Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XII

[Brother Oni]

Still stealing Thiel's post...

This thread is a resource for getting information about real life weapons and armor. Normally this thread would be in Friendly Banter, but the concept has always been that the information is for RPG players and DMs so they can use it to make their games better.

A few rules for this thread:

This thread is for asking questions about how weapons and armor really work. As such, it's not going to include game rule statistics. If you have such a question, especially if it stems from an answer or question in this thread, feel free to start a new thread and include a link back to here. If you do ask a rule question here, you'll be asked to move it elsewhere, and then we'll be happy to help out with it.

Any weapon or time period is open for questions. Medieval and ancient warfare questions seem to predominate, but since there are many games set in other periods as well, feel free to ask about any weapon. This includes futuristic ones - but be aware that these will be likely assessed according to their real life feasibility. Thus, phasers, for example, will be talked about in real-world science and physics terms rather than the Star Trek canon. If you want to discuss a fictional weapon from a particular source according to the canonical explanation, please start a new thread for it.

Please try to cite your claims if possible. If you know of a citation for a particular piece of information, please include it. However, everyone should be aware that sometimes even the experts don't agree, so it's quite possible to have two conflicting answers to the same question. This isn't a problem; the asker of the question can examine the information and decide which side to go with. The purpose of the thread is to provide as much information as possible. Debates are fine, but be sure to keep it a friendly debate (even if the experts can't!).

No modern real-world political discussion. As the great Carl von Clausevitz once said, "War is merely the continuation of policy by other means," so poltics and war are heavily intertwined. However, politics are a big hot-button issue and one banned on these boards, so avoid political analysis if at all possible (this thread is primarily about military hardware). There's more leeway on this for anything prior to about 1800, but be very careful with all of it, and anything past 1900 is surely not open for analysis. (I know these are arbitrary dates, but any dates would be, and I feel these ones are reasonable.)

No graphic descriptions. War is violent, dirty, and horrific, and anyone discussing it should be keenly aware of that. However, on this board graphic descriptions of violence (or sexuality) are not allowed, so please avoid them.

Previous Threads:
Thread V
Thread VI
Thread VII
Thread VIII
Thread IX
Thread X
Thread XI

[Brother Oni]

My 175 lb hunting crossbow will shoot a bolt all the way through a 1/2" plywood shield and it's not even nearly as powerful as say, a Mongol recurve.

I'd be careful about assuming that - a modern weapon is far more efficient than its historical counterpart.

A bit of digging indicates that most medieval crossbow prods only pull 4-6", while a modern one pulls 7-8" due to better quality steel and manufacturing tolerances.
Those couple of extra inches would allow for a significant increase in power, so assuming a linear increase in power out:draw distance, your 175lb crossbow could well equal a 350lb medieval one and hence match up against a decent draw weight Mongolian recurve.
This isn't allowing for any other design improvements that modern technology enables (release mechanism, modern string materials, etc).

Speaking of which, I wonder if a modern aluminium or a carbon fibre arrow would get the same sort of penetration as a traditional wood one? I'm thinking not since they're considerably lighter, but I don't have the equipment to test this out.
I'm also somewhat limited in the arrow heads I can obtain in this country due to laws on bow hunting (we're not allowed to so importing modern arrow heads might be a bit tricky).

Basically I think the sword continued to be really important for anybody above the status of cannon fodder until the primary weapon became a multi-use, high kill probablity / low failure rate weapon (i.e. rifle or carbine with cartridges) and the sidearm also became equally effective and reliable (revolver)

I've several depictions of American Civil War officers leading their men into combat with pistol and saber - is this not accurate, or were automatic revolvers not fully reliable/effective yet?

[Galloglaich]

In terms of organization and training, how were High Medieval Scandinavian armies different from German armies of the same period. The Osprey books seem to imply that German armies were more "knight-heavy" while the Scandinavians relied more on militias made up of wealthy, well trained peasants who fought as infantry.

That said, I know that German peasant communities had a very strong tradition of self-defense and often fielded well-equipped militias. At the same time, Scandinavians had a proud, professional (to the extent that anybody was a professional soldier in the middle ages) warrior tradition going back to Viking huskarls.

In Germany, it's an extreme contrast between different specific regions, it's very mixed; some are effectively small feudal kingoms, some are urban republics, some are peasant zones, some are little theocracies.

