WI Richard Gatling and John Ericsson were never born

[Aozhouhuaren]

Here's a link about Richard Gatling
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Gatling

If Richard Gatling and John Ericsson were never born, i would guess that there would be a subsequent and noticeable impact on modern day warfare as Gatling basically invented the machine gun and Ericsson made many innovations to the propulsion of naval ships. As well, Richard Gatling patented the wheat drill and led to the creation of the tractor, so he contributed much to modern day agriculture as well. What are your ideas on a world without these two men? Were there many other scientists and inventors at that time who also worked on these kinds of innovations?

[David S Poepoe]

You would be guessing wrong. Given the ingenuity and inventiveness of the Industrial Revolution Gatling and Ericsson were just the first among equals. The modern machine gun owes more to Hiram Maxim than Gatling, and there were several other rapid fire guns that were on the market. Gatling is probably most famous in American history.

The modern battleships didn't quite spring forth from the USS Monitor (tho the Americans certainly think so), for the most part you should look towards Cowper Coles and the Royal Navy.

[Trotsky]

Gatling was behind the invention of the Gatling gun, not the machine gun. Hiram Maxim was the one more directly responsible for the modern machine gun, though you see Gatling's invention is still used as extreme rapid-firing platforms (the minigun) on helicopter gunships and modern attack aircraft.

[NapoleonXIV]

Most of the 'great' (or even really just most) inventions are new applications of general principles, and these principles have grown up over time from several sources.

In the case of the machine gun the idea was to "manufacture" shots from a gun. It required several other things to be invented first. Breechloading, percussion caps, metal cartridges and a way to manufacture them so they were all identical with very small tolerances, even smokeless powder so as not to rapidly foul the barrel, all were necessary.

Once those things were in place, the invention was engineering which could have been done by anyone. The basic idea, that a single action, perhaps complicated in itself, can be set up so as to be repeated very rapidly if seen as a group of simple component actions, is one of the general principles of the Industrial Revolution.

Maxim and Brownings innovations were examples of good design and marvels of engineering, but they incorporated little that was not already known in other fields and would almost certainly have been made by someone else in a very short period of time.

Now an interesting TL might be made here if, let us say, the contract for the invention and manufacture of an automatic rapid fire repeating firearm were to be given to the Remington or Winchester (or maybe even Baretta) companies by the US or some other, government. As I understand, they were all individual inventions.

Did the Armed Forces of the day even do that?

[mycroft holmes]

I would agree with previous posters that long term effects on weapons would not be significant, other inventors would 'fill the gap'.

However, a world without Ericsson would have an interesting effect on the American Civil War. The Monitor project was driven almost entirely by him, with various allies in the War Department. If anyone was to do a time line on that, I would suggest that instead of having him never be born you just have Napoleon III accept his earlier proposal to create an ironclad ship so he never comes to the U.S.

[DuQuense]

IIRC both sides in the ACW used revolving Organ guns , in Various battles
[20 barrels, and Revolver with 8 sets of bullets, = 160 shots, ]
There were also several attempts to improve on the Pickle gun.

No John Ericsson, and the US builds a Semi clone of the Virginia, and sends it south.

[carlton_bach]

Originally Posted by mycroft holmes

I would agree with previous posters that long term effects on weapons would not be significant, other inventors would 'fill the gap'.

However, a world without Ericsson would have an interesting effect on the American Civil War. The Monitor project was driven almost entirely by him, with various allies in the War Department. If anyone was to do a time line on that, I would suggest that instead of having him never be born you just have Napoleon III accept his earlier proposal to create an ironclad ship so he never comes to the U.S.

This could also get interesting because Ericsson, while a great inventor and gifted tinkerer, was not a brilliant maritime engineer. Getting early ironclads right was *hard*, and the US and CS forces were lucky they could basicallxy learn their lessons in the kiddie pond. The french would have wanted a seaworthy craft. The record of 19th century 'thinking outside the box' designs in an Atlantic gale is patchy to say the least. Could this set back the ironclad arms race by a few years? Even inspire a doctrine that pits armoured coast defense vessels against unarmoured high seas ships? The Fremch would love it (something like a jeune ecole for polytech graduates), the Brits hate it.

[Sargon]

There were already ironclads in Europe before USS Monitor and CSS Merrimack (Virginia), and sea going ones at that. The French Gloire and the British HMS Warrior: although the Gloire was a wooden structure with iron plating, and Warrior was all iron.

Ericsson's main contribution to warship design was the rotating turret, his passion for which arguably helped popularise the idea to a great extent although Captain Cowper Coles had used one in the Crimea onboard the Lady Nancy a few years earlier. He subsequently patented the idea rather sharpish. So David is right about looking to the RN without Ericsson in the picture.

So turrets and armoured ships won't suffer that much with no Ericsson, and the same for machine guns and Gatling since one has Maxim about to fill the gap.


Sargon

P.S. HMS Warrior is now a restored museum ship after being a hulk for a very long time (pic attached). Our only battleship preserved after all the great ones we've had, apart from HMS Victory! There should be Warspite there as well.....


