Thread: What if the Confederates had Gatling guns?

Thank you. Excellent explanation.

Still don't understand why it was critical that the Confederate line be laid so closely to a covered/concealed assembly, especially when the rebels were aware that such an assembly area existed right at, literally, their feet.

Had Adolf or Joe Stalin issued a "not one step back" order in Turtledove's account I might understand.

Originally Posted by S2

Thank you. Excellent explanation.

Still don't understand why it was critical that the Confederate line be laid so closely to a covered/concealed assembly, especially when the rebels were aware that such an assembly area existed right at, literally, their feet.

Had Adolf or Joe Stalin issued a "not one step back" order in Turtledove's account I might understand.

As with most ACW entrenchments it follows the natural ridgelines.

But a better question is why did Lee even allow the entire Mule Shoe Salient to exist. Lee should have had his line about 2000 yards to the SSE along modern day Gordon Drive and tied in on his left at Laurel Hill.

The Mule Shoe

I guess it seemed like a good idea at the time.

In retrospect it would cost him a big chunk of his 2d Corps along with Dick Ewell.

Originally Posted by S2

Thank you. Excellent explanation.

Still don't understand why it was critical that the Confederate line be laid so closely to a covered/concealed assembly, especially when the rebels were aware that such an assembly area existed right at, literally, their feet.

Had Adolf or Joe Stalin issued a "not one step back" order in Turtledove's account I might understand.

Steve,
Here are some maps and narrative to match Buck's response.





http://www.nps.gov/frsp/planyourvisi...potsytrail.pdf
Bloody Angle Trail - Fredericksburg & Spotsylvania National Military Park

Strong Google Fu, strong!

Originally Posted by Albany Rifles

Sometimes I wonder if the lessons stick.

They stick.

You keep try to have ACW error units and leaders react in a way that militaries did in WW 1. You can't do it. The weapons were just too different. The tactics were sufficiently different due to the weapons that differed so much....muzzle loading blackpowder weapons vs magazine fed bolt action rifles with cordite.

If you want to make some comparisons with the a latter war I would go with the Franco Prussian War. While the ACW was revolutionary in it being an industrial war fought with Napoleonic tactics, the Franco Prussian War was transitional.

See I feel the ACW was transitional as well, especially the latter 2 years when about all that was left of the earlier era was the black powder. Rifles replaced muskets as the infantry weapon of choice, rapid fire and multi-shot weapons began to appear, wars began to exceed the length it took to win a battle or capture a city, mobility began to be measured in 10's of miles per day along interior lines thanks to the railroad.

The Gatlings proved to be an impractical weapon in the setting of the ACW from early on. In its early configuration it did not provide sufficient reliability and mobility that exceeded the capability which already existed...i.e., the 3 inch Ordnance rifle and M1857 Gun/Howitzer (12 Pound Napoleon). Both of these weapons were versatile and filled the full range of mission requirements for the doctrine of the day.

The Gatling was considered and rejected because it still had a lot of teething issues to work through. Did it finally become an effective weapon? Yes but not against modern industrial national armies because there were sufficient countermeasures to them (I have noted several) to make them not a good weapon in the ACW battlefield.

What I've been wondering though is there a way the gatlin if properly employed could have had an impact.

Z,

I am afraid you are misinterpreting some things.

1. The rifle musket was THE standard Infantry weapon from the very start of the war. The US Army adopted the .58 caliber rifle musket as early as 1855. In 1861 they adopted the updated version of the M1855 rifle musket, the M1861 rifle musket in .58 caliber. That some units still used the .69 caliber M1842 smooth ore musket for the first few years was a matter of shortage not by choice. Both sides imported rifled weapons over smooth bores whenever possible, most notably the .577 caliber British Enfield rifle or the .54 caliber Austrian Lorenz rifle (see Albany Rifles!). But right from the start both war departments outfitted their soldiers with Springfields and Enfields as soon as they could. There was no conscious shift midway...it was a production issue. To your frame of reference it was the P14/M1917 replacing the Krags while the 03 was the Army standard at the start of the war. The repeaters so limited service outside the cavalry. Lest you forget the first STANDARD Infantry rifle which was more than a single shot was .30/40 Krag.

2. Railroads as a Way to move troops seen at 1st Manassas in 1861. There were other uses as well but that was done throughout the war, not a new development. The Union used river transportation to get to the combat zone, but then it was pure LPCs. Most soldiers walked in and out of battle, and that includes half of every artillery battery. Railroads were used for strategic purposes but they were used in the logistics role almost exclusively.

So the real Ah Ha! moments of the war were the successful use of assault columns (see the Upton story) and cavalry transforming into mobile infantry....and that has its formation in the dragoons of the Mexican War.

So what did change on the battlefield was the rapid entrenching by armies....but that was a
relearning of old tactics (see the Roman Legions)

Originally Posted by Albany Rifles

Z,

I am afraid you are misinterpreting some things.

