ไม่สามารถเล่นวิดีโอนี้
ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก
How Redcoats Went to War | British Infantry Organisation during the American War of Independence
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 ส.ค. 2024
- The first 100 people to download Endel by clicking the link below will get a free week of audio experiences! eu.endel.io/tr...
This is the second video in my series on the Organisation of the British Infantry during the American War of Independence. In it, I go over some "combat-level" organisations which were more fluid and easily adaptable than their Regimental counterparts. These being: Brigades, Battalions, Divisions, Wings, Grand and Sub-Divisions, and lastly, Platoons.
You can find all of this information, and an awful lot more, by visiting www.nativeoak....
Personally I'd recommend starting with the 1764 Manual Exercise, Cuthbertson, and Hindle! And then, when you'd like to move on to secondary scholarship, Matthew Spring's "With Zeal and With Bayonets Only" is the best place to start: amzn.to/3eCCN3H
Learn more at:
www.nativeoak....
If you'd like to support the channel, please consider giving on Patreon,
/ brandonf
You can follow me on Facebook and Instagram!
/ thenativeoak
/ brandonfisichella
And finally, you can write me at:
Brandon Fisichella
PO Box No. 4114
6400 Emerald Parkway
Dublin, OH 43016
The first 100 people to download Endel by clicking the link below will get a free week of audio experiences! eu.endel.io/try-for-free-en?
Brandon, I have a lead on the spit-loading, I found a reference to it in the 1952 CS Forester novel Mr. Midshipman Hornblower. Short story “The Frogs and the Lobsters”, I’ll edit this with the passage when I find the page. This explains where Bernard Cornwell (Sharpe’s author) got it from, but doesn’t tell us where Forester got it, since he was even more historically focused than Cornwell was.
@@konstantinosnikolakakis8125 Nice!
@@konstantinosnikolakakis8125 Yeah, I've heard it was written in that one! One of the few Hornblower books I've not read. I was sad to hear it came from Forester!
I just came across your channel the other day. It's great. I went ahead and subscribed. Also, I appreciate how much attention to detail and historical accuracy you have. Are there any good websites you can recommend for someone that's interested in attending or maybe someday participating in reenactments but never really been to one before? If it helps I'm in the Pacific Northwest USA. Thanks and keep up the great work! 😀👍
Can you please explain in another video about the reloading protocol of the British military and why it was standard to charge the pan FIRST, then load the powder and ball? From a MODERN firearms safety perspective and standard muzzle loading procedures, it’s the opposite. Because if that hammer fails, and you have your hand in front of the barrel mid reload, or there is an ember still in the barrel, there is a good chance of a discharge and risk in injury. Where as loading the barrel first, then charging the pan, by the time you are ready to cock the hammer, the barrel is already pointed down range, and also not at your hand or face. Are there any examples of officers realizing it wasn’t such a good idea and proposing a change in loading order? (Not that the British in the past were very open to anything other than tradition even if it was counterproductive, no offense 😅) or if there were any documented instances where there was such an accidental discharge because of said loading/reloading order in which it was done?
"So, how was an 18th century army organised?"
"Yes"
Great video, Brandon!
The British were more hap-hazard. The Continental Powers (France, Spain, Prusia...) were more organised: 1 regiment comprising 2 battalions of 4 companies each (rifle companies in Spain), plus a HQ company (grenadier company in Spain).
@@podemosurss8316 Prussia especially was a model of organisation!
@@fogwar Yes, but not only Prussia. In fact this whole system was started by the French.
But not literally a rifle company, right, @@podemosurss8316? Because they wouldn't have rifles, but muskets?
@@NobleKorhedronIndeed, they used the model 1752 musket. I also have to point out the difficulty of translation, as in English you would use the word "rifle" where in Spanish we use the word "fusil", in fact the original term was "compañía de fusileros". At the time, the terms "rifle" and "fusil" meant the same thing, but in English the one that stuck was "rifle" whereas in Spanish it was "fusil" (though "rifle" is also used in Spanish as a generic for "long-barreled hand-held gun").
"Hey, take four men and, y'know, go around that way; do... something,"
Spoken like a true reenactor.
The Readcoats behind the Sherman needs to have a time travel story written. Seriously though, thanks for the video, these are helping to flesh out a concept I had for story writing, Fantasy, but set in the Napoleonic era as opposed to the era of shields and swords.
British officer: "I haven't a clue on Earth what a 'fascist' is supposed to be, but from what I'm told about them the only cure is a taste of the King's steel!"
You'll love the book series Temeraire.
Set in the Napoleonic war only that there are dragons.
I love the concept of linear warfare continuing on even with the invention of better weaponry
If there's Redcoats behind it it must be a Sherman "Firefly!"
@@danielomar9712 The Mordian Iron Guard from 40k fights in that manner. How they survive as an outfit is beyond me since, well, they do not have cloning facilities like the other regiments fighting in linear fashion. It's just so impractical.
A certain Mr Nicholas Ryan left an excellent comment on a previous version of this video (the patron early release copy) that I wanted to re-post here since it adds some really valuable context to one of the points in this video:
"One thing to note is that the 42nd Foot was actually a single battalion regiment (until 1779, but that second battalion was never in North America). The problem was that it was a single battalion of like 1100 men (800-900 in the battalion companies) while the rest of the army was averaging 400-600, so they had to split it into two “provisional” battalions in-theatre, each under a Major. That way, they could be incorporated into brigades without as much disruption, since otherwise you would’ve had one battalion that’s twice the size of the others. It was a similar case with the 71st, who shipped as two official battalions, but would take to the field as three provisionals, basically acting as their own brigade."
Hmm, both highland regiments. Was there a reason they were larger in number?
@Christhorpe Junction A confident yet lazy answer that misses the point entirely.
@@stevenpremmel4116 not entirely inaccurate though considering what the English did to the highlands.
A better answer to that particular question would be that the 42nd was one of the few units being used for imperial duty after the seven years war. During that war it had had 2 battalions (one in North America and one in the Caribbean, at least at first). It was kept at a much larger strength in numbers due to its designation as a regiment that would be expected to respond to trouble throughout the new empire. Same with the 60th Royal Americans.
Both units were used to garrison the frontier posts of North America after the French and Indian War; A chain of forts and wagon roads that if laid out end to end over a map of Europe would stretch from London to Constantinople
@@Winaska Much appreciated, thanks. I knew post '45 there was an increase in recruitment (to put it politely) in Scotland and there was an expectation that they would see service in the Americas. I just never realised that these regiments would have been kept at a decent number.
There were also legions, Lauzun's Legion is a good example, which served in the American war of Independence, originally, it was a hussar regiment, but when it was deployed to America, it was composed of infantry companies, cavalry squadrons and light artillery batteries, it was a temporary unit formation, intended to support the Continentals, until the arrival of the main French army. Today we call these ad hoc formations, Battlegroups or Task Forces, which are typically battalion strength, and could be brigaded with other Battlegroups.
I legions were more cavalry, so big to small it was, Legion, Squadron, Troop, Division, Platoon and section
So, in the Peruvian War of Independence, there was a Peruvian Legion. Comprised of one cavalry Regiment, Hussars, one Infantry regiment of two battalions, and horse artillery.
Studying the British Army is especially confusing when you’re interested in the period in which the regiments were in transition in how many battalions they contained.
They were either multi-battalion regiments, or single-battalion regiments that then had an additional battalion raised, and then the extra battalions were separated to form their own regiments. 🤷♂️
The term "divisions" is still in use. During the Trooping of the Colour when the foot guards are being prepared to march off they are formed into three ranks (from 2 ranks), then the command "Guards will advance...About...Turn". At the point the Field Officer in Brigade Waiting (the commander of troops) comands "Guards will form Divisions". However, in this case the divisions are really "half companies". Also the troops that line the parade route (referred to as gutter snipes)are formed and marched in "half companies" to their posts.
Are you an old guardsman by any chance? 😅
At Waterloo, the 95th had 3 battalions taking part, after Waterloo they were taken out of the line regiments and made into the rifle Brigade.
I can understand the organization of the British army in the American Revolution. Thank you, Brandon.
Nice a fresh upload! I love your content, Brandon.
Thank you!
These are the types of videos you need to keep making, fantastically researched and provide great insight into this period of military strategy. Keep it up!
Yup he's good , isn't he.And the smartest dressed.
Brandon deserves the TH-cam Medal of Honour for his sponsor ads.
He's one of the few TH-camrs whose sponsor adverts I'll actually watch, simply because they're funny.
The British Army in North America was fascinatingly flexible. This makes a lot of sense that regiments and companies are designed as efficient administrative units, but a battalion and platoon are made flexible for combat.
