Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Aiming and Musketry

Expand Messages
  • Betsy Bashore
    The US forces were taught to aim at their targets but this was not to the exclusion of volley fire. One does not have to take a long time picking out a
    Message 1 of 18 , May 5, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      The US forces were taught to "aim" at their targets but this was not to
      the exclusion of volley fire. One does not have to take a long time
      picking out a target even when fireing volleys. This can be tested on
      the range as we have done. I've come to the conclusion that US forces
      would give a few volleys and then go to independent fire. I have seen
      this in a few references, Jarvis Hanks comes to mind.

      A few toughts about British musketry and the Brown Bess. Many of our
      thoughts about muskets come from tests conducted with the Brown Bess in
      the late 18th century. The conclusions were that they were exceedingly
      ill bored and you could hit a man sized target at about 80yards but
      never at 150yds. This thought has been applied to all muskets which is
      not true. The Brown Bess was known for its quantity but not for its
      quality, which is bore out in ordinance reports. Another quality of the
      Bess is the windage. The Brits used 14 guage balls in a 11 guage barrel
      which is a third more than the Americans. Again when they talk about the
      sloppy fit of a musket ball I think this applies only to the British.
      When the US used Bess's they used less windage.

      Now, if I read this right, an accusation was made about superior British
      musketry. I beg to ask, What war to you mean? If you mean the War of
      1812, aside from Chryslers Farm and Lundy's Lane I do not see any
      examples of this. So I open up the question. Show me the battles where
      the Thin Red Line drove the Americans from the field with their superior
      musketry. We can leave out the Indian battles and the surrenders due to
      deception. And Bladensburg doesn't count because the Militia ran before
      the Brits took the field. Inept commanders do not count either.

      So, a few friendly replies would be interesting.


      Your Servant

      Robt. Trumbull
    • Scott & Nancy McDonald
      ... So I open up the question. Show me the battles where ... Well here is a freindly answer - a couple of actions come to mind, both of which occured during
      Message 2 of 18 , May 5, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        >From: Betsy Bashore <bashore@...>
        So I open up the question. Show me the battles where
        >the Thin Red Line drove the Americans from the field with their superior
        >musketry.
        >Your Servant
        >
        >Robt. Trumbull

        Well here is a freindly answer - a couple of actions come to mind, both of
        which occured during the New Orleans campaign. The night battle on 23 Dec.
        1814 and the action on the West Bank of the Mississippi River on 8 Jan
        1815. :)

        Scott


        Scott McDonald
        Member/ 93rd Sutherland Highland Regiment of Foot L.H.U.
        http://members.aol.com/ninety3rd
        <mailto: raintree@...>
      • SACBG7@xxx.xxx
        Scott, Must in good spirit disagree with your conclusion of the actions of Dec 23 and on the west bank at New Orleans on the morning of January 8 for the
        Message 3 of 18 , May 5, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          Scott,
          Must in good spirit disagree with your conclusion of the actions of Dec 23
          and on the west bank at New Orleans on the morning of January 8 for the
          following reasons.

          1. The American Army was not driven from the field on the evening of the 23.
          A thick fog had arose causing a great deal of confusion among troops of both
          sides. Jackson realizing he was using troops acting in concert together for
          the first time in a night attack elected to withdraw. Also the arrival of
          British reinforcements had now tipped the battle numerically to the British.
          Jackson's report states as follows: "....a thick fog which arose about 8
          o'clock, occasioned some confusion among the different corps. Fearing the
          consequence, under this circumstance, of the further prosecution of a night
          attack with troops, then acting together for the first time, I contented
          myself with lying on the field that night; and at four in the morning assumed
          a stronger position about two miles nearer the city." This was an orderly
          withdrawl. Jackson left behind the Seventh Infantry to serve as a screen and
          rear guard between him and the British. Latour notes in his memoirs that the
          Seventh performed their duties admirably losing no opportunity to annoy the
          British. I feel Jackson withdrew not for fear of British musketry but
          because his force was acting in concert together for the first time. He had
          only two Regular Regiments with him, and some Marines. While they were used
          to close order action the rest were militia and volunteers. Good for surprise
          and open order fighting but for the most part not disciplined linear or
          column attack. Surprise had worked to his advantage, now British
          manouevering discipline and superior numbers would work against him in the
          open. Again from Jackson's report: "As the safety of the city will depend on
          the fate of this army, it must not be incautiously exposed."
          Technically the battle is a draw. The British Army holds the field but the
          American Army has displayed an agressiveness unexpected of them including the
          use of the bayonet by the Seventh when the British came dangerously close to
          capturing not only the American Battery but Jackson as well! The attack
          places caution in the British forces giving Jackson the time he desperately
          needs to construct a line of defense.