1. The rifle musket was THE standard Infantry weapon from the very start of the war. The US Army adopted the .58 caliber rifle musket as early as 1855. In 1861 they adopted the updated version of the M1855 rifle musket, the M1861 rifle musket in .58 caliber. That some units still used the .69 caliber M1842 smooth ore musket for the first few years was a matter of shortage not by choice. Both sides imported rifled weapons over smooth bores whenever possible, most notably the .577 caliber British Enfield rifle or the .54 caliber Austrian Lorenz rifle (see Albany Rifles!). But right from the start both war departments outfitted their soldiers with Springfields and Enfields as soon as they could. There was no conscious shift midway...it was a production issue. To your frame of reference it was the P14/M1917 replacing the Krags while the 03 was the Army standard at the start of the war. The repeaters so limited service outside the cavalry. Lest you forget the first STANDARD Infantry rifle which was more than a single shot was .30/40 Krag.

2. Railroads as a Way to move troops seen at 1st Manassas in 1861. There were other uses as well but that was done throughout the war, not a new development. The Union used river transportation to get to the combat zone, but then it was pure LPCs. Most soldiers walked in and out of battle, and that includes half of every artillery battery. Railroads were used for strategic purposes but they were used in the logistics role almost exclusively.

So the real Ah Ha! moments of the war were the successful use of assault columns (see the Upton story) and cavalry transforming into mobile infantry....and that has its formation in the dragoons of the Mexican War.

So what did change on the battlefield was the rapid entrenching by armies....but that was a
relearning of old tactics (see the Roman Legions)

In the context of Napoleonic tactics the rail roads and (admittedly now that you bring it up) steamboat gave armies strategic movement never before seen.

Mea Culpa on the rifles v muskets.

I know repeating arms were not common, but the revolver (pre-dates the war) and then the lever action combined to create the first war in which some units had an honest to goodness ability to surpass the rate of fire of the bow and arrow for the first time ever with similar ranged fire capability unlike the Texas Rangers vs the Cheyenne.

Cavalry fighting as infantry, or horse mounted infantry ie dragoons goes way back several hundred years in fact to the early 1600's. In the US the 1st and 2nd Regiments of Dragoons pre-dates the Mexican war by over a decade.

One thing I want to make clear is do not mix the strategic, operational and tactical levels of combat.

The tactical level was on the battlefield itself. In that regard very little differed between what you saw at Waterloo and what you saw at Gettysburg. Basically both sides liones up and panked away at each other. Flanking movements are nothing new. Engagement ranges may have increased and the former depended more on the bayonet than the latter but they were pretty much the same.

The operational level of combat was what we would consider a theater or a campaign. This is when all of the elements used to effect the outcome of a campaign. So in the context of the ACW the use of the railroad to move his troops east of the Blue Ridge by Joe Johnston was a rare instance. More notable would be the Overland Campaign with Grant shifting his base of suppply from watercourse to watercourse and Lee shifting to rail junctions. He did bring Breckenridge in through Hanover Junction but this was more of repositioning of forces within the Eastern Theater. Grant's shifting of the VIth Corps away from Petersburg towards Washington in mid-July in response to Early's Raid is another example...but this was executed by water.

The strategic level is the national level of war....what was the entire nation doing toward a unified goal...something Grant and Lincoln were excellent at and Davis and his generals not so much. There was one excellent use of the railroads at this level by the Confederates in shifting Longstreet's Corps in SEP 1863 to Chickamauga. This showed an excellent use of the railroad as a strategic weapon but it was few and far between. Most other movements of troops were intratheater and were movements, not maneuvers.

So the railroads and rivers had a large logistics impact but had only very limited impact impact on the maneuver of forces effecting battles.

Repeating pistols, etc, did not have a large impact. The arming of the Union cavalry with repeaters did have an impact...and I did not imply the Dragoons were raised for the Mexican War...but that is the first war where they were used in their intended role enmasse.

Was not implying that the pistols had an impact. Although they did vs the Cheyenne and were the first gun powder weapons to equal the rate of fire achieved with the bow and arrow. Repeating rifles equaled that rate of fire and had the ranged combat ability as well which was a first for gunpowder weapons.

Oh here is a bit of Civil war trivia for you. Arkansas used to have a town called Napoleon. It was an important river prt and one of largest towns in the state. In fact Arkansas Militia men fired the first shots fire din anger in the civil war from this location. it was located on a spit of land where the Arkansas and Mississippi rivers met. During the war rebels would fire at boats on the river on one side of the spit, race across to the other side and resume firing.

The Union got tired of this and decided to dig a canal across the spit to block this movement. Well water being what it is the course of the rivers changed to follow this easier course and slowly Napoleon which was now an Island began to be washed away. Now nothing remains of the town itself, just a small island named 72. And its not even clear if the Island is in Arkansas since the State of Mississippi claim to the navigable channel which is West of where the Island is.