WI: Repeating Rifle in Civil War

Overall though, any repeater that the Confederates are able to produce, the Union will be able to field a better weapon in much larger numbers. The frontage involved in the ACW prevents trench warfare from being the norm. Perhaps around strategic sites such as Richmond or Vicksburg, but overall the war would remain mobile. Where trench warfare arose the North would still have the advantage...superior numbers, better and more repeaters, better lines of supply and superior and more numerous artillery.

That might be true on the "strategic level," but as soon as the armies collide someplace, they will dig in, and the battle will be fought very much like Spotsylvania or Cold Harbor was fought in OTL. If you look at what happened in the 1864 campaigns...where armies moved from battlefield to battlefield, dug in, and then slugged it out...that is the kind of thing that will naturally occur in a situation where both sides have breechloaders.

As for the North having an advantage, you can look at what happened in Virginia in the OTL 1864 campaigns, Union casualties were MUCH higher than Confederate casualties...Grant lost more men during the campaign than Lee had in his entire army at the beginning of the campaign. Given that to win, the North MUST attack, while the Confederacy does not have to do so, the North WILL suffer massive casualties.

Causalities would be higher for both sides, which would work in favor of the Union.

Disagree. Casualties will be much higher for the side which attacks. Since that will almost invariably be the Union, it will not work in their favor.

Of course I don't see an aggressive commander like Lee sitting still in trench warfare for long, so massed attacks would still occur.

Lee might make that mistake once. But he was smart enough to learn from his mistakes. If you look at how he fought the 1864 campaign, it was all about conserving his forces while trying to lure the enemy into a position where he could be severely damaged. I would imagine that is how he would operate in this type of scenario.

In which case the attackers would suffer great losses until "storm trooper" or more modern bounding over-watch tactics are developed. And so in just a short amount of time we could see a Civil War that truly lives up to the idea that it was the first "modern war."

Benjamin

Indeed, that could very well happen. Emory Upton was working along those lines toward the end of the war in OTL.
 
On the contrary considering the state of the Southern Economy as compared to the Northern it would go worse for them. The Union could probably afford to manufacture triple or more times the ammunition it did OTL the South could not. The Union winds up with repeaters and the Confederacy does not.

The South simply lacked the industrial capability to produce cartridges on the required scale for them to use repeating weapons on a wide scale, while the US Army went with false economy for a long time regarding their use and considerable institutional inertia had to be overcome.

The scenario in question does not actually involve repeaters. It involves breechloading, single shot weapons (the Confederate Morse and the Union Sharps). The scenario also assumes that production of the Morse weapons and cartridges has been started overseas prior to the outbreak of the war, and that machinery for making the cartridges is brought into the South during 1861, before the blockade started to become effective. Given those conditions, and the fact that the blockade was never very effective until the very end of the war when the all the major port cities had fallen, I doubt ammunition supply will be an issue.
 
That might be true on the "strategic level," but as soon as the armies collide someplace, they will dig in, and the battle will be fought very much like Spotsylvania or Cold Harbor was fought in OTL. If you look at what happened in the 1864 campaigns...where armies moved from battlefield to battlefield, dug in, and then slugged it out...that is the kind of thing that will naturally occur in a situation where both sides have breechloaders.

As for the North having an advantage, you can look at what happened in Virginia in the OTL 1864 campaigns, Union casualties were MUCH higher than Confederate casualties...Grant lost more men during the campaign than Lee had in his entire army at the beginning of the campaign. Given that to win, the North MUST attack, while the Confederacy does not have to do so, the North WILL suffer massive casualties.

Right, so Union casualties even in OTL were much higher, yet the North still won. With repeaters, as opposed to only breach-loaders, the casualty rates will increase proportionately for each side. Thus, if in OTL Confederate casualties were X and Union casualties were Y with X<Y than in TTL it would just be X+Z<Y+Z. So the casualties would go up for both sides. This would still harm the Confederacy more because they have a smaller pool of manpower which would be depleted even more quickly in this scenario. It's just bias or naivety to say that only the attacker's casualties would go up given the introduction of such decisive weapons as reliable repeating arms.



Disagree. Casualties will be much higher for the side which attacks. Since that will almost invariably be the Union, it will not work in their favor.

True, but the overall ratios would still be similar. See above.

Lee might make that mistake once. But he was smart enough to learn from his mistakes. If you look at how he fought the 1864 campaign, it was all about conserving his forces while trying to lure the enemy into a position where he could be severely damaged. I would imagine that is how he would operate in this type of scenario.

Lee was a fine commander but so were many of the Union commanders. To think that only one side will be able to adapt new tactics is silly. Repeaters will change the way the war is fought, but barring other outside factors they will not change the final outcome.

Indeed, that could very well happen. Emory Upton was working along those lines toward the end of the war in OTL.

An interesting ATL would be an ACW fought with WWII infantry tactics. I just don't buy it becoming a WWI like fight except in certain local situations. There is too much room to maneuver and unless support weapons, such as a reliable machine gun, are deployed than the infantry will still be able to retain tactical mobility.

Benjamin
 
Are we ignoring inconvenient facts like the repeater produced less battlefield casualties than an equivalent musket?
Yes I read that somewhere...

Also IIRC some units were provided with repeaters and the logistical strain was horrendous... this would be magnified meaning that just as in WWI rail-heads become prime real estate

Also what effect would this have on the Franco-Prussian war? I remember reding that the Prussian's took a lot of notice of the ACW, would this trench warfare have an strange effect in Europe?

Also if trench warfare is gotten overwith in the 1860's when the Great Power clash in the early 20thC is the war really over by Christmas?
 
Right, so Union casualties even in OTL were much higher, yet the North still won. With repeaters, as opposed to only breach-loaders, the casualty rates will increase proportionately for each side. Thus, if in OTL Confederate casualties were X and Union casualties were Y with X<Y than in TTL it would just be X+Z<Y+Z. So the casualties would go up for both sides. This would still harm the Confederacy more because they have a smaller pool of manpower which would be depleted even more quickly in this scenario. It's just bias or naivety to say that only the attacker's casualties would go up given the introduction of such decisive weapons as reliable repeating arms.

Yes but you just can't take OTL figures and double them as the battles will be different...

If for arguments sake the South can just sit in trenches all war then the casualties are going to be much, much harder fo the North... if the south can just sit there (and thats a big if)

Lee was a fine commander but so were many of the Union commanders. To think that only one side will be able to adapt new tactics is silly. Repeaters will change the way the war is fought, but barring other outside factors they will not change the final outcome.

I see your point, but I think that he is saying that if everyone suddenly knows to stay on the defesive then only the North needs to attack... not sure if it is true, but that is, I think, the argument
 
I would think that the heavy losses would only occur in the first few battles... then, both sides are going to start operating differently. The 'shoulder to shoulder' attacking in a solid line is going to come to a swift end. Through trial and error (war has a way of doing that), both sides will figure out the proper way to use the new weapons. Repeater or breechloader single shot, regardless, if both sides start throwing out more lead faster, both sides will change tactics.
And if the rebs just sit on the defensive, the Union will be happy to tighten the blockade, work their way up the rivers, and build up nice big cavalry forces to raid all over... the Union can afford to maintain big infantry forces, build big cavalry forces, and maintain a tight blockade all at the same time...
 
Are we ignoring inconvenient facts like the repeater produced less battlefield casualties than an equivalent musket?

Repeating weapons caused less casualties per bullet, but more casualties overall. More importantly, they won battles.

Analysis of Civil War engagments showed that "When armed with smoothbore muskets, northern units lost 63 percent of their engagements and won only 17 percent. When armed with rifled weapons, however, the Federals’ combat performance improved. They still lost 60 percent of the time, but their percentage of victories rose from 17 to 26. Furthermore, the data suggest that among the various rifled weapons used by the Federals, the Spencer repeating rifle gave them their greatest tactical advantage. When Federal regiments used the Spencer rifle, they won 67 percent of the time, fought to a stalemate 33 percent of the time, and never lost a battle."
 

67th Tigers

Banned
Repeating weapons caused less casualties per bullet, but more casualties overall. More importantly, they won battles.

Analysis of Civil War engagments showed that "When armed with smoothbore muskets, northern units lost 63 percent of their engagements and won only 17 percent. When armed with rifled weapons, however, the Federals’ combat performance improved. They still lost 60 percent of the time, but their percentage of victories rose from 17 to 26. Furthermore, the data suggest that among the various rifled weapons used by the Federals, the Spencer repeating rifle gave them their greatest tactical advantage. When Federal regiments used the Spencer rifle, they won 67 percent of the time, fought to a stalemate 33 percent of the time, and never lost a battle."

Barloon's PhD thesis, and to partially quote is misleading. His analysis shows no significant effect; to wit I'll supply the foot note:

15 Caution should be used when interpreting the relationship between weapon types and combat
performance. Uneven sample sizes make drawing any conclusions problematic. Of the 465 engagements
analyzed, smoothbore muskets were used in 72 battles while rifled weapons were used in the remaining
393 engagements. Of the 393 battles in which rifled weapons were used, Spencer repeating rifles were
used in only 3 engagements. Although the distribution of Federal combat results suggests that weaponry
affected outcome, more careful analyses reveal that the relationship between weaponry and outcome was
not statistically significant. For example, by categorizing the types of weapons used by the Federal
regiments as either rifled or non-rifled and then examining the relationships between weaponry and
outcome, statistical analyses reveal that the two variables were not significantly associated. Pearson’s chisquare
statistic was 3.236 with 2 df and p = .198. Analysis of variance produced an F statistic of 1.385 with
1 degree of freedom and p = .24. Pearson’s correlation coefficient was r = .055 with p = .240. Though
Pearson’s correlation analysis indicates that the relationship between the variables was not statistically
significant, it shows that the relationship was positive. This positive relationship means that Federal
regiments were more likely to win when armed with rifled weapons, but the relationship was not strong
enough to meet the requirements of statistical significance. Finally, when all the categories within the
Federal weapon variable were analyzed, the results showed no statistically significant relationship between
weapon and outcome. Pearson’s chi-square statistic was 12.686 with 8 df and p = .123.
 

Highlander

Banned
Are we ignoring inconvenient facts like the repeater produced less battlefield casualties than an equivalent musket?

Sorry to hear you missed the origional proposition, which was for breech loading rifles, not repeaters.

You think these would produce less casualties than muskets? Really?
 
The scenario in question does not actually involve repeaters. It involves breechloading, single shot weapons (the Confederate Morse and the Union Sharps). The scenario also assumes that production of the Morse weapons and cartridges has been started overseas prior to the outbreak of the war, and that machinery for making the cartridges is brought into the South during 1861, before the blockade started to become effective. Given those conditions, and the fact that the blockade was never very effective until the very end of the war when the all the major port cities had fallen, I doubt ammunition supply will be an issue.


How do they pay for them? The Brits aren't suddenly going to just hand them over and the blockade was more effective than sometimes is thought. Most of the "sea borne" trade that the South cited was just from one Southern city to another.
 
Another possible effect might be the north switching to Sherman's and Sheridan's tactics earlier. If it's too dangerous to attack a southern army thats dug in you devastate the country side until they are forced to come out and try to stop you.
 
How do they pay for them? The Brits aren't suddenly going to just hand them over and the blockade was more effective than sometimes is thought. Most of the "sea borne" trade that the South cited was just from one Southern city to another.

The same way they paid for the hundreds of thousands of British Enfield rifles and millions of rounds of imported ammunition they purchased and successfully imported in OTL.:rolleyes: The Confederacy never had much problem paying for the stuff it needed. And most of it got through the blockade without much problem.
 
i guess it depends on how quickly the south gets its repeaters. If, say, they have enough to equip the army at First Manassas, then combined with inexperience, it could be a horrible bloodbath for the union. I doubt it would be enough to keep the southern army organized enough to advance on washington, but it would scare the bejezzus out of Lincoln. And you might get a few more dead union generals / brigadiers who would have been important later.

And I think we need to keep in mind that, especially early on, some people might be resistant to changing tactics or their way of thinking. So, for example, both sides would go into bull run with the same plan as in the OTL. And maybe (like in OTL) the good weapons go east first and the battles out west dont get repeaters until, say Shiloh. Which really puts a crimp in the union's counter-attack on the second day.

And then there's the Peninsula campaign... by the time the Seven Days' battles come about, the AoNV would have been pretty familiar with their arms and could do some real damage. And i think that the result of that would have been to finally show the union that frontal attacks were absolutely suicidal. essentially the confederacy has to be starved into submission and that means total war, a much larger navy much quicker and the serious possibility of war with england and canada. which, i think the english would not be happy about because they've just seen the battle at hampton roads and really wouldn't want to try invading a continent with ironclads and repeating rifles. so they may back down and stop supplying the south.

If you really want to be silly, the war could be resolved by the invention of steam powered "land monitors"... i'll leave you to decide what i mean by that!
 
Repeating weapons caused less casualties per bullet, but more casualties overall. More importantly, they won battles.

Analysis of Civil War engagments showed that "When armed with smoothbore muskets, northern units lost 63 percent of their engagements and won only 17 percent. When armed with rifled weapons, however, the Federals’ combat performance improved. They still lost 60 percent of the time, but their percentage of victories rose from 17 to 26. Furthermore, the data suggest that among the various rifled weapons used by the Federals, the Spencer repeating rifle gave them their greatest tactical advantage. When Federal regiments used the Spencer rifle, they won 67 percent of the time, fought to a stalemate 33 percent of the time, and never lost a battle."

An important variable here is the fact that the Federal regiments did not have large numbers of repeating rifles until after 1863, by which point the CSA armies had dramatically decreased in effectiveness due to casualties and other supply issues (malnutrition, shortages of shoes etc), while the US Army had actually increased in effectiveness due to a liberal policy of firing incompetent leaders, better battlefield tactics, more thorough and realistic training, and better organization and supply.

You could argue however that perhaps repeating rifles in the hands of aggressively handled Union cavalry ended the war faster.
 
Another possible effect might be the north switching to Sherman's and Sheridan's tactics earlier. If it's too dangerous to attack a southern army thats dug in you devastate the country side until they are forced to come out and try to stop you.

I tend to agree with you here...which would have been a even greater tragedy for the South in the long run.
 
Top