How Prussia Won the 1866 Austro-Prussian War (no, it wasn’t just because of the needle rifle)
The famous Prussian needle rifle (Dreyse Zündnadelgewehr) was an amazingly modern weapon, technologically advanced, and massively superior to any other infantry weapon at the time… in the 1840s when it was adopted, that is.
By 1866 the thing was crude, obsolete, and starting to become a dangerous liability.
Yet the Prussians won handily against the Austrian Empire, routing the Austrians at Königgrätz, and establishing a new hegemony for Central Europe that would dramatically affect the course of world history right up to the present day.
In the most exciting 58 minutes of content on the entire KZhead platform, I will make almost everybody mad by explaining why Prussia won for many reasons, and not just because they had a gun that could shoot pretty fast.
Great video, loved the intro showing the Dreyse's needle rifle's superiority. While the telegraph and logistics definitely played a large part, there was ample miscommunication between the Prussian army groups, and Moltke eventually ended up travelling towards Bohemia right before Königgrätz not because that was a predetermined strategy, but because he realised he was receiving information which, by the time he received it, was outdated up to 24 hours. Keep up the great work, this is such an interesting time period!
Thanks! I love your channel. When anyone asks me for a good resource to explain the Austro Prussian War and especially Königgrätz campaign, I send them to your videos. The animations make the complexities of the battles and movements super easy to understand.
What a coincidence. I was just planning to comment how this interesting video taught me extra insights for the amazing House of history series I recently watched on the Austrian-Prussian War.
I wonder if House Of History is planning a series on the Franco-Prussian War?
"not because that was a predetermined strategy, but because he realised he was receiving information which, by the time he received it, was outdated up to 24 hours." Look, if you understood that Moltke contributed a lot to Auftragstactik then you would not make such a comment. It was perfectly clear for him - look at his comments from around 1857 on the topic - that leading from distance does not work. Therefore, he gave his army commanders general orders at the beginning of the campaign, the details, which included changes of the "plan" were their job. Being near the front was an advantage he understood long before the war....
@@olafkunert3714 Sure, but his commanders, especially Prince Friedrich Karl completely ignored their original instructions in an attempt to attain a Kesselschlacht by themselves. It led to delays, confusion, and eventually requiring Moltke, Bismarck and the King to move towards Bohemia because they had no clear picture of what was going on anymore.
Trains, Telegraph and logistics
artillery and von moltke helped too
Pretty much. Moltke directed the entire invasion by telegraph from Berlin and only went to Bohemia right before the concentration of the army and Königgrätz. That is just incredible. Moltke also definitely learned a bit from how Grant directed the U.S. armies from City Point by telegraph.
I was going to issue my predictions but it was already the top comment.
The Prussians also learned a lot from our mistakes, which were frequent, egregious, and silly. See Combined Strategy in the Civil War by Rowena Reed for my personal favorite example, which is the astonishing lack of ANY coherent Union strategy in the middle half of the war. Somewhere there's a good article about how Prussian officers were interested in learning from our errors.@@papercartridges6705
Because morale is automatically gained, if you have advantage in trains and telegraphs?
You call this "a little dry"? Sir, do you know your audience? It was riveting from beginning to end, and left me wanting more:)
agreed on all parts.
I completely agree.
I watched some part twice it’s good
So i, an austrian born and bred, hear the following story which resonates with my modern austrian self-image very much: kaiser franz saw the british use fire tactics and equips the austrian army with the tool to do it (austrian institutions are pretty decent at technological solutions). The austrian army gets the impossible mission to make riflemen out of their diverse conscripts and not only did nobody dare to contradict the kaiser (austrian institutional culture does not encourage contradicting superiors). When it became apparent that they failed in italy, they also didn’t admit they failed, but but blamed it on the french shock tactics being better than their own fire tactics (which weren’t fire tactics at all. Austrian institutional culture encourages covering your own backside to admitting failure and actually fostering learning). And the confirmation bias from denmark, well that fits the picture
I was just searching for a long form interesting history piece to listen to while I do some garden work and then you drop this! Noice!
I was hitting the treadmill lol It's perfect
I think this is by far the best source on weapons and tactics of the 19th century on KZhead. You do absolutely fantastic work. And it was by no means "dry", I almost felt like being on the battlefield myself, watching the horrors of being "shot to ribbons". War is hell, indeed!
