Safest Job at Bom for a British Soldier (1 Viewer)

[Fraxinus]

After the recent discussion over Washington in a red coat, I was watching some of the historian commentary on the various BoM videos. One of the english historians went on about how the Indians singled out officers and drummers during the battle as targets, but it does not seem to be true, especially as it relates to the drummers.

The Indians may not have even targeted officers, but seemed to have gone to great lengths to avoid "wasting" bullets on the drummers; or more plausibly, the drummers were simply not in the battle at anywhere near their total proportion, as it relates to the entire British column.

When the 48th and 44th at Will's Creek on June 8, 1755, the roll for each regiment list 20 drummers.

On July 25, 2 weeks after the battle, the roll for the 44th lists 18 drummers (15 fit for duty, 2 sick and 1 wounded). The 48th lists all 20 drummers (17 fit for duty and 3 sick). So unless, Braddock left the drummers behind and did not cross the Monogahela with "flags flying and drums playing" as so often described, the Canadians and Indians seemed to have not targeted the drummers.

Of the 44th Grenadiers, only 13 of 69 "came out the field". Of the 48th grenadiers, only 13 of 79 were described as "untouched".

For the Battle as a Whole:

Officers = 96; 26 Killed (27%); 36 Wounded (37.5%); Overall Casualties (64.6%)

Rank File = 1,373; 430 Killed (31.3%); 484 Wounded (35.3%); Overall Casualties (66.6%)

From a strict percentage assessment, the officers and rank and file seemed to have suffered similar losses. But it says nothing about the timing of the losses.

Something tells me Braddock left the vast majority drummers behind with Dunbar. At the same time, leaving the drummers behind seems so not "BRITISH".

The roll statistics suggest the 2 drummers were killed and 1 wounded at BoM. Assuming that the casuality rate for the drummers was the same as the rest of the British column at BoM (66%), it suggests that Braddock may have only brought around 4-6 drummers with the flying column. But that idea sounds so not like Braddock!!! British companies marching without their drummers ..... not in my display case!!!

http://www.archive.org/stream/militaryaffairsi00cumb#page/114/mode/2up

 

[REVWARBUFF]

Franxinus,

I have enjoyed reading the discussion/posts about GW and his uniform at the BoM. It is all very interesting. I really appreciate your time and effort in researching a lot of this information. Not to mention the thread here about the BoM casualties. The FIW & AWI are my favorite historical subjects and I have gleaned a good deal from your contributions here on this particular topic.

Thanks again and it was nice meeting you at the show in Valley Forge.

Mark

 

[Combat]

I wonder how accurate the recordkeeping was? Maybe they lumped a few drummers in with the regular casualties.

 

[Fraxinus]

http://www.archive.org/stream/militaryaffairsi00cumb#page/124/mode/2up

This is the post-battle July 25th roll and can be compared to the June Will's Creek roll, so I think the figures on the drummers are accurate.

Dunbar counted everything. Below is the link for the ordnance losses. Note the separate column for destroyed under order of "General Braddock."

http://www.archive.org/stream/militaryaffairsi00cumb#page/96/mode/2up

Interesting to note the 12-pounders are described as being on travelling carriages with limbers, but I believe I have read (Braddock's March) that the 12-pounders were a gift from the British Admiral who transported Braddock to America. If true they were naval guns and a gift to Braddock, where did the gun transport carriages and limbers come from? Braddock was having incredible problems with supplying sufficient wagon transport, but he had the ability to manufacture limbers and gun carriages, but not wagons? Something seems at odd here.

 

[Fraxinus]

In the roll of lost ordnance (link in the previous post), Colonel Dunbar (48th) did not destroy or bury any cannon or siege guns, just 8 cohorn mortars (coehorn) - the small ground mortars. He dragged the two remaining 6-pounders back east with him.

I just finished watching one of the BoM documentaries (When the Forest Ran Red), they had Dunbar destroying "siege guns". Dunbar seems to take a significant amount of abuse that is undeserved.

 

[Fraxinus]

He dragged the remaining four 6-pounders back with him (not 2, my bad). Coehorn mortars have been done by frontline, a pair shown below. Dunbar buried 8 of these small mortars, but managed to drag 4 back with him to winter quarters.

http://www.frontline-figures.com/french-indian/bgg3.jpg

 

[Combat]

In the roll of lost ordnance (link in the previous post), Colonel Dunbar (48th) did not destroy or bury any cannon or siege guns, just 8 cohorn mortars (coehorn) - the small ground mortars. He dragged the two remaining 6-pounders back east with him.

I just finished watching one of the BoM documentaries (When the Forest Ran Red), they had Dunbar destroying "siege guns". Dunbar seems to take a significant amount of abuse that is undeserved.

I think the criticism is justified in that no one was chasing his army. While he still had one of the largest forces in N. American history. There was little cause to retreat all the way to Philadelphia and expose many settlers to the wrath of the Indians. At best, that was bad judgment. At worst, panic or complete incompetence. All the more so since Dunbar wasn't involved in the fighting. And should have exercised sounder judgment than those who might have been rattled by the defeat.