          2. The British victory on the west bank is carried out by the bayonet, not
          musketry. Tim Pickles in his book offers the following. "To ensure the
          attack was as fast as possible it was ordered to be carried out by the
          bayonet alone."
          Perhaps the best example of toe-to toe slugging it out is Lundy's Lane, but I
          leave that subject to those who know the battle better than I :)

          Hope to see you in Hoosier Land! As we film the Battle of New Orleans on
          that dead ringer for the swamps of Chalmette---the farmland of Indiana! "Oh
          the cannons roar tonight along the Wabash"---or something like that :)
          All the best,
          Steve Abolt
          7th USILHA
          visit our 7th Infantry webpage at www.cottonbalers.lynchburg.net
        • Scott & Nancy McDonald
          Hey Stevo- I trust the ill fated winds of the past few days haven t affected the 7th US. As to my comments they were just a response to the quest for examples
          Message 4 of 18 , May 5, 1999
          • 0 Attachment
            Hey Stevo-
            I trust the ill fated winds of the past few days haven't affected the 7th
            US. As to my comments they were just a response to the quest for examples
            of where "superior musketry" carried the day for the British.

            1. The night Battle of 23 Dec. 1814: OK the Americans suprised the British
            who were in the process of landing infantry. Fog, confusion on the British
            side turns into a defensive strategy that holds the American advance (which
            was also confused) and as more British troops land the tide turns against
            the Americans and they leave the area. Of course Jackson is going to call
            it a strategic withdrawl and blame things on the fog in his official
            report, he sure ain't going to say he got his butt kicked. Was the suprise
            attack wise? Hell yes it was bloddy brilliant! His best chance was to
            defeat the British before they could establish a position. He knew he could
            not meet and defeat the British in the open (wanting to conserve his troops
            and all ;>) and as the battle progressed that was the position he found
            himself in so he prudently withdrew. It should be noted that not only did
            Jackson have artillary on his side, the British were also being bombarded
            from a ship in the river. Although the Americans withdrew the British
            commander did not persue for a variety of reasons which made sense at the
            time, but in hindsight it is a decision that may have been unfortunate for
            the British. The night battle may well be considered a draw because the
            British did not immediately persue and Jackson was given time to prepare a
            defensive position. However in the context of the question asked for an
            example of "superior British musketry" I must conclude that this action
            fits the bill.

            2.West Bank battle 8 Jan 1815: As the British carried out the attack with a
            bayonet charge I will agree that it is not an example of superior British
            musketry; But it is an example of superior use of the pointy thing on the
            end of the musket!!

            Be sure to bring plenty of eye patches, bandanas, arm hooks and a jolly
            rodger for the Bucanneer re-make were gonna do in a cornfeild up here!...at
            least we will have fun. :)

            Cheers
            Scott


            Scott McDonald
            Member/ 93rd Sutherland Highland Regiment of Foot L.H.U.
            http://members.aol.com/ninety3rd
            <mailto: raintree@...>
          • NINETY3RD@aol.com
            In a message dated 05/5/1999 10:33:09 PM, raintree@raintree-inn.com writes:
            Message 5 of 18 , May 5, 1999
            • 0 Attachment
              In a message dated 05/5/1999 10:33:09 PM, raintree@... writes:

              << Be sure to bring plenty of eye patches, bandanas, arm hooks and a jolly
              rodger for the Bucanneer re-make were gonna do in a cornfeild up here!...at
              least we will have fun. :) >>

              I can't decide whether to be the Fredric March Laffite or the Yul Bynner
              Laffitte for "The Bucco-mentary".
              :-)
            • mmathews@xxxx.xxxxxx.xxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
              (snip) ... I recall reading somewhere, perhaps the Napoleonic Source Book, that the muzzle velocity of the Bess was 1200 fps while the Charleville was 1400
              Message 6 of 18 , May 6, 1999
              • 0 Attachment
                (snip)
                >A few toughts about British musketry and the Brown Bess. Many of our
                >thoughts about muskets come from tests conducted with the Brown Bess in
                >the late 18th century. The conclusions were that they were exceedingly
                >ill bored and you could hit a man sized target at about 80yards but
                >never at 150yds. This thought has been applied to all muskets which is
                >not true. The Brown Bess was known for its quantity but not for its
                >quality, which is bore out in ordinance reports. Another quality of the
                >Bess is the windage. The Brits used 14 guage balls in a 11 guage barrel
                >which is a third more than the Americans. Again when they talk about the
                >sloppy fit of a musket ball I think this applies only to the British.
                >When the US used Bess's they used less windage.

