Small arms discussion.

[Landsknecht und Deutscher Ritter]

Anyone else find it weird that the Fayetteville is the statistically best infantry musket in the game? From what i dug up online it's basically just a Harpers Ferry that was produced by the CSA with captured equipment, The CS Richmond is pretty much the same case except it's based on the 1855 Springfield. It seems like the 1863 Springfield should be the top tier musket or maybe the unscoped whitworth, since the Confederates would actually have the ability to produce/purchase the whitworth historically instead of capturing them.

And i suppose it should be noted that all of the confederate made rifles except for the farmers are simply copies of other designs produced in the CSA Fayetteville = Harpers Ferry, CS Richmond = 1855 springfield, MJ&G Type II = M1841 Mississippi, Tyler Texas = 1853 Enfield. Maybe the CSA should just have a larger number of those rifles in hand instead of having multiple designs. Or allow us to combine the CSA made rifles with stockpiles of their non CSA counterpart since it's such a pain to get 2,500 rifles of the same model.

[Didz]

Diposting pertama kali oleh hannibalbarca120002001:

Diposting pertama kali oleh Didz:

Well i took those figures verabtum from what I assumed was a respected ACW history reference site, which in turn claimed to be quoting figures from actual surgeon's records of the period. If they are wrong I suggest you take it up with them, and the surgeon's who provided the information.

net search on 922 bayonet and sabre wounds, first link of the scores of them, is to civil war talk, it links in first post to those records, showing a san of the table with 922 bayonet sabre casualties. You simply misread whatever you found, because 922 bayonet casualties in civil war has nothing on the net, or assumed wrong, or whatever. Your the one makeing up crap, so its you i pull up.
NO need to ask a dead surgeon, just read their words before makeing a fool of yoursel, 40 years wasted time.

Yep! found it just now.

In fact, that site also posts an image of the actual record from which it derived the figures.
https://civilwartalk.com/threads/922-sabre-and-bayonet-wounds.130801/
The original site I found didn't, and didn't mention that the 922 figure was a mix of sabre and bayonet wounds.

The hisotrical document depicted on the Civil War Talk site also states that the vast majority of these wounds were inflicted 'Out of Combat' in private quarrels and broils, or were inflicted by sentinels in the discharge of their duty.' . Not sure what duty required sentinels to stab fellow soliders, but thats what it says, confirming my own opinion that medical records cannot be used to make assumptions about the nature of combat casualties.

However, it does confirm that the incidence of bayonet wounds was pretty low for the entire war, and that of those recorded, the majority were not actually inflicted in combat. In fact, as you rightly point less than half (400) are specifically identified as bayonet wounds of which only 30 are listed a fatal.

[Landsknecht und Deutscher Ritter]

Diposting pertama kali oleh hannibalbarca120002001:

Diposting pertama kali oleh Didz:

That's pretty much how I rationalise it too, it also serves to explain the firing into a melee behaviour.

The figures I've quoted above have all been sourced from primary records, i certainly didn't make them up.

As far as your Combat Casualtiy Records are concerned, even if they exist (and you provide no source references), there is no way a surgeon could attest as to whether the wounds were inflicted in combat or not. I've actually seen a bayonet wound inflicted during a drill parade when a man in the rear rank dropped his rifle and stabbed to man in front of him in the arm. Without asking every man how he recieved his wound there is no way of being certain they are combat wounds.

Also I would point out that we were specifically discussing bayonet wounds whereas your figures include combined totals for swords and bayonets, which would include wounds inflicted by cavalrymen during pursuit. So, we need to be careful not to jump to conclusions about what they mean.

Having said that from what I've seen and heard so far it does look as though hand to hand fighting was actually more common in the ACW, than it was in the Napoleonic Wars. Which is actually counter-intuitive given that in theory weapon performance should have increased and made assaults even more hazardous than fifty years earlier.

However, i have found some primary accounts of actually hand to hand fighting including Private Jackson who apparently skewered a Reb by thrwing his rifle at him in frustration. I can only speculate at why this might be the case. Perhaps, the higher fire rate and lethality of weapons increased the reliance on cover and firld works, and that somehow encouraged defenders to be more stubborn in holding their position when charged. Or perhaps we are seeing the results of an early manifestion of pinning an enemy in place by firepower so that they could be assaulted.

