Odds And Ends And Anything You Fancy

[Jollyrei]

It was at Antietam in that war that rows of dead on the battlefield were photographed and displayed a few days later in an NYC studio. There are fascinating photos, but I understand(?) they would violate standards to post here.

I think this is correct - CF does not encourage photos of actual death and battle carnage. It is not that we are (many of us) not interested in such historical records, but considering that we are essentially a BDSM/Crux/erotic art forum, posting such historical images might be taken in the wrong context and be considered disrespectful.

On a more historical interest note, just the fact that those photos appeared in a NYC photo studio is somewhat remarkable. The glass plate photography that was employed in those days required fast and exact timing between taking the photo and developing or fixing the plate. I think it was a window of about 5-15 minutes before you just lost the picture. So these photographers had to have a darkroom/tent quite nearby to fix the images as soon as they took the pictures. I suspect this is why we see a lot of "aftermath" type photo (the dead after the battle is over) rather than actual battle shots - hard to maintain a darkroom under fire.

 

[Praefectus Praetorio]

I think this is correct - CF does not encourage photos of actual death and battle carnage. It is not that we are (many of us) not interested in such historical records, but considering that we are essentially a BDSM/Crux/erotic art forum, posting such historical images might be taken in the wrong context and be considered disrespectful.

On a more historical interest note, just the fact that those photos appeared in a NYC photo studio is somewhat remarkable. The glass plate photography that was employed in those days required fast and exact timing between taking the photo and developing or fixing the plate. I think it was a window of about 5-15 minutes before you just lost the picture. So these photographers had to have a darkroom/tent quite nearby to fix the images as soon as they took the pictures. I suspect this is why we see a lot of "aftermath" type photo (the dead after the battle is over) rather than actual battle shots - hard to maintain a darkroom under fire.

And long exposure made photos of actual battle scenes almost impossible.
The people in New York were shocked and horrified by the pictures of actual dead on a distant field. However, they mobbed Matthew Brady's studio for the opportunity to view them.

 

[Barbaria1]

Long exposure is also why portrait photos or group photos show everyone lookin stiffly and seriously at the camera. They had to remain perfectly still.

 

[Frank Petrexa]

It was at Antietam in that war that rows of dead on the battlefield were photographed and displayed a few days later in an NYC studio. There are fascinating photos, but I understand(?) they would violate standards to post here.

I was not aware that this violated the rules. The photographs show no faces (there were some of those when I searched the internet), and are from a distance. I believe all are from Gettysburg. The men standing by the fence are POW's. I apologize if anyone is offended. My thought was that military photographs should include the real cost of war. The American Civil War was horrific. Gettysburg in particular (as was Anteitam--named after a creek in Maryland) was a blood bath--World War I style fighting, with often mechanized weapons employed against massed infantry.

 

[Praefectus Praetorio]

I was not aware that this violated the rules. The photographs show no faces (there were some of those when I searched the internet), and are from a distance. I believe all are from Gettysburg. The men standing by the fence are POW's. I apologize if anyone is offended. My thought was that military photographs should include the real cost of war. The American Civil War was horrific. Gettysburg in particular (as was Anteitam--named after a creek in Maryland) was a blood bath--World War I style fighting, with often mechanized weapons employed against massed infantry.

I was not offended, I just explained why I didn't post my Antietam photos. That was ten months before Gettysburg and the first time any saw photos of the carnage on a real battlefield. Combined with the horrendous casualties at Antietam, the shock was indescribable.
Total casualties were 22,726 with 3,600 Americans (from both sides) killed that day. Never before or since have so many Americans lost their lives in a single day of battle - not in WWI or WWII. As a percentage of the population, that would be today over 38,000 deaths in one day.

 

[Barbaria1]

I read an interesting analysis of civil War casualties. Despite improvements in weaponry, the average Civil War soldier habitually tended to shoot high and overshoot his target in the heat of battle. The analysis suggests that it took more than 200 shots to score one hit. The real carnage happened only when opposing sides stood their ground in close order and banged away at one another at close range for volley after volley, which happened often enough as most frontal attacks ended up that way since the tendency was to stop snd shoot rather than carry the attack to close quarters.

