I may be wrong but I think a lot of people respect and talk about the riflemen more because the war of 1812 than the revolution. Down the line of history maybe the fanfair for the rlfle started bleed over to the revolution as well and people just assumed it to be so.
Benjamin. Church. Trust your American cousin. This was the guy who Rogers Rangers took their lead from. He was the true OG of ranger tactics. He was the original SAS or Delta. You'll find good content there. *they even had a fictionalized version of him in the Assassin's Creed video games.
Britain being diplomatically isolated won the revolution. Britain was not a military juggernaught. Its power rested on the navy and alliances. Facing France and Spain without Austria, Prussia, Russia or the Netherlands to distract the French was always going to lead to defeat. The 13 Colonies weren't even the most important theatre in North America. Jamaica was more valuable economically than all the 13 colonies combined.
@@clivejungle6999yes, it was that, and the Continental army that won the American revolution! All the military did was survive Long enough and keeping the cause alive for Long enough for Congress to oraganize the American Continental army into existance!
@@clivejungle6999 Not really. The American colonies themselves weren't the issue. It was the fact that an independent USA threatened the British fur trade, which was a huge economic concern.
I am a revolutionary war reenactor and that is one of the biggest Miss we always try to dispel. There is a good reference in Colonel George hangers book " to all sportsmen" about a time he was sitting on his horse and tarlton was sitting on his horse with a small gap between them and a bugler was sitting on his horse behind them. He noted there was a American rifleman at about 400 yards away and he fired killing the horse of the bugler behind him. After serving in the war Hanger was a big proponent of the rifle and talks about it quite a bit in his book. Cheers Ron
As an avid reader of Bernard Cornwell’s, Sharpe novels. He makes a point of how the 95th Rifles in the Peninsular War would pick off officers, sergeants and gun crews. Whilst fighting alongside infantry men armed with muskets.
The reality is it was EVERYTHING, skilled riflemen, Von Steuben, the militia (esp. those with prior service) when used within their limits, such as at Cowpens, and the French troops and fleet. While it is likely that the war could have been won without riflemen, when they were skilled and when they were used properly, they certainly were valuable.
Concerning Anthony Wayne's comments about rifleman it is interesting to note that when George Washington put him in command of the US Army in the 1790's he organized into the Legion of the United States. It was composed for four sub-legions of a troop of light dragoons, a light artillery battery, a battalion of line infantry (8 companies is usually given as the strength), and a battalion of rifleman (3 companies) for use as skirmishers. Further, the rifle battalion was issued with Pennsylvania long rifles. I guess he changed his mind!
You know having someone tell the honest truth about both sides in a way that's fun to listen to is a treat. Thank you for the great video and everyone behind the scenes that helped.
Rifles of the era were accurate but slow to load. I’ve fired replica an 1842 rifle and smooth bore muskets side by side after 8 shots the rifle was difficult to fire due to heavy fouling but we got 20 out of the smooth bore before it was too badly fouled to fire properly.
@@kennethhummel4409the reading I’ve done on the subject confirms that, which is one of the main reasons the regular “ground pounders” continued with the smooth bores for so long. Accuracy, for their intended purposes wasn’t an overriding consideration.
@@Daddy53751 the rifle was intended to be a specialist weapon. I think the ratio was supposed to be 1 rifle per every 10 infantry men or about 1 squad per company back in the early planning days of the US military.
The pivotal Battle (or Siege) of Yorktown could not have been won without the presence of a large contingent of French soldiers supporting Washington's army, and most importantly, the victory of the French navy over the British navy at the Battle of Chespeake Bay, one of the few times the French navy beat the Royal Navy. This prevented Cornwallis from escaping the siege with his army by way of evacuating through the harbor and the British ships, and forced his surrender. You really ought to make a video about that naval battle, as hardly anybody knows about this, especially as it was one of the few times the Royal Navy lost to the French. The French admiral in charge in fact would lose his next battle against the British at sea and was taken prisoner.
Here's the thing, at the time of the Revolutionary War, even though rifled, the ball was still a sphere. Whether fire out of a smooth bore or a rifled barrel, this is still an inherently inaccurate projectile. A sphere is much more influenced by wind drift than a cylindrical projectile (miniè ball). In actual accuracy tests, when using a spherical ball, the caliber (diameter) plays a huge role. The larger the ball in diameter, the less accurate it is, because of its tendency to ping pong in flight. Smaller balls, .36 and under, were less affected in flight, but the terminal performance suffers as the caliber drops. Paper vs Cloth patching also shows accuracy differences between how the ball was patched in the rifle. Rifles of the period relied on patches for obduration of the bore. If you cast the ball big enough for complete obduration between the lands and grooves, you couldn't get it down the barrel. Thus the ball was still slightly undersized in relation to the bore. The Science of Ballistics was still in its infancy in the 18th century. When it came to Open Engagement between the two sides, Artillery caused far higher casualty rates than rifle/musket fire, just as it still does today. The Great War ended the debate about how important small arms actually were in a battle. The weapons capable of obliterating squads and platoons with a couple of well placed shots, were far more devastating than the small arms carried by individual soldiers. The American use of rifles did have an effect, but much less of one than the myth ascribes to it. Rifles, were a better Guerrilla weapon.
A patched round ball out of a long rifle is quite accurate. I don’t know where you got your information but it is totally inaccurate. Sure it isn’t necessarily as accurate as a modern rifle but for the time it was superbly accurate and more than enough for hitting a man sized target up to 200 yards consistently. There is a story from the revolutionary war of a rifleman shooting several balls through a small board held between the another rifleman’s knees at a good distance(at least 100 yds) as a demonstration. I don’t think anyone would attempt such a feat unless accuracy was assured.
The round ball is inherently more accurate than a conical in that it needs less spin to stabilise it. Were it perfectly spherical and consistent it would need no spin. However it is indeed lighter than a conical for the same bore thus its lighter weight makes it more vulnerable to wind drift. On the pus side that same lighter weight makes it faster than the equivalent conical at short ranges and has a flatter trajectory out to perhaps 150 metres. In a smooth bore the ball, by that time, has entered well into the transonic zone and loses stability. What the conical brought was longer accurate ranges with its superior sectional density. All of this predates the research of the French army in response to their muskets being outranged in Algeria by local rifles. Even by the 1830’s rifles were looking at better using a round ball. It was only after assorted ways to fire a loose fitting expanding bullet were developed that conical became a practical military choice and fire could be usefully put down out to 900 metres in company volleys or perhaps 400+metres in individual fire.
I shoot a Pennsylvania Flintlock with round ball and it is accurate to over 150 yards at 6 inch paper targets. 6 inches at 150 yards might be bad for modern rifles but it 100% accurate enough to drop a man sized target at 200 plus yards. When using conicals it adds another 50 - 75 yards of effective range, at least in my 20 or so years of experience using my Pennsylvania flintlocks.
Thanks for this first class episode, Chris. It is definitely true that the "heavy lifting" was done by the Continental line infantry armed with smoothbores and bayonets. In my opinion, these guys are the true unsung heroes of American history; classic soldiers just doing their job. Unfortunately, because of the distaste which our country had for standing armies and regular soldiers, history was re-written almost instantly to heap glory on the irregular riflemen and militiamen. Also, love the tribute to James Moody!
Thanks Ryan. Im glad you enjoyed it and also that you understand my points. Some commentators think I am attacking the whole basis of American history and pushing an agenda when, as you say, I just want to see the regular soldiers get the recognition they deserve and also dispel some of the myths people have regarding the British. Thanks and keep in touch.
Thank you for this. I'm a proud descendant of fighting patriots, but you are entirely right in debunking the myth of the invincible rifleman. The truth of their victory is fascinating enough in itself, and your analysis of it is spot on. I'm glad they won, but I'm gladder still that we are now friends!
One thing that adds to the myth is the fact that American soldiers had a tendency to aim their guns rather than their English opponents. The British knew that guns fire in arches to they had a tendency to hold their muskets upwards and fire in volley (firing in volleys were prone to hitting something.) The Americans on the other hand, some of whom were hunters, tended to aim their shots at their enemies. During the Battle of Kings Mountain the arch firing had it's disadvantage over aiming. The Loyalist forces under Colonel Frasier - himself a rifleman - were firing from high ground, holding the high ground was bound to give them the advantage but because they firing in arches they completely missed the attacking militiamen who were firing at them, some with rifles, and Frasier was killed in the battle.
As a revolutionary war reenactor - and i think i was at the event where the picture of Robbie MacNiven was taken, though i didn't realise he was there as I'm in a different unit from him. I'm enjoying these videos on the American War. I remember reading once that there was a suggestion that the Continental Army uniform should be hunting shirts. Because the British assumed everyone in a hunting shirt was a rifleman, and they had a fear of them. Putting all soldiers in them would play on that fear - plus it was argued they were cheaper and easier to get than normal uniforms. Sadly, that idea was rejected for large-scale use, and instead, the dark blue coat became standard. Though individual units did use the hunting shirt as their uniform, especially in places where a traditional uniform was impractical.
In relation to this, I'd say the bigger myth was the Militia Myth; which is not only prevalent today, but during / after the War of 1812. Fort Meigs has a pretty good presentation on that.
Ive been waiting for a video like this for a while. I remember something from years back, that Charles Lee demanded that his Long riflemen not shoot the British until they got to a close range, because of how inaccurate his sharpshooters were. People assume the maximum range on a rifle is what people could easily shoot at.
I wouldn't put a ton of stock in any thing Lee had ever said, he tried to undermine and thwarted the appointment of George Washington as commander of the continental army because he wanted it for himself. He was also court- marshaled at the battle of Monmouth for cowardice ,Washington had ride into the fight rally the troops at a great risk.
Lee is not creditable ,He tried to undermine and thwarted the appointment of George Washington as commander of the continental army and was court-martialed at the battle of Monmouth for cowardice
Would not put to much stock in anything Charles Lee says .He tried to undermined Washington because he wanted his position for himself and was court-martialed at the battle of Monmouth for cowardice
Not a professional historian, but my understanding is that Francis Marion (Swamp Fox) used riflemen effectively during the siege of Ft. Watson from siege towers to pick off British soldiers who were rather helpless to do anything about it.
As a rifle instructor, I can say that there is a huge difference between someone with a rifle and a skilled rifleman. I know this is true now, and it certainly was then as well. One or two good riflemen per unit, would likely have been much more valuable than an entire unit of riflemen.
Unconvincing argument, to be frank. American rifles did not, by themselves, turn this conflict. But they were certainly an important part of the Continental strategy. Americans could not perform as well as the British with smoothbore muskets, the Redcoats were among the best professional troops in the world at that time. And British artillery was largely better than anything the Continentals had. But, sniping by American riflemen-particularly aimed at British Officers, British Artillery teams and other critical components of British strategy factored heavily into American strategy. Even the fear alone of Continental snipers caused the British to modify their tactics-to the advantage of Americans. The final argument against your strawman was that ALL armies around the world moved away from the tactics of massing troops with smoothbore muskets 100 yards away from the enemy shortly after the Revolutionary War. By the war of 1812, far more troops were using rifled firearms and by the US Civil War, all were. Game, set, match!
