Dreyse Needle Gun 15mm (1862)

[neilwest]

1. The invention of a German engineer named Johann Nikolaus Dreyse, who started his work in 1827 at his works near Sommerda near Erfurt. His first experimental models were smooth bore muzzle loaders. His first breech loader, long barrel with an improved breech mechanism, was constructed in 1835 and after thorough testing was adopted by the Prussian Army as a standard weapon in 1840l All subsequent successful breech-loading systems were based on this design. but for it, even Mauser Rifle could not have developed. In fact the loading mechanisms of the repeating rifles can all be traced back to the Model 1841 Needle Rifle. It made its first appearance in street fighting in Dresden during the revolt of May 1849.

2. The cartridge used with this rifle consisted of the paper case, the bullet, the priming cap and the powder charge. The bullet was shaped like an acorn, with the broader end forming a point. It was glued in a paper case known as a shell. Between this inner lining and the outer case was the black powder charge. the upper end of the paper case was tied up and bounded together before the needle could strike the promer which was attaced to the base of the bullet. the needle point was then passed through the powder and hit the primer ahead. The theory of this placement of the primer would complete the combustion of the charge.

[Schuetzenman]

Interesting bit of firearms history. Thanks for posting it.

[NC_Rebel]

The needle gun gave the Prussians a huge advantage when they went to war with Austria in 1866. The Austrians still used muzzleloaders. That meant that the Austrians had to stand to reload, but the Prussians could load and fire while lying down. The Austrian Army suffered heavy losses and sued for peace after just seven weeks.

[Mac_Muz]

Why did they stand? I am assuming they did stand because you said so and I have no info on this conflict. But one can, and I do reload a brown bess with loose powder and ball when my cartridges run out while laying down. Mac

[neilwest]

1. You have to remember that in this time period armies still fought standing and were very regimented in movement of soldiars. They stood because that was the way war was fought. Even the English in 1914 at the beginning of the war were decimated because their code of gentlemen warfare refused to let their men do other then march in a striaght line. Of course the Germans were entrenched with machine guns. The British didnt do so well.

2. Only we Americans learned from the indians and did the cowardly thing and hid behind trees and on the ground. Of course we won our wars to.

[NC_Rebel]

Neilwest is exactly right. Remember, we're talking about highly regimented and disciplined soldiers. They were taught to stand shoulder-to-shoulder and not flinch until given a command, even with bullets flying. The Austrians were taught that the proper way to reload was to stand and ram their paper cartridge down the barrel. That's the way it had always been done. The Prussians were ahead of their enemy in both technology and tactics.

[Mac_Muz]

Oh of course how silly of me.... I know how the English fought, but thought by the late 1800s others had learned from the French and Indian War and our little revolution to hide and duck.
WW 1 seems to have been one of the first fights then we
here the players took some cover then. I think there was both field tactics and trench fighting then.

I had the idea that armies after the Rev War would have learned, but thinkin on it our own home grown battles of the silly war were fought Euro style as well, except for Quantrell's and Mosby's boys.......

[Schuetzenman]

Yes Mac_Muz,
The techniques for fighting in Europe changed slowly. Our Indian wars tought us to stop standing there in a field like we were still doing in the Civil War a.k.a. The War of Northern Aggression.

Really the machinegun cured armies of doing that stupid shit! If it had stayed rifles only they still might be doing it that way. :rolleyes:

[neilwest]

I brought this original forward so you could get an idea of what they look like.

[Treadhead]

I always thought that the reason for the shoulder-to-shoulder massed fire was for a couple of reasons (Just My guess here).

1, That Muskets (Unrifled) weren't very accurate so volley fire was needed to get hits (And volley fire demanded rows of troops).

2, That the musket in effect became a really long-range "Pike", something these armies had alot of prior experience with.

Neil', really nice history lesson there! Thanks!