Post by: boltgun71 on April 06, 2009, 06:43:50 PM
Post by: Mitch on April 06, 2009, 07:11:14 PM
Post by: Loyalist Dave on April 06, 2009, 10:00:24 PM
The idea doesn't get applied outside of Scotland until the invention and wide spread use of telescopic sights on rifles that use smokeless powder (WWI), allowing snipers to hunt each other. Until that time, the sniper could just stand off and shoot with peep sights or standard sights at formations of men, until they spotted the puffs of smoke and all shot back at the sniper.
In the AWI no telescopic sights, and no rolling moors so no cammo. Chances were in North America that when you saw the enemy..., you were well within rifle range, and probably within musket range.
Morgan's rifle corps wore white hunting frocks. Indians used lots of red in their body paint. YET..., they tended to go unnoticed in the woods.
Having spent probably a couple thousand hours on this very subject in my first profession, and been amazed many times, it comes down to this...,
The human eye sees things in specific order. That order can be less than one second, but it does see in order..., movement, outline, color. IF you don't move fast, and if the outline is marred by natural foliage, differing light levels (shade and light), then the color doesn't matter all that much. We placed a man in blue jeans and red flannel shirt in the woods in heavy foliage, but he could be seen 100 yards away..., he didn't move and folks didn't see him, even when they walked within about ten yards... I have seen similar stuff time and time again.
The other thing is the face. A nice, white face, is a good way to get spotted and shot. Indians painted their faces red/black other colors, and most frontier guys had hats with brims (shaded the face). Again, when you do spot somebody, you are very very close. Remember the tactics then too, as they did and they applied them..., a man with a single shot weapon and a 'hawk does not want to get real close to an approaching enemy group, so will move (or get caught and be dead). A group of men with single shot weapons can stay put. When the firing starts camo would be a moot point as the smoke gives the shooter's position away.
LD
Post by: riverrat on April 07, 2009, 04:33:54 PM
Post by: Sir Michael on April 07, 2009, 10:26:36 PM
Post by: 54ball on April 07, 2009, 11:58:10 PM
Morgans riflemen at Saratoga in the trees and at the flanks is a good example of traditional camouflage. Hamilton's nighttime bayonet attack on the British redoubt at Yorktown is probably the best example of camo as we know it by the Continental regulars. His men attacked with blackened faces and unloaded muskets.
Post by: Loyalist Dave on May 01, 2009, 12:04:07 PM
Quote
wild and bright would be sought after by everyone else.
Based on what information??
Perhaps, but with natural dyes, you have the option of very expensive scarlet, or bright yellow (impe). Otherwise you find very few "bright" colors of any sort when it comes to clothing. Their notion of "white" would include our gray and manila-folder biege.
Quote
Roger's Rangers wore Green uniforms in an attempt to blend in the back ground. This proved effective enough that in 1800 when the British Army formed the Experimental Corps of Riflemen (95th Regt. Foot) was formed they were uniformed in Green specifically because of the experience in the American War
I know that's the accepted idea, but I'd like to see some documentation on that (meaning they chose that color for that reason, and didn't default into it and later found it to be advantageous). There were other ranger units that did not adopt green that were operational and successful at the same time as Roger's Rangers.
The Brits routinely clothed provincials in green in the AWI and it had nothing to do with woodland tactics as these were line infantry units as well as cavalry. Some Continental Dragoons were also clothed in green.
The first regulars equipped to follow Roger's Rangers example was Gage's Light Infantry, the 80th Regiment of Light Armed Foote, which were in brown not green, and that may have been economics with walnut being one of the cheapest dyes available to a unit raised in North America. Before being disbanded they were changed to redcoats.
The 95th did a lot of open terrain combat in Europe, and the shakos they wore were not suited to woodland tactics. The German Jaegers were mostly dressed in Green in the AWI as well as other wars, BUT they were also military police when not deployed on a battlefield, and there is a question as to the color choice being not one of camouflage but to distinguish them from other soldiers for both the sharpshooting and MP duties.
The first real deliberate evidence of the idea of using color as concealment in Western warfare comes in the latter half of the 19th century, and the first widespread adoption really doesn't appear until WWI, where the telescopic sight came into its own coupled with smokeless powder.
(AND before somebody flames me for not mentioning scopes in the CW, and the Sepot Mutiny, as well as later wars..., there is evidence that they were much rarer items than previously supposed until WWI)
LD
Post by: Sir Michael on May 01, 2009, 08:32:15 PM
This comes from "History and Campaigns of the Rifle Brigade 1800-1813" by Willloughby Verner published in 1912.
