Why was small arms fire so ineffective in the 19th century? - Page 4




 
--
 
August 19th, 2009  
cisco
 

Topic: Looking for something like this?


The_13th_Redneck wrote:
Actually I do believe such a weapon did exist (a revolver type rifle of sorts) but I don't know when it was introduced and just how popular or unpopular it was.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nock_gun
http://ageofsail.wordpress.com/2009/...ck-volley-gun/

In case this was mentioned before, I apologize, didn't read the whole Thread yet.

Anyway, the disadvantage of such a gun is the long time it takes to reload it and AFAIK its even less accurate as the common smoothbore musket.

Where we come to the efficiency of the 19th century arms. Actually, to approch each other in lines and fire volleys is the result of 1. short range and 2nd dreadfull accuracy of the standard military musket. The thought was to compensate these disadvantages by volley fire. Aka, one of the 50 bullets probably will hit something.
Why didn't they use rifles? bacause they 1st where more expansive, 2nd took much more time to load and 3rd needed more training.

BTW, the OP mentioned numbers of wounded about 4 times the numbers of killed. Are there any numbers about how many of these wounded actually did survive? I would think not that many.
August 19th, 2009  
cisco
 

Topic: Mauser C96


You are talking about the 1896 Mauser often referred to as the “Broom handle" in 7.63 Mauser

As you can see by the Name of this pistol, it was introduced in 1896, quite some time after the american civil war.
Btw, this pistol was rejected by the german Army(s) even if some other countries introduced it into service. However, it was used in WWI by germans, to a far lesser extend than other pistols like the 08.
Spencer breech loaders have been available during the civil war, but havent been introduced for the Union Army untill after the war (I think some units bought them on their own).
August 19th, 2009  
cisco
 

Topic: I think the breechloader


later introduced into service for the us army was the sharps, not a spencer.

I'm not quite sure this is right, because it will take some time to look up for sources, but I did read the confederate Cavallry used (atleast sometimes) to sharge and shoot with shotguns, than retreat and come back to finish off who was still alive with Revolvers. But as I said, no sources right now so it could be a Myth as well.
--
August 19th, 2009  
cisco
 

Topic: Another thing about muskets


and accuracy, you can actually see in the movie "The Patriot). One of the really FEW historical accurate things in that one .
The guys ready to fight a volley just aim at the direction of the foe, than turn the had looking about 90 degrees aside before firing.
So, with these muskets any kind of Marksmanship was, well, overkill.
October 12th, 2009  
Lavite
 
 
"So, with these muskets any kind of Marksmanship was, well, overkill."

Most military service muskets (smooth bore) were fairly accurate for the period. Granted range was limited as the ball had spent it's energy by 100 yards, and effective range was really half that.

I love black powder firearms. I build them and hunt with them.

The major issue with marksmanship during this period was the expense to train with live ammunition. Nations allocated only a couple of dozen rounds of ammunition for each soldier to train with annually. That was typical up to 1900. Most training consisted of dry reloading drills.

With that little training, you couldn't achieve any really effective level of marksmanship.
........

Oh, both Sharps and Spencers were fielded in the U.S. military, Civil War and post-Civil War. Sharps were by far fielded in greater quantities, though.
October 13th, 2009  
George
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lavite
"So, with these muskets any kind of Marksmanship was, well, overkill."

Most military service muskets (smooth bore) were fairly accurate for the period. Granted range was limited as the ball had spent it's energy by 100 yards, and effective range was really half that.

I love black powder firearms. I build them and hunt with them.

The major issue with marksmanship during this period was the expense to train with live ammunition. Nations allocated only a couple of dozen rounds of ammunition for each soldier to train with annually. That was typical up to 1900. Most training consisted of dry reloading drills.

With that little training, you couldn't achieve any really effective level of marksmanship.
........

Oh, both Sharps and Spencers were fielded in the U.S. military, Civil War and post-Civil War. Sharps were by far fielded in greater quantities, though.
Sharps & spencers were the primary purchased Cavalry arm 1863-65. Both rapidly phased out after the War in favor of the trapdoor Springfield, espicially after centerfire ammo became standard.
October 13th, 2009  
perseus
 
 
Quote:
the ball had spent it's energy by 100 yards,
Does anyone have any information on projectile velocities vs range for a range of firearms up to present day?
October 13th, 2009  
George
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by perseus
Does anyone have any information on projectile velocities vs range for a range of firearms up to present day?
M1822 Springfield .69 Cal 130 gr powder 412 gr round ball MV 1500fps 100 yds 1014 500 yds 386 1,000 191FPS
M1842 Rifled Musket .69 Cal 70 gr powder 740 gr minie ball MV 954 100 yds 872 500 yds 653 1,000 yds 474FPS
M1855 rifle .58 cal 60 gr powder 505 gr minie MV 1,005 100 yds 907 500yds 667 1,000 yds 478

300 Win. Mag 180 gr bullet MV 3070 1,000 yds 1478
50/70 450gr MV 1260 1,000 yds 670
45/70-405 MV 1318 1,000 yds 696
45/100-550 sharps MV 1360 1,000 yds 789
44/90-520 Sharps MV 1270 1,000 yds 783

Penetration of white oak planks
.69 smoothbore musket 100 yards=1" 200 yds =.55" 300yds dent
M1817 .54 rifle 100 yds=.94" 200 yds=.29" 300yds=.20"
Hall Rifle .64 Cal 100 yds=.34" 200 yds=0
October 13th, 2009  
rattler
 
 
I think I have seen this mentioned before in the thread but cannot find it anymore, but IMHO the smoke after the first volleys was the big show stopper: You cannot hit what you cannot see, so massed directional volleys and also - as regiments were identified and valued for thier standing power - bright uniforms to indicate your formation and show you "stood" your regiments fame were the measure.

FWIW;

Rattler
October 13th, 2009  
George
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rattler
I think I have seen this mentioned before in the thread but cannot find it anymore, but IMHO the smoke after the first volleys was the big show stopper: You cannot hit what you cannot see, so massed directional volleys and also - as regiments were identified and valued for thier standing power - bright uniforms to indicate your formation and show you "stood" your regiments fame were the measure.

FWIW;

Rattler
Battle Flags played a key role in maintaining unit alignment in the smoke(from artillery also) & made a good aim point for the other side.
 


Similar Topics
WORST Military Small Arms of the 20th Century
"Tommy's Dictionary Of The Trenches" WWI
Agencies Counted Big Firms As Small
Friendly Fire
counter? anti?