                I recall reading somewhere, perhaps the Napoleonic Source Book, that the
                muzzle velocity of the Bess was 1200 fps while the Charleville was 1400
                fps. So THEORETICALLY the latter was a more accurate weapon. I would
                imagine the American pieces to have a similarly higher muzzle velocity with
                less windage. In this piece the author attempted to explain the British
                domination of firefights with the French in Spain as being a result of
                superior drill/discipline, rate of fire, and live rounds practice. So I
                would never call the Bess a "great" weapon, just an effective one which in
                the hands of a good soldier became great. What was it the rankers said
                about it? Pointing at the muzzle and then the butt, "the end that kills,
                and the end that maims."

                Just my two centimes...

                Michael

                Michael Mathews -- Winona State University
                Voice: (507) 285-7585 Fax: (507) 280-5568
                ------------------------------
                "Wit is educated insolence." -- Aristotle (384-322 B.C.)
              • NINETY3RD@xxx.xxx
                In a message dated 06/5/1999 6:20:12 AM, mmathews@VAX2.WINONA.MSUS.EDU writes:
                Message 7 of 18 , May 6, 1999
                • 0 Attachment
                  In a message dated 06/5/1999 6:20:12 AM, mmathews@... writes:

                  << What was it the rankers said
                  about it? Pointing at the muzzle and then the butt, "the end that kills,
                  and the end that maims." >>

                  There's also a soldiers' poem (as Tim will attest):

                  If you go to Museums,
                  (theres one in Whitehall)
                  Its there you will find her
                  Her back to the wall

                  As straight as a ramrod
                  A flint in her teeth
                  And a faded inscription
                  On cardboard beneath

                  And if ever our Soldiers
                  Had reason to bless
                  Any arm (save their mothers)
                  That arm is Brown Bess.
                • BritcomHMP@xxx.xxx
                  In a message dated 5/5/99 7:35:07 PM Central Daylight Time, bashore@earthlink.net writes:
                  Message 8 of 18 , May 6, 1999
                  • 0 Attachment
                    In a message dated 5/5/99 7:35:07 PM Central Daylight Time,
                    bashore@... writes:

                    << Now, if I read this right, an accusation was made about superior British
                    musketry.>>

                    Rob, forgive me for asking but why do you seem to take discussion statements
                    as insults? Accusation? What do you mean accusation? We are having a serious
                    historical discussion and I feel another flame war coming on.

                    <>

                    I would suggest that the US troops (very sensibly) did not get themselves
                    into line to line fire fights with the Brits but on the occasion when they
                    did the superiority of British training showed. Again this was more in the
                    field of quantity rather than quality, the best US troops were certainly
                    equal to the best of the British but the Jefersonian policy of emasculating
                    the army in favour of the militia was the problem (in my view).

                    The volley and bayonet charge were also used to good effect at Bladensburg,
                    North Point and the West Bank at New Orleans.

                    Cheers

                    Tim
                  • BritcomHMP@xxx.xxx
                    In a message dated 5/5/99 11:06:29 PM Central Daylight Time, SACBG7@aol.com writes:
                    Message 9 of 18 , May 6, 1999
                    • 0 Attachment
                      In a message dated 5/5/99 11:06:29 PM Central Daylight Time, SACBG7@...
                      writes:

                      << Tim Pickles in his book offers the following. "To ensure the
                      attack was as fast as possible it was ordered to be carried out by the
                      bayonet alone." >>

                      True but Thornton did give one volley in line before charging, however Steve
                      you are quite right that this was not a stand up firefight.

                      Cheers

                      Tim
                    • Jim Keigher
                      To All, ... end that maims. If I may make a comment, here. I have been listening to all sorts of pros and cons about who s musketry was better. I do not
                      Message 10 of 18 , May 6, 1999
                      • 0 Attachment
                        To All,

                        > Pointing at the muzzle and then the butt, "the end that kills, and the
                        end that maims."

                        If I may make a comment, here. I have been listening to all sorts of pros
                        and cons about who's musketry was better. I do not think that one's
                        musketry was better than anothers, because of aiming, windage, or anything
                        like that. I, personally, do not know, because these are an individuals
                        skills. (In fact, men who demonstrated skill in musketry, such as being
                        able to hit targets at a distance, would be told off to the flank
                        companies, to serve as lights and grenadiers.)

                        I do know a little about fire control. It was one of the first things I
                        had to learn to command a rifle section (1/3 of a platoon, or about 2
                        squads and a BAR in the US infantry.)

                        The theory of British musketry (practice does not always equal theory,) of
                        the time was based upon the same concept of fire used today. In fact, you
                        can trace the idea of a modern company or battalion fire plan back to the
                        begining of British platoon fire. That is, the main body is broken up into
                        small units, each controlled by an NCO or Officer, under the overall
                        direction of a fire control officer. The only basic difference is that now
                        our artillery (battalion mortors, 105's etc.,) are behind us using indirect
                        fire, instead of "in the line, in sight of the enemy."

                        The majority of fire fights even take place at the same distances! Very
                        rarely do infantry fire fights exceed the 200 metre range, the largest
                        amount taking place under 100 metres. That is why, even though my trusty
                        FAL 7.62 had a 600m apeture, the main battle sight was a simple open leaf
                        calibrated to 200m. We never shot at anything farther away that that!

                        A modern commander will position his sub units with overlapping fields of
                        fire, focused on the most likely approach of the enemy. An enemy force,
                        approaching along a road, through a ravine, etc., would find it's self
                        caught in a cross fire. In this manner, a few small units could
                        effectively hold off a much larger force, as long as their ammunition held
                        out.

                        The same thing holds true for our time period. By having the platoon's
                        fire individually, concentrating on the advancing enemy column's frontage,
                        the result can be devastating.

                        By sequencing the platoons, each Sgt. giving his command to present as the
                        platoon next to his fires, a continuous volley is sent to the enemy. In
                        fact, it can be compared to the volume of fire created by modern weapons.

                        As an example, lets use a typical battalion, lets say 900 men. (deMeuron
                        reported a strength of 1100, and deWattville 1300, others had as few as 600.)

                        The battalion would be formed up, in line, across a frontage of about 100
                        yds., with say, two companies held in reserve. The flanks, in many cases,
                        are at an incline, to meet the advancing enemy.

                        There are 10 Companys, 8 in the line, with 80 men firing muskets, the rest
                        are Sr. NCO's and Officers. Each is company broken up into 4 platoons, 20
                        muskets each, under the control of a Sgt.

                        Given a standard of 3 rounds per minute, (lets be generous here!) each
                        platoon can put 60 rounds in the air in one minute. Even with a 10%
                        misfire rate, you are looking at 54 rds/min times 32 platoons, or about
                        1728 rds/min across a 100yd frontage. Aiming has now become irrelevant.

                        To put it in modern terms, you have the equivalent of 6 Browning 7.62mm
                        flexibles, each with a cyclic rate of 600 rds/min, firing 10 rd bursts,
                        into an enemy column. Who aims a flexible? We had to kick the sights on
                        our section Bren, just to prevent the men from trying to aim!

                        What is important is that the fire is not delivered in one massive blow,
                        but is a continous thing. It becomes more withering, and more effective.
                        Instead of a massed volley being delivered by the whole unit, and being
                        spent on the front rank of an advancing column, it penetrates, deep into
                        massed formations.

                        So, aimed or not, who would want to advance his men into a field of fire,
                        like that.

                        The key is co-ordination, dicipline, and training. In 1812, a soldier's
                        first duty is to stand in line and load and fire his musket with the rest
                        of his platoon. The rest of his tasks are there to keep him out of trouble
                        when he is not doing just that.

                        Still, they come on in the same old way, and we meet them in the same old way.

                        Now, about the Bess and the bayonet . . .

                        YMH&OS

                        Jim Keigher
                        Corps of Canadian Voyageurs
                        Fort William

                        God Save the King!
                      • BritcomHMP@xxx.xxx
                        In a message dated 5/6/99 1:46:22 AM Central Daylight Time, NINETY3RD@aol.com writes:
                        Message 11 of 18 , May 6, 1999
                        • 0 Attachment
                          In a message dated 5/6/99 1:46:22 AM Central Daylight Time, NINETY3RD@...
                          writes:

                          << << Be sure to bring plenty of eye patches, bandanas, arm hooks and a jolly
                          rodger for the Bucanneer re-make were gonna do in a cornfeild up here!...at
                          least we will have fun. :) >>

                          I can't decide whether to be the Fredric March Laffite or the Yul Bynner
                          Laffitte for "The Bucco-mentary".
                          :-) >>

                          But where are we going to get all the Victorian Highlander uniforms from? And
                          the only RHA uniform I can put my hands on is blue not red!

