WWI, I think, was MUCH more a conflict of not just tactics, but technologies of totally different types.
In the Am Civil War, they could’ve used repeating rifles but just kept on with single-shot percussion muskets. That’s just an example.
Not that I’m any expert, just a casual observer. ;-)
In the Am Civil War, they could’ve used repeating rifles but just kept on with single-shot percussion muskets. That’s just an example.
Yes, but the muzzleloaders were rifled and had an effective range of 200-300 yards, not 50 yards. A few individual units had Spencer repeating rifles at their own expense. Cannon had moved on from firing only solid and grape shot to firing explosive shells with a much greater range and accuracy. Both these made a very great difference when troops were lined up shoulder to shoulder and walking at you from several hundred yards away. In the early days of the 19th Century charging troops would only have to face a couple volleys before being on you. By the American War they faced nearly continual accurate fire the whole time. Check out Pickets Charge, Fredericksburg, Antietam ...
The only reason the Union didn’t adapt repeating rifles earlier was that the Union lacked the transport necessary to carry the necessary amount of ammo these would have fired up. The man in charge of Union ordinance was dead set against them because he thought troops would needlessly waste ammo. Lincoln himself had to intervene to get their procurement.