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

Smooth Bore Accuracy

Expand Messages
  • C
    Hi all Just wanted to share an experience this past weekend with the USMC Historical Company. We were at Ft Indiantown Gap PA for a 5 day boot camp .
    Message 1 of 12 , Jun 29, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi all
      Just wanted to share an experience this past weekend with the USMC
      Historical Company. We were at Ft Indiantown Gap PA for a 5 day "boot
      camp". Morning PT and runs, close order drill, WWII barracks,
      chowhall and chow. We fired Marine Corps weapons from flintlocks to
      M16 A2s. Including the BAR, our issued M1s and THE Flamethrower (only
      one in existance) often seen on history channel owned by the USMCHCs
      director, Gny Sgt Tom Williams.

      ***SMOOTH BORE ACCURACY***

      Your Humble Marine Corps private may have put to rest the gross
      overestimation of the Charleville's inaccuracy. I do not claim to be
      a marksman in any way, but at 100 YARDS!!! I hit a smaller than normal
      sillouette center mass on my 3rd try. First missed completely, 2nd
      bounced on the berm just below the target. All present agreed that if
      it had been a person the lower half of the body would have sustained a
      hit. The 4th shot was the same; Just low. My days of expressing to
      the public by pointing to the nearest tree and saying "I would be
      lucky if I hit that" are over.
      YHOS
      C Murphy
      USS CON
      1812 MG
    • Kevin Windsor
      way to go Murph. I used to always say that you couldn t hit the broadside of a barn and then we started live firing. Most of the 89th can hit a 3 x 3
      Message 2 of 12 , Jun 29, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        way to go Murph. I used to always say that you couldn't hit the broadside
        of a barn and then we started live firing. Most of the 89th can hit a 3' x
        3' target at 75-100 yrds. Some were using patches (the wimps ;-) ) and some
        were just using paper tube. I was surprised to find that if you leave the
        ball in the tube it makes a good wad.
        I would recommend it to all. If one wants to tell the public what this
        thing is like to fire, I think everyone should fire it live. The 89th do it
        every year with our new recruits as well. It's also a good lesson to show
        that "yes Virginia this is a real gun so treat it as such"

        If you come down without an event in the way we'll do it again. I need the
        practise because as far as the 89th goes, I am in fact the worst shot.
        That's why they gave me a sword.

        Kevin (who will miss you this weekend, but would also rather be on the turn
        around!)


        p.s. How was the flamethrower?????
        ----- Original Message -----

        My days of expressing to
        > the public by pointing to the nearest tree and saying "I would be
        > lucky if I hit that" are over.
        >
      • C
        (who will miss you this weekend, but would also rather be on the turn ... I d rather be at L s L. Turn arounds are too much work!! Lets just say the Flame
        Message 3 of 12 , Jun 29, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          (who will miss you this weekend, but would also rather be on the turn
          > around!)
          >
          >
          > p.s. How was the flamethrower?????



          I'd rather be at L's L. Turn arounds are too much work!!

          Lets just say the Flame Thrower was NASTY!!

          We fired it at about a 60 degree angle into the sky and there was
          still chared grass underneathe the flame.

          But the most intense part of the weekend was when the Active Duty
          Marines just back from Iraq and Afganistan along with the Older
          members who had seen action in Vietnam, Lebanon, Grenada, Panama and
          Gulf War 1 sent all of us non service members into the butts (the
          target pit behind the berm) and without us knowing let loose on the
          berm and just over our heads with BARs, M1s, M2s, Spring 03s. They
          wanted to let us hear wht it was like to be shot at. Mind you it was
          only to hear it because we knew we were relatively safe. But it still
          sounded like the entrence to hell. The sound of the bulletts thudding
          into the burm, whizzing overhead, and the weird "crack crack crack" of
          the rifles. Nothing like the movies at all.
        • Mike Felmlee
          Due to the relatively small windage amount between the ball and barrel diameter, the Charleville/Springfield musket is markedly more accurate than the Brown
          Message 4 of 12 , Jun 29, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            Due to the relatively small windage amount between the
            ball and barrel diameter, the Charleville/Springfield
            musket is markedly more accurate than the Brown Bess.
            This could account for some of the lopsided casualty
            numbers in War of 1812 battles...just my opinion.

            Many years ago, I participated in a live firing
            exercise at targets with our group and a couple of us
            (myself included) were able to hit a 1/2 silhouette at
            about 120 yards. Mind you, that range is only
            attainable with the modern refined black powders.

