Wars and ConflictsÌý permalink
Light infantry tactics
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by wyn8126 (U2577714) on Thursday, 24th November 2005
Would appreciate the knowledge and insights of the board as to whether anyone thinks that the North American experience 1776 onwards had any impact in adopting the rifle, light infantry tactical thinking, or sniping?
-
Message 2
Posted by DaveMBA (U1360771) on Thursday, 24th November 2005
In the British case, this is true to some extent, but the real influence was the success of the Croat irregular Pandours in the Austrian Succession wars. Their descendants fought it out in former Jugoslavia in the 90s. Frderick set up Pandour units in response and the British were heavily influenced by fighting alongside the Austrian light troops - Croat Grenzer and German riflemen in Flanders in the 1790s. That led to the establishment of the rifle units from 1800. If you want a clue, look for the Hungarian knots on Sharpe's uniform!
-
Message 3
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Thursday, 24th November 2005
Hi,
As you probably know, Rebel marksmen had been living off their Hawkins50 or Kentucky long rifle among others to put food on the table.
Shooting British officers at 1000yds was considered ungentleman like and was not adopted by the Brits until later. American long range marksmanship did not go unnoticed by European observers.
Cheerz. -
Message 4
Posted by hallamhal (U2549864) on Thursday, 24th November 2005
1900s. Hi,
As you probably know, Rebel marksmen had been living off their Hawkins50 or Kentucky long rifle among others to put food on the table.
Shooting British officers at 1000yds was considered ungentleman like and was not adopted by the Brits until later. American long range marksmanship did not go unnoticed by European observers.
°ä³ó±ð±ð°ù³ú.Ìý
And the british were always keen on hunting, especialy with lee enfield rifles in the early -
Message 5
Posted by hallamhal (U2549864) on Thursday, 24th November 2005
1900s
-
Message 6
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Friday, 25th November 2005
DaveMBA, you seem an expert on this. Do you have any views on why the British army adopted the muzzle-loading Baker rifle in preference to the breech-loading Ferguson model that saw service in America?
-
Message 7
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Friday, 25th November 2005
wyn8126,
I think the major problem with rifled weaponry was the time to load the weapon, it was about three times the time to load a smoothbore.
A mallet had to be used hit down the round (the round needed to pit much more snug than a smoothbore). This obviously created a situation where the rifleman was vulnerable to a counter attack much more than someone with a smoothbore.
This problem was eliminated with the development of a conical round, who's base was conically hollow. This would expand on igniting, and create the same snug fit in the barrel. -
Message 8
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Friday, 25th November 2005
Hi,
As you probably know, Rebel marksmen had been living off their Hawkins50 or Kentucky long rifle among others to put food on the table.
Shooting British officers at 1000yds was considered ungentleman like and was not adopted by the Brits until later. American long range marksmanship did not go unnoticed by European observers.
°ä³ó±ð±ð°ù³ú.Ìý
Actually the British did use riflemen - the 5th Battalion, 60th Royal American Regiment were issued with Rifles and unnofficial dark clothing. Captain Patrick Ferguson created an elite rifle company armed with advanced breech-loading rifles. They also employed German Riflemen, most notable the Hesse-Kassel Rifle Corps. The British also produced a standard muzzle-loading weapon, the 1776 Pattern Infantry Rifle, which was the weapon upon which the 1800 Baker Rifle (of 'Sharpe' fame) was based. -
Message 9
Posted by DaveMBA (U1360771) on Saturday, 26th November 2005
I am not an expert on the British - you would have to ask others for the detail and there is an Osprey book on the 95th, which might help. The German units used rifles for hunting too. The main British overhaul was in 1800, when these units began to established on a larger scale, and they decided on the green uniform. The rifle did have the time problem and was slight more expensive than a musket, but the problem with all breech-loaders including Giradoni's 1770 carbine was the seal, which was not gastight and so, users suffered burns.
