Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > To reload or not to reload, that remains a question... Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page 1, 2  Next 
Author Message
Peter Bosman




Location: Andalucia
Joined: 22 May 2006

Posts: 598

PostPosted: Tue 23 Oct, 2007 3:38 am    Post subject: To reload or not to reload, that remains a question...         Reply with quote

Gordon Frye wrote:
Contrary to what modern day reenactors believe (and Hollywood shows) virtually no one carried a spare cylinder around for his revolver. Maybe a spare pistol, but not a spare cylinder. They just weren't usually issued or sold. A very few Colts were issued/sold with them, such as the early Patersons with no loading lever, the "Baby Dragoons" with no loading lever, and some of the '51 Navy's sold to Prussia and Austria, but that's about it. The US Army sure as heck never did after 1839.


is just another example of the issue raised in the ´scottish accroutments´ topic and other too.

Obviously the more warring tactics get adjusted to firearms and their specifics the issue changes but for cénturies the question is wether reloading beyond the first few shots was actually an issue.
Even as late as the ´wild west´ it was not common practice to carry more than some bullets in the belt as back-up ammunition per example.

My interpretation is that beyond a few prepaired ´cartridges´ reloading was a non-issue in the field untill WW1.

peter
View user's profile
Daniel Staberg




Location: Gothenburg/Sweden
Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Likes: 2 pages
Reading list: 2 books

Posts: 562

PostPosted: Tue 23 Oct, 2007 4:11 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Peter,
I'm afraid your impression is wrong, reloading and munitions supply was a major issue for the very introduction of firearms. Inventions such as the iron ramrod, pappercartridge and to some extent the flintlock were ontroduced to increase the ability of soldiers to reload and fire more quickly. From the 18th Century onward fire played an every increasing role in infantry tactics and with a few exceptions became dominant as effective rifles and breechloaders completely changed the face of warfare in the mid-19th Century.
View user's profile Send private message
Peter Bosman




Location: Andalucia
Joined: 22 May 2006

Posts: 598

PostPosted: Tue 23 Oct, 2007 10:51 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Sure enough the development of firearm and tactics cannot be seen seperated.

Now let us look at Napoleontic warfare, Napoleontic cavalry charges. Untill automatic firepower neither the horseman nor the infanterist would be able to get a lot of bullets in the air, however fast he would be able to reload.
Add a revolver to the picture. How many shots would go into a cavalry charge. Not enough for a fundamental change.

Obviously automatic firepower was both a product and producer of change.

As we are concerned with ´historic´ arms we are talking about pre-automatics and I remain sceptical about reloading beyond a handfull of rounds.
Which does not mean that I am right nor that I am dug in about it....

peter
View user's profile
Jean Thibodeau




Location: Montreal,Quebec,Canada
Joined: 15 Mar 2004
Likes: 50 pages
Reading list: 1 book

Spotlight topics: 5
Posts: 8,176

PostPosted: Tue 23 Oct, 2007 11:31 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

There might be a difference between the number of rounds carried by each soldier as " ready " ammunition as opposed to total ammunition supply available in the bagage train ( From longbowman to crossbowman to later muzzle loading firearms ).

Musketeers seem to have carried at least the 12 apostles early on before paper cartridges became common.
They also carried some extra powder and shot.

The firepower of muzzle loading firearms is not just a matter of shooting speed but also that after 12 shots reloading due to powder fouling became progressively harder and slower and some minimal cleaning of the barrel must have been needed before another 12 shots could be loaded and fired at what was considered the " normal " speed. The maximum number of shot possible without some sort of cleaning with a black powder front loader I really don't know ?

Now, extra munitions being sent forward to the firing line from the rear must have been done in various ways.

Maybe with a cavalry charge reloading would be something to do after the battle when all pistol/carbines or revolver shots were expended: At that point sabre or lance would have continued the fight. ( Lancers probably not even firing once if their tactics gave priority to the lance ? Pistols if carried then might have been used after the lance was broken or lost ? )

Although with the caracole a system of going back to the rear to reload seems to have been popular for a while: So there are exceptions to the idea of shooting one or a few shots and not reloading even for cavalry !?

Mostly, supposition based on my general knowledge of various period battle tactics or at least my best guesses.

The slow reloading times of early firearms does mean that one has to decide to reload or use hand weapons depending on distance of an enemy and time available to reload as well as the presence or absence of obstacles slowing down an enemy charge varying from terrain to fortification to supporting troops like pikemen.

In other words the " SUM " of the variables.

You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
View user's profile Send private message
Jared Smith




Location: Tennessee
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Likes: 1 page

Spotlight topics: 3
Posts: 1,532

PostPosted: Tue 23 Oct, 2007 3:29 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

The issue of fast reloading as seen in the movie "Last of the Mohicans" was discussed in a previous post. http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t...t+mohicans

There was such a thing as quickly reloading pre-made paper cartridges that were pre-assembled. It dates back to roughly 16th century as a European practice. If one can reload reasonably fast, it makes sense to do so. There are re-enactors around today who can do this very well using the self made cartridge technique. I suspect the movie "The Patriot" shows us realistic slower alternatives of loading components, which was also done.

A policeman from my church (died of old age last year), with my father's permission, gave me an Italian made black powder replica Remington New Army about 22 years ago. He described tales his father had told him of street gun fighters in the old west fiddling with the reload/ram lever that tended to fall down, reloading mid battle while already bleeding from several wounds, and old photos showing them doing things like tying string around the reload lever to retain it while the battle was in progress.

Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence!
View user's profile Send private message
Lin Robinson




Location: NC
Joined: 15 Jun 2006
Likes: 6 pages
Reading list: 6 books

Posts: 1,217

PostPosted: Tue 23 Oct, 2007 7:04 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Cavalry tactics did not seem to change a lot with the introduction of the wheel lock, which made carrying a firearm on horseback a possibility for the first time. It seems that there continued to be a heavy reliance on lances and sabers, not to the exclusion of firearms, but as the preferred weapons for mounted troops. The difficulties of reloading either a carbine or pistols on horseback, whether at a gallop, canter or standing still, meant that the cavalry soldier had to carry multiple pistols in addition to his carbine. I also suspect that after the discharge of what firearms were on hand that the cavalryman resorted to his saber rather than trying to reload.

Dismounted cavalry, especially dragoons, were a different story. While dragoons fought from horseback, the original British concept was for them to be mounted infantry. Consequently the equipping of dragoons with carbines was essential if they were to be any kind of match for opposing troops armed with muskets. Early carbines were simply shortened infantry muskets. Later the carbine became a more distinct weapon in that it was not only shorter and lighter but of a smaller caliber than the regular infantry musket. There were also light-infantry carbines issued to special troops, perhaps including some Highland regiments. Rogers' Rangers cut down the barrels of their infantry muskets to make them lighter and more handy. Carbines continued to be equipped with bayonet lugs.

When dragoon formations dismounted to fight then the problem of reloading is the same as that of the infantry, which is to say that the fouling issue alluded to by Jean becomes a problem. However, the bullets in these guns were considerably smaller than the bore diameter which, while it did not do a thing for accuracy, enabled the soldier to get off more than 12 shots if needed. Marksmanship was not a part of the training of most troops in the 17th & 18th centuries any way.

The American Civil War was probably the last major conflict to see much cavalry against cavalry action; and it is hard to find many battles between cavalry in that war. Brandy Station is the only major one to come to mind, although there were cavalry on most battlefields, usually as skirmishers, flankers and scouts. A major action won by dismounted cavalry in opposition to infantry and cavalry was Brice's Cross Roads in Alabama. General Nathan Bedford Forrest's cavalry completely routed a much larger federal force. It is reported that the Confederate cavalry used shotguns in that fight.

Regarding the tying of loading levers on caplock guns, the only Colt-made revolver without an efficient mechanical method to hold the loading lever in place was the Walker. Walkers were the most powerful revolvers of the time, which makes it hard to understand how Colt thought the loading lever would stay in place with friction fitting and a wimpy spring catch. The First Model Dragoon solved that problem by providing a springloaded catch in the lever along with a notched lug on the front of the barrel. I have no idea whether or not extra cylinders were common but Gordon undoubtedly has the references to support his statements. I have seen some cased Colts that did have an extra cylinder but they were not standard issue guns. Certainly removing an empty cylinder and replacing it with a loaded one, which meant having to knock the barrel wedge aside and use the loading lever to pry the barrel off the cylinder pin so the empty could be removed, was also a very difficult thing to do on horseback and/or in the heat of battle. My personal preference, were I to have to go into battle with caplock revolvers would be to take enough of them along to make reloading an after action chore.

Lin Robinson

"The best thing in life is to crush your enemies, see them driven before you and hear the lamentation of their women." Conan the Barbarian, 1982


Last edited by Lin Robinson on Tue 30 Oct, 2007 8:48 am; edited 1 time in total
View user's profile Send private message
Peter Bosman




Location: Andalucia
Joined: 22 May 2006

Posts: 598

PostPosted: Wed 24 Oct, 2007 1:09 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Maybe I should have been more clear. My thinking is HEAVILY biassed, can possibly be called blinkered, by thinking from horseback.
Nevertheless even mounted infantry and infantry is confronted by the time limit of a cavalry attack. There simply is only a limited time availeable to get rounds out.
That means either VERY fast reloading, multiple shot weapons or multiple weapons.
Áfter the assault reloading would be a different matter.

As a mounted warrior a gun and several pistols (or a revolver) would be enough while charging into sabre contact íf that is the tactic.
As was mentioned firing and retreating would be another. That would be the equivalet of getting all rounds out and regrouping to reload beyond range. Exactly as the numidian light cavalry did with their javelin Laughing Out Loud Get a handfull out and retreat.
Accuracy is a non-issue. Point and squirt as fast as possible. The body of infantry provides a wide target as opposed to the individual cavalryman.

Again we get to the point where I do not inderstand the evolution of cavalry tactics as seen from the light moununted warriors view. I know that ís my blind spot. I understánd militairy objectives will demand less than idealy efficient use of cavalry to effect an different goal. Hence the massed charges and heavy cavalry shock tactics.

peter
View user's profile
Elling Polden




Location: Bergen, Norway
Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Likes: 1 page

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,576

PostPosted: Wed 24 Oct, 2007 2:59 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

As far as I've gathered, 18th century cavalry would charge with their swords, and use their firearms in the melee as the situation dictated.
It's a simple psycological mechanic. If you have a sword (or lance) in hand, your mind will be set on achieving contact. If you charge with your firearm, your mind will be set on evasion, menaning you will probably fire to soon, and break of.
Better then to charge with the sword to contact, and get out you pistols once in the melee.

"this [fight] looks curious, almost like a game. See, they are looking around them before they fall, to find a dry spot to fall on, or they are falling on their shields. Can you see blood on their cloths and weapons? No. This must be trickery."
-Reidar Sendeman, from King Sverre's Saga, 1201
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Peter Bosman




Location: Andalucia
Joined: 22 May 2006

Posts: 598

PostPosted: Wed 24 Oct, 2007 6:59 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Well Elling there is a lot covered by the ´cavalry´ umbrella.
Skirmishers, the caracol, forms of mounted infantry, light cavalry charges, the classical heavy schocktactics and lots of variations on the themes and the asiatic horsemen were mounted artillery realy.

The caracol is basically 2500 years old or even more with VRY little differnce between the throwing of the javelin as Xenophon describes and firing a gun.
Skirmishers and caracol would give limited time of outgoing fire with time to reload.
Any sort of charge would give limited time to shoot and none to reload. Charging with the sable and using the pistol in the melee would still not give a lot of time for shooting and none for reloading.

So, I can see why and thus thát the riders did not carry a lot of ammmunition nor cleaning tools.

As mentioned mounted infantery is something else.

hc
View user's profile
Curt Cummins




Location: Portland, OR
Joined: 03 May 2007

Posts: 63

PostPosted: Wed 24 Oct, 2007 10:23 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

My great grand father and two of his sons were Confederate cavalrymen during our Civil War. At the beginning of the war they carried a carbine or shotgun, a pistol and a saber. The cavalry tactics were same as used in the Napoleonic wars.

By wars end, they had ditched the sabers as ineffective and were carrying 4 to 6 revolvers into the fight along with their carbines and shotguns. If men whose lives depended on their weapons preferred multiple pistols over the saber, then I think we can safely assume that the volume of fire certainly made a difference.

Curt Cummins

Ye braggarts and awe be a'skeered and awa, frae Brandoch Daha
View user's profile Send private message
Peter Bosman




Location: Andalucia
Joined: 22 May 2006

Posts: 598

PostPosted: Thu 25 Oct, 2007 2:52 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Curt Cummins wrote:
By wars end, they had ditched the sabers as ineffective and were carrying 4 to 6 revolvers into the fight along with their carbines and shotguns. If men whose lives depended on their weapons preferred multiple pistols over the saber, then I think we can safely assume that the volume of fire certainly made a difference.


Meaning that for theír specific cavalry tactics they created their own ´automatic´ firepower. They opted for more ready to shoot, did not carry reloading - cleaning tools.
The availeability of the option to carry 4 to 6 revolvers would have influanced tactics too, that is chicken and egg.
Like it was when the gendarmes stuck three flintlock pistols in their belts as backup for the two in the pommel holsters.

I guess your ancestors had more accurate guns with FAR more rounds so the sabre would hevne been more of a burden than a tool whereas the gendarmes were pretty wuickly out of bullets that did not hit much anyway so hád to use the steel.

Neither reloaded though, not untill áfter whatever.

hc
View user's profile
Jared Smith




Location: Tennessee
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Likes: 1 page

Spotlight topics: 3
Posts: 1,532

PostPosted: Thu 25 Oct, 2007 5:03 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Lin Robinson wrote:


Regarding the tying of loading levers on caplock guns, the only Colt-made revolver without a mechanical means to hold the loading lever in place was the Walker. Walkers were the most powerful revolvers of the time, which makes it hard to understand how Colt thought the loading lever would stay in place with friction fitting alone. The First Model Dragoon solved that problem by providing a spring loaded catch for the lever. .... Certainly removing an empty cylinder and replacing it with a loaded one, which meant having to knock the barrel wedge aside and use the loading lever to pry the barrel off the cylinder pin so the empty could be removed, was also a very difficult thing to do on horseback and/or in the heat of battle.


I used one of these (Remington New Army Replica) for almost 20 years of hunting and sport -target play use. When I first discussed the problems with older enthusiasts, they told me it was generic to all models. The spring catches at the end of the ram lever as well as the V shaped notches under the barrels that were meant to retain them wear very quickly. The force in a 0.40 or larger caliber "black powder" charge can be pretty abrupt. It technically is an explosive, while modern powders are much more gentle and progressive in how they develop the force, being "propellants." If you have one of these black powder revolvers and use it for several hundred shots, the ram rod retainer mechanism will most likely wear to a point where it is falling down pretty regularly (maybe 20% chance each shot!) I generally did put a string around mine to keep it in place when loaded. Cylinder change was pretty easy (I am guessing about a 10 second job not counting the issue of the ram rod needing to be tied), until about 12 to 18 shots had been fired. After that, powder residue on the cylinder axle made it challenging to extract.

Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence!
View user's profile Send private message
Lin Robinson




Location: NC
Joined: 15 Jun 2006
Likes: 6 pages
Reading list: 6 books

Posts: 1,217

PostPosted: Thu 25 Oct, 2007 6:49 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Jared Smith wrote:


I used one of these (Remington New Army Replica) for almost 20 years of hunting and sport -target play use. When I first discussed the problems with older enthusiasts, they told me it was generic to all models. The spring catches at the end of the ram lever as well as the V shaped notches under the barrels that were meant to retain them wear very quickly. The force in a 0.40 or larger caliber "black powder" charge can be pretty abrupt. It technically is an explosive, while modern powders are much more gentle and progressive in how they develop the force, being "propellants." If you have one of these black powder revolvers and use it for several hundred shots, the ram rod retainer mechanism will most likely wear to a point where it is falling down pretty regularly (maybe 20% chance each shot!) I generally did put a string around mine to keep it in place when loaded. Cylinder change was pretty easy (I am guessing about a 10 second job not counting the issue of the ram rod needing to be tied), until about 12 to 18 shots had been fired. After that, powder residue on the cylinder axle made it challenging to extract.


I have a Navy Arms brass frame Griswold and Gunnison .36 cal. revolver that I bought in 1968. Through many hundreds of rounds over the years two things have not happened: 1. The gun has never "shot loose or gotten out of time" as warned by Dixie Gun Works; 2. The loading lever has never come loose under recoil. Of course this is not a .44 and I never loaded it with more powder than recommended, but that has been my experience. The spring that provides tension on the catch at the end of the loading lever is just as good today as it was when I bought it in 1968. The hand spring gave out at one point and I had to have a new cylinder hand fitted, but other than that the gun has been trouble free. And, I have always completely disassembled it to clean and put the barrel and cylinder in a warm oven to dry before reassembling and oiling. Again, no problems. I do not understand why releasing the catch a few times a shooting session over a period of years would create this problem unless the springs were no good in the first place. In 35 years of membership in the NMLRA, the only percussion revolver I have heard or read about having this problem was the Walker. Big bore gun with inadequate means to retain the lever. I can understand it happening there.

Put a couple of drops of Black Solve on the cylinder pin and that will help keep the fouling down. DGW is right about that.

Lin Robinson

"The best thing in life is to crush your enemies, see them driven before you and hear the lamentation of their women." Conan the Barbarian, 1982


Last edited by Lin Robinson on Tue 30 Oct, 2007 8:45 am; edited 1 time in total
View user's profile Send private message
Lafayette C Curtis




Location: Indonesia
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Reading list: 7 books

Posts: 2,689

PostPosted: Fri 26 Oct, 2007 5:17 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Lin Robinson wrote:
The American Civil War was probably the last major conflict to see much cavalry against cavalry action


Definitely not. The Russian Civil War and the Polish-Soviet War, both in the late 1910s and early 1920s, certainly included many instances of cavalry vs. cavalry actions. This was after the introduction of smokeless powder and bolt-action magazine rifles, however, so firepower played an even greater role in these conflicts than it did in the American Civil War. We certainly don't see ACW troops carrying a number of machine guns as organic fire support for their cavalry squadrons or employing machinegun-armed chariots known as the tachanka!

The documents linked to from this page: http://pygmy-wars.50megs.com/history/cavalry/cavalry.html will provide a much better picture of the tactics involved for those who are interested in learning more--they're particularly useful because most of them are eyewitness accounts from officers who have actually fought in or observed those wars.

It might come as a bit of surprise that the Polish cavalry still performed effective massed cavalry operations as late as 1939. If I'm not mistaken, in the battle of Krojanty they launched a successful cavalry charge with cold steel against a German infantry column--of course, they did that with close support from their organic machine guns, and the quality of their cavalry at this time was probably much, much better than that at the rebirth of their state in 1919.
View user's profile Send private message
Peter Bosman




Location: Andalucia
Joined: 22 May 2006

Posts: 598

PostPosted: Fri 26 Oct, 2007 8:15 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Lafayette C Curtis wrote:
It might come as a bit of surprise that the Polish cavalry still performed effective massed cavalry operations as late as 1939..


During the course of WW2 the us army made surprsingly extensive use of cavalry for reconnaissance and skirmishing in rugged terrain.

After WW2 the horse saw a lot of use right untill today in several african conflicts, especially in SA and Rhodesia. The units carried light guns and very little ammo, calling in support when encountering serious action.

The last use of cavalry that I am aware of was info Tora Bora although that can be seen as dragoons equiped with the latest M1 and nooooooooooo reloading issue Laughing Out Loud

This is however completely beyond the scope of this forum I presume, even though stricly speaking it ís history Wink

Back to the reloading thread I just read in the replies about the exchange of cilinders as a way to recharge but that to my knowledge was never adopted during the time these weapons saw action.
The guy fiddling with pistol levers would be an easy target for even a slingshot Exclamation (there still is a festive competition with these in our barrio and that is QUITE impressive and deadly: David sure would have been able to floor Goliath with that)
This leaves using the bullets loaded and fight on with whatever was the weapon of the day or retreat, regroup, reload, recharge....

peter
View user's profile
Jean Thibodeau




Location: Montreal,Quebec,Canada
Joined: 15 Mar 2004
Likes: 50 pages
Reading list: 1 book

Spotlight topics: 5
Posts: 8,176

PostPosted: Fri 26 Oct, 2007 2:10 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Peter Bosman wrote:
Back to the reloading thread I just read in the replies about the exchange of cilinders as a way to recharge but that to my knowledge was never adopted during the time these weapons saw action.
The guy fiddling with pistol levers would be an easy target for even a slingshot Exclamation (there still is a festive competition with these in our barrio and that is QUITE impressive and deadly: David sure would have been able to floor Goliath with that)
This leaves using the bullets loaded and fight on with whatever was the weapon of the day or retreat, regroup, reload, recharge....

peter


I think I would make a distinction between reloading during a " hot " engagement/battle and reloading when it would be safe to do and when there is at least 5 to 10 minutes to do so.

The difference being, that if we assume that reloading during pauses in combat is a good idea, some extra ammunition to be able to reload once or twice might be part of one's on body or on horse equipment ? This is very different than ignoring an active enemy while trying to reload right in the middle of a fight. This dealing specifically with the question of carrying reloading components or not.

As mentioned earlier: Multiple pistols could take the place of some minimal reloading and offer better firepower than one pistol and more extra reloads.

Tactics versus logistics and finding the right balance between uselessly carrying too much extra ammo and not having any ?

You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
View user's profile Send private message
Peter Bosman




Location: Andalucia
Joined: 22 May 2006

Posts: 598

PostPosted: Sat 27 Oct, 2007 6:04 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Jean Thibodeau wrote:
Tactics versus logistics and finding the right balance between uselessly carrying too much extra ammo and not having any ?


Like a rider with a flintlock carrying a handfull of paper cartridges and a panprimer, leaving powder, balls and utensils at camp Idea

Like a rider with a revolver carrying two handfulls of cartridges in his belt, leaving etc.

Sure, we are talking tactics too, even limiting ourselves to a form of light cavalry.....

The whole thing started with the question of the right equipment for a picture of a cavalryman on patrol. My assumption is his weapons and a bit of prepaired reload just in case he has the time for that.

hc
View user's profile
Jean Thibodeau




Location: Montreal,Quebec,Canada
Joined: 15 Mar 2004
Likes: 50 pages
Reading list: 1 book

Spotlight topics: 5
Posts: 8,176

PostPosted: Sat 27 Oct, 2007 7:23 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Peter Bosman wrote:
Jean Thibodeau wrote:
Tactics versus logistics and finding the right balance between uselessly carrying too much extra ammo and not having any ?


Like a rider with a flintlock carrying a handful of paper cartridges and a panprimer, leaving powder, balls and utensils at camp Idea

Like a rider with a revolver carrying two handfuls of cartridges in his belt, leaving etc.

Sure, we are talking tactics too, even limiting ourselves to a form of light cavalry.....

The whole thing started with the question of the right equipment for a picture of a cavalryman on patrol. My assumption is his weapons and a bit of prepaired reload just in case he has the time for that.

hc


I think we generally agree, but all things being equal, I personally would rather have with me ( in theory ) more ammunition than I need than need more ammunition than I have. Wink The limiting factor being that extra weigh/bulk should be low enough to not impact on tactical efficiency i.e. not overburdened !

With a revolver this would mean around 1875, about 30 rounds on the gun belt. With a flintlock 12 to 18 reloads in 1812 and 4 pistols. In 1860, ball and cap 2 pistols and 12 to 24 reloads. Korea 1952, a .45 auto and 4 loaded spare magazines or 35 rounds including the one in the gun.

In all cases an absolute minimum of 2 reloads per weapon: With a flintlock that would be 3 shots total. With a .45 auto that would mean 21 shots total ( 3 mags ) assuming carrying with an empty chamber.

