Why didn’t we use the Dreyse Needle Rifle in the Civil War?

[@gargoyle7863]

Sounds like perfect weapon for dragoons: surprise, dismount, use up all your ammo and horseback to supply.

[@gehtdichnixan3200]

it is a superweapon when one side uses regular muskets and the other those rifles ....

[@ObsceneSuperMatt]

@@gehtdichnixan3200 Yes, the Austro-Prussian war was very one sided.

[@gehtdichnixan3200]

@@ObsceneSuperMatt ok thhe rifles where only part of the problem .. the austrians had old school bayonet charge tactics ... and well that is a shitty idear when the enemy has a fast firing middle range accurate gun .....

[@ObsceneSuperMatt]

@@gehtdichnixan3200 Did they actually try to bayonet charge in thick forest?!

[@gehtdichnixan3200]

@@ObsceneSuperMatt nur shure about that specific battle but they had a lot of "old school" generals same problem as in the civil war some generals fought like in the napoleonic wars

[@Corvinuswargaming1444]

In historical context the objections to the needle rifle are pretty logical and solid. Your video on soldiers not making full use of rifle muskets in the Civil War also indicates that even if the US army had adopted it the troops may not have been able to fully utilize it in a similar way.

[@trauko1388]

To get the most of a Minie range you needed lots of training, to get the RoF advantage form a Dreyse, not so much.

[@Corvinuswargaming1444]

@@trauko1388 the higher rate of fire was a limitation given the logistical situation at the time, especially with fresh or minimally trained like in Civil War units

[@trauko1388]

@@Corvinuswargaming1444 Given that the average combat range was 100m, it wouldnt have been a problem, any unit standing in a line in front of them wouldnt last a minute, which is less than 10 rounds per rifle. Battle over. The only issue is that while you can delay opening fire... getting them to stop is another matter but, given the tactics of the time the enemy wont stay in range for long. It is a pretty valid conceern, if you look at the War of the Pacific, Chilean troops ran out of ammo in an hour of combat, 130 rounds per man for their Comblain and Gras... and had to retreat with the Bolivians and Peruvians in pursuit... until THEY ran out of ammo when trying to fight off a Chilean counterattack adn were defeated.

[@Ben_not_10]

I will say an advantage the needle rifle would have had over the rifle musket in the American civil war is the amount of times (anecdotally though) were it was said panicked soldiers would continue repeat loading without firing. Billy Yank won’t load a second round without firing the first one.

[@pennywisenibbles4949]

Also it would have been an extremely expensive weapon to mass produce

[@astrotrek3534]

Another thing to perhaps consider is that by 1855 the US military was aware of other breechloading guns like the Sharps rifle, which was being made in America and, on paper at least, is just as capable as the Dreyse. If they did adopt the Dreyse, it probably would have been in small numbers for sharpshooters and cavalry, which is exactly what they did with the Sharps. I'm not sure how they compare in price, but I imagine it can't be far off. Great video!

[@sharonrigs7999]

The Sharps was WAY better than the Dreyse. The Dreyse's acorn shaped bullet really limited it's range and accuracy.

[@astrotrek3534]

@@sharonrigs7999 I've never fired either, so I can't comment too much, but yea the Sharps was firing a big 52 caliber roundnose with alot of powder behind it. 50 grains of powder was alot back then, and it would have been almost as fast to reload as the Dreyse.

[@sharonrigs7999]

@@astrotrek3534 Way more reliable. Especially once the Sharps switched from the Maynard tape primer to normal caps

[@astrotrek3534]

@@sharonrigs7999 Well I think even the Maynard version could still use normal caps too, so really there was no downside there. The Sharps is really underappreciated IMO, super cool gun with lots of history in America.

[@sharonrigs7999]

@astrotrek3534 I wouldn't say underappreciated. It's a legendary American firearm that's as associated with the Civil War sharpshooter as it is with the Buffalo Hunters. The .45-90, .50-110 and .50-140 Sharps cartridges are very potent, even by modern standards. The Sharps is legendary enough for reproductions to be produced by several gunmakers, of varying quality and price.

[@gehtdichnixan3200]

that thing was a gamechanger in the austrian prussian war 1866 .... the fact that austrians where keen for bayonet charges just helped

[@asuka7309]

the funniest part about the Austrian love for excessive charges was because the French had successfully used it against them 7 years prior... they forgot to take into account that the French were charging against poorly trained troops armed with muzzle loaders. and even then there still were many battles where this actually resulted in horrible losses (but it did achieve victory) Had the French charged into better trained troops people would have probably been more keen to revise their favor for 18th century tactics.

[@FlyxPat]

Yup. When the Austrians were able (and decided) to stay at range, such as the Bistritz sector of the battle of Koeniggraetz, their superior artillery and the longer range of the Lorenz negated the advantages of the Dreyse. But to the right of that, other Austrian corps commanders fed their infantry into exactly the worst circumstance against the needle gun, close firefights and combats in the Swiepwald wood.

[@Playing096]

This rifle quite literally changed European warfare, its system would be to use until the 1950s and was simple and reliable

[@josephahner3031]

​@@FlyxPatwhich, ironically, the French failed utterly to learn from until late fall 1914.

[@MichaelDavis-mk4me]

@@josephahner3031The bayonet charge in WW1 worked just as well, or even better than in the 19th century. The problem is that they had no cover before the line of contact before trench warfare was truly discovered. Once it was, suddenly, melee was back on the menu, shock troop tactics was in fact the most effective way to fight in WW1. Canadians in particular, who were feared by the Germans, basically used the rifle mainly as a spear, as it was very unreliable when in contact with mud. It made them into one of the most dreaded and effective forces of the war. Charging as fast as possible was key, standing out in the open meant being shot by machine guns by an entrenched enemy.

[@onsholo]

We used the Dreyser here in Brazil during the Paraguay war and we had issues with how it performed in the marshes and swamps of Paraguay.

[@riograndedosulball248]

And there were very few of them, I believe like, two battalions max. Standardisation was not in the Paraguayan War dictionary. Battles would see Spanish pike heads and cannons from the 1600's alongside metal cartridge rifles

[@tavish4699]

and yoou think an oother gun wouldnt have had problems with wetness?

[@onsholo]

@@tavish4699 Yeah, I do think that simpler guns with less moving parts would had less issues.

