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

Captain Jack · Feb 2, 2017

The gatling gun in general, but especially the early models had some serious drawbacks that made them less suitable for the kind of warfare being discussed here. Basically, and as others have mentioned, they fell into an odd category somewhere between infantry and artillery. They were moved on an artillery carriage, which limited the mobility to that of an artillery piece, but the rounds they fired put them into more of an infantry role. So right there you have a problem of how eactly to employ gatling guns. The problem wasn't helped by the fact that the gun needed a fairly high and exposed firing position and had to be relatively close to the front due to its range. This makes it particularly vulnerable to fire by opposing infantry and artillery. Also remember that until the 1880's gatling's could not befired continuously - you had to stop and reload it after firing a stack of cartidges. Later developments fixed that by letting the operators fire from one stack while reloading another. Additionally, my understanding is that the early models were fairly cumbersome to reorient. Now, none of these is a huge probelm, but each is another small issue that chips away at the weapon's effectiveness in formal industrialized warare. There's a reason such a high percentage of their use was on ships, especially early on; the nature of the platform negated a number of the gatling's disadvanatages. This isn't to say it couldn't be an effective tool for European warfare, if utilized properly it absolutely could, but there are enough problems with the gun, and enough ways to neutralize it that the gatling gun could only be employed in a relatively limited manner. It's worth looking at where the gun was employed and to my knowledge it saw its most effective use in colonial conflicts where the mobility was no worse than an artillery piece, but the firing characteristics made it a much better match for the role than a field gun. Colonial campaigns didn't often need field guns to blow open enemy positions or formations, but they did need a way to maximize the firepower a small unit could project.

With regard to the conflicts mentioned:

Austro-Prussian War: I don't see it as likely. In 1866, the US had only just adopted the weapon and it wasn't being manufactured in large quantities. It was also still a problematic mechanism. So I don't think it's even a possibility for this conflict.

Franco-Prussian War: I believe the gatling was in fact purchased by France in the later stage of the war, but even if purchased before the war it wouldn't have been significant. France simply didn't have a good doctrine for using them, and that won't suddenly change if they're using gatlings instead. Additionally, I don't see it as plausible for Prussia to buy gatlings. First of all, Prussia to my knowledge does not have a history of ourchasing American military equipment in the period - France does. Also, and I am by no means an expert, but as I understand the Prussian doctrine, gatlings don't have a valuable role in that.

Russo-Turkish War: This one might have real potential, I think. Both sides used gatlings during the war, but neither made significant or effective use of their weapons. Perhaps if the Ottomans have larger numbers, and use them for stiffening prepared defenses some of their positions might hold out longer?

Saphroneth · Feb 2, 2017

I have to wonder if it would take either "no rifles yet" or "widespread smokeless" to make the Gatling a workable weapon! Otherwise it's too obvious and too easy a target for sharpshooters due to all the smoke it generates (and pretty much all the European powers were better at producing sharpshooters than the US.)

Byzantion · Feb 8, 2017

Saphroneth said:
That's not very pleasant.

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.

Hello, Saphroneth, I am sorry for my writings and apologize. I agree with your general points.

sloreck · Feb 8, 2017

On a fixed swivel mount, the Gatlings could be very useful. In a war of movement, not so much. The French did not even use their Mitrailleuse properly, using more like an artillery weapon than an infantry one. The "machine gun", whether one barrel or several, does not become an useful infantry weapon until it is light enough to be man-portable by a small crew. Until then it needs a dedicated prime mover (whether animal or mechanical) which limits its usefulness.

Saphroneth · Feb 8, 2017

That about accords with my own assessment, yes - they're useful firepower when firepower is at a premium and mobility is not, and when frontage or manpower is at an absolute premium.
Many of their jobs are done with either more accuracy or redundancy by a company of infantrymen, but if for whatever reason you can't get a company of infantrymen (or rather you have much more frontage than men) the Gatling can be quite useful. In particular this means it applies on boats and in forts before it applies in the field. (e.g. if you have a fort with 50 men and frontage for them, you can multiply the firepower by having those 50 men man Gatlings instead of rifles because manoeuvre isn't an issue anyway.)

Incidentally, this is probably the reason Custer did not take Gatlings with him. He was trying to force an engagement anyway and his men carried breechloaders - the Gatlings might have slowed him down and let the Indians avoid action, for not much gain. If the range estimation for his detachment hadn't broken down he'd probably have won that battle, but AIUI for most of it his men were shooting high on the original range estimate for the battle and so the Indian cavalry closed through the engagement zone largely unmolested.

Petike · Feb 15, 2017

Aside from the volley guns that saw use in 19th century Europe, hand-cranked machine guns also had some presence. The French used the Montigny mitrailleuse in the second half of the century, including during the Franco-Prussian War, IIRC.

Saphroneth · Feb 15, 2017

Petike said:
Aside from the volley guns that saw use in 19th century Europe, hand-cranked machine guns also had some presence. The French used the Montigny mitrailleuse in the second half of the century, including during the Franco-Prussian War, IIRC.

Yes, and there it revealed the problem with early machine guns - they're a large, vulnerable target. If you deploy them with the artillery they get outranged by counterbattery (a real problem in Europe because the Europeans had accurate rifled artillery, but not one in the US as the US rifles were not accurate enough) and if you deploy them well forward they get sniped out by riflemen as well.
They need to be available in large numbers and to be at least somewhat low profile, and you probably also need it to be the case that artillery is firing indirectly. (direct-fire counterbattery is too accurate.)

ED: the places they're useful tend to be those where frontage, area or manpower is at a premium. Ships, say, or "permanent works" (i.e. standing fortifications). Not only can you not simply deploy a company of riflemen instead, but you can also keep them better defended.

Saphroneth · Feb 15, 2017

So let's do a couple of quick calculations.

1) American Civil War

The average US soldier has a ML rifle which fires 2-3 times per minute.
A field gun firing canister can be fired about 3 rounds per minute at full speed, and the 12-lber Napoleon fires 37 grapeshot per stand of canister.
The Gatling gun fires at around 200 rounds per minute.

All three have broadly the same range, between 100 and 300 yards.

1 Gatling = 100 US soldiers, or 2 field guns.

We can see here already that the Gatling gun is basically a higher rate of fire at the expense of a lot of other things - the company of soldiers can split their fire, they're more able to endure injury, and of course they can hide (while soldiers trained to ACW standard are rather cheap). The two field guns are more expensive, perhaps, but they're also more versatile.

2) Franco-Prussian War

The average French soldier has a BL rifle which fires about 12 times per minute and which is accurate to at least half a mile.
A Miltrailleuse fires 25 rounds per burst and can manage four volleys per minute with ease or five in an emergency (volleys are not true mass discharges but a very rapid sequenced fire). It is able to fire to ~2,000 yards.

In terms of rate of fire, 1 Gatling = 2 Miltrailleuse or 18 French riflemen.
In terms of range, the Gatling is simply outclassed.

It's hard to see the French wanting it, and if the Germans used it they'd be shot to ribbons over the time it took to wheel the Gatling up far enough when on the attack.

It might see some potential during the Schleiswig War or the Austro-Prussian War, but I think the real problem is those accurate BL rifles (artillery and infantry) which outranged the Gatling very quickly.

(for reference, in August 1914 the German army had 12,000 machine guns at their disposal...)