buford's firepower

[MikeyB]

I have but a very basic understanding of Civil War firearms. This basic understanding tells me that Buford's men had breechloading (Sharps?) carbines on day 1, which while easier to load, lack the range and power of an infantryman's Springfield or Enfield.

My question is this. Just how big of a disadvantage did the cavalrymen have being armed with the carbines? Was it as simple as Confederate commanders realized what they were up against and would use their superior range and keep their firing lines at a range where their fire was effective, but the return fire from the carbines was ineffective?

Or, could you make the argument that when outnumbered and defending fixed positions, you'd sacrifice a little bit of range and power for faster loading times and the ability to maintain a higher rate of fire for when you're rushed?

And just as a point of order, if a good infantryman could get off 3 aimed shots in a minute using a traditional muzzle loader, what was the equivalent metric for a cavalryman shooting a Sharps?

Mike

 

[Coonewah Creek]

Others can give you more specifics, I'm sure. But I think more than the ranges of the opposing units' weapons, the primary effect on the Confederate brigades of Davis and Archer was the fact that Buford's dismounted cavalrymen forced them to deploy from "road column" into line which greatly slowed their advance. Dismounted cavalry in general was no match for infantry in equal numbers, but the infantry couldn't just run through them. They had to deploy into battle formation and push them slowly out of the way. The main cost to the Confederates was that of time. It allowed balance of the AoP to begin to arrive.

 

[rpkennedy]

IIRC, the Sharps carbine could be fired at about twice the rate of a regular rifle.

As for tactics, the Confederates deployed skirmishers which battled the skirmish line of the cavalry at a range close enough that both sides could fire at one another but actually hitting one another would be difficult. The superior range of the rifles simply didn't play into it.

The real disadvantage of the cavalry was their lack of numbers which was further whittled away by the men who had to hold the horses (1 in 4 men had this assignment). They could spread out and force the Confederates to deploy but the best that Buford could do was play for time as his men just could not hold back a heavy line of infantry. Buford was beginning to fall back from McPherson's Ridge when Reynolds and the First Corps infantry of Wadsworth's Division arrived.

Ryan

 

[WJC]

If you want to learn more about Buford's stand on July 1, 1863, I recommend Eric Wittenberg, "The Devil's to Pay: John Buford at Gettysburg. A History and Walking Tour. (El Dorado Hills, CA: Savas Beatie, 2014).

 

[FZ11]

I have but a very basic understanding of Civil War firearms. This basic understanding tells me that Buford's men had breechloading (Sharps?) carbines on day 1, which while easier to load, lack the range and power of an infantryman's Springfield or Enfield.

My question is this. Just how big of a disadvantage did the cavalrymen have being armed with the carbines? Was it as simple as Confederate commanders realized what they were up against and would use their superior range and keep their firing lines at a range where their fire was effective, but the return fire from the carbines was ineffective?

Or, could you make the argument that when outnumbered and defending fixed positions, you'd sacrifice a little bit of range and power for faster loading times and the ability to maintain a higher rate of fire for when you're rushed?

And just as a point of order, if a good infantryman could get off 3 aimed shots in a minute using a traditional muzzle loader, what was the equivalent metric for a cavalryman shooting a Sharps?

Mike

The carbine was a shorter version of the rifle so it was more easily carried on and fired from horseback. It had a shorter range and was contemplated to be used,most often, against opposing cavalry. Cavalry was not often successful attacking infantry. Because of the greater rate of fire of the carbine,Heth,at Gettysburg, thought he was facing 2x the number of men under Buford's command.

 

[MikeyB]

The carbine was a shorter version of the rifle so it was more easily carried on and fired from horseback. It had a shorter range and was contemplated to be used,most often, against opposing cavalry. Cavalry was not often successful attacking infantry. Because of the greater rate of fire of the carbine,Heth,at Gettysburg, thought he was facing 2x the number of men under Buford's command.

Thanks for the reply.

You mentioned cavalry was not often successful attacking infantry. Is this because generally speaking, extra firepower/range wins out over increased rate of fire?

And then you mentioned that Heth thought he was facing a larger force due to the rate of fire. That seems like a significant advantage from using breechloaders. I guess the heart of my question was - if you had an equal number of infantry to do Buford's job, would you rather have the infantry or, does cavalry with a higher rate of fire, and given that you are defending versus trying to advance and outflank an opponent, the better option?

Happy New Year's Eve,
mike

 

[zburkett]

As I understand it, the carbine would be used fighting dismounted similar to the way a rifle was used. In a mounted attack the revolver was more effective. For normal fighting range (250 yards or less) there was little loss due to effective range.

 

[redbob]

Buford's men were armed with at least two different types of carbines and what Buford had in spades was mobility, surprise and a good eye toward the lay of the land where he could best place his men for maximum effect.

 

[thomas aagaard]

To quote out expert onm cavalry Eric Wittenberg

(from another topic where Someone claimed bufords men har spencer rifles.)

Oh, brother. Seriously? This myth is still around? What Spencer rifles?

I have personally reviewed the ordnance returns of the Army of the Potomac's Cavalry Corps for June 30, 1863, and of the 92% of Buford's companies that reported, there was not one single Spencer rifle reported. Not one. The vast majority of his troopers were armed with Sharps single-shot carbines. The rest were armed with similar weapons, such as the Burnside, Ballard, Starr and Gallagher single-shot carbines.

The only Spencer rifles in the entire Army of the Potomac were all of the 5th Michigan Cavalry and four companies of the 6th Michigan Cavalry of the Michigan Cavalry Brigade, and they were nowhere near Gettysburg on July 1.

The steadfast refusal of this obnoxious myth to die drives me nuts. Absolutely insane.

 

[FZ11]

Thanks for the reply.

You mentioned cavalry was not often successful attacking infantry. Is this because generally speaking, extra firepower/range wins out over increased rate of fire?

And then you mentioned that Heth thought he was facing a larger force due to the rate of fire. That seems like a significant advantage from using breechloaders. I guess the heart of my question was - if you had an equal number of infantry to do Buford's job, would you rather have the infantry or, does cavalry with a higher rate of fire, and given that you are defending versus trying to advance and outflank an opponent, the better option?

Happy New Year's Eve,
mike

I would prefer the 1861 Springfield rifle to the carbine were I defending. The longer rifle could undertake the enemy more accurately at a longer range than the carbine. Check out what happened to Elon Farnsworth when he attacked infantry at Gettysburg. Thank you,happy new year to you also.

 

[mofederal]

Firing a breech loading carbine that used a prepared cartridge of either paper, brass or rubber certainly speeded up the firing process. A Sharp's could be fired up to 10 times a minute. You could also fire from the prone position. All of these gave you an edge in battle and using good cover also helped.