Biggest Yankee Error

[Don Dixon]

Among other factors you overlook the possibility of having the arms manufactured overseas to specifications drawn-up in the United States. This is not Monday morning quarterbacking.

Outside of the North, there were only two arms factories in the world capable of manufacturing fully interchangeable arms. Her Majesty's factory at Enfield Lock, England [Her Majesty wouldn't sell arms to either side], and the London Armoury. Both factories had purchased American manufactured production lines from Ames. EVERYONE else, including the manufacturers in Liege, Belgium, still used artisanal production, and their arms were not fully interchangeable. You would propose to manufacture significant quantities of repeating rifles, which were more much more complicated than the muzzle loading Springfield rifle musket which Northern factories were having difficulty producing in quantity, by artisans in home workshops using files to shape the parts to fit standard gauges. Since repair parts also had to be hand made and hand fitted, how would you have maintained the guns once they were received by the Federal Army and issued? The Federals and Confederates had enough trouble trying to keep their non-interchangeable parts Austrian, Belgian, Prussian, and French muzzle loaders operational in the field for that reason.

Ripley was down on breechloading/repeating rifles for the following reasons: concerns over the manufacturers' ability to meet the Ordnance Office's standards for interchangeability, cost, and concerns over the Army's logistical ability to maintain and feed the guns once they were in the field.

Regards,
Don Dixon

 

[Philip Leigh]

Outside of the North, there were only two arms factories in the world capable of manufacturing fully interchangeable arms. Her Majesty's factory at Enfield Lock, England [Her Majesty wouldn't sell arms to either side], and the London Armoury. Both factories had purchased American manufactured production lines from Ames. EVERYONE else, including the manufacturers in Liege, Belgium, still used artisanal production, and their arms were not fully interchangeable. . .

As noted in the prior post, copied below, the head of the Navy's Wartime Ordnance Bureau had reason to disagree with you.

. . . Only a month after the war started Navy Ordnance Chief Andrew Harwood wrote Navy Secretary Gideon Welles:

The [Navy Ordnance] Bureau has reason to believe that facilities can be found abroad — especially in the great manufacturing towns of Belgium — where, should a competent agent be sent with the pattern of a [breech-loading] fire arm which has been proved to combine essential elements of success, the arms could be fabricated more speedily and economically than in the United States.​

Don Dixon said: You would propose to manufacture significant quantities . . .

No, it was not I who originated the proposal. It was Navy Ordnance Chief Andrew Harwood who did so only a month after Sumter.

Don Dixon said. . . of repeating rifles . . .

No. Starting from the OP, this thread undeniably addresses breechloading shoulder arms of all types. That would include repeaters and single-shot breechloaders such as the Sharps.

 

[leftyhunter]

In the early 20th Century the British army, which had considerable experience of desperate fighting while outnumbered, used a Lee Enfield rifle with a 10 round box magazine and a magazine cutoff. During the Great War the cutoff was done away with to make the rifles simpler to produce.

I guess . I just can't see the logic of making a repeater not a repeater. No contemporary army has far has I know does that.
Leftyhunter

 

[Don Dixon]

As noted in the prior post, copied below, the head of the Navy's Wartime Ordnance Bureau had reason to disagree with you.
No, it was not I who originated the proposal. It was Navy Ordnance Chief Andrew Harwood who did so only a month after Sumter.
No. Starting from the OP, this thread undeniably addresses breechloading shoulder arms of all types. That would include repeaters and single-shot breechloaders such as the Sharps.

Because some twit in the Navy proposed it, you imply that the proposal had technical validity and could be accomplished in reality. You will note that it was not followed up on.

Single shot breechloader or repeater, it doesn't make any difference. The required tolerances were closer than Liege hand work could probably have accomplished. Similar "interchangeable" production at Harpers Ferry Armory produced the Hall's breech loading rifles and carbines. While they were very interesting conceptually and were a driving force in the development of the American system of manufacture, they leaked gas too badly at the breech to be effective, or acceptable to the troops. Even the Sharps, which you would presumably cite as a success as a breech loading rifle, leaks gas at the breech. If you fire it once while supporting it under the breech with your hand, you will never do it again without a leather glove on.

Regards,
Don Dixon

 

[johan_steele]

Your continued use of proven misrepresentations about what I have written in your efforts to defend US Ordnance Chief James Ripley's resistance to breechloading shoulder arms reminds me of an incident described by Robert Bruce in Lincoln and the Tools of War. It concerns and exchange of telegrams between General John C. Fremont and Ripley regarding Fremont's request during the spring of 1862 for "Union guns," — a predecessor to the gatling gun.

