Ode to the Infantryman

03 Thursday Apr 2014

Posted by Twistification in Alexander Hamilton, Cavalry, Infantry, National Infantry Museum, Reboubt, Revolutionary War, Slavery, Yorktown

≈ Leave a comment

This past weekend I visited the National Infantry Museum in Columbus GA. The museum offered a number of well done exhibits covering the history of the American infantryman.

We began our tour by a chronological stroll through a series of life-sized dioramas depicting significant battles in the Infantry’s history called ‘The Last Hundred Yards’. The battles included Yorktown,Antietam, Soissons, Normandy, Corregidor, Soam-Ni, LZ X-Ray, and Iraq. Naturally, I spent a bit longer at the first diorama. This was a depiction of the storming of redoubt #10 by Alexander Hamilton his 400 light American infantry.

Redoubt Yorktown National Infantry Museum

A nice detail here depicts an unnamed African American storming up the side of the redoubt. It is notoriously difficult for historians to pin a number on the about of African Americans in the Continental army (some volunteered, others were substitutes for their ‘owners’), but most agree that the American Revolution was the most integrated war in American history up until Vietnam. Blacks fought and died for both sides, and it is important to note their contributions and sufferings as both civilians and soldiers.

Storming of Redoubt #10

It was interesting to see the balance that the museum sought to strike between an honest depiction of the horror and senselessness of war while simultaneously recognizing the sacrifices and courage of the men and women who endured it. You could easily become appalled by the realities of war, but the museum strived to balance this ugly reality by highlighting the honor, courage and sense of duty that drove American men and women into the armed services. After all, this wasn’t an Oliver Stone anti war statement, this was a Museum next to Fort Benning.

American Cavalry by Don Troiani (?)

Storming of redoubt #10

Alexander Hamilton leads the American Light into the redoubt.

Surrender of Lord Cornwallis by John Trumbull…and spikes!

Storming of redoubt #10

Redoubt Yorktown National Infantry Museum

Taking the Plunge…

15 Tuesday Oct 2013

Posted by Twistification in 1777 Charleville, Banastre Tarleton, Cavalry, Infantry, Musket, Revolutionary War, The Battle of the Hook, Weapons of the Revolution

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Battle of the Hook, reenactment

As just about anyone who has checked out my blog would see coming from a mile away, I have finally taken the plunge and will participate in my first reenactment at the Battle of the Hook. I will be joining Patrick O’Kelley’s 2nd North Carolina Regiment this coming weekend. The regiment will be depicting “Mercer’s Select Grenadier Battalion” that saw most of the infantry action during the battle. If predictions hold out, this event may even see the largest contingent of cavalry for a Revolutionary War reenactment ever.

The American victory at ‘The Hook’ shut Cornwallis in Yorktown and threw away the key, effectively ending the British general’s hopes for escape or reinforcements (thanks should also be given to the French fleet). The dreaded Banastre Tarleton partook in the battle and was injured as Mercer’s Select rushed in to support French cavalry.

So there is much to the world of reenactment that I am learning. Random thoughts:

The 2nd North Carolina regiment will feed, cloth, arm and shelter both Wesley and I.
Patrick O’Kelly will train us upon arrival. With any luck, I’m hoping he won’t break into spats of cursing in German like Von Steuben did.
My musket will pass muster this time, although technically the 1777 Charleville was not issued to Continentals. If asked, I’ll stick with the story that I ‘borrowed it’ from the generous French contingent. Or maybe won it in a bet. Not sure yet.
The regiment will provide the cartridges. No bullets will be used of course. This statement was made particularly to ease my wife who is concerned about the next bullet point…
A period correct Tavern will be present at this event. I will be sure to practice period correct consumption, hopefully not leading to a case of period correct ‘the consumption’.
The reenactments will include redoubts and two buildings that will be burnt down during the battle. The 11 year old in me just jumped with joy upon discovering this.
Shaved the beard. Sad faces from my wife and 11 year old daughter upon discovering my cleanhsaveness this morning. But worth it to see the confused look on my one and two year old boy’s faces.
Must keep out of view my sleeping bag and anything that is not period correct. Once the public is gone however, I plan on taking plenty of pics. Vids too.
Gloucester Virginia. 9 hr drive. Ouch.

