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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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 :lol: 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

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.

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

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

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.