Interested in the civil war? I'm currently working on creating a civil war game named "War of Rights". You can find more information here: warofrights.com/
LevelCapGaming made a video about Squad to his Call Of Duty/CS:GO subscriber base, this leads COD/CS:GO players to play Squad for long range combat without the teamwork aspect. This also leads these COD raised players to meme channels like Nano who does videos for Squad not based around teamwork, reinforcing everything anti-cohesive, anti-teamwork and everything lone wolf. So this guy Nano that only true COD/CS:GO players watch for the short memes like Call of Duty is, shows action for 1 second before dying, makes a video about "War Of Rights" leading these cancerous fuckers to "War of Rights" fucking it up like he did by telling these COD players who happen to play Squad about Project Reality.
Sérgio Maurício Well, atleast my silly joke wasn't wasted on everybody. More recently that same director repeated that scene in his movie The Last Samuri. It is funny though, in that movie he was glorifying reactionary forces resisting change.
@@dedogster Pretty much all European armies did have their soldiers do some live firing (in peacetime) The british just did is more. There were lead allowance for yearly exercises in life fire training. - British 'Rifles' - 60 rounds and 60 blanks per man - Prussian jägers and schützen (riflemen) - 60 rounds per man (in 1811-1812) - British light infantry - 50 rounds and 60 blanks - British line infantry and Prussian fusiliers (light infantry) - 30 rounds - Austrian line infantry - 10 rounds (in 1809) - Austrian line infantry - 6 rounds (in 1805) - Russian infantry - 6 and less rounds It was not until the introduction of the P1851 Minierifle that universal marksmanship training became a thing in the British army, Also in the mid 18th century being able to fire 4-5 shots a min was not in uncommon in some armies. This was possible because they used "selfpriming" muskets. Instead of using a lot of time to take some of the powder from the cartridge to prime, you simply pour the powder down the barrel, and then ram the bullet. the powder then by it self makes it way into the pan from the inside. Much better RoF... but the cost is more pressure leaving true the flash channel. So bigger risk to the soldiers and a lower muzzle velocity. So most armies actually went back to muskets that you had to prime.
Not really, what he did was the text book answer, while the soldier did the real world example. The offer only played the air guitar while the soldier played the real deal Fender... two different animals. He was an annoying prick, who forgot where he started, like most managers;)) who tells you how to do things when everything is 100% convenient, and then turnsblind eye to all other factors that you have to deal with, you know, problems, challenges in the process... Glad I never had to be a soldier as I can't stand these situations.
John Chandler yeah man totally that’s how all us officers work, oh you mean there’s a drill to make you better at your job? Silly me for thinking you’d be good at it
not really the muzzle loader at first appears with more elegance but after the second shot your covered in powder and eyes will sting the elegance comes from the attitude of the one with the rifle.
He probably should have, because in real life they would be under fire when that happened. Which is why he said it must be done without thinking and MUCH faster.
Speaking as a reenactor, Load In Nine Times can be difficult to train new troops. The goal is to make the actions natural and automatic... you wish to achieve competency WITHOUT looking like you're on the hardtop at Ft. Benning or Camp Lejeune doing D and C. It's actually easier to teach to a high school kid than it is to teach to someone who's been through Basic Training in any service. What's worse is that minute you get done training that, you have to get them to UNremember it all for the morning pre-battle parade and safety inspection... As reenactors, we never take out the ramrod on a battlefield for safety reasons.
@@galoon I'm in Washington State and we've got a smaller group to work with, so we just leave the 'rods under the barrel. I think in 20+ years of our Association, we've had maybe two ramrod accidents and the one I witnessed didn't even happen on the battlefield... it was a cleaning accident. Knucklehead was dry brushing the bore and had forgotten to dump his powder out. But I can see where large events, like Gettysburg, might have more stringent rules... you just never know who trained who and how well.
@@carlhicksjr8401 Yes, luckily accidents in re-enacting weren't ever that common for us either. Here in South Carolina our biggest problem has always been heat exhaustion! I've only heard of one ramrod accident, which involved another knucklehead at a small event who was ramming his paper and left the ramrod in. It ended up hitting a musician's drum without hurting anyone, thankfully! Units are generally pretty good about training, but like you said it's just impossible to police everyone.
