i dont get why it takes civil war reenactors to load longer then it does rev. war, since all civil war guys have to do is load their cartridge and but a percussion cap on, and make sure the fire locks at half cock. with rev. war u have to pour a little bit of powder in the flash pan then pour the rest down the barrel and make sure ur firelock is at half cock, iunno maybe its just me but i can load faster then majority of these guys and this is with a brown bess
@2ndpadrummer Well, actually a flintlock reloads faster and easier. both have to bite open the cartridge and load it. The Locks work identical, handling-wise. but whereas y flinter just pours abit of powder on the pan after biting it open, the Pecussion guys have to get a seperate Cap out of a seperate pouch, that is smaller than your little fingers nail, and put it on the nipple. thats why the amount of uincorrectly loaded weapons was so high during CW.
@upnthemorninway2soon in general this claims are quoted and exaggerated again and again for centuries. muskets in general are highly underrated in public oppinion
@LethalResistanz don't forget the artillery... canister shot spraying you... Screaming, and the smell of rotten eggs from gun powder, and your Superior officer yelling at you, and don't forget the Bayonet Charge, and rifle mis-fire. Plus it is said that rifled muskets were only able to fire 20 or so times before you had to clean the barrel out... yeah talk about hell.
@LethalResistanz surprisingly there was very low numbers of casualties during the early years in 19th and late 17th century warfare, mainly because the muskets were so inaccurate. During the American Civil War though the rifled musket was a lot more accurate, had a much greater range and was quicker to reload. Then the first World War saw the introduction of the machine gun and barbed wire.... yeah absolute massacre ensued...
@LachoDroogie The Rifled musket was in fact slower to repload. Also, The main reason for inaccurcy was the man behind the gun, bad vision etc. Not the musket.
@LutzDerLurch I would have to disagree, respectfully, with you good sir. The rifled barrel meant that the bullet would spin and go straight, whereas the musket ball would bounce around the barrel and deviate on a random trajectory. Reloading was slightly easier with a rifled musket as the bullet could be pushed down with less rams of the rod. Smoke on the battlefield was a huge problem, as you said, and it definitely did count on the man behind the gun
@LachoDroogie Well, no doubt the rifled musket has better accuracy. But still when comparing hit-ration under ideal circumstances and those achieved on the battlefield, by ar the most inaccury was due to the man behind the piece and circumstances. As for the Ramming, I have done some research on muskets and with the proper military load, the cartridge will slide down the barrel itself sometimes, even after 40 rounds. I dare say that the ramming on both weapons was equal in effort and time.
@LachoDroogie (cont.) The self-expanding minnie ball and its related designs made it possible to reload a rifle as quick as a musket, while still making use of the rifling, becaus it was undersized while loading, as was the roundball. also, the percussion cap took considerable time and effort to place properly, whereas a flintlock is rather easily and quickly primed. If the Minnieball had to be freed of its paper wrapping before loading, as I read somewhere, this would also cause lengthy reload.
@LutzDerLurch Obviously you have done more research on the subject than i so i will gladly concede the point. I agree that the percussion cap was difficult to put in place although well trained soldiers wouldn't be held back too much by this. The rifled musket changed warfare though, as the extended range meant that cannon crews at the front would be exposed to sharp, accurate enemy fire. It is funny how far warfare went within the span of 50 years - from the musket to the tank :-p
@LachoDroogie Well, It would still be interesting to conduct a direct comparison. But I think the Cap is a bitch to place when under stress under fire.
I find interestig however, that the rifle-musket did not totally overcome the smoothbore. Otherwise the south would have never survived as long as it did. While the very few, hard and dold killer "snipers" had an advantage with these rifles, the vast majority of soldiers hardly gaine much. I thik rate-of-fire, firepower was the biggest influence
@LutzDerLurch I totally agree! If the rifled musket had have been head and shoulders better than the smoothbore, the Union could have used their superior industrial might to overcome the Confederates a lot quicker. Indeed, during 1864/65, especially in the Western theatre, the Union began to introduce the henry repeating rifle. The Confederate soldiers would complain "They could start firing on sunday and keep going all week without having to reload". Rate of fire would ultimately win the day
@LachoDroogie Yes. E.g. the Rifles from WWI were about the most accurate arms ordinary soldiers ever had at their disposal. Yet semiautomatic weapons with inferior Precision have proven to be more valuable, and this even holds true today.
