Used more Springfield vs Enfield

[thomas aagaard]

The only excuse I can find there is that the muzzle loader models were either cheaper (And I'm not sure it was by that much) and more reliable (again, not sure).

The Sharps rifle as standard equipment would not have been that much harder pressed than the Springfield to meet any of Ripley's understandable requirements.

Then the union would have had to wait for years to get guns.
The most used gun North and south. as the british enfield. And it was imported.
The US simply didn't have the ability to make the needed number of arms in a month so they imported any old gun they could get their hands on. And then later started to replace them.

Giving untrained men and officers at the start of the war breach loading weapons would have been a wast. And was not possible even if they had wanted to.

Now instead of focusing fully on making springsfields making more breachloaders would likely have been better. So they by the later part of the war(when the soldiers where no longer untrained) would have been able to issue better arms to selected regiments.
Or re introduce the concept of two flank companies with better arms than the line companies.(in each regiment)

I think it was John Keegan who wrote(...)
When the war began, both sides armed themselves with what was available and employed Napoleonic strategies and tactics to go along with their Napoleonic weapons.

First of all Keegan is not an weapons expert. He also wrote that the early firearms if just smoke and noise, something that is simply not correct.(the topic of my B.A)

The soldiers who fought the civil war couldn't manage Napoleonic tactics... since that would include wide use of skirmishers as the main fighting force and close cooperation between the 3 arms. Something that takes well trained soldiers and well trained officers. And yes, well trained cavalry that know how to do a mounted charge.*
And when you make huge armies out of nothing in a year it is impossible to do much more than close ordered lines marching at each other. Tactically the civil war battles looks more like the 7 year war (in europe)... just without the cavalry battles at the flanks.
This article covers the topic:
http://johnsmilitaryhistory.com/cwarmy.html


*All the wars in Europe from 1859-1870 have cavalry making effective mounted charges and it is against infantry armed with rifled muskets and later breachloading rifles.

 

[IcarusPhoenix]

The most used gun North and south. as the british enfield. And it was imported.

Second most-used, actually; The Model 1861 Springfield was far more common.

The soldiers who fought the civil war couldn't manage Napoleonic tactics... since that would include wide use of skirmishers as the main fighting force and close cooperation between the 3 arms. Something that takes well trained soldiers and well trained officers. And yes, well trained cavalry that know how to do a mounted charge.

If you're referring to the British - and to a lesser-extent the later-period Portuguese and Austrians - then "well-trained" applies, but a lot of Napoleonic-era tactics - especially those of, well, Napoleon - were created with the specific intent of keeping poorly trained conscripts in formation. As for the Civil War, it's worth noting that Napoleonic style cavalry was ill-suited to both the era's technology and the terrain of the Eastern theater. Certainly though, the American armies could have better utilized their artillery as infantry support at times.

And how many times have question been on about muskets or bullets types?

300-400 probably...

 

[thomas aagaard]

Read the link... the numbers show that by 1864 a larger % of the union regiments had enfields than Springfields.

From may 1803 to august 1805 Napoleon I had his main army (100.000+men) in camps at Boulogne training for an invasion of England. This made up the core of the army used at Austerlitz. When you got great commanders and 2½ years to train you armies(and a good number of veterans) they know how to do their jobs.

This was not the untrained mobs you see during the early part of the (french) revolutionary wars or american civil war.
(but as the years pass the quality of the french army do suffer with looses and 1812 pretty much broke it. So in 1813 you are right about the poor quality of the french)

Cavalry - I agree that some of the battlefields was not suited for cavalry charges... but others where. But the basic fact is that there where no properly trained cavalry to try it.
But the technology part is not correct... since European wars of the period do have cavalry charges that work.. against infantry armed with rifle-muskets.

 

[Specster]

Second most-used, actually; The Model 1861 Springfield was far more common.


If you're referring to the British - and to a lesser-extent the later-period Portuguese and Austrians - then "well-trained" applies, but a lot of Napoleonic-era tactics - especially those of, well, Napoleon - were created with the specific intent of keeping poorly trained conscripts in formation. As for the Civil War, it's worth noting that Napoleonic style cavalry was ill-suited to both the era's technology and the terrain of the Eastern theater. Certainly though, the American armies could have better utilized their artillery as infantry support at times.


300-400 probably...

It think it is a commonly accepted fact that the Springfield was the most used rifle in the civil war - North and South combined.

What do you guys think would have been the result if the reflex bow was used with and easily manuafactured arrow. By this time mass production was catching fire. If pressed, dont you think a mass produced arrow was possible? The volume issue would still be present (carrying all those arrows as opposed to cartridges.) I dont think the reflex bow (a simple one as used by the Mongols), took extraordinary stregnth or training to use..

