PC/WI: A More Widespread Gatling Gun, Specifically In Europe

[GauchoBadger]

The gatling gun, invented in 1861 by american Richard Jordan Gatling, is perhaps the most famous of the early machine guns, being depicted/used in various occasions such as in wild west flicks or african and asian colonial ventures. However, most of the gatling gun's use was confined to the american civil war, the african and asian colonial campaigns, the spanish civil war, and isolatedly in some other conflicts, never (or very rarely?) being used in european continental wars.
Given that this weapon was invented in 1861, is there any chance for it to see action in the austro-prussian, franco-prussian, and/or russo-turkish wars? Would the gun alone be enough to tip the balance of a battle, regardless of still-primitive knowlege of machine gun tactics? Which european powers are most likely to purchase or consider purchasing this weapon before the mid-1870's?

 

[BiteNibbleChomp]

1/ I don't think enough were made for widespread use in war, and 2/ There weren't very many wars in Europe between 1815 and 1914.

However, if we say that condition 1 doesn't occur, and a number of thousands of guns are made, then I expect the following will happen:

1/ Germany would buy the most of them. Germany was the main power in Europe interested in fighting, so they will obviously want the most of the best.
2/ Britain would buy some as well, mostly so no one power is too strong in Europe.
3/ Assuming the wars start at the same time and for the same reasons and objectives, the wars of 1866 and especially 1870 will be even more decisive German victories.
4/ Possibly Germany would attack another power (probably Russia) or be more aggressive in the 1884 (or '85?) conference in Berlin, re: Africa. At this point Germany would be seen as the greatest power in the world, so it would be able to get what it wants. Would depend heavily on what people were in charge (likely altered by the PoD, and I don't know enough about this to make a judgement).
5/ Trenches probably would have developed as a strategy late in the 1870 war or (if it happens) the Russian war. Military planners would have time to work out a way to beat them. This probably means tanks are available in most armies by 1914 (the first tank designs were around 1911 or '12, so a purpose built vehicle would probably be seen before that in such a scenario).
6/ Which means WWI is a bit more like WWII.

Now, if France bought them instead of Germany (unlikely, France wasn't in such a great position in 1870), then German Unification could take a step or three backwards. Numerous German States that were working with the Prussians probably wouldn't be happy to have their men slaughtered in this war by proto-machine guns, so Germany could end up a bit smaller, or just be delayed until Germany (Prussia) gets more of the weapons

- BNC

 

[aegis03florin]

The impact of Gattling guns are negligible in Europe at that point as they were used more as artillery than proper infantry weapons. France had mitralieuses in 70 but do not use them well.

I had sources (but I do not know how reliable are they) wich states that Romania had brought a battery of gattling guns and used them in the war of 1877-1878 against the Ottomans. Romania had already brought rifles from USA and had a fairly modern army in late 70s so... it is plausible to have brought these as well. However, they were not used properly in that war.

 

[Byzantion]

The impact of Gattling guns are negligible in Europe at that point as they were used more as artillery than proper infantry weapons. France had mitralieuses in 70 but do not use them well.

I had sources (but I do not know how reliable are they) wich states that Romania had brought a battery of gattling guns and used them in the war of 1877-1878 against the Ottomans. Romania had already brought rifles from USA and had a fairly modern army in late 70s so... it is plausible to have brought these as well. However, they were not used properly in that war.

Because they wasted too much ammunition ?

 

[aegis03florin]

Because they wasted too much ammunition ?

Because of the doctrine.
Wasting ammunition included.

@BiteNibbleChomp,

Prussia do not beat France in 70 because they had better rifles (which they do not) but because better artillery, better doctrine, better general staff, better mobilization, etc. France with more Gattling guns do not equal a far superior army if the doctrine of how to use them efficiently do not follow.

 

[BiteNibbleChomp]

Prussia do not beat France in 70 because they had better rifles (which they do not) but because better artillery, better doctrine, better general staff, better mobilization, etc. France with more Gattling guns do not equal a far superior army if the doctrine of how to use them efficiently do not follow.

