I'll defer to more informed opinions, but my take:
1. Some individual arms (rifles) were deadly accurate back then. Most hand weapons used were smooth bore, which weren't very accurate. That's why the tactics of the time involved standing 25-50 yards apart and blasting away in volley fire by ranks.
2. I don't think artillery was mu…
I'll defer to more informed opinions, but my take:
1. Some individual arms (rifles) were deadly accurate back then. Most hand weapons used were smooth bore, which weren't very accurate. That's why the tactics of the time involved standing 25-50 yards apart and blasting away in volley fire by ranks.
2. I don't think artillery was much more accurate at the time either. Most was smooth bore and most cannon balls didn't explode. Of course with tight formation infantry, a cannon ball could take out several people at once just from inertia.
3. Cannons were pretty important in the war, but I don't know about them being the deciding factor. I think it was more that the US needed to have at least some cannon to counteract the British advantage.
4. You bring up the Minutemen, and that is somewhat illustrative. The militiamen in question proceeded to hand the British regulars a defeat. At various places they were brought up short by British cannons, but mostly they just covered the retreating British regulars.
5. Naval gunfire at the time was somewhat supreme due to its ability to be concentrated and moved. Still, the Battle of Bunker hill shows that it had limits due to it not being of much effect against dug in troops (no explosions). The militia (again) stood up to the regulars and naval artillery, retreating only when they ran out of ammo.
So from the point of utility in standing up to a military, the militia examples in New England during 1775 support the case of those making it. The problem is that the weapons and tactics of the time are so wildly different from today's military situation as make comparisons somewhat beside the point.
Thank you! And thank you to Travis too. I think the militia gets a lot of their legitimacy through the heritage argument: we've always had militias, they're as American as Yankee Doodle Dandy. So I appreciate seeing how militias have changed.
I'll defer to more informed opinions, but my take:
1. Some individual arms (rifles) were deadly accurate back then. Most hand weapons used were smooth bore, which weren't very accurate. That's why the tactics of the time involved standing 25-50 yards apart and blasting away in volley fire by ranks.
2. I don't think artillery was much more accurate at the time either. Most was smooth bore and most cannon balls didn't explode. Of course with tight formation infantry, a cannon ball could take out several people at once just from inertia.
3. Cannons were pretty important in the war, but I don't know about them being the deciding factor. I think it was more that the US needed to have at least some cannon to counteract the British advantage.
4. You bring up the Minutemen, and that is somewhat illustrative. The militiamen in question proceeded to hand the British regulars a defeat. At various places they were brought up short by British cannons, but mostly they just covered the retreating British regulars.
5. Naval gunfire at the time was somewhat supreme due to its ability to be concentrated and moved. Still, the Battle of Bunker hill shows that it had limits due to it not being of much effect against dug in troops (no explosions). The militia (again) stood up to the regulars and naval artillery, retreating only when they ran out of ammo.
So from the point of utility in standing up to a military, the militia examples in New England during 1775 support the case of those making it. The problem is that the weapons and tactics of the time are so wildly different from today's military situation as make comparisons somewhat beside the point.
Thank you! And thank you to Travis too. I think the militia gets a lot of their legitimacy through the heritage argument: we've always had militias, they're as American as Yankee Doodle Dandy. So I appreciate seeing how militias have changed.