 

[thomas aagaard]

It think it is a commonly accepted fact that the Springfield was the most used rifle in the civil war - North and South combined.

That don't make it true... ;-) It is often stated... I just found it in 3 of my books... but none had an actually source for it.
If the springfield was the most used then, surly someone have done the research and can prove that is the case...

Atm I have only seen the numbers I link to and they tell a different story.

 

[Specster]

That don't make it true... ;-) It is often stated... I just found it in 3 of my books... but none had an actually source for it.
If the springfield was the most used then, surly someone have done the research and can prove that is the case...

Atm I have only seen the numbers I link to and they tell a different story.

I visit the Springfield Armory NPS site fairly often. I noticed that they had very large production facilities at the time of the ACW. They were using interchangeable parts, I would imagine you could produce more rifles with that system as opposed to the guild based system. Springfield subcontracted rifle manufacture to many companies in New England. There are examples at the museum.

Next time I am there I will have to ask the resident expert about this issue. The guy is very knowledgable. Not to say you are not.

 

[thomas aagaard]

Next time I am there I will have to ask the resident expert about this issue. The guy is very knowledgable. Not to say you are not.

My point is. The "fact" that the Springfield was the most used firearm is often written. And that is what I knew until I read the article I have linked to earlier.
My problem with the fact is that 3 of my books mention the springfield, but don't add a source.
(haven't looked the the rest of my books yet... been busy following the news)

So now I have a often repeated fact with not actually clear source for it.
And I have a fact that is different, but at least I can find one person who actually did some work on this.
I have no Idea what is the truth. But this makes the historian in my question the common knowledge. (there are simply too many cases of "common knowledge" that are not correct)

One of my books say that 670.000 springfields was made and 428.292 Enfields was imported.(no source)
But the question is, how many of the springsfields was actually issued, and when?
In my view 50 weapons issued for 3 years was more used than 100 weapons issued for one year.
since the first give a total of 150 years issued and the second only 100.

So if anyone can point me to someone who have actually looked at how many springfields was issued... and when.

 

[thomas aagaard]

Yes, after I posted I found the same numbers in another book that made it clear that the import number was for the union only.

That the enfield was the most used arm by the CSA forces is another common known truth. mentioned in many of my books with no source.

 

[Camp Randall Armory]

The numbers I've always seen is 1.5 million Springfields (including the M1855, M1861, M1861 Special, M1863, and M1864. Enfield numbers is generally always around 900,000. So, there were more Springfields then Enfields overall, but that's a general rule and depending on theatre and date I'm sure you could find times when Enfields were more prevalent. (like around 1862 and 1863 before domestic production ramped up)

 

[thomas aagaard]

So, there were more Springfields then Enfields overall, but that's a general rule and depending on theatre and date I'm sure you could find times when Enfields were more prevalent. (like around 1862 and 1863 before domestic production ramped up)

This is again the common known truth...
The article I have linked to makes it clear that by 1864 the enfield was still used by more union infantry regiments, then the Springfields were.
http://www.authentic-campaigner.com...0-HOW-SMALL-ARMS-WERE-ISSUED-By-Craig-L-Barry

His info comes from the book: Earl Coates & Dean Thomas, An Introduction to Civil War Small Arms, Thomas Publications (Gettysburg, PA) 1996, see appendix pp 91-96.
(I don't got the book yet, it is on its way)

So I am asking for someone who can quote any historian who actually looked at the records and can tell how many of the Springfields that was issued.

Basically if we take a random union infantryman, at a random point during the war... what weapon did he use?
Before reading that article I wold have said a springfield. But Iam no longer so sure.

 

[kholland]

thread separated from another by Moderator.

 

[Specster]

The numbers I've always seen is 1.5 million Springfields (including the M1855, M1861, M1861 Special, M1863, and M1864. Enfield numbers is generally always around 900,000. So, there were more Springfields then Enfields overall, but that's a general rule and depending on theatre and date I'm sure you could find times when Enfields were more prevalent. (like around 1862 and 1863 before domestic production ramped up)

Further. Weren't about half of those 1863s produced over a very short period of time like 3 years while the enfields had a run in excess of a decade and went to a multitude of theaters

 

[thomas aagaard]

I asked the mods to split this up from the debate about bows.

I got the book on the way from Amazon UK, when I get it I hope it will tell me more about this.,

 

[Craig L Barry]

Well, we have to make sure we are talking about the same thing. There is a chapter in The Civil War Musket: A Handbook for Historical Accuracy on this very point. Let's call them "US Models" and "P53 long rifles" which is how they were usually referenced. To put it in a nutshell, there were more "US Models" meaning US 1855, US 1861, US 1863-4 than P-53 Enfield long rifles. However, no single model (meaning the US Model 1861 for example), was produced in greater numbers than the P53 Enfield. The reason for the different "models" or patterns of US manufactured military arms is that they were machine made and parts interchangeable. Hence some fairly minor evolutionary changes resulted in the creation of a new "model." The P53 Enfield also evolved, but being handmade (non-interchangeable) these slight design changes changes were not considered a new model or "pattern." They were still considered the P53.