 

[Gibbs505]

I read an interesting analysis of civil War casualties. Despite improvements in weaponry, the average Civil War soldier habitually tended to shoot high and overshoot his target in the heat of battle. The analysis suggests that it took more than 200 shots to score one hit. The real carnage happened only when opposing sides stood their ground in close order and banged away at one another at close range for volley after volley, which happened often enough as most frontal attacks ended up that way since the tendency was to stop snd shoot rather than carry the attack to close quarters.

Did the analysis take into account cannon fire, it is often the real killer on the battlefield!
I agree about the rifle fire. I read that it took about 7000 shots to hit one opponent in WW1, 50,000 in ww2 and 200,000 in Vietnam! So 200 in the civil war is pretty good by comparison!

 

[Praefectus Praetorio]

I read an interesting analysis of civil War casualties. Despite improvements in weaponry, the average Civil War soldier habitually tended to shoot high and overshoot his target in the heat of battle. The analysis suggests that it took more than 200 shots to score one hit. The real carnage happened only when opposing sides stood their ground in close order and banged away at one another at close range for volley after volley, which happened often enough as most frontal attacks ended up that way since the tendency was to stop snd shoot rather than carry the attack to close quarters.

That is quite true. However, the other factor was the increased use of artillery in close fighting on the battlefield. With no system to spot long rang fire, The batteries were brought right up to the front lines and used as powerful antipersonnel weapons. At two hundred yards and less, grapeshot, a dozen large metal balls (inch plus diameter) around a central core were fired. Under one hundred they would switch to canister shot with 48 or more small balls and often scraps of metal in a thin-walled canister.
The American Civil War was the last major war where less than half the casualties came from artillery or bombs.

 

[Barbaria1]

Yes, the author did go into cannon fire. That could be quite murderous, especially canistor at short range. Cannonballs at long range were scary too in that they could be seen coming in but could be sidestepped easily enough. but then would careen crazily and dangerously on impact. He also said the celebrated order “to give them the bayonet, boys” rarely worked out because most charges petered out before getting that close. Again the tendency to stop snd shoot overcame any officers’s orders to get close.

 

[Barbaria1]

Source: Allen C Guelzo, GETTYSBURG

 

[Praefectus Praetorio]

Yes, the author did go into cannon fire. That could be quite murderous, especially canistor at short range. Cannonballs at long range were scary too in that they could be seen coming in but could be sidestepped easily enough. but then would careen crazily and dangerously on impact. He also said the celebrated order “to give them the bayonet, boys” rarely worked out because most charges petered out before getting that close. Again the tendency to stop snd shoot overcame any officers’s orders to get close.

He knows what he's talking about. Bayonet charges were effective because of the scary effect on the defenders. Seeing a wall of men with five-foot-long rifles tipped with two-foot-long sharp blades coming at you on the run, could be very unnerving! However, even hardened soldiers did not like using the bayonet. There are documented stories from training camps where during bayonet drills against straw-filled dummies some men sobbed or vomited at the gruesome action.

 

[Naraku]

I think this is correct - CF does not encourage photos of actual death and battle carnage. It is not that we are (many of us) not interested in such historical records, but considering that we are essentially a BDSM/Crux/erotic art forum, posting such historical images might be taken in the wrong context and be considered disrespectful.

On a more historical interest note, just the fact that those photos appeared in a NYC photo studio is somewhat remarkable. The glass plate photography that was employed in those days required fast and exact timing between taking the photo and developing or fixing the plate. I think it was a window of about 5-15 minutes before you just lost the picture. So these photographers had to have a darkroom/tent quite nearby to fix the images as soon as they took the pictures. I suspect this is why we see a lot of "aftermath" type photo (the dead after the battle is over) rather than actual battle shots - hard to maintain a darkroom under fire.

Matthew Brady, who took those photos and most of the most famous photos of the war, traveled with his own portable darkroom.

Other photographers did the same and I'm sure something like this was used in the Crimea.

 

[Praefectus Praetorio]

Weihnachten steht vor der Tür
View attachment german ad..mp4

 

[Gibbs505]

Last known bayonet charges, by the british of course!!!

During the Second Gulf War and the war in Afghanistan, the British Army units mounted bayonet charges.[64] In 2004 in Iraq at the Battle of Danny Boy, the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders bayonet-charged mortar positions filled with over 100 Mahdi Army members. The ensuing hand-to-hand fighting resulted in an estimate of over 40 insurgents killed and 35 bodies collected (many floated down the river) and nine prisoners. Sergeant Brian Wood, of the Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment, was awarded the Military Cross for his part in the battle.[65]

In 2009, Lieutenant James Adamson of the Royal Regiment of Scotland was awarded the Military Cross for a bayonet charge while on a tour of duty in Afghanistan: after shooting one Taliban fighter dead, Adamson had run out of ammunition when another enemy appeared. He immediately charged the second Taliban fighter and bayoneted him.[66] In September 2012, Lance Corporal Sean Jones of The Princess of Wales's Regiment was awarded the Military Cross for his role in a bayonet charge which took place in October 2011.[67][68]

 

[ron23333]

Last known bayonet charges, by the british of course!!!

I like everything about history and military.
But I can't collect much, because these are professional English military terms. Our civilization has invented many great inventions in ancient history. It is difficult to communicate. The Great Wall is the great defensive building of agricultural civilization. I like what you share
I believe some people are war artists. Although they are weak, they can defeat powerful enemies and win an overwhelming victory, not a Pyrrhic victory
This is the only bad thing about all agricultural civilizations. If they are seriously short of labor due to war, or delay the harvest and sowing season, even if they win the war, they will also be the biggest failure, because their strategy has failed.

 

[Praefectus Praetorio]

shit... I thought Eul said meant something else by "but you can't think of anywhere to put it -
feel free to put it here"...

t

If we are talking here about @Eulalia , I know exactly where I want to put 'it!'

"There's a bright golden haze on the meadow,
There's a bright golden haze on the meadow,
The corn is as high as an elephant's eye,
An' it looks like its climbin' clear up to the sky.

Oh what a beautiful morning,
Oh what a beautiful day,
I've got a wonderful feeling,
Everything's going my way."
- Rodgers and Hammerstein

For those who thought that was just wistful poetic exaggeration -

 

[twonines]

Last known bayonet charges, by the british of course!!!

The British Army used the long "sword" type bayonet until the early stages of the Second World War, when it was replaced by the shorter, cylindrical "pig sticker", which was deemed to be more effective and easier to carry and affix.
The sword type bayonet was frightening, when a platoon was given the order "Fix Bayonets" the rasping sound as they were withdrawn from their metal lined scabbards and the subsequent "click" as they were attached to the rifle was enough to put the fear of God into the bravest of enemies.

 

[Gibbs505]

The British Army used the long "sword" type bayonet until the early stages of the Second World War, when it was replaced by the shorter, cylindrical "pig sticker", which was deemed to be more effective and easier to carry and affix.
The sword type bayonet was frightening, when a platoon was given the order "Fix Bayonets" the rasping sound as they were withdrawn from their metal lined scabbards and the subsequent "click" as they were attached to the rifle was enough to put the fear of God into the bravest of enemies.

That is the P1907 Bayonet and you are correct!. Of interest is the Indian pattern which was shortened to 12 inches (First image) from the approved 17 inches (second image). These are both mine!
The North West railway made the shortened bayonet because it was felt to be handier in the jungle fighting in Burma. India also produced the Lee Enfield No. 1 MK III in 303 br and later in 7.62 Nato up until the 1960's!!

 

[Deleted member jedakk]

That is the P1907 Bayonet and you are correct!. Of interest is the Indian pattern which was shortened to 12 inches (First image) from the approved 17 inches (second image). These are both mine!
The North West railway made the shortened bayonet because it was felt to be handier in the jungle fighting in Burma. India also produced the Lee Enfield No. 1 MK III in 303 br and later in 7.62 Nato up until the 1960's!!

Interesting that they not only shortened it, but dropped the blood gutter or groove along the sides of the longer version. The purpose of that on swords was to lighten the weapon without sacrificing strength. Maybe they decided it wasn't that effective for the shorter weapon?

 

[Gibbs505]

Interesting that they not only shortened it, but dropped the blood gutter or groove along the sides of the longer version. The purpose of that on swords was to lighten the weapon without sacrificing strength. Maybe they decided it wasn't that effective for the shorter weapon?

It's a war pattern, delete any unnecessary work to get what is needed into that hands of those who needed them.
That is why there are so many variants of something like the Le Enfield! Makes collecting them a interesting hobby! I used to have a few myself but circumstances dictated that I sell them.