I’m a reenactor in the uk and we use our ram rods (or scouring sticks as we call them) all the time over here. Yes there’s a risk but we train people to just be aware of where the stick is at all times. In the society I’m part of (sealed knot, an English civil war reenactment group) we even add in an additional command to “check your scouring sticks” before presenting the musket, that way it greatly reduces the chance of an accident.
@@jamesgraham7002 We've had occasions where a ramrod went flying out of the muzzle, so our insurance is a bit more stringent about it. We've had accidents that have hurt the paying public, so we're a lot more careful. Nevertheless, when we're firing for public demonstrations [as opposed to skirmishing at each other] we load in nine times and just ram the paper wadding down... 'confetti volleys' we call them. And, of course, the added pressure of the wadding creates a more authentic sound, a heavier 'crump', for the public. The FUN part is when we've got our bayonets fixed and are trying to fire at speed in nine times [3 rounds per minute using the ramrod for public demonstration]. You look pretty dumb when you accidentally stab yourself on your own musket! 😁😆
"im currently working on creating a civil war game named War of Rights" 9 years later: ive been playing war of rights for years now, god bless ur soul lad
In order to join you had to have at least one top tooth and two bottom teeth-just for tearing open 'cahtridges'. One New England officer remembered a private who asked the officer to watch him during battle because he was worried he'd run away. During their first battle the officer saw the private, who calmly asked with a smile "Powda goes in fust, right?"
@@AbrahamLincoln4 It's made from sulpher, potassium nitrate and charcoal a rather bitter taste unlike smokeless powder which tastes a little salty. Not like it's on my diet or anything. I do like the smell of both after it's burnt.
Little known fact: during Pickett's Charge at Gettysburg even the fastest soldier didn't have time to load so they resorted to hitting each other in the head with the barrel of the musket. Very brutal battle.
I still find it amazing that Matt Letscher, the Commanding Officer who was showing the demonstration, was part of the 2nd Maine mutineers in Gettysburg years back. Both he and Jeff, proud Michiganders! :-)
It was recorded here in Gettysburg Pennsylvania after dropped and discarded muskets were gathered and examined that one musket had been rammed with Minnie Balls from breech to muzzle. Panic loading at its best it would seem.
It seems silly at first glance that a Colonel would have to be shown how to load and fire the musket. But in reality many men with no military experience whatsoever were minted as field grade officers with no prior military service whatsoever, usually due to their political influence and ability to raise troops for the cause. In Chamberlain's case it made no difference because he had natural military instincts and fearless courage on the battlefield.
Chamberlain was actually offered command of this regiment (20th Maine) when it was formed, but turned it down, probably because he was a totally green volunteer. He served an 'apprenticeship", under the battle hardened West Pointer, Col. Aldebert Ames. When Ames made general, only then did Chamberlain assume command. Just in time for Gettysburg!
@@neilpemberton5523 Ames commanded the 1st Brgd/Francis Barlow's division/XI Corps until Barlow was wounded on day 1 at Gettysburg, thereafter commanding the division for the remainder of the battle.
These men had the most balls lining up like that and facing each musket shot, I know I take this life for granted a lot but I truly am thankful I did not have to live through any wars, that said these men made the ultimate sacrifice so we wouldn’t have to
A terrible waste of life. Totally unnecessary. The rifled musket was the most advanced general issue weapon of the time and neither side would fully grasp it's potential. The British successes and fire tactics in the Crimea was totally overlooked. The adherence to obsolete Napoleonic tactics cost lives.
@@johnmcdonald587 They were not as obsolete or as strictly adhered to as many think. Dispersing and fighting "Indian style" or fighting from trenches and holes became common after some experience, while the need to remain in close order still existed for effectiveness of command as well as the ability to resist the enemy hand-to-hand. A company spread out beyond the reach of its officer's voice would be in confusion surrounded by the smoke of independently firing soldiers and facing an enemy which could surge at them as a mass of bayonets.
@@johnmcdonald587 Well what can you do, back then it wasnt exactly open frontline warfare. it was just 2 professional armies trained to have a skirmish on the field, retreat, retrain, regroup, and shoot each other more.
That shared look between Thomas and Joshua at the end really sells this scene for me. I think it's because of the forshadowing I see of Little Round Top, where Tom runs out of bullets in his pistol while CSA troops are charging right at him.
Sgt. Chamberlain: "Of course you completed loading the rifle faster than I did. I was actually loading the rifle with ball, powder, and cap. You simulated everything except the use of the ramrod." Colonel Ames: "Escort Private Chamberlain to the guardhouse."
You notice a lot of good officer qualities here. Tom knows the basic steps but is not as fast and proficient as he should be. The officer takes him through the steps and is firm but patient. When Tom is finished with the first loading attempt, it is clear that more practice is needed. The officer gives small praise as to the fact that Tom knows the basic steps. But then he demonstrates the speed and standard that is expected by loading the rifle himself--leading by example. The officer finishes the instruction by motivation. He tells the gathered group that being proficient can save their lives. No drama, no counter productive instruction by pointless yelling and screaming. Just good, basic instruction, demonstrated by example, motivation to learn the task, and encouragement as to the skills already in place. There are many methods of training, but this is a great example of how a good officer leads...
Huge resurgence in interest in the American Civil War since War of Rights. I congratulate your current work, and look forward to what you'll contribute going forward.
IDNeon357 The 4-5 live rounds a minute claim is utter bull. 3 was the very higher end. 4 is possible with blanks and a Prussian self priming musket for a few shots. Most people who make these claims have never tried ramming down a live round with 10-15rds worth of fouling in the bore or priming a fouled pan. Going through the motions like that Colonel did isnt a realistic depiction. Most of these soldiers were alloted just enough rounds for a familiarization fire on an annual basis. It wasnt training in the modern sense. The Russians were hurting for powder and ball that they could only train with clay balls.
I must add that one can reach 3 rounds per minute only in training exercise. During a real battle is a totally different story. I can't imagine doing all that while under fire, an enemy charging against you and with hand tremor.
Lorscia All of that is understandable. Time slows down in combat, there is some decrease in dexterity and alot of memory loss. Two rounds a minute under fire with live rounds seems plausible.
Vaclav Sobr Faster yes, but better armor piercing absolutley no. I know because I tested my 15th century armor reproduction with a bow. 8 arrows were deflected, 2 were borken. And i was at 30 m max of distance from the armor.
benski tv You can also see that when he is supposed to tear the paper of the cartridge and since he doesn't have a cartridge he just moves his hand near his mouth as if he was tearing the paper of a cartridge.
I like how at the end he says that speed could save a soldier's life some day. Tactics of the day sought rapid fire over aimed fire, since they had not accounted for the enhanced accuracy of rifles over muskets.
In volley rifles didn't actually have much accuracy gain. On the first shot at best. But after that the gunsmoke would obscure any real sight picture of the target (Hence why most battle muskets/rifles didn't have more then a single post sight at best). This is the main reason why the British stuck with the smoothbore musket so long. After the first volley (Enemy or your own) you were just firing at a general area and being able to reload faster was more valuable.
Semi auto is considered more usefull by many. Going auto on a man is a good way to waste 30 rounds on the wall behind him when 5 to his chest would have done the job better
The officer in this video (not Chamberlain) was at Gettysburg. Ames. He commanded a brigade in the 11th Corps. According to his wiki, he was also the last Civil War general to die in 1933.
This is fascinating as that is the real firing drill they did, including not firing. And this was likely the reason many muskets were found with multiple rounds loaded at civil war battles.
That's actually the best part of the scene. Instead of fumbling with replacing the ramrod properly for too long he instead finished loading and bringing the weapon into action. Exactly what he should have done.
Our reenacting unit (21st Ohio Vols) did this at a livefire demo at Ft Benning. The first time it's fairly fast but gets harder each time the weapon is fired due to residue buildup, by the 10th round or so it's real work ramming the round to put it mildly especially w/sweaty hands. I don't think we managed 3 rounds a minute but firing live isn't as easy as portrayed here. None of us had drilled in firing actual Minie for speed before and it showed us quite well the difference between blank and ball for speed work.
Union Manual of Arms, early war: “The success of a volunteer army is dependent upon the proficiency with which the commanding officer is able to undermine the enlisted men’s confidence in their NCOs. Now - good luck at Manassas.”
