The Rifled Musket

[tabs]

Originally Posted by Taz's Master

If we aren't restricted to Europe, but include the African and Pacific theaters, I can understand the US fighting forces of the time attaining a status RPKESQ would find mythical. We sure didn't go it alone, but nobody carried our freight.

The USA supplied arms and material to EVERY FRONT during WW2...it was the factories back home that beat the enemy...

Nobody even RPK would claim that anybody carried America's freight during the war....

If you want to rebut RPK all you have to do is quote Albert Speer...Speer said it was the American and British strategic bombing offensive that beat Germany in WW2, or as he said, "What would 20,000 88MM Flak guns have done on the Eastern front." End of fking story...so if ya want you can use that to jam up RPK's azz and let him squeal like a little stuck piggy..

[RPKESQ]

Originally Posted by Taz's Master

If we aren't restricted to Europe, but include the African and Pacific theaters, I can understand the US fighting forces of the time attaining a status RPKESQ would find mythical. We sure didn't go it alone, but nobody carried our freight.

Would have , might have, words to dream by. As a historian I do not present facts to tear one country down and raise another up. Factual representing the reality allow us to see ourselves in a more clear perspective. Something all countries could use more of.

The reality is the Russians were the senior partner among the Allies in beating the Germans. Russian productivity was equally amazing as American productivity was (which BTW operated in complete safety).

Nothing mythical about that.

By Stalingrad the Russians had learned the lessons of combined arms in combat and had mastered the slashing armor attacks that the Germans used in 1940 to 1942. After that the Russians had the manpower, armor, artillery and aircraft to defeat Germany all by themselves (although it would have taken them somewhat longer).

Kursk was a trap laid by the Russians. The trap was sufficiently ready by April 1943 to have an estimated 80-85% success for the Russians. Just look at the Order of Battle for both sides for that time. By July 1943 the Germans did not have any chance of success. Game over.

[RPKESQ]

Originally Posted by tabs

The USA supplied arms and material to EVERY FRONT during WW2...it was the factories back home that beat the enemy...

Nobody even RPK would claim that anybody carried America's freight during the war....

If you want to rebut RPK all you have to do is quote Albert Speer...Speer said it was the American and British strategic bombing offensive that beat Germany in WW2, or as he said, "What would 20,000 88MM Flak guns have done on the Eastern front." End of fking story...so if ya want you can use that to jam up RPK's azz and let him squeal like a little stuck piggy..

Ah, the mastery of Speer. He was very good at some things, not so much at others. You will note, Speer said that the 88mm guns were of some value, nothing was mentioned about the bombing significantly slowing production down. Why?

Because it did not really slow production down. Germany build more military equipment in 1944 than they did is 1939, 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943 combined.

The Russians learned and adapted quite well to the German weapons and tactics. At least as well as the Americans did.

[tabs]

Originally Posted by RPKESQ

Ah, the mastery of Speer. He was very good at some things, not so much at others. You will note, Speer said that the 88mm guns were of some value, nothing was mentioned about the bombing significantly slowing production down. Why?

Because it did not really slow production down. Germany build more military equipment in 1944 than they did is 1939, 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943 combined.

The Russians learned and adapted quite well to the German weapons and tactics. At least as well as the Americans did.

Knock Knock..HELLO....it was the 20,000 extra guns and resources that the Germans could have put into the field on the Eastern Front.

Like the US government the Germans war industry much to many peoples surprise was a rather disorganized affair with much duplication of effort and waste. When Speer took over he cleaned out the waste and inefficiency...does one realize that Germany in a total war was still making Steinway Pianos in 1945...

[tabs]

Originally Posted by RPKESQ

1. Would have , might have, words to dream by. As a historian I do not present facts to tear one country down and raise another up. Factual representing the reality allow us to see ourselves in a more clear perspective. Something all countries could use more of.

2. The reality is the Russians were the senior partner among the Allies in beating the Germans. Russian productivity was equally amazing as American productivity was (which BTW operated in complete safety).

Nothing mythical about that.

3.By Stalingrad the Russians had learned the lessons of combined arms in combat and had mastered the slashing armor attacks that the Germans used in 1940 to 1942. After that the Russians had the manpower, armor, artillery and aircraft to defeat Germany all by themselves (although it would have taken them somewhat longer).

4. Kursk was a trap laid by the Russians. The trap was sufficiently ready by April 1943 to have an estimated 80-85% success for the Russians. Just look at the Order of Battle for both sides for that time. By July 1943 the Germans did not have any chance of success. Game over.

1. Didn't I just say that a couple of post beofre about Ameirca not winnining it all by themselves...

2. I don't think it is a fair assumption to say the Russian were the Senior Partner..They did most of the bleeding, but what America provided is what beat the Nazi's. The USA used technology over manpower and blood to achieve its success. Also most of Russian production facilities were beyond the reach of Germany as Germany had no real long range bombers...Russia is a big place, and much of the production facilities was moved to the EAST as the Germans advanced. So...

3. If Germany were NOT fighting a two front war, and could have given the USSR its full attention..there would have been no 1943 for the Russians to learn a fking thing..just think of another 40 or 50 German Divisions on the Eastern Front in 41...Sorry...and then there are those 20,000 Flak guns on the Eastern Front.

4. Kursk was a Russian TRAP...you gotta be kidding... The bulge in the line was created by the Russian winter offensive after Stalingrad...and was where it ran out of steam. Manstein wanted to counter attack at the base of the bulge to collapse the bulge by cutting it off. That might have worked in the early Spring but Hitler picked up the idea and turned it into a major offensive, thus delaying it partly to allow the new Panzers designs into the battle. Both the Russians and Germans just piled in men and resources and then just went at it, there was no surprise on either side. The Germans on the Southern wing almost pulled it out and was approaching the last line of Russian resistance WHEN Hitler called off the offensive and pulled out several Panzer divisions because the ALLIES HAD INVADED SICLICY

Come on RPK stop yer spinning and spinning..

[Seahawk]

To get back to the rifled muskets, or at least close, did pistols go through the same evolution?

This has been an informative, interesting thread.

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

[Jeff Higgins]

Pistols are their own story altogether. The focus was, and has always been entirely different - they are seen (in military circles anyway) as a last ditch, defensive weapon. They were not even generally issued to common foot soldiers until the Civil War and beyond, and even then in nowhere near the numbers of muskets and rifled muskets.

Most single shot pistols were smooth bored, even after the advantages of rifling were well understood. No one thought it necessary to rifle an arm that was meant to be used at arm's length. Pistols were never adapted to elongated bullets, either, especially the undersized Minie style. This was a very pragmatic decision - when carried muzzle down in the belt or sash, the bullet and powder fell out... So, tightly patched balls in smooth bores ruled the day, at least until revolvers came on the scene.

Pistol development from there has always been about firepower and reliability, with accuracy a minor consideration. No one's tactics were built around accurate pistols. Sportsmen, law enforcement, and match shooters are almost entirely responsible for any improvements in accuracy, and most improvements in power.

[nynor]

Originally Posted by tabs

BAR mdl 1918, mdl 1919, MA Deuce...oh and how did I almost forget the 1911...

don't forget the big guns on battleships.

[RWebb]

We need a sep. pistol thread.

IIRC & am pretty hazy on that... pistol evolution was enhanced during the Indian/Cavalry wars on the western plains, esp. in Okla. with Quanah Parker and his friends...

[RPKESQ]

Originally Posted by tabs

Knock Knock..HELLO....it was the 20,000 extra guns and resources that the Germans could have put into the field on the Eastern Front.

Like the US government the Germans war industry much to many peoples surprise was a rather disorganized affair with much duplication of effort and waste. When Speer took over he cleaned out the waste and inefficiency...does one realize that Germany in a total war was still making Steinway Pianos in 1945...

Germany was scraping the bottom of the barrel by Fall of 1942. Germany stripped the Western Front in 1942-1943 for the 1943 Eastern Front battles. Which they lost for the vast majority.

By 1944 the Western Front was manned by 40 year old men, often from service and supply units, Luftwaffe service units, Naval units and 16 year old Hitler Youth. Why?

Because the Russians had bleed the Germans white in 1942 and 1943. It continued on a scale far greater than anything on the Western front until the end. 4 out of 5 Germans casualties were on the Eastern Front.

And even though Speer reorganized the war effort in Germany, their peak productivity performance was far below the Russians which was on the level with Americans.

20,000 extra guns were not made in just one year. that took the Germans several years to do. It took the Russians just one year. So it was not like the Germans would have just an immediate 20,000 gun boost on the Eastern Front. That's just wishful thinking.

Hello yourself.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by RWebb

We need a sep. pistol thread.

IIRC & am pretty hazy on that... pistol evolution was enhanced during the Indian/Cavalry wars on the western plains, esp. in Okla. with Quanah Parker and his friends...

The original Colt service revolver, the "Peacemaker", "Model P", "Single Action Army", etc. whas the first real "game changer" in this regard, and yes, in this theater. It was the first service revolver firing an elongated bullet, increasing .45 caliber projectile weight from about 140-ish grains to 250-255 grains. With a full case of black powder, velocities were well up over 900 fps, making it the most powerful handgun available. Even after the .357 mag came out.

Stories are legion of troopers doing a pretty good job of harrassing the enemy well over half a mile away across the dusty prairie with these things. A well-practiced hand was easily effective against other men at well beyond what were considered "sidearm" ranges. Not that "official" tactics ever called for this, but it sure was handy when that copper toilet paper tube of a .45-70 cartridge got stuck in your Trapdoor's chamber and unwound itself...

[RPKESQ]

Originally Posted by tabs

1. Didn't I just say that a couple of post beofre about Ameirca not winnining it all by themselves...

2. I don't think it is a fair assumption to say the Russian were the Senior Partner..They did most of the bleeding, but what America provided is what beat the Nazi's. The USA used technology over manpower and blood to achieve its success. Also most of Russian production facilities were beyond the reach of Germany as Germany had no real long range bombers...Russia is a big place, and much of the production facilities was moved to the EAST as the Germans advanced. So...

The Russians did most of the bleeding as far as the Germans casualties too. 4 of of 5 German casualties were caused by the Russians. That leaves 1 German casualtiy to be shared between the Americans, British, Canadian, Free Polish, Free French, Free Belgiums, etc.

Lend Lease did not really come into play in any significanty amount until Spring 1943. By that time the Russians had taken the iniative on the Eastern Front and had finished Stalingrad and caused the Kursk Salient. They spring thaw was the primary reason for stopping the Russian advance. They immediatly started to fortify this bulge with several defensive lines in great depth. Manstein had to wait out the spring thaw as well and when the ground was stable he had little chance of success (the relative operational strengths between the two side were already heavily in the Russians favor. Russia had flooded the bulge with men and material that the Germans could not match. this also addresses your point #4.

Russian factories were moved under combat conditions in a fantastic example of logistical expertise. Something the Americans never had to do.

Originally Posted by tabs

3. If Germany were NOT fighting a two front war, and could have given the USSR its full attention..there would have been no 1943 for the Russians to learn a fking thing..just think of another 40 or 50 German Divisions on the Eastern Front in 41...Sorry...and then there are those 20,000 Flak guns on the Eastern Front.

Sorry, Germany did not have an additional 40 to 50 divisions to put in Russia in 1941. You need to review and learn the German Order of battle for that time period.

Sorry those 20,000 flak guns did not exist in 1941, or 1942, or 1943. The vast majority of those guns were built in the last half of 1943 and in 1944. Your timeline for reality is not meshing with the facts.

Originally Posted by tabs

4. Kursk was a Russian TRAP...you gotta be kidding... The bulge in the line was created by the Russian winter offensive after Stalingrad...and was where it ran out of steam. Manstein wanted to counter attack at the base of the bulge to collapse the bulge by cutting it off. That might have worked in the early Spring but Hitler picked up the idea and turned it into a major offensive, thus delaying it partly to allow the new Panzers designs into the battle. Both the Russians and Germans just piled in men and resources and then just went at it, there was no surprise on either side. The Germans on the Southern wing almost pulled it out and was approaching the last line of Russian resistance WHEN Hitler called off the offensive and pulled out several Panzer divisions because the ALLIES HAD INVADED SICLICY

Come on RPK stop yer spinning and spinning..

Spining on outdated and incorrect information learned years ago is your forte. I much prefer the the knowledge base available to those who keep current with historical research.

[Seahawk]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

Pistol development from there has always been about firepower and reliability, with accuracy a minor consideration. No one's tactics were built around accurate pistols. Sportsmen, law enforcement, and match shooters are almost entirely responsible for any improvements in accuracy, and most improvements in power.

Your post confirmed some of my suspicions and gave a lot of foot for thought. I remember being very young and learning how to shoot my fathers .45, which he carried in Korea and Vietnam. I asked did he ever shoot it in a battle, to which he relied: "No, thank god."

One of the interesting outcomes from the long war has been arming of helo aircrews should they survive a downing: A friend of mine helped qualify the device to secure M-16s in H-60/H-1 and 53E cockpits...pistols are still carried, but the rifle is the go to.

[Seahawk]

Originally Posted by RWebb

We need a sep. pistol thread.

IIRC & am pretty hazy on that... pistol evolution was enhanced during the Indian/Cavalry wars on the western plains, esp. in Okla. with Quanah Parker and his friends...

The book, 'Empire of the Summer Moon' covers the impact revolvers had in the Plains War really well. Interesting stuff.

[RPKESQ]

Originally Posted by tabs

1. Didn't I just say that a couple of post beofre about Ameirca not winnining it all by themselves...

2. I don't think it is a fair assumption to say the Russian were the Senior Partner..They did most of the bleeding, but what America provided is what beat the Nazi's. The USA used technology over manpower and blood to achieve its success. Also most of Russian production facilities were beyond the reach of Germany as Germany had no real long range bombers...Russia is a big place, and much of the production facilities was moved to the EAST as the Germans advanced. So...

The Russians did most of the bleeding as far as the Germans casualties too. 4 of of 5 German casualties were caused by the Russians. That leaves 1 German casualtiy to be shared between the Americans, British, Canadian, Free Polish, Free French, Free Belgiums, etc.

Lend Lease did not really come into play in any significanty amount until Spring 1943. By that time the Russians had taken the iniative on the Eastern Front and had finished Stalingrad and caused the Kursk Salient. They spring thaw was the primary reason for stopping the Russian advance. They immediatly started to fortify this bulge with several defensive lines in great depth. Manstein had to wait out the spring thaw as well and when the ground was stable he had little chance of success (the relative operational strengths between the two side were already heavily in the Russians favor. Russia had flooded the bulge with men and material that the Germans could not match. this also addresses your point #4.

Russian factories were moved under combat conditions in a fantastic example of logistical expertise. Something the Americans never had to do.

Originally Posted by tabs

3. If Germany were NOT fighting a two front war, and could have given the USSR its full attention..there would have been no 1943 for the Russians to learn a fking thing..just think of another 40 or 50 German Divisions on the Eastern Front in 41...Sorry...and then there are those 20,000 Flak guns on the Eastern Front.

Sorry, Germany did not have an additional 40 to 50 divisions to put in Russia in 1941. You need to review and learn the German Order of battle for that time period.

Sorry those 20,000 flak guns did not exist in 1941, or 1942, or 1943. The vast majority of those guns were built in the last half of 1943 and in 1944. Your timeline for reality is not meshing with the facts.

Originally Posted by tabs

4. Kursk was a Russian TRAP...you gotta be kidding... The bulge in the line was created by the Russian winter offensive after Stalingrad...and was where it ran out of steam. Manstein wanted to counter attack at the base of the bulge to collapse the bulge by cutting it off. That might have worked in the early Spring but Hitler picked up the idea and turned it into a major offensive, thus delaying it partly to allow the new Panzers designs into the battle. Both the Russians and Germans just piled in men and resources and then just went at it, there was no surprise on either side. The Germans on the Southern wing almost pulled it out and was approaching the last line of Russian resistance WHEN Hitler called off the offensive and pulled out several Panzer divisions because the ALLIES HAD INVADED SICLICY

Come on RPK stop yer spinning and spinning..

Spining on outdated and incorrect information learned years ago is your forte. I much prefer the the knowledge base available to those who keep current with historical research.

[tabs]

RPK...your funny...you should be living in the Motherland....and not France.

I stand by what I say...

[tabs]

The top picture is a Parker Hale .577 mdl 1853 Enfield...Parker Hale made repos using the original gauges and patterns starting in the early 70's. These actually are starting to be collectable.

The middle picture is an ORIGINAL Union sniper rifle made by AR Davis of NY. I bought this from a CW collector who had an extensive collection. It features a full length brass tube sight. of the Malcome style. Interestingly the barrel was relined to about 36 caliber...

The bottom is a custom Purdy style stalking rifle in 62 caliber.

[RPKESQ]

Originally Posted by tabs

RPK...your funny...you should be living in the Motherland....and not France.

I stand by what I say...

Stand by any pile of steaming BS that trips your tigger. It doesn't make it factual.

There isn't much support for your 1950's based version of the war from any peer-reviewed historians in the last 20 years. Not even at West Point.

What a shame that as Americans we cannot face the truth and see ourselves as we are. Living a fantasy is much easier but not very helpful to preventing past mistakes or improving the future.

[tabs]

Originally Posted by RPKESQ

Stand by any pile of steaming BS that trips your tigger. It doesn't make it factual.

There isn't much support for your 1950's based version of the war from any peer-reviewed historians in the last 20 years. Not even at West Point.

What a shame that as Americans we cannot face the truth and see ourselves as we are. Living a fantasy is much easier but not very helpful to preventing past mistakes or improving the future.

Why do you hate America?

If you told anyone of a dozen WW2 vets that I knew this kind of crap they would have kicked your azz and if they were younger they would have done it with one hand tied behind their backs.

Yes and your a believer of revisionist history. Most of it is rehashed from the original sources that I read so long ago...

[RPKESQ]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

The original Colt service revolver, the "Peacemaker", "Model P", "Single Action Army", etc. whas the first real "game changer" in this regard, and yes, in this theater. It was the first service revolver firing an elongated bullet, increasing .45 caliber projectile weight from about 140-ish grains to 250-255 grains. With a full case of black powder, velocities were well up over 900 fps, making it the most powerful handgun available. Even after the .357 mag came out.

Stories are legion of troopers doing a pretty good job of harrassing the enemy well over half a mile away across the dusty prairie with these things. A well-practiced hand was easily effective against other men at well beyond what were considered "sidearm" ranges. Not that "official" tactics ever called for this, but it sure was handy when that copper toilet paper tube of a .45-70 cartridge got stuck in your Trapdoor's chamber and unwound itself...

Let's not forget the best combat revolver ever designed. The Webbly Mk I, Mk IV and Mk VI were the the best developed combat proven revolvers in the world.

Self ejecting, hard hitting, very robust and reliably workable in the mud and sand compared to any other revolver.