"Fremont to Ripley:​

​

Our experiments here with the Union repeating gun are satisfac-​

tory. Can you spare and will you send immediately sixteen (16)​

with equipments & full supply of ammunition for this Dep't by​

way of Pittsburg . . .​

​

Ripley to Fremont:​

​

Telegram received — Have no Union repeating guns on hand,​

and am not aware that any have been ordered.​

Fremont to Ripley:​

​

Upon the nineteenth of December on recommendation of Genl​

McClellan the President ordered fifty of the Coffee Mill or Union​

guns. Was there not some error of name in my dispatch.​

There was, of course, no error in the dispatch received at the
Ordnance Office; Ripley had simply lied and been caught at it."

OK so you do believe the US could have been armed with breachloaders. How many, from where and who was going to build them.

It was NOT going to be from abroad as has been noted to you just two other factories in the WORLD were capable of manufacturing interchangeabe arms. Both were in Britain and neither were going to do that for the US. So who in your recurring fantasy would be manufacturing these arms?

As to the Coffee Mill guns, where were they actually used, deployed and what was there impact? Oh wait... you don't know.

The problem with what you have written is your, and Mr. Leigh, lack a basic understanding of industry and technology of the period. This is not the frst time this has been pointed out. As to your continued use of Wiki as a source... will you use Amazon book reviews as a source again?

When it comes to history vs fantasy you have once again been weighed, measured and found sorely wanting.

 

[contestedground]

The problem with what you have written is your, and Mr. Leigh, lack a basic understanding of industry and technology of the period.

Is there any chance of getting them together to straighten this out?

 

[Philip Leigh]

Because some twit in the Navy proposed it. . .

As noted upthread, Andrew Harwood was not "some twit in the Navy." He was Chief of Naval Ordnance.

. . . you imply that the proposal had technical validity and could be accomplished in reality. You will note that it was not followed up on. . .

And you will note that Ripley was in charge of Army Ordnance which would ultimately have responsibility for the breechloaders, particularly if the military were to get them in the high volumes necessary for lowest cost.

If you want to label Harwood a twit, please provide more documentation for your conclusion, beyond your personal opinion.

 

[johan_steele]

Is there any chance of getting them together to straighten this out?

I'm told they compare notes at least once a day.

 

[Philip Leigh]

OK so you do believe the US could have been armed with breachloaders (sic) . . .

As the OP and its linked article indicate, I believe that breechloaders could have been adopted more rapidly. Which is not to say—as you falsely accused me of claiming—that I ever wrote that they would completely replace muzzleloaders by the end of 1862.

. . . As to the Coffee Mill guns, where were they actually used, deployed and what was there impact? Oh wait... you don't know. . .

Yet again you fantasize another false accusation. You can't possibly know whether I am aware of where the Coffee Mill guns were used. But for the record, they were used by Generals Butler and Geary, among others, as well as Admiral Porter. General William T. Sherman was even wounded by one that misfired during a demonstration.

The problem with what you have written is . . . blah, blah, blah.

Two problems, among many others, with your written remarks are the proven misrepresentations and false accusations.

 

[johan_steele]

As the OP and its linked article indicate, I believe that breechloaders could have been adopted more rapidly. Which is not to say—as you falsely accused me of claiming—that I ever wrote that they would completely replace muzzleloaders by the end of 1862.

As is your habit, you fantasize yet another false accusation. You can't possibly know whether I am aware of where the Coffee Mill guns were used. They were used by Generals Butler and Geary, among others, as well as Admiral Porter. General William T. Sherman was even wounded by one that misfired during a demonstration.

The problem with your written remarks are the proven misrepresentations and false accusations.

It's only false if it isn't true. As you have shown in the past your research is limited to what you can find quickly and what fits your agenda. Typically anything that paints the US in a bad light, particularly that of the US soldier. I don't believe you would know a P53 from a Lorenz or a lathe from a denglestock without a google search; your knowledge of period industry and technology has been shown to be grossly lacking on this thread and others

The OP made clear the agreement with Porter Alexander... but no disagreement.

 

[Don Dixon]

And you will note that Ripley was in charge of Army ordnance which would ultimately have responsibility for the breechloaders. If you want to label Harwood a twit, please provide more documentation for your conclusion beyond your personal opinion.

Throughout the Civil War, and well afterwards [the late 1940s I believe you might discover]. the War Department and the Navy Department were two separate departments, which were petty and contending with each other. The Navy designed and purchased or manufactured its own ordnance and small arms (i.e., 36 caliber "Navy" revolvers and 44 caliber "Army" revolvers). The Army, horror of horrors, was not responsible for the Navy's ordnance, breechloading or otherwise.

With regard to Liege's ability to build what Harwood was suggesting, I am stating facts, both technical and business, not a personal opinion. I'm sure that Henry Shelton Sanford, the Federal Minister Resident [ambassador] in Brussels, who was actively involved in purchasing arms in Europe for the Federal government could have enlightened Harwood. Liege did not have the technical capability at the time to do what Harwood thought it could. Simply because he was chief of Naval ordnance didn't mean that he had a clue about Liege's real production capabilities. Nor did the manufacturers have the manufacturing capacity. Having read extensively in Sanford's papers, the Department of State traffic, and the War Department traffic as part of my research, I can state very factually that Sanford repeatedly reported to both Seward and Cameron in the later half of 1861 that the capacity of the Liege manufacturers was fully occupied with orders for Italy and other European governments related to the change-over from flintlock to percussion technology, due to political tensions in Europe, and due to orders from speculators for the Confederacy. He didn't expect them to be able to accept new manufacturing orders, and then only gradually, until early 1862. So, he, Herman Böker and Company, Colonel Schuyler, the state purchasing agents, and the speculators, bought what was already manufactured and available, or could be quickly and inexpensively transformed from flintlock to percussion. The Liege manufacturers were also very judicious about expanding capacity because there was finite number of skilled artisans and they had had unpleasant experiences in the past with the boom and bust cycles of the arms trade.

I'm writing about the realities of manufacturing and the international arms trade in 1861-2. You're writing about wish fulfilment in some sort of parallel universe. I repeat Omar Bradley's dictum, "Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics."

Regards,
Don Dixon

 

[Philip Leigh]

It's only false if it isn't true. . .

Your claim that I could not know where the Coffee Guns were used and whether they were—or were not—a success is false on its face because I never commented on those points prior to you accusation.

Your claim that I wrote that the US Army should have been able to completely arm with breechloaders within a year is proven false in post number 81 above.

 

[Philip Leigh]

Throughout the Civil War, and well afterwards [the late 1940s I believe you might discover]. the War Department and the Navy Department were two separate departments, which were petty and contending with each other. The Navy designed and purchased or manufactured its own ordnance and small arms (i.e., 36 caliber "Navy" revolvers and 44 caliber "Army" revolvers). The Army, horror of horrors, was not responsible for the Navy's ordnance, breechloading or otherwise.

Perhaps the Navy did not have enough volume for a foreign producer to justify retooling to an American design. For example, even though the Navy ordered 750 Spencers in June 1861, the company did not build a production plant until after it got Ripley's 10,000-unit order in late December 1861. Another consequence of Ripley's foot-dragging.

. . . Having read extensively in [Ambassador] Sanford's papers, the Department of State traffic, and the War Department traffic as part of my research, I can state very factually that Sanford repeatedly reported to both Seward and Cameron in the later half of 1861 that the capacity of the Liege manufacturers was fully occupied with orders for Italy and other European governments . . . and due to orders from speculators for the Confederacy. . .

Harwood's proposal was in May 1861. Presumably the Belgium weapons makers were in it for the money. If the applicable contract were profitable enough, it could have displaced other production while simultaneously giving the chosen supplier an advantage as the leading producer of "the weapon of the future."

I'm writing about the realities of manufacturing and the international arms trade in 1861-2. You're writing about wish fulfilment in some sort of parallel universe.

You're responding to a proposal by Naval Ordnance Chief Harwood, who was undeniably a historical figure in our universe.

I repeat Omar Bradley's dictum, "Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics."

Another aphorism is the ancient wisdom: "The man who thinks he can and the man who thinks he can't are both right."

 

[johan_steele]

Mr Johnson, it has been made abundantly clear to you that just two factories in the world outside of the US were capable of manufacturing interchangeable arms, it should also be noted that both of those factories were using machinery manufactured by US companies and the people who set them up and trained the users were of the US.

So exactly who was going to manufacture all those breech loading arms? Liege? If you are going to spout fiction at least make it reasonable and realistic. As Mr Dixon has pointed out in very clear terms Liege was not an option. At what point do you believe interchangeable arms were the standard in Europe? Some real study on the subject might broaden your horizons.

You and the author in the OP have always had a thing for fiction and fantasy as some sort of reality. It is evident here and in your writing elsewhere; please stop putting fantasy forward as history. Your poorly disguised fiction is not history no matter how much you rail that it is. There is a difference between actual industrial capability and the fiction you spout. There is also a distinct difference between what might have been and what was.

Even your hero Jeff Davis was aware of the reality of arms production and knew that the majority of US arms in the hands of soldiers in 1862 were of foreign manufacture. As CS actions in Europe proved he was quite aware of production limitations and capabilities of the arms industry. He would have been quite familiar with the superiority of breech loading arms but also quite familiar with the limitations. Why do you think he requested M1841 rifles instead of the breech loading Hall Rifles for his command during the Mexican War. Do you think he believed the muzzle loading M1841 superior to the breech loading Hall?

By the time of his presidency of the CS he had been a prior Sect of War; I suspect he was quite aware of the reality of arms production vs the fantasy you are spouting. Otherwise he may have made a real effort to arm the CS military with breech loaders. Why do you think he failed to contract with Liege or LA Co etc for breech loading arms to be delivered to the CS?

 

[Philip Leigh]

Mr Johnson, it has been made abundantly clear to you that just two factories in the world outside of the US were capable of manufacturing interchangeable arms, it should also be noted that both of those factories were using machinery manufactured by US companies and the people who set them up and trained the users were of the US.

So exactly who was going to manufacture all those breech loading arms? Liege? If you are going to spout fiction at least make it reasonable and realistic. As Mr Dixon has pointed out in very clear terms Liege was not an option. At what point do you believe interchangeable arms were the standard in Europe? Some real study on the subject might broaden your horizons.

You and the author in the OP have always had a thing for fiction and fantasy as some sort of reality. It is evident here and in your writing elsewhere; please stop putting fantasy forward as history. Your poorly disguised fiction is not history no matter how much you rail that it is. There is a difference between actual industrial capability and the fiction you spout. There is also a distinct difference between what might have been and what was.

Even your hero Jeff Davis was aware of the reality of arms production and knew that the majority of US arms in the hands of soldiers in 1862 were of foreign manufacture. As CS actions in Europe proved he was quite aware of production limitations and capabilities of the arms industry. He would have been quite familiar with the superiority of breech loading arms but also quite familiar with the limitations. Why do you think he requested M1841 rifles instead of the breech loading Hall Rifles for his command during the Mexican War. Do you think he believed the muzzle loading M1841 superior to the breech loading Hall?

By the time of his presidency of the CS he had been a prior Sect of War; I suspect he was quite aware of the reality of arms production vs the fantasy you are spouting. Otherwise he may have made a real effort to arm the CS military with breech loaders. Why do you think he failed to contract with Liege or LA Co etc for breech loading arms to be delivered to the CS?

Some study about how things might have been different would broaden your appreciation of the realities that the Union leaders faced. Lincoln was no fan of Ripley's attitude toward breechloaders.

Your failure to understand that breechloader advantages were so significant that they should have compelled a more determined effort to adopt them suggests an attitude that is retro even for 1861. Aside from firing more rapidly they avoided the problem created by soldiers who unintentionally disabled their muzzleloaders by putting multiple loads down the barrel in the heat of battle. After Gettysburg, for example, more than 18,000 rifles with multiple loads were picked-up from the field—a problem that could have been entirely avoided by breechloaders. That's one reason Lincoln fired Ripley after the battle. Testimonies of officers and soldiers who used breechloaders throughout the war decisively documented their superiority. Your imagined scenario where such events never happened puts you in a make-believe world.

Despite your implications, the OP appreciates the legitimacy of production limitations. But it also discloses how Ripley's criticisms of intrinsic breechloader characteristics retarded their deployment. He thought they were too heavy and too costly and that the soldiers would waste ammunition and that they were not sufficiently rugged. In johan_steele_land one pretends Ripley never made such objections. You ignore discussions upthread and in the OP about how production might have been accelerated.

As noted up thread, Ripley's second successor, Alexander Dyer, concluded in November 1864 that breechloaders should replace muzzleloaders as the Army's standard shoulder arm. He wanted them mass produced on a single design.

Such decisions could have been reached earlier. For example, Dyer was one of the first Army officers two test the Spencer in 1861 and Ripley knew him well. Dyer gave the Spencer a favorable evaluation. While you want to imagine that Dyer, Dahlgren, McClellan, Pleasanton, Berdan and others who approved of breechloaders were not real people, that shall have to remain one of your many fantasies.

Your attitude is kind-of like the driver who causes a deadly accident by driving on the wrong side of a highway during a snowstorm and never considers that he could have done anything different regardless of the harm he caused others.

 

[unionblue]

Still reading from the same paperback?

I see the library has checked out even more sources on the topic than the original concept that somehow the Yankees made the "biggest error."

 

[johan_steele]

Still reading from the same paperback?

