Click here for an easy and free way to help protect endangered habitat at The Rainforest Site! Non-profit ad by Voyager
VoyForums
Oklahoma Disaster Relief










American Red Cross
Together, we can save a life


See Kare11.com's page for more ways to contribute.

VoyForums Notice -- Quick Contributions:
Donate $10 to the Red Cross: Text the word REDCROSS to 90999
Donate $10 to the Salvation Army: Text the word STORM to 80888
* The charge will appear on your cellphone bill.

[ VoyUser Login optional ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 10:59:27 05/08/02 Wed
Author: Jeremy Mazur
Subject: O. Henry
In reply to: Gregg Benefiel 's message, "Re: Cross Timbers- Federal Notice" on 09:46:34 05/08/02 Wed

Gregg,

Thanks for the response. I'd still like to take issue with the Henry rifle policy. Before doing so, let me add the following qualifiers to my position: 1.) My anti-Henry argument is not a reflection of my sincere hopes for the event, 2.) My anti-Henry argument is not reflective of any hatred, anger, or diabolical fury that I have towards your self, and 3.) I think Henrys are cool, and would happily carry one around every day if the Austin municipal code so permitted.

There's no debate with regard to the hisorical facts you cite regarding the use of the Henry. The rifle was distributed in limited quantities to Federal soldiers. The Henry was used in the western theater, and would be correct for some 1864 Federal impressions (principally the Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin regiments that you mention). With this being said, my concerns are as follows:

1. While Henrys were used in the Western Theater, I'm not aware of their use in the Tran-Mississippi. The event itself is not a Western event, but a Trans-Miss one as its thematic title of "Defense against the Northern Probe into Texas" implies. Since the Henry is not specific to the Trans-Miss, I question the propriety of using at such an event.

2. While regiments may not have been entirely equipped with Henrys, they probably accounted for a significant proportion of a given unit's weaponry. I'm a big fan of some degree of uniformity in the ranks. Rather than see just 4-5 privates in the ranks carry Henrys at an event, I'd prefer that a majority of the unit carry such weapons. As I don't think that the majority of the Federal files will appear weilind Henrys, those that do will appears as outliers.

3. The Henry's firepower is never respected (or worshipped) by the enemy, making for some poor performances as far as the public show goes. You and I seem to be in agreement on this.

4. The use of repeating weaponry at events increases the risk of a "cowboys and indians" scenario. Granted, this is an abstract argument against Henry usage, but I think that weapons that have a greater rate of fire incite their users to want to fire them more... usually from a vantage point around the enemy's flank.

These are my reasons for ridiculing the 1st Battalion's standing Henry order. I am in no way lobbying to have the order rescinded, and promise to refrain from vomiting at the sight of a Henry at Cross Timbers. I do hope, however, I'm providing some food for thought here with regard to historical accuracy at scenarios.

Regards,
-jeremy "brother maynard" mazur
O. Henry Rifles of the Austin Mess

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 2.94, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2012 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.