ACW with cartridge rifles

What if just before the ACW, the States armies started to move to a cartridge based rifle and cannon and early machine guns?

How bloodier would it be? Would WW1 style trench warfare start?

when

When would they introduced? At the beginning of the war, half way through the war, or towards the end of the war? Who get them first, north or south? What type of cartridge weapons? I mean by the 1890's many countries were making them. One of the most lethal was the German rifle.

I was thinking at least 1 year before the war and both side have just finished the evaluation process and are starting to roll them out to their front line regiments.

For the type, I am think the same that were around at that time, the Springfield trap door and the Spenser.

The North would gain a decided advantage, since it would have the industrial capacity to produce such weapons in large quantity. Unless they had been introduced some time before the war, they would not be sitting in federal arsenals for the Confederacy to pick up during the secession winter. The South's industrial capacity, for all the miracle-working of Josiah Gorgas, is not going to be up to the task of producing large numbers of advanced weapons, leaving the South dependent on what it could capture from the Union or slip through the blockade.

well, the Spencer rifle did come along fairly early in the war (although only the Union fielded a lot of them), and the Henry rifle came along later, although neither side had many of them. Both have been kinda dissed on here in the past because of their short range (although the ACW was fought at fairly short ranges anyway, since so many commanders were still wedded to the sorta Napoleonic 'stand in long lines and shoot at each other' school of warfare). Both also suffered from mechanical problems, as is natural with any new class of firearm. My main thought on the matter has always been that if one side or the other had a lot of Henry rifles, it would make the typical infantry charge suicidal; the Henry may have short range, but when you can fire off 15 rounds PDQ in that short range, it really doesn't matter...

Dave Howery said:

well, the Spencer rifle did come along fairly early in the war (although only the Union fielded a lot of them), and the Henry rifle came along later, although neither side had many of them. Both have been kinda dissed on here in the past because of their short range (although the ACW was fought at fairly short ranges anyway, since so many commanders were still wedded to the sorta Napoleonic 'stand in long lines and shoot at each other' school of warfare). Both also suffered from mechanical problems, as is natural with any new class of firearm. My main thought on the matter has always been that if one side or the other had a lot of Henry rifles, it would make the typical infantry charge suicidal; the Henry may have short range, but when you can fire off 15 rounds PDQ in that short range, it really doesn't matter...

Click to expand...

It still favors the Union (Machine guns even more) because they HAD mechanical problems which the Union could deal with easier and firing them off that fast causes logistical problems (As you are shooting more bullets )which the Union could also handle easier.

So you could see a shorter war with the Union winning? War over in a year? No Gettysburg?

The CSA had exactly zero capability in 1861 to produce rifles with the sort of precision that cartridge weapons require, and zero capability to produce cartridges (metallic) in any significant numbers. Once whatever was in federal arsenals the CSA managed to get its hands on was used up, both weapons needing repair/lost/broken and cartridges, end of story. The CSA was unable to produce significant numbers of "conventional" small arms OTL.

The big POD is not so much the development of metallic cartridge weapons by 1860 but the south having the industrial capacity to produce at least spare parts and cartridges in sufficient quantity. Cartridge weapons actually make the situation worse for the CSA - EVERYTHING will have to be imported from the UK or France, unlike OTL where the CSA was able to ramp up its industry to have a shot at providing ammunition for small arms.

Give the CSA an industrial base large enough in 1860 to provide arms and ammunition for cartridge small arms, and you have radically changed the south. This is really ASB.

Even if usable metallic cartridges would have been available prior to the civil war, there likely would have been institutional resistance to their deployment from the military leadership. i.e. the similar mind set that resisted the later idea of magazine weapons, autoloaders, etc.

If they would have be deployable by the outset of the Civil War, the impact would have been tremendous. Even if the weapons were early arrival single shot, falling block rifles, such as the Sharps or Martini-Henry, where you combined a much higher rate of fire with a high level of accuracy, it would have made massed line assaults even more suicidal.

Because of the industrial issues cited above, this technology would have been a decisive advantage to the Union.

