Our response to our dumpster fire of a comment section with some of the particular gems. Note - if you think this is about the American Revolution, go home and rethink your life. ua-cam.com/video/kSBBg5s5C2s/v-deo.html
@@tigersofgul6635 I know, the uniforms shown ranged in use from 1856-1865. So it stands to reason that 1862 hits in that time range. I was pointing out than not everyone thinks this is about the American revolution. Not everyone is that stupid. New Zealanders war ranged 1845- 1872. Peaking in the mid 1860's and I pointed out that particular time period.
@@camronconners878 : with or without the frying the dear old Indians, both Muslim and Hindu were most put out. Empress Victoria should've insisted on Halal mutton fat only... or simply refined ghee in the case of the Hindi sepoys.
Remember that the British used to own your land, and the only reason you have it now is because we lost too many ships to a storm on the way to fight yous
Not at all a fair comparison. Witnessing Billy Yank bite that cartridge caused the sergeant major to experience Sepoy Mutiny flashbacks, inspiring him to load faster, as if his life depended on it ;)
Oddly enough the Indian mutiny was kicked off by sepoy soldiers being told the new cartridges were lubricated with beef fat (if they were Hindu and pork fat (if they were Muslim) ... A reason for the British to develop a cartridge bullet that didn't need biting perhaps?
@@MarkGoding That was just an immidiate cause, the real causes were several, one of them being the Zamindari System Law besides several others . The so called "Sepoy Mutiny" was not led by sepoys, but by disgruntled rulers, dethroned Maharajas, Mughal Loyalists, Zamindars who lost their lands. The sepoys look upon these leaders to lead them rather than organising the uprising themselves.
That's probably closer to the mark (pun intended) than you might have meant. The British Army trained for speed of loading, rather than accuracy right up to the introduction of the Lee series of rifles.
“...The American, hoping to demonstrate his superior dental care, opts to open the cartridge with his teeth. This is slightly slower, but does have the desired effect, both opening the cartridge and showing off his intact canines...”
He would have smiled to show his perfect set of luminous white perfect teeth? Both guys are Americans it’s an American production no fake news no conspiracy. Good video at top of post.
Supposedly the Union Army would only take recruits that had at minimum most of their teeth (if not all of them) so they could actually eat their hardtack rations.
Judging by some of the comments, I’m thinking that there are a lot of people that would have been a whole lot happier if these two guys shot at each other rather than at a target.
As a Southerner - yes, a lot of us would have been a whole lot happier if they had been shooting at each other in 1862. We tried to bring the Brits in but they weren't keen enough on the idea. ;P
It was the British guy slowing down for the demonstration, you could see him doing it in drill, very stiff precise movements, when in the actual fire he was a lot looser.
These comments are awesome. Pretty sad how a fun comparison of musketry systems circa 1862 can trigger a bunch of whiny Americans who apparently need to start chanting "USA! USA!" and insult our British allies. The last time we fought was 205 years ago, we've been on the same side ever since. By the way, I am the "British" soldier in this video, and I am also a US Army officer.
Now a load under pressure test: the british soldier will load while being charged from long distance by a malnourished Afghan tribesman with a blunt spear, while the American will be attacked by a berserk south Tennessean mounted on a thoroughbred and armed with a carbine, sawn off shotgun and three revolvers.
or a Philippino armed with a stick or a Hawaii tribesman armed with a bigger stick. The British had just come out of the Crimean war against another major European army, they knew then the army had performed badly and were changing, the British army had been in some sort of active conflict on and off since about 1700. Whereas the US army up until the 1860' was primarily a border force, after the US civil war it reverted back to that until 1917. But in the above, neither the Yank nor the Brit are being charged by hairy arsed enemy, so...?
True, but the British soldier was also fighting off Sudanese tribes on horseback, tribes in the dense jungles southern Africa, and Indians... in India.
Brits and Yanks making of fun of each other is totally acceptable - as it is all in the family - but not to be done in front of the French... oh my no.. ;)
Let me see. France is 20 miles away from the UK. You can see France with the naked eye and swim there. USA over 4,000 miles. Hmm. Which is the close neighbour?
I've used both the waist belt box and the shoulder strap pouch. For the competent, nimble man neither is quicker. The strap pouch is smaller and holds fewer. The load technique the US used is from 1850s drill manual for long pattern design, so the British methods in Crimea are similar. The drill for US short rifle (2 bander) is quicker. The US started the 1861 war with a lot of ball ammo and old smooth muskets, from earlier service. 1862 is when rifled Enfields and the Springfield pattern copies started appearing for US troops. 1863 rifled imports start becoming ubitquois for CS troops. Minnie ball ammo was available in both the European style with ball exposed to be torn off, and a crude old ball tied in round that required tearing and then squeezing the bullet down the cartridge or ripping the paper to expose. You even still had roundball undersized ammo. The problem with hand tearing is that you can't load on the run. Mouth tearing means you can. Thus earlier manuals required the musket never touch the ground in drill or practice.
@@foxhoundr3364 if it was all ergonomics, then the UK and US armories would have designed a small flint cylinder on a spring and a trigger that spun a serrated steel wheel... Like a Zippo lighter no caps... The mfg tech was there. They almost had it with the Maynard Tape in the 1855 US longarms. ...or better yet issued breachloaders, lever cock Henrys or 6 shot revolver cartridge muskets which had been around for almost a century. Doubt if a pair of equally competent men using issue Enfield577 or 1863 Springfield 58cal would have made over a second difference between the two drills... And you can't load on the march if you must use two hands to tear a tube. cartridge. However the majority of US troops were state troops, not US or CS Regulars. Even with modern living history impressions, those doing the 3rd or 7th USI outpace the majority of NSSA impressions by 4 to 5 seconds. Everything was supply by the lowest bidder. A military reality that never really changes.
@@anthonywilson4873 You can tell they're not British by the fact they have working rifles and the police are no where to be seen to send them to jail for 200 years.
Ansgarius ....May be wrong, but I think it was something to due with beef on cartridges that was sacred to the Indian soldiers. There’s a video on UA-cam about it
@@jimmylincoln4082 The Indian troops had heard rumors that the fat used in sealing the container was from Pigs.. The muslim solders in the British army revolted because they believed they where being forced to put pig fat in their mouths.. Of course the fat used in sealing the gun powder can be created from the fat of any animal.. The habit of breaking open the container by using ones teeth was just that. A habit that had become standard.. The change to using your hand to do it was not a hard change to make..
AdstarAPAD muslims were told rumors it was lard, hindus heard rumors it was tallow, and considering the treatment under the britis as second class citizens it was easy for both groups to be offended thinking it was the british having a laugh making their indian soldiers violate their religious taboos.
As long as there was a breeze it wouldn't have been too bad assuming their jackets were unlined. Did many reenactments in the past and when you sweat that wool gets damp and while damp wool tends to smell like a wet dog, an unlined shell jacket will pretty much let the wind pass straight through it and passing straight through damp wool gives a very nice cooling effect.
Wrong weapon and time period. He is depicting is approximately the The NewZealand war era, the Anglo-Zulu war was 1879. They had the Martini-Henry in the Zulu war. Which Breech loading falling block cartridge rifle.
@@Wppk765 To which action are you reporting for Sir? I hope they assign you to Roark's Drift, rather than The 24th sir. I hear they are heading for Isandlwana, I have a bad feeling about that one Leftenant
The Narrator should attend a North-South Skirmish Association event. The rapid live fire competition this association put on makes both these Gentlemen seem like tortoises.
FTG Military History FTI: An American Civil war midwestern unit of either side could hold out against forces twice their size, they would slaughter their British counterparts, the union soldier in the video is more representative of a regular conscript who was just taught how to shoot.
I shoot in the N-SSA and yes we are faster but we "cheat" using plastic or cardboard tubes instead of tearing paper. Most of the yanks lost time was the awkward splitting of the cartridge vs the clean snap off of the Enfield round. We also don't waste time returning the ram rod, most prop it up on a bayonet stuck in the ground some of us hold it in our off hand between two fingers, that's the fastest. Overall both gents are clearly familiar with the process. Some "experts" are simply painful to watch, these guys did great.
British: MY MUSKET RELOADING METHODS ARE FASTER THAN YOURS! Americans: LMAO THAT'S TOTALLY BECAUSE YOU USE A PAID ACTOR! Prussians: wait, you guys are still using muskets?
@@wouldyouliketomeetkenbamba9495 To me, the real name of that channel is: "watch that guy running around in fancy gear, shooting the greatest weapons in history while enjoying the most splendid scenery without anybody buggering him - and turn yellow with envy" - god, do I whish to have a backyard like that....
@ 00:40 seconds, The American puts the cartridge in his mouth "for some reason". Which happens to be the same "reason" the British put the cartridge into Their mouth prior to the Indian Mutiny of around 1959 !
Ah, yes, we all remember the battlefields of WWII where it was necessary for the British to bite off their cartridges whilst the Germans had already progressed to submachine guns.
Here here! I think the Springfield vs the Martini would be a horse race, but the Snider gets the nod out. But speed was not the goal of either army. Both had access and opportunity to repeating arms but chose the single shot for deliberate reasons. Largely accuracy at long range and conservation of ammunition. Both armies were engaged in fighting a long way from supplies. Every round came on a mule or camel or mans back hundreds of miles. No air drops back then.
@@MrJento all else beeing equal, my guess would be that the martini is the fastest one (self cocking and ejecting) whilst the trapdoor would best the snider (the trapdoor beeing self ejecting, and the snider requiering several extra motions for ejection). But that's just my guess.
Jonas Jeaggi i had three guns, the long lever martini re barreled to 45/70, a trapdoor and a Remington rolling block. I never ran a speed test. But I did shoot the Remington in an informal national match course against M14,M1 and bolt guns. The rapid fire stages were interesting. I got the rounds off but with no time to spare or really aim well. All those rifles hark to a time when speed was relative and volley fire the norm. And im here to attest that 60 rounds of 45/70 from three positions gives you a thumping. Of my three the Remington was most accurate by far. Also the strongest action in my mind.
Yeah, but did you notice Billy Yank full cocked the hammer BEFORE he went to shoulder arms? That's a no-no. Somebody should reread his Hardee's manual of arms.
Exactly!! Didn’t they also show that 7 fires per minute was the average? Also if they are complaining about American rate of fire didn’t they use many Enfield rifles? Also the Enfield was used by Confederate troops by a “neutral” country shipping them thru the US Navy blockade.
Alan Croft A Henry doesn’t compare to a Spencer. A Martini Henry is a single shot lever action while a Spencer is a 7 shot lever action. The majority of Union cavalry were armed with Spencer’s and swords making them capable 7 rounds per minute with great mobility.
MUHROMATIC that would be tough to use a Martini Henry rifle in the US Civil War since it was not introduced until 1871!, Henry rifles were made in the US 1860-1866 and 14,000 of them were made.
The big one I noticed for the American is that while breaking off the tube might be in a manual somewhere, in reality they just shoved it down the barrel and allowed it to act as a wad. He lost seconds everytime he played with that tube breaking it off. On a totally random side note ramrods were universally over-produced at a cartoonish rate in this era, as soldiers would often put it in the wrong hole before firing...
One reason Patrick Cleburne's troops were extremely effective is that Cleburne, formerly a soldier in the British Army, trained his troops for fast reloading and also estimation of range for accurate fire. Most commanders begrudged the expense of ammunition, Cleburne reasoned that if your troops are twice as effective in the field you actually save munitions in the long run.
@@worldtraveler930 He was screwed over by the Confederate government for suggesting that, well, maybe they should actually free their slaves if they wanted to show the world their war wasn't all about slavery? This didn't go down well in Richmond, because- well, they knew damn well it was.
To an extent (and there may be some truth to this), the maxim of “battles are won by volume and weight of fire” hadn’t been properly embraced by American general officers until the First World War, where US Army commander General John J. Pershing supposedly preferred the accuracy of the individual rifleman over weight of fire from machine guns and artillery. He was a fast learner though; by the latter stages of Meuse-Argonne offensive, the US Forces were apparently equivalent in terms of effectiveness against the Germans as the other Entente forces.
@@pipes0987 He meant they begrudged the use of actual bullets and powder in practice not combat. Even during Napoleonic times the British were unusual for using live ammunition in firing drills not just low powder loads without bullets or by miming loading ammo.
From what I can tell the British systems seems a lot cleaner and refined, while the American appears much easier to teach and learn quickly, which Given the current state of things in America, makes sense to prioritize, not much point in drilling your soldiers to the point of perfection if their in all likelihood going to die assaulting a hill
If we're talking about the civil war, the British Army was small and professional, and the American army was large with many conscripts. Make sense to teach conscripts the quick and dirty way, because they're not going to be around for very long.
Interesting point. If you look at the most feared and lethal Yankee units, they were Midwest volunteers that had to hunt for food making them very well versed in handling a weapon. While the other units from the coast had conscripts and men whose survival in regular life wasn’t dependent on how well they could handle a weapon. So a more easy and brute technique seems practical.
Anthony Hynek regiments whether Union or Confederate from the rural areas all knew how to shoot. Witness the 20th Maine at Little Round Top. Held off three Confederate Regiments all morning and until the early afternoon. Mind you they were holding off three times their strength. . Now if that wasn’t good shooting I don’t know what is.
They drilled alot, British troops were renowned for a long time for their ability to load and fire their weapons quicker than most other people. They even used to practice by firing at each other over their heads to give them the 'authentic' feeling of being in a warzone.
@@Simonsvids When I went to school in Russia, there was a class with a long-winded name, but it was basically "how to survive when SHTF". First it was stuff like basic first aid and orientation, then some fancier (and mostly theoretical) instructions on finding water and shelter in various environments, then how to handle major disasters like earthquakes. And finally, anthropogenic disasters and civil defense. For that last part, we had one whole class to talk about the effects of nuclear weapon in an urban area - countervalue and counterforce, nuclear/thermonuclear, air/ground/underground etc. Fun numbers such as, what's the radius in which everything including people just vaporizes, or how much dirt you need in a shelter to stop radiation. Anyway, as part of that class, the teacher - who was also doing basic military preparedness in high school - asked us if we had any ideas on what to do if we're not civilians, but soldiers deployed in the area, and a nuke suddenly goes off nearby. There were many along the "duck and cover" lines. He listened very patiently, and then told us the wisdom of the ancients: "When a nuclear warhead goes off near you, all you need to do is take your AK, and hold it in front of you in outstretched hands." We wanted to know how exactly this trick is supposed to work, of course, so he explained: "The reason is so that when your rifle melts, it won't drip onto your boots, burning a large hole through them. This way, they might still be salvageable for another recruit."
British Musketeer: Man we load muskets much faster than the Yanks. American Musketeers: Man those Brits are fas... wait...Some farmers just picked their officers off from way over there!
@@danielworley2273 We've managed all four. The Seven Years War, the Napoleonic Wars, and WW I and WW II. 4 and 0 by my reckoning. We beat the French twice with German support, and then pulled their fat out of the German fire twice.
I've used both the Pritchett Tube and US 1863 pattern cartridges when firing my various muzzleloading rifles. The Pritchett is the one I'd choose if I was going into combat. Otherwise the loading speed difference is purely academic and the US cartridges are much easier to make.
Scott Stancik. This was my thought too. I’d love to have a Pritchett tube if I was slinging the rifle but if I were in charge of the ordinance department for an army of a million men in a years long shooting war I’d probably prefer the simple cartridge
The Tube seems to require great precision as to its formed diameter. If even 1mm too large at any point along its length (say, by swelling in the weather, rough handling, or due to a plain defect in making up the cartridge), that Brit is screwed, and will have to work around the issue by adopting the "break and pour" method used by the American with his soft cartridge. Americans on both sides made up cartridges under rigorous field conditions, usually on the eve of battle -- they didn't pop open boxes of identical ammo sent to them from the War Dept. It seems that the American method offers greater flexibility and is adaptable to slight variations in weapon bore that the Tube system is not. This would be of particular value to the Confederate side, with its plethora of longarms not subject to the strict standardization the Brits, with their central arsenal, had.
buggeroff I mean yes? They spend the money on the gear and maintain an enormous military. Besides no one defeats an insurgency (Especially not in Afghan). I suppose there's some worldwide examples of suppressing insurgents, never ends though.
@buggeroff I like how everyone has this idea that the U.S. lost in Vietnam. The U.S. and South Vietnam were wiping the floor with the NVA and Viet-cong, especially after the Tet-Offensive. The only reason the U.S. pulled out was due to the losing support for the war on the home front, not to mention that the Tet-Offensive, while being a massive military victory over the communists, was portrayed by the media as being a blumbering failure. Afghanistan is a whole different story, since they were practically trying to fight small groups (and the very ideas) of people hidden within the main populace with massive military force rather than precise strikes. It wouldn't go well for anyone. And as far as the U.S. having the best military, well, they rule the seas and the air, and have a huge well of ground forces and equipment to call to, I cannot see any country minus Russia or China even dreaming of winning a real war with the U.S.
@buggeroff The US was fighting with one hand tied behind their backs in Vietnam but still was able to inflict high damage against the NVA especiallt during Tet The US and ARVN only lost because of low morale back home and that the media were treasonous snakes.
Americans Soldiers were required to have teeth to tear their paper cartridges. The Britsh well teeth have historically been a problem with the British.
Lucas Holl which is why he was better, what they’re not telling you is that he had to stand in for the British guy because he was trying to get his tea out of the river.
You left out the part where the american runs out of ammo so screams and runs at the enemy while swinging the musket like a baseball bat at their heads
Perhaps the American wasn’t as adept as the Brit with a musket in 1862 because in 1860 the Americans had the Henry .44 caliber rim fire lever action carbine with a 16+1 magazine capacity (which could be completely discharged before the first British musket shot was even loaded).
Except the Enfield would have been shooting at him from far beyond the range of the American thus doing so in perfect safety. Henry 0,440" at 900 yards? I don't think so.
What I find interesting is how small innovations or variations in equipment can lead to a noticeable difference. For example, the location of a cap pouch in conjunction with the movements of rifle drill meant that the British regular would experience a slight advantage in natural movement when reloading, which in turn leads to an increased rate of fire that could be decisive in a battle. I think in some ways this demonstrative of the fact that the British were largely a professional army supplemented by (often native) auxilaries. On the other hand, the US Army during the Civil War era was largely composed of volunteers supplemented by a handful of regulars. I think this is also an important factor. The US marginalized the army prior to the Civil War, whereas the British Army was seen as an important tool in maintaining the Empire (though secondary to the Royal Navy). Britain, at that time, had a more sophisticated and established system for developing and procuring weapons and equipment.
It's something that never really crossed my mind, but comparing the British army to the US army in the 1860's is very interesting. I'm not 100% certain, but I speculate that the British army is considerably more experienced and better funded than their American counterpart of the time. Most US army units were made up of volunteers and every unit did not receive the exact same training
As a Brit I actually believe the US army to be superior not because of the individual soldiers but due to the general incompetence of the British commanders at the time, this was clearly demonstrated during the Crimean War where our French allies were dumbfounded by the total lack of tactical awareness of our Generals in the field. Many feel the fault lies with Wellington who after Waterloo went onto lead the British Army and ensured that class and position in society was more important for an officer than ability and aptitude, this worked well as long as we were fighting tribesmen in India and Africa but not so well against a well trained well equipped enemy such as the Boers.
@@tonyjames5444 I think that By the End of thr Civil War, Union troops and officers probably had enough combat experience to say they were superior to British troops at the time.
To compare Navies during the same era is even more interesting because, as the kids these days are wont to say, the Brits were littorally outclassed overnight.
The fact that I was getting really invested in the US soldier being faster and that I was upset that he wasn't has led me to re-evaluate my priorities in life. Excellent video, guys.
Matthew Joe Mallory though no one doubts his zeal, the Confederate soldier would have been slower on average. The British infantryman was a professional soldier. He qualified every year on a 90 round course; that’s not counting practice and drill for the rest of the year. The Confederacy simply didn’t have the resources or time to expend ammunition at that rate. The British soldier would also have been extremely familiar with this system while the Confederate soldier would have seen a plethora of different cartridges. With a good supply of this style cartridge I’m sure that any soldier of the various armies that adopted this cartridge would perform well, but the British standard of professionalism is unsurpassed.
@@theministryforhistory this is not entirely true Cleburne's division of the army of Tennessee was taught musketry in the British fashion due in part the Cleburne was a former British soldier...
@@theministryforhistory Even in Mid to late 1862 some very large battles had occured and there were many "Veteran troop" on both the Union and Confederate sides. Also you forgot about the Union "Regulars" of the 5th Corps, professional soldiers just like their British counterparts, who made up the old prewar army and had also seen a good amount of fighting prior to the Civil War while serving in "Indian Country"
@@50TNCSA It's a case of "too little, too late" I'm afraid. Even Cleburne said there simply wasn't enough ammunition to practice musketry properly. Brett (in red) discusses Cleburne in the Civil War chapter of his book - www.amazon.com/Destroying-Angel-Rifle-Musket-Modern-Infantry/dp/171985727X/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=
Seeing it was a better round and way of loading, CS Ordnance Chief Josiah Gorgas adopted the British style round in 1864 and ordered all CS arsenals to make this type of round for muskets from then on. The CS one was about half inche shorter than the English round due to it was made for the deeper British Cartridge boxes. The US style boxes were shallower tins in it so they had to shorten the round. The British round used like near 70 grns of powder and the CS one about 60 or 63.
The American is quite slow. I think you should hire Matthew Broderick or Tom Cruise to help him load quicker by firing a pistol at him yelling "FASTER!"
Random redcoat lieutenant: "Forgive me sir, but it's that bloody French monarch or emperor or whatever that damned lunatic is calling himself this week." Duke of Wellington: "Yes? Well don't keep us all in suspense? Has he died?" R.r.l.: "No sir." D. of W.: "For king and country, just spit it out! What is it man?!?" R.r.l.: "He uh, he has apparently escaped that beautiful island prison we stuck him on." D. of W.: "...damn. Well, there goes my afternoon. Send a message to the Prussians, Russians, everybody that sod has crossed in the past, let them know *dun-dun-DUNNN* the little dumpy war monger is on the lose, um, again." R.r.l.: "Should I send one to the colonies, sir?" D. of W.: "After what they did with our tea? Don't be daft man. Besides, we just finished the war of 1812 with them. They're jolly good sports and all, but not that jolly, or that sportsman like."
Napoleon and the U.S. were on very good terms actually. It’s more likely that the British would be concerned they would join Napoleon again. The War of 1812 was actually fought because the U.S. had invaded Canada as a de facto ally of the French after a British blockade had cut them off from trade. It is funny though.
Collective comments almost as interesting as your fine video. Your conclusion, I think, is largely academic. Speed of fire was considered as was accuracy. But the tactics of the day did not stress fire superiority in any meaningful way. Not as we understand that today. The time difference under fire would probably be close and both might loose a round per minute. The many factors and variables of battle negate this difference. Someone put a lot of time into the uniforms and equipment.
CAVKING19DELTA TEXAS perhaps. It has been asserted that the average confederate soldier was a better shot than his union counterpart for the reasons you mention. But, both rate of fire and individual proficiency have to be considered in the context of the tactics of that period, namely massed ranks firing by volley. As the use of skirmishers became prevalent individual marksmanship became desirable. So to with early sniping. This video tests two very similar weapons systems. The result that I see is insignificant. One touchdown in the first quarter does not make a football game.
@TexasPROUD British troops were trained to a more uniform and consistent standard, even if their baseline would be a bit lower for the reason described. I would take a Southern militia recruit over a British one more than half the time, but I would take a British line infantriman over a Union one at wars start. Veterans would equal out pretty quick. I think the darker uniforms would make a bigger war fighting difference than the musketry drills though.
