The Effects of the Union with smokeless powder and the CSA without?

i also don't know much about a fair amount of weapons, unless of course i've specifically looked them up. belfast mentioned that smokeless powder is too dangerous to use in a muzzle-loading rifle. as far as i know, though, the Springfield isn't muzzle-loading and the first model of it was a rifled musket dating to 1855. any way you slice it, that'll make it predate the Civil War, and if smokeless powder has been invented by then, i'd say it's entirely possible for either that model or the one that was made in 1861--and would therefore be used in the Civil War--to be designed for use with smokeless powder

Actually the Springfield was a muzzle-loader. That said if someone comes up with smokeless powder and a rifle that would work well with it at around the same time in 1855, assuming it was scientifically possible, then it would be feasible to see it in use during the Civil War. The Dreyse needle gun, a breechloader, was invented decades before so it's not out of the realm of technical possibility for someone to come up with a breech-loading rifle that works well with smokeless powder. The question is if someone at the Springfield Armory or Colt, another likely suspect for coming up with an American breechloader around that timeframe, is aware of the Dreyse and figures out how to make a workable rifled variant.
 
Actually the Springfield was a muzzle-loader.
again, just goes to show how stupid i am, not seeing that :p

for the purposes of discussion, let's assume that Springfield makes a breech-loading rifle sometime between 1855 and 1861. depending on how many they produce and how much they know about smokeless powder (maybe some European observers remark on why the Americans aren't using it if they aren't by that point), i could see the Union adopting smokeless breech-loaders soon enough that any slump from using the same tech as the CSA is made up for pretty quickly

what i really want to try visualizing is exactly when the Union would likely start using smokeless powder en masse in order to get an idea of when a more significant POD would be
 
what i really want to try visualizing is exactly when the Union would likely start using smokeless powder en masse in order to get an idea of when a more significant POD would be

****GIANT DISCLAIMER I AM NOT IN ANY WAY SAYING THIS IS A GOOD THING OR SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE*****

One possibility would be if someone uses them in any one of the many wars fought against the Native Americans. The 1855 Springfield was used in the Yakima War so it is a definite possibility the *Springfield could be used in such a conflict with a native tribe and someone reports back favorably about its accuracy, rate of fire, or some other feature which makes it sound like a good idea to adopt it on a larger scale.
 
One possibility would be if someone uses them in any one of the many wars fought against the Native Americans. The 1855 Springfield was used in the Yakima War so it is a definite possibility the *Springfield could be used in such a conflict with a native tribe and someone reports back favorably about its accuracy, rate of fire, or some other feature which makes it sound like a good idea to adopt it on a larger scale.
i get your concerns over people potentially taking that the wrong way. realistically, it IS the most likely way for smokeless powder to really be noticed
 
To use smoke less powder you need to design a new weapon to use it.
It allows for a lighter weapon with better range and accuracy and lighter ammo.
For the new weapon you need new tactics.
even if you do not have a lot of them given them to snipers would have a big effect.
 
The problem with breechloaders, really, is absence of metallic cartridges, which means you have to wait til at least 1857.

Neither do you need a Springfield breechloader, when you've got both Spencer & Henry.
 
The problem with breechloaders, really, is absence of metallic cartridges, which means you have to wait til at least 1857.

Neither do you need a Springfield breechloader, when you've got both Spencer & Henry.
those ones, then :p the concept is still the same ;) again, what i really want to figure out is exactly how this difference of technology will affect the course of the ACW, and more importantly when it's most likely to first start affecting it
 
oshron said:
those ones, then :p the concept is still the same ;) again, what i really want to figure out is exactly how this difference of technology will affect the course of the ACW, and more importantly when it's most likely to first start affecting it
Obvious one is increased CSA casualties. How many battles were marginal & would've turned with increased lethality?

How much does increased ammo demand affect Federal tactics? Clearly their logistics become more vulnerable to CSA attacks. Does this force them to stay closer to rail lines? Put more men on LOC security? Be less aggressive in long-range ops, for reduced ability to sustain the supply?
 
first and foremost, i'd imagine that the Confederates would be pushed back further and earlier than IOTL; with fewer losses on their part and more on the Confederates' side, the Union may make a push for Richmond and try to end the war sooner than IOTL (again, what i'm kinda shooting for is late 1862), meaning Sherman's March to the Sea doesn't happen

for everyone's reference, here's a link to a wikipedia page on ACW battles, noting when and where they took place, how important they were, and who won them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_battles_of_the_American_Civil_War
 
the big problem with smokeless powder (nitrocellulose/ guncotton) is that it is inherently unstable, and tends to self ignite.

There were a lot of early experiments with NC, but all of them ultimately failed because it was not known who to stabilise NC.
By the end of the 19th century they started to use substances that after a lot of trial (and even more) error were found to work as stabilising agents.
Considering the most important chemical industry around this time is in europe, the union using smokeless powder also means that at that point also european countries will be using NC, because they found a stabilising agent.
which will certainly will have consequences.


How much does increased ammo demand affect Federal tactics? Clearly their logistics become more vulnerable to CSA attacks. Does this force them to stay closer to rail lines? Put more men on LOC security? Be less aggressive in long-range ops, for reduced ability to sustain the supply?

and also what would the effect be on finances, smokeless needs brass cartridges and more expensive weapons, even slightly more expensive ammo adds up to large sums in the end.
plus smokeless production needs to take place more industrial then black powder.
Added with its combustibility, higher risk of sabotage?
 
Last edited:
wietze said:
By the end of the 19th century they started to use substances that after a lot of trial (and even more) error were found to work as stabilising agents.
Considering the most important chemical industry around this time is in europe, the union using smokeless powder also means that at that point also european countries will be using NC, because they found a stabilising agent.
which will certainly will have consequences.
That's certainly true, which means wars shortly after *smokeless ("grey powder"? As distinct from 1890s-1900s nitro) is adopted will be substantially different.

IMO, Germany/Prussia is likely to be first with small-caliber magazine rifles, & probably first with standard infantry tactics that would be recognizable to us: skirmish line standard, immediately "down" & find cover under fire. I also think it wouldn't be more than two wars before Prussia started looking at semiautos & ammo like the 7.92mmK. (Leave it to France to respond as OTL with the hydraulic recoil mechanism.)

Between the two, even without trench lines arising, how long is it before somebody starts looking for *tanks?:eek:
wietze said:
and also what would the effect be on finances, smokeless needs brass cartridges and more expensive weapons, even slightly more expensive ammo adds up to large sums in the end.
War starting seems unaffected, but war debt at the end...:eek: Enough to bankrupt small countries? Almost certainly enough to impact the length of early "grey powder wars" (much as the Russo-Japanese War was ended in part by debt).
wietze said:
plus smokeless production needs to take place more industrial then black powder.
It takes a bit more sophisticated chemistry, but IDK if the industrial capability differs a huge amount. Am I wrong? That could put some countries at a distinct disadvantage. (Japan, frex. Russia, too, probably.)
wietze said:
Added with its combustibility, higher risk of sabotage?
A possible issue, for sure. Given instability of old powder, a higher risk of spontaneous explosions.:eek:

Something else: how soon before grey powder starts appearing in naval guns? Before cast guns are replaced by banded ones? By forged ones? By rifled ones?:eek:

And with nitro around, how long before explosive shells are standard for artillery at large?:eek:
 
Top