Motif of 18th Century English Military Ineptitude

[roo_ster]

Tired of it.

Just finished watching Last of the Mohicans.  The motif was all over that flick, despite the Brits triumphing in the French & Indian War. 

Frankly, that motif is in almost every movie made for the last 40 years that is set in the 18th century. 

I'd like to know WTH are they thinking?

The Limeys managed to control the seas and controlled more land area than all save maybe the Mongol barbarians, and managed to keep a grip on it for a good, long while.  You don't do that with an inept military service.

From my reading, Brit regular infantry were some of the best, a distinction they shared with or wrested from the Spanish, who had had the best infantry for a couple hundred years.

In LotM, as in most motif-laden movies, the Brit infantry is lined up and primarily relies on musket fire while they are cut down and eventually are overrun in a melee.  The reality was that what separated the Brit regular from the rest was their eagerness to cut short the musketry and get with the bayonet work, the mark of a true professional soldier.

That was demonstrated many times during the American Revolution, where militia would do alright with volley fire, but could not stand a bayonet charge.

Anyways, I had to get that off my chest before bed.

[Boomhauer]

The image of the American militiamen or riflemen hiding behind the trees and mowing down the foolish British marching out in the open is largely a myth.

You think you're tired of it? I have to deal with it every day when I'm at work when visitors come in and are enamored with this myth of British incompetence and American superiority. Too much watching movies like The Patriot and believing their grade school teachers.

[Stand_watie]

      Without question, the best, most professional army that stepped into the field in it's day.

[seeker_two]

The main strengths of the British military were discipline in combat, non-firearm fighting skills (bayonet, sword, hand-to-hand, etc.), and efficient logistics. Very few of their opponents even had one of these strengths....none had all three.

I've always thought the Sharpe's Rifles series showed the British military in its most positive light....

...or, as Gilbert and Sullivan stated....

A British tar is a soaring soul
As free as a mountain bird
His energetic fist should be ready to resist
A dictatorial word
His nose should pant and his lip should curl
His cheeks should flame and his brow should furl
His bosom should heave and his heart should glow
And his fist be ever ready for a knock-down blow

His eyes should flash with an inborn fire
His brow with scorn be wrung
He never should bow down to a domineering frown
Or the tang of a tyrant tongue
His foot should stamp and his throat should growl
His hair should curl and his face should scowl
His eyes should flash and his breast protrude
And this should be his customary attitude

[Jocassee]

The image of the American militiamen or riflemen hiding behind the trees and mowing down the foolish British marching out in the open is largely a myth.

You think you're tired of it? I have to deal with it every day when I'm at work when visitors come in and are enamored with this myth of British incompetence and American superiority. Too much watching movies like The Patriot and believing their grade school teachers.

Which part of The Patriot, would you say, is most inaccurate? Several key events in the movie--the raiding of upcountry farms, cavalry battles, etc are accurate to my knowledge. They fudged the "Swamp Fox" bit a little, (in fact the crescent symbol did not appear in the movie, something I would have liked) but the Guilford Courthouse/Cowpens scene was a regular standup battle, like the late battles in SC were as I understand.

In hindsight the "aim small, miss small" scene was a little implausible.

[MechAg94]

I think I know what you mean from Last of the Mohicans.  They make it look like none of the regular troops knew how to use a bayonet or stand up to ambushes.  A hatchet is obviously a far superior weapon than a musket with bayonet.

Then again, movies in general almost always fail to show "group fighting" adequately.  All battles immediately break down into melees where everyone just charges in and fights to the death.  No one stands together or stays in formation and the hero always wades in and kills 87 men single handed.   

[K Frame]

What you're describing is the general "Braddock's Campaign" mindset that seems to have been applied as the standard for all British actions on the North American continent.

If there is one thing that the British really couldn't deal with effectively at the time it was the kind of irregular combat that resulted in Braddock's command being soundly defeated.

That was, by far, Britain's worst defeat of the French and Indian War and it was extremely shocking.

Contemporary accounts indicate that the British officers, instead of disbursing the men off the narrow road that they had been cutting through the forest, actually tried to form fighting lines in contemporary fashion.

The French and their indian allies, on the other hand, were fighting in small, disbursed groups on both sides of the road. The results were predictable. It's very difficult to fight an effective battle of any kind when you're catching fire from three sides (front, back, and straight down the road you're cutting).

In the strictest sense, the British troops at the battle very likely didn't know how to deal with this kind of fight in such close quarters. Braddock had very little experience on the frontier at that time (but had, apparently, countered at least one similar situation using standard European tactics) and, if I'm not mistaken, the troops he had with him were relatively recently arrived from Britain for service in the colonies, they were not the "irregulars" that the British had been employing in small numbers in colonial clashes for the previous 50 or so years, and they had no experience in dealing with non-traditional forces.
 

[Monkeyleg]

Mind if I ask a stupid question?

Why was the lining soldiers up the preferred method of battle? It just seems like a firing line. Wouldn't breaking the troops down into smaller, dispersed units have been more effective?

[AJ Dual]

Mind if I ask a stupid question?

Why was the lining soldiers up the preferred method of battle? It just seems like a firing line. Wouldn't breaking the troops down into smaller, dispersed units have been more effective?

The closest example I can think of is that in open ground, with professional army vs. professional army, troops were thought of in the way we may think of armor columns and units today..

The large scale strategic maps of today with unit boxes and markers representing divisions etc. was scaled down in mentality to lines and formations of individual foot soldiers.

A lot of it was worldwide institutional idiocy.

A lot of it was also pragmatic. We have to consider an era with single-shot weapons, bladed/melee weapons stil counted for a great number of battlefield casualties, and no motorized logistical train, or any industrial logistical base backing them up. There were also no communications better than line of sight semaphore. No telegraph, no telephone, no radio. Everything else was horse messenger/runner. So everyone had to be within audible command range for large units of men.

So a lot of those things like standing in ranks, and treating men like disposable cogs in formations made sense. In those days if an entire nation or side tried to fight a war with small unit movment tactics that the entire world has used since WWII, you'd quickly overstep your logistical chain, and command/control would dissolve almost instantly.

In limited circumstances small unit raiders/harrassers/snipers could cut a traditional formation to ribbons. But if you tried to fight an entire war that way, you'd outstrip your supply lines, and communication lines, or your ability to coordinate. So the one side that tried all small unit concealment/cover/manuver tactics would dissolve into a starving mob, while the other side still had an army.

The absolute meat grinder of WWI was where everything changed. Radio, telephone, telegraph, and aircraft, modern artillery, and armor came into play, and fixed formation and trench paradigim of warfare finaly died. (The American Civil War was a hint of things to come, but not enough to change the paradigim)

[K Frame]

Mind if I ask a stupid question?

Why was the lining soldiers up the preferred method of battle? It just seems like a firing line. Wouldn't breaking the troops down into smaller, dispersed units have been more effective?

The short range and innacurate nature of muskets.

Massed fire from well disciplined units working together was the best way to get hits, and at that the British really excelled.

The best one could hope for with a musket of that period was one hit out of three or four on a man sized target at 80 yards. Much past that and it was a crap shoot.

In that kind if situation, a single man firing a musket just won't have any noticable effect. Even the small irregular units that the British fielded fought not as individuals, but small cohesive units maintaining volly fire.

The rifle allowed a single man to be effective at longer ranges, but the common muzzleloading rifle was notoriously slow to load and required considerable training.

Patrick Ferguson, inventor of the Ferguson rifle, made what was probably the first truly successful rapid loading rifle, but those over him in command couldn't conceive of how to use his unit other than in traditional military fashion. Many commanders were openly hostile to him and his rifle. When he was wounded in the arm and sent back to England to recuperate, those in command over him removed the rifles from service and returned his unit to the ranks with muskets.

[Jocassee]

Patrick Ferguson, inventor of the Ferguson rifle, made what was probably the first truly successful rapid loading rifle, but those over him in command couldn't conceive of how to use his unit other than in traditional military fashion. Many commanders were openly hostile to him and his rifle. When he was wounded in the arm and sent back to England to recuperate, those in command over him removed the rifles from service and returned his unit to the ranks with muskets.

FWIW, Ferguson and his Tories were killed by American riflemen at King's Mountain. Some Carolinians and some Tennesseeans (Over-mountain men) fought there.

[Boomhauer]

Mind if I ask a stupid question?

Why was the lining soldiers up the preferred method of battle? It just seems like a firing line. Wouldn't breaking the troops down into smaller, dispersed units have been more effective?

Muskets suck ass as far as accuracy. Massed fire gets as much lead in the air concentrated in a general direction. The objective is to fire as many rounds as possible within the effective range of the musket and move in to cut down the survivors with bayonet. The British excelled at this.

The Short Land Pattern Musket (or Brown Bess) didn't even have sights. It had a bayonet lug. They didn't bother aiming, just shoulder it an point it at the enemy.

A musket could fire 3-4 shots per minute compared to the much slower rate of fire of the rifle. Rifles were also custom, expensive affairs that used all manner of components. They fouled quickly, and had no provisions for a bayonet. Once enemy forces located a rifleman and closed the distance, his ass was grass. Rifle balls were a unique caliber to the rifle and were made with a mold matched to the rifle, versus the musket's standardized caliber. Rifles were also much more fragile, so in hand to hand combat, the stocks would break.

Riflemen who showed up to fight were often poorly utilized by commanders who did not understand the potential.

Which part of The Patriot, would you say, is most inaccurate? Several key events in the movie--the raiding of upcountry farms, cavalry battles, etc are accurate to my knowledge. They fudged the "Swamp Fox" bit a little, (in fact the crescent symbol did not appear in the movie, something I would have liked) but the Guilford Courthouse/Cowpens scene was a regular standup battle, like the late battles in SC were as I understand.

In hindsight the "aim small, miss small" scene was a little implausible.

Some of it was accurate, but the parts I get to hear the most about are at the beginning of the movie where they ambushed the column. Also, the burning of the church and the swamp fox scene. It's really stylized.

I haven't scene it in several years, so I'll have to go back through it and give you a more detailed analysis. Actually, that would make for a great talk...

[brimic]

Turn off LotM (or any other Kevin Costner crap) and watch Zulu.

(Yeah I know its set 100-some years later, the technology changed a bit, but the tactics/discipline were similar.)

[AJ Dual]

Turn off LotM (or any other Kevin Costner crap) and watch Zulu.

(Yeah I know its set 100-some years later, the technology changed a bit, but the tactics/discipline were similar.)

I always found Zulu to be a fascinating parallel. How Shaka just blew away the other Zulu tribes as he was the first willing to get down, dirty and actually kill, instead of engaging in their prior format of display & dance, & throw an easily dodged spear, one at a time form of "warfare" they practiced.

Then he in turn met the English with guns.

Patrick Ferguson, inventor of the Ferguson rifle, made what was probably the first truly successful rapid loading rifle, but those over him in command couldn't conceive of how to use his unit other than in traditional military fashion. Many commanders were openly hostile to him and his rifle. When he was wounded in the arm and sent back to England to recuperate, those in command over him removed the rifles from service and returned his unit to the ranks with muskets.

Ahh, the Ferguson was the screw-breech design...

Who was the guy who came up with the two-groove rifling, and it was still a muzzleloader, but the ball had two little "ears" that engaged the rifling?

It's amazing how long it took for the Minié ball to be adopted. It seems so obvious in hindsight. Looking back, military conservatisim regarding firearms is hardly something new that started with the M14 .vs the M16... 

Imagine if just one guy had come up with the idea of mass production/tooling standardization, and the conical bullet and a breechloader 100 years earlier, and had the ear of a King, or Parliament.

Although that could be said about anything I guess. Carl Sagan postulated if the Ionian culture had survived, and the great library of Alexandria not been sacked, humanity's technological age might be closer to 4000 A.D. with nearby solar systems already colonized, than ~2000 A.D... 

[K Frame]

That was the Brunswick rifle, which replaced the Baker in British military service.

