|
Post by quincannon on Mar 27, 2015 13:19:37 GMT -6
Not arguing the saber Jodak. I am arguing the obsolescence of cavalry, that depends upon the saber, in the age of the repeating firearm. How much utility would those sabers be had the Indians been exclusively armed with a repeating firearm? How much utility would they have been if those Indians were all armed with single shot breach loaders?
Would we have depended upon the saber if in 1876 we went to war with Canada or England or with Spain in Cuba. Our Army had fallen behind in weaponry, but most of all it had fallen waaaaaaay behind in thinking, an exception being Wilson, and a very few others.
During the Barbary Wars Marines on Enterprise did their business in the fighting tops with muskets and cutlass. In 1942 Marines on Enterprise provided crews for 5" and 40mm mounts, and there was not a musket or cutlass in sight. The profession of arms in one where you literally adapt to technology in support of firepower and maneuver or you literally die.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Mar 27, 2015 13:48:48 GMT -6
The Colt model 1855 was used during the ACW, they did a version that fired .44 and with a 56in barrel, so why did they go backwards and develop a single shot carbine for cavalry use, why didn’t they work on a better repeating cavalry carbine.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 27, 2015 14:03:18 GMT -6
It is not the weapon Ian. The weapon is only a tool. The problem was not the choice of weapon. The problem was non-recognition of the changes that were taking place at the time. That is the root cause. Had those changes been recognized there would have never been a thought of adopting the single shot breech loading weapon for either cavalry or Infantry. The repeating arm would have been the only choice. You have to first see the problem or the emerging change before you can begin to address it.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Mar 27, 2015 15:32:03 GMT -6
It is not the weapon Ian. The weapon is only a tool. The problem was not the choice of weapon. The problem was non-recognition of the changes that were taking place at the time. That is the root cause. Had those changes been recognized there would have never been a thought of adopting the single shot breech loading weapon for either cavalry or Infantry. The repeating arm would have been the only choice. You have to first see the problem or the emerging change before you can begin to address it. Consider yet another stupid question. Why did they go with the single shot breech? Was it range over rapidity? A bit of pocket lining? Beth
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 27, 2015 15:57:09 GMT -6
Don't have a clue Beth, not a clue.
Range does not mean a hill of beans in combat, except for use by select high quality marksmen. Most combat is within two hundred meters.
If they had selected a single shot breach loader, and then placed a high premium on detection and hitting targets at and inside that 200 meter line with aimed fire, and constantly practiced the skill, I might be able to find some justification for the decision. They selected an obsolete weapon, and then placed no emphasis on the only good point the weapon had. Armies do stupid things, and most of the stupidity can be traced back to ---We always did it that way.
As far as I know the Springfield carbine was manufactured for the Army by the Army. Not sure. Tom probably knows for certain.
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Mar 27, 2015 16:05:07 GMT -6
There was once a train of thought in the Army that ammunition would be wasted if the troops had rapid fire weapons, at the expense of accuracy. So they rack and stack the Spencer(not a great weapon, but good for Cavalry operations of the day)and sold what they had for an average of under $10.00 apiece.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 27, 2015 16:17:56 GMT -6
So in the end they got neither rapid fire, nor accuracy. Splendid.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Mar 27, 2015 16:26:08 GMT -6
So in the end they got neither rapid fire, nor accuracy. Splendid. You get what you pay for. Beth
|
|
|
Post by callmeconrad on Mar 27, 2015 22:48:13 GMT -6
Consider yet another stupid question. Why did they go with the single shot breech? Was it range over rapidity? A bit of pocket lining? Beth It's a very good question and I'm sure someone here will be able to describe the exact reasoning behind the decision. I forget where I ran across this, but prior to WWI most professional armies did emphasise range and accuracy over firing speed for their soldiers. Unfortunately, hitting a completely stationary target at distances over a mile didn't turn out to be very common battlefield scenario. Cheers conrad
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 28, 2015 0:26:24 GMT -6
Conrad you could have read it in many places and it is correct. Both the U S Army and USMC and most other armies emphasized it up until WWII. The USMC was reluctant to give up the.03 for the M-1, because they thought the rapidity of semi-automatic fire, would detract from very precise well aimed marksmanship which was one of their cornerstone principles.
Everyone found that the great weakness was not in marksmanship, but rather in target detection.
|
|
|
Post by mac on Mar 28, 2015 5:22:49 GMT -6
The problem is in the thinking and the lack of imagining where the future lies. Back in the early days of computers coming in to general use, I had a chat to a consultant. His gripe was that all his clients wanted to ask him was; will it still do what we do now? Of course the answer to that was yes but the real question should be; what can it do that is better than what we do now? Of course in the early days of air war, pilots were not allowed parachutes on the basis that it would encourage them to fight harder without one. Crazy! Cheers
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Mar 28, 2015 6:31:49 GMT -6
There was once a train of thought in the Army that ammunition would be wasted if the troops had rapid fire weapons, at the expense of accuracy. Regards, Tom Tom the British Army held on to that notion until the end of the Korean War, the US Army saw the need for replacing the bolt-action weapon with a semi-automatic resulting in the excellent M1, a number of nations had also developed automatic rifles, the Russians had one in 1938 (STV-38) but it never replace the Mosin-Nagant, the Germans produced an excellent weapon in the STG-44 but only managed to make around 425.000, then later we had the AK-47, but a US Inf Platoon could knock out a serious amount of lead especially within 50-200 yards. Ian.
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Mar 28, 2015 6:48:33 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Mar 28, 2015 7:08:27 GMT -6
Interesting stuff Tom, I know the French were the first to develop an automatic rifle, they actually issued it to their troops in WW1, this data is destined for my site but I will unveil it early just for you;
Fusil "Automatique" Modèle 1917. Year: 1917. Weapon Type: Semi-Automatic Rifle. Design: R.S.C. Quantity: 80.000. Calibre: 8mm (8x50R Lebel). Barrel Length: 800mm. Overall Length: 1.330mm. Combat Weight: 5.25 kg. Operation: Gas/Semi-Automatic. Sights: Front Blade & Rear Leaf. Cartridge Weight: 27g. Muzzle Velocity: 701 m/s. Feed: 5 Round Clip. Rate of Fire: 35 r.p.m. Effective Range: 250m. Maximum Range: 1.200m. Bayonet: Modèle 1914 Bayonet.
PS have you checked on the birthdays today? there are some strange names in there and I wonder were they get them from.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Mar 28, 2015 7:54:26 GMT -6
Chuck
I get what you are saying but I am trying to deal with what they had available to them. They had sabers and left them behind. I think it was do to a lack of proficiency.
Custer also left the Gatling guns behind and I have no problem with his reason but they would have been useful with Reno if they had brought them.
In my Department we had some old mini-14s for a long time that were well worn before we got them. We now have AR-15 platforms and looking at the AR-10. I purchased an AR-10 awhile back and it is better in many ways for what we have to use a rifle/carbine for such as shooting a bear. The point is that the majority of our officers have to use what is issued and should be proficient in the use all weapons.
Regards
Steve
|
|