Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: south have more kinds rifles?

  1. #1

    USA Captain

    cheeyeah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    362

    south have more kinds rifles?

    it is interesting,,,,and how about the shoot distance and accurate.
    20180105185438_1.jpg

  2. #2

    CSA Captain

    Sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    England
    Posts
    399
    The south did have a broader range of both long arm and artillery types during the war, simply because of the limited supply imposed upon them due to being an agricultural nation. But that was a problem, not a boon, the trouble caused in logistics quickly became a nightmare, and one that the South never managed to solve.

  3. #3

    CSA Major General

    Dether's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    121
    Quote Originally Posted by Sox View Post
    The south did have a broader range of both long arm and artillery types during the war, simply because of the limited supply imposed upon them due to being an agricultural nation. But that was a problem, not a boon, the trouble caused in logistics quickly became a nightmare, and one that the South never managed to solve.
    you are of course very right.. tho the south captured so many of artillery... the ability to use it was so so short. however when we lost a piece it was huge... therefore a general officer saw this as a serious slight to his manhood.
    All governments, everywhere derived its power by the consent of the people. The government you have is by your own consent. Not by those brave grey dead of one hundred and fifty plus years ago.

  4. #4

    USA Sergeant

    thomas aagaard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Aalborg, Denmark
    Posts
    591
    Quote Originally Posted by Sox View Post
    The south did have a broader range of both long arm and artillery types during the war, simply because of the limited supply imposed upon them due to being an agricultural nation. But that was a problem, not a boon, the trouble caused in logistics quickly became a nightmare, and one that the South never managed to solve.
    Iam not sure that is correct. Both sides imported huge numbers of arms from Europe. Both modern Enfields, Lorenz and older french, Belgium, "german" guns, both rifled and smoothbores.
    With the south managing to get their orders in first and managed to buy all available machine made enfields...
    And the union to a larger extent buying used 2nd rate guns. (in some cases simply to make sure the south did not get them)

    So some models was only important by the union and if they where not captured in sufficiently large numbers, the south did not use them.

    The 15th Wisconsin used french M1822, (converted to percussion and then later rifled...) a weapon that I never seen any indication of the south using.

    The south did have a harder time standardizing arms within their regiments, but they did get this done... and by the late war most units in AoNV had Enfield P53s or "Springfields" or a mix.(with everyone using cartridges for the enfield this helped solve the logistical issue)





    Oh, at both north and south was agricultural countries. The US (as a whole) didn't change from this until the 20th century.
    Thomas Bernstorff Aagaard

  5. #5

    USA Lieutenant General

    Kane Kaizer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Free Kansas
    Posts
    92
    I really do miss that M1841 Mississippi rifle that our 114th PA Zouaves also used to have.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by thomas aagaard View Post
    Iam not sure that is correct. Both sides imported huge numbers of arms from Europe. Both modern Enfields, Lorenz and older french, Belgium, "german" guns, both rifled and smoothbores.
    With the south managing to get their orders in first and managed to buy all available machine made enfields...
    And the union to a larger extent buying used 2nd rate guns. (in some cases simply to make sure the south did not get them)

    So some models was only important by the union and if they where not captured in sufficiently large numbers, the south did not use them.

    The 15th Wisconsin used french M1822, (converted to percussion and then later rifled...) a weapon that I never seen any indication of the south using.

    The south did have a harder time standardizing arms within their regiments, but they did get this done... and by the late war most units in AoNV had Enfield P53s or "Springfields" or a mix.(with everyone using cartridges for the enfield this helped solve the logistical issue)





    Oh, at both north and south was agricultural countries. The US (as a whole) didn't change from this until the 20th century.
    This post sums it up pretty well. At the start of the war, it was probably more common to see men bringing their weapons, but as time went on and the south imported and produced more weaponry some semblance of standardization could be seen.

    As for the agriculture, very accurate, it was just a matter of the north was more willing to industrialize than the south for a multitude of reasons.

  7. #7

    USA Captain


    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    3
    I respectfully disagree, particularly with the statement “both north and south were agricultural countries. The US (as a whole) didn't change from this until the 20th century.”

    Only 40% of northerners were engaged in agriculture in 1860 compared to 85% of the south. What is amazing is that the north still produced 50% of the nations corn, 80% of its wheat and about 90% of its oats. This was do to the use of mechanical farming equipment in the north.

    Statistics from 1860
    The South supplied 2/3’s of the WORLDS cotton and was worth more than all other US exports combined.
    About 87% of banks were in the north and 70% of railroads were in the north.
    About 85% of all manufacturing plants were in the north.

    In 1860 the North produced:
    17 times more cotton and woolen textiles than the South
    30 times more leather goods
    20 times more raw iron
    32 times more firearms; For every 3,200 firearms produced in the north the south only produced 100.

    North had 110,000 factories vs 21,000 in the south
    North had over 1,000,000 factory workers vs 110,000 in the south

    The north had many more firearms manufactures as mentioned, but most of them produced the same rifle (the Springfield). The Springfield Armory enlisted the help of over 20 sub-contractors to produce over 1 million 1861 Springfield’s and 700,000 1863 Springfield’s (Type I and II’s).

  8. #8

    USA Sergeant

    thomas aagaard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Aalborg, Denmark
    Posts
    591
    When one look in the 1860 census reports
    The most common profession both north and south was "farmer" and "farm hand" with about 3,2 million men employed as such.
    (39% of the total number)

    Another 85.561 are listed as "planters" most of the in Alabama, so clearly different states did not count a plantation owner in the same way... but with them we end at 40%

    And one issue with this way of counting is that many women is not included. And any woman living on a family farm would be involved in running it.
    (so the number of people involved in running farms is much higher than the 3,2 million given)

    Then we need to add all the slaves, that are not included in the numbers above... and they where obviously generally used as "farmhands"

    No other profession breaks a million.
    Miners was in the 900.000
    Factory hands only at 87.289 (but many who work in industry are counted under their specific job so the total involved in industry is a bit above one million.. still fare fare below the number involved in agriculture.)



    To be considered an industrialized country one condition is that industry employ more people than agriculture. And that was not the case in the US until the 20th century.

    So yes, the north was more industrialized than the south. But is was still not an industrialized country.

    And the north still imported huge quantities of firearms... just like the south,. Not until late 1864 did US produced rifle muskets become anywhere near the standard firearm in the union Armies. And Enfields was still in common use by the end of the war.


    And finally the 1.000.000 number for the M1861 is for the entire production. including firearms made after the war.

    A total of a bit more than 700.000 was made from 1861-65 (the end of the year)
    Thomas Bernstorff Aagaard

  9. #9

    USA Captain


    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by thomas aagaard View Post
    And finally the 1.000.000 number for the M1861 is for the entire production. including firearms made after the war.

    A total of a bit more than 700.000 was made from 1861-65 (the end of the year)
    Your not including contract Springfield's (Bridesburg/Lamson, Goodnow & Yale/ Union Arms Company/Savage/etc) with Springfield Armory's production made between 1861-1865, the total number is 1,675,995.

  10. #10

    USA Sergeant

    thomas aagaard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Aalborg, Denmark
    Posts
    591
    and now you are mixing M1861 and M1863 numbers... two different models.
    Thomas Bernstorff Aagaard

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •