Talk:Rifle Brigade (The Prince Consort's Own)

400 to 800 yards? Not likely....
"The performance of the regiment can be demonstrated by the story of Rifleman Thomas Plunkett of the 1st Battalion, 95th Rifles. Plunkett, armed with a Baker rifle, shot the French General Colbert at a range of between 400 and 800 yards during the Peninsula War"

Ummm...400 to 800 yard shot?? 800 yards is 2,400 feet at the maximum. This flintlock rifle's combat range was 100-200 yards, with a possibility of hitting a horse-sized target reliably at 300. Past that? Doubtful, very doubtful. I doubt the ball would even go 2,400 feet. I own a good quality working reproduction of the Infantry Rifle (its real name), shoot it quite a bit in the manner they did back then. 100-200 yd accuracy is realistic.

95thfoot, 8:58 PM, June 3, 2007.


 * This page has a detailed discussion of the historical records &mdash; there are no eye-witness accounts that give the actual range: David (talk) 01:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, my .45 7/8 scale Pennsylvania rifle using a greased patch, .440 lead round ball, and 70 grains of FFg powder shoots with pretty consistent accuracy at 600 yards. I point out the 7/8 scale, because that puts the barrel lenght and sight radius on about par with a Baker rifle. On the flip side, i could just be a shit shot compared to Thomas Plunkett. -- Sharpshooter-Chaplain —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.151.231.85 (talk) 20:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Plume colour
The article states that the Rifle Brigade wore a green plume.

Is this correct? I thought the RB plume was all black - hence the nickname "the sweeps".

As far as I remember, regular British Army rifles regiment plume colours were as follows:

Scarlet & Black - King's Royal Rifle Corps

Green - Royal Irish Rifles (later the Royal Ulster Rifles)

Black - Rifle Brigade

Black - Cameronians (Scottish Rifles)

Cheers, Rifleman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.132.159.170 (talk) 21:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

No, they most definitely wear a green plume. Hence:

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44127000/jpg/_44127149_rifleman2203_pa.jpg http://www2.army.mod.uk/img/lightinfantry/95th_rfn_1810.jpg http://www.militaryheritage.com/images/riflemen.jpg http:http://home.vicnet.net.au/~second95/equipmentlist.htm http://home.vicnet.net.au/~second95/equipmentlist.htm

Regards, ;-)

81.153.244.130 (talk) 23:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Happy to go along with that, though the rifle green is so dark on several of those images that it looks like black on my screen!

Also in the third of your images ... http://www.militaryheritage.com/images/riflemen.jpg the standing riflemen with the scarlet facings is actually from the 60th, King's Royal Rifle Corps from period 1803-1830. Only the kneeling man is from 95th, The Rifle Brigade ... and both have rifle green plumes!

I still haven't found conclusive Chapter & Verse on this anywhere, but it seems from what I've found so far that the KRRC only adopted the scarlet/black plume from around 1872. Prior to that the KRRC plume (or shako ball) was rifle green as well as the Rifle Brigade's. Perhaps all the rifles regiments used rifle green plumes up till then and only used their differing facing colours on uniform jacket/trousers??

I'm also finding references that a green plume signified Light Infantry companies in the Napoleonic era British Army??

CHeers, Rifleman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.237.234.10 (talk) 19:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Flogging abolished
While agreeing that both the 95th and the 60th had an enlightened attitude to use of corporal punishment well ahead of the times, 'Black Bob' Crauford made notorious use of flogging during the Corunna retreat.

Flogging was certainly imposed on the 95th during the Peninsular Campaign, though probably much less in the 95th and the rest of the Light Brigade than in the main infantry units of the line, where unquestioning and automatic obedience was critical to the drills of massed infantry formations. Cheers, Rifleman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.132.159.169 (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