Other channels with a serious approach to history of arms/tactics of this era that you might also find interesting are Britishmuzzleloaders, Capandball, Bloke on the Range, the Royal Armouries, just to name a few!
Agreed. I enjoy those other channels a lot, but this one is a little bit better. I like the simple and direct presentation style and attention to small details
“ the last 100 yards of the battlefield belongs to the Infantry “
So, as I understand it, the Prussians had the 1850s-1860s equivalent of an army armed with submachine guns.
Fast-firing but inaccurate, utterly ineffective at long range. Yeah, it checks.
@@vicroc4is it less accurate than a muzzle loader though?
@MarkMuhammad190 Less accurate than a Minié style rifle at least (or a Lorenz) - that's what was implied in the video. Certainly the tactics applied by the Prussians wouldn't have involved getting close enough that even smoothbores wouldn't have a problem if the accuracy was up to snuff.
What kind of projectile does the needle rifle use?
@@janremongalura5713It used a rather weird acorn shaped bullet of .60 caliber encased in a paper sabot. When it was invented it was a rather small bore, by the end of its service life it was definitely a big bore, with the profusion of small bore breechloaders that has been invented.
I was going to say that someone has read “the destroying angel” but after some googling turns out you wrote it! I read it the other week and thought it was serendipitous that I see a video on the subject.
Oh boy another 1 hour video on esoteric mid Victorian musketry
I see you also keep up on the recent video uploads...
Can't wait to watch it!
Wonderful! Even more important than the specifics of the Lorenz vs. the Dreyse is the exposition of the typical mistake historians make in interpreting events out of context and as a way to support their biases (and Generals are historians when they consider past battles). Fantastic work, Brett, as always.
Thank you for this video! I appreciate the History of the 19th Century a bit more. Love from the Philippines 🇵🇭
I never knew about this tactic of `stoss-tactic’, all I knew from other documentation was, that you load and shoot the needle rifle while laying down and so give the opponent a lower target profile. This was probably the advantage of the needle rifle in comparison with the muskets. I really feel sorrow for all the brothers and sisters who died in this war.
LOL @ Surrenderistan and the Lehohohns!
Shooting position and the presented target profile are but a different facet of what he's talking about, though. If your doctrine is to march close than beat them back throgh the weight of your fire, you'll want to take as much cover, present as small a target as possible, sure. But you'll also probably want to cram as many man into as little frontage as possible to increase said weight of fire, so you'll have soldiers laying down, crouching and standing all all at once anyway. On the other hand, if your doctrine is to march close, give supressive fire or a spoiling volley, then press home the charge with the bayonet, taking cover is a straight up detriment. It delays the charge and gives the enemy time to recover, probably disrupts the line and thus softens the punch when it connects. Sounds to me like, were the guns switched between the two sides with the doctrine staying the same, the Austrians would still shoot standing up, and the Prussians sprawled out in whatever position they could get away with.
@@IkomaKoma I agree with you.
just went through gettysburg last month shame you were out woulda loved to stop by and say hello!
The Dreyse was the coolest, most bestest gun ever, until john browning made the 1911, which was so good they named a year after it.
Another brilliant Brett production - well-informed, well-paced and filled with and accurate assessment of two contemporary but very different 'takes' on the infantry rifle of the day.
This video should be shown in schools and universities, fantastic overview.
phenomenal presentation, thank you for taking the time to share your research and observations. stay safe out there.
Thank you for your service sir! Get back home safe !
Love when your videos drop, Major. Looking forward to paying you a visit in July while I’m in town for a preservation march.
Another excellent presentation. Thank you.
so, they Dreyse is responsible for the victory less from a technological standpoint, and more from forcing the evolution of strategy. though of course its unique performance gave that new strategy something to work with. it goes to show strategy is one of the most decisive tools.
"and more from forcing the evolution of strategy." forcing the evolution of TACTICS. Yes, of course. However, it was hard or practically impossible to counter in large battles the effect of the Dreyse with Minie rifles.
I love this kind of content of your, please make more, this changed my perspective and added great insights in this underrated yet very important war
A very enjoyable and informative talk Brett. Thank you.