Great presentation Brandon! Oh, that shot of the retired regimental colors was breathtaking! My God, all the history those flags have witnessed! Even the commercial was enjoyable! Oh those pesky French!
Just for everyone's interest and to show how the British Army in North America could "mix n' match" units as needed here's the organization of Lord Cornwallis' task force for the invasion of New Jersey in November of 1776. Per General Howe's order:
"The following Corps are to Strike their Tents Load their Waggons & be in reddiness to March with their Blanketts & Provision this Night at Nine O' Clock.
Two Compy Chassuiers 1st & 2d Lt. Infantry 1st & 2d Grenadiers 33d Regt 42d Regt. 3 Battns Hessian Grenadiers - 2 Battn of Guards 100 Men of Roger's Corps without Arms two Engineers with twelve Carpenters & three Guides. They will receive their Orders from Lt. Gl. Ld. Cornwallis."
I quoted verbatim in the 18th Century style, with capitalization and punctuation (or lack thereof) of the original order. The "Chassuiers" are the Jaegers.
If anyone's interested in a further breakdown as to "who was who" (It's complicated!) I'll be glad to provide it! It's a handful!
Great video, as always.
Also very pleasant choice of clothing/style.
Nice that you where using the Lincolnshire Regiment as an example, my great grandfather served as a 2nd Lt in the regiment during the second world war, and later a staff officer after the war as part of the British forces occupying Germany.
When I first joined the (recreated) light company of the King's Own Regt, we had 24 members under arms consistently showing up at events (this was around 2015). We ended up splitting into half companies because (especially at a reenactment scale) it was too unwieldy to maneuver all 24 soldiers at a time, especially if we wanted to behave like actual light infantry. At so many events, if we extended the line any further than 3 spaces we would span the width of the field. It really hammers home just how different our scale is from that of the actual 18th c. British army.
Loved this video!
It helped me finally connect the dots around how the British (to this very day) have - to the eyes of this US veteran - a most confusing regimental structure. The relationship of battalions to regiments was baffling until Brandon explained it.
Thanks so much! Looking forward to the next installment.
Excellent lecture. The regimental system is the same in Sweden as in the British Empire, with regiments being educational and organisational units rather than combat formations, like battalions. (In places like Germany, the infantry regiment is very much a combat formation.) The exceptions to this, both in Britain and Sweden, are naturally cavalry and artillery, where the term 'regiment' is applied to combat formations also, and these days tanks, which have replaced cavalry generally on the battlefield. Hence, you would have 1 Regt., RTR fighting in such-and-such a place, meaning the 1st Regiment, the Royal Tank Regiment (there being a 2nd, 3rd and 4th Regiment, as 'regiment' here is the cavalry/armoured equivalent to 'battalion'). In the same way, squadrons are the equivalent to companies in the cavalry, and troops that to platoons. The artillery equivalents are regiments (as with the cavalry), batteries and guns.
Very interesting and Well Made Video Brandon. Outstanding Job.
May I ask If you could consider making a Video about recruitment, drill and Training?
It's on the list!
Good afternoon
To you as well!
If the different ranks are next in line for your list of videos concerning British regimental organisation, it would be most appreciated if you could also cover the differences in uniform between them, and how one might determine an officer's rank.
I look forward to see your next video in this series!
I may be able to touch on that in the next video of this series, but if not, I will definitely make one on the same topic at some point! Thank you for bringing it up.
@@BrandonF thanks!
7:14 the Gallant forty twa
"She really was delighted and he stole her heart awa', when she saw him in the tartan of the Gallant Forty-Twa!"
@@wayneantoniazzi2706 "strolling through the green fields on a summer's day, watching all the country girls working at the hay"
@@sirfox950 Great old song, ain't it? 🤩
@@wayneantoniazzi2706 sure it is. It was even sung during the Dunkerque evacuation
@@sirfox950 Cool! You know, the first time I heard the melody (but not the song itself) was in a Gulf Oil commercial in the late 1960s. Different lyrics to go with the music of course.
Years later I heard the Clancy Brothers sing "Gallant Forty-Twa" and recognized the music immediately. "So THAT'S where Gulf got the music from!"
"Bringin' home the oil boys, bringin' home the oil. Sailin' all around the world bringin' home the oil..." I never forgot that "Lively tune!"
1k views in an hour isn't too bad. Good for you sir, cheers.
I love regiments. They make everything about understanding the current organization of the US military more difficult.
Awesome history lesson!
Your generosity is appreciated once again! Thank you so much, and I'm glad you enjoyed it!
Your zeal and passion for the subject shines through. Well done Sir, well done!
Thank you for your great videos, Brandon!
Back in 1974 (my sophomore year of college) - I completed an application form to join a local militia group in the Boston area so that I could participate in the battle reenactments of the Bicentennial the following year. The recruiting officer of the group invited me to come meet and talk to him in person at the Lexington Green reenactment.
Anyway - after seeing the 10th Regiment of Foot for the first time and being totally blown away - I decided that listing with the Crown Forces was the better way to go. -LOL
A good decision!
Squad level command and control becomes a useful tool after the introduction of metallic cartridges and definitely when repeating firearms are in common use. The widespread use of squad level automatic weapons introduces an even smaller, yet key level of the org chart, the fire team(s) which make up an infantry squad. Squad Leaders are Sergeants, team leaders are Corporals (not specialists who are not in the command line at all. The E4 mafia is a critter all its own.).
Platoon sizes, in infantry, have pretty much remained the same size over the last couple of centuries, namely between 25 to 40 men, including the Platoon Leader, Platoon Sergeant, Squad Leaders, and Corporals. Of course, the firepower of a modern platoon is many times greater than even those of 75 years ago, if you discount the artillery assets available to infantry support in WWII.
@Brandon
I'm not sure if you covered it before, but I'd like to ask about something on the social structures of the 18th cnetury and how it i pacted armies (like the British).
You've mentioned in previous videos (like those on guard regiments and commissioned officers) that a soldier's background could play into their ability to join certain regiments and officers most certainly saw this apply when purchasing their commissions. How much of a role did the nobility have compared to those from the men from wealthy non-noble families (the bourgeoisie)? I realize we're not talking the medieval period, where kings and lords frequently commanded (much smaller) armies, but this is something I'm interested in.
Awesome video
Brandon that tie is something else. Great dress sense!
It'd be cool if Brandon made a vid on the Philippines revolution or Spanish American War and showed how tactics were evolving to the newer bolt action rifles and machine guns.
Basically each regiment as you said Brandon could be a family, but each member of the family working for a different company [battalion] which could have its HQ say in Ireland, South Africa, India etc.
In later wars, e.g. First and Second World Wars the latter organisation you mentioned was used. The Army, made up of armies (such as 8th army which fought in North Africa in the SWW, commanded by a three star Lieutenant General) with several divisions, each of which (commanded by a two star Major General) had several brigades [commanded by a one star brigadier general] /plus/ support units like engineers, signals, artillery etc, [each brigade was made of battalions from various regiments].
In modern times divisions tend to be called 'battle groups'.
For anyone confused as to why a Major General ranks below a Lieutenant General, it's because originally Major Generals were called Sergeant-Major Generals. Then it was just shortened to Major General. A bit like a Brigadier General is most often called Brigadier and the General dropped.
Hey Brandon. I listen to a lot of British folk music and an often sung topic is people being pressed into service. Could you maybe elaborate on this one day?
The long and short of it is that being "pressed" was basically an early-modern equivalent to being "drafted" or conscripted into military service. The Royal Navy had its notorious "Press Gangs" which would collect sailors out of port cities to fill its ranks. However, the army never did so and was purely a volunteer army. Even stories of men being coerced into army service are often exaggerated. Definitely a worthy topic and something I will be touching on in future!
That would be interesting, especially if it included international comparison.
As you say, the British army was able to recruit volunteers, even during the Napoleonic wars, probably because always comparatively small. It's notable that it usually had the help of local volunteers or raised indigenous forces. It also employed units from German states (George I was Hanoverian).
The RN, though, was large, so tended to be short of able seamen. It recruited many foreigners. Pressing mid-voyage led to friction with the young USA, as it could be difficult distinguishing between British and US seamen.
Napoleonic France introduced conscription. Was he the first? Use
The battle of Barossa in a perfect example of an ad hock British army taking on superior french forces and defeating them out of sheer discipline , and the fighting abilities of the British command and control structure ! Strong and flexible!
Brilliant as always
Brandon, great video it was very informative! Are you a History professor?
Brandon, nice suit
Getting the 2 divions confused is so amusing, in my native tongue they are divīzija (the big one) and diviziōns (the small one)
I don't remember the exact term in Spanish, but I think it would be something like "patrols" (patrullas), "sections" (secciones) or "detachments" (destacamentos). Though a section nowadays is an unit equivalent to what a platoon is in other armies (long story short, in Spain we call "squad" to 4 soldiers under a corporal, "platoon" to what other countries call "squad" and "section" to what other countries call "platoon").
@@podemosurss8316 How strange modern Latvijas armys organization goes like this
brigāde (brigade)
bataljons (battalion)
rota (company)
vads (platoon)
prity standart NATO stuff.
Could you please do a video on the organisation of the Royal Artillery during the American war of independence?
Colonel: "Where are my companies?"
Lt. Col.: "Sir, let me explain. No, it would take too long. Let me sum up."
are there any plans for a video about the customs or 'laws' (as far as they existed) of war during the revolutionary or napoleonic period? do you know of any good resources for finding out more about them?
That would be a good idea! For a more immediate reference, check out the library section of my website, where I’ve posted the Articles of War!
Simply put there weren't any codified "laws of war" such as the Hauge or Geneva Conventions of the 20th Century. What was done was more by custom and "gentlemens agreements" and really what it amounted to was "Don't do anything to enemy prisoners that you wouldn't want done to your own people." Mind you this only applied to legitimate combatants of recognized nations, civilians acting as partisans might or might not be treated as regular soldiers if captured, it depended on the attitude of those who they were fighting.
There's no one source I'm aware of for the above, what I've got is remembered from various books I've read over the years.
This may have already been said, but the squad equivalent would be section, as in 'section of the line'; it's still used in the British Army today
Whoa, a new Brandon video, *actually* appearing in my sub box!
That's always a good sign!
You could also have 'second line' battalions providing manpower to first line. e.g. 1/1 and 2/1.. both technically 1st battalion, but as 1/1 lost men in combat / to disease the shortfall would be filled by men from 2/1 being transferred. Then 2/1 could recruit to fill /its/ vacancies. Occasionally there were even third line battalions. For example in the FWW as the need for men grew due to attrition, instead of regiments with ridiculous numbers of battalions - although frankly some were - it was simpler to create second or third line battalions and just transfer men in the same battalion. It also meant that men who ended up in first line battalions had already been trained.
18:38 Brandception?
I love the new thumbnail style!
Thanks!
Thank you very much!
Thank you for your work! Also, man you look in that suit!
“And those Frenchmen trying there darnedest to shoot you” is now my favorite quote
Their*
I recommend your channel to all my friends
That’s always appreciated!
The gallant 42 twaa
One people
One kingdom
One king
Long live the union 🇬🇧🇬🇧
excellent video!
"It's complicated."
Understatement of the year.
love your videos!!😁
Good explanation. But it's not really complicated, as long as you remember the British army back then, (and since), often does not follow it's own rules, or even guidelines.
There seems to be a math problem here. 8 hat companies have a total of 24 officers assuming that the colonel is with them. This structure has one baitalian, 2 wings, 4 grand divisions, 8 subdivisions come and 16 platons. That is 31 things for an officer to command. Add to that fact that the colonel probably has a higher ranking job to do and at least half of the platoons are probaplay commanded by sergeants even if you don't have any casualties.
The Allied army that fought at Barrosa in the Penisular war is a prime example of the practice making up flank battalions and brigades and their effectiveness in combat !
Loving the suit, Brandon
I am interested in british marines in 18th - 19th century. If you want you can make video about them, I will be really happy about that.
Excellent!
In the Napoleonic Era wasn't a platoon just a fire group? That, in a large battle could encompase half a company. Hence the command of platoon fire, that has different meanings given the size of the force.
A really good example of how the Regiment could be expanded is to look at some regiments of the British Army during WWI especially, but also WWII.
The Royal Welch Fusiliers was brought up, in 1914 it was a two Battalion Regiment (1st and 2nd), by 1915 two Territorial Battalions had been raised (3rd and 4th), between 1915 and 1918 almost a dozen further Territorial Battalions were raised. These were the LINE Battalions, which is important to note, they were NOT the training or the replacement Battalions, the latter being where men would be gathered before being sent out to fill gaps in the ranks of the Service battalions.
All told the RWF raised something in the region of 24 Battalions during WWI, at least 14 of which were Service (fighting) Battalions. To put this into perspective, in 1914 a British Infantry Divisions rifle strength was comprised of 12 Battalions. So the Regiment was literally larger than a Divisions Rifle Strength. At full strength this means the RWF were fielding, by their height in 1917, some 12,000 infantry, though some of these battalions were broken up in 1918 due to manpower shortages.
Of course, by WWI the Regiment was largely an administrative Unit not a combat force. The equivalent to the German Regiment in the British Army (3 battalions) was the Brigade. The Brigade could and in fact usually DID comprise of battalions from different regiments. Brigades made up predominantly of Battalions from a single Regiment were comparatively rare, though they did exist. Usually in the 'National' Divisions, such as the 53rd (Welsh), as the Regiments these Divisions pulled from were relatively few in number even if, like the Royal Welch Fusiliers they comprised of a lot of Battalions.
The British Army, because we want you to understand how this machine works.
Jag trodde att du inte tyckte om ASMR. Endel är nästan som ASMR. I didn't think you liked ASMR. Endel is nearly like ASMR.
Hey Brandon, love your stuff. Maybe an odd question but what kind of English do you speak? At first I thought you were British.
For context, English is hardly my first language being and mostly it's self-taught. Would it be correct to call it "Transatlantic "?
I'm just curious still learning English.
i believe he’s american, in which case it would be american english. in reality, there’s very little difference (hence why they’re not different languages).
He’s probably trying to do a mid or trans- Atlantic accent. A mixture of English and American accents.
@@Thecodytree Thanks, I just find it fascinsating the difference. Spanish spoken in Mexico or South-America also sounds different from "Spanish" from Spain and inside Spain you can also hear the differences.
The difference between Catalan and Castilian is bigger than British and American English afiak.
@@Josep_Hernandez_Lujan Oh, there's different "dialects" here in the US as well, but they're more regional accents than dialects. We USUALLY don't have much trouble understanding each other. 🤣
@@wayneantoniazzi2706 Oh, in Catalan it is; It's pretty much a language of its own.
It's somewhat closer to French than to Spanish. But it's really a language of its own
got more complex by the napoleonic era when regiments often had more than one battlion and often a holding battlion for new recurits.
also they had all sorts of weird units by the french revolution and napoleonic era because the british army gained some foriegn units which were sort of set up differently to stanard british units.
I suddenly understand few things from Sharp a little bit better.
Anyway you could do more war movie commentary?, I found those very entertaining.......
As soon as you said, "go to a commercial." i got an ad lol
basically the only fixed units were the Regiment and the Companies of the Regiment. Battalions, Divisions, even Brigades were ad hoc formations composed of Regiments and Companies of relative size or importance based on the commander or purpose
Battalions were often fixed as well. By the end of the seven years war battalions were being spoken of as fixed units. Certain companies belonged to the 1/42 and certain companies to the 2/42
19:10 ah yes, the famous time a group of redcoats supported a sherman in it's advance
When it gets to the combat functions of "sub-divisions" and such, I know that in the French and Indian War the British army in N. America did away with these functions and just made the companies the combat units for firing by sub-divisions. General Wolfe supposedly thought the whole system ludicrous and preferred full battalion volleys (which he ordered at Quebec)
Are there any sources that refer to sub-platoon units as "sections"? Could this have been an Lt ordering his Sgt to take half the platoon on a separate mission to the platoon itself?
Were the general from the Brigades Colonels temporarily elevated to Generals, or are they actual rank apart?
Love the suit sir
Did you skip field army? Or was that much later (WWII-ish)?
Are you going to be at Bennington
Yep! Headed out in a few hours! As a spectator only though, not a participant. Come say 'hi' if you're there too!
Very interesting :)
Its interesting to note that most of the organizational names are used today by armies of the former British & UK colonies.
F.Y.I.In WW2,a division was supposed to handle any threat.Seems like nothing much has changed.
Hey were you at Crane Beach, Massachusetts sometime in the last few weeks? I was walking to the changing rooms when I crossed someone who had an uncanny resemblance to you, and was dressed up in formal/semiformal get up.
Well what are the odds! I was, actually.
Is that homeboy Richard St. George in the thumbnail?
Hey one question: If a platoon was acting independently but still in line formation how would it fire? If there were no lower groups than a platoon was there any way to fire by section in a platoon? For example every other man firing or one half firing at a time?
Individual and section fire was a thing I suppose it would depend if those men were educated in it
huzza! my favourite ambassador to the 18th century hath cometh with tellings of the olde world!
I bring word from the Old World to the New!
...
...
...Penicillin still hasn't been invented. Please send help.
@@BrandonF eeeeh it should heal on its own, heres an icepack!
Now I wanna see a video where Brandon speaks in OP (original pronunciation) like what Atun-shei did in his demonology video lol
Sup
Ay
Brandon F can you videos on was really Charles I really a tyrant and on why King George III was a much better ruler to the Thirteen Colonies than how America portrays him as.
No plans for a video about Charles, but I am definitely going to make a video about George III!
@@BrandonF I think you should do a video on Charles I it might become one of your best videos ever on your channel and one of your most popular videos. Who knows you could even enjoy doing it and have a blast with it.
I had a stroke reading this
@@soni3608 it that even possible?
Could you make a video on the Seven years war?
Excellent video old boy, as per usual. I like the pic at 0:43. My dad used to be a re-enactor with HM 10th Regiment of Foot. Have you ever worked with them?
I have! I have a few good friends in the 10th. They're a great group and I'd love to "field" with them some day.
@@BrandonF Nice! And I'm glad to know the proper terminology. "Field" is much better. My dad was in the 10th from the late 80's-mid 90's. He was actually in the tv movie April Morning which was shot up in Canada I think. It's funny to watch because a lot of my dad's friends were in the 10th as well. I watch the Lexington Green part and recognize so many people. "Ohhh yeah, that was Jerry our milkman." lol.
Sorry for the spam but I'm looking for any primary sources concerning tap loading: can anybody help me?
does this force Organization apply to the Napoleonic Wars or just The War for American Independence?
A lot of the broader principles will be the same, but not necessarily the precise details. Napoleonic organisation is something I need to get more into before I could really offer a lecture on it, though.
Clicked the video thumbnail faster than the *insert a historical reference*
8:05 British jumpscare D:
A question; you stated in the previous video that the field officers' companies wouldn't have a Captain, instead being commanded by one of the Field Officers, each with a (Captain-)Lieutenant and Ensign alongside. A full strength regiment would then only have 7 Captains, and that assumes that the flank companies have been left in; if the flanks are detached, it's 5 Captains and a Captain-Lieutenant. That's enough for the Wings and Grand Divisions only, leaving the Subdivisions for Lieutenants (and an Ensign).
Am I missing something, or was this a case of paper regulations never matching combat experience?
Nearly right! Only the Colonel's Co'y would be commanded by a Captain-Lieutenant, not all the Field Officer's Companies. That leaves nine Captains (or, seven for the Battalion, as you point out), and one man who is functionally a Captain for the purposes of battlefield positioning.
Praise the Napolionic Wars and later the Prussians for streamlining all of this!
"go to commercial" gets an ad from a swedish christian political party
Can you please explain in another video about the reloading protocol of the British military and why it was standard to charge the pan FIRST, then load the powder and ball? From a MODERN firearms safety perspective and standard muzzle loading procedures, it’s the opposite. Because if that hammer fails, and you have your hand in front of the barrel mid reload, or there is an ember still in the barrel, there is a good chance of a discharge and risk in injury. Where as loading the barrel first, then charging the pan, by the time you are ready to cock the hammer, the barrel is already pointed down range, and also not at your hand or face. Are there any examples of officers realizing it wasn’t such a good idea and proposing a change in loading order? (Not that the British in the past were very open to anything other than tradition even if it was counterproductive, no offense 😅) or if there were any documented instances where there was such an accidental discharge because of said loading/reloading order in which it was done?
All of the drill manuals of the period prime first, then load the barrel. The half-cock position is a safety position and should not fail. The springs/pieces inside the lock are very robust and I never had a problem with the musket going off half-cocked. Going off "half cocked" is an 18th century expression so it must have happened to a degree. I see having a loaded barrel and then priming as more dangerous since you have to cock the musket to half cock while priming and use a secondary source of powder to prime with since you have already rammed the cartridge and ball down the barrel. My opinion is that powder horns and or flasks are not safe. One of my friends had a horn explode because small amounts of powder were leaking out and he went by the fire..
He was injured somewhat but did recover. I would not question period practices about the procedures for loading - it was prime, then load.
Back when guns were so bad you needed to organize a few dozen dudes at LEAST just to make their use efficient
We British Grenadiers have our beef, beans, biscuits, bayonets and Brown Bess to deal with the French!