with just two brigades pierced the Union lines and approach the Baltimore Pike threatening to roll up the entire Union right at Culps Hill and Cemetary Hill. Those two brigades one a North Carolina and the other a Louisiana brigade were tough veteran fighters facing relatively green Union troops supported by the battered and completely demoralized Union eleventh corp. Where was their support after they pierced the line?
Off on the far left flank sat three Confederate infantry brigades protecting the Confederate left against a mass of Union cavalry. IF these infantry brigades were available to support the initial attack as opposed to being set out there protecting a flank or an attack that never materialized, the Confederates could have destroyed the Union right.
To get back on point only when we study all of the battles and all of the finer points of those battles do we find the answers. Range or the ability to hit your opponent before he can hit you is all important in a fight, the longrifle gave the Americans that range. Yes I would say the rifle was 'Very important' in the Revolution, just ask any British officer or Historian.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Crawdad,

Hmmm - Interesting but what does Gettysburg have to do with the role of rifles and rifleman in the American War of Independence?

Well the point I was trying to make was if you read extensively into some of these battles in the American Revolution you really can see how effective and devastating the rifle was. Not just in a stand up fight but in some of the events surrounding the battle that helped shape the victory. Then there's the outright in your face type stuff like the Battle at King's Mountain where the rifle was used extensively by the Americans. I hope I cleared that up..hopefully!!

I see - interesting perspective.

Even more to the point, what I'm trying to say is at a glance since the Federal cavalry did not fire a shot during the second day at Gettysburg, they did not participate or they were of no consequence whatever. But if the battle is reviewed more closely you could say it was the Union cavalry sitting out there on the flank drawing reinforcements away from the point of attack by Jubal Early's infantry brigades, which saved the Union position.
Only after the battle is closely studied can you reach that conclusion.
In my opinion alot of people draw the conclusion that the longrifle played little or no part in some of these battles but if someone studies these battles they can see how effective the rifle armed troops were.

Crawdad: It does not seem to me that direct comparisons can be made between the AWI and the Civil War - very different types of battles involving different factors. Besides, is this forum not related to PRE 1840? Unless I am totally mistaken, the Civil War occurred in the 1860's.

On topic, however, I think that the rifled gun did have major impact in the Revolution from
its' ability in the hands of a good shot to pick off the British officers. The British style of fighting involved no movements unless by order from an officer - take out the officers and you got a mob with guns,not an army.

Col Boone

Okay, one more time, I'm not trying to compare the Civil War with the American Revolution what I'm trying to say is people who believe that the longrifle had very limited part in the American Revolution have not study these battles and their details enough. I'm just giving an example of this lack of study by referring to an episode in the Civil War.

My study indicates that it was very dependent on where you were - In the frontier they were more important - in line of battle with British regulars only somewhat important. Kings Mountain was American vs American for the most part.

Although, loss of officers may have had an impact on some battles - Saratoga comes to mind. Rifleman were only really effective when they had companies of musketmen in support of them.

Hence, my vote was somewhat important - but it could have just as easily been "way overrated" when it comes to the myth of the american riflemen in the AWI

I voted 'very important'.
What else would you expect from me?
History shows they were critical in turning the tide on numerous battles where the Americans were outnumbered.

Bunker Hill/Breeds Hill comes to mine.

quote:

its' ability in the hands of a good shot to pick off the British officers.

Can you site battles that were nearly victories by the British that suddenly were lost because a rifleman hit a specific officer, OR the battle was a victory because several of the officer corps were reduced by casualties?

quote:

History shows they were critical in turning the tide on numerous battles where the Americans were outnumbered.

OK you need to SITE these "battles" and I hope you have some that were of strategic importance.

Did I misunderstand? Bunker/Breed's Hill had rifle units? Really? CT, MA, NH, and RI militias, and no rifle units of any size, and no rifles in any numbers that I could find. Plus..., why order your riflemen to stand and "Don't fire until you see the white's of their eyes" when they cannot fight against bayonets, AND do a better job against officers at long range?

