Watched The Patriot on Tv last night…again!
Got to wondering what the effective range of the muskets and pistols that were used during the colonials dastardly uprising;) was.
'Cos they seemed to be hitting targets from a mighty long way off.
And another thing, was there anything more stupid than a bunch of guys walking in step towards another bunch of guys waiting to shoot them
Those are actually related questions. The effective accuracy range of musketry was pretty pitiful – Wikipedia says 50-70 yards. So military doctrine at the time was that you made up for lack of accuracy by volume of fire. That meant multiple lines of musketeers firing a broadside and then reloading while the next line fired. Another advantage of being in a line was that the firing of so many black powder weapons essentially generated a smoke screen (so no one could actually see what they were shooting at). Once weapons were discharged, the lines often charged using bayonets – another reason not to be in a group.
Rifled barrels were in existence at the time of the revolutionary war, and were accurate out to maybe 10 times the distance of a musket, but they were rare, expensive, and slow to reload. So maybe they had rifled weapons in the Patriout, but it was far more likely to be a case of the Hollywood Good-Guys-Don’t-Miss effect.
You were actually safer in formation than otherwise on the battlefield. Since accuracy was pitiful and marksmanship nearly non-existent, mass formations firing in volley were the order of the day.
When first under fire an’ you’re wishful to duck,
Don’t look nor take ‘eed at the man that is struck,
Be thankful you’re livin’, and trust to your luck
And march to your front like a soldier.
Front, front, front like a soldier . . .
Don’t ever look to a movie for historical information. Never mind a movie starring Mel Gibson.
Fire arms of the time were extremely inaccurate and slow to load. Infantry man carried a smooth bore musket usually topped with a bayonet. The rifle was used during the 18th century but due to it’s high cost, even slower loading time and need for cleaning after every shot, it was only employed by sharpshooters and as hunting weapons.
On the battle field of the time you had to worry about:
The enemy infantry shooting at you, and if nearby, possibly charging for a melee.
Calvary which was sometimes armed with pistols, lance, and sword.
Artillery.
Hopefully you can see now why they fought the way they fought. the only way you’re going to hit anything is by concentrated, dense fire. And the only way to not get mowed down by calvary or shot/stabbed to pieces by other infantry was to present numbers and a tight formation.
You couldn’t have small squads of infantry men running and dodging about the battlefield because they would be unable to put enough fire on a single target to cause any damage, and because organized enemy infantry and cavalry would cut them to pieces.
Things changed once rifles became cheaper/easier to load on the battlefield. A lesson that took a while to learn and cost a lot of lives.
A couple of corrections. I meant “another reason to be in a group”.
And I used the term “broadside” – “volley” would have been more accurate.
Correct me if I’m wrong, I was always lead to believe that the American Revolutionary Militia were highly skilled marksmen due to their having to hunt for a lot of their meat before they became “soldiers” sort of
Muskets weren’t used like modern rifles. In fact, trying to use them a bit like modern rifles got George Washington into a lot of trouble. One of the things George did at Valley Forge (besides starve) was he got his men properly trained in bayonet fighting. Back in those days, bayonets accounted for roughly a third of all battlefield casualties, so bayonet fighting was very significant. Bayonets weren’t the last ditch weapons that they are today. Once properly trained, in bayonets, military discipline, and other fighting techniques, George’s men could finally go toe to toe with the British.
In movies, you mostly see muskets used a lot like modern rifles. Effective use of military muskets meant using your soldiers like pikesmen. You lined up and charged. A massive group of guys charging with big long pointy things ends up being pretty darn effective in battle. They didn’t so much walk in step (which as the OP pointed out is a bit stupid), but rather they moved as a large group, and charged as a large group. This was so effective that before Valley Forge George Washington’s men tended to scatter and run the other way when the British got to the “charge them with the pointy things” stage of the battle.
Rifles were around back then, but armies for the most part used smooth bore muskets. The black powder they used would quickly foul the barrel. A round for a rifle needed to fit tightly in the barrel. If it didn’t fit tightly, you wouldn’t get any benefit from the rifling. After a few shots, the black powder would start fouling the barrel, making the tight fitting rifle round much more difficult to load. This dramatically slowed down your soldier’s rate of fire. The black powder also quickly obscured the battlefield, so that after a few shots the increased range of the rifle didn’t really buy you much. Military commanders of the time therefore favored the smooth bore musket, since its faster rate of fire was of much greater significance than the rifle’s longer range. Rifles did get some use by sharpshooters, but they weren’t used by regular troops.
The thing about a smooth bore musket is that it always fires curve balls. The loose fitting round is going to randomly strike the side of the barrel, which is going to make it spin in some random direction. The ball will go mostly straight for about 50 yards or so. After that, it’s going to curve, and you don’t know which way it’s going. It was commonly said back then that you could stand 200 yards away from a musketeer and not fear getting shot by him.
Movie muskets are always incredibly accurate at a distance, as long as the hero is the one making the shot. Heh. If you’ve got a smooth bore musket, you aren’t going to be able to hit the broad side of a barn past a hundred yards, no matter how good you are. A pistol is going to be even worse, due to its short barrel.
Another thing they never show in movies is the horrible misfire rate of flintlock muskets. Flintlocks misfire about one in every four or five shots. Movie flintlocks fire the first time, every time.
Watch this video, and pay attention to the last shot. It’s a misfire. The guy pulls the trigger, and click. He pulls back the musket, and then, when he’s not quite expecting it, it fires.
