The Original L'Aigle Thread, for the sake of history. Be ye warned.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Status
Not open for further replies.
mcwiggum said:
It's a musket that goes boom, that's all I can help you with :p
Click to expand...
F*ck off.

JackAubrey said:
Sorry guys, i need help
Does anybody know which thipe of musket is this?

french-charleville-musket-model-1777-an-ix.jpg

I know that it is a french musket of the napoleonic era, maybe a later model of the charleville, but i don't know the model...
So sorry for the inappropriate question
Click to expand...
Looks like a Charleville 1777, one of the best (if not THE best) musket of its age.
 
JackAubrey said:
Sorry guys, i need help
Does anybody know which thipe of musket is this?

french-charleville-musket-model-1777-an-ix.jpg

I know that it is a french musket of the napoleonic era, maybe a later model of the charleville, but i don't know the model...
So sorry for the inappropriate question
Click to expand...

I'm sure it's a Model 1777 Charleville. Though if you compare the two the muzzle on your picture looks like it's from an earlier model :neutral:.

Ninja'd.
 
Captured Joe said:
Looks like a Charleville 1777, one of the best (if not THE best) musket of its age.
Click to expand...
What put it above any other quality made musket of the era?

Reliability? I can't really see that, the action of any similar weapon either worked, or it didn't. It's such a simple action that any non-backyard-job should function nearly every time.

Accuracy? Perhaps in tightness of bore, but without rifling or any similar method of enhancing accuracy, there's little that can be done. Even with perfect bore size, the size of ammunition wasn't necessarily perfect.

Features? They didn't have features, unless you count how the bayonet was fitted.

I've just always wondered why people put some muskets within certain categories, flintlocks or percussion cap, above others. This was before any true innovation within a single firearm could really be made, as far as I'm aware. It wasn't until rifling and new types of actions were invented that firearms started to really shine individually.

Edit; I suppose it could have a nicer stock? With a more ergonomic shape and weight distribution? I kinda doubt it having much effect though.
 
I know this topic has been started multiple times now but still:
I wonder why the Girandoni Air Rifle (or any other similar air rifle) was never given to the regular troops in a big amount? I know it had some issues (pumping time,reliability etc) but still it was about as accurate as a rifle plus it could unload way more rounds per minute than a musket. I could imagine that skirmisher units were succesful with air rifles in the Napoleonic Wars.
Girandoni_Air_Rifle
Would be kind if anybody could share his knowledge regarding this gun with me
 
GERRY said:
I know this topic has been started multiple times now but still:
I wonder why the Girandoni Air Rifle (or any other similar air rifle) was never given to the regular troops in a big amount? I know it had some issues (pumping time,reliability etc) but still it was about as accurate as a rifle plus it could unload way more rounds per minute than a musket. I could imagine that skirmisher units were succesful with air rifles in the Napoleonic Wars.
Girandoni_Air_Rifle
Would be kind if anybody could share his knowledge regarding this gun with me
Click to expand...

You realize how much REGULAR rifles cost, let alone air-rifles?
 
The Girardoni Windbuechse required special packs and equipment to carry and use the rifle. If soldiers ran out of air in all three of their bladders, they'd be ****ed. There's a whole pump system you have to set up to pump air into a bladder, which takes up to twenty minutes to fill. The whole process under battle would cause intense amount of causalities. Even if you had multiple lines waiting to engage and replace frontal lines, causalities will be high, because the soldiers will have to break fire to reload their magazine, and break fire again to attach a new air bladder.

With all that said, only a handful were made, and used. They were incredibly expensive...
 
kpetschulat said:
The Girardoni Windbuechse required special packs and equipment to carry and use the rifle. If soldiers ran out of air in all three of their bladders, they'd be ****ed. There's a whole pump system you have to set up to pump air into a bladder, which takes up to twenty minutes to fill. The whole process under battle would cause intense amount of causalities. Even if you had multiple lines waiting to engage and replace frontal lines, causalities will be high, because the soldiers will have to break fire to reload their magazine, and break fire again to attach a new air bladder.
Click to expand...

As far as I know a bladder could be used for 30 shots of which approximately 10-15 were more or less accurate(The accuracy dropped after these shots because of the pressure plunge). And I'd think that carrying three of the bladders into the battlefield would definitely be possible. 3 bladders makes 30-45 shots which should be enough for a battle.

 
aekilju said:
Epicrules said:
NOTALLOFDALLAS! said:
I once read about an edict that Napoleon put out saying that any soldier found using an air rifle was to be put to death. Are you sure he never fought an army using them? Or do you mean he never fought them in person.
Click to expand...