Martin: Loading a Springfield muzzle-loading rifle in nine steps wearing trousers and a kepi Stanley: Loading an arquebus in twenty steps with a burning match in your left hand wearing trunk hose and a hat with a giant feather on it
The Civil War was an unnecessary bloodbath when it came to actual combat. Generals were using Napoleonic tactics better suited for the early 19th Century. While equipping their soldiers and sending them out against mid 19th Century weaponry. The American Civil War saw the usage of early machine guns, longer range and deadlier artillery, and advanced rifles. As an example, soldiers were equipped with rifles that had spiraling grooves inside their barrels. This caused the round to spiral as they left the barrel. Allowing for the shot to go farther and be far more accurate.
Muskets generally used round lead balls of about .69 caliber. They loaded quickly because they were smooth bore. During the Civil War rifle muskets were used due to the invention of the Minie ball, a cone shaped lead bullet with a hollow base of about .577 caliber. The hollow base made it easy to load, but when fired, the base would expand, seal the barrel and engage the rifling in the barrel. They were very accurate and generally used percussion caps to ensure reliable fire, even when wet.
I don't know about the other branches, but we did that in Marine Corps bootcamp with our rifles. Brownie points if any of ya'll know how many movement in "inspections arms"
This is a film I greatly enjoy. However with a run time lasting the better part of 4 hours (almost 5 for the directors edition) it isn't a film I would want to see in theaters. It would have done much better as a TV mini-series like was done with Gettysburg. I have in fact sat through a double feature at a movie theater before, and trust me when I was that there is a reason most movies don't run to much past 2 - 2.5 hours. After that point it just becomes hard to stay seated.
The problem with the movie was that it tried to cover too much in a short time. The Gettysburgh movie took 4 hours to cover one battle (and still left out a lot of key parts. This movie tried to cover 3 different battles in the same amount of time.
You know just saying in my opinion. I would like too see if they had made Gods & Generals into a mini series say 10 ep's. it would be pretty good just watching it at home. Especially in today entertainment were invested TV series. make like band of brothers style.
Should have used the Prussian Dreyse Needle Gewehr. Enable troops to fire 15 rounds per minute. In the Wars of Unification German troops armed with the Dreyse had a sustained rate of fire of 10 rounds per minute. Was in service in the Prussian army since 1840.
ANd was a state secret the Prussians guarded very good. But what really won the wars for the Prussians were not the rifles. The new Krupp guns ,which could fire with unmatched range and precission, pretty much crushed any enemy.
Prussian rifles and artillery were significant. But when added to the superb training the Prussian officer corps received from the branch schools through the Berlin War Academy the Prussian army was virtually unbeatable in the mid-nineteenth century.
The Dreyse was a revolutionary design, but it also had numerous issues in regards to safety and reliability. There also isn't any feasible way either side could have gotten their hands on them in any appreciable number.
preshlock 15 rounds per minute is impossible. Opening the Kammerschluss, getting a round, loading it in, closing the bolt, aiming, firing in 4 seconds?
TheCommunistColin providence. Maine. Boston, truth be told they all sounded exactly the same to me. Excluding new york. Those bastards aint part of New England. Lol
Daniel Cannata Providence pronounces the R, Boston and Maine don't. Only difference between Boston and Maine is that Boston pronounces horse and hoarse the same, where as Maine says the first as "hoss" and the second as "howuss".
TheCommunistColin I'll be damned....i never knew that. Makes sense. But then again, i dont know any Maine residents, even though im a Masshole myself.
Also helped, when they fought the Austrians, that they had the Dreyse needle gun which was much more advanced and easy and fast to load than the Austrians' Lorenz rifle that had seen heavy use in the US Civil War just a few years before. Made the difference in the key battle of the Austro-Prussian War which let Prussia rather than Austria take over Germany.
It wasnt a bolt action rifle, atleast not in the common sense. It was a breach loader which used a bolt and was only capeable of holding a single bullet before being reloaded (not bolted). It only had an effective range of 200 meters against single targets, so the muskets did still have their reason to exist.
Some explanation of this odd comment might be in order, Gaius. If you're an American, look at the state of your country, too - makes me feel relieved that I'm European!
Mr Mundy Correction - a single shot bolt action weapon is still bolt action, even the early ones such as the Dreyse and Chassepot, which used soft cartridges until converted to fire brass. As to the Dreyse vs muzzle loading rifles, the Prussians wiped the floor with the Danes and then the Austrians, both of whom used muzzle loading rifles, in 1864 and 1866. It was rate of fire that counted (8-10 rpm from a Chassepot, 2-3 from a Springfield), unless you were a sniper. Still true to a great extent.