It is nice to see how innovation was borne out by limitation. The Prussians didn't come up with new organisation and CC out of curiosity, but because they realised they had a substantial disadvantage that they had to mitigate.
Wow! Well done professor! Great lesson(s)!
Excellent video, love the focus on the less thought of details that ties in great with the gun info
Very important insights not generally available very well done
Excellent video! Its clear that you have a real passion for the subject matter and it makes watching you talk for an hour go by like a breeze! I love learning about history, and being in the military myself, i especially like to explore the nitty gritty details, like the equipments used, the training, the uniforms etc and imagine how it must have been for the average grunts at the time. It was very interesting to see the live action demonstration of the rifles used in this conflict, and hear you talk about the SOPs as it were of the factions involved. The various pictures of the uniforms and troops involved was also a great addition.
Thanks glad you enjoyed it!
Entertaining and informative! Great video Brett!
Very interesting and scholarly, thanks Major! Stay safe and I’m looking forward to the summer and your new content from Pennsylvania! Greetings from Suffolk 🏴
Excellent work. Thanks
Another great video as always
Fascinating video, thank you.
Magnificent summary 👏
WIE ES EIGENTLICH _WAR_ VERDAMMTNOCHMAL! :) great stuff.
This video communicates important ideas that rely on numerous underlying and interacting factors. And it presents them in a very accessible way. Thank you for making it. I had a very cursory grasp of some of the material before, but this has enriched that very efficiently.
Great video and great military history. Keep up the good work.
Excellent video, thank you
"Drauflosgehen" or as it as modernly exclaimed as "fuck it, we ball"
Excellent! As always love the theme song!!!
Excellent analysis and I love the depth of this video. Putting everything into its social, doctrinal, and technological frame is a very valuable decision and I have no doubt that your research for this topic took a great amount of effort. Thank you for sharing this! Und Grüße aus dem Vaterland! Ihr Deutsch ist prächtig!
Awesome detailed video, as an Austrian myself the war of 1866 is a quite interresting yet painful topic for me. Very good coverage of doctrine beyond the rifles.
I’ve just read ‘The Destroying Angel’ and it’s absolutely brilliant. Very well written I thought Brett. Great work
Great talk!
Glad to see another video!! It’s always interesting to learn more about European warfare in this time since my focus has always been on the American civil war. Always looking forward to any content you might release here. And of course it wouldn’t a Paper Cartridge video without your friend in the background. I hope these last few months fly by and your able to return home safely.
Not a bad rifle at all and pointed the way forward, but with black powder and no cartridges i wouldn't want one after a dozen shots.
Bayonet "wounds" are rare because they were invariably fatal in the pre-20th century battlefield. Having said that, the casualty rate for the bayonet is very low compared to gunfire since, as you said, the enemy would normally break before the two sides closed to hand to hand range.
Confidence is directly proportional to the distance of the opposition.
Excellent! A masterful assessment.
Really enjoyed this
Great video. I would like to see a video comparing the technology and tactics in Europe vs US civil war.
I loved your video. You said at the end it might've been a little dry but honestly quite the opposite. Usually I watch videos in the back like a podcast but this one I watched "porperly" I guess im a bit more involved as a saxon myself. You are one of the few that explain things indepth showing the background of things and from both perspectives. I can even use some of the things you talked about to adapt them for my personal projects. Great video that's all I can say really.
Excellent Presentation 👍👍👍
Manuver and use of tactics conformed to soldier and equipment have always and will always win wars. Magnificent video gave a real insight into this war bravo.
Rich, detailed, and very fully contextualised: and the reason that it's not dry is that there is an active strand of enquiry animating the whole thing. And, finally, that it's not just all directed to neat take aways and Lessons Learned, but there's still the awareness that often the outcomes are due to sheer contingency, and that things could have gone otherwise -- even although the Austrians didn't (? couldn't) change their tactics to make the most of their main weapon.
Dude ...... that was epic. You call it dry. You are mistaken, humbly mistaken. I was getting a little bit excited as that final battle unfolded in your words. So good. Please proceed. Thank you, Gus.
Great presentation ! Greetings from Czech republic
Just demonstrates that things are never as simple as they might seem and a proper detailed analysis is how you should reach conclusions. Great video as always, with excellent primary source material.
Excellent presentation. Like most things, the truth is usually much more complicated than what we think we know.
Very good analysis. Loved it. Funny thing is, I was thinking about General Melchett's tactics just before you mentioned him.
Very insightful, think youll have 100k subs one day easy if all ur videos as good as this, keep it up bro
Not dry very interesting! Cheers mate!
Great Video! You got my Sub! All Best to you! Greets from prussia´s greatest archievment, Gemany :D
Vielen Dank!
Great video
From what I understand in total war terms, the Prussians set thier units into spread out formations so the enemy fire was much less effective, once they were within range and charging range, these formations were united again under various rally points to volley fire mad minute style then charge with melee mode on?
What a great video! Especially in terms of research. Would love to see a similar video about the Franco-Prussian War. P.S.: Nice to see that there are still some people who can transcribe Frakturschrift. Quite rare these days.
Glad you enjoyed it. I can read Fraktur as smoothly as any other text. Unfortunately, this is not a very marketable skill…
Great video! Just an FYI - your voice is very quiet in this video, it might be worth looking into the levels. Good stuff, keep it up.
As Melchett would say, "Baaaaaahhhh!" Great video presentation!
Great video. Some of the concepts and issues were also occurring when matchlock firearms themselves were entering into widespread use, they were not wonder-weapons on their own (although highly effective in their context) but had to be used as part of a bigger military system
wow great video - impressive
I really enjoyed your perspective on the Dreyse versus the Lorenz. If you ever need a real German to translate I am happy to help. Couple of observations I wanted to share with you. We got a dreyse 41 and we are working on the original treibspiegel. We are using newspaper paper about one meter long , wrapping it. We are doing it over and over again- but it is rather difficult to get a satisfying result, however my son reach a point were he is getting now decent results. And we noticed a better treibspiegel gets better accuracy. Also we did not noticed much fauling as you mentioned and I am wondering if it had to do with the treibspiegel you are using. We shot over the winter and we also saw that our treibspiegel shredded to very small pieces in the snow unlike what you saw. I personally think that a dreyse is verse sensitive to what you are using as a treibspiegel and you might improve on accuracy the closer you get to the original Kartusche. I also believe that a dreyse is more simple than other black powder guns- you don’t need tools and I believe that the treibspiegel is removing almost all the fouling from the barrel. What I am not quite sure is on how much the the treibspiegel and the bullet is engaging with the deep rifling of the dreyse. I am sure that the explosion is pushing the treibspiegel and the langblei out of the barrel - however i am not convinced that it is a synchronized move. Accuracy will suffer if it is not. As a structural engineer I do like the original treibspiegel design as long as you get it tight. To me a hole in the treibspiegel will cause the langblei to be pushed out of the barrel faster than the treibspiegel resulting in bullets that do not spin and the wrapped newspaper creates a rather strong bond 90 degree against the force of the explosion. Our goal is to get a hold of an original Lorenz - we are curious especially my son Otto if it is really as good as you say. I am wondering if the Lorenz has already the progressive rifeling. My son is your biggest fan- keep doing what you are doing. It’s wonderful to get to know you in this digital way.
Nice presentation. However, IMHO you miss one important aspect: Even without Schocktaktik the Austrian infantry would be between a rock and a hard place. It is very hard on a normal battlefield to use your higher range of your rifle when the enemy can use skirmishers in larger numbers who, this is important, can operate their rifles from a kneeling or even better from a lying position. The point is, that even a more defensive Austrian infantry, trying to use fire tactics themself, would be defeated by higher fire rate of the Prussians. The Britsh example is IMHO misleading as they fought against enemies in more or less compact fromations. A Prussian artillery officer, see in Müller (1873) "Geschichte der Preußischen Feldartillerie" admitted that the Prussian infantry could attack Austran positions in 1866 without proper coordination with artilery, this because of the Dreyse rifle, only 1870/71 when the table was turned due to the new French Chassepot rifle, a combined arms concept was essential for the Prusssian infantry. You are correct, that the accuracy of the Dreyse rifle was not great, but without a practicle concept to counter the high rate of fire, the point is even for me too academic. 🙂
An interesting case study is the Bavarians in the Main campaign, who had muzzleloaders and actually shot them, and gave the Prussians a pretty good thrashing. The Prussians took higher overall casualties, and the Bavarians never blamed their loss on the needle rifle. I may do a video on that. But to your point, I agree with you. I don’t see any way the Austrians win in 1866 without a fantastic stroke of random luck even if they did try shooting their Lorenzes.