@LutzDerLurch Im pretty sure the majority of rebels were armed with rifled muskets and at least a few union regiments were sent into battle armed entirely with smoothbores, with catastrophic results to themselves. A good example being the battle of balls bluff
@IronDave100 As far as I am aware especially during the early War the Confederacy still had lots of Smoothbores.
And once again I maintain, that the improvement of Accuracy was lower than many people think, and in Practise of Wars reality, the gain an ordinary Soldier may have experienced, was so small that it rarely was the decisive factor. up until now, firepower is far more important than the individual weapons accuracy, and the modern soldiers of today are proof, that even modern arms'
@LutzDerLurch high accuracy is barely used to its potential in a real fight. On the Shooting range, with modern arms soldiers are damn accurate, but so they were 300 years before with smoothbores, with very effective firing up to 300yards. We all know, whats left of that accuracy on a real battlefield.
If the musket is placed right, with the ear between the bands your ear is perfectly safe. Its far enough away from the percussion cap and far away from the muzzle blast.
But that doesn't mean that the soldiers didn't put paper or cloth in their ears. There is a ton of evidence and reports of soldiers doing so. It was more the cannon fire that would make you go deaf. Think of over 100 cannon or more on the field blasting away.
Plus it helped drown out the screams of the wounded men and horses.
Over 100 cannon? thats more like a ship of the line, european field armies never had that many guns, if napoleon ever had that many guns at his disposal in one campaign europe would be his. :P oh and you guys were just priming percussion cap right? or were you also putting powder down the muzzle, because I didnt see any ramrods going so I doubt there was any lead fired.
Yes, that is so. But this is AMERICAN civil war! Not european, and at any given time during the war you would have 100+ cannon. And yes this was only a blank fire Demonstration for training purposes. We weren't using ramrods because we were training "reenactment" firing. In the states the use of ramrods is prohibited because of some problems in the past.
Yeah wasn't it 160 confederate cannon firing during picket's charge? or maybe a bit less. I think it was between 100 and 160. And that is just confederate cannon!
0:26
Does it look like that guy not shooting towards the middle got hit on the head?
Ipwnweniwant2 7 months ago
@CommentaryX reloading is best done upright becaus if the length of the musket. also they omitted ramming the ball home in this video.
LutzDerLurch 8 months ago
Regular Army ?
zipsrule 8 months ago
Cool stuff. Where do you guys get together?
Ezeekiel349 9 months ago
are those artillery troops? I never seen infantry wearing red like that.
BaronVonKenny 1 year ago
@BaronVonKenny im guessing they're zouaves
VioIentGoIdFish 1 year ago
hey to they use like non lethal cannon balls for artillrey
wowhobbster666 1 year ago
How can the front rank of reenactors even hear the orders when they're deaf in their left ear.
Thrawn6211 1 year ago
It was fun fighting and dieing along side you guys in the votex of hell today. (Duryee's 5th New York Zouaves).
HDrogo 1 year ago
That is what battle is all about. Thank you
wormonthefloor 1 year ago
Platoon firing and firing by rank are two completely different things
rapiddominace 1 year ago
Why are they wearing those baggy red flannels? They look like ladies' underdrawers. hee~ xD But I'm not insulting. I'm just curious.
chesykin97 1 year ago
hell im just wondering sorry if i sound like an ass
2ndpadrummer 1 year ago
i dont get why it takes civil war reenactors to load longer then it does rev. war, since all civil war guys have to do is load their cartridge and but a percussion cap on, and make sure the fire locks at half cock. with rev. war u have to pour a little bit of powder in the flash pan then pour the rest down the barrel and make sure ur firelock is at half cock, iunno maybe its just me but i can load faster then majority of these guys and this is with a brown bess
2ndpadrummer 1 year ago
@2ndpadrummer Good for you, we are all in awe of your skills.
Rosak 1 year ago
@2ndpadrummer Well, actually a flintlock reloads faster and easier. both have to bite open the cartridge and load it. The Locks work identical, handling-wise. but whereas y flinter just pours abit of powder on the pan after biting it open, the Pecussion guys have to get a seperate Cap out of a seperate pouch, that is smaller than your little fingers nail, and put it on the nipple. thats why the amount of uincorrectly loaded weapons was so high during CW.