Another myth is that Kentucky long riflemen won the Battle of New Orleans in 1815. The only rifles the British faced were members of a small hunting club on the left flank.
What won the battle of New Orleans was the unprepared and stood down British soldiers, packing up because the war was over and a peace treaty signed (a peace treaty the Americans ran to get). Shouldn't so much be considered a great victory so much and more a war crime!
@mikeycraig8970 The treaty wasn't known to anyone prior to that battle. News hadn't spread that far yet. The reason the british lost the battle is caused by three factors: poor timing, inaccurate maps, and a lack of shallow draft vessels. Timing: The British launched an all-out attack on American forces before their equipment arrived to scale the rampart. The British also arrived too late to take advantage of naval support, as the battle was already lost by the time the Royal Navy delivered their troops. Maps: The British may have followed an inaccurate map, as the shallow waters of the Rigolets and Chef Menteur passes could not accommodate vessels drawing more than eight feet. Shallow draft vessels: The British requested shallow draft vessels, but the Admiralty refused, making it difficult to transport more than 2,000 men at a time. A word on Nighttime engagements: The battle took place at night, which was dangerous in an age before electronics and easy communication. Timing and discipline were critical, but Jackson's plan to simultaneously assault the British in their camp was fierce and bloody. You should probably do a little research prior to entering text and sending. It's clearly wrong information. Frankly It's the kind of thing labour party/ democrats do. Revisionist history is bullshit.
@@mikeycraig8970 The Battle of New Orleans was fought on January 8, 1815, between the British Army under Major General Sir Edward Pakenham and the United States Army under Brevet Major General Andrew Jackson,[3] roughly 5 miles (8 km) southeast of the French Quarter of New Orleans,[7] in the current suburb of Chalmette, Louisiana.[1][3] The battle was the climax of the five-month Gulf Campaign (September 1814 to February 1815) by Britain to try to take New Orleans, West Florida, and possibly Louisiana Territory which began at the First Battle of Fort Bowyer. Britain started the New Orleans campaign on December 14, 1814, at the Battle of Lake Borgne and numerous skirmishes and artillery duels happened in the weeks leading up to the final battle. The battle took place 15 days after the signing of the Treaty of Ghent, which formally ended the War of 1812, on December 24, 1814, though it would not be ratified by the United States (and therefore did not take effect) until February 16, 1815, as news of the agreement had not yet reached the United States from Europe.[8] Despite a British advantage in numbers, training, and experience, the American forces defeated a poorly executed assault in slightly more than 30 minutes. The Americans suffered 71 casualties, while the British suffered over 2,000, including the deaths of the commanding general, Major General Sir Edward Pakenham, and his second-in-command, Major General Samuel Gibbs.
looking at how the Hessian rifle armed Jägers under von Ewald did in comparison would be pretty relevant and interesting. His jägers used a mix of smoothbores and rifles in the same force. And their real strength was during the "small war" between the battles. Raiding, patrols, ambushed foraging and outpost duty.
Before this video, Kings Mountain is probably the only battle I could have named where the over the mountain men played any significant role. I think part of the rifle vs musket myth comes from a simple lack of understanding on what they are. We’re taught this myth very young in school, but most teachers wouldn’t understand the difference between the rifle and the musket, they would just generically call anyone with a long weapon a “rifleman’. The other thing that gets interwoven in the myth is the early militia skirmishes in the early war New England and in the Carolinas (the Hornets Nest) and the generic usage of rifleman. Once the continental army was formed, most battles would have shaped up into something the British army was very familiar with.
5:22 Thank you so much for taking the time to debunk the Timothy Murphy myth! That particular one seems to have been popping up a lot lately and it's been getting on my nerves.
To a small extent but you're going to need to do a lot of hunting to supply an army of hundreds, if not thousands of men. I'm not saying it wasn't done, but most armies of the Revolutionary period still had to subsist on rations drawn from contracted merchants that took days (if they arrived at all) to get to camp. Hunting during the winter was also difficult and foraging for anything that would feed troops still wasn't enough to keep Washington's chronically malnourished armies fed even during the 'best' of times.
@@celston51 It's a matter of scale and circumstance: compare a Rogers Ranger in NY back country on a small mission v. Continental at Saratoga. The latter will have bigger all opportunities to bag a deer or even a squirrel I agree. But the light and fast units will benefit from long rifles,.also on skirmishes.
I think thus little out of context obviously rifleman didn't win the American revolution. That ultimately comes down to the colonial army beating the British army in pitch battle . And that theory is still relevant today with snipers. They can greatly impact and outcome but not outright decide the outcome. I think why the American rifleman is so glamorous is that it's an average joe grabbing his hunting rifle ( Pennsylvania rifle) and answering the call to serve! To my limited knowledge brown bess muskets were not owned by or disturbed by colonial militia. But, battles of lexington&concord , bunker hill aka breeds hill, Saratoga, over mountain campaign and cowpens American rifleman with precision fire did play a valuable roll in the outcomes of those battles. Just as the 99th rifle did in the napoleonic or coalition wars
Do yourself a favour and read Kenneth Roberts. The reality is the American Revolution was a civil war, and it was oftentimes colonist fighting colonist. There were many inept leaders on both sides as to be expected. The typical weapon was a Brown Bess musket with a pike bayonet. But militias could have makeshift weapons like scythes or pikes.
I've been out of town visiting my daughter's family, and so I've now binge watched three last episodes of Redcoat History. Now I feel better! All great episodes, too! Thank you, Chris Regards from Canada 🇨🇦
LOL, growing up I recall early one learning/realizing that the main battle action was going to be decided by the smooth bore and its bayonet. From early on I was drawn toward the Long Rifle as developed here in America and can appreciate its graceful lines and effectiveness at distance. It was this appreciation for such a weapon lead me to compete and hunt with muzzleloading rifles. Even before I did any extensive reading on the Revolutionary War I knew rifles played their part but were never the mainstay. So as a myth it was one that never found fertile ground with anyone who invested a minimal amount of study on the era. Any who would hold to such a myth probably hold to many other myths for they are of a type that does no study nor eleven in any kind of learning. Would be interesting to know how many who have a basic knowledge of the War of Independence hold to this myth.
Rifleman were responsible for the winning of two battles and you mentioned the both . Were I live outside of Philadelphia they found remains of 11 riflemen killed shortly after Saratoga were they had a skirmish with British troops perhaps feeling a little invincible after that battle. To add insult to injury that location is up the street from Union Jack’s pub. If you go to Grumble Thorpe on Germantown Avenue you can see were the General was brought to and were he died and he is buried at Broad & 66th ave
I agree with you on about 90%. As far as having a musket and bayonet man with the rifleman, that was true up till really today period. Bolt actions are still used, but now a lot more semi-automatics are use. I disagree on really one point mainly. Rifles were expense to own. So much of the other mountain men had muskets. Basically, like our modern shotguns. They shot a solid, a BB type for birds and other small game and a buck and ball for fighting and larger game. My understanding is that a musket was about a 1/3 or so of that of a rifle. Which were handier for farmers on the frontier. Which would make sense, because historically, in the US when the war is over, a lot of soldiers bought or just took their weapons home. It was one of the reasons in the NE, the militia had Brown Besses. The British gave them to the colonist to fight the F&I war. Also to reload a rifle fast, you chew the lead balls. Now we know that is poison, then they didn't. Now whether they still used the patch? I could see it either way. But loading a rifle in a battle or protecting your cabin on the frontier, well I hope you have some muskets, which reload about 3 a minute and a rifle, I think as fast as I can reload my black powder rifle is about minute, maybe more. I think the best use of rifles in the AR is at the battle of Cowpens. Morgan had his front row of sharpshooters shoot at officers. Which Pickens and Marion did the same with their RIFLE MEN from cover. I don't think that Morgan's first rank of riflemen only fired one shot for that reason. It was the second line that shot twice, which were probably muskets. I may be wrong, that was my understanding of it. Riflemen in a fight, were probably like Hawkeye in the Last of the Mohicans. You better know how to use a knife and a Tomahawk or that is it for you. Nothing but love, I like your videos
I'd always thought that the prized Gun during the Revolutionary War was the British Brown Bess. If one actually looks at how early rifles were produced, It would be clear to see a Smooth Bore Musket such as the Brown Bess was Easier and Faster to produce than a Rifled Bore.
I've heard told that even Daniel Boone preferred a smoothbore as a combat weapon. The Orange County Virginia rifleman (as part of the Culpeper Minuteman) fought at Great Bridge in 75' early in the war and helped to defeat Lord Dunmore.
@@sargeanttater3295 We utilized light cavalry like dragoons Henry Knox was in charge of all Artillery in the Continental Army. That is not bad for a bookstore owner from Boston.
I recently found your channel and love it! One quick tip from someone like myself involved in photography - straighten the camera and remove the eagle or whatever it is off the top of the shelf behind your head. It's good to think of the 2 dimensional view as well as the depth of the shot. I know i sound like a dick and i debated writing this comment, but i think these two little things will go a long way. best, Your cousin from across the pond
All weapons have an ideal situation- the Patriots at King's mountain had that in terms for rifles as well as musketry: superior numbers, a lack of cover for the target, plenty of cover for them, plenty of space to move, no artillery or cavalry in opposition, and inexperienced opponents. Remember how Majuba Hill and Isandlwana didn't repeat themselves, or else South Africa would not speak English.
I say this as a very proud American, who is glad we beat the redcoats and secured our liberty. You clearly heard something you didn’t like and then turned the video off without finishing. He mentioned Kings Mountain specifically about halfway through. If you want to learn history, you have to have a higher appreciation for accuracy and truth than ideals and beliefs. Your worldview doesn’t have to change just because some points about it that you believe are not accurate. (Take it from a former “lost cause” believer.)
@@stevenpolkinghorn4747 you call yourself an American while I'm a Virginian from Appalachia ... doesn't surprise me that the boys across the pond draw their own narrative and conclusions
As soon as I dispelled this myth for myself a long time ago, the actual military history during the revolution became substantially more interesting as I discovered it was a true all-arms fight for years
Fair and accurate account of riflemen in the American Revolutionary War. I am an American and specialize in this conflict and the reasons 🇬🇧 lost the was are as you stated coupled with the fact that Washington kept the conflict going. In doing that, along with ( really hate to admit it) French support (frankly more financial and material than militarily) helped win the war eventually. Riflemen were often good snipers as they were in the next war with our cousins. One note, I am not sure we here in America really think they did win the war. Is that the sentiment in the UK? Myths die hard, like the British won at Waterloo when we all know it was the Prussian arrival that really did. 😀
You hate to admit to having French support? Do you hate to admit to the US having reneged on loans from the French? It seems to me that Americans are nothing but opportunistic thieves!
