Author Topic: France and the rifle  (Read 9033 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Completenoob

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 60
    • View Profile
Re: France and the rifle
« Reply #15 on: March 06, 2013, 08:57:05 pm »
I don't think anyone sensible would consider them wonder weapons that single handedly would have won the war(s), which arguably is the case with any new and hip thing that earns certain reputation. Take German heavy tanks from the 1940s as one comparison that sparks to my mind for now.

Offline Hekko

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 816
  • I host stuff
    • View Profile
    • 15e Website
  • Nick: Nr24_Gren_Hptm_Hekko
  • Side: Neutral
Re: France and the rifle
« Reply #16 on: March 06, 2013, 09:01:08 pm »
On what basis did he say that they were worse?

Offline Docm30

  • First Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 730
  • Retired.
    • View Profile
  • Side: Neutral
Re: France and the rifle
« Reply #17 on: March 06, 2013, 09:05:38 pm »
I don't think anyone sensible would consider them wonder weapons that single handedly would have won the war(s), which arguably is the case with any new and hip thing that earns certain reputation. Take German heavy tanks from the 1940s as one comparison that sparks to my mind for now.

I don't think anyone has ever argued that any WW2 German weapon won the war for them.

On what basis did he say that they were worse?

In that they were slower and took more skill to reload, were almost useless in a melee (the sword bayonet was an utterly useless weapon that was regarded by rifleman as a tool rather than a weapon) and the accuracy was only slightly better than a smooth bore when using prepared cartridges.

Offline Hekko

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 816
  • I host stuff
    • View Profile
    • 15e Website
  • Nick: Nr24_Gren_Hptm_Hekko
  • Side: Neutral
Re: France and the rifle
« Reply #18 on: March 06, 2013, 09:15:44 pm »
Yeah, but how often did the 95th end up in melee proper? And I don't disagree the rifles are situational, but having some rifles mixed in with mostly muskets would be beneficial imo.

Offline Archduke Sven

  • Brigadier General
  • *
  • Posts: 6012
  • I have over 1000 warning points, be careful.
    • View Profile
  • Nick: regimentless sven
  • Side: Union
Re: France and the rifle
« Reply #19 on: March 06, 2013, 09:31:57 pm »
Well, it was not necessarily inferior to the brown bess, i would much rather have a rifle in a skirmish fight than a musket. In a line vs line engagement the rifle would be inferior but in a skirmish fight were it is mostly about accuracy rather than rate of fire most of the time.
 
I think it really comes down to tactics and how you use it in my eyes.


told that bih don't @ me

Offline Docm30

  • First Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 730
  • Retired.
    • View Profile
  • Side: Neutral
Re: France and the rifle
« Reply #20 on: March 06, 2013, 09:37:37 pm »
Well, in the eyes of someone that actually commanded a unit of riflemen, they were inferior in the way they were used.

Offline 5arge

  • Second Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 616
    • View Profile
  • Side: Neutral
Re: France and the rifle
« Reply #21 on: March 06, 2013, 09:51:03 pm »
Couldn't you use the Crimean War as a comparison here? I was under the impression that all the Brits went to war with rifles, whereas the Russians were still using smoothbores. It was a blood bath (granted that disease and poor medical conditions may have killed more than a minie ball).
it seems that the person on the wrong end of 5arge always seems to get the punishment.

Offline Docm30

  • First Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 730
  • Retired.
    • View Profile
  • Side: Neutral
Re: France and the rifle
« Reply #22 on: March 06, 2013, 09:54:41 pm »
A quarter of the British army went to the Crimea with smooth bores, and the rifles they had by then were full length percussion cap jobs; hardly comparable to a short, Napoleonic rifle

Offline 5arge

  • Second Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 616
    • View Profile
  • Side: Neutral
Re: France and the rifle
« Reply #23 on: March 06, 2013, 10:02:25 pm »
A quarter of the British army went to the Crimea with smooth bores, and the rifles they had by then were full length percussion cap jobs; hardly comparable to a short, Napoleonic rifle
Ah, so even more accurate, and faster firing. No comparison is right.

Sorry, back on topic, I agree with what has been said already about how the French used skirmishers. It made sense to have smoothbore muskets for the screening role they played. They moved faster, and fired faster, so they were valuable for buying time and drawing fire away from the attack columns. If the French fought more like the British did, it may have been more of a detriment, but the French deployed for battle and maneuvered against their enemy is a completely different style.
it seems that the person on the wrong end of 5arge always seems to get the punishment.

Offline Completenoob

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 60
    • View Profile
Re: France and the rifle
« Reply #24 on: March 07, 2013, 12:13:56 am »
I don't think anyone has ever argued that any WW2 German weapon won the war for them

I was intending to refer at the exaggerated morale effect what they did have, but I worded it bit poorly in my post.

Offline OGNValjean

  • First Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 274
    • View Profile
  • Nick: Gordon Goldstein
  • Side: Union
Re: France and the rifle
« Reply #25 on: March 07, 2013, 05:50:00 am »
Enemy Logic: Trained Crackshots can turn the course of battle! Blarg Blarg 5,000 Bakers for meh armee of 2 Billion!

France Logic: Enemies have Rifles? Use More Gun. And if that don't work, use more gun.

And that is why the Engineer is the best tf2 Class.

Offline Walko

  • Brigadier General
  • *
  • Posts: 4450
  • Tired art student.
    • View Profile
    • 4. Silesian Landwehr
  • Side: Union
Re: France and the rifle
« Reply #26 on: March 08, 2013, 08:59:49 pm »
I think it really depends on the situation. In some situations I would think that a rifle would be more efficient (longer range engagements). On the attack though, I would say French voltigeurs had an advantage, just because the sheer amount of fire, and amount of men they put forward. Of course I believe that having some men armed with rifles would not have been to bad an idea. Have 2-3 out of every 10 men have a rifle sounds like a balance.
Pointy stick champion

Offline Walko

  • Brigadier General
  • *
  • Posts: 4450
  • Tired art student.
    • View Profile
    • 4. Silesian Landwehr
  • Side: Union
Re: France and the rifle
« Reply #27 on: March 08, 2013, 09:09:15 pm »
Enemy Logic: Trained Crackshots can turn the course of battle! Blarg Blarg 5,000 Bakers for meh armee of 2 Billion!

France Logic: Enemies have Rifles? Use More Gun. And if that don't work, use more gun.

And that is why the Engineer is the best tf2 Class.

ummm, first of all the english army in the field was relatively small, (about 10,000-20,000 during most of the peninsular war right?). Second, the rifles (from what I understand) could pick out, and pick off officers. This sounds like it would be extremely efficient, as the men would not really know what to do without their officer. Also you have to take into consideration the different roles of the units. Riflemen were marksmen, voltigeurs just screened the line infantry. Also take into consideration the fact that the English army also fielded a large amount of light infantry along with riflemen. So overall, I would say that the english tactics were rather sound.
Pointy stick champion

Offline Duuring

  • Duuring
  • ***
  • Posts: 12357
  • Free at last
    • View Profile
  • Side: Neutral
Re: France and the rifle
« Reply #28 on: March 08, 2013, 09:39:53 pm »
You forget the fact that Voltigeurs (Just like all light infantry) were supposed to think for their own.

Offline Docm30

  • First Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 730
  • Retired.
    • View Profile
  • Side: Neutral
Re: France and the rifle
« Reply #29 on: March 08, 2013, 09:44:08 pm »
The British had 45,000 men in the Peninsula in 1814.

Having a force dedicated to just picking off officers would not be a sound tactic, which is the reason that's not what riflemen did.

To suggest voltigeurs performed no other task besides screening the infantry is completely and totally inaccurate.