• damdy@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    There’s definitely an argument to that logic. 10 bullets in one person may as well be 1. People don’t fall down instantly so a volley is likely to do little to a column of troops like Napoleon liked to use.

    But I know pretty much nothing about the American civil war, and it sounds like the north was able to produce far more than the south. So probably a bad decision.

    • Metrognome@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 day ago

      Forgotten Weapons did a video, not too long ago, on why advanced weapons like the Henry repeating rifle weren’t adopted by the Civil War U.S. Army. Just like today, in time of conflict a lot of people try to get military contracts. Just like today, a lot of those people have poor, unworkable, or under-developed ideas. The rifle-musket with the Minie bullet was very effective. The thinking was “We have something right now that works, is reliable, and we can already mass-produce; switching to something that maybe doesn’t work, we have no idea of reliability, and no way to produce at useful scale is a bad idea — oh, and we don’t have hindsight to tell us which to pick.” The CSA, by contrast, had little choice but to pay anyone who looked like they could deliver arms. Aside from Griswold & Gunnison, it resulted in many failed contracts and few, generally poor-quality weapons.

      • damdy@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        I’ve always been a little fascinated by it. I’m not from US so it was never part of my education. Most of my knowledge on that era comes from videogames and cowboy movies.

        Thank you for the recommendation.