The French revolutionaries also indulged in shooting mounted officers and it caused problems with Allied cohesion iin several battles. -
Message 10
Posted by steveP (U1775134) on Sunday, 27th November 2005
wyn8126,
I think the major problem with rifled weaponry was the time to load the weapon, it was about three times the time to load a smoothbore.
A mallet had to be used hit down the round (the round needed to pit much more snug than a smoothbore). This obviously created a situation where the rifleman was vulnerable to a counter attack much more than someone with a smoothbore.
This problem was eliminated with the development of a conical round, who's base was conically hollow. This would expand on igniting, and create the same snug fit in the barrel.
Ìý
Mani
I think the key point of the question is that the Ferguson rifle was breech loading and have should have been about as fast as the musket in firing. It's something that puzzled me when I first read about it a long while ago. The only reference I read is that the Ferguson rifle was rejected because, for whatever reason, it could not be fitted with a bayonet. This is not as crash as it sounds as that was important at the time for defending infantry against cavalry formations but not sure if accurate.
Given that it was a beech-loader I think historically such weapons were much slower to develop because they had much smaller tolerances. If you have a flaw - which effectively what a breech loading mechanism is - you don't want an explosion, from the propellant igniting, by your face, flashing into it. Therefore such rifles need to be finely manufactured, in large numbers. Possibly in the late 19C, with the industrial revolution still in its very early stages, this could not be done that reliably. [On the other hand Ferguson did manage to form a regiment using his rifle].
Steve -
Message 11
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Monday, 28th November 2005
Actually the Ferguson Rifle was designed to take a socket bayonet, longer than the standard muskert version to make up for the shorter barrel.
Ferguson's own tests demonstrated that it could be fired, in heavy rain, at up to 10 shots per minute. One did not have to measure the poweder, as the system was designed to eject any excess charge. However, modern tests with replicas have indicated that the screw-thread of the breech-block tends to foul and jam with powder residue after about 6 shots, although this can be easily cleared with a little water.
Basically the problem was that it was more expensive and difficult to manafacture at a time when the Armouries had plenty of Short Land Pattern light infantry muskets in store, and it was too modern for the conservatives at Horse Guards. When Ferguson was killed at the Battle of King's Mountain during the War of Independance, the driving force behind the project was lost. -
Message 12
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Monday, 28th November 2005
I could be wrong, but I don't think any black powder muzzel loading rifle could hit a target at a thousand yards. I have fired the Lee Enfield at that range, and could hit the target, but the target was standing still.
Fred -
Message 13
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Monday, 28th November 2005
GrumpyFred,
The Enfield Rifled Musket and the Whitworth Rifle (under perfect test conditions) could (Hythe Rifle trials 1857). Admitedly the target was 4 - 4.5 foot diameter and it was a machine rest, precise quantities and quality of black powder was available, the balls (pardon me) were chosen carefully, extreme care was taken in loading, a level range and no crosswind.
So I'm sure that for practical (battlefield) purposes you're correct. (The Whitworth was superior, but tended to become fouled after the 5th or 6th shot).
Cheers AA. -
Message 14
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Monday, 28th November 2005
Thanks AA, but the writer was talking about The Kentucky Rifle, and not even Davy Crocket could hit a man at a thousand yards with a Kentucky. I would be hard pressed to do that with a scope on the Lee Enfield. Most long range snipers use these days a barret or something like that.
Fred -
Message 15
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Monday, 28th November 2005
GrumyFred,
Apologies, what you have to realise is that coming onto these boards is that several of "us" have fixed (and variable) opinions, and we descend into schoolyard arguements. (I'm guilty as charged).
We (I?) like to pontificate and challenge every now and again general assumptions or statements to provoke a response. (Call it a rite of passage, if you like!).
You are quite correct, expat was talking about The Kentucky Rifle, I didn't want to challenge him as I've pointed out he's been wrong before, you're a new target, so fair game. Feel free to post, I hope I've explained the "rules".
Cheers AA. -
Message 16
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Tuesday, 29th November 2005
The rules are. "There aren't any rules.
Its strange, as I am having a talk about muzzle loading rifles for a story I am In it, my heroine has fired her russian hunting rifle and killed a man, then she has to reload. Some debate over the length of time. This is her first shot, so she would be fresh. I am told that a 95th could load and fire a Baker twice a minute, but now there is some debate on the subject. My group reckon she may be able to reload in just over a minute, nearer 90 seconds. As this will one day go into print, I am tryingb to get my facts right.
Fred -
Message 17
Posted by DaveMBA (U1360771) on Tuesday, 29th November 2005
Well, that would be an advance on many so-called historians and novelists in this period! I suggest you have a read of some of the material on the 95th and get some detailed info on the weapon in question - weight, length, cartridges used etc.
-
Message 18
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Tuesday, 29th November 2005
Good Morning Arnald,This one's for you.
The Kentucky rifle, American rifleman Timothy Murphy shot British General Simon Fraser from his horse at a distance of 500 yards.
Now put one of these on it.
Generally speaking, the best 18th century telescopes were either English or French. English telescopes had better glass, and the French had better machine work.
Cheerz. -
Message 19
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Tuesday, 29th November 2005
Am working on that. Have info coming from diferent places. I was asked to write a story on a subject I knew little about, and do it without being a rewrite of Sharpe. Oh, cat among the pigions time I would suggest either the 500 yard shot was a fluke, or over estimated. The Baker was good for 300 hundred, in the hands of an expert. A Kentucky with that range could have altered the result at the Alamo, with the boys from Tenessee picking off the officers well before well before they could get their troops close enough to bring fire with their smooth bores to bare on the Texans
Fred
Who will get back to his novel -
Message 20
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Tuesday, 29th November 2005
The only thing that would have altered the outcome of the Alamo was an Apache Gun Ship.
-
Message 21
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Tuesday, 29th November 2005
Did the Texans have one? LOL True, but if as we are being told the Kentucky Rifle was that good, and The boys from Tenessee were that good, the senior Mexican Officer count would have been higher, and would have ended in them throwing a circle round the mission, and moving on. Senior officers don't mind junior ranks being shot at, but not themselves.
Fred -
Message 22
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Tuesday, 29th November 2005
Hi Fred,
Being born in Tennessee did not make everyone an expert marksman. Above average perhaps because of their lifestyle. A scout/sniper in the revolutionary war, was the cream of the crop. For sure there were lucky shots. There are also guys that have that bit extra in any country. There is a tv show on Saturday mornings here called American Shooter.
A guy with an 18th century black powder rifle demonstrated consistently hitting a soccer ball sized metal target at 1000 yds. No Scope other than his spotting scope. He would fire lean over and look thru his spotting scope and watch it strike the target. Was this normal, heck no But it was verified. I have a 30.06 with a 10/30 Leopold scope and if I get in the red at 700 yards it’s a good day.
Cheerz. -
Message 23
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Tuesday, 29th November 2005
I thought that all the boys that went with Crocket to the Alamo were woodsmen. Me, I was a Lee Enfield man. At 300 hundred yards, I could put 20 shots in the bull and cover them with an English Half Crown (About the size of a silver doller) That was using standard sights. Won a few comps doing that, but I have never heard of a 18th/19th century rifle with a killing range like that. If so, I may steal it, and use it in my novel.
Fred -
Message 24
Posted by steveP (U1775134) on Tuesday, 29th November 2005
Actually the Ferguson Rifle was designed to take a socket bayonet, longer than the standard muskert version to make up for the shorter barrel.
Ferguson's own tests demonstrated that it could be fired, in heavy rain, at up to 10 shots per minute. One did not have to measure the poweder, as the system was designed to eject any excess charge. However, modern tests with replicas have indicated that the screw-thread of the breech-block tends to foul and jam with powder residue after about 6 shots, although this can be easily cleared with a little water.