LutzDerLurch 8 months ago
did james nearly panic fire his ramrod at 1minute? :D excellent stuff, a joy to watch.
craggs1 2 years ago
Do that while men are dropping like flies all around you. 18th and 19th century must of been hell.
LethalResistanz 2 years ago 24
yeah man. Of course, it would have been done at a quicker pace during battle.. rough... stuff.
14thBrooklynE 2 years ago 6
@14thBrooklynE From what I hear at this time..alot of soilders fired their rifles well with the rod still inside...got the job done I suppose
upnthemorninway2soon 1 year ago
@upnthemorninway2soon in general this claims are quoted and exaggerated again and again for centuries. muskets in general are highly underrated in public oppinion
LutzDerLurch 8 months ago
@LethalResistanz don't forget the artillery... canister shot spraying you... Screaming, and the smell of rotten eggs from gun powder, and your Superior officer yelling at you, and don't forget the Bayonet Charge, and rifle mis-fire. Plus it is said that rifled muskets were only able to fire 20 or so times before you had to clean the barrel out... yeah talk about hell.
cyn33667 1 year ago
@cyn33667 muskets were in fact quite reliable. even more so when kept by real soldiers that had their life depending on them, and when live fired.
LutzDerLurch 8 months ago
@LethalResistanz
Yeah, you just have to think: "Don't look, don't think, just do."
TEcsWolf 1 year ago
@LethalResistanz surprisingly there was very low numbers of casualties during the early years in 19th and late 17th century warfare, mainly because the muskets were so inaccurate. During the American Civil War though the rifled musket was a lot more accurate, had a much greater range and was quicker to reload. Then the first World War saw the introduction of the machine gun and barbed wire.... yeah absolute massacre ensued...
LachoDroogie 9 months ago
@LachoDroogie
You were probably much more likely to die form Dysentery.
LethalResistanz 9 months ago
@LachoDroogie The Rifled musket was in fact slower to repload. Also, The main reason for inaccurcy was the man behind the gun, bad vision etc. Not the musket.
LutzDerLurch 8 months ago
@LutzDerLurch I would have to disagree, respectfully, with you good sir. The rifled barrel meant that the bullet would spin and go straight, whereas the musket ball would bounce around the barrel and deviate on a random trajectory. Reloading was slightly easier with a rifled musket as the bullet could be pushed down with less rams of the rod. Smoke on the battlefield was a huge problem, as you said, and it definitely did count on the man behind the gun
LachoDroogie 8 months ago
@LachoDroogie Well, no doubt the rifled musket has better accuracy. But still when comparing hit-ration under ideal circumstances and those achieved on the battlefield, by ar the most inaccury was due to the man behind the piece and circumstances. As for the Ramming, I have done some research on muskets and with the proper military load, the cartridge will slide down the barrel itself sometimes, even after 40 rounds. I dare say that the ramming on both weapons was equal in effort and time.
LutzDerLurch 8 months ago
@LachoDroogie (cont.) The self-expanding minnie ball and its related designs made it possible to reload a rifle as quick as a musket, while still making use of the rifling, becaus it was undersized while loading, as was the roundball. also, the percussion cap took considerable time and effort to place properly, whereas a flintlock is rather easily and quickly primed. If the Minnieball had to be freed of its paper wrapping before loading, as I read somewhere, this would also cause lengthy reload.
LutzDerLurch 8 months ago
@LutzDerLurch Obviously you have done more research on the subject than i so i will gladly concede the point. I agree that the percussion cap was difficult to put in place although well trained soldiers wouldn't be held back too much by this. The rifled musket changed warfare though, as the extended range meant that cannon crews at the front would be exposed to sharp, accurate enemy fire. It is funny how far warfare went within the span of 50 years - from the musket to the tank :-p
LachoDroogie 8 months ago
@LachoDroogie Well, It would still be interesting to conduct a direct comparison. But I think the Cap is a bitch to place when under stress under fire.
I find interestig however, that the rifle-musket did not totally overcome the smoothbore. Otherwise the south would have never survived as long as it did. While the very few, hard and dold killer "snipers" had an advantage with these rifles, the vast majority of soldiers hardly gaine much. I thik rate-of-fire, firepower was the biggest influence
LutzDerLurch 8 months ago
@LutzDerLurch I totally agree! If the rifled musket had have been head and shoulders better than the smoothbore, the Union could have used their superior industrial might to overcome the Confederates a lot quicker. Indeed, during 1864/65, especially in the Western theatre, the Union began to introduce the henry repeating rifle. The Confederate soldiers would complain "They could start firing on sunday and keep going all week without having to reload". Rate of fire would ultimately win the day
LachoDroogie 8 months ago
@LachoDroogie Yes. E.g. the Rifles from WWI were about the most accurate arms ordinary soldiers ever had at their disposal. Yet semiautomatic weapons with inferior Precision have proven to be more valuable, and this even holds true today.
LutzDerLurch 8 months ago
@LutzDerLurch Im pretty sure the majority of rebels were armed with rifled muskets and at least a few union regiments were sent into battle armed entirely with smoothbores, with catastrophic results to themselves. A good example being the battle of balls bluff
IronDave100 5 months ago
@IronDave100 As far as I am aware especially during the early War the Confederacy still had lots of Smoothbores.
And once again I maintain, that the improvement of Accuracy was lower than many people think, and in Practise of Wars reality, the gain an ordinary Soldier may have experienced, was so small that it rarely was the decisive factor. up until now, firepower is far more important than the individual weapons accuracy, and the modern soldiers of today are proof, that even modern arms'
LutzDerLurch 5 months ago
@LutzDerLurch high accuracy is barely used to its potential in a real fight. On the Shooting range, with modern arms soldiers are damn accurate, but so they were 300 years before with smoothbores, with very effective firing up to 300yards. We all know, whats left of that accuracy on a real battlefield.
LutzDerLurch 5 months ago
good job i also reenact
thestevoundead1 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Those uniforms look ridiculous and unauthentic
CenturyGamer 2 years ago
It sounds like Tony Soprano was the CO.
Redrum200proof 2 years ago
Was the 14Brooklyn a light infantry unit or line? Or was civil war armies organized differently??
hi2321 2 years ago
The Civil War really didn't go by Light or Line (Heavy) Infantry. Although the 14th Was used for Skirmish , Flanking and Line duty. They did it all.
14thBrooklynE 2 years ago
*laughing* can ANYONE explain the finer points of "By the Right, By File, Into Line.... MARCH!" lol I cannot wait to meet you guys!
scandalousrogue 2 years ago 3
He was actually telling me to explain the finer points of on the right by file into line... lol yeah.
14thBrooklynE 2 years ago
nice firing drill.
mb233 2 years ago
Thanks.
14thBrooklynE 2 years ago
think you would go deaf after enough shots being fired next to your head
colbyyoungmv 3 years ago
I was thinking the exact same thing.
But tbh.. I don't think they cared back then :P
War was war.. and work was work. There were no health concerns.
DutchManticore 2 years ago
If the musket is placed right, with the ear between the bands your ear is perfectly safe. Its far enough away from the percussion cap and far away from the muzzle blast.
But that doesn't mean that the soldiers didn't put paper or cloth in their ears. There is a ton of evidence and reports of soldiers doing so. It was more the cannon fire that would make you go deaf. Think of over 100 cannon or more on the field blasting away.
Plus it helped drown out the screams of the wounded men and horses.
14thBrooklynE 2 years ago
Over 100 cannon? thats more like a ship of the line, european field armies never had that many guns, if napoleon ever had that many guns at his disposal in one campaign europe would be his. :P oh and you guys were just priming percussion cap right? or were you also putting powder down the muzzle, because I didnt see any ramrods going so I doubt there was any lead fired.
tubester101we 2 years ago
Yes, that is so. But this is AMERICAN civil war! Not european, and at any given time during the war you would have 100+ cannon. And yes this was only a blank fire Demonstration for training purposes. We weren't using ramrods because we were training "reenactment" firing. In the states the use of ramrods is prohibited because of some problems in the past.
14thBrooklynE 2 years ago
Yeah wasn't it 160 confederate cannon firing during picket's charge? or maybe a bit less. I think it was between 100 and 160. And that is just confederate cannon!
kbuddha420 2 years ago
Many reenactors do suffer hearing loss.
MickeyJWind 2 years ago 13
Yes we do!
14thBrooklynE 2 years ago
@MickeyJWind Please tell me those foam inserts are required....
somercet1 1 year ago
Platoon Rear Rank AIM!
kbuddha420 3 years ago