[@gehtdichnixan3200]

@@tavish4699 i guess the needle would be even more a problem in moist conditions ....

[@Zathaghil]

And how well would a muzzle loaded musket fair in a swamp?

[@caiosentomo6525]

Very interesting video, its curious that today sometimes we only see the advantages of the Dreyse because we know what happend in 1866 and after that with the muzzleloaders, but back then i understand even more watching the video, how one could think adopting such a rifle as a bad compromise and even a risk. Its interesting that the prussians were always since the adoption of conical touch holes and cylindrical ramrods in the 1780s, trying to imroove the rate of fire. Here in brazil german merceneries that were contracted in 1850 received a few Dreyse M1841 rifles adquired in Hamburg basically for trials. In 1866 during the Paraguayan War a lot of Breechloading systems were trialled, so the dreyse were taken out of storage, a few M1857 Dreyse rifles were adquired and equipped a company during an assualt against a paraguayan fortified position. Probably because of bad quality of the cartdiges produced here, the rifles were misfiring all the time and is described in several sorces that the soldiers throw their rifles away and catch the Minié rifles of their dead comrades. The dreyse ammo was produced with assistence from german merceneries in Laboratório Pirotécnio do Campinho. After the failure in this assault in 1866 the M1841 & M1857 Dreyse would be on storage again forever, about 150 to 300 rifles in total. Sorry for my english, my best regards, best channel

[@FantadiRienzo]

In Latin America soldiers have also had similarly bad experiences with the Chassepot rifle. For some reason there has always been a problem with these needlefire cartridges. Maybe because of the humidity.

[@caiosentomo6525]

@@FantadiRienzo this is a valid point, the field tests in Paraguay were in a very swamp area, the humidity might play an very important element in the Dreyse problems here, problems with quality of the cartridges also existed probably, since the first Spencer carbines issued were unreliable, but just 6 months after with corrections in production of cartridges they were issued and really loved. An thats also totally True with the Chassepot, in 1872 just after the Paraguayan War, Brazil adquired around 5000 chassepot for large trials fearing a new War, this rifles were also not considered reliable at that time. The result was adopting in the next year the Metallic Cartridge rifle as standard, the Comblain

[@PhantomP63]

Thank you for taking the time to explain!

[@taggartlawfirm]

It’s hard to argue for the needle rifle when the Spencer rifle was available.

[@matthiasbreiter4177]

I think the spencer wasn't a standard issue infantry rifle. But I agree, any 1850's rifle was outclassed by this gun. Especially for it's rate of fire, range and metal cartdriges it was beyond compare.

[@trauko1388]

Two issues, cost of ammunition and how many tens of thousands were available for issue?

[@taggartlawfirm]

@@trauko1388 the ammo was about a wash cost wise, metallic machine made cartridges vs hand made paper cartridges and the metallic cartridges were much hardier in the field … and waterproof. I think all told the Spencer company made 200,000 rifles and carbines and they were both adopted but the US. I don’t know how many actually saw service, Reynolds had 9000 carbines at Gettysburg.

[@matthiasbreiter4177]

@@taggartlawfirmI agree. for both a needle rifle and a metal cartridge one, substential manufacturing capacities on industrial scale were needed. Then the costs for one cartridge sure wasn't way different. It was reported that the paper cartidges for sharps rifles got easily "busted" (probably due to moisture) if stored over a longer time. So, yeah - probably with the Spencer available at the time of the war, the needle fired guns were completely obsolete.

[@coldandaloof7166]

Or a Henry?

[@robertfansler7800]

The Greene bolt action under hammer rifle was produced from 1859 to early 1860s. Around 1500 rifles were produced, of which 900 were made for the U.S. Army. It used an oval bore style rifling like the modern HK91 rifle. The Greene was actually the first bolt action rifle adopted by the U.S. military.

[@papercartridges6705]

I have a Greene and made a video a year or two back. Definitely superior to the Dreyse in every ballistic aspect, and had a much better breech sealing system with locking lugs on the bolt. A little clumsy to shoot though!

[@robertfansler7800]

@@papercartridges6705 Thanks for your reply! I found your older review of the Greene rifle. It was excellent! I also own a Greene rifle, in excellent (95%) condition which I got from N. Flayderman & Co. the old Civil War antiquities purveyor. You did a lot of research on it, that I didn’t even know, especially the construction of the paper cartridge. Did you have a .53 caliber mold made for your bullet, or resize a .54 bullet? I found your website, excellent. I also own an excellent condition Swiss Vetterli rifle too. I was fortunate to get that one from Military Antiques & Museum (Petaluma CA) where I worked over ten years ago.

[@titanscerw]

Professor of Musketry Brett von Gettysburg! Great expose as always, thank you! May your deployment runs fast for you and save way home. +][+

[@censusgary]

It’s kind of mind-blowing that the ability to fire 8 rounds per minute, instead of 2 to 3, was seen as a disadvantage. But the government was already having difficulty delivering enough ammunition to the soldiers on the field. To the logistics people, it must have seemed that faster firing would increase the supply problem fourfold.

[@papercartridges6705]

The Dreyse cartridge also required a sabot, that was made by rolling up a strip of paper over a meter long, and then pressing it tightly down on a mechanical press. The sabot held the bullet and the “primer” in the base. That made these cartridges much more complex to make, and several times more expensive per cartridge compared to an ordinary musket round. Once you have all the machinery in place to mass produce them, it’s not quite as bad, but trying to set everything up from scratch, would be massively expensive and difficult.

[@titanscerw]

1866 - yup, tactics implementation difference was the key element. I am looking forward to hear your take on it very keenly. I already watched and rewatched Balasz of capandball channel fame describing it. Zundnadelgewehr was good for tactics implemented on the field that day and also on operational level it was awesome undertaking. While 'our guys' had perfect long reach accurate and destructive rifle perfect for shooting tactics long range engagements of smaller sized units company or less, yet Austrian doctrine of the time was battalion sized Stoss taktik of brute close assault (that worked so perfect in 1800s and 1810's) skewed more recently by experiences from 1859 campaign of Solferino and so on reassuring the command staff in their decision to go with less shooting more bayonet charging. Also whole bait and switch game that drag whole wing in to Svib Forest was absolute disaster ... Only effective units of infantry on Austrian side were Feldjaeger units as they were company and lesser sized detachments that opened up on their enemy from greater distance, yet lot of them ended up bound in close forest fighting of Svib (Sweib) losing their accuracy and distance advantage over their adversaries. +][+

[@PlayingWithFireOutdoors]

1869/71 Vetterli, showed how rifles were advancing. The Italians took the rimfire tube fed design and said center fire and box mag, and then we'll buy them. Then the Mausers were already starting their advancing of it all. Black powder gave way to smokeless etc.