            The same target was attempted with a couple of Brown
            Bess muskets we brought along, and we just could not
            get the same results.

            I will say that I have been able to get very close to
            and hit some pretty small targets at 100 yards each
            time I have taken my Charleville out to the range. The
            modern target shooters are always amazed by the damage
            that thing can do with relatively decent accuracy.

            Try some buck and ball next time ;-)

            Mike Felmlee
            19th US Infantry
          • Larry Lozon
            From: C Murphy ...We fired Marine Corps weapons from flintlocks ..... Mr. Murphy et al For those who were at the Crown Officer, NCO
            Message 5 of 12 , Jun 29, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              From: "C Murphy" <usmarine1812@...>

              " ...We fired Marine Corps weapons from flintlocks ....."



              Mr. Murphy et al

              For those who were at the Crown Officer, NCO School - Fort York,
              Toronto April 17 or shall be at the July 2-4 Lundy's Lane/Chippawa
              event Niagara Falls Ontario talk to Paul Schaef (Assistant Quartermaster
              General - Crown Forces) Mr. Schaef shoots a Brown Bess competitively.




              Yrs.,

              L2
            • abateman
              ... From: Mike Felmlee ... You can do that with any musket depending on the projectiles you use. What size balls were you using and how
              Message 6 of 12 , Jun 29, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                ----- Original Message -----
                From: "Mike Felmlee" <mikexix@...>


                > Due to the relatively small windage amount between the
                > ball and barrel diameter, the Charleville/Springfield
                > musket is markedly more accurate than the Brown Bess.

                You can do that with any musket depending on the projectiles you use. What
                size balls were you using and how were you patching them? I have both a
                Brown Bess and an 1842 Springfield .69 (think of a War of 1812 Springfield
                in percussion) and several sizes of bullet moulds. For the Brown Bess,
                Lyman sells moulds in .735, .715, and .690 sizes. The .735's are for
                shooting "bare" while the .715's are best for greased cloth patches and the
                .690's are best for period style paper cartridges and are probably closest
                to what was issued (though I suspect Lyman intended them for 12 gauge
                shotguns). I have gotten good results from the .662" size ball in my
                Springfield, but it is worth remembering that the US arsenals were issuing
                .64 sized balls for most of the flintlock era. This was to ensure that you
                could load and fire many shots before the fouling prevented you from ramming
                a ball down. I don't have the documentation in front of me (try the chapter
                on smoothbores in Joe Bilby's "Civil War Firearms"), but it wasn't until
                well after the War of 1812 that the Springfield's ball was bumped up to .65
                caliber and a smaller charge of better powder was issued to increase
                accuracy.

                And we haven't even considered the effect of the ubiquitous "buck and ball"
                load yet. I once spent an afternoon playing around with my Springfield and
                various combinations of projectiles: single ball, buck and ball, and
                straight 12 pellet buckshot loads such as were issued for guards and
                pickets. My shoulder was sore but I learned a lot. The buckshot wouldn't
                always penetrate a steel garbage can lid but they were probably enough to
                take a guy out of action.

                Andrew Bateman, 41st Foot
              • Mike Felmlee
                If I remember correctly, the British muskets shot a .69 cal ball and the US was issuing a .64 to .65 ball. Using the paper cartridge as a wad adds a variable
                Message 7 of 12 , Jun 29, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  If I remember correctly, the British muskets shot a
                  .69 cal ball and the US was issuing a .64 to .65 ball.
                  Using the paper cartridge as a wad adds a variable
                  that is tough to nail down, but that amount of
                  comparitive windage can make a difference (.06 for the
                  Crown Forces and .04 to .05 for the US). Also, factor
                  in the burn rates of modern powders as opposed to what
                  we can assume about period powder.
                  We were using the sizes (as issued) and paper
                  cartridges as per the manual since we were attempting
                  to do a bit of research from it.

                  The buck and ball round really did a number on the
                  paper target we were using - it was an outline of a 5
                  man front. Using single ball rounds, we only scored
                  about 10 hits out of 40 fired at 75 yards.The buck and
                  ball shredded it.

                  The single man sized target was a lot harder to hit at
                  over 100 yards, and only two or three of us actually
                  connected with the target.