Extract from "History of the British Army" published 1801
Quote
The buttons of the dress were dull, all ornaments of bright metal were discarded and the barrel of the rifle was brown, so as to make the men as little conspicuous as possible.
Extract from "The English Military Library, No. xxix, February 1801 Vol. ii Art. clxxx p. 564. Account of the Rifle Corps commanded by Colonel Coote Maniningham..."
Quote
... riflemen has long constituted a part of the military establishments on the Continent, and during the disastrous war with the colonies...
Verner also states that many of the early pictures of riflemen showed them wearing tall (18") plumes on their shakos may of which had been altered by their riflemen owners by scratching out the top of the plume and making it more properly 6" or so tall. He goes on to say, "The absurdity of dressing a man i green so as to avoid observation and then surmounting his head-dress with some eighteen inches of stiff plume, so as to indicate his position when taking cover, need not be dwelt upon."
Philip Haythonrnthwite's book British Riflemen 1797-1815 pub 2002 states, "The dark green rifle uniform was certainly of significance on the battlefield as a form of camouflage, although it may not have been the most effective colour. In 1800 Colonel Hamilton Smith employed the 6/66th rifle company in an experiment involving shooting at targets or red, dark green, and iron grey (the latter worn by the Austrian Jagers" at a range of up to 150 yds. The red target was destroyed, the green one badly damaged, but the grey proved the most difficult to hit, and thus the superior colour for camouflage."
Somewhere I seem to remember more about the selection of Green for the 95th but I just can't put my hand on it right now.
Post by: Loyalist Dave on May 01, 2009, 09:37:40 PM
So in 1800, the year the "experimental rifle corps" was formed they knew that green didn't work so well, but gray did, YET..., they dressed them in green. So IF they gained an advantage..., it was as I pointed out, by default.
Still waiting on the reference that says they dressed them in green due to the lessons learned by Roger's Rangers in the F&I.
The 80th was disbanded and there were no green or brown uniforms in the British Army when the AWI started, and as the war progressed only provincial units and cavalry got green, so they were slow learners if they didn't institute the green for concealment until Napoleonic combat.LD
Post by: Sir Michael on May 03, 2009, 09:13:29 PM
1st. in regards to the color of the uniform. A Green dot placed on a white background makes a real good target. A Green dot hanging from a tree limb in the summer is invisible (depending on the green - in this case "dark bottle green") A Gray dot placed on a white background is almost invisible at 150 yds. (No wonder it scored so well. the same dot hanging from a tree limb is very visible - which is why we use white/gray to paint the targets we hang for woods walks. Paint one green other than florescent and no one will see it much less hit it.)
2nd. I have finally found what I think is the reference that has insinuated its self into memory resulting in the mistaken (yes I believe now I was wrong
don't nobody keel over and die now) belief that there was a connection between the green worn by Rogers Rangers and that worn by the rifle regiments of the British Army.JCF Fuller in his history of the British Army makes a passing reference to RR as an early example of Light Infantry which was exemplified by the 95th or Rifle Brigade. He makes no mention of the color of their uniforms. (The connection is only this RR and RB are LI. RR and RB both wear green. AH HA there is a connection - WRONG only by happenstance.)
In piecing together the tangled web of uniform colors, it now appears that in 1795 two companies of the North York Militia designated as "light armed marksmen" were uniformed in Green, as a result of Green cloth being available since the unit it was to go to never got formed (Fencible Cavalry). In 1799, the 5th Bn of the 60th Rgt. which was comprised almost entirely of Germans and Austrians who were equipped with rifles they brought with them from home adopted the color along with Red collars, cuffs, and facings since the rest of the 60th wore red. In 1800 when the RB was being formed the uniform color selected for it was the same Green and in 1801 one of the first "Uniform Regulations" published for the Army stated that all Rifle units were to wear the same Green uniform except for cuffs, collars, facings, and lace. The RB picked black for the officers and a basic uniform style similar to Hussars and white trim for the other ranks to set them apart.
Having provided this information, I also found references to Lt.Col. Stewart having recently been in Europe observing the LI and Jagers there were they were generally uniformed in Green and upon his return to England and starting the preparations for the training and instruction of the RB (Experimental Corps of Riflemen) he may have been responsible for the selection of Green as the uniform color.
There are also references to the Jagers in Europe being maned by men that were experienced hunters and their experiences with concealment for hunting may have lead to their use of Green.