[@_pawter]

I'm currently reading about experienced British colonial regiments dealing with smokeless powder for the first time used by entrenched Boers with magazine rifles (Mauser) and how dumbfounded they were by their inability to scout the position of their antagonists. They could see neither the men nor the puffs of black powder smoke. Yet repeatedly they advanced under orders from their officers using outdated tactics with unmatched bravery.

[@chpet1655]

I just KNEW they’d not like the fact that the troops can fire too fast LOL that mind set was so strong

[@Hexapon1]

Though we have to applaud both sides for the incompetence no tell how much longer and far more bloody the civil war would have been with breach loaders.

[@rdrrr]

​​@@Hexapon1In fairness if troops can shoot five times as fast then they'll consume five times as much ammo and that would strain the hell out of a Civil War-era logistics chain. A higher rate of fire is wonderful until you've got nothing left to shoot.

[@ssjjshawn]

​@@Hexapon1I mean for the CSA it was already struggling with Arms and Ammo Procurement, to the point most CSA Soldiers ended up bringing their own rifles to War. Which ended up helping the CSA get more casualties on the Union thanks to familiarity with Terrain and Weapons. Blowing that Ammo 5 times as fast *per Solider* would wipe out the fleeting Logistics chain from Atlanta far better than Sherman tearing up Train tracks and burning down towns would have.

[@philipboardman1357]

I spit when I heard that. Okay, so don't arm the militia with these rifles. Firing as fast as possible, when you should be firing, is the most important thing.

[@philipboardman1357]

​@@ssjjshawnhaving a faster rate of fire will save ammunition, if you're only firing when you're supposed to. May as well go home, and not fight, if your solution is to use inferior weapons.

[@JosipRadnik1]

That's what I enjoy so much: reading a mid 19th century report, written by a high ranking and certainly well educated officer who's funny misspellings get enshrined in history to be later rediscovered and serve a source of education and amusenment of some foreign history nerd a hundred and seventy years later. In the text at 2:27 the correct spelling is "Zündnadel" or (Zuendnadel if Umlauts don't show up correctly on your computer) - not "Zundnädel". But at least, the officer was trying to include that misterious pair of dots somewhere and he seemed to be aware that they had to fall on some vowel. So 7 points already just for that alone 🤓👍

[@CT-hr9nk]

Please don't use eu to replace ü or any others, ss for ß is alright-ish, but still bad. So please for the love of the German language, use the Umlauts!

[@CT-hr9nk]

There's an option on most computers to be able to switch through multiple keyboard languages by installing a keyboard language package through keyboard or language settings.

[@hadesdogs4366]

It’s simple Because it’s extremely expensive, even when things were being mass produced with the same level of health and safety of a Chinese factory, is because everything back then was all hand built, everything from the springs to the barrel itself and considering the delicacy of the internal parts of the needle gun, in order for it to reach a certain standard, vs a musket which as pretty advanced for the time but was mostly tailor made to fit military specifications, ie how cheap and cost effective can the military make it, vs the more finely tuned and detailed versions of say more personal rifles and weapons most of the troops were using, again take the British lee enfield or any bolt action rifle being archaic by design and yet weapons like the noisan negant is still being used including guns from ww1 where most other weapons of much later or even more modern equipment has been used for less than five years before being overhauled or replaced completely since whilst your grandfather might be using the same M2 heavy machine gun that your modern day marines still uses, doesn’t diminish the fact that outside of a few mechanical enhancements and material changes it’s basically the same weapon as used pre ww2 because it’s simple, rugged, reliable and is liable to drop anything or any one of severely motivated enough to dum as many high caliber rounds into a target before it either becomes Swiss cheese or stops being in its entirety as well as the basic fact that it’s simply cheaper to keep the platform going for as long as possible without needing to build a new factory or set up a whole new logistics department for a new weapon that does exactly the same as it’s predecessor

[@Niklas.K95]

You can get them legaly in Germany without licence because they are patented early enough. But black powder still needs a licence here to get

[@xxxBradTxxx]

Make your own black powder

[@sui1162]

And dont tell anyone either

[@KeyserSoze23]

In Prussia's grip, the needle gleams, A weapon worthy of soldier's dreams. With Dreyse's pride, they march in line, Valour bound to every spine. Through fields of fire, their honor sealed, The needle rifle, their battlefield shield.

[@skoolzone]

Yeah, yeah the usual suspects Kaiser. Thanks man that was great.

[@forickgrimaldus8301]

The Tactics used with a new weapon is often more important than the weapon itself

[@sillysad3198]

let us just appreciate them adopting automatic rifles in the end.

[@christopherwang4392]

Concerning paper cartridge breechloaders in the Antebellum United States, there were actually two American gunsmiths who designed breech-loading conversions during the late 1850s: Edward Lindner and James H. Merrill. Both the Lindner and Merrill conversions were used to convert several M1841 Mississippi rifles into breechloaders. Neither designs were widely adopted by the US Army before the American Civil War for various reasons, but mostly because of their obsolescence in favor of metallic cartridges. Ian McCollum of _Forgotten Weapons_ has done separate videos about the Lindner and Merrill breech-loading conversions.

[@sithticklefingers7255]

Because cycling the action would’ve knocked our funny hats off.

[@papercartridges6705]

Well you can’t have a war without your troops wearing silly hats. I mean, come on! The sillier the hat, the better the soldier.

