In article 1114097203.ac83192e0fa808f143639af6d832f1f4@teran ews, Kirk Gordon
says...

Except on the seas, where warships were a special factor, a shooting
match between redcoats and rebels was pretty much a fair fight, with the
outcome determined more by sheer numbers and determination than by
technology or armaments.

The notion of technology and arms in historical perspective brings
to mind a recent trip I took to Fort Montgomery.

Fort Montgomery was a natural choke point on the Hudson River, where
the american forces put a chain across the river to impede british
access upstream.

The "grand battery" of the fort overlooked the choke point, and had
a good field of fire on any ships trying to get by.

There were about six cannons there, I think the bore was
between 6 and 8 inches. The fort itself is *tiny*. I think Gunner's
backyard is probably bigger. g

There were a few barracks there, some store-rooms, a powder magazine
and guardhouse. Most of the foundations are preserved, some have
been excavated. But the size of the installation is so small as
to be mind-boggling. Apparently most of the soldiers had only
part-time enlistments, many did not even live at the fort.

The cannons were apparently the apex of weaponry at the time. That
was pretty much it, aside from the soldiers rifles.
I think at the time the fort was considered to be a vital strategic
defense site.

It's a good thing the british weren't really serious about stopping
the rebellion.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================