- This topic has 5 voices and 13 replies.
-
Posts
-
I know we have all heard about the supposed effect that the sharp's carbine had on cavalry combat in the Civil War. But, can anyone point to a documented engagement in which the Sharps was seen to be so superior that it provided a decisive edge for Union troops? I cant think of a single one, but I can rememeber plenty of instances where historians have touted its supremacy.It seems to me that the strength of the argument rests on the ability of the breech loader to fire faster than a muzzle loader. I am not convinced that simply firing more often than the enemy increases an army's effectiveness. Fire has to be on target to be effective, I have seen no data that suggest that troops equipped with the sharps hit there their target more often. I have however, seen data that suggest it is tactical maneuver not volume of fire that is decisive on the battlefield.Anybody else have any thoughts?
I don't think the carbine really had that much affect in terms of giving the Union a decisive edge. The only thing that might have changed is the Union cavalry caught up with their Confederate counterparts in terms of quality. I don't know, this is really hard to measure.
I agree with Don; the South had an edge here for a good period of time. So, too, I'd have rather had a brace of LeMats (each w/ extra cyl) than a Sharps for horseback fighting.
One example of the supremacy of maneuver I am talking about comes from my historical specialty (Prussian Military History), the Battle of Koniggratz. The muzzleloader armed Austrian army kept the breechloader equipped Prussians at bay until the appearance of another Prussian Corps/Army on their flank. After that the Austrian position went out the window and they ultimately lost the battle.
I am not convinced that simply firing more often than the enemy increases an army's effectiveness.
You might want to discuss this with those who have been in combat.While it is not the sole factor that determines victory, the rate of fire is very important. If there are enough bullets whizzing over his head a solider will take cover (or flee) at the expense of returning fire thus creating a tactical advantage for the side with significantly greater fire power.
Daniel, scout has been in combat. I can think of another example….the Battle of Chancellorsville. Maneuvering won the day not rate of fire. Jackson's bold move around a mountain to reach Hooker's rear overcame Hooker's superior numbers and artillery. Once Hooker found himself caught between Jackson and Lee, he had to vacate the field.
Daniel there is a difference between a mass of fire and a mass of aimed fire. Just because you can put a lot of bullets in the air does not mean you are hitting anything.For an example of what a mass of aimed fire can do I would suggest examining the Battles of Mons and Le Cateau in 1914. In both instances the superior british rifle marksmanship convinced the germans they were facing machine guns when in fact they faced only British rifleman doing what they were trained to do. Fire fifteen aimed shots per minute.
... they faced only British rifleman doing what they were trained to do. Fire fifteen aimed shots per minute.
+1. According to the logic of the time (and for some time after) the SMLE was the ultimate battle rifle available and Tommy knew how to use it. We had the best target rifle (Springfield though many of our troops were armed with Enfields in '06... often called the P-17) and the Germans the best hunting rifle (Mauser). IMHO.
The Mauser action has endured though whereas the others have not. Perhaps because of its superior hunting usefulness.
Don't forget the Enfields (P-14 and P-17, not the SMLE) morf into the Rem. 700 over the years… not a bad hunter in its own right.
Asd a matter of fact yes; http://militaryguns.net.au/content/view/68/98/… here's a good link I found.
The point I am trying to get across is that weapons are tools and tools are only as good as those who wield them. The British Tommy of 1914 were probably the best soldiers in the world at the time. they had the most recent combat experience and almost all were long service regulars who had been with the same regiment their entire career. However, there were only some 100,000 odd Tommies and almost 4 million Germans. It did not matter how good they were, there simply were not enough. The Germans had an effective cadre system that meant their regular army and recalled reservists were the most professional of the mass armies used in 1914.Yes, the K-98 is a great weapon, but the Enfield SMLE was better because of who was using it not because of any intrinsic advantages. The Mauser action has survived because of its simplicity and ruggedness.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