And if you want a reliable source on the total numbers of P53s exported to America during the Civil War (just from England) John Dent Goodman, Chairman of Birmingham Small Arms Trade states over a million were exported to both sides in his report to Parliament. He should know. His report breaks it down year by year. There were also Enfield pattern 1853 rifles made in Spain, Germany, France and of course Belgium that found their way here in some numbers. It would be very fair to state that no single pattern of rifle or musket was more widely used in the US Civil War than the P53. It would also be correct to state that the US Models (en toto) were produced in the greatest numbers.

 

[Specster]

The numbers I've always seen is 1.5 million Springfields (including the M1855, M1861, M1861 Special, M1863, and M1864. Enfield numbers is generally always around 900,000. So, there were more Springfields then Enfields overall, but that's a general rule and depending on theatre and date I'm sure you could find times when Enfields were more prevalent. (like around 1862 and 1863 before domestic production ramped up)

Not that this is definitive but, the 1853 Enfield had a production run of 14 years. The total production said to be about 1.5 million. During that time they would have supplied - 1st and foremost, Britain, which, with its Navy, was huge. Then the colonies - at that time - "The sun never set on the british empire - Pacific islands, Australia, parts of China, much of India, parts of Africa, exports to Portugal and Argentina, South American colonies." a lot of real estate much with dense populations. All things considered, why would the bulk of those enfield find their way to the US? In the Northeast, I see more period Springfields than Enfields."

As far as references, I dont have them. But, in this day and age, if something was that off, I think someone would have made a point of exposing it. BTW, I am in agreement with you, I am not trying to make an arguement against you.

 

[Specster]

Yet, when it comes to doing the reseach and varifying the same, I think we are in good hands when the conclusions are coming from Craig Barry

 

[Craig L Barry]

Appreciate the kind words, but these same questions troubled me so I set about to find the answers. It is really a matter of playing with words in one sense, but it always bothered me when I would read how the US Model 1861 was "the most common infantry arm of the US Civil War." And I read that quite often. However, it really wasn't...not even close, but if considered together all the various US Model rifle-muskets certainly were. Another irony...the US Models were often called "Springfields" but the vast majority of US 1861s were not made at the Springfield Armory.

So here we are ten years later and the same questions come up, meaning we still wonder about the same things. Funny in a way and why we concern ourselves with such inconsequential matters is a subject for another day. Isn't the broader point that both the P53 and the US Model(s) were very commonly encountered on both sides being far and away the apex military arms of the day...one of domestic design, one European? Soldiers in the ranks that had either of them considered themselves fortunate, with their being a bit of latent provincialism in favor of the US Models.

This question also comes up quite often...which was better? It is much more easily answered. There is no evidence of any soldier on either side ever exchanging a US Model rifle-musket for anything else. Period.

 

[Specster]

Appreciate the kind words, but these same questions troubled me so I set about to find the answers. It is really a matter of playing with words in one sense, but it always bothered me when I would read how the US Model 1861 was "the most common infantry arm of the US Civil War." And I read that quite often. However, it really wasn't...not even close, but if considered together all the various US Model rifle-muskets certainly were. Another irony...the US Models were often called "Springfields" but the vast majority of US 1861s were not made at the Springfield Armory.

So here we are ten years later and the same questions come up, meaning we still wonder about the same things. Funny in a way and why we concern ourselves with such inconsequential matters is a subject for another day. Isn't the broader point that both the P53 and the US Model(s) were very commonly encountered on both sides being far and away the apex military arms of the day...one of domestic design, one European? Soldiers in the ranks that had either of them considered themselves fortunate, with their being a bit of latent provincialism in favor of the US Models.

This question also comes up quite often...which was better? It is much more easily answered. There is no evidence of any soldier on either side ever exchanging a US Model rifle-musket for anything else. Period.

Thanks you again, for your insight. I dont know if you are aware that you do this, but you often cut questions/issues, down to their essence. I believe in philosphy it is called Pragmatism. While many of us are arguing over dates, names, places, etc. you get to the heart of the question and answer it.

Thanks again,

Spec

 

[Jobe Holiday]

Mr. Barry has a lifetime of experience in separating the "Wheat from the Chaff"!
J.

 

[Craig L Barry]

Anyway, I think we painted this one into a corner. If the past is any indication of what to expect next, somebody will post an image of odd hieroglyphics on an Enfield stock and want to know what they mean...I always enjoy those posts, too because the markings often don't mean much at all.