"Mitrailleuse crews" Topic
8 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please be courteous toward your fellow TMP members.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the 19th Century Discussion Message Board
Areas of Interest19th Century
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article The fascinating history of one of the hobby's major manufacturers.
Featured Workbench Article These models gave Adam the perfect opportunity to experiment with Citadel's new Foundation paints.
Featured Profile Article
|
| Major Bloodnok | 08 Jul 2016 3:29 p.m. PST |
I am under the impression that the Mitrailleuse crews, at least under the Empire, were manned by infantrymen rather than gunners. Would I be correct in that assuption? |
Frederick  | 08 Jul 2016 4:17 p.m. PST |
Nope – under the Empire the mitrailleuse were part of the artillery – hence their technical doctrine which held them back from the front line and limited their effectiveness |
Askari Minis  | 08 Jul 2016 7:24 p.m. PST |
Correct, Frederick--an elsewhere, too. The Russian Gorlov (Gatling) guns were artillery. The Turks used Gatlings, too, but most of what they bought ended up on Navy ships. |
| gamershs | 08 Jul 2016 11:27 p.m. PST |
Too bad the mitrailleuse was not assigned to the regiments as they did battalion guns in the 7YW. It could have made a difference. |
| mashrewba | 09 Jul 2016 3:10 a.m. PST |
I don't think so -the French infantry had loads of firepower already -it was Prussian artillery that won the day once the Prussian stated holding their infantry back out of harms way. Having said that they were targeting mitrailleuses so they were seen as a bad thing!! |
| KTravlos | 09 Jul 2016 9:53 a.m. PST |
what Masrewba said. The Prussians guns were the key and the French had nothing that could negate them. |
| gamershs | 09 Jul 2016 10:54 p.m. PST |
It was the range and firepower up front that I am referring to. Assigned to the battalions they would appear in one's and two's instead of whole batteries making them much harder to target by artillery. Being in one's and two's would some junior officer get the idea to dig them in and hide there location till the Prussians had closed to close range? Would they have made a difference in a battle? Possibly not. Would the higher casualty rates have caused major problems for the Prussians? Interesting question. |
| ChrisBBB2 | 10 Jul 2016 1:42 a.m. PST |
IIRC: at Le Mans, virtually the last battle of the war, some mitrailleuses were making a nuisance of themselves. The Germans took them out by skillfully infiltrating, moving in loose order and using covered approaches. Which I suggest indicates that by the end of the war the German infantry tactics were pretty good and would have coped OK with distributed individual MGs. Of course they had spent several months learning the hard way. Russian Gorlov guns were used en batterie at Katseljevo-Ablava in 1877. (I did a BBB scenario for this battle.) I think some 50 Turkish Gatlings were sent to the front in 1877, one battery per corps. They saw use at Plevna (where a number are on display now, I believe); I think some MGs were used at Shipka Pass as well. Chris Bloody Big BATTLES!
link |
|
looks at a fast-assembly naval kit for the Age of Sail.