Talk:Rifles in the American Civil War

Latest comment: 2 years ago by 98.168.49.156 in topic A mess

Rename

edit

In accordance with Siege artillery in the American Civil War and Field artillery in the American Civil War, this should probably be renamed something like Rifles in the American Civil War, though to perhaps to avoid another article Muskets in the American Civil War, Shotguns in the American Civil War, etc, just turn this into Small arms in the American Civil War. Joshdboz (talk) 15:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Invention of the rifled barrel

edit

I am not sure I want to presume to edit the article myself as I am unsure of the actual details. I would however like to question the claim the the rifled barrel was invented in 1855. The rifled barrel had been around for centuries prior to this. I would say it was first used in large numbers in the Napoleonic wars, the most obvious example being the Baker Rifle, though this was still restricted to relatively specialist units.

I would suggest it was the invention of the Minie ball that actually rendered the smoothbore obsolete, as this greatly decreased the reload time of most such weapons. According to the relevant article, this was reportedly invented in the 1840's. It is hard therefore to see how the 1855 date is in any way relevant.

I would like to read other peoples views on this first but am tempted to research it and make corrections, if nobody else gets there first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.38.118.188 (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

1863 Remington Zouave

edit

Shouldn't the 1863 Remington be in here?

http://www.antiquearmsinc.com/remington-zouave-rifle.htm Stevetac (talk) 01:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

edit

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

edit

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:20, 23 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

edit

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

edit

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:09, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

A mess

edit

This is not the type of article to have a personal disagreement with an author, with lengthy prose ("He doesnt understand high school physics) in addition to blatant untruths with no citations ("US Civil War casualties from large battles accounted for fewer casualties in the war overall than daily grind of casualties incurred from skirmishing during picket duty and in circumstances of contact") — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.159.178.16 (talk) 06:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Agreed, I came across this article randomly (I am not an expert in any way) and was struck by how strange that section was. That's why I'm even on this talk page. One paragraph briefly stating Guelzo's viewpoint followed by seven attacking him. It honestly seems like the page is being used as a strange way to air a grievance. 98.168.49.156 (talk) 05:56, 19 March 2022 (UTC)Reply