@@papercartridges6705 But the losses at Kissingen are listed as higher for the Bavarians according to more recent research however, 133 Prussians dead for 246 Bavarians dead. So even in this case, where the Prussians were assaulting a defensive position, there appears to be no inidication of muzzle loading rifles being superior. And ofcourse this is looking past the effect of both sides artillery in this battle.
@@papercartridges6705 Please do make a video about it! It would probably help with the misconseption of Dreyse the "Wunderweapon". Also you never hear from the little German states. I would also love your take on "Why the North won the Civil war". Tactics etc.
@@santerinurminen7909 In serious history Dreyse is not sold as Wunderwaffe, the Prussian advatage on the operational level was too high. The Prussian would have won with a Minie rifle, that with higher losses. But again, even Prussian officers admitted that the Dreyse gave the Prussian infantry a huge advantage. That the training of the Prussians was more important than the hardware becomes clear in the FPW of 1870/71 when Prussian infantry sometime defeated French infantry who had a much better rifle.
I would also add that rifle role is a bit overestimated to this day. Because a little bit of well placed artillery can cause a lot more damage than hundreds of rifles.
Excellent treatise !.
Awesome job.
Great video, I appreciate a dry lecture sort of presentation as much as anything. I hear officers do a lot of PowerPoints nowadays, did those skills translate over?
This was quite interesting. I had a vague understanding of the Dreyse, but my understanding was that it was ahead of its time and had virtually won the Prussian-Austrian war as it permitted a soldier to fire much faster and open up the ability to do so from a prone position. I had no idea it had such intense drawbacks.
Great picture showing the effect of fouling, must of been a few prussians missing eyebrows. Great work putting up the translations 🍻
Great video, sir. Thank you for taking the time to do it. It's videos and documentaries like this. Remind me of the old history channel from back in the day. Also, do you think you might do a video on the Bavarian Werder series of rifles and carbines. Possibly in the future? I know they were used by Bavarian forces alongside the Prussians in the Franco-Prussian War.
By their nature the Bavarian rifles are rare. At the top of my want list is an original unconverted 1858 Podewils rifle, but someday I would also like a 58/67 Lindner. Let me know if you encounter one! I would definitely do a video if I get my hands on one.
great video as always! the sound is very low and even at max volume it is hard to hear you.
I need to figure out why. KZhead compresses the sound every time. It won’t let me adjust volume after I upload either.
@@papercartridges6705 its always better to make the video to loud then to quiet. you can turn a loud video down but you can only turn a quiet video up so much. theres three ways i can suggest to increase the volume. 1. through your mic. 2. in your recording software. 3. in your editing software. basically you want the video to be way louder before it even gets to youtube.
@@papercartridges6705 I didn't find it anywhere near that quiet, I barely had to bump the volume to hear it very loud and clear. maybe it is the way these others listen to the video, ear buds vs computer speakers vs tv vs headset. more data might need to be gathered. for reference I listened on my PC via speakers.
First class Brett. Held me spellbound to the end, even with pauses to read the text. Thank you. Hopefully next will be how the Prussians won the 1870 War with the worst rifle against the better French artillery - command and control ie the French lost the war rather than the Prussians won it. That should fire up some comments……
I thought Krupp guns were better than the French guns.
Yeah I thought the consensus was that the French had the better rifle but the Prussians the better artillery
"the better French artillery" The Prussian artillery was better, at least the French had no concept to use the higher mobility of their guns into useful results on the battlefield.
Huzzah. Got the subject debated as a start. Always the best way to get it going on the net is to post an incorrect fact. Yes the Prussian artillery was better technically and in doctrine and handling and promoted the development that led to the famous French soixante dix cinq whose last gasp was the M3 gun on the Sherman tank. Albeit there was nothing much left bar the shell case.
exceptionally good explanation of "Drauflosgehen" ;-)
Thank you, Mr. Paper Cartridges, Sir!