BEFORE anybody sites "Cowpens" it was not the riflemen under Morgan, but his maneuver of the militia, that suckered Tarleton into the trap composed of Regular Continentals with muskets.

The problem is one of tradition, not facts. The riflemen under Jackson at New Orleans in 1814 played an important role, and there was a popular song written about it. The song also gave the long rifle the name "kentucky" rifle. It was then assumed that since rifles in large number used by the American military date from the Revolution, well then they must've been the deciding factor there as well.

The rifleman was then, and now in the reinvented modern mission of a sniper, a scout first, and a force multiplier, but was never a major factor in wearing the British down and convincing them to leave the colonies.

LD

This discussion got me thinking (always a dangerous proposition).
I remember reading somewhere about the Hessian mercenaries having riflemen. I've never seen anything about how they were utilized.
Would be interesting to see the difference in philosophy of the European use of riflemen.
Also, wouldn't there have been Loyalist riflemen on the British side? and come to think of it, I remember reading about a British Col. I believe named Ferguson who had a rifle. Did the British therefore have riflemen? Supposedly had a chance to take out Washington, but didn't think it was gentlemanly....

Thanks. Now I'm gonna havta do some research...

My vote is somewhat important, maybe. The Brits did use Jaeger riflemen, but there is little mention of their effect on any battles that I've ever seen.
King's Mountain was probably rifle against rifle, at least partly, as it was loyalist militia against patriot militia, most (maybe) backwoodsmen.
The use of rifles to soften up or weaken the command structure was of value.
Maybe at Saratoga there were rifle companies...
But it seems that most of the time, given an army of a few thousand regulars with muskets and bayonets, supported by artillery, you'd have maybe 200 or 300 riflemen. Pretty small portion...
There may have been some "fear factor" at least at first when the Brits thought they were facing a whole army of riflemen (guys wearing fringed hunting frocks), but once they saw them run away there was no fear factor.
Congress and Washington knew they had to face the British Army in the fashion of European armies in conflict, if they were to garner any international support. So they equiped and trained for the conventional warfare of the time. They mostly kept on losing battles until the British got tired (I know that's an exaggeration, but the Americans didn't win all that many. Just crucial ones.)
That's my vote.

Dick

Perhaps Waterloo would have been a better example.Both sides employed rifles in both offense and defense. If you look at both the Sandpit(95thRR) and La Haye Sante (KGL) both defensive and both won by artillery and massed troops.(small sections of the overall battle)
But La Haye Sante held up a lot of troops who could have been used elsewhere.
Used as skirmishers both sides seemed to have cancelled each other out and it was back to muskets and bayonets.
Guess what I'm saying is that each battle of each campaign should be analized then the results looked atas a whole then make an informed conclusion.No matter how much you like the image of the "Home spun" Hero or the dashing Grenadier.
Just MHO.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Trail,

quote:

Originally posted by Deercop:
This discussion got me thinking (always a dangerous proposition).
I remember reading somewhere about the Hessian mercenaries having riflemen. I've never seen anything about how they were utilized.
Would be interesting to see the difference in philosophy of the European use of riflemen.
Also, wouldn't there have been Loyalist riflemen on the British side? and come to think of it, I remember reading about a British Col. I believe named Ferguson who had a rifle. Did the British therefore have riflemen? Supposedly had a chance to take out Washington, but didn't think it was gentlemanly....

Thanks. Now I'm gonna havta do some research...

LD, another day I will dig out the books and relate the story of one rifleman, standing on the top of a fort wall and picking off the officers as the Redcoats marched towards the fort. When the officers were gone, the men were in total disarray and fled. At King's Mountain, yes, Col Ferguson was killed. And, yes, the riflemen played a big role. They shot and killed some men and officers but since the battle was in a small area they soon were engaged in hand to hand combat with knives and tomahawks. The Brits did hire Hessians with Jaeger rifles. Reportedly, the Hessians were excellent fighters. But, various accounts I have seen credit different circumstances with why the American Riflemen prevailed. The one I subscribe to is that the mercenary Hessians simply did not have the will to win at any cost, including their own lives. The American Riflemen were fighting for freedom they believed in and were willing to make whatever sacrifice necessary. They proved to be the more determined fighter and won.
In Feb. 1779, George Rogers Clark (later General Clark) led 170 Riflemen through 300 miles of flooded land, in the rain and cold from Kaskaskia (now Illinois) to a British fort at Vincennes, in Illinois territory (now Indiana) and, with rifle accuracy and determination defeated a fort with several thousand well trained and well equiped British soliders. It goes on and on.

Rifleman 1776,

I think the fort you remember was New Orleans in 1814. I read about it in Muzzle Blasts last year, I believe. This dude just kept picking off British officers.. Actually, English officer losses were, I believe, the highest they ever had in ALL OF THEIR wars, was the AWI. I could be wrong on this.

I don't think the English or French got the Sniper Idea understood until they sent observers to the American Civil war... Today, every country has them...

The real question is, could we have won with rifles only, and how many more years would it have taken?

One other side step here. General William Howe had a "Mistress" in NYC, to keep him warm, so to speak. Would we have won, if William Howe had pursued Washington after one of his victories instead of rushing back to her Bedroom?? One must ask, if one is to be honest.

quote:

Originally posted by Tin-Type:
Rifleman 1776,

I think the fort you remember was New Orleans in 1814. I read about it in Muzzle Blasts last year, I believe. This dude just kept picking off British officers.. Actually, English officer losses were, I believe, the highest they ever had in ALL OF THEIR wars, was the AWI. I could be wrong on this.

I don't think the English or French got the Sniper Idea understood until they sent observers to the American Civil war... Today, every country has them...

The real question is, could we have won with rifles only, and how many more years would it have taken?

One other side step here. General William Howe had a "Mistress" in NYC, to keep him warm, so to speak. Would we have won, if William Howe had pursued Washington after one of his victories instead of rushing back to her Bedroom?? One must ask, if one is to be honest.

Who cares so long as we won. It is not Washingtons fault Howe had a mistress.
With determination we could have won with only rifles but we could not have fought the enemies war. We would have had to have made them fight on our terms.

I had a rifle in the AWI discussion on another site and people were constantly trying to down play Morgan's accomplishments at Saratoga by stating that Burgoyne was a fool, we had him out numbered etc. While trying to ignore what the riflemen did do.

The riflemen performed vital service at Saratoga and in preventing Washington from being cutoff and likely captured on Long Island.
However, when poorly lead, when expected to perform on the battlefield as musket armed infantry the Riflemen were a failure.
When used as Morgan's regiment was at Saratoga they could and did have significant effects. For example. All the Canadian and Indian British Scouts either staid in camp or went home (most) when Morgan arrived and started hunting them.
They effectively blinded the British and reversed the situation in which the American forces were hemmed in and unable to scout the Patriot positions.
Morgan's men killed Frasier and another high ranking officer and a considerable number of other officers and artillerymen.
Our win at Saratoga was the decisive event in getting the French to come to our aid and this may well have been the key to the war ending as soon as it did.

Dan

Dan said:

quote:

However, when poorly lead, when expected to perform on the battlefield as musket armed infantry the Riflemen were a failure.

True. The Riflemen's personality flaws were also his greatest assets. They were fronteirsmen who forged homes from the wilderness. They were not inclined to take orders or be strictly disciplined. They were fierce fighters who (often/usually) used their own best jugement when fighting. Regular soldiers of that time were not permitted any discretion of their own. Their seeming defiance of authority drove many of the American, European trained, officers nuts.

Fire from riflemen was probably the best way to silence British artillery, and almost the only way to surgically remove the officers.