As a former soldier, I was kind of gobsmacked reading “Washington’s Immortals”. Heavly quoted in the book were letters of the soldiers themselves, who described some of the most horrific hardships I’ve ever read. That those American soldiers endured and persevered such things as being completely and/or partially nude, DURING THE WINTER, while still soldiering on, as just one example seriously highlights the amazing willpower of those soldiers. I can’t even fathom the concept of fighting in my birthday suit!
I read somewhere that Washington’s army could have been tracked through a the snow by the blood from his soldiers shoeless feet the night he crossed the Delaware.
Loved This Film & Please Let Your Next Film Be On: Battle of Kings Mountain October 7, 1780 Would Like To See What You Think About This Tide Turning Battle. Thank You
Excellent analysis. My 5th great grandfather fell at Saratoga. My 4th was posted at the garrison of Westpoint in 1781and was likely at Yorktown. The comment below about Von Steuben is absolutely correct.
During the time of musketry, rifled muskets would need to have musketeers providing cover. One company of riflemen would take two, three times longer to reload than a smoothbore musketeer. This is where accuracy of fire subordinates to volume of fire. Even now, there is point-target and area-target. A musket rifle is far better at hitting the point-target, if there's time to aim, the round is properly formed, and the loading process is done properly, that is consistently. If you just want to hit someone in the platoon as often as possible, then a musket-smoothbore will give better volume. Nowadays, we use automatic weapons for volume of fire.
So, what Hanger says about American riflemen and King's Mountain never happened? That the British paid extra for Jaegers from Brunswick and Hesse-Cassel was coincidental? While the myth about the Rebels standing behind trees shooting British Soldiers obligingly standing out in the open in lines is indeed, more or less false, the fact remains, that the British column retreating from Concord was set upon by militia acting in small groups with muskets using cover and concealment, which the British flank guards of light troops did not drive off and which drove the British strike force into Boston in disarray and demoralized. American riflemen when acting in terrain favorable to them could be very dangerous as Ferguson found out at King's Mountain. And when properly supported by musket & bayonet armed light infantry as Bourgoyne found out during the Saratoga campaign and Tarleton, Cornwallis and other British commanders found out during the Southern Campaign. It was worse in the Southern campaign as many of the local rifle armed militia were mounted allowing them greater mobility to better employ their weapons. Eventually a balance was struck, with veteran American riflemen avoiding ground and conditions that put them at risk to British cavalry or light infantry and the British officers and NCOs dressing down, shaking out into looser formations and avoiding terrain favorable for the American riflemen. But even before then, the riflemen could have a severe impact on the British infantry. British battalions deployed to America with a shortage of officers and NCOs, and then the regimental officers were picked over for duty with brigade and higher headquarters and for the flank companies, leaving the "hat" companies even shorter, which meant the loss of even a couple officers in a battalion could have a disproportionate impact. It was from this experience and the experience of British Soldiers on the continent against the French from 1793-99, that led to British reaction when war came again in 1803 of raising of the 95th Foot, a permanent unit rather than the somewhat nebulous German mercenary Jaegers raised during the French Revolutionary Wars. And yes, the Baker rifle had a bayonet, but the primary purpose of the rifle battalions (the 5th and 6th, 60th Foot and the 1st and 2d, KGL Light) was to skirmish and annoy the enemy skirmishers and their formed infantry, especially by removing leaders, just like the American riflemen.
I was well aware of these myth's and how untrue they really were. But I'm glad to have heard something new in this video. Nice job. Also on a side note loved that you introduced that scene from the Sharpe series. My Step-Dad introduced it to me when I was a teenager and I came to love it. And would watch it again if I could.
@@redcoathistory---Your welcome. The Battle of Assaye would be really interesting. The Duke of Wellington did say it was the greatest battle he ever fought. But that's just a thought. Up to you if you want to do it.
The riflemen in the southern campaign is what won the war. Nathaniel Green beat Cornwallis by ambushing them breaking contact and redeploying over and over again.
The Americans won because of Gen Rochambeu, admiral DeGrasse, and favorable winds. Early in the conflict the colonists mostly had variations of the Brown Bess. Later they were armed with the French musket. The rifled muskets were uncommon. The long hunters of the frontier, and a few others owned them, but it was drill and discipline and muskets ( and a very long supply line for the british) that gained independence
Was hoping you would tackle this touchy subject! Very well done. While researching one of my books, I found letters by Colonel Wilford, Chief Instructor of the School of Musketry at Hythe from 1856-1864, and he seems to have also bought into the myth of the American rifleman winning the war. So this myth took hold early and on both sides of the Atlantic.
It was the fact the the British were busy fighting major European powers an America was a second thought. There’s no way the colonials could have took on the full might of the British in that period.
A quick Google search will prove you wrong. The war of 1812 was the last that smooth bore were the majority. The rifled musket took over dominating the battlefield until self contained cartridges became effectively reliable... But even then the US didn't adopt one until the 1873 trapdoor.
It helped. Hello from San Diego California. I know I had ancestors that fought for the Continental Army, according to family lore. But I only suspect that I have a few Loyalist ancestors. Although I think their true loyalties went to their tribal "in-laws". My understanding of the real reason the U.S. won it's independence is that we managed to drive the price of insurance on commercial shipping to such heights that the British couldn't afford it and deal with other problems. Looking at you France and Spain.
Fouling would make the barrels hors de combat. - All in all it might have been more tactically efficient to attach riflemen to artillery batteries. Out of the immediate way of bayonets and of service to picking off enemy artillery horses.
The hybrid setup of combining musket and rifle fire proved quite effective. It would go on to serve the Americans in the War of 1812. In its infancy I will grant they were of limited use. The Continental Congress tried to buy a firearm with a superior fire rate to even a musket but the inventor charged too much. Clearly the British found some use for rifles as they employed them against Napoleon. My guess is they learned from the mistakes of the Americans and improved on them.
Great book on the war from the British side, (don't remember it's name), but basically it was a world war for the British and they really needed their troops in the West Indies. So, the British took a gamble and bet that if we were given independence that the American was a businessman at heart and would still do business with them and sell them raw material (lumber for ship masts and so on). Whereas the Spanish hated them since that W&*r* Elizabeth and any territory that they lost in the West Indies and the raw materials from the islands would also be lost. And of course they were correct.
Would enjoy a video on King's Mountain. My 5th great grandfather was a loyalist and fought on what I would consider the wrong side. He disappeared during the war and most likely died at King's Mountain.
Pretty sure the 25'000 French and Spanish regulars fighting on American soil, the three fleets wresting control of the seas from the British as well as the hundreds of cannons, ten thousand tents, 100'000 muskets and bajonets, 80'000 uniforms, nearly a million musket balls and 350 tons of powder those two nations provided helped a lot too.
It's essentially the same reason musketeers were paired with pikemen. Aka pike and shot formations. By themselves musketeers were very vulnerable to cavalry and other mobile units. Pike and shot giving way over time to the development of plug bayonets and eventually the standard spike we're familiar with.
You know, I never really thought that the reason why we Americans won the Revolutionary war was because our guns were better (probably second-rate compared to anything that the British or other Europeans used at the time) or that we were more accurate shots, so much as the tactics that we used, having the 'home-field' advantage so to speak, and foreign intervention. Plus, the British were managing a global empire at the time so naturally they had to divert soldiers and resources to other places like every time they got into another lover's quarrel with France, or the Irish were demanding silly things like "human and political rights" or "self-determination" ...those silly rascals :)
Challenge flag: I propose that Burgoyne did not doom his army by leading them into the wilderness. Howe doomed Burgoyne 's army by taking Philadelphia instead of following the plan and marching up the Hudson to reinforce Burgoyne. Benedict Arnold's heroism also had a lot to do with it. But the rifleman did make a big difference. There's never going to be one single thing that changed ghe outcome of an entire war. Real life is not that binary. It was a combination of the rifle tactics, the training of the regulars under Von Steuben and British arrogance that teamed up to cause the result. At Cowpens, for example, Morgan commanded his rifleman, well trained regulars and poorly trained militia all together in one force, while Tarleton charged Dick first right into the trap due to his overwhelming arrogance.
I’ve never read or heard it said that the rifle and riflemen won the war. I do agree with you in the fact that riflemen and troops equipped with muskets in support of one another was probably the best scenario. I also feel that the revolutionary war basically turned into a war of attrition which the British couldn’t hope to win because of logistical issues. Also it seems the British leadership couldn’t adjust to gorilla warfare which was as foreign to them as a far away country, which still exists today in many armies as many regular commanders do not like special forces units viewing them with distrust and disdain
Britan overextended its military forces. But I do think men living on the wilder parts of the colonies used firearms as everyday items. They also were used to living under harsher conditions. When batttles were in wooded areas irregular soldiers are more effectiive. Their personal characteristics did not distract from their fighting abilities. Both armies had riflemen. The English Office at Kings Mountain was a Rifleman. He once had George Washinton in his sights but decided not to kill an officer doing his duty.
The rifleman was no different than an archer because the musket man was essentially a pikeman with a pike that could shoot. Every weapon has its pros and cons but regardless it didn't change the outcome of the war. Cheers tea man!
I've never heard anyone ever make the claim that Kentucky long rifle is what won the war. It may have had an influenced a couple of battles, mostly notable the battles of Saratoga, Cowpens and Guilford Court House. But those are hardly a war winning battles. I highly doubt any of those battles would have a different out come without rifles. The major thing an American victory at Saratoga did was bring France in to the war, which did ultimately aid in an American victory for the war.
Im tired of fellow Americans trying to perpetuate the myth that we were all employing hit and run tactics. It was still an element, but most of the engagements with militia and british light foot would've been like a modern civilian with an AR trying to ambush the green berets.
Rifles were extremely important in the early part of the war. So many of the Americans in the country side had rifles which were important in destabilizing the red coats. When the Americans formed conventional army units the Brown Bess was the weapon of choice.
I am glad you made reference to the British using increasing proportions of rifles as the war progressed and used them as part of their overall combination of arms not as a separate force and chose to purchase and copy for domestic production the European military Jaeger stout type. It is telling that they chose not to copy the lighter made American style ‘long’ rifle but took care that a strong bayonet could be mounted for defence against cavalry and close offensive use. Also the key part that the French and Spanish support played without which the rebellion would have failed for lack of weapons and powder at the very least. American popular history places the war in isolation but it took place whilst Britain was also fighting the Spanish Empire and France, the strongest military and navy in continental Europe. Whose combined fleets could locally outnumber the Royal Navy which otherwise controlled the coast of British North America.
It is a bit like the "Jäger" in German armies in the 18th century. Civilian hunters with rifles were draftet as supplements and served certain roles, each with their own balls and powder, but never a deceisive breakthrough role. They were supplements that were available and thus were used.
Great video, I am slightly partial to American related episodes, but still great. Great conclusion, really tied it up nicely. I’m fascinated by the weird period of time where Americans and British hated each other because it was so brief. Despite the two nations being completely separate today, there is a shared history.
@@redcoathistory I’ve always been fascinated by the fact that the British did have many great victories in the war, but could keep the Americans from escaping. The art of retreat that basically kept the Americans in the war. I know the American side of this, but would be interested in learning more about how the British command, politicians, and public saw this situation in the colonies playing out. Were the British commanders frustrated by not quite being able to destroy Washington’s army? I’d also would be interested in learning about how the British dealt with the support the Americans received from other countries like France. Were there battles fought between the British and other countries outside North America? Finally, anything about the impact of John Paul Jones’s 1778 raid on Whitehaven. That always interested me, but again, my knowledge of the event is one sided towards the American view. Again, the videos are great, even the ones that are a bit out of my personal wheelhouse. Your videos about the wars in South Africa especially have been wonderful. Keep up the good and important work
As an SAR member, I get a broad overview of how the revolutionary cause was supported. One area in which the British could not compete right off the bat was logistics. My own ancestor owned a grist mill and surveyed as a side gig. He donated his miller's share throughout the war (three tons), most of which no doubt went into hardtack. Multiply him by a modest number across the Colonies, and you have a well-fed army. The same model applies to uniforms and equipment. As for Banastre Tarleton, some years ago I was in DC and tired of walking around the National Mall. I went to the National Archives to do a little research. I found that my Van Zandt cousins, the ancestors of the Fort Worth Van Zandts, fought as militia cavalrymen at the Battle of Cowpens. Really, guys? You let him get away?
Your main focus appears to be upon General Officers. But, it was the Lieutenants , Captains , Majors, that directly led the Troops, that were far more often the target of the Sharpshooters, and this caused much confusion in the British Ranks, as they lost Officers at the Company and Battalion levels.
As a non-metric using, no tea drinking American, I am confused by your premise. I like history and appreciate channels like yours that explain in detail the facts with references. I’ve never heard even the most ignorant proponent say that the rifled musket was key to winning anything. Yeah, we knew that it was good sport to have a try at officers to disrupt command structure, but pretty much everyone knew the Continental Army was armed with basically the same weapons as the regular British Army. We didn’t use them as well.
Well, the very FIRST battle, at Lexington & Concord, was very much a rifle shooting from on the British Army as it retreated to Boston. Read, David Hackett Fischer's "Paul Revere's Ride". That battle was the victory of the Minutemen with their RIFLES over the British, who could not stand and fight. The Minutemen did not give them a chance. The Minutemen were descendants of the Roundheads from Cromwell's time. They HATED the monarchy. After Bunker Hill, the British left Boston, and effectively ceded New England's independence, since NO British Army entered New England for the remainder of the war.
To be entirely fair, Anthony Wanye was nicknamed "Mad Anthony", so I'd doubt his testimony. That said, very good video, and very good points. Riflemen seem to have been useful, but not decisive, in pitched battles. A bit like the 95th in another war, great at outposts, vanguard and rearguard duty, but they didn't really shine in the big set-pieces.
In 1780 the Continental Army received a gift of a troop of French riflemen accompanied by 11,000 highly accurate (and considered some of the finest) rifles for war. This was the mopping up stage. Burgoyne and Cornwallis era, and they arguably cut the war short, because Britain was mainly giving lip service to William Pitt King George was starting the worst years of his insanity. Obsessed on the colonies to a greater degree than seen beforehand. Privy Council delegated burden unto itself to determine which battle orders were to be obeyed first. The battle orders were many, and could determine which day or week the order was first given, when logistics came under great strain. The Privy Council informed the King after a delay of one week from when news of the surrender had arrived by messenger (who was summarily executed). George III was a wreck. But tenacious. France had Napoleon to spring on the world and the French Revolution was nigh. We colonies split free in the confusion. Serendipity, or was it a dedicated hatred of France that the King slavishly indulged? That I have no narrative for.
I think from the advent of firearms to now, that the marksman alone cannot win a war on his back alone. Helpful? Most definitely. We had crack shots in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan along with tons of modern equipment and still ended up not achieving what we aimed to do. I think a lot of it comes down to people always looking for an easy answer to a complicated question instead of really understanding its intricacies. But as usual, there's always more to the story.
I suggest you look up the battle of kings mountain. Yes I do agree that the regular infantry in our army did the open field fighting . Given my ancestor was an officer of the continental regulars of the Massachusetts line . However the rifleman did do a great part in the fighting when used correctly so long as back up with the muskets of the standard infantry.
Hi - Kings mountain is an outlier - discussed at length in many of the comments below. It is definitely being covered and discussed soon. Watch this space. Thanks
"If you miss, you don't eat today" is a great motivation for accuracy. "Doesn't matter if you miss because someone else is paying for powder and shot" is not.
As an American and an enthusiastic American War of Independence history buff I applaud your video and your conclusions on the subject. I totally agree... Rifles could be, and at times were, a useful tool in the Continental Army's inventory. But they were far from the most important tool.
@@redcoathistory Well, I know this is a Redcoat channel, but I suppose discussing the American rifleman myth isn't all about the Redcoats so... It's also a myth from the AWI that the "Hessian" (catch-all term for any and all German "mercenaries") soldiers that served in the war on behalf of the Brits were brutes and monsters etc. Maybe giving those poor sods their due justice? Otherwise, anything from the war that is more on the obscure side. Maybe the war in the west? Mohawk Valley in NY, the Ohio country, etc? I really liked your video about the Brits' battles and campaigns with Spain along the Gulf.
@@doctorfingers2675I don't know man the first two world wars pretty much proved Germany were brutes and monsters. Lol do we need to get into 1939 and 1945? I hope not lol.
I think people living on the frontier and fighting off enemies would be more familiar with their firearm than other individuals. The rifle is much more accurate than the musket. Large numbers of musket armed solders and massed firepower was needed to be effective. At the Battle of Cowpens Morgan's Rifles lured hated Tarleton's Cavalry into attcking them and destroyed the British Cavalry. Unruly soldiers are not appreciated by officers in peacetime but turn out to be better soldiers in combat. England has lost wars where the opponents were not even an organized army. Standing in the open and providing easy targets does not reduce casualty rates. This happened when the first Brigish invasion of Afghanistan happened. Lots of hidden well armed marksmen gradually "picking people off" all the time. The shooting never stops. Morale and discipline must suffer. One British officer survived that invasion.
@@nemoegosum8350funnily enough they don't if anything they admired and respected the british for standing their ground even to the end fighting back to back and in small squares
"The Devils Disciple" is a 1959 movie loosely based on a play of the same name starring Kirk Douglas with Burt Lancaster and Laurence Olivier as "Gentleman Johnny" Burgoyne. It's set during the Saratoga campaign.
Rifleman back then would be concidered snipers today and with that being said in warfare today of course snipers dont win it outright but used effectively the best thing they do is give the main army time, they take out a officer it takes time to find another, if they pin down a choke point they give the main army time, when they lower the moral of the opposing force they dont march as fast giving the main army time...
"Combined Arms" with, as Dan Morgan did, balance the means of tactics and deployment of assets to create the greatest "impact" as terrain, logistics, deployment and battle plan...
As always, well done Chris! Just an idea : Maybe you can make a more elaborated video, about the role the French payed in the American revolution or the role of the first nations in this conflict. Warm greetings from Belgium !
Thanks for another great video. In the Saratoga campaign the German Jaeger were more effective than Morgan's riflemen, so that's probably going to be what your next video is about. I'm looking forward to it. Morgan's riflemen were effective against the British Light Infantry and artillery at Bemis Farm, because they could harass from a great distance. Within 100 yards they couldn't beat the Brown Bess and bayonet.
Thanks a lot…yep we have a video coming up on riflemen who fought with the British. Sadly there aren’t many sources…please let me know if you have a good one.
@@redcoathistory The Osprey titles on AWI are the source for most of what I know. There is a book by Jeff John called Rifles, Rangers & Revolution: How the Elite Queen's Loyal American Rangers took full advantage of the explosive military technology of 1776, which I haven't read but might be useful to you. I have it order. I've been looking for a detailed history of German Jaegers in the war, because most accounts show them to be the best rifle troops in the war.
Secure your privacy with Surfshark! Enter coupon code REDCOATHISTORY for 4 months EXTRA at surfshark.com/redcoathistory
I may be wrong but I think a lot of people respect and talk about the riflemen more because the war of 1812 than the revolution. Down the line of history maybe the fanfair for the rlfle started bleed over to the revolution as well and people just assumed it to be so.
Benjamin.
Church.
Trust your American cousin. This was the guy who Rogers Rangers took their lead from. He was the true OG of ranger tactics. He was the original SAS or Delta. You'll find good content there.
*they even had a fictionalized version of him in the Assassin's Creed video games.
Riflemen targeted officers, signal men, and artillery men.
British were impressed enough to adopt the Baker rifle.
Not getting wiped out won the revolution.
As Mao said, "The guerrilla wins by not losing, the regular army loses by not winning"
Lol Kissinger said that not Mao.
Britain being diplomatically isolated won the revolution. Britain was not a military juggernaught. Its power rested on the navy and alliances. Facing France and Spain without Austria, Prussia, Russia or the Netherlands to distract the French was always going to lead to defeat. The 13 Colonies weren't even the most important theatre in North America. Jamaica was more valuable economically than all the 13 colonies combined.
@@KeyserSoze23 Mao did that thing that all communists do: steal.
@@clivejungle6999yes, it was that, and the Continental army that won the American revolution! All the military did was survive Long enough and keeping the cause alive for Long enough for Congress to oraganize the American Continental army into existance!
@@clivejungle6999 Not really. The American colonies themselves weren't the issue. It was the fact that an independent USA threatened the British fur trade, which was a huge economic concern.
I am a revolutionary war reenactor and that is one of the biggest Miss we always try to dispel. There is a good reference in Colonel George hangers book " to all sportsmen" about a time he was sitting on his horse and tarlton was sitting on his horse with a small gap between them and a bugler was sitting on his horse behind them. He noted there was a American rifleman at about 400 yards away and he fired killing the horse of the bugler behind him. After serving in the war Hanger was a big proponent of the rifle and talks about it quite a bit in his book. Cheers Ron
Cheers, Ron. I’ll look up the source. Thanks
As an avid reader of Bernard Cornwell’s, Sharpe novels. He makes a point of how the 95th Rifles in the Peninsular War would pick off officers, sergeants and gun crews. Whilst fighting alongside infantry men armed with muskets.
I read Sharpe's Command and can confirm this. Rifles had their place but it doesn't change the fact of numbers.
It wasn’t the riflemen, it was Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben who drilled the Americans to use the musket and bayonet effectively
He was also a gay man and showed up at valley forge on a slay with young man servents lol history is wild
@@mcgregorpiper And A Bit Of "Buck & Ball" Shot Never Hurt.
👍😎👍
Yup 100%
@@missourimongoose8858yes! really should make a movie or mini-series about his life. He was a genuine mad lad in his personal and professional life
The reality is it was EVERYTHING, skilled riflemen, Von Steuben, the militia (esp. those with prior service) when used within their limits, such as at Cowpens, and the French troops and fleet. While it is likely that the war could have been won without riflemen, when they were skilled and when they were used properly, they certainly were valuable.
If you asked Daniel Morgan if rifles alone won his battles, he'd laugh at you.
Extremely fair assessment. British military leadership was lacking as many top generals refused to fight against their colonial cousins.
Concerning Anthony Wayne's comments about rifleman it is interesting to note that when George Washington put him in command of the US Army in the 1790's he organized into the Legion of the United States. It was composed for four sub-legions of a troop of light dragoons, a light artillery battery, a battalion of line infantry (8 companies is usually given as the strength), and a battalion of rifleman (3 companies) for use as skirmishers. Further, the rifle battalion was issued with Pennsylvania long rifles. I guess he changed his mind!
You know having someone tell the honest truth about both sides in a way that's fun to listen to is a treat. Thank you for the great video and everyone behind the scenes that helped.
Rifles of the era were accurate but slow to load. I’ve fired replica an 1842 rifle and smooth bore muskets side by side after 8 shots the rifle was difficult to fire due to heavy fouling but we got 20 out of the smooth bore before it was too badly fouled to fire properly.
Thanks, that's great info. I'd love to fire vintage weapons. Are you in the USA?
@@redcoathistory yes, and firing vintage rifles and smooth bores is fun as hell!
@@kennethhummel4409 Please keep in touch - one day I hope to visit and experience the fun!
@@kennethhummel4409the reading I’ve done on the subject confirms that, which is one of the main reasons the regular “ground pounders” continued with the smooth bores for so long.
Accuracy, for their intended purposes wasn’t an overriding consideration.
@@Daddy53751 the rifle was intended to be a specialist weapon. I think the ratio was supposed to be 1 rifle per every 10 infantry men or about 1 squad per company back in the early planning days of the US military.
The pivotal Battle (or Siege) of Yorktown could not have been won without the presence of a large contingent of French soldiers supporting Washington's army, and most importantly, the victory of the French navy over the British navy at the Battle of Chespeake Bay, one of the few times the French navy beat the Royal Navy. This prevented Cornwallis from escaping the siege with his army by way of evacuating through the harbor and the British ships, and forced his surrender.
You really ought to make a video about that naval battle, as hardly anybody knows about this, especially as it was one of the few times the Royal Navy lost to the French. The French admiral in charge in fact would lose his next battle against the British at sea and was taken prisoner.
Here's the thing, at the time of the Revolutionary War, even though rifled, the ball was still a sphere. Whether fire out of a smooth bore or a rifled barrel, this is still an inherently inaccurate projectile. A sphere is much more influenced by wind drift than a cylindrical projectile (miniè ball).
In actual accuracy tests, when using a spherical ball, the caliber (diameter) plays a huge role. The larger the ball in diameter, the less accurate it is, because of its tendency to ping pong in flight. Smaller balls, .36 and under, were less affected in flight, but the terminal performance suffers as the caliber drops. Paper vs Cloth patching also shows accuracy differences between how the ball was patched in the rifle. Rifles of the period relied on patches for obduration of the bore. If you cast the ball big enough for complete obduration between the lands and grooves, you couldn't get it down the barrel. Thus the ball was still slightly undersized in relation to the bore.
The Science of Ballistics was still in its infancy in the 18th century.
When it came to Open Engagement between the two sides, Artillery caused far higher casualty rates than rifle/musket fire, just as it still does today.
The Great War ended the debate about how important small arms actually were in a battle. The weapons capable of obliterating squads and platoons with a couple of well placed shots, were far more devastating than the small arms carried by individual soldiers.
The American use of rifles did have an effect, but much less of one than the myth ascribes to it.
Rifles, were a better Guerrilla weapon.
A patched round ball out of a long rifle is quite accurate. I don’t know where you got your information but it is totally inaccurate. Sure it isn’t necessarily as accurate as a modern rifle but for the time it was superbly accurate and more than enough for hitting a man sized target up to 200 yards consistently. There is a story from the revolutionary war of a rifleman shooting several balls through a small board held between the another rifleman’s knees at a good distance(at least 100 yds) as a demonstration. I don’t think anyone would attempt such a feat unless accuracy was assured.
The round ball is inherently more accurate than a conical in that it needs less spin to stabilise it. Were it perfectly spherical and consistent it would need no spin. However it is indeed lighter than a conical for the same bore thus its lighter weight makes it more vulnerable to wind drift. On the pus side that same lighter weight makes it faster than the equivalent conical at short ranges and has a flatter trajectory out to perhaps 150 metres. In a smooth bore the ball, by that time, has entered well into the transonic zone and loses stability. What the conical brought was longer accurate ranges with its superior sectional density.
All of this predates the research of the French army in response to their muskets being outranged in Algeria by local rifles. Even by the 1830’s rifles were looking at better using a round ball. It was only after assorted ways to fire a loose fitting expanding bullet were developed that conical became a practical military choice and fire could be usefully put down out to 900 metres in company volleys or perhaps 400+metres in individual fire.
I shoot a Pennsylvania Flintlock with round ball and it is accurate to over 150 yards at 6 inch paper targets. 6 inches at 150 yards might be bad for modern rifles but it 100% accurate enough to drop a man sized target at 200 plus yards. When using conicals it adds another 50 - 75 yards of effective range, at least in my 20 or so years of experience using my Pennsylvania flintlocks.
Thanks for this first class episode, Chris. It is definitely true that the "heavy lifting" was done by the Continental line infantry armed with smoothbores and bayonets. In my opinion, these guys are the true unsung heroes of American history; classic soldiers just doing their job. Unfortunately, because of the distaste which our country had for standing armies and regular soldiers, history was re-written almost instantly to heap glory on the irregular riflemen and militiamen. Also, love the tribute to James Moody!
Thanks Ryan. Im glad you enjoyed it and also that you understand my points. Some commentators think I am attacking the whole basis of American history and pushing an agenda when, as you say, I just want to see the regular soldiers get the recognition they deserve and also dispel some of the myths people have regarding the British. Thanks and keep in touch.
Thank you for this. I'm a proud descendant of fighting patriots, but you are entirely right in debunking the myth of the invincible rifleman. The truth of their victory is fascinating enough in itself, and your analysis of it is spot on. I'm glad they won, but I'm gladder still that we are now friends!
One thing that adds to the myth is the fact that American soldiers had a tendency to aim their guns rather than their English opponents. The British knew that guns fire in arches to they had a tendency to hold their muskets upwards and fire in volley (firing in volleys were prone to hitting something.) The Americans on the other hand, some of whom were hunters, tended to aim their shots at their enemies. During the Battle of Kings Mountain the arch firing had it's disadvantage over aiming. The Loyalist forces under Colonel Frasier - himself a rifleman - were firing from high ground, holding the high ground was bound to give them the advantage but because they firing in arches they completely missed the attacking militiamen who were firing at them, some with rifles, and Frasier was killed in the battle.
It is a myth that British soldiers did not aim their firelocks. They were trained and practiced in doing so.
Actually nobody aimed anything, they just pointed
As a revolutionary war reenactor - and i think i was at the event where the picture of Robbie MacNiven was taken, though i didn't realise he was there as I'm in a different unit from him. I'm enjoying these videos on the American War.
I remember reading once that there was a suggestion that the Continental Army uniform should be hunting shirts. Because the British assumed everyone in a hunting shirt was a rifleman, and they had a fear of them. Putting all soldiers in them would play on that fear - plus it was argued they were cheaper and easier to get than normal uniforms. Sadly, that idea was rejected for large-scale use, and instead, the dark blue coat became standard. Though individual units did use the hunting shirt as their uniform, especially in places where a traditional uniform was impractical.
In relation to this, I'd say the bigger myth was the Militia Myth; which is not only prevalent today, but during / after the War of 1812.
Fort Meigs has a pretty good presentation on that.
Ive been waiting for a video like this for a while.
I remember something from years back, that Charles Lee demanded that his Long riflemen not shoot the British until they got to a close range, because of how inaccurate his sharpshooters were.
People assume the maximum range on a rifle is what people could easily shoot at.
Great, glad you found it interesting. I've got a fun video in the pipeline on British riflemen of the war also.
I wouldn't put a ton of stock in any thing Lee had ever said, he tried to undermine and thwarted the appointment of George Washington as commander of the continental army because he wanted it for himself. He was also court- marshaled at the battle of Monmouth for cowardice ,Washington had ride into the fight rally the troops at a great risk.
Lee is not creditable ,He tried to undermine and thwarted the appointment of George Washington as commander of the continental army and was court-martialed at the battle of Monmouth for cowardice
Everyone sang a different tune in the 1860s
Would not put to much stock in anything Charles Lee says .He tried to undermined Washington because he wanted his position for himself and was court-martialed at the battle of Monmouth for cowardice
Not a professional historian, but my understanding is that Francis Marion (Swamp Fox) used riflemen effectively during the siege of Ft. Watson from siege towers to pick off British soldiers who were rather helpless to do anything about it.
As a rifle instructor, I can say that there is a huge difference between someone with a rifle and a skilled rifleman. I know this is true now, and it certainly was then as well.
One or two good riflemen per unit, would likely have been much more valuable than an entire unit of riflemen.
Unconvincing argument, to be frank. American rifles did not, by themselves, turn this conflict. But they were certainly an important part of the Continental strategy. Americans could not perform as well as the British with smoothbore muskets, the Redcoats were among the best professional troops in the world at that time. And British artillery was largely better than anything the Continentals had. But, sniping by American riflemen-particularly aimed at British Officers, British Artillery teams and other critical components of British strategy factored heavily into American strategy. Even the fear alone of Continental snipers caused the British to modify their tactics-to the advantage of Americans. The final argument against your strawman was that ALL armies around the world moved away from the tactics of massing troops with smoothbore muskets 100 yards away from the enemy shortly after the Revolutionary War. By the war of 1812, far more troops were using rifled firearms and by the US Civil War, all were. Game, set, match!
Another myth is that Kentucky long riflemen won the Battle of New Orleans in 1815. The only rifles the British faced were members of a small hunting club on the left flank.
What won the battle of New Orleans was the unprepared and stood down British soldiers, packing up because the war was over and a peace treaty signed (a peace treaty the Americans ran to get). Shouldn't so much be considered a great victory so much and more a war crime!
@@mikeycraig8970 Who attacked who?
No we just say Andrew Jackson won the Battle of New Orleans.
@mikeycraig8970 The treaty wasn't known to anyone prior to that battle. News hadn't spread that far yet. The reason the british lost the battle is caused by three factors: poor timing, inaccurate maps, and a lack of shallow draft vessels.
Timing:
The British launched an all-out attack on American forces before their equipment arrived to scale the rampart. The British also arrived too late to take advantage of naval support, as the battle was already lost by the time the Royal Navy delivered their troops.
Maps:
The British may have followed an inaccurate map, as the shallow waters of the Rigolets and Chef Menteur passes could not accommodate vessels drawing more than eight feet.
Shallow draft vessels:
The British requested shallow draft vessels, but the Admiralty refused, making it difficult to transport more than 2,000 men at a time.
A word on Nighttime engagements:
The battle took place at night, which was dangerous in an age before electronics and easy communication. Timing and discipline were critical, but Jackson's plan to simultaneously assault the British in their camp was fierce and bloody.
You should probably do a little research prior to entering text and sending. It's clearly wrong information. Frankly It's the kind of thing labour party/ democrats do. Revisionist history is bullshit.
@@mikeycraig8970 The Battle of New Orleans was fought on January 8, 1815, between the British Army under Major General Sir Edward Pakenham and the United States Army under Brevet Major General Andrew Jackson,[3] roughly 5 miles (8 km) southeast of the French Quarter of New Orleans,[7] in the current suburb of Chalmette, Louisiana.[1][3]
The battle was the climax of the five-month Gulf Campaign (September 1814 to February 1815) by Britain to try to take New Orleans, West Florida, and possibly Louisiana Territory which began at the First Battle of Fort Bowyer. Britain started the New Orleans campaign on December 14, 1814, at the Battle of Lake Borgne and numerous skirmishes and artillery duels happened in the weeks leading up to the final battle.
The battle took place 15 days after the signing of the Treaty of Ghent, which formally ended the War of 1812, on December 24, 1814, though it would not be ratified by the United States (and therefore did not take effect) until February 16, 1815, as news of the agreement had not yet reached the United States from Europe.[8] Despite a British advantage in numbers, training, and experience, the American forces defeated a poorly executed assault in slightly more than 30 minutes. The Americans suffered 71 casualties, while the British suffered over 2,000, including the deaths of the commanding general, Major General Sir Edward Pakenham, and his second-in-command, Major General Samuel Gibbs.
looking at how the Hessian rifle armed Jägers under von Ewald did in comparison would be pretty relevant and interesting.
His jägers used a mix of smoothbores and rifles in the same force. And their real strength was during the "small war" between the battles.
Raiding, patrols, ambushed foraging and outpost duty.
many Hessians left the Crown and joined the Continental Army after not getting paid …
Before this video, Kings Mountain is probably the only battle I could have named where the over the mountain men played any significant role. I think part of the rifle vs musket myth comes from a simple lack of understanding on what they are. We’re taught this myth very young in school, but most teachers wouldn’t understand the difference between the rifle and the musket, they would just generically call anyone with a long weapon a “rifleman’. The other thing that gets interwoven in the myth is the early militia skirmishes in the early war New England and in the Carolinas (the Hornets Nest) and the generic usage of rifleman. Once the continental army was formed, most battles would have shaped up into something the British army was very familiar with.
5:22 Thank you so much for taking the time to debunk the Timothy Murphy myth! That particular one seems to have been popping up a lot lately and it's been getting on my nerves.
Thanks Chris! Hope you are well. We must do a video together at some point…
.another advantage of rifles: hunting game when deployed to frontier areas. Eases logistics.
To a small extent but you're going to need to do a lot of hunting to supply an army of hundreds, if not thousands of men. I'm not saying it wasn't done, but most armies of the Revolutionary period still had to subsist on rations drawn from contracted merchants that took days (if they arrived at all) to get to camp. Hunting during the winter was also difficult and foraging for anything that would feed troops still wasn't enough to keep Washington's chronically malnourished armies fed even during the 'best' of times.
@@celston51 It's a matter of scale and circumstance: compare a Rogers Ranger in NY back country on a small mission v. Continental at Saratoga. The latter will have bigger all opportunities to bag a deer or even a squirrel I agree. But the light and fast units will benefit from long rifles,.also on skirmishes.
I think thus little out of context obviously rifleman didn't win the American revolution. That ultimately comes down to the colonial army beating the British army in pitch battle . And that theory is still relevant today with snipers. They can greatly impact and outcome but not outright decide the outcome. I think why the American rifleman is so glamorous is that it's an average joe grabbing his hunting rifle ( Pennsylvania rifle) and answering the call to serve! To my limited knowledge brown bess muskets were not owned by or disturbed by colonial militia. But, battles of lexington&concord , bunker hill aka breeds hill, Saratoga, over mountain campaign and cowpens American rifleman with precision fire did play a valuable roll in the outcomes of those battles. Just as the 99th rifle did in the napoleonic or coalition wars
Do yourself a favour and read Kenneth Roberts.
The reality is the American Revolution was a civil war, and it was oftentimes colonist fighting colonist. There were many inept leaders on both sides as to be expected.
The typical weapon was a Brown Bess musket with a pike bayonet. But militias could have makeshift weapons like scythes or pikes.
Fiction mixed with history .....Start with Arundel read it when I was 13
I've been out of town visiting my daughter's family, and so I've now binge watched three last episodes of Redcoat History. Now I feel better! All great episodes, too! Thank you, Chris Regards from Canada 🇨🇦
Welcome back Keith!
LOL, growing up I recall early one learning/realizing that the main battle action was going to be decided by the smooth bore and its bayonet. From early on I was drawn toward the Long Rifle as developed here in America and can appreciate its graceful lines and effectiveness at distance. It was this appreciation for such a weapon lead me to compete and hunt with muzzleloading rifles. Even before I did any extensive reading on the Revolutionary War I knew rifles played their part but were never the mainstay. So as a myth it was one that never found fertile ground with anyone who invested a minimal amount of study on the era. Any who would hold to such a myth probably hold to many other myths for they are of a type that does no study nor eleven in any kind of learning. Would be interesting to know how many who have a basic knowledge of the War of Independence hold to this myth.
Rifleman were responsible for the winning of two battles and you mentioned the both . Were I live outside of Philadelphia they found remains of 11 riflemen killed shortly after Saratoga were they had a skirmish with British troops perhaps feeling a little invincible after that battle. To add insult to injury that location is up the street from Union Jack’s pub.
If you go to Grumble Thorpe on Germantown Avenue you can see were the General was brought to and were he died and he is buried at Broad & 66th ave
I agree with you on about 90%. As far as having a musket and bayonet man with the rifleman, that was true up till really today period. Bolt actions are still used, but now a lot more semi-automatics are use. I disagree on really one point mainly. Rifles were expense to own. So much of the other mountain men had muskets. Basically, like our modern shotguns. They shot a solid, a BB type for birds and other small game and a buck and ball for fighting and larger game. My understanding is that a musket was about a 1/3 or so of that of a rifle. Which were handier for farmers on the frontier. Which would make sense, because historically, in the US when the war is over, a lot of soldiers bought or just took their weapons home. It was one of the reasons in the NE, the militia had Brown Besses. The British gave them to the colonist to fight the F&I war. Also to reload a rifle fast, you chew the lead balls. Now we know that is poison, then they didn't. Now whether they still used the patch? I could see it either way. But loading a rifle in a battle or protecting your cabin on the frontier, well I hope you have some muskets, which reload about 3 a minute and a rifle, I think as fast as I can reload my black powder rifle is about minute, maybe more. I think the best use of rifles in the AR is at the battle of Cowpens. Morgan had his front row of sharpshooters shoot at officers. Which Pickens and Marion did the same with their RIFLE MEN from cover. I don't think that Morgan's first rank of riflemen only fired one shot for that reason. It was the second line that shot twice, which were probably muskets. I may be wrong, that was my understanding of it. Riflemen in a fight, were probably like Hawkeye in the Last of the Mohicans. You better know how to use a knife and a Tomahawk or that is it for you. Nothing but love, I like your videos
I'd always thought that the prized Gun during the Revolutionary War was the British Brown Bess. If one actually looks at how early rifles were produced, It would be clear to see a Smooth Bore Musket such as the Brown Bess was Easier and Faster to produce than a Rifled Bore.
I've heard told that even Daniel Boone preferred a smoothbore as a combat weapon.
The Orange County Virginia rifleman (as part of the Culpeper Minuteman) fought at Great Bridge in 75' early in the war and helped to defeat Lord Dunmore.
I always thought it was combined arms that won the war not just 1 group
funny you should say that...
@@redcoathistory roger that
@redcoathistory @jackdorsey4850 please elaborate? I thought continentals lacked cavalry and artillery
@@sargeanttater3295 We utilized light cavalry like dragoons Henry Knox was in charge of all Artillery in the Continental Army. That is not bad for a bookstore owner from Boston.
Because we'd rather die on our feet than die on our knees. How's that monarchy working out for you?
General Washington hated rifles, riflemen and rifle armed units. And spent considerable ink documenting that fact
I recently found your channel and love it!
One quick tip from someone like myself involved in photography - straighten the camera and remove the eagle or whatever it is off the top of the shelf behind your head. It's good to think of the 2 dimensional view as well as the depth of the shot.
I know i sound like a dick and i debated writing this comment, but i think these two little things will go a long way.
best,
Your cousin from across the pond
You need to research Battle of Kings Mountain and then re-evaluate your comment about Buckskin wearing militia
No I don't really. It's a fascinating battle and We'll be covering that soon and let's not forget no British troops were present...
As someone who lives near and frequents Kings Mountain it's more of the exception than the rule.
All weapons have an ideal situation- the Patriots at King's mountain had that in terms for rifles as well as musketry: superior numbers, a lack of cover for the target, plenty of cover for them, plenty of space to move, no artillery or cavalry in opposition, and inexperienced opponents. Remember how Majuba Hill and Isandlwana didn't repeat themselves, or else South Africa would not speak English.
I say this as a very proud American, who is glad we beat the redcoats and secured our liberty. You clearly heard something you didn’t like and then turned the video off without finishing. He mentioned Kings Mountain specifically about halfway through. If you want to learn history, you have to have a higher appreciation for accuracy and truth than ideals and beliefs. Your worldview doesn’t have to change just because some points about it that you believe are not accurate. (Take it from a former “lost cause” believer.)
@@stevenpolkinghorn4747 you call yourself an American while I'm a Virginian from Appalachia ... doesn't surprise me that the boys across the pond draw their own narrative and conclusions
As soon as I dispelled this myth for myself a long time ago, the actual military history during the revolution became substantially more interesting as I discovered it was a true all-arms fight for years
Exactly! Thanks a lot for the comment.
Fair and accurate account of riflemen in the American Revolutionary War. I am an American and specialize in this conflict and the reasons 🇬🇧 lost the was are as you stated coupled with the fact that Washington kept the conflict going. In doing that, along with ( really hate to admit it) French support (frankly more financial and material than militarily) helped win the war eventually. Riflemen were often good snipers as they were in the next war with our cousins. One note, I am not sure we here in America really think they did win the war. Is that the sentiment in the UK? Myths die hard, like the British won at Waterloo when we all know it was the Prussian arrival that really did. 😀
lol I was enjoying your comment until the last line 😂
You hate to admit to having French support? Do you hate to admit to the US having reneged on loans from the French? It seems to me that Americans are nothing but opportunistic thieves!
As a former soldier, I was kind of gobsmacked reading “Washington’s Immortals”.
Heavly quoted in the book were letters of the soldiers themselves, who described some of the most horrific hardships I’ve ever read.
That those American soldiers endured and persevered such things as being completely and/or partially nude, DURING THE WINTER, while still soldiering on, as just one example seriously highlights the amazing willpower of those soldiers.
I can’t even fathom the concept of fighting in my birthday suit!
I read somewhere that Washington’s army could have been tracked through a the snow by the blood from his soldiers shoeless feet the night he crossed the Delaware.
@@dogloversrule8476 I’ve read that as well.
Thinking about it in the first person, that had to have been seriously heinous for the men involved.
Loved This Film & Please Let Your Next Film Be On:
Battle of Kings Mountain
October 7, 1780
Would Like To See What You Think About This Tide Turning Battle. Thank You
Thanks, it is in the pipeline but will be a month or two…
Excellent analysis. My 5th great grandfather fell at Saratoga. My 4th was posted at the garrison of Westpoint in 1781and was likely at Yorktown. The comment below about Von Steuben is absolutely correct.
During the time of musketry, rifled muskets would need to have musketeers providing cover. One company of riflemen would take two, three times longer to reload than a smoothbore musketeer. This is where accuracy of fire subordinates to volume of fire. Even now, there is point-target and area-target. A musket rifle is far better at hitting the point-target, if there's time to aim, the round is properly formed, and the loading process is done properly, that is consistently. If you just want to hit someone in the platoon as often as possible, then a musket-smoothbore will give better volume. Nowadays, we use automatic weapons for volume of fire.
So, what Hanger says about American riflemen and King's Mountain never happened? That the British paid extra for Jaegers from Brunswick and Hesse-Cassel was coincidental?
While the myth about the Rebels standing behind trees shooting British Soldiers obligingly standing out in the open in lines is indeed, more or less false, the fact remains, that the British column retreating from Concord was set upon by militia acting in small groups with muskets using cover and concealment, which the British flank guards of light troops did not drive off and which drove the British strike force into Boston in disarray and demoralized.
American riflemen when acting in terrain favorable to them could be very dangerous as Ferguson found out at King's Mountain. And when properly supported by musket & bayonet armed light infantry as Bourgoyne found out during the Saratoga campaign and Tarleton, Cornwallis and other British commanders found out during the Southern Campaign. It was worse in the Southern campaign as many of the local rifle armed militia were mounted allowing them greater mobility to better employ their weapons. Eventually a balance was struck, with veteran American riflemen avoiding ground and conditions that put them at risk to British cavalry or light infantry and the British officers and NCOs dressing down, shaking out into looser formations and avoiding terrain favorable for the American riflemen. But even before then, the riflemen could have a severe impact on the British infantry. British battalions deployed to America with a shortage of officers and NCOs, and then the regimental officers were picked over for duty with brigade and higher headquarters and for the flank companies, leaving the "hat" companies even shorter, which meant the loss of even a couple officers in a battalion could have a disproportionate impact.
It was from this experience and the experience of British Soldiers on the continent against the French from 1793-99, that led to British reaction when war came again in 1803 of raising of the 95th Foot, a permanent unit rather than the somewhat nebulous German mercenary Jaegers raised during the French Revolutionary Wars. And yes, the Baker rifle had a bayonet, but the primary purpose of the rifle battalions (the 5th and 6th, 60th Foot and the 1st and 2d, KGL Light) was to skirmish and annoy the enemy skirmishers and their formed infantry, especially by removing leaders, just like the American riflemen.
It mainly was the Continental army & French army support, that won the war of independence...regimental pride."HUZZAH"!
It is my understanding that Hessian rifles were highly prized. They were not only accurate but also sturdy and reliable.
Rifles didn't win the war,but in the right circumstances they were helpful.
I Don’t disagree, Sir. Are there other aspects of the war you’d like me to talk about in future videos?
Very interesting that you cover this as it’s quite new to me really getting into the the war of independence. It rarely gets mentioned here 😂🇬🇧
Thanks a lot. Yes, I also knew very little until recently. Luckily I'm being schooled by my mate Robbie MacNiven who is a legend. Lots more to come.
Sniping and ambushing were more effective OBVIOUSLY with a rifle over a smoothbore
BUT that is not what most of the war was about.
I was well aware of these myth's and how untrue they really were. But I'm glad to have heard something new in this video. Nice job. Also on a side note loved that you introduced that scene from the Sharpe series. My Step-Dad introduced it to me when I was a teenager and I came to love it. And would watch it again if I could.
Thank you, Sir. Are there other aspects of the war you’d like me to talk about in future videos?
@@redcoathistory---Your welcome. The Battle of Assaye would be really interesting. The Duke of Wellington did say it was the greatest battle he ever fought. But that's just a thought. Up to you if you want to do it.
The riflemen in the southern campaign is what won the war. Nathaniel Green beat Cornwallis by ambushing them breaking contact and redeploying over and over again.
The Americans won because of Gen Rochambeu, admiral DeGrasse, and favorable winds.
Early in the conflict the colonists mostly had variations of the Brown Bess. Later they were armed with the French musket.
The rifled muskets were uncommon. The long hunters of the frontier, and a few others owned them, but it was drill and discipline and muskets ( and a very long supply line for the british) that gained independence
Was hoping you would tackle this touchy subject! Very well done.
While researching one of my books, I found letters by Colonel Wilford, Chief Instructor of the School of Musketry at Hythe from 1856-1864, and he seems to have also bought into the myth of the American rifleman winning the war. So this myth took hold early and on both sides of the Atlantic.
Thanks a lot, that is interesting that it took root like that.
It was the fact the the British were busy fighting major European powers an America was a second thought. There’s no way the colonials could have took on the full might of the British in that period.
The fact that in the American Civil War the majority of the weapons were still smooth-bores, shows that rifles were not the be all end all
A quick Google search will prove you wrong. The war of 1812 was the last that smooth bore were the majority. The rifled musket took over dominating the battlefield until self contained cartridges became effectively reliable... But even then the US didn't adopt one until the 1873 trapdoor.
It helped. Hello from San Diego California.
I know I had ancestors that fought for the Continental Army, according to family lore. But I only suspect that I have a few Loyalist ancestors. Although I think their true loyalties went to their tribal "in-laws".
My understanding of the real reason the U.S. won it's independence is that we managed to drive the price of insurance on commercial shipping to such heights that the British couldn't afford it and deal with other problems. Looking at you France and Spain.
Fouling would make the barrels hors de combat. - All in all it might have been more tactically efficient to attach riflemen to artillery batteries. Out of the immediate way of bayonets and of service to picking off enemy artillery horses.
"I AM THE LOOONG CARIBIIINE, MY DEATH IS A GREAT HONOUR TO THE HURON"
😂
The hybrid setup of combining musket and rifle fire proved quite effective. It would go on to serve the Americans in the War of 1812. In its infancy I will grant they were of limited use. The Continental Congress tried to buy a firearm with a superior fire rate to even a musket but the inventor charged too much. Clearly the British found some use for rifles as they employed them against Napoleon. My guess is they learned from the mistakes of the Americans and improved on them.
Great book on the war from the British side, (don't remember it's name), but basically it was a world war for the British and they really needed their troops in the West Indies. So, the British took a gamble and bet that if we were given independence that the American was a businessman at heart and would still do business with them and sell them raw material (lumber for ship masts and so on). Whereas the Spanish hated them since that W&*r* Elizabeth and any territory that they lost in the West Indies and the raw materials from the islands would also be lost. And of course they were correct.
Would enjoy a video on King's Mountain. My 5th great grandfather was a loyalist and fought on what I would consider the wrong side. He disappeared during the war and most likely died at King's Mountain.
Thanks - yep I have one on the cards. Thanks for sharing your family story.
Pretty sure the 25'000 French and Spanish regulars fighting on American soil, the three fleets wresting control of the seas from the British as well as the hundreds of cannons, ten thousand tents, 100'000 muskets and bajonets, 80'000 uniforms, nearly a million musket balls and 350 tons of powder those two nations provided helped a lot too.
Thank you for sharing🙏🏾
@@jaideeptung9001 Thanks mate. Hope you enjoyed your trip and are now home and relaxing.
It's essentially the same reason musketeers were paired with pikemen. Aka pike and shot formations. By themselves musketeers were very vulnerable to cavalry and other mobile units. Pike and shot giving way over time to the development of plug bayonets and eventually the standard spike we're familiar with.
You know, I never really thought that the reason why we Americans won the Revolutionary war was because our guns were better (probably second-rate compared to anything that the British or other Europeans used at the time) or that we were more accurate shots, so much as the tactics that we used, having the 'home-field' advantage so to speak, and foreign intervention. Plus, the British were managing a global empire at the time so naturally they had to divert soldiers and resources to other places like every time they got into another lover's quarrel with France, or the Irish were demanding silly things like "human and political rights" or "self-determination" ...those silly rascals :)
Challenge flag: I propose that Burgoyne did not doom his army by leading them into the wilderness. Howe doomed Burgoyne 's army by taking Philadelphia instead of following the plan and marching up the Hudson to reinforce Burgoyne. Benedict Arnold's heroism also had a lot to do with it.
But the rifleman did make a big difference. There's never going to be one single thing that changed ghe outcome of an entire war. Real life is not that binary. It was a combination of the rifle tactics, the training of the regulars under Von Steuben and British arrogance that teamed up to cause the result.
At Cowpens, for example, Morgan commanded his rifleman, well trained regulars and poorly trained militia all together in one force, while Tarleton charged Dick first right into the trap due to his overwhelming arrogance.
Weapons don't have to kill to be effective. Clearly, the terror these weapons caused did more damage than the Weapons themselves.
I’ve never read or heard it said that the rifle and riflemen won the war.
I do agree with you in the fact that riflemen and troops equipped with muskets in support of one another was probably the best scenario.
I also feel that the revolutionary war basically turned into a war of attrition which the British couldn’t hope to win because of logistical issues.
Also it seems the British leadership couldn’t adjust to gorilla warfare which was as foreign to them as a far away country, which still exists today in many armies as many regular commanders do not like special forces units viewing them with distrust and disdain
Britan overextended its military forces. But I do think men living on the wilder parts of the colonies used firearms as everyday items. They also were used to living under harsher conditions. When batttles were in wooded areas irregular soldiers are more effectiive.
Their personal characteristics did not distract from their fighting abilities. Both armies had riflemen. The English Office at Kings Mountain was a Rifleman. He once had George Washinton in his sights but decided not to kill an officer doing his duty.
Funnily enough I have a video coming up about British riflemen of the war...
The rifleman was no different than an archer because the musket man was essentially a pikeman with a pike that could shoot. Every weapon has its pros and cons but regardless it didn't change the outcome of the war. Cheers tea man!
I've never heard anyone ever make the claim that Kentucky long rifle is what won the war. It may have had an influenced a couple of battles, mostly notable the battles of Saratoga, Cowpens and Guilford Court House. But those are hardly a war winning battles. I highly doubt any of those battles would have a different out come without rifles. The major thing an American victory at Saratoga did was bring France in to the war, which did ultimately aid in an American victory for the war.
Im tired of fellow Americans trying to perpetuate the myth that we were all employing hit and run tactics. It was still an element, but most of the engagements with militia and british light foot would've been like a modern civilian with an AR trying to ambush the green berets.
Rifles were extremely important in the early part of the war. So many of the Americans in the country side had rifles which were important in destabilizing the red coats.
When the Americans formed conventional army units the Brown Bess was the weapon of choice.
Charleville muskets were the preferred choice of the Continental Army.
I am glad you made reference to the British using increasing proportions of rifles as the war progressed and used them as part of their overall combination of arms not as a separate force and chose to purchase and copy for domestic production the European military Jaeger stout type.
It is telling that they chose not to copy the lighter made American style ‘long’ rifle but took care that a strong bayonet could be mounted for defence against cavalry and close offensive use. Also the key part that the French and Spanish support played without which the rebellion would have failed for lack of weapons and powder at the very least.
American popular history places the war in isolation but it took place whilst Britain was also fighting the Spanish Empire and France, the strongest military and navy in continental Europe. Whose combined fleets could locally outnumber the Royal Navy which otherwise controlled the coast of British North America.
It is a bit like the "Jäger" in German armies in the 18th century. Civilian hunters with rifles were draftet as supplements and served certain roles, each with their own balls and powder, but never a deceisive breakthrough role. They were supplements that were available and thus were used.
Great video, I am slightly partial to American related episodes, but still great. Great conclusion, really tied it up nicely. I’m fascinated by the weird period of time where Americans and British hated each other because it was so brief. Despite the two nations being completely separate today, there is a shared history.
Thank you, Sir. Are there other aspects of the war you’d like me to talk about in future videos?
@@redcoathistory I’ve always been fascinated by the fact that the British did have many great victories in the war, but could keep the Americans from escaping. The art of retreat that basically kept the Americans in the war. I know the American side of this, but would be interested in learning more about how the British command, politicians, and public saw this situation in the colonies playing out. Were the British commanders frustrated by not quite being able to destroy Washington’s army?
I’d also would be interested in learning about how the British dealt with the support the Americans received from other countries like France. Were there battles fought between the British and other countries outside North America?
Finally, anything about the impact of John Paul Jones’s 1778 raid on Whitehaven. That always interested me, but again, my knowledge of the event is one sided towards the American view.
Again, the videos are great, even the ones that are a bit out of my personal wheelhouse. Your videos about the wars in South Africa especially have been wonderful. Keep up the good and important work
As an SAR member, I get a broad overview of how the revolutionary cause was supported. One area in which the British could not compete right off the bat was logistics. My own ancestor owned a grist mill and surveyed as a side gig. He donated his miller's share throughout the war (three tons), most of which no doubt went into hardtack. Multiply him by a modest number across the Colonies, and you have a well-fed army. The same model applies to uniforms and equipment. As for Banastre Tarleton, some years ago I was in DC and tired of walking around the National Mall. I went to the National Archives to do a little research. I found that my Van Zandt cousins, the ancestors of the Fort Worth Van Zandts, fought as militia cavalrymen at the Battle of Cowpens. Really, guys? You let him get away?
A redcoat ancestor of mine General William Wynyard was wounded at the battle of Brandywine during the Revolutionary War.
Your main focus appears to be upon General Officers. But, it was the Lieutenants , Captains , Majors, that directly led the Troops, that were far more often the target of the Sharpshooters, and this caused much confusion in the British Ranks, as they lost Officers at the Company and Battalion levels.
As a non-metric using, no tea drinking American, I am confused by your premise. I like history and appreciate channels like yours that explain in detail the facts with references. I’ve never heard even the most ignorant proponent say that the rifled musket was key to winning anything. Yeah, we knew that it was good sport to have a try at officers to disrupt command structure, but pretty much everyone knew the Continental Army was armed with basically the same weapons as the regular British Army. We didn’t use them as well.
Well, the very FIRST battle, at Lexington & Concord, was very much a rifle shooting from on the British Army as it retreated to Boston.
Read, David Hackett Fischer's "Paul Revere's Ride". That battle was the victory of the Minutemen with their RIFLES over the British, who could not stand and fight. The Minutemen did not give them a chance.
The Minutemen were descendants of the Roundheads from Cromwell's time.
They HATED the monarchy.
After Bunker Hill, the British left Boston, and effectively ceded New England's independence,
since NO British Army entered New England for the remainder of the war.
To be entirely fair, Anthony Wanye was nicknamed "Mad Anthony", so I'd doubt his testimony. That said, very good video, and very good points. Riflemen seem to have been useful, but not decisive, in pitched battles. A bit like the 95th in another war, great at outposts, vanguard and rearguard duty, but they didn't really shine in the big set-pieces.
Great video Christian and I love that reference I got it 😊
Thanks mate
Excited to see a video on Kings Mountain. I have actually walked that battlefield!
In 1780 the Continental Army received a gift of a troop of French riflemen accompanied by 11,000 highly accurate (and considered some of the finest) rifles for war. This was the mopping up stage. Burgoyne and Cornwallis era, and they arguably cut the war short, because Britain was mainly giving lip service to William Pitt King George was starting the worst years of his insanity. Obsessed on the colonies to a greater degree than seen beforehand. Privy Council delegated burden unto itself to determine which battle orders were to be obeyed first. The battle orders were many, and could determine which day or week the order was first given, when logistics came under great strain. The Privy Council informed the King after a delay of one week from when news of the surrender had arrived by messenger (who was summarily executed). George III was a wreck. But tenacious. France had Napoleon to spring on the world and the French Revolution was nigh. We colonies split free in the confusion. Serendipity, or was it a dedicated hatred of France that the King slavishly indulged? That I have no narrative for.
I think from the advent of firearms to now, that the marksman alone cannot win a war on his back alone. Helpful? Most definitely. We had crack shots in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan along with tons of modern equipment and still ended up not achieving what we aimed to do. I think a lot of it comes down to people always looking for an easy answer to a complicated question instead of really understanding its intricacies. But as usual, there's always more to the story.
I suggest you look up the battle of kings mountain. Yes I do agree that the regular infantry in our army did the open field fighting . Given my ancestor was an officer of the continental regulars of the Massachusetts line . However the rifleman did do a great part in the fighting when used correctly so long as back up with the muskets of the standard infantry.
Hi - Kings mountain is an outlier - discussed at length in many of the comments below. It is definitely being covered and discussed soon. Watch this space. Thanks
"If you miss, you don't eat today" is a great motivation for accuracy.
"Doesn't matter if you miss because someone else is paying for powder and shot" is not.
Hell yes.this kicks ass.
Gracias amigo.
As an American and an enthusiastic American War of Independence history buff I applaud your video and your conclusions on the subject. I totally agree... Rifles could be, and at times were, a useful tool in the Continental Army's inventory. But they were far from the most important tool.
Thank you, Sir. Are there other aspects of the war you’d like me to talk about in future videos?
@@redcoathistory Well, I know this is a Redcoat channel, but I suppose discussing the American rifleman myth isn't all about the Redcoats so... It's also a myth from the AWI that the "Hessian" (catch-all term for any and all German "mercenaries") soldiers that served in the war on behalf of the Brits were brutes and monsters etc. Maybe giving those poor sods their due justice? Otherwise, anything from the war that is more on the obscure side. Maybe the war in the west? Mohawk Valley in NY, the Ohio country, etc? I really liked your video about the Brits' battles and campaigns with Spain along the Gulf.
Thanks - great ideas!
@@doctorfingers2675I don't know man the first two world wars pretty much proved Germany were brutes and monsters. Lol do we need to get into 1939 and 1945? I hope not lol.
I think people living on the frontier and fighting off enemies would be more familiar with their firearm than other individuals. The rifle is much more accurate than the musket. Large numbers of musket armed solders and massed firepower was needed to be effective. At the Battle of Cowpens Morgan's Rifles lured hated Tarleton's Cavalry into attcking them and destroyed the British Cavalry. Unruly soldiers are not appreciated by officers in peacetime but turn out to be better soldiers in combat. England has lost wars where the opponents were not even an organized army. Standing in the open and providing easy targets does not reduce casualty rates. This happened when the first Brigish invasion of Afghanistan happened. Lots of hidden well armed marksmen gradually "picking people off" all the time. The shooting never stops. Morale and discipline must suffer. One British officer survived that invasion.
Good sprinters when getting rushed by a bayonet
Usain MacPatriot!
Zulu’s have a similar saying about Isandlwana….
@nemoegosum8350, no. "They fell like stones - each man in his place"
@@nemoegosum8350funnily enough they don't if anything they admired and respected the british for standing their ground even to the end fighting back to back and in small squares
@@afriendlycadian9857 then why is there a “Fugitives Trail” back to Rorkes Drift…?
Brilliantly told mate. 👍
Thanks a lot mate. Glad you enjoyed it. Hope you are having a relaxing weekend off!
@@redcoathistory On my way to Southampton for a cruise to Norway for a week. Hope you are well. 👍
Oh fantastic - enjoy mate!
Clips from " The Devils Disciple," brilliant ! Splendid episode.
Can please tell me what the name of the tv series was the clip taken from
"The Devils Disciple" is a 1959 movie loosely based on a play of the same name starring Kirk Douglas with Burt Lancaster and Laurence Olivier as "Gentleman Johnny" Burgoyne. It's set during the Saratoga campaign.
You might also like the movie Unconquered made 1947 based on Neil H Swanson's book time set during the French and Indian War
@@danielsnyder2998 Thanks -have seen it a 100 times, "Scioto big medicine."
Rifles are superior to muskets (basically shotguns) as military weapons.
Rifleman back then would be concidered snipers today and with that being said in warfare today of course snipers dont win it outright but used effectively the best thing they do is give the main army time, they take out a officer it takes time to find another, if they pin down a choke point they give the main army time, when they lower the moral of the opposing force they dont march as fast giving the main army time...
"Combined Arms" with, as Dan Morgan did, balance the means of tactics and deployment of assets to create the greatest "impact" as terrain, logistics, deployment and battle plan...
As always, well done Chris! Just an idea : Maybe you can make a more elaborated video, about the role the French payed in the American revolution or the role of the first nations in this conflict.
Warm greetings from Belgium !
That’s a great idea. Thanks a lot.
Thanks for another great video. In the Saratoga campaign the German Jaeger were more effective than Morgan's riflemen, so that's probably going to be what your next video is about. I'm looking forward to it. Morgan's riflemen were effective against the British Light Infantry and artillery at Bemis Farm, because they could harass from a great distance. Within 100 yards they couldn't beat the Brown Bess and bayonet.
Thanks a lot…yep we have a video coming up on riflemen who fought with the British. Sadly there aren’t many sources…please let me know if you have a good one.
Continental Light Dragoon entered the chat! 😂
@@redcoathistory The Osprey titles on AWI are the source for most of what I know. There is a book by Jeff John called Rifles, Rangers & Revolution: How the Elite Queen's Loyal American Rangers took full advantage of the explosive military technology of 1776, which I haven't read but might be useful to you. I have it order. I've been looking for a detailed history of German Jaegers in the war, because most accounts show them to be the best rifle troops in the war.