                  I understand that many people shoot muskets
                  competitively, but they have an array of different
                  caliber balls to choose from as well as patch and
                  grease/lube combinations. I was talking strictly issue
                  sizes and paper cartridges.

                  Dare I mention the difference in the loading and
                  firing drill between US and British forces of the
                  period? We "Take aim", they "Present"...
                  ;-)

                  Regards,

                  Mike Felmlee
                  19th US Infantry

                  --- abateman <abateman@...> wrote:
                  > ----- Original Message -----
                  > From: "Mike Felmlee" <mikexix@...>
                  >
                  >
                  > > Due to the relatively small windage amount between
                  > the
                  > > ball and barrel diameter, the
                  > Charleville/Springfield
                  > > musket is markedly more accurate than the Brown
                  > Bess.
                  >
                  > You can do that with any musket depending on the
                  > projectiles you use. What
                  > size balls were you using and how were you patching
                  > them? I have both a
                  > Brown Bess and an 1842 Springfield .69 (think of a
                  > War of 1812 Springfield
                  > in percussion) and several sizes of bullet moulds.
                  > For the Brown Bess,
                  > Lyman sells moulds in .735, .715, and .690 sizes.
                  > The .735's are for
                  > shooting "bare" while the .715's are best for
                  > greased cloth patches and the
                  > .690's are best for period style paper cartridges
                  > and are probably closest
                  > to what was issued (though I suspect Lyman intended
                  > them for 12 gauge
                  > shotguns). I have gotten good results from the
                  > .662" size ball in my
                  > Springfield, but it is worth remembering that the US
                  > arsenals were issuing
                  > .64 sized balls for most of the flintlock era. This
                  > was to ensure that you
                  > could load and fire many shots before the fouling
                  > prevented you from ramming
                  > a ball down. I don't have the documentation in
                  > front of me (try the chapter
                  > on smoothbores in Joe Bilby's "Civil War Firearms"),
                  > but it wasn't until
                  > well after the War of 1812 that the Springfield's
                  > ball was bumped up to .65
                  > caliber and a smaller charge of better powder was
                  > issued to increase
                  > accuracy.
                  >
                  > And we haven't even considered the effect of the
                  > ubiquitous "buck and ball"
                  > load yet. I once spent an afternoon playing around
                  > with my Springfield and
                  > various combinations of projectiles: single ball,
                  > buck and ball, and
                  > straight 12 pellet buckshot loads such as were
                  > issued for guards and
                  > pickets. My shoulder was sore but I learned a lot.
                  > The buckshot wouldn't
                  > always penetrate a steel garbage can lid but they
                  > were probably enough to
                  > take a guy out of action.
                  >
                  > Andrew Bateman, 41st Foot
                  >
                  >
                • dancingbobd@webtv.net
                  Thanks Andrew! Very informative. Bob Dorian Independence, MO USA
                  Message 8 of 12 , Jun 29, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Thanks Andrew! Very informative.

                    Bob Dorian
                    Independence, MO
                    USA
                  • Peter Monahan
                    I d have to agree with Mike on two things: competition vs issue loads and how soldiers fried in battle. I recently fired 25-30 rounds of ..735 from a Bess,
                    Message 9 of 12 , Jun 30, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I'd have to agree with Mike on two things: "competition" vs issue loads and how soldiers fried in battle. I recently fired 25-30 rounds of ..735 from a Bess, just "playing around" at a target 20 yards. Hit it somewhare most times but by no means all the time. Also, after 20 rounds had REAL difficulty forcing a bare bal down the fouled barrel. So assume a smaller ball for battle issue, as perhaps distinct from trainging.

                      Second, look at Murph's post on the effects of being downrange and remember that the command was not "Aim" for we lobsters. What recruit Smith could do on the training range would be very VERY different from what he'd do while grape spread his neighbours guts all over his uniform and some nasty great sergeant rorared at him to "get it done, ya b**tard".

                      I'd stick with - for the public- "We could hit that tree on a good day, but probably wouldn't!"