In the 1840’s, they invented the “minie ball”, which isn’t a ball at all. It’s a conical bullet with a hollow skirt. It’s smaller than the barrel, so you can load it even when the barrel is fouled. The skirt expands when the minie ball is fired, so it makes a nice tight fit in the barrel, increasing the power (very little blow-by) and imparting a good spin onto the round from the rifling. After the 1840’s, rifled muskets became the standard.
Here’s a pic of a minie ball:
A civil war musket using a minie ball is accurate to within a couple of inches at a hundred yards, and can hit a man sized target up to 400 yards away. Civil war muskets also use percussion locks instead of flint locks. Percussion caps reduced the misfire rate from about one in four to about one in a thousand.
I own and shoot an 1853 Enfield rifle-musket (it’s a reproduction, I wouldn’t shoot a rifle that was really 150 years old), so this is obviously a favorite subject of mine. Feel free to ask any musket related question and I’ll do my best to answer.
This is where I wonder what would happen if old technologies had remained in use instead of being replaced. Firearms made the Welsh longbow obsolete but until rifling, the longbow had the range, the accuracy and the speed over any hand-held firearm. On the other hand, it needed a big man to draw it.
And years of training. Once Maurice of Nassau put out his book of maneuvers, mass musket training of the plebes could be done.
chowder, note that in addition to the excellent points made by engineer_comp_geek, the Americans didn’t start winning until Lafayette and von Steuben started training the troops in Continental-style warfare.
Trust the bloody French and Germans, anything to put one over on dear old Blighty
Again in the movie, a number of scenes showed the ::ahem:: rebels sneakily hiding in woods, behind walls and even standing in water before ambushing the brave Redcoats.
Wasn’t this type of warfare considered most unsporting old chap, just not cricket really m’dear
There is of course the myth that American revolutionaries defeated the British redcoats by using the more modern tactics of aimed individual fire, firing from cover*, etc. And then the British would whine about how the Americans didn’t fight fair because they were dumb hidebound traditionalists who couldn’t admit to the superiority of their enemy’s tactical doctrine. While most of this is just hogwash, it does remain part of the popular lore about the Revolutionary War. Certainly there was some utility in these as harassing tactics, but they didn’t win pitched battles for reasons already explained. Not until the tail end of the American Civil War with the advent of the Henry lever action repeating rifle was individual firepower enough to make such tactics worthwhile on real battlefields.
Until that time, standing in neat rows and marching in step towards the enemy and maintaining discipline in the face of enemy fire was more likely to keep you alive in battle than alternatives. It wasn’t stupid at all. If you’re not in tight formation you don’t have the firepower to hurt anything, and you don’t have the ability to quickly form an infantry square to prevent being cut to ribbons by enemy cavalry.
*Note that cover was certainly used in this period, but not individual cover. You’d line your entire unit up behind a stone wall or on the reverse slope of a hill to protect against artillery fire. But you wouldn’t have individuals standing behind trees to reload and stepping out to fire.
I’m reading about the Battle of Saratoga, and it confirms what others have said. Americans weren’t any better shots than the British and the “firing from cover” was primarily because they had cover, whereas the British at Freeman’s Farm did not. IIRC, tactics then meant you tried to get within 100 yards of the enemy before giving the order to fire, and that the British skill in bayonets was the main reason they were successful in other wars.
Breed’s Hill tells you this is true.
They were ambushing supply columns and things like that in those scenes - lightly armed, barely mobile, and unprepared enemies. Doing the same thing against an infantry regiment might let you get the first shot in, but you’d pay dearly afterwards.
Yeah, if you were out in the open, those calvarymen could freakin crucify you!
Generally they’d just spit you on their lances or swords. Crucifixion is time-consuming and takes work, clearly a job for infantry. 
Actually this was one of the keys to Napoleons success. He had nothing but contempt for musket fire (on behalf of his troops of course ), he realized that in most cases a well disciplined charge would overwhelm them defending ranks before the attack was broken by musket fire (particular if the attacking troops were arranged in a thin column and the defenders were spread in a broad line).
Of course as firearms technology improved over the next 100 years that was no longer the case (see Cold Harbor, Somme, etc).
James Burke does a fascinating recap of military developments in an episode of Connections. He follows the development of the pike, musket, bayonet, organized ranks, and the rise of mass warfare. Maurice of Nassau, Gustavus Adolphus and Napoleon all get a mention. The sequence culminates with Bonny’s near defeat at Marengo, which leads Burke off on food preservation and the like.
I do own and shoot a 150 year old civil war carbine. It is a breach loader and a pleasure to shoot. It is very accurate, however one must understand the design of the sighting system. I at first thought there was something wrong with how high it shot until very recently I learned that the aim point for an enemy 30-50 yards away was the belt buckle, then further out sighted on the upper body and far off targets (beyond 100 yds) the head.
The hollow based ball(bullet) is IMO wrongfully named. Captain Claude Minie improved upon an earlier design of the french that used a breach with a wedged pin. Captain Minie removed the wedge from the rifle breach and put it in the base of the same bullet(ball) and patented it. They thought it nessesary to pound the ball into a wedge to seat it tight to the riflings. This ball was adopted here during the civil was but the wedge was omitted. The expanding gas would expand the ball. This was sometimes reffered to as an Americanized Minie Ball, However it is the very same bullet designed by Captain Norton much earlier.