Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Your opinion on the American soilders from 1861-1865 (Both USA & CSA)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Massena View Post
    'Dismiss it as just another anti-German post.'

    If you have nothing constructive to say, and your apparent reason for being here is to be nothing but a marplot, why do you bother to post?

    And I did not write an 'anti-German' post, and you making that accusation is a misrepresentation of what I said and intellectually dishonest.

    Sincerely,
    M
    Constructive as in your normal routine of cut & paste. Pay attention and you may learn something.
    My worst jump story:
    My 13th jump was on the 13th day of the month, aircraft number 013.
    As recorded on my DA Form 1307 Individual Jump Log.
    No lie.

    ~
    "Everything looks all right. Have a good jump, eh."
    -2 Commando Jumpmaster

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Exorcist View Post
      I said TONNAGE.
      Your own stats prove that, so you loop sideways to show something else.
      No, I know the difference between displacement and burthen. I was generous to the US measurement.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Builder's_Old_Measurement
      Last edited by 67th Tigers; 10 Sep 12, 16:33.
      "[T]he worst that could be said of the Peninsula campaign was that thus far it had not been successful. To make it a failure was reserved for the agency of General Halleck." -Emory Upton

      Comment


      • Originally posted by 67th Tigers View Post
        Don't let Eric Wittenberg see you writing that. No Union cavalry regiment engaged on the 1st day at Gettysburg had repeaters. In the whole Army of the Potomac only the 7th Michigan Volunteer Cavalry and a few companies of the 6th MVC had repeaters (Spencer Rifles).



        Only two regiments were issued Henrys. The 1st DC Cavalry, who promptly got captured and the rifles "taken south" and the 1st Maine Cavalry, both in the last year of the war. No infantry regiments were ever issued them. Some had a number of privately purchased Henrys.

        There simply weren't that many Henrys kicking around. Only about 8,000-10,000 were built before the war ended, most of these in the last 18 months.

        The other major repeater, the Spencer, was more numerous with maybe 60-70,000 in rifle and carbine pattern being delivered during the war (~ 70,000 by the end of 1865). Again, most deliveries were in the last 18 months of the war. In the case of the Spencer it did see some limited issues to infantry regiments, but very late in the war.

        After the war the US Army eliminated these underpowered rifles in favour of full power breachloaders like the Trapdoor Springfield.
        First deliveries of the Henry repeater were in 1862. Most Henry's were privately purchased by soldiers from both the north and the south. There were a few companies if I recall that purchased them from the mid-western regiments. It should be noted that not just mounted troops carried the Henry but infantry as well.
        My worst jump story:
        My 13th jump was on the 13th day of the month, aircraft number 013.
        As recorded on my DA Form 1307 Individual Jump Log.
        No lie.

        ~
        "Everything looks all right. Have a good jump, eh."
        -2 Commando Jumpmaster

        Comment


        • "Burthen"?
          Look, I'll do you one better;
          The figures I have are 411,000 tons for the RN, including Auxiliaries and support vessels. For the US Navy, 420,000 tons.
          That ain't much, and much of the US tonnage was hulls made of green wood that were already falling apart, and many other ships that were taken out of service or simply abandoned right after the war.
          However, the fact remains that for a brief time, the upstart US Navy had out-weighed the Royal Navy. When was the last time anyone had done that, the Spanish Armada?
          The US industrial might had been established, ignited by the necessity of war something vast and terrible had erupted into the world scene, and anyone wo did not see the significance of that must have been wearing blinders of the darkest shade.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Exorcist View Post
            "Burthen"?
            Look, I'll do you one better;
            The figures I have are 411,000 tons for the RN, including Auxiliaries and support vessels. For the US Navy, 420,000 tons.
            That ain't much, and much of the US tonnage was hulls made of green wood that were already falling apart, and many other ships that were taken out of service or simply abandoned right after the war.
            However, the fact remains that for a brief time, the upstart US Navy had out-weighed the Royal Navy. When was the last time anyone had done that, the Spanish Armada?
            The US industrial might had been established, ignited by the necessity of war something vast and terrible had erupted into the world scene, and anyone wo did not see the significance of that must have been wearing blinders of the darkest shade.
            It is much because the US figures you quote are tons displacement, and the UK figures are tons burthen.