                      Peter Monahhan
                      >
                      > From: Mike Felmlee <mikexix@...>
                      > Date: 2004/06/29 Tue PM 11:56:35 EST
                      > To: WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com
                      > Subject: Re: [WarOf1812] Re: Smooth Bore Accuracy
                      >
                      > If I remember correctly, the British muskets shot a
                      > .69 cal ball and the US was issuing a .64 to .65 ball.
                      > Using the paper cartridge as a wad adds a variable
                      > that is tough to nail down, but that amount of
                      > comparitive windage can make a difference (.06 for the
                      > Crown Forces and .04 to .05 for the US). Also, factor
                      > in the burn rates of modern powders as opposed to what
                      > we can assume about period powder.
                      > We were using the sizes (as issued) and paper
                      > cartridges as per the manual since we were attempting
                      > to do a bit of research from it.
                      >
                      > The buck and ball round really did a number on the
                      > paper target we were using - it was an outline of a 5
                      > man front. Using single ball rounds, we only scored
                      > about 10 hits out of 40 fired at 75 yards.The buck and
                      > ball shredded it.
                      >
                      > The single man sized target was a lot harder to hit at
                      > over 100 yards, and only two or three of us actually
                      > connected with the target.
                      >
                      > I understand that many people shoot muskets
                      > competitively, but they have an array of different
                      > caliber balls to choose from as well as patch and
                      > grease/lube combinations. I was talking strictly issue
                      > sizes and paper cartridges.
                      >
                      > Dare I mention the difference in the loading and
                      > firing drill between US and British forces of the
                      > period? We "Take aim", they "Present"...
                      > ;-)
                      >
                      > Regards,
                      >
                      > Mike Felmlee
                      > 19th US Infantry
                      >
                      > --- abateman <abateman@...> wrote:
                      > > ----- Original Message -----
                      > > From: "Mike Felmlee" <mikexix@...>
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > > Due to the relatively small windage amount between
                      > > the
                      > > > ball and barrel diameter, the
                      > > Charleville/Springfield
                      > > > musket is markedly more accurate than the Brown
                      > > Bess.
                      > >
                      > > You can do that with any musket depending on the
                      > > projectiles you use. What
                      > > size balls were you using and how were you patching
                      > > them? I have both a
                      > > Brown Bess and an 1842 Springfield .69 (think of a
                      > > War of 1812 Springfield
                      > > in percussion) and several sizes of bullet moulds.
                      > > For the Brown Bess,
                      > > Lyman sells moulds in .735, .715, and .690 sizes.
                      > > The .735's are for
                      > > shooting "bare" while the .715's are best for
                      > > greased cloth patches and the
                      > > .690's are best for period style paper cartridges
                      > > and are probably closest
                      > > to what was issued (though I suspect Lyman intended
                      > > them for 12 gauge
                      > > shotguns). I have gotten good results from the
                      > > .662" size ball in my
                      > > Springfield, but it is worth remembering that the US
                      > > arsenals were issuing
                      > > .64 sized balls for most of the flintlock era. This
                      > > was to ensure that you
                      > > could load and fire many shots before the fouling
                      > > prevented you from ramming
                      > > a ball down. I don't have the documentation in
                      > > front of me (try the chapter
                      > > on smoothbores in Joe Bilby's "Civil War Firearms"),
                      > > but it wasn't until
                      > > well after the War of 1812 that the Springfield's
                      > > ball was bumped up to .65
                      > > caliber and a smaller charge of better powder was
                      > > issued to increase
                      > > accuracy.
                      > >
                      > > And we haven't even considered the effect of the
                      > > ubiquitous "buck and ball"
                      > > load yet. I once spent an afternoon playing around
                      > > with my Springfield and
                      > > various combinations of projectiles: single ball,
                      > > buck and ball, and
                      > > straight 12 pellet buckshot loads such as were
                      > > issued for guards and
                      > > pickets. My shoulder was sore but I learned a lot.
                      > > The buckshot wouldn't
                      > > always penetrate a steel garbage can lid but they
                      > > were probably enough to
                      > > take a guy out of action.
                      > >
                      > > Andrew Bateman, 41st Foot
                      > >
                      > >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > The War of 1812: In Europe, thousands fought over the fate of hundreds of square miles: in North America, hundreds determined the fate of THOUSANDS of square miles...
                      >
                      > Unit Contact information for North America:
                      > ---------------------------------
                      > Crown Forces Unit Listing:
                      > http://1812crownforces.tripod.com
                      >
                      > American Forces Unit Lisiting
                      > http://usforces1812.tripod.com
                      > Yahoo! Groups Links
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >

                      Peter Monahan
                    • Doc Walsh
                      fried in battle?????? talevera by chance!! ... Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version:
                      Message 10 of 12 , Jun 30, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        fried in battle?????? talevera by chance!!


                        ---
                        Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
                        Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
                        Version: 6.0.710 / Virus Database: 466 - Release Date: 23/06/2004


                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • ray.hobbs@sympatico.ca
                        The achievement of Accuracy under battle conditions would have been quite different from accuracy on the firing range. British documents of the Napoleonic
                        Message 11 of 12 , Jun 30, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          The achievement of "Accuracy" under battle conditions would have been quite different from accuracy
                          on the firing range. British documents of the Napoleonic times use 'aim" as well as "present" in their
                          descriptions of the infantry line at work. However, this quotation from a Major General in the
                          Penninsula is revealing:

                          "What precision of aim can be expected of soldiers when firing in line? One man is priming; another
                          coming to the present; a third taking, what is called aim; a fourth ramming down his cartridge. After a
                          few shots the whoole body are closely enveloped in smoke, and the enemy is totally invisible; some of
                          the soldiers step out a pace or two, in order to get a better shot; others kneel down, and some have no
                          objection to retire a step or two. The doomed begin to fall, dreadfully mutilated perhaps, and even bold
                          men shrink from the sight; others are wounded, and assisted to the rear by their comrades, so that the
                          whole becomes a line of utter confusion, in which the mass only think of getting their shot fired, they
                          hardly care how or in what direction." (quoted in Rory Muir, Tactics and the Experience of Battle in the
                          Age of Napoleon [Yale UP: 1998], p. 85).

