New weapons by 1868?

[major bill]

Let us assume that to save the peace John C. Breckenridge had won the election in 1860. I know this is a bit far fetched but what I want to know is if weapon developments would have changed a Civil War that started in 1869.

There are so many other considerations on what 8 years of a President Breckenridge would have changed. But I am assuming not much else would change until a Republican won the presidential election of 1868. Were any weapons developed in the years 1860 - 1868 that could have greatly impacted a Civil War that started in 1869? News weapons were developed during this time frame, but one could argue that if there was no Civil War in 1861 that these weapons would not had been invented or adopted as soon as they were. From a weapons stand point, would a Civil War in 1869 been much different?

 

[thomas aagaard]

No, the US army was still just starting to implement rifled firearm as the standard arm.
A few year later more of the firearms in the arsenals and in the hands of militia would have been rifled muskets but I really don't see the US spending a lot of money on changing to unproven breach loaded weapons.
That is, not before 1866 and the Prussian Austrian war. Where it was proven once and for all that breachloaded firearms was the way forward.

But a latter war would have made things harder for the south. A change from paper cartridges to brass cartridges would have made the requirement for industry(or imports) much higher. And the use of cartridges would have been 3-4? times higher.

 

[Package4]

Let us assume that to save the peace John C. Breckenridge had won the election in 1860. I know this is a bit far fetched but what I want to know is if weapon developments would have changed a Civil War that started in 1869.

There are so many other considerations on what 8 years of a President Breckenridge would have changed. But I am assuming not much else would change until a Republican won the presidential election of 1868. Were any weapons developed in the years 1860 - 1868 that could have greatly impacted a Civil War that started in 1869? News weapons were developed during this time frame, but one could argue that if there was no Civil War in 1861 that these weapons would not had been invented or adopted as soon as they were. From a weapons stand point, would a Civil War in 1869 been much different?

I don't think it was a shift in weapons as much as a shift in ammunition, the metallic cartridge was the enabler of almost all new weapons and created a tremendous paradigm shift. Of course this actually started prior to the Civil War, I believe by Morse, so whether the war accelerated or even slowed the process is hard to tell, but it was only a matter of time. It could be argued that 1866 was revolutionary in weapons development, but only because they were enabled by metallic cartridges, Winchester Model 1866, the Allin Conversion M1866 and later the Colt Thuer and Richardson conversions. Needham 1865 and Miller1865-67 were also converting muskets to breechloaders firing metallic cartridges, though not in great quantity. Then in 1868 the legendary "trapdoor" made its appearance in .50 caliber centerfire.

 

[thomas aagaard]

What I think would have happened would have been a rather extensive upgrade of the existing rifled muskets to breachloaded like was done in a number of countries in the late 1860s.
Like the snider-enfield, Trapdoor Springfields and similar was done in Denmark, and Austria.
This might even have slowed the development and sue of repeaters.

And then both sides would properly have imported rifled muskets and converted any that was not.
And as mentioned the south would have been very dependent on importing cartridges.. and they might have spend even more time after a battle they won trying to pick up the spend casing for reuse.

 

[major bill]

Interesting thoughts on the switch to metallic cartridges. Most of the U.S. copper was coming out of my home state of Michigan. If large amounts of copper was needed to make metallic cartridges I am not sure where the Confederacy in 1869 would have obtained their copper from. I am not sure if Britain or France could have supplied the needed copper. I guess I don't know that much about where copper was being mined in the 1860s. Could the South have even made their own metallic cartridges in 1869?

 

[thomas aagaard]

My suggestion that they would (try to) import it from the UK is just based on the fact that they did import some enfield cartridges. (got no idea If the UK would have been able to keep the south supplied)

 

[Package4]

Tennessee and North Carolina seem to be the largest Southern State mines at the time of the ACW, with Missouri contributing a small amount, but it pales to the deposits in Northern states. Maybe the war would have been evaded based upon that alone, but Mexico had copious supply and I'm sure there would have been blockade running.

