Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 11,007
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Nov 5, 2019 20:41:55 GMT -8
Certainly there were many goals on Lee’s mind. One of them had to have been that they could forage a great deal of this-and-that. And apparently they were very successful at just that. But it’s interesting to find out that Brown wrote a book. I hope it was more focused than that video I skipped through. But overall, I thought he was a ver ygood presenter. He just needed to have a better and more focused story to tell. I would have loved to find out the nuts-and-bolts of what it took to support such armies. Obviously the Spencers were a huge improvement over the single-shot muzzle-loaders. I’ve been watching a few more videos about guns by Ian McCollum. He says the Spencer was a very nice weapon, but slower to fire than the Henry because shooting it was a two-step process where with the Henry, you just cocked it and the pulled the trigger. What I’ve been reading as well is that one thing that limited the evolution of gun designs was dealing with all the residue that black powder caused. Smokeless powder was (duh) not only smokeless but less relatively little residue. One of the objections that the Army had to the Henry (they did wind up by about 1700 of the anyway) was that they were afraid that soldiers would shoot through their ammunition. Although McCollum notes that might have been a quibble considering the other advantageous these guns could bring, ammunition supplies were indeed not limitless and there was always a struggle to supply enough ammo to front-line troops even using slower single-shot muzzle-loaded guns. McCollum has a video (almost two hours) where he goes through the entire evolution of the Henry/Winchester lever-action guns. The Henry was a great gun but it’s system of loading ammunition was fragile and held other disadvantages. The Winchester (its successor) featured a patented loading mechanism by Nelson King. It “remedied flaws in the Henry rifle by incorporating a loading gate on the side of the frame and integrating a round, sealed magazine which was partially covered by a forestock.” With that loading gate at the side, you could top off the ammunition or just load and go. You can rent the video: Iconic Guns: Winchester Lever Action for 2.99. I think you’d all enjoy it. You might check YouTube first and see if you can find it for free there. Lever-action guns were not something the U.S. military was interested in. But they were hugely popular with everyone else, culminating eventually in the Winchester Model 1894 which sold over 7,000,000 units. It’s interesting that its 30 caliber cartridge (the typical configuration) was a step down in size from the typical 38 or 44 of the Winchester 1892 (used by John Wayne in The Searchers). But the 1894 was the first commercial American repeating rifle developed for smokeless powder. And what I learned from the video is that smokeless powder provides much more oomph than the black power. (One can imagine that all that black-powder residue is inefficient burning.) Some older guns could try shooting the smokeless powder shells. But it could be dangerous because they were not built witi the larger explosive force of the smokeless powder cartridges in mind. The muzzle velocity on the Winchester 1892 (a great gun itself) was about 1500 ft/s. The Winchester 1894 was 2500 ft/s, thus it could provide more kick with a smaller bullet. This was not a buffalo gun, but McCollum said one reason it was so popular because you could take down a deer but you could also get small game as well without blowing it all to bits. Anyway, an interesting video that shows the evolution of these guns. He gets into the detail of what the various improvements were made.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 11,007
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Nov 5, 2019 20:50:27 GMT -8
That’s a great point, Mr. Kung. We take so much of this for granted now.
One of the gun videos I’ve been watching mentioned that bronze (I think it was bronze, nor brass) was used in part of the guns rather than steel because of the limited availability of steel in the south.
But another option was to used twisted iron. One gun presented in the video clearly showed the spiral pattern of the twisted iron. I can’t tell you anything about metallurgy but that was something I had never heard of before. They would twist the molten iron in one direction and then afterward etch the riflings in the barrel to run perpendicular to the grains of the twist for maximum strength. I don’t know how widespread that was but clearly it was done.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 11,007
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Nov 5, 2019 20:54:32 GMT -8
LOL. In truth, they may look more like this:
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Nov 5, 2019 21:14:45 GMT -8
It would be hard to blame you. But as long as we are dreaming.
This was in the film, "The Journey to the West" which was loosely based on the legend of the Monkey King.
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Nov 5, 2019 21:30:30 GMT -8
The link is to a page which goes into some detail on twisted barrels. I love the patterns which arise due to the process.
I had heard of this before, particularly the original barrels coming out of India, being made of so-called Wootz steel. This was before the days of assaying materials and the chemical composition of the iron ore from India made for a very good quality steel. I believe it was one of the reasons Damascus Steel blades were so prized. They were made of Indian steel.
Of course, once more modern testing equipment came about, producers could figure out the assays of the fine quality steel and copy it. More or less.