[@TheGrenadier97]

Side note: the Empire of Brazil (1822-1889) also had contact with the Dreyse. Some say the rifles came with a legion of german mercenaries in the early 1850s, but i find that impossible; a more reliable claim is that the Empire bought around 3000 to arm an experimental battalion during the war against paraguayan dictator Solano López, between 1864 and 1870, one of the last (and hardly talked) wars of the musket era. The infantrymen hated it and replaced with the regular belgian Minié rifles, or Enfields that armed some of the Volunteer battalions. I have to recall from memory what i read once since sources are hard to find again. The Dreyse had complains on jamming (no doubt by fouling, and maybe broken needles), humidity on the theater (affecting lubricants or gaskets?) and weight (the experimental unit was light infantry, and the fighting had much broken terrain and quasi-guerrilla clashes). Two other side notes: The Imperial cavalry loved the Spencer carbine and used them to great effect late in the war. Apparently it was so successful that even Winchesters were rejected later in its favour. Spencers served the cavalry in distant corners of the Empire to its end in 1889, and in the initial years of the military dictatorship that followed. After 1868 some Chassepot rifles arrived in the Empire and may have been tested in the conflict. I don't know how, but i guess Count d'Eu - husband to the great Princess Isabel, chief of the Imperial Army and final victor over López - had an influence in the acquisitions since he was grandson to deposed King Louis Phillipe I (no relation to Napoleon III, but i don't believe they were enemies). The evaluation by the Army post-war was somewhat sketchy, plus, by 1873 the robust belgian Comblain was adopted anyway.

[@MayumiC-chan9377]

my father owns one that was passed through our family used in the Boshin War. i never knew what it was until my husband recognized it

[@elkpants1280]

That’s really incredible, what a journey that rifle must have had

[@MayumiC-chan9377]

@@elkpants1280 my husband is a gunsmith so he checked the integrity of the rifle and made ammunition for the rifle and she shot perfectly all those years and the rifle is still 100%

[@adventureswithducky4088]

Good video, and well presented. Most remarkable of all is your ability to switch from American English to German so easily with no detectable foreign accent in either language.

[@papercartridges6705]

Trust me, my German is pretty bad! With practice I can do a few phrases without much of an accent.

[@dougreid2351]

Nice. Concise, accurate & calmly delivered. I'm eager for your Austro-Prussian Wat video. Subscribed tonight. DOUG out

[@michaelwright2986]

Thank you very much. In the sort of history I was taught, the needle-rifle was presented as a major factor. It is enlightening to see it, not debunked, but justly appraised.

[@gussie88bunny]

Dude! So good! Thanks yet again for an entertaining and informative presentation. You speak very well and give actual evidence and actual practical analysis. Warm regards, Gus

[@billsmith346]

Another thing to bring up would be that with black powder ammunition, a higher rate of fire means the battlefield gets smokier faster, making maneuver and coordination harder.

[@papercartridges6705]

Yep, definitely

[@mbr5742]

Also the Prussians (Mauser 1871, design started in 1867) and the thieving hill tribe aka Bavaria (Werder 1969, again design starts 1867) where already developing more modern cartridge rifles and adopted them in huge numbers from 1872 on (2 Million in less than 10 years). So by 1866 the germans knew the Dreyse was outdated

[@Joseph660]

It’s funny how back then using up all their ammo was a concern. To this day soldiers have relatively low capacity magazines simply because it forces them to pause more often thus increasing overall accuracy.

[@ChetJang]

Our military has always been resistant to new technology. For years, we were stuck with single-shot rifles because they didn't trust soldiers with repeating rifles. There were better rifles than this available at that time, which weren't widely used.

[@c0dy85]

we also had a potentially better breach loader in the Sharps rifles.

[@FantadiRienzo]

It wasn't better. You still had to put the percussion cap on. At that time the Prussian had already fired his second shot

[@ronal8824]

​@@FantadiRienzoalthough there was the eventual development of the cartridge during the civil war for the sharpes, in the early days they did use paper cartridges with a seperate cap

[@redtra236]

@@FantadiRienzo The needle on the Dreyse is prone to breaking though so its a trade off. I don't think the percussion cap would halve fire rate but it would reduce it.

[@redtra236]

@@ronal8824 It would require modification to the gun there's no way an unmodified 1859 sharps is gonna fire without a percussion cap on the nipple.

[@ronal8824]

@@redtra236 later ones in the war had primers in the metal cartridges but this is more late war

[@theblindsniper9130]

Ive got a Chassepot, definitely one of the earlier bolt guns. Paper carteidges are what stops me from shooting it, I definitely prefer loading brass for the Gras

[@johnathandavis3693]

Very well researched and presented. Thank you for this. Subscribed!

[@hoegild1]

extreemly interesting! The Danish army considered the Dreyse after the 1. Schleswig war, and basically came to the same conclusions. The Dreuse is often named as the "winner" of the 2. Schleswig war, but in reality its the artillery (and numbers) that decides that one.

[@Redneck2393]

If I recall, the CSA did use small numbers of British Calisher and Terry bolt-action carbines, and president Jefferson Davis and general J.E.B. Stuart each also owned one.

[@RyanBride620]

First video I've seen of your's. Really well researched and neat. You earned a sub! Great content m8

[@chellman910]

I love my Dreyse Fusilier. Although I need to make another needle as my homemade replacements don’t last too long. Although the paper sabot are very cool, and I do make them from time to time, it’s far easier to load a round ball over a fiber wad.

[@capandball]

Good content! Thanks!

[@Ben_not_10]

I think the thing that held back breechloaders pre war was most breechloaders known at the time either used a paper cartridge with its own quirks in use, or it used a relatively weak self contained cartridge. One of the few reasons the sharps was adopted as a cavalry carbine was due to its easy in loading on horseback. For all the complexity of logistics, cost of manufacturing, and general service complexity, breechloaders pre-war just didn’t offer enough of a leap to justify their existence. Though if you had shown up with a martini-Peabody in 45-70 or 50-70 in 1855, I think that would’ve been enough of a leap for ordnance to have taken notice of.

[@mininoble2253]

1. For a long time it was a German state secret and even once it was known of internationally after they started using it in combat, they still weren't giving the design away. 2. Say we wanted to engineer our own needle rifle based on the concept, arms acquisition is slow and what we were experimenting with worked fine enough. Then once the war started we needed to equip a vast army and fast, that's not the best time to experiment with new designs.

[@HanstheTraffer]

It's amazing to me that in 1865 the Swiss came out with the Vetterli rifle. Now THAT was a winner.

[@Ezra-qi3dt]

I figured it was same as the Henry rifle, it was too expensive for all troops.

[@narutorasbat]

I would love if you ever did a video on the Norwegian Kammerlader, arguable the best single shot black powder rifle until the invention of the Chassepot, that had the misfortune of never been used in an actual war, so nobody realized how great it was until it became obsolete.