Whatever the reason hand to hand combat, such as that which took place at the mule shoe mentioned earlier have been documented. Though it seems from these accounts that anyone with a multi-shot rifle or pistol used that in preference to a bayonet.

You repetdly define things to suit yourself, thats what i refer to making things up, your still dong it, because as i suggested, you have not read widley enough, you posted 922 bayonet casualties, that number is bayonet and sabre casualtues combined, as i have posted, you dont know enough to have an informed opinion. French bayonet/sword casualties from Pini sular were compared to bayonet/sabre in theWBTS, using each sides medical records for wounds treated resulting from combat, both sets have tables for accidents, WBTS has 1 hand wound from bayonet, in combat, 245 from accidents.
Dont ♥♥♥♥♥ about Matienes medical data i posted, its only like most quoted reference work for French casualties, used in a book you say you have, and given to you beforeon other forums to demstrate your claims are factually wrong. However, Aristede Maritien is the author and is availabe in English, John Hall does similar for Uk, but significantly less detailled.

You didn't post any data, You just make ♥♥♥♥ up on the spot. Which is why no one cares about what you say

[Caramirdan]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Milf + Loli Incest Hentai Doujin:

Which is why no one cares about what you say

(Speak for yourself, please.)

[Landsknecht und Deutscher Ritter]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Caramirdan:

Diposting pertama kali oleh Milf + Loli Incest Hentai Doujin:

Which is why no one cares about what you say

(Speak for yourself, please.)

Oh i'm sorry, I'm just the guy who started a discussion two fridays ago that's gotten over 180 replies with people still talking on it, I'm sure you're right about no one caring what i say considering you replied to what i said within 8 minutes though you spaz.

[Caramirdan]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Milf + Loli Incest Hentai Doujin:

Diposting pertama kali oleh Caramirdan:

(Speak for yourself, please.)

Oh i'm sorry, I'm just the guy who started a discussion two fridays ago that's gotten over 180 replies with people still talking on it, I'm sure you're right about no one caring what i say considering you replied to what i said within 8 minutes though you spaz.

Now you're just being rude.

[salad fork]

The data overhelmingly shows, and the first person accounts show that the sheer volume of fire was too intense for close combat or melee combat to happen on any regular occurance.

1000 soldiers x 3 rounds per minute is too hot for any sane person to confront in that manner, this isn't even taking into account Artillery or multiple units firing into the same area. A single regiment had the ability to put out a volume that is twice the rate of fire of an Mg-42 machine gun. Only in the most desperate circumstances or with the aid of cover would this be possible ( At Little Round Top and the Mule Shoe the attacking force was aided by cover at times).

Even if you want to argue that combat conditions don't always allow for the 3 rounds per minute, even half of that calculation is still a tremendous rate of fire. I would also argue that it is nonsense to compare the performance of Re-enactors to actual soldiers in regards to the battle line hindering their rate of fire, these were not people casually practicing tactics or formations one weekend a month.

As for logistics not being able to keep up with that rate of fire, that is also false. Decisive engagements between regiments sometimes only lasted 5-15 minutes.

In engagements that lasted longer it isn't uncommon to find accounts of soldiers who ran out of ammo flee or find more, the first battle of Kernstown is an example of this. Federal accounts from Tyler's command mention soldiers emptying whole cartridge boxes, finding more from their wounded comrades and emptying them too. The Stonewall brigade completely ran out of ammo and were forced to flee, when Jackson approached them and ordered them to turn around and give them the bayonet they ignored him and kept running.

[salad fork]

Back to game balance. The 1853 Enfield Rifle is in no way inferior to any rifled Springfield model. The fact that the Springfield has a longer range or basically any different stat is odd. The difference between the two rifles is purely aesthetic.

Although I like the idea of different weapons offering different gameplay strategy, for the rifled muskets they were all more or less identical in performance..

