Dan,
<snip>
There are original sources that state the professional British Soldiers learned not to be as terrified of American Riflemen as what many commonly imagine. I'm paraphrasing, but it mentions in the early morning hours was an especially good time to hunt riflemen because the morning dew would cause many a lock to fail and the bayonet was a sure thing. Rain or other adverse conditions would do the same thing. Of course, the British were more "concerned" about riflemen when the weather was good. Grin.
I would not expect the British to be frightened of the riflemen. But something was going on with all a the German riflemen they imported to counter the Americans.
Frankly I think the "hunting riflemen in the woods" $#@* is just that, $#@*. Are we to believe that the riflemen just stood around with their "wet guns" and waited to be bayoneted? Do you really think that someone who grew up in London and drilled in linear tactics and the bayonet in an open field will be able to go into the timber and hunt down someone who grew up hunting and being hunted by the local native population? Or that the riflemen were too dumb to keep their guns dry?
If this were true why did Burgoyne not send men out to hunt Morgan's riflemen? Instead he specifically ordered than NOBODY go outside the pickets because if they did go out the likely would not come back. The Saratoga battles teach lessons.
One the American backwoods rifleman was a pretty serious, perhaps unbeatable, foe in the woods fighting under HIS conditions.
Two that is properly combined with a musket regiment the riflemen greatly increased the effectiveness of both units (though the American high command for the most part seems to have been unable to realize this and use it properly).
Three that cutting off your enemies ability to do recon cripples a 1770s army just as it would a 2009 army.
Four that the British army could not adequately deal with a skilled company of riflemen in the woods.
If the British were not at least extremely irritated by the riflemen why did they consider them to be some sort of war criminal that should be given no quarter?
I think a lot of the $#@* you read in some to the British officers writings is wishful thinking. They thought that if they "drove the enemy from the field" they had won the day. They drove the patriots from the field at Breeds Hill, after they ran out of ammunition, but at horrendous cost. I would also point out that while everyone "knows" there were no rifles at Breeds Hill the heavy casualties among the British NCOs and Officers (138 killed or wounded) were typical of fights having riflemen present.
Sure there were incidents where the riflemen were "driven off". But they were not stand alone linear combat troops and THEY knew it even if the field commanders did not.
If pressed too hard they left to fight another day. Morgan used this to good advantage at Cowpens where its likely the Militia was at least party rifle armed.
Dan
To be sure, we can not take any original account as "pure gospel." I don't doubt that some of the intent of the above paraphrased quote was to instill more confidence in the British troops.
Were the American Riflemen too dumb to keep their rifles dry? No, I'm sure they weren't, but no matter how well they protected against it, the guns were going to get wet from the dew, rain and snow. Sure, they could have wiped the frizzens off, but there still would have been condensation in the barrel. The early battle that saved the early American army was Trenton (during serious snow storms leading up to the battle) and it was won infinitely more with the musket and bayonet than the rifle.
It can most certainly be said the American riflemen initially aided greatly in the Battles around Boston initially and MOSTLY due to the psychological warfare Washington created, BUT their lack of discipline and other problems made them such a nuisance that both George Washington and General Lee later wished they had not come.
"By the end of August the gunpowder crisis had eased. On August 24 Washington had 184 barrels of powder as well as thousands of flints and several tons of lead. Throughout the war supplies were never what were wanted but at least the men could have some in their cartridge boxes as well as powder stocks in store. The army and the public never knew there had been a crisis.
With the end of the powder crisis the riflemen, after having played such a major part in containing the British, became a nuisance.After making their triumphal march to join the army surrounding Boston, the riflemen became restless, bored and sullen. They participated in a couple of minor raids but other than sniping at the British they had little to do. As they were bivouacked in a special area and were exempted from routine duties, time hung heavy on their hands. Washington had put them on display and fostered the idea of their being an elite force. This fit in well with Washington's undisclosed plan to maximize the prestige and fame of the riflemen and thus keep the British occupied with their own worries within Boston. However, the riflemen's special status caused resentment among the other troops in the army.
The independent minded backwoodsmen ignored military protocol and fought among themselves and others. Some deserted to the British taking their rifles with them.23 Military discipline was entirely a foreign concept to them. If a rifleman was confined in the guardhouse his comrades would break him out. On one occasion a rifleman, who had been broken out of the guardhouse by his friends, was recaptured and taken to Cambridge. Members of his unit, with loaded rifles, marched on the Cambridge guardhouse to get him out again. Washington added 500 armed men to the guard and put another regiment under arms in case they were needed. Washington, Nathanial Greene and Charles Lee then faced down the mutineers and had them marched back to camp where they were court-martial and convicted of disobedient and mutinous behavior.24
General Artemas Ward wrote that, "they don't boast so much of the riflemen as heretofore. General Washington has said he wished they had never come; General Lee has !@*%&@ them and wished them all in Boston..."25 The rifle companies were ordered to do the same fatigue duties as other troops and their special status was greatly diminished. Their usefulness at Boston was over but they, without knowing it, had served a vital function. Without the intimidation of the riflemen the British might have poured out of Boston and put an end to the fledgling Revolution."
http://www.americanrevolution.org/riflemen.htmlThe American Riflemen did not distinguish themselves greatly when Washington's Army got tore up all over Long Island and eventually driven out of New York. I'm sure it was with some relief to Washington and other American Commanders that three companies of riflemen volunteered to go to fight in Quebec, where Dan Morgan and many of the riflemen got captured................ (due in large measure to them not being supported well enough, to be sure).
You make a good point that riflemen were not well used in some if not many battles. The battle of Saratoga was certainly one of the few times riflemen were used truly effectively in the early battles of the war. Of course, there was enough woods and trees to hide in there, that the Riflemen could act very effectively (Not true in many other battles with the clear exceptions of King's Mountain and to a lesser extent, Cowpens and a couple others.) That's the reason Burgoyne told his troops not to go outside his field fortifications after the riflemen, but since Burgoyne was so overconfident and he mishandled his forces so badly, we don't really know how effective the British would have been under a good commander.
Dan Morgan proved his tactical brilliance at Cowpens. As most people know, he told the militia he only expected them to fire a few shots and then withdraw. Some riflemen worked effectively from the woods, BUT the battle was won by American regulars using muskets and bayonets - with some serious aid by the American Cavalry.
King's Mountain is the clear battle where American Riflemen proved their effectiveness in a woods battle over rifle and musket armed Loyalist troops (NOT British Regulars). BUT we must also not forget that the American Riflemen had some very special reason to fight so well there. First, many of the Americans were Scots-Irish settlers (The Over Mountain Men) and they had had a long history with the British that they wished to settle many old scores. FURTHER and much more important, Cornwallis had stupidly ordered the areas controlled by those Americans be "put to the fire and sword." That clearly meant every living person was to be killed and their property burnt down. The Over Mountain Men believed Cornwallis meant to murder their families, children and parents. Talk about having the most serious reason in the world to take out Ferguson and the Loyalists!!! The Over Mountain Men came their with fire in their eyes and souls because their families had been directly threatened. The Loyalists had nowhere near that kind of motivation to fight. Also, had Ferguson been commanding his own regulars armed with his own breech loading rifles, the battle may have come out very differently indeed.
Would American Riflemen have been more effective had they been properly disciplined and led by competent officers who knew and understood their abilities and limitations? I'm sure they would have. In the Napoleonic wars, the British actually learned how to use their riflemen better than we did up through that time and for some time afterwards. This due to lessons learned in our 1st War for Independence.