In a defensive position were carrying stuff around wouldn't be an issue the more the better ! Sort of defending the Alamo situation. Wink Cool

Just my preferences if playing with the idea and not what I think everyone need agree about. Wink Cool

You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
View user's profile Send private message
Elling Polden




Location: Bergen, Norway
Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Likes: 1 page

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,576

PostPosted: Sun 28 Oct, 2007 7:27 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

On August 2nd, 1942, the Italian Savoia Cavalria regiment (with infantry atrillery support) celebrated their 100th anversery by a dawn charge against two battalion (ca 1900 men) of the Soviet 812th Rifle Division (With artillery suport), as they where moving out from their foxholes to advance.
Charging with broadswords, carabines, SMGS, and handgrenades, the Savoia lost about 100 men, but routed the russians, leaving 450 casualties and 600 prisoners, in one of the last large scale cavalry charges.

The british in Sudan deployed lancer and hussar cavalry, which charged at ceveral occations. These appears to have preffered lances, though. Even the hussars of the 1885 expedition improvised lances from native spears, mainly owning to the inferior performance of the current issue cavalry sabre, and the Madhist tactic of dropping prone when attacked by cavalry, and strike at the horses legs.
However, their foes fielded a low persentage of firearms, and where not very good marksmen.

As a curiosity, the worlds last large scale melee battle was fought between Mahdist sudan and Abysinia in the 1890s, with both sides fielding mostly tribal spear and swordmen.

"this [fight] looks curious, almost like a game. See, they are looking around them before they fall, to find a dry spot to fall on, or they are falling on their shields. Can you see blood on their cloths and weapons? No. This must be trickery."
-Reidar Sendeman, from King Sverre's Saga, 1201
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Lin Robinson




Location: NC
Joined: 15 Jun 2006
Likes: 6 pages
Reading list: 6 books

Posts: 1,217

PostPosted: Mon 29 Oct, 2007 2:16 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Lafayette C Curtis wrote:



Definitely not. The Russian Civil War and the Polish-Soviet War, both in the late 1910s and early 1920s, certainly included many instances of cavalry vs. cavalry actions. This was after the introduction of smokeless powder and bolt-action magazine rifles, however, so firepower played an even greater role in these conflicts than it did in the American Civil War. We certainly don't see ACW troops carrying a number of machine guns as organic fire support for their cavalry squadrons or employing machinegun-armed chariots known as the tachanka!

The documents linked to from this page: http://pygmy-wars.50megs.com/history/cavalry/cavalry.html will provide a much better picture of the tactics involved for those who are interested in learning more--they're particularly useful because most of them are eyewitness accounts from officers who have actually fought in or observed those wars.

It might come as a bit of surprise that the Polish cavalry still performed effective massed cavalry operations as late as 1939. If I'm not mistaken, in the battle of Krojanty they launched a successful cavalry charge with cold steel against a German infantry column--of course, they did that with close support from their organic machine guns, and the quality of their cavalry at this time was probably much, much better than that at the rebirth of their state in 1919.


I looked at the references you included. A lot of words there so I have only skimmed the information and only two references at that: 1) the piece on the Polish cavalry from the Revue de Cavalerie and; 2) the conference with General Shinkarenko on the use of cavalry during the Russian Civil War, also from the Revue de Cavalerie. I will look at the others when time permits. And, by the way, thank you for including the links.

Again, my review of these two pieces is cursory at best, but in both I found very few cavalry v. cavalry actions mentioned in comparison to cavalry on infantry, which were common place and were, of course, still common place during the German assault on Russian in WWII. There is no denying that cavalry played a role until the end of WWII, in the form of reconnaisance and pursuit of a fleeing enemy.

Your comments about the battle of Krojanty are interesting. I assume, as I have no knowledge of what went on, the the cavalry attacked a column of infantry which was not supported by armor or air, or the outcome would have probably been different, as it was most every other time that the Polish cavalry met the Germans.

Any way, thanks again for the information which is very interesting and will provide me with a chance to study some lesser known aspects of European military establishments between the World Wars.

Lin Robinson

"The best thing in life is to crush your enemies, see them driven before you and hear the lamentation of their women." Conan the Barbarian, 1982


Last edited by Lin Robinson on Mon 29 Oct, 2007 5:32 pm; edited 1 time in total
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > To reload or not to reload, that remains a question...
Page 1 of 2 Reply to topic
Go to page 1, 2  Next All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum






All contents © Copyright 2003-2018 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum