Learn about the regimented fighting and muskets used on both sides in the American Revolutionary War
Learn about the regimented fighting and muskets used on both sides in the American Revolutionary War
Learn about combat tactics and weapons used by soldiers on both sides during the American Revolution (1775–83).
© Civil War Trust (A Britannica Publishing Partner)
Transcript
Even now there still seems to be a big misconception about the American Revolution in that oftentimes people will say that the Americans and the British fought dramatically different from one another. The general idea is that the British were always regimented and always fought in tight, strict lines. Whereas the Americans were guerrilla fighters, who knew how to hide behind rocks and trees. That's not really true. Both sides used essentially the same tactics. Both sides used the same equipment and the same weapons.
If they were fighting in rough terrain with small numbers of men, both British and Patriot forces would fight skirmish style, in open lines using cover. If either side had large numbers of men in open terrain, they would fight in strict regimented tight lines. It depended upon the situation, but both sides were essentially learning from the same tactical books. Both sides had essentially the same weapon.
This musket that I'm carrying right now is an example of a French style musket that was common among American troops. They also would use British and sometimes even German model muskets. But the make and manufacturer didn't matter all that much to its basic use. This was a flintlock, smoothbore, muzzle-loading weapon. The flintlock basically meant-- where I today for safety have a piece of wood-- there would be a piece of stone or flint in this cock or hammer mechanism. When I pull this trigger, this flint would fly forward and strike against the steel plate creating sparks, setting off powder that I would place in this [INAUDIBLE].
Some of the flame that would shoot up from that powder would go through a tiny touch hole into the breach, setting off the main charge. The entire process took about, in training at least, took about 15 seconds. So a well-trained soldier was supposed to be able to load and fire this gun about three or four times a minute. They often would actually shoot a lot slower in combat in order to conserve their ammunition because the battles would often rage for long periods of time.
In between firing those guns they also depended a lot on the use of the bayonet. And in some cases, both American and British troops would launch attacks and ambushes with unloaded weapons, attacking with the bayonet only. Not too far away over in Paoli, British troops attacked and ambushed an American force at night with bayonet only and won a decisive battle. It was so one-sided Americans often called it the Paoli Massacre.
Knowing how to fight with the bayonet, knowing how to fight in both open order and in closed ranks was vital to both sides. And the training that was necessary to do that, the discipline that was necessary to be able to do that, to load and fire this weapon efficiently while under fire, while experiencing the roar and chaos and violence of battle, was absolutely vital for a soldier. And it was not something that could be learned quickly. Even the British felt that it took at least a full year of active campaigning to make a soldier a good soldier.
If they were fighting in rough terrain with small numbers of men, both British and Patriot forces would fight skirmish style, in open lines using cover. If either side had large numbers of men in open terrain, they would fight in strict regimented tight lines. It depended upon the situation, but both sides were essentially learning from the same tactical books. Both sides had essentially the same weapon.
This musket that I'm carrying right now is an example of a French style musket that was common among American troops. They also would use British and sometimes even German model muskets. But the make and manufacturer didn't matter all that much to its basic use. This was a flintlock, smoothbore, muzzle-loading weapon. The flintlock basically meant-- where I today for safety have a piece of wood-- there would be a piece of stone or flint in this cock or hammer mechanism. When I pull this trigger, this flint would fly forward and strike against the steel plate creating sparks, setting off powder that I would place in this [INAUDIBLE].
Some of the flame that would shoot up from that powder would go through a tiny touch hole into the breach, setting off the main charge. The entire process took about, in training at least, took about 15 seconds. So a well-trained soldier was supposed to be able to load and fire this gun about three or four times a minute. They often would actually shoot a lot slower in combat in order to conserve their ammunition because the battles would often rage for long periods of time.
In between firing those guns they also depended a lot on the use of the bayonet. And in some cases, both American and British troops would launch attacks and ambushes with unloaded weapons, attacking with the bayonet only. Not too far away over in Paoli, British troops attacked and ambushed an American force at night with bayonet only and won a decisive battle. It was so one-sided Americans often called it the Paoli Massacre.
Knowing how to fight with the bayonet, knowing how to fight in both open order and in closed ranks was vital to both sides. And the training that was necessary to do that, the discipline that was necessary to be able to do that, to load and fire this weapon efficiently while under fire, while experiencing the roar and chaos and violence of battle, was absolutely vital for a soldier. And it was not something that could be learned quickly. Even the British felt that it took at least a full year of active campaigning to make a soldier a good soldier.