|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Aug 7, 2008 12:05:28 GMT -6
From a website visitor: General Stanley took two "rifled Rodman guns" on the 1873 Northern Pacific survey expedition. Does anyone have an idea why he would choose these over the Napoleon which had beern used in previous years ?? |
|
|
|
Post by conz on Aug 7, 2008 12:27:50 GMT -6
From a website visitor: General Stanley took two "rifled Rodman guns" on the 1873 Northern Pacific survey expedition. Does anyone have an idea why he would choose these over the Napoleon which had beern used in previous years ?? Diane, A couple reasons they might have. The difference between a Napoleon smoothbore and any rifled piece is that: 1) the rifles are lighter, so more easily pulled by horses. "Horse artillery" batteries almost always pulled rifled cannon. 2) Rifles have more accurate fire at longer ranges. So if you have pinpoint distant targets, you want a rifle. On the other hand, smoothbores have bigger rounds, pack more punch, and have a better cannister fan for close in work. They are preferred for close in slugging against enemy masses. Clair |
|
|
|
Post by biggordie on Aug 7, 2008 15:34:10 GMT -6
And for breeching walls/works during an attack on a fortified position, something which didn't regularly happen on the Great Plains when fighting, or attempting to destroy, Indians. Most artillery fire against Indians was at reasonably long ranges, and hence rifled guns were considerd optimal equipment. One could also keep the gunners out of the range of the Indians' weapons, always a consideration.
And, although I might be wrong on this, I believe that the recoil for a rifled gun tended to be less than for a smooth-bore. probably a function of charge and etc.
Gordie
|
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Aug 7, 2008 20:48:23 GMT -6
Thanks, guys!
|
|
