 |
| Erstürmung der Düppeler Schanze Nr. 2 Wilhelm Camphausens (Source) |
This war took place at the same time as our own ACW was going on, so I was thinking percussion cap rifled muskets all the way. The Danes certainly were using them, there were some good scenes in the series of soldiers loading their rifles. Ripping the end off of the paper cartridges, pouring powder and ball down the muzzle, placing the cap on the nipple and BANG!
Only to do it all over again. There is one very good scene where the Danes are training, one soldier is standing off maybe 50 yards away, carrying a broom, of all things. Seems that the officers want to show the men why it's necessary to reload quickly.
One soldier simulates firing his rifle, then the guy with the broom starts advancing at him while the man with the rifle begins reloading. Man with broom has his war face on and is bellowing his war cry.
Long story short, man with broom shoves man with rifle to the ground, simulating bayoneting his hapless, reloading victim. Yup, load fast or die young.
Though I hadn't really thought about it, in the wee hours the thought came to me, "Did I see what appeared to be a bolt on the Prussians' rifles?"
Why yes, yes I did.
 |
| Note the huge bolt protruding from the rifle, how did I miss that? Screenshot from 1864 Incidentally, that is the excellent German actor, Ludwig Trepte, portraying a Prussian infantryman |
No, they did not, they used these -
The Dreyse continued in use until the Franco-Prussian War, only with the advent of metallic cartridges did the Dreyse fall out of favor.
An interesting artifact of war.
And some very nice detail on a very good period film. (Now I need to research why the Danish infantry are carrying short swords AND bayonets.)
 |
| Figure (b), you can the scabbarded sword hung with the scabbard for the bayonet. Why both? (Source) |
Always wondered why a needle rifle was named that Sarge, once again I learn something here.
ReplyDelete😁
Delete1860s Prussians were the bleeding edge of new scientific way of war - and it showed in their results.
ReplyDeleteMy take is, 1864 Prussians would wipe the floor with either of the Civil War armies, given equal numbers.
Needle guns had just so much advantage over muzzle loaders of the era.
From rate of fire to prone position ease.
It was a very good rifle.
DeleteBy 1864 we had magazine fed cartridge guns, both Sharps and Henrys, and Gatling guns available in the Union and in common use amongst some troops. So, no, the needle gun was actually a side step of technology as the Union had surpassed the Prussians, for a while.
DeleteSOME is key word here.
Delete80% - if no more - of the line was still using muzzleloading Springfield
Otherwise war would not drag out so hopelessly into 1865.
You can have certain someone to thank for it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Wolfe_Ripley
Imagine Gettysburg, but all Union units with Spencer rifles
Beans - 'Tis a fair point with the huge caveat of those weapons in the US were not widely issued, the Dreyse was. But yes, the Dreyse was rather a side show compared to US tech, but, as is typical with the War Dept, they thought it all too fancy and used too much ammunition.
DeletePaweł - Ripley was one of those hidebound, conservative generals who were pretty much anti-everything modern.
DeleteGood point on the Spencers at Gettysburg, Buford's cavalry had them and chewed up the rebels advancing into the town pretty badly.
Needle gun? I flashed on the tool for removing rust, I'm going to have to look that one up.
ReplyDeleteShort sword? Is there an established length for a sword?
Went and saw Kansas last night, they are on their 50 year anniversary tour, I was not a Kansas fan particularly but they still sound good and I enjoyed it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreyse_needle_gun
Delete>>The employment of the needle-gun changed military tactics in the 19th century, as a Prussian soldier could fire five (or more) shots, even while lying on the ground, in the time that it took his Austrian muzzle-loading counterpart to reload while standing.<<
~~~~~~~~
I searched "short sword vs standard sword"
https://forums.funcom.com/t/whats-difference-between-short-sword-and-sword/194003
>>What makes a sword a short sword?
There is no specific weapon called a 'short sword'. It's literally just a generic term for any sword that is bigger than a dagger but shorter than a typical one-handed sword.Jan 13, 2021<<
There was some talk about the length of the sword and it's use on a horse which made sense to me.
Rob #1 - I wondered how many sailors would think the rust removing tool first. (Got to listen to those out in San Diego on the pier, loud!)
DeleteRob #2 - But why did they have one AND a bayonet. I have some ideas, but I need to look at it in more depth.
Deleteplease read material on the two types/lengths of edged weapons carried by the samurai in edo -eriod Japan
Deleteboron - There were more than two lengths of sword, but typically the samurai carried a long sword, the katana, and a short, the wakizashi. Both had different purposes. Also warfare in Japan was rather different from European warfare, after Tokugawa became shogun, guns were effectively banned from Japan. After all, it didn't take long to train a farmer to fire a gunpowder weapon, as opposed to wielding a bow, which was the long range weapon of choice in Japan. Imagine that, simple peasants cutting down their "betters" (the samurai) after only a few weeks training. As opposed to a lifetime of training to effectively wield the bow or the sword.
DeleteSarge,
ReplyDeleteI’m a bit confused. What kind of ammunition did the needle gun use if the metallic cartridge was not available and it wasn’t made for muzzle loading?
Inquiring minds, doncha know?
juvat
It was a paper cartridge with the percussion cap inside the paper, the needle poked thru the paper/black powder to strike the cap. (new found knowledge :-)
Deletejuvat - It's mentioned in the video, but not explicitly. Diagrammed in the video as well. But again, the fact that it's paper is never explicitly stated, that I could tell.
DeleteRob - You are officially our Dreyse SME. 😁
Delete(today this site recognizes me as me rather than anonymous...hit and miss on that)
ReplyDeleteThe “leichtes Perkussionsgewehr Modell 1841” was an interesting step in firearms development. A 15.4mm, egg shaped projectile, later improved to 11.somethingmm, with a sabot that contained the percussion cap, on top of 75 grains of powder, encased in a combustible paper wrapper, and fired with a 3 inch long pin that penetrated the cartridge. Ingenious. And the mostly sealed breach was designed to direct the leaking gases away from the shooters face.
Rapid fire, even when prone. The drawback was that the long firing pin was fragile. Subjecting the steel pin, the first third of it anyway, to the heat and corrosive propellant gases. Soldiers were issued spare pins, which took about a minute to change.
Innovative, the last step before the first modern rifle, which used metallic cartridges and used a magazine to hold multiple rounds.
DeleteO/T
DeleteI only am recognized here when I fire up the PC,,, or, occasionally, when I migrate from my long neglected blog.
(not your uncle) Skip
You're probably still logged into your account over yonder.
DeleteOn my desktop I'm always recognized, it's on my phone that it's hit and miss.
DeleteHere is a decent article on these innovative firearms.
https://www.americanrifleman.org/content/dreyse-needle-rifle-the-world-s-first-military-bolt-action/
I stay logged on on most of my devices, the one that "forgets" the most often is the phone.
DeleteVery nice article, nice photo of that paper cartridge.
Like Rob above, I thought this would be about the needle guns the Navy uses. Definitely a love hate relationship with those, and not much love. They might make short work for the Boatswain Mates, but the noise grates on every aviator trying to sleep.I had no ideer there was an actual weapon.
ReplyDeleteHearing them ringing out as they performed maintenance on an LHD (I think) while trying to eat lunch at the Welldeck near Pier 13 was an experience I don't care to repeat. They are very loud and very annoying, even at a distance of a couple hundred yards. Can't imagine trying to sleep onboard while they're using those.
DeleteSarge - I have read about them; I have two reasons to watch 1864 now.
ReplyDeleteRe Short Sword as "side arm": One of the comments our headmaster has made about carrying a sword from about the Nanbokucho Period (starting in 1336) through to the Meiji restoration was that the sword was really the equivalent of the "sidearm". Even in the Japanese "Middle Ages", the primary weapons for war were all either distance (bow from the Heian period on, later firearms) or length (yari [spear], naginata [halberd], nagamaki [rather nasty pre-cursor to the halberd, consisting of blade up to 24" and a handle up to 24"]. Swords, in that sense, were the most risky as one effectively came into the enemy's range when using one. That said, better some defense better than none - perhaps the short sword was there in the event the bayonet was broken or failed?
Second thought: Spartan swords (and some some extent all Classical period Greek swords) were shorter than what we think of as a "sword" today. One potential reason given is that, in the press of the shield wall, a shorter sword could be more easily wielded. Perhaps simply allowing for an in-close weapon?
There are two 'schools' of sword/shield concepts.
DeleteThe first is the longer sword with small shield, think Highlanders. The shield is held out away from the body and is mobile and the sword is used in swings, chops and stabs. More a light troop, running around not in tight formation style. (The Saracens used this technique also, which is why they, man for man, got pounded into dogmeat by the numerically inferior Crusaders.)
The second is the shorter sword with large shield, think Romans or Greeks. The shield is held forward of the body close to it, not maneuvered much, while the sword is used for short chops and stabs. Not meant for individual combat unless during a rout, more designed for heavy infantry during a fixed formation where the shields could be used together. Think Greek shield wall at Thermopile or your average Roman shield unit, or a shield wall like at Hastings in 1066.
Both work. Big shield/big sword or small shield/short sword, not so much. Done both, much prefer big shield/short sword.
Interesting feedback Beans; my knowledge in that is all theoretical/reading.
DeleteCompletely different from the Japanese sword art I train in (and most every one that I am aware lf) in that one's sword is one's shield - more similar maybe to the great sword techniques of Europe?
Japanese blade with the katana or tachi is more related to the European 'bastard' or longsword techniques. The no-dachi is more akin to the great sword.
DeleteTB - Swords, like pistols, are nice to have for close in work. But you really want to avoid close in work!
DeleteBeans - Swords and shields go together well, but without the shield you'd be dead meat in short order when the shield walls met.
DeleteMany years ago, early in my non-professional firearms history career, the needle gun was disparaged in many of the sources I found. It was claimed because of the poor gas sealing of the breech, the soldiers usually fired them from the hip in formation, I later learned that this was nonsense. I believe than switching to a hollow based conical bullet would have been a big improvement though. The Civil War would have been tactically quite different had such arms been used. Given the twenty years between the invention of the gun and the war, there was certainly plenty of time for experimentation and development. But like so much of the cutting edge technology of the era, the hide bound fossils in charge of adoption and procurement were completely uninterested and actively opposed any sort of improvement. The troops were lucky they weren't issued flint smooth bores. The example of the Spencer shows the issue.
ReplyDeleteEasy on the 'hide bound fossils" condemnation. There is a huge difference between "latest technology" and being able to arm one's army with whatever pittance a parsimonious congress might allow, and our manufacturing base (both military and private sector) could provide.
DeleteCirca 1856 George W. Morse invented a self contained reloadable (mostly but not entirely) metallic cartridge, along with a breech system to use it. It was made in sporting version with modest success (limited marketing rather than technical flaws). U.S. Army trials were favorable and in 1860 the army was in the process of converting 1,000 M1816 muskets (formerly smoothbore flintlocks, but already altered to percussion and rifled) into breechloaders with the Morse breech mechanism. Timing was bad and only a few dozen were completed before Harpers Ferry Armory where the work was being done was captured and destroyed. The big stumbling block was the rather complex cartridge, basically a brass cylinder with a rim at the back. Two hairpin type wires were soldered inside to serve as an anvil for a musket cap place on them flush with the rim/base. A rubber "donut" was placed in the rear of the cartridge to secure the cap in place and provide obtruration against gas leakage. South Carolina made a thousand or so Morse carbines which worked pretty well, but politics limited them to SC troops, and the peculiar ammunitoin was a logistic nightmare in the struggling south.
Yes, the Spencer and Henry with their metallic cartridges and repeating magazines were great, but it was touch and go as far as being able to provide ammunition. Despite rimfire production starting in the U.S. for Smith & Wesson circa 1853, machinery for forming rimfire cases was in its infancy and not really perfected until the early/mid 1860s. Especially troublesome were larger caliber cases (above about .32 caliber) and heavier charges for rifles compared to weak loads for pistols. Rims needed to be thin and flexible enough for them to be crushed to ignite the priming compound, which was exactly the opposite of what was needed for the higher pressures of larger rifle cartridges. Formulation, manufacture and application of the priming compound was a tricky (and often detonating!) process, mostly hand work, by only a few places in the U.S. There is a definitive book on U.S. rimfire ammunition to be published soon that provides the entire story, the players, and technical aspects, not just the early days, but up to the present. Really well done (I had the privilege of reviewing draft copies). The handful of people who care about such things will find the book fascinating,
Besides the ammunition, the need for arms was unprecedented, and it was all that could be done to find makers of the "good enough" .58 rifle muskets for the infantry. Cavalry benefitted from a variety of breechloaders, albeit their different cartridge requirements was a logistics nightmare. And, around the fringes of actual arms provided there were hordes of crackpot inventors, often with political connections who insisted they had the perfect weapon.
Such as the gent who suggested that Union forces be equipped with bayonets that were several inches longer than those in use by the South, the greater "reach" to be with deciding factor. That "reach concept" was the reason that bayonets with 20 inch blades were made, (otherwise identical to the 18" M1855 bayonet for the .58 rifle muskets) for the breechloading Joslyn rifles made at Springfield in 1864-65 using a .50 caliber metallic cartridge, the new rifles being 2" shorter than the .58 caliber.
John Blackshoe
Any Mouse - Yes, the Dreyse was disparaged by those who didn't have to face it in action. But the term "hidebound" has been used to cover a multitude of sins. Often it's "what can I afford" and "what's the most reliable" in terms of performance and logistics.
DeleteHaving a really fancy rifle is great, as long as it doesn't break and you have the ammo for it.
JB - Spot on. Shack!
DeleteRe "hidebound." That was why the US Army resisted converting to repeaters for so long, and then insisting on magazine cutoffs when they did. Worried about the troops wasting ammunition. If I recall, the doctrine even going into The War To End All War was having the cutoff engaged was standard, and firing was in single shot mode unless ordered otherwise.
DeleteObviously not a smart move.
