More modern arms in Napoleonic wars

[Monk78]

What if rifles like the ones in late 19th century (civil war and Franco Prussian) were available during Napoleon times
Also if better artillery more like late 19th century was also available
How will this affect the military tactics, logistics and types of battles that were fought ?
So just imagine same armies as Napoleonic times with similar uniforms and training but weapons are of civil war era ( except edged ones which are same as OTL)

 

[The Tai-Pan]

Wouldn't such changes butterfly the whole era?

 

[Arnold d.c]

Wouldn't such changes butterfly the whole era?

It would have to. If you showed the blueprints of the weapons of 1860-70 to a weapons manufacturer of the Napoleonic era, the person could understand the reasoning behind the design of the weapon but would question how it could be produced en masse or at all. Cannon are a particularly good example. The Napoleon 12-pounder guns at Gettysburg appears to be the exact same as Napoleon's or Wellington's 12-pounders at Waterloo. Yet thanks to the technological progress of the Industrial Revolution, Lee and Meade had far greater numbers of a significantly nimbler cannon with more effective ammunition.

Rifle muskets, on the other hand, appear doable with Napoleonic technology. There were experiments in the early 18th century to produce a design similar to Minié ball. However, IIRC, without machinery and interlocking parts, the production of rifle muskets could be slow. IIRC the British Government was not very happy with the supply of rifle muskets during the relatively short Crimean War. And that was a war with only the professional army in action. If mass conscription was necessary, and it was for many countries in the Napoleonic Wars, the rifle muskets would probably be reduced to being a specialist weapon, much like the actual rifles.

 

[Parma]

It would have to. If you showed the blueprints of the weapons of 1860-70 to a weapons manufacturer of the Napoleonic era, the person could understand the reasoning behind the design of the weapon but would question how it could be produced en masse or at all. Cannon are a particularly good example. The Napoleon 12-pounder guns at Gettysburg appears to be the exact same as Napoleon's or Wellington's 12-pounders at Waterloo. Yet thanks to the technological progress of the Industrial Revolution, Lee and Meade had far greater numbers of a significantly nimbler cannon with more effective ammunition.

Rifle muskets, on the other hand, appear doable with Napoleonic technology. There were experiments in the early 18th century to produce a design similar to Minié ball. However, IIRC, without machinery and interlocking parts, the production of rifle muskets could be slow. IIRC the British Government was not very happy with the supply of rifle muskets during the relatively short Crimean War. And that was a war with only the professional army in action. If mass conscription was necessary, and it was for many countries in the Napoleonic Wars, the rifle muskets would probably be reduced to being a specialist weapon, much like the actual rifles.

During the Napoleontic wars rifles were used. Although in small numbers and by the specialist Jeager units.

You are correct regarding the technique, but you forget organization is as important too. Just before the French revolution the French (Royal) Artilery , finalised a drastic reform and rationalisation of its guns. A process the other powers had to go through during the revolution wars.

A Miniee Ball however is a relative easy method to increase the range and to certain extend the accuracy of the smooth bore muskets. I always wondered why nobody invented/ discovered it earlier.
On the other hand, archeological finds on 18th century battlefields including from the French revolution showed musket ball which were far form round, it were mere small irregular formed pieces of lead, most of the time much smaller than the bore of the musket barrel. Apparently there was not much attention to provide the soldiers with sufficient amount of lead to make proper musket balls.
Further the Generals of the 18th century, including Napoleon ( see Robert Fulton) were not really interested in innovation. So it will be doubtful if some smart man came up with a conical ball, expanding when fire and drastic increasing the range of the musket.

 

[Monk78]

Can we see more defensive warfare ? Maybe trench warfare

more sieges of cities ?

without railway mobility of artillery and ammo will still be limited so will it effect

cavalry tactics probably looser formation and more skirmishing and flank attacks

will more mobile defenses ( like improved sandbags or hastily constructed field fortifications that does not require digging in winter snow etc) be available to protect infantry in the field given how flat terrain is in European plains

 

[Thoresby]

Further the Generals of the 18th century, including Napoleon ( see Robert Fulton) were not really interested in innovation. So it will be doubtful if some smart man came up with a conical ball, expanding when fire and drastic increasing the range of the musket.

