malthaussen
Recruit
Ealdormann Hussey observes: "There's an old chestnut that appears in discussion from time to time, whether or not it's true I couldn't say. It goes that British troops during the American revolution saw their rifle bearing opponents as morally reprehensible, by actively aiming at an enemy they were guilty of murder, while British troops and American regulars by firing a sightless musket were merely committing the receiver to the judgement of god. An interesting if impeccably flawed logic if true."
And an interesting consonance with the attitudes of modern regular troops towards snipers. The latter being almost universally shunned as murderous maniacs, while a modern soldier spraying on full rock and roll or popping off Dragons and RPGs is just a regular ol' guy. It's interesting that snipers often subject their own selves to this kind of condemnation: the burn-out rate for snipers is famous.
As for the British emphasis on marksmanship, if I appear to have downplayed it, it is because it does tend to get exaggerated. True, the Brits used live ammo in training. To some extent, and if the Colonel was willing to pay for it. According to Farwell (I believe), there was no Government provision for using live ammo in training for a good part of the 19th century. I haven't seen the British training manuals you mention, however, so I don't know how accurate that assertion is. I do remember reading somewhere-or-other that a line regiment typically only fired about 40 live rounds a year, however, which is better than nothing, but not exactly intensive training.
OTOH, British marksmanship was evidently superior to French, as can be verified by relative body counts in the instances of face-to-face volley exchanges between deployed battalions which occurred a couple of times in the Peninsula. (Albuera and Salamanca, eg) In those cases, casualties on both sides tended to be terrible, but the redcoats do have an edge.
And of course, the Old Contemptibles were amazing. Pity they all got killed.
(btw, the "Mad Minute" was preserved in US Army tactics at least through Vietnam, and may still be doctrine, for all I know. Of course, there are those who disapprove because it wastes ammo.)
-- Mal
And an interesting consonance with the attitudes of modern regular troops towards snipers. The latter being almost universally shunned as murderous maniacs, while a modern soldier spraying on full rock and roll or popping off Dragons and RPGs is just a regular ol' guy. It's interesting that snipers often subject their own selves to this kind of condemnation: the burn-out rate for snipers is famous.
As for the British emphasis on marksmanship, if I appear to have downplayed it, it is because it does tend to get exaggerated. True, the Brits used live ammo in training. To some extent, and if the Colonel was willing to pay for it. According to Farwell (I believe), there was no Government provision for using live ammo in training for a good part of the 19th century. I haven't seen the British training manuals you mention, however, so I don't know how accurate that assertion is. I do remember reading somewhere-or-other that a line regiment typically only fired about 40 live rounds a year, however, which is better than nothing, but not exactly intensive training.
OTOH, British marksmanship was evidently superior to French, as can be verified by relative body counts in the instances of face-to-face volley exchanges between deployed battalions which occurred a couple of times in the Peninsula. (Albuera and Salamanca, eg) In those cases, casualties on both sides tended to be terrible, but the redcoats do have an edge.
And of course, the Old Contemptibles were amazing. Pity they all got killed.
(btw, the "Mad Minute" was preserved in US Army tactics at least through Vietnam, and may still be doctrine, for all I know. Of course, there are those who disapprove because it wastes ammo.)
-- Mal
As for wasting ammunition, this seems strange as the emphasis in the British army (so presumably in the US Army) was on both speed and accuracy (both were achieved by altering the SMLE drill to firing with the midde finger, allowing the index and thumb to work the bolt while the middle remained poised on the trigger, it also reduced the extent of arm movement which caused soldiers to drop the rifle from line of aim)