DeleteI agree that when it conflict was imminent it was too late for innovation as the need for massive numbers of arms overtook the time it would have taken was no longer available. Something in every soldier's hands beats a third of them armed with a technologically superior arm. The issue is that there was a twenty year time period to evaluate the Dreyse and that was the failure. I stand with hidebound referring to the procurement bureaucracy, there are simply too many examples of their arrogance stifling development. The Spencer carbine was a significant factor in the cavalry battles in the second half of the war. The difficulty of obtaining large lots of cartridges was a plus as it meant that captured arms weren't effective for the South and they couldn't produce the ammunition. It took a presidential intervention to get the Spencers accepted.
DeleteThe proponents of the Spencer actually had the President try the weapon, smart move.
DeleteWhy a small sword and a bayonet? Simple, what would one use if one's gun is broken? Though I am surprised that the small sword is more a classic small blade, narrow, rather than some machete-type single edged chopping blade like a falchion or cutlass.
ReplyDeleteAs to the needle gun, it introduced the bolt action. As I said upstairs in a comment to a comment, by 1864 the Americans had introduced the lever action in two different styles, both with metallic cartridges with primers in the base, with Minie 'ball' style projectiles.
After the ACW, the modification of the Springfield rifle musket to the Trapdoor allowed conversion of all those surplus weapons from the aforementioned ACW to a single metallic cartridge with primer in base with 'ball' projectile. A rate of fire of 4-6 rounds per minute while lying down was achievable. And it worked, and wasn't as fiddly as the Needle gun.
All three achievements, bolt action, lever action (in both varieties) and rolling block action all still exist amongst high-power rifles today.
In at least 2 battles in frontier wars versus native plain tribes, the breech-loaded Springfield turned the tide in favor of US troops.
Deletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagon_Box_Fight
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hayfield_Fight
both seem like US versions of Rorke's drift.
Beans - That's too simple an answer I think (what if one's gun is broken). In practice, a trooper with a busted firearm either picks up another, there are usually a few lying around whose owners don't need them anymore, or he runs as if Hell itself is chasing him. My thoughts on the sword issue were initially along the lines of recalling French Napoleonic artillerymen carrying short, chopping-type, swords to cut brush and other things to improve the guns position. As a last ditch they could be used to defend the gun. Artillerymen are generally insane and will take a whack at a big cavalryman upon a big horse swing a saber at him with nothing more martial than the ramrod used to load the gun. Losing guns is considered worse than losing the regimental color!
DeleteBut the Danish article looks far too small to be useful in that way. Also, most people don't know this, but bayonet (and sword fights) were very rare once firearms were adopted. A unit facing the prospect of hand to hand combat would, unless extremely motivated, find somewhere else to be if the chaps coming at them with pointy things seemed determined.
So for hand to hand combat? Maybe, might have been just for morale purposes too, I don't know. But soldiers don't like carrying extra (and possibly useless) kit into battle. They already have enough to hump as it is.
Paweł - Rapid fire weapons are very useful against tribesmen with traditional weapons.
Delete"Artillerymen are generally insane and will take a whack at a big cavalryman upon a big horse swing a saber at him with nothing more martial than the ramrod used to load the gun."
DeleteDon't discount those "ramrods" and other implements. A 6 or 7 foot hardwood staff with a substantial mallet head on one end is fairly substantial, even against a saber. Trail spikes are , well, think of a 4 foot Louisville Slugger.
The insane part, well, of course! To do the job in the age of muzzloading artillery you had to be able to ignore being "stormed at with shot and shell" while going through the drill.
I don't recall what unit and what battle, but one section, or maybe just one gun, had a habit of expending all its munitions as quickly as possible and then retiring from the field. The division (?) commander got tired of it and gave orders for them to hold positions, and detailed some cavalry with orders to shoot them if they tried to retire without orders. Did I mention that the crews usually didn't have personal weapons? Just more gear to get in the way.
Artillerymen are nuts, I'll stand by that. They'll defend their guns to the last, as they should.
Delete"Dedicated," "brave," and "Loyal Until Death." :-) The story of the Old Guard Artillery at Waterloo, one crew standing by their gun as if ready to fire to bluff the enemy. Likely not true, but still a good story.
DeleteThere are many legends about the Old Guard at Waterloo, most of them probably not true. But nevertheless, good stories.
Deleteseveral years back I had written a couple of chapters for my "Great Novel" about a shangied soldier involved in those Prussian-Danish skirimishes over the Schleswig-Holstein area who found his way to get over to the States just in time to get involved in the latter stages of our little conflict.
ReplyDeletestill re-editing
That did happen. Lots of folks fleeing the year of revolution, 1848, found themselves wearing either blue or gray some years later.
DeleteAnd, an opportunity for your fictional fighters to continue their habitual brawling by joining up wit the Irish sympathizing Fenians who launched raids from the U.S. into Canada after the ACW.
DeleteJB
Argh, the Fenians!
Delete