I think that's slightly unfair, they were very interested in innovation, they just had a different idea of what innovation was. Remember if you look at the timeline of technological development it only really kicks off and starts increasing rapidly right at the end of the 1700's. The difference between 1700 and 1800 is far, far smaller than 1800 to 1900. As such tactical innovation was the focus of military science not technological and Napoleon and Wellington were both very interested in tactical and operational innovations.

As to the OP you can't get 1870's style equipment without the wider 1870's industrial base, the practical implementation of interchangeable parts made to (relatively) tight tolerances just can't be done without an earlier PoD that pulls forward the whole development chain by 50 years.

 

[Parma]

I think that's slightly unfair, they were very interested in innovation, they just had a different idea of what innovation was. Remember if you look at the timeline of technological development it only really kicks off and starts increasing rapidly right at the end of the 1700's. The difference between 1700 and 1800 is far, far smaller than 1800 to 1900. As such tactical innovation was the focus of military science not technological and Napoleon and Wellington were both very interested in tactical and operational innovations.

You are correct, the army leaders of the end of the 18th century were indeed - interested in innovation regarding tactic, movement and deployment. A lack of trust in new innovations is may be better, which is understandable since new things are not proven and possible unreliable.

 

[Thoresby]

You are correct, the army leaders of the end of the 18th century were indeed - interested in innovation regarding tactic, movement and deployment. A lack of trust in new innovations is may be better, which is understandable since new things are not proven and possible unreliable.

I don't even think lack of trust is the right way of putting. I would instead say a different mental framework. In 2022 thanks to 200 years of extremely rapid technological development a lot of the time our instinctive reaction to a problem is a technological solution, a mental framework that broadly speaking works pretty well. But for someone born in 1769 (i.e. both Wellington and Napoleon) where technological change over the last 200 years has happened but has been comparatively glacial your mental problem solving framework isn't going to include a technological solution and is going to focus on organisational or tactical answers. So it wasn't that they didn't trust "new innovations" it's that they didn't think really have technological solutions to problems on their mental horizons.

 

[Monk78]

I don't even think lack of trust is the right way of putting. I would instead say a different mental framework. In 2022 thanks to 200 years of extremely rapid technological development a lot of the time our instinctive reaction to a problem is a technological solution, a mental framework that broadly speaking works pretty well. But for someone born in 1769 (i.e. both Wellington and Napoleon) where technological change over the last 200 years has happened but has been comparatively glacial your mental problem solving framework isn't going to include a technological solution and is going to focus on organisational or tactical answers. So it wasn't that they didn't trust "new innovations" it's that they didn't think really have technological solutions to problems on their mental horizons.

So how do you think they will counter magazine rifles and breech loading artillery? What kind of organizational and tactical changes will be implemented

 

[FALightFighter]

The issue isn't just weapons, it transport and communication, too. Those were the larger issues in WWI. Until reliable and capable radios never mechanized transport are available, you're probably going to see something like WWI solutions, although they may look more like East Africa, the Middle East and Russia (or the Balkan Wars, Boer Wars, and Russo-Japanese Wars) than the Western Front. Because even if you plopped down magazine rifles and breech-loading artillery onto 1790, you still don't have the infrastructure to support massive armies without railroads and telegraphs, much less telephones, radios, and trucks. Even with the comparatively incremental developments from 1815-1915, including the Mexican-American War, Crimean War, American Civil War, Prussian Wars with Denmark, Austria, and France, (and the previously mentioned Balkan Wars, Boer Wars, and Russo-Japanese Wars), you still have WWI. Adding some of the elements of WWI without the chances to employ and learn from those elements probably exaggerates their immediate impact.