Basically the problem was that it was more expensive and difficult to manafacture at a time when the Armouries had plenty of Short Land Pattern light infantry muskets in store, and it was too modern for the conservatives at Horse Guards. When Ferguson was killed at the Battle of King's Mountain during the War of Independance, the driving force behind the project was lost.Ìý
Anglo-Norman
Thanks for the information. When I 1st read about it a long while back it sounded so lethal and advanced and there was just this throw-away line that King George and various conservative elements rejected it because it couldn't hold a bayonet. Was always rather suspicious that it would be something that simple. Pity the weapon wasn't developed. Would have made warfare a lot more lethal earlier but might have given the good guys a much better chance.
. However sounds like, as well as the expense, there might have been problems with reliability under real conditions.
Steve -
Message 25
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Wednesday, 30th November 2005
Expat, reply to #18,
Fair enough, one shot at 500 yards with a Kentucky rifle. Please grant me a couple of questions. 1). What was Timothy Murphy aiming at? 2). Did he ever repeat this feat?
Now we’ll never get an answer to 1. As regards 2, if he didn’t then surely that says something? Whilst not denying it happened, I would regard as the maximum potential of the rifle together with a healthy slice of luck. (A polite way of saying fluke)
Expat reply to #22. Fair enough again, however a few questions again if I may. The 18C rifle in question, is it authentic or a replica made using modern machining methods and materials?
Did the marksman use authentic 18C black powder made under the slightly differing manufacturing standards of the time or a modern 18C equivalent or modern powder? The ball he used, same question.
If the answers are authentic 18C rifle, authentic powder and ball, then I’ll eat my hat. However, obviously the bloke you refer to is a skilled marksman.
GrumpyFred, reply to #16,
I do have some information at home regarding reloading times for the Baker rifle, if I can find it or remember to do it this weekend I’ll let you know. From memory 2 shots a minute was regarded to be the fastest the rifle could be reloaded. From memory for accurate shooting they added a leather wadding to reduce the windage and impart greater spin from the rifling. This made the ball harder to ram home and thus increased the loading time. Also for accurate shooting they chose the ball as there was (not surprisingly given the manufacturing methods) enough variation to make a difference. The powder charge for accurate shooting would also be measured, rather than rely upon the preprepared cartridge and would, if possible, be of a higher grade powder.
I suppose my answer to your heroines dilemma is it depends. 30 seconds would be the absolute minimum for a very rough and ready shot, going up to 90 seconds for a more consistent / predictable shot. The reload time is going to have to be a function of how far away the target is for the second shot. I.e. I doubt I’d believe that a muzzle loading rifle of the period reloaded in 30 seconds could hit a target 200 yards away without a massive slice of luck / prodigious powers, 0 – 30 yards away then okay. Somewhere between a grey area.
Cheers AA. -
Message 26
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Wednesday, 30th November 2005
Hi Arnald,
Expat, reply to #18,
Fair enough, one shot at 500 yards with a Kentucky rifle. Please grant me a couple of questions. 1). What was Timothy Murphy aiming at? 2). Did he ever repeat this feat?Ìý
Q1/ At the mounted British General with that bright colored coat on.
Q2/ I dont know, I would imagine the British pool of Generals was limited
Expat reply to #22. Fair enough again, however a few questions again if I may. The 18C rifle in question, is it authentic or a replica made using modern machining methods and materials?
Did the marksman use authentic 18C black powder made under the slightly differing manufacturing standards of the time or a modern 18C equivalent or modern powder? The ball he used, same question.
If the answers are authentic 18C rifle, authentic powder and ball, then I’ll eat my hat. However, obviously the bloke you refer to is a skilled marksman.Ìý
If they were authentic 18C rifle, and authentic powder and ball I'll eat your hat for you and the chair your sitting on.
Cheerz. -
Message 27
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Wednesday, 30th November 2005
Thanks AA, all help taken. My heroine is using her fathers rifle (Russian) Her first shot is point blank, and then she reloads. She does not have to fire again.
Fred
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.