I believe it was a transitional time for warfare. Muskets weren’t much better than earlier technology, their strength was that you didn’t need much training at all to use them as opposed to a bow or sword.
In earlier wars, if often came down to whoever broke and fled first, a smaller army fighting for beliefs rather than a Lord could beat a bigger army.
But they undervalued newer technology that could cause havoc by relatively untrained people. It wasn’t the same as WW1 where this really showed, but it was definitely on the way.
There’s definitely an argument to that logic. 10 bullets in one person may as well be 1. People don’t fall down instantly so a volley is likely to do little to a column of troops like Napoleon liked to use.
But I know pretty much nothing about the American civil war, and it sounds like the north was able to produce far more than the south. So probably a bad decision.
Forgotten Weapons did a video, not too long ago, on why advanced weapons like the Henry repeating rifle weren’t adopted by the Civil War U.S. Army. Just like today, in time of conflict a lot of people try to get military contracts. Just like today, a lot of those people have poor, unworkable, or under-developed ideas. The rifle-musket with the Minie bullet was very effective. The thinking was “We have something right now that works, is reliable, and we can already mass-produce; switching to something that maybe doesn’t work, we have no idea of reliability, and no way to produce at useful scale is a bad idea — oh, and we don’t have hindsight to tell us which to pick.”
The CSA, by contrast, had little choice but to pay anyone who looked like they could deliver arms. Aside from Griswold & Gunnison, it resulted in many failed contracts and few, generally poor-quality weapons.
I’ve always been a little fascinated by it. I’m not from US so it was never part of my education. Most of my knowledge on that era comes from videogames and cowboy movies.
I believe it was a transitional time for warfare. Muskets weren’t much better than earlier technology, their strength was that you didn’t need much training at all to use them as opposed to a bow or sword.
In earlier wars, if often came down to whoever broke and fled first, a smaller army fighting for beliefs rather than a Lord could beat a bigger army.
But they undervalued newer technology that could cause havoc by relatively untrained people. It wasn’t the same as WW1 where this really showed, but it was definitely on the way.
There’s a story that says that a Northern quartermaster didn’t want repeating rifles because he didn’t want his troops wasting bullets.
More likely the repeating rifles were more expensive and heavier.
There’s definitely an argument to that logic. 10 bullets in one person may as well be 1. People don’t fall down instantly so a volley is likely to do little to a column of troops like Napoleon liked to use.
But I know pretty much nothing about the American civil war, and it sounds like the north was able to produce far more than the south. So probably a bad decision.
Forgotten Weapons did a video, not too long ago, on why advanced weapons like the Henry repeating rifle weren’t adopted by the Civil War U.S. Army. Just like today, in time of conflict a lot of people try to get military contracts. Just like today, a lot of those people have poor, unworkable, or under-developed ideas. The rifle-musket with the Minie bullet was very effective. The thinking was “We have something right now that works, is reliable, and we can already mass-produce; switching to something that maybe doesn’t work, we have no idea of reliability, and no way to produce at useful scale is a bad idea — oh, and we don’t have hindsight to tell us which to pick.” The CSA, by contrast, had little choice but to pay anyone who looked like they could deliver arms. Aside from Griswold & Gunnison, it resulted in many failed contracts and few, generally poor-quality weapons.
Good reply. Thanks
I’ll definitely look that up. It makes sense, I think my semi-guesswork wasn’t too far off the mark.
Great reply!
If you want to binge a great documentary, Ken Burns’ The Civil War is phenomenal.
I’ve always been a little fascinated by it. I’m not from US so it was never part of my education. Most of my knowledge on that era comes from videogames and cowboy movies.
Thank you for the recommendation.
deleted by creator