As always, the details matter immensely.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

I don't even think lack of trust is the right way of putting. I would instead say a different mental framework. In 2022 thanks to 200 years of extremely rapid technological development a lot of the time our instinctive reaction to a problem is a technological solution, a mental framework that broadly speaking works pretty well. But for someone born in 1769 (i.e. both Wellington and Napoleon) where technological change over the last 200 years has happened but has been comparatively glacial your mental problem solving framework isn't going to include a technological solution and is going to focus on organisational or tactical answers. So it wasn't that they didn't trust "new innovations" it's that they didn't think really have technological solutions to problems on their mental horizons.

Also, modern militaries generally have relatively well-funded R&D programmes enabling them to come up with and roll out new technology quite quickly if needed, whereas Napoleonic armies didn't really have that sort of infrastructure. Developing a new kind of rifle is all very well, but if it won't be available in significant numbers for another decade or more there's a good chance the war will be over before it can make an impact.

 

[Monk78]

Will night warfare be more common to nullify the effects of artillery and Gatling guns ?
Night means less visibility and advantage of range is minimized and more use of melee weapons

 

[Monk78]

Also, modern militaries generally have relatively well-funded R&D programmes enabling them to come up with and roll out new technology quite quickly if needed, whereas Napoleonic armies didn't really have that sort of infrastructure. Developing a new kind of rifle is all very well, but if it won't be available in significant numbers for another decade or more there's a good chance the war will be over before it can make an impact.

We can have modern weapons in smaller numbers mixed in with older muskets too in this scenario

 

[Monk78]

The issue isn't just weapons, it transport and communication, too. Those were the larger issues in WWI. Until reliable and capable radios never mechanized transport are available, you're probably going to see something like WWI solutions, although they may look more like East Africa, the Middle East and Russia (or the Balkan Wars, Boer Wars, and Russo-Japanese Wars) than the Western Front. Because even if you plopped down magazine rifles and breech-loading artillery onto 1790, you still don't have the infrastructure to support massive armies without railroads and telegraphs, much less telephones, radios, and trucks. Even with the comparatively incremental developments from 1815-1915, including the Mexican-American War, Crimean War, American Civil War, Prussian Wars with Denmark, Austria, and France, (and the previously mentioned Balkan Wars, Boer Wars, and Russo-Japanese Wars), you still have WWI. Adding some of the elements of WWI without the chances to employ and learn from those elements probably exaggerates their immediate impact.

As always, the details matter immensely.

Agreed so how about this
Let’s say for example a Napoleonic era army has
12k troops
Out of these 3k with modern rifles rest with muskets
A dozen Gatling guns
Out of 60 artillery guns available 15 are modern breech loaders
There is no telephone telegraph railroad but you can have more pack animals to haul more ammunition required and to pull guns of greater weight

 

[FALightFighter]

Agreed so how about this
Let’s say for example a Napoleonic era army has
12k troops
Out of these 3k with modern rifles rest with muskets
A dozen Gatling guns
Out of 60 artillery guns available 15 are modern breech loaders
There is no telephone telegraph railroad but you can have more pack animals to haul more ammunition required and to pull guns of greater weight

The changes from Napoleonic to 1860s/70s were not that significant in practical application. Your logistics train isn't going to support that much greater ammunition consumption, even though the weapons are theoretically capable of it. Simply more wagons or pack animals (which are far less efficient) isn't going to change much, you outrun your ability to carry enough fodder very quickly, and then have to either forage, magazine, or resupply by barge/rail. And, once again, without the decades of development, experimentation, and practice, you end up effectively the same, like early battles in the Civil War were not too far different- you'll find mixed muskets and rifles, sometime seven flintlocks, in 1861 and even 1862. The theoretical capabilities of a breech-loading, percussion rifle over a flintlock, smoothbore are pretty significant- the practical ones, not so much. Terrain, powder smoke, the communications piece you want to ignore all limit the ability of the theoretical capability to actually be employed.