What you say is definitely true, but if a large enough number of vastly more powerful technology is used, it is very easy for that side to win. As I understand the 1870 war, Prussia had excellent generals and France had "meh" ones, so if you gave the 'meh' generals a lot of guns (and Prussia 0), then France has a much better chance. Especially considering that they had a slight numerical advantage at the start of the war.

- BNC

 

[machine3589]

What you say is definitely true, but if a large enough number of vastly more powerful technology is used, it is very easy for that side to win. As I understand the 1870 war, Prussia had excellent generals and France had "meh" ones, so if you gave the 'meh' generals a lot of guns (and Prussia 0), then France has a much better chance. Especially considering that they had a slight numerical advantage at the start of the war.

- BNC

Prussian artillery would negate the Gatlings. That's what happened to the volley guns the French used in that war.

 

[yulzari]

Prussian artillery would negate the Gatlings. That's what happened to the volley guns the French used in that war.

and is still the case. The fixed mounting (eg trailed mount or tripod) is for indirect fire. Used as IOTL by the French in 1870 in the open for direct fire leaves them vulnerable to both artillery or infantry using volley sights at long ranges.

 

[Saphroneth]

1/ Germany would buy the most of them. Germany was the main power in Europe interested in fighting, so they will obviously want the most of the best.

That seems pretty stereotypical to me. Everybody was interested in having a workable military.

 

[Faeelin]

Perhaps after America used them
To drive the British out of Canada during the Trent war?

 

[David Flin]

Perhaps after America used them
To drive the British out of Canada during the Trent war?

Or maybe the Fenians could use them in 1866 in their strategically imaginative escapade in Canada.

 

[Byzantion]

Or maybe the Fenians could use them in 1866 in their strategically imaginative escapade in Canada.

They need to transport them across the border and back, maybe through difficult terrain ? Wouldn´t Gatlings cause some difficulties from the logistic aspect ?

 

[Byzantion]

The gatling gun, invented in 1861 by american Richard Jordan Gatling, is perhaps the most famous of the early machine guns, being depicted/used in various occasions such as in wild west flicks or african and asian colonial ventures. However, most of the gatling gun's use was confined to the american civil war, the african and asian colonial campaigns, the spanish civil war, and isolatedly in some other conflicts, never (or very rarely?) being used in european continental wars.
Given that this weapon was invented in 1861, is there any chance for it to see action in the austro-prussian, franco-prussian, and/or russo-turkish wars? Would the gun alone be enough to tip the balance of a battle, regardless of still-primitive knowlege of machine gun tactics? Which european powers are most likely to purchase or consider purchasing this weapon before the mid-1870's?

The French already used the Dreyse, a different early type. I think, they were used as artillery pieces as well.

 

[David Flin]

They need to transport them across the border and back, maybe through difficult terrain ? Wouldn´t Gatlings cause some difficulties from the logistic aspect ?

Given the nature of the Fenian strategy (and I use the term loosely), I think logistics is the least of their problems. I'm fairly confident if they acquired one, they'd want to take it, however useful (or otherwise) it might be. If they could get it to Ridgeway (and there's a mighty big word in that if), it could make that particular battle (and I use the term loosely) interesting.

 

[Saphroneth]

The French already used the Dreyse, a different early type. I think, they were used as artillery pieces as well.

That's very, very wrong.

The Dreyse was a Prussian infantry rifle.

The French did use the Miltrailleuse, which was an early volley-gun able to fire 35 round bursts several times a minute. They weren't sure if it counted as infantry or artillery, which caused them problems.

Perhaps after America used them
To drive the British out of Canada during the Trent war?

That would be a heck of an achievement for the Americans, given the Trent war is Jan 1862 and Gatling doesn't patent his gun until November 4 1862. It's also not a very good weapon against the British, who have already switched to skirmish lines within half a mile of any enemy positions (by the handbook) and who have excellent rifled artillery at this time.