If the CSA had a source for the cartridges, I think the East would have bogged down into trench warfare pretty quickly. Out West, the advantage would have still been to the Union, with the mobility of both the train and control of the Mississippi and Ohio from early on.

Also, I think you would see accelerated development of metallic cartridges because of the war.

The American Civil War is simply too early for the widespread deployment of metallic cartridge rifles. Britain didn't adopt one until 1867, France until 1874 and Germany until 1871 (the Chassepot and the Dreyse both using paper or linen cartridges). As it stood, both sides in the American Civil War had real problems issuing their troops with rifled muskets, let alone more sophisticated weapons.

The question here is really whether the POD is that firearms technology moves quicker, or just the US adopting a metallic cartridge weapon in the 1850s. If the latter, both sides would probably have bowed to the inevitable and issued the majority of their troops with more or less what they carried historically. The US regulars would have out-shot almost anything they came into contact with, and there would have been more infrastructure developing metallic cartridges (almost certainly in the North) which would have meant more troops being issued with the weapons over time, but I'm not sure this would have significantly changed the course of the war in and of itself.

IOTL both Boxer and Berdan type reuseable metal cartidges came a bit too late for the ACW - article here http://firearmshistory.blogspot.co.uk/2010/05/cartridges-centerfire-cartridge.html seems decent.

The Boxer seems the better bet, particularly for the Confederacy.

I can't see either side making enough to equip more than a few units: you'll need PODs well before 1861 (developments in brass rolling taking place in Richmond, or Atlanta, for instance) to make any general use feasible.

The Henry Rifle-14 shot metallic .44 caliber rimfire cartridges is in production before the Civil War began and the development team involved had learned producing thousands of rifled muzzleloaders for the Army at Robbins & Lawrence Factory in Vermont, so with sufficient orders they could have scaled up far faster than most. Christopher Spencer's 7 shot rifle/carbine drew on his experiences as a Colt subcontractor so he'd also seen how to scale up to tens of thousands in production (and the design was simple enough that Ambrose Burnside's carbine factory was quickly able to retool to produce Spencers and several hundred thousand were made during the Civil War OTL.) The Sharps (an 1848 design based on the 1819 Hall Breechloader Rifle made at Harpers Ferry Arsenal in Virginia where Christian Sharps trained) was easily being converted to .50-70 metallic cartridges by the last year of the Civil War like many other percussion carbines in Union service as an initiative of the Army Ordnance Dept.. Most cavalry had been issued cartridge breechloaders by war's end or would shortly, only the much vaster infantry still had mostly paper-cartridge muzzle-loading rifles. Different orders from the War Dept. (i.e. General Ripley dies in 1860 POD) would have been scalable from 1860 forward. Making the volume of ammunition required was challenging but as much for how erratic the orders were, steady orders of vast quantities fits brass cartridge-making especially well (many steps but there were workable solutions by Smith & Wesson by 1856-7 as well as LeFaucheaux's pinfire cartridge system in France in the 1850's-60's (see the French LeMat Revolver the Confederates imported and made in quantity.)

The Gatling Gun was already a decent design in the Civil War and improvements in cartridges from mass production would have helped the Gatling quite a bit. Smarter guys in figuring out how to use Gatlings in combat and a better supply chain for ammunition aren't big POD's.


The Springfield Trapdoor Rifle or British Snider-Enfield conversions of old muzzle-loaders into single-shot breechloaders was 1866-1867 but simple enough it could have happened years earlier, with sufficient ammunition manufacturing.

In the 1860's-1870's new cartridge ammunition factories were put together in a couple of years (Colt, Union Metallic Cartridge, Winchester, Peters, American Metallic Cartridge, Spencer, etc.) so doing it in 1863 instead of 1868 with sufficient orders seems quite viable.

How much more carnage would there have been if the Union had a few Gatling guns waiting for the Rebs on the the third day of Gettysburg during Picket's charge.

hzn5pk said:

How much more carnage would there have been if the Union had a few Gatling guns waiting for the Rebs on the the third day of Gettysburg during Picket's charge.

