What if John Ripley wasn't Ordnance Chief?

[gary]

Lincoln believed that with the newer breechloaders (that he thought would be in the hands of his troops) and repeaters and "machine guns" that the Confederacy wouldn't last that long. Ordnance Chief Ripley was a bulwark against firearms development and stalled as long as he could. Let's say Ripley got sacked much earlier. Would the newer guns have affected the war?

For instance, if Fremont had a few of those machine guns he wanted he may not have lost to Jackson in the Valley. If Jackson couldn't secure the valley, McClellan may have eventually surrounded Richmond and starved it into submission and the war may have been over sooner.

By the same token, Rosecrans wanted 5k Spencers but never got them. The order was delayed and when some where shipped, they got no closer than Nashville. If Ripley hadn't delayed, Rosecrans men would have had them for Chickamauga. Of course there's the counter that they would have exhausted their ammo like the 21st Ohio did and would have had to surrender.

Thoughts please.

[johan_steele]

The problem was still getting them built and into the hands of the troops. Sharps issue wouldn't have been much greater unless there had been a large number of contractors. The Sharps was certainly the best breachloader of the time...

Now the Spencer is another matter entirely... good God, mass issue of Spencer Rifles in the summer/fall of 62; I shudder at the thought. THe only consistent complaint I've read of the Spencer was the poor performance of the round.

Part of the problem was still the tactics of the time. By the time breachloaders & repeaters did reach the men in the field they had learned the importance of cover and the folly of "bravely standing the fire" in line of battle.