                          Shiver me timbers, Jim Lad
                        • mmathews@xxxx.xxxxxx.xxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
                          (snip) ... That brings up something interesting I noticed yesterday reading a brief account of North Point, and somewhat related to the aiming discussion. In
                          Message 12 of 18 , May 6, 1999
                          • 0 Attachment
                            (snip)
                            >The volley and bayonet charge were also used to good effect at Bladensburg,
                            >North Point and the West Bank at New Orleans.

                            That brings up something interesting I noticed yesterday reading a brief
                            account of North Point, and somewhat related to the "aiming" discussion.
                            In the text of "The War of 1812: A Forgotten Conflict" by Donald Hickey, it
                            stated that when General Ross was shot, no quarter was given to American
                            sharpshooters there after. Yet when Rifleman Plunkett killed General
                            Colbert and an aide that stopped to help him in the Peninsular, he was
                            hailed as a small hero. Just an interested comparison of definitions of
                            what's fair being dependent on who is receiving the bullet.

                            Michael

                            Michael Mathews -- Winona State University
                            Voice: (507) 285-7585 Fax: (507) 280-5568
                            ------------------------------
                            "Wit is educated insolence." -- Aristotle (384-322 B.C.)
                          • BritcomHMP@xxx.xxx
                            In a message dated 5/6/99 8:20:12 AM Central Daylight Time, mmathews@VAX2.WINONA.MSUS.EDU writes:
                            Message 13 of 18 , May 6, 1999
                            • 0 Attachment
                              In a message dated 5/6/99 8:20:12 AM Central Daylight Time,
                              mmathews@... writes:

                              << So THEORETICALLY the latter was a more accurate weapon. I would
                              imagine the American pieces to have a similarly higher muzzle velocity with
                              less windage. In this piece the author attempted to explain the British
                              domination of firefights with the French in Spain as being a result of
                              superior drill/discipline, rate of fire, and live rounds practice. So I
                              would never call the Bess a "great" weapon, just an effective one which in
                              the hands of a good soldier became great. What was it the rankers said
                              about it? Pointing at the muzzle and then the butt, "the end that kills,
                              and the end that maims." >>


                              The thing to remember is that at the time the fighting unit was not the
                              soldier and his musket but the Colonel and his regiment. For the majority its
                              the weight of shot not is accuracy that counts.

                              Cheers

                              Tim
                            • NINETY3RD@xxx.xxx
                              ... Not to mention the Prince Valiant wigs for the Highlanders (or the about-to-take-flight feather bonnets, depending on the version)! An I jest cain t wait
                              Message 14 of 18 , May 6, 1999
                              • 0 Attachment
                                In a message dated 06/5/1999 7:49:22 AM, BritcomHMP@... writes:

                                ><< << Be sure to bring plenty of eye patches, bandanas, arm hooks and a
                                >jolly
                                > rodger for the Bucanneer re-make were gonna do in a cornfeild up here!...at
                                > least we will have fun. :) >>
                                >
                                > I can't decide whether to be the Fredric March Laffite or the Yul Bynner
                                >
                                > Laffitte for "The Bucco-mentary".
                                > :-) >>
                                >
                                >But where are we going to get all the Victorian Highlander uniforms from?
                                >And
                                >the only RHA uniform I can put my hands on is blue not red!
                                >
                                >Shiver me timbers, Jim Lad

                                Not to mention the Prince Valiant wigs for the Highlanders (or the
                                about-to-take-flight feather bonnets, depending on the version)!
                                An' I jest cain't wait tuh be thar an' see thu Brits line up an' git mowed
                                down by all them thar dog-on-head funteersmuhn, heee-yuck! Now that's
                                histuree!
                                Yep, I looooove makin' moovees! Hay Margeee! I'm quittin my arckeetectural
                                job so's I kin go bee a moveee star! I'll do anuhthin tuh be on TeeVee!
                                ;-)
                              • SACBG7@xxx.xxx
                                Concerning the N.O. Movie: I am having a difficult time acquiring enough Turkey gizzards and ague powder---Have been practicing my line delivery--- Drink your
                                Message 15 of 18 , May 6, 1999
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Concerning the N.O. Movie: I am having a difficult time acquiring enough
                                  Turkey gizzards and ague powder---Have been practicing my line
                                  delivery---"Drink your milk Andy." I however will be drinking good Tennessee
                                  bourbon!
                                  All the best,
                                  S.
                                • BritcomHMP@xxx.xxx
                                  In a message dated 5/6/99 9:51:37 AM Central Daylight Time, mmathews@VAX2.WINONA.MSUS.EDU writes:
                                  Message 16 of 18 , May 6, 1999
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    In a message dated 5/6/99 9:51:37 AM Central Daylight Time,
                                    mmathews@... writes:

                                    << In the text of "The War of 1812: A Forgotten Conflict" by Donald Hickey, it
                                    stated that when General Ross was shot, no quarter was given to American
                                    sharpshooters there after. Yet when Rifleman Plunkett killed General
                                    Colbert and an aide that stopped to help him in the Peninsular, he was
                                    hailed as a small hero. Just an interested comparison of definitions of
                                    what's fair being dependent on who is receiving the bullet. >>

                                    Personally I would love to see the original of this 'order.' No one knows who
                                    shot Ross (despite the local legends) he had left the line of battle to bring
                                    up the main column. The column found him mortally wounded on the road. He had
                                    certainly been shot by a skulker but who, or whether that person was even in
                                    any US formation is a matter of speculation.

                                    Cheers

                                    Tim
                                  • mmathews@xxxx.xxxxxx.xxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
                                    ... The source given for the section is Gleig, Narrative of the Campaigns , 178. An unidentified British officer is also quoted as having written, It is
                                    Message 17 of 18 , May 6, 1999
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      >From: BritcomHMP@...
                                      >
                                      >In a message dated 5/6/99 9:51:37 AM Central Daylight Time,
                                      >mmathews@... writes:
                                      >
                                      ><< In the text of "The War of 1812: A Forgotten Conflict" by Donald Hickey, it
                                      > stated that when General Ross was shot, no quarter was given to American
                                      > sharpshooters there after. Yet when Rifleman Plunkett killed General
                                      > Colbert and an aide that stopped to help him in the Peninsular, he was
                                      > hailed as a small hero. Just an interested comparison of definitions of
                                      > what's fair being dependent on who is receiving the bullet. >>
                                      >
                                      >Personally I would love to see the original of this 'order.' No one knows who
                                      >shot Ross (despite the local legends) he had left the line of battle to bring
                                      >up the main column. The column found him mortally wounded on the road. He had
                                      >certainly been shot by a skulker but who, or whether that person was even in
                                      >any US formation is a matter of speculation.

                                      The source given for the section is Gleig, "Narrative of the Campaigns",
                                      178. An unidentified British officer is also quoted as having written, "It
                                      is impossible to conceive the effect which this melancholy spectacle
                                      produced throughout the army." So perhaps it was a battlefield phenom
                                      rather than a specific order. But I recall the outrage the death of
                                      General Brock created towards the evil Yanks who actually targeting
                                      officers! Yet the 95th (and others) had been picking off officers and NCOs
                                      with abandon in the Peninsular for years.

                                      Anyone for the topic of "infernal devices"? i.e. anything weapon the
                                      British didn't have or use? ;-) (and I AM teasing here)

                                      TTFN,
                                      Michael

                                      Michael Mathews -- Winona State University
                                      Voice: (507) 285-7585 Fax: (507) 280-5568
                                      ------------------------------
                                      "Wit is educated insolence." -- Aristotle (384-322 B.C.)
                                    • Swaffield
                                      Please for give me, my delete key must be sensative......but I copied the following poem posted here the other day about the Brown Bess - I forgot to get any
                                      Message 18 of 18 , May 6, 1999
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Please for give me, my delete key must be sensative......but I copied
                                        the following poem posted here the other day about the Brown Bess - I
                                        forgot to get any of the other info about. What a great poem and
                                        testament of the Bess! Could the person who posted it please repost
                                        where he found it? He can even email me directly so as not to waste
                                        onelist space. I would REALLY appreciate it! It is as follows:

                                        >"If you go to Museums,
                                        >(theres one in Whitehall)
                                        >Its there you will find her
                                        >Her back to the wall
                                        >
                                        >As straight as a ramrod
                                        >A flint in her teeth
                                        >And a faded inscription
                                        >On cardboard beneath
                                        >
                                        >And if ever our Soldiers
                                        >Had reason to bless
                                        >Any arm (save their mothers)
                                        >That arm is Brown Bess."

                                        Thanks.
                                        Swaffield.
                                        Pvt. 41st Reg't.
                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.