Monday, January 9, 2012

How Combat Effective Was The Spencer? Introduction

Introduction

I have been reenacting with the Spencer (carbine or rifle), for the last 13 years.  The reenacting experience inevitably turns your mind to questions like "How did the soldiers live?", "What was it like to wear and carry the uniform, gear and weapons of a Civil war soldier?" and "What's it like to experience the sights and sounds of battle; to maneuver and fight as a unit?".

Just how good was the Spencer?  Was a soldier with a Spencer in fundamentally better shape than his opposite with a muzzle loading firearm?  In short, might we call this weapon a "game changer"?  

I will be exploring these questions in a series of multi-part posts by trying to answer the question just how combat effective was the Spencer?  

What is combat effectiveness anyway?

I found this definition at Military Terms of the Modern Era web site:

COMBAT EFFECTIVE :


the ability of a military organization to achieve its assigned missions with the least expenditure of resources, both material and human, in the shortest amount of time; subtended by human, technical, and organizational factors.

..which I think is a good definition to go by.

So to phrase the question more specifically for the Spencer - were units armed with the Spencer able to achieve their assigned mission in, particularly in human terms, a cost effective manner?

To explore this question I will be researching the tactics used by Spencer armed infantry and cavalry and four battles where the Spencer figured prominently because the weapon armed either all, most or some of the units involved. 

The four battles we will be examining in chronological order will be:
The next post in this series will be on the tactics and tricks used by Spencer armed infantry and cavalry.  So  coming soon,  "How Combat Effective Was The Spencer? Part I: Tactics Used by Spencer Armed Infantry and Cavalry ."





No comments:

Post a Comment