Discussion Repeaters Versus Muzzleloaders

Double post due to lag.

I'll instead simply say that it looks like Spencer had a lot of production problems at his factory - slower than expected production and poor quality control issues, for example. This can probably be attributed to an overly complex design for the period.
 
If I was a private during the Civil War and unaware of the history to come and of the statistics mentioned and I was allowed to choose my weapon between a musket and a repeater, which one would I choose?

You would eagerly choose the repeater.

From the first day the soldiers saw the new breech-loading and repeating arms, they would do anything to get one. They lied to commanders, the Ordnance Bureau, the Secretary of War and even to the President to get them. Men who were normally honest would steal one a the first opportunity.​
The reputation of the more advanced arms was not won in the Ordnance Bureau, nor in the General-in-Chief's command post, but int the furnace of battle.*​

*Carl Davis, Arming the Union, (Fort Washington, N. Y.: Kennikat Press, 1973), 137-38, 142
 
You would eagerly choose the repeater.

From the first day the soldiers saw the new breech-loading and repeating arms, they would do anything to get one. They lied to commanders, the Ordnance Bureau, the Secretary of War and even to the President to get them. Men who were normally honest would steal one a the first opportunity.​
The reputation of the more advanced arms was not won in the Ordnance Bureau, nor in the General-in-Chief's command post, but int the furnace of battle.*​

*Carl Davis, Arming the Union, (Fort Washington, N. Y.: Kennikat Press, 1973), 137-38, 142
True, but as has been very capably pointed out in this thread, the infrastructure and manufacturing capability was not yet there to supply these arms in any substantial amounts.
 
I actually wonder if the new-weapons obsession blinded the soldiers and officers from realizing how much they were misusing their current weapons. It was easy to imagine that getting the Spencer would make one a more effective soldier, but much harder to realize that there was a path to being a more effective soldier that just consisted of learning a new skill - one which would make them more than ten times as effective.*

* Going from average hit rate being one in two hundred at a typical firefight range around 150 yards to one in twenty at a typical firefight range around 300 yards seems entirely doable given British performance in the Crimea.
 
I agreed with you... if it is a wrong claim we both know where the source is.
That's not how this works.

If someone challenges a claim of yours, then the onus is on you to either "put up or shut up".

To "put up" would be to be willing to follow the chain of citations to see how reliable the claim actually is; if you can for example provide a source that would be good, and we can then look into the background of that source.
To "shut up" would be to retract a claim which has turned out not to be well sourced.


What you are doing instead - and it's a pattern - is making claims without any particular evidence behind them, and then when challenged either:
1) Being very affronted that anyone is questioning you, and act like the claim should be self evident
or
2) Basically just this where you refuse to provide any source.


When you point out a battle as your lynchpin anecdote, and then refuse to even say what year the battle is from (and it takes detective work to find out what it is) then that's not good.
 
I actually wonder if the new-weapons obsession blinded the soldiers and officers from realizing how much they were misusing their current weapons. It was easy to imagine that getting the Spencer would make one a more effective soldier, but much harder to realize that there was a path to being a more effective soldier that just consisted of learning a new skill - one which would make them more than ten times as effective.*

* Going from average hit rate being one in two hundred at a typical firefight range around 150 yards to one in twenty at a typical firefight range around 300 yards seems entirely doable given British performance in the Crimea.
One in twenty would be pretty good given that it was at least one in forty at Rorke's Drift with better weapons in a prepared position against a foe largely armed with short spears and compelled to attack... ;)
 
One in twenty would be pretty good given that it was at least one in forty at Rorke's Drift with better weapons in a prepared position against a foe largely armed with short spears and compelled to attack... :wink:
Really? I tried to calculate it once and got closer to a 5% to 10% hit rate.

Though there is actually a difference which would result in a better accuracy performance from a muzzle loading rifle than a breech loading rifle given otherwise identical performance, and that's that the weapon takes much longer to reload and so there's more of a reason to take time to aim - for a breech loader spending six seconds reloading and three aiming means you're cutting your shots-per-minute down to 66% of what it would be, but for a muzzle loader spending thirty seconds reloading and three aiming is not much of an impediment.

The actual numbers from the Crimea are indicative. At Inkerman about 12,000 casualties were inflicted by 200,000 shots from small arms and about 2,000 artillery fires; unless the smoothbore non-explosive-shell British artillery was inflicting more than 2-3 casualties per fire you're looking at ca. 20 small arms rounds per hit.
 
Lets talk about hit rates at Gettysburg, and more generally in the Civil War, as a reflection on marksmanship training.

The Confederate Army estimated that during the week of the Battle of Gettysburg the 75,000 Confederate troops in the Gettysburg area had fired 25-26 rounds per man. Assuming these figures are accurate, and there is reason to believe they under estimate Confederate ammunition expenditures, the Confederates averaged 81 shots for each of the 23,000 Federal casualties; ignoring artillery fire. The 90,000 men of the Army of the Potomac were issued 5.4 million rounds of ammunition at Gettysburg, for the standard basic load of 60 rounds per man. Griffith estimates that it it took on average 180 rounds for the Federals to produce each of the 20,000 Confederate casualties; again ignoring artillery fire. This level of marksmanship incompetence was after two years of combat.

A moderately competent shot armed with an Austrian, Springfield, or Enfield rifle musket can keep every shot that they fire from the standing position on a target the size of a man's torso at 100 yards. But, Nosworthy estimates that the average number of casualties inflicted compared to the total number of shots fired in a Civil War battle was in the range of 0.60 percent to 1.50 percent. Had Billy Yank and Johnny Reb really known or been taught how to adequately use their small arms, and been psychologically prepared to kill another man, the casualties of the Civil War, given the linear tactics required for effective command and control and the potential accuracy of the rifled weapons used, may well have been beyond the bearing of it, and could well have sapped the national will of both North and South to continue the bloodshed.

So, let us issue breechloading weapons to troops who have never received adequate marksmanship training so that they may miss at a significantly increased rate and totally overwhelm our already inadequate logistical system. That is, assuming that we could have manufactured the breechloaders in significant quantities to begin with, which we couldn't.

Regards,
Don Dixon
 
So, let us issue breechloading weapons to troops who have never received adequate marksmanship training so that they may miss at a significantly increased rate and totally overwhelm our already inadequate logistical system. That is, assuming that we could have manufactured the breechloaders in significant quantities to begin with, which we couldn't.
Excellent point, and repeating arms would have exponentially increased the strain on the system.
 
I feel I should put a digression here on the difference between range accuracy rates and battle accuracy rates.

The first thing that needs to be made clear is that - yes, it is absolutely the case that accuracy on the firing range is considerably greater than battle accuracy. There are a number of reasons for this, like the stress of being in battle; the lack of ability to take one's time; being shot at; the targets being less obvious; in some cases the range on the firing range is known and the range in battle has to be estimated, which in and of itself is a skill that had to be taught and cannot really be picked up ad-hoc.

However, it is entirely appropriate to compare battle hit rates with battle hit rates, and firing range hit rates with firing range hit rates.

It is also useful to know what ingredients go into training someone as a skilled sharpshooter in this period.


To get the "perfect shot", the Hythe system of musketry trained soldiers in all sorts of fields, and using this as a basis we can say that:

- A soldier should have drilled at reloading enough that they can do it without thinking. In battle soldiers can often misload their weapons due to stress, and this should be eliminated.
- A soldier should have done snapping practice and blank firing practice, so the retort of the percussion cap or the blank will not throw off their aim.
- A soldier should be taught range estimation. This means that they should be required to make range estimations during training and then scored on how well they have done; this cannot be taught in battle, because if you guess wrongly there is no way for you to know if you have done so or not.
- A soldier should be able to set his sights and to aim correctly at a target at the estimated range.
- A soldier should be able to treat each shot separately, and to not rush.
- A soldier should be taught to curl his finger around the trigger and press gently, rather than pull the trigger. Doing otherwise pulls the rifle out of alignment.
- A soldier should be taught to shoot without expenditure of ammunition, and then given balls and powder to prove that he has learned.
- A soldier should be tested over unknown ranges as well as known ranges; that is, part of their evaluation should consist of having to shoot a target where they do not know how far away it is.
- A soldier's score at all of these that can be tested should be recorded and reported, so he can know what he got wrong and so the competitive spirit will be engaged.


To quote:




'Taught shooting is a sure thing; it is a positive certainty. Men by nature cannot shoot; the more ball they shoot the worse they shoot. I would rather catch a tailor off his board than a sportsman. Capital sportsmen come here and remain in the 3rd class. They often say: "Colonel, I wish I had you in the bogs of Ireland"; or: "Colonel, I wish I had you in the jungles of India." Thank you, gentlemen, Hythe answers my purpose sufficiently well. We teach without balls; by aiming and position drill; by establishing a union between the finger and the brain. Rifle shooting is like shooting from a ship; you must press the trigger at the right juncture. I am getting blinder and more shaky every day, yet I shoot better, because I know when to press the trigger.'

'men, if they are to be intelligent soldiers, and not mere shooting machines, cannot aim until they understand the theoretical principles which guide a ball in its flight; they cannot shoot until they have acquired a facility in position; nor can they be master of a weapon unless they know its mechanical construction and how to keep it in working order.'

'One is apt to think that everybody can aim; but if you try to aim at a near object and then at a long range, you will find how the difficulty of aiming increases with the distance. This difficulty can only be overcome by practice. The sight is as capable of education as any other faculty. Eye drill is therefore an important part of the training of a long-range rifleman. For this drill each section is drawn up opposite to a tripod rest — three poles held together by a ring, with a bag of sand on the top. Each man in the section comes in turn to the rest, lays his rifle upon it, adjusts his sight for the distance, and aligns the back-sight and foresight upon the mark. While he is doing so he is required to state the rules he is acting upon, in aiming; thus coupling theory with practice... When the right hand man in the section has adjusted his rifle on the rest he steps aside and the Sergeant looks along his sights. If he finds any error... he calls the next man to point out the error; and so each man takes his turn...'

'In the second practice you go through all the motions of actual shooting. It is, in fact, shooting dummy. You bring the rifle smartly to the shoulder, closing the left eye, and with the right looking through the bottom of the notch of the backsight; then put the forefinger round the trigger like a hook; then raise the muzzle till the sights come into alignment with the mark, restraining the breathing; then, the moment the sights are aligned, without dwelling on and so losing the aim, you press or squeeze the trigger, keeping your eye on the mark meanwhile and for some moments afterwards, so as not to disturb the aim; then you bring the rifle down smartly to the capping position. In all, five motions. In the third practice you go through all the motions of loading as well as of firing. You load dummy as well as shoot dummy. The second and third position drills are practised both standing and kneeling, as a front rank and as a rear rank.
The position drills were practised in the barrack-yard. A double row of small bulls' eyes is painted on the wall, at one of which each man is to aim... No man in the army is allowed to practise, that is, to shoot, until he has gone through 16 of these position drills.'

'In good old times, according to Col. Wilford, the order was: "Ball practice, shut your eyes, open your mouth, head back, pull away, and the deuce take the consequences." Now, we never say "Fire." Only the man who holds the rifle can say when to fire. It is at the very moment when the sights have come into alignment. It is the brain which takes the aim. The eye tells the brain when the aim is taken, and then the brain sends an electric message to the forefinger to press the trigger. Observe, they never say "pull" the trigger; if we pulled the trigger we should pull the rifle out of alignment and shoot wide. We are to press the trigger. The finger is to be well round the trigger like a hook, ready to obey the brain when the moment comes. If it is not ready, if there is anything else to do, any shifting of the finger, the moment is lost, you are off the mark, and had better drop the muzzle, and, having taken a full breath, raise it again.'

'Of the two next heads of our course — snapping caps and firing blanks — little need be said. Snapping caps is not a very exciting practice; but to the uninitiated even this is not unimportant. These drills are intended to cure the habit of winking or starting at the fall of the hammer (to use an auctioneer's phrase), and to habituate you to the recoil of the gun.'

'By way of further "improving each shining hour" during these judging distance drills, we were told, when not actually engaged in judging, to adjust our sights to the distance and practice snapping. In fact it was urged upon us that we could not have too much of this exercise; and the diligent filled up every spare moment by aiming, either standing or kneeling, and snapping.'