Thanks for the video, really interesting. (2 comments to simplify answer, 1st here) From France, and knowing a basic bit of the Chassepot and Dresde on mechanical and historic PoV : it seems that they have developed a great tactic to fix a weakness of their rifles and this tactics was perfect for the day "finally, we have breach loading *rifles*". And, I could be wrong, but it looks like it have shape in a positive way, for instance British Empire on their late 19th century battles with the Martini Henry, like, the famous battle where the Zulu charged in massive number, and the British with bit of this German tactic *crushed them*. And like you said, the 1870 Franco-Prussian war was a complex campaign, France had a good artillery that helped, but the tactical superioty and doctrine of fire helped them to win against a better firearm (that was talking (sort of) almost the same language, unlike the Austrian army)
Good video
Excellent.... now to sound like an expert at the next arm chair general roundtable.
I might be wrong. But I believe the superior rifle of the mid 1800s was the Spencer. Of course doesn't use a paper cartridge so it's not on the subject.
Yes, the Spencer is pretty much better in every way, and makes the Dreyse look almost medieval in comparison.
@@papercartridges6705 Yep, but the Prussias were well trained and could use their inferior weapon successfully against better hardware in 1870/71. And the Dreyse rifle was produced in larger numbers...
Pleased to see a Blackadder reference.
Another outstanding video, building on your discussion of the effect of rifling (or lack of) on tactics and outcomes. Thank you for illuminating something I've always found puzzling about 19th century (especially American Civil War) tactics. Small quibble with concluding that Austria drew the 'wrong' conclusion from the Italian wars. If the the lesson was that, whatever the theoretical capability of the Lorenz, their their massive, multinational conscript army would never achieve a level of mastery of the Lorenz that would allow them to effectively use fire tactics, arguably they learned the correct lesson. Königgrätz, with what you argue was a near Austrian win based on shock tactics, support the idea that they made the best choice given their inherent limitations. Just as the Prussians made the best tactical choice given the limitations of the Dreyse. Sure, it didn't work out for the Austrians but it doesn't seem like they had a clear alternative.
The well trained British soldier was of the same origin as the Prussian or the Austrian soldier might have been - son of a poor peasant or worker. Language(s) never were a problem in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Austrians never trained their soldiers to the capacity of their Lorenz guns - unlike the British who trained their soldiers to the capacities of their Enfields. There had been no proper training on the Lorenz before Solferino and ever less than after. That is not due to the Austro-Hungarian soldier's nature but due to the nature of the ever obsolete Austro-Hungarian regime. You can train any soldier to everything but not if you *decide* on "Stoss-Taktik" and firing 20 training rounds *per year*.
Thank You
Very interesting 📚
very informative video as always. the one point i would disagree with is the supposed superiority of the Lorenz (or any other rifled musket) over the Dreyse as i think it does not really hold up to historic evidence. The prussians used the Dreyse in three wars which they all won rather decisively. In these wars they mostly faced rifled muskets. no i did not forget about the chassepot, but by 1870 the french had not yet adapted the tactics necessary to play out its strenghts compared to the Dreyse. So no, the dreyse wasnt an early wonderweapon. But it was the superior concept for the fighting tactics and the time. And this is evidenced by the simple fact that by 1875 we see almost no major power still issuing rifle muskets but lots of them adopt breech loading, and often times bolt action style guns. And the range advantage of the rifled musket is in my opinion more of a technicality. As you adress in the Video, technically those rifles could hit accurately up to 600 yards. But training soldiers to shoot accurately at this distance is expensive, time consuming and even then probably only accessible for a small elite number of troops and not for the rank and file. So the rifled musket might win when used in skirmish tactics but certainly not in mass infranty combat. Heck even in WW1 the tipical small arms fighting distance did not exceed 200-300 yards. And that was with smokeless powder and much flatter trajectories. So in essence i cant agree on the superiority of the rifled muskets over the Dreyse, but otherwise your video is spot on. Obviously the Dreyse was not the only winning factor for the prussians - superior ligistics, communication and tactics additionally to a number of strategic and tacitcal errors on part of the austrians won the war. But again, isn't that just the way wars are won in general?
Breechloading is superior to muzzleloading, and the Dreyse was the oldest, crudest breechloader. Comparing the Dreyse to, say, the 1866 Snider, shows just how crude it actually was. Amazing in 1841… not so much by 1866. It did not take 1866 or 1870 to make everyone wake up and think “wow, the Dreyse is so good, we all need breechloaders now!” That movement was already well underway. We credit the Dreyse for far too much.
