Weapons in the Movies

[basbol13]

The actual Rambo knives were made by Jimmy Lile. This one is $2250!

Since we mentioned Rambo, how about his bow?

 

[Stearmen]

There was mention of the movie,"Davy Crockett",
( I collected the gum-cards)
Recently saw the film "Alamo" starring Billy Bob.
This portrayal has the siege taking place very early when it
was dark.
Others films have the battle taking place during daylight.
I believe the guns used were of the black powder flint-lock type.
There's reference that the men at the Alamo had several by their
side. Loading took time. So it makes sense.
The attacking soldiers probably were carrying a musket.
After firing their weapon... how were they able to reload in the
dark while running to attack?

I also saw several documentaries regarding "Custer's Last Stand".
There is mention of Henry rifles used by the indians.
Not sure what weapons the 7th used.
It was pointed out that this was another reason for the results
of the outcome. Although most blame Custer for making the
wrong decisions.
It was also pointed out that the location known as "Custer's Last Stand"
was not the final scene of the battle as shown in movies.

The Alamo was a 13 day siege. The final battle did take place at night. At 10pm Santa Anna had his artillery cease fire, as he suspected, the people in side the Alamo would be exhausted and fall a sleep. It worked, and the sentries outside were killed in their sleep. Unfortunately for the attacking troops, their bugler sounded the charge and others yelled "¡Viva Santa Anna!" alerting the defenders. The muskets of the regulars were easy to reload, it was the Kentucky and Pennsylvania rifles that were hard to reload because of fouling, and darkness. Custer's men were armed with single shot Springfield 45-70 carbines. Unfortunately, the cartridges were made of copper and did not shrink back down after the barrels became excessively hot. There have been a lot of broken knife tips. and the end of the case, found over the years, from the poor trooper trying desperately to extract the fired cartage rendering their guns useless. The Indians were fairly well armed, with Henry's, Winchester's and Spencer repeating rifles. Ironically, at Gettysburg, Custer's men were armed with Spencer repeating rifles, and in the early days of the 7th, they had them to. Don't want the men to waist ammunition on silly things like survival, just wouldn't be proper! The other big irony was, on so called last stand hill, a lot of the men were killed by arrows. Apparently the Indians, who were no fools, just hid in the greasy grass and lobed volleys of arrows up and then down onto the troopers.

 

[Stearmen]

Why is it, every time I post, all the nice paragraphs I so labored over, disappear, and my reply turns into one long rant?

 

[2jakes]

Why is it, every time I post, all the nice paragraphs I so labored over, disappear, and my reply turns into one long rant?

Pay no never mind.

The only one you have to worry about is Lizzie.
You don't ever want to get on the wrong side.
I shudder to think of the consequences for the poor
fellow that does.

 

[Kirk H.]

The Alamo was a 13 day siege. The final battle did take place at night. At 10pm Santa Anna had his artillery cease fire, as he suspected, the people in side the Alamo would be exhausted and fall a sleep. It worked, and the sentries outside were killed in their sleep. Unfortunately for the attacking troops, their bugler sounded the charge and others yelled "¡Viva Santa Anna!" alerting the defenders. The muskets of the regulars were easy to reload, it was the Kentucky and Pennsylvania rifles that were hard to reload because of fouling, and darkness. Custer's men were armed with single shot Springfield 45-70 carbines. Unfortunately, the cartridges were made of copper and did not shrink back down after the barrels became excessively hot. There have been a lot of broken knife tips. and the end of the case, found over the years, from the poor trooper trying desperately to extract the fired cartage rendering their guns useless. The Indians were fairly well armed, with Henry's, Winchester's and Spencer repeating rifles. Ironically, at Gettysburg, Custer's men were armed with Spencer repeating rifles, and in the early days of the 7th, they had them to. Don't want the men to waist ammunition on silly things like survival, just wouldn't be proper! The other big irony was, on so called last stand hill, a lot of the men were killed by arrows. Apparently the Indians, who were no fools, just hid in the greasy grass and lobed volleys of arrows up and then down onto the troopers.

Also towards the end of the battle several of the 7th troopers knew the end was near and feared being taken alive, so they turned their weapons on themselves. There has been a lot of physical evidence unearthed over the years to support that as well as accounts from the Lakota's and Cheyenne that took part in that battle.

 

[basbol13]

The Alamo was a 13 day siege. The final battle did take place at night. At 10pm Santa Anna had his artillery cease fire, as he suspected, the people in side the Alamo would be exhausted and fall a sleep. It worked, and the sentries outside were killed in their sleep. Unfortunately for the attacking troops, their bugler sounded the charge and others yelled "¡Viva Santa Anna!" alerting the defenders. The muskets of the regulars were easy to reload, it was the Kentucky and Pennsylvania rifles that were hard to reload because of fouling, and darkness. Custer's men were armed with single shot Springfield 45-70 carbines. Unfortunately, the cartridges were made of copper and did not shrink back down after the barrels became excessively hot. There have been a lot of broken knife tips. and the end of the case, found over the years, from the poor trooper trying desperately to extract the fired cartage rendering their guns useless. The Indians were fairly well armed, with Henry's, Winchester's and Spencer repeating rifles. Ironically, at Gettysburg, Custer's men were armed with Spencer repeating rifles, and in the early days of the 7th, they had them to. Don't want the men to waist ammunition on silly things like survival, just wouldn't be proper! The other big irony was, on so called last stand hill, a lot of the men were killed by arrows. Apparently the Indians, who were no fools, just hid in the greasy grass and lobed volleys of arrows up and then down onto the troopers.

The Kentucky rifle and the Pennsylvania rifle are synonymous. Also George Washington preferred the smooth bore musket over the Pennsylvania / Kentucky rifle, as you correctly pointed out due to the inability of the P/K rifle to reload in a timely manner. Usually 4 rounds for the smooth bore to 2 rounds for the P/K.

 

[Kirk H.]

The Kentucky rifle and the Pennsylvania rifle are synonymous. Also George Washington preferred the smooth bore musket over the Pennsylvania / Kentucky rifle, as you correctly pointed out due to the inability of the P/K rifle to reload in a timely manner. Usually 4 rounds for the smooth bore to 2 rounds for the P/K.

Washington had a standard order for the riflemen.....fire, fall back, reload, and advance. He knew the value of the long range precision that P/K had as well as the drawbacks. A side note, Col Ferguson, the British commander that was killed on Kings Mountain had developed a breach loading rifle called the Ferguson Rifle. At the time of his death he was trying to convince the British Army to adopt it.

 

[2jakes]

Why or what was the purpose of standing up in straight line formation in battle?

I saw years ago a documentary on the civil war where the soldiers went
marching in formation and all around were dropping from being shot.

 

[Haversack]

2jakes asked: "Why or what was the purpose of standing up in straight line formation in battle?"

The reason infantry stayed in close formation was at least twofold. First, it allowed for the maximum amount of firepower to be concentrated. Muzzle loading muskets had maybe a 100 yard range in which a trained soldier could hope to hit a target. Therefore the more guns you can bring to bear, the greater the effect will be. Also, it makes volley fire easier to control. (Firing in volley has a greater effect than firing piecemeal). An example of this from the movie Barry Lyndon.

Secondly, in close formation you had some protection from cavalry. Because of the short range and a rate of fire of 2-3 shots a minute of smooth bore muskets, cavalry could close with infantry before much damage was done to them by infantry fire. In formation with bayonets fixed, infantry had some hope of not being overrun. This was best done in squares. As shown in the movie Waterloo.

 

[basbol13]

2jakes asked: "Why or what was the purpose of standing up in straight line formation in battle?"

The reason infantry stayed in close formation was at least twofold. First, it allowed for the maximum amount of firepower to be concentrated. Muzzle loading muskets had maybe a 100 yard range in which a trained soldier could hope to hit a target. Therefore the more guns you can bring to bear, the greater the effect will be. Also, it makes volley fire easier to control. (Firing in volley has a greater effect than firing piecemeal). An example of this from the movie Barry Lyndon.

Secondly, in close formation you had some protection from cavalry. Because of the short range and a rate of fire of 2-3 shots a minute of smooth bore muskets, cavalry could close with infantry before much damage was done to them by infantry fire. In formation with bayonets fixed, infantry had some hope of not being overrun. This was best done in squares. As shown in the movie Waterloo.

Too bad by the Civil War, they hadn't figured it out that rifling in a barrel and increased ease of loading leads to more accuracy and therefore killing power. So when you're standing 50 yards apart or less, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out you need to change tactics. But of course the military can be a little slow changing their notions on modern warfare as pertaining to the battle field.

 

[MikeKardec]

Washington had a standard order for the riflemen.....fire, fall back, reload, and advance. He knew the value of the long range precision that P/K had as well as the drawbacks. A side note, Col Ferguson, the British commander that was killed on Kings Mountain had developed a breach loading rifle called the Ferguson Rifle. At the time of his death he was trying to convince the British Army to adopt it.

I have a reproduction that was manufactured out of Williamsberg for a while ... it works nicely as long as you use heavy lube in the breach, which is threaded. Disconcertingly, the first time you fire it after cleaning the breach threads vomit lube but then, with all the channels plugged with fouling and lube that stops and it shoots quite well. I believe Ferguson was involved in fighting in the cockpit country in Jamaica and the Maroons taught him the folly of a stand up fight when there was ample cover. The big deal of the Ferguson, it can be loaded laying down.

The reason infantry stayed in close formation was at least twofold. First, it allowed for the maximum amount of firepower to be concentrated. Muzzle loading muskets had maybe a 100 yard range in which a trained soldier could hope to hit a target. Therefore the more guns you can bring to bear, the greater the effect will be. Also, it makes volley fire easier to control. (Firing in volley has a greater effect than firing piecemeal). An example of this from the movie Barry Lyndon.

Secondly, in close formation you had some protection from cavalry. Because of the short range and a rate of fire of 2-3 shots a minute of smooth bore muskets, cavalry could close with infantry before much damage was done to them by infantry fire. In formation with bayonets fixed, infantry had some hope of not being overrun. This was best done in squares. As shown in the movie Waterloo.

As far as I know this is correct, plus there were some other mitigating circumstances, most fights devolved into bayonets and gun butts after a bit so maintaining a line allowed the entire force to defend one and others sides. This was traditional, 3000 year old warfare, with riflemen playing the part of both archers and spear men. There were some very sophisticated tactics for using ground and the movement of units that are hard to appreciate from movies etc ... except for the "hollow square" which you see occasionally. Waterloo being a good example.

Too bad by the Civil War, they hadn't figured it out that rifling in a barrel and increased ease of loading leads to more accuracy and therefore killing power. So when you're standing 50 yards apart or less, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out you need to change tactics. But of course the military can be a little slow changing their notions on modern warfare as pertaining to the battle field.

In some backwards way this was because countries weren't obsessed with arming up like we are today. Tactics and tools were pretty static and defense spending was minimal. Also the US in particular lucked into either equivalent or improved military tech just as it needed it. We had a few decent warships after the Revolution and in the time of the Barbary Pirates, and then excellent field artillery just before the Mexican War. Another jump wasn't really demanded of us by a superior enemy until the Spanish American War and then the US was behind in some ways for a while.

It seems to me that by the time of the late Indian Wars there was a problem with not having repeaters but there were very few of those that had much range or fired a powerful cartridge. And, at the end of the day, you could get closer to mother earth with a Springfield than a short range Winchester or shorter range Spencer. The other issue was always that most soldiers weren't well trained (or all that literate) and the tactics were designed to take volunteers and conscripts and teach them a few, simple, things. Soldiers were treated like they had low value because the military did not bother to invest in them. They could get away with it because most men had some of the basic skills already; vigorous lives, most could use basic weapons, deal with livestock, etc. Those with the qualities to be cavalry, artillerymen and engineers were often in short supply. Look at the difference just one good engineer made in the Mexican War ... Okay R.E. Lee was a great engineer but if there was one move that "won the war" it was his work and Scott's willingness to give him the freedom to do his thing. Getting soldiers into the best position to do their thing was HUGE and Lee was a master of making that happen.

Actually, the Mexican War displayed some amazingly modern tactics, like entering a block of buildings and then blasting holes in the interior walls to travel up the block without having to venture out into the streets. I thought the tactics of those days were pretty silly too until I started to look a bit closer. With our robotic capabilities today, future generations will probably wonder how we could have let so many soldiers die when a machine could have done the same work! I shudder to think what we could do with thousands of go-kart sized radio controlled "tanks" and off the shelf drones. All just personal opinion but I think I'm in the ballpark.

 

[Inkstainedwretch]

Forget go-kart sized tanks. Future battle robots will be cockroach-sized or smaller. Why send in one big robot when a million tiny ones will be unstoppable? 3-D printing will make it possible. My sci-fi background makes me a pessimist.

 

[basbol13]

Forget go-kart sized tanks. Future battle robots will be cockroach-sized or smaller. Why send in one big robot when a million tiny ones will be unstoppable? 3-D printing will make it possible. My sci-fi background makes me a pessimist.

I agree with you. It's interesting that in Captain America Civil War, Ant Man takes out Iron Man in such a way as you describe

 

[sinGN]

very different weapons.is it still exist.

 

[Otter]

The only weapons that bother me in films are when Nazi machine guns are obviously modified or un-modified Thompsons. Of course all the real ones were being used at the time.

Worf

The MP 760 and MP 761. A lot of captured arms were reissued.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captured_US_firearms_in_Axis_use_in_World_War_II

 

[MikeKardec]

Forget go-kart sized tanks. Future battle robots will be cockroach-sized or smaller. Why send in one big robot when a million tiny ones will be unstoppable? 3-D printing will make it possible. My sci-fi background makes me a pessimist.

I totally and completely agree with you. But I didn't mean in the future or even five years from now, I was mulling over the idea of semi cheapo existing tech.

I believe in one of the 19th century wars between the Turks and Russians the Turks armed up with their version of the 45-70 Springfield but they also outfitted the same troops with American lever action repeaters. They engaged their enemies at long range with their heavy slow military rifles but when they closed they carried the lever guns and used them as we might an assault rifle. Off the shelf, reasonably inexpensive, civilian technology. A pain in the butt to carry both weapons, both types of ammunition and to train troops in the use and maintenance of both weapons but I guess the shock value was worth it ... much like Walkers Rangers had with their Colt Revolving pistols.

 

[Inkstainedwretch]

The Dallas police used a bomb-disposal robot to use a bomb to dispose of a gunman a few months back. As for that Russo-Turkish battle, I was told in a long-ago military history class that the Turks were defending a fort, so there was no problem with having two long arms. They just had the Winchesters leaning against the parapet at their defensive positions. I don't think they ever marched with the pair.

 

[niv]

The Kentucky rifle and the Pennsylvania rifle are synonymous. Also George Washington preferred the smooth bore musket over the Pennsylvania / Kentucky rifle, as you correctly pointed out due to the inability of the P/K rifle to reload in a timely manner. Usually 4 rounds for the smooth bore to 2 rounds for the P/K.

Plus, the Pennsylvania rifles were not fitted for bayonets, a tool the British and Hessians used greatly to their advantage, especially in damp weather.

 

[Stearmen]

Plus, the Pennsylvania rifles were not fitted for bayonets, a tool the British and Hessians used greatly to their advantage, especially in damp weather.

Of course, the bayonet charge was Bloody Tarleton's undoing at the battle of Cowpens!

 

[basbol13]

Plus, the Pennsylvania rifles were not fitted for bayonets, a tool the British and Hessians used greatly to their advantage, especially in damp weather.