| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| SgtMunro |
Posted - October 07 2002 : 04:05:56 AM
Another area of discussion I would love to throw out here, and see who I can tap for knowledge, is the subject of infantry support weapons of the 18th Century British/Provincial Forces. What are your thoughts on the following support weapons:
1) The Hand Grenade
2) The 3-Pound Battalion Gun
3) The 1 to 1.5 inch Swivel Gun
4) The .90 caliber Wall Gun
I Remain Your Humble Author,
Sgt. Duncan Munro
42nd RHR
|
| 16 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| SgtMunro |
Posted - January 25 2005 : 4:33:24 PM
quote:
CT*Ranger noted: Anyway I thought that was interesting enough to mention here. It really adds a new dimension to the understanding of the provincial rangers as true predecessors of "special forces." I find it fascinating.
I couldn't agree with you more, CT. Man-portable support weapons of the period always drew the attention of men like the Rangers. The ability to have something more than musketry & melee, without the hassle of an 'artillery train', would fit right into 'La Petite Guere'. The men of Roger's Rangers (as well as other provincial rangers), were above all else, innovative. Many of their 'field expediency' modifications to issue gear and battle tactics, eventually found their way into mainstream military science. As I had noted at Doc Shaffer's Tactical 2004, regarding scouts & flankers, "Give me a ranger fire-team, over a dozen 'Light Bobs', any day."
Your Most Humble Servant,
|
| CT•Ranger |
Posted - January 25 2005 : 3:21:51 PM
I was reading Gary Zaboly's new book "American Colonial Ranger: The Northern Colonies 1724-64" when I came across a brief mention of rangers using grenades, which reminded me of this old thread.
I had never heard of rangers carrying grenades while on patrol in the Lake George/Champlain corridor. On page 16, the author claims that "Rogers Rangers carried hand grenades to attack French vessels on Lake Champlain, and in 1757 burned the enemy's cordwood piles and a storehouse outside Fort Carillon with 'fireballs.'" Also illustrated and described on the same page is a "carcass," described as a "parchment covered iron framework loaded with gunpowder and other combustibles, and sometimes bristling with hooks. In 1759, rangers attempted to sink a French ship by swimming out to her with 'fire-darts and hand-carcasses.'"
Anyway I thought that was interesting enough to mention here. It really adds a new dimension to the understanding of the provincial rangers as true predecessors of "special forces." I find it fascinating. |
| SgtMunro |
Posted - May 12 2003 : 12:46:12 PM
Men, I think we reached the end on this folder.
Your Most Humble Servant, |
| SgtMunro |
Posted - November 12 2002 : 11:59:10 PM
How about some thoughts on the 'Wall Piece'? Is there any documentation out there on the uses of this weapon in the 'field'?
|
| SgtMunro |
Posted - October 22 2002 : 01:58:27 AM
The 1 to 1.5 Inch Swivel Gun was, in my opinion, the provincial answer to the 3 Pound Battalion Gun. The pronvincial soldiers of the various colonies, more aware of North American campaign conditions than their 'professional' brethern from 'across the pond', realized that any type of support weapon had to be one to balance size and performance. The colonials did not need a light piece capable of accurate fire out past 600 yards, due to flora conditions of the eastern frontier. What they did need was a good, close to moderate ranged support weapon system that could be easily transported through rugged terrain, unlimbered and brought into action on short notice as well as needing little in the way of maintenance. The 1 to 1.5 Inch Swivel Gun fit this role perfectly. The amount of powder required to effectively fire the weapon was considerably less than the 3 Pound Battalion Gun. Also, manufacture of the projectiles fired from the swivel gun did not require a 'shot tower' (a tower like structure which roundshot is cast by pouring a certain amount of metal alloy in a free fall to form its spherical shape. The ammount to cast is measured in pounds, hence the use of weight for caliber when classifing cannon).
Sgt. Duncan Munro
Capt. Graham's Coy
1/42nd Royal Highlanders
"Nemo Me Impune Lacessit" |
| SgtMunro |
Posted - October 18 2002 : 08:17:21 AM
This topic is starting to roll. Lets look at the other items , mentioned on the initial post, and see what feedback/new information is out there.
The 1 to 1.5 Inch Swivel Gun, the provincials answer to the 3 Pound Battalion Gun?
The .90 caliber "Wall Piece", an auxillary defender of "the curtain" or the M-60/M-249 squad support weapon of its day?
Keep up the good posts, men.
