I have a degree in history, have been an amateur historian for most of my life, and two things become more apparent every day: First, the more widely believed something about history is the less likely it is to be true, and second, the grumpy old curmudgeons are far more likely to be right than the young sparks who disparage them. Thank you for yet another fascinating look behind the veil of myth. Oh, and it's wonderful to see the new Doxy on screen!
9 times out of 10, they did actually know what they were doing back then. But it’s fun for us today, to think we are smarter and know better than they did.
When it comes to the Civil War, there are definitely some curmudgeons that deserve to be disparaged. And their "non-mainstream narrative" is definitely less true than more widely believed ones.
Joel Roberts Poinsett who was Secretary of War, was an amazingly accomplished person who travelled the world when it wasn't so easy. The Poinsettia plant was named after him. I've visited his grave a few times at a beautiful historic church in SC Cool that you have his signature about your mantle.
The issue was the assurance of interchangeability of parts. Ripley refused, just as his counterparts in 1917 with the M1917 Enfield then in production by three US companies, to contract for M1861 Springfield rifle-musket from commercial production without insuring that the parts of ALL Springfield rifle-muskets were interchangeable. The Enfield rifles and rifle-muskets came from British commercial sources without interchangeable parts that meant regimental ordnance sergeants had to carry far more parts which had to be hand fitted to repair damaged small arms. The problem was that time needed to establish a Spencer production line would be too long when the US Army needed 500,000 shoulder arms and was engaged in combat from Fortress Monroe to New Mexico. In fact, by the time the Spencer could be provided in numbers, the Army was equipped with sufficient muzzle loading rifles and rifle-muskets for the infantry and breech-loading carbines to meet combat demands. Note that it is June 1863 when the first production Spencer rifles finally become available and end up in the hands of the 5th Michigan and half the 6th Michigan Cavalry regiments of Custer's brigade during the Gettysburg campaign and Wilder's "Lightning" Mounted Infantry Brigade during the Tullahoma campaign. Notice that it was six more months before Spencer carbines became available. What might have been was whether sufficient resources existed to expand Sharps and Spencer rifle production (again note only some 10,000 Sharps rifles are produced against 90,000 carbines) and have these rifles replace the muzzle-loading rifle-musket from late 1863 to early 1864. A good point is that your Springfield or Enfield rifle or rifle-musket in the hands of a trained Soldier was both more accurate and had a longer effective range than even the Sharps, which used a consumable cartridge that had to be slightly less powerful than the .58 muzzle-loading cartridge and especially the Spencer with its rimfire COPPER cartridges. Still, it is believed that the normal battlefield and the massive smoke clouds produced by black powder would have limited engagement ranges anyway so that the faster firing Sharps and Spencer could overwhelm opposing Rebel infantry. The Confederate armies had to rely on captured ammunition to use the Spencer and Henry and while Sharps ammunition was produced for the inferior Richmond Sharps and captured carbines, it was insufficient to meet even the lowest demands of the Rebel armies, especially the cavalry, which remained often armed with Enfield rifles, cavalry and artillery carbines.
Krupp pushed for the army to buy his advanced breechloading steel cannon. Von Roon preferred the tried and true brass smoothbore muzzle loaders. Krupp's superior weapons blew breeches out like mad- leading to many casualties among artillerists. Improving the Krupp breech design took time, but the fix that was implemented made Prussia's army a more formidable force than any of its foes. It's hard to pick out the good guy in situations like that.
The Austrians had reliable breech loading rifled cannons before the prussians, the prussians got mauled by their artillery and only won tactically because Austrian infantry doctrine played to the prussian advantage.
7:25 Also consider the Needle Gun and the Chassepot, which were close contemporaries. The tech was changing at a dizzying rate. All except for Preble's boys. They practically froze time.
not contemporary at all. The first first production of the dreyse was about 25 years before the chassepot was put into production. By 1870 the Dreyse was outdated bordering on obsolete.
As a former infantryman who had to suffer the vagaries of the inventors (electric rifles and the Osprey, forsooth) I am firmly on Gen. Ripley's side. God bless him.
I still believe that electric ignition caseless ammunition is the future of light weapons in warfare, especially with modern devolopment of batteries and charging. I also believe that no soldier should have a hands on experience with any equipment untill it is at least 97% proven and even then it should not be thrust into the front lines but rather put through the logistics and artillery hands to find the daily wear without extremes before letting it move slowly into those extremes.
Thank you for this video. Everyone points and screams "the repeaters are so much better, WHY didn't they produce that instead! Were they dumb???" It's so hard to explain all the context to people like that. It's almost like these guys in charge back then were professionals and knew the pros and cons of what they were doing...
I wanted to be interested in watching this, then I remembered Germany's ridiculous plan to upgrade everything on the fly. A good muzzle-loading caplock rifle that's made the common arm across the large majority of troops enormously simplifies the production of ammunition, spare parts, and so on. When it comes to winning a war, good logistics beats continuous, complicated improvement in straight sets. Perhaps another time, because from what I watched I was impressed by your handle of the situation. Keep up the good work.
Thank you for covering his contribution to arming the Union army . The logistics of scaling up production is never appreciated.he built up the military industrial complex that saved the union.
I once read that by 1864 the Civil War was costing the Union $4 million a day. Ripley did a damn good job to keep cost from skyrocketing over that figure. I would definitely take him over Crozier. Yes, there were better weapons in development, but the 1861 was solid, reliable, and largely soldier proof. Good qualities in a standard arm.
It took colt forever to tool up for rifled musket production because they had never produced conventional muzzleloaders. They tooled up for revolver and repeater production from the outset and never looked back. Why Ripley didn't have colt produce the Spencers is beyond me. It would've been dead easy in comparison.
It's worth considering the situation Ripley was in. He had about 100,000 small arms of ALL sorts at the beginning of the Great Unpleasantness. Lincoln called 300,000 men to the colors...to start. And a rifle-musket took about 1/3rd the machine tool time to make, compared to a repeater. He had a choice between issuing three Springfield muskets or one repeater and two sharp sticks. The Confederates would have LOVED to see Federals armed with sharp sticks.
Ripley seems like a no-nonsense realist, perhaps up there with artillery general Henry Hunt in underrated but important and competent soldiers. This "could've shorten the war" is journalist-grade stupidity. Innovation in itself isn't anything special, and can be furiously problematic if rushed just because everyone is fascinated with it.
8:40 I mean... I know that YOU know Bret, but for the rest of the class, Colt has kinda had a long history of dragging their feet and just all around sucking hind teet.... Sam the man, did some good stuff, but it's pretty much been down hill from there, especially with government contracts.
All of the issues with the Spencer being valid, why not go with the sharpes? Seems like a good compromise. Simpler, hence cheaper, construction and faster rate of fire being a breech loader. Better tactically, being able to reload prone. More than enough stopping power, if it can drop a buffalo a cavalry horse is no problem. Plenty of evidence from the old west of it being a tactical success.
Time travelling Daniel Penny? They did had muskets to spare later on so much so soldiers on the Union side were throwing them with bayonet attached like spears at the confederates in a certain siege.
everyone is a general until you ask them to support the logistics of supplying a army... shot power cap is far easier to supply then new complicated gadgets ..the US learned the art of logistics because of this war..We win wars because of logistics.Remeber the 3 Bs ..the 4th B is always in abundance.
Hallo...nun ja ähnlich wie munition 6,5mm schwedisch oder 7mm mauser die nach über 100 Jahren immer noch ihren Platz und sogar Vorteile gegenüber moderneren patronen haben
Thank you for an alternative view of General Ripley. Years ago I read a book 'Misfire" about the failures of US small arms development. Ripley wasn't viewed very kindly at all . The author in fact was critical of most all the ordnance chiefs . Regarding the '61Springfield ? I was surprised how sturdy and well built it was. The 150 year old lock ran like new . Far better built than a combat weapon needed to be frankly to modern sensibilities . Further quantity has quality all its own .
Yes, I did a 26 minute video with a dachshund on my lap. Expert UA-camr skills.
He’s a wonderful pup!
Got a GSP at my left foot, in front of under desk heater, Dobie at my right. Kitty comes, checks' in on us, then goes, or not.
UA-camr of the year!!!
Why wouldn't you?
I have one that never leaves my side.
I have a degree in history, have been an amateur historian for most of my life, and two things become more apparent every day: First, the more widely believed something about history is the less likely it is to be true, and second, the grumpy old curmudgeons are far more likely to be right than the young sparks who disparage them. Thank you for yet another fascinating look behind the veil of myth. Oh, and it's wonderful to see the new Doxy on screen!
9 times out of 10, they did actually know what they were doing back then. But it’s fun for us today, to think we are smarter and know better than they did.
When it comes to the Civil War, there are definitely some curmudgeons that deserve to be disparaged. And their "non-mainstream narrative" is definitely less true than more widely believed ones.
The Spencer's greatest downfall was it's inability to accept Glock mags.........
Agree, how could they have been so Narrow minded. 😂
Joel Roberts Poinsett who was Secretary of War, was an amazingly accomplished person who travelled the world when it wasn't so easy. The Poinsettia plant was named after him.
I've visited his grave a few times at a beautiful historic church in SC
Cool that you have his signature about your mantle.
Love the more frequent videos, glad you're home!
The issue was the assurance of interchangeability of parts. Ripley refused, just as his counterparts in 1917 with the M1917 Enfield then in production by three US companies, to contract for M1861 Springfield rifle-musket from commercial production without insuring that the parts of ALL Springfield rifle-muskets were interchangeable. The Enfield rifles and rifle-muskets came from British commercial sources without interchangeable parts that meant regimental ordnance sergeants had to carry far more parts which had to be hand fitted to repair damaged small arms.
The problem was that time needed to establish a Spencer production line would be too long when the US Army needed 500,000 shoulder arms and was engaged in combat from Fortress Monroe to New Mexico. In fact, by the time the Spencer could be provided in numbers, the Army was equipped with sufficient muzzle loading rifles and rifle-muskets for the infantry and breech-loading carbines to meet combat demands. Note that it is June 1863 when the first production Spencer rifles finally become available and end up in the hands of the 5th Michigan and half the 6th Michigan Cavalry regiments of Custer's brigade during the Gettysburg campaign and Wilder's "Lightning" Mounted Infantry Brigade during the Tullahoma campaign. Notice that it was six more months before Spencer carbines became available. What might have been was whether sufficient resources existed to expand Sharps and Spencer rifle production (again note only some 10,000 Sharps rifles are produced against 90,000 carbines) and have these rifles replace the muzzle-loading rifle-musket from late 1863 to early 1864.
A good point is that your Springfield or Enfield rifle or rifle-musket in the hands of a trained Soldier was both more accurate and had a longer effective range than even the Sharps, which used a consumable cartridge that had to be slightly less powerful than the .58 muzzle-loading cartridge and especially the Spencer with its rimfire COPPER cartridges. Still, it is believed that the normal battlefield and the massive smoke clouds produced by black powder would have limited engagement ranges anyway so that the faster firing Sharps and Spencer could overwhelm opposing Rebel infantry. The Confederate armies had to rely on captured ammunition to use the Spencer and Henry and while Sharps ammunition was produced for the inferior Richmond Sharps and captured carbines, it was insufficient to meet even the lowest demands of the Rebel armies, especially the cavalry, which remained often armed with Enfield rifles, cavalry and artillery carbines.
Another excellent video. Did you get your oak leaves? I read on a different forum that you got a promotion.
I pinned Major last year. Off to staff for the next 5 years. Sigh…
A firearms inventor that was less than truthful? Next you'll tell me that Sam Colt exaggerated!
"I Hear" Monday morning "quarterbacking". Dude did great things, fast, with little, and not much agreements. "That" sounds like a Hero! To me.
Excellent, enjoyed clarification of history, Ripley was fantastic, happy Birthday Ripley
Krupp pushed for the army to buy his advanced breechloading steel cannon. Von Roon preferred the tried and true brass smoothbore muzzle loaders. Krupp's superior weapons blew breeches out like mad- leading to many casualties among artillerists. Improving the Krupp breech design took time, but the fix that was implemented made Prussia's army a more formidable force than any of its foes. It's hard to pick out the good guy in situations like that.
The Austrians had reliable breech loading rifled cannons before the prussians, the prussians got mauled by their artillery and only won tactically because Austrian infantry doctrine played to the prussian advantage.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 you sure the austrains had breechloaded cannon? It my impression that they had muzzle-loaded canon in 1866. (it was in 1864)
7:25 Also consider the Needle Gun and the Chassepot, which were close contemporaries. The tech was changing at a dizzying rate. All except for Preble's boys. They practically froze time.
not contemporary at all. The first first production of the dreyse was about 25 years before the chassepot was put into production.
By 1870 the Dreyse was outdated bordering on obsolete.
As a former infantryman who had to suffer the vagaries of the inventors (electric rifles and the Osprey, forsooth) I am firmly on Gen. Ripley's side. God bless him.
I still believe that electric ignition caseless ammunition is the future of light weapons in warfare, especially with modern devolopment of batteries and charging. I also believe that no soldier should have a hands on experience with any equipment untill it is at least 97% proven and even then it should not be thrust into the front lines but rather put through the logistics and artillery hands to find the daily wear without extremes before letting it move slowly into those extremes.
Thank you for this video. Everyone points and screams "the repeaters are so much better, WHY didn't they produce that instead! Were they dumb???" It's so hard to explain all the context to people like that. It's almost like these guys in charge back then were professionals and knew the pros and cons of what they were doing...
I wanted to be interested in watching this, then I remembered Germany's ridiculous plan to upgrade everything on the fly. A good muzzle-loading caplock rifle that's made the common arm across the large majority of troops enormously simplifies the production of ammunition, spare parts, and so on. When it comes to winning a war, good logistics beats continuous, complicated improvement in straight sets. Perhaps another time, because from what I watched I was impressed by your handle of the situation. Keep up the good work.
Thank you for covering his contribution to arming the Union army .
The logistics of scaling up production is never appreciated.he built up the military industrial complex that saved the union.
Another great, informative video. Thank you.
Good job.
Great video, thanks.
I once read that by 1864 the Civil War was costing the Union $4 million a day. Ripley did a damn good job to keep cost from skyrocketing over that figure. I would definitely take him over Crozier. Yes, there were better weapons in development, but the 1861 was solid, reliable, and largely soldier proof. Good qualities in a standard arm.
It took colt forever to tool up for rifled musket production because they had never produced conventional muzzleloaders. They tooled up for revolver and repeater production from the outset and never looked back. Why Ripley didn't have colt produce the Spencers is beyond me. It would've been dead easy in comparison.
Exceptionally Interesting!
THANKS 👍
1 hell of a history video👍👍loved it
very nice
It's worth considering the situation Ripley was in. He had about 100,000 small arms of ALL sorts at the beginning of the Great Unpleasantness. Lincoln called 300,000 men to the colors...to start. And a rifle-musket took about 1/3rd the machine tool time to make, compared to a repeater. He had a choice between issuing three Springfield muskets or one repeater and two sharp sticks.
The Confederates would have LOVED to see Federals armed with sharp sticks.
Thank you.🤠🤠🤠🤠🤠
I love history
So it really was a new fangled gimcrack initially…
So many people just think once something is invented it can just be used perfectly
This was nearly the equivalent of trying to arm US Soldiers with the OICW/XM8 space rifle with case-less ammo in the GWOT....
Great research! Very interesting! Thank you. Dachshunds are kool!
Ripley seems like a no-nonsense realist, perhaps up there with artillery general Henry Hunt in underrated but important and competent soldiers. This "could've shorten the war" is journalist-grade stupidity. Innovation in itself isn't anything special, and can be furiously problematic if rushed just because everyone is fascinated with it.
Thank-you!!!
Submitting to Vlogging Through History for a reaction.
back in the day when you could just walk up to the whitehouse carrying a rifle and ask is the president here? without getting shot
Extra thumbs up for the Dackel (correct German name for Dachshund) on your lap!
8:40 I mean... I know that YOU know Bret, but for the rest of the class, Colt has kinda had a long history of dragging their feet and just all around sucking hind teet.... Sam the man, did some good stuff, but it's pretty much been down hill from there, especially with government contracts.
All of the issues with the Spencer being valid, why not go with the sharpes? Seems like a good compromise. Simpler, hence cheaper, construction and faster rate of fire being a breech loader. Better tactically, being able to reload prone. More than enough stopping power, if it can drop a buffalo a cavalry horse is no problem. Plenty of evidence from the old west of it being a tactical success.
Time travelling Daniel Penny? They did had muskets to spare later on so much so soldiers on the Union side were throwing them with bayonet attached like spears at the confederates in a certain siege.
William crozier has a similar reputation from ww1
everyone is a general until you ask them to support the logistics of supplying a army... shot power cap is far easier to supply then new complicated gadgets ..the US learned the art of logistics because of this war..We win wars because of logistics.Remeber the 3 Bs ..the 4th B is always in abundance.
Hallo...nun ja ähnlich wie munition 6,5mm schwedisch oder 7mm mauser die nach über 100 Jahren immer noch ihren Platz und sogar Vorteile gegenüber moderneren patronen haben
So, who had the 44-40 Henry issued the union army?
It's useful to remember how many manufacturers couldn't make their single shot rifles work!
enough of your jibber jabber ...let the puppy run the show ..
He’d probably do a better job. Not to mention, a lot cuter.
Got it! WOKE is not new! Billy Mitchell, countless others?
Thank you for an alternative view of General Ripley.
Years ago I read a book 'Misfire" about the failures of US small arms development. Ripley wasn't viewed very kindly at all . The author in fact was critical of most all the ordnance chiefs .
Regarding the '61Springfield ? I was surprised how sturdy and well built it was. The 150 year old lock ran like new . Far better built than a combat weapon needed to be frankly to modern sensibilities .
Further quantity has quality all its own .