I see the library has checked out even more sources on the topic than the original concept that somehow the Yankees made the "biggest error."

I think it's a copy of the National Enquirer.

 

[Philip Leigh]

I think it's a copy of the National Enquirer.

No doubt a popular publication in the johan_steele household.

 

[Schwallanscher]

I think it's a copy of the National Enquirer.

Spoiler: nah, this ...

 

[johan_steele]

Some study about how things might have been different would broaden your appreciation of the realities that the Union leaders faced. Lincoln was no fan of Ripley's attitude toward breechloaders.

Your failure to understand that breechloader advantages were so significant that they should have compelled a more determined effort to adopt them suggests an attitude that is retro even for 1861. Aside from firing more rapidly they avoided the problem created by soldiers who unintentionally disabled their muzzleloaders by putting multiple loads down the barrel in the heat of battle. After Gettysburg, for example, more than 18,000 rifles with multiple loads were picked-up from the field—a problem that could have entirely avoided by breechloaders. That's one reason Lincoln fired Ripley after the battle. Testimonies of officers and soldiers who used breechloaders throughout the war decisively documented their superiority. Your pretension that such events never happened puts you in a make-believe world.

Despite your implications, the OP appreciates the legitimacy of production limitations. But it also discloses how Ripley's criticisms of intrinsic breechloader characteristics retarded their deployment. He thought they were too heavy, that the soldiers would waste ammunition, that they were too costly, and that they were not sufficiently rugged. You pretend he never made such objections. Discussions upthread and in the OP about how production might have been accelerated you ignore.

As noted up thread, Ripley's second successor, Alexander Dyer, concluded in November 1864 that breechloaders should replace muzzleloaders as the Army's standard shoulder arm. He wanted them mass produced on a single design.

Such decisions could have been reached earlier. For example, Dyer was one of the first Army officers two test the Spencer in 1861. He gave it a favorable evaluation. While you want to imagine that Dyer, Dahlgren, McClellan, Pleasanton, Berdan and others who approved of breechloaders were not real people, that shall have to remain one of your many fantasies.

Your attitude is kind-of like the driver who causes a deadly accident by driving on the wrong side of a highway during a snowstorm and never considers that he could have done anything different regardless of the harm he caused others.

Have you ever fired a Sharps, Hall, Smith or Burnside? How about an M1861 or P53. Do you understand how they were manufactured or even what interchangeability is? As I said up thread I don't believe you would know the difference between a Lorenz and a P53.

The reality is very simple: in 1861 there were a large number of breech loading designs out there. Almost all suffered from the same limiting issue. They leaked gas badly. The Sharps had been in the eye of the US Army since the early 1850's the Hall since 1819. Why do you think the US Army had not adopted the Hall as the primary arm? Wait a minute... you don't know what the Hall is or that it was a breech loader. You certainly haven't read Jefferson Davis on the subject.

Yes the breech loader was superior to the muzzle loader... Once the metallic cartridge had been developed and perfected. In my view the first truly effective metallic cartridge arm was the Spencer. And as should be noted the US Army wa the first Army in the world to adopt a breech loading arm in the M1819 Hall. The first army in the world to adopt a fully interchangeable arm in the M1819 (more in theory than actually interchangeable) was the US Army. The US Army was also the first to adopt a metallic cartridge as it's primary ammunition was... yep the US Army actually did these things. So maybe they weren't as incompetent and as inept as you seem to wish to portray.

Changing a small arms system is not simple or quick. The reality is that is takes time, expertise, machinery and material as well as a LOT of money. The US was not as far behind in small arms design as some would like to believe. The M1855 series of arms was an excellent system on the drawing board and in concept but the reality in the field raised the shortcomings to the forefront in such a way they could not be ignored and the M1861 was adopted to correct and simplify problems encountered with the design.

When it comes to breech loading systems across the world it was the US who led the pack with names like Sharps, Remington, Spencer, Henry etc.

I have a rather good understanding of period firearms, particularly the firearms carried by the Infantry, I also have learned quite a bit about how they were manufactured, the tools & expertise required to manufacture them. And the realities of wartime requirements.

You have had the benefit of several people far more knowledgeable than I on this thread yet you have ignored or belittled them as is your wont. But you should understand several are thought of as experts in the field. You are not. A wise man would question instead of ignoring those with more experience and knowledge. You might have learned something if you had asked why instead of starting out with the predisposition you have exhibited. A winning army doesn't fight a war with the weapons they wished they had but they use the weapons they have in the armory.

It's amazing that the US soldier somehow managed to win with such substandard weapons... such substandard weapons that had been in the premier armies of Europe and still were at the time.