The American Civil War: Could modern weapons have made a decisive difference?

Half_Life_Expert#4276

Here is the next what if/could it? thread and it is a sort of follow up to the previous one on the Battle of the Little Big Horn and Gatling Guns.

I got inspired to create this thread and the Little Bighorn one from an article I read in the current issue of Armchair General magazine about the failure of the United States to effectively adopt modern, breach loading and rapid fire weapons, and thus remain with rifle-muskets and the Napoleonic infantry tactics.

A lot of that failure came down to one man: Brigadier General James Wolfe Ripley, chief of the US Army Ordinance Bureau. Whether it was techno-phobia or just plain stupidity im not sure, but he made determined efforts to prevent the US army from adopting modern weapons in the years prior to and the months after the outbreak of the Civil War, such as:

the Henry Rifle:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_rifle

The Spencer Carbine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spencer_repeating_rifle

The Sharps Carbine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharps_rifle

The Agar Gun (AKA Union Repeating Gun or Coffee Mill Gun): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agar_gun

and the famous Gatling Gun: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatling_gun


By the time Ripley was relieved of his post in 1863, it was too late for these weapons to make a decisive difference, as the war was already turning against the Confederacy, and there was (IMO) too many men in the Army to give enough of these weapons too.


So, I thought, why not discuss the possibilities these weapons could have presented.

Here is my scenario, for hypothetical reasons, The United States Army adopts one or more of the repeating small arms listed above (Henry, Spencer, Sharps) in the year or two prior to the outbreak of the Civil War. The Sharps was in limited service in the 1850s, so those could have been readily available, and with the Henry and Spencer, we assume that they are being issued not long after being shown and adopted in 1860 when they were first made.

Obviously, there still would have been plenty of Springfield and Enfield Muskets available, but here we will assume that a determined effort is made to phase them out, and that much of the peacetime US army is already wielding them at the outbreak of war.

I think it is safe to say that at the outbreak of war, most of these weapons would be in the hands of the Union army, due to the North's vast industry and the secessions of the southern states halting all supplies of these weapons and ammo to the south. There would be some stockpiles already down there, but not nearly enough for an entire army, and little way to make new weapons and ammo effectively.

So with this change, I present these questions:

With a pre-war adoption of modern rifles in the US army, could the Union army have performed much better in the first campaigns of the war?

Could these weapons alone have crushed the Confederacy without a long drawn out war? By this I mean a 1 or 2 year war at the longest.

Would the commanders have still stuck with Napoleonic tactics, or would they have, at least gradually, ordered more usage of skirmisher-type tactics of spreading out and using cover?

They could not have changed overnight, I think a change would require a minimum of 4-6 months for units already in service, less for fresh recruits, as they would have no previous training to unlearn.

Could proper fielding of Gatling and Coffee Mill Guns have made a decisive difference?

This question can be examined in the case of the actual war or my hypothetical scenario


We could also stretch things a little further, and examine the possibilities of the US Army adopting and producing under license modern European weapons, such as the Dreyse Needle Gun: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreyse_needle_gun


I don't think any battle demonstrates the effectiveness of modern weapons in the 1860s more than the legendary Battle of Koniggratz in the 1866 Austro-Prussian War: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_K%C3%B6niggr%C3%A4tz The Dreyse Needle Gun played a critically vital role in the outcome of that battle.


This could be a very interesting thread, I look forward to the discussion and debates.

Naisho

I was always under the impression that their was no effective means of supplying an entire army or armies with the breach loading rifles and cartridge up until the civil war. Then there was also the issue of cartridge being manufactured. The issue of soldiers initially outfitting themselves in irregular units would also pose a large problem..

We should also consider most of the muskets in circulation in the US at this time were rifled not smooth-bore. The only increase in efficiency was the firing rate not the actual firing accuracy.

You mentioned the Henry Repeater. That is 1860.

Most breach loading or repeaters were new technology that didn't have any form of service record. Only limited deployments were possible such as the sharp carbine for US and Confederate Cavalry units. By 1864 between 2-3 million men had served in both the US and Confederate armies collectively. The outfitting large scale would have been impossible.



The Civil War was already being fought with large scale usage of rifled technology. The death counts are testaments for that. We just didn't see the application of machine gun emplacements.


Edit: Just to add an addendum.

Machine Rifling was the real big technology that came about in 1834. So to argue that the US had a lack of desire to make use of the modern weapons of their day is a bit much. Also we did see major shifts in military movements towards non-stand Napoleonic tactics. It just took a while for many of the amature generals to realize that rifled weapons shoot effective fire further away.