Napoleon: Total War is not a credible source of information.
Click to expand...

I have also read about this. No idea if it's true.

One of the most unusual weapons used during the Napoleonic Wars were the air rifles fielded by the Austrian Army in 1808-09. Weapons using compressed air to fire a projectile (similar to the one pictured above) were introduced in the seventeenth century, and they had obvious advantages over gunpowder; the air weapon makes little sound and produces no smoke or muzzle flash to give away the firer's position. These qualities made them ideal for sniping. The Austrian weapon known as the windbüchse (German for "wind rifle") was first made by Bartolomeo Girandoni around 1780. Reports of the gun's specifications vary, but it could apparently discharge a .51 or .52 caliber bullet at speeds of up to 1000ft/305m per second--and it could get off twenty rounds on a single charge of compressed air. At first windbüchse were parceled out to conventional infantry units, but eventually the Austrians formed a special unit armed solely with the weapon. While the use of the winbüchse wasn't enough to defeat French troops, the fear they inspired reportedly led Napoleon himself to authorize the summary execution of any Austrian soldier found carrying one. Despite its effectiveness, the air rifle never caught on as a military weapon--probably because of the time-consuming pumping process needed to produce the necessary air-pressure, plus their reputation as "terror weapons."
Click to expand...

Source: http://www.amazon.com/Illustrated-History-Weaponry-Chuck-Willis/dp/0760784442
Click to expand...
 
GERRY said:
kpetschulat said:
The Girardoni Windbuechse required special packs and equipment to carry and use the rifle. If soldiers ran out of air in all three of their bladders, they'd be ****ed. There's a whole pump system you have to set up to pump air into a bladder, which takes up to twenty minutes to fill. The whole process under battle would cause intense amount of causalities. Even if you had multiple lines waiting to engage and replace frontal lines, causalities will be high, because the soldiers will have to break fire to reload their magazine, and break fire again to attach a new air bladder.
Click to expand...

As far as I know a bladder could be used for 30 shots of which approximately 10-15 were more or less accurate(The accuracy dropped after these shots because of the pressure plunge). And I'd think that carrying three of the bladders into the battlefield would definitely be possible. 3 bladders makes 30-45 shots which should be enough for a battle.
Click to expand...

That doesn't really matter. You have to count in battle duress, fatigue, and exhaustion. Those three things alone will effect the usefulness of the rifles. On top of that, to fund an entire army with those rifles will be economically crippling for the state that funds them. They were insanely expensive...
 
British soldiers were expected to carry 60 rounds most of the time, so the lack of carrying ammunition isn't as crippling as you make it out to be. Not to mention the men could pump their cannisters up again during lulls in combat. I think cost was the only real problem with them.
Hopefully we will get a chance to use them ourselves, but I'm guessing they will be expensive to balance out the rapid time between each shot.
 
Hazzardevil said:
Hopefully we will get a chance to use them ourselves, but I'm guessing they will be expensive to balance out the rapid time between each shot.
Click to expand...
Docm said a while ago that they will be available for Austrian officers but im wondering what the animation will look like. Ramming an air gun would feel kinda stupid...
 
Austupaio said:
On top of what the above said, 30-45 shots is no where near enough, not even close.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The KGL troops defending La Haye Sainte at Waterloo started the battle with 60 shots to a man and were completely out of ammo within about an hour of fighting, causing them to lose La Haye Sainte and nearly the whole battle. The air rifle could apparently manage 20 rounds a minute, too. Imagine how fast you'd go through that.

Hazzardevil said:
Not to mention the men could pump their cannisters up again during lulls in combat.
Click to expand...

It took 1500 pumps to fill a single cannister. Your arms would be completely shot after that and you'd be useless as a soldier.

Hazzardevil said:
I think cost was the only real problem with them.
Click to expand...

The cost, the crippling inability to reload them in battle and the fact that they were flimsy and apparently very unreliable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

AUS/NZ Nr. 5 Dragoner Regiment Erzherzog Ferdinand
Replies
0
Views
109
chef0death
AU/OCE Nr. 5 Dragoner Regiment Erzherzog Ferdinand
Replies
0
Views
72
chef0death
Let's be honest the multiplayer here is underdone
Replies
14
Views
408
Seleucid
Back
Top Bottom