@@papercartridges6705 On the contrary it often takes major direct conflicts to convince other militaries of what ideas and type of equipment is the best way forward. And even then often other military establishments are slow to react, another great example of this being the US not adopting the assault rifle concept until ~20 years after its first introduction, and the rest of NATO even later, whilst only the Soviets pretty much picked up on it almost straight away. In short just history repeating itself once again.
"So the rifled musket might win when used in skirmish tactics but certainly not in mass infranty combat." Too simplistic. The adoption of rifles as standard weapon had a huge impact on artillery: Overnight the 6-pounder became worthless and the rifle forced a dramatic developement in the field of artillery.
I think that the reaction of the Austrian officers to the idea of wargames just about says it all. They refused on the grounds you could not gamble on them!
That is a bit unfair. In 1848 they saw the much better performance of the Prussians against the Danes and draw correct conclusions, with their Schocktaktik approach they were in good company. A really nice video would be the development of infantry tactics after the Napoleonic wars. What was the differences before 1848 between Brits, Austrians, Prussians and French? Did the Dreyse rifle change a lot? Or was it used in an existing tactical concept (with better results)?
Awesome video. I love long form analysis like this! Also a question: why did the Dreyse have such a short range? Was it due to a smaller charge in the paper cartridge?
It was an old design. In 1841 when the model was adopted, 250 meters was considered to be very long range. By the 1860s, it was just getting obsolete. It had a large caliber barrel while newer rifles were getting smaller, with higher velocities. That said, as the theoretical range of rifles kept increasing, most combat continued to happen between 75 and 200 meters. So while the Dreyse was technically shorter range than the Lorenz, it didn’t matter too much in the end.
Excellent.
33:00 that is simply not correct. Half used Taprifles and half used minie rifles. (for most of the war each of hte two 800 man battalions in a regiment had one battalion with the taprifle and one with the minie. Late in the war exchanges where made to give each regiment the same arms) The Minies where moslty ex french M1822s that where converted to percussion before being sold to Denmark in 1848 for the first war. Then uprifled and shortened a bit 1861. (so collected today often call them "ex french minigevær M1822/48/61") The big issue in regard to the firearms was that all the reservist that had done their mandatory service before 1861 had been trained on both the M1822 as a smoothbore and on the taprifle. But half the army ended up armed with the M1822 as a minierifle... And where ramming the bullet multiply times as one do with a Taprifle do nothing good for accuracy. And that the otherwise ok marksmanship program was not allways followed because of cost)
also, the danes where very well equipped when looking at all their kit. Canteens where issued, unlike the Prussians. Two sets of footwear, one being long boots. Again unlike the Prussians. And both where very popular "loot". Cartridgeboxes where carried on the front of the body, unlike what we see in north America. The rest being comparable to what infantry in other armies carried. I got livinghistory/reenacmtent experience with both Danish and US kit from the 1860ties. (and modern military experience from 2001-2008 and again with homeguard service over the last two years) If I by some magic ended up as a danish soldier in 1864 I would really not want to replace any of the kits with what others where using... with the one exception being the canteen. The American tin canteen is way way lighter empty and hold way more water. So simply better. (but the Danish one is far superior to having none like the Prussians) But other than that I prefer the Danish kit. And none of the items are something I really dislike.
@@thomasbaagaard what does the way cartridge boxes were worn in North America have to do with Danish provisions?
@@sinisterthoughts2896More like nothought2896
Another thing just occurred to me on rewatch could the Prussians' Fire Tactics work with muzzleloaders, are are they dependent on the morale effects of that constant barrage of fire?
shock tactics were used more directly by the austrians here, previously you were to fire until you could in theory anahikate them in melee then charge to either get shredded, force them from the field or meet and overwelm them, at the austro prussian war the austrians go more direct
Yes, with tragic results, sadly, for the Austrians.
Muzzle loading rifles had the reliability, range and accuracy advantage. On the other hand, breech loading rifles had improper seal and paper cartridge issues. It turns out that the Prussians offset the breech loading rifles disadvantages with improvised tactics, also Prussian enjoys logistical, intelligence and organisational advantage over the Austrians.
“Drauflosgehen” is a very old phrase. “Go for it and don’t stop” describes it exactly.