[@johncox2865]

It is amazing to realize that the spiral spring was a new invention as recently as the mid 19th century.

[@sillysad3198]

amazing effeciency!

[@gotarmadillo]

.-Great Analysis! Everything Mordecai noted proved true 1848-1870. Germany was able to impose far greater fire discipline upon its troops than America upon its militias going tinto the Civil War. The French Chassepot rendered the Dreyse obosolete by 1870 which in turn was rendered obsolete by brass cartridges by 1871. German Swarm Tactics and Krupp breech loading artillery compensated for the Dreyse's obsolecense in 1870 but neither needle gun made it passed 1871 while the U.S. Allen conversion took America thru the Indian Wars and into the War with Spain which was actually the best point for America to consider a bolt action if not everyone, considering how many bolt guns came up in between, tube magazine vs box magazine.

[@papercartridges6705]

You make a good point about fire discipline with the Germans, and that’s going to be part of an upcoming video. In the Prussian regulations the fire is always controlled, and given upon an order. There’s no order for “Schnellfeuer.” And I need to get a Chassepot someday but the ammo is a little intimidating to make…

[@MemekingJag]

I am just over twenty two seconds in, and by look alone I am convinced this man is a 1910's gun smuggler who has somehow evaded justice this entire time and turned his profession into a youtube channel.

[@papercartridges6705]

Pssst… hey bud… wanna buy a musket?

[@mjoelnir1899]

The decision not to adopt the needle rifle, was just simply wrong. Many of the objections were simply not reasonable. The fright of to fast rate of fire, proofed to be nonsense. The Prussians went up against the Austrian with their Lorenz rifled muskets and the rifled musket proofed to be inferior. Rate of fire did beat out range. The lack of accuracy is also inflated, the Dreyse is accurate out to about 300 meter. How many are anyway able to shoot accurately beyond that. The range of the Dreyse is about 600 meter. The Dreyse held it's own even against the Chassepot in the Franco Prussian war, demonstrating that the limited range is a secondary concern. More range is an advantage, but not a deciding one. Being able to load the gun sitting, or lying down in cover, is a rather huge advantage and it is difficult to see why the experts did not realize that. It would have been an advantage to reduce the bore of the Dreyse to 11 mm, but that would have been a huge change for the Prussian Army, after adopting 15.4 mm. The main problem that fuels those decisions is trying to fight the last war.

[@olafkunert3714]

"The Dreyse held it's own even against the Chassepot in the Franco Prussian war" Not really, the training of the Prussians was better, so they could in some cases compete at 200m, however, the French rifle was considered much better and captured rifles were used extensively.

[@mjoelnir1899]

@@olafkunert3714 That is a matter of opinion. Range, except under special conditions, is not as important as oven made the argument for. Of course the captured Chassepot were used, as there were always to few rifles. The Chassepot was a much newer rifle than the Dreyse.

[@LeDeux11]

TLDR; the logistics were already struggling to supply munitions to muskets

[@jacobdill4499]

Not finished yet but I have a feeling the answers are related to the expense of tooling up for the needle rifle & the extra training required.

[@duncanandrews1940]

Thanks' Brett, very interesting!

[@Easy-Eight]

The only non metallic cartridge rifle worth a damn is the French 1866 Chassepot. Why? Breech leakage. Every paper cartridge up to the Chassepot has a lessor degree of gas escaping from the breech. As firing increases the leakage becomes critical. That is called *Obturation* . The Germans and French were so worried about gas leakage they put channels in the Gras and Mauser rifles. The French solve the obturation issue by putting a rubber seal in the Chassepot. However, after about 100 rounds it has to be replaced. By the early 1870s - just after the 1870 Franco Prussian war - most major powers go over to the center fire cartridge. Paper cartridges were a dead end.

[@sidekickbob7227]

If I remember correctly, was the gas channel in the mle 1874 Gras rifle, done as an later upgrading (M80?) of the rifle. So either they did not know how to solve the problem, or they where not too worried about this kind of gas leakage from metal cartridges at the start.

[@mihailosaranovic5444]

Considering that even smokeless powder bolt-action rifles almost up to the beginning of the XX century had the capability to not feed from the magazine and single-load, ammunition consumption was a real thing to be taken into consideration. It made sense before the advent of smokeless powder and further industrialization when all the cartridges were made by hand, as you said, but stopped making sense afterwards. It's one of those cases where armament development made several great leaps, but doctrine and how to use it was still behind behind.

[@papercartridges6705]

Ammo consumption is still extremely important today. I am a U.S. Army logistics officer, and fire discipline and ammo consumption rates are very carefully managed and controlled. A soldier today can fire all their ammo they can carry in about 5 minutes, in about the same time as a Prussian soldier could fire his in 1860. Resupply is never guaranteed.

[@jrstoelting]

@@papercartridges6705 Soldiers win battles, logistics win wars. Gen. Robert H. Barrow, USMC (1980): "Amateurs talk about tactics, but professionals study logistics."

[@raptor4916]

@@papercartridges6705 But that's at what FPF rates?

[@jonathanlewis453]

It seems that the British trials showed that this was a fussy rifle, the needles wore rapidly and needed regular changes, the action snarled up when the rifle became fouled and there were problems with obturation. Needles were simple and easy to change but the imponderables remained of a soldier having them at the right time and not being called on to change them at the wrong time. In its day, the needle gun made a creditable attempt at introducing the new generation of firearms but the problems of introducing the bullet correctly into the rifling, ensuring obturation (gas seal) at the breach and delivering ignition all go hand in hand and not all problems were solved. This was not a soldier proof rifle and it might require running maintenance after just a dozen rounds. I can see the attraction of more conservative and trusted designs because you knew where you were with them.

[@trauko1388]

"Rate of fire is not everything" Technically speaking, yes... in the historic context of the USCW... I believe it was, since the Minie range advantage was not really being used. Edit... should have finished the video first... 🤣

[@cavalr1002]

with what you said about the First Schleswig War is true and it was used very limited but The Danish army did capture some of them. From some dead Prussian soldiers after the Battle of Fredericia. So while you guys were having your Civil War. We were having the second Schleswig War here in Denmark. The Danish army did consider using the needle gun. But deemed it not usable because of how long it would take a soldier To learn how to wield the rifle. (I know that's a very silly excuse and I don't know what our general staff was thinking)

[@TheMicro4]

The Union however did use lever actions in the final years of the war. Cavalry would buy them for when they dismounted

[@FantadiRienzo]

There was a misconception about the Dreyse. Needle fire rifles did not fire more ammunition than muskets, but rather less - they simply fired this ammunition more quickly, but when the shooters hit their targets, the firefight was over quicker and the troops could move on. The Prussian officer Von Ploennies addresses this very specifically in "Neue Studien über die gezogene Feuerwaffe der Infanterie" ("New studies on the rifled firearm of the infantry") from 1867.

[@papercartridges6705]

I have an original copy of Ploennies, it is a very great primary source. The relatively low expenditure of Prussian ammo in 1866 (only 1,8 million) launched a lively debate and discussion. Assuming these numbers are correct, a fair conclusion, based on broad research, is that the Prussian infantry were held under such strict fire discipline by officers, who had been inculcated with the need to conserve ammunition, that when they did open fire, it was at relatively close range, and the Austrians conveniently presented themselves as close-range targets with their “Drauflosgehen” bayonet assaults. Ammunition expenditure was massively higher in 1870.

[@magni5648]

@@papercartridges6705 I think what's easily overlooked is the shock factor of getting hit with such an increased rate of fire, and how it would be liable to quickly break the morale of and drive back an infantry formation - the same outcome that bajonett charges were normally aiming for. Meanwhile when muzzleloader-wielding formations that weren't willing to use bajonett tactics clashed against each other they would tend to whittle each other down in extended firefights, leading to greater casualties and ammo useage overall just through the sheer length of these attritional gunfights.

[@saiga12forme88]

Good video, thanks for sharing.

[@slotcarfan]

One of the biggest resistance to rapid fire weapons was the 'wasteful' cost of ammunition attitude by the ordinance department.

[@free_at_last8141]

I am happy to have found your channel and have subscribed. Please take it as constructive feedback when I recommend that you invest in a good microphone or similar audio equipment. It is difficult to hear you.

[@Ispeedymg]

Great video. Very interesting!!!

[@ju-ra9904]

Loading from a lying position is a big advantage maybe the biggest advantage of all its(Dreyse rifle) advantages. It also must have been very exhausting to stand up every time when you neded to reload with a musket.

[@robertrobert7924]

The US had better alternatives that were developed during the Civil War: a number of breech loading Carbines using linen, brass, rimfire copper cartridges and revolvers that used rimfire cartridges. They would eventually lead to post war centerfire cartridges made from drawn brass.

[@trauko1388]

The US had more expensive alternatives that could not be fielded in numbers and used expsensive ammunition... the Dreyse was ready.

[@Easy-Eight]

@@trauko1388 the Dreyse had bad breech leakage, it could not really properly seal at the breech. There is a term we call that: blowback. Prussian soldiers in 1870 went as far to hold the rifle away from their face.

[@dubsy1026]

​@@Easy-Eight Did you watch the video? One of the first things he says is to refute that

[@trauko1388]

@@Easy-Eight AS explained in the video, excess gas was vented away from the face, you acn actually atch videos of the rifle.

[@Easy-Eight]

@@trauko1388 the German troops held them away from their face and the leaking of that rifle proves what I was saying. Anyway, the Dreyse rifle was second rate in the Franco Prussian was, that a matter of record.

[@trauko1388]

Given that the average combat range was 100m, it wouldnt have been a problem, any unit standing in a line in front of them wouldnt last a minute, which is less than 10 rounds per rifle. Battle over. The only issue is that while you can delay opening fire... getting them to stop is another matter but, given the tactics of the time the enemy wont stay in range for long. But yeah, fire discipline would be crucial.

[@teambridgebsc691]

Educated AND entertained. Only the best teachers can manage that.

[@weatherwaxusefullhints2939]

Uh, I'm hyped for the Moltke, Auftragstaktik and Stoßtrupp video

[@puppetguy8726]

Since the armies were using paper cartridges anyway, why would it be harder to supply a soldier with paper cartridges for a needle gun than supplying paper cartridges for a musket?

[@HaNsWiDjAjA]

Brett answered it in another comment, the use of a discarding paper sabot in the improved model of the Dreyse made the manufacture of its paper cartridges trickier and pricier. It involved rolling a three feet long piece of paper into a very small, dense roll. Of course once mass production was set up the problem was less, but that meant committing to making millions of those cartridges.

[@zachsmith8916]

Probably similar reasons as to why the Henry Repeater wasn’t used.

[@BurstReview]

Fantastic channel, just subbed. Keep up the good work!

[@shermrock345]

What about in weather? I bet the needle worked way better in wet conditions than the other firearms did.

[@Derna1804]

The attitude that you must field the most expensive equipment relies on the notion that the existing standing forces will be enough to win the next war. In other words, it's the same attitude that "the war will be over by Christmas" applied to planning. In 1860 the Regular Army fielded about 16,000 troops, many of whom were in far corners of the continent contending with the constant threat of asymmetric warfare. In the 1840s, some 1.9 million men were registered to their state militias but by the 1850s, budget constraints meant there weren't enough weapons to arm everyone at drill. It would have taken decades to stock the militias with a soon to be obsolete weapon, and during the course of the Civil War, there were a total of about 3.2 million combatants. One has to consider how existing civilian manufacturing capability can be converted into arms production, because extant military industry can only match peacetime orders at the beginning of a conflict, which are never enough to keep up with the sudden change in demand. Prussian planners had a different approach to military readiness, they knew Prussia was a sprinter and would not survive a long war. So they were ready to make the investment during peacetime in whatever would give them an immediate advantage. They took it seriously because the Prussian military establishment had deteriorated rapidly after the death of Frederick the Great to shocking effect during the Napoleonic era. These lessons should still be considered today. Either one must make a massive investment into military readiness to have an early advantage or one must make equipment choices which are sustainable. Today we're trying to have our cake and eat it too. We have very expensive, if ageing, weapons systems, and after personnel and training, there's very little money for acquisitions. Which means if we suddenly need a lot of them, we can't have them even if money is no object. The production capability simply doesn't exist, and there isn't enough domestic manufacturing to expand the capability rapidly.

[@chestersleezer8821]

Simple the Prussians probably were not looking to sell this since why arm a potential enemy. They did use themselves though and another reason was that they could not keep up with the demand and the initial factory could only make around 30,000 a year.