 

[BillO]

Boll Weavel anyone?

 

[John Winn]

An interesting what if. As to copper, I think the only real supply the Confederacy had was from the Ducktown mine near Chattanooga. Their ability to produce things that required some precision was never good either (e.g. caps, timed artillery fuses). I'd think that they'd have had a very hard time manufacturing more modern ammunition.

I wonder, too, if a few years might have made any difference with regard to tactics. Certainly communications and use of the railroads would have been greatly advanced. Would Europe even be interested by then ? Might they have already secured better cotton ? It's all a complicated set of things. All I can say is I'm sure it would have been a totally different sort of war.

 

[major bill]

It is possible that the U.S. Navy would have had a couple of ironclad ships. I do not see any real improvement in ship armaments. I am unsure if these ironclads would have much changed the war.

 

[USS ALASKA]

I would think this would depend upon what other wars happened in the intervening time frame that could be of influence. During the 1866 Austro-Prussian War, didn't some weapons come to the fore that could have been of value like the Dreyse needle gun and a use of Krupp BL cannon?

Cheers,
USS ALASKA

 

[major bill]

I would think this would depend upon what other wars happened in the intervening time frame that could be of influence. During the 1866 Austro-Prussian War, didn't some weapons come to the fore that could have been of value like the Dreyse needle gun and a use of Krupp BL cannon?

Cheers,
USS ALASKA

Yes but would the Union or Confederates have had any of these weapons. I am guessing that the U.S> would have purchased few Dreyse needle guns or Krupp BL cannon. The Dreyse needle gun had been around a while before even 1860 with it being adopted in 1841 and in Prussian service since 1848. The U.S. might have studied them but I am not sure without a war they would have adopted them. The U.S. seemed to have looked more closely toward British arms developments.

 

[Don Dixon]

War has a tendency to drive technology. Look at World War I, World War II, and the Cold War for examples of how those conflicts drove advances in technology. While there would have been some advances in the normal course of events between 1860 and 1868, I believe that they would have been less than you think without the pressure and the funding provided by the war. The Burnside and Sharps systems were considered quite advanced technology at the beginning of the war. By the end of the war repeating rifles firing fully self-contained cartridges were coming into common use; a considerable advance over the technology of the needle fire weapons used by the Prussians in the Seven Weeks War in 1866 and the Prussians and French in the Franco-Prussian War in 1870. But, that didn't mean that both sides had the technology to use the technological advances. Colonel Mallet wrote that "Much labor was spent, but success never achieved, in drawing the copper cylinder [cartridge case] for small-arms cartridges." Consequently, once supplies of captured cartridges ran out, the Confederates were unable to manufacture ammunition to feed many captured Federal breech loading arms. (Mallet, "Work of the Ordnance Bureau," Southern Historical Society Papers, XXXVII, pp. 8, 11, 13 and 18)

Regards,
Don Dixon

 

[Grayrock Volunteer]

Without the huge numbers of M1861/63/64 muskets produced for the war there wouldn't have been near the stocks of new muskets for alteration to breechloaders in the late 1860s. I propose that the importation of "modern" brass cartridge guns would have been limited as well due to the fact that other industrialized nations were just beginning to experiment with and/or alter their own stocks of muzzle loaders. Case example: the lack of importation of P1853 type 4 Enfields or Austrian M1862 Rifle-Muskets which were both the best arms produced in either of their native countries.
The North would have of course been in a better position to arm their troops with converted rifles, and would have had the manufacturing capabilities to alter some existing arms to breechloaders, but the massive need for arms would have necessitated the issuance of older muzzle loading arms. I would also suspect that foreign nations would not have sold off their most recent arms to either nation, as they were the most suitable for breechloading conversion. I would wager that the first portion of a delayed Civil War would have been fought with many of the same arms as the real thing was.

Cheers,
Garrett

 

[USS ALASKA]

Some other weapon types that MIGHT have had an effect on a later ACW...

Breech-loading Chassepot rifle

The machine-gun or similar weapons like the Gatling and Reffye mitrailleuse

More and/or better use of aviation - Hot air balloons

Without the ACW as an example - might the 1870 Franco-Prussian war gone differently - i.e. the Prussians use of railroads?

Also, wasn't the need / use of general staffs developing around this time?

Cheers,
USS ALASKA

 

[USS ALASKA]

The U.S. might have studied them but I am not sure without a war they would have adopted them.

Indeed sir - seeing something and realizing it importance without a conflict to prove it's worth is an iffy proposition. Unfortunately, Europe didn't seem to lack for those during this time frame.

Cheers,
USS ALASKA

 

[USS ALASKA]

I do not see any real improvement in ship armaments.

Krupp got the bugs worked out of their steel BLs after the test of fire (no pun intended) of the 1866 Austro-Prussian War. That development MIGHT have had an influence on later naval armaments...

Cheers,
USS ALASKA

 

[tbuckley]

Yes but would the Union or Confederates have had any of these weapons. I am guessing that the U.S> would have purchased few Dreyse needle guns or Krupp BL cannon. The Dreyse needle gun had been around a while before even 1860 with it being adopted in 1841 and in Prussian service since 1848. The U.S. might have studied them but I am not sure without a war they would have adopted them. The U.S. seemed to have looked more closely toward British arms developments.

The Dreyse needle gun was an important step in firearms evolution but it had serious flaws. The needle/firing pin traveled through the powder charge to strike the primer and the needle became brittle with use and the soldiers had to carry replacement needles. They also leaked gas and I believe that the bullet was in a sabot and not actually in contact with the rifling. The Allin conversion was much more practical.

 

[thomas aagaard]

Both the issue with the needle and the gas have been exaggerated in my opinion.
I seen a reenactore change the needle in something like 30 seconds. (and the soldiers was trained to do it during combat) And the needle can take more shots than a soldier carry, so you simply put a new one in before going into combat and then you should be able to go true a battle with no issue.


Where there some issues with the gun? yes. But with very well trained soldiers they could be minimized.
(having the men serve for 3 years in the line do help a lot)
And history show that is was clearly superior to a muzzle loaded rifle when we are talking larger formations.
The Prussian 1861 drill book said that they where expected to be able to fight at 1-3 odds. But Koniggratz showed that this was actually pessimistic.

Suggest you start at 17:45 (but for some reason it insist on starting at 17:17)
But the whole video is worth watching.

Without the ACW as an example - might the 1870 Franco-Prussian war gone differently - i.e. the Prussians use of railroads?

No., The Prussians used railroads in 1848 when moving troops to suppress revolts (the same with the danish army and likely a number of other armies when revolts started all over Europe)
And they where studying how to use Railroads and they where getting more rail lines build, some by government money, before 1860. And they also used them in 1866.

 

[tbuckley]

Both the issue with the needle and the gas have been exaggerated in my opinion.
I seen a reenactore change the needle in something like 30 seconds. (and the soldiers was trained to do it during combat) And the needle can take more shots than a soldier carry, so you simply put a new one in before going into combat and then you should be able to go true a battle with no issue.


Where there some issues with the gun? yes. But with very well trained soldiers they could be minimized.
(having the men serve for 3 years in the line do help a lot)
And history show that is was clearly superior to a muzzle loaded rifle when we are talking larger formations.
The Prussian 1861 drill book said that they where expected to be able to fight at 1-3 odds. But Koniggratz showed that this was actually pessimistic.

No., The Prussians used railroads in 1848 when moving troops to suppress revolts (the same with the danish army and likely a number of other armies when revolts started all over Europe)
And they where studying how to use Railroads and they where getting more rail lines build, some by government money, before 1860. And they also used them in 1866.

Thank you for the first-hand information.
Does the bullet being in a sabot affect accuracy?