proposing a move
I propose this article is moved to Rifle Brigade (United Kingdom) due to its generic form--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 00:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is indeed ambiguously titled. Perhaps instead of resorting to the country suffix, the article could be moved to the original definite title: i.e. The Rifle Brigade. It was moved to its present title due to perceived incompatibility with WP:NCD; however, the regiment was officially designated The Rifle Brigade. I do have reservations as that would disrupt the consistency of the current naming practice for unit articles (avoiding the definite). Aha! Moving the article to the official (minus the definite) Rifle Brigade (Prince Consort's Own) would eliminate ambiguity and preserve consistency. Thoughts? SoLando (Talk) 10:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, sure. I just need the title for the Rifle brigade article as a unit organisation. I could have used Rifle brigade (unit), but it seemed needless--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 12:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't a section in brigade suffice? I recommend retaining Rifle Brigade as a diambig' page as there are articles on the New Zealand Rifle Brigade and Liverpool Rifles (once titled the Liverpool Rifle Brigade). Alternatively, Rifle Brigade could function as a disambig-cum-article...Regards, SoLando (Talk) 12:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No, this is for the Russian/Soviet rifle troops, where the infantry Arm was called rifles, or rather 'shooters', but commonly translated as rifles. So there will be an article on Rifle platoon (Soviet Union), Rifle company (Soviet Union), Rifle battalion (Soviet Union), Rifle regiment (Soviet Union), Rifle brigade (Soviet Union), Rifle division (Soviet Union) and Rifle Corps (Soviet Union). These will explain the structure, development and use of these in combat, and not deal with actual unit entities. Maybe I have to disambiguate my planed articles--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 13:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you believe that selection of planned pages would be viable as independent articles? Consider consolidating them into a single article, perhaps Rifle unit (Soviet Union). Maintaining distinct articles for unit levels as low as a platoon from a country perspective would be irregular when they could be assuredly integrated into articles like Platoon, Company (military unit), etc or expounded on in a Structure of the Soviet Armed Forces/Organisational history of the Soviet Armed Forces, á la Structure of the British Army, without compromising presentation and comprehensiveness. Certainly, Rifle Brigade should be converted into a disamig' page irrespective of the direction chosen. Regards, SoLando (Talk) 16:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Does anyone object if I move the existing British article to Rifle Brigade (Prince Consort's Own, freeing up this space for a disambiguation page? Also, I believe that SoLando is right, and a Structure of the Soviet Army is the way to go. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No objections from me. Buckshot, I've been monitoring your discussion with Mrg and I want to affirm my support for the aforementioned Structure of the Soviet Army (or Armed Forces if you don't believe its scope to be impractical and excessively grandiose) - it is the ideal option. Mrg, a series of articles documenting the structure of multiple incarnations of a military should surely not be considered a pre-requisite for the existence of an article on the Structure of the Soviet Army/Soviet Armed Forces; after all, there is no Structure of the English Army ;-). Two to three paragraphs detailing Imperial Russia's military, with appropriate red linked wouldn't be problematic and may induce someone to create these articles. SoLando (Talk) 23:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The article has been moved and the redirects cleared in preparation for Rifle Brigade's conversion to a disambig'. That was tedious in the extreme; I really should use AWB :-). Regards SoLando (Talk) 15:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Tactics
There's a bit of silliness about tactics in the article in its current state. I've put a fact tag on the unsubstantiated claim that it was considered dishonorable to aim at an individual &mdash; it wasn't practical to aim at an individual with a musket standing in line, because (a) the musket wasn't very accurate, and (b) after the first volley, black power smoke would obscure targets &mdash; I'm pretty sure that all skirmishers (not just riflemen) picked individual targets, because skirmishing wouldn't be very useful with random firing. There's also a sense in the article that skirmishing with rifles was somehow an advance over conventional line tactics, rather than a supplement to them. Skirmishing couldn't replace the battle line until the breach-loading rifle came into widespread use in the 1860s; until then, the line of battle was pretty-much the most effective formation for serious fighting because of the huge firepower it could throw out, and even riflemen would come into the line after the initial skirmishing was finished. David (talk) 01:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually the American war of independence taught the red coats that line of battle was only useful if the enemy also formed up in lines and if the terrain was suited for forming lines. It taught them some some harsh lessons against an enemy that fought only in a skirmishing style and refused to give battle in the manner at the time. Oni no Akuma (talk) 13:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There is the slight problem that skirmishers got buggered by cavalry, hence it wasn't a viable tactic to use in the european wars of the 19th century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.97.187 (talk) 20:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

'Camouflage'- not so
The distinction of being the first corps of British Infantry to use 'military camouflage'- i.e. uniforms of subdued colour- 'regiment wide', would probably be claimed by Gage's short-lived 80th Regt of Light Armed Foot who were recorded wearing coats of brown cloth during the Seven Years' War in America. A number of provincial corps also wore jackets of green during the War of American Independence. In 1797, two 'emigre' regiments in British service, Hompesch’s Mounted Riflemen and Lowenstein’s Chasseurs combined to form the 5th Battalion of the 60th Royal Americans, a corps of green clad riflemen. This began the process by which the 60th would evolve into the King's Royal Rifle Corps. The German influence is significant as German forest rangers and huntsmen with rifles had been recruited into green-clad Jaeger corps since the middle of the 18th century.The 95th were 'Johnny come latelys' in this regard.JF42 (talk) 15:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

originated by the 60th in campaigns in North America -
I have removed this phrase as too general and not really accurate. The reference to 'the 60th' is not helpful without providing a fuller context. The significance of British experience of light infantry tactics and the effectiveness of the rifle in North America needs to be explained more fully, as does the role of the 60th Royal American Regiment in developing bush-fighting tactics and its later evolution into a rifle-armed regiment.JF42 (talk) 08:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The unit's operation was markedly different from the line infantry (etc)
This paragraph lacks conciseness and is unclear. I have re-written the first sentence, I hope expressing its meaning more clearly, and edited the rest for conciseness without altering the intended statement of factJF42 (talk) 09:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

In 1800, an "Experimental Corps of Riflemen", the 95th Regiment of Foot
I have removed the phrase 'the 95th Regiment of Foot' as inaccurate. This title dates from 1803, (from my reading- not 1802 as article states) when the Experimental Rifle Corps was finally incorprated into the Line.```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by JF42 (talk • contribs) 09:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Problems with organization and accuracy
I have been editing the earlier paragraphs of this article to improve the quality of writing and adjust details for accuracy where I feel qualified to do so. The history of the Rifle regiments is tangential to my area of research but it is clear from my reading that there are errors of fact in this article  as well as omissions which ought to be addressed.

The standards of organization, research and writing are not of the quality I would expect in an Encyclopedia. ````

The men of the 95th
I think your missing some men, George Simmons, Edward Costello, Robert Fairfoot, William Brotherwood, Underwood, Joseph Almond, thats the men your missing, as well as LT Gardnier is who your missing, so i think it's best to write them your missing those men, they have important roles I read a book about it, 203.97.114.146 (talk) 21:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 one external links on Rifle Brigade (Prince Consort's Own). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.napoleon-series.org/military/organization/Britain/Infantry/Rifles/c_rifles.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://regiments.org/regiments/uk/inf/095RB.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.napoleon-series.org/military/organization/Britain/Infantry/Regiments/c_95thFoot.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.napoleon-series.org/military/organization/c_detach.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.napoleon-series.org/military/virtual/c_vera.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.regiments.org/regiments/uk/volmil-london/vinf/L05LRB.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.napoleon-series.org/research/biographies/c_plunkett.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:51, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Queen’s Rangers
Is there any connection to the Queen's Rangers? - It seems to be so. --Curt Kösters (talk) 02:48, 10 March 2018 (UTC)