'As it is the main object of position drill to form habits which we may afterwards act upon mechanically and unconsciously, we were cautioned never in practice at home, or in our most careless moments, to bring the rifle to the "present," or to go through any other movement of the position drill, except in strict accordance with the instructions, and especially never to press the trigger when snapping unless we had a distinct aim, such as we should be satisfied with in ball practice. There seems to be much virtue in this rule, for it follows that if we fire blank with the same care as we fire ball, we shall fire ball with as little anxiety or flutter as we fire blank.'





The effective result of this was that the soldiers thus trained were really very good, and this was because they'd all gone through sharpshooter training. (The British had a bit of a mania for this in this period.) In some battalions about 70% of the men could hit a linear target 25% of the time at 900 yards during target practice, and while (for the reasons mentioned above) they'd never be so accurate on the battlefield it means the ability to deliver effective fire out to a much greater distance than otherwise - and it helps when firing at closer ranges as well.
 
If I was a private during the Civil War and unaware of the history to come and of the statistics mentioned and I was allowed to choose my weapon between a musket and a repeater, which one would I choose?

You would eagerly choose the repeater.

From the first day the soldiers saw the new breech-loading and repeating arms, they would do anything to get one. They lied to commanders, the Ordnance Bureau, the Secretary of War and even to the President to get them. Men who were normally honest would steal one a the first opportunity.​
The reputation of the more advanced arms was not won in the Ordnance Bureau, nor in the General-in-Chief's command post, but int the furnace of battle.*​

*Carl Davis, Arming the Union, (Fort Washington, N. Y.: Kennikat Press, 1973), 137-38, 142

True, but as has been very capably pointed out in this thread, the infrastructure and manufacturing capability was not yet there to supply these arms in any substantial amounts.

Why do you suppose Lincoln replaced Ripley in September 1863?
 
Why do you suppose Lincoln replaced Ripley in September 1863?
Honestly I wouldn't be entirely surprised if age was a factor; he was born in 1794 and as such was 68 years old upon his firing. But it's not impossible for Lincoln to have made decisions based on judgements that were incorrect.

For example, if Ripley was fired for not supporting the purchase of breech loaders, that would be an incorrect reflection of his department's policies because (as we've seen) it ordered large numbers of breech loaders... but that wouldn't prevent Lincoln forming that incorrect impression.
 
Basic summary: rifles don't magically make you better at shooting. You sort of need to train at it...

Train??? No...don't bullets have little radars in their noses which guide them unerringly to their targets, even if you hold the weapon on its side and jerk the trigger as fast as you possibly can? But I've seen it on TV and the movies..... :smile:

Regards,
Don Dixon
 
Train??? No...don't bullets have little radars in their noses which guide them unerringly to their targets, even if you hold the weapon on its side and jerk the trigger as fast as you possibly can? But I've seen it on TV and the movies..... :smile:
"Do not attempt gangsta style with rifle musket"

- something they never even needed to put in the musketry manual
 
range estimation.
I looked in the danish 1855 regulation for the shooting drills in the infantry.
It is a bit hard to read because of the Gothic text..

The basic structure is the same as the Hythe system. (and basically the same as how it is still done today.)

The book is 71 pages+appendix.
1 to 32 cover the different none shooting lessons and shooting lessons.
33 to 46 is all about teaching range estimation and explain different lessons that must be done and how to do extra when ever you got some spare time in the field. And it directly tell you to do so, when ever you got the time. Like when some of the men are shooting and the rest is waiting for their turn.

The rest is about the administrative side of thing, drawings of the different types of targets and similar.

My point is, it get a lot of focus and it is expect that all soldiers learn how to judge out to a distance of 400 yards first and then later out to 600 yards. And they learn a number of methods to help them do this.
 

Learn About Us
About CivilWarTalk
Contact the Webmaster
Meet the Staff
Link to CivilWarTalk
Join Our Community
Register
Browse Forums
View Today's Discussions
Search the Forum
Get Help
FAQ
Student Guide
Forum Rules & Etiquette
Copyright / DMCA

     Contact Us CivilwarTalk on Facebook CivilWarTalk on YouTube CivilWarTalk on Twitter RSS Feed

Bringing the American Civil War and More to Life.
© 1999 - , CIVILWARTALK, LLC - Site Version 10.0

SlaveryTalk.com - SecessionTalk.com - CivilWarTalk.com - ReconstructionTalk.com
Back
Top