Though I would always back the American in a fight in this time period for ideological reasons only. Exploitative empires are evil and would lead to tens upon tens of millions of deaths to this day, and by default the British soldier would be fighting for a government defined at its core by such a system until after WWII. The American folly was slavery and manifest destiny. Horrible sins in their own right, but geographically petty by comparison and scope. And both were of course taught to us by our Anglo forbears. Our burden of course was not abolishing slavery nearly as early as they did. (Though to be fair they simply replaced outright slavery with a less brutal colonial system of exploition and coerced labor, and patted themselves on the back about it for a century more.) We meanwhile languished in our own century or so of racism and inefficiency, wasting huge moral, educational, and economic potential.
@Eric da' MAJ Precisely. By 1864, the Union Army could have detached a corps which could have conquered Canada at its leisure without significantly slowing its death grip on the Rebels, while Lincoln's experienced ironclad, screw-driven navy could have sunk any fleet the British could have sent to oppose it. Given all the trouble our "good neighbor to the north" has been over the last century and a half, perhaps we should have.
@@emorynguyen1583 Not entirely the case, almost all nations fielded light infantry or skirmishers that wore subdued colored uniforms. They were able to quite effective use camouflage especially in colonial conflicts.
HeadlessZombie1991 That’s because they’re skirmishers; they attack before the field gets filled with smoke. Yeah, camouflage is good in that case but let’s say the skirmishers are over run and need to retreat back to the main force. Their comrades will not be able to the difference between you and the enemy if they don’t have their bright colors. In most cases only elite units were clothed in green
From the musket smoke of everyone in the battle he would be in it wouldn't matter if he's wearing red or camouflage bc from the smoke you'd know where he is. Secondly in that type of warfare it's imperative you know which side is your own side because in the smoke and confusion of a cavalry charge or a bayonet charge you don't want to go shooting your sargent major. Thirdly muskets in that time we're only really that accurate at close range so on a battlefield he'd either be engaged in combat anyway or too far away to hit.
The british round was smaller and easier to load down the barrel, the American lead round was larger and tighter in the barrel and so was slightly longer /harder to load. however this gave the American round a better range and a more accurate shot. The british and American armies at this period had different concerns regarding firepower, the british view was speed at close range, while America's view was range and accuracy. However the american view did begin to change by 1864 with the fighting during the civil war becoming more and more at closer range with many american soldiers equipping themselves with the new modern Henry and later the Spencer repeating rifle's, capable of firing multiple shots.
British infantry tactics were based around shock warfare and constantly advancing. The American infantry tactics were influenced heavily by the French which emphasized skirmish tactics and wearing down an advancing enemy.
While you’re loading a Tennessee mountain man just killed and scalped you and your friends with the same axe he used to field dress a bear yesterday and is now wearing as a headdress.
And while your Tennessee mountain man was busy doing that, a Gurkha would have grabbed his Kukri and charged him, disarmed him, and sliced him into steak tartare five times over.
@@jonathanwells223 Strange, that's exactly what the Japanese once said. And the Germans. And the Italians. And the Indians. And the Malayans. And the Argentinians. And the Afghans...
Tearing the cartridge with one's teeth allows one hand on the cartridge and one full hand on the musket, not trying to hold the musket and tear the cartridge with one hand. Just an observation...
Hand tearing is impossible if on the move. A hard stop is required for every drilled load.... The older US and British manuals required the comb stay off the ground, even when standing firm.
Throw someone efficiently drilled in Casey's Manual of Arms, or better yet, someone who can meet the 1862 Hiram Berdan qualification standards of the 1st US Sharpshooters.
@TexasPROUD The quality of Texas Confederates in the Civil War varied wildly in most all areas. We were, of course, superior to all other Southern recruits, but that would be a matter of principle and not necessarily fact.
It's a real shame that British humour/snark seem to go over the heads of so many. I really enjoyed this video and would definately want more of this! Excellent narration and voice as well, to say the least!
I feel I should mention that Great Britain, in the span of less than a century, went from owning a quarter of the world, to being the size of Michigan. Also to point out an interesting fact, The United States Army was in fact going on outdated Napoleonic tactics for a good chunk of the war.
@Seven Funny how one comment could piss off a bunch of British (or Commonwealth) people, it's like I made fun of your Tea or how y'all call chips crisps, or drive on the wrong side of the road.
@@Samuel-wm1xr well, im not a historian but just from a common sense perspective, time shooting would be minimal and generally from massed ranks back then. What about when soldiers were moving through woodland or pasture, a bright red tunic would have been a clear target. I don't think they really considered camouflage back then.
@@DC-ip1sc Most of the armies would not, however, be fighting a skirmish war in the boonies. The British Army *did* have units trained for just that kind of warfare, and interestingly they did not wear red. The best examples are the Rifle Brigade and the Kings Royal Rifle Corps, both of which wore the Dark Green that became the standard uniform for Riflemen in the British Army. Do not forget that most battles at this period were conducted in close visual range of the enemy, rarely more than 100 - 200 metres in the 1850's, and down to about 50 metres in 1810. Distinctive uniforms enabled soldiers of all levels to quickly dertermine who was in front of them, if a British soldier for example saw a group of guys ahead in red jackets he could be pretty sure that they too were British. Its only really with the horrifyingly increased lethality of weapons following the 2nd Industrial Revolution that saw the invention of reliable bolt action rifles and rapid firing field artillery that things changed rapidly. Only ten years prior to this a rifleman could manage maybe 6 rounds a minute on a good day, artillery maybe 4, afterwards a rifleman could be expected to maintain 15 rounds a minute, and field artillery could burst fire 20 rounds a minute and comfortably maintain 10 rounds a minute as long as the ammunition lasted, and both retained their killing power and accuracy at distances four times that of only ten years prior. It was at this point that bright uniforms became a major liability on the battlefield, the downsides outweighing the pluses in pretty much every respect. Britain was already switching from Red to Kahki before the Boer War, but the Boer war hugely accelerated that change. It also saw massive changes made not only to the equipment, but a complete rewrite of the Infantry and Cavalry manuals. The British Army of 1914 was a completely different to the army that had fought in South Africa in 1902, not only its equipment had changed totally, but so had its training and its tactical doctrine. That is of course just one army, but the change from bright, distinctive uniforms to dull, camouflaged ones happened at roughly the same time in all armies, that 20 year period from the start of the 20th Century to around 1920. It had been slowly gaining traction beforehand... but only slowly.
Brett has the definite advantage with the Enfield paper cartridge. The naked minnie ball, the rifle will be difficult to load after about 15 shots. Most interesting little demo. Well done
Based upon the anecdotal reports of Candian troops who faced Fenian Brotherhood US Civil War vets during the Fenian Invasions of the 1870's, their rate of fire was fast enough that the Canadians thought they were armed with Spencer or Henry repeaters.
It should be noted that the British musket was used by southern troops in small numbers. Also, I have seen much more able Americans fire the Springfield at about same rate as brit. And finally, am I the only American who thinks the narrator of this video could use a serious butt whipping?
The 1853 Enfield was used in fairly large numbers by both Union and Confederate troops because the British were selling it to both sides and it was being captured by both sides on the battlefield.
well, Danish were darker and some other types of units had totally different uniforms (like Danish Lifeguards, which I don't think were used in war of 1864 or Danish dragoons)
@@johnfisk811 Well, except for Prussians, Austrians, British, many German states, Ottomans, partly the Spanish and their ex colonies (well, there were many French aspects, but from what I saw, they mostly made their uniforms so they don't all die in the heat) and so on. But yes, most countries copied the French :D
@@lordyaromir6407 French military influence didn't wane until they got waxed in the war of 1870, after which Prussian influence hit the US Army and almost everywhere else.
It would have made the comparison a lot better if the union soldier had actually followed the manual of arms, and not done thing in his own way. He is not standing in the correct position. He is not using the ramrod correct... If he did that when standing in line with men who do it as described, his ramrod would likely be hitting the ramrod used by the man to his right. He is full cocking the weapon when priming... instead of fist half, then priming, and only going full cock then. (It might be faster, but it is not correct and I would not like to be in the front rank with him behind me)
@@bborkzilla Had not noticed that before. You are right. That is just dangerous. (Should be noted that some models of muskets actually had an extra "cock" just above the cap, to make sure it could not fall of... but that is not the case with the P1853 and US model 1855)
The Virgin Union Soldier -gives himself tooth decay biting open his cartridge -takes forever to use his ram rod -wears dark blue, a sign of his blue balls -his sweetheart is entertaining Cletus as we speak -patiently waits for his Brad lieutenant to tell him to aim The Chad Redcoat -opens his cartridge with his fingers like a real man -uses his ram rod with precise efficiency -wears red, shots still miss him -his wife patiently awaits his return with perfect British stoicism -aiming shmaiming
And that is a win for the brits. The britsh army had the most extensive marksmanship program in the world for its line infantry. In american civil war soldiers very rarely fired their guns outside of combat. There was no organized teaching of marksmanship skills. (outside of a few select units) And many soldiers had a hard tine even loading their guns and firing them... or cleaning them properly. There are good reasons why the typical combat range in the civil war was about 100yards.
@@maticstudios stop being a nationalistic fool and do some actual reading. For half the war most soldiers on both side in the west was armed with smoothbores. And there is no evidence what so ever that the typical civil war unit, north or south ever learned how to effectively engage at 300 yards.(as a unit) The exception being Cleburne's men, since he actually did run a organised program for teaching marksmanship. Based on the british system. And the specialized sharpshooter units, where the men did know how to shoot thanks to prewar activities... did do some shooting out side of combat for training. The idea that all americans where marksmen is simply stupid. Using a small bore hunting rifle to hunt rabbits do not teach you the skills needed for long range shooting with a riflemusket. Using an old smoothbore gun with buckshoots for hunting birds do not teach you how to use a military rifle musket at long range. (and there where very very few modern military rifles in civilian hands) Claiming that it do show a complete ignorance of how the ballistics of a rifle musket work at 300 yards. It got a massive "bulletdrop". The result is that the most critical skill you need, do not even involve the gun. And that is range estimation. If your estimate is off by just 10%, you will miss. To become a good shot, you need someone to teach you and to put shots down range, under calm conditions where you get feedback if you hit and what to do better. That require a organized afford, with cartridges issued for it, firing ranges layed out in a regulated way. And if that had been done on a corp or army wide basic it would be easy find evidence of it. But outside of a few select unit units it was not done. In comparison the Brits had the most extensive program in the world. There is a reason that the CSA started to organize sharpshooter battalions. The typical soldiers didn't have any real skills, so the had to get the men who did together in specialized units. That way they ended up with a few small units that they could use to engage at long range. And really, the reason the NRA was created was exactly because of the horrible skill level of the soldiers during the war...
Thomas Aagaard May I remind you these are men who grew up in harsh conditions and leader to use a rifle at a very young age. It’s not so much nationalism than a fact. The Midwestern American troops on both side were feared for their training and quick reloading. They were known to be able to hold out against a enemy unit twice their size.
Thomas Aagaard I specifically said midwestern troops. The majority of both armies were conscripts from the coast. They were taught how to fight quickly and sent off to battle. They were not considered good troops.
The bias is cute, though I would like to see this comparison on a regimental level as compared to an individual one. Either way, a good academic display of the loading techniques of two very different militaries. And the Brits poking fun at us is nothing new, so easy to ignore.
I was thinking more of the Minecraft villager police cars. Just stick these two on top of a spinning plate. Attach fancy lights on them. And then have them make siren sounds.
What I always think is sad when I read about the Revolution is that because of the greed of our British Aristocracy but also the smuggling and corruption among local officials in the colonies, People who a lot were from the same Country basically had the first Civil War on American soil.
if you mean the first civil war for the british there was many, many, many before the US revolutionary war. if you mean first civil war for the US then its more accurate i guess
“Here we will see the American pull out his cartridge and put it into his mouth for some reason...”. Ah, good ol British humor!!! The narrator reminds me of Stephen Fry.