The best infantry comes from the towns, not so much the peasants who kind of form the second rank, though there are exceptions in areas like the Dithmarschen and the Tyrol where they had very tough peasants. In areas like Brandenburg where there is a really strong feudal system you may have more knights, (this is one of the areas where the famous pistol armed ritter knights became established in the 16th Century) but I actually think very generally speaking Germany was probably a lot less 'knight -heavy' than France. The major fighting force in Germanyby the end of the 15th century were the Landsknechts - mercenary infantry organized on the Swiss model.

From what little I understand about Denmark, it was similar to Germany in many respects; for a lot of their foreign adventures (such as their Crusades and occupation of some of the Baltic regions, as well as of Sweden and Norway under the Kalmar Union) they relied a lot on German knights and mercenaries. Within Denmark proper, by Scandinavian tradition, the peasants had substantial rights and the King was somewhat limited in what he could do to his own people.

Norway was sort of subjugated by Denmark or Sweden or both for a lot of the Medieval era; as well as by the Hanseatic League (Bergen was sort of a colony of the Hanse)

In Sweden during Medieval times you had a small arisotcracy, only a few significant towns like Stockholm (which all had large German populations) and not very many serfs. The vast majority were peasants who owned their own land and enjoyed pretty good rights - including being heavily armed.

Efforts by the Danes (and their German, Italian and Scottish mercenaries) to subjugate the Swedish peasants backfired into rebellions. Due to the frequency of these rebellions, and their increasing successes, the peasants had a lot of good quality arms and armor. A series of risings against the Danes by miners and peasants in places like Dalarna (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engelbrekt_rebellion) led to the peasants being included in the Diet or Riksdag in Sweden which was unusual in Europe (as far as I know only Switzerland also included peasants in the Diet or national Estates) I think the strength of the peasants in Sweden (and also Finland, largely a Swedish fief during the Middle Ages) is due at least in part to the heavily forested landscape.

Both Denmark and Sweden exerted their military force largely through their navies all through the Medieval era, and both had sort of privateer fleets as well as warships protecting their large trading networks. Denmark frequently clashed with the Hanseatic League, Sweden was more often partnered with the league and helped establish it.

G

[Rhynn]

I've several depictions of American Civil War officers leading their men into combat with pistol and saber - is this not accurate, or were automatic revolvers not fully reliable/effective yet?

During the Civil War, wouldn't those have mostly been cap-and-ball (percussion) revolvers like the Colt 1851 Navy? So they weren't using cartridges, and probably weren't as reliable. Given Galloglaich specified cartridges for the rifles and carbines, I expect he meant them for revolvers, too.

(and also Finland, largely a Swedish fief during the Middle Ages)

Really, the separation of Finland and Sweden as entities of the same "rank" after the 13th century and up until 1809 is artificial and kind of modern. (Some slight nationalism recasting Finland as its own entity, since the 19th century.) There was Sweden, which included Norrland (including the north half of what is now Finland), Svealand, Götaland, and Österland (southern half of Finland). It was less a matter of being a fief, and more a matter of being a region.

Edit: Of course, the lands fell out of use and from the 17th century onward we had provinces, which were just provinces of eastern Sweden...

[Mike_G]

I've several depictions of American Civil War officers leading their men into combat with pistol and saber - is this not accurate, or were automatic revolvers not fully reliable/effective yet?

Revolvers were quite common druing the ACW. What do you mean by "pistol?"

There is a common lithograph style that a lot of ACW art was done in, and that art tends to show what look like flintlock pistols. But they also show very standard uniforms, which was not the case, especially for the confederacy, and every soldier looking like the W.B. Mason office supply guy, so I think that's just artistic license.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-bhWtt1Cti7...er_hi-res..jpg

[Beleriphon]

Revolvers were quite common druing the ACW. What do you mean by "pistol?"

There is a common lithograph style that a lot of ACW art was done in, and that art tends to show what look like flintlock pistols. But they also show very standard uniforms, which was not the case, especially for the confederacy, and every soldier looking like the W.B. Mason office supply guy, so I think that's just artistic license.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-bhWtt1Cti7...er_hi-res..jpg

I think it depends on the revolver. An 1851 Navy is not a Colt Peacemaker. One use a ball-and-cap percussion while the other uses full cartridges. The Peacemaker with some practice can take about a minute to fully reload while the 1851 can take considerably longer. This is before we even get into the idea of repeat rifles.

I did have a question though. What's with early firearms manufacturers not thinking of using preloaded packages of powder and ball wrapped in paper. I know that format became common eventually, but does anybody know why it took so long for somebody to come up with the idea? Its not all that much of a leap once you look at how early muzzle loading firearms had to be reloaded.

[Fortinbras]

In Germany, it's an extreme contrast between different specific regions, it's very mixed; some are effectively small feudal kingoms, some are urban republics, some are peasant zones, some are little theocracies.

The best infantry comes from the towns, not so much the peasants who kind of form the second rank, though there are exceptions in areas like the Dithmarschen and the Tyrol where they had very tough peasants. In areas like Brandenburg where there is a really strong feudal system you may have more knights, (this is one of the areas where the famous pistol armed ritter knights became established in the 16th Century) but I actually think very generally speaking Germany was probably a lot less 'knight -heavy' than France. The major fighting force in Germanyby the end of the 15th century were the Landsknechts - mercenary infantry organized on the Swiss model.

In Sweden during Medieval times you had a small arisotcracy, only a few significant towns like Stockholm (which all had large German populations) and not very many serfs. The vast majority were peasants who owned their own land and enjoyed pretty good rights - including being heavily armed.
G

I was under the impression that Germany was much more feudal in the 12th and 13th centuries, which is what I was asking about. Were people like Frederick Barbarossa also fielding armies comprised of urban infantry levies/urban infantry mercenaries (who I think were mainly urban infantry militias who had gone pro?)

As for Sweden, is it fair to say that Swedish armies were primarily rural infantry with a handful of knights mixed in to "stiffen" the ranks? Did Swedish kings have much in the way of large groups of men-at-arms or sergeants or were they more or less reliant on peasant levies?

On the subject of 13th century Sweden, can anyone direct me to a good (English or English translation) source on the Battle of Lena 1208? Is there much known about it?

[Spiryt]

A bit of digging indicates that most medieval crossbow prods only pull 4-6", while a modern one pulls 7-8" due to better quality steel and manufacturing tolerances.
Those couple of extra inches would allow for a significant increase in power, so assuming a linear increase in power out:draw distance, your 175lb crossbow could well equal a 350lb medieval one and hence match up against a decent draw weight Mongolian recurve.
This isn't allowing for any other design improvements that modern technology enables (release mechanism, modern string materials, etc).

Judging by the pictures, it doesn't even seem that this crossbow is steel, though.

Additional draw lenght is important, of course, but the very first point is that it's pulley bow, and that, if we like it or not, really blows traditional design completely away.

Draw of 175 pounds allow, trough that leverage, to draw way stiffer bow that by applying 175 pounds of force just by pulling by the bow tips.

I have no idea about what model it is, but with 175 pounds, with serious draw lenght, we're probably indeed thinking about 90J at least.

Anyway, just by looking at those Galloglaich pictures, one can tell that it's huge fun, but I don't understand why try to put any real significance on how historical items might might have behaved.

Aluminum tubes may not be most optimal as far as penetrating goes, but they're trough, hard, and generally one don't have to worry about them getting damaged by striking reasonable targets.

They're also very smooth, slick and tough, as mentioned, so after the point breaks trough the plywood, it's not surprising at all, that arrow keeps on sliding forwards anyway, up to 10 inches.

Target point doesn't need much energy to put a hole in something, although I can't see point shape.

Wooden shaft wouldn't obviously behave very similarly, in fact it would probably get jammed quite a lot.

[Galloglaich]

I was under the impression that Germany was much more feudal in the 12th and 13th centuries, which is what I was asking about. Were people like Frederick Barbarossa also fielding armies comprised of urban infantry levies/urban infantry mercenaries (who I think were mainly urban infantry militias who had gone pro?)

Yes though the towns were smalller and he would also have more rural tribal / clan infantry. I know he brought a lot of Czechs and the Italians thought they were quasi-pagan due to their painting their faces and making little child shaped cakes they bit the heads off of.

Typically in this period the ratio of cavalry to infantry is about 1- 4 or 1-5, if I remember correctly. The Italians of course who he is facing are mostly infantry from the urban militias.

As for Sweden, is it fair to say that Swedish armies were primarily rural infantry with a handful of knights mixed in to "stiffen" the ranks? Did Swedish kings have much in the way of large groups of men-at-arms or sergeants or were they more or less reliant on peasant levies?

A lot of mercenaries I think, and organized mostly as ship crews in that period, but yes the actual Swedish armies would be essentially a small number of knights and a core of rural infantry. Swedish Kings didn't have very big entourages or standing armies.

As for that battle, try to find the Swedish wiki and use google translate.

G

[Galloglaich]

Judging by the pictures, it doesn't even seem that this crossbow is steel, though.

It is steel.

G

[Brother Oni]

Revolvers were quite common druing the ACW. What do you mean by "pistol?"

Small modern-ish looking handgun, probably a revolver (my memory's a bit fuzzy), but I agree artistic license was probably involved.

I was under the impression that cartridge loaded revolvers and rifles were common during the ACW era, but some actual research () indicates that the ACW was a bit of a transition period with muzzle loaders, caplock, rim fire and centre fire mechanisms involved.

I did have a question though. What's with early firearms manufacturers not thinking of using preloaded packages of powder and ball wrapped in paper. I know that format became common eventually, but does anybody know why it took so long for somebody to come up with the idea?

I would say the cost of paper. Wikipedia says that paper remained comparatively expensive until 19th Century steam driven paper making machines could mass produce the stuff from wood pulp fibres.

I have no idea about what model it is, but with 175 pounds, with serious draw lenght, we're probably indeed thinking about 90J at least.

What model is it, Galloglaich, if you don't mind us asking?

Anyway, just by looking at those Galloglaich pictures, one can tell that it's huge fun, but I don't understand why try to put any real significance on how historical items might might have behaved.

Because getting hold of a traditionallly crafted Mongolian recurve bow is somewhat tricky and expensive, so we like to draw comparisons with what we have available.

[Galloglaich]

that is definitely not true - paper was relatively cheap and common, made from water wheel powered paper mills, from the 13th Century in Spain and Italy, and throughout Europe by the 14th. It was really the paper revolution which predated the printing press that made the success fo the printing press (mid 15th) possible. There was already a huge and lucrative market for books and manuscripts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_m...-powered_mills

G

[Galloglaich]

Revolver and a sword seems like a good idea to me- the revolver is probably pretty reliable for 5 or 6 shots but then you may very well need the sword.

G

[Spiryt]

Because getting hold of a traditionallly crafted Mongolian recurve bow is somewhat tricky and expensive, so we like to draw comparisons with what we have available.

If it's Mongolian recurve, it's modern 'budget' imitation with synthetic layers, or compound crossbow doesn't really make that much difference TBH.

After all, it doesn't come into any contact with target (unless something goes slapstick-grade wrong), - so physical properties of actually interacting arrows and target are much more important.

As far as paper cartridges go, it depends on what means by 'common', I guess.

As far as I know, by the end of 16th century, there's already plenty of mentions about them, but they didn't become exactly very common for a long time still.

I would guess that a lot of times, they were quite a lot of trouble for not that much gain, since all the things to do when reloading a musket/arquebus were anyway time consuming and tiring, with or without paper cartridge.

[Galloglaich]

What model is it, Galloglaich, if you don't mind us asking?

Inferno Blitz II, Spiryt was right it's actually a fiberglass bow and it's 150 lbs draw, not 175 Just looked it up.

Because getting hold of a traditionallly crafted Mongolian recurve bow is somewhat tricky and expensive, so we like to draw comparisons with what we have available.

I am planning to get one of those, or at any rate some traditionally made composite recurve, (maybe Hungarian or Turkish type, I haven't decided) but I haven't gotten around to it yet. Just starting to reaquaint myself with archery at the moment, until recently I hadn't shot any kind of bow since I was around 16.

G

[Storm Bringer]

I think it depends on the revolver. An 1851 Navy is not a Colt Peacemaker. One use a ball-and-cap percussion while the other uses full cartridges. The Peacemaker with some practice can take about a minute to fully reload while the 1851 can take considerably longer. This is before we even get into the idea of repeat rifles.

I did have a question though. What's with early firearms manufacturers not thinking of using preloaded packages of powder and ball wrapped in paper. I know that format became common eventually, but does anybody know why it took so long for somebody to come up with the idea? Its not all that much of a leap once you look at how early muzzle loading firearms had to be reloaded.

well, I made a post about this about a month ago, and as far I as know, paper cartridges came in at some point before 1700 or so (I'll put it this way: English civil war troops form the 1640's seem to have used wooden cartridges, while Marlborough's troops in the 1700's had paper ones. however, this video shows a re-enactor with a civil war era matchlock using a paper cartridge, which the first time I have seen it used that early).

