Both oneshot in pvp correct so any reason to run Spike? Does it effect damage behind titan shield or help them break faster? any situations that spike would be better?
I understand that rifled muskets were not practical due to reload time and fouling, but breechloading, which has been experimented with for as long as rifling has been, largely negates these negative factors.
When the Dreyse Needle Gun was adopted, most countries that could quickly adopted their own breechloading rifles, and they did so in manufacturing quantities that massively outproduced previous muskets.
Around this time, armies also grew much larger in size, which leads me to believe it likely has to do with industrialization, but to me that’s just a word. I have no idea what actual industrial processes made it possible, and how did they differ from previous methods?
HWI - Major Patrick Ferguson's Experimental Rifle unit is overrun at The Battle of Brandywine, being taken on the flank. In the confusion of a losing battle, the Americans stripe the weapons from Ferguson's men but turn them loose as they are forced to retreat.
The Ferguson was a breechloader capable of 4-6 rounds a minute (2-3 times faster than muzzleloaders). It's biggest problems were fouling of the screw, a weak connection between stock and firing mechanism, and the expense/time of producing them due to the more complicated parts. It fired a .65 caliber ball, although I suspect the Americans would cut that down to .50-.65.
The more rapid fire would have had some impact on conflict with the native tribes. I would presume the Brits would have added it to their arsenal by the end of the Napoleonic Wars, but I think Napoleon would have been more open-minded about adding it before the Brits, so do the Brits get to Waterloo.
EDIT: Responders seem to want to discuss whether Americans could/would want this weapon, but the question was (assume they do): how does it change history?
Now that we’re 3+ weeks into S11, I figured I should start putting some actual thought into the new seasonal gear I’m using; the introduction of Truthteller marks the first time I’ve ever enjoyed taking an Energy launcher into PvP so much that I actually want more
And so for anyone inclined to offer the single, only player still grinding for Mountaintop any insight, here’s a paragraph comprised entirely of questions:
First off, are Spike Grenades truly the uncontested/top-tier 2nd-column perk they’re made out to be? What about Proxy Grenades? And as far as stats go, high velocity is more beneficial than a high blast radius, yes? Lastly, is Quick Sling really the only mod I should ever use here?
TLDR; I’m a PvP sniper... I have next to 0 Energy launcher experience. Hell, I don’t even know what perks can and can’t one-shot... I really just wanna know which of the circles next to my Truthteller should be blue and which ones should be left white :(
Say you went back in time, in the 1700s and wanted to change history and give your pet cause a decided advantage and gain wealth, so you decide to use your gun knowledge and introduce a breech loading rifle that would give your soldiers a huge firepower advantage. However, you arrive back in time with no tools, or anything, and you don't know too much about metallurgy or manufacturing techniques, but can draw on a pretty good knowledge of all modern actions, and could draw out a good sketch and diagram to have a gunsmith or engineer of the day finish out and prototype. However, you need to quickly make the gun and in quantity. Which would it be?
Would kind of gun would it be given the manufacturing skill at the time?
I would think the most important thing would be to be able to design the modern centrefire round. Would it be possible to make this in quantity given the technology of the day?
I think the easiest action to make would be the break action rifle or Snider enfield. I believe these have the least moving parts and so would be easiest to make.
In terms of action, I think the easiest may be in terms of order:
- Break action
- Snider Enfield
- Henri Martini
- Bolt Action
As far as I know, breechloading cannons existed in the 16th century, why didn’t people tried to perfect the breechloading mechanism? Or is the steel they used too fragile to withstand the pressure exerted by the hole?
Americans had been using lever-action rifles through their civil war and the "Wild West" period, yet Europeans used single-shot breechloaders that, while doing lots of damage to the individual, strikes me as less useful when you want to conquer a portion of a continent as fast as possible. Why did they not use them, at least at a large extent?
During the Civil War, most soldiers fought with muzzle-loading rifles. However, the Germans were using breechloaders since the 1840s -- the Dreyse needle gun. Why didn't the Americans have them?
http://armesfrancaises.free.fr/Mousq%20Treuille%20de%20Beaulieu%20mle%201854%201er%20type.html This is the strange model 1854 pinfire rifle. First of all, it has a 9mm caliber in the days when France and several other nations were using rifle calibers around .58 to .69. The action is unique, almost like an open bolt falling block. You pull down on the hook in front of the trigger to open it, and the trigger holds it in place cocked. You insert a cartridge with the pin facing downwards, and I suppose there's nothing to keep the cartridge in until you fire. When you do, the block flies up behind the cartridge, and also smacks into the pin to fire it. Also of note is the sword bayonet, which is about as long as the gun itself! I believe this rifle was issued to like a royal palace guard, so I suppose it was invented to impress visitors with its uniqueness and high tech, along with the imposing bayonet.
1840 - 1880
I'm aware of the Battle of Königgrätz where the Prussian forces with their breechloading Dreyse needle gun faced off against the Austrians who had muzzleloaders. How much of an impact did the needle gun actually have on the battle? Did the Prussians win due to tactics or organisation rather than their superior technology.
Also in the American Civil War, if I am correct repeating firearms were avaliable but were not widely adopted. Are there any accounts of repeaters vs muzzleloaders in the ACW?
And finally -- what did the small arms of the rest of the world's army look like between 1840 and 1870? Were nations slowly replacing their muzzleloaders with breechloaders, etc.
Sorry this is my first question on AskHistorians! I'm just curious because I'm developing a world based on various militaries in the mid/late 1800's
P.S -- Conversions from flintlock to percussion/caplock did happen, however was it possible on a large scale to convert caplocks to breechloaders?
Were there any differences in tactics between armies using different weapon systems?
Given how expensive repeating arms like the Henry and even Spencer rifle were, was it even feasible for the North to have adopted anything but the Springfield Rifle Musket during the Civil War? I'm already aware of Stanton's(?) decision to turn down breechloading and repeating arms because of concerns over ammunition supply, but I haven't been able to nail down a concrete answer over whether the North could actually have kept large units supplied with enough ammunition to allow more rapid fire. As far as I know, the North already had significant challenges funding the war and supplying troops in the field, and potentially increasing ammunition consumption by 300% doesn't seem like something that could be easily done.