            For example:

            "On British Ships at Trafalgar (WATT)
            In October, 1805, the Royal Navy listed 912 ships of which 584 were in commission for sea service and 40 in ordinary but available for sea service and 131 were building or ordered to be built (WATT):

            22 three-deckers, the largest 2500 tons burthen and about 4600 tons displacement,
            96 two-deckers, the average 1690 tons burthen and about 3000 tons displacement,
            133 frigate class, the average 910 tons burthen and about 1500 tons displacement,
            average ratio of displacement to burthen tonnage was 1.84, 1.77 and 1.65 respectively."
            (http://oa.upm.es/1520/1/PONEN_FRANCI...ONZALEZ_01.pdf )

            US "industrial might" is on a longer climb than you think. Remember that at this time Britain produces more than 2/3rds the worlds coal, just under 2/3rds the worlds iron and consumes around 60% of the worlds cotton. The US/CS has around a 1/10th global share of iron production, 1/20th of coal production and around 1/5th of the cotton consumption (which will drop if the CSA successful becomes independent).
            "[T]he worst that could be said of the Peninsula campaign was that thus far it had not been successful. To make it a failure was reserved for the agency of General Halleck." -Emory Upton

            Comment


            • US "industrial might" is on a longer climb than you think.
              Well, it seems that there was economic parity with the UK by 1870 when measuring by GDP. Looking back to 1820 through the period of 1870, in 50 years the US economy grew from 12 Billion GDP to over 100 by the end of the Civil War.

              I don't see where this; "The US industrial might had been established, ignited by the necessity of war something vast and terrible had erupted into the world scene, and anyone wo did not see the significance of that must have been wearing blinders of the darkest shade"

              in not correct...

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._past_GDP_(PPP)

              Parity followed by doubling on the eve of WWI in 40 odd years, and after that?
              "Amateurs study tactics; professionals study logistics"
              -Omar Bradley
              "Not everyone who studies logistics is a professional logistician, and there is no way to understand when you don't know what you don't know."
              -Anonymous US Army logistician

              Comment


              • 'Don't let Eric Wittenberg see you writing that.'

                Oh, please, give us a break. That is a very condescending comment to make.

                'No Union cavalry regiment engaged on the 1st day at Gettysburg had repeaters.'

                You are correct-my error.

                However, they were armed with breech-loaders which had a much higher rate of fire than the infantry rifle musket.

                The US government purchased over 80,000 Sharps carbines and almost 10,000 Sharps rifles; over 12,000 Spencer rifles and more than 94,000 Spencer carbines; and state troops purchased about 10,000 Henry rifles. This doesn't take into consideration private purchases during the period.

                Sincerely,
                M
                We are not now that strength which in old days
                Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                Comment


                • 'I understand that the Danes were weaker (obviously), but you honestly believe the Austrians were weaker or a weak opponent?
                  Are you counting the French in 1870? This is Prussia we're talking about, not a post 1871 united Germany.'


                  The Austrians were also allied with the Prussians against the Danes.

                  In 1866 the Austrians were allied with the larger German states, but the smaller ones that were usually pro-Prussian were allied with the Prussians.

                  The Prussians also had a state ready to go to war and better mobilization organization and could put more troops into the field much quicker than the Austrians could. Further, the Prussian rail system was both more extensive and better organized than the Austrian equivalent.

                  Further, Prussia could mass against Austria, whereas Austria had to fight a two-front war in Italy as well as against Prussia.

                  Against the French, the Prussians now had the minor German states that were once allied with Austria now allied with them. Further, they could mobilize much more quickly and mass with an efficient mobilization system, whereas the French could not. Further, the Prussian artillery arm now had steel, breech loading artillery which consistently outperformed the older, less efficient muzzle-loading French artillery.

                  So, yes, Prussia fought against three weaker opponents both militarily and organizationally, in the three wars of 'unification.'

                  Sincerely,
                  M
                  We are not now that strength which in old days
                  Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                  Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                  To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Massena View Post
                    So, yes, Prussia fought against three weaker opponents both militarily and organizationally, in the three wars of 'unification.'

                    Sincerely,
                    M
                    Sorry to disagree with you, but I have to step in on the Prussian side here.
                    Three wins in a row are what is called a hat-trick in some circles, and indicates a degree of professionalism that can't be ignored.
                    Denmark was no easy nut to crack, even with the 1848 win behind them. Prussia faced a narrow front that was fortified and receiving support from ironclads that Prussia had no answer to.
                    The war with Austria was a virtuoso performance when it came to mobilization and maneuvers even before the Prussians came close to Konigsgratz (sp.)... despite Bismark's interference. And the one battle that everyone seems to focus on in that war was between numerically equivalent armies, which makes the one-sided outcome that much more notable.
                    In 1870, the French did everything wrong, but that ended when Nappy III was out of the picture.

                    So, over-all, I would say that the Prussian Army established itself as the most formidable in Europe.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Massena View Post
                      However, they were armed with breech-loaders which had a much higher rate of fire than the infantry rifle musket.
                      Yes or no it didn't matter. Buford's cavalry were not heavily engaged. They simply forced Heth's two leading brigades to ploy into line from their columns of march (which took 90 minutes). I don't think there's much doubt that had 1st Corps not arrived Heth would have overrun Buford rather easily.

                      Just because it's a breechloader doesn't make it automatically superior. Obviously if everything else between two weapons is equal then BL is better than ML. However the underpowered carbines of the cavalry were no match for full power rifle-muskets.

                      The US government purchased over 80,000 Sharps carbines and almost 10,000 Sharps rifles; over 12,000 Spencer rifles and more than 94,000 Spencer carbines; and state troops purchased about 10,000 Henry rifles. This doesn't take into consideration private purchases during the period.
                      This is a bit confused. If I may quote:

                      "In all, during the War for Southern Independence, the Spencer company delivered 12,472 rifles, including 1003 for the Navy as well as Wilder's and the Massachusetts guns, both of which were diverted to the Federal Ordinance Department. The number of M1860 carbines made by Spencer eventually totaled 45,785. An additional 30,502 M1865 carbines were made by the Burnside company, but deliveries started just at the end of the war, so none were actually in service before the Army of Northern Virginia surrendered. There were a few thousand civilian sales in addition to government deliveries. Many troops took advantage of a government offer and purchased their Spencers when they mustered out at the close of the war." - http://www.civilwarguns.com/spencer1.html

                      So, ~ 75,000 Spencer carbines were *ordered* during the war. Probably a bit over 30,000 were delivered (the M1860 line worked well into 1866 to complete its contract).

                      In the Henry the government purchased just over 1,700 and less than 10,000 had been manufactured before the war ended (the line once at full capacity produced at most 4,000 rifles a year. I say at most because at the end of each year they appear to have rounded up to the next 000 number for the next years run).

                      Springfield could produce upto 300,000 muskets a year, which was about the wastage (an average weapon lasted one year in the field, including the fancy weapons). There was simply not capacity to build repeaters in anything like this quantity, nor perhaps breechloaders. By 30 June 1864 the ordnance department is absolutely set on a general issue breechloader (it's in the annual report), but no suitable conversion has been found. They will of course in time go with the Trapdoor conversion.
                      "[T]he worst that could be said of the Peninsula campaign was that thus far it had not been successful. To make it a failure was reserved for the agency of General Halleck." -Emory Upton

                      Comment


                      • So, over-all, I would say that the Prussian Army established itself as the most formidable in Europe.
                        Contemporary to the US/CS Armys of the ACW. On an all things being equal hypothetical comparison of equal forces:
                        Prussian Field Army > American Field Army

                        Just IMHO of course...
                        "Amateurs study tactics; professionals study logistics"
                        -Omar Bradley
                        "Not everyone who studies logistics is a professional logistician, and there is no way to understand when you don't know what you don't know."
                        -Anonymous US Army logistician

                        Comment

                        Latest Topics

                        Collapse

                        Working...
                        X