A Timeline of mine: The Roman Emperor Who Lost His Nose

[Tielhard]

Ericsson's main contribution to warship design was the rotating turret, his passion for which arguably helped popularise the idea to a great extent although Captain Cowper Coles had used one in the Crimea onboard the Lady Nancy a few years earlier. He subsequently patented the idea rather sharpish. So David is right about looking to the RN without Ericsson in the picture.

Actually Sargon Ericsson turrets are a dead end a truly awful design. All modern warship turrets originate with Coles and the British ironclad tests on a modified armoured battery in 1859. In other words Monitor was not even the first turreted ironclad. The ACW USN would probably have done much better if it had built reliable casemate ironclads rather than monitors.

[67th Tigers]

Originally Posted by Tielhard

Actually Sargon Ericsson turrets are a dead end a truly awful design. All modern warship turrets originate with Coles and the British ironclad tests on a modified armoured battery in 1859. In other words Monitor was not even the first turreted ironclad. The ACW USN would probably have done much better if it had built reliable casemate ironclads rather than monitors.

Aye, Monitor was the second turretted warship (the first was HMS Trusty, operating as a Guardship at London when Monitor was ordered).

However, modern turrets sprang from the French Barbette (basically they put a roof on it). The 3 systems were:

Ericsson: a rotating gunhouse sitting on top of the hull
Coles: a rotating gunhouse sitting on the keel
Barbette: a rotating gunhouse sitting on a stationary box sitting on the keel

Even the US abandoned the Ericsson turrets as soon as they could, they were a truly awful design. The modern warship turret was born when the RN abandoned the Coles system for the French.

[Sargon]

Originally Posted by Tielhard

Actually Sargon Ericsson turrets are a dead end a truly awful design. All modern warship turrets originate with Coles and the British ironclad tests on a modified armoured battery in 1859. In other words Monitor was not even the first turreted ironclad. The ACW USN would probably have done much better if it had built reliable casemate ironclads rather than monitors.

Perhaps, but his efforts to convince the navy to use them led to a leap in warship design and arguably popularised new ideas of thinking about sea warfare, and that was the important thing about his contribution whatever the worthiness of his turrets. As has been mentioned, the modern turret evolved from a barbette with a hood on top.

Originally Posted by Paul Spring

I do find it a bit interesting how everyone on this board from Europe is at pains to point out that the design that the US used was undoubtedly the worst one, even though it worked very well in practice while the early European ironclads were never even tested in battle.

C'mon, would it really kill any of you guys to admit that the US has occasionally, in the course of its history done something as well or better than European countries?

Where did I say Monitor was bad? Both designs have their merits and flaws.

And just as the US has done some good things, so have European countries...the problem is it depends what books and sources of information one uses.


Sargon

A Timeline of mine: The Roman Emperor Who Lost His Nose

[mycroft holmes]

Originally Posted by Sargon

There were already ironclads in Europe before USS Monitor and CSS Merrimack (Virginia), and sea going ones at that. The French Gloire and the British HMS Warrior: although the Gloire was a wooden structure with iron plating, and Warrior was all iron.

Ericsson's main contribution to warship design was the rotating turret, his passion for which arguably helped popularize the idea to a great extent although Captain Cowper Coles had used one in the Crimea on board the Lady Nancy a few years earlier. He subsequently patented the idea rather sharpish. So David is right about looking to the RN without Ericsson in the picture.

Have you read Harry Harrisson's take on this in his alternate history novels about the American Civil War?

I'm sorry to say I doubt the British would have really pushed for innovations in ironclads, at least without a major war to spur innovations. The Victory, and its mate Black Prince, was just as awful a design as you guys are saying about the Monitor. It had a much, much too large crew and was therefore not maneuverable and a bigger target. It had thinner armor than either the Monitor or Merrimac and that armor was vertical, not slanted or curved. It actually had sails and a boiler for no rational reason. And, without a turret, it had much less powerful cannon, and the early turret some people are pointing too was an experimental design never considered for active use before the ACW changed people's minds. Sure the Victory was more seaworthy but the Monitor was never designed as a blue water ship but for coastal protection in shallow waters. later in the war the US produced more seaworthy ironclads for transatlantic missions. In a Monitor v. Victory brawl Monitor would have won (as may or may not have happened in Harrison's book )

[Landshark]

Originally Posted by mycroft holmes

Have you read Harry Harrisson's take on this in his alternate history novels about the American Civil War?

I'm sorry to say I doubt the British would have really pushed for innovations in ironclads, at least without a major war to spur innovations. The Victory, and its mate Black Prince, was just as awful a design as you guys are saying about the Monitor. It had a much, much too large crew and was therefore not maneuverable and a bigger target. It had thinner armor than either the Monitor or Merrimac and that armor was vertical, not slanted or curved. It actually had sails and a boiler for no rational reason. And, without a turret, it had much less powerful cannon, and the early turret some people are pointing too was an experimental design never considered for active use before the ACW changed people's minds. Sure the Victory was more seaworthy but the Monitor was never designed as a blue water ship but for coastal protection in shallow waters. later in the war the US produced more seaworthy ironclads for transatlantic missions. In a Monitor v. Victory brawl Monitor would have won (as may or may not have happened in Harrison's book )

If I were you I'd do a forum search for Harry Harrison and then hide.