daelin4#9896

Weapons are tools, and like all tools it takes proficiency to use them effectively. The fact that certain tools are more modern or more effective does not always guarantee improved performance. Take the M16 for example, in their heyday many incidents of poor performance have much to do with how soldiesr were either not experienced or careful in their maintenance of their rifles. Or the M9 Bazooka in WW2: when they were first shipped to Africa/ Italy, the troops didn't even know what they were for, and it was misleading to suggest that the following reports of how poor they were used against armour was a result of the weapons being inferior. Not everyone knows how to use a hammer in their first few tries. Anyone who have spent time around firearms will know that just because the weapons are sturdy and works well, often become so because the user knows what to do and has done it often enough to be reliable. Operators of the weapons themselves must be well trained. Both sides of the US Civil War levied non-professional troops, some would become high-level officers we now call "political generals" with varying degrees of leadership and command skills, and while it is comparatively straight forward to train them in the use of rifles, to suddenly change the weapons they have been trying to perfect can have a major effect on their
performance. Tactics can be affected as well, but not always for the best: if only a few regiments of an army (or worse, a few soldiers within a regiment) were armed with lever-action Spencer rifles, they would have to be deployed separate from other units that fight in the typical Napoleonic style of line infantry, because they can quickly reload within seconds compared to the usual muzzle-loading rifles used among the majority; diversity of unit equipment might be useful for some tactical situations, but it would also provide for another factor commanders have to take into account. This was why lever-action weapons were limited to cavalry units- muzzle-loading weapons were far more impractical, and you didn't need as many cavalry troops since issue of horses, horse feed and equipment for horses and their tactical applications already limited their numbers in an army.

Also remember the issue of supply: even in modern armies diversification of something like weapons and the ammunition needed to use them can produce problems with logistics. NATO standardized ammunition precisely to prevent supply problems. Lag time between requisition, time to produce, time to deliver, and consumption of ammunition in training or combat means you can always find yourself short of supplies. Now add in the fact that you have to concern yourself with certain troops using different ammunition, different types of percussion caps, different spare parts for the different types of weapons they carry. Centralized system of supply is already complicated without adding more and different things into the equation. Guns themselves aren't the only thing that needs resources to use or parts to place worn out bits; Gatling guns weren't just an assembly of six barrels with a hand crank, it required carriages, bolts, carriage wheels, and everything in ebtween to make sure that the result fired in the manner you expect it to.
On top of all this concern for weapons, it adds troops that need spare clothes, shoes, tools for other things like eating equipment and cups, and of course, food itself, which is consumed every day.
The considerably large scale of the US Civil War meant that use of any new weapons like the ones listed, would always be limited to small numbers.

In addition there was politics: guns are invented and made by certain companies, and those companies would have an interest in making sure they stay in business and not others. New weapons will cost more due to their increasing complexity, and as Naisho said, no army likes to adopt untested, untried weapons at a large scale, not when they have cheaper, simpler and more familiar weapons that have already proven themselves. You also have to convince certain people that your product works better and worth the alternative investment, and not all politicians or generals will be easy to convince just using "it's better!" argument alone. Sometimes they are biased towards certain things (Patton's opposition to WW2 heavy tanks for example), or they are friends with certain brands over others (American brands vs non-American in the modern US military, police, civilian consumers, etc.). It can be really hard for a military to adopt newer and better weapons and systems of organization and tactics, and that's just from the human factor. Claims of improvements aren't always trusted either, some competition claiming his product works better and cites a few sources isn't going to be more convincing than your friends' uncle's arsenal stating otherwise.

Half_Life_Expert#4276

Naisho wrote: »

We should also consider most of the muskets in circulation in the US at this time were rifled not smooth-bore. The only increase in efficiency was the firing rate not the actual firing accuracy.

Oh yes, im well aware of the accuracy of Civil War Muskets, but if one side could fire 5-6 or more times more rounds than the other in a given time, I think it would have a major impact.

That's basically what I am trying to get at, more or less equal accuracy, but modern weapons being able to deliver many more shots.

Given that accuracy, if Union forces could deliver more firepower, then perhaps Confederate casualties would have been much higher, and with the South having a smaller population and almost always having fewer troops than the North, perhaps the casualties alone would have shortened the war. Attrition, but much faster and a little more one sided, not to mention the demoralizing effect this firepower could have had on the rank and file of the CSA Army

daelin4#9896

Half Life Expert wrote: »

Oh yes, im well aware of the accuracy of Civil War Muskets, but if one side could fire 5-6 or more times more rounds than the other in a given time, I think it would have a major impact.

Training and tactics come to mind. Like I said, some of the guns you listed can require more extensive retraining than it seems at first glance. The needle gun for example wasn't just another better musket that you can use the ramrod faster. When you're standing in the battle lines and the only thing between you and enemy is air, a lot can happen in those 1-2 minutes reloading, good or bad, like not using the ramrod or losing it during the fight. Introduce a weapon that does not rely on a ramrod might sound nice, but that's no longer a musket, is it?
Plus, higher firing rate doesn't mean much if the battles turn more to cavalry manouvres and artillery pounding your formations. The enemy will adapt to your changes soon enough.
I mean if I was a civi lwar commander and I was aware of the enemy having a technological advantage in firing rate, I'd do well to avoid engagements until circumstances are in my favour or avoid them entirely. General Lee didn't score victories over the Union
because he had better stuff, he just knew how to fight and where to deploy units to minimize the force multipliers going against him, and many Union generals failed to overcome him using superior numbers. Better weapons only work if you know how to use them, both in the personal sense of when to pull trigger and how to steady aim, to the strategic level of where these troops need to go and if they should start moving now or later. If the weapons themselves didn't have teething problems, bet you the supply and leadership parts will.

Half Life Expert wrote: »

Given that accuracy, if Union forces could deliver more firepower, then perhaps Confederate casualties would have been much higher, and with the South having a smaller population and almost always having fewer troops than the North, perhaps the casualties alone would have shortened the war. Attrition, but much faster and a little more one sided, not to mention the demoralizing effect this firepower could have had on the rank and file of the CSA Army

If anything the knowledge of this being the result of conflict would probably have prevented the Confederates from waging war against the North. That or we'd see more Fredericksburgs occurring, where Union generals preferred to just throw waves of men at fortified positions, confident that the weapons will make up for it. Technology doesn't ensure that humans do great things; if anything it ensures that we're more inclined to do horrible things. I mean that's precisely what happens in WW1, and the Allied bombing campaign in WW2.

[Deleted User]

Keep in mind that for the Union, most troops were on 'contract', recurited for a tenured period (in general, around two years), and for many of them, when their tenure was finished they retained their firearm and other kit...the main reason for this was twofold - first, recruitment of new troops and units was already factored into weapons manufacturing projections; secondly, kit recovery and maintenance was pretty abysmal - it takes a lot of organisation to get someone's kit, record it, clean it, prepare it for storage, and then get it to a central facility where it is put into long term holding.

On the other hand, more than a few units purchased their own firearms, or had them donated. Many of the sharpshooter units retained each shooter's civilian target rifles, other's took votes on which firearm they would accept from the government as being suitable.

In practice, the fast firing repeaters had a massive advantage by breaking assaults or forcing enemy out of positions through weight of firepower, but the ammunition usage was high, and the range was effectively shorter than rifle muskets, although that is a situational matter, as average engagment ranges were in reality only 30 to 50 yards longer than the Napoleonic era engagement ranges (130 - 150 yards, as opposed to 80 - 100 yards).

The true advantage of the rifled muskets was cost and availability.

Bear in mind as well that during the war, there was a marked preference by some regiments to retain the Enfield rifle musket - this was matched by a general increase in orders for 'buckshot' or 'mixed buckshot cartridges', which came from the practice of loading a minie ball with three or four buckshot rounds on top of it held down by the wadding. While this was initially a random practice, by the end of the war, particularly among the Union forces, it had become an approved and authorised practice...which couldn't be done by breech loading firearms.

Erminaz#1429

Okay some things I want to bring up about adoption and mass use of these listed fire arms. Some of the issues have been mentioned already. Some of these things also come into play when we discuss the adoption of equipment by the U.S. Military as well as justifying it the budget expenditure.

The Henry Rifle: Brass Cartridges were still relatively new and in comparison to the Rifled Muskets would have been considered underpowered Rifles as they used a pistol round by the military command. The Pattern 1853 Enfield for example was .58 caliber ball loaded with around 60 grains of black powder. The Henry Rifle cartrage was loaded with a black powder charge of about 26 and was a smaller pistol round being .44 (pistols used in the civil war ranged from .32 - .44 caliber). That is a substantial difference in hitting power and most of the body armor used during the civil war would have been able to stop that round at longer range. Also was there large enough production of the brass cartridges to keep the troops supplied in mass?

The Spencer Carbine: Would not have been considered underpowered as it did use a comparable load and ball size to the Muskets. But I have to still wonder (as I don't have the knowledge to say) if the production and quality standards of the manufacturing of Brass Cartridges were to the quantity and quality that the U.S. military would be willing to adopt them.

The Sharps Carbine: The early Sharpes carbines used paper cartridges and the firing pins were it's weakest point. the cost of replacement and distribution of these firing pins might have been a leading reason why they didn't want to issue them to the troops in bulk during the civil war.

The Agar Gun (AKA Union Repeating Gun or Coffee Mill Gun): From what I understand they were quite fragile, needing frequent repairs and prone to malfunctions and jamming. The officers might have felt that it was better to use the tried and true weapons then to have a fancy Repeating gun that might fail you at a critical moment. The Cost in replacement parts, labor and training on these most likely kept the brass from wanting them in large quantities and paid for by military's budget.

Gatling Gun: Gatling delayed changing his design even when "modern" cartridges were finally to a point to be of good use. The gun had a number of problems in it's early days. The bores were tapered, and often the barrels and chambers did not properly align, affecting accuracy, velocity and adding to lead fouling. The chamber system itself, in which a paper cartridge was contained inside a capped steel chamber, was both expensive and fragile requiring frequent replacement. The gatling gun may have shown much promise and fired the standard .58-caliber ammunition, it's many drawbacks and radical design and purpose lead to little interest the U.S. government.

I would like to also add that while the U.S. Military purchased none of Gatling's guns, Maj. Gen. Benjamin F. Butler, after a field testing the Gatling Guns, purchased 12 for $1,000 each and two were used on the Petersburg front in 1864 and apparently were considered successful. It might have been those results, coupled with the move to the "modern" cartridge that lead to later adoption of the Gatling Gun by the U.S. Military.