Repeaters

There were no Winchesters. Look at the Spencer first then the Henry. Ammo was a big part of why, retooling in the middle of a war when you dan't have enough arms to arm the men you have in the field... reality vs fantasy and history vs what if.

I think you are wrong. Atleast one unit did use Winchesters.
 
Picture of an original Henry Rifle.

Original 1860 Henry Rifle.jpg
 
There were no Winchesters. Look at the Spencer first then the Henry. Ammo was a big part of why, retooling in the middle of a war when you dan't have enough arms to arm the men you have in the field... reality vs fantasy and history vs what if.

Ok, I get that. There is a sci-fi story about the same thing. A side that keeps advancing it's weaponry losses to a side that just keeps using old tech. The lossing side just could not get the new stuff out fast enough to make up for the otherside having a LOT of old tech. But it just seems so pointless. But we went thru the same thing in Iraq. Body armor at the begining was BYOBA.
 
General James Wolfe Ripley, Chief of Ordnance: Answers to His Critics

Thomas K. Tate

The above book explains it. Ripley was concerned about the logistical chain and wanted to keep things as simple as possible. To this end he tried to keep out crackpot inventors and new fangled things. He feared that repeaters would consume too much ammo too fast and was very much against them. Eventually they were accepted despite his objection. Ripley does have his points as author Tate points out, but Ripley failed to see where progress could not be denied.

Tate is a member of The Company of Military Historians.
 
Ok, I get that. There is a sci-fi story about the same thing. A side that keeps advancing it's weaponry losses to a side that just keeps using old tech. The lossing side just could not get the new stuff out fast enough to make up for the otherside having a LOT of old tech. But it just seems so pointless. But we went thru the same thing in Iraq. Body armor at the begining was BYOBA.
As was said above, it was not simply buying rifles and handing them out. It was getting cartridges which were non-standard and ALOT more of them. Neither side had the institutional knowledge to do it, or the time to test out how to do it either. Logistics was already enough of a problem with the railroads and it was a choice between the devil you know vs. the devil you don't. The union was already doing fairly well without the repeating arms, so why change and risk your supply chain collapsing?
 
Repeaters would have been used more often by cavalry than infantry but some infantry regiments managed to have one of their companies armed with repeaters. The only regiments armed with Henry repeaters I can name right now are the 12th Kentucky, 65th Illinois, 51st Illinois, 7th Illinois, and the 65th Indiana who I know all (except the 7th Illinois) had some of their men equipped with Henry repeaters at the Battle of Franklin. Each had one or two companies armed with henry repeaters and used them to good effect at Franklin.
 
Last edited:
General James Wolfe Ripley, Chief of Ordnance: Answers to His Critics

Thomas K. Tate

The above book explains it. Ripley was concerned about the logistical chain and wanted to keep things as simple as possible. To this end he tried to keep out crackpot inventors and new fangled things. He feared that repeaters would consume too much ammo too fast and was very much against them. Eventually they were accepted despite his objection. Ripley does have his points as author Tate points out, but Ripley failed to see where progress could not be denied.

Tate is a member of The Company of Military Historians.

Dude where the hell you get that? Good looking out.
 
As was said above, it was not simply buying rifles and handing them out. It was getting cartridges which were non-standard and ALOT more of them. Neither side had the institutional knowledge to do it, or the time to test out how to do it either. Logistics was already enough of a problem with the railroads and it was a choice between the devil you know vs. the devil you don't. The union was already doing fairly well without the repeating arms, so why change and risk your supply chain collapsing?


What is the saying? Amatuers study tactics, professionals study logistics. So I get it. But as someone on the sharp end you get ****** when you find out there was something out there that could have saved lives and you never got it because it was not cost effective.
 
Back
Top