Your Humble Author,
Sgt. Duncan Munro
Capt. Graham's Coy
1/42nd Royal Highlanders
"Nemo Me Impune Lacessit" |
| SgtMunro |
Posted - October 17 2002 : 3:02:17 PM
The PRIMARY mission of the hand grenade using grenadier, was the storming of a breach in a fortification. First the breach would be opened by either artillery, petard, or mechanical means (men with breaching axes). Then the grenadiers would throw the grenades through the breach, followed by a spirited charge, more often than not sans musketry.
Your Humble Author,
Sgt. Duncan Munro
Capt. Graham's Coy
1/42nd Royal Highlanders
"Nemo Me Impune Lacessit" |
| CT•Ranger |
Posted - October 15 2002 : 8:29:43 PM
Yeah, the only really effective use for grenades in 18th century N.A. would be in defense of a fort, or storming a breach in a fort wall. Lobbing a grenade into a wall breach packed with defending enemy soldiers would do quite a job clearing the way.
- CT•Ranger
"Now we are glad to learn the skulking way of war.” - John Eliot |
| Edmund McKinnon |
Posted - October 15 2002 : 01:13:10 AM
There was the rare occasion that the grenade was used during the siege of Ft.Pitt(documented) during Pontiac's Uprising in 1763.It was lobbed from the ramparts into the attacking red horde. EM
Edmond N.Highlander Jr. |
| CT•Ranger |
Posted - October 14 2002 : 7:29:48 PM
The hand grenade was very popular in the 17th century, especially in storming fortifications, which was the original role of grenadiers. By the mid-18th century the grenade had fallen out of favor. With new tactics and increased efficiency of volley fire, the grenade was obsolete. By the time the grenadier got close enough to enemy troops in the open field to throw the grenade, it would just be more effective to fire a volley rather than waste time preparing and throwing grenades. From what I've read, the grenade wasn't really used much by the British Army after Marlborough. The grenade did continue to see service in naval engagements into the early 18th century, as an effective shock weapon before boarding the enemy.
- CT•Ranger
"Now we are glad to learn the skulking way of war.” - John Eliot |
| Edmund McKinnon |
Posted - October 11 2002 : 1:20:36 PM
Yes,but the tactic of using smallpox infected blankets,now that's a rare gift indeed
Edmond N.Highlander Jr. |
| SgtMunro |
Posted - October 11 2002 : 12:35:07 PM
A very good point, lietenant, but the tactic of catapulting diseased animal (and sometimes human) remains into or out of an enemy castle is one that goes back to well before the 'Dark Ages'.
Sgt. Duncan Munro
Capt. Graham's Coy
1/42nd Royal Highlanders
"Nemo Me Impune Lacessit" |
| Edmund McKinnon |
Posted - October 10 2002 : 11:31:45 PM
How 'bought the bio-weapons that were used at Ft.Pitt during Pontiac's Uprising? That Capt.Eucuyer was a man ahead of his time
Edmond N.Highlander Jr. |
| SgtMunro |
Posted - October 09 2002 : 12:15:46 PM
I realize that there is documented use of the hand grenade by regular French troops in North America. Outside of counter-siege operations at Ft. Pitt, I'm having trouble finding similar use by British Troops.
Sgt. Duncan Munro
Capt. Graham's Coy
1/42nd Royal Highlanders
"Nemo Me Impune Lacessit" |
| SgtMunro |
Posted - October 08 2002 : 11:47:50 PM
The 3-Pound Battalion Gun was a very size effective support piece, when used in its proper role. It was designed to advance with the infantry line, as an anti-personel weapon. However, sometimes it was pressed (albeit not often sucessfully) into a counter-battery or "wall smasher" service. This was sometimes the case in North America, where geographical conditions mitagated against the cross country transport and use of conventional field guns of the 6 to 9 pound range. The 3-Pound Battalion Gun could use solid as well as an early form of canister shot (a flannel bag of musket balls), giving this weapon some flexibility in its employment on the field.
This is not to say that conventional field pieces could not be used, but any prudent field force commander would know that the logistics involved (ie. road cutting, sizable munition train and the inability to transport disassembled on pack horses) made the somewhat limited assets outweighed by their inherit liabilities. However, if time was on the side of the force commander, and the conditions at the target area required such ordinance (ie. strong fortifications) then he would be better served by the additional preparations needed.
|
| Fitz Williams |
Posted - October 07 2002 : 1:08:32 PM
A Frenchman once said, "God in on the side of the heaviest artillery", or something to that effect. Of course he said it in French.
|
![The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]](images/wwwboard.gif "The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]")