[@k1lluachan]

do you think the union would have took and used them in the middle of the war if they somehow got them for dirt cheap from Prussia with the better ammunition ????

[@trauko1388]

More interestingly, if the rebels... adn they would have taken anything that fired

[@ClarenceCochran-ne7du]

Cost for one. Second, the Dreyse' Breech lock had a very bad habit of discharging hot propellant gases directly in the shooter's face, which was to he orimary reasin for it's rejection Neat idea, but manufacturing wasn't up to the task of mass production, nor was Dreyse' system a real replacement. Breech Loading needed metallic cartridges and it took a bit of time for that to be recognized.

[@laurenceperkins7468]

If you look at the design, the bolt face is shaped so as to direct the blast forward. If it hits you in the face it's either badly damaged, or you're doing something very, very wrong. Of course, if it's possible to fire it out of battery, that would definitely hit the shooter in the face, and that would definitely be a serious design problem...

[@caseyo6033]

Rate of fire is why the Army didn't use lever action rifles during their heyday, the same reason they stopped using full auto M-16s in Vietnam. If your men are a bit green, they tend to fire as many bullets as they can as fast as they can. Your point as to cost shouldn't be understated either. This was long before the US became the #1 military spender in the world. It was far more likely to find expensive and unique weapons in the hands of citizens signed up for a 30day chit. Speaking of green, in many cases those civilian volunteers (the original model for military service in this country) would shoot first (even on parties under a white flag) and break first leaving "regular" soldiers exposed on the flanks. In that time period the debate between having a standing army or not was still a healthy debate. Changes to weapons, and poor performance from Civilian volunteers are all part of the story brining us to the military model that we know today.

[@gobbe8187]

Awesome, never knew this

[@gernotbeaumont5816]

The needle gun was the brainchild of king Frederic William III. It was however not aproved by the military specialists who more or less wanted the accurate and deadly Minie rifle. During thebrevolution of 1848 the needle gun had to hastily issued to untrained Prussian soldiers. The soldiers imediately liked it. For the first time in war a soldier could lie down , hide behind a parapet or a bush and shoot a gun(needle gun) from behind cover. The manhandling of a muzzle loader had to be standing up with a ramrod. Nearly all leading international military men then and later became friends oft he Minie Rifle. The US Ordonance Board at the same time fought against the revolver the metallic cartrige gun. The men oft he US Army were completely against all modern guns. It was Abraham Lincoln had to force the Ordinance Board to accept the Spencer rifle.

[@kevwebb2637]

There was the 1860 Henry repeater which is the predecessor to the 1866 Winchester.

[@matthiasbreiter4177]

Great question - and great video. That makes a lot of sense. A good example of the speed by technology went on back then is the French Chassepot needle rifle, which outranged the much older Prussian design by far. That said, the Cassepot was introduced a year _after_ the American Civil war. So if the US would have wanted a needle rifle in the late 1850's, I agree they would have had to make an improved design and in addition would have to ramp up an ammo production + infrastructure. In a simple comparison, Prussia's entire territory in the late 1800's was roughly about the size of Wyoming and had largely spread railway and postal services, including long range telegraph networks. So for the European powers in genreal, it guess it was much more realistic to supply large armies with "rapid fire" firearms.

[@pose6208]

Still think the underestimation of the effectiveness of rate of fire is one of the biggest blind spots of the 1800s and even in the world wars. I get they dont want to waste ammo, but most wars have been decided in close combat (not counting the artillery) with little difference since the rifle was used in large numbers.

[@papercartridges6705]

We have that luxury today. In the 1860s, when you fired quickly, and ran low on ammo, you either fix bayonets, or retreat, or scour the dead and wounded for their ammo, or (last resort) send someone back to search desperately for the supply train to bring more ammo. There’s no radio to call for resupply. You don’t know where the supply train is. Most of the time, you barely even knew where you were. Soldiers carried 40 to 60 rounds. When it’s gone, it’s gone. The odds of finding a lucky ammo wagon are slim at best. In our 21st century world, where ammo is made by machinery to the tune of a billion rounds per day, delivered by train and plane and truck, and told where to go by radio communications at the speed of light, it’s real easy to sit behind our keyboards and shake our heads at those 1860s ordnance officers for being idiots.

@@papercartridges6705 but this weapon did prove it's worth and showed the out dated nature of the musket. and not long after the civil war single shot breach loaders were replacing muzzle loaders pretty fast anyway. personally I think the US military got it wrong. the needle rifle was the next step (or any breach loading rifle) in military armament. running out of ammo was not much of an issue in reality. if an army runs out of ammo it is because of poor logistics. if an army is not knowing where the supply train is in a war then that army has failed to successfully supply it's army before hand and train it's men adequately. all successful militaries work out before hand using math what is required for victory. logistics wins wars. i think it was just that there was no will power to change from muzzle loader to a breach loader because it would just be simply too hard and the generals were just too lazy to enact reforms at the time. using excuses. everyone had this thought but the Prussians and they pull it off and showed the world that technological advancement is vital to wining wars.

[@pose6208]

@@papercartridges6705I think they underestimated the moral shock high rate of fire causes and how it creates huge limitations for the enemy. Frontal charges would only work with unacceptable losses and advanced coordination against a breach firing infantry. Also using breech loaders you can be much more aggressive since you can load on the move and over run an enemy with greater fire power without prolonged fire fights. Even if it is a possible supply problem the tactical advantage of being able to hold off much larger enemy formations and much more, like being able to use cover better and kneel in formation while reloading would be worth it. And the pattern continiues with the lack of adaptation of repeaters later in the indian wars, and lack of submachine guns after ww1 used by stormtroopers, and reluctance to give up small magazine single firing rifles even used in vietnam.

[@plunder1956]

It's interesting that today our mindset simply assumes mass-manufacturing of precision weapons, reliable metallurgy & volume materials transport on a staggering scale. It's very hard to switch off these assumptions. Indeed, even before the beginning of the 20th century these factors were already transforming preparations for war, the tactics that would shape warfare. The consequences of these factors would kill tens of millions in each war in the new century.

[@brealistic3542]

I didn't know these were available ! 😯

[@tacfoley4443]

Well, yes, providing you are prepared to look hard and accept that they will not be like new.

