OldReliable1862
First Sergeant
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2017
- Location
- Georgia
In discussion of the Union army in the Civil War, General James Wolfe Ripley, the Chief of Ordnance until 1863, has faced quite a lot of criticism for his refusal to outfit more units with repeating arms. It was fuddy-duddyism on Ripley's part, supposedly, that kept the Union army from taking full advantage of the benefits of repeating arms in combat.
However, there are those who have pointed out that Ripley may have been justified for his reticience toward equipping units with repeating arms. To keep units so equipped supplied with ammunition would have placed greater stress on the Union logistics system. Also, keeping up such a high rate of fire would not have been possible due to fouling - something which did happen to some degree to units with repeaters.
The logistics issue is something I've termed "Ripley's Dilemma" - all it means is that repeaters place greater stress on logistics to keep armies supplied. This certainly seems to have been born out by experience in WWI, where logistics played a role in the development of trench warfare.
Every now and then, I've heard people suggest that the Confederates should have invested more heavily in producing their knockoffs of the Sharps, as the paper cartridges would have been easier for them to produce. Of course, there are all the difficulties the Rebels would have had having their limited munitions industry switch over to the Sharps, but we also run into Ripley's Dilemma. What would have stressed the Union's logistics system would have utterly broken that of the Confederates. I highly doubt the ramshackle rail system would have been able to come close to meeting their army's needs.
However, there are those who have pointed out that Ripley may have been justified for his reticience toward equipping units with repeating arms. To keep units so equipped supplied with ammunition would have placed greater stress on the Union logistics system. Also, keeping up such a high rate of fire would not have been possible due to fouling - something which did happen to some degree to units with repeaters.
The logistics issue is something I've termed "Ripley's Dilemma" - all it means is that repeaters place greater stress on logistics to keep armies supplied. This certainly seems to have been born out by experience in WWI, where logistics played a role in the development of trench warfare.
Every now and then, I've heard people suggest that the Confederates should have invested more heavily in producing their knockoffs of the Sharps, as the paper cartridges would have been easier for them to produce. Of course, there are all the difficulties the Rebels would have had having their limited munitions industry switch over to the Sharps, but we also run into Ripley's Dilemma. What would have stressed the Union's logistics system would have utterly broken that of the Confederates. I highly doubt the ramshackle rail system would have been able to come close to meeting their army's needs.
Last edited: