perseus
Active member
I was recently watching a movie about the exploits of ‘Stonewall’ Jackson and his adventures during the American civil war. In the battle of Fredericksburg, the Union army had to charge across a plain and ditch and was stopped short of a wall. There they stood in a line where they were plummeted with fire from the Confederates soldiers hiding behind it. Yet it is not the carnage that astonishes me here but how many survived, in fact most of the Union army still managed to retreat time and time again despite repeated attacks. Out of 114 000 men engaged, the Union army suffered ‘only’ 12,653 casualties (1,284 killed, 9,600 wounded, 1,769 captured/missing. Why so low?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fredericksburg
It seems to me the small arm weaponry used by soldiers was still slow firing, and remained so well into the 20th century. Why did they not simply give them revolvers? Better still adapt the revolver into a long barrelled weapon capable of firing say six reasonably accurate shots over a space of 6 seconds? Surely this would have rendered any offensive impossible against similar numbers of soldiers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fredericksburg
It seems to me the small arm weaponry used by soldiers was still slow firing, and remained so well into the 20th century. Why did they not simply give them revolvers? Better still adapt the revolver into a long barrelled weapon capable of firing say six reasonably accurate shots over a space of 6 seconds? Surely this would have rendered any offensive impossible against similar numbers of soldiers.