Click to expand...

Picket would have been lucky to get one man in three back. as it was half his division was smashed.

hzn5pk said:

How much more carnage would there have been if the Union had a few Gatling guns waiting for the Rebs on the the third day of Gettysburg during Picket's charge.

Click to expand...

Tentrees said:

Picket would have been lucky to get one man in three back. as it was half his division was smashed.

Click to expand...

On the other grasping claw, what about a few Gatlings on St. Marye's Heights at Fredricksburg.

springfield trapdoor rifle

If you can find a copy, Gary Cooper actually made a movie that took place during the civil war, were they were using the springfield trapdoor rifle. It of course is called springfield rifle. Also, I got a chance to see a replica fired once, when I visited fort mackinac in Michigan.

This was proposed.

Spencer rifles and Henry rifles were intentionally *not* adopted because the worry about inaccuracy and wasted bullets outweighed the chance to end the war in 1863. Southern engineers were able to replicate the Henry rifle, *but* they lacked the copper to make the cartridges. Spencer rifles fired a .56-.56 rimfire cartridge with overall power about 85% that of a modern .223 rifle cartridge and effective range of 400-500 yards, quite impressive for the time and using a 7-cartridge tube magazine in the butt of the rifle. Approving magazine-fed rifles will not only shock the Confederates and end the war sooner but also might shock Europe, especially the UK, with Canada scrambling for additional reinforcements. Look for further development of rifle technology and perhaps increased tensions between Washington and London, but also for Russian expansionism to have a better chance of success in the later 19th century. Failure to completely defeat the South without thorough occupation or, in the worst case, failure to enact a total emancipation of slavery because of the acceleration of Southern defeat might also cause a smoldering resentment in the South. This would be akin to that of Germany after World War I which could be exploited later by international powers.

Suggesting that the Union get volume produced brass cartridge technology several years early is credible, just about but suggesting they would have them significantly before the British, French and Prussians is not credible. Monkey see monkey do and the British will be out producing the Union around 10 to 1 from little more than a couple of years after the technology is viable. Thus the situation is little changed from OIL the Confederates get British cartridge and European guns the Union a mix of home made and European made. North Americans do a Maori and learn about trenches quicker.

Unless ... you want Gatling guns. Armstrong gatlings are beautiful, Gatlings own weapons are a bit ... agricultural. If the Confederacy get a Armstrong gatlings and the Union have to do with home made gatlings then we will see vast numbers of dead Union soldiers or the Union importing Armstrong gatlings in which case Confederates die in large numbers too!

frlmerrin said:

Suggesting that the Union get volume produced brass cartridge technology several years early is credible, just about but suggesting they would have them significantly before the British, French and Prussians is not credible. Monkey see monkey do and the British will be out producing the Union around 10 to 1 from little more than a couple of years after the technology is viable. Thus the situation is little changed from OIL the Confederates get British cartridge and European guns the Union a mix of home made and European made. North Americans do a Maori and learn about trenches quicker.

Unless ... you want Gatling guns. Armstrong gatlings are beautiful, Gatlings own weapons are a bit ... agricultural. If the Confederacy get a Armstrong gatlings and the Union have to do with home made gatlings then we will see vast numbers of dead Union soldiers or the Union importing Armstrong gatlings in which case Confederates die in large numbers too!

Click to expand...

How? Cartridge weapons are going to use up more, and more sophisticated, Industrial capacity, and Southern import ability is limited by the Blockade. There is a huge difference between managing occasional imports of Rifled Muskets and then providing the ammunition supply indigenously and providing a constant high volume supply line. Hell I'm not sure the South would be able in import enough cartridges even with completely open ports. Increased sophistication favors the side with with the ability to bring more Industrial capacity to bear, ie the North.

one thing I'm curious about... what was the rest of the world doing with cartridge firearms at this time? It's hard to imagine that the USA was alone in it... were the Brits, the French, or anyone else doing something along the same lines? Maybe a foreign nation could develop a successful metal cartridge rifle earlier on, and the US would be spurred to develop it's own earlier on...