By all accounts it wasn't as accurate as the Baker and was a lot harder to reload.

[Firethorn]

The short range and innacurate nature of muskets.

Another point would be that melee combat still happened on a pretty regular basis, thus you needed the mass of bodies, or the enemy would simply charge and kill you, accepting light casualties(remember, you're statistically likely to MISS with those weapons except at point blank range) in order to do so.

[K Frame]

Melee combat happened largely as a result of the weapons technology of the time. Once the smoothbore musket was replaced with the rifled musket, melee combat quickly dropped off in frequency.

[Angel Eyes]

(re The Patriot):
Some of it was accurate, but the parts I get to hear the most about are at the beginning of the movie where they ambushed the column. Also, the burning of the church and the swamp fox scene. It's really stylized.

Also, the film depicted Cornwallis as being present at Cowpens.  He wasn't.  Tarleton (on which the movie's Tavington character is loosely based) commanded the British force in that battle.

There's a scene, early in the film, in which it's established that the black people working Benjamin Martin's farm are freedmen, not slaves.  While not impossible, it's unlikely in 1770s South Carolina.

Personally, the church burning irks me the most.  There's no record of the British ever doing anything that brutal in the war.

[Iain]

It's a Mel Gibson film. I suppose I should be thankful that he stopped short of showing the British eating babies.

[SADShooter]

^Check the deleted scenes.

[roo_ster]

There are several reasons for the practice of infantry's closed ranks.

Control
With a limited officer & NCO corps, men needed to be within shouting distance...or stabby distance if they were wavering.

Protection from cavalry
It was massed pikemen who brought protection from heavy cavalry in the middle ages.  Massed "piker-power," if you will.  The musket brought massed firepower to complement the piker-power.  It was written that an infantry square that did not lose its nerve could not be overrun by cavalry.  Some did calculations like # guns along a 100 yard front to prove their point. 

[AJ Dual]

Yes, and despite how barbaric it seems now to force men to maintain discipline and stand up in ranks in the face of fire, from a statistical standpoint it made sense. The better disciplined  unit had the better chance of victory, hence better survival overall.

[Bigjake]

Jfruser nailed one of the bigger points.  Cavalry with sabers could slice and dice loosely formed groups of infantry with muskets.  You've only got one shot at a fast moving target with a less than inherently accurate weapon, before he guts you..

The Brits were the Tall Dogs for a long time simply because they could stand in line, load and fire faster than anyone else.  And not break while similar folks 100 yards away are trying to do the same thing.  Discipline above all.

[seeker_two]

It's a Mel Gibson film. I suppose I should be thankful that he stopped short of showing the British eating babies.

Just look at how he portrayed the Italians in Passion of the Christ.... 

[lupinus]

Mind if I ask a stupid question?

Why was the lining soldiers up the preferred method of battle? It just seems like a firing line. Wouldn't breaking the troops down into smaller, dispersed units have been more effective?

Several very good reasons actually, when taking into account the whole picture. 

The ability to command and issue/follow orders was a big one.  With no radio or communication better then line of site or runner/horse you needed to be close.  Men needed to be close enough to the man commanding their unit or section of the line to hear his commands.  And various formations had to be close enough on the battle field to receive new orders either by line of site or a message carried by a runner or someone on a horse.  This is also the reason while generals were so much closer then they generally are now.  They had to be able to actually see the battle and send out orders.

Another was the fighting style which was still severely limited by technology.  Single shot firearms meant long reload times and were generally inaccurate especially in the heat of a battle.  While it might take one guy a minute to fire 2-3 shots, a thousand guys lined up meant 2-3 thousand shots a minute.  Then you bring in the melee aspect which still played a large part in winning battles all the way through the civil war era.  What you basically had when bayonets were fixed is a pikemen, the same guys who formed the bulk of European battle lines for hundreds of years and thus required similar tactics.

The style of warfare only really ended when the weapons caught up and were just to effective.  Repeating accurate firearms made all advantages of the close formations go away or reversed them into weaknesses.  They also largely took away the need to close in for hand to hand combat.  About the only remaining issue was the logistics and command structure which slowly came into it's own