Gotta say, he did a good job showing off the reloading speed. He performed the drill from 1:08 to 1:23, which is 15 seconds. 4 rounds a minute. A damn good rate of fire back then, when the desired standard was 3, and many men could only average 2 and change.
The Union army would have been equipped with the like of a Spencer repeating rifle much earlier if it wasn't for the horrible leadership in the ordinance department.
+HellisLikeNewark That's very true; however, hindsight is 20/20. The American army was still using Napoleonic tactics, which were dangerously outdated. Old tactics die hard, I guess.
The problem was Napoleonic tactics would be firing two volleys and charge in, whereas most ACW officers on both sides would just let their troops shoot at each other until one side ran out of men instead of getting into fisticuffs.
easy to say, but not realistic. Springfield infantry rifles are less expensive and quicker to manufacture than other firearms, as is the ammo. When the mills are already outfitted to produce hundreds of thousands rifles per year, its very expensive to re-equip factories with new new equipment, not to mention the cost in time. Production down time during wartime could be a catastrophic. Arm chair generals always have great ideas, but reality wins out every time.
The North completely had the industrial might to produce Spencer and Henry rifles for all of it's 533,000 men in uniform which basically gave a brigade the firepower of a full division. Unfortunately Northern ordinance officers didn't like the new repeaters. They felt if the private knew he had only one shot then he would take care of what he was aiming at instead of wasting ammunition. They also fretted over all the intricate moving parts repeaters required so in the end cost and speed of production won out. A Springfield cost about $9 to produce versus the nearly $24 for a Henry or Spencer. Yankee thriftiness won out over innovation-but overall the North amazed (and worried) Europe with it's innovative mass production techniques. With the exception on repeating rifles Montgomery Meigs did a wondrous job keeping the armies supplied. I think by 1863 one Union armory was producing more Springfields in a month than the entire South produced in one year.
Even against this low rate of individual fire, infantry assaults on prepared positions during the Civil War usually failed with catastrophic losses. Entire campaigns foundered against the opposition of relatively small but determined units of riflemen.
I call BS on that. The NCO would have been doing it faster and the Officer would only have a vague theory of loading the weapon from his days at west point.
Not necessarily. LTC Chamberlain and his brother Sgt Chamberlain were given their respective ranks based on education more than anything early on, and possibly aptitude. And they joined the war a year after it started if memory serves me correct. It is highly possibly Sgt Thomas Chamberlain May not have been any more trained than the rest of the men early on.
Also of note Ames graduated West Point in May 1861 so a year prior to this he would’ve been at the point. Lol so he definitely would’ve known how to load and fire a weapon. Plus he was 5th in a class of 45. Also at the battle of first bull run , he was later given the medal of honor for his actions. Yeah he can fire a gun fast lol 😂
Harsh, but he is right, in those days the ability to load your weapon faster than your enemy could mean life or death. This is why the British were so brutally efficient at formation fighting, they were able to put two to three rounds downrange in the time it took an equivalent French or American formation to fire one, typically less accurate Volley, they also deployed many tactics to increase their rate of fire even further, firing by ranks for example could effectively triple the rate of fire for a company. If the man responsible for about a dozen men isn't able to load his musket effectively on command, he will serve as a poor example for his men and therefore not only he, but all the men under his command, will be hindered in battle.
The crazy thing is around this time the first weapons with cased ammunition were hitting the battlefield, within a few years revolvers would be standards while gatling guns would also be available, within a few years lever and bolt action rifles would be standard and by the time their grandsons marched off the WWI machine guns would be common.
If I was a good teacher, I would give my men the shittiest longest to load and heaviest weapons I could find, then only after their training I would upgrade.
It works in labor as well. Having to work with crappy equipment in my younger days made it easier to work with the good stuff later on. In my opinion after 30 years work experience.
Some regiments end up with 69 smoothbore muskets however you loose accuracy you gain speed cause no rifling. One of the Ohio units was issued a 72 caliber 12 groove garibaldi rifle aka the 1849 Austrian as a secondary standard I can imagine that taking awhile to effectively load