[@cooperdavis9663]

Sounds like we already had a better breech loader with the Sharps

[@rre9121]

I have a selfish request: could you bring up the noise floor on your videos somewhat? They tend to run significantly quieter than most videos on KZbin. I have to work with noise canceling headphones on and maximum volume won't get loud enough to be audible.

[@papercartridges6705]

The audio will improve on future videos, I’ve bought some Rode microphones that work really great. You’ll be able to hear every creak and gurgle in my melodious voice. Unfortunately videos I recorded before I deployed (like this one from October 2023) are with the old microphone and the audio is just really bad. Kind of frustrating because those microphones weren’t exactly cheap either, I expected much better from them.

[@dredlord47]

>smoothboore flint-lock >maximum effective range of 150 yards my guy, the maximum effective range of formation against formation was 400 yards. Stop looking at an individual gun and look at the entire line. The majority of the spread was lateral, not vertical. They wouldn't even be fireing within 100 yards because they'd be affixing bayonets to meet a charge if the enemy got that close.

[@jasonrusso151]

it works as fast as a Sharps or Henry & those were made here in the U.S., why would someone "outsource" as it were, or import weaponry from another country when we could do it here?

[@DrBobcf]

Breech loading rifles were all criticized by the Ordnance Board for excessive ammunition use. The Sharps rifles were not issued by the government for that same reason. Unit commanders would equip their units at their own expense.

[@EPWillard]

the firerate problem has an interesting parallel later in history when the thompson SMG would be replaced with the m3 which had a more controllable and logistics-friendly firerate. granted economics was probably a bigger factor, but economics is always a factor with armaments anyways.

[@caeserromero3013]

It's often the same objection throughout history when it comes to this subject. From muzzle to breechloading, from single shot muzzle loaders to magazine bolt action and from bolt action to semi auto. "The grunts will waste all their ammo,". When magazine bolt action rifles came out, many were fitted with magazine cut offs to disable the magazine and the privates were expected to single load until given the order to use magazine fire (in some last stand scenario). It's also worth remembering that at this point in history, the prevailing military tactic was still volley fire in ranks, so rate of fire was less of an advantage in that type of situation. It wasn't really until you got to WW1/WW2 that rate of fire was especially important. In the days of the Civil war and Crimean war etc, soldiers were expected to charge defensive positions with the bayonet. Besides, by the late 1860's the Dreyse was out performed and outranged by the French Chasepot (as seen in the war of 1870).

[@laurenceperkins7468]

If you hunt around you can find some video of the magazine cutoffs in use, and they definitely weren't a stupid idea. Load your magazine, engage the cutoff, then single-load while the enemy is far away and you're taking time to aim carefully. Then when they charge your magazine is still full and you can break the charge with rapid fire at close range where speed matters and you can't miss instead of being caught out with an empty magazine.

[@noahway13]

You mean that you draw attention to yourself at the range by wearing that costume = )

[@amstaadftw8566]

I found the comment about ammo conservation really interesting. Like most people I thought faster is better.

[@ChairmanMo]

The needle for this gun wears out after about 200 shots. This problem also is an example of why Caseless Ammo is still out of reach. Lastly the makers of the gun were already busy re-arming the Prussian Army and the Prussian Army was too busy learning how to adapt this weapon into its tactics and doctrine. Just a guess based on what I know. Still watching the video now!

[@papercartridges6705]

That’s pretty much correct!

[@DefaultProphet]

If I’ve learned anything it’s because logistics for that much more ammo was not sustainable

[@Warmaker01]

Yes, Prussian General Staff was really good in the mid-19th century getting the army to perform very well.

[@johnfisk811]

Covers the ground well. Thank ‘ee kindly young Brett.

[@richardrichards5982]

I think another factor in the US selection of weapons prior to 1860 was the relative cultures of both Prussia and the US. The Prussians had developed a martial culture after the Napoleonic wars. The US had a gun culture, but a gun culture and a martial culture are not the same thing. The Prussian martial culture was based on discipline, compulsory service as a young man, then refresher service through life. There was a large standing army in Prussia, with a larger reserve to call on in war. Their troops were well trained in weapon use and battlefield tactics, and most importantly disciplined in their use of these weapons. The US by comparison had a 'gun' culture, where most people had access to weapons on the farm or for hunting, but a great variety of weapons and often no training whatsoever in battlefield tactics. Therefore, when the Civil War started, the small professional US army (then divided into two) had to train huge numbers of volunteers very quickly, with more focus on drill and formations rather than weapon discipline and accuracy. The decision in the 1850s to reject breech loading rifles makes alot of sense if you don't have a large full time professional army and reserve. You choose a rifled musket, you also choose standing fire/ reload and Napoleonic line/ skirmisher formations. If you choose the Dreyse, you want your troops firing from the prone position most of the time. You also reject Napoleonic formations and train for more skirmisher formations. This takes more time than was available in the US Civil War (generally speaking anyway, there were exceptions with well trained troops).

[@papercartridges6705]

I’d generally agree with you. Prussia’s army was an instrument of national survival while the US Army was basically a police force on the frontier to deal with Indians. When the Civil War began, even the rifle-musket’s modest capabilities were squandered on the untrained volunteers that filled the army. Moltke supposedly called the U.S. and CS armies “armed mobs.”

[@sebastianriemer1777]

And why not the chassepot rifle. German soldiers preferred it over the dreyse.

[@erikschultz7166]

The Dryse also won in the Franco Prussian war against the Chassepot.

[@archiveacc3248]

the chassepot was legitimately a better infantry arm than the dreyse. prussian infantry took murderous losses trying to get close enough for their old dreyses to be effective. but war isn't about 1v1 equipment matchups. prussian discipline helped press attacks even in the face of withering skirmish fire. krupp breechloading steel artillery completely and totally crapped on the french pieces, ran rings around them basically. prussian tactical system was much more flexible so even with worse guns they could move and find better angles quicker than the french units. at a strategic scale the prussian general staff was spades better than the french system. add to that the poor mobilization by the french vs the prussian system, all the terrible moves made by the french generals in the early months of the war, the initial defeat and all the government reorganization, trying to raise new armies and train/equip completely green soldiers... the prussians had many many advantages in 70/71 but the dreyse vs the chassepot was not one of them

[@TMFShooting]

Another Great Video 💯💥💥💥💥💥💥💥