3rd. In 1830 the Rifle units in the British Army were ordered to replace their "white" metal buttons with "Black". This was done to reduce their visibility in combat. However, I have a letter written by Col. Johnathon Leach Ret. of the Rifle Brigade to the editor of The Englishman paper Calcutta, India on January 29, 1841. In this letter he is very emphatic that replacing the white buttons with black serves no purpose and significantly reduces the appearance of the uniform making it look dull, somber, and heavy. He also states that no rifleman was ever seen and shot because of his shiny buttons. Before you dismiss him remember that he was the company commander of No. 2 Company, 1st Bn. 95th Rgt. through the entire Peninsular War receiving 12 campaign bars on this GSM (the maximum anyone received was 14 by one man and three men got 13).
Post by: Loyalist Dave on May 04, 2009, 11:17:42 AM
Roger's Rangers had five companies, and not all of the companies were outfitted with green, and those that were did not begin in green.
I pointed out the MP duties of the German Jaegers, and they carried elite status being all volunteer, another reason why some (not all) were in green uniforms.
Daniel Morgan's riflemen wore white..., and the unit was disbanded during the AWI.
Ferguson's unit was in red during the AWI.
Tarleton's legion was cavalry, and they were in green in the AWI.
The Company of Select Marksmen wore red in the AWI.
The 95th regiment was hand picked, and had an elaborate, hussar like, regimental coat, with different disciplinary standards. All this points to an elite unit, with an elite style of clothing to set themselves apart. Again, once the firing began, the "signature" from a Baker rifle or any BP gun will often give the shooter away.
Again, the first real use of camouflage as a military tactic when it comes to clothing, came about just prior to WWI, and was instituted for snipers in WWI as a military standard.
LD
Post by: Mike R on May 13, 2009, 11:04:43 AM
Post by: Mike R on May 13, 2009, 04:11:00 PM
Post by: Loyalist Dave on May 14, 2009, 02:10:37 PM
Sorta like the reenactor ranger units posting the WWII ranger's rules thinking they were indeed the original standing orders from Robert Rogers, when in fact they are paraphrased.
Here is a current example of such inaccuracy that creeps into historic teaching, although this is a modern military ranger site:
http://i-kirk.info/tales/vnr17.html
And here is a site with the correct historic reference:
http://www.rogersrangers.org/rules/index.html
The places that it really starts to be studied are the Highland moors of Scotland, and the battlefields of WWI. Huge open terrain in both cases, and in the second case, the use of telescopic sights had seriously come onto the battlefield.
In the 18th century you're talking for most of Eastern North America, primeval, old-growth forest. It's bloody DARK under that tripple canopy, and dull clothing does very well. Military officers on the British side in the AWI were warned to remove shiny parts of their uniforms, not because they were being picked off in the woods, but because at a distance across a field, in the bright sunlight, Continental riflemen were using the easily seen shiny bits to chose their targets.
LD
Post by: Mike R on May 15, 2009, 08:28:33 AM
Post by: Mike R on May 15, 2009, 08:37:35 AM
Post by: Loyalist Dave on May 15, 2009, 10:29:27 AM
The problems that I have encountered are when folks find one historic source, and assume it universally used throughout North America. This seems to be a natural mind-set for the 20th and 21st century mind. Folks want simple, and in some cases "one word" answers of "yes" or "no".
Case in point, about 15 years ago many folks at historic sites would tell you that the color yellow was not often seen in Colonial clothing, except in evening gowns, as it wasn't very colorfast, and faded very quickly in sunlight. I wondered then, why did the flags used in Maryland, use so much yellow if it faded in the sun? I found that information came from a Smithsonian report on the natural dyes of New England, that was done about the time of the Bicentenial, so it was then already 20 years out of date. Well New England isn't Maryland, and when we used goldenrod, a natural dye available in Maryland, but not mentioned in the Smithsonian report..., we found yellow to be quite bright, and very colorfast.
So, in answering many questions, you find conflicting information, and often need to be specific to be accurate in a reply (in my experience). Some riflemen used brown in wartime, or other "sad" colors. Other rifle companies, though, wore white, sometimes with red cuffs and collars. One rifle regiment wore purple, with red cuffs and collars. So with this question, as with many, the beginning question is very broad, and you have lots of variations.
Talk about firearms, dyeing, or clothing, you get huge regional differences. Talk about currency, and you've got several hours of studying to understand just the coinage that they used. (I was very surprised the day I discovered that "pieces of eight" were actually bits of cut up coins) There's an article in the current Muzzleloader magazine on the different "hands" that people used when writing (never knew that), and in it is mentioned the different types or levels of literacy as well (I thought it was you could read or you couldn't). Talk about medicine, and you find there are barbers, surgeon's mates, surgeons, and physicians, plus apothecaries. It's not one-upmanship, it's merely an attempt to prevent the continuation of inaccuracy, and it's natural offspring, myth.
After all, how many folks that visit historic sites think we beat the British because we were smart and hid behind walls while the Brits were stupid, wore red, and stood in lines in open fields?
LD
Post by: deadfallpaul on May 15, 2009, 11:13:19 AM
Quote from: "Mike R"
......I read for personal knowledge, not to convince anyone else, so I don't keep catalogued records of info like some reenactors do who are concerned with one-upping their buds or defending their gear [and some are professional historians who do it for posterity]. Sometimes I regret that oversight on my part, but mostly I think folks ought to read more primary sources and rely less on chat rooms for info. .......
:lt th :toast Right on!!!!
Post by: Hank in WV on May 15, 2009, 05:27:38 PM
Post by: hankaye on October 27, 2009, 01:54:50 PM
'Back in the day' when laundry was done on an irregular basis at best, and dry cleaners were really hard ta find, especially in the field, wouldn't a white uniform coat or rille smock get that nice dull blotchy look in just a few days? The 'books' may state that White was the color, and any painting/sketch would show the garment as 'clean'. I don't think that there is a citation for common sense. Some things just 'stand to reason'. Honestly, how clean are your duds when ya get done at the range? What do they look like at the end of an encampment, rondivouse, whatever?
My 2 cents worth.
hankaye 'the new guy'
PS Spell check is STILL not in the building
Post by: Capt. Jas. on October 27, 2009, 04:59:24 PM
The History of the Wars of New-England with the Eastern Indians, or a Narrative Of Their Continued Perfidy and Cruelty 1703-1726, By Samuel Penhallow, Esqr.
1726, 1859…reprinted 1969, Kraus Reprint Co., New York
Post by: Quartermaster James on October 28, 2009, 12:20:11 PM
MALCOLM:
Let every soldier hew him down a bough
And bear't before him: thereby shall we shadow
The numbers of our host and make discovery
Err in report of us.
Macbeth, Scene IV
Post by: Loyalist Dave on October 28, 2009, 09:56:03 PM
Quote
Back in the day' when laundry was done on an irregular basis at best, and dry cleaners were really hard ta find, especially in the field, wouldn't a white uniform coat or rille smock get that nice dull blotchy look in just a few days?Which is why soldiers were issued smocks to wear over small clothes, and their regimentals were put aside when doing most chores, why sailors had slops, and why the royal artillery of four nations wore dark blue, to avoid powder stains. Don't fall for the trap that the parade uniforms worn by the men on the drill field, barracks, or in paintings was the field/combat uniform. Oh an laundry was actually more common..., bathing was not.
Let us not also digress from the point of the original post..., the idea of constructing clothing to actually aid concealment as a rule and not by default, is a mid to late 19th/early 20th century idea.
LD
Post by: Eric S Campbell on October 29, 2009, 05:51:54 PM
In the 18th century a clean shirt was considered to be healthy. And a dirty shirt was unhealthy. Many people judged others based on that idea. They thought a clean white shirt would soak up the toxins from the body and needed to change the shirts or have them washed regulary. It is amazing to read how far even poor people went to keep their clothes clean.
I think most people just like the idea of being dirty. For me I will endevor to keep my clothes clean in the most period way while at events or treks.
Post by: Loyalist Dave on October 29, 2009, 10:35:26 PM
LD
Post by: hankaye on October 31, 2009, 06:25:40 PM
Best I can do is use what I remember from my G'GrandPa Charles Walker.
His 'Goin ta Church shirt ' HAD ta be boiled. It was his best one. His regular shirts got cleaned in the washtub with the rest of the laundry. G'Grama did laundry the same day as she did all the weeks baking. Why, well, that was the day the wood stove was heated up more for all the hot water she was gonna need ta do washin, an bathin. Saturday.
my 2 cents worth
Post by: Sir Michael on December 22, 2009, 01:15:47 PM
Practical Instructions for Military Officers By E. Hoyt, Brigade Major and Inspector in the Militia of Massachusetts. Published in 1811
Quote
Dark green and blue are the colours most suitable for light troops; the former is generally preferred, as it is the least conspicuous; a quality of great important in the dress of troops that are employed in the petite guerre.
:toast