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Nov 5, 2019 21:56:59 GMT -8
Tucker briefly mentions how firing a Henry rifle works, and that matches yours. I didn't know it was the progenitor of the Winchester. Note that even the .38 or .44 of the Winchester 1892 is a lot less than the .58 of the Springfield and the .577 of the Enfield, the two most common single-shot muzzle-loaders of the War of the Rebellion.
Muzzle velocity depends on the length of the barrel relative to its caliber. Using the same length barrel with a smaller caliber increases the muzzle velocity. (In addition, a soldier can carry far more of the much smaller bullets.)
Incidentally, one episode of F Troop included an Army officer named Chester Winster who had designed a new rifle. He called it the Cheswinster 76.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 11,007
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Nov 6, 2019 8:58:34 GMT -8
Li Bing Bing (Boom Boom?) could be considered a definite upgrade. A promotion using the current paradigm.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 11,007
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Nov 6, 2019 9:26:26 GMT -8
Yeah. That twisted metal does create some nice patterns. Apparently you can twist not only for strength but for ornamentation. Which brings us to . . .
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 11,007
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Nov 6, 2019 9:42:03 GMT -8
I didn’t know either. The story goes something like this: Oliver Winchester bought the patents from Benjamin Henry. The provenance is more complicated and includes a Mr. Smith and a Mr. Wesson as well. The idea of the cartridge itself was a huge advancement. What I had never known was the technology first started out as rimfire cartridges as opposed to centerfire. Rimfire quickly was changed to “both rims” being hit with a firing pin. Misfires then became very rare for this cartridge. [Henry Firearm Cartridge]
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Nov 6, 2019 10:11:19 GMT -8
I know the difference between rimfire and center-fire, but didn't know the former goes back so far. They use percussion caps, which ultimately are like the caps little boys are familiar with. The older muskets, probably even the breech-loading Sharps (which Berdan's Sharpshooters used), required the percussion caps (which soldiers carried in a cap pouch) to be applies separately. The repeaters used cartridges that included the cap.
The caps relied on mercury fulminate to explode and prime the powder. This makes mercury supplies very important. I think the CSA got it from Mexico. Later the Nazis got it from Almaden in Spain and Siena in Italy. What Germany relied on in World War I and in the last part of World War II, I'm not sure, but I think there were other mercury sources available, and they also had stockpiles of strategic minerals.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 11,007
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Nov 6, 2019 10:36:58 GMT -8
That one gun expert guy noted that the cavalry, in particular, used percussion cap strips when available. But he noted that such strips became rare in the South, so imagine trying to load your revolver or rifle while riding on a horse using something other than a Henry or Spencer rifle.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 11,007
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Nov 7, 2019 11:10:10 GMT -8
One of the more interesting guns of the Civil War that I read about lately is the Whitworth Rifle.Holy smokes. You could easily pick off Pickett’s chargers at the start of their charge with this gun. The barrel was shaped to exactly fit a hexagonal bullet. There is no "rifling"...instead, the bore is formed hexagonal and turns with a 1-in-21 inches rate of twist (according to someone who still actively shoots with a reproduction gun and makes his own bullets). High costs prevented much use of it: But apparently more than a few Southern sharpshooters “struck terror into Union troops” with it. [ Larger Version] You can see the hexagonal bullets in that second photo. And I assume there were different siting options. I’m not sure which was better. Here’s a good view down the sites of one of the options: It’s definitely a hexagonal barrel.
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Nov 7, 2019 11:35:13 GMT -8
Yes, these were supplied to small numbers of sharpshooters. Cleburne's division had 50, as I recall, which he gave to the best shots in the division and formed into a separate unit. Each had a thousand bullets. Sam Watkins, who wrote the memoir Company "Aytch" and was occasionally quoted in Burns's series, spent some time as a sharpshooter, though I don't know if he used a Whitworth. Both the Chickamauga and Gettysburg visitor's centers had extensive collections of muskets used during the war, including the Whitworth, and one of them credited the shooting of poet-general William Lytle during Chickamauga to a Whitworth. I wouldn't be surprised if John Sedgwick ("They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance") was killed by one at Spotsylvania.
Whitworth also manufactured a field gun with considerable range. Lee had 3 or 4 of them. D. H. Hill credited a Whitworth field gun with killing cavalry Brigadier General Bayard with one at Fredericksburg because he thought no other Confederate weapon could reach that far. On one accasion, a battery drove off Union cavalry at a distance of 3 miles.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 11,007
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Nov 7, 2019 13:27:33 GMT -8
There are some photos of his monument here. You'll fine the full text of his poems here. BRIGAND'S SONG. Through the Sierra's wild ravines An old grandee of Spain Is passing with his dark-eyed girls And all his gorgeous train; The spoil is rich, the guard is weak, The way is rough and long, So bathe your lips in foaming wine, And chant your parting song. Drink, brothers, drink, Drink, men, and away; Adieu, senoras, in your smiles We'll bask before the day. The moon is in the azure skies, The stars are by her side, They glitter in her path of light Like maids around a bride; Like night-birds let us sally forth Where booty may be won; So whet the poignard's polished edge. And gird your carbines on. Arm, brothers, arm, Arm, men, and away; Adieu, senoras, in your smiles We'll bask before the day. All hail to-night ; for since the world Was made in times of old, The day has been for coward knaves, The night time for the bold; Hark! to the mule-bells' distant chime, Our lady, grant a boon, That ere an hour the ring of steel May drown their jingling tune. Mount, brothers, mount, Mount, men, and away; Adieu, senoras, in your smiles We'll bask before the day. To horse ! Hurra — with thundering press Over the plain we glide, Around the startled hamlet's edge And up the mountain side; With waving plumes and clanking spurs, We sweep along like wind ; Our beacon on the rugged cliff Is flaming far behind. Ride, brothers, ride, Ride, men, and away; Adieu, seiioras, in your smiles We'll bask before the day.
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Nov 7, 2019 14:18:16 GMT -8
Tucker mentions, and quotes, a famous poem of his called "I Am Dying, Egypt, Dying", which is on the list as "Anthony and Cleopatra". He also suggests that Lytle performed well as a brigade commander -- and probably better than his division commander, Philip H. Sheridan. (It was here that Tucker mentioned that "Little Phil was rarely at his best when the odds were even." His division, along with that of Jefferson C. Davis, was routed in Longstreet's attack.)
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 11,007
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Nov 8, 2019 8:52:00 GMT -8
I certainly think that’s poetry I can better relate to than Emily Dickinson or Elizabeth Barrett Browning. The old soldier speaks of horses, broads, battles, and swords, and not necessarily in that order.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 11,007
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Nov 9, 2019 10:22:59 GMT -8
I’m nearing the end of this book. The Battle of Chattanooga (is this considered the Second Battle of Chattanooga?) is nearing completion. Let me give you my overall impression based on the book:
To say that there was a Northern or Southern army is a bit of an overstatement. These (on both sides) tended to be forces scraped together, often at the last minute. There were generals in overall charge (Grant/Bragg) but individual generals (other than Sherman) pretty much did what they wanted to do at times.
My overall impression regarding strategy was that there was none. There was movement. Forward. Trying to flank someone was as complicated as it got. Communications in those days was atrocious (on both sides). Hell, Sherman didn’t even have a good map and thought he was on the most northern part of Missionary Ridge when he was instead on some smaller unattached hills.
We’ve always read that having the high ground was key. But both Rosecrans and Bragg played fast and loose with the high ground of Lookout Mountain and did very little with it.
The actual success that the North had (according to this book) is basically because those taking part in the assault in the center (which was more or less supposed to be a feint to take pressure off of Sherman trying to turn the Confederate right flank) disobeyed orders not to advance.
The general impression, again, is that there was not much military smarts in display on either side. I mean no disrespect to General Lee, but if you’re grading “military genius” on the curve, Lee was a genius. But in absolute terms it’s more difficult to decide because so many around him (on both sides) were inept, seemingly driving by personal vanity or grudges against other generals (and usually ones on their own side).
Again, the overall impression isn’t of a coordinated army but of a mob with guns. Hell, both sides were barely able to feed their soldiers. If this book holds true, many of the rebel soldiers were near starving. But after the rout of Missionary Ridge, they found entire stocked warehouses of food behind the front that the rebels had put to the torch upon their retreat.
Sherman is particularly the non-genius in this one. Not only did he not know where he was, but for some incomprehensible reason, he was delayed for days getting to Chattanooga because of his method of travel. He was having the soldiers stay at the speed of the supply wagons instead of (as Grant insisted when he found out what Sherman was doing) the soldiers coming speedily ahead.
Grant seems unnecessarily hostile to Thomas who seems a good enough man and (as written in this novel) Grant is prone to grudges himself and more than a little wishful thinking (as was Sherman, at least regarding wishful thinking). Of course, no one really trusts or respects Hooker who didn’t apparently make things better for himself walking into a strong rebel defense (by Cleburne in defense of the retreat) when trying to make up for doing very little on Bragg’s left flank.
The only people I have respect for are Cleburne (who actually put up a tremendous and smart defense against Sherman) and the Union soldiers who disobeyed orders and thus stormed (and took) Missionary Ridge. Beyond that, I have to think about it.
General Bragg is himself an entire basket of psychological muck.
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Nov 9, 2019 11:31:39 GMT -8
Actually, wikipedia refers to it as the third battle at Chattanooga. The first was a raid in the summer of 1862, and the second presumably was the feint by Wilder (that name again) and Minty that drew Bragg's attention there while Rosecrans was making his main crossing around Bridgeport, AL.
Cleburne was probably Bragg's best subordinate. He actually had prior professional experience as a soldier in the Coldstream Guards before emigrating to Helena, AR. He also was well taught by Hardee, who admired the results to the end. "Where Cleburne's division defended the line, no numbers broke through. Where Cleburne's division attacked, no numbers resisted their onslaught, save only once, and their lies the grave of Cleburne and his gallant division." It was also Cleburne who proposed freeing the slaves and using them as troops in an early 1864 proposal to the Army of Tennessee command. (I once photocopied the thing from a Clinton biography in the library. Eventually I got the book myself.)
For some strange reason, he was never promoted after that even as junior officers (A. P. Stewart and S. D. Lee -- who, by the way, was NOT a relative of Robert E. Lee) in the army were given corps commands.
The assault up Missionary Ridge is famous. Grant expected it to fail and angrily asked Thomas and Granger if they had ordered it. Both were as surprised as he was, and Grant intended to punish someone if it failed. Part of the motivation was that they weren't going to stay in the rifle pits at the bottom of the ridge under fire from the top, and part of it was to show the Army of the Tennessee that the Army of the Cumberland was as good as they were (true enough) and not defined by the rout at Chickamauga (also true enough, just as the Army of Tennessee wasn't defined by its ensuing rout). It may be no accident that the first breach seems to have been by Wood's division.
Incidentally, note the slightly different names for two armies. The Union by that time named its various departments (and any armies based in them) mainly after rivers (such as the Potomac, Ohio, Cumberland, and Tennessee Rivers), whereas the Confederates mostly used states or other such area designations (such as Northern Virginia and Tennessee). This wasn't always the case; Beauregard called his army in 1861 the Army of the Potomac, and Pope's army in 1862 was the Army of Virginia. Butler's command at Petersburg (in which W. F. Smith served as a mediocre corps commander) was the Army of the James.
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Nov 9, 2019 11:40:21 GMT -8
The quote below is something Cleburne said in this regard. I find it very intelligent and informed.
According to Wikipedia, it was this suggestion which put the brakes on all future promotions. He was seen as unreliable. Stupid Confederates had done better to listen to him.
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Nov 9, 2019 12:14:53 GMT -8
Now you can get an idea of why I photocopied it. It was truly brilliant, and it should be noted that many generals in the Army of Tennessee signed it (their names were added). Howell Cobb, in response, noted that if the slaves could be good troops (which, actually, many had already been proven to be by this time), then the South's whole theory of slavery was wrong. He was quite right, but he couldn't bring himself to see (or at least admit) the implications of this statement.
Army politics also played a role in approval or disapproval of the memorandum. Some of the officers who approved it were in Cleburne's division. One who militantly disapproved, fellow (if junior) division commander W. H. T. Walker, was hoping to make sure that any corps promotion would be likelier to go to him than to Cleburne, and noted with annoyance that though Hardee didn't sign it, he certainly remained on good terms with Cleburne. (Walker was probably too junior to be promoted, and in any case he was killed in the Battle of Atlanta after his and Bate's divisions were fatally delayed going around Terry's millpond on their way to the Union rear. In the interim, a Federal corps returning from a destructive raid on the minor rail junction of Decatur happened to entrench itself in his path.)
The Confederates did finally put in place a watered-down version a year later. Needless to say, by then it was too late, though Longstreet found an interesting use for the idea. Desertion was getting to be a major problem by then, and he offered any soldier who exposed a desertion plot an officership in one of the new units. Of course, they probably never actually formed any black units, and I'm not sure if Longstreet would have been in a position to guarantee them if they had been.
|
|