[Landsknecht und Deutscher Ritter]

Diposting pertama kali oleh salad fork:

Back to game balance. The 1853 Enfield Rifle is in no way inferior than any rifled Springfield model. It's ridiculous that the Springfield should have a longer range or basically any different stat. The difference between the two rifles is purely aesthetic.

There would be some quality control issues because the Enfields used in the civil war were the products of private gunmakers instead machined factory lines. Like the 1855 and the rifles derived from it.

[salad fork]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Milf + Loli Incest Hentai Doujin:

There would be some quality control issues because the Enfields used in the civil war were the products of private gunmakers instead machined factory lines. Like the 1855 and the rifles derived from it.

That's very controversial as machine made guns were just in their infancy. It's very hard to find sources.

"Enfield also produced several shorter versions of its P53 rifle-musket. All had 33-inch barrels and an overall length of 48½ inches and were often called "two-band" Enfields after the number of bands securing the barrel. The Pattern 56 and 58 rifles had a light three-groove barrel, while the Pattern 60 Army rifle and the Pattern 58 Navy rifle both featured a heavier five-groove barrel with progressive depth rifling and a faster 1:48 twist, giving them superior accuracy"


"The two-band Enfield quickly became the top choice for Confederate sharpshooters. "Every short Enfield which came into possession of any of our men was taken away and given to these men," said a Georgian in Gordon's brigade, "but there were not enough, and some of them had the common long Enfield. Both kinds had a long range and were very effective. The short guns were given them, as they were lighter and handier."


The 2 band Enfield was found to be in a Army of Northern Virginia study, superior to any other rifle in accuracy beyond 500 yards and was the preferred weapon of Confederate sharpshooters. The study apparently shows that every other rifle up to 500 yards were equal in accuracy, Springfields were tested vs Enfields etc.

I have been looking everywhere for this study done by the AONV but sadly cannot find it... however it's referenced on several websites and forums... It was the general concensus that the British produced the finest rifles of the era to which all other Rifle designs were copied from.. I'm not exactly sure of the hand-made process, but I would be skeptical that the rifles produced at the Birmingham, England cottages were not of fine quality even if they were hand-made.

Since the hand-made 2 bander was found to have a superior accuracy compared to the machine made longer-barreled Springfields, I would be surprised to find that the Springfields were superior to the longer barreled hand-made Enfields in accuracy or range.

Certainly the Confederates had no quarrels or heartache swapping their used Enfield for a brand new Springfield rifle, half of the Army of Northern Virginia were using captured firearms by mid-war. I would also suggest that this was merely because a newer shiny weapon is generally considered more reliable than a well-used one even if both were originally considered to be of equal quality and accuracy.


https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2016/7/7/english-enfields-in-confederate-service/

[Landsknecht und Deutscher Ritter]

Diposting pertama kali oleh salad fork:

Diposting pertama kali oleh Milf + Loli Incest Hentai Doujin:

There would be some quality control issues because the Enfields used in the civil war were the products of private gunmakers instead machined factory lines. Like the 1855 and the rifles derived from it.

That's very controversial as machine made guns were just in their infancy. It's very hard to find sources.

"Enfield also produced several shorter versions of its P53 rifle-musket. All had 33-inch barrels and an overall length of 48½ inches and were often called "two-band" Enfields after the number of bands securing the barrel. The Pattern 56 and 58 rifles had a light three-groove barrel, while the Pattern 60 Army rifle and the Pattern 58 Navy rifle both featured a heavier five-groove barrel with progressive depth rifling and a faster 1:48 twist, giving them superior accuracy"


"The two-band Enfield quickly became the top choice for Confederate sharpshooters. "Every short Enfield which came into possession of any of our men was taken away and given to these men," said a Georgian in Gordon's brigade, "but there were not enough, and some of them had the common long Enfield. Both kinds had a long range and were very effective. The short guns were given them, as they were lighter and handier."


The 2 band Enfield was found to be in a Army of Northern Virginia study, superior to any other rifle in accuracy beyond 500 yards and was the preferred weapon of Confederate sharpshooters. The study apparently shows that every other rifle up to 500 yards were equal in accuracy, Springfields were tested vs Enfields etc.

