ACWGC Forums

secondary shrapnel
Page 1 of 1

Author:  mihalik [ Sat Aug 18, 2018 11:40 am ]
Post subject:  secondary shrapnel

Found this. Don't know how accurate it is. I had heard of secondary shrapnel from tree limbs but not rocks and dirt. ... ot-explode

Author:  Joe Meyer [ Sat Aug 18, 2018 1:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: secondary shrapnel

. . . or bone fragments! Interesting post.

Author:  KWhitehead [ Sat Aug 18, 2018 3:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: secondary shrapnel

Solid shot was not quite as effective during the CW as compared to Napoleonic battles which used the tactic of firing solid shot in front of the infantry so it would spray up rocks, etc. and also bounce through the formation. The first effect, secondary shrapnel, was undone by the terrain. European battlefields tended to be very flat. American terrain wasn't and solid shot tended to bury into the ground rather than create spray and keep bouncing. The second, bounce effect, was undone by the use of two rank formations.

The differences between casualty levels during the Civil War and Napoleonic Wars isn't as great as you would think. The rifle's increased accuracy was more than offset by less dense formations. For comparison of two battles:

At Waterloo 80,000 French confronted 72,000 Allies.
Wellington suffered 23,185 casualties.
Napoleon suffered 26,000.

At Gettysburg 82,000 Yankees confronted 70,000 Rebs.
Meade loss 23,003.
Lee loss 20,448.

Nosworthy made a more detail study of the weapons and how effective they were and more or less found little difference under battlefield conditions. Fire fights still took place at about the same ranges, around 100 yards. And, still take place at those ranges in WW I, WW II and Modern wars. Mostly for the same reason.

Author:  Ernie Sands [ Sun Aug 19, 2018 10:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: secondary shrapnel

Interesting posts.

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group