Brown Bess vs Charleville Musket

[Ash]

I agree about the needless wars (but these were not started by Generals but by kings and emperors). And, the failing to enter into decisive battle is why these little wars were so popular and so easy to do. They also didn't result in great casualties, either. The grizzly wars of attrition of the Medieval Europe were forgotten and the Napoleonic wars has not yet happened. It was a happy time of happy wars that Napoleon put an end to. Following him, the wars only became bloodier. The War Between the States, The Crimean the Franco-Prussian War, the Russo-Japanese War, WWI, and then WWII reminded us all what war was and what it was really about. In any case, though, the Generals who led the battles, as well as the other officers and enlisted men who carried out their orders and engaged in battle, while many good and bad, were as a general every bit as competent then as now.

Ash

 

[Diomed]

Neither is true. There is nothing about the Brown Bess that makes it faster to reload than the Charleville. Nor is there an appreciable difference in craftsmanship between the two.

The ball used was typically more generous in terms of windage in the barrel, thus making it easier to load with more fouling. But that's an ammunition advantage, not a firearm one, of course. Greater speed came from better training.

We'll have to disagree on craftsmanship. The several Besses I have have completely biased me.

The last battle of the American Revolution was 1781 (Yorktown), and the American Army adopted its copy of the Charleville in 1795 -- so 1809 was a bit late for any fixes.

I see nothing saying this is a discussion about the Revolution only. 1809 was well within the service life of the arm, as it was superseded only during Victoria's reign.

The service life - about a hundred years - would seem to imply that the basic design was quite good.

The barrel bands are a combat advantage -- they keep the barrel from separating from the stock in hand-to-hand fighting.

I can't say I've ever heard of this occuring. Do you have a reference?

The article I read is about 35 years old, but it said the British has 50K Fergusons stored in their arsenal in Boston and that they were mostly un-issued. I'll have to find the article and I know I have it around here somewhere. However, there's also the chance that somebody wound up with faulty info and passed it on. But I don't doubt that about some Ferguson rifles being present at King's Mountain because Major Patrick Ferguson (British Army) was killed at King's Mountain.

Fifty thousand? If they'd had that many they probably would have won the war. The actual number was very small, less than five hundred, probably less than two hundred. I can't find a total in the book I have. They were nice, but had a tendency to crack at the lock. No one knows for sure if any of his rifles were at King's Mountain, since his company had been disbanded after Brandywine (where he got badly wounded and lost his arm).

I was just watching "World's Deadliest Snipers" on the History Channel last night- they talked about the Brits issueing Baker rifles (95th Rifles, IIRC, with elements of the 95th attached to most units) during the Napoleonic wars with a good rate of success.

The 95th was normally deployed in battalion strength - the seperate units, companies, were usually from the 5/60th (the "Royal American Rifles"). Excellent troops with an excellent rifle. The Baker is very well-balanced, gorgeously elegant. I love them.

The vast expendatures of life came on the Western and Eastern fronts and at Gettysburg, not Waterloo.

Nitpick - Waterloo was the bloodiest battle Europe had ever seen until WWI. It engendered an aversion to war that lasted a generation.

 

[Ash]

"Nitpick - Waterloo was the bloodiest battle Europe had ever seen until WWI. It engendered an aversion to war that lasted a generation."

Nitpick nitpick, the Crimean and Franco-Prussian wars, while more than 20 years after Waterloo, established some fine bloody battles in Europe following Waterloo and were, in of themselves, fine bloody wars.

In any case, folks tend to project WWI and the War Between the States back onto the Napoleonic wars. An interesting aside, Napoleon knew he had very little chance to win in Belgium, he was pretty fatalistic about the whole affair, knowing that in any case, he had to strike quickly or be guaranteed an ultimate loss against European powers that were frankly tired of his continuing to breath air.

Ash

 

[mustanger98]

Fifty thousand? If they'd had that many they probably would have won the war. The actual number was very small, less than five hundred, probably less than two hundred. I can't find a total in the book I have. They were nice, but had a tendency to crack at the lock. No one knows for sure if any of his rifles were at King's Mountain, since his company had been disbanded after Brandywine (where he got badly wounded and lost his arm).

Fifty thousand was the number I recall, but you may be right. One comment in the article was it was a good thing the Brits didn't issue Ferguson rifles or the Americans would have surely been beaten on rate of fire alone. That tendancy to crack at the lock- was that the lock itself or the stock at that area? My reading says it was fast to load by dropping a ball in then pouring black powder in behind it before screwing the breach shut (by the triggerguard, for those who don't know). The article said this screw breach had the advantage of shearing off excess powder. However, it just occured to me that because loose powder was poured in behind the ball (as opposed to the ball being rammed down on top of the charge), the black powder charge would not be fully compressed and to my knowledge this could lead to inconsistent (sometimes higher) pressures if not something like the instances I've read of BP cartridge rifles exploding because of unfilled space in the case.