 

[sloreck]

Putting aside doctrinal issues with the Gatling, there was the technical problem of the size of the weapon and carriage. Unlike the Maxim, and other early machine guns which were man portable, the Gatling was on an artillery style mount and needed to be moved by horses. On a more open battlefield, especially as artillery was shifting to indirect fire, the profile of the Gatling and its crew made it vulnerable to opposing forces. The range of the Gatling was, unlike artillery even in direct fire, no different from the rifle fire that could be directed against it. As it was normally mounted, shifting azimuth for the Gatling was difficult and slow - compare it with the ability to change azimuth of even early Maxim machine guns. Properly placed in defensive or prepared positions, or against opposing forces inadequately armed and organized (as in colonial conflicts) the Gatling could be devastating. The problem was that it required almost as much effort to haul around as artillery with less effect, so for an army on the offensive its utility was limited, even if properly used.

 

[James Ricker]

Franco Prussian war,a whole lot more dead French soldiers

 

[Saphroneth]

Franco Prussian war,a whole lot more dead French soldiers

... No. That is not how that war went.

ED: to clarify, the typical tactical situation of the early sections of the Franco-Prussian War was the Prussians being completely shot to sh*t at over half a mile by concentrated French rifle fire. The typical tactical situation of the middle sections of the Franco-Prussian War was the French being shelled to death at even longer range than that by heavy Prussian artillery fire.

The Gatling would not really help in either situation - in both cases the Prussians were the ones doing the attacking and the French were defending. Gatlings as a weapon are primarily effective when you are the defender, or secondarily when you can advance to a close range with it and then rake the enemy line.
Against French Chassepot fire that's a quick recipe for death.

The tactical situation of the late Franco-Prussian war was Prussian regulars disrupting and killing newly raised French units, and for that their existing weapons sufficed.

 

[Byzantion]

... No. That is not how that war went.

ED: to clarify, the typical tactical situation of the early sections of the Franco-Prussian War was the Prussians being completely shot to sh*t at over half a mile by concentrated French rifle fire. The typical tactical situation of the middle sections of the Franco-Prussian War was the French being shelled to death at even longer range than that by heavy Prussian artillery fire.

The Gatling would not really help in either situation - in both cases the Prussians were the ones doing the attacking and the French were defending. Gatlings as a weapon are primarily effective when you are the defender, or secondarily when you can advance to a close range with it and then rake the enemy line.
Against French Chassepot fire that's a quick recipe for death.

The tactical situation of the late Franco-Prussian war was Prussian regulars disrupting and killing newly raised French units, and for that their existing weapons sufficed.

Gatlings would be of tactical advance against forces, who are more equipped with spears and swords, like the Mahdi rebellion ( advantage for defenders, as Sahroneth said) - Europeans (British) used weapons like the Maxim gun in colonial thaters (1880es onwards).The Us used them in the Spanish war aswell. There had been even a few Gatlings, which made it to WW1 . They didn´t see any action between European powers during the 19th century for obvious reasons.

 

[Saphroneth]

My bad, Iam not such a weapon freak like you creepy hobo.

That's not very pleasant.

Europeans (British) used weapons like the Maxim gun in colonial thaters (1880es onwards).

I think the thing is that they're just not very effective compared to a couple of dozen riflemen with breechloaders - the range of the Gatling is too short. Against trival enemies they're very useful, yes - and they're also much used on ships - but part of the problem that makes the Gatling less interesting to armies at that time is that the Gatling is heavy! That inherently makes it less attractive in colonial theatres, though some were used anyway.

From history, it's fairly clear that the multiple-barrel weapon concept in itself was not outright rejected by anyone, it's just that they didn't consider the Gatling worth it for the cost in the army (for the most part). The navies used them for small-cal fire against nearby enemies (afloat or ashore) and so in that sense it was widespread - ships have much less of a mass penalty for a weapon of a few tons and the ammunition it needs.