|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Apr 8, 2016 18:06:40 GMT
I post here a good bit, but have never put this question up. We have heard about issues with the Springfield ejecting shells and I have considered how long it takes to reload the Colt. We know that Reno and Terry were part of the board that approved the Springfield for use by the Army. I don't know of any board for convened for the Colt, I do know it was designed for the military and to their specs.
My questions are these. Had the cavalry continued to use the Spencer or adopted the Winchester 73 would it have made a difference. Had the Army adopted and used the S&W model 3, which they approved for use in 1870 made a difference. The interesting thing about the model 3 was that it was a top break, quicker to unload and load. This revolver was later made to an Army Major's specs. to make it even more user friendly. In fact the S&W model was named after that major " The Model #3 Schofield." That Schofield was George, the younger brother of John.
Anyway would the change in weapons have made a difference or were the numbers too great?
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Apr 8, 2016 18:35:26 GMT
I asked the question, but didn't offer my own opinion, I think the cavalry would have inflected heavier casualties on the NA's, but the outcome would probably have been the same. Unless the increased firepower would have caused the NA's to scatter. I don't think that would have happened short of a change in tactics. That particular change would have been for GAC to have followed Reno into the Valley as Reno expected. That would have brought about a heavier concentration of fire power and probably even made up for the horse holders. Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 8, 2016 20:03:58 GMT
I think before this discussion gets into full swing at least two previous actions should be closely looked at.
The first is Buford at Gettysburg, where he faced off with the lead elements of A. P Hill. All I have read suggests that those two brigades of his were using up ammunition at a rate faster than it could be resupplied. That deserved a closer look with regard to the Spencer.
There was also a brigade at Chickamauga armed with Henrys. Lots of firepower, but I don't know if they had any issues with ammo resupply while engaged. Dave probably knows.
A man can only carry so much. A horse can only carry so much. So this may very well be a logistical issue. A tank can carry only so many rounds, and it needs a rather large (larger than say a typical battalion of Infantry) trains to fill its needs. Logistics, especially the logistical problems associated with fighting on the plains, that may very well have impacted the choice of weapons.
The 38, I will say and maintain saying is a poor military weapon. The stopping power of the 45, makes your opponent sit up and take notice. Ask the Moros. The Schofield is a better design than the Colt Army 73, but I am not at all sure if the same design could have been adapted to the 45 Cal cartridge, at that point in weapons development.
Generally though I agree with Tom. More firepower would not have changed the historical, as played out, outcome. It would have most likely produced more enemy casualties. It may have delayed the inevitable. Change of outcome was only possible by combining firepower with mass, the massing of firepower, and that could only have been accomplished by a change in the scheme of maneuver.
Cavalry technique is incompatible with fighting as a main battle force, instead of being used for what it was designed for, the traditional cavalry missions. Contrary to popular belief, widespread myth, urban legend, and possibly the views of some on this board, cavalry when it dismounts, in not blessed by the Good Fairy, becoming Infantry. It is still cavalry, and when it dismounts it ties a millstone around its neck, and reduces its effectiveness as far as firepower is concerned by at least 25 percent. Cavalry formations are designed to be open, covering more area, with fewer resources that their Infantry counterparts. Those two factors alone, regardless of the generally heavier weapons of the Infantry, make a big difference in capability. I have been known to become apoplectic when I hear such heresy.
Good area for discussion Tom. Hope AZ gets back here soon. Really want to hear what he has to say.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Apr 8, 2016 20:20:40 GMT
The model 3 was chambered correctly for the .45 and better yet for the 44-40 which is what was fired from the Winchester, no need to carry two different types of ammo! Many Colts were also chambered in the 44-40, that is why cowboys carried the 73 Winchester and either one of these pistols.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Apr 8, 2016 20:27:56 GMT
Little known fact Jessie James carried the S&W Model 3, as did Wyatt Earp at the OK Corral. James was also killed with one.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 8, 2016 20:40:13 GMT
That then is a distinct logistical advantage, along the lines of the Standard NATO 7.62 concepts of the late 1950's which did away with carbines, and sought to replace rifles, BAR's, and light machine guns with a new family of weapons all utilizing the same round. Anything that adds more flexibility for the logisticians, and lowers the level of the burden both planning and physical on them, is always a good thing.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Apr 8, 2016 21:09:40 GMT
The bulk weight would also have been considerably less as was the size of the packaging.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Apr 8, 2016 22:15:42 GMT
QC You are referring to Colonel John T. Wilder's brigade, also know as "Lightning Brigade" that was equipped with Spencer rifles held Alexander's bridge for over 5 hours against a Confederate force containing parts of Hood's division, Forrest's Calvary corps and artillery. On September 18, 1863 at Chickamauga over 5 Confederate brigades assailed Wilder's position including a couple of really fine Mississippi regiments the 30th and 34th and all were repelled by the firepower of the Spencer's.