                          All of which might explain why, with so much fire-power at their disposal, relatively few casualties were
                          inflicted by some troops in battle.
                          A few cent's worth
                          Ray Hobbs
                          41st Regt
                          Hamilton, Ont.
                          > From: Peter Monahan <petemonahan@...>
                          > Date: 2004/06/30 Wed AM 08:50:37 EST
                          > To: <WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com>
                          > Subject: Re: Re: [WarOf1812] Re: Smooth Bore Accuracy
                          >
                          > I'd have to agree with Mike on two things: "competition" vs issue loads and how soldiers fried in
                          battle. I recently fired 25-30 rounds of ..735 from a Bess, just "playing around" at a target 20 yards. Hit
                          it somewhare most times but by no means all the time. Also, after 20 rounds had REAL difficulty forcing
                          a bare bal down the fouled barrel. So assume a smaller ball for battle issue, as perhaps distinct from
                          trainging.
                          >
                          > Second, look at Murph's post on the effects of being downrange and remember that the command
                          was not "Aim" for we lobsters. What recruit Smith could do on the training range would be very VERY
                          different from what he'd do while grape spread his neighbours guts all over his uniform and some nasty
                          great sergeant rorared at him to "get it done, ya b**tard".
                          >
                          > I'd stick with - for the public- "We could hit that tree on a good day, but probably wouldn't!"
                          >
                          > Peter Monahhan
                          > >
                          > > From: Mike Felmlee <mikexix@...>
                          > > Date: 2004/06/29 Tue PM 11:56:35 EST
                          > > To: WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com
                          > > Subject: Re: [WarOf1812] Re: Smooth Bore Accuracy
                          > >
                          > > If I remember correctly, the British muskets shot a
                          > > .69 cal ball and the US was issuing a .64 to .65 ball.
                          > > Using the paper cartridge as a wad adds a variable
                          > > that is tough to nail down, but that amount of
                          > > comparitive windage can make a difference (.06 for the
                          > > Crown Forces and .04 to .05 for the US). Also, factor
                          > > in the burn rates of modern powders as opposed to what
                          > > we can assume about period powder.
                          > > We were using the sizes (as issued) and paper
                          > > cartridges as per the manual since we were attempting
                          > > to do a bit of research from it.
                          > >
                          > > The buck and ball round really did a number on the
                          > > paper target we were using - it was an outline of a 5
                          > > man front. Using single ball rounds, we only scored
                          > > about 10 hits out of 40 fired at 75 yards.The buck and
                          > > ball shredded it.
                          > >
                          > > The single man sized target was a lot harder to hit at
                          > > over 100 yards, and only two or three of us actually
                          > > connected with the target.
                          > >
                          > > I understand that many people shoot muskets
                          > > competitively, but they have an array of different
                          > > caliber balls to choose from as well as patch and
                          > > grease/lube combinations. I was talking strictly issue
                          > > sizes and paper cartridges.
                          > >
                          > > Dare I mention the difference in the loading and
                          > > firing drill between US and British forces of the
                          > > period? We "Take aim", they "Present"...
                          > > ;-)
                          > >
                          > > Regards,
                          > >
                          > > Mike Felmlee
                          > > 19th US Infantry
                          > >
                          > > --- abateman <abateman@...> wrote:
                          > > > ----- Original Message -----
                          > > > From: "Mike Felmlee" <mikexix@...>
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > > > Due to the relatively small windage amount between
                          > > > the
                          > > > > ball and barrel diameter, the
                          > > > Charleville/Springfield
                          > > > > musket is markedly more accurate than the Brown
                          > > > Bess.
                          > > >
                          > > > You can do that with any musket depending on the
                          > > > projectiles you use. What
                          > > > size balls were you using and how were you patching
                          > > > them? I have both a
                          > > > Brown Bess and an 1842 Springfield .69 (think of a
                          > > > War of 1812 Springfield
                          > > > in percussion) and several sizes of bullet moulds.
                          > > > For the Brown Bess,
                          > > > Lyman sells moulds in .735, .715, and .690 sizes.
                          > > > The .735's are for
                          > > > shooting "bare" while the .715's are best for
                          > > > greased cloth patches and the
                          > > > .690's are best for period style paper cartridges
                          > > > and are probably closest
                          > > > to what was issued (though I suspect Lyman intended
                          > > > them for 12 gauge
                          > > > shotguns). I have gotten good results from the
                          > > > .662" size ball in my
                          > > > Springfield, but it is worth remembering that the US
                          > > > arsenals were issuing
                          > > > .64 sized balls for most of the flintlock era. This
                          > > > was to ensure that you
                          > > > could load and fire many shots before the fouling
                          > > > prevented you from ramming
                          > > > a ball down. I don't have the documentation in
                          > > > front of me (try the chapter
                          > > > on smoothbores in Joe Bilby's "Civil War Firearms"),
                          > > > but it wasn't until
                          > > > well after the War of 1812 that the Springfield's
                          > > > ball was bumped up to .65
                          > > > caliber and a smaller charge of better powder was
                          > > > issued to increase
                          > > > accuracy.
                          > > >
                          > > > And we haven't even considered the effect of the
                          > > > ubiquitous "buck and ball"
                          > > > load yet. I once spent an afternoon playing around
                          > > > with my Springfield and
                          > > > various combinations of projectiles: single ball,
                          > > > buck and ball, and
                          > > > straight 12 pellet buckshot loads such as were
                          > > > issued for guards and
                          > > > pickets. My shoulder was sore but I learned a lot.
                          > > > The buckshot wouldn't
                          > > > always penetrate a steel garbage can lid but they
                          > > > were probably enough to
                          > > > take a guy out of action.
                          > > >
                          > > > Andrew Bateman, 41st Foot
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > The War of 1812: In Europe, thousands fought over the fate of hundreds of square miles: in North
                          America, hundreds determined the fate of THOUSANDS of square miles...
                          > >
                          > > Unit Contact information for North America:
                          > > ---------------------------------
                          > > Crown Forces Unit Listing:
                          > > http://1812crownforces.tripod.com
                          > >
                          > > American Forces Unit Lisiting
                          > > http://usforces1812.tripod.com
                          > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          >
                          > Peter Monahan
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > The War of 1812: In Europe, thousands fought over the fate of hundreds of square miles: in North
                          America, hundreds determined the fate of THOUSANDS of square miles...
                          >
                          > Unit Contact information for North America:
                          > ---------------------------------
                          > Crown Forces Unit Listing:
                          > http://1812crownforces.tripod.com
                          >
                          > American Forces Unit Lisiting
                          > http://usforces1812.tripod.com
                          > Yahoo! Groups Links
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                        • Armchairadm@cs.com
                          In the same vein as the quote from the British officer in the Peninsula, here is a quote from Don Graves excellent book on Lundy s Lane which also helps to
                          Message 12 of 12 , Jun 30, 2004
                          • 0 Attachment
                            In the same vein as the quote from the British officer in the Peninsula, here
                            is a quote from Don Graves excellent book on Lundy's Lane which also helps to
                            illustrate the difference between the firing range & the firing line.
                            "...the soldiers themselves, taking out a sort of carte blanche, blazed away,
                            in the most independent manner, in all directions...to little purpose, beyond
                            that of raising noise and smoke."

                            Ed B.


                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.