Sleeping accommodations free of charge thanks to the 2nd North Carolina Regiment:

Myths of the Revolution: Rifles

26 Thursday Sep 2013

Posted by Twistification in Cowpens, Infantry, Musket, Spontoon, The battle of Cowpens, Weapons of the Revolution

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

Rifle

Reenactors aim. Real soldiers didn’t?

Allthingsliberty.com recently posted a compelling article dispelling a myth surrounding British infantry training and tactics. Did British soldiers aim their muskets? (spoiler alert! Yes. Yes they did. They practiced firing them too).

Revolutionary War myths pass down through generations of Americans and stubbornly clung to life despite the lack of historical evidence. None perhaps more so than myth that Americans won the war by using American long rifles, guerrilla tactics and training derived solely from hunting and wilderness living. These tactics, technologies and acquired skills had an impact to be sure, but they were not the primary factors that led to victory for the Americans.

What part did Rifles play in the American Victory?

The grooved bore of a rifle improved distance and accuracy to be sure, but this advantage was counterbalanced by an increased loading time. During any battle involving firearms, reloading time is essential to combat effectiveness.

Rifleman

Militiaman armed with rifles often found themselves desperately reloading while a disciplined line of bayonet wielding soldiers rapidly approached. The militiaman were forced to make a decision— flee, or face cold sharp steel.

Since the American long rifle was primarily a hunting weapon and not a military one, it was not built to fit a bayonet. This unfortunate reality placed the rifleman at a distinct disadvantage during melee combat. Few militiamen were outfitted with spontoon or other melee weapon that could match a charging infantryman holding what was essentially a long pole.

Added to this disadvantage was the somewhat brittle construction of the rifle, which had a tendency to break apart if its user was forced to wield it as a club.

As the Revolution progressed, rifles took a back seat to formally trained American Continentals and their standard issue French Charleville smoothbore musket or British Brown Bess.

1777 Charleville with bayonette

Yet like many myths, wipe away the grime and you will find a kernel of truth. The range and accuracy of the American long rifle gave the militiaman the ability to snipe British officers during battles. It could be argued that this practice of singling out officers (thought to be a war crime by the British) played a significant role in victories at the battles of Saratoga, Kings Mountain and other partisan battles in the South. In battles so closely contested, rifles could quite possibly tilt the scales.

Conclusion

The American Revolution was essentially an 18th century war. Victory during this period depended upon technology and tactics that had gradually evolved over multiple decades of military innovation. This fact cannot be understated as we look back at the war through the lens of our own period of rapid technological, societal and martial change. Rifles did not suddenly appear and tilt the scales toward the Americans.

Throughout the ages, achieving military victory requires taking the field from the enemy. Armies armed almost exclusively with rifles could not hope to hold a field of battle for long against infantry armed with muskets and bayonets. But why hold territory you say? Why not just exclusively use guerrilla tactics? Part two of ‘Myths of The Revolution’ will cover this topic.

Tap Loading

18 Saturday May 2013

Posted by Twistification in Infantry, Napoleon Bonaparte, Revolutionary War, Weapons of the Revolution

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Musket, Tap loading

“I have done this in competitions, where I was running out of time. Spitting makes the ball wet, which helps cut through the black powder build up in the barrel. I never spit down the barrel, but just had the ball in my mouth and spit it out. When you bit into the cartridge, I bit into the ball end, ripped it off, exposing the powder, and then spit the ball down the barrel.”
-Patrick O’Kelley

Tap loading is a technique that involves firing a musket without the use of a ramrod and wadding. Drop powder and ball down the barrel (smoothbore of course) then ‘tap’ the butt of the musket in the ground two or three times to set the ball before firing.

Spitting is involved too (see video clip and photo caption). I wonder how effective this can be at lubricating the barrel during a battle where dry mouth would be common for most men.

The danger of tap loading must increase as the musket fouls. When a ball is not seated at the bottom of the barrel, bad things can happen.

The result of this technique? Up to six shots in two minutes. Impressive. Accuracy is not bad either.

Patrick O’Kelly, seen above, notes that this technique was used during the revolution. An eye witness account:

In this action I found all manual exercise is but an ornament, and the only object of importance it can boast of was that of loading, firing, and charging with bayonets: as to the former, the soldiers should be instructed in the best and most expeditious method. Here I cannot help observing to you, whether it proceeded from an idea of self preservation, or natural instinct, but the soldiers greatly improved the mode they were taught in, as to expedition, for as soon as they had primed their pieces, and put the cartridge into the barrel, instead of ramming it down with their rods, they struck the butt end of their pieces upon the ground, and on bringing it to the present, fired it off.

Questions for an Infantry Man (Part 2)

24 Sunday Feb 2013

Posted by Twistification in Infantry, Revolutionary War, Strategy & Tactics

≈ 1 Comment

Part two of our Q&A session with Patrick O’Kelley.

How did infantry tactics evolve during the war?

The British realized, before the war started, that they would not be able to fight in America with their European tactics. They went from three ranks (one kneeling) to two ranks, so that they could move faster. I already mentioned that the British would move fast during a battle to close with the American army and push them away with the bayonet. Many battles were over with in less than half an hour due to this. Some battles there were only one or two shots fired, and then it was over.

The Americans went from an army that could not even deploy onto a battlefield in a short period of time, to one that was able to take on the British using the bayonet. The Americans went from an army that had a large amount of civilian rifles in their ranks, to one that primarily used muskets and bayonets.

What are the differences between continental soldiers and militia?

Continentals were the full time soldiers. They enlisted for two to three years and were usually issued uniforms. They were the “regular” army and bore the brunt of the fighting. Militia were part time soldiers… they were the farmers, shopkeepers and such. You didn’t want to use them all the time because the country needed farmers and shopkeepers and such. They were used for short periods of time and their main job was not on the battlefield, but were used to police the countryside. They would guard depots, bridges, and do patrols to subdue or intimidate Loyalists.

When South Carolina fell and was occupied by the British, the militia became the partisans… the guerillas… and hit the British in their supply lines. In the South, in battle, they were used to slow down the British army, so that the Continentals could finish off the British army.

What is an infantryman’s worse fear?

It doesn’t matter if it is a Legionnaire with Caesar, or a Ranger in Afghanistan, the worse fear is always the same. It is not dying, though that is huge concern. The biggest fear is to let down the men to your left and right or end up getting them killed for something you have done, or didn’t do.

What were the most renowned British and American regiments fielded during the Revolutionary war?

I could write several dozen pages on this question, since the war lasted eight years and covered the entire United States. There were hundreds of Regiments that were here, both from the Regular army and the militia or provincials.

However let’s narrow it down to the most renowned Infantry regiments fighting in the South, since you have already covered the artillery and cavalry from other interviews. On the British side there were the Guards who were considered the elite of the British army. No Guards regiment deployed over here, but volunteers came over and formed the Brigade of Guards, consisting of all three Guards Regiments. There was also the 71^st Highlander Regiment, and the 33^rd Regiment. All were renowned and when the Americans faced them, they knew they were going to put up a fight.

On the American side, in the South, there was Kirkwood’s Delaware’s. This was the survivors of the Delaware line that had been wiped out at Camden and was in every single major battle afterwards. Also on the American side you had the 1^st Maryland, who learned how to fight in the first battles of the war, honed that skill with von Steuben at Valley Forge, then used all their knowledge in the battles in the South.

The “Super Bowl” of the Revolutionary War was when the British Guards faced the 1^st Maryland at Guilford Courthouse. Both sides were equally deadly and experienced, and neither side budged. It finally took massive losses to make both sides back away from each other and call it a day.

In your opinion, what battles illustrated the most effective use of infantry movement and tactics?

Cowpens. The three line “defense in depth” worked so well that Greene used it in every single battle he fought afterwards. Guilford Courthouse, Hobkirk’s Hill, and Eutaw Springs all use this three line tactic. Add in the effective use of artillery and cavalry and the British would not be able to counter this tactic. The only thing that saved the British army was the British soldier, who, by the end of the war, was a highly motivated, well trained and experienced combat veteran.

Twistification thanks Patrick O’Kelley

Patrick is currently a Junior ROTC instructor in Sanford, North Carolina at Lee County High School. He is the author of the four volume series, “Nothing but Blood and Slaughter, the Revolutionary War in the Carolinas” and “Unwaried Patience and Fortitude, Francis Marion’s Orderly Book”.

Questions for a Infantry Man (Part 1)

18 Monday Feb 2013

Posted by Twistification in Cowpens, Infantry, Strategy & Tactics, Weapons of the Revolution

≈ 1 Comment

Patrick O’Kelley served 20 years in the military, retiring with the rank of Sergeant First Class. He was with the 82nd Airborne Division – the 3rd Ranger Battalion – F Company, 51st Long Range Surveillance Unit – 5th Special Forces Group and the 3rd Special Forces Group.

A sniper in the 82nd Airborne, O’Kelley served during the invasion of Grenada in 1983 and with the 5th Special Forces Group during Desert Storm in 1991.

Patrick has been reenacting the Revolutionary War since 1979 and has been in the same unit, the 2nd North Carolina Regiment, since that time.

I can’t imagine a more qualified person to answer a few humble questions from a Revolutionary War enthusiast. Thanks to Mr. O’Kelley for taking the time to sit down with Twistification!

What are some of the common troop types fielded by the Americans and British during the Revolution?

I’m assuming you mean what types of units were in the war. The British army was not the “best army in the world” during the American Revolution, though many like to describe it as such. However the British army was extremely adaptive and would change tactics, weapons and uniforms to fit the war they were in. They remind me of the United States Army today. A typical British Regiment consisted of several Regular Infantry Companies, one Light Infantry Company and one Grenadier Company.

In theory the Lights would move out in front of the main body and act as skirmishers, making the enemy deploy. The Grenadiers were the “heavies” and were used as the assault force or the anchor. The Regular companies would do the brunt work of the attack.

However theory went out the window when they fought in America. British tactics were made for fighting in Europe, with wide open fields where artillery and cavalry could be used to their most effective. America was not Europe and consisted of one giant forest stretching from Canada to Florida. Not a lot of open fields and most battles happened on and around roads, since that was the only clear spot on the map. So when the British changed their tactics they basically made everyone Light Infantry. The formations spread out in “open order” (greater distances between men) and the uniforms were modified for fast movement, such as round hats or shorter jackets. The Light Infantry companies and the Grenadier companies banded together into Light Infantry and Grenadier brigades.

The American army started out with nothing. No uniforms, no weapon factories, no navy, and not a lot of ammunition. In the beginning no two units had the same drill and trying to get soldiers from one region to cooperate with those from another region seemed an impossible task. Washington had to organize this ugly mob into some sort of a fighting force, all the while begging Congress to give him the basics and trying to appease dozens of officers who thought they should be in charge.

And when these two forces faced off, how did it go?

In the beginning the American army could not take on the British, so they relied on a defensive strategy. Bunker Hill worked tactically, so every battle seemed to be a version of that. When Washington was able to defeat the Hessians at Trenton, he relied on this tactic to beat the British. However the British are not the Hessians and when Washington tried to do a “Trenton” at Germantown, it cost him.

At Bunker Hill the British learned a deadly lesson. If the Americans were entrenched, they would put up a vicious fight. The Americans could also shoot. This was because a large part of the American army on that field had rifles, a weapon that the British were not used to in a military battle. The rifle was a civilian weapon, but the American army was a civilian army. The British soon learned that if you could close with the Americans, fast, they could not take on the British soldier armed with a bayonet and usually would retreat or run away in panic.

What saved the American army was von Steuben. He showed them how to fight like the Prussian army, using columns to move into battle instead of Indian file, and he was able to get all working together on the same drill. Add to that the influx of French arms and bayonets, and the “new” American army was finally able to take on the British at Monmouth using their own methods.

The American army was honed to their most effective when the war came to the South. Greene used Morgan’s strategy of a “defense in depth” of not one line, but a series of lines that the British army had to break through. Each line made the British lose men, ammunition and strength. It would be like playing a football game with three offensive lines guarding the quarterback and not just one. Though Greene didn’t trust the militia, he was able to use them to their best potential as a skirmish line to slow down the British before engaging the main line of Continentals.

To be continued…