[4v50 Gary]

I'm wrestling with a concept of how to analyze the effectiveness of the Revolutionary War era American Rifleman.

LaCrosse points out in Frontier Riflemen that 63% of most actions involving patriot riflemen were victories, 42% defeats and 16% inconclusive. Determining effectiveness solely on the basis of victories versus defeats is unsatisfactory since that analysis ignores that battles are won more by strategy than by marksmanship alone. Exceptions exists like Vincennes or Fort Watson but neither involved large numbers.

Thoughts?

[Steve499]

Given the relative rarity of rifles among the patriot forces overall, I would think the biggest impact they had was likely in lowering morale in the British forces, particularly the officer corps. I'm no historian, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the American Revolution was one of, if not THE first time the British army ever faced any of the challenges which accompany the opposition of riflemen. You can bet that one officer being hit at what, for the day, was an impossible range got a lot of notice from the rest and the story was widely told long after that particular engagement ended. Also, rifle armed soldiers were not generally the ones who stood in ranks and fought it out in the accepted style. The concept that the rebels were breaking all the rules had to have been quite prevalent.

How one can quantify the morale factor from this late perspective I have no idea. I do recall reading one account in your bedtime stories about the battle of New Orleans and the performance of one rifleman, recorded by a British officer, who seemed pretty intimidated by the feeling of personal vulnerability that one rifleman created in him.

Steve

[sundance44s]

I watched something about this the other day on the History TV . It seems the Brits didn`t know how , to fight against an enemy that could pick off their officers at ranges of 300 yards ..And the thought of an officer as being a target was just more than they could stand ...seems we Invented the art of snipeing .

[Jim K]

I agree that the impact of the American riflemen was more in the area of morale than actual fighting. I have little doubt that the British would have been able, ultimately, to defeat the rebels if the Americans had not been forced, by Washington, Lafayette, Von Steuben, et al., to become a regular disciplined army, armed with muskets and fighting in the regular formations of the day. Nor can the help of the French be discounted; that aid was critical and victory would probably not have been possible without it.

The idea that "the rifle won the revolution" is a myth on a par with "the .45 automatic won World War II."

Jim

[Jorg]

I'm more confused by the stats than anything. I've heard of the rifleman being a force multiplier, but that works out to 121%.

[Loyalist Dave]

Well the proper role of the riflemen was as light troops scouting or doing what would later be called reconnaissance as well as screening the flanks of the army as it moved. One could argue that information from riflemen provided to Washington allowed Washington to maneuver away from the British in darkness, to preserve his army to continue to fight. Thus, the British defeated Washington the vast majority of times, yet never got him into a position to crush his force, and the war continued. Later, such scouting tasks were taken up by mounted cavalry.

In actual battle, riflemen were often best employed in what today is the modern role of the sniper, engaging enemy officers, or attacking crew-served weapons like artillery.

When rifle units defended alone, as in Ft. Tryon and Ft. Washington, the results were desasterous. Yet when they attacked over very rough terrain, in open order vs. an enemy without rifles or artillery, the results were devastating, as in King's Mountain. (Yes Ferguson was at King's Mountain, but historians suspect that his troops there with him had few if any of his famous breech loading rifles)

The British imported thousands of German riflemen to counter the American threat, so real or percieved, the American riflemen had an impact on the strategy and tactics of their enemy. During the Napoleonic Wars, the Brits formed their own rifle units, and the manual written for those units cited lessons learned (the hard way) from the American War.

LD