View single post by CleburneFan
 Posted: Sun Apr 19th, 2009 12:45 am
 PM  Quote  Reply  Full Topic 

Joined: Mon Oct 30th, 2006
Location: Florida USA
Posts: 1021

  back to top

My thoughts are that hardly any battlefield situations would be ideal. The trouble with technology, if it is tested under ideal conditions and standards are set based on that, there are bound to be disappointments when actual conditions of use are put to the test.

There was a fascinating show on the Military Channel last week that tested the actual range and speed of reloading and firing frequency per minute of Union Soldiers facing Pickett's Charge at Gettysburg. 

Theoretcially many, many more Confederate soldiers should have died given the rated capacity of Union infantry weapons, even Union artillery. Using Civil War reenactors who employed weapons and ammo as close to that of the Union soldiers in simulated battle conditions at Gettysburg, the investigators showed that in spite of how many targets should have been hit, far fewer than expected were. The result appeared to give the reenactors quite a surprise.

Of course, other reasons for the discrepancy in expected casualties and actual casualities included  factors such as the difficulty Confederates faced crossing the rail fence and the possibility that some did not cross it, but laid down behind it and never even made the charge beyond the fence.

 Close Window