Before that point, the amount of faffing about needed to load a match-lock weapon (like the vid says, 30 to 60 seconds to reload) meant that their was not that much of a benefit form paper cartridges. however, I have seen people using a small cup roughly the size and shape of a modern cartridge when loading with loose powder, to get the amounts right.


also, early gunpowder had a nasty tendency to "settle" and separate into it's component parts when shaken (like, for example, if carried any distance). It was normal for a long time to only have small amount of power mixed, and then carry the rest un mixed and make more as needed (this also reduced the risk of a powder explosion)

it took a while (not sure how long) before people worked out how to keep the power form separating, which I think Is a major requirement for cartridge loading (being able to cerate a cartridge, carry it about for weeks or even months, then use it with confidence it will work).

[Galloglaich]

Something like a cartridge, with a pre-measured amount of powder and a bullet, I guess wrapped in cloth, was used in the 15th century and pretty common by the 16th, you see them in period art a lot in kind of bandoliers, like this guy



My understanding (fusilier or somebody can correct me) is that the 'settling' issue was largely solved by the invention of corned powder, which once again was a 15th century thing.

G

[Storm Bringer]

those are wooded pots, as seen here.



normal count was 12, I believe. certainly, a nickname for them was the "12 apostles".


also visible in image: smouldering "slow match", which was normally lit at both ends (in case one went out), and his musket rest, which is in his left hand under his hat.

[Galloglaich]

I stand corrected, you are right - the 12 apostles, I forgot about that.

the practice does seem to go back to the 16th century though...

G

[FreakyCheeseMan]

I've been wondering this for a while...

Are Kukris are good as I think they are? And what's the case against them?

I have one myself (more of a kukri machete than a combat kukri) and I absolutely love it - it's powerful, it's precise, and I use it for everything from kitchen work to clearing paths through the woods to cutting down trees. But, I have barely any experience or training with actual weapon fighting (a few days of knife-fighting in Aikido is the sum total), so I'm not sure how well my experience with a kukri as a tool translates to its effectiveness as a weapon.

One thing in particular I've been told is that the forward curve actually makes it better for stabbing, because you can keep a straight, strong wrist while still driving the point directly into your target: this makes sense to me, but I'm not sure if it's really a notable advantage.

I'm also wondering if they're actually "Harder to use" than straight blades - I know 3.5 classifies them as exotic weapons, but mine feels just as natural to me as a knife does (the weight and size are a bit tricky, but nothing more than I imagine a short sword would be.) Is it actually harder/less intuitive to fight with a kukri than with a simple knife?

I know that a number of real-life military organizations use them, but I'm not sure how much of that is a practical decision, and how much of it is cultural/ceremonial - and if they are practical, is that only in "Modern" combat settings? (where ranged weaponry is the norm, and armour is a much different thing than it would be in a medieval setting.)?

[Fortinbras]

Yes though the towns were smalller and he would also have more rural tribal / clan infantry. I know he brought a lot of Czechs and the Italians thought they were quasi-pagan due to their painting their faces and making little child shaped cakes they bit the heads off of.

Typically in this period the ratio of cavalry to infantry is about 1- 4 or 1-5, if I remember correctly. The Italians of course who he is facing are mostly infantry from the urban militias.



A lot of mercenaries I think, and organized mostly as ship crews in that period, but yes the actual Swedish armies would be essentially a small number of knights and a core of rural infantry. Swedish Kings didn't have very big entourages or standing armies.

As for that battle, try to find the Swedish wiki and use google translate.

G

I'm sorry to keep belaboring the point, but I remain a little confused. Were their substantial differences between Swedish and German armies in the 12th and 13th centuries?

[rrgg]

Here's a question for those more familiar with re-enactment. How difficult would it be to physically "hold" someone with a one-handed spear? I mean as in using the spear to stop a charging attacker even if it doesn't penetrate their shield or armor. Does the type of grip make a difference? Is it even something that comes up often?

[Galloglaich]

I'm sorry to keep belaboring the point, but I remain a little confused. Were their substantial differences between Swedish and German armies in the 12th and 13th centuries?

I'm more informed on the 15th century, but my assumption would be yes, in the following ways:

1) Swedish armies would have fewer knights or burghers and more infantry

2) Swedish infantry would be more based on 'peasants' (in the 12th century particularly, these are still kind of more like what you might call clanmembers or tribe members, and there is more of a gray area between knights and peasants). In that sense comparable to Scotland in this period.

3) Swedish armies would have had generally less advanced equipment, especially siege equipment, less advanced armor. More shields. On the other hand the Sweden was one of the better iron and steel producers in Europe all through the Medieval era so they may have had a decent amount of iron kit.

4) Swedish armies would have more naval assets, more ocean going ships, more coastal vessels. Much of their militia would be organized as boat crews.

5) Some weapons and other equipment might be different. This is more speculation but I think the Swedes still had a good number of bows in use in the 12th -13th century (they show up in the musters) as opposed to crossbows which would already be more common in Germany. Swedish peasants seemed to be using these sort of hewing spear type polearms* which you see at Wisby in the 14th Century and later again in the 16th, that I suspect are of pretty old lineage and probably existed back to Viking times. Swedes were probably still using a lot more axes, javelins, and spears than were common elsewhere, and probably still using seaxes or equivalent. Norwegians seemed to use a lot of single-edged swords.

6) Swedes seemed to have particularly good ambush tactics and special tricks for fighting in the forests. Some of these were allegedly the basis of some tricks used by the Finns in the Winter War in the 20th Century.

G


* like you see in the hands of the Swedish peasant to the left



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swordstaff

[Fortinbras]

Good stuff, thanks Galloglaich.

[Galloglaich]

You are more than welcome.

G

[fusilier]

Revolver and a sword seems like a good idea to me- the revolver is probably pretty reliable for 5 or 6 shots but then you may very well need the sword.

G

And most Civil War revolvers were cap-and-ball and could take a considerable time to reload. So if the fighting was getting into hand-to-hand, a sword would be useful.

For an officer during the American Civil War the sword was the only official weapon that he was required to carry, but an officer's job was (and I assume still is) to direct troops in battle, not to personally attack the enemy. For example, an infantry captain in battle line was "covered" by the first sergeant -- who was only to discharge his weapon to protect the Captain.

An officer could choose to arm himself as he saw fit, a revolver was common, but some were known to carry carbines, or even a musket. The sword was used primarily for giving signals on the field.

[fusilier]

I did have a question though. What's with early firearms manufacturers not thinking of using preloaded packages of powder and ball wrapped in paper. I know that format became common eventually, but does anybody know why it took so long for somebody to come up with the idea? Its not all that much of a leap once you look at how early muzzle loading firearms had to be reloaded.

The earliest paper cartridges I've seen date from the 16th century; one end was plugged with the bullet. They seem to have been rare, and used with hunting weaponry. In the 17th century you start seeing paper cartridges (perhaps more properly "chargers"*) being used in military units, but it's not until the beginning of the 18th century that they become standard.

One reason paper cartridges may have taken a long time to become common, is the general lack of standardization in general. It took sometime before weapons were being made standard enough that a central supply system could provide preloaded ammo. Since the 16th century, large groups of standardized weapons might be ordered, but I think the usual requirement is that they be of the same caliber -- not that they match some national standard caliber.

*I would refer to the wooden tubes with a preloaded amount of powder in them as "chargers" and not a cartridge. In my mind a cartridge combines powder and ball, whereas a charger contains only powder. I don't know if that's a common distinction.

[fusilier]

I was under the impression that cartridge loaded revolvers and rifles were common during the ACW era, but some actual research () indicates that the ACW was a bit of a transition period with muzzle loaders, caplock, rim fire and centre fire mechanisms involved.

I suppose it depends upon what is meant by "common" -- cartridge weapons were certainly available. But both sides of the Civil War were primarily armed with muzzle-loading muskets/rifles, and cap-and-ball revolvers. Cavalry were more usually armed with breechloaders, but mostly paper cartridges. However, metallic cartridges certainly "proved" themselves during the Civil War and afterwards they quickly became universal.

[warty goblin]

And most Civil War revolvers were cap-and-ball and could take a considerable time to reload. So if the fighting was getting into hand-to-hand, a sword would be useful.

I've used a Civil War revolver like that. For the non-proficient such as myself, it takes ten minutes or more to reload, and is a finicky process. With practice I'm sure a person could do it much faster, but probably not while paying attention to their command.

And they're not what I'd call accurate. On the upside the one I fired was very heavy with a lot of brass fittings on the grip, so it would make a quite good club if you needed it. Probably not such a hot (or altogether too hot) an idea if you'd just emptied all six chambers though.

[fusilier]

I've used a Civil War revolver like that. For the non-proficient such as myself, it takes ten minutes or more to reload, and is a finicky process. With practice I'm sure a person could do it much faster, but probably not while paying attention to their command.

And they're not what I'd call accurate. On the upside the one I fired was very heavy with a lot of brass fittings on the grip, so it would make a quite good club if you needed it. Probably not such a hot (or altogether too hot) an idea if you'd just emptied all six chambers though.

Sometimes a spare preloaded cylinder could be carried. I think the cylinders on Remington revolvers were relatively easy to swap out. But it doesn't seem to have been that common.