And the British soldier whips out the Beaumont-Adams, or his own privately purchased Colt since he clearly would be a Gentleman if he was using a pistol.
The British don't bite the cartridge because the Sepoys had taught them a difficult lesson about that 5 years earlier! Just kidding!😂 That's probably just a myth, and this was an enjoyable and informative demonstration!😁
Most Confederate Troops in the civil war used the enfield but still reloaded the same way the American does and most never got the British leather accouterments that came with the enfield they had to use the American accouterments idk if that was the reason they loaded different....however I know that they didn’t have the same cartridge casing as the British I would imagine cause the the south had to rush production of things so they had no need for the hard cartridge that was snapable they just needed something they could shoot haha and with the increased production rate in the civil war in sure they skipped steps and made cartridges as fast as possible not making them as elegant as the Brit cartridge (trying not to be bias) I’ve shot both rifles and have fired blanks at re-enactments from them as well and I like them both I can get three rounds off in a minute using the American technique it all comes down to drill and repetition in my opinion
I can answer one of those questions really quickly, many Confederate soldiers were once in the US army. This is how THEY were trained. The reason the reload method was the same is because they relied on the training they themselves received, and when teaching the manual of arms, they went back to it. You don't change how you reload simply because the rifle is different. The mechanism of the rifles are similar so why change how you reload them. It's not like going from muzzle loader to breech loading. Same principle so reload the way you are taught. And mostly the Confederates made their own cartridges in encampment. They didn't have the advantage of premade prelubricated, or even clean paper. Many would also trade out rifles and scavenging cartridges from dead Union soldiers. There certainly were plenty available after a battle. I only know that from reading contemporary accounts.
I love reading all these comments, there’s so much history to learn! I’m familiar with this time period and the surrounding centuries only so far as Empire: Total War has taught me. Suffice it to say all I *really* know is to rush ranked fire and get your men to spread the hell out!
the main advantage the us sytem is that the british would have to have a break for tea. the us stopped drinking tea after the little incident in boston. also easier to make ersatz coffee than tea.
@Din Djarin no they didn't, the French arrived at the very last minute, The war began in 1776 and ended in 1781 with the French only arriving at Yorktown when Cornwallis was actually awaiting British transport after his third serious DEFEAT. First at Kings Mountain NC, then at Cowpens SC, and after being pursued he lost yet again at Yorktown Va. And the French only arriving to cut off his escape. So they really weren't much help at all. Better learn your History. The war was unsustainable anyway. Logistics were against the British, they were engaged into too many conflicts elsewhere. And political pressure at home really were what defeated the British Army here. Not much help from the French at all now was there?
One reason American soldiers in the Revolutionary war won was that they had buttons on their pants instead of laces and could take a piss more easily. I am anxious to see that rematch.
Our response to our dumpster fire of a comment section with some of the particular gems.
Note - if you think this is about the American Revolution, go home and rethink your life.
ua-cam.com/video/kSBBg5s5C2s/v-deo.html
Jajajajaja
Nah wrong era uniforms. New Zealanders war era. Maybe as early as what is jokingly referred to as "The war of Pork and Beans " 1856-1865 era uniforms
@@stevenbaker8184 Dude it literally has the year 1862 in the title
@@tigersofgul6635 I know, the uniforms shown ranged in use from 1856-1865. So it stands to reason that 1862 hits in that time range. I was pointing out than not everyone thinks this is about the American revolution. Not everyone is that stupid. New Zealanders war ranged 1845- 1872. Peaking in the mid 1860's and I pointed out that particular time period.
@@stevenbaker8184 Ah, my bad man
an analysis of these shooting methods makes it demonstrably clear that British paper must not have been as tasty.
You shall go far.
read... My dear fellow, absolutely. Impregnated with far too much pig-fat to ever be tasty, at least without being well fried first.
@@cuhurun yes indeed. Just ask the sepoys
@@camronconners878 : with or without the frying the dear old Indians, both Muslim and Hindu were most put out. Empress Victoria should've insisted on Halal mutton fat only... or simply refined ghee in the case of the Hindi sepoys.
Perhaps if the officers rubbed their sweaty members on the paper they'd have put it on their mouths.
This is simply not accurate. The Brits didn't stop for a tea break. And the yank wasn't yelling and whoopping.
Because Southerners yell and whoop, but the distinction would be lost upon a Brit anyway.
@@SSFhighcommandJOHN It might be semantics, but the yelling and whooping was a rebel thing, not southerner.
@@Mr-Trox the rebels were the southerners.
@@SSFhighcommandJOHN it shouldn't. Hes wearing blue, not butternut.
@@FrAnC3sCoN123 'cept the Copperheads.
"Puts it in his mouth for some reason"
I LEARNED IT BY WATCHING YOU DAD
Thanks you guys for the heart!
Just remember, when you have your tea, pour the tea first, and milk second
Cheers!
Lol got'em!
We kept biting them because we hadn't pushed our Hindu subjects into open mutiny yet...
@@DeadlyPlatypus This is a comparison of The British Army not The Hon. East India Company!
How can you tea-drinkers shoot reliably without taste-testing the powder before?
This is the best comment.
Aleatoriedades aleatórias We aren’t french!! We just Eat what’s available, even if it tastes like shit, it’s the tea that keeps us going!!
@@prezzyjim Coffee with a couple shots of Bourbon is soooo much better.
Remember that the British used to own your land, and the only reason you have it now is because we lost too many ships to a storm on the way to fight yous
George A
That is not why you lost.
Not at all a fair comparison. Witnessing Billy Yank bite that cartridge caused the sergeant major to experience Sepoy Mutiny flashbacks, inspiring him to load faster, as if his life depended on it ;)
Oddly enough the Indian mutiny was kicked off by sepoy soldiers being told the new cartridges were lubricated with beef fat (if they were Hindu and pork fat (if they were Muslim) ... A reason for the British to develop a cartridge bullet that didn't need biting perhaps?
@@MarkGoding That was just an immidiate cause, the real causes were several, one of them being the Zamindari System Law besides several others . The so called "Sepoy Mutiny" was not led by sepoys, but by disgruntled rulers, dethroned Maharajas, Mughal Loyalists, Zamindars who lost their lands. The sepoys look upon these leaders to lead them rather than organising the uprising themselves.
@@maiholiaw4927 .. no doubt, but it was a factor. The spark that ignited the powder keg if you will.
@@MarkGoding Yep..that's my point
@33kaus holokaust Didn't you see I said So Called and kept the word "Sepoy Mutiny" under parentheses? Or you don't know the significance of it.
"American Army, 1862"
Me: "Which one?"
The Union Army.
The Confederates broke away from The United States
@@Assdafflabaff Why are you trying to cause an argument?
I didn’t say either side was good or bad
@@beaucaspar3990 I must have misinterpreted your comment as some sly jab.
@The Mad Baron I have friends who are from Wales, they’re pretty patriotic 🇬🇧
Union of course, i have an 1863 Zouave replica beautiful rifle and accurate using a maxi ball.
The British musketman saves considerable time by doing away with the egotistical and unnecessary step know as "aiming"
That's probably closer to the mark (pun intended) than you might have meant. The British Army trained for speed of loading, rather than accuracy right up to the introduction of the Lee series of rifles.
@@allenjenkins7947 yeah thats the joke
It's a known fact that God is British as such it is he who does the aiming.
This argument really doesn’t make sense. That’s why the British firing order is “present,” to give them the opportunity to aim properly before firing.
As they say in the film industry "bad guys always miss"
Firing three rounds a minute.
Now that's soldiering
You have to be able "to stand"!
How things have changed, oh boy
Do I see a fellow who watches Sharpe?
@@demej1939 yup you got it my friend!
in any weather
The American puts the cartridge into his mouth because he actually has teeth
“...The American, hoping to demonstrate his superior dental care, opts to open the cartridge with his teeth. This is slightly slower, but does have the desired effect, both opening the cartridge and showing off his intact canines...”
He would have smiled to show his perfect set of luminous white perfect teeth? Both guys are Americans it’s an American production no fake news no conspiracy. Good video at top of post.
Supposedly the Union Army would only take recruits that had at minimum most of their teeth (if not all of them) so they could actually eat their hardtack rations.
Us dental hygiene and dental care actually ranks lower than that of the UK
@@Oxley016 yeah, sure buddy
Judging by some of the comments, I’m thinking that there are a lot of people that would have been a whole lot happier if these two guys shot at each other rather than at a target.
TheAirplaneDriver HELL YEAH!! FUCKING TEA DRINKERS!!! I’LL THROW THEIR BODIES INTO THE HARBOR INSTEAD OF THE TEA!!!
Ironic seeing that both "Bill Yank" and "Limey Sarge" are portrayed here by Americans
James Davenport OH, LOYALISTS, I’VE GOTTA GO GET THE OIL AND FEATHERS!
As a Southerner - yes, a lot of us would have been a whole lot happier if they had been shooting at each other in 1862. We tried to bring the Brits in but they weren't keen enough on the idea. ;P
Darth Conans OH BOY! A REB! GET ME MY MINI BALL, I’M GONNA GO HUNTIN!
I find it odd that in the beginning the American was done first but when they were competing he slowed down.
I find it convenient.
The American also paused when he was almost done too.
He also had a bit of trouble tearing the first cartridge. It was faster if you knew what you were doing.
To be fair, both were taking quite a leisurely pace for the first demonstration.
It was the British guy slowing down for the demonstration, you could see him doing it in drill, very stiff precise movements, when in the actual fire he was a lot looser.
These comments are awesome. Pretty sad how a fun comparison of musketry systems circa 1862 can trigger a bunch of whiny Americans who apparently need to start chanting "USA! USA!" and insult our British allies. The last time we fought was 205 years ago, we've been on the same side ever since. By the way, I am the "British" soldier in this video, and I am also a US Army officer.
It’s not our fault they’re icky
JohnE9999 and your ignorance of history is also amazing. We've been lies with the Brits since The Great War aka WW1
Shut up boot
Still salty over 1812 it seems
Hahaha, England and America do like to give each other a lot of crap. Thanks for your services.
Now a load under pressure test: the british soldier will load while being charged from long distance by a malnourished Afghan tribesman with a blunt spear, while the American will be attacked by a berserk south Tennessean mounted on a thoroughbred and armed with a carbine, sawn off shotgun and three revolvers.
Not to mention each revolver has 9 shots and an underbarrel shotgun
or a Philippino armed with a stick or a Hawaii tribesman armed with a bigger stick. The British had just come out of the Crimean war against another major European army, they knew then the army had performed badly and were changing, the British army had been in some sort of active conflict on and off since about 1700. Whereas the US army up until the 1860' was primarily a border force, after the US civil war it reverted back to that until 1917. But in the above, neither the Yank nor the Brit are being charged by hairy arsed enemy, so...?
oh the american was doing slow target practice then?
@@philldavies7940 1863? The US Army wasn't in the Philippines or Hawaii for nearly another 40 years!
True, but the British soldier was also fighting off Sudanese tribes on horseback, tribes in the dense jungles southern Africa, and Indians... in India.
Brits and Yanks making of fun of each other is totally acceptable - as it is all in the family - but not to be done in front of the French... oh my no.. ;)
The french - they make love with their mouths.
Let me see. France is 20 miles away from the UK. You can see France with the naked eye and swim there. USA over 4,000 miles. Hmm. Which is the close neighbour?
@@johnfisk811 I give up - which is it? Perhaps the one that understands sarcasm better.
Both sides make fun of the French now...and _without_ good reason, imho.
@@bromptonboy you obviously don’t know the history of the friendship between the United States and Great Britain then 😂
As an American I have to admit, putting the percussion cap pouch on the chest is ingenious.
Thats what I was thinking too
I've used both the waist belt box and the shoulder strap pouch. For the competent, nimble man neither is quicker.
The strap pouch is smaller and holds fewer.
The load technique the US used is from 1850s drill manual for long pattern design, so the British methods in Crimea are similar.
The drill for US short rifle (2 bander) is quicker.
The US started the 1861 war with a lot of ball ammo and old smooth muskets, from earlier service. 1862 is when rifled Enfields and the Springfield pattern copies started appearing for US troops. 1863 rifled imports start becoming ubitquois for CS troops.
Minnie ball ammo was available in both the European style with ball exposed to be torn off, and a crude old ball tied in round that required tearing and then squeezing the bullet down the cartridge or ripping the paper to expose. You even still had roundball undersized ammo.
The problem with hand tearing is that you can't load on the run. Mouth tearing means you can. Thus earlier manuals required the musket never touch the ground in drill or practice.
@@STho205 It's all about ergonomics
@@foxhoundr3364 if it was all ergonomics, then the UK and US armories would have designed a small flint cylinder on a spring and a trigger that spun a serrated steel wheel... Like a Zippo lighter no caps... The mfg tech was there. They almost had it with the Maynard Tape in the 1855 US longarms.
...or better yet issued breachloaders, lever cock Henrys or 6 shot revolver cartridge muskets which had been around for almost a century.
Doubt if a pair of equally competent men using issue Enfield577 or 1863 Springfield 58cal would have made over a second difference between the two drills... And you can't load on the march if you must use two hands to tear a tube. cartridge.
However the majority of US troops were state troops, not US or CS Regulars. Even with modern living history impressions, those doing the 3rd or 7th USI outpace the majority of NSSA impressions by 4 to 5 seconds.
Everything was supply by the lowest bidder. A military reality that never really changes.
@@STho205 Righto, chill out mate
Faster reload means you can be done with the battle quicker and get back to drinking tea.
coffee
@@weitzfc1 Tea
@@julianius484 not in the american civil war .
Both guys are Americans so whatever they wanna drink.
@@anthonywilson4873 You can tell they're not British by the fact they have working rifles and the police are no where to be seen to send them to jail for 200 years.
Did the British not bite the ends off their cartridges? Wasn’t that one of the causes of the Indian mutiny?
that was a few years earlier. Perhaps they'd changed the system by 1862.
Ansgarius ....May be wrong, but I think it was something to due with beef on cartridges that was sacred to the Indian soldiers. There’s a video on UA-cam about it
@@jimmylincoln4082 The Indian troops had heard rumors that the fat used in sealing the container was from Pigs.. The muslim solders in the British army revolted because they believed they where being forced to put pig fat in their mouths.. Of course the fat used in sealing the gun powder can be created from the fat of any animal.. The habit of breaking open the container by using ones teeth was just that. A habit that had become standard.. The change to using your hand to do it was not a hard change to make..
AdstarAPAD muslims were told rumors it was lard, hindus heard rumors it was tallow, and considering the treatment under the britis as second class citizens it was easy for both groups to be offended thinking it was the british having a laugh making their indian soldiers violate their religious taboos.
yes. they were greased with pig fat
Sorry, I was too busy thinking who was more uncomfortable in the heat.
As long as there was a breeze it wouldn't have been too bad assuming their jackets were unlined. Did many reenactments in the past and when you sweat that wool gets damp and while damp wool tends to smell like a wet dog, an unlined shell jacket will pretty much let the wind pass straight through it and passing straight through damp wool gives a very nice cooling effect.
220 armed and angry Zulus disliked this video
Wrong weapon and time period. He is depicting is approximately the The NewZealand war era, the Anglo-Zulu war was 1879. They had the Martini-Henry in the Zulu war. Which Breech loading falling block cartridge rifle.
Steven Baker
Wow you’re so smart, and everyone definitely cares.
@@demonhunter635 nice try troll
Leftenant Stanley Bromhead reporting for duty...
@@Wppk765 To which action are you reporting for Sir? I hope they assign you to Roark's Drift, rather than The 24th sir. I hear they are heading for Isandlwana, I have a bad feeling about that one Leftenant
The Narrator should attend a North-South Skirmish Association event. The rapid live fire competition this association put on makes both these Gentlemen seem like tortoises.
David Pitts cheers!
FTG Military History
FTI: An American Civil war midwestern unit of either side could hold out against forces twice their size, they would slaughter their British counterparts, the union soldier in the video is more representative of a regular conscript who was just taught how to shoot.
@@maticstudios How many Midwestern units served the Confederacy?
@@scottadler Probably a few, IF you consider Missouri to be "Midwestern".
I shoot in the N-SSA and yes we are faster but we "cheat" using plastic or cardboard tubes instead of tearing paper. Most of the yanks lost time was the awkward splitting of the cartridge vs the clean snap off of the Enfield round. We also don't waste time returning the ram rod, most prop it up on a bayonet stuck in the ground some of us hold it in our off hand between two fingers, that's the fastest. Overall both gents are clearly familiar with the process. Some "experts" are simply painful to watch, these guys did great.
British: MY MUSKET RELOADING METHODS ARE FASTER THAN YOURS!
Americans: LMAO THAT'S TOTALLY BECAUSE YOU USE A PAID ACTOR!
Prussians: wait, you guys are still using muskets?
I mean the American eventually got repeating rifles later on in the war
Americans: Sorry, can't hear you. Too busy cranking my Gatling gun.
The US adopted a breechloader in 1819.
@@chinookh4713 The Henry repeating rifle was available, barely, in 1862. It was never adopted by the military though.
Revolver carbines, Lever Actions, American Breach loaders and gatling guns have entered the chat
britishmuzzleloaders wants to know your location
Its practically britishbreechloaders now lol
друг I mean, they do work together lol
@@wouldyouliketomeetkenbamba9495
To me, the real name of that channel is: "watch that guy running around in fancy gear, shooting the greatest weapons in history while enjoying the most splendid scenery without anybody buggering him - and turn yellow with envy" - god, do I whish to have a backyard like that....
@@JosipRadnik1 Couldn't have said it better
@@JosipRadnik1 Given how heavily armed he is, I don't think there are many who'd try "buggering him" against his will! 😳
@ 00:40 seconds, The American puts the cartridge in his mouth "for some reason". Which happens to be the same "reason" the British put the cartridge into Their mouth prior to the Indian Mutiny of around 1959 !
Indeed, forgive our humble jest.
We learned it from you dad.
It's called a "joke." Look it up.
I think you will find that for a long time prior to 1959 it was no longer necessary to bite a cartridge.....
Ah, yes, we all remember the battlefields of WWII where it was necessary for the British to bite off their cartridges whilst the Germans had already progressed to submachine guns.
Tbh now I’d like to see a comparison of the military rate of fire between an 1873 trapdoor and either a snider-enfield, or a martini Henry.
Here here! I think the Springfield vs the Martini would be a horse race, but the Snider gets the nod out. But speed was not the goal of either army. Both had access and opportunity to repeating arms but chose the single shot for deliberate reasons. Largely accuracy at long range and conservation of ammunition. Both armies were engaged in fighting a long way from supplies. Every round came on a mule or camel or mans back hundreds of miles. No air drops back then.
@@MrJento all else beeing equal, my guess would be that the martini is the fastest one (self cocking and ejecting) whilst the trapdoor would best the snider (the trapdoor beeing self ejecting, and the snider requiering several extra motions for ejection).
But that's just my guess.
Jonas Jeaggi i had three guns, the long lever martini re barreled to 45/70, a trapdoor and a Remington rolling block. I never ran a speed test. But I did shoot the Remington in an informal national match course against M14,M1 and bolt guns. The rapid fire stages were interesting. I got the rounds off but with no time to spare or really aim well.
All those rifles hark to a time when speed was relative and volley fire the norm. And im here to attest that 60 rounds of 45/70 from three positions gives you a thumping. Of my three the Remington was most accurate by far. Also the strongest action in my mind.
Lawrence Glover yea me too 👍🏻
Vulpes vulpes That Remington is a nice system. I fired one in 7mm a few times and it ran flawlessly. Points really nice, too.
I couldn't help but notice that before the timer started, the American was loaded and ready first.
terrorcop101 yeah that’s was a bit odd
Yeah, but did you notice Billy Yank full cocked the hammer BEFORE he went to shoulder arms? That's a no-no. Somebody should reread his Hardee's manual of arms.
Shhh. Naughty terrorcop
@@unclejoeoakland Sorry, buddy, I'm a Billy Yank and a Wisconsin Billy Yank at that. Three cheers for the Iron Brigade!
And a tiger!
In the union army you must have two connecting teeth to tear a cartridge if the brits did this we would have a problem 😂
I, as American. Found this quite comical and entertaining.
I, as an Englishman. Also found this quite comical and entertaining.
I like the shade from the commentator.
And unlike the British, we Americans still have our guns... unless you live in California or New York or some other state run by Democrats.
@@pauliedweasel Calm down man He is going to get his knofe😂
@@nemesisstars7531 OI!
YOU GOT LOICENSE FO THAT KNOIFE?!?!
Meanwhile, a lucky Union Cavalry Trooper emptied his 7 shot Spencer carbine hitting both b4 both got their second shot off. ;)
lol
Exactly!! Didn’t they also show that 7 fires per minute was the average? Also if they are complaining about American rate of fire didn’t they use many Enfield rifles? Also the Enfield was used by Confederate troops by a “neutral” country shipping them thru the US Navy blockade.
Great comparison, let’s see how he does against a Henry.
Alan Croft
A Henry doesn’t compare to a Spencer. A Martini Henry is a single shot lever action while a Spencer is a 7 shot lever action. The majority of Union cavalry were armed with Spencer’s and swords making them capable 7 rounds per minute with great mobility.
MUHROMATIC that would be tough to use a Martini Henry rifle in the US Civil War since it was not introduced until 1871!, Henry rifles were made in the US 1860-1866 and 14,000 of them were made.
Both of these dudes are fast as fuck honestly no fumbles or anything I'm really impressed with both of these dudes
They are both obviously well practiced. It was a pleasure seeing both systems.
Actually, on the second shot the yank tried to push his ramrod back into the rifle slot backwards. He lost 5 seconds right there.
well said dude
Can't help thinking the turning of the rammer, twice, wasted a lot of time. A skeleton tube for it would work, just drop it down, no turning.
The big one I noticed for the American is that while breaking off the tube might be in a manual somewhere, in reality they just shoved it down the barrel and allowed it to act as a wad. He lost seconds everytime he played with that tube breaking it off.
On a totally random side note ramrods were universally over-produced at a cartoonish rate in this era, as soldiers would often put it in the wrong hole before firing...
One reason Patrick Cleburne's troops were extremely effective is that Cleburne, formerly a soldier in the British Army, trained his troops for fast reloading and also estimation of range for accurate fire. Most commanders begrudged the expense of ammunition, Cleburne reasoned that if your troops are twice as effective in the field you actually save munitions in the long run.
I have lived in the city that is named after him and seen his pistol in the Laland Museum in Cleburne, TEXAS.
@@worldtraveler930 He was screwed over by the Confederate government for suggesting that, well, maybe they should actually free their slaves if they wanted to show the world their war wasn't all about slavery? This didn't go down well in Richmond, because- well, they knew damn well it was.
"Most commanders begrudged the expense of ammunition" that's just not true, name 5. Name one who wouldn't let you shoot the enemy as fast as possible.
To an extent (and there may be some truth to this), the maxim of “battles are won by volume and weight of fire” hadn’t been properly embraced by American general officers until the First World War, where US Army commander General John J. Pershing supposedly preferred the accuracy of the individual rifleman over weight of fire from machine guns and artillery. He was a fast learner though; by the latter stages of Meuse-Argonne offensive, the US Forces were apparently equivalent in terms of effectiveness against the Germans as the other Entente forces.
@@pipes0987 He meant they begrudged the use of actual bullets and powder in practice not combat. Even during Napoleonic times the British were unusual for using live ammunition in firing drills not just low powder loads without bullets or by miming loading ammo.
The day I see a British soldier dressed in an old uniform shooting in what appears to be the mohave desert is the day I finally find my dad.
Good luck to you, sir.
S-Son?
Biting paper all day, yet still has straighter teeth.
From what I can tell the British systems seems a lot cleaner and refined, while the American appears much easier to teach and learn quickly, which Given the current state of things in America, makes sense to prioritize, not much point in drilling your soldiers to the point of perfection if their in all likelihood going to die assaulting a hill
If we're talking about the civil war, the British Army was small and professional, and the American army was large with many conscripts. Make sense to teach conscripts the quick and dirty way, because they're not going to be around for very long.
The most sensible observation here compared to 'my country right or wrong' brigade. Well said.
Yahya Hussein thank you
Interesting point. If you look at the most feared and lethal Yankee units, they were Midwest volunteers that had to hunt for food making them very well versed in handling a weapon. While the other units from the coast had conscripts and men whose survival in regular life wasn’t dependent on how well they could handle a weapon. So a more easy and brute technique seems practical.
Anthony Hynek regiments whether Union or Confederate from the rural areas all knew how to shoot. Witness the 20th Maine at Little Round Top. Held off three Confederate Regiments all morning and until the early afternoon. Mind you they were holding off three times their strength. . Now if that wasn’t good shooting I don’t know what is.
Imagine having to do this with your hands shaking with adrenaline under fire on a battlefield ?
I wouldn’t wanna be the guy with the red jacket. An easy target
@@brendancarroll9376 If the soldier gets shot and killed, the bloodstains wont be so visible, so the jacket can be re-issued to someone else ;)
If that’s the case, why not wear brown corduroy trousers?
They drilled alot, British troops were renowned for a long time for their ability to load and fire their weapons quicker than most other people. They even used to practice by firing at each other over their heads to give them the 'authentic' feeling of being in a warzone.
@@Simonsvids When I went to school in Russia, there was a class with a long-winded name, but it was basically "how to survive when SHTF". First it was stuff like basic first aid and orientation, then some fancier (and mostly theoretical) instructions on finding water and shelter in various environments, then how to handle major disasters like earthquakes. And finally, anthropogenic disasters and civil defense. For that last part, we had one whole class to talk about the effects of nuclear weapon in an urban area - countervalue and counterforce, nuclear/thermonuclear, air/ground/underground etc. Fun numbers such as, what's the radius in which everything including people just vaporizes, or how much dirt you need in a shelter to stop radiation.
Anyway, as part of that class, the teacher - who was also doing basic military preparedness in high school - asked us if we had any ideas on what to do if we're not civilians, but soldiers deployed in the area, and a nuke suddenly goes off nearby. There were many along the "duck and cover" lines. He listened very patiently, and then told us the wisdom of the ancients:
"When a nuclear warhead goes off near you, all you need to do is take your AK, and hold it in front of you in outstretched hands."
We wanted to know how exactly this trick is supposed to work, of course, so he explained:
"The reason is so that when your rifle melts, it won't drip onto your boots, burning a large hole through them. This way, they might still be salvageable for another recruit."
British Musketeer: Man we load muskets much faster than the Yanks.
American Musketeers: Man those Brits are fas... wait...Some farmers just picked their officers off from way over there!
The "American" left his Spencer repeating rifle and Gatling gun at home. Both weapons were in service by the U.S. army in 1862.
And?
@@orlock20 Curious? Just a question.
Which country is back to back World War Winners?
@@orlock20 Well technically Back to Back to Back..
@@danielworley2273 We've managed all four. The Seven Years War, the Napoleonic Wars, and WW I and
WW II. 4 and 0 by my reckoning. We beat the French twice with German support, and then pulled their fat out of the German fire twice.
I've used both the Pritchett Tube and US 1863 pattern cartridges when firing my various muzzleloading rifles. The Pritchett is the one I'd choose if I was going into combat.
Otherwise the loading speed difference is purely academic and the US cartridges are much easier to make.
Scott Stancik. This was my thought too. I’d love to have a Pritchett tube if I was slinging the rifle but if I were in charge of the ordinance department for an army of a million men in a years long shooting war I’d probably prefer the simple cartridge
You can also make the US style cartridge in your kitchen - I have. They do suck, by the way.
@@AgamemnonTWC OMG! I can't believe you're bragging about owning an assault style weapon!
The Tube seems to require great precision as to its formed diameter. If even 1mm too large at any point along its length (say, by swelling in the weather, rough handling, or due to a plain defect in making up the cartridge), that Brit is screwed, and will have to work around the issue by adopting the "break and pour" method used by the American with his soft cartridge. Americans on both sides made up cartridges under rigorous field conditions, usually on the eve of battle -- they didn't pop open boxes of identical ammo sent to them from the War Dept. It seems that the American method offers greater flexibility and is adaptable to slight variations in weapon bore that the Tube system is not. This would be of particular value to the Confederate side, with its plethora of longarms not subject to the strict standardization the Brits, with their central arsenal, had.
Remember when the british were the most powerful military in the world. Pepperidge farm remembers
@buggeroff yeh. But the comment is on a video about Victorian british army stuff, soooooo?
buggeroff Don't they still have the most powerful military in the world tho?
buggeroff I mean yes? They spend the money on the gear and maintain an enormous military. Besides no one defeats an insurgency (Especially not in Afghan). I suppose there's some worldwide examples of suppressing insurgents, never ends though.
@buggeroff I like how everyone has this idea that the U.S. lost in Vietnam. The U.S. and South Vietnam were wiping the floor with the NVA and Viet-cong, especially after the Tet-Offensive. The only reason the U.S. pulled out was due to the losing support for the war on the home front, not to mention that the Tet-Offensive, while being a massive military victory over the communists, was portrayed by the media as being a blumbering failure. Afghanistan is a whole different story, since they were practically trying to fight small groups (and the very ideas) of people hidden within the main populace with massive military force rather than precise strikes. It wouldn't go well for anyone.
And as far as the U.S. having the best military, well, they rule the seas and the air, and have a huge well of ground forces and equipment to call to, I cannot see any country minus Russia or China even dreaming of winning a real war with the U.S.
@buggeroff
The US was fighting with one hand tied behind their backs in Vietnam but still was able to inflict high damage against the NVA especiallt during Tet
The US and ARVN only lost because of low morale back home and that the media were treasonous snakes.
Americans Soldiers were required to have teeth to tear their paper cartridges. The Britsh well teeth have historically been a problem with the British.
LMFAO
Oh, this isn't biased at all. 😌
It was made by Americans. It’s a joke. So it’s the opposite of biased
@@ronaldmcdonald5985 Only one of them was American.
Nocturnal Recluse the man portraying the British soldier is an officer in the US Army.
@@LimaHotel807 oh
Lucas Holl which is why he was better, what they’re not telling you is that he had to stand in for the British guy because he was trying to get his tea out of the river.
Slow is smooth, smooth is fast.
"Go twice as fast, get half as much done. Slow and steady wins the race."
Yes, but doing it better sooner beats doing it better later.
"We lost, but really we won."
The Brit guy
Tear his cartilage with hand because of Indian Muslim and Hindu fellows who didn't like
Sausage and beef steak that much
You left out the part where the american runs out of ammo so screams and runs at the enemy while swinging the musket like a baseball bat at their heads
Quite.
And thens dies pointlessly. Dying pointlessly is the ultimate value of empire.
Historically accurate. Right down to the Yankee/ John Bull battlefront of the garbage dump in rural New Mexico.
This was a great one. It just goes to show that a few minor changes can make a big difference.
Perhaps the American wasn’t as adept as the Brit with a musket in 1862 because in 1860 the Americans had the Henry .44 caliber rim fire lever action carbine with a 16+1 magazine capacity (which could be completely discharged before the first British musket shot was even loaded).
load it on Sunday and shoot it all damn week
Except the Enfield would have been shooting at him from far beyond the range of the American thus doing so in perfect safety. Henry 0,440" at 900 yards? I don't think so.
That Henry rifle was very expensive so I don't see the comparison when you can only have like 5 of them while your enemy has 50 Enfield's.
@@JostVanWair you get what you pay for.
Seeing comments, I almost think the Chinese created this video trying to drive a wedge between our two great countries.
Either that, or its the Chinese that are commenting. 😁
Just be assured in the 19th century China seems to have forgotten what firearms were
What I find interesting is how small innovations or variations in equipment can lead to a noticeable difference. For example, the location of a cap pouch in conjunction with the movements of rifle drill meant that the British regular would experience a slight advantage in natural movement when reloading, which in turn leads to an increased rate of fire that could be decisive in a battle. I think in some ways this demonstrative of the fact that the British were largely a professional army supplemented by (often native) auxilaries. On the other hand, the US Army during the Civil War era was largely composed of volunteers supplemented by a handful of regulars. I think this is also an important factor. The US marginalized the army prior to the Civil War, whereas the British Army was seen as an important tool in maintaining the Empire (though secondary to the Royal Navy). Britain, at that time, had a more sophisticated and established system for developing and procuring weapons and equipment.
It's something that never really crossed my mind, but comparing the British army to the US army in the 1860's is very interesting. I'm not 100% certain, but I speculate that the British army is considerably more experienced and better funded than their American counterpart of the time. Most US army units were made up of volunteers and every unit did not receive the exact same training
As a Brit I actually believe the US army to be superior not because of the individual soldiers but due to the general incompetence of the British commanders at the time, this was clearly demonstrated during the Crimean War where our French allies were dumbfounded by the total lack of tactical awareness of our Generals in the field.
Many feel the fault lies with Wellington who after Waterloo went onto lead the British Army and ensured that class and position in society was more important for an officer than ability and aptitude, this worked well as long as we were fighting tribesmen in India and Africa but not so well against a well trained well equipped enemy such as the Boers.
@@tonyjames5444 I think that By the End of thr Civil War, Union troops and officers probably had enough combat experience to say they were superior to British troops at the time.
To compare Navies during the same era is even more interesting because, as the kids these days are wont to say, the Brits were littorally outclassed overnight.
@@trace6242 Actually the Royal Navy at the time had just introduced HMS Warrior which outclassed every warship afloat.
@@trace6242 Ahhh, I get it. That's hilarious!
The fact that I was getting really invested in the US soldier being faster and that I was upset that he wasn't has led me to re-evaluate my priorities in life.
Excellent video, guys.
Americans used their teeth to tear open the cartridges because we had superior teeth to the British. Cheers.
In America you eat and drink more sugary foods and drinks than we do in the UK. Sugar rots the enamel in the teeth.
Just spitting facts
@@beaucaspar3990 you're just mad you cant own guns anymore...
In America you eat like you have free healthcare and have some sort of mass shooting every other week
@@nottodaysir5855 Lmao. With the exception of LA though, it seems like everyone there is super good looking
@@beaucaspar3990 it's a safe haven for them lmao
Loved this video, but now I'm interested in seeing the speed of a Confederate soldier using the Enfield style cartridge.
Matthew Joe Mallory though no one doubts his zeal, the Confederate soldier would have been slower on average. The British infantryman was a professional soldier. He qualified every year on a 90 round course; that’s not counting practice and drill for the rest of the year. The Confederacy simply didn’t have the resources or time to expend ammunition at that rate. The British soldier would also have been extremely familiar with this system while the Confederate soldier would have seen a plethora of different cartridges. With a good supply of this style cartridge I’m sure that any soldier of the various armies that adopted this cartridge would perform well, but the British standard of professionalism is unsurpassed.
@@theministryforhistory this is not entirely true Cleburne's division of the army of Tennessee was taught musketry in the British fashion due in part the Cleburne was a former British soldier...
@@theministryforhistory Even in Mid to late 1862 some very large battles had occured and there were many "Veteran troop" on both the Union and Confederate sides. Also you forgot about the Union "Regulars" of the 5th Corps, professional soldiers just like their British counterparts, who made up the old prewar army and had also seen a good amount of fighting prior to the Civil War while serving in "Indian Country"
@@50TNCSA It's a case of "too little, too late" I'm afraid. Even Cleburne said there simply wasn't enough ammunition to practice musketry properly. Brett (in red) discusses Cleburne in the Civil War chapter of his book - www.amazon.com/Destroying-Angel-Rifle-Musket-Modern-Infantry/dp/171985727X/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=
Seeing it was a better round and way of loading, CS Ordnance Chief Josiah Gorgas adopted the British style round in 1864 and ordered all CS arsenals to make this type of round for muskets from then on. The CS one was about half inche shorter than the English round due to it was made for the deeper British Cartridge boxes. The US style boxes were shallower tins in it so they had to shorten the round. The British round used like near 70 grns of powder and the CS one about 60 or 63.
The American is quite slow.
I think you should hire Matthew Broderick or Tom Cruise to help him load quicker by firing a pistol at him yelling "FASTER!"
couldn't hurt
Random redcoat lieutenant: "Forgive me sir, but it's that bloody French monarch or emperor or whatever that damned lunatic is calling himself this week."
Duke of Wellington: "Yes? Well don't keep us all in suspense? Has he died?"
R.r.l.: "No sir."
D. of W.: "For king and country, just spit it out! What is it man?!?"
R.r.l.: "He uh, he has apparently escaped that beautiful island prison we stuck him on."
D. of W.: "...damn. Well, there goes my afternoon. Send a message to the Prussians, Russians, everybody that sod has crossed in the past, let them know *dun-dun-DUNNN* the little dumpy war monger is on the lose, um, again."
R.r.l.: "Should I send one to the colonies, sir?"
D. of W.: "After what they did with our tea? Don't be daft man. Besides, we just finished the war of 1812 with them. They're jolly good sports and all, but not that jolly, or that sportsman like."
Napoleon and the U.S. were on very good terms actually. It’s more likely that the British would be concerned they would join Napoleon again. The War of 1812 was actually fought because the U.S. had invaded Canada as a de facto ally of the French after a British blockade had cut them off from trade. It is funny though.
Collective comments almost as interesting as your fine video. Your conclusion, I think, is largely academic. Speed of fire was considered as was accuracy. But the tactics of the day did not stress fire superiority in any meaningful way. Not as we understand that today. The time difference under fire would probably be close and both might loose a round per minute. The many factors and variables of battle negate this difference. Someone put a lot of time into the uniforms and equipment.
CAVKING19DELTA TEXAS perhaps. It has been asserted that the average confederate soldier was a better shot than his union counterpart for the reasons you mention. But, both rate of fire and individual proficiency have to be considered in the context of the tactics of that period, namely massed ranks firing by volley. As the use of skirmishers became prevalent individual marksmanship became desirable. So to with early sniping. This video tests two very similar weapons systems. The result that I see is insignificant. One touchdown in the first quarter does not make a football game.
@TexasPROUD British troops were trained to a more uniform and consistent standard, even if their baseline would be a bit lower for the reason described. I would take a Southern militia recruit over a British one more than half the time, but I would take a British line infantriman over a Union one at wars start. Veterans would equal out pretty quick. I think the darker uniforms would make a bigger war fighting difference than the musketry drills though.
Though I would always back the American in a fight in this time period for ideological reasons only. Exploitative empires are evil and would lead to tens upon tens of millions of deaths to this day, and by default the British soldier would be fighting for a government defined at its core by such a system until after WWII. The American folly was slavery and manifest destiny. Horrible sins in their own right, but geographically petty by comparison and scope. And both were of course taught to us by our Anglo forbears. Our burden of course was not abolishing slavery nearly as early as they did. (Though to be fair they simply replaced outright slavery with a less brutal colonial system of exploition and coerced labor, and patted themselves on the back about it for a century more.) We meanwhile languished in our own century or so of racism and inefficiency, wasting huge moral, educational, and economic potential.
@Eric da' MAJ Precisely. By 1864, the Union Army could have detached a corps which could have conquered Canada at its leisure without significantly slowing its death grip on the Rebels, while Lincoln's experienced ironclad, screw-driven navy could have sunk any fleet the British could have sent to oppose it. Given all the trouble our "good neighbor to the north" has been over the last century and a half, perhaps we should have.
American military doctrine always stressed accuracy. It was not until WW2 were over whelming fire power was really adopted.
Laughs in gatling gun
yeah the Americans should be using and m16, a musket is historically inaccurate (and literally)
@@frogg5949 Lol
do you know what makes a good soldier
the ability to fire 3 rounds in any condition
Yeah the Brit has a faster reload, but he's wearing all red like a giant bullseye.
Muskets make so much smoke on a battlefield, camouflage goes out the window. Warfare was different from today, and they did things because it worked
I mean the Zouaves didn't exactly dress in modest clothing either now did they?
@@emorynguyen1583 Not entirely the case, almost all nations fielded light infantry or skirmishers that wore subdued colored uniforms. They were able to quite effective use camouflage especially in colonial conflicts.
HeadlessZombie1991 That’s because they’re skirmishers; they attack before the field gets filled with smoke. Yeah, camouflage is good in that case but let’s say the skirmishers are over run and need to retreat back to the main force. Their comrades will not be able to the difference between you and the enemy if they don’t have their bright colors. In most cases only elite units were clothed in green
From the musket smoke of everyone in the battle he would be in it wouldn't matter if he's wearing red or camouflage bc from the smoke you'd know where he is. Secondly in that type of warfare it's imperative you know which side is your own side because in the smoke and confusion of a cavalry charge or a bayonet charge you don't want to go shooting your sargent major. Thirdly muskets in that time we're only really that accurate at close range so on a battlefield he'd either be engaged in combat anyway or too far away to hit.
But can you do it while blitzed on applejack, rum, and freedom?
Brandon Lalonde while fighting for our beautiful Appalachi ladies at home...
Well, they did, just replace the applejack with cider, I suppose.
@@fds7476 the British were never blitzed on freedom, unless you're talking about Nelson but that doesn't count because he died!
@@jonathanwells223
You Yankee boys wouldn't know freedom if it waltzed around on your nose ;)
The british round was smaller and easier to load down the barrel, the American lead round was larger and tighter in the barrel and so was slightly longer /harder to load. however this gave the American round a better range and a more accurate shot. The british and American armies at this period had different concerns regarding firepower, the british view was speed at close range, while America's view was range and accuracy. However the american view did begin to change by 1864 with the fighting during the civil war becoming more and more at closer range with many american soldiers equipping themselves with the new modern Henry and later the Spencer repeating rifle's, capable of firing multiple shots.
British infantry tactics were based around shock warfare and constantly advancing. The American infantry tactics were influenced heavily by the French which emphasized skirmish tactics and wearing down an advancing enemy.
While you’re loading a Tennessee mountain man just killed and scalped you and your friends with the same axe he used to field dress a bear yesterday and is now wearing as a headdress.
And while your Tennessee mountain man was busy doing that, a Gurkha would have grabbed his Kukri and charged him, disarmed him, and sliced him into steak tartare five times over.
@@fds7476 a small man with funny looking knife wouldn't be anything that mountain men would be unfamiliar with, try another one
@@jonathanwells223
Strange, that's exactly what the Japanese once said. And the Germans. And the Italians. And the Indians. And the Malayans. And the Argentinians. And the Afghans...
Your average Tennessee mountain man would not have been firing at a U.S. soldier. Most Tennessee mountaineers were Unionists.
Ohh too funny
Tearing the cartridge with one's teeth allows one hand on the cartridge and one full hand on the musket, not trying to hold the musket and tear the cartridge with one hand. Just an observation...
Hand tearing is impossible if on the move. A hard stop is required for every drilled load....
The older US and British manuals required the comb stay off the ground, even when standing firm.
The American put it in his mouth because we’re always thinking about our next meal and we get hungry while doing so.
The movie Glory, 3 aimed shots per minute was the norm in the Union Army.
In the Confederate Army as well.
Richard Lahan except their aim was better.
Well, you can't argue with a movie.
It was researched for the movie and training manuals are still around for that period.
Field artillery was also supposed to fire 3 rounds per minute.
Throw someone efficiently drilled in Casey's Manual of Arms, or better yet, someone who can meet the 1862 Hiram Berdan qualification standards of the 1st US Sharpshooters.
@TexasPROUD The quality of Texas Confederates in the Civil War varied wildly in most all areas. We were, of course, superior to all other Southern recruits, but that would be a matter of principle and not necessarily fact.
@@Eleolius That might be due to the fact that Texan soldiers were most likely veterans of the Mexican-American war
It's a real shame that British humour/snark seem to go over the heads of so many.
I really enjoyed this video and would definately want more of this!
Excellent narration and voice as well, to say the least!
I feel I should mention that Great Britain, in the span of less than a century, went from owning a quarter of the world, to being the size of Michigan. Also to point out an interesting fact, The United States Army was in fact going on outdated Napoleonic tactics for a good chunk of the war.
Jacob Yin Your point?
Britain has always been the size of Michigan but Michigan has never had an empire.
@@snowflakemelter1172 The largest empire the world has ever seen, in fact, and the Commonwealth still makes up 1/3 of the world!
@Seven Funny how one comment could piss off a bunch of British (or Commonwealth) people, it's like I made fun of your Tea or how y'all call chips crisps, or drive on the wrong side of the road.
@@snowflakemelter1172 yet...
Of course, the British soldier had one major disadvantage, A bright red tunic so he could be easily seen against almost any background.
with that kind of smoke from the gunpowder, the color of the uniform is meaningless as camouflage
@@Samuel-wm1xr well, im not a historian but just from a common sense perspective, time shooting would be minimal and generally from massed ranks back then. What about when soldiers were moving through woodland or pasture, a bright red tunic would have been a clear target. I don't think they really considered camouflage back then.
D C Camouflage? How unsporting. Wear red and stand there like a man!
Did knights of old use camouflage? How utterly cowardly to them such a notion would be - so unchivalrous
@@DC-ip1sc Most of the armies would not, however, be fighting a skirmish war in the boonies. The British Army *did* have units trained for just that kind of warfare, and interestingly they did not wear red. The best examples are the Rifle Brigade and the Kings Royal Rifle Corps, both of which wore the Dark Green that became the standard uniform for Riflemen in the British Army.
Do not forget that most battles at this period were conducted in close visual range of the enemy, rarely more than 100 - 200 metres in the 1850's, and down to about 50 metres in 1810. Distinctive uniforms enabled soldiers of all levels to quickly dertermine who was in front of them, if a British soldier for example saw a group of guys ahead in red jackets he could be pretty sure that they too were British.
Its only really with the horrifyingly increased lethality of weapons following the 2nd Industrial Revolution that saw the invention of reliable bolt action rifles and rapid firing field artillery that things changed rapidly. Only ten years prior to this a rifleman could manage maybe 6 rounds a minute on a good day, artillery maybe 4, afterwards a rifleman could be expected to maintain 15 rounds a minute, and field artillery could burst fire 20 rounds a minute and comfortably maintain 10 rounds a minute as long as the ammunition lasted, and both retained their killing power and accuracy at distances four times that of only ten years prior. It was at this point that bright uniforms became a major liability on the battlefield, the downsides outweighing the pluses in pretty much every respect.
Britain was already switching from Red to Kahki before the Boer War, but the Boer war hugely accelerated that change. It also saw massive changes made not only to the equipment, but a complete rewrite of the Infantry and Cavalry manuals. The British Army of 1914 was a completely different to the army that had fought in South Africa in 1902, not only its equipment had changed totally, but so had its training and its tactical doctrine.
That is of course just one army, but the change from bright, distinctive uniforms to dull, camouflaged ones happened at roughly the same time in all armies, that 20 year period from the start of the 20th Century to around 1920. It had been slowly gaining traction beforehand... but only slowly.
Brett has the definite advantage with the Enfield paper cartridge. The naked minnie ball, the rifle will be difficult to load after about 15 shots. Most interesting little demo. Well done
Based upon the anecdotal reports of Candian troops who faced Fenian Brotherhood US Civil War vets during the Fenian Invasions of the 1870's, their rate of fire was fast enough that the Canadians thought they were armed with Spencer or Henry repeaters.
That's why Fennia is a Superpower.
Motivated Irishman is hard to stop !
What makes a good soldier is one that can fire 3 rounds a minute, in any condition of weather.
Now that’s soldiering
Unbeknownst to our British brethren, the end of the Yanks cartridge was also his field ration, so huzzah for efficiency !
Quite!
I can believe it, my twelve year old eats paper.
It should be noted that the British musket was used by southern troops in small numbers.
Also, I have seen much more able Americans fire the Springfield at about same rate as brit.
And finally, am I the only American who thinks the narrator of this video could use a serious butt whipping?
jammer3618 cheers!
The 1853 Enfield was used in fairly large numbers by both Union and Confederate troops because the British were selling it to both sides and it was being captured by both sides on the battlefield.
@@richardlahan7068 The main union rifle was the Springfield.
@@jammer3618 Not until 1864 did the Springfield become more common that then enfield in federal hand. For the CSA the enfield was the most common.
The narrator is British, it's in their nature to be disrespectful in a passive-aggressive manner. I'm sure he didn't mean anything by it.
It's interesting. Whenever I see a 1860s US soldier, I think that I'm looking at a 1860s Danish soldier. Their uniforms were almost identical.
well, Danish were darker and some other types of units had totally different uniforms (like Danish Lifeguards, which I don't think were used in war of 1864 or Danish dragoons)
@@lordyaromir6407 That's why I said almost identical. ;)
Everybody copied the French.
@@johnfisk811 Well, except for Prussians, Austrians, British, many German states, Ottomans, partly the Spanish and their ex colonies (well, there were many French aspects, but from what I saw, they mostly made their uniforms so they don't all die in the heat) and so on. But yes, most countries copied the French :D
@@lordyaromir6407 French military influence didn't wane until they got waxed in the war of 1870, after which Prussian influence hit the US Army and almost everywhere else.
It would have made the comparison a lot better if the union soldier had actually followed the manual of arms, and not done thing in his own way.
He is not standing in the correct position. He is not using the ramrod correct...
If he did that when standing in line with men who do it as described, his ramrod would likely be hitting the ramrod used by the man to his right.
He is full cocking the weapon when priming... instead of fist half, then priming, and only going full cock then. (It might be faster, but it is not correct and I would not like to be in the front rank with him behind me)
As an American Civil War reenactor I noticed the above as well.. .nothing that a bit of training would not correct.
He's also letting the hammer down on top of the primer before going back to shoulder arms - I don't know where that came from!
@@bborkzilla Had not noticed that before. You are right.
That is just dangerous.
(Should be noted that some models of muskets actually had an extra "cock" just above the cap, to make sure it could not fall of... but that is not the case with the P1853 and US model 1855)
The Virgin Union Soldier
-gives himself tooth decay biting open his cartridge
-takes forever to use his ram rod
-wears dark blue, a sign of his blue balls
-his sweetheart is entertaining Cletus as we speak
-patiently waits for his Brad lieutenant to tell him to aim
The Chad Redcoat
-opens his cartridge with his fingers like a real man
-uses his ram rod with precise efficiency
-wears red, shots still miss him
-his wife patiently awaits his return with perfect British stoicism
-aiming shmaiming
One of them lot to the other
@@bluemobster0023 You might be onto something there, Inspector Obvious.
@@thegorillasnake jesus christ my auto correct. I ment to say *one beat the other*
@@bluemobster0023 Yep, in the War of 1812, the redcoats absolutely humiliated the Union.
All the other americans here in the comments are just proving the point to british people that we get mad for no reason
Speed is cool, but its accuracy that counts.
And that is a win for the brits.
The britsh army had the most extensive marksmanship program in the world for its line infantry.
In american civil war soldiers very rarely fired their guns outside of combat. There was no organized teaching of marksmanship skills. (outside of a few select units)
And many soldiers had a hard tine even loading their guns and firing them... or cleaning them properly.
There are good reasons why the typical combat range in the civil war was about 100yards.
Thomas Aagaard
All midwestern units had deadly accuracy. They would clean up a British unit anyway.
@@maticstudios stop being a nationalistic fool and do some actual reading. For half the war most soldiers on both side in the west was armed with smoothbores.
And there is no evidence what so ever that the typical civil war unit, north or south ever learned how to effectively engage at 300 yards.(as a unit)
The exception being Cleburne's men, since he actually did run a organised program for teaching marksmanship. Based on the british system. And the specialized sharpshooter units, where the men did know how to shoot thanks to prewar activities... did do some shooting out side of combat for training.
The idea that all americans where marksmen is simply stupid. Using a small bore hunting rifle to hunt rabbits do not teach you the skills needed for long range shooting with a riflemusket. Using an old smoothbore gun with buckshoots for hunting birds do not teach you how to use a military rifle musket at long range. (and there where very very few modern military rifles in civilian hands)
Claiming that it do show a complete ignorance of how the ballistics of a rifle musket work at 300 yards. It got a massive "bulletdrop".
The result is that the most critical skill you need, do not even involve the gun. And that is range estimation. If your estimate is off by just 10%, you will miss.
To become a good shot, you need someone to teach you and to put shots down range, under calm conditions where you get feedback if you hit and what to do better.
That require a organized afford, with cartridges issued for it, firing ranges layed out in a regulated way. And if that had been done on a corp or army wide basic it would be easy find evidence of it.
But outside of a few select unit units it was not done.
In comparison the Brits had the most extensive program in the world.
There is a reason that the CSA started to organize sharpshooter battalions. The typical soldiers didn't have any real skills, so the had to get the men who did together in specialized units. That way they ended up with a few small units that they could use to engage at long range.
And really, the reason the NRA was created was exactly because of the horrible skill level of the soldiers during the war...
Thomas Aagaard
May I remind you these are men who grew up in harsh conditions and leader to use a rifle at a very young age. It’s not so much nationalism than a fact. The Midwestern American troops on both side were feared for their training and quick reloading. They were known to be able to hold out against a enemy unit twice their size.
Thomas Aagaard
I specifically said midwestern troops. The majority of both armies were conscripts from the coast. They were taught how to fight quickly and sent off to battle. They were not considered good troops.
The American used his teeth because he had them, unlike the British soldier
I highly doubt that in 1862 you all have facial and tooth reconstruction surgery. Your teeth are as fake as the californian boobs in the 90s
@@myview5840 Made of plastic but still quite fantastic
The bias is cute, though I would like to see this comparison on a regimental level as compared to an individual one. Either way, a good academic display of the loading techniques of two very different militaries. And the Brits poking fun at us is nothing new, so easy to ignore.
Thank you for taking it in stride.
@Rowan Nowicki And then there are the snowflakes.
Rowan Nowicki
A British person got offended? That never happens!
Churchill_is_a_Legend
I like the UK. It could be worse my friend, you could be an American like me. Everyone hates us.
@@terrum-c7s Like anyone outside of Luton cares about football
I've just noticed that these two gentlemen have the perfect shade of blue and red
Indeed they could have walked out of an osprey book illustration...
I was thinking more of the Minecraft villager police cars. Just stick these two on top of a spinning plate. Attach fancy lights on them. And then have them make siren sounds.
Those uniforms look very good I gotta say, I think I like the deep blue/black american better tho.
Thank god the UK didn't decide to fight on the side of the Confederates.
Because that would have whipped up the Irish brigades on both sides into a murderous frenzy, that would have been good for nobody.
Then risking a public insurrection. The general UK population were not enamoured of the slavery policy of the Confederacy.
What I always think is sad when I read about the Revolution is that because of the greed of our British Aristocracy but also the smuggling and corruption among local officials in the colonies, People who a lot were from the same Country basically had the first Civil War on American soil.
if you mean the first civil war for the british there was many, many, many before the US revolutionary war.
if you mean first civil war for the US then its more accurate i guess
I like the British location of the percussion cap pouch. It is easier to access and takes less time to go through the motion.
“Here we will see the American pull out his cartridge and put it into his mouth for some reason...”. Ah, good ol British humor!!! The narrator reminds me of Stephen Fry.
only not as entertaining
Until the American whips out his Colt and shoots six shots in under 10 seconds.
Or he show up with a 7 shot Spencer or 16 shot Henry.
@@alancroft5370 and how many Henry was issued by the union army? and how many enfield did they import?
Stop believing in nationalistic propaganda.
And the British soldier whips out the Beaumont-Adams, or his own privately purchased Colt since he clearly would be a Gentleman if he was using a pistol.
Get off 7 shots with a musket faster than a colt
The American system may be slower, but it is still good enough to kill and wound 23,000 soldiers in a single day (battle of Antietam).
The British don't bite the cartridge because the Sepoys had taught them a difficult lesson about that 5 years earlier!
Just kidding!😂 That's probably just a myth, and this was an enjoyable and informative demonstration!😁
Funny while also teaching historical facts. That's how I like my internet lessons
Are they patrolling in the Mojave?
I’m not going to say it.
Makes you wish for a nuclear winter _dammit._
Well I guess that's that the British should win any conflict Against The Americans
Most Confederate Troops in the civil war used the enfield but still reloaded the same way the American does and most never got the British leather accouterments that came with the enfield they had to use the American accouterments idk if that was the reason they loaded different....however I know that they didn’t have the same cartridge casing as the British I would imagine cause the the south had to rush production of things so they had no need for the hard cartridge that was snapable they just needed something they could shoot haha and with the increased production rate in the civil war in sure they skipped steps and made cartridges as fast as possible not making them as elegant as the Brit cartridge (trying not to be bias) I’ve shot both rifles and have fired blanks at re-enactments from them as well and I like them both I can get three rounds off in a minute using the American technique it all comes down to drill and repetition in my opinion
I can answer one of those questions really quickly, many Confederate soldiers were once in the US army. This is how THEY were trained. The reason the reload method was the same is because they relied on the training they themselves received, and when teaching the manual of arms, they went back to it. You don't change how you reload simply because the rifle is different. The mechanism of the rifles are similar so why change how you reload them. It's not like going from muzzle loader to breech loading. Same principle so reload the way you are taught. And mostly the Confederates made their own cartridges in encampment. They didn't have the advantage of premade prelubricated, or even clean paper. Many would also trade out rifles and scavenging cartridges from dead Union soldiers. There certainly were plenty available after a battle. I only know that from reading contemporary accounts.
Sentences! Jeeze!
I love reading all these comments, there’s so much history to learn! I’m familiar with this time period and the surrounding centuries only so far as Empire: Total War has taught me. Suffice it to say all I *really* know is to rush ranked fire and get your men to spread the hell out!
Matt Neufeld I always loved the naval combat from Empire TW! Nothing like hearing the broadside erupt from a Man o’War!
the main advantage the us sytem is that the british would have to have a break for tea. the us stopped drinking tea after the little incident in boston. also easier to make ersatz coffee than tea.
Style means nothing concerning rate of fire. Practice however does.
The British were renowned for their skills in musketry which was adapted from the Napoleonic Wars :D
@Din Djarin gee I wonder
@Din Djarin I'm saying its because its the war that founded their nation
@Sue Martino Haha!
@Din Djarin The American side were a boring part but the British ones are cool.
@Din Djarin no they didn't, the French arrived at the very last minute, The war began in 1776 and ended in 1781 with the French only arriving at Yorktown when Cornwallis was actually awaiting British transport after his third serious DEFEAT. First at Kings Mountain NC, then at Cowpens SC, and after being pursued he lost yet again at Yorktown Va. And the French only arriving to cut off his escape. So they really weren't much help at all. Better learn your History. The war was unsustainable anyway. Logistics were against the British, they were engaged into too many conflicts elsewhere. And political pressure at home really were what defeated the British Army here. Not much help from the French at all now was there?
One reason American soldiers in the Revolutionary war won was that they had buttons on their pants instead of laces and could take a piss more easily. I am anxious to see that rematch.
Full frontal European style reenactment, or pixelated Japanese style?
that federal uniform looks quite sharp with the bloused trousers
All Natural Salt: An American Company