The 95th was normally deployed in battalion strength - the seperate units, companies, were usually from the 5/60th (the "Royal American Rifles"). Excellent troops with an excellent rifle. The Baker is very well-balanced, gorgeously elegant. I love them.

I think that program must have glossed over which unit did what in this instance. The Baker... for size, it reminds me of my Hawken, but for appearance, I kinda think of it like the difference between a Model 70 and a '03A3 and I like both.

 

[Diomed]

Nitpick nitpick, the Crimean and Franco-Prussian wars, while more than 20 years after Waterloo, established some fine bloody battles in Europe following Waterloo and were, in of themselves, fine bloody wars.

Perhaps, but they did not imprint themselves upon the general consciousness of Europe as being bloodbaths of extraordinary scale. After looking about a bit, the Crimea seems to have been not particularly noteworthy for battle losses, while the Franco-Prussian was was showing signs of industrial slaughter, but still not quite up to Waterloo on a per-engagement basis.

An interesting aside, Napoleon knew he had very little chance to win in Belgium, he was pretty fatalistic about the whole affair, knowing that in any case, he had to strike quickly or be guaranteed an ultimate loss against European powers that were frankly tired of his continuing to breath air.

By that point Boney was either indifferent or incompetent. He made a good show in the 1813-14 campaigns, but he hardly put the effort into the Hundred Days. Which is just as well, he needed to be dealt with permanently anyway.

That tendancy to crack at the lock- was that the lock itself or the stock at that area?

The stock. The stock is weakest in that area by default, on account of all the wood taken out for the barrel and the lock. The Fuguson went too far, the breechplug was too much. I think all (maybe all but one) of the surviving examples, and there are perhaps five, have repaired cracks there. There are also reports of repairs there during issue, I think seven at once in one instance.

The article said this screw breach had the advantage of shearing off excess powder. However, it just occured to me that because loose powder was poured in behind the ball (as opposed to the ball being rammed down on top of the charge), the black powder charge would not be fully compressed and to my knowledge this could lead to inconsistent (sometimes higher) pressures if not something like the instances I've read of BP cartridge rifles exploding because of unfilled space in the case.

A good point. I think cartridges were normally used, which would provide a consistent load, but it's possible they used horns. A measure would still be used, but that's a little iffier than a pre-wrapped cartridge.

I don't recall reading of any breech failures, though I may have missed it. Seems like it was a pretty strong mechanism. As an aside, it actually functioned better in wet weather than dry! Definitely an unusual flintlock.

 

[Coronach]

Then how come the Brits lost? Not all American units fought the way they did as I've mentioned above.

It is worth noting that the Brits were never really in danger of losing, unless they just decided to give up and go home, until after the winter at Valley Forge, where the Continental Army was able to drill and learned to fight in "proper fashion". Until then, the Americans' engagements were generally minor skirmishes, which they often won, interspersed with the occasional major battle, which they often lost (or at best fought long enough to retreat in good order).

Monmouth was a sort of wake-up call for the British. It indicated that the Americans were not only capable of conducting a guerrilla war (which can only succeed if the harassed decides to give in to the harasser), but were also capable of standing toe to toe and giving as good as they got in the field.

We oversimplify when we say that "the Brits lined up like fools and got mowed down by the colonists", because in the end we were lined up just like them. They did not lose because they failed to adopt our tactics, they lost because we adopted theirs, and kicked their arses at their own game.

Mike

 

[hillbilly]

Exactly....the Contintental Army was a pathetic joke until Von Stueben whipped them into shape in Valley Forge.

American riflemen were valuable, but never good as main frontline battle troops precisely because their rifles were slow to reload compared to the Brown Bess, and because rifles typically had no contingency to mount bayonets.

So the riflemen could get off a volley, maybe two, while receiving four or five volleys, and then find themselves at the point of a Redcoat bayonet charge....which really, really sucked a lot.

How about the St. Etienne 1715 musket? How would it compare?

hillbilly

 

[Vern Humphrey]

So the riflemen could get off a volley, maybe two, while receiving four or five volleys, and then find themselves at the point of a Redcoat bayonet charge....which really, really sucked a lot.

But riflemen were not used that way. Typically, they fought at long range, often interspersed with infantry of the line, and ran before enemy infantry could close.

The classic rifleman's battle was Cowpens, where the riflemen were asked to fire two shots and run. Infantry of the line backed them up, lying hidden in the grass. When the riflemen had done their damage and ran, the British broke ranks to charge them -- and suddenly found themselves facing a solid line of Continentals.

 

[Terrierman]

Not being much of a student of the old wars I don't have anything of value to offer to this discussion, other than my expression of gratitude for the information presented in this thread. Very interesting fellows, very interesting indeed. Thank you all for sharing your knowledge. I will mention that the book "Rifleman Harris" will give anyone who reads it a perspective on what it was like to be in the English Army fighing across Southern Europe in the early 1800's. Suffice to say it was not an easy life.