[MrP]

Originally Posted by mycroft holmes

Have you read Harry Harrisson's take on this in his alternate history novels about the American Civil War?

I'm sorry to say I doubt the British would have really pushed for innovations in ironclads, at least without a major war to spur innovations. The Victory, and its mate Black Prince, was just as awful a design as you guys are saying about the Monitor. It had a much, much too large crew and was therefore not maneuverable and a bigger target. It had thinner armor than either the Monitor or Merrimac and that armor was vertical, not slanted or curved. It actually had sails and a boiler for no rational reason. And, without a turret, it had much less powerful cannon, and the early turret some people are pointing too was an experimental design never considered for active use before the ACW changed people's minds. Sure the Victory was more seaworthy but the Monitor was never designed as a blue water ship but for coastal protection in shallow waters. later in the war the US produced more seaworthy ironclads for transatlantic missions. In a Monitor v. Victory brawl Monitor would have won (as may or may not have happened in Harrison's book )

Tut-tut!

I'm probably going to depart in a moment, but I'll point out a few misconceptions afore I go.

As pointed out in some published AH (WI, or WI2 or Dixie Victorious, I forget), Warrior and Monitor aren't going to run into one another. M is shallow draught, W is deep.

Second, there was a very rational reason for retaining sails and a boiler. The network of British coaling stations is still being set up. Until the date when ships cannot move at a reasonable speed under sail, it makes eminent sense to limit coal expenditure during travel. I recommend Brown's Warrior to Dreadnought.

I vaguely recall that you may be right about problems with the guns - at least insofar as there was a serious explosion in about '66 or so that led to the replacement. But I may be getting confused.

[MrP]

Originally Posted by mycroft holmes

Have you read Harry Harrisson's take on this in his alternate history novels about the American Civil War?

I'm sorry to say I doubt the British would have really pushed for innovations in ironclads, at least without a major war to spur innovations. The Victory, and its mate Black Prince, was just as awful a design as you guys are saying about the Monitor. It had a much, much too large crew and was therefore not maneuverable and a bigger target. It had thinner armor than either the Monitor or Merrimac and that armor was vertical, not slanted or curved. It actually had sails and a boiler for no rational reason. And, without a turret, it had much less powerful cannon, and the early turret some people are pointing too was an experimental design never considered for active use before the ACW changed people's minds. Sure the Victory was more seaworthy but the Monitor was never designed as a blue water ship but for coastal protection in shallow waters. later in the war the US produced more seaworthy ironclads for transatlantic missions. In a Monitor v. Victory brawl Monitor would have won (as may or may not have happened in Harrison's book )

Right, I've pulled out my books!

Manoeuvrability isn't down to complement (707), but other factors.

Originally Posted by p.7, Jane's

They were given a high length-to-beam ratio (6.5:1) and fine lines forward and aft to secure high speed but this also resulted in poor handling and manoeuvrability.

Armament of the two beasties:
Monitor: 2 * 11" SB
Warrior: 10 * 110 pdr BL, 26 * 68 pdr SB and 4 * 70 pdr BL (original design stipulated 40 * 68 pdr, ships were also refitted with new weaponry '67/8)

I can't really see the two fighting at all. In conditions favourable to Warrior, Monitor would probably founder. In conditions favourable to Monitor, Warrior would run aground. So if either captain actually engaged the other, they'd probably be drummed out of the service for insanity.

The RN vessel could make about twice the speed of the USN one under good conditions. M was about 6-7 knots (designed for 8), and W made 13 knots under full sail, and

Originally Posted by p.7, Jane's

on one occasion made over 17kts with combined steam and sail.

As for conditions of service, methinks I'd rather be a stoker on W, than anyone on M.

As for the RN not being technologically innovative, remember you yourself said that the Monitor essentially got deployed as a desperation measure - it was an untried design. Other people have mentioned Coles' design, and Brown's got this to say on p.43 (idem):

the nineteenth century Admiralty has too often been accused of being technologically reactionary and its 'failure' to adopt the turret until after the battle of Hampton Roads is often quoted as 'evidence'. In fact, the experimental turret was ordered a few months after Coles' patent, it was tried before Ericsson's plans were known and Prince Albert and possibly Royal Sovereign were on order before news of the fight between Monitor and CSS Virginia reached London. Ericsson had been working on plans for a turret since 1854 but the first public exposure was at the end of August 1861 (just before the Trusty trial) in response to the Union Navy's invitation for ironclad designs.

In no way does this discredit Ericsson's work; it is clear that he and Coles were working independently and their eventual designs were significantly different . . .