The brigade consisted of 17th and 72nd Indiana and the 92nd, 98th and 123rd Illinois in Crittenden's coprs. Wilder first attempted to seek Henry rifles for his units but the production for the Henry was more time consuming and the Spencers were available.
Blue Lightning: Wilder's Mounted Infantry Brigade in the Battle of Chickamauga by Richard A. Baumgartner is a book highly recommended that I have not read. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 8, 2016 23:36:28 GMT
We need to dig into the ammo expenditure rate, and discover if there were any problems associated with the more rapid fire weapons. Absent that we are whistling "Yankee". Sorry Dave, I just could not resist. Take a slug of sacramental wine, and call the doctor in the morning.
There is a book out there by Cozzens, called I believe "Terrible Sound" (been awhile), that had one of those dust jacket paintings of part of the action at Chickamauga. The painting had Union Infantry firing downhill in a wooded area, at advancing Confederates. I could have sworn that they were using lever action Henry Rifles. Lost the dust jacket years ago, and the book itself, along with about ten others when my basement took on water during a heavy rain last fall. I think the painting was by Don T (however you spell his last name)
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Apr 9, 2016 0:05:15 GMT
Oh we are on to something, but it is something Nobody can hang on Custer or the 7th. Limited ammunition for practice and no magazine weapons. I don't think it came from congress, I think it came from the Army. Now I need to find out who put out the edict. I have read something about this before but I can not remember where. I am sure you know that we ignored bolt actions until the 90's. When much of the modern world was using them.
During the American Civil War, the bolt-action Palmer carbine was patented in 1863, and by 1865, 1000 were purchased for use as cavalry weapons. The French Army adopted its first bolt-action rifle, the Chassepot rifle, in 1866 and followed with the metallic-cartridge bolt-action Gras rifle in 1874 .
European armies continued to develop bolt-action rifles through the latter half of the Nineteenth Century, first adopting tubular magazines as on the Kropatschek rifle and the Lebel rifle, a magazine system pioneered by the Winchester rifle of 1866. Ultimately the military turned to bolt-action rifles using a box magazine; the first of its kind was the M1885 Remington–Lee, but the first to be generally adopted was the British 1888 Lee–Metford. The Mauser Gewehr 98 was considered the epitome of this type of action, and its descendants became the standard against which all such rifles are measured.[citation needed] World War I marked the height of the bolt-action rifle's use, with all of the nations in that war fielding troops armed with various bolt-action designs. I am not saying these were available, but when did we do away with the single shot Springfield, look it up. We had a fit with the Spanish with the 30-40 Krag, it was old technology by the Span/Am war, and we were not 7 years out of the Springfeld. It came from the brass saying we would waste too much ammo.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Apr 9, 2016 0:31:33 GMT
Heads Up! I have a question which could be foolish but when attacking, does a repeating rifle protect a man from being shot any better than a single-shot rifle? I am showing my ignorance but Wilder's brigade were issued 42 rounds in 6 reload tubes and any extra rounds they could put in their pockets is this not about the same load all infantry carried, 40 rounds in the cartridge box? The ability to conduct rapid fire does not mean a prodigious amount of ammo would be used or wasted compared to single shot firing. It comes down to firing control does it not? If you fire 3 rounds a minute, carrying 40 or 42 rounds, you will run out in 15 minutes or less so ammo resupply needs to be near.
The one incident that I am familiar with where a failure to resupply a unit engaged in battle occurred at Champion's Hill in May of 1863 halfway between Jackson and Vicksburg. It pains me to admit this but General Pemberton's ineptness and lack of planning resulted in the Confederate defeat in the largest engagement of the Vicksburg campaign and insured Grant's victory in less than six weeks later.
If the 7th were issued Henry rifles with the same load as the Springfields could each company have been given an ammo mule to go with them? I am sure I am missing something here but right now I can't figure it out. The Quartermaster Corps was dead set against repeating weapons because of wasting ammo concerns but didn't the 7th carry enough rounds for a prolonged fight with or without a repeating weapon? Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by BrevetorCoffin on Apr 9, 2016 0:38:57 GMT
Heads Up! I have a question which could be foolish but when attacking, does a repeating rifle protect a man from being shot any better than a single-shot rifle? I am showing my ignorance but Wilder's brigade were issued 42 rounds in 6 reload tubes and any extra rounds they could put in their pockets is this not about the same load all infantry carried, 40 rounds in the cartridge box? The ability to conduct rapid fire does not mean a prodigious amount of ammo would be used or wasted compared to single shot firing. It comes down to firing control does it not? If you fire 3 rounds a minute, carrying 40 or 42 rounds, you will run out in 15 minutes or less so ammo resupply needs to be near. The one incident that I am familiar with where a failure to resupply a unit engaged in battle occurred at Champion's Hill in May of 1863 halfway between Jackson and Vicksburg. It pains me to admit this but General Pemberton's ineptness and lack of planning resulted in the Confederate defeat in the largest engagement of the Vicksburg campaign and insured Grant's victory in less than six weeks later. If the 7th were issued Henry rifles with the same load as the Springfields could each company have been given an ammo mule to go with them? I am sure I am missing something here but right now I can't figure it out. The Quartermaster Corps was dead set against repeating weapons because of wasting ammo concerns but didn't the 7th carry enough rounds for a prolonged fight with or without a repeating weapon? Regards Dave I would think when attacking that it is easier to cock a weapon with lever or bolt action than needing to reload a single shot trap door weapon. A magazine of multiple bullets is further faster than reloading one bullet at a time. How am I doing at mastering the obvious. PS-In the name of simplicity I am not sure Henrys would have made much difference. Single or multiple shot it would be difficult to hit NAs arcing arrows from the cover of a ravine. Badly aimed fire whether from a single shot weapon or repeater is still badly aimed. 2 cents worth from an admitted amateur. Best, David
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 9, 2016 4:50:47 GMT
Armies, all of them, are infamous for training and equipping themselves for the last war they won.
Forward progress in military affairs usually stems from armies that lost their last war.
Apply liberally and drink a Doctor Pepper.
In the attack the advantage of a rapid fire weapon is to apply suppressive fires. The Winchester or Henry were on the margins in this regard. They were not after all an MP44 or AK47. They were though better than the single shot Springfield Carbine which could not suppress a tea party of 6 year old Brownies. The repeating rifle in the hands of the Indians, coupled with the suppressive effects of the indirect fires provided by bow and arrow, was good enough, and the laurels generally go to good enough.
If it were up to Quartermasters armies would still be equipped with short swords, and air forces would still be flying Spads. Change shakes them to their core.
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on Apr 9, 2016 11:13:14 GMT
I think before this discussion gets into full swing at least two previous actions should be closely looked at. The first is Buford at Gettysburg, where he faced off with the lead elements of A. P Hill. All I have read suggests that those two brigades of his were using up ammunition at a rate faster than it could be resupplied. That deserved a closer look with regard to the Spencer. There was also a brigade at Chickamauga armed with Henrys. Lots of firepower, but I don't know if they had any issues with ammo resupply while engaged. Dave probably knows. A man can only carry so much. A horse can only carry so much. So this may very well be a logistical issue. A tank can carry only so many rounds, and it needs a rather large (larger than say a typical battalion of Infantry) trains to fill its needs. Logistics, especially the logistical problems associated with fighting on the plains, that may very well have impacted the choice of weapons. The 38, I will say and maintain saying is a poor military weapon. The stopping power of the 45, makes your opponent sit up and take notice. Ask the Moros. The Schofield is a better design than the Colt Army 73, but I am not at all sure if the same design could have been adapted to the 45 Cal cartridge, at that point in weapons development. Generally though I agree with Tom. More firepower would not have changed the historical, as played out, outcome. It would have most likely produced more enemy casualties. It may have delayed the inevitable. Change of outcome was only possible by combining firepower with mass, the massing of firepower, and that could only have been accomplished by a change in the scheme of maneuver. Cavalry technique is incompatible with fighting as a main battle force, instead of being used for what it was designed for, the traditional cavalry missions. Contrary to popular belief, widespread myth, urban legend, and possibly the views of some on this board, cavalry when it dismounts, in not blessed by the Good Fairy, becoming Infantry. It is still cavalry, and when it dismounts it ties a millstone around its neck, and reduces its effectiveness as far as firepower is concerned by at least 25 percent. Cavalry formations are designed to be open, covering more area, with fewer resources that their Infantry counterparts. Those two factors alone, regardless of the generally heavier weapons of the Infantry, make a big difference in capability. I have been known to become apoplectic when I hear such heresy. Good area for discussion Tom. Hope AZ gets back here soon. Really want to hear what he has to say. The sort of response you get from a pro..really informative! I think the terrain says that given the way Custer maneuvered and the intent of his enemy, his goose was cooked when he discarded the valley fight. I have always thought the Springfield was selected due to its superior range. Given I know little about such things would the weapons described match that range? Ironically my son spent today shooting a variety of rifles with a friend. Only things I have ever fired are a .22 rifle and a Lee Enfield 303. Cheers
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Apr 9, 2016 12:40:57 GMT
Mac You need to add to your list firing the: 1) 12 Gauge Shoot Gun 2) 45. Colt 1911 3) 44. Magnum Revolver 4) 58. Muzzle Loader 5) 12 Pound Napoleon 6) 30-06 165 Grain (Deer Hunting Round) 7) 9mm Browning Pistol
They are all fun to shoot especially the muzzle loader. Regards Dave
|
|