Did the Minie Ball really change warfare that much?

Nov 2009
3,883
Outer world
#41
In the Franco-Prussian war infantry though marched on the open, applying the combination wide skirmishers' lines + infantry column marching behind, in spite of having the first breech loading rifles available (Dreyse and Chassepot, the latter was incredibly deadly for the time).
 
Jul 2016
8,953
USA
#42
If you cannot teach good shooting to a conscript in two years , you will never EVER improve his shooting for an enlistment term
the British had a gun which favored fast re-loading and practiced the " mad minute " of frantic shooting
while the continental armies were more concerned with units maneuvering and steady marksmanship

on the whole I would think the British were in the right ,
they had learned during their colonial wars that when the chips are down and a screaming mass is charging ,
the properly timed volume of fire is more important than picking down choice target
The Mad Minute is one of the biggest myths on the internet. It came from a part of the standard rifle qualification. They didn't fire as many shots as they could, they had to fire 15 shots, which meant what was five shots in the magazine plus two more reloaded clip, and had to fire all inside 60 seconds. They did not need to hit the actual target every time, their score was based on either hitting this target at 300 yards, and having a certain number of points at the end. The famously high "scores" were done by instructors at the rifle school who put on demonstrations to show recruits that it could be done, as many had problems just getting 15 shots. What they were doing was still precision fire, it was just done rapidly.

 
Likes: sparky
Jul 2016
8,953
USA
#43
In the Franco-Prussian war infantry though marched on the open, applying the combination wide skirmishers' lines + infantry column marching behind, in spite of having the first breech loading rifles available (Dreyse and Chassepot, the latter was incredibly deadly for the time).
The first war that truly destroyed the traditional way of infantry combat was actually the Russo-Japanese War. From that point onwards it was essentially impossible to advance in ordered formations.
 
Jul 2016
8,953
USA
#44
So, French and British armies were concerned with marksmanship? They understood and could appreciate the new technology?
Everyone became more concerned with marksmanship in the late 19th century. Previously, infantry doctrine was formed on the basis of concepts like elan and the need for drill. Later, as the skirmisher role of infantry supplanted infantry of the line, marksmanship became a higher priority, especially after deficiencies were recognized in numerous wars. The Europeans focused more on it than the USA because before the ACW the US Army was small and mostly dealt with fighting Indians and maintaining frontier forts, and after the ACW same thing. It was only during the ACW, where the combined sides grew from 18,000 total soldiers (officers and enlisted) to about 400,000 soldiers on USA and CSA side in 1861.

No army, in the history of the world, can expand that greatly and keep any sort of quality. Its just not possible.
 

Menshevik

Ad Honorem
Dec 2012
9,100
here
#48
Was the ACW in late 19th century?

What about this subject are you having trouble understanding?

Oh. goodness. You've made a ton of contradicting and opposing claims in this thread and aren't willing to own up to them or address them. You just deflect them with semantics and wordplay.

And yes, the ACW is late 19th century, it's certainly later than the Crimean War.
 
Jul 2016
8,953
USA
#49
Oh. goodness. You've made a ton of contradicting and opposing claims in this thread and aren't willing to own up to them or address them. You just deflect them with semantics and wordplay.

And yes, the ACW is late 19th century, it's certainly later than the Crimean War.
The minie ball and rifle can be more accurate and deadly than a smooth bore (duh) and still not be used to max effectiveness.

Late: toward the end of a period.

Late 19th Century doesn't mean 1850-60s, it means the toward the end. Why did they decide to reform and emphasize marksmanship training? Why was the National Rifle Association formed? Why were international shooting competitions formed? Because of wars like the ACW when it became apparent that although they had access to rifles, they could not properly utilize them to their full potential.

You clearly know more about this then everyone else. You should stop asking questions and just tell us what we're supposed to think.
 

Menshevik

Ad Honorem
Dec 2012
9,100
here
#50
The minie ball and rifle can be more accurate and deadly than a smooth bore (duh) and still not be used to max effectiveness.

Late: toward the end of a period.

Late 19th Century doesn't mean 1850-60s, it means the toward the end. Why did they decide to reform and emphasize marksmanship training? Why was the National Rifle Association formed? Why were international shooting competitions formed? Because of wars like the ACW when it became apparent that although they had access to rifles, they could not properly utilize them to their full potential.

You clearly know more about this then everyone else. You should stop asking questions and just tell us what we're supposed to think.
Post reported.

I'm tired of your browbeating, nit just in this thread, but everywhere.

Aggie is really atilla006 a permanently banned member. Are you going to deny that?
 

Similar History Discussions