I have been looking everywhere for this study done by the AONV but sadly cannot find it... however it's referenced on several websites and forums... It was the general concensus that the British produced the finest rifles of the era to which all other Rifle designs were copied from.. I'm not exactly sure of the hand-made process, but I would be skeptical that the rifles produced at the Birmingham, England cottages were not of fine quality even if they were hand-made.

Since the hand-made 2 bander was found to have a higher accuracy than the machine made longer-barreled Springfields, I would be surprised to find that the Springfields were superior to the longer barreled hand-made Enfields in accuracy or range.


https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2016/7/7/english-enfields-in-confederate-service/

That sounds like a myth to me, 1855 rifles and their derivatives were made with extremely percise tolerances to the point of interchangability, Something the dozens of cottages making Enfields simply couldn't match, Plus there's a good possibility that the alternative arms for confederate soldiers could be anything from a flintlock smoothbore to a 1841 rifle or 1842 smoothbore, Which would all be inferior to Minie rifles of any model. So they could simply prefer the Enfield because of the technological superiority of it over the older arms at their disposal.

And IIRC the two band 1858 enfields were popular on both sides because of the mobility advantage and the fact there were enough available for import (for the union at least) that they didn't produce many of their own 2 banders. There were rifles like the Fayetteville and the 1863 Zouave but they weren't produced in as large of numbers as the imports of 1858 Enfields.

Plus you can't honestly say that the British were copied with a series of firearms classified as "Minie Rifles" because of how they were all based off the same French design. Anyways i'm not saying that the Enfield should be inferior in the game and it probably doesn't have a noticable performance difference IRL. I could see the interchangability issues being brought up in game by making it so that arms with interchangable parts could be recovered from battles more easily.

[Didz]

Actually i just watch a video (link below)

https://youtu.be/dBjJS42VnyE
(From 12:30)

Which suggests that whilst the Confederates liberated a lot of Spencer Rifles the big problem they had was in manufacturing the ammunition. The Spencer Rifle required cartirdges with copper casings and the Confederate arsenals didn't have the machnery to manufacture them, therefore, Confederate soldiers were forced to rely on captured amunition and when that ran out the rifle was useless.

[cromagnonman2k]

Incidentally, medical terminology would describe any wound made by a cutting instrument (whether scalpel or saber) as an "incision," whereas a "laceration" is a wound made by blunt force. Telling the difference is easy. Also, as these were hospital records of soldiers who usually survived, I would expect that the source of the wound was probably confirmed via discussion with the patient who wore that "red badge of courage."

[Didz]

Diposting pertama kali oleh cromagnonman2k:

Incidentally, medical terminology would describe any wound made by a cutting instrument (whether scalpel or saber) as an "incision," whereas a "laceration" is a wound made by blunt force. Telling the difference is easy. Also, as these were hospital records of soldiers who usually survived, I would expect that the source of the wound was probably confirmed via discussion with the patient who wore that "red badge of courage."

In the example record sited the wounds are clearly described as either sabre wounds or bayonet wounds, so it appears that in 1888 when the record was published there was a willingness to be more precise.
https://civilwartalk.com/threads/922-sabre-and-bayonet-wounds.130801/
However, what is more interesting for me is the note made on the record that the large proportion of these wounds were inflicted out of combat, as that confirms my earlier speculation that medical records cannot be used to confirm the nature of combat itself. For that we have to rely upon primary evidence from the men who witnessed it.

I did find some primary evidence of actual hand-to-hand combat taking place during the fight for the muleshoe at the battle of Spotsylvania Court House.
https://ironbrigader.com/2014/04/22/union-soldiers-recall-fighting-mule-shoe-salient-spotsylvania-courthouse/
The only problem with this evidence is that were this a discussion on a Napoleonic forum the muleshoe would be discounted as it was basically a field work being assaulted rather than an example of a bayonet charge over an open battlefield, which is basically the issue of interest.

However, assaults on prepared positions seem to dominate most ACW battlefields, so it's much harder to find references to charges launched against enemy troops standing in the open to judge how they would react.

The archived record from which this table is extracted also makes the observation that the incidence of wounds inflicted by cold steel during the ACW was significantly lower (0.37%) than it was during earlier European wars (2.4%) though relatively insignificant in both conflicts. It also repeated the observation that a large proportion of these wounds were not inflicted in combat.

[HB]

Diposting pertama kali oleh salad fork:

Diposting pertama kali oleh hannibalbarca120002001:

Modern war and WBTS has some of its attributes but not the logistical abilitty to maintain volume of fire, for that you need motor transport, US QM reports showin every year of the war between a third and a half of food fodder requirments was issued, the rest foraged for in the field as the US was not supplied from base in the main.
your odd perspective is a basic load civil war reg of 1000*40 rnds=40000, Ww2 German Bttn 780*261=203580, plus 24 mg 42, 24*8932=214368, plus 127 smg, 127*1803=228989 is somehow the same reason for inability to close to combat, WBTS 40000/200= 200 expected casualtis from full expenditure. Bttn of Germans, 646937/25000=25 expected casualties.

Considering some of the most decisive engagements of the war only lasted 30 minutes I would say the logistics were fine. The high volume of fire would also support stats like (0.2 %) casualties were from the bayonet at Gettysburg.

Pickett's Charge lasted less than an hour.

♥♥♥♥♥♥'s entire Corps was shattered at the Cornfield with some regiments only lasting 5-15 minutes on the field.

and you would be very wrong.
describing what happened is not the same as explaining why it happens.
regimental actions were concluded in a time span that was dictated by munition consumption.40000 ends is expended in under 15 mins, and is expected to result in inflicting 50% of the firing units strength in casualties on the opponents, the resupply wagon from which resupply is taken is 600 yards to the rear, if that area is interdicted then no resupply can occur. hence pickets charge, which did result in reaching the enemy MLR and penetration of to Melee, which confirms your post to be without merit as argument, was performed without resupply, for the cs, and the 2 hours bombardment before the 1 hour infantry advance, drove of the supply wagons for the whole Corps, and the commanding general of the Army as well as the Arty Reserve. 5000 infantry and 80 cannons fire could not prevent contact.
The high volume of fire at g/burg, 4500000 rands over 3 days, by 85000 men, at an average engagement rang of 125 yards, unlike 1861/2 which was also 125 yards, 1863 150 yards, 1864 190 yards, was not high in munitions consumption , being 50 per person over 3 days, and was fought at closer range than average. reg of 1000 has 40000 rands, to totally use it up at3 reds a min means it can last 15 mins in combat before becoming dependent on the bayonet to defend itself.

hookers reg that were shattered in short time had the problem of being flanked and fronted by superior numbers of cs art pieces along with superior numbers of cs infantry, at his corps was in action for 4 hours, resupply occuring twice from the div trains. battle lasted 12 hours.

otoh many engagements at regimental level occur, one author uses over 300 small unit engagements, to provide average range, losses inflicted and suffered, length of service of participants and so on, and the average time in combat is an hour, Irish brigade when in and out at F/burg in an hour, so did a multitude of others, not least because it was impractical to resupply any of the attacking formations.

the explanation of why this is so, is because that's the practical limit the munitions carried allow a reg to stay in combat for.

[salad fork]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Didz:

Actually i just watch a video (link below)

https://youtu.be/dBjJS42VnyE
(From 12:30)

Which suggests that whilst the Confederates liberated a lot of Spencer Rifles the big problem they had was in manufacturing the ammunition. The Spencer Rifle required cartirdges with copper casings and the Confederate arsenals didn't have the machnery to manufacture them, therefore, Confederate soldiers were forced to rely on captured amunition and when that ran out the rifle was useless.

Ordinance reports state that the Confederacy had a major copper shortage which was so severe that they contemplated having to surrender mid war because there would be no way to produce percussion caps. They managed to send government officials to North Carolia to seize many whiskey stills and melted them down to make caps, but there was not enough copper to